this is terrifying news it sounds like the American economy could turn into something far more worse than Greeces economy within the next few years or even the next few months
On October 02 2013 12:26 ZeaL. wrote: Government shutdown is bad... many friends at CDC can't do any work. Things will get much worse though on Oct 17 if the tea partiers decide to detonate the suicide vest and bring everything down.
I used to be really freaked out about it, but there's no real chance of that happening right? Boehner at the very least isn't going to sacrifice the entire country just for the sake of looking good for the tea party. He could call for a clean bill with the support of those 25 moderate republicans and everything would work out. Not even sure if Boehner is really necessary either
Also on a separate note I don't see this as a lose-lose for Boehner. He should just become a moderate republican, chances are the tea party will dwindle in influence over time because well they're kind of extremist and you won't get anything done on the fringe. Then the republicans can move to become more centrist, and he'll probably have more allies based on his reasonable actions today.
Reid could agree to cutting the taxes out and delaying the individual mandate for a year. Who knows? Maybe he wants the non-essential government agencies working more than the Republicans. Ho hum, there have been 17 shutdowns since 1976. This makes 18. Somehow, we live on and prosper.
I haven't completely thrown out the unrepentant ideologue Obama from making a compromise. Let's get some Woodward up in this place
The 1930s. The Great Depression. Who was the speaker of the House? Anyone, anyone? Who was the president? Roosevelt. History will not be kind to Obama.
Except if this is an extended shutdown then hundreds of thousands of people won't get paychecks, thousands of SSI claims wont be processed, small businesses dependent on traffic to federal parks and monuments won't be able to meet their bottom lines, then their employees won't get paychecks, then their creditors won't get paid on time, debts/fines pile up, etc...
The negative economic ripples of such a terrible strategy used by the Tea Party effects many more people than you understand and in far more negative ways than you seem to consider (I think I see a bubble).
Oh I know, the horrors. Unprecedented! This has never happened before! If you go back 20 years ... oops if you go back two decades it happened. 1995 and 1996, Gingrich. Three weeks. Republicans gained 2 seats in the Senate and lost the seats in the House that were trending that way anyways after the big House win previous. Got welfare reform and a nearly balanced budget. Some disaster.
Negative ripples? Ha! Get out of the pool if you can't stand the ripples. There's plenty of room for hand-wringing on the sides. Oh but these Republicans ... oh the country ... oh the inhumanity ... oh unprecedented! Lighten up about the history of negotiating with Democrats for the last two or three decades. A couple Republicans grow some spines and you'd think it was Congressional anarchy if you listen to the mainstream media too much.
You really are quite daft.
The Republicans grew spines? Did you not pay attention to how this country was governed for the past 13 years? Republicans have been ruthlessly effective and hard willed, and Democrats haven't stood up to them.
And this time the Republicans lost. They lost on the bill, which became a law. They lost on the election, where your "idealogue" was re-elected handily, and seats were gained. They lost in the Supreme Court, where the law they call unconstitutional was quite literally held to be constitutional. There is no fucking debate anymore.
Boehner can't reel in the party because he doesn't have control of it anymore. Now it's just a bunch of brash spotlight seekers making a name for themselves, without any party strategy to back it up. They're completely fucked on this one, and the 1995 stoppage is a terrible analogy if you've actually paid attention to what went on then and what's going on now.
Now I really want to know what the proper word would be to describe what Pix637 would have done/been if the whole "I'm on my parent's plan until I'm 26 so the ACA doesn't concern me..." thing was done intentionally, not necessarily as a joke but you know...? My first guess was facetious but I feel like that's not right. Irony? I feel like there's a really great word in there that I want to put in my back pocket for later.
The word would be irony, but I'm not being ironic intentionally. It's just ironic that I know that I'm on my parent's insurance until I'm 26 but I claim to know nothing about the ACA.
I do, in fact, know that the ACA is the reason for me being on my parent's insurance, so I shouldn't have said I know absolutely nothing. I was merely attempting to express the fact that I have no true knowledge of the ACA and therefore don't feel qualified to comment on it.
How can that be solved exactly? Concretely, the republicans and the démocrates must agree? Is it the only way to solve the problem? The supreme court can't force them to sign the budget? (since their real issue is about the healthcare bill and not about the budget as a whole)
It can be solved by the Republicans voting to pass the budget. The budget is drawn up and ready, but they keep attaching earmarks to it that would de-fund the ACA, which the Democrats obviously don't want to happen. So there's essentially a stalemate over something that doesn't necessarily concern the budget at all.
There are other budgets that the House passed months ago that didn't defund the ACA. The Senate can take those up and pass them at any time and they would go straight to the President. The problem is Democrats don't like those budgets either.
Well see except the problem is they needed to go to conference but Republicans blocked them from doing that about 18 times at my last count...
Republicans refused to accept any budget that was different than theirs (accusations of compromise, which the tea party has turned into a bad word)
To be specific when asked to go to committee with the senate for a budget the republicans refused to send conferees on about a dozen occasions.
Only people buying into the Republican propaganda mailers would even suggest that it's Obama or the Democrats who have not been willing to compromise. I am pretty convinced that those people just don't know what the word compromise means...
The Republicans didn't go to reconciliation because the Senate took out all the cuts they put in...
Once again, I ask: Can someone come up with a way for the Republicans to repeal Obamacare other than leveraging the budget (Which is how the Constitution is designed...for budgeting to impede bureaucratic inertia). The ONLY other option they have is winning the House, Presidency, and 60+ in the Senate. Which no party has done for more than 1 year in the last 40 years.
I don't understand, why do you think any party should be able to repeal any legislation they want in the first place?
Let me ask you this: If things functioned how you wanted how would a government ever force through legislation against hostile other parties? Is the answer that they shouldn't because if it was in the best interests of the country everything would be discussed until both parties thought it perfect and then pass it holding hands?
Because that will never happen. The way almost all government structures in the world reward half or more politicians to run their country into the ground so they can blame the government and get a shot at being in power will never allow that. Nobody wants to help Obama or any other president or prime minister make their country a better place, that would actively hurt their chances of getting more power and money.
That is exactly how our country is supposed to be governed under the Constitution. Much of the structure of that document is intended to limit the function of the Federal Government and make it extremely difficult to expandsome power.
If you read the Federalist Papers, they are almost entirely Jay, Madison, and Hamilton assuaging the Jeffersonians that things like Obamacare could never happen. Then further reminding them that all they needed was the House, Senate, OR the Presidency to stop the creation, or propagation of expansive federal programs.
If you don't like that this can be done, start a Constitutional Convention, this is exactly how this type of government is supposed to work in this kind of political climate.
No, it is not designed to work by pulling the plug. It is designed that any of the three can stop legislature from moving forward, but we're past that. They already got their checkpoint and they failed to act on it. We can cite the Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist Papers letter for letter if you want, or any of a dozen other Jefferson and Madison letters I've read, and you're not going to find support for purposefully failing in the duty of appropriations because a vote succeeded that someone doesn't like. They're superseding their authority on this.
Now I really want to know what the proper word would be to describe what Pix637 would have done/been if the whole "I'm on my parent's plan until I'm 26 so the ACA doesn't concern me..." thing was done intentionally, not necessarily as a joke but you know...? My first guess was facetious but I feel like that's not right. Irony? I feel like there's a really great word in there that I want to put in my back pocket for later.
The word would be irony, but I'm not being ironic intentionally. It's just ironic that I know that I'm on my parent's insurance until I'm 26 but I claim to know nothing about the ACA.
I do, in fact, know that the ACA is the reason for me being on my parent's insurance, so I shouldn't have said I know absolutely nothing. I was merely attempting to express the fact that I have no true knowledge of the ACA and therefore don't feel qualified to comment on it.
