Read this article from the NY Times. It's about a well planned, highly funded conspiracy to shutdown the government if Obama Care is not defunded. Please share this with everybody you know. The republican extremists are not playing by the rules of democracy and are making a mockery of it to the free world.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/us/a- … 3&_r=0
You mean much like the "conspiracy" to shove it through congress before anyone had time to read and understand it, let alone discuss it in detail? A conspiracy like that one?
This whole thing leaves a sour smell behind it wherever it goes, democratic OR republican. House, Senate OR presidency.
+1,000,,000,000,000-the Republicans are doing the right thing. They are protesting this Obamacare which they know will be detrimental to the economy and health care of America. It is PRESIDENT OBAMA and his cohorts who are pushing and otherwise forcing this monstrous health insurance policy on America. President Obama has the God complex, he believes that he knows what is best for the American people as fas as health insurance/health care goes. He intends for Obama"care" to be HIS baby, no matter how it affects others. The Republicans are showing that there are still freedoms and rights in America, THANK YOU EVER SO KINDLY!
Sure, that's why they are holding the government and the people hostage. If they wanted to use the democratic process, they would file a bill to repeal ACA, Submit it to the senate, if the senate approved it, it would go to the president for his approval. But they know that is not going to happen, so instead, they ignore the democratic process and uses extortion by holding the government hostage.
Hate to break it to you, but this is the democratic process. There are 2 chambers of Congress for a reason. They are to work together to form a budget. It isn't about the Senate getting everything they want without offering anything in return. It isn't about the House getting everything they want. It isn't about the President getting everything they want.
What isn't the democratic process is the President, using government agencies such as HHS, to change the law without going through the Congress.
The GOP offered up 3 separate funding bills. One defunded Obamacare entirely. One delayed it entirely for one year. One delayed the individual mandate & the taxes on medical devices (such as pacemakers) for one year. I take no issue with the Senate denying the first 2 but given the level of incompetence with the exchanges, the last seems only fair to the American people. Especially when thousands upon thousands of employers have been given a years reprieve to provide insurance to their employees. Why should individuals have to shell out money they cannot afford if the businesses are getting waivers?
The Democrats & the President have not offered one iota of compromise. The GOP has put forth over fourteen spending bills to open up parks, fund veteran affairs, clinical trials, etc and the Senate will not vote on any of them. Doesn't sound like they care anything for those who suffer to me.
We've had government shut downs before and not once has any open air monument been barricaded, yet this President felt the need to keep veterans in wheelchairs from the WWII memorial. Why is that? The Lincoln Memorial has never been barricaded before, but it is under this President. Ridiculous. Talk about holding the American people hostage.
That is true extortion.
In 2006 this President had this to say about raising the debt limit:
"“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. government can’t pay its own bills. ... I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”
— Then-Sen. Barack Obama, floor speech in the Senate, March 16, 2006
Nice words. Leadership failure. Yet this President asks Congress to raise the debt limit over and over and over and offers no real spending cuts at all.
Not really. This financial dance we do so often is due to the failure of the Democratic held Senate to pass a budget for President Obama's entire term, until this past March. Then they asked for over $1 trillion in new spending, offered no spending cuts and raised taxes. Of course, they only even put forth a budget after the House showed them up and put forth their own. Once again, the Dems and the President refused to negotiate. They blamed the GOP but really they brought nothing to the table. They wanted it all their way.
Government shutdown isn't a tactic I would have taken. Obamacare is a train wreck that is only going to get worse. I would have let it fail and let the President & the Dems take the fall. The problem with that? People get hurt because they can't afford the atrocious premiums they are being offered. Unless you're on the government teat. Then you're a-okay! Which is what they want. Everyone attached to the government's teat. In need.
Sure you know it's a train wreck and it's going to get worse because that is what the right wing mantra is. And they have repeated it enough times to where you believe it as fact. Here are the GOP house demands
One Year Debt Limit Increase - Not a dollar amount increase, but suspending the debt limit until the end of December 2014.Similar to what they did earlier this year.They want the year long to align with the year delay of Obamacare.
Tax Reform Instructions - Similar to a bill passed last fall, laying out broad form Ryan Budget principles for what tax reform should look like.
Energy and regulatory reforms to promote economic growth. Includes pretty much every jobs bill they have passed this year and last Congress, including: Repealing the Public Health trust Fund
The most important one here is the last one. (Repealing the Public Health trust Fund). This is the code for defunding Obama Care.
The republican house, driven by the minority Tea Party says if you don't defund Obama care we aren't going to approve your budget. Therefore, the government cannot pay its bills and government service will be shutdown.
Now that services have been shutdown, the republicans are blaming Obama for being an obstructionist and creating the blocking of services, So a little girl gets lost in the hills of Yosemite and there is no one to rescue her...blame it on Obama. The world war II memorial is closed and veterans are upset...the Tea Party goes to the site and says blame it on Obama. A storm is brewing off of the gulf coast. There are no FEMA personnel available. The republicans say...you got it...blame it on Obama. A republican farts in the house and they say, blame it on Obama.
The minority Tea Party is confident they will get the votes from their constituents, because they have gerrymander (re-district) the states where they live to exclude all but the people they know who are going to vote for them. Therefore, this minority Tea Party is controlling the majority of the house, because they feel confident they will be elected next term with out any consequences of what they have engineered.
Obama won the election fair and square on his platform. This gives him political capital. If they don't like what he has done. Let them use due process of law and the democratic process to repeal Obama care. Don't hold the country hostage and use mafia extortion tactics. They should own the fact that they created the shutdown. All Obama wanted to do is get a clean CR passed. They made the demands and then blamed him for it.
There have been 17 shutdowns. All but 2 of them were orchestrated by the Democrats. Bet it was fine & dandy then huh? Was the democratic process at work then wasn't it? But any time the GOP uses the same tactics, they are holding the people hostage. Too funny.
You've failed to address why the President didn't use the rule of law and go through Congress to implement his changes to Obamacare.
You've failed to address why this is the only time that open air monuments have been shut down. We all know why. It's so the people see it more prominently and blame the GOP. Only it isn't exactly working out that way.
Answer me this as well...why can this Administration not answer one simple straightforward question on death benefits for military personnel? When did the President know they were cut off. It would have been amusing watching Carney lie & squirm his way to avoid answering that simple question if not for the people affected. Bet he thought the GOP would take the hit for that too. When he found out different he scrambled to come up with a solution.
I don't need anyone to tell me anything about the failure of this law. It's everywhere. From the states that have no competition because providers are not offering options, the abysmal failure of the websites to even function properly, the IRS official sending private info from the websites about citizens to the WH, the limited doctor access from the plans, the inflated deductibles, and the over the top prices. Don't need Fox news for that, it's everywhere.
I also love how everyone on Hub pages decries Fox news when MSNBC is the most biased and vitriol filled news site on the planet.
He won the election, so what? Reagan won by a way greater margin and the Dems shut down the government on him more than once. He has no political capital lmao Winning an election by 2 percentage points hardly gives him carte blanch. Too amusing.
Again, you've simply stated you're "talking point rhetoric" from left wing news sources without addressing anything.
Perhaps I can simplify it:
1. Why won't he say when he knew about the death benefits being cut off?
2. Why are open air monuments barricaded? Which btw is costing more than keeping them open! Never happened before.
3. Why are private businesses being forced to shut down simply because they rest on public land? They do not receive any federal funds.
4. Why is delaying the individual mandate a big deal when it is a-okay for all of Obama's union friends & campaign donators to receive one year waivers for the requirements to provide health insurance?
5. Why won't the Federal government offer any numbers for how many have signed up?
6. Why are the premiums so high for something called the AFFORDABLE Care act?
7. Why is it the sole responsibility of the GOP to compromise over and over and over when this Administration & the Dems have not compromised one iota?
8. What are the Dems bringing to the table to try to end the stalemate?
9. Why, if they are so concerned about the people, is the Senate not approving the mini spending bills to help them?
Of course he wants a clean CR. That's laughable! Then he does not have to live up to his promises of cutting spending.
1. Obama wants to get his budget approved.
2. The GOP house says we are not going to approve your budget until you meet our list of demands which is what we ran on with Romney including repealing Obama Care. (By the way, the individual mandate is Romney's plan working in Massachusetts.)
3. The house knows if the budget is not approved, the government is shutdown.
4. If the house wants to appeal Obama Care, why don't they submit a bill to the Senate? The Senate approves it and the President signs it. That's the democratic process. But they know that's not going to happen. so instead, they keep making these demands and then broadcast propaganda to make it look like it's Obama's fault that the government is shutdown.
You can give me all kinds of rhetoric as to how many times the democrats did the same thing. I don't have the time to check the validity of your statements, but if that is true, then they should have used the democratic process as well. The essences of this is the government is always shut down when the budget is not approved, It has nothing to do with the demands being placed on either party for what they want in addition to approving the budget. If the budget is not approved, we cannot pay our bills from the last fiscal year. If the debt ceiling is not approved, we cannot purchase what we need for the next fiscal year. Obama care is a law that has been approved by the Supreme Court. It has nothing to do with approving the budget or the debt ceiling.
If you read the article from the NY Times in the beginning of this forum, it shows how the Tea Party mega-funders have been planning this conspiracy strategy to shutdown the government since the start of Obama's second term. The republicans are afraid that ACA will be successful and that will throw them into a tail spin as far as all the mega funders they are beholden to.
As far as the systems not working properly, they have until March of next year to get it fixed. If a person does not have insurance in March, they will be charged $95.00. It will go up each year after that if they don't have it...Look out it could work and we will all become socialist, communist, Marxists. Oh by the way, Social Security and Medicare are socialist programs that the right wing wants to dismantle as well. Ideally the republican congress wants to privatize everything, except themselves!
1. Incorrect. Not answering one question has nothing to do with getting his budget approved.
2. Incorrect. Never before have open air monuments been barricaded & completely shut off from the public. In fact, there is a history of keeping war memorials open & even allowing veterans to man them. Address the question because barricading them has nothing to do with the budget.
3. Incorrect. We are talking about businesses, privately owned, that do not receive federal funds.
4. Dodged the question. The GOP has already conceded from defunding it, delaying it in its entirety, to delaying taxes on medical devices & only the individual mandate. Why can't we delay just those things for one year when Obama has illegally done it for thousands of employers?
Most importantly, you've completely ignored #8. What are the Dems bringing to the table? Or is it just the GOP that is supposed to compromise?
And the all important #9. Why is the Senate ignoring all the mini spending bills?
Did you even read the NY Times article I posted?
I did read the article. I have no doubt that the strategy was discussed prior to the shutdown. Just like every shutdown before it. However, I was replying to this statement:
"Sure, that's why they are holding the government and the people hostage."
Because as of right now, the GOP watered down their initial defunding request and are asking only for a delay in fees and taxes on medical devices and the individual mandate. They have passed over 14 mini spending bills to keep everything running.
So as of right now, by bringing nothing to the table, and refusing to vote on those spending bills, it is the President & the Democrats holding the country hostage.
You list quite a few things Obama is being blamed for (little girl in Yosemite, Fema's absence, WWII memorial, etc.). Did not the House R's fund all those things in the budget bills they have sent to the house?
