Government Shutdown

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

So is this still going on? Not even paying attention to it. I guess it give the news media something to do. meh.

Yep, still going on. Almost cancelled the Army Navy game in Annapolis though. But priorities being what they are in America, money was found to let the game go on!


This is all political nonsense and needless from both side.

[Tchocky]

That argument makes no sense, AVG.


In terms of the popular vote, there were over a million more votes for House Democrats than Republicans.

Also there was a presidential election between one guy who promised to repeal the ACA on his first day, and someone who would fight to keep it. And we all remember the inauguration of President Romney.

Point is - you can't take one electoral outcome and ignore the others.

It's especially hypocritical to ask if Democratic politicians have forgotten the election - while you're ignoring large chunks of it yourself.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

That argument makes no sense, AVG.


In terms of the popular vote, there were over a million more votes for House Democrats than Republicans.

Also there was a presidential election between one guy who promised to repeal the ACA on his first day, and someone who would fight to keep it. And we all remember the inauguration of President Romney.

Point is - you can't take one electoral outcome and ignore the others.

It's especially hypocritical to ask if Democratic politicians have forgotten the election - while you're ignoring large chunks of it yourself.

Sure.......

Approximately 82.5 million people voted.[2] The Democratic Party suffered massive defeats in many national and state level elections, with many seats switching to Republican Party control. The Republican Party gained 63 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, recapturing the majority, and making it the largest seat change since 1948 and the largest for any midterm election since the 1938 midterm elections. The Republicans gained six seats in the U.S. Senate, expanding its minority, and also gained 680 seats in state legislative races,[3][4][5] to break the previous majority record of 628 set by Democrats in the post-Watergate elections of 1974.[5] This left Republicans in control of 25 state legislatures, compared to the 15 still controlled by Democrats. After the election, Republicans took control of 29 of the 50 State Governorships.

Voters were also motivated for and against the sweeping reforms of the health care system enacted by Democrats in 2010, as well as concerns over tax rates and record deficits

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...lections,_2010


Repubs were put in to stop irresponsible spending among other things. The 2010 elections were not about a Presidential position. Fact is, the Repubs are in there for a reason. I can ignore the others.

[Tchocky]

Pardon me for what may be a stupid question - but wasn't the best time to fight the ACA when it was up for a vote?

Or voting for the guy who said he'd repeal it?

I'm just saying these were better days to fight. Not now, when the President won't sign a repeal, the Senate won't pass it, and 3/4 of the country opposes shutting down the government in order to hack at the ACA?

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Pardon me for what may be a stupid question - but wasn't the best time to fight the ACA when it was up for a vote?

Or voting for the guy who said he'd repeal it?

I'm just saying these were better days to fight. Not now, when the President won't sign a repeal, the Senate won't pass it, and 3/4 of the country opposes shutting down the government in order to hack at the ACA?

If I'm not mistaken the GOP has been asking for a repeal for quite sometime(42 times). The Dems have closed ears then and still today.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

If I'm not mistaken the GOP has been asking for a repeal for quite sometime(42 times). The Dems have closed ears then and still today.

That's not his point. If the american voters really wanted to repeal ACA, they could have voted in Romney, voted in a GOP majority in the Senate, even voted in a majority for the GOP house (1.7 million more votes for Dem candidates for the House than GOP candidates in '12), etc., etc...

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

That's not his point. If the american voters really wanted to repeal ACA, they could have voted in Romney, voted in a GOP majority in the Senate, even voted in a majority for the GOP house (1.7 million more votes for Dem candidates for the House than GOP candidates in '12), etc., etc...

they already had a majority in the house of rep since the 2010 elections where republicans were voted in and set a record for the largest republican victory EVER RECORDED since the civil war and in the last election they did vote in a bigger majority for the GOP house but it meant nothing since they didn't get enough seats in the senate to have any say in what bills get voted on there.

the American voters do want to repeal Obamacare but they cant because they are lazy and greedy and want get a government check every month and if they vote republican they might not get that free government check every month and have to go find a job.

I see people every day laughing because they get paid not to work.

if you lose your job and are depressed you get full disability because of depression and if you get a job you lose your disability so they sit home and watch soap operas all day collecting disability and food stamps.

caring for people is one thing and helping those in need is great but you need to make sure those getting help really need it.

this dependency on a government check means they have an incentive not to change the system so the free gravy train never stops.

the republicans allowed government handouts to get too far out of hand and the dems were laughing as they knew it meant no one would ever vote against free money so they would never lose power.

for these reasons and those reasons alone we have obamacare today

oh and everyone should stop calling it ACA because that's just a lie there is nothing that is affordable in the affordable care act. its not affordable, everyone will be denied all but the most basic care, and the government doesn't care if you live or die as in the case of that poor little girl Cathleen sevilias denied a lung transplant because the cost analysis chart said it didn't have good odds of success vs the cost risk.

thank god private donors found a way to pay for it to save the girls life that's your example of the oft denied government death panels already at work

[Oberon]

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

That's not his point. If the american voters really wanted to repeal ACA, they could have voted in Romney, voted in a GOP majority in the Senate, even voted in a majority for the GOP house (1.7 million more votes for Dem candidates for the House than GOP candidates in '12), etc., etc...

Obamacare is the exact replica of Romnycare sir. Kind of hard to win over votes stating you will repeal Obamacare when you have Romnycare in your own state.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Pardon me for what may be a stupid question - but wasn't the best time to fight the ACA when it was up for a vote?

Or voting for the guy who said he'd repeal it?