How can that be solved exactly? Concretely, the republicans and the démocrates must agree? Is it the only way to solve the problem? The supreme court can't force them to sign the budget? (since their real issue is about the healthcare bill and not about the budget as a whole)
It can be solved by the Republicans voting to pass the budget. The budget is drawn up and ready, but they keep attaching earmarks to it that would de-fund the ACA, which the Democrats obviously don't want to happen. So there's essentially a stalemate over something that doesn't necessarily concern the budget at all.
There are other budgets that the House passed months ago that didn't defund the ACA. The Senate can take those up and pass them at any time and they would go straight to the President. The problem is Democrats don't like those budgets either.
Well see except the problem is they needed to go to conference but Republicans blocked them from doing that about 18 times at my last count...
Republicans refused to accept any budget that was different than theirs (accusations of compromise, which the tea party has turned into a bad word)
To be specific when asked to go to committee with the senate for a budget the republicans refused to send conferees on about a dozen occasions.
Only people buying into the Republican propaganda mailers would even suggest that it's Obama or the Democrats who have not been willing to compromise. I am pretty convinced that those people just don't know what the word compromise means...
The Republicans didn't go to reconciliation because the Senate took out all the cuts they put in...
Once again, I ask: Can someone come up with a way for the Republicans to repeal Obamacare other than leveraging the budget (Which is how the Constitution is designed...for budgeting to impede bureaucratic inertia). The ONLY other option they have is winning the House, Presidency, and 60+ in the Senate. Which no party has done for more than 1 year in the last 40 years.
I don't understand, why do you think any party should be able to repeal any legislation they want in the first place?
Let me ask you this: If things functioned how you wanted how would a government ever force through legislation against hostile other parties? Is the answer that they shouldn't because if it was in the best interests of the country everything would be discussed until both parties thought it perfect and then pass it holding hands?
Because that will never happen. The way almost all government structures in the world reward half or more politicians to run their country into the ground so they can blame the government and get a shot at being in power will never allow that. Nobody wants to help Obama or any other president or prime minister make their country a better place, that would actively hurt their chances of getting more power and money.
That is exactly how our country is supposed to be governed under the Constitution. Much of the structure of that document is intended to limit the function of the Federal Government and make it extremely difficult to expandsome power.
If you read the Federalist Papers, they are almost entirely Jay, Madison, and Hamilton assuaging the Jeffersonians that things like Obamacare could never happen. Then further reminding them that all they needed was the House, Senate, OR the Presidency to stop the creation, or propagation of expansive federal programs.
If you don't like that this can be done, start a Constitutional Convention, this is exactly how this type of government is supposed to work in this kind of political climate.
No, it is not designed to work by pulling the plug. It is designed that any of the three can stop legislature from moving forward, but we're past that. They already got their checkpoint and they failed to act on it. We can cite the Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist Papers letter for letter if you want, or any of a dozen other Jefferson and Madison letters I've read, and you're not going to find support for purposefully failing in the duty of appropriations because a vote succeeded that someone doesn't like. They're superseding their authority on this.
Yea... cus...
In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates. The remedy for this inconveniency is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit. It may even be necessary to guard against dangerous encroachments by still further precautions. As the weight of the legislative authority requires that it should be thus divided, the weakness of the executive may require, on the other hand, that it should be fortified. An absolute negative on the legislature appears, at first view, to be the natural defense with which the executive magistrate should be armed.
Fed 51
The House of Representatives cannot only refuse, but they alone can propose, the supplies requisite for the support of government. They, in a word, hold the purse that powerful instrument by which we behold, in the history of the British Constitution, an infant and humble representation of the people gradually enlarging the sphere of its activity and importance, and finally reducing, as far as it seems to have wished, all the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of the government. This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure
Fed. 58
Thats like easily found via google. The government is set up to be slow, plodding, and obstructionist.
Now I really want to know what the proper word would be to describe what Pix637 would have done/been if the whole "I'm on my parent's plan until I'm 26 so the ACA doesn't concern me..." thing was done intentionally, not necessarily as a joke but you know...? My first guess was facetious but I feel like that's not right. Irony? I feel like there's a really great word in there that I want to put in my back pocket for later.
The word would be irony, but I'm not being ironic intentionally. It's just ironic that I know that I'm on my parent's insurance until I'm 26 but I claim to know nothing about the ACA.
I do, in fact, know that the ACA is the reason for me being on my parent's insurance, so I shouldn't have said I know absolutely nothing. I was merely attempting to express the fact that I have no true knowledge of the ACA and therefore don't feel qualified to comment on it.
How can that be solved exactly? Concretely, the republicans and the démocrates must agree? Is it the only way to solve the problem? The supreme court can't force them to sign the budget? (since their real issue is about the healthcare bill and not about the budget as a whole)
It can be solved by the Republicans voting to pass the budget. The budget is drawn up and ready, but they keep attaching earmarks to it that would de-fund the ACA, which the Democrats obviously don't want to happen. So there's essentially a stalemate over something that doesn't necessarily concern the budget at all.
There are other budgets that the House passed months ago that didn't defund the ACA. The Senate can take those up and pass them at any time and they would go straight to the President. The problem is Democrats don't like those budgets either.
Well see except the problem is they needed to go to conference but Republicans blocked them from doing that about 18 times at my last count...
Republicans refused to accept any budget that was different than theirs (accusations of compromise, which the tea party has turned into a bad word)
To be specific when asked to go to committee with the senate for a budget the republicans refused to send conferees on about a dozen occasions.
Only people buying into the Republican propaganda mailers would even suggest that it's Obama or the Democrats who have not been willing to compromise. I am pretty convinced that those people just don't know what the word compromise means...
The Republicans didn't go to reconciliation because the Senate took out all the cuts they put in...
Once again, I ask: Can someone come up with a way for the Republicans to repeal Obamacare other than leveraging the budget (Which is how the Constitution is designed...for budgeting to impede bureaucratic inertia). The ONLY other option they have is winning the House, Presidency, and 60+ in the Senate. Which no party has done for more than 1 year in the last 40 years.
I don't understand, why do you think any party should be able to repeal any legislation they want in the first place?
Let me ask you this: If things functioned how you wanted how would a government ever force through legislation against hostile other parties? Is the answer that they shouldn't because if it was in the best interests of the country everything would be discussed until both parties thought it perfect and then pass it holding hands?
Because that will never happen. The way almost all government structures in the world reward half or more politicians to run their country into the ground so they can blame the government and get a shot at being in power will never allow that. Nobody wants to help Obama or any other president or prime minister make their country a better place, that would actively hurt their chances of getting more power and money.
That is exactly how our country is supposed to be governed under the Constitution. Much of the structure of that document is intended to limit the function of the Federal Government and make it extremely difficult to expand power.
If you read the Federalist Papers, they are almost entirely Jay, Madison, and Hamilton assuaging the Jeffersonians that things like Obamacare could never happen. Then further reminding them that all they needed was the House, Senate, OR the Presidency to stop the creation, or propagation of expansive federal programs.
If you don't like that this can be done, start a Constitutional Convention, this is exactly how this type of government is supposed to work in this kind of political climate.
Bringing up the writings of the founding fathers imo doesn't hold much weight when applied to the state of the nation now. They wrote their ideals for the nation at that time they knew very well that the world can change drastically and that what they thought was right might become outdated or even not the best way to do things. Thats why the constitution was meant to a living document that can change and adapt. Too many people bring up things the founding fathers said and use that as an almost dogma to support their point of view (sometimes hilariously misusing what they actually said ala Glenn Beck) without thinking about the key factors of change and development in the system over time.
No one has any idea of what the founding fathers would say if they were brought to the present and educated in the state of the world and the US. Mindsets, values,sociopolitical ideals, and overall culture has shifted so much since they were writing.
51 is only relevant in that it covers separation of powers, which is not what's going on here, and the context of 58 actually flies in the face of what's happening today. In 58, Madison was arguing on behalf of larger states, worried that smaller states, through the Senate, would gain too much power over them. The power of the purse is particularly mentioned as a safeguard against the Senate trying to control the House by limiting their expansion, not throwing down because one House approved something and then the next changed their minds.
