• 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

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.

NIMBY... My friend... WTF are you going on about here???

Boehner never agreed to anything. The record shows that. A Boehner staffer told a Reid staffer that they may be able to agree, but nothing went beyond that. In fact, Reid had tabled the original bill because they didn't come to an agreement, and then after the shut down, when he brought it back out, he started this "vote on a clean CR" crap.

A "destroy Obama" meeting??? Really???

It's called politics. Each side wants to defeat the other side. Do you not think that there were "destroy Bush" meetings???

Of course there were.

Let's get back to the OP topic, or I'll have to not respond to you in this thread (like that would matter).
 
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.

If there is any firsthand knowledge available, post it, otherwise stick to the topic...
 
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.



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.

i don't know how to address each of your points individually using the quote system on here. so i will try a different way.

1st. the mutual distrust between the house and senate over the issues runs as deep as the Mariana's trench.

the Republican's in congress, mainly the diehard conservitives, are obsessed with not passing anything that has the supposed taint of liberalism, and that includes anything obama wants accomplished as policy. Obama has refused to negotiate over the affordable care act because he spent his entire first term and relection supporting and pushing for it, he and his party have paid a big price for passing this legislation, especially in 2010, but obama will not allow all that effort and political torture to pass obamacare be in vain. to yield on his signature achievement, the thing he worked so hard to get passed, would be a capitulation.

the reason why harry reid and the senate refused to go into conference over the C.R, is because they consider keeping the government open and raising the debt ceilings are essential tasks of our government, and they don't believe in making demands in exchange for doing one's job.
 
i don't know how to address each of your points individually using the quote system on here. so i will try a different way.

1st. the mutual distrust between the house and senate over the issues runs as deep as the Mariana's trench.

the Republican's in congress, mainly the diehard conservitives, are obsessed with not passing anything that has the supposed taint of liberalism, and that includes anything obama wants accomplished as policy. Obama has refused to negotiate over the affordable care act because he spent his entire first term and relection supporting and pushing for it, he and his party have paid a big price for passing this legislation, especially in 2010, but obama will not allow all that effort and political torture to pass obamacare be in vain. to yield on his signature achievement, the thing he worked so hard to get passed, would be a capitulation.

I agree the divide is deep and Obama doesn't want to compromise because all he has for a legacy is this shiny though bad, penny.

the reason why harry reid and the senate refused to go into conference over the C.R, is because they consider keeping the government open and raising the debt ceilings are essential tasks of our government, and they don't believe in making demands in exchange for doing one's job.

You're idealizing Harry way too much. If the shoe were on the other foot Reid would be right there asserting the dems right to shut things down until they had concessions. He's a hard fighting political animal, not a paragon looking after the people.
 
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 refuse to engage in the same partisan nonsense that makes people so cynical about politics.

i believe in the purpose of government and that it can serve greater purposes rather then be a breeding ground for comedic punchlines.
 
i refuse to engage in the same partisan nonsense that makes people so cynical about politics.

i believe in the purpose of government and that it can serve greater purposes rather then be a breeding ground for comedic punchlines.

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

No, strict constructionalists are against federal safety nets due to dubious unconstitutionality. There's nothing in the alleged tenets of small-L libertarianism that decrees "not explicitly stated in the first 10 amendments = no can do."
 
i refuse to engage in the same partisan nonsense that makes people so cynical about politics.

i believe in the purpose of government and that it can serve greater purposes rather then be a breeding ground for comedic punchlines.

So your ending you're never coming back ?
 
i don't know how to address each of your points individually using the quote system on here. so i will try a different way.

1st. the mutual distrust between the house and senate over the issues runs as deep as the Mariana's trench.

the Republican's in congress, mainly the diehard conservitives, are obsessed with not passing anything that has the supposed taint of liberalism, and that includes anything obama wants accomplished as policy. Obama has refused to negotiate over the affordable care act because he spent his entire first term and relection supporting and pushing for it, he and his party have paid a big price for passing this legislation, especially in 2010, but obama will not allow all that effort and political torture to pass obamacare be in vain. to yield on his signature achievement, the thing he worked so hard to get passed, would be a capitulation.

You got it.

the reason why harry reid and the senate refused to go into conference over the C.R, is because they consider keeping the government open and raising the debt ceilings are essential tasks of our government, and they don't believe in making demands in exchange for doing one's job.

That's just a political talking point for the Democrats right now. Harry Reid has no interest in opening the government, as evidenced by his refusal to allow the bills passed by the House to pass. He and the President have a strategy, just as the Republicans do, that they are using the shutdown as leverage as well. If Reid had allowed his members to vote their conscious, he would loose the news media support of the "Big, Bad Shutdown", which has only shut down 13% of the federal government.