As the answer is "yes", who else should carry the blame then? The Democratic Senate that won't approve the spending bills submitted by the House? But they would approve them if Obama asked for it, you know - it would just ruin the blackmail opportunity for holding the country hostage for the funds to operate the abortion called Obamacare. For it's not the House holding the country hostage with mafia extortion tactics; it's Obama and his cronies made because they can't squeeze money from the House budgets.
No one is holding anyone hostage. What is going on is partisan politics.
The Tea Party controlled House wants to defund the Affordable Care Act AND defund many other spending programs (including defense spending and other much-needed programs); the Democrat controlled Senate does not want to (a) defund the ACA or (b) defund other spending programs---just yet; the White House/the President will not give in to a defunding of the ACA---as it is Obama's landmark domestic legislation (whether one likes it or not or agrees with it in principle or practice or not) and will probably not give in to the defunding of any other programs it deems important.
The result: Unresolved and partisan fighting about the budget which has resulted, yet again, in a shut-down of the government.
What you don't seem to grasp is basic politics. [I suspect this is because the media---left and right and everything in between is caricaturing what is spoon-feeding the public a line that what is going on right now anathema to American politics.] And basic politics means the Republicans demand/insist on what they want; the Democrats demand/insist on what they want; the White House/President demands/insists on what he wants and until somebody BLINKS nothing happens. It is a good old-fashioned and partisan test of political will. There is no blackmail. There is no extortion. There is no bogey man in the Congress or in the White House.
And just as it has happened since the earliest days of the Republic: The members of Congress with the most to lose in upcoming elections---and there are several including, for example, Paul Ryan who is suddenly the voice of reason in the House will make overtures inside and outside of their respective parties to find a solution.
The president will not engage in this because he is a second term president and cannot seek re-election. The operative and key words here: "just yet", "probably not", and "re-election".
FOR THE RECORD: The President did NOT shut down memorials. I said this before and I will say it again: Long BEFORE any shut-down, decisions were made as to what services and people were essential. That which is not deemed essential---whether a service or a person is shut down.
FOR THE RECORD: These are open air monuments that this Administration is SPENDING MONEY TO BARRICADE. It is actually costing more than leaving them open. Once again, NEVER DURING ANY PREVIOUS SHUTDOWN have open air monuments been barricaded and closed to the public.
If you had traveled to many of these so-called "open air" monuments, including for example, Mount Rushmore and the Lincoln Memorial, you would be aware of the fact that they are NOT "open air" monuments.
In fact, all of them include a Visitor's Center, and some, like the Lincoln Memorial include other additional indoor public facilities that require maintenance and monitoring and many, like Mount Rushmore, are inaccessible without passing through a Visitor's Center. This is true of many national parks, memorials, and monuments including all national parks.
And, whether you can admit it or not, the "administration" is not spending the money. Congress is---as defined in the US Constitution, spending the money to maintain the parks, memorials, and monuments as is defined in the legislation passed some time ago and long before the shut-down to deal with these issues.
And NO you are wrong. During previous shut-downs parks, memorials, and monuments were, in fact, shut down during government shut-downs. There is, whether you can accept it or not, ample visual documentary evidence of this.
You are wrong, buying all the BS the left wing feeds you. They have NEVER BEEN SHUT DOWN. Only the visitors centers have been shut down. And they have NEVER BEEN BARRICADED.
I see you have not provided any of the mountains of visual evidence to back up your claim.
"Although President Obama claims that he can’t avoid shutting down public sites and monuments, war memorials were in fact kept open during the 1995/1996 government shutdowns. The administration’s decision to barricade the Lincoln Memorial marks the first time in its history the memorial has been totally off limits to visitors during a shutdown."
source: http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/02/monum … -shutdown/
Includes photo evidence showing the monuments were not shut down and no barricades were up. Only the visitors' centers were shut down.
"The American people are currently paying for eight mounted cops to keep people out of the World War II memorial."
However, during one shut down, veterans were allowed to keep the Pearl Harbor museum open.
"The Republican National Committee says it is prepared to shoulder the cost to keep the World War II memorial open for the next 30 days."
The Administration said no.
And we'll not even go into how the National Mall is closed unless you're holding an Amnesty rally for illegal aliens.
Oh, I understand the politics of the situation just fine, and they are indeed exactly as you say. This is nothing more that posturing and flexing of political muscle in order to get their way.
The difference between the House action and that of the President or Senate is that people are being hurt by the Senate actions. The house's refusal to budget Obamacare hurt no one; the Senate's refusal to spend the money budgeted has put millions out of work and in danger of losing what they have spent a lifetime building. It hurts the millions that have made long term plans to visit or see (memorials, parks, etc.) and particularly foreign tourists. I will go so far as to say that the shutdowns are specifically chosen to hurt the most. That makes it, IMHO, blackmail by definition.
Neither the House "budgets" nor the Senate/Presidential reaction is reasonable and both are the actions of spoiled children wanting their own way. The Senate actions, and those of Obama, hurt the little people, though, and that makes a difference.
I think they're all hurting everything: The people, the government, the people who work for the government, the Congress, the presidency, the republic.
I think that since things have been fairly "calm" by Washington, DC standards (in terms of this partisan political fighting and in-fighting) since around 2001, we've forgotten how ugly it can (and does) get.
You do realize that you are fighting a losing battle on this right? The public has voiced it's awareness of who is to blame for the shutdown, and they point the figure at the House Republicans. And rightly so. They control the purse strings. In typical RepubliThug tactics, they stamp their feet and hold their breath like the spoiled brats they are, and say if you don't give me what I want, I'll shut down everything. Forget that an election took place in which this very thing was a major issue, and they lost. If they don't their way, they'll blow the whole thing up. So what do they do?? They shut down the government, at a cost of $23 Billion, and what did we get for that taxpayer expense? NOTHING.
You can try to spin as much as you want. Republican obstructionism is the real problem:
March 23 -- Senate passes first budget in four years. After the House passes its budget, regular order dictates that both chambers name members of a conference committee to resolve the difference.
April 23 -- Harry Reid requests unanimous consent for naming a conference committee on the budget. Senator Toomey blocks this request.
May 6 -- Majority Leader Harry Reid requests unanimous consent for naming a conference committee on the budget. Senator Cruz blocks this request.
May 7 -- Senator Murray requests unanimous consent for naming a conference committee on the budget. Senator McConnell blocks this request.
May 8 -- Senator Warner requests unanimous consent for naming a conference committee on the budget. Senator McConnell blocks this request.
May 9 -- Senator Murray requests unanimous consent for naming a conference committee on the budget. Senator McConnell blocks this request.
May 13 -- Senate and House Republicans are refusing to meet with Democrats to negotiate over the budgets passed by each chamber. Four times in the last two weeks, Senate leaders have proposed beginning a conference committee to hash out a federal budget; four times they have been blocked by Republicans.
May 14 -- Senator Warner requests unanimous consent for naming a conference committee on the budget. Senator McConnell blocks this request.
May 15 -- Senator Wyden requests unanimous consent for naming a conference committee on the budget. Senator McConnell blocks this request.
May 16 -- Senator Murray requests unanimous consent for naming a conference committee on the budget. Senator Lee blocks this request.
May 21 -- Senator Murray requests unanimous consent for naming a conference committee on the budget. Senator Paul blocks this request.
May 22 -- Senator Kaine requests unanimous consent for naming a conference committee on the budget. Senator Rubio blocks this request.
May 23 -- Senator McCaskill requests unanimous consent for naming a conference committee on the budget. Senator Lee blocks this request.
May 25 -- ''This to me is an issue of integrity. We've pressed for a budget. We ought to go to conference.'' (Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee)
"What are we on my side of the aisle doing? We don't want a budget unless we put requirements on the conferees that are absolutely out of line and unprecedented?" (Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona)
and this is only part 1 . . .
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-wei … 74372.html
Really? And just who was the obstructionist for the over 800 days that the Senate did not only not pass a budget, but never even worked on one?
So suddenly, after 4 years without adopting or proposing a budget, the GOP is supposed to snap to attention now that the Senate has done what they were to do every single year BY LAW?
What about the Senate's inaction on the Budgets passed by the House from 2011, 2012 and this year? (passed prior to the Senate passing one btw).
That is what I mean. Dems sit on their laurels and do nothing. You say nothing.
Suddenly, they do something and if the GOP plays politics (like the Dems did for all those years because they didn't want the people to see their idea of a budget), they're the bad guys.
Without the co-operation of the house, and without the required 60 votes, even if a budget had passed it could have ever taken effect, rendering it effectively useless. So responsibility sits with Senate Republicans and Democrats for not passing a budget. But let's deal with the reality of the current situation. The fact is a budget has now been passed, and regular order dictates that both chambers should have named members of a conference committee to resolve differences. The responsibility for that not happening sits squarely on Republicans, who wanted to use the leverage of another debt ceiling crisis to get what they want.
Well now, here we sit.
The GOP has dropped delaying the mandate. They only want a delay of the tax on medical devices.
The plan will reopen the government, raise the debt ceiling to avoid default for a reasonable amount of time and allow further negotiations. It will allow further sequester cuts to take place on January 1st. Sequester being a plan from the WH and the Democrats.
What do the Dems say? No. No sequester cuts. Again, all their way.
I say, guess what? Sequester is the law of the land. (sound familiar Mr. President?) It was passed and has passed the constitutionality test. If the Dems want to change it, let them do so through the legislative process and not hold the country hostage. (sound familiar OP?)
Sorry, but no cigar. This is on the Dems & Harry Reid now.
Sassy: It would be nice if you used facts instead of your own opinion.
Sequestration introduced as part of the Budget Control Act of 2011, which resolved the debt-ceiling crisis; the bill set up a Congressional debt-reduction committee and included the sequestration as a disincentive to be activated only if Congress did not pass deficit reduction legislation. However, the committee did not come to agreement on any plan, activating the sequestration plan. The sequestration was to come into force on January 1, 2013 and was considered part of the fiscal cliff, but the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 delayed it until March 1 of that year.
The committee comprised twelve members of Congress, six from the House of Representatives and six from the Senate, with each delegation evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans. Three members each were appointed by the Speaker and Minority Leader of the House and by the Majority and Minority Leaders of the Senate. Two of the members were designated as co-chairs, one each by the Senate Majority Leader and by the Speaker of the House. The law made no requirement that either chair be from a specific house or a specific party. The Los Angeles Times predicted before the committee was constituted that the "most important players" in the process would be the four leaders selecting the twelve committee members. Commentators noted that the plan would advance with a seven-member majority if any single member deviated from party lines.
Actually, the 2011 Deal set caps on spending, and includes more cuts to come on January 1st 2014. Now the Dems want to remove those spending caps (in the midst of this crisis they have actually asked to INCREASE spending before they will reopen the government) and those cuts either delayed or removed entirely.
It's a clear case of give me everything I want and maybe we'll negotiate later.
The GOP has been the only side giving anything. What have the Dems given exactly?