The purpose of the purse for Madison isn't to guarantee the laws you want, it's to protect the actual structure of government from being strong armed by the Senate. Ironically now, the House has taken up what Madison feared.
Then he goes on to describe exactly the situation we have now in the House:
One observation, however, I must be permitted to add on this subject as claiming, in my judgment, a very serious attention. It is, that in all legislative assemblies the greater the number composing them may be, the fewer will be the men who will in fact direct their proceedings. In the first place, the more numerous an assembly may be, of whatever characters composed, the greater is known to be the ascendency of passion over reason. In the next place, the larger the number, the greater will be the proportion of members of limited information and of weak capacities. Now, it is precisely on characters of this description that the eloquence and address of the few are known to act with all their force. In the ancient republics, where the whole body of the people assembled in person, a single orator, or an artful statesman, was generally seen to rule with as complete a sway as if a sceptre had been placed in his single hand. On the same principle, the more multitudinous a representative assembly may be rendered, the more it will partake of the infirmities incident to collective meetings of the people.
Ignorance will be the dupe of cunning, and passion the slave of sophistry and declamation. The people can never err more than in supposing that by multiplying their representatives beyond a certain limit, they strengthen the barrier against the government of a few.
In today's climate, House members are largely pigeonholed into being rash and myopic, because they have to quickly make a name for themselves. There isn't the type of leadership from decades past (where the Speaker was arguably the 1st or 2nd most powerful person in the country) to regulate how power moves, so it's a free-for-all because every House member knows their seat is relatively short lived compared to Senators. It's not a system for governing at the moment and while you're right that the government is intentionally obstructionist and slow moving, this is still at the extreme end.
Now I really want to know what the proper word would be to describe what Pix637 would have done/been if the whole "I'm on my parent's plan until I'm 26 so the ACA doesn't concern me..." thing was done intentionally, not necessarily as a joke but you know...? My first guess was facetious but I feel like that's not right. Irony? I feel like there's a really great word in there that I want to put in my back pocket for later.
The word would be irony, but I'm not being ironic intentionally. It's just ironic that I know that I'm on my parent's insurance until I'm 26 but I claim to know nothing about the ACA.
I do, in fact, know that the ACA is the reason for me being on my parent's insurance, so I shouldn't have said I know absolutely nothing. I was merely attempting to express the fact that I have no true knowledge of the ACA and therefore don't feel qualified to comment on it.
How can that be solved exactly? Concretely, the republicans and the démocrates must agree? Is it the only way to solve the problem? The supreme court can't force them to sign the budget? (since their real issue is about the healthcare bill and not about the budget as a whole)
It can be solved by the Republicans voting to pass the budget. The budget is drawn up and ready, but they keep attaching earmarks to it that would de-fund the ACA, which the Democrats obviously don't want to happen. So there's essentially a stalemate over something that doesn't necessarily concern the budget at all.
There are other budgets that the House passed months ago that didn't defund the ACA. The Senate can take those up and pass them at any time and they would go straight to the President. The problem is Democrats don't like those budgets either.
Well see except the problem is they needed to go to conference but Republicans blocked them from doing that about 18 times at my last count...
Republicans refused to accept any budget that was different than theirs (accusations of compromise, which the tea party has turned into a bad word)
To be specific when asked to go to committee with the senate for a budget the republicans refused to send conferees on about a dozen occasions.
Only people buying into the Republican propaganda mailers would even suggest that it's Obama or the Democrats who have not been willing to compromise. I am pretty convinced that those people just don't know what the word compromise means...
The Republicans didn't go to reconciliation because the Senate took out all the cuts they put in...
Once again, I ask: Can someone come up with a way for the Republicans to repeal Obamacare other than leveraging the budget (Which is how the Constitution is designed...for budgeting to impede bureaucratic inertia). The ONLY other option they have is winning the House, Presidency, and 60+ in the Senate. Which no party has done for more than 1 year in the last 40 years.
I don't understand, why do you think any party should be able to repeal any legislation they want in the first place?
Let me ask you this: If things functioned how you wanted how would a government ever force through legislation against hostile other parties? Is the answer that they shouldn't because if it was in the best interests of the country everything would be discussed until both parties thought it perfect and then pass it holding hands?
Because that will never happen. The way almost all government structures in the world reward half or more politicians to run their country into the ground so they can blame the government and get a shot at being in power will never allow that. Nobody wants to help Obama or any other president or prime minister make their country a better place, that would actively hurt their chances of getting more power and money.
That is exactly how our country is supposed to be governed under the Constitution. Much of the structure of that document is intended to limit the function of the Federal Government and make it extremely difficult to expand power.
If you read the Federalist Papers, they are almost entirely Jay, Madison, and Hamilton assuaging the Jeffersonians that things like Obamacare could never happen. Then further reminding them that all they needed was the House, Senate, OR the Presidency to stop the creation, or propagation of expansive federal programs.
If you don't like that this can be done, start a Constitutional Convention, this is exactly how this type of government is supposed to work in this kind of political climate.
Bringing up the writings of the founding fathers imo doesn't hold much weight when applied to the state of the nation now. They wrote their ideals for the nation at that time they knew very well that the world can change drastically and that what they thought was right might become outdated or even not the best way to do things. Thats why the constitution was meant to a living document that can change and adapt. Too many people bring up things the founding fathers said and use that as an almost dogma to support their point of view (sometimes hilariously misusing what they actually said ala Glenn Beck) without thinking about the key factors of change and development in the system over time.
No one has any idea of what the founding fathers would say if they were brought to the present and educated in the state of the world and the US. Mindsets, values,sociopolitical ideals, and overall culture has shifted so much since they were writing.
Yea, and there is a simple, yet tedious, process for changing the structure of the government. This isn't even talking about whether the Commerce Clause permits XXX (an issue SCOTUS decided), it is about what our form of government encourages. And our FORM of government, which is almost independent of the founding fathers desires for what that form shall produce, inevitably leads to a government that discourages excess UNLESS all 3 "Lawmaking" parts of the government agree.
On October 02 2013 14:40 cLutZ wrote: Thats like easily found via google. The government is set up to be slow, plodding, and obstructionist.
The problem we're running into is that people have grown to expect the government as their provider. When it's not able to provide for them, it's not working. Unfortunately, we now have a nearly insurmountable quantity of people who think like that.
Now I really want to know what the proper word would be to describe what Pix637 would have done/been if the whole "I'm on my parent's plan until I'm 26 so the ACA doesn't concern me..." thing was done intentionally, not necessarily as a joke but you know...? My first guess was facetious but I feel like that's not right. Irony? I feel like there's a really great word in there that I want to put in my back pocket for later.
The word would be irony, but I'm not being ironic intentionally. It's just ironic that I know that I'm on my parent's insurance until I'm 26 but I claim to know nothing about the ACA.
I do, in fact, know that the ACA is the reason for me being on my parent's insurance, so I shouldn't have said I know absolutely nothing. I was merely attempting to express the fact that I have no true knowledge of the ACA and therefore don't feel qualified to comment on it.
How can that be solved exactly? Concretely, the republicans and the démocrates must agree? Is it the only way to solve the problem? The supreme court can't force them to sign the budget? (since their real issue is about the healthcare bill and not about the budget as a whole)
It can be solved by the Republicans voting to pass the budget. The budget is drawn up and ready, but they keep attaching earmarks to it that would de-fund the ACA, which the Democrats obviously don't want to happen. So there's essentially a stalemate over something that doesn't necessarily concern the budget at all.
There are other budgets that the House passed months ago that didn't defund the ACA. The Senate can take those up and pass them at any time and they would go straight to the President. The problem is Democrats don't like those budgets either.
