The House GOP's Little Rule Change That Guaranteed A Shutdown

[Kobie]

No, there were 3 or 4 CRs that funded everything with conditions relating to Presidentcare...

Except for, you know, actually implementing the law. If there was a clean CR that funded everything without anymore delays and obstruction, it would be signed in 30 seconds.

I acknowledge that the ACA ain't perfect, but it's better than what we have (although states with GOP-led government are doing their damndest to make sure it can't be). My objection in this whole scenario is the use of goverment-as-hostage to prevent duly passed and SCOTUS-vetted law from taking effect. This sets a terrible precedent.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

Then that's not "funding the government," no matter how much the right wing liars claim it is. If I go out for a meal and pay for my beverage, my side dish and my salad, that's not paying for my meal, is it?

Not a good analogy. The negotiation would take place at the restaurant before any ordering took place...

 

[AlabamaPaul]

Except for, you know, actually implementing the law. If there was a clean CR that funded everything without anymore delays and obstruction, it would be signed in 30 seconds.

One has to pass the House first, and I'm not so sure you could expect 17 Repubs to cross their caucus...

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Have you stopped beating your wife?

I'm justifying nothing and your question is absurd framing in action.

first off i never mentioned anything about my personal life in this thread, so why bring it up.

secondly, i want to know why you are not bothered by the house republicans adding language to a rule that is meant to be available for members of both parties, a rule which allow's for any motion from any member to proceed if the house and senate are gridlocked, that only the house majority leader can decide what motions make it to the floor.

how is denying the house democrats the ability to propose a motion if both the senate and house are deadlocked justified? were republicans afraid that the democrats intended to motion for a vote on the senate's version of the continuing resolution, knowing that the senate version had enough votes to pass if it ever came to the floor for a vote?

 

[Kobie]

Yep, but if your main course is so bad you can't stomach it you don't pay for that part do you?

If I eat it, I do.

Given how much the right wing has consistently lied its fool ass off for my entire life, I don't take them or their sycophants at face value when they tell me what a horrible awful horrible disaster the ACA will be, and then use bogus, skewed, incomplete and/or sloppy statistics to "prove" that.

 

[Kobie]

were republicans afraid that the democrats intended to motion for a vote on the senate's version of the continuing resolution, knowing that the senate version had enough votes to pass if it ever came to the floor for a vote?

That is exactly why they did it.

 

[Kobie]

One has to pass the House first, and I'm not so sure you could expect 17 Repubs to cross their caucus...

I don't think there's any doubt you could. There's a reason Boehner won't allow a vote on a clean CR.

 

[clownboy]

If I eat it, I do.

Given how much the right wing has consistently lied its fool ass off for my entire life, I don't take them or their sycophants at face value when they tell me what a horrible awful horrible disaster the ACA will be, and then use bogus, skewed, incomplete and/or sloppy statistics to "prove" that.

Interesting, it isn't just the GOP saying it. How do your fellow libertarians come out on Obamacare?

 

[AlabamaPaul]

I don't think there's any doubt you could.

Well, we'll never know. The current majority is doing nothing more to stifle the minority than Pelosi as she made the model for oppressing the minority in the House...

 

[clownboy]

I don't think there's any doubt you could. There's a reason Boehner won't allow a vote on a clean CR.

CR stands for "Clean Resolution".

 

[Kobie]

CR stands for "Clean Resolution".

No it doesn't. It stands for "continuing resolution."

 

[Kobie]

Interesting, it isn't just the GOP saying it. How do your fellow libertarians come out on Obamacare?

Depends on the libertarian. The right-leaning Reason types are against it; the left-leaning types are generally against it (I don't care for it, particularly), but there's exceptions.

My personal streak of libertarianism is along the lines of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism#Steiner.E2.80.93Vallentyne_left-libertarianism

I don't like the idea of an individual mandate without a public option.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

No, there were 3 or 4 CRs that funded everything with conditions relating to Presidentcare...

and the senate rejected each one of them. and when the latest version of the CR was rejected by the senate, there was a rule that allowed for any member to make a motion to vote on the senates version of the continuing resolution. according to the house democrats, such a motion would have been considered "privileged" and entitled to a vote of the full house.

why did the republican house leadership insert language into the rule stating that such motions can only be offered by the house majority leader?

 

[clownboy]

first off i never mentioned anything about my personal life in this thread, so why bring it up.

