House Republicans can eat a Dick.

[BigMattTheHobo]

Us and Them by Pink Floyd

 

[chalupa]

I'm anything but an ordinary man.

 

[FenderBender]

This is basically the bottom line.


And we have to remember, the tea party has been anti government from the start.


Schumer is an ass, but his summation is correct here:

Many tea party members, including politicians, have spoken openly about shutting down government. This has been the plan all along. Obamacare just provided a convenient vehicle for it.

The GOP is acting childish. They're trying to kill a bill that has been upheld by the supreme court, upheld 40+ times in congress and supported enough to get Obama reelected by shutting down the government. The Dems have no reason to compromise on this because it's been upheld by every branch of our government. This is like saying, "sell me your house for $1 or I'll burn it down.". The homeowner has all the hand in this situation. The homeowner has no real incentive to negotiate unless he wants to give in to the threat. The same thing happened here. The Dems have no reason to negotiate because ACA has been challenged and upheld over and over and over, so the GOP came along and said, "give in or we'll burn down the house"

When you're in a position of power (as are the Dems with ACA surviving numerous challenges), it makes no sense to give in to threats. Sure, the GOP is using the shutdown as a negotiation tactic, but it seems completely ineffective and will lead to them losing more support. It's also a childish, short sighted approach and in the mean time, average Americans are being negatively impacted.


They need to move on and concentrate on winning elections. That's the only way they'll get it repealed. The tactic they're using will only hurt them.

The ACA represents the Democrats' leverage, and passage of CR is what the Democrats want. Blocking the CR is the Republicans' leverage and delaying the ACA is what the Republicans want.

Saying nothing about what public perception of this is, the issue is what each side wants and what each side will be able to get. Neither side is more/less legitimate in their attempt. House Republicans are not doing something they're not allowed to do. Same with Democrats. And they're both making the same argument. Democrats: "The shutdown will hurt us.", Republicans: "The ACA will hurt us."

(Is there a reason I'm no longer allowed to post links?)

 

[chalupa]

The ACA represents the Democrats' leverage, and passage of CR is what the Democrats want. Blocking the CR is the Republicans' leverage and delaying the ACA is what the Republicans want.

Saying nothing about what public perception of this is, the issue is what each side wants and what each side will be able to get. Neither side is more/less legitimate in their attempt. House Republicans are not doing something they're not allowed to do. Same with Democrats. And they're both making the same argument. Democrats: "The shutdown will hurt us.", Republicans: "The ACA will hurt us."

(Is there a reason I'm no longer allowed to post links?)

No, the equivalent is the democrats bringing an unrelated issue to the budget table, like gun control. That is apples to apples.

 

[FenderBender]

No, the equivalent is the democrats bringing an unrelated issue to the budget table, like gun control. That is apples to apples.

In my opinion this is an arbitrary distinction that you're making. And it happens all the time. This is the same idea behind earmarks, riders and bill amendments. I don't necessarily want what you want, but if you include something I want (related or not) I will vote for your bill.

 

[BigMattTheHobo]

Yes, the GOP wants to delay ACA and their leverage is blocking the CR. but that's childish because the ACA has been upheld numerous times. Now, I'm not trying to imply the GOP should just give in, but they should have weighed the situation more carefully and realized that it was not worth shutting down the government to try and negotiate on something that has withstood many challenges. They should have tried to save face and wait until the next elections to get more of them elected to repeal it then. The current approach was not thought out well because it was driven by tea party extremists who have wanted to shutdown the government from the start, and the rest of the GOP is too chicken shit to strand up against them, because then they'd be seen as RINOs to our fucking moronic citizenry.

 

[FenderBender]

Yes, the GOP wants to delay ACA and their leverage is blocking the CR. but that's childish because the ACA has been upheld numerous times.

This is a non sequitur. The issue is not whether the ACA has been defended in the past, since there is nothing stopping it from being repealed by legislation tomorrow. The issue is whether the Democrats want the CR passed now or Obamacare funded this year. It's a bit of an over-simplification since they still have the option to see if waiting it out will force Republicans to deal with the issue of public support, but that is the potential negotiation on the table.

What you're arguing is that there is no point in trying to change the law this way, because it was not successfully changed before other ways.

 

[BigMattTheHobo]

There is no point trying to change this law this way because it was not changed in other ways AND this way is hurting America. There are better options, like waiting to win elections.

 

[FenderBender]

There is no point trying to change this law this way because it was not changed in other ways AND this way is hurting America. There are better options, like waiting to win elections.

Well that certainly is the Democrat's point of view. Of course Republicans don't see it that way.

 

[BigMattTheHobo]

Because they don't give a shit about average Americans. Not that the dems do either, but they're a little more subtle about their corporate masters.

 

[FenderBender]

Because they don't give a shit about average Americans. Not that the dems do either, but they're a little more subtle about their corporate masters.

Again, you're spinning this pro-Democrat. You're entitled to your opinion, but this is not some kind of objective fact. The reason the CR was not passed is because neither side can agree on the terms of how it will be passed. And it's a pathetic state this country is in when we say that the good guys are the ones who are more subtle about their intentions to screw the general public in favor of special interests.

 

[BigMattTheHobo]

I'm not pro democrat at all. But the facts speak for themselves, the GOP is open about being against many social programs that help average Americans, like SNAP. The democrats serve their corporate masters, but they also at least play lip service to being for programs that help average Americans.