Well see except the problem is they needed to go to conference but Republicans blocked them from doing that about 18 times at my last count...
Republicans refused to accept any budget that was different than theirs (accusations of compromise, which the tea party has turned into a bad word)
To be specific when asked to go to committee with the senate for a budget the republicans refused to send conferees on about a dozen occasions.
Only people buying into the Republican propaganda mailers would even suggest that it's Obama or the Democrats who have not been willing to compromise. I am pretty convinced that those people just don't know what the word compromise means...
The Republicans didn't go to reconciliation because the Senate took out all the cuts they put in...
Once again, I ask: Can someone come up with a way for the Republicans to repeal Obamacare other than leveraging the budget (Which is how the Constitution is designed...for budgeting to impede bureaucratic inertia). The ONLY other option they have is winning the House, Presidency, and 60+ in the Senate. Which no party has done for more than 1 year in the last 40 years.
I don't understand, why do you think any party should be able to repeal any legislation they want in the first place?
Let me ask you this: If things functioned how you wanted how would a government ever force through legislation against hostile other parties? Is the answer that they shouldn't because if it was in the best interests of the country everything would be discussed until both parties thought it perfect and then pass it holding hands?
Because that will never happen. The way almost all government structures in the world reward half or more politicians to run their country into the ground so they can blame the government and get a shot at being in power will never allow that. Nobody wants to help Obama or any other president or prime minister make their country a better place, that would actively hurt their chances of getting more power and money.
That is exactly how our country is supposed to be governed under the Constitution. Much of the structure of that document is intended to limit the function of the Federal Government and make it extremely difficult to expand power.
If you read the Federalist Papers, they are almost entirely Jay, Madison, and Hamilton assuaging the Jeffersonians that things like Obamacare could never happen. Then further reminding them that all they needed was the House, Senate, OR the Presidency to stop the creation, or propagation of expansive federal programs.
If you don't like that this can be done, start a Constitutional Convention, this is exactly how this type of government is supposed to work in this kind of political climate.
Bringing up the writings of the founding fathers imo doesn't hold much weight when applied to the state of the nation now. They wrote their ideals for the nation at that time they knew very well that the world can change drastically and that what they thought was right might become outdated or even not the best way to do things. Thats why the constitution was meant to a living document that can change and adapt. Too many people bring up things the founding fathers said and use that as an almost dogma to support their point of view (sometimes hilariously misusing what they actually said ala Glenn Beck) without thinking about the key factors of change and development in the system over time.
No one has any idea of what the founding fathers would say if they were brought to the present and educated in the state of the world and the US. Mindsets, values,sociopolitical ideals, and overall culture has shifted so much since they were writing.
Yea, and there is a simple, yet tedious, process for changing the structure of the government. This isn't even talking about whether the Commerce Clause permits XXX (an issue SCOTUS decided), it is about what our form of government encourages. And our FORM of government, which is almost independent of the founding fathers desires for what that form shall produce, inevitably leads to a government that discourages excess UNLESS all 3 "Lawmaking" parts of the government agree.
Except all 3 did agree in this case, and now just half of one of these bodies is attempting to hamstring the other 2.5 of the other to get what they want after failing to stop it (1st in bill form then in law form) several times.
Now I really want to know what the proper word would be to describe what Pix637 would have done/been if the whole "I'm on my parent's plan until I'm 26 so the ACA doesn't concern me..." thing was done intentionally, not necessarily as a joke but you know...? My first guess was facetious but I feel like that's not right. Irony? I feel like there's a really great word in there that I want to put in my back pocket for later.
The word would be irony, but I'm not being ironic intentionally. It's just ironic that I know that I'm on my parent's insurance until I'm 26 but I claim to know nothing about the ACA.
I do, in fact, know that the ACA is the reason for me being on my parent's insurance, so I shouldn't have said I know absolutely nothing. I was merely attempting to express the fact that I have no true knowledge of the ACA and therefore don't feel qualified to comment on it.
How can that be solved exactly? Concretely, the republicans and the démocrates must agree? Is it the only way to solve the problem? The supreme court can't force them to sign the budget? (since their real issue is about the healthcare bill and not about the budget as a whole)
It can be solved by the Republicans voting to pass the budget. The budget is drawn up and ready, but they keep attaching earmarks to it that would de-fund the ACA, which the Democrats obviously don't want to happen. So there's essentially a stalemate over something that doesn't necessarily concern the budget at all.
There are other budgets that the House passed months ago that didn't defund the ACA. The Senate can take those up and pass them at any time and they would go straight to the President. The problem is Democrats don't like those budgets either.
Well see except the problem is they needed to go to conference but Republicans blocked them from doing that about 18 times at my last count...
Republicans refused to accept any budget that was different than theirs (accusations of compromise, which the tea party has turned into a bad word)
To be specific when asked to go to committee with the senate for a budget the republicans refused to send conferees on about a dozen occasions.
Only people buying into the Republican propaganda mailers would even suggest that it's Obama or the Democrats who have not been willing to compromise. I am pretty convinced that those people just don't know what the word compromise means...
The Republicans didn't go to reconciliation because the Senate took out all the cuts they put in...
Once again, I ask: Can someone come up with a way for the Republicans to repeal Obamacare other than leveraging the budget (Which is how the Constitution is designed...for budgeting to impede bureaucratic inertia). The ONLY other option they have is winning the House, Presidency, and 60+ in the Senate. Which no party has done for more than 1 year in the last 40 years.
I don't understand, why do you think any party should be able to repeal any legislation they want in the first place?
Let me ask you this: If things functioned how you wanted how would a government ever force through legislation against hostile other parties? Is the answer that they shouldn't because if it was in the best interests of the country everything would be discussed until both parties thought it perfect and then pass it holding hands?
Because that will never happen. The way almost all government structures in the world reward half or more politicians to run their country into the ground so they can blame the government and get a shot at being in power will never allow that. Nobody wants to help Obama or any other president or prime minister make their country a better place, that would actively hurt their chances of getting more power and money.
That is exactly how our country is supposed to be governed under the Constitution. Much of the structure of that document is intended to limit the function of the Federal Government and make it extremely difficult to expand power.
If you read the Federalist Papers, they are almost entirely Jay, Madison, and Hamilton assuaging the Jeffersonians that things like Obamacare could never happen. Then further reminding them that all they needed was the House, Senate, OR the Presidency to stop the creation, or propagation of expansive federal programs.
If you don't like that this can be done, start a Constitutional Convention, this is exactly how this type of government is supposed to work in this kind of political climate.
Bringing up the writings of the founding fathers imo doesn't hold much weight when applied to the state of the nation now. They wrote their ideals for the nation at that time they knew very well that the world can change drastically and that what they thought was right might become outdated or even not the best way to do things. Thats why the constitution was meant to a living document that can change and adapt. Too many people bring up things the founding fathers said and use that as an almost dogma to support their point of view (sometimes hilariously misusing what they actually said ala Glenn Beck) without thinking about the key factors of change and development in the system over time.
No one has any idea of what the founding fathers would say if they were brought to the present and educated in the state of the world and the US. Mindsets, values,sociopolitical ideals, and overall culture has shifted so much since they were writing.
Yea, and there is a simple, yet tedious, process for changing the structure of the government. This isn't even talking about whether the Commerce Clause permits XXX (an issue SCOTUS decided), it is about what our form of government encourages. And our FORM of government, which is almost independent of the founding fathers desires for what that form shall produce, inevitably leads to a government that discourages excess UNLESS all 3 "Lawmaking" parts of the government agree.
On October 02 2013 14:57 Jibba wrote: 51 is only relevant in that it covers separation of powers, which is not what's going on here, and the context of 58 actually flies in the face of what's happening today. In 58, Madison was arguing on behalf of larger states, worried that smaller states, through the Senate, would gain too much power over them. The power of the purse is particularly mentioned as a safeguard against the Senate trying to control the House by limiting their expansion, not throwing down because one House approved something and then the next changed their minds.
