• 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!

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

If not, the Republicans would have had to bend over to the will of the Democrats..

In May of this year, Cantor admitted he had everything he wanted from Paul Ryan's budget..
Which two Repubs do we now see all the time??
Cantor and Ryan..
Both of whom had their wings clipped by the KOCH bros letter.
 
Democrats have no idea what the rules will be from one day to the next until Cantor/cancer decides.

The Rules Committee determines the Rules for each bill as it's brought up. The Democancers did the same to the Republicant's (you know, until now, we've had a pretty civil discussion, so let's not use terms like this to describe each other or others like Cantor).

Look at the link I posted above and see how the Rules Committee actually works.
 
According to a poster on this thread who hides his name, it is a 'poor choice' for a person if they have a 'pre-existing condition'.

Interesting, when I got my first job with benefits in California I had a pre-exisitng condition. However, CA did not allow the group plans to consider pre-exisiting conditions. I got the same coverage everyone else on that group plan got, no exclusions.
 
In May of this year, Cantor admitted he had everything he wanted from Paul Ryan's budget..
Which two Repubs do we now see all the time??
Cantor and Ryan..
Both of whom had their wings clipped by the KOCH bros letter.

Dude... The Koch brothers???

We're discussing the Rules Committee. Nice try at a derailment though...:applaud
 
I can understand your feelings expressed and even agree with them somewhat (if stripped of the obvious bias). However, you as a libertarian should know, not the place of the federal government to do so. Safety nets are constitutionally speaking a state thing.

What "obvious bias" was there in what I posted?

Re: the bold, yes and no.
 
In May of this year, Cantor admitted he had everything he wanted from Paul Ryan's budget..
Which two Repubs do we now see all the time??
Cantor and Ryan..
Both of whom had their wings clipped by the KOCH bros letter.

And that means nothing to the discussion at hand. Take your Koch bros thing to the conspiracy forum where it belongs.
 
Yup. Pretty much. If not, the Republicans would have had to bend over to the will of the Democrats. If the roles had been reversed, the Democrats would have done the same. Do not think otherwise.

i really don't see how letting the senate's version of the C.R come up for a vote would be seen as a defeat for the republican party, especially since i have heard the argumement from republican leadership that the votes are not there for a clean C.R.

the republicans have the majority in the house after all, so the senate version would have been voted down. or is there another reason why the senate version has not made it to the floor for a vote?
 
Interesting, when I got my first job with benefits in California I had a pre-exisitng condition. However, CA did not allow the group plans to consider pre-exisiting conditions. I got the same coverage everyone else on that group plan got, no exclusions.

And that's the way ALL group plans work. The only preexisting condition exclusion came into play when a person DID NOT have a job or insurance through their employer and wanted insurance individually.
 
1. Even if, in the long run, it's cheaper to help provide for those in need rather than pay after-the-fact via emergency room (read: free) health care, added crime (and the associated costs that go along with it), and things of that nature?

2. And that's what really gives me the red ass. I don't see how anyone can look at the fallout of the economic collapse and claim (or at the very least imply) that every person who may need a hand up is simply someone who "made poor choices." In millions of cases, those choices were made for them.

I'm all for doing what can be done to get rid of fraud in the safety net, and I think we need to pair benefits with more robust job training and/or public works programs.

Government entitlement programs are not a recent phenomena. The war on poverty has existed for about fifty years, and the producers are losing. There has been relatively little change in the poverty rate since in began and all we, as a nation, have to show for it is $17T of debt, which is the approximate cost of the "war"...
 
What "obvious bias" was there in what I posted?

Re: the bold, yes and no.

The business implying that folks who believe others do make poor choices that result in their not having a personal safety net are against a hand up for those who fall upon temporary hard times. I think most of those folks are just fine with a hand up, but against a hand out. Your assumptions add the obvious bias. And it's not a libertarian bias at all.

Again, libertarians are not at all for federal safety nets because they are nowhere authorized in the US constitution.
 
And that's the way ALL group plans work. The only preexisting condition exclusion came into play when a person DID NOT have a job or insurance through their employer and wanted insurance individually.

Well then that puts the death to that little pro-Obamacare meme.
 
The business implying that folks who believe others do make poor choices that result in their not having a personal safety net are against a hand up for those who fall upon temporary hard times. I think most of those folks are just fine with a hand up, but against a hand out. Your assumptions add the obvious bias. And it's not a libertarian bias at all.

Again, libertarians are not at all for federal safety nets because they are nowhere authorized in the US constitution.

i guess some people refuse to accept the implacations of the ruling in Mcculloch V Maryland
 
The rules committee ignored the promises Boehner made to Reid and the POTUS--Presnt Moment Awareness..
It is a matter of recorded fact that Cantor began his destroy--Obama meetings on election night of 2008 with 8 other congressguns.
The Rules Committee determines the Rules for each bill as it's brought up. The Democancers did the same to the Republicant's (you know, until now, we've had a pretty civil discussion, so let's not use terms like this to describe each other or others like Cantor).

Look at the link I posted above and see how the Rules Committee actually works.
 
The rules committee ignored the promises Boehner made to Reid and the POTUS--Presnt Moment Awareness..
It is a matter of recorded fact that Cantor began his destroy--Obama meetings on election night of 2008 with 8 other congressguns.

