|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On October 03 2013 23:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 20:15 Sbrubbles wrote:On October 03 2013 12:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 12:26 DoubleReed wrote:So we should approve spending and then debate it? That seems ass backwards to me. What you're saying is essentially giving a line-item veto to the Speaker of the House. You can only veto something that's been passed. No appropriations bill or CR has been passed. This is about the creation of an appropriations bill or CR. Afaik Congress has legal authority to create those as it sees fit. Edit: Apparently previous CRs have defunded parts of Obamacare already. Link I think DoubleReed meant that allowing this government shutdown to happen is essetially giving the Speaker of the House veto powers over a piece of legislation that has in fact already passed (in this case the ACA). As for your original comment, I thought you guys debated the costs when the bill was passed and in the X times opposers attempted to repeal it (the whole democratic process, flawed as it is). Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 22:14 DoubleReed wrote:
Jonny, Obamacare HAS been passed. It gives a line item veto if he can refuse to fund laws he doesn't like. Congress has the power to "veto" any law or any line item in an existing law it doesn't like. This isn't a new power.
Congress =/= Speaker of the House
|
On October 03 2013 23:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 20:15 Sbrubbles wrote:On October 03 2013 12:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 12:26 DoubleReed wrote:So we should approve spending and then debate it? That seems ass backwards to me. What you're saying is essentially giving a line-item veto to the Speaker of the House. You can only veto something that's been passed. No appropriations bill or CR has been passed. This is about the creation of an appropriations bill or CR. Afaik Congress has legal authority to create those as it sees fit. Edit: Apparently previous CRs have defunded parts of Obamacare already. Link I think DoubleReed meant that allowing this government shutdown to happen is essetially giving the Speaker of the House veto powers over a piece of legislation that has in fact already passed (in this case the ACA). As for your original comment, I thought you guys debated the costs when the bill was passed and in the X times opposers attempted to repeal it (the whole democratic process, flawed as it is). Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 22:14 DoubleReed wrote:
Jonny, Obamacare HAS been passed. It gives a line item veto if he can refuse to fund laws he doesn't like. Congress has the power to "veto" any law or any line item in an existing law it doesn't like. This isn't a new power.
Congress has the power to repeal a law, which is not what's happening. What's happening is that the house speaker and his party are using a separate issue to force a repeal on a law that your Congress doesn't want to repeal (if it did, it would already have). I think the veto analogy sounds quite apt.
|
On October 03 2013 19:46 paralleluniverse wrote:
Any interesting Obamacare stories from people who have tried the exchanges?
Apparently they all died.
*BadummTSS*
And I wrote it in the other thread as well, big props to the Republicans for setting the narrative. Pretty much everyone calls it "Obamacare" now instead of the ACA.
|
On October 03 2013 23:42 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 23:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 20:15 Sbrubbles wrote:On October 03 2013 12:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 12:26 DoubleReed wrote:So we should approve spending and then debate it? That seems ass backwards to me. What you're saying is essentially giving a line-item veto to the Speaker of the House. You can only veto something that's been passed. No appropriations bill or CR has been passed. This is about the creation of an appropriations bill or CR. Afaik Congress has legal authority to create those as it sees fit. Edit: Apparently previous CRs have defunded parts of Obamacare already. Link I think DoubleReed meant that allowing this government shutdown to happen is essetially giving the Speaker of the House veto powers over a piece of legislation that has in fact already passed (in this case the ACA). As for your original comment, I thought you guys debated the costs when the bill was passed and in the X times opposers attempted to repeal it (the whole democratic process, flawed as it is). On October 03 2013 22:14 DoubleReed wrote:
Jonny, Obamacare HAS been passed. It gives a line item veto if he can refuse to fund laws he doesn't like. Congress has the power to "veto" any law or any line item in an existing law it doesn't like. This isn't a new power. Congress =/= Speaker of the House
This is a Congressional issue. The Speaker is part of Congress and has some procedural power there.
On October 03 2013 23:52 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 23:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 20:15 Sbrubbles wrote:On October 03 2013 12:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 12:26 DoubleReed wrote:So we should approve spending and then debate it? That seems ass backwards to me. What you're saying is essentially giving a line-item veto to the Speaker of the House. You can only veto something that's been passed. No appropriations bill or CR has been passed. This is about the creation of an appropriations bill or CR. Afaik Congress has legal authority to create those as it sees fit. Edit: Apparently previous CRs have defunded parts of Obamacare already. Link I think DoubleReed meant that allowing this government shutdown to happen is essetially giving the Speaker of the House veto powers over a piece of legislation that has in fact already passed (in this case the ACA). As for your original comment, I thought you guys debated the costs when the bill was passed and in the X times opposers attempted to repeal it (the whole democratic process, flawed as it is). On October 03 2013 22:14 DoubleReed wrote:
Jonny, Obamacare HAS been passed. It gives a line item veto if he can refuse to fund laws he doesn't like. Congress has the power to "veto" any law or any line item in an existing law it doesn't like. This isn't a new power. Congress has the power to repeal a law, which is not what's happening. What's happening is that the house speaker and his party are using a separate issue to force a repeal on a law that your Congress doesn't want to repeal (if it did, it would already have). I think the veto analogy sounds quite apt.
Congress also has power over funding. It can choose to fund or not fund any law it wants.
|
On October 04 2013 00:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 23:52 Sbrubbles wrote:On October 03 2013 23:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 20:15 Sbrubbles wrote:On October 03 2013 12:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 12:26 DoubleReed wrote:So we should approve spending and then debate it? That seems ass backwards to me. What you're saying is essentially giving a line-item veto to the Speaker of the House. You can only veto something that's been passed. No appropriations bill or CR has been passed. This is about the creation of an appropriations bill or CR. Afaik Congress has legal authority to create those as it sees fit. Edit: Apparently previous CRs have defunded parts of Obamacare already. Link I think DoubleReed meant that allowing this government shutdown to happen is essetially giving the Speaker of the House veto powers over a piece of legislation that has in fact already passed (in this case the ACA). As for your original comment, I thought you guys debated the costs when the bill was passed and in the X times opposers attempted to repeal it (the whole democratic process, flawed as it is). On October 03 2013 22:14 DoubleReed wrote:
Jonny, Obamacare HAS been passed. It gives a line item veto if he can refuse to fund laws he doesn't like. Congress has the power to "veto" any law or any line item in an existing law it doesn't like. This isn't a new power. Congress has the power to repeal a law, which is not what's happening. What's happening is that the house speaker and his party are using a separate issue to force a repeal on a law that your Congress doesn't want to repeal (if it did, it would already have). I think the veto analogy sounds quite apt. Congress also has power over funding. It can choose to fund or not fund any law it wants.
So, you're saying that your Congress doesn't want to fund the ACA despite not wanting to repeal it? Interesting. But if that's the case, wouldn't it have been much simpler to pass a law defunding the ACA without having to shut down the government?
|
On October 04 2013 00:15 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 00:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 23:52 Sbrubbles wrote:On October 03 2013 23:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 20:15 Sbrubbles wrote:On October 03 2013 12:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 12:26 DoubleReed wrote:So we should approve spending and then debate it? That seems ass backwards to me. What you're saying is essentially giving a line-item veto to the Speaker of the House. You can only veto something that's been passed. No appropriations bill or CR has been passed. This is about the creation of an appropriations bill or CR. Afaik Congress has legal authority to create those as it sees fit. Edit: Apparently previous CRs have defunded parts of Obamacare already. Link I think DoubleReed meant that allowing this government shutdown to happen is essetially giving the Speaker of the House veto powers over a piece of legislation that has in fact already passed (in this case the ACA). As for your original comment, I thought you guys debated the costs when the bill was passed and in the X times opposers attempted to repeal it (the whole democratic process, flawed as it is). On October 03 2013 22:14 DoubleReed wrote:
Jonny, Obamacare HAS been passed. It gives a line item veto if he can refuse to fund laws he doesn't like. Congress has the power to "veto" any law or any line item in an existing law it doesn't like. This isn't a new power. Congress has the power to repeal a law, which is not what's happening. What's happening is that the house speaker and his party are using a separate issue to force a repeal on a law that your Congress doesn't want to repeal (if it did, it would already have). I think the veto analogy sounds quite apt. Congress also has power over funding. It can choose to fund or not fund any law it wants. So, you're saying that your Congress doesn't want to fund the ACA despite not wanting to repeal it? Interesting. But if that's the case, wouldn't it have been much simpler to pass a law defunding the ACA without having to shut down the government?
They want the leverage the shutdown gives. At least that's the idea on paper.
|
On October 04 2013 00:15 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 00:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 23:52 Sbrubbles wrote:On October 03 2013 23:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 20:15 Sbrubbles wrote:On October 03 2013 12:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 12:26 DoubleReed wrote:So we should approve spending and then debate it? That seems ass backwards to me. What you're saying is essentially giving a line-item veto to the Speaker of the House. You can only veto something that's been passed. No appropriations bill or CR has been passed. This is about the creation of an appropriations bill or CR. Afaik Congress has legal authority to create those as it sees fit. Edit: Apparently previous CRs have defunded parts of Obamacare already. Link I think DoubleReed meant that allowing this government shutdown to happen is essetially giving the Speaker of the House veto powers over a piece of legislation that has in fact already passed (in this case the ACA). As for your original comment, I thought you guys debated the costs when the bill was passed and in the X times opposers attempted to repeal it (the whole democratic process, flawed as it is). On October 03 2013 22:14 DoubleReed wrote:
Jonny, Obamacare HAS been passed. It gives a line item veto if he can refuse to fund laws he doesn't like. Congress has the power to "veto" any law or any line item in an existing law it doesn't like. This isn't a new power. Congress has the power to repeal a law, which is not what's happening. What's happening is that the house speaker and his party are using a separate issue to force a repeal on a law that your Congress doesn't want to repeal (if it did, it would already have). I think the veto analogy sounds quite apt. Congress also has power over funding. It can choose to fund or not fund any law it wants. So, you're saying that your Congress doesn't want to fund the ACA despite not wanting to repeal it? Interesting. But if that's the case, wouldn't it have been much simpler to pass a law defunding the ACA without having to shut down the government?