The purpose of the purse for Madison isn't to guarantee the laws you want, it's to protect the actual structure of government from being strong armed by the Senate. Ironically now, the House has taken up what Madison feared.
Then he goes on to describe exactly the situation we have now in the House:
One observation, however, I must be permitted to add on this subject as claiming, in my judgment, a very serious attention. It is, that in all legislative assemblies the greater the number composing them may be, the fewer will be the men who will in fact direct their proceedings. In the first place, the more numerous an assembly may be, of whatever characters composed, the greater is known to be the ascendency of passion over reason. In the next place, the larger the number, the greater will be the proportion of members of limited information and of weak capacities. Now, it is precisely on characters of this description that the eloquence and address of the few are known to act with all their force. In the ancient republics, where the whole body of the people assembled in person, a single orator, or an artful statesman, was generally seen to rule with as complete a sway as if a sceptre had been placed in his single hand. On the same principle, the more multitudinous a representative assembly may be rendered, the more it will partake of the infirmities incident to collective meetings of the people.
Ignorance will be the dupe of cunning, and passion the slave of sophistry and declamation. The people can never err more than in supposing that by multiplying their representatives beyond a certain limit, they strengthen the barrier against the government of a few.
You simply are not addressing the fact that the this is the House refusing to bow to the pressures of the Senate...exactly what you claim he is warning against.
And only a partisan thinks this is what a minority or representatives believe in. The only reason that 100% of House Republicans are not on board with the plan is because they are afraid that they will lose the PR battle over the shutdown. They all believe in ridding America of the PPACA, but disagree on what tactic to use. As I have pointed out numerous times (without anyone showing otherwise mind you) the PPACA can only be realistically be repealed or modified using the budget as a bargaining chip.
Now I really want to know what the proper word would be to describe what Pix637 would have done/been if the whole "I'm on my parent's plan until I'm 26 so the ACA doesn't concern me..." thing was done intentionally, not necessarily as a joke but you know...? My first guess was facetious but I feel like that's not right. Irony? I feel like there's a really great word in there that I want to put in my back pocket for later.
The word would be irony, but I'm not being ironic intentionally. It's just ironic that I know that I'm on my parent's insurance until I'm 26 but I claim to know nothing about the ACA.
I do, in fact, know that the ACA is the reason for me being on my parent's insurance, so I shouldn't have said I know absolutely nothing. I was merely attempting to express the fact that I have no true knowledge of the ACA and therefore don't feel qualified to comment on it.
How can that be solved exactly? Concretely, the republicans and the démocrates must agree? Is it the only way to solve the problem? The supreme court can't force them to sign the budget? (since their real issue is about the healthcare bill and not about the budget as a whole)
It can be solved by the Republicans voting to pass the budget. The budget is drawn up and ready, but they keep attaching earmarks to it that would de-fund the ACA, which the Democrats obviously don't want to happen. So there's essentially a stalemate over something that doesn't necessarily concern the budget at all.
There are other budgets that the House passed months ago that didn't defund the ACA. The Senate can take those up and pass them at any time and they would go straight to the President. The problem is Democrats don't like those budgets either.
Well see except the problem is they needed to go to conference but Republicans blocked them from doing that about 18 times at my last count...
Republicans refused to accept any budget that was different than theirs (accusations of compromise, which the tea party has turned into a bad word)
To be specific when asked to go to committee with the senate for a budget the republicans refused to send conferees on about a dozen occasions.
Only people buying into the Republican propaganda mailers would even suggest that it's Obama or the Democrats who have not been willing to compromise. I am pretty convinced that those people just don't know what the word compromise means...
The Republicans didn't go to reconciliation because the Senate took out all the cuts they put in...
Once again, I ask: Can someone come up with a way for the Republicans to repeal Obamacare other than leveraging the budget (Which is how the Constitution is designed...for budgeting to impede bureaucratic inertia). The ONLY other option they have is winning the House, Presidency, and 60+ in the Senate. Which no party has done for more than 1 year in the last 40 years.
I don't understand, why do you think any party should be able to repeal any legislation they want in the first place?
Let me ask you this: If things functioned how you wanted how would a government ever force through legislation against hostile other parties? Is the answer that they shouldn't because if it was in the best interests of the country everything would be discussed until both parties thought it perfect and then pass it holding hands?
Because that will never happen. The way almost all government structures in the world reward half or more politicians to run their country into the ground so they can blame the government and get a shot at being in power will never allow that. Nobody wants to help Obama or any other president or prime minister make their country a better place, that would actively hurt their chances of getting more power and money.
That is exactly how our country is supposed to be governed under the Constitution. Much of the structure of that document is intended to limit the function of the Federal Government and make it extremely difficult to expand power.
If you read the Federalist Papers, they are almost entirely Jay, Madison, and Hamilton assuaging the Jeffersonians that things like Obamacare could never happen. Then further reminding them that all they needed was the House, Senate, OR the Presidency to stop the creation, or propagation of expansive federal programs.
If you don't like that this can be done, start a Constitutional Convention, this is exactly how this type of government is supposed to work in this kind of political climate.
Bringing up the writings of the founding fathers imo doesn't hold much weight when applied to the state of the nation now. They wrote their ideals for the nation at that time they knew very well that the world can change drastically and that what they thought was right might become outdated or even not the best way to do things. Thats why the constitution was meant to a living document that can change and adapt. Too many people bring up things the founding fathers said and use that as an almost dogma to support their point of view (sometimes hilariously misusing what they actually said ala Glenn Beck) without thinking about the key factors of change and development in the system over time.
No one has any idea of what the founding fathers would say if they were brought to the present and educated in the state of the world and the US. Mindsets, values,sociopolitical ideals, and overall culture has shifted so much since they were writing.
Yea, and there is a simple, yet tedious, process for changing the structure of the government. This isn't even talking about whether the Commerce Clause permits XXX (an issue SCOTUS decided), it is about what our form of government encourages. And our FORM of government, which is almost independent of the founding fathers desires for what that form shall produce, inevitably leads to a government that discourages excess UNLESS all 3 "Lawmaking" parts of the government agree.
They did agree. That's how it became a law. Their checkpoint came and went.
Now I really want to know what the proper word would be to describe what Pix637 would have done/been if the whole "I'm on my parent's plan until I'm 26 so the ACA doesn't concern me..." thing was done intentionally, not necessarily as a joke but you know...? My first guess was facetious but I feel like that's not right. Irony? I feel like there's a really great word in there that I want to put in my back pocket for later.
The word would be irony, but I'm not being ironic intentionally. It's just ironic that I know that I'm on my parent's insurance until I'm 26 but I claim to know nothing about the ACA.
I do, in fact, know that the ACA is the reason for me being on my parent's insurance, so I shouldn't have said I know absolutely nothing. I was merely attempting to express the fact that I have no true knowledge of the ACA and therefore don't feel qualified to comment on it.
How can that be solved exactly? Concretely, the republicans and the démocrates must agree? Is it the only way to solve the problem? The supreme court can't force them to sign the budget? (since their real issue is about the healthcare bill and not about the budget as a whole)
It can be solved by the Republicans voting to pass the budget. The budget is drawn up and ready, but they keep attaching earmarks to it that would de-fund the ACA, which the Democrats obviously don't want to happen. So there's essentially a stalemate over something that doesn't necessarily concern the budget at all.
There are other budgets that the House passed months ago that didn't defund the ACA. The Senate can take those up and pass them at any time and they would go straight to the President. The problem is Democrats don't like those budgets either.
Well see except the problem is they needed to go to conference but Republicans blocked them from doing that about 18 times at my last count...
Republicans refused to accept any budget that was different than theirs (accusations of compromise, which the tea party has turned into a bad word)
To be specific when asked to go to committee with the senate for a budget the republicans refused to send conferees on about a dozen occasions.