Your idea of compromise seems to be Democrats agreeing to delay a tax on medical devices and Republicans agreeing not to force the country to default on its debts and plunge the world into a financial crisis. That is not compromise. It's blackmail. And I'm sick of the false equivalency. The Democrats are not equally at fault in this situation. That's like saying a hostage-taker and hostage negotiator are equally at fault, because the negotiator can't persuade the crazy man to put the gun down. The Republican party caused the government shutdown. The Republican party are threatening to cause a default. I repeat, asking for things in return for not tanking the country's economy is not compromise. In the same way that asking for things in return for not shooting someone in the head is not compromise. You know this.
What a load of manure Don.
Again, I ask, what are the Dems bringing? What? Please enlighten us all. They keep moving the goal posts. Now they want a spending increase before they will agree.
I don't know why the Dems are not equally to blame. Their bill includes everything they want. They expect the House to capitulate and approve it as is (as do all the kool-aid drinkers here at Hub pages).
Both chambers put forth a bill. Both bills contained what that chamber wanted.
The GOP has removed the defunding of Obamacare. They have removed a delay. They have removed a repeal of the tax on medical devices. Now, it is a delay on that tax, a temporary funding measure and a temporary increase to the debt ceiling. What is unreasonable about that? I might add that the temporary isn't some one month thing (another thing the GOP has given in on) but the debt ceiling increase runs through January and the government would be funded through March. Seems perfectly sane to me, keeping the government running, avoiding default, and allowing plenty of time to negotiate a more long term solution.
WHAT HAVE THE DEMOCRATS PUT ON THE TABLE?
You can't answer it because it proves they don't really want a deal at all.
The idea of compromise here with the left leaning Hub pages community is crowning Obama Emperor.
What are the Dem's bringing? What did they put on the table?
Operation of the country. They will stop the shutdown when they get everything they want, so the operation of the US is what they put on the table.
That implies the Republicans are bringing something to the table. What are the Republicans bringing apart from not causing the country to default and causing an economic crisis? I repeat, putting a gun to a hostage's head, and then taking your finger off the trigger is not compromise. Has the Republican crazy talk affected people's sense of normality?
The Democrats are not the issue here. They have compromised. Real compromise that is, not the "give us what we want and we won't blow up the economy" type Republicans think passes for compromise. The real hold up is how far into 2014 the debt ceiling increase should last. It beggars belief. The hostage taker agrees not to pull the trigger, and agrees to put the gun down, but only for 10 minutes. And that's what you call reasonable.
The Republicans should get nothing for opening the government. They should also get nothing for not tanking the economy. I repeat, pointing a gun at someone's head then agreeing not to pull the trigger is not compromise and does not deserve reward. It's called being sane. You seem to have very low expectations of what reasonable behavior is.
No, this has to end. The whole "do as we say or the country gets it" shtick is beyond old now. They think they should be rewarded for it, then be able to do it again. A hostage taker who agrees not to pull the trigger for ten minutes, does not deserve any reward or praise. That's insanity. Republicans should consider themselves lucky if they manage to avoid total humiliation. That's what they deserve for this foolish stunt.
But wait. That can't be correct.
After all, according to our left leaning friends, it is the GOP holding the country hostage, not the precious Dems & President!
The sheeple are being especially blind & obtuse during this shutdown.
When the GOP provides a budget to operate all of the country except one new law, then Dem's refuse to accept it until it is "clean" (meaning that it contains all the money they want) and won't spend any of the funds allocated, it is not the GOP that shut down the government.
That is, of course, clear to even a Democrat, but if you refuse to discuss it, hide it away in the corner and continually scream that it is those nasty Republicans (that voted money to operate with) long enough maybe folks will believe the GOP shut down govt. You believe it, don't you?
There seems to be some kind of reality distortion field operating where you are. Even Republican Representatives are starting to wake up:
“Look, if my colleagues can’t muster together and sometimes accept good because they’re waiting for perfect, then that’s on them.” (Adam Kinzinger, Republican of Illinois)
This debacle is on the GOP. I don't care how badly they dislike Obamacare, or how badly they dislike Obama. There is no excuse for holding the country hostage, then acting as if not pulling the trigger is some kind of big compromise. Agreeing to behave in a sane manner is not a compromise. It is the minimum expectation we should have for the main opposition party. Republicans are currently failing to meet that expectation in every regard, and the opinion polls I've seen confirm that most people are of the same opinion. Supporting this nonsense does you no credit.
In addition: at least 25 Republicans in the House have gone on record to say they would vote for a clean continuing resolution. This means right now there are more than enough votes in the House to pass a clean funding Bill and open the government. Unfortunately the Republican House majority leader Eric Cantor will not bring the Bill to the floor because knows members of his own party will vote for it and open the government. Still think the Republican leadership are behaving responsibly?
Yes, think about who is not being reasonable in this situation. One person and one person only. That one person holds the key and refuses to use it.
He sees himself as the un-respected BOSS. Yeah, his power, his authority.
On one point I agree with you Don.
The entire "do what we want or the country gets it" has to end. Only it is the Democrats doing that. You've failed to address what the GOP was to do? Oh , you mean accept the Senate's version of a budget and get over it? Isn't that just "do what we want"?
The GOP has repeatedly asked for real spending cuts. They have repeatedly asked for a measures that result in a balanced budget. This Administration and the Senate have only put forth budgets that increase spending, they don't limit anything at all.
That is your "do as we say" mentality. What compromise is there in that? Where is the REAL compromise you speak of? I'm not seeing it. You claim it, but you can't name it.
It's actually amusing to see the Democrats call the mini-spending bills the "wrong" way to fund the government when in actuality that was how it was originally set up. It was only changed during WWI so that Congress did not have to vote on each issuance of new spending.
The GOP has offered the means to reopen the government while all this goes on. It is the Democrats holding the country hostage until they get everything their own way.
Apparently all the rhetoric from the President & Harry Reid have affected your normalcy.
Sassy: What do the democrats bring to the table? They bring a budget that will pay for what congress has already borrowed. That's called paying your bills. Pure and simple that's all they want is a clean continuing resolution (CR) .
Everybody talks about cutting spending. It's not about spending; it's about borrowing. We are a debtor nation. We borrow money and then try to pay it back via the budget and the debt ceiling. Raising the debt ceiling, just allows congress to borrow more money for the next fiscal year. Every administration inherits the debt of the previous administration. That's the national debt and it is never going to be eliminated because the government lives on a credit card. So if a republican was elected next term, his baseline for the national debt, would start where Obama's ended, just like Obama's started where Bushes ended.
The only way the budget can be balanced is if revenue equals borrowing and that isn't going to happen. That's why we have taxes. That's why Obama wants to tax the super wealthy.
Everybody blames Obama for spending too much. It's actually congress that's borrowing too much. Obama can either approve the bills or veto them.
The only thing the GOP has brought to the table is a list of demands to bring their agenda into play and the biggest one they focus on is to destroy the ACA which has already been funded. The people voted against their agenda when Romney lost the election...get over it!
If you read the link to the article I posted, it describes how the Tea Party got it's power from being funded by big moneyed interests and that this conspiracy started just after Obama got re-elected. Their mission is to destroy Obama care and make life as hard as possible for Obama. Even if they have to do a little at a time. They will kill their prey and eat it a little at at a time. That's what they did with Glass-Stegal and that's what they want to do to ACA. Their tactics are to stall and eat away at laws and regulations by so called negotiations until it's all gone!
lol peoplepower really.
How to stop being a debtor nation? Keep borrowing? No.
How do you curb the need to borrow? You cut spending.
It most certainly IS about spending. You cannot keep spending more and more and more and stop being a debtor nation.
The Senate's so-called "clean" resolution includes MORE spending. That isn't clean.
So how does the government pay for what it has already spent or borrowed? Not by meeting the demands of the Tea Party. A clean CR allows congress to pay for what has already spent or borrowed. Nothing more nothing less. Raising the debt ceiling allows congress to appropriate for the next fiscal year. When we have a banking system that operates on the Fractional Reserve basis, the country is always going to be a debtor nation. If you don't know what Fractional Reserve is, look it up. All this happy talk about cutting spending, balancing the budget, and paying off the debt, is just a pipe dream. It doesn't matter what party is in power, as long as we are on the fractional reserve, it will be business as usual.
Actually, raising the debt ceiling is what allows us to pay the debts already incurred.
The shutdown originally was about the budget itself, not the debt ceiling. They ran into each other because they did not sit down & negotiate.
We will always have debt, that is true, that doesn't mean we have to increase it by trillions every year. You cannot operate by doubling down on your debt year after year after year. You have to act responsibly and we will become Greece and the rest of them if we continue to simply shell it out without any limitations.
That is like me saying, oh well, I'll always have some debt, might as well gather up 50 credit cards & max them out and then do it all over again next year. It is ridiculous.
Bottom line, your idea of what the Democrats bring to the table isn't even bringing something, it is once again DEMANDING something with a promise of compromise down the line. A promise they have not lived up to once in the last 3 years.
Unfortunately, there has been NO increase in the debt ceiling, and as of today (15 October 2013) a deal is in the works in the Senate only to raise the debt ceiling until sometime in February 2014.
Do you understand the phrase "fractional reserve"?
Do you understand how the international monetary system works?
Exactly---Money and Banking 101.
Unfortunately, as an old professor of mine used to say: "Don't cloud the issue with facts."...
The term "debtor nation" is utterly meaningless in modern international economics.
The term is nothing more an a slogan; a slogan designed by politicians who know it is exactly that---a slogan, but who also know that it can be sold to the public with little effort.
When you look back from the beginning of this government and look at the national debt, has it ever gone down?...nope, but it certainly has gone up...therefore debtor nation. There are two schools of thought: supply side economics and demand side economics.
Supply side economics is what Reagan called trickle down. Essentially you give tax breaks to the super rich and cut spending on entitlements in hopes that the money will trickle down to the middle class and the poor. And then try to balance the budget on the backs of the middle class and the poor. That's what the GOP wants to do now. It never worked in the past and it's not going to work now.
Demand side economics is based on taxing the super rich and corporations that receive tons of tax breaks and cutting government spending...like unnecessary defense spending. That's what Obama wants to do. Create revenue to help lower the debt and also cut spending. By the way, he has already cut the deficit in half.
You see congress on both sides is indebted to big corporations and big moneyed interests that pay for their re-election campaigns and that's reality. They no longer represent the people. So they are going to do what is in their best interest, not the best interest of the people.
Instead of taxing corporations (on money that will be taxed again when the owners take it out of the company) why not end the tax breaks? Of course, you won't get the social engineering such as building plants in inner cities or hiring minorities, but that shouldn't be done via the tax code anyway. If those tax breaks are worthwhile, simply pay for them instead of trying to hide it in a tax break.
The money will be a lot more visible, and people will scream to high heaven about giving money to large corporations in order to "buy" a say in how the business is run. Most of the engineering will likely disappear, but is that a problem? Do we really want things like ADA compliance, inner city jobs, minority workers, etc. (all of which produce lowering of tax bills)?
First off, we're not talking about the debt magically disappearing.
Second, yes, the debt HAS gone down before in history.
Third, the debt has nearly doubled since this Administration came into office, the largest such increase in history, outside of when we entered WWII. Certainly it is linked to inherited debt, interest & inflation but it is also a direct result of simply increasing spending by trillions.
Fourth, the real problem is spending as it relates to GDP. With GDP at a low, it is irresponsible to continue the spending spree we're currently on.