The Senate wouldn't approve it, or if it did Obama would veto it. The only leverage House Republicans have comes from their power to approve of spending in general.
On October 04 2013 00:23 ChaosWielder wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 00:15 Sbrubbles wrote:On October 04 2013 00:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 23:52 Sbrubbles wrote:On October 03 2013 23:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 20:15 Sbrubbles wrote:On October 03 2013 12:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 12:26 DoubleReed wrote:So we should approve spending and then debate it? That seems ass backwards to me. What you're saying is essentially giving a line-item veto to the Speaker of the House. You can only veto something that's been passed. No appropriations bill or CR has been passed. This is about the creation of an appropriations bill or CR. Afaik Congress has legal authority to create those as it sees fit. Edit: Apparently previous CRs have defunded parts of Obamacare already. Link I think DoubleReed meant that allowing this government shutdown to happen is essetially giving the Speaker of the House veto powers over a piece of legislation that has in fact already passed (in this case the ACA). As for your original comment, I thought you guys debated the costs when the bill was passed and in the X times opposers attempted to repeal it (the whole democratic process, flawed as it is). On October 03 2013 22:14 DoubleReed wrote:
Jonny, Obamacare HAS been passed. It gives a line item veto if he can refuse to fund laws he doesn't like. Congress has the power to "veto" any law or any line item in an existing law it doesn't like. This isn't a new power. Congress has the power to repeal a law, which is not what's happening. What's happening is that the house speaker and his party are using a separate issue to force a repeal on a law that your Congress doesn't want to repeal (if it did, it would already have). I think the veto analogy sounds quite apt. Congress also has power over funding. It can choose to fund or not fund any law it wants. So, you're saying that your Congress doesn't want to fund the ACA despite not wanting to repeal it? Interesting. But if that's the case, wouldn't it have been much simpler to pass a law defunding the ACA without having to shut down the government? They want the leverage the shutdown gives. At least that's the idea on paper.
Yep. And not surprisingly House Reps aren't going to give up that leverage for nothing. This is politics after all.
|
The Republicans lost the debate on Healthcare.
The Republicans lost the vote on Healthcare.
The Republicans lost the legal argument in the Supreme Court on Healthcare.
So they shut down the government.
When you lose, you lose.
If the laws is as bad as the Republicans say it is, it will fail on its own. Or they can make their case to the American people, get enough people elected who will repeal the law and repeal it. But to do what they've done, is to ignore the will of the people.
No matter the government shutdown, the ACA will be funded. And all the Democrats have to do is stand their ground.
|
On October 04 2013 00:28 BronzeKnee wrote:
The Republicans lost the debate on Healthcare.
The Republicans lost the vote on Healthcare.
The Republicans lost the legal argument in the Supreme Court on Healthcare
So they shut down the government.
When you lose, you lose.
If the laws is as bad as the Republicans say it is, it will fail on its own. Or they can make their case to the American people, get enough people elected who will repeal the law and repeal it. But to do what they've done, is to ignore the will of the people.
The will of the people put them into power in the House. The will of the people gave them enough power to block a 'clean' CR. Deal with it.
|
On October 03 2013 19:46 paralleluniverse wrote:
Any interesting Obamacare stories from people who have tried the exchanges?
In New York State the exchanges were getting so much traffic that they haven't been working correctly. A bit like the launch day of a new MMORPG when everyone tries to log on at once and the servers crash. At first people were saying it must be a DDOS attack but officials are saying that that is not the case. source NY Times
|
On October 04 2013 00:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 00:28 BronzeKnee wrote:
The Republicans lost the debate on Healthcare.
The Republicans lost the vote on Healthcare.
The Republicans lost the legal argument in the Supreme Court on Healthcare
So they shut down the government.
When you lose, you lose.
If the laws is as bad as the Republicans say it is, it will fail on its own. Or they can make their case to the American people, get enough people elected who will repeal the law and repeal it. But to do what they've done, is to ignore the will of the people. The will of the people put them into power in the House. The will of the people gave them enough power to block a 'clean' CR. Deal with it.
