Should the gop be willing to shut down nonessential govt functions to stop obamacare?

[Redfish]

The House passed a budget that they knew wouldn't pass the Senate and wouldn't be signed by the President.

that is always what happens, thats why they discuss the bill in the senate, have a vote and then convene a conference committee to negotiate a bill that is acceptable to both sides, it has always worked that way until dingy harry refused to allow the process to operate.

Do you know why? Was he afraid that a house bill would pass in the senate ?

No, it's because the Senate calendar is jammed with filibusters.

bullshit, no budget bill has been filibustered in the senate. please stop making stuff up, it makes you look really stupid

 

[Redfish]

The House passed a budget that they knew wouldn't pass the Senate and wouldn't be signed by the President.

How many votes did Obama's budget get?

Now sit down and be quiet.

The President can't introduce a budget, since he's not a member of the chamber. Senate Republicans have pushed bills that they've labeled as "Obama's budget" based off of stated negotiating positions.

in 2011, I think, the white house sent a recommended budget to the senate, it was voted down 97-0 with 3 voting present.

 

[Polk]

How many votes did Obama's budget get?

Now sit down and be quiet.

The President can't introduce a budget, since he's not a member of the chamber. Senate Republicans have pushed bills that they've labeled as "Obama's budget" based off of stated negotiating positions.

in 2011, I think, the white house sent a recommended budget to the senate, it was voted down 97-0 with 3 voting present.

At the time the vote had occurred, the White House had since promoted a different budget plan, but Republicans wanted a vote on the outdated proposal for the propaganda purposes.

 

[Polk]

that is always what happens, thats why they discuss the bill in the senate, have a vote and then convene a conference committee to negotiate a bill that is acceptable to both sides, it has always worked that way until dingy harry refused to allow the process to operate.

Do you know why? Was he afraid that a house bill would pass in the senate ?

No, it's because the Senate calendar is jammed with filibusters.

bullshit, no budget bill has been filibustered in the senate. please stop making stuff up, it makes you look really stupid

You need to learn to read. I never said a budget bill has been filibustered. I said the Senate calendar is filled with filibustered, which has prevented a budget resolution from being debated/voted on.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I never made that claim. I've consistently stated through this thread that the "guilty party" is a matter of opinion, but I did point out a deficiency in the argument that says the Democrats are more at fault. If you consider that blaming Republicans, that's your view, but it doesn't mesh with what I've stated.

If the topic is 5 years with no budget, then the dems are clearly the obstructors. The GOP led house has passed budget bills every year but Reid has not let a single one be discussed or voted on in the senate. He has not allowed a conference committee on any budget bill. Reid is the reason we have not had a national budget for 5 years.

The House passed a budget that they knew wouldn't pass the Senate and wouldn't be signed by the President.

Nice try. Not true.
Budgets start with individual agencies' budget requests. The next Dept in the process is OMB..The President then submits a budget request to the Appropriations Committee.
And so on...
The reason why have two Houses of Congress is so that the Legislative Branch has balance. This also in a manner of speaking keeps the balance of power among the Three Branches...balanced.
It is apparent there is a faction of people in this country that believes the Congress exists to 'get stuff done' and to 'pass what the President wants'..
Newsflash, the Congress DOES NOT exist to do the bidding of the Executive Branch.
If one or both Houses of Congress view the President as being too extreme or not in the interest of the constituencies the members of Congress represent, then the Congress is well within it's right and duty to reject or even block the President's agenda.
Good bad or indifferent, I see nothing wrong with that.
The best scenario of this balance is that it keeps government in check.

 

[thereisnospoon]

A better questions is, is Obama willing to shut the government down over Obamacare?

I think he is because he feels that the GOP will get blamed.

So the only shutdowns will be at the hands of Obama and the obstructionist Democrats, not the GOP. The GOP has made no decision to shut anything down because it is not within their power to do so. The House has continued to govern while Democrats have decided not to. The House has continued to vote for and submit budgets for the last several years and the Democrat controlled Senate has not. Obama has submitted ridiculous budget proposals that nobody will vote for, so we're stuck with a series of continuing resolutions rather than budgets to keep the government running. This has never been done before.

Basically, the Dems and the White House have decided that they will use the budget as a foil to attack and to undermine their opposition. They haven't governed, just acted politically.

The Dems decided to exempt themselves from Obamacare and they think they can impose it on the rest of us. This is the ultimate of hypocrisy.

The idea that the Democrats are the obstructionists in this situation are laughable. There are three institutional veto points and an additional artificial one created by the Republican leadership in the House. The artificial one is the only one a "clean" CR can't get past.

