Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The Senate stripped the House bill of everything they found objecitonable and sent it back.
Guess who's not compromising here? And we dont even need to look at actions and guess. Harry Reid and Obama have already said they will not compromise. It is the GOP that is compromising. If the gov't shuts down it will be because of the intrasigence of Reid and Obama.
That's not even comprehensible.The Senate stripped the House bill of everything they found objecitonable and sent it back.
Guess who's not compromising here? And we dont even need to look at actions and guess. Harry Reid and Obama have already said they will not compromise. It is the GOP that is compromising. If the gov't shuts down it will be because of the intrasigence of Reid and Obama.
No they aren't. The Senate sent them a bill with everything they wrote except defunding ACA. Taking out ACA is the "one part" the democratic-majority in the Senate wants. They gave the house everything else. And that's not good enough?
ACA starts tomorrow. It doesn't even belong on a CR bill, the only reason it's there is a blackmail threat. It's pathetic.
15. If the federal government shuts down, do you think that Barack Obama or the Republicans in
Congress would be more responsible for that?
Sept. 27-29 2013
Obama 36%
Republicans in Congress 46%
Both (vol.) 13%
Neither (vol.) 2%
No opinion 2%
They should fund it because it's the law. If they don't like it, change the law. Don't unilaterally decide which laws should be supported and which laws should be cut.
The GOP is behaving like babies who are throwing a tantrum because they failed to repeal a law they don't like. Kind of explains why Cruz was quoting Dr. Seuss though.
you don't have to fund a law moron
see checks and balances
The system of checks and balances do not extend to existing laws. No single body of government should have so much power that they get to unilaterally decide which laws should be effectively terminated by defunding them.
In fact, your reference to "checks and balances" is being abrogated by the House in their attempt to defund a law because they don't like it. The reason we have a system of checks and balances is to prevent any one body of government from exercising too much power. Now you're defending one body which is attempting to do just that.
You're committing a logical fallacy called begging the question, which is just assuming the truth of your own position.
I'm asking how prior congresses can force current congresses to spend money. You're just saying they have to because they can.
Where do the kooks get this "The Democrats never compromised" nonsense? The Democrats compromised on everything when the bill was written and voted on.
Remember kooks, we don't negotiate with hostage-takers, because that would just guarantee more hostage-taking. You want a law changed, check out this thing called "The Constitution" (remember that?) for the how to do it. That is, win enough elections so you can pass a new law. If you can't win enough elections, that's not our problem, and it doesn't give you justification for hostage-taking.
All true. But incomplete.
You clearly stated that the Congress can act unilaterally. That is not true.Nor is it accurate.
The House and Senate are designed to check each other.
Get real. You are reaching now. Your argument is a fail.
I never said the Congress can act unilaterally. If you were paying attention, I'm the one who's against that. And in this case, it's the House which is attempting to unilaterally repeal ObamaCare through their power of the purse strings.
sorry that you failed 9th grade civics, maybe you can go to the library and check out a text.
You are even dumber than you sound in your posts if you think defunding ObamaCare doesn't effectively abolish that law. Without funding, there is no ObamaCare.Who the fuck told you that?.
Each of the two Houses of Congress exists for that very reason.
There is nothing unilateral about that. Not a damned thing.
To write, debate and vote on legislation.
You may believe laws are written in stone. They are not.
Laws can become outdated, obsolete, thought to be unjust or no longer popular.
The process is codified by the balance of having TWO houses of legislation.
This keeps the potential of the tyranny of the majority in check.
You can take your low IQ low information ass back to where ever it was before you decided to open your yapper.
This is no place for you. You are not very good at this.
Why is it that most of the uninformed such as yourself are liberals?
Holy shit!
Here's a civics lesson for you...