Hardly. The Democrats had over a million more votes in the House last election, but due to gerrymandering in the 2010 census, they ended up with less seats.
Either way, the will of the people will boot them out of the House next election, so it doesn't matter. The government can stay closed until next election, and Republicans will take a gigantic beating.
The problem here is that the Speaker decides what comes up for vote. We all know that a clean bill would pass the House right now with the Democrats plus some Republican votes, but 40 or so Tea Party members have the Speaker by the balls and refuse that to let the bill come up for vote. Ask John McCain. Ask Peter King. Ask any moderate Republican.
Let me quote them actually:
“You have 40 Ted Cruz Republicans in the House running national policy,” King said, adding that his party had been taken over by “the Ted Cruz element.”
“We have to understand that the only way we are going to repeal Obamacare is when we have 67 Republican votes in the United States Senate because that's what's required to override a presidential veto,” McCain told Bloomberg News on Monday.
McCain noted that he’d campaigned against Obamacare during the 2012 campaign and that he’d fought to defeat it on the Senate floor in 2009.
But he added, “In democracies, unfortunately sometimes the majority rules. That's why we (Republicans) are at a disadvantage in this fight that we're having.”
He added that “by threatening to shut down the government we are kind of circumventing the results of elections.”
“We're doing things that frankly are not rational in the view of our constituents,” he said Monday.
Right wing extremists have shut down the government. Republicans refused to see the will of the majority in the vote. Republicans refused to see the will of the majority in the Supreme Court. So they shut down the government. But Obama, just like Clinton, is going to call their bluff. I hope the Republicans draw this out until they are extinct.
If you haven't figured out, right wing extremists are crafting the message of the Republican party. That isn't good.
|
On October 04 2013 00:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 00:15 Sbrubbles wrote:On October 04 2013 00:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 23:52 Sbrubbles wrote:On October 03 2013 23:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 20:15 Sbrubbles wrote:On October 03 2013 12:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 12:26 DoubleReed wrote:So we should approve spending and then debate it? That seems ass backwards to me. What you're saying is essentially giving a line-item veto to the Speaker of the House. You can only veto something that's been passed. No appropriations bill or CR has been passed. This is about the creation of an appropriations bill or CR. Afaik Congress has legal authority to create those as it sees fit. Edit: Apparently previous CRs have defunded parts of Obamacare already. Link I think DoubleReed meant that allowing this government shutdown to happen is essetially giving the Speaker of the House veto powers over a piece of legislation that has in fact already passed (in this case the ACA). As for your original comment, I thought you guys debated the costs when the bill was passed and in the X times opposers attempted to repeal it (the whole democratic process, flawed as it is). On October 03 2013 22:14 DoubleReed wrote:
Jonny, Obamacare HAS been passed. It gives a line item veto if he can refuse to fund laws he doesn't like. Congress has the power to "veto" any law or any line item in an existing law it doesn't like. This isn't a new power. Congress has the power to repeal a law, which is not what's happening. What's happening is that the house speaker and his party are using a separate issue to force a repeal on a law that your Congress doesn't want to repeal (if it did, it would already have). I think the veto analogy sounds quite apt. Congress also has power over funding. It can choose to fund or not fund any law it wants. So, you're saying that your Congress doesn't want to fund the ACA despite not wanting to repeal it? Interesting. But if that's the case, wouldn't it have been much simpler to pass a law defunding the ACA without having to shut down the government? The Senate wouldn't approve it, or if it did Obama would veto it. The only leverage House Republicans have comes from their power to approve of spending in general.
So they've forced a government shutdown to circumvent the democratic process in order to repeal/defund a law they don't like. Sounds very much like a veto.
|
On October 04 2013 00:34 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 00:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 00:15 Sbrubbles wrote:On October 04 2013 00:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 23:52 Sbrubbles wrote:On October 03 2013 23:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 20:15 Sbrubbles wrote:On October 03 2013 12:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 12:26 DoubleReed wrote:So we should approve spending and then debate it? That seems ass backwards to me. What you're saying is essentially giving a line-item veto to the Speaker of the House. You can only veto something that's been passed. No appropriations bill or CR has been passed. This is about the creation of an appropriations bill or CR. Afaik Congress has legal authority to create those as it sees fit. Edit: Apparently previous CRs have defunded parts of Obamacare already. Link I think DoubleReed meant that allowing this government shutdown to happen is essetially giving the Speaker of the House veto powers over a piece of legislation that has in fact already passed (in this case the ACA). As for your original comment, I thought you guys debated the costs when the bill was passed and in the X times opposers attempted to repeal it (the whole democratic process, flawed as it is). On October 03 2013 22:14 DoubleReed wrote:
Jonny, Obamacare HAS been passed. It gives a line item veto if he can refuse to fund laws he doesn't like. Congress has the power to "veto" any law or any line item in an existing law it doesn't like. This isn't a new power. Congress has the power to repeal a law, which is not what's happening. What's happening is that the house speaker and his party are using a separate issue to force a repeal on a law that your Congress doesn't want to repeal (if it did, it would already have). I think the veto analogy sounds quite apt. Congress also has power over funding. It can choose to fund or not fund any law it wants. So, you're saying that your Congress doesn't want to fund the ACA despite not wanting to repeal it? Interesting. But if that's the case, wouldn't it have been much simpler to pass a law defunding the ACA without having to shut down the government? The Senate wouldn't approve it, or if it did Obama would veto it. The only leverage House Republicans have comes from their power to approve of spending in general. So they've forced a government shutdown to circumvent the democratic process in order to repeal/defund a law they don't like. Sounds very much like a veto.