Only people buying into the Republican propaganda mailers would even suggest that it's Obama or the Democrats who have not been willing to compromise. I am pretty convinced that those people just don't know what the word compromise means...
The Republicans didn't go to reconciliation because the Senate took out all the cuts they put in...
Once again, I ask: Can someone come up with a way for the Republicans to repeal Obamacare other than leveraging the budget (Which is how the Constitution is designed...for budgeting to impede bureaucratic inertia). The ONLY other option they have is winning the House, Presidency, and 60+ in the Senate. Which no party has done for more than 1 year in the last 40 years.
I don't understand, why do you think any party should be able to repeal any legislation they want in the first place?
Let me ask you this: If things functioned how you wanted how would a government ever force through legislation against hostile other parties? Is the answer that they shouldn't because if it was in the best interests of the country everything would be discussed until both parties thought it perfect and then pass it holding hands?
Because that will never happen. The way almost all government structures in the world reward half or more politicians to run their country into the ground so they can blame the government and get a shot at being in power will never allow that. Nobody wants to help Obama or any other president or prime minister make their country a better place, that would actively hurt their chances of getting more power and money.
That is exactly how our country is supposed to be governed under the Constitution. Much of the structure of that document is intended to limit the function of the Federal Government and make it extremely difficult to expand power.
If you read the Federalist Papers, they are almost entirely Jay, Madison, and Hamilton assuaging the Jeffersonians that things like Obamacare could never happen. Then further reminding them that all they needed was the House, Senate, OR the Presidency to stop the creation, or propagation of expansive federal programs.
If you don't like that this can be done, start a Constitutional Convention, this is exactly how this type of government is supposed to work in this kind of political climate.
Bringing up the writings of the founding fathers imo doesn't hold much weight when applied to the state of the nation now. They wrote their ideals for the nation at that time they knew very well that the world can change drastically and that what they thought was right might become outdated or even not the best way to do things. Thats why the constitution was meant to a living document that can change and adapt. Too many people bring up things the founding fathers said and use that as an almost dogma to support their point of view (sometimes hilariously misusing what they actually said ala Glenn Beck) without thinking about the key factors of change and development in the system over time.
No one has any idea of what the founding fathers would say if they were brought to the present and educated in the state of the world and the US. Mindsets, values,sociopolitical ideals, and overall culture has shifted so much since they were writing.
Yea, and there is a simple, yet tedious, process for changing the structure of the government. This isn't even talking about whether the Commerce Clause permits XXX (an issue SCOTUS decided), it is about what our form of government encourages. And our FORM of government, which is almost independent of the founding fathers desires for what that form shall produce, inevitably leads to a government that discourages excess UNLESS all 3 "Lawmaking" parts of the government agree.
Except all 3 did agree in this case, and now just half of one of these bodies is attempting to hamstring the other 2.5 of the other to get what they want after failing to stop it (1st in bill form then in law form) several times.
A Congress has no authority to bind future Congresses.
Edit: Except for pay.
cont. Hell, they could write the budget to remove all funding from Embassies in the Middle East, they could defund the FDA, or the Army if they want.
Now I really want to know what the proper word would be to describe what Pix637 would have done/been if the whole "I'm on my parent's plan until I'm 26 so the ACA doesn't concern me..." thing was done intentionally, not necessarily as a joke but you know...? My first guess was facetious but I feel like that's not right. Irony? I feel like there's a really great word in there that I want to put in my back pocket for later.
The word would be irony, but I'm not being ironic intentionally. It's just ironic that I know that I'm on my parent's insurance until I'm 26 but I claim to know nothing about the ACA.
I do, in fact, know that the ACA is the reason for me being on my parent's insurance, so I shouldn't have said I know absolutely nothing. I was merely attempting to express the fact that I have no true knowledge of the ACA and therefore don't feel qualified to comment on it.
How can that be solved exactly? Concretely, the republicans and the démocrates must agree? Is it the only way to solve the problem? The supreme court can't force them to sign the budget? (since their real issue is about the healthcare bill and not about the budget as a whole)
It can be solved by the Republicans voting to pass the budget. The budget is drawn up and ready, but they keep attaching earmarks to it that would de-fund the ACA, which the Democrats obviously don't want to happen. So there's essentially a stalemate over something that doesn't necessarily concern the budget at all.
There are other budgets that the House passed months ago that didn't defund the ACA. The Senate can take those up and pass them at any time and they would go straight to the President. The problem is Democrats don't like those budgets either.
Well see except the problem is they needed to go to conference but Republicans blocked them from doing that about 18 times at my last count...
Republicans refused to accept any budget that was different than theirs (accusations of compromise, which the tea party has turned into a bad word)
To be specific when asked to go to committee with the senate for a budget the republicans refused to send conferees on about a dozen occasions.
Only people buying into the Republican propaganda mailers would even suggest that it's Obama or the Democrats who have not been willing to compromise. I am pretty convinced that those people just don't know what the word compromise means...
The Republicans didn't go to reconciliation because the Senate took out all the cuts they put in...
Once again, I ask: Can someone come up with a way for the Republicans to repeal Obamacare other than leveraging the budget (Which is how the Constitution is designed...for budgeting to impede bureaucratic inertia). The ONLY other option they have is winning the House, Presidency, and 60+ in the Senate. Which no party has done for more than 1 year in the last 40 years.
I don't understand, why do you think any party should be able to repeal any legislation they want in the first place?
Let me ask you this: If things functioned how you wanted how would a government ever force through legislation against hostile other parties? Is the answer that they shouldn't because if it was in the best interests of the country everything would be discussed until both parties thought it perfect and then pass it holding hands?
Because that will never happen. The way almost all government structures in the world reward half or more politicians to run their country into the ground so they can blame the government and get a shot at being in power will never allow that. Nobody wants to help Obama or any other president or prime minister make their country a better place, that would actively hurt their chances of getting more power and money.
That is exactly how our country is supposed to be governed under the Constitution. Much of the structure of that document is intended to limit the function of the Federal Government and make it extremely difficult to expand power.
If you read the Federalist Papers, they are almost entirely Jay, Madison, and Hamilton assuaging the Jeffersonians that things like Obamacare could never happen. Then further reminding them that all they needed was the House, Senate, OR the Presidency to stop the creation, or propagation of expansive federal programs.
If you don't like that this can be done, start a Constitutional Convention, this is exactly how this type of government is supposed to work in this kind of political climate.
Bringing up the writings of the founding fathers imo doesn't hold much weight when applied to the state of the nation now. They wrote their ideals for the nation at that time they knew very well that the world can change drastically and that what they thought was right might become outdated or even not the best way to do things. Thats why the constitution was meant to a living document that can change and adapt. Too many people bring up things the founding fathers said and use that as an almost dogma to support their point of view (sometimes hilariously misusing what they actually said ala Glenn Beck) without thinking about the key factors of change and development in the system over time.
No one has any idea of what the founding fathers would say if they were brought to the present and educated in the state of the world and the US. Mindsets, values,sociopolitical ideals, and overall culture has shifted so much since they were writing.
Yea, and there is a simple, yet tedious, process for changing the structure of the government. This isn't even talking about whether the Commerce Clause permits XXX (an issue SCOTUS decided), it is about what our form of government encourages. And our FORM of government, which is almost independent of the founding fathers desires for what that form shall produce, inevitably leads to a government that discourages excess UNLESS all 3 "Lawmaking" parts of the government agree.
On October 02 2013 14:57 Jibba wrote: 51 is only relevant in that it covers separation of powers, which is not what's going on here, and the context of 58 actually flies in the face of what's happening today. In 58, Madison was arguing on behalf of larger states, worried that smaller states, through the Senate, would gain too much power over them. The power of the purse is particularly mentioned as a safeguard against the Senate trying to control the House by limiting their expansion, not throwing down because one House approved something and then the next changed their minds.