I agree completely with your last statement, for both political parties. Which is why right now, I agree with the GOP position that members of Congress should have to live with Obamacare just like the rest of us.
Bush did not fund and account for two wars and medicare part D. Obama did and it was added it to the national debt.
It is beyond playing the Bush blame game. This Administration has continually asked for trillions in additional spending. We're five years down the road. Time for this President & the Democrats to take responsibility.
UPDATE: There are now 3 plans. Two of them are bi-partisan plans. Guess what? Harry Reid & the President still don't like any of them. Go figure that huh? Once again, who is holding who hostage?
Boehner offers CLEAN CR for raising the debt ceiling & reopening the government. One stipulation: The President & the Congress must live under the healthcare law they have burdened the rest of the American people with.
I await all our left leaning friends to tell me how that is unacceptable.
Sassy: It's nice how you make up rules about history. It's a fact that Bush did not fund two wars and medicare part D. Who are you to say it's a blame game and Obama has had enough time to fix things? How do you and the right wing propagandists know how long it takes to fix a broken economy that someone has inherited. When Bush took office, Clinton left him with a Budget Surplus. What did Bush leave when he left office after eight years?
Yes they don't like them because they want to destroy ACA and impose all the GOP extremists agenda that they lost in the last election.
Why is ACA a burden to the American people? I disagree with you, it's not even a burden to the GOP. It's evil and immoral to them and they must do God's work to rid the country of the evilness. In the meantime they are costing this economy billions of dollars with their sabotage tactics trying to impose law on something that they lost fair and square. Their proposal is to do it again in a few months.
Reagen inherited a mess from Carter and while no one would say it was "fixed" in his first term, the country was heading in the right direction and the American people were experiencing the effects of recovery. So much so, that he won re-election by a landslide.
I never said it was immoral. It is however, a train wreck. The evidence is all around. It will fail. As I already stated, I would not have taken this tactic using Obamacare because it will fail very well all on its own. It will be the best thing to ever happen to the GOP in 2014.
Again, you fail to answer the very straighforward fact: Why would the Democrats reject such a plan? It's really quite simple. Because they know it is crap and don't want to have to use the exchanges without their guaranteed 75% subsidies that the bulk of the American people will not receive.
Again, all you ever say is why the GOP should accept everything the Senate puts forward, exactly as it is. That isn't how it works and it doesn't make the other party the bad guy. Oddly, as soon as the GOP put forth the original plan, they appointed those negotiators. Why did the Senate not just do the same?
The Senate has had the power to reopen the government all along. There are over 14 mini spending bills sent over by the House that would fund every single area of government that is currently shut down. They are completely clean and contain zero strings.
The facts do not back up your ranting against the GOP. They just simply do not.
As for how it is a burden to the American people, get real. You really should do some checking around about the insane premiums that MOST Americans will now be required to pay.
You are on Medicare, the only part of ACA that affects you is the doughnut hole and that works in your favor. Here's a newsflash though, in order for that to happen, the bulk of Americans are now faced with anywhere (depending on their circumstances) from 10% to 60% hikes in premiums. The only other part of the population that the law actually works in their favor are those that will receive Medicaid, and that is only in the 17 states that opted to expand it.
You cannot add 30 million people that are not paying a dime into a system and not see a major rate hike to the rest. Not to mention, it is not like we are living in a time of an economic boom. The country cannot sustain it and they will not get the number they need to sign up from the healthy pool. It will be cheaper for them to pay the penalty which is not enough to begin to cover the costs. Add to that there is no way to really enforce the penalty if people change their tax withholding and do not receive a refund.
Do you deny that they lost the election and are the minority? Do you deny that in a democracy that majority rules? Just because they think it is a train wreck (Boehner's words) doesn't make it so. Its the same old slippery slope game the GOP always plays. I agree with you leave it alone and let's see what happens. Yes the Tea Party thinks it's is evil. They think anybody who does not agree with them is evil. They want their country back ...to the confederacy.
I just saw a movie called Captain Phillips. It's about the Somali pirates that took over the ship the Maersk Alabama off the coast of Somali. They were armed to the teeth. When their leader boarded the ship, they told the captain he was no longer the captain, the Somali leader was. He wanted a million dollars and the captain said all we have is $30,000. I'll give you that and you can get off my ship. Instead they put him in a lifeboat and held him as hostage for the million dollars. You know how it ended? Our military captured the leader and killed all his followers in the lifeboat. The leader is doing 33 years in an American prison.
Ted Cruz is the leader and his followers are the Tea Party. Obama is the captain and his crew is the Democratic senate. They can approve a clean CR or hold Obama and his crew hostage for all of their demands. But in the end, they will probably lose.
Yes I absolutely deny that. How absurd a statement is that? They are not the minority. We've already had this discussion I do believe. They are the MAJORITY in the House. The Democrats are the MINORITY in the House. It is the reverse in the Senate. The President is not a tie breaker. That is not how our government works. It is a split Congress, there is no majority.
You see, you DO think Obama is some sort of Emperor!
They've already approved one. The Dems & the President just don't want to have to live with that lovely law they've forced upon the people. The Senate does not get to demand everything their way or they'll take their marbles and go home just because the President is a Democrat.
They had their 2 years where they had control and they squandered it on a train wreck of a law that the American people did not want. They lost the House because of it. Now they have to learn to play nice with others.
How about Obama was elected by a majority. And don't give me this stuff that it was a very close election. The fact is the majority of the electorate voted for him. I don't care who is a majority or minority in the house or the Senate. In a democracy, the majority rules. The problem here is the GOP congress is not acting to support the majority of the people. They are acting in their own self interest and the people who funded them. They think they know what's best for the country, but the fact that they lost the election means the country didn't want their agenda. Now they are trying to change all of that by holding the country hostage. They didn't want the Ryan Plan or Romney would have won. The GOP just cant' accept that it lost. By God they are going to change it, even if it costs the country a downgrading of their credit rating...again. The democrats don't have to bring anything to the table except a clean CR.
Yes, in a Democracy fifty one percent of the people can choose to euthanize the other forty nine percent. Majority rules, American History 101, the U.S.A. is not a democracy.
As a matter of fact, if the Constitutional Amendment process was utilized properly, we would not be having this discussion!
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands,
In the Pledge of Allegiance we all pledge allegiance to our Republic, not to a democracy. "Republic" is the proper description of our government, not "democracy." I invite you to join me in raising public awareness regarding that distinction.
A republic and a democracy are identical in every aspect except one. In a republic the sovereignty is in each individual person. In a democracy the sovereignty is in the group.
Republic. That form of government in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whome those powers are specially delegated. [NOTE: The word "people" may be either plural or singular. In a republic the group only has advisory powers; the sovereign individual is free to reject the majority group-think. USA/exception: if 100% of a jury convicts, then the individual loses sovereignty and is subject to group-think as in a democracy.]
Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. [NOTE: In a pure democracy, 51% beats 49%. In other words, the minority has no rights. The minority only has those privileges granted by the dictatorship of the majority.]
Sure, and the GOP is still the minority. The Tea Party is yet even further a minority. I'm not sure why they think they have any leverage here.....
Sassy: Government 101 made simple: The way congress makes changes is by submitting bills. They can either be repealed or approved. If the GOP house didn't like the CR, they could repeal it by proper channels, not by submitting demands for changing what the people voted for and timing it with the budget approval and debt ceiling approval. They should submit a bill to the senate who would approve it or repeal it. If it was approved they send it to the president for approval or veto. But they circumvented proper procedures because they knew a bill to change the presidents agenda and what the people voted for would never be approved. So instead, they want to bring about change that the people did not vote for by holding the country hostage.
But the GOP DID submit the bill. Fourteen of them, somebody said.
Whereupon the Senate said "No, I don't like this bill(s) to fund the country because it doesn't contain money for my pet project. I will not approve these funds and thus shut down the government until I get what I want". The bills could have been approved and sent to Obama for signing, keeping the country going and keeping people paying their mortgages, but they decided to hold those mortgages and food on the table hostage to get the money they wanted for their project.
I'm not defending the GOP - they route they've taken to "change" a bill voted into place is despicable - but holding people's livelihood hostage for their pet plans on health care is at least as bad. It looks very much to me as if both sides have found a new loophole to force what they want without utilizing a democratic process and both sides are throwing a childish temper tantrum, running around screaming "The other side are devils!".
Here is some Common Sense 101 to go along with your Government 101
At the time of the "Obamcare" passage into law - The Democrats controlled both legislative branches.
The Senate vote was 60 - 39 No Republicans voted for it - and as the minority party they were powerless to stop this Democrat bill
ps. do you remember the news stories about the special favors Pelosi had to use to convince enough democrats to go along to get it passed? Bribes and backroom politics in full view - yet proponents now tout it as a law passed by the "people" - No it was a law passed by democrats.
The house vote was the same, 219 - 212 - 0 republicans vote Aye - yet, again, as the minority party they were powerless to stop it - also again, it was a democrat passed law - not a peoples law.
I know, I know, but the people elected those democrats you say. To which I would reply; if those representatives were doing the "people's" will then, why is it wrong that the House is representing the "people's" will now?
So, back to the common sense part - the republican's are no longer powerless in the house - so it makes all the sense in the world to fight a law they opposed from the beginning.
And appearances do seem to confirm that what the public was told to get the law passed is a lot different from the reality of the law's implementation.
hmmm... could it be that some of the initial republican objections and assertions - back when they were powerless to stop it - could have been more truthful than what folks were told to get it passed?
Now, that last statement is a true question, not innuendo, because I don't know enough about the law to make any assertions. But I do know the way the law was passed was an ugly and disgraceful example of partisan politics at its worst.
You really should take some American Government 101. That is not how our Government is set-up at all. The people elect the Congress. The Congress passes the laws, the budget, etc. That Congress is divided into two Chambers. Both operate separately and have their own set of procedures & rules that are followed. Neither chamber dictates to the other, even if one party holds the majority in both chambers. The President does not get a vote in either of those chambers.
That exact mentality why we have a system of checks & balances in our government. To keep those who think like you and would abuse power from having too much. You are all about the Dems because they are YOUR party so they should be able to do whatever they want regardless of actually living within the confines of a system of government.
It is nice to see you actually admit the truth. That you are not about fairness and compromise. Only about the Dems bullying everyone until they get everything they want.
They get their leverage from the people, you know, that sticky "we the people, by the people, for the people" language that this President & crop of Dems don't get.
52% want the healthcare law gone.
50% oppose the mandate specifically
a mere 30% think it will improve anything
only 15% say they have been helped by the law
And you can claim all you like that the GOP is being hurt by this shutdown but polls show that it is a dead heat on which party registered voters want to control Congress.
The President's approval rating is down 16 points since the shutdown.
The House DID submit a bill well before the Senate did I might add. (budget bills).
Reid never even called a vote.
It is the same thing you are calling out the House for doing and claiming they are not following the rules.
The House also submitted over 14 mini spending bills, completely clean, that would have kept the government fully operational while all this was hashed out. Again, Reid never even brought them to the floor.
What you guys are forgetting is that all the senate wanted is approval of a continuing resolution (CR) Here is what a CR is: The United States government operates on a budget calendar that runs from October 1 through September 30. Each year, the Congress authorizes each department, agency, or program to spend a specific amount of money. This money may not be spent, however, until it has been appropriated for a given purpose.
Under the United States Constitution, only Congress may appropriate money for federal government operations. Congress is required to pass separate spending bills every year to fund the operation of government. If no such bill becomes law, government functions cease immediately and all functions of the government cease eventually, as required by the Antideficiency Act, except as excepted by the Act. In order to prevent the interruption of government services, also called a government shutdown, Congress and the President may pass a continuing resolution. This authorizes the funding of government agencies at the current level until either the resolution expires, or an appropriations bill is passed. Like all acts of Congress, a continuing resolution must be passed by both houses of Congress and the President, or passed with a majority large enough to override a Presidential veto.
And Wilderness, ACA is not a pet project. It is a huge body of laws that have been approved by the Supreme Court of the United States. The GOP wants to defund it in its entirety or chip away at it a little at a time. They also want to only approve the CR until the first of next year, which means we start this whole nasty process over again the first of next year.
I think that's what I said, isn't it? The Democratic Senate wanted a general CR, the GOP House gave them specific appropriations. The Dem's didn't get what they wanted, so shut down the govt.
Call Obamacare a pet project, call it an abomination, call it a bankruptcy in the making, call it ultimate socialism. Call it the humane thing to do, call it morally necessary, call it important beyond anything else govt. does.
It doesn't matter what you call it, it is law and the House should be funding it. No question, just as there is no question that the Senate should have never taken people's table as hostage to get that funding. The house did not do it's job, the senate did not do it's. The intent of the lawmakers when deciding roles of government branches was never to include either of these pathetic actions and both sides of this ridiculous posturing knows that. They all, every one of them, know that they, not just the other side, are not doing their job.
Other way round wilderness. The Tea Party faction within the GOP wanted to add amendments relating to Obamacare to a clean CR . The Democrats said no. At that point the GOP leadership had a choice. Pass a clean CR and allow the government to stay open, then continue the political debate around the perceived issues with the ACA. Or listen to the tea party faction within it's party, refuse to pass a clean CR and threaten to shutdown the government and force the country to default on its debts if they don't get what they want. They chose the latter.
But (I hear you say) to avoid this situation why didn't the Democrats just say fine we'll give the GOP what they want so the government can stay open? Two reasons 1) the, as you and peoplepower73 have rightly said, the ACA has successfully passed through all branches of government, and has passed the ballotbox test (the President ran on a platform of his healthcare reform and won the election). To effectively gut the legislation as the Tea Party faction wanted, would be to ignore the will of the Senate, the House, the electorate and the ruling of the Supreme Court. All of that would have been done in favor of a radical faction within the GOP that even other Republicans don't agree with; 2) what was happening was akin to blackmail. The GOP were not saying, give us this and we will give you that as is customary in situations of compromise. They were saying, if you do not ignore the will of the House, Senate and electorate, and give in to our demands, then we will shut down the government.
The Democrats rightly said, this is not the way to do business, and refused to entertain anything from the GOP leadership while they were tying their demands to reopening the government. Or as Harry Reid put it "we won't negotiate with a gun to our head". Why did they do that? Ego? Stubborn pride? Because, as there are in society, there are unwritten rules in Congress that when observed, help maintain stability. When they are not observed they create instability. Accepting this new radical approach to politics would have been a massively destabilizing force on government and the country. Some people desire that for their own ideological reasons. But most people IMHO are not quite ready for a state of anarchy just yet.
Sorry, Don, but you're saying the same thing I did, just prettying it up with some nice connotation.
A "clean" bill means simply exactly what the Democrats in the Senate want. No more, no less. The House refused to provide that (for whatever reason) so the Democrats in the senate shut down the govt.
So those wonderful Dem's now say (quoting you) that "that isn't how you should do business" and proceed to take food off the table of innocent people that have nothing invested in their petty squabble. How nice of them.
Stability - you mean stability of the person that has lost their job because the Senate won't use the funds granted them by the House? Is that the stability you refer to? Because, sure as sin, the Senate doesn't care one iota about it - they care about their own power base and throwing a temper tantrum to maintain it.
As I said - throw out ever person that voted for either of these pathetic actions; the representatives that voted a budget that won't pay for the government expenditures voted into place and the senators that voted to put people out of work in a pique of anger over their fellow legislators actions.
That's absolutely not it. Read what peoplepower73 said. A Continuing Resolution authorizes that funding for government operations and agencies continues in the event that a budget bill is not passed. In other words, it's a safety measure that ensures government services are not disrupted when Congress are in disagreement on a budget. It is not the budget itself. The GOP tried to use this safety measure as part of the negotiation. In response the Democrats effectively said as there is disagreement on the budget, let the CR pass to safeguard services, then we can get back to the business of negotiating a budget bill. The GOP said no. The only thing the Democrats asked for is for the CR to pass so budget negotiations could continue in good faith. That's what the CR is intended for. The Tea Party faction within the Republican Party persuaded GOP leaders (against the wishes of other moderate Republicans) to say "sure we'll agree to pass the CR, but what's it worth to you?" Very different to the way you are describing the event.
"There are processes that are in place that allow us to solve the challenges that we have in a deliberative way, in an open way, in a transparent way, and it is the processes of governing and legislating through the House and the Senate." - (Rep. Tom Price (R) of Georgia)
I agree. Getting an idea through the House, the Senate, the Judiciary and ultimately the ballot box, is good governance because of the checks and balances those processes represent. Holding a gun to the country's head and saying "do what we want or she gets it" not good governance in my opinion.
Nope, the one about extortion of the President of the United States of America.
Social security -Broke.
Fannie may- Broke
National debt 17 trillion
Gee, lets try it with healthcare...
Obama= demise of America as we know it! He has an underlying agenda for America. So many people, esp. Liberals, refuse to see and acknowledge this. They are so enthralled with his "New Deal" social and health policies, not knowing how detrimental these programs are for the economy. He was imbued with socialist and communist ideology from childhood and he intend to implement socialized programs in America. He even stated that the Constitution was a replica from colonial times and it's flawed. Someone had to STAND UP to him and the Republicans have had ENOUGH and are taking back our country.
A fundamental fact about the ideology of a world which is in constant need to improve its economic social programs because every one of its predecessors was a failure, is the admittance that economic planning has never worked. Yet for some special reason it will work this time.
Yes, they are trying to take back the country instead of moving forward. The national debt is not created by one president. Each president accrues the debt from the previous president and then adds his debt to it. Bush did not fund two wars and medicare part D. Obama accounted for Bushes debt. ACA is already funded and has been law for two years. It's the right wing extremists who are trying to unfunded it by using extortion to shutdown the government and not raise the debt ceiling to pay our bills.
What President Obama said about the constitution is that, like any "charter" (his word) it is flawed.
If those so hostile to President Obama read a little history (and stopped listening to right-wing talk radio and television pundits, stopped reading conspiracy websites) and learned a little bit about the Constitutional Convention or just remembered a little bit of middle school social studies, they would know that the men who wrote the Constitution understood that it was, inherently, "flawed". This is why the Founders included a provision for AMENDMENT of the Constitution.
The Bill of Rights are AMENDMENTS---needed to fix "flaws" in the Constitution and needed in order for the original charter to be ratified.
"He even stated that the Constitution was a replica from colonial times and it's flawed. Someone had to STAND UP to him and the Republicans have had ENOUGH and are taking back our country."
A "replica from colonial times"? What does that even mean, and where and when did he say that? Furthermore, the constitution as written, was flawed. Whatever gives you the impression that the framers thought they were creating a "perfect Union"?
Preamble: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." It states a "more perfect union". That means better, and closer to what we would hope for. The Constitution provides for an amendment process to deal with things that the framers could not yet have envisioned. A perfect document wouldn't need that. Does it somehow offend your sensibilities to think that the Constitution isn't perfect?
The Constitution also codified slavery as an institution in this country.
Article 1 sec. 2. (basing a states representation in the House on its FREE population, and 3/5 of "all other persons";
Article 1 sec 9 (barring Congress from abolishing the slave trade before 1808) and;
Article 4 Sec 2 ( providing for the return of runaway slaves)
Are we to think that you think that slavery was a great idea?
Your entire post smacks of Apocalyptic fear mongering. The "demise of America" as we know it? We survived 8 years of Bush/Cheney. I think we can manage to get through anything after that debacle. The destruction of 9/11, the launching of a war of choice, and the destruction of the US economy. Great work by the Republicans. Republican policies only work in isolated gerrymandered districts in areas of the country filled with low information voters predisposed to hyperbolic fear mongering. "Obama wants to kill your granny". "Healthcare reform = Armageddon"."Evolution is a theory straight from the pits of Hell." Everything they say is an appeal to emotionalism. No thought required. Your post is one more example of this kind of irrational nonsense.
Let's try some just one thing from your list---since the others require more explanation that I am interested in offering:
What could possibly---in the Digital Age, in a time when transactions from holiday greetings to banking are done electronically, be the cause of financial problems at the Post Office (which for the record is NOT run by the US government, but is a private agency)?
What could possibly be the cause of a brick-and-mortar, paper-based business experiencing financial problems in a digital world?
That said, as for Fannie Mae:
In May 2013, Fannie Mae announced that it is going to pay a dividend of $59.4 billion to the United States Treasury. Do you understand what a dividend is and when a dividend is paid? If yes, then you would understand that this company---though founded during the New Deal and private traded (that means on Wall Street) since 1968 is not "broke", but doing very well.
Which brings us to the housing market crash. Remember those last few years of hearing the president say the economy was recovering? I don't know about you but I'm upside down $50,000 on my place. So we create a crisis so our lord and savior Obama can swoop in to save the day. Meanwhile people are defaulting on their loans in droves. Liberal Cronyism at it's finest.
Thanks for posting this people. I'll read it soon and provide a response.
Have any of those of you in this forum who blame President Obama for the closure of all national parks, memorials, and monuments ever asked yourselves a simple question:
Why when warned PRIOR to the shut-down of the fact that parks,. memorials---including the World War II memorial, and monuments would be closed (under the legislation passed by Congress) AND why when warned PRIOR to the shut-down that veteran and survivor benefits would be curtailed during the shut-down, did the Republicans in the House do nothing to preempt the closures and curtailments of benefits?
Could it be that they thought such closures and benefits could be of some political use? Of some use as a plot twist in this political theater that would garner them support somewhere among the masses?
The house funded those things in a budget proposition - there was no reason to stop operation. Except, of course, that they were warned of being blackmailed if they didn't fund other pet projects we can't afford.
Or is your idea of "preempt" the closures to abrogate their duty to provide a budget themselves and just rubber stamp what the Democrats want?
Could it possibly be that the R's failed to cave in to blackmail, leaving the D's to blame for shutting down the govt.? At least when my kids warn me that my decisions will somehow "cause" them to do bad things I don't back off from what is right...
My idea of preemption is one that would have demonstrated that this is not just political theater, but an attempt to govern meaningfully.
There was no blackmail. There was only hardball politics---and at its very worst. The closing of parks, and memorial, and monuments is a national disgrace, but both parties are to blame as it the problem of governing with the TV cameras on---whether those cameras are the unedited and unscripted cameras of C-SPAN or the edited, scripted, and highly-agenda driven cameras of ALL of the cable news networks and ALL of the web-based news outlets.