And yes, our country is in a pathetic state.

 

[Devastation the Almighty]

What the hell is SNAP? Do they teach outdated insults?

Oh, snap.

 

[BigMattTheHobo]

lol... Supplemental nutrition assistance program

 

[Devastation the Almighty]

Oh, thanks. I'm behind on my acronyms right now. The only ones going through my head this week are SQL, HTML, XML, APS, FUBAR, and JSON.

 

[chalupa]

Fender, simply put, a clean budget resolution has enough votes to pass both the House and Senate. Boehner won't do it because of a minority faction within his own party, or because he is a complete asshat. Either way, the votes are there.

This would be different if the entire House was given the chance to pass the clean CR and didn't...they aren't getting that chance. I don't know how you can argue that this is not a republican issue! The republican leadership are the ones holding the country hostage right now, it's as simple as that.

 

[FenderBender]

Fender, simply put, a clean budget resolution has enough votes to pass both the House and Senate. Boehner won't do it because of a minority faction within his own party, or because he is a complete asshat. Either way, the votes are there.

This would be different if the entire House was given the chance to pass the clean CR and didn't...they aren't getting that chance. I don't know how you can argue that this is not a republican issue! The republican leadership are the ones holding the country hostage right now, it's as simple as that.

Saying that Republicans are holding the country hostage is over the top. If they have the votes they can file a discharge petition and force the vote to the floor. If the vote passes then the CR will go in to effect. That's not exactly a hostage situation. If they have the votes they can get what they want. If they don't then they can't.

This logic can easily be flipped on the Democrats. Congress is supposed to pass a budget every year. They haven't been able to do this for years because the numbers do not match up. In stead they pass a CR that says we'll keep all the funding the same as the previous year. Then they wait until the growing debt pushes up against the debt limit and they claim another crisis to get the debt limit raised. This system is clearly unsustainable and not what people want, but they push either the shutdown or the fact that we will default down our throats as reasons to keep the status quo. The system is fucked, and saying it's just the Republicans trivializes the issue.

Both parties have been playing the same games for years. I'm at least a little sympathetic to the Republicans right now because their behavior is actually showing how fucked things are. I mean what exactly is a non-essential government employee? Of course when the government ceases to function the people who rely on it suffer. That doesn't mean that what the government is doing is good/sustainable. These stopgaps are just attempts to hide the growing suffering we can all look at in our future.

 

[Graendel]

Bullfuckingshit. The Senate has been trying to bring the House into negotiations for months, and every time were rebuffed.

you mean the same Dem controlled Senate that has absolutely refused to pass a budge the past several years?

Here's my suggestion for Obama: "You want to negotiate? Fine. For delaying the individual mandate for a year, I want a ban on all semi-automatic weapons. Your move, Kasparov."

and yet obama delayed the employer mandate by decree. since when can presidents delay laws?

I don't support the ban, nor do I tacitly support the ACA. I support repealing ALL government involvement in health care, going all the way back to the beginning. But since that doesn't seem to be an option, I support the correction of the totally fucked up system we live under right now, so the ACA is a start.

the best way to fix the system is not mandating healthcare. it's putting an end to bullshit lawsuits. really pursue medical fraud and wasteful spending.

The minority of the minority party is absolutely tying the repeal of an existing law to budget and debt debates. That's royally fucked up, and not how the system was intended. We can argue about the letter of the law, sure, but they are fucking up the spirit. Simply put, why negotiate over a law that is, wait for it, already a law? That's idiotic!

not a very good law when POTUS can delay parts of it by fiat. besides...taking away the 'national purse' is a tactic that has been used by both parties to try to get what they want.

Have fun with all that. You make it sound so fucking simple, but you're smart, you know that your overhead goes up, your headaches go up, and the whole thing gets WAY complicated. Businesses will figure out the best way to save money, and that will be to maintain the status quo as rates drop, as is actually happening, right now. First time in 10 years our health care plan costs haven't gone up 5-10%. Holy shit, they might have gotten this one accidentally right!

I've never had an issue with part time personnel. My group coverage just increased...which is why it will be dropped shortly.

The ACA is an incomplete plan that MUST be cleaned up along the way. Obstructionism, however, is way worse for everyone than trying to fix it.

if it's incomplete then it shouldn't be law.

 

[Frood]

if it's incomplete then it shouldn't be law.

But it is a law, so that point is moot.

 

[reggie jax]

This is a non sequitur. The issue is not whether the ACA has been defended in the past, since there is nothing stopping it from being repealed by legislation tomorrow. The issue is whether the Democrats want the CR passed now or Obamacare funded this year. It's a bit of an over-simplification since they still have the option to see if waiting it out will force Republicans to deal with the issue of public support, but that is the potential negotiation on the table.

What you're arguing is that there is no point in trying to change the law this way, because it was not successfully changed before other ways.

Lol, what bullshit. Both sides want the CR passed. The republicans are using the potential negative consequences of a govt shut down as leverage to try to extort their way into a legislative semi-win after having lost in the official legislative process. How you can not see this as a problem is kind of puzzling. Basically this means that so long as either part of congress is controlled by the minority party, that party can always choose to throw the entire country under the bus as a last ditch effort to try to win some sort of cheap symbolic victory.