The purpose of the purse for Madison isn't to guarantee the laws you want, it's to protect the actual structure of government from being strong armed by the Senate. Ironically now, the House has taken up what Madison feared.
Then he goes on to describe exactly the situation we have now in the House:
One observation, however, I must be permitted to add on this subject as claiming, in my judgment, a very serious attention. It is, that in all legislative assemblies the greater the number composing them may be, the fewer will be the men who will in fact direct their proceedings. In the first place, the more numerous an assembly may be, of whatever characters composed, the greater is known to be the ascendency of passion over reason. In the next place, the larger the number, the greater will be the proportion of members of limited information and of weak capacities. Now, it is precisely on characters of this description that the eloquence and address of the few are known to act with all their force. In the ancient republics, where the whole body of the people assembled in person, a single orator, or an artful statesman, was generally seen to rule with as complete a sway as if a sceptre had been placed in his single hand. On the same principle, the more multitudinous a representative assembly may be rendered, the more it will partake of the infirmities incident to collective meetings of the people.
Ignorance will be the dupe of cunning, and passion the slave of sophistry and declamation. The people can never err more than in supposing that by multiplying their representatives beyond a certain limit, they strengthen the barrier against the government of a few.
\ And only a partisan thinks this is what a minority or representatives believe in. The only reason that 100% of House Republicans are not on board with the plan is because they are afraid that they will lose the PR battle over the shutdown.
Apparently not, because it turns out Boehner and some others were trying to secretly save parts of it that they were publicly decrying.
How do two sides typically resolve issues when there are differences? They talk. There was plenty of time to talk before this government shut down but clearly it didn't get anywhere. Republicans have continued to fail and have shown to be completely inept, but now it's time to sit down and do what needs to be done and resolve issues, a government shutdown does nothing but hurt both parties and eventually the economy. Plus there are bigger things to move on to, like debt ceiling discussions etc. Based off how this is going the debt ceiling discussions ought to be real fun 2 weeks from now. Honestly if our congress continues to behave like 5 year olds what's stopping a debt default?
Reid continues shooting everything down, even offers to discuss, and Obama isn't helping anything either by vowing to veto anything that comes out of the house that remotely touches his precious health care legislation. Obama literally says this before the house has even prepared a bill or voted on it. That's showing some great leadership right there. I don't know if he or the Senate expects Republicans to just cave in or something or have a change of heart but guess what, an economic fallout and overall long lasting impacts get placed on the president not the speaker of the house. Totally agreed with that Woodward youtube clip posted earlier in the thread by Danglars.
The word would be irony, but I'm not being ironic intentionally. It's just ironic that I know that I'm on my parent's insurance until I'm 26 but I claim to know nothing about the ACA.
I do, in fact, know that the ACA is the reason for me being on my parent's insurance, so I shouldn't have said I know absolutely nothing. I was merely attempting to express the fact that I have no true knowledge of the ACA and therefore don't feel qualified to comment on it.
[quote]
It can be solved by the Republicans voting to pass the budget. The budget is drawn up and ready, but they keep attaching earmarks to it that would de-fund the ACA, which the Democrats obviously don't want to happen. So there's essentially a stalemate over something that doesn't necessarily concern the budget at all.
There are other budgets that the House passed months ago that didn't defund the ACA. The Senate can take those up and pass them at any time and they would go straight to the President. The problem is Democrats don't like those budgets either.
Well see except the problem is they needed to go to conference but Republicans blocked them from doing that about 18 times at my last count...
Republicans refused to accept any budget that was different than theirs (accusations of compromise, which the tea party has turned into a bad word)
To be specific when asked to go to committee with the senate for a budget the republicans refused to send conferees on about a dozen occasions.
Only people buying into the Republican propaganda mailers would even suggest that it's Obama or the Democrats who have not been willing to compromise. I am pretty convinced that those people just don't know what the word compromise means...
The Republicans didn't go to reconciliation because the Senate took out all the cuts they put in...
Once again, I ask: Can someone come up with a way for the Republicans to repeal Obamacare other than leveraging the budget (Which is how the Constitution is designed...for budgeting to impede bureaucratic inertia). The ONLY other option they have is winning the House, Presidency, and 60+ in the Senate. Which no party has done for more than 1 year in the last 40 years.
I don't understand, why do you think any party should be able to repeal any legislation they want in the first place?
Let me ask you this: If things functioned how you wanted how would a government ever force through legislation against hostile other parties? Is the answer that they shouldn't because if it was in the best interests of the country everything would be discussed until both parties thought it perfect and then pass it holding hands?
Because that will never happen. The way almost all government structures in the world reward half or more politicians to run their country into the ground so they can blame the government and get a shot at being in power will never allow that. Nobody wants to help Obama or any other president or prime minister make their country a better place, that would actively hurt their chances of getting more power and money.
That is exactly how our country is supposed to be governed under the Constitution. Much of the structure of that document is intended to limit the function of the Federal Government and make it extremely difficult to expand power.
If you read the Federalist Papers, they are almost entirely Jay, Madison, and Hamilton assuaging the Jeffersonians that things like Obamacare could never happen. Then further reminding them that all they needed was the House, Senate, OR the Presidency to stop the creation, or propagation of expansive federal programs.
If you don't like that this can be done, start a Constitutional Convention, this is exactly how this type of government is supposed to work in this kind of political climate.
Bringing up the writings of the founding fathers imo doesn't hold much weight when applied to the state of the nation now. They wrote their ideals for the nation at that time they knew very well that the world can change drastically and that what they thought was right might become outdated or even not the best way to do things. Thats why the constitution was meant to a living document that can change and adapt. Too many people bring up things the founding fathers said and use that as an almost dogma to support their point of view (sometimes hilariously misusing what they actually said ala Glenn Beck) without thinking about the key factors of change and development in the system over time.
No one has any idea of what the founding fathers would say if they were brought to the present and educated in the state of the world and the US. Mindsets, values,sociopolitical ideals, and overall culture has shifted so much since they were writing.
Yea, and there is a simple, yet tedious, process for changing the structure of the government. This isn't even talking about whether the Commerce Clause permits XXX (an issue SCOTUS decided), it is about what our form of government encourages. And our FORM of government, which is almost independent of the founding fathers desires for what that form shall produce, inevitably leads to a government that discourages excess UNLESS all 3 "Lawmaking" parts of the government agree.
Except all 3 did agree in this case, and now just half of one of these bodies is attempting to hamstring the other 2.5 of the other to get what they want after failing to stop it (1st in bill form then in law form) several times.
A Congress has no authority to bind future Congresses.
Edit: Except for pay.
cont. Hell, they could write the budget to remove all funding from Embassies in the Middle East, they could defund the FDA, or the Army if they want.
If Republicans want to repeal the law so bad then why don't they do what the Dems did....you know get the votes to accomplish it. Hurting the citizens for the sake of grandstanding is bad.
No, Reid really shouldn't concede on anything. Now is the time they should finally ram it down their throats. Compromise happened in 2009 and 2010, and we ended up with a terrible bill modeled after the Heritage Foundation's own 1989 ideas. But it's the law we have and they already agreed to delay it prior. Obamacare is not the law anyone on the left wanted, but we're stuck with it because of the past compromises and giving further would no longer be a compromise - it would simply be a concession.
Yes, the end goal for Obamacare is more overarching than the current law and Reid should rake them with it. The GOP doesn't have the strategy, structure or capital for a long term fight right now. Even the businesses that hate Obamacare are 1) already prepared for it and 2) hate it less than the uncertainty.
Now I really want to know what the proper word would be to describe what Pix637 would have done/been if the whole "I'm on my parent's plan until I'm 26 so the ACA doesn't concern me..." thing was done intentionally, not necessarily as a joke but you know...? My first guess was facetious but I feel like that's not right. Irony? I feel like there's a really great word in there that I want to put in my back pocket for later.