And that is why there a few of the bills that he has not let come to a vote, even to table the bill. He has a few Democrats that have told him that they would not vote to table, and that they bill would pass. He couldn't let that happen, so he's holding the bills and not letting them come to the floor.
 
No, strict constructionalists are against federal safety nets due to dubious unconstitutionality. There's nothing in the alleged tenets of small-L libertarianism that decrees "not explicitly stated in the first 10 amendments = no can do."

No one is against a safety net, only the hammock currently wanted and provided...
 
i refuse to engage in the same partisan nonsense that makes people so cynical about politics.

i believe in the purpose of government and that it can serve greater purposes rather then be a breeding ground for comedic punchlines.

The rule change mentioned came late Sept. 30th, after Senate Dems charged Boehner with 'bait ad Switch' charges that have led to such anxst between the Boehner/Reid staffs..Parliamentary games are the way it is if Repubs do it, as I read in this thread..We saw the opposite talk from Repubs when Dems tried the 'discharge petition', another parliamentary move..No comedy, just fact about parliamentary moves.
 
No, strict constructionalists are against federal safety nets due to dubious unconstitutionality. There's nothing in the alleged tenets of small-L libertarianism that decrees "not explicitly stated in the first 10 amendments = no can do."

I think you need to read this again, if you haven't already - Platform | Libertarian Party
 
No one is against a safety net, only the hammock currently wanted and provided...

Well obviously the welfare system goes further than it should and encourages a cycle of dependence, which the job training/public works programs I mentioned before are meant to alleviate.
 
I think you need to read this again, if you haven't already - Platform | Libertarian Party

There's a vast difference between small-L libertarianism (especially of the more leftward variety) and the platform of the Libertarian Party. I find the big-L Libertarian Party to be mostly just as bad of corporate suckups as the Ds and Rs.
 
There's a vast difference between small-L libertarianism (especially of the more leftward variety) and the platform of the Libertarian Party. I find the big-L Libertarian Party to be mostly just as bad of corporate suckups as the Ds and Rs.

IOW, another hijacking of terminology... Got it...
 
There's a vast difference between small-L libertarianism (especially of the more leftward variety) and the platform of the Libertarian Party.

Then I'm sorry, all this time I thought you self-identified as a libertarian (a member or follower of the libertarian platform). Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with you saying you have a libertarian persuasion. I'll stop asking you questions about libertarianism.
 
That's just a political talking point for the Democrats right now..

With all due respect to the thread, my post will state facts related to your post.
Cantor admitted publicly in May he got 100% (not 98%) of what he wanted in the Ryan budget..
All the while Cantor stopped the House frrom going to conference 18 times before August..
 
Then I'm sorry, all this time I thought you self-identified as a libertarian (a member or follower of the libertarian platform). Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with you saying you have a libertarian persuasion. I'll stop asking you questions about libertarianism.

No need. I just do not ascribe to the all of the Big-L Libertarian Party platform. That's no different than a small-C conservative not ascribing to all of the Conservative Party platform. And again, I mostly chose that label because there isn't one that 100% suits me, and it's closer than any other.
 
With all due respect to the thread, my post will state facts related to your post.
Cantor admitted publicly in May he got 100% (not 98%) of what he wanted in the Ryan budget..
All the while Cantor stopped the House frrom going to conference 18 times before August..

Ryan has met with Patty Murray numerous times, the latest was this week. Going to conference is only done after the chairs come to a general agreement on the terms. Murray and Ryan never got there.

Cantor had nothing to do with it.

Read the Federal Register, or the US House Budget Committee and US Senate Budget Committee minutes rather than listing to talking points from politicians.

Facts have a funny way of being distorted during times like these, especially when politicians need a ten second sound bite.
 
No need. I just do not ascribe to the all of the Big-L Libertarian Party platform. That's no different than a small-C conservative not ascribing to all of the Conservative Party platform. And again, I mostly chose that label because there isn't one that 100% suits me, and it's closer than any other.

Yeah, that's why I chose "Other".

I look at it this way - government makes decisions for a very large group. Even an ideal decision negatively impacts a small percentage, unnaturally enriches a small percentage and serves the large range inbetween. But this particular safety net (Obamacare) is not even close to that ideal. In order to serve the small percentage that doesn't have coverage, it negatively impacts a large percentage (those who have coverage already) and unnaturally enriches a small percentage (primarily the insurance companies). That's the wrong way to go for a safety net.
 
Yeah, that's why I chose "Other".

I look at it this way - government makes decisions for a very large group. Even an ideal decision negatively impacts a small percentage, unnaturally enriches a small percentage and serves the large range inbetween. But this particular safety net (Obamacare) is not even close to that ideal. In order to serve the small percentage that doesn't have coverage, it negatively impacts a large percentage (those who have coverage already) and unnaturally enriches a small percentage (primarily the insurance companies). That's the wrong way to go for a safety net.

I agree in the sense that the end result of the ACA -- it being a giant kickback to the insurance companies -- isn't ideal.

I may just switch to "other," to prevent the confusion from earlier in the thread.
 
Cantor is my talking point, noone else's..
Did you miss him saying he got everything he wanted in the Ryan budget in May??
Or how he led the charade with 8 empty Dem. seats??
Those from the RED side would say they would be offended with such incorrect cheap shots.
Ryan has met with Patty Murray numerous times, the latest was this week. Going to conference is only done after the chairs come to a general agreement on the terms. Murray and Ryan never got there.

Cantor had nothing to do with it.

Read the Federal Register, or the US House Budget Committee and US Senate Budget Committee minutes rather than listing to talking points from politicians.

Facts have a funny way of being distorted during times like these, especially when politicians need a ten second sound bite.
 
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.
I just wonder what alternate universe you have been inhabiting for your 'entire life' because you just described DEM tactics for the past 60 years.

EVERYTHING the DEMs have done is based on a lie. They are truthful about NOTHING. The latest lie is Obamacare - remember the "if you like your Doctor you can keep him" and the "Costs will go down" descriptions of the ACA, just to mention a few?

WHICH party was more TRUTHFUL about the consequences of Obamacare? The conservatives predicted EXACTLY what has happened. Yet you say that for your 'entire life' the conservatives have lied to you???

ridiculous

I challenge you to produce a conservative lie. Just one will suffice to back up your stupid statement.

And you seem to be worried about a monstrous 'rule change' to prevent the Senate from steamrolling the House. Were you worried that the entire ACA is a lie engineered by the Senate?

Since the ACA is a tax, don't you agree that constitutionally all tax bills must originate in the House? Then how did the Senate get to author the ACA?? DO you care??

I'll tell you. The Senate took some House bill that was on a completely different topic - nothing about health care at all - and the Senate wrote an amendment to the House bill (so that it would have the House designation in its title) that completely deleted EVERYTHING that was in the original House bill and ADDED the ACA verbage to it.

How's that for playing fast and loose with the 'rules' ??? DO you approve of that?? Not only that, they did a bunch of backroom maneuvering that prevented the amended bill from being subject to a filibuster, and passed it in the dark of night with a simple majority - not ONE GOP vote for it. NEVER has a bill of such impact on the US economy been passed in such a back room fashion - NEVER IN HISTORY.

This bill was NOT passed with honest debate. It was passed in the House without the vote of a single GOP. It was passed without anyone 'knowing what was in it.' Nancy Pelosi made the single most stupid utterance of any politician in history - "we have to pass it to see what is in it." Well, they passed it and now we know what's in it.

Except the GOP DID know what was in it and tried to educate everyone, but the PRESIDENT lied his donkey off telling everyone numerous LIES about it. The GOP was right - the DEMs were wrong.

THEN, to get it past the SCOTUS, the President's men lied again. After campaigning that it was NOT a tax (because not even the DEMs would have supported it if it were called a tax) they proceeded to argue that it WAS constitutionals because of the 'taxing authority' of the congress. The CJ of the SCOTUS said that it was 'bad law' but didn't want to get into political realms and since he could see that it was a tax he voted for it being constitutional - to the ridicule of every constitutional authority everywhere.

SO - you have a BAD LAW - passed based on LIEs - by unethical means in the Senate - and then when it came time to IMPLEMENT it, the POTUS doesn't want to enact the law he signed.

The POTUS is enacting an entirely DIFFERENT law than what was passed - he is picking and choosing which provisions to implement and which to void. Additionally he is giving WAIVERS to the law for all his supporters - the big unions and the big corporations.

SO - the House is not stopping the bad law that was passed. They are tying to stop an UNCONSTITUTIONAL variation of the bad law by refusing to FUND it.

The HOUSE can fund any part of the government they want - and they have voted to fund EVERYTHING except for the bad law as unconstitutionally altered by the POTUS.

This entire CR thing is NOT the way appropriations are SUPPOSED to work - the House is SUPPOSED to pass funding for items piecemeal, just as they are doing.

The House in ENTIRELY within its constitutional rights to tend to the purse of the nation. That is their PRIME responsibility.

It is the POTUS who wants the 'shutdown' - and he wants it to use as a political weapon in the next election.

This POS Obama doesn't give a whit about the harm he is doing to the nation - all that matters to him is being able to get a message thru the media that the GOP is causing all the harm.

The POTUS and the DEMs are LYING - the conservatives are telling the TRUTH.

So - you are about as wrong as you can be
 
Back
Top Bottom