I suspect that IF these negotiations can ever get away from the cameras and the celebrities (from both sides of the aisle) that both sides will then have the opportunity (perhaps the luxury) to "give" or "blink" and some mutually-agreed to resolution found.
The only thing I could see as a preemptive move to avoid govt. closure is for the House to knuckle under to the threats of the D's and give them whatever they demanded. Whereupon one wonders why the House is there at all if they are just going to rubber stamp what the Senate demands.
Blackmail; of course there was. The senate has the money to operate the country; they refuse to use it until their pet project is also paid for. The very definition of blackmail.
So the R's are using the law to avoid activation of a properly assigned law (Obamacare) - they are playing hardball politics to avoid what was legally voted into place. Disgraceful.
The D's have blackmailed the R's to provide a budget they like, and have shut the government down when it the House failed to follow their orders. Disgraceful in the extreme as we now have millions of people being hurt by congress playing a political game.
Kick the entire group, including the President, out of the town and keep them out.
With one thing I agree but I also know from many years of observing that it AIN'T GONNA happen: Get rid of any and all incumbents in the House and Senate who have refused to negotiate with each other---without reference to the White House or the President, and who have allowed factions within their respective parties (from the right for the Republicans; from the left for the Democrats) as well as media personalities (left and right) to control how they do business.
It's not going to happen. While the current aggregate approval of Congress is at an all-time low of 10% (and falling I suspect), approval of most individual members of Congress is well into the 50-60% range. The public blames "Congress" as though it is some independent entity independent of the members who comprise it; members Americans see as working hard for them.
I'd agree but why is the President exempt? You know as well as I that if he had agreed to negotiate the Senate would have followed along.
Personally, we pay them too much. Once upon a time you're Congressman & Representative was Joe Schmo from the neighborhood. If he wasn't middle class, he came from middle class.
Constitutionally, the President---no matter who he is, should not be involved in these negotiations. In fact, historically, any presidential involvement in the business of Congress was frowned upon and understood as an intrusion at best and a violation of the "separation of powers" at worst.
I am seeing popping up all order the news in the last hour or so that some deal is in the works about the debt ceiling issue that may end the shut-down. It appears that Boehner is taking the lead now from Paul Ryan (who just yesterday offered some very pragmatic solutions to the budget problems but made NO mention of the Affordable Care Act). Only time will tell.
Benjamin Franklin advocated at the Constitutional Convention that members of Congress be retired men who would be paid nothing. As such, he reasoned, Congress would would be populated by the "disinterested" (in 18th century parlance meaning having no financial stake in something) parties who could focus on governing.
Yeah Boehner offered up a short term agreement until November 22nd I believe.
Not sure if it ends the shutdown though or just raises the debt ceiling until that time. Trying to get more detail.
Okay it does not end the shutdown. In exchange for raising the debt limit temporarily to avoid default, the GOP is requesting the following:
"In exchange, he wants Obama "to sit down and discuss with us a way forward to reopen the government and to start to deal with America's pressing problems."
Sounds to me like the polling numbers---perhaps even at the individual member levels, are dropping...
Well, now tell me who won't compromise? Not on the big bad GOP now.
Breaking News: Obama Rejects Republican Proposal for Short-Term Debt Limit Plan http://nyti.ms/Zf40cq
"He said he was open to the idea of giving Republicans something on their policy wish list, Ms. Murkowski said, if they in turn agreed to give Democrats something — but only on the condition that the government reopens and the debt ceiling is raised.
“He said ‘space for trading,'” Ms. Murkowski said. “So apparently we are not talking about negotiation, we’re talking about some trading space.”
The man does not want to compromise at all. With these new developments I hope the GOP stands firm.
Note to President Obama: Don't give in to the GOP demands. All of their demands are a Trojan horse to allow chipping away at Obama Care (ACA). That's what they did with the Glass Stegal Act starting in 1980 under Reagan. They were like an animal that ate their prey a little at a time until it was all gone. They started deregulating the laws that prevented banks and investment companies from co-mingling their assets. In 1999, under Clinton, they finished eating their prey by repealing the Glass-Stegal Act. That was the prime cause of the financial meltdown.
That's how they operate, eating their prey a little at a time. And that is what they want to negotiate with you and the ACA. They want to remove the laws a little at a time until it is all gone...Don't negotiate. That's why they want to make it short term. When that short term expires, they will come back for another bite of their prey until they devour it!
So, delaying the individual mandate, when we've delayed the Obamacare implementation for thousands of businesses, is chipping away at it? Appears the President has already done most of the chipping. Delaying the mandate is only fair since we're already allowing businesses off the hook.
Besides, it is an abysmal failure for the majority of Americans. They are paying more for less and being forced to pay for benefits they will never ever need. Like the 58 year olds whose premiums rose over 40% and their deductibles are inflated to double what they were, partly because they are being forced to pay for maternity care & birth control.
Not to mention, it is beyond apparent that it is not even ready. When your President & your Congressmen won't have to participate in (and fought to make sure they didn't have to participate in it) it's a pretty good indicator it isn't anything good.
You do realize that the minority doesn't get to dictate terms?
If my child told me that he or she wanted to go to bed at 10 and I said the kid is going to bed at 8, the kid doesn't get to propose a variety of bedtimes and then claim that I'm not negotiating and then blame me for the whole situation when the child doesn't want to go to bed.
In other words, just because the GOP submits a proposal doesn't meant that they are negotiating in good faith. Perhaps the GOP should know its role and work harder on creating policies that will earn votes instead of kicking and crying when they don't get their way?
They are not the minority. The people took the House away from a Democratic majority and voted in the GOP. They are the majority in the House. The Dems are the majority in the Senate.
I could say the Dems are the minority since the GOP holds the House.
It is laughable that the left leaners on Hub pages don't believe in compromise and somehow they are the last word on everything just because the President is a Democrat. Doesn't work that way.
Congress sets the budget. Congress is not a majority for either party right now, it is a split Congress. Time for the Democrats and Reid to stop acting like they are supreme rulers and bring something to the table.
How could they have been warned prior to the shutdown about the death benefits when even the President claims "he didn't know about it"?
They had already passed a bill that they believed covered survivor's benefits, so no, they did not know the shut down would halt those payments.
"The “Pay Our Military Act” – which guaranteed paychecks for members of the military during the shutdown – easily passed both houses of Congress before the shutdown began.
That bill appropriated “such sums as are necessary to provide pay and allowances to members of the Armed Forces” as well as money for some civilian personnel and contractors considered essential to the support of soldiers. The bill’s drafters say it was intended to cover survivor benefits as well."
And the House already passed spending bills covering monuments, national parks, veteran's affairs, clinical trials, etc. The Senate won't vote on them.
Again, ALL of the provisions of the shut-down; ALL of mechanisms; ALL of programs that could be targeted were listed in advance of an actual shut-down. The Pentagon---led by REPUBLICAN Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, has issued a formal statement that it warned Congress of the impending cuts to veteran's benefits as have the non-partisan managers of other government agencies. And General Shenseki---a Bush appointee and current Veteran's Administration Secretary has concurred with Hagel's statement.
The Pay Our Military Act focused on pay for active duty personnel only and did not include any civilian personnel or any deceased and/or disabled personnel.
And for the record: At the moment a private charity is paying the survivor benefits. That charity is called the Fisher House Foundation.
Is the Affordable Healthcare Act actually working for you. Prove to me it is and I will agree with your premise that this is a conspiracy.
Tirelesstraveler: Thank you for asking. I have two prescriptions that I pay nothing for, other prescriptions cost have been reduced. No co-pay for office visits. My wife and I get comprehensive physicals, including all lab fees, once per year free of charge. The medicare doughnut hole is reduced and will be completely gone in a couple of years!
No point peoplepower73 in trying to make ANY headway with many of the people posting on this hub.
As someone once said referring to cults (and there is definitely a growing anti-President Obama cult in the US) and in terms of their claims:
1. They do not include any accurately referenced data or sources;
2. Proclamations are called facts and evidence;
3. Such proclamations are demonstrably false.
And in terms of those adhering to cults:
1. They ignore, and worse yet, cannot be bothered with facts;
2. They cannot attack the data and sources of those who challenge them or their thinking so they attack the people who challenge them;
3. They do their research by proclamation.
H.J.Res. 79: Border Security and Enforcement Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014
On Passage of the Bill in the House
House Vote #540
Oct 10, 2013 2:18 p.m.
H.J.Res. 90: Federal Aviation Administration Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014
On Passage of the Bill in the House
House Vote #537
Oct 09, 2013 2:19 p.m.
H.J.Res. 89: Making appropriations for the salaries and related expenses of certain Federal employees during a lapse in funding authority ...
On Passage of the Bill in the House
House Vote #535
Oct 08, 2013 7:48 p.m.
H.J.Res. 84: Head Start Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014
On Passage of the Bill in the House
House Vote #530
Oct 08, 2013 1:56 p.m.
H.J.Res. 77: Food and Drug Administration Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014
On Passage of the Bill in the House
House Vote #528
Oct 07, 2013 7:14 p.m.
H.R. 3223: Federal Employee Retroactive Pay Fairness Act
On Passage of the Bill in the House
House Vote #525
Oct 05, 2013 10:57 a.m.
H.J.Res. 75: Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014
On Passage of the Bill in the House
House Vote #524
Oct 04, 2013 6:08 p.m.
H.J.Res. 85: Federal Emergency Management Agency Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014
On Passage of the Bill in the House
House Vote #522
Oct 04, 2013 4:33 p.m.
H.Res. 371: Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 75) making continuing appropriations for the Special Supplemental Nutrition ...
On the Resolution in the House
House Vote #520
Oct 04, 2013 3:01 p.m.
H.J.Res. 72: Veterans Benefits Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014
On Passage of the Bill in the House
House Vote #518
Oct 03, 2013 4:48 p.m.
H.R. 3230: Pay Our Guard and Reserve Act
On Passage of the Bill in the House
House Vote #516
Oct 03, 2013 1:57 p.m.
H.J.Res. 73: Making continuing appropriations for the National Institutes of Health for fiscal year 2014, and for other purposes.
On Passage of the Bill in the House
House Vote #514
Oct 02, 2013 6:48 p.m.
H.Res. 370: Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 70) making continuing appropriations for National Park Service operations, ...
On the Resolution in the House
House Vote #510
Oct 02, 2013 3:27 p.m.
H.R. 2848: Department of State Operations and Embassy Security Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2014
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended in the House
House Vote #500
Sep 29, 2013 12:29 a.m.
H.R. 3210: Making continuing appropriations for military pay in the event of a Government shutdown.
On Passage of the Bill in the House
House Vote #499
Sep 29, 2013 12:22 a.m.
That is just a few.
You'll notice they would have all kept the government running while all this was hashed out. You'll also notice when you go to that site the Senate did not bring up one of them for a vote.
There is your data and facts. There is your evidence. There is your source.
A fact I have brought up over and over and over that the left leaning hubbers have continually ignored is that we did not need to be shut down at all.