Bingo. Republicans couldn't convince the public in the debate, couldn't muster the votes to stop it, couldn't sway the Supreme Court against it, so they shutdown the government and demand the President and public accept their terms.
Sounds like Indonesia, could be Russia. No, this is the United States of America.
Very undemocratic. The Tea Party is all-in, but I think we have enough Bunkers up to hold em off.
Mr. McCain said that there is “a real genuine debate” going on within the GOP on crafting a cohesive message, but there is a Reagan Republican wing of the party “that believes no compromise under any circumstances is the best way to go.”
“The thing that is a little bit kind of entertaining is that they all call themselves Reagan Republicans,” he said. “Ronald Reagan negotiated with Tip O’Neill, the liberal Democrat, and we saved Social Security. Ronald Reagan said the 11th Commandment is you don’t speak ill of your fellow Republicans. And Ronald Reagan is the guy that said, ‘If somebody’s with me 80 percent of the time, then that’s fine with me.’”
|
On October 04 2013 00:32 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 00:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 00:28 BronzeKnee wrote:
The Republicans lost the debate on Healthcare.
The Republicans lost the vote on Healthcare.
The Republicans lost the legal argument in the Supreme Court on Healthcare
So they shut down the government.
When you lose, you lose.
If the laws is as bad as the Republicans say it is, it will fail on its own. Or they can make their case to the American people, get enough people elected who will repeal the law and repeal it. But to do what they've done, is to ignore the will of the people. The will of the people put them into power in the House. The will of the people gave them enough power to block a 'clean' CR. Deal with it. Hardly. The Democrats had over a million more votes in the House last election, but due to gerrymandering in the 2010 census, they ended up with less seats. Either way, the will of the people will boot them out of the House next election, so it doesn't matter. The government can stay closed until next election, and Republicans will take a gigantic beating. The problem here is that the Speaker decides what comes up for vote. We all know that a clean bill would pass the House right now with the Democrats plus some Republican votes, but 40 or so Tea Party members have the Speaker by the balls and refuse that to happen. Ask John McCain. Ask Peter King. Ask any moderate Republican. Right wing extremists have shut down the government.
Reps won the popular vote in 2010 right on the heels of the ACA being passed. So what happened to the will of the people there? Oh right, only controlling the House gives you limited power.
On October 04 2013 00:34 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 00:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 00:15 Sbrubbles wrote:On October 04 2013 00:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 23:52 Sbrubbles wrote:On October 03 2013 23:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 20:15 Sbrubbles wrote:On October 03 2013 12:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 12:26 DoubleReed wrote:So we should approve spending and then debate it? That seems ass backwards to me. What you're saying is essentially giving a line-item veto to the Speaker of the House. You can only veto something that's been passed. No appropriations bill or CR has been passed. This is about the creation of an appropriations bill or CR. Afaik Congress has legal authority to create those as it sees fit. Edit: Apparently previous CRs have defunded parts of Obamacare already. Link I think DoubleReed meant that allowing this government shutdown to happen is essetially giving the Speaker of the House veto powers over a piece of legislation that has in fact already passed (in this case the ACA). As for your original comment, I thought you guys debated the costs when the bill was passed and in the X times opposers attempted to repeal it (the whole democratic process, flawed as it is). On October 03 2013 22:14 DoubleReed wrote:
Jonny, Obamacare HAS been passed. It gives a line item veto if he can refuse to fund laws he doesn't like. Congress has the power to "veto" any law or any line item in an existing law it doesn't like. This isn't a new power. Congress has the power to repeal a law, which is not what's happening. What's happening is that the house speaker and his party are using a separate issue to force a repeal on a law that your Congress doesn't want to repeal (if it did, it would already have). I think the veto analogy sounds quite apt. Congress also has power over funding. It can choose to fund or not fund any law it wants. So, you're saying that your Congress doesn't want to fund the ACA despite not wanting to repeal it? Interesting. But if that's the case, wouldn't it have been much simpler to pass a law defunding the ACA without having to shut down the government? The Senate wouldn't approve it, or if it did Obama would veto it. The only leverage House Republicans have comes from their power to approve of spending in general. So they've forced a government shutdown to circumvent the democratic process in order to repeal a law they don't like. Sounds very much like a veto.