I would say you're full of ****, alas that's against the rules, but I would like for you to produce a transcript of this alleged meeting...
 
Some believe progress--ive T. Roosevelt began the giving of hand-outs,
when all he started out to do was to eliminate the Gilded age phenomenon of 9-YO miners,
with missing toes and fingers.
 
i guess some people refuse to accept the implacations of the ruling in Mcculloch V Maryland

Nope, safety nets are not even an implied power of congress in the US Constitution. But then you're not arguing your point with a libertarian as I was. A libertarian would indeed disagree with the ruling.
 
Some believe progress--ive T. Roosevelt began the giving of hand-outs,
when all he started out to do was to eliminate the Gilded age phenomenon of 9-YO miners,
with missing toes and fingers.

you are not exactly making a convincing argument.
 
The rules committee ignored the promises Boehner made to Reid and the POTUS--Presnt Moment Awareness..
It is a matter of recorded fact that Cantor began his destroy--Obama meetings on election night of 2008 with 8 other congressguns.

So? Dems began their destroy Bush meeting on election night of 2000.
 
Nope, safety nets are not even an implied power of congress in the US Constitution. But then you're not arguing your point with a libertarian as I was. A libertarian would indeed disagree with the ruling.

then i guess we will have to disagree on our positions about Supreme court justice John Marshall.

but i digress
 
You already said it and your ........ is noted..
Once again, Lord AP has spoken and ordered a link to the obviously known..
Good to see Kamakazie Kruz back out today at the Values Voter Summit.
I would say you're full of ****, but that's against the rules, but I would like for you to produce a transcript of this alleged meeting...
 
i really don't see how letting the senate's version of the C.R come up for a vote would be seen as a defeat for the republican party, especially since i have heard the argumement from republican leadership that the votes are not there for a clean C.R.

That's a reasonable question. The answer is, that the Democrats control both the Senate and the White House. The President has Veto power, and the Senate Majority Leader has the same power that we're discussing here, so the Republicans have to use what ever leverage they can, to get their priorities advanced. If the Republicans passed a bill in the House cutting spending, balancing the budget, and or reducing debt, the Senate could and probably would kill the bill. If by some stretch of my imagination the Senate also passed the bill, the President could and probably would Veto the bill. The Republicans do not have the votes to override a Presidential Veto.

So... The Republicans have to FORCE the Senate and the President to negotiate and come to SOME agreement on the issues that the Republicans want addressed.

In the first instance, they first used government spending (the CR, since a budget hasn't been passed by the Senate in years). The Tea Party faction went, IMHO, way beyond reasonable by demanding full repeal of ObamaCare. But after that, the bills sent over (like the one year delay on the Individual Mandate) were reasonable compromises. The President went on National television and stated in no uncertain terms that he would not negotiate, although every President before him has negotiated on every CR that was ever passed. The Republicans did as the Congress has done for hundreds of years, and passed specific legislation to fund parts of the government, one after another, and the Senate killed each bill, or Senator Reid refused to bring it to a vote.

In the second instance, we have the Debt Limit. This is where, IMHO, the Republicans should have made their stand in the first place and left the CR alone.

If the Republicans vote to open the government, and raise the Debt Limit, they have no leverage and damn sure no guarantee, that the Democrats would ever agree to anything. In fact, I would bet a years salary that if they did, the Democrats would meet with the Republicans, but not agree to any damn thing at all.

the republicans have the majority in the house after all, so the senate version would have been voted down. or is there another reason why the senate version has not made it to the floor for a vote?

As I stated above, if the Republicans pass the CR for a year, they loose all leverage to get compromise from the Democrats. The Democrats will have no reason, what so ever, to agree to anything.

Plus, all spending bills (appropriation) have to originate in the House. They do not HAVE to take up any appropriations bills that come back from the Senate before going to "Conference" with the Senate. The Republicans offered to go to Conference and the Democrats refused.

Like I said before, good question.
 
The 'bait-and-switch' lies of Boehner in late September..
Are you going along just to get along, appeasing the saboteurs??
What has that gotten Obama in his 57 moths??
He was immediately blamed for losing 2.2 million jobs in his 1st 3 months.
i guess some people refuse to accept the implacations of the ruling in Mcculloch V Maryland
 
You already said it and your ........ is noted..
Once again, Lord AP has spoken and ordered a link to the obviously known..
Good to see Kamakazie Kruz back out today at the Values Voter Summit.

Hey, you're the one throwing out unsubstantiated allegations. Don't blame the questioner...
 
Rules committee throws out Rogers from Appropriations and abrogates Boehner's promise..Still there..
Rules ruling leads to Treasury Bill conundrum this past Tuesday which led to the KOCH brothers letter to Congressional Repubs.
Dude... The Koch brothers???

We're discussing the Rules Committee. Nice try at a derailment though...:applaud
 
Calling that one ubsubstantiated is like Cruz questioning who is being polled in the polls..
It is certainly an ugly partisan sabotage to swallow but I would own up to it..
Imagine the public handstands Repubs would be doing if polls were reversed??
Like they did on Oct. 1st and a Values Voter Summit today.
Hey, you're the one throwing out unsubstantiated allegations. Don't blame the questioner...
 
Back
Top Bottom