Republicans taking Blame for Shutdown - Polls

[Faun]

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Laws can become outdated, obsolete, thought to be unjust or no longer popular.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.

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.

 

[Redfish]

Can't?...Ok...But the dems are the ones who refuse to negotiate. Obama said that himself. So did Reid.
The dems are the ones who will shut down government.
The House gave the Senate a CR that funds all sectors of government except for ACA.
ACA is a vastly unpopular law and the House is doing its duty to address that.

no bill reaches the President until the Senate and House agree to a final Bill.

the House needs to send the Senate a bill that they will all agree on.

the House hasn't explained why the Individual Mandate should be delayed for a year.

if they can come up with a legitimate and intelligent explanation as to why the Individual Mandate should be delayed for exactly a year and not 6 months or 18 months, then maybe they can have a deal.


...an honest Continuing Resolution would fund all legally approved laws and govt. programs.

ObamaCare was legally approved by Congress. It need to either be repealed or funded.

the employer mandate was delayed for a year by obama, in clear violation of the law he signed, he granted exemptions, in clear violation of the law he signed.

it is terrible legislation, a delay is needed to keep it from completely destroying our economy.

 

[Redfish]

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.

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.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

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.

 

[Hoffstra]

The GOP need to get enough votes to repeal ObamaCare.

Until then, they need to fund all laws & programs of the USA.


If they want to change ObamaCare, or have good reasons to delay parts of it, they need to explain that to the Senate and President.

Absent this, they need to fund the whole govt.

 

[Yurt]

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.

 

[Hoffstra]

Let's make something perfectly clear:

A Continuing Resolution funds all funding from the previous year, and funds all legally passed programs and agencies.

Parts of ObamaCare were set to be funded as of Oct. 1st, as per the ObamaCare law. This law was passed by BOTH Houses of Congress, signed into law by the President, and found Constitutional by the Supreme Court.

That said, the House need to submit a CR to the Senate that funds all existing programs and all legally approved laws, agencies, etc.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Republicans are doing everything in their power to cause the economy to fail. This is yet another attempt to meet that goal.

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.

 

[Vandalshandle]

"is terrible legislation, a delay is needed to keep it from completely destroying our economy. "

The government has been trying to fix health care in this country since the Truman administration.That is approximately 65 years.

It took us that long to come up with the flawed ACA law, that was, at least, a step in the reight direction.

You guys have just as much chance of defunding ACA as you have of defunding Medicare and Medicaid.

And like when you convinced yourselves that Palin would be a fine VP, and later when you convinced yourself that Romney, with all the charisma of a GQ Quarterly magazine cover, would trounce a black, muslim, gay, commie, foreign born, terrorist loving, incompetant neighborhood organizer, you have now convinced yourselves that you are going to stop ACA from being implemented.

i swear that if the Republicans ever got a clue, they could be dangerous!


__________________

 

[The T]

LIVE by the POLLS? Die by them.

NO way to run a railroad...

 

[The Rabbi]

Republicans are doing everything in their power to cause the economy to fail. This is yet another attempt to meet that goal.

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.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Let's make something perfectly clear:

A Continuing Resolution funds all funding from the previous year, and funds all legally passed programs and agencies.

Parts of ObamaCare were set to be funded as of Oct. 1st, as per the ObamaCare law. This law was passed by BOTH Houses of Congress, signed into law by the President, and found Constitutional by the Supreme Court.

That said, the House need to submit a CR to the Senate that funds all existing programs and all legally approved laws, agencies, etc.

That is merely your opinion...Fine. You may believe what you wish.
But evading the facts does not make your opinion any more valid.
Clearly you do not understand. Obamacare HAS no funding.
It is the only way the law could be intepreted as a tax.

 

[The Rabbi]

"is terrible legislation, a delay is needed to keep it from completely destroying our economy. "

The government has been trying to fix health care in this country since the Truman administration.That is approximately 65 years.

It took us that long to come up with the flawed ACA law, that was, at least, a step in the reight direction.

You guys have just as much chance of defunding ACA as you have of defunding Medicare and Medicaid.

And like when you convinced yourselves that Palin would be a fine VP, and later when you convinced yourself that Romney, with all the charisma of a GQ Quarterly magazine cover, would trounce a black, muslim, gay, commie, foreign born, terrorist loving, incompetant neighborhood organizer, you have now convinced yourselves that you are going to stop ACA from being implemented.

i swear that if the Republicans ever got a clue, they could be dangerous!


__________________

How is enacting a disaster of a law a step in the right direction? It would seem to be a step in the wrong direction.

 

[Hoffstra]

That is merely your opinion...Fine. You may believe what you wish.
But evading the facts does not make your opinion any more valid.
Clearly you do not understand. Obamacare HAS no funding.
It is the only way the law could be intepreted as a tax.

ObamaCare has no funding???

great!! so why is the GOP holding up govt. funding due to ObamaCare?

 

[Hoffstra]

How is enacting a disaster of a law a step in the right direction? It would seem to be a step in the wrong direction.

are you guys gonna pull this crap next year and call the EPA "a disaster of an agency"?

 

[Derideo_Te]

If it wasn't standard operating procedure for Republicans, maybe the public would believe them

If you don't concede to our demands, we will shut down Government

Once Government is shut down, it is YOUR fault because you didn't concede to our demands

There is something sociopathic about that strategy!

 

[Hoffstra]

the GOP is going to shutdown the govt. because they dont have enough votes to repeal ObamaCare.

sick.

 

[The Rabbi]

How is enacting a disaster of a law a step in the right direction? It would seem to be a step in the wrong direction.

are you guys gonna pull this crap next year and call the EPA "a disaster of an agency"?

Are you really going to argue that it is not a disaster?

 

[Stephanie]

Isn't Black Jimmy Obama the "leader" of the nation? He sure as shit is, and the fucking Libberhoids continue to suck his ass and blame Republicans....

Take some responsibility for once, assholes.

I'm sorry the Christian Brotherhood (Tea Party) doesn't have enough votes to repeal ObamaCare, but that doesn't mean you should force the govt. to shutdown or default on the debt, in order to blackmail Democrats to vote your way.

Man, ugly, Christian Brotherhood..

what are from?, the kKK...That is what you act like


you need a wheelbarrow of cheese and tissues over the possibility your all's NANNY guberment could shut down...the world will end

 

[Hoffstra]

Are you really going to argue that it is not a disaster?

are you seriously going to argue that it IS a disaster?