This is part of the democratic process. As the party controlling the House they have power over spending authorization.
House Reps have forced a government shutdown by not passing a clean CR. Senate Dems have forced a shutdown by not passing a CR with ACA defunding provisions.
|
On October 04 2013 00:28 BronzeKnee wrote:
The Republicans lost the debate on Healthcare.
The Republicans lost the vote on Healthcare.
The Republicans lost the legal argument in the Supreme Court on Healthcare.
So they shut down the government.
When you lose, you lose.
If the laws is as bad as the Republicans say it is, it will fail on its own. Or they can make their case to the American people, get enough people elected who will repeal the law and repeal it. But to do what they've done, is to ignore the will of the people.
No matter the government shutdown, the ACA will be funded. And all the Democrats have to do is stand their ground.
Hey now, we also had a presidential election over healthcare.
|
On October 04 2013 00:34 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 00:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 00:15 Sbrubbles wrote:On October 04 2013 00:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 23:52 Sbrubbles wrote:On October 03 2013 23:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 20:15 Sbrubbles wrote:On October 03 2013 12:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 12:26 DoubleReed wrote:So we should approve spending and then debate it? That seems ass backwards to me. What you're saying is essentially giving a line-item veto to the Speaker of the House. You can only veto something that's been passed. No appropriations bill or CR has been passed. This is about the creation of an appropriations bill or CR. Afaik Congress has legal authority to create those as it sees fit. Edit: Apparently previous CRs have defunded parts of Obamacare already. Link I think DoubleReed meant that allowing this government shutdown to happen is essetially giving the Speaker of the House veto powers over a piece of legislation that has in fact already passed (in this case the ACA). As for your original comment, I thought you guys debated the costs when the bill was passed and in the X times opposers attempted to repeal it (the whole democratic process, flawed as it is). On October 03 2013 22:14 DoubleReed wrote:
Jonny, Obamacare HAS been passed. It gives a line item veto if he can refuse to fund laws he doesn't like. Congress has the power to "veto" any law or any line item in an existing law it doesn't like. This isn't a new power. Congress has the power to repeal a law, which is not what's happening. What's happening is that the house speaker and his party are using a separate issue to force a repeal on a law that your Congress doesn't want to repeal (if it did, it would already have). I think the veto analogy sounds quite apt. Congress also has power over funding. It can choose to fund or not fund any law it wants. So, you're saying that your Congress doesn't want to fund the ACA despite not wanting to repeal it? Interesting. But if that's the case, wouldn't it have been much simpler to pass a law defunding the ACA without having to shut down the government? The Senate wouldn't approve it, or if it did Obama would veto it. The only leverage House Republicans have comes from their power to approve of spending in general. So they've forced a government shutdown to circumvent the democratic process in order to repeal/defund a law they don't like. Sounds very much like a veto.
Do "most people" believe that though? (I mean they should, but people are people).
|
|
|
On October 04 2013 00:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 00:32 BronzeKnee wrote:On October 04 2013 00:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 00:28 BronzeKnee wrote:
The Republicans lost the debate on Healthcare.
The Republicans lost the vote on Healthcare.
The Republicans lost the legal argument in the Supreme Court on Healthcare
So they shut down the government.
When you lose, you lose.