Checks and Balances of the Legislative Branch
The Legislative Branch is given the powers to make the laws. It has the following checks over the Executive Branch:
May override presidential vetoes with a two-thirds vote
Has the power over the purse strings to actually fund any executive actions
May remove the president through impeachment
Senate approves treaties
Senate approves presidential appointments
The Legislative Branch has the following checks over the Judicial Branch:
Creates lower courts
May remove judges through impeachment
Senate approves appointments of judges
Checks and Balances of the Executive Branch
The Executive Branch is given the power to carry out the laws. It has the following checks over the Legislative Branch:
Veto power
Ability to call special sessions of Congress
Can recommend legislation
Can appeal to the people concerning legislation and more
The Executive Branch has the following checks over the Judicial Branch:
President appoints Supreme Court and other federal judges
Checks and Balances of the Judicial Branch
The Judicial Branch is given the power to interpret the laws. It has the following checks over the Executive Branch:
Judges, once appointed for life, are free from controls from the executive branch
Courts can judge executive actions to be unconstitutional through the power of judicial review
The Judicial Branch has the following checks over the Legislative Branch:
Courts can judge legislative acts to be unconstitutional.
Checks and Balances - American System of Checks and Balances
Hopefully, even you can recognize that description doesn't include bills passed by both chambers of the Congress and signed into law by the president.
It's designed to prevent any one body of government from strong-arming the law. Not to offer a body the opportunity to abolish an existing law they don't like but failed to repeal through the legislative process.
There is in actuality, no such thing as a "repeal"..
The process of overturning a law is reserved to the Courts.
The legislative branch must write NEW legislation that renders an existing law invalid or counters that law to the point where it is no longer enforced.
Or Congress may write a bill that makes certain parts of an existing law invalid or in the case of discretionary spending, removes the provision that permits the spending.
I hope this post rips you out from under your comfort zone as quickly as yours put you under your woobie.
As previously stated. This is no place for low info people such yourself.
You do know there's a difference between "the Congress" and "the House," right? The House is seeking to a bill they voted into law without the approval of the Congress.They're Lying to You: Appropriations and ?Shutdown? Lies
False claim #2: Republicans must fund ObamaCare because it's the law.
That's not really the American form of government. You [Host David Gregory] outlined the American form of government. The test by which we submit any new legislation and it's submitted, the President signs it, and it's reviewed by the courts. It's the law.
Chris Matthews, on Republican strategy to defund ObamaCare, on Meet the Press, September 29
Why it's a lie: While it is true that Congress enacted ObamaCare in 2010, the original bill contained zero funding. The original ObamaCare law was not self-funded, and funding of ObamaCare is what's at issue in Washington today. ObamaCare requires new appropriations spending each year, as Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution requires that No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law. Generally, this means annual spending bills passed by Congress, though in some rare instances Congress passes spending for more than a year.
The Congress has complete discretion about whether to fund or not fund the programs it sets up under law, and Congress defunds laws all the time such as pork barrel purchases for the military weapons systems that are never funded. In fact, Congress is doing precisely the same thing right now under the sequester law, to the utter silence of Democratic Party mouthpieces like Chris Matthews. And no one argues that these are inappropriate uses of Congress' discretion of what to fund.
Regarding ObamaCare, there's a stronger case to deny funding than most pork barrel military weapons projects. President Obama proposed the law with a price tag of $900 billion over 10 years, but the Congressional Budget Office recently projected that costs would be roughly double the price estimated by Congress at the time it was passed into law.
New poll shows that 9 out of 10 leftists moonbats blame the GOP for everything.
You can't lie your way through this. As you've been informed, whether you comprehend it or not, two of the leading indicators of the economy are GDP and unemployment; and both have improved over the last four years.The Dems have had control of Congress for 4 years, Congress and the Presidency for two, The presidency and the senate for 4. How is the economy the fault of the GOP?
How? The Great Recession and their efforts to delay recovery so they might have time to rewrite history and blame Obama for it which began in 2007. In fact such was not a bad idea, they convinced some of the dumber 'conservatives' that Obama was responsible for the Great Recession of 2007 -2009. Simply ask CrusaderFrank, Stephanie, Willow tree or the Rabbi.
You didnt answer the question.
The Great Recession is not the problem. That's long past. The Not-So-Great Recovery is the problem. Virtually every metric on the economy is worse today than when Obama took office: household income, household wealth, etc etc. The only ones making out are the very wealthy.
Obama's recovery is worse than Bush's recession.