You are the one making personal attacks. Calling people a "cult" because they disagree with you. Sorry, this is not a dictatorship. The President and the Dems are not a "ruling" class. If you want that sort of government system, there are any number of countries you can move to.
The US Constitution does NOT allow for a piecemeal operation of the government by the Congress.
Passing bills selected to satisfy Tea Party supporters and passing "feel good" legislation while the country teeters on default is not governing. It is called politicking.
The problem is that the reality of governance and the reality of how the system works---constitutionally, is not being understood by those standing by the Tea Party and by Republicans more afraid of primary challenges by the Tea Party than they are afraid of defaulting on the work they were elected to do.
It is evident, that the issue in the House right now---even as I type these words, is NOT governance, it is NOT democracy, it is NOT the republican form of government. It is, as has been pointed out in the last few days by constitutional scholars from the right and left and center, simply unconstitutional.
An excellent example of this: Ted Cruz---a Senator, going to and controlling a meeting of members of the House. This is entirely unconstitutional and unprecedented.
That said, why is anyone who disagrees with you "left leaning"? Has it ever occurred to you that some people who disagree with you may an understanding of the current events in Congress and an understanding of US history (economic, political, and constitutional) that simply make it impossible for them to subscribe to the distilled commentary of television, web, and radio pundits?
Did it ever occur to you that others may have a sense of the situation that is NOT being broadcast in the media?
I have news for you: Conservatives agree with me (and others with whom you disagree), including Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell---among many others.
Actually, it certainly does. There is absolutely no law or procedure against them. Furthermore, it is exactly how it was originally done and was only changed when we entered WWI in order for Congress not to have to approve each appropriation for the war.
And talk about media BS, what are you talking about Cruz controlling a meeting of the House? Who said so?
lmao oh too rich!
That is a straight out headline! MSNBC and a bunch of left liberal blogs!
Toooooooooooo funny from someone screaming about the media!
Let's be clear, MSNBC is to the left what Fox is to the right. No credibility. I always LOVE "sources say".
Edit: I did forget to address your last claim. McConnell & Ryan do not agree with you. Their statements came after 10 days of shutdown and neither agreed with you even in those statements. They simply both stated that they wanted to avoid default, which Boehner had stated at the beginning of this entire thing. This was about the budget and ran into the debt ceiling.
Let me deal only with the basics:
As for Cruz's meeting with members of the House: This information was reported in just about EVERY possible online, television, and radio media outlet. And the leak about his presence at the meeting came right from the
House Minority Whip. And the story was reported in the "Washington Times"---a decidedly conservative newspaper and appeared in an article on "Morning Joe" [CLARIFICATION] by Joe Scarborough (former Republican Congressman from Florida). Others who reported this news: "Roll Call", the "Wall Street Journal".
That's entirely incorrect. The initial story came from RollCall. Scarborough was responding to a comment about the story from RollCall.
"Former congressman Joe Scarborough said Tuesday that if Sen. Ted Cruz and top House conservatives wanted to hold a secret meeting, the Tortilla Coast restaurant mere steps from House Office buildings was not the place to do it.
Mr. Scarborough, the host of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” was responding to a Roll Call report that said the Texas Republican, who has been blamed for precipitating the government shutdown through his demands to defund Obamacare, met for two hours with 15 to 20 House Republicans late Monday." (you'll notice the big IF in his response as well).
Besides, I wasn't questioning the meeting anyway. I don't know why the meeting is such a problem for you. After all, Pelosi & Reid bribed Senators with earmarks to vote for Obamacare. A mere meeting shouldn't be an issue. I was talking about the claim that he controlled such meeting.
I have clarified my point. And in fact, and whether you can accept it or not, Joe Scarborough discussed this at length on his program yesterday morning in an article on his "Morning Joe" program.
And, whether you can accept it or not, Scarborough was clear on the unconstitutionality of Cruz's action and on the utter lack of precedence for such conduct.
Do you know why meeting a Tortilla Coast was not a good idea? Any idea where it is or who frequents it?
I'm not saying he didn't discuss it. I'm saying it was discussed because it was brought up by a caller who read the initial Roll Call story. Not saying they didn't have a meeting at all either.
His point was: it wasn't a "secret" meeting. It was a meeting. You've proven no point other than my own.
There is nothing unconstitutional about it. What is unconstitutional about it? And there is absolutely nothing from Scarborough saying that it was unconstitutional. Show some source that shows that.
Given Cruz's comments today, it seems to me the meeting was more about him not attempting to block any deal that came out of the Senate.
I think you are not quite understanding what meeting was held at the restaurant and quite understanding that the history of the House and Senate is one of independence from each other; from meddling across the chambers, etc.
Cruz is a senator, and as such, he is not supposed to be engaged in meetings held off-site by key members of the House.
The meeting was supposed to be off-the-record, but since the GOP leadership (House) who organized the meeting choose a place frequented by congressional staffers, the meeting was very quickly made public.
And if the site was intentionally chosen----chosen knowing staffers (particularly Democratic staffers) would make sure that news of the meeting got out, then this was a first step in a larger effort---which has worked, to get Cruz out of the House's business AND derail him in the Senate.
And that scenario is entirely possible. I would not say it isn't a possibility at all. As I stated, given Cruz's statements today it seems he was either strongly persuaded or plain warned not to attempt to block any deal coming from the Senate.
As for your other point, odd because it wasn't considered unconstitutional when Reid, Obama, Pelosi and members from both chambers met behind closed doors in 2009 regarding Obamacare.
"House and Senate Congressional Democrats, and representatives of the Obama Administration, met late into the night on Wednesday behind closed doors in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office and apparently have come up with yet another, and final, Democratic version of Obamacare, to be read to the House Democratic Caucus today, reports the AP about a hour ago:"
source: http://centristnetblog.com/daily/democr … me-begins/
I don't think it really matters if it takes place in someone's office or out in the open at a public place.
You are missing my points and perhaps I did not make it clear:
It is NOT "unconstitutional" to have private meetings. It is unconstitutional for a member of the Senate to make an effort---as Cruz did by attending a private House meeting, to control the House and its business.
The constitution specifies a bicameral legislature whose chambers (Senate and House) are INDEPENDENT of each other. For a member of one chamber to attempt to intercede into the business of the other chamber is not only unconstitutional, it is unprecedented.
If you watched REPUBLICAN members of Congress---House and Senate, commenting on Mr Cruz and the Tea Party after the vote, it was clear that they understood the points made above AND that they were not at all happy with what had happened.
LET ME STRESS AGAIN: The fact that the meeting was secretive or off-site (not at the Capitol) is NOT the point. The point---the source of the problem and the unconstitutionality, is a member of the Senate attempting to engage with, intervene in, influence the House is unconstitutional and unprecedented.
I am sure that if Mr Reid had done the same thing, you'd be all over it and claiming that Reid had violated the sanctity of the bicameral legislature; that Mr Reid was engaging in an unconstitutional attempt to usurp the independence of the House, etc.
Whether you like it or not and whether you can admit it or not, Cruz was out of line.
Well you'd be hard put to find anyone happy with Cruz at the moment.
It is not unconstitutional or criminal or anything for members of Congress to meet and you're statement about him trying to control being the catalyst to make it so is based on no fact. I've looked through the statements, no one present has said a word about him trying to take control.
I think with his own statements Cruz proves it was just the opposite. He isn't happy about the deal, but he did not interfere. Kind of un-Cruz like to me.
I mean, really, if they wanted some "secret" meeting they aren't going to have it in a public place frequented by staffers and members of Congress. It is the usual far left rag making something out of nothing. A meeting out in the open at a public place concerns me much less (as it should you) than all the closed door secret meetings of Reid, Pelosi and this President.
Sassy: You are still in denial. It's not about secret meetings. As mbuggieh stated, it is unconstitutional for members of opposite houses of congress to meet to try to influence the other side on issues. Cruz is a senator and he met with members of the house to discuss shutdown strategy. Read for yourself.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/politi … 898805.php
I have been following this "unconstitutional" meeting conversation and am a bit flustered that I cannot find the evidence that the constitution clearly prohibits it.
I read your link, but from the conversation it does not seem like anyone is disputing that the meeting took place.
I searched Constitution references, but was unable to find the sections that so clearly outlined the unconstitutionality of what you and mbuggerish are accusing Cruz of doing.
So for the sake of argument - say Cruz was trying to influence House members - Perhaps one of you could direct me to your source that gives you such certainty that any such action would be illegal or unconstitutional.
Now be fair - there doesn't seem to be any evidence that Cruz attempted to bribe or blackmail any House members - so where in the constitution does it say his actions were/are prohibited?
So they get a deal, everyone got the pork they wanted, everyone goes back to work; the Chinese immediately reduce our credit rating. Tell me who won.
peoplepower - do some research. There were multiple meetings of Reid, Pelosi and members of both chambers of Congress. It is NOT unconstitutional to you or mbuggieh apparently unless the GOP does it. They meet all the time and anyone who believes otherwise is foolish.
There is nothing in the Constitution that states they cannot have meetings.
"This morning, a very senior contact within the House GOP informed me that Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Harry Reid (D-NV) met at length last night to put together the House/Senate conference report on the “stimulus” package. Only Democratic conference committee members were informed of the meeting and permitted to attend."
"House Democrats huddled Wednesday night with White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to talk about the continuing resolution and Obamacare.
The two of you have this mindset that everything is evil if the GOP does it yet when given evidence that the Democrats have and are doing the exact same thing, you ignore it. Complete denial. You ignore factual evidence put before you and continue the same already proven wrong argument.
I think we need to assume that you will simply not accept what we are saying.
But, let me reiterate:
We are NOT saying that meeting in public or in secret is in any way a violation of the constitution.
We are NOT saying that the constitution says that Congress cannot have meetings.
What we are saying is that the constitution makes VERY clear (and precedent has long-established) what is correct and proper and process, protocol, and procedure in terms of WHO is a member of each chamber of the legislature and makes very clear the rules and procedures of each chamber.
And what is true---again whether you will or can understand it or not, is that the constitution does NOT allow for the power of one chamber to creep into the other; does not allow a member of the Senate to try to influence---by attending a meeting, any member of the House.
If the Founders wanted a unicameral legislature---and some did, there would be NO Senate and NO House with very specific requirements for office holding and with very specific duties and functions.
Why can't you accept that Cruz---a SENATOR, attempting to influence the HOUSE---of which he is not a member, was a misstep?
And why do you insist on claiming that we are saying that closed door meetings are wrong and unconstitutional when we are not saying that at all?
I just don't get it.
Hello mbuggerieh, sorry to butt in, but....
There doesn't seem to be any evidence or accusations that Cruz tried to bribe, blackmail, or coerce the House members actions.
So are you saying that any attempt to influence by means of persuasion, strategy planning, or even expressions of support are strictly expressed as prohibited in the constitution?
I posed a similar reply to peoplepower because I have been following this conversation but have been unable to find the constitutional prohibitions you so clearly describe. You know the "...VERY clear (and precedent has long-established) what is correct and proper and process, protocol, and procedure in terms of WHO is a member of each chamber of the legislature and makes very clear the rules and procedures of each chamber. part of your comment.
If you could direct me to the sections you are referring to it would be very helpful. I am surprised that I haven't heard more about the illegality of his actions - since he has been quite the news focus of late.