If the laws is as bad as the Republicans say it is, it will fail on its own. Or they can make their case to the American people, get enough people elected who will repeal the law and repeal it. But to do what they've done, is to ignore the will of the people. The will of the people put them into power in the House. The will of the people gave them enough power to block a 'clean' CR. Deal with it. Hardly. The Democrats had over a million more votes in the House last election, but due to gerrymandering in the 2010 census, they ended up with less seats. Either way, the will of the people will boot them out of the House next election, so it doesn't matter. The government can stay closed until next election, and Republicans will take a gigantic beating. The problem here is that the Speaker decides what comes up for vote. We all know that a clean bill would pass the House right now with the Democrats plus some Republican votes, but 40 or so Tea Party members have the Speaker by the balls and refuse that to happen. Ask John McCain. Ask Peter King. Ask any moderate Republican. Right wing extremists have shut down the government. Reps won the popular vote in 2010 right on the heels of the ACA being passed. So what happened to the will of the people there? Oh right, only controlling the House gives you limited power. Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 00:34 Sbrubbles wrote:On October 04 2013 00:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 00:15 Sbrubbles wrote:On October 04 2013 00:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 23:52 Sbrubbles wrote:On October 03 2013 23:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 20:15 Sbrubbles wrote:On October 03 2013 12:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 12:26 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
What you're saying is essentially giving a line-item veto to the Speaker of the House. You can only veto something that's been passed. No appropriations bill or CR has been passed. This is about the creation of an appropriations bill or CR. Afaik Congress has legal authority to create those as it sees fit. Edit: Apparently previous CRs have defunded parts of Obamacare already. Link I think DoubleReed meant that allowing this government shutdown to happen is essetially giving the Speaker of the House veto powers over a piece of legislation that has in fact already passed (in this case the ACA). As for your original comment, I thought you guys debated the costs when the bill was passed and in the X times opposers attempted to repeal it (the whole democratic process, flawed as it is). On October 03 2013 22:14 DoubleReed wrote:
Jonny, Obamacare HAS been passed. It gives a line item veto if he can refuse to fund laws he doesn't like. Congress has the power to "veto" any law or any line item in an existing law it doesn't like. This isn't a new power. Congress has the power to repeal a law, which is not what's happening. What's happening is that the house speaker and his party are using a separate issue to force a repeal on a law that your Congress doesn't want to repeal (if it did, it would already have). I think the veto analogy sounds quite apt. Congress also has power over funding. It can choose to fund or not fund any law it wants. So, you're saying that your Congress doesn't want to fund the ACA despite not wanting to repeal it? Interesting. But if that's the case, wouldn't it have been much simpler to pass a law defunding the ACA without having to shut down the government? The Senate wouldn't approve it, or if it did Obama would veto it. The only leverage House Republicans have comes from their power to approve of spending in general. So they've forced a government shutdown to circumvent the democratic process in order to repeal a law they don't like. Sounds very much like a veto. This is part of the democratic process. As the party controlling the House they have power over spending authorization. House Reps have forced a government shutdown by not passing a clean CR. Senate Dems have forced a shutdown by not passing a CR with ACA defunding provisions.
lol yes we know its part of the democratic process Jonny. That's how it is happening.
It sounds like you're operating under a Just World delusion at this point. "But the system of governance allows it and the system must be perfect with all rational actors! There is no other possibility! If it was hostage taking then the system wouldn't allow it! Therefore it isn't hostage taking!"
|
On October 04 2013 00:57 MoonfireSpam wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 00:34 Sbrubbles wrote:On October 04 2013 00:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 00:15 Sbrubbles wrote:On October 04 2013 00:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 23:52 Sbrubbles wrote:On October 03 2013 23:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 20:15 Sbrubbles wrote:On October 03 2013 12:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 12:26 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
What you're saying is essentially giving a line-item veto to the Speaker of the House. You can only veto something that's been passed. No appropriations bill or CR has been passed. This is about the creation of an appropriations bill or CR. Afaik Congress has legal authority to create those as it sees fit. Edit: Apparently previous CRs have defunded parts of Obamacare already. Link I think DoubleReed meant that allowing this government shutdown to happen is essetially giving the Speaker of the House veto powers over a piece of legislation that has in fact already passed (in this case the ACA). As for your original comment, I thought you guys debated the costs when the bill was passed and in the X times opposers attempted to repeal it (the whole democratic process, flawed as it is). On October 03 2013 22:14 DoubleReed wrote:
Jonny, Obamacare HAS been passed. It gives a line item veto if he can refuse to fund laws he doesn't like. Congress has the power to "veto" any law or any line item in an existing law it doesn't like. This isn't a new power. Congress has the power to repeal a law, which is not what's happening. What's happening is that the house speaker and his party are using a separate issue to force a repeal on a law that your Congress doesn't want to repeal (if it did, it would already have). I think the veto analogy sounds quite apt. Congress also has power over funding. It can choose to fund or not fund any law it wants. So, you're saying that your Congress doesn't want to fund the ACA despite not wanting to repeal it? Interesting. But if that's the case, wouldn't it have been much simpler to pass a law defunding the ACA without having to shut down the government? The Senate wouldn't approve it, or if it did Obama would veto it. The only leverage House Republicans have comes from their power to approve of spending in general. So they've forced a government shutdown to circumvent the democratic process in order to repeal/defund a law they don't like. Sounds very much like a veto. Do "most people" believe that though? (I mean they should, but people are people).
Yes.
Republicans in Congress receive more of the blame for the shutdown: 44 percent of Americans blame them, while 35 percent put more blame on President Obama and the Democrats in Congress. These views are virtually the same as they were last week before the shutdown, when Americans were asked who they would blame if a shutdown occurred.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57605822/poll-americans-not-happy-about-shutdown-more-blame-gop/
Americans realize the truth:
"There are enough Republicans and Democrats in the House of Representatives today that if the speaker of the House, John Boehner, simply let the bill get on the floor for an up or down vote, every congressman could vote their conscience, the shutdown would end today," Obama said in a speech in Rockville, Maryland.