The Dems had unlimited access to government for 2 years and passed many programs and bills. Obama's control of the executive branch has gone on for 5 years. The result is the worst economy since the Great Depression.
Like it or not, it's the law.Obama and Democrats are the hostage takers, blackmailers, acting like terrorist in that they won't compromise on ANYTHING which what is has been done IN THE PAST...
They are not the blackmailers...they sent the house a clean funding bill that fully accepts funding the government the way the house wanted. Just taking out the GOP's personal agenda against ACA out of it.
If the house will not fund the government without getting their personal agenda on obamacare through...then by all means they are doing the blackmailing.
And Obamacare is not the personal agenda of Harry Reid and Barack Obama? Gettoutatown.
Like it or not, it's the law.They are not the blackmailers...they sent the house a clean funding bill that fully accepts funding the government the way the house wanted. Just taking out the GOP's personal agenda against ACA out of it.
If the house will not fund the government without getting their personal agenda on obamacare through...then by all means they are doing the blackmailing.
And Obamacare is not the personal agenda of Harry Reid and Barack Obama? Gettoutatown.
If this legislation is not enacted and we embark on a government shutdown, the consequences are severe: Our brave men and women of our military don't get paid; our recovering economy will take a huge hit, and our most vulnerable citizens - including the elderly and veterans who rely on critical government programs and services - could be left high and dry.
Where do the kooks get this "The Democrats never compromised" nonsense? The Democrats compromised on everything when the bill was written and voted on.
Remember kooks, we don't negotiate with hostage-takers, because that would just guarantee more hostage-taking. You want a law changed, check out this thing called "The Constitution" (remember that?) for the how to do it. That is, win enough elections so you can pass a new law. If you can't win enough elections, that's not our problem, and it doesn't give you justification for hostage-taking.
They understand winning elections, they can't seem to get the idea that ideas win elections, not bigotry and voter suppression. The GOP has a plan, one which leads not to governance by the people, rather governance by the Brother's Koch and their kind.
A vote for a Republican is a vote for a dystopian plutocracy. A society where only the few are allowed to vote, and the rule of law justifies such suppression.
Riiiiigght ... because negative 8.3 percent GDP is BETTER than positive 2.5 percent.You didnt answer the question.
The Great Recession is not the problem. That's long past. The Not-So-Great Recovery is the problem. Virtually every metric on the economy is worse today than when Obama took office: household income, household wealth, etc etc. The only ones making out are the very wealthy.
Obama's recovery is worse than Bush's recession.
The Dems had unlimited access to government for 2 years and passed many programs and bills. Obama's control of the executive branch has gone on for 5 years. The result is the worst economy since the Great Depression.
Nice try. The Obama, "recovery is worse than Bush's recession"? As I said, you are one of the dumb ones.
Translation: I am wrong on the facts so I will call him a nasty name.
Nice try covering your ignorance, cocksucker. The truth is as I laid it out. People are worse off today than they were the day Obama took office. Obama's recovery is worse than Bush;s recession.
... and losing 800 thousand jobs in a single month is BETTER than gaining 200 thousand. 
Where do the kooks get this "The Democrats never compromised" nonsense? The Democrats compromised on everything when the bill was written and voted on.
Remember kooks, we don't negotiate with hostage-takers, because that would just guarantee more hostage-taking. You want a law changed, check out this thing called "The Constitution" (remember that?) for the how to do it. That is, win enough elections so you can pass a new law. If you can't win enough elections, that's not our problem, and it doesn't give you justification for hostage-taking.
They understand winning elections, they can't seem to get the idea that ideas win elections, not bigotry and voter suppression. The GOP has a plan, one which leads not to governance by the people, rather governance by the Brother's Koch and their kind.
A vote for a Republican is a vote for a dystopian plutocracy. A society where only the few are allowed to vote, and the rule of law justifies such suppression.
Republicans passed a budget. Not our fault that the Democrats in the Senate and White House wont even consider a compromise.
And it's not exactly like this is going to hurt Republicans. I know that the conventional "wisdom" says that it will. But the last last big one still had Republicans Controlling Congress with more wins.