OMG! Really? That was an often used example of the type of framing you used to torture the question as you did.

secondly, i want to know why you are not bothered by the house republicans adding language to a rule that is meant to be available for members of both parties, a rule which allow's for any motion from any member to proceed if the house and senate are gridlocked, that only the house majority leader can decide what motions make it to the floor.

how is denying the house democrats the ability to propose a motion if both the senate and house are deadlocked justified? were republicans afraid that the democrats intended to motion for a vote on the senate's version of the continuing resolution, knowing that the senate version had enough votes to pass if it ever came to the floor for a vote?

I'm not bothered because it's a rule change I would expect and I'm only surprised Pelosi didn't think of it first when she was speaker. It's justified because it gives the house majority sovereignty over the house rather than being controlled by the senate majority.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

and the senate rejected each one of them. and when the latest version of the CR was rejected by the senate, there was a rule that allowed for any member to make a motion to vote on the senates version of the continuing resolution. according to the house democrats, such a motion would have been considered "privileged" and entitled to a vote of the full house.

why did the republican house leadership insert language into the rule stating that such motions can only be offered by the house majority leader?

They learned how to control the rules from Pelosi during her four years of dictatorial control of the House and learned very well...

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Well, we'll never know. The current majority is doing nothing more to stifle the minority than Pelosi as she made the model for oppressing the minority in the House...

so much for the notion that the house of representives is the peoples house.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

so much for the notion that the house of representives is the peoples house.

The majority elected a Repub House majority to put some brakes on the Dems...

 

[clownboy]

Depends on the libertarian. The right-leaning Reason types are against it; the left-leaning types are generally against it (I don't care for it, particularly), but there's exceptions.

My personal streak of libertarianism is along the lines of this: Left-libertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't like the idea of an individual mandate without a public option.

Wow, it's been a while since I've explored libertarianism, but there's no way any part of Obamacare fits with their base philosophy. Has it really changed that much?

 

[clownboy]

so much for the notion that the house of representives is the peoples house.

Actually the rule keeps it the People's House and not the Senate's House.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

Wow, it's been a while since I've explored libertarianism, but there's no way any part of Obamacare fits with their base philosophy. Has it really changed that much?

Just the ones who need to hide as they have done so successfully under the Liberal label when the proper term would be Marxist...

 

[Unitedwestand13]

OMG! Really? That was an often used example of the type of framing you used to torture the question as you did.



I'm not bothered because it's a rule change I would expect and I'm only surprised Pelosi didn't think of it first when she was speaker. It's justified because it gives the house majority sovereignty over the house rather than being controlled by the senate majority.

no it gives power's to the house majority leader, a power that rightfully belongs to all members of the house, regardless of party.

and maybe pelosi did not think of this rule change because she knew it was wrong.

 

[clownboy]

no it gives power's to the house majority leader, a power that rightfully belongs to all members of the house, regardless of party.

and maybe pelosi did not think of this rule change because she knew it was wrong.

Wow, maybe you should bone up on how the house and senate work and the function of majority and minority leaders in each.

And the bit about Pelosi - funniest comment ever.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Piecemeal, and except of course for the part that they don't like.

GOP shutdown. Own it.

Piecemeal is not accurate, however, the normal order for passing a budget is to do so one department or program at a time. Sometimes, an omnibus bill is passed, but even those don't contain every single department or program.

That talking point by the Democrats is ridiculous, and aimed at those in our society that do not have clue how the budget process in the Congress actually works.

And BTW, BOTH parties own the shutdown now. Ted Cruz and the Tea Party crazies started it with attempting to kill Obamacare, but now the President and Harry Reid have bought full ownership and the blame for the shutdown continuing.

The House Republicans have attempted to open the government, or at least those programs and departments that negatively effect citizens by being shut down. Harry Reid has tabled (killed) each bill that came to the Senate from the House to reopen the government.

It's the President and Harry Reid that are extending the pain at this point.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

The majority elected a Repub House majority to put some brakes on the Dems...

this rule change give Eric cantor the power to decide what motions make it to the floor for a vote, it silences the house minority and denies it any ability of having a voice.

it's kind of like how people accuse harry reid for not allowing house bills to come to the floor for a vote. in my oppinion this is far worse because it denies the house minority from having a say in governing.

the founding fathers did not believe that the majority in the house can silence the minority from having a ability to make a motion in case the senate and house are deadlocked.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Wow, maybe you should bone up on how the house and senate work and the function of majority and minority leaders in each.

And the bit about Pelosi - funniest comment ever.

pelosi was speaker of the house, but that does not technically make her the house majority leader.

John boehner is speaker of the house, but Eric cantor is the house Majority leader.

Being speaker of the house is to be responsible for the leading the entire house of representives, not just the party you happen to belong to.