But the Speaker won't let the bill get to the floor, because he knows it will go through a straight up and down vote. The Tea Party has America held hostage. Moderate Republicans are furious, and there is massive infighting in the party.
And so democracy is derailed.
|
On October 04 2013 00:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 00:32 BronzeKnee wrote:On October 04 2013 00:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 00:28 BronzeKnee wrote:
The Republicans lost the debate on Healthcare.
The Republicans lost the vote on Healthcare.
The Republicans lost the legal argument in the Supreme Court on Healthcare
So they shut down the government.
When you lose, you lose.
If the laws is as bad as the Republicans say it is, it will fail on its own. Or they can make their case to the American people, get enough people elected who will repeal the law and repeal it. But to do what they've done, is to ignore the will of the people. The will of the people put them into power in the House. The will of the people gave them enough power to block a 'clean' CR. Deal with it. Hardly. The Democrats had over a million more votes in the House last election, but due to gerrymandering in the 2010 census, they ended up with less seats. Either way, the will of the people will boot them out of the House next election, so it doesn't matter. The government can stay closed until next election, and Republicans will take a gigantic beating. The problem here is that the Speaker decides what comes up for vote. We all know that a clean bill would pass the House right now with the Democrats plus some Republican votes, but 40 or so Tea Party members have the Speaker by the balls and refuse that to happen. Ask John McCain. Ask Peter King. Ask any moderate Republican. Right wing extremists have shut down the government. Reps won the popular vote in 2010 right on the heels of the ACA being passed. So what happened to the will of the people there? Oh right, only controlling the House gives you limited power.
The Republicans made repealing the ACA a big part of their 2012 presidential campaign. If 'the will of the people' was so against the ACA then the Republicans would have done better in the presidential election. Claiming 'the will of the people' is against the ACA based on congressional elections in 2010 (and congress has a huge win-rate for incumbents) but ignoring elections in 2012 seems disingenuous.
Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 00:34 Sbrubbles wrote:On October 04 2013 00:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 00:15 Sbrubbles wrote:On October 04 2013 00:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 23:52 Sbrubbles wrote:On October 03 2013 23:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 20:15 Sbrubbles wrote:On October 03 2013 12:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 12:26 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
What you're saying is essentially giving a line-item veto to the Speaker of the House. You can only veto something that's been passed. No appropriations bill or CR has been passed. This is about the creation of an appropriations bill or CR. Afaik Congress has legal authority to create those as it sees fit. Edit: Apparently previous CRs have defunded parts of Obamacare already. Link I think DoubleReed meant that allowing this government shutdown to happen is essetially giving the Speaker of the House veto powers over a piece of legislation that has in fact already passed (in this case the ACA). As for your original comment, I thought you guys debated the costs when the bill was passed and in the X times opposers attempted to repeal it (the whole democratic process, flawed as it is). On October 03 2013 22:14 DoubleReed wrote:
Jonny, Obamacare HAS been passed. It gives a line item veto if he can refuse to fund laws he doesn't like. Congress has the power to "veto" any law or any line item in an existing law it doesn't like. This isn't a new power. Congress has the power to repeal a law, which is not what's happening. What's happening is that the house speaker and his party are using a separate issue to force a repeal on a law that your Congress doesn't want to repeal (if it did, it would already have). I think the veto analogy sounds quite apt. Congress also has power over funding. It can choose to fund or not fund any law it wants. So, you're saying that your Congress doesn't want to fund the ACA despite not wanting to repeal it? Interesting. But if that's the case, wouldn't it have been much simpler to pass a law defunding the ACA without having to shut down the government? The Senate wouldn't approve it, or if it did Obama would veto it. The only leverage House Republicans have comes from their power to approve of spending in general. So they've forced a government shutdown to circumvent the democratic process in order to repeal a law they don't like. Sounds very much like a veto. This is part of the democratic process. As the party controlling the House they have power over spending authorization. House Reps have forced a government shutdown by not passing a clean CR. Senate Dems have forced a shutdown by not passing a CR with ACA defunding provisions.
The extreme right-wing of the Republican Party forced a shutdown by putting so much pressure on Boehner that he cannot put a clean CR to the House. It is not all House Reps at fault here. A small minority are dictating the terms because Boehner won't let the House vote on a clean CR. This is not democratic. It seems a majority in the House would pass a clean CR. So we are in a situation where a clean CR would pass the House and the Senate and be accepted by the President but it isn't happening because Boehner won't let the House vote on a clean CR because he is scared of tea-party people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
