• 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!

If House Passes a Continuing Res w/o o'care?

They are not proposing to burn down the village. They are proposing to have the village move on with out the new shinny toy it can't afford. Who then is responsible for the burn down? Why do you choose only the one you disagree with if that one says fund the village - just not the toy?


roughdraft274 said:
Burning down the village because you didn't get your way isn't "standing by your principles".
Click to expand...
 
CalGun said:
Then who is being moronic if it is the president that will never capitulate? Why must the Republicans capitulate and not obama?
Click to expand...
Because he is president. If Romney had won in 2012, there would be a public mandate for repeal. But he didn't. We are stuck with Obamacare until enough people who oppose it get into positions of political power. Win the Senate in 2014 and the presidency in 2016 and you can throw the whole bill into the toilet.
 
However this ignores that enough people won elections in the house to do just that. While of course they could cancel the whole thing with wins in the senate and white house in future elections they have no obligation to "just go along" with what they disagree with today. I'm doubtful they will, but I am hopeful they will refuse to fund it. They do have that right - they are under no obligation to "just go along" any more than obama is under any obligation to accept their funding of the govt without obasmacare. The question is who gets the blame and is it correct to apply blame on one side or another? Why does the media get to apply blame and not the people?


Fletch said:
Because he is president. If Romney had won in 2012, there would be a public mandate for repeal. But he didn't. We are stuck with Obamacare until enough people who oppose it get into positions of political power. Win the Senate in 2014 and the presidency in 2016 and you can throw the whole bill into the toilet.
Click to expand...
 
CalGun said:
They are not proposing to burn down the village. They are proposing to have the village move on with out the new shinny toy it can't afford. Who then is responsible for the burn down? Why do you choose only the one you disagree with if that one says fund the village - just not the toy?
Click to expand...

All other budget resolutions have been passed without any such provisions. If they get the votes to block Obamacare then they should do so, but they shouldn't use underhanded and careless tactics that put the country in terrible positions.
 
Not true at all. They passed a continuing resolution in the summer/fall of 2011 (I think it was) that allowed the govt to continue with provisions for deficit reduction. In that effort obama said we'd make cuts called "sequesters" if a committee didn't work out their differences and then managed to use his lame stream media to blame the sequester on the House Republicans. So what you wrote is patently false in suggesting budget resolutions; at least one has been passed with provisions so they can do so again if they want too.


roughdraft274 said:
All other budget resolutions have been passed without any such provisions. If they get the votes to block Obamacare then they should do so, but they shouldn't use underhanded and careless tactics that put the country in terrible positions.
Click to expand...
 
roughdraft274 said:
All other budget resolutions have been passed without any such provisions. If they get the votes to block Obamacare then they should do so, but they shouldn't use underhanded and careless tactics that put the country in terrible positions.
Click to expand...

It is Obama and the liberals who are using underhanded and careless tactics, not the Republicans (who are behaving like responsible adults in the matter).
 
Diogenes said:
It is Obama and the liberals who are using underhanded and careless tactics, not the Republicans (who are behaving like responsible adults in the matter).
Click to expand...

Sure, we'll see who agrees with you. My guess is that if the Republicans go down this route they lose the house and Dems get 60 seats in the senate back.
 
CalGun said:
Not true at all. They passed a continuing resolution in the summer/fall of 2011 (I think it was) that allowed the govt to continue with provisions for deficit reduction. In that effort obama said we'd make cuts called "sequesters" if a committee didn't work out their differences and then managed to use his lame stream media to blame the sequester on the House Republicans. So what you wrote is patently false in suggesting budget resolutions; at least one has been passed with provisions so they can do so again if they want too.
Click to expand...

Deficit reduction is a tad bit different then lopping off an entire program just because you don't like it don't ya think? If Republicans just pointed to some waste in a program and they'd only pass a budget that eliminated that waste, I'd support them on it. But you don't use these tactics to eliminate programs just because you're still butthurt about it getting passed in the first place.

If they want to get rid of ObamaCare, then run on that platform, get 60 senators and retain the house and win the next presidential election. That's what the Dems had to do to pass it.

What these stupid republicans don't get is that they are opening up a can of worms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom