The Bob's

[Langston Hughes]

[FiredMotorCompany]

Use the power granted to them to vote "FOR" or "AGAINST" a bill presented.

 

And if it's a matter of causing a shutdown, the democrats could avoid it by passing the bill sent to them by the House.

 

This argument that the House can't "not" vote to fund a program that has been passed is stupid. Why have the power to vote if it's supposed to be automatic.

 

Politicians being politicians. And as a co-worker said, they're doing what they were elected for.

 

 

The democrats are trying to frame the shutdown as the republicans playing politics...unlike the Christmas eve ploy to pass the Obamacare bill using the 51 vote rule instead of the traditional 60/40 rule.

 

All the democrats have to do is pass a bill and all their "non-essential" employees can go back to work. But democrats would rather keep the shutdown and sequestration in place because they think they can paint the republicans as being unreasonable.

 

I actually think I like the "prioritization" of federal funding the republicans were offering. It exposes the wasteful and "non-essential" programs. And that is exactly why Harry Reid doesn't think he should help "one child".

[JScullin]

If the Republicans didn't tie the defunding of the ACA, a law that has now been approved by a Congress, Supreme Court, campaigned on twice and won, to a bill that would normally be passed w/out batting an eye the Government could open up right away.

 

They've voted over 40 times now to try and repeal, defund, ban, etc. They had a presidential candidate say they'd get rid of it and he lost. I don't know how much more of your tax payer money and time they can continue to waste on it.

[napfirst]

If the Republicans didn't tie the defunding of the ACA, a law that has now been approved by a Congress, Supreme Court, campaigned on twice and won, to a bill that would normally be passed w/out batting an eye the Government could open up right away.

 

They've voted over 40 times now to try and repeal, defund, ban, etc. They had a presidential candidate say they'd get rid of it and he lost. I don't know how much more of your tax payer money and time they can continue to waste on it.

The republicans are doing exactly what their constituency asked them to do.....most American people do not what obamacare

[Guest General Mattis]

Excuse me, but when was this an actual campaign issue?

 

It passed Congress with a sneaky Christmas Eve vote where they didn't use the 60/40 rule.

 

The Supreme Court ruled on a previous version of the Bill, which has been modified countless times

 

Furthermore, 70% of the voters did not vote to re-elect Obama. If you think the last election was about this policy, then it is plainly clear the American people don't want it.

 

But don't let facts get in the way of pushing your agenda. You want something for free, and you think this will give you that.

[twintornados]

The republicans are doing exactly what their constituency asked them to do....

And therein lies the problem for both parties...the oft used phrase of, "I am doing what my constituency asked me to do..." does NOT take into consideration of the opposing view of those in your constituency that DIDN"T vote for you....when you are elected, Republican or Democrat, you have an obligation to represent EVERYONE in your constituency, not just the ones that voted for you.

[JScullin]

Excuse me, but when was this an actual campaign issue?

 

It passed Congress with a sneaky Christmas Eve vote where they didn't use the 60/40 rule.

 

The Supreme Court ruled on a previous version of the Bill, which has been modified countless times

 

Furthermore, 70% of the voters did not vote to re-elect Obama. If you think the last election was about this policy, then it is plainly clear the American people don't want it.

 

But don't let facts get in the way of pushing your agenda. You want something for free, and you think this will give you that.

 

Romney said several times he'd eliminate the ACA day one if elected. People apparently didn't want that or he'd be in office.

 

It passed regardless.

 

They still ruled on the foundation of it.

 

He was still re-elected based on what the other guy was offering. Next time don't nominate a shit sandwich?

 

My agenda? I already live in Massachusetts so I've been under Romneycare for a while now and people haven't voted to get rid of that.

[RangerM]

My agenda? I already live in Massachusetts so I've been under Romneycare for a while now and people haven't voted to get rid of that.

Perhaps not, but the states are intended to be laboratories for these type of things.

 

I'm sure there are laws in my home state of NC that wouldn't fly in MA either; which is why they should not be forced on MA.

 

The original foundation (for the individual mandate) of Obamacare was the Commerce Clause. The SCOTUS ruled against that, but allowed it under Congress' ability to tax. This may seem like a minor distinction (to you), but I assure you it is not.

[RangerM]

If the Republicans didn't tie the defunding of the ACA, a law that has now been approved by a Congress, Supreme Court, campaigned on twice and won, to a bill that would normally be passed w/out batting an eye the Government could open up right away.

 

They've voted over 40 times now to try and repeal, defund, ban, etc. They had a presidential candidate say they'd get rid of it and he lost. I don't know how much more of your tax payer money and time they can continue to waste on it.

The ACA cannot be defunded wiithout passing another law, because the funding for it was passed in the original law.

 

Times change, and so do Congresses. The recent shutdown is small ball, since (for no other reason) the majority of peoples' lives have not been drastically altered by it. The mail is still delivered, and the SS checks are still going out.

[Guest General Mattis]

Romney said several times he'd eliminate the ACA day one if elected. People apparently didn't want that or he'd be in office.

 

 

Again, 70% of the population did not cast a vote for the guy who was this policy was named after. 70%. 70%.Did you see that; 70%

 

The popular vote was nearly split down the middle, even though as you people called Romney one of the worst candidates ever, and seem to think Obama has been the greatest President in the history of the country. The fact the popular was so close, and the overwhelming majority of the country did not cast a vote for Obama, is proof that if the election was about this policy, the people don't want it

 

Passing it through unconvetional means and not following the traditional process may get you the results you wanted, but it does not mean it should be consider legitamite. Nor is basing a ruling of a policy that has been changed. I could cite plenty of normal every day senarios that would point out the error in your thought process, but the fact you think this way proves you aren't interested in logical thinking

 

Next time vote for a guy based on his character, not his style. Then maybe the country wouldn't resemble a shit sandwich

[V8-X]

Next time vote for a guy based on his character, not his style. Then maybe the country wouldn't resemble a shit sandwich

While I'm not big on Obama, to say Romney has character is laughable.

 

Otherwise as for this thread, the problem is all these damn politicians. Too many want to blame one side or the other, left or right, conservative or liberals, Dems. or Reps. Truth of the matter, no matter how you look at it or whatever side of the fence you sit on, BOTH are at fault for our current state. And truly, it is we the people who are at fault. During recent elections, Congress was at an all time low approval rating, so what did we do? We the people re-elected then back into office and now they have an even lower approval rating.

 

I know people love to banter back and forth and blame one another for their parties faults, as it makes for good debate. Too bad most can't self reflect and see their sides faults are as much the cause of our situation as those they like to point the finger at.

 

Gotta love politics!

Edited October 3, 2013 by V8-X

[napfirst]

And therein lies the problem for both parties...the oft used phrase of, "I am doing what my constituency asked me to do..." does NOT take into consideration of the opposing view of those in your constituency that DIDN"T vote for you....when you are elected, Republican or Democrat, you have an obligation to represent EVERYONE in your constituency, not just the ones that voted for you.

Well let me ask you something...when a "constituent" calls or takes part in a poll related to obamacare how does a senator or rep. know if that person voted for him or not?.. maybe I could get them to pick some lotto numbers for me.....they normally react to what they hear in their districts.....

[napfirst]

Too bad most can't self reflect and see their sides faults are as much the cause of our situation as those they like to point the finger at.

 

Gotta love politics!

More finger pointing?...

[JScullin]

Again, 70% of the population did not cast a vote for the guy who was this policy was named after. 70%. 70%.Did you see that; 70%

 

The popular vote was nearly split down the middle, even though as you people called Romney one of the worst candidates ever, and seem to think Obama has been the greatest President in the history of the country. The fact the popular was so close, and the overwhelming majority of the country did not cast a vote for Obama, is proof that if the election was about this policy, the people don't want it

 

Passing it through unconvetional means and not following the traditional process may get you the results you wanted, but it does not mean it should be consider legitamite. Nor is basing a ruling of a policy that has been changed. I could cite plenty of normal every day senarios that would point out the error in your thought process, but the fact you think this way proves you aren't interested in logical thinking

 

Next time vote for a guy based on his character, not his style. Then maybe the country wouldn't resemble a shit sandwich

 

Ya. I saw your comment. And I'm sure a big part of that 50/50 split is because some of those people still believe he's a muslim socialist who wasn't born in America and is operating a sleeper cell to destroy the country from the inside. The same people who, when questioned, are against "Obamacare" but for the Affordable Care Act. A lot of misinformation and dirty politics were behind that.

 

As for assuming I voted for either in this past election or previous... don't know where you got that idea cause I didn't.

[V8-X]

More finger pointing?...

 

Yup! But I will point the finger at myself for my choices as I will at anyone else though, on any decision I made, right or wrong.

[NickF1011]

Two words:

 

Term limits.

[FiredMotorCompany]

If the Republicans didn't tie the defunding of the ACA, a law that has now been approved by a Congress, Supreme Court, campaigned on twice and won, to a bill that would normally be passed w/out batting an eye the Government could open up right away.

 

They've voted over 40 times now to try and repeal, defund, ban, etc. They had a presidential candidate say they'd get rid of it and he lost. I don't know how much more of your tax payer money and time they can continue to waste on it.

So much to address......

 

(My comments embedded within parentheses and bolded.)

 

 

If the Republicans didn't tie the defunding of the ACA, a law that has now been approved by a Congress (a previous congress, many members of which have been replaced due to their support for the bill), Supreme Court (Based on a prior version of the legislation, that has been substantially modified and waivers selectively granted), campaigned on twice and won(As a part of the campaign. The Obama campaign made many other points in their campaign, including character assassination of the opponent, which were essentially disproven-but the slander was complete), to a bill that would normally be passed w/out batting an eye(Any bill this far-reaching and catastrophic to full-time employment, taxation policy, government encroachment to the most personal decisions a person can make....should NEVER be passed easily, especially without ever reading the bill before passing it.) the Government could open up right away (As they could do today, if only those heartless-self-serving, pandering democrats would pass the House versions that had been offered. It takes both sides refusing to budge to create a log-jam. Even the President has stated he refused to negotiate, unless it's with Iran.).

 

 

Just accept the fact that the republicans were forced to use this procedure to have any effective voice in blocking a law they do not want. THAT'S WHAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO DO.

 

If the bill was SOOOOOOO great, it'd pass easily. As countless thousands of bills have previously.

 

Both sides have used the tools at hand to circumvent the opposing sides agenda. It's all part of the same game.

Edited October 3, 2013 by FiredMotorCompany

[Guest General Mattis]

Ya. I saw your comment. And I'm sure a big part of that 50/50 split is because some of those people still believe he's a muslim socialist who wasn't born in America and is operating a sleeper cell to destroy the country from the inside.

 

Yes, because none of you kept commenting on Romney being a tax cheat. Where is all that proof Harry Reid promised to provide?

 

Have a look around, the country is falling apart.

 

When a sports team fails to live up to it's ability, you change the coach. If the US wants to get better, it needs to do the same

[Guest General Mattis]

While I'm not big on Obama, to say Romney has character is laughable.

 

Maybe, maybe not. But he had a much better resume, which is what I was refering to. Being a failed community organizer did not prepare him to be a leader. And it's obvious the man has absolutly no leadership skills

[Langston Hughes]

Use the power granted to them to vote "FOR" or "AGAINST" a bill presented.

 

And if it's a matter of causing a shutdown, the democrats could avoid it by passing the bill sent to them by the House.

 

This argument that the House can't "not" vote to fund a program that has been passed is stupid. Why have the power to vote if it's supposed to be automatic.

 

Politicians being politicians. And as a co-worker said, they're doing what they were elected for.

 

 

The democrats are trying to frame the shutdown as the republicans playing politics...unlike the Christmas eve ploy to pass the Obamacare bill using the 51 vote rule instead of the traditional 60/40 rule.

 

All the democrats have to do is pass a bill and all their "non-essential" employees can go back to work. But democrats would rather keep the shutdown and sequestration in place because they think they can paint the republicans as being unreasonable.

 

I actually think I like the "prioritization" of federal funding the republicans were offering. It exposes the wasteful and "non-essential" programs. And that is exactly why Harry Reid doesn't think he should help "one child".

 

it is the Republicans playing politics. They do not have the votes to defund the ACA on it's own so they attach it as a amendment to a spending bill solely for the point of playing politics.

 

As for the prioritization, are the national parks and the monuments really the most important things? No they are the politically most appealing, but not the most important.

 

Noticed that Boehener didn't pony up for Head Start first, and other things that are more important than parks and monuments.

[Langston Hughes]

Excuse me, but when was this an actual campaign issue?

 

It passed Congress with a sneaky Christmas Eve vote where they didn't use the 60/40 rule.

 

The Supreme Court ruled on a previous version of the Bill, which has been modified countless times

 

Furthermore, 70% of the voters did not vote to re-elect Obama. If you think the last election was about this policy, then it is plainly clear the American people don't want it.

 

But don't let facts get in the way of pushing your agenda. You want something for free, and you think this will give you that.

 

You certainly don't let reality get in the way of your beliefs so why are you going off on others.

[BlackHorse]

 

Noticed that Boehener didn't pony up for Head Start first, and other things that are more important than parks and monuments.

 

 

Senator Reid, why wouldn't you want to authorize funds for children with cancer?

 

 

Reid ----- "Why would I want to do that?"

 

lol Yeah no playing politics or funding important things with him. No sir. lol

[Mark B. Morrow]

Use the power granted to them to vote "FOR" or "AGAINST" a bill presented.

 

And if it's a matter of causing a shutdown, the democrats could avoid it by passing the bill sent to them by the House.

 

This argument that the House can't "not" vote to fund a program that has been passed is stupid. Why have the power to vote if it's supposed to be automatic.

 

Politicians being politicians. And as a co-worker said, they're doing what they were elected for.

 

 

The democrats are trying to frame the shutdown as the republicans playing politics...unlike the Christmas eve ploy to pass the Obamacare bill using the 51 vote rule instead of the traditional 60/40 rule.

 

All the democrats have to do is pass a bill and all their "non-essential" employees can go back to work. But democrats would rather keep the shutdown and sequestration in place because they think they can paint the republicans as being unreasonable.

 

I actually think I like the "prioritization" of federal funding the republicans were offering. It exposes the wasteful and "non-essential" programs. And that is exactly why Harry Reid doesn't think he should help "one child".

The problem with your analysis is that the House knew that the Senate would not pass the defund/delay ACA Bills. The House also knew that it did not have the 2/3 neecessary to override a veto. Would you feel the same way if the Senate insisted on a Bill for universal backround checks that it knows won't pass the House? The 30-35 radical Republicans in the House engineered the shutdown with a push from Ted Cruz. They were not at all bashful in admitting that in the days before September 30. Many of them gave interviews defending what they were going to do. Now they want to pretend it wasn't their idea.

 

There are at least 22 Republicans who have publicly stated that they will vote for a clean Continuing Resolution Bill. Only 17 are needed to vote with the Democrats in the House to end the shut down but Speaker Boehner refuses to permit the vote citing the non-existant "Hastert Rule" that even former Speaker Hastert admits never stopped his House from calling votes. The GOP Radicals have no exit strategy from the corner they have painted themselves in to. Boehner gave away the power of the Speaker to a small group and he wants the President to join him.

 

The president cannot do so because the demands will never end. After the 6 weeks of the CR they will be back for more. The office of the President will be forever be held hostage.

[napfirst]

The problem with your analysis is that the House knew that the Senate would not pass the defund/delay ACA Bills. The House also knew that it did not have the 2/3 neecessary to override a veto. Would you feel the same way if the Senate insisted on a Bill for universal backround checks that it knows won't pass the House? The 30-35 radical Republicans in the House engineered the shutdown with a push from Ted Cruz. They were not at all bashful in admitting that in the days before September 30. Many of them gave interviews defending what they were going to do. Now they want to pretend it wasn't their idea.

 

There are at least 22 Republicans who have publicly stated that they will vote for a clean Continuing Resolution Bill. Only 17 are needed to vote with the Democrats in the House to end the shut down but Speaker Boehner refuses to permit the vote citing the non-existant "Hastert Rule" that even former Speaker Hastert admits never stopped his House from calling votes. The GOP Radicals have no exit strategy from the corner they have painted themselves in to. Boehner gave away the power of the Speaker to a small group and he wants the President to join him.

 

The president cannot do so because the demands will never end. After the 6 weeks of the CR they will be back for more. The office of the President will be forever be held hostage.

Are you referring to universal background checks for gun ownership....

[Mark B. Morrow]

 

Again, 70% of the population did not cast a vote for the guy who was this policy was named after. 70%. 70%.Did you see that; 70%

 

The popular vote was nearly split down the middle, even though as you people called Romney one of the worst candidates ever, and seem to think Obama has been the greatest President in the history of the country. The fact the popular was so close, and the overwhelming majority of the country did not cast a vote for Obama, is proof that if the election was about this policy, the people don't want it

 

Passing it through unconvetional means and not following the traditional process may get you the results you wanted, but it does not mean it should be consider legitamite. Nor is basing a ruling of a policy that has been changed. I could cite plenty of normal every day senarios that would point out the error in your thought process, but the fact you think this way proves you aren't interested in logical thinking

 

Next time vote for a guy based on his character, not his style. Then maybe the country wouldn't resemble a shit sandwich

Obama won by 5 million votes. The fact that some people didn't vote does not shed any light on whether or not those who did not vote supported him or the ACA. He won 52% of the votes that were cast. That is by the way a greater margin than W had in EITHER of his elections. Not to put too fine a point on it but the turnout in 2008 and 2012 was HIGHER than either 2000 or 2004.

 

In fact' the turnout in Obama's victories was higher than any election since 1968.

 

Turnout in U.S. Presidential Elections

 

1968 120,285 73,027 60.7%

1972 140,777 77,625 55.1%

1976 152,308 81,603 53.6%

1980 163,945 86,497 52.8%

1984 173,995 92,655 53.3%

1988 181,956 91,587 50.3%

1992 189,493 104,600 55.2%

1996 196,789 96,390 49.0%

2000 209,787 105,594 50.3%

2004 219,553 122,349 55.7%

2008 229,945 131,407 57.1%

2012 211,731 121,745 57.5%

Edited October 4, 2013 by Mark B. Morrow