• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Blame the Senate for not Considering Spending Bills

In which case, they amend it, and send it back and then go to conference. Thats how it works.
It was my understanding that the Senate took the ACA language out of the House Budget bill
and sent it back to the House----which refused to vote on it --- leading to the shutdown.
 
Pssst: he got his way when elected representatives passed the ACA. It's the law. The adolescent conservatives lost. So this is about adolescent conservatives who lost punishing America because they lost.

:spin: :alert Lies utter lies.
 
Obama already got his way--the ACA is LAW, upheld by the SCOTUS and implemented today..... He ran on the ACA and he won......where ya been, guy?

He pushed it through via parliamentary schemes. The country does not agree with ACA nor have they ever.
 
It was my understanding that the Senate took the ACA language out of the House Budget bill
and sent it back to the House----which refused to vote on it --- leading to the shutdown.

No, the budget bill has nothing to do with the shut down. The shutdown is caused by not passing appropriations. The House passed 4 appropriations bills 3 months ago, and the Senate has yet to take them up.
 
The Senate has done everything that it was supposed to do....All they want from the House is a clean continuing resolution to fund the government, and they are not getting it... Why should they sit around all night and day knowing that the House is sending them another ****ed up bill that the House already knows will not be accepted......just for talking points for the base....
So what you're saying is that every Republican, Libertarian, Independent, etc should just vote for whatever the Democrats want and this will solve the whole problem? Sorry, that's not how it works. Its called a representative republic. And in a representative republic, the representatives vote the way their constituents elected them to. In this case, many of the Reps voting against funding the ACA were elected on that very platform. It shouldn't be a surprise that they are attempting to fulfill their campaign promises.
 
So what you're saying is that every Republican, Libertarian, Independent, etc should just vote for whatever the Democrats want and this will solve the whole problem? Sorry, that's not how it works. Its called a representative republic. And in a representative republic, the representatives vote the way their constituents elected them to. In this case, many of the Reps voting against funding the ACA were elected on that very platform. It shouldn't be a surprise that they are attempting to fulfill their campaign promises.

Not to mention the Budget Act requires congress to pass budgets and spending bills, not blanket appropriations. Republicans were elected to control spending. By refusing to keep passing CRs they are doing so.
 
He pushed it through via parliamentary schemes. The country does not agree with ACA nor have they ever.



Parliamentary schemes? :roll: Are we in Great Britain now? No, the bill passed in the House, passed in the Senate and was signed into Law by the President.. The country does agree with ACA....The President ran his election on affordable healthcare and he won....
 
Parliamentary schemes? :roll: Are we in Great Britain now? No, the bill passed in the House, passed in the Senate and was signed into Law by the President.. The country does agree with ACA....The President ran his election on affordable healthcare and he won....

If the country agreed, there would be a Dem House...
 
Gerrymandering says that you are wrong...

Do you have an excuse for everything? The flip of the House in 2010 was done with the same districts that existed on 2006 and 2008 when Dems had control of the House...
 
Parliamentary schemes? :roll: Are we in Great Britain now? No, the bill passed in the House, passed in the Senate and was signed into Law by the President.. The country does agree with ACA....The President ran his election on affordable healthcare and he won....

Greetings, Juanita. :2wave:

You are correct in saying the bill passed in the House on a majority vote, which is what the law requires... but on Democrat votes only since no Republican voted for it; ditto for the Senate; and signed into law by a Democrat President. So it appears that only half of the Country agrees with Obamacare, or ACA. If everyone agreed with it, we would not be in government shutdown mode now, IMO. Sad, but true. :peace:
 
Do you have an excuse for everything? The flip of the House in 2010 was done with the same districts that existed on 2006 and 2008 when Dems had control of the House...



I try.:mrgreen: You may be right, but I'll have to verify that....
 
Greetings, Juanita. :2wave:

You are correct in saying the bill passed in the House on a majority vote, which is what the law requires... but on Democrat votes only since no Republican voted for it; ditto for the Senate; and signed into law by a Democrat President. So it appears that only half of the Country agrees with Obamacare, or ACA. If everyone agreed with it, we would not be in government shutdown mode now, IMO. Sad, but true. :peace:



Hello Polgara :2wave: I know, I know, but it is so unfair to the millions who need it and are trying to sign up as we speak.. It's going to be a bloody fight to the end tho.....:)
 
Hello Polgara :2wave: I know, I know, but it is so unfair to the millions who need it and are trying to sign up as we speak.. It's going to be a bloody fight to the end tho.....:)

:agree: Maybe if we had hard-working farmers and housewives with a bunch of kids as our legislators in DC, instead of lawyers, things would run smooth for a change? I can dream.... :peace:
 
It was my understanding that the Senate took the ACA language out of the House Budget bill
and sent it back to the House----which refused to vote on it --- leading to the shutdown.

Yeah, so much for the compromising and cooperation the Democrats were demanding, which really just means that the Republicans cave to the demands of Democrats.

No, the shut down is now owned by the Democrats are, amazingly, call passing individual appropriations bills (you know - how we funded the fed govt for 200 years) banana republicanism...
 
Yeah, so much for the compromising and cooperation the Democrats were demanding, which really just means that the Republicans cave to the demands of Democrats.

No, the shut down is now owned by the Democrats are, amazingly, call passing individual appropriations bills (you know - how we funded the fed govt for 200 years) banana republicanism...
Negative. The House is supposed to pass a Budget. They can quibble on the level of spending and such.
To pass a Budget with provisions is irresponsible and could lead to a scenario of,
"We'll pass a Budget with the provison that:
a. funding for Planned Parenthood is cut
b. funding for NASA is increased by x%
c. funding provided for a new casino in Pittsburgh
etc etc"
All of those battles should be argued and passed on their own.
Try going to your boss and say, "I'll do my job if I get free coffee and pastries each morning"
See how long that lasts.
The House job is to originate a Budget ---- so do it!! (whew!)
 
Therein lies the issue - One side requests changes, the other denies any changes. Your preference then is to support "no changes". The party of "no" in this case are Democrats.

Considering that the Republicans have been the party of "no" since January of 2009, I ain't shedding any tears over the Democrats finally growing a spine.
 
Yeah, so much for the compromising and cooperation the Democrats were demanding, which really just means that the Republicans cave to the demands of Democrats.

No, the shut down is now owned by the Democrats are, amazingly, call passing individual appropriations bills (you know - how we funded the fed govt for 200 years) banana republicanism...

The House's responsibility is to fund the government, not just the parts that they like.
 
Considering that the Republicans have been the party of "no" since January of 2009, I ain't shedding any tears over the Democrats finally growing a spine.

Given your statement, saying "no" = spine. Somehow I don't see you praising Republicans for having a spine since 2009.
 
Given your statement, saying "no" = spine. Somehow I don't see you praising Republicans for having a spine since 2009.

When it's intransigence for intransigence's sake, no, I'm not. McConnell's statement from five years ago tells me all I need to know about WHY the GOP said "no" so often. I'm sure you remember the "one-term president" sound bite.
 
Parliamentary schemes? :roll: Are we in Great Britain now? No, the bill passed in the House, passed in the Senate and was signed into Law by the President.. The country does agree with ACA....The President ran his election on affordable healthcare and he won....

Polls say otherwise and always have.
 
Status of Appropriations Legislation for Fiscal Year 2014 - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

Every appropriations bill for 2014 passed the House 4 months ago. The various Senate committees even reviewed them. But Reid wont bring them up on the floor for a vote or amendments. So how can the shutdown (read: end of FY2013) be anything but the fault of the Senate, who wont do their job?
The House puts things like these into the Budget resolutions then whines that "the Democrats won't negotiate."

H.J.RES.59 contains:
(Sec. 142) Amends the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) to extend the requirement for participation in an American Health Benefit Exchange (a state health insurance exchange created by PPACA) to the President, Vice-President, executive branch political appointees, and employees of congressional committees and leadership offices of Congress (currently, this requirement applies to Members of Congress and their staff). Prohibits any government contribution to or subsidy for the health insurance coverage of such officials and employees.

and Budget Resolution
HConRes25
SConRes8 contains:
Title IV: Reserve Funds - (Sec. 401) Authorizes a certain reserve fund to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the health care-related provisions of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (2010 health care laws).

Whether the Republicans got out maneuvered, snookered, outfoxed, whatever
---the law passed and was upheld. Get over it.
The House can fix it separately if they want, and how they have tried, but pass a workable Budget.
 
When it's intransigence for intransigence's sake, no, I'm not. McConnell's statement from five years ago tells me all I need to know about WHY the GOP said "no" so often. I'm sure you remember the "one-term president" sound bite.

That's partisan ideology - Republicans are intransigence for intransigence sake because you don't agree with their views - however you do agree with Democrats view, therefore it's not intransigence. Part of understanding fully an issue is to understand the opposition and why they are saying no - understanding does not equal agreement. What you're basically saying is Republicans had no legitimate reason to say no it was just to be obstructionist which was the liberal talking point and propaganda measures in the media for years. It's unfortunate to see that more swallow that pablum, but I guess propaganda continue to work it's magic.
 
That's partisan ideology - Republicans are intransigence for intransigence sake because you don't agree with their views - however you do agree with Democrats view, therefore it's not intransigence. Part of understanding fully an issue is to understand the opposition and why they are saying no - understanding does not equal agreement. What you're basically saying is Republicans had no legitimate reason to say no it was just to be obstructionist which was the liberal talking point and propaganda measures in the media for years. It's unfortunate to see that more swallow that pablum, but I guess propaganda continue to work it's magic.

Well, you can set your watch my some of those magic words.

When Republicans started opposing things they previously supported, simply because the words were coming out of Obama's mouth, THAT'S intransigence for intransigence's sake.
 
Well, you can set your watch my some of those magic words.

When Republicans started opposing things they previously supported, simply because the words were coming out of Obama's mouth, THAT'S intransigence for intransigence's sake.

can you give me some examples? I recall talking points about how republicans favored obama care when it was romney care, but I hope you aren't using that nonsense as your examples.
 
Back
Top Bottom