I'm just saying these were better days to fight. Not now, when the President won't sign a repeal, the Senate won't pass it, and 3/4 of the country opposes shutting down the government in order to hack at the ACA?

Not a stupid question at all.

Congress has two completely separate but related authorities when it comes to legislation.

1. Congress drafts, debates, writes, and approves legislation.
2. Congress appropriates funding needed to enact the legislation.

The success of the first does not mandate the second.

Congress is well within their rights to approve the AHA but not fund it. Not saying that is right or even a good thing to do, but it is legal according to the rules of congress.

Remember Kerry with his voting for something before he voted against it? This was what he was talking about. A senator can vote for a law and then vote against funding it. Not all that uncommon.

Since the GOP can't get rid of the ACA as that would require a vote from both houses, they are attacking it from a funding standpoint. All funding bills must originate from the House (article 7 section 1).

The executive branch can not spend any money that has not been appropriated by the congress. Only congress has the authority to borrow money or to spend money it does not have.

"best time to fight the ACA when it was up for a vote?"

Yes it is, and yes it was fought. It was the 111th congress that signed the ACA into law. That was during a time when the democratic party held majorities in both the Senate and the House. The GOP was simply outvoted.

Such is life when you have a representative form of government.

Now that the GOP has a majority in the House, they are enacting their political revenge.

This is what happens when there is a switch in majorities in congress. The new party in power proclaims that what the former party in power did was wrong and they feel they have a right to change things. Happens all the time.

Fortunately/unfortunately, the house controls the spending bills.

It is important to remember that the president can only ask congress to consider things, the president never tells congress.

We can emotionally accuse congress of not doing their job. But in actuality, they are doing exactly their job.

Some may agree with the house, some may disagree with the house. But the basis of our representative government is that the majority of the representatives elected by the people, get to decide.

The fact of the matter is that the GOP has a majority in the House.

My biggest gripe is that the Speaker is preventing a bill to be voted upon. I think it is scandalous that one person can prevent a vote -- normally the cornerstone of democracy. I wish that the House rules would allow the members to override a vote infringement action on the part of the speaker.

But the house makes the house rules. And since both parties take advantage of the rules, neither side is eager to change the rules.

Originally Posted by Platapus

My biggest gripe is that the Speaker is preventing a bill to be voted upon. I think it is scandalous that one person can prevent a vote -- normally the cornerstone of democracy. I wish that the House rules would allow the members to override a vote infringement action on the part of the speaker.

But the house makes the house rules. And since both parties take advantage of the rules, neither side is eager to change the rules.

you cant single out the house for that, harry reid in the senate has refused to bring upwards of 200 bills passed by the house and sent to the senate floor for a vote. yes around 50 of those are repealing obamacare but it should still be voted on and passed or thrown out but not left in limbo forever. they also, in violation of the constitution, haven't produced a budget for the government in over 4 years and that is the only reason they must do these continuing resolutions to operate off the last budget passed during obamas first year where spending levels rose a record 500% over the record setting new spending in bush's last year with the war and all the bailouts.

thew house does the same thing as well so that should change but not just for one side


there should be a mandated time (call it 2-3 months so they have time for all their silly commities to change it) that any bill brought to the floor in the house floor or the senate floor MUST be brought to a full vote no matter how much the majority party doesn't like or want it to be voted on. that would be better government and politicians would have to record their vote on issues instead of avoiding them.

[Mr Quatro]

Originally Posted by Webster

you cant single out the house for that, harry reid in the senate has refused to bring upwards of 200 bills passed by the house and sent to the senate floor for a vote. yes around 50 of those are repealing obamacare but it should still be voted on and passed or thrown out but not left in limbo forever. they also, in violation of the constitution, haven't produced a budget for the government in over 4 years and that is the only reason they must do these continuing resolutions to operate off the last budget passed during obamas first year where spending levels rose a record 500% over the record setting new spending in bush's last year with the war and all the bailouts.

thew house does the same thing as well so that should change but not just for one side


there should be a mandated time (call it 2-3 months so they have time for all their silly commities to change it) that any bill brought to the floor in the house floor or the senate floor MUST be brought to a full vote no matter how much the majority party doesn't like or want it to be voted on. that would be better government and politicians would have to record their vote on issues instead of avoiding them.

Your argument sounds good Webster I don't have time to look these items up, so I hope your right.

What is demanding a full vote mean? I thought the Senate controlled by Harry Reid, democrat majority leader from Nevada and a Latter Day Saint, passed a bill that just a simple majority of votes now wins, but does your post mean a full vote of every senator would be required?

[Stealhead]

This is real America to me.

Not the crap on 24 hour news or in DC.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Webster

you cant single out the house for that, harry reid in the senate has refused to bring upwards of 200 bills passed by the house and sent to the senate floor for a vote. yes around 50 of those are repealing obamacare but it should still be voted on and passed or thrown out but not left in limbo forever. they also, in violation of the constitution, haven't produced a budget for the government in over 4 years and that is the only reason they must do these continuing resolutions to operate off the last budget passed during obamas first year where spending levels rose a record 500% over the record setting new spending in bush's last year with the war and all the bailouts.

thew house does the same thing as well so that should change but not just for one side


there should be a mandated time (call it 2-3 months so they have time for all their silly commities to change it) that any bill brought to the floor in the house floor or the senate floor MUST be brought to a full vote no matter how much the majority party doesn't like or want it to be voted on. that would be better government and politicians would have to record their vote on issues instead of avoiding them.

I don't know, man of these votes the outcomes are well known such as the numerous Obamacare bills. It's really a waste of time, except it exposes each voter. Right now all of this is political posturing for the next elections, nothing more.

[Oberon]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24530026