The reason I haven't replied is because I have been doing the research to validate if it really was unconstitutional for Cruz to meet with the house members to talk strategy. I have read the rules for both the chambers and found nothing. I watched the Scarborough video. It was abbreviated. I read Article 1 of the constitution...nothing. I'm somewhat disappointed. If someone can shed some light on this, I'm sure we would all appreciated it.
I am not surprised. I also researched the topic, very thoroughly, before I posed the question. I was trying to politely make the point that even though we are all capable of having an opinion, one ceases to have any validity when statements are falsely declared as documented facts.
When I feel strongly, but am not positive, I try to always use qualifiers like; I think, or I believe. And when my facts are proven wrong, I don't have a problem with saying, "Oops!" I always welcome the opportunity to learn.
Which seems similar to what your response is saying. Well done! Now if we can just get Mbuggereih to chime in.
And the Democrats did that numerous times during 2009 & 2010 about the Healthcare Law. Mostly in secret behind closed doors. I have posted examples of such meetings. And they just did it again in September of this year. I posted that as well.
What YOU will not accept is that you are here crying foul on the GOP for doing what the Democrats have been doing for years. And make no mistake, I'm sure that the GOP has had other such meetings over the years as well.
If it is so very unconstitutional for Cruz to meet with House members, in a public place out in the open, it is equally, if not more so, unconstitutional for Reid to meet with House Democrats behind closed doors.
And I get it completely. You have a blind spot.
Oh the evil GOP did this and it's wrong! But when it's pointed out that Reid did the exact same thing, your eyes gloss over and you can't read it apparently.
Sassy: You lost, but you also won. The GOP backed down, but only temporarily for the short term. The question is are they going to do the same thing again when this agreement expires around the first of next year or have they learned their lesson? Each time they do this, they cause instability in our economy and our credibility is lessened in the world. The dollar is the reference currency for the world to trade on. The more times they do this, the greater the chance for a world wide monetary crisis.
As someone explained we use a democratic process to govern, but we are a republic as a sovereign nation. That means that in an election of a president, the majority rules. If the minority doesn't like what the majority has voted for, they can change it by proper democratic process, not by holding the country hostage until they get their way.
I confess that the partisan politics exhibited by the onlookers of this fiasco (you and I) are extremely confusing and confounding.
The GOP provided a budget, as tasked, to operate the country. That budget may have been illegal (are they not required to budget all funds necessary for legal obligations of government?) and was certainly far outside the scope of the intent of the laws enacted concerning the budgetary process, but the money was available for all other functions.
So who refused to spend that money and operate the government? It wasn't the GOP that voted in the funds..and it wasn't the GOP that "cause[d] instability in our economy and our credibility is lessened in the world" - that came from the folks refusing the spend the allocated funds.
Why the partisanship? Are you that tied to a party that intentionally and with malice took the food from peoples mouths to prove a point? Our entire legislature, from Obama to the most green representative, carry the blame for this disgusting example of political posturing.
Wilderness: The GOP did not approve the Continuing Resolution (CR) sent to them from the Senate. The CR would allow us to pay our bills from the previous fiscal year and increase the debt limit for the next fiscal year. The GOP didn't provide any funding. They had a list of demands that included killing ACA and installing the Ryan Plan which were both voted down when Obama was elected.
They then said we are not going to approve the CR until our demands met. They knew the demands would not be met and the strategy was to wait for the budget to expire and then shut the government down. And that takes you back to my previous comment. And in your last paragraph, you sound as partisan as I am. You think the democrats took the food from the peoples mouths! And I believe the shutdown was planned months in advance by big moneyed interests backing the Tea Party.
Forget the CR requested by the Senate. Budgetary bills originate in the House, not the Senate and the House has no responsibility or duty to approve any such bill provided by them.
My understand is that the house provided funding through at least 14 budget bills - the senate refused to consider them because they did not include Obamacare. Now you can spin that however you want, you can ignore it and you can complain that the house did not rubberstamp what the senate wanted, but the fact is the house DID provide funds to run the country. And the senate refused to spend them.
Yeah, the Senate is actually who closed the government. Because the House refused to fund Obamacare. The whole scenario was undoubtedly planned long ago (no-funding of Obamacare, that is), but that doesn't change the facts of what happened.
Wilderness: Here is the entire list of demands in aggregate from the time they started demanding until the end. http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show … emand-list
Not interested. What the GOP demanded to produce funding for Obamacare has nothing to do with anything.
How about the funding bills approved in the House and sent to the Senate? The funding bills for the rest of government? That certainly has something to do with the subject of shutting down government.
I searched for the 10 funding bills approved by the house and sent to the senate, but I couldn't find anything. Maybe you can find them. I'm curious to know what they are. I think Reid's objection to them is they funded the government on a piece meal basis instead of all at once.
That is my understanding, and fits with what I've heard elsewhere as well (although I understood there were more than 10). Piecemeal or not, those bills funded the government; they were not approved by the senate as the country was held hostage instead, for Obamacare funding.
Those bills were a pathetic excuse at statesmanship; they were a political ploy to remove blame for actions by the GOP that were, plainly put, wrong. It does not absolve the senate from playing the same power game, though, and that one was the one hurting the people.
It all depends on if the Democrats actually compromise and do what they've been promising since the GOP took the House. Stop increasing spending by trillions & trillions and make some real spending cuts. I think (though I'm not positive) that both sides also want the taxes on medical devices repealed or at least delayed.
No the majority doesn't "rule". We do not have a ruling class. We use a democratic process to elect representatives to our government. Wilderness has already explained all this. The President is not a tie-breaker other than his right to veto, which would require 2/3 to override such. Our government is not set up with any "ruling" class. It is the very reason it requires BOTH chambers of Congress to enact laws. No one rules the other. The Dems will have to actually compromise and stop demanding it all their way or yes, we'll be right back here in a few months time.
"Article I of the Constitution states "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives." The House and Senate are equal partners in the legislative process—legislation cannot be enacted without the consent of both chambers"
Straight from the Constitution of the United States. When you have a split Congress, there is no majority. You'll note "equal partners". So no, the GOP is not a minority.
I posted them elsewhere on this very forum. Here is the source where you can see them all from Head Start to Veteran Affairs. I told you this earlier but you just keep sticking your head in the sand. The Senate had the power to reopen the Government at any time they so chose.
Hello Peoplepower73, thank you for this. Unfortunately, most people believe what the want, no matter what.
I read the article and will re-read it.
Aunt Jimi has a hub that explains Obamacare clearly. I hope that you will read it.
Thank you for this.
Your friend Shyron.
Thank you "peoplepower73". Finally facts and reason---and a civics lesson in the process!
Finally a voice of reason. I believe most of the comments so far are from people who didn't even read the article, they just emotionally jumped on what I said in the introduction to the forum. I can tell from the tone of their comments.
I am rather appalled, as someone who deals with facts and evidence in my work, as to the level of disinformation, misinformation, and willful refusal to deal with the facts and evidence---and perhaps even reality, that permeates much of the Hubpages discussion not only about the current government shut-down, but also about the current administration and its policies.
It is rather entirely perplexing to me.
This was a rather disturbing article. I probably could've guessed the Republicans would try something like this, considering how they also came up with the "starve the beast" strategy.
Republicans could just get out of the way and let us learn from the school of hard knocks: Let China and Russia try to take us
... and then we will have a real enemy to fight.
A horrible thought, I know.
Socialism will NOT take root here. I'd rather spend the next 20 years fighting in the streets and demonstrating that Leftists are not built for direct confrontation. Not following this, so any death threats I'm about to get for daring to defy libbies will have to go right to my inbox. I use them as material.
Lol, I'd like to see a Tea Party activist spend even 20 minutes in the streets fighting for something. Of course, that would require a Tea Party activist to actually think for him or herself.
lmao Funny because it is the far left liberals who are always the ones afraid of fighting and want to take away everyone's guns.
I'd like to see anyone from the left grow a brain and stop being spoon fed from the biased mainstream media.
Because, you do realize, that the entire Tea Party thing is a product of MSNBC and not factual at all right? Not saying the Tea Party members aren't all in on the proposal, just that it isn't a case of everyone just bowing to the Tea Party.
They are just their current scapegoats and helps them make the GOP look like it is fractured in some fashion. If they were so very fractured, they'd have completely caved by now. In fact, probably they wouldn't have attempted it in the first place.
Can you create an argument that doesn't rely on talking points?
Progressives don't want to take your precious guns away. All we want is for some sort of responsible gun policy to be passed.
Well I could create one infers that everyone of a certain mindset lacks any intelligence like you're comment above if that would make you feel better.
You will note the following words in my statement "far left liberals" which would not be ALL liberals and you can use the word "progressive" all you like, it does not apply.
Bigoted, biased, willfully ignorant. An attempt to lure in the uninformed with fraud and deceit and provoke them to rage. That is the most favorable thing that could be said of this writing.
Some of the details of the compromise reached in the Senate have been disclosed. My favorite from CNN:
"Kentucky kickback?: $2.2 billion. That's the amount in additional cash authorized for a project that involved a dam and decades-old locks on a river that flows through Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's home state of Kentucky. Sounds kinda fishy, but a Democratic senate aid and a Republican senator say it's on the level. The aide tells CNN that McConnell didn't push for the project to be included. And Sen. Lamar Alexander, who's a key figure on the committee that oversees what water projects get what money, says he and another senator asked for the cash. He tells CNN's Chris Frates the new money -- which more than triples the original $775 million -- will save the federal government many millions because contracts won't be canceled due to work stoppages. Still, the Senate Conservatives Fund calls the money a Kentucky Kickback."
Personally, I'm not sure why it was included in this particular Bill but I do know the WH has been requesting money for this project for quite awhile. It has been ongoing for 2 decades or better now. When Pelosi says a member of the GOP did nothing wrong, you know they're clean. She'd call them dirty if they sneezed the wrong way.
Even if it is a kickback of sorts, it's not like the Democrats didn't hand them out like Christmas candy to get the needed votes to pass Obamacare.
Democrats and the WH are both backing up McConnell that this wasn't a kickback. First thing they've agreed upon in a long time lol
Bigoted, biased, willfully ignorant
by Mike Russo3 years ago
In your opinion, what has the republican congress done to create or pass legislation since Obama has been president?
by zzron4 years ago
Maybe the word hate is a little strong. So why do people dislike President Obama and the way he is running the country? Are you an Obama fan? Yes, no, what is your opinion of Obama and his policies?
by LucidDreams3 years ago
I am not saying ALL Republicans are, I am just wondering why anyone would actually stay with a party that is clearly not on the same page as most of America? Most (not all) but most who are die hard right Republicans...
by Grace Marguerite Williams2 years ago
Obama indicated in his promissory speeches that he would improve America? However, he has done nothing of the kind, in fact, he has made America much worse since his takeover in the White House. Do you think that...
by Don W3 years ago
I get the feeling the nightmare scenario for Republicans would be that Obamacare turns out to be a raging success, and goes down as one of the most courageous, enlightened pieces of legislation in the country's...
by Judy Specht17 months ago
The government shuts down every Friday and remains shut until Monday morning. It shuts down for holidays. The House and Senate shut down for long vacations and the country carries on. Is a government...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.