The word would be irony, but I'm not being ironic intentionally. It's just ironic that I know that I'm on my parent's insurance until I'm 26 but I claim to know nothing about the ACA.
I do, in fact, know that the ACA is the reason for me being on my parent's insurance, so I shouldn't have said I know absolutely nothing. I was merely attempting to express the fact that I have no true knowledge of the ACA and therefore don't feel qualified to comment on it.
How can that be solved exactly? Concretely, the republicans and the démocrates must agree? Is it the only way to solve the problem? The supreme court can't force them to sign the budget? (since their real issue is about the healthcare bill and not about the budget as a whole)
It can be solved by the Republicans voting to pass the budget. The budget is drawn up and ready, but they keep attaching earmarks to it that would de-fund the ACA, which the Democrats obviously don't want to happen. So there's essentially a stalemate over something that doesn't necessarily concern the budget at all.
There are other budgets that the House passed months ago that didn't defund the ACA. The Senate can take those up and pass them at any time and they would go straight to the President. The problem is Democrats don't like those budgets either.
Well see except the problem is they needed to go to conference but Republicans blocked them from doing that about 18 times at my last count...
Republicans refused to accept any budget that was different than theirs (accusations of compromise, which the tea party has turned into a bad word)
To be specific when asked to go to committee with the senate for a budget the republicans refused to send conferees on about a dozen occasions.
Only people buying into the Republican propaganda mailers would even suggest that it's Obama or the Democrats who have not been willing to compromise. I am pretty convinced that those people just don't know what the word compromise means...
The Republicans didn't go to reconciliation because the Senate took out all the cuts they put in...
Once again, I ask: Can someone come up with a way for the Republicans to repeal Obamacare other than leveraging the budget (Which is how the Constitution is designed...for budgeting to impede bureaucratic inertia). The ONLY other option they have is winning the House, Presidency, and 60+ in the Senate. Which no party has done for more than 1 year in the last 40 years.
I don't understand, why do you think any party should be able to repeal any legislation they want in the first place?
Let me ask you this: If things functioned how you wanted how would a government ever force through legislation against hostile other parties? Is the answer that they shouldn't because if it was in the best interests of the country everything would be discussed until both parties thought it perfect and then pass it holding hands?
Because that will never happen. The way almost all government structures in the world reward half or more politicians to run their country into the ground so they can blame the government and get a shot at being in power will never allow that. Nobody wants to help Obama or any other president or prime minister make their country a better place, that would actively hurt their chances of getting more power and money.
That is exactly how our country is supposed to be governed under the Constitution. Much of the structure of that document is intended to limit the function of the Federal Government and make it extremely difficult to expand power.
If you read the Federalist Papers, they are almost entirely Jay, Madison, and Hamilton assuaging the Jeffersonians that things like Obamacare could never happen. Then further reminding them that all they needed was the House, Senate, OR the Presidency to stop the creation, or propagation of expansive federal programs.
If you don't like that this can be done, start a Constitutional Convention, this is exactly how this type of government is supposed to work in this kind of political climate.
Bringing up the writings of the founding fathers imo doesn't hold much weight when applied to the state of the nation now. They wrote their ideals for the nation at that time they knew very well that the world can change drastically and that what they thought was right might become outdated or even not the best way to do things. Thats why the constitution was meant to a living document that can change and adapt. Too many people bring up things the founding fathers said and use that as an almost dogma to support their point of view (sometimes hilariously misusing what they actually said ala Glenn Beck) without thinking about the key factors of change and development in the system over time.
No one has any idea of what the founding fathers would say if they were brought to the present and educated in the state of the world and the US. Mindsets, values,sociopolitical ideals, and overall culture has shifted so much since they were writing.
Yea, and there is a simple, yet tedious, process for changing the structure of the government. This isn't even talking about whether the Commerce Clause permits XXX (an issue SCOTUS decided), it is about what our form of government encourages. And our FORM of government, which is almost independent of the founding fathers desires for what that form shall produce, inevitably leads to a government that discourages excess UNLESS all 3 "Lawmaking" parts of the government agree.
On October 02 2013 14:57 Jibba wrote: 51 is only relevant in that it covers separation of powers, which is not what's going on here, and the context of 58 actually flies in the face of what's happening today. In 58, Madison was arguing on behalf of larger states, worried that smaller states, through the Senate, would gain too much power over them. The power of the purse is particularly mentioned as a safeguard against the Senate trying to control the House by limiting their expansion, not throwing down because one House approved something and then the next changed their minds.
The purpose of the purse for Madison isn't to guarantee the laws you want, it's to protect the actual structure of government from being strong armed by the Senate. Ironically now, the House has taken up what Madison feared.
Then he goes on to describe exactly the situation we have now in the House:
One observation, however, I must be permitted to add on this subject as claiming, in my judgment, a very serious attention. It is, that in all legislative assemblies the greater the number composing them may be, the fewer will be the men who will in fact direct their proceedings. In the first place, the more numerous an assembly may be, of whatever characters composed, the greater is known to be the ascendency of passion over reason. In the next place, the larger the number, the greater will be the proportion of members of limited information and of weak capacities. Now, it is precisely on characters of this description that the eloquence and address of the few are known to act with all their force. In the ancient republics, where the whole body of the people assembled in person, a single orator, or an artful statesman, was generally seen to rule with as complete a sway as if a sceptre had been placed in his single hand. On the same principle, the more multitudinous a representative assembly may be rendered, the more it will partake of the infirmities incident to collective meetings of the people.
Ignorance will be the dupe of cunning, and passion the slave of sophistry and declamation. The people can never err more than in supposing that by multiplying their representatives beyond a certain limit, they strengthen the barrier against the government of a few.
You simply are not addressing the fact that the this is the House refusing to bow to the pressures of the Senate...exactly what you claim he is warning against.
And only a partisan thinks this is what a minority or representatives believe in. The only reason that 100% of House Republicans are not on board with the plan is because they are afraid that they will lose the PR battle over the shutdown. They all believe in ridding America of the PPACA, but disagree on what tactic to use. As I have pointed out numerous times (without anyone showing otherwise mind you) the PPACA can only be realistically be repealed or modified using the budget as a bargaining chip.
There is 0.00000000 need to involve the CR or the Budget The idea that this is the only way to amend the PPACA is pure fiction. Republicans have the house they just need the senate and the Presidency. More importantly the Presidency because there are some blue-dogs in the senate that if there was a realistic possibility of repealing the PPACA there would be pressure by their more red constituents to at least consider it.
As for your 60+ majority in the senate that's simply not the case. Laws only need 51 to pass it's only the Republican party recently who has made the filibuster 60+ threshold the way of the senate and with Dems more than happy to get rid of it, all Repubs need to do is win more elections...
On second thought maybe you're right, with how they have been acting they are not going to win the presidency for at least 7 or so years, longer if Hillary goes for 2 terms. But wait, based off of republican logic they should win the senate with ease and the WH next term since Obamacare is "as destructive to personal and individual liberty, as the fugitive slave act" and the majority of Americans "don't like it".
If black people could wait over a hundred years for the freedom that was so obvious and clear in the federalist papers that it didn't need a bill of rights(or some very specific Amendments), I think republicans can wait for another election with the PPACA at the center of the debate which they couldn't lose....AGAIN!.... Riiiiiight?
Well unless the majority of the rhetoric republicans have been using is total bullshit.
Someone here mentioned earlier that the bill in which Obamacare was proposed by the House had been an Armored Corps something or other that the Senate gutted and then replaced it with the text of Obamacare. That does not sound like the House voted for Obamacare. Nor does it sound like their checkpoint actually existed.
The Senate has no right to propose bills dealing with revenue. That right solely belongs to the House.
I think this is pretty great, people will pretty soon realise how little government actually matters when nothing remotely apocalyptic occurs as a result.
EPT