It reveals some of my reporting on the Republican plot to obstruct President Obama before he even took office, including secret meetings led by House GOP whip Eric Cantor (in December 2008) and Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (in early January 2009) in which they laid out their daring (though cynical and political) no-honeymoon strategy of all-out resistance to a popular President-elect during an economic emergency. “If he was for it,” former Ohio Senator George Voinovich explained, “we had to be against it.”

Read more: The New New Deal: Why the GOP Became the Party of No | TIME.com

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtMV44yoXZ0"]Whatever it is I'm against it![/ame]

Popular?..Is that what you believe this is about? Do you really believe that government should function based on popularity?
Sweetie, this is not a student council election. This is the big water.
And so what if members of the GOP are 'against it'? That's the way our government functions. GP members saw a potential for a radically leftist administration. Their constituents told them in no uncertain terms, "no way"..
You'll have to get used to the reality that the President's desires are not always implemented. It does not matter the party of the President. The POTUS is not an elected king.
Get with it.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The idea that the Democrats are the obstructionists in this situation are laughable. There are three institutional veto points and an additional artificial one created by the Republican leadership in the House. The artificial one is the only one a "clean" CR can't get past.

You do realize Democrats are the ones in control of the Senate, right?

And the White House and their position has the support of a majority in the House. So who are the obstructionists again?

Wrong...Because House votes are pass or reject based on a simple majority, if what you state is true, then if the majority of House members supported the president's agenda, it would be smooth sailing for Obama.
Earlier you accused the GOP of 'being against it'( Obama's agenda)....That cuts both ways. The Democrats have out of hand, rejected every piece of legislation and every proposal offered by the GOP..

 

[Edgetho]

I'm not going to look it up to make certain, but I believe that all of the Stuttering Clusterfuck's Budgets have suffered the same ignominious defeat.....

Obama budget defeated 99-0 in Senate - Washington Times

Know why? Because, like the Stuttering Clusterfuck himself, they're phony and worthless.

I don't believe we've had an actual budget since he infested the office.

If the Republicans are going to stand up to the Head Nazi, if they're going to dare him/it to shut down the government (and he WILL), then they need to see this thing through.

If they're going to back down, they need to do it NOW. If they start this war with Adolf 0bama, they need to be prepared for some dirty tricks and some trench warfare 'cause it's gonna get ugly. And it's gonna ugly early and even uglier later.

The Country will get hurt if the Republicans follow through on this because 0bama WILL shut down the entire government.... FBI, IRS, Army, Navy, INS, TSA, your SS Checks won't turn up, your medicare bills won't get paid.....

We're talking some spiteful, back-stabbing, Nazi motherfuckers here who could NOT care less how much pain they cause the American People

I hope the Republicans know what they're in for. And I hope they understand the lies the DISGUSTING FILTH in the LSM will tell.... Every minute of every hour of every day it goes on

 

[JakeStarkey]

Fluttering Stutter Cluck is speaking for the small minority on the Far Right who think America gives a fuck what they do.

The fact is this: the CR will go the Senate, which will vote it down if it even comes to a vote.

Either

(1) Boehner and his leadership then send a new CR that does not interfere with the funding, and the GOP has a chance for next year's elections,

or

(2) the House shuts down government, until it backs down, which it will, and then the Dems will take our GOP House and get a 60-vote Senate next year.

Guess what will happen to the foolish far right? You folks should listen to Steve Forbes and read The Wall Street Journal very, very carefully.

 

[bendog]

Well, to be fair, the OP was to ignore elections and rather focus on what is "right." I've been dubious of the thread because how to you define "right." Do what you feel is morally right. Well the South did that in 1861 and 1963, and it didn't work out to well in the light of history.

I suppose one could think "stand on your principles and let the chips fall where they may." If that's the thought, I think its wrong both in terms of civics and politics. If the gop has a better idea, and there are better ideas or at least changes that can be made, the gop has a duty to state them and try and enact them.

But, again, my thesis is a maj of House gopers reject any notion that tax revenues should be raised to fund HC, even if arguably it would save money in the long run. They're just a-gin it. My guess is that there's a compenent to the thinking that the whole nation is being mongrelized by lazy people who are takers, and people like "us" are getting old, and God help our kids and grandkids.

 

[Seawytch]

The "two year majority" lie has been debunked to Sunday. It was more like two months.

It's called unprecedented obstructionism by the minority party. You can google it.

I wonder how you would feel if it were a Republican President that won two elections in an electoral landslide, but the minority Democratic party decided they would oppose any and all of that Republican President's agenda. I'm sure you'd be just hunky dory with the cloture and fillibuster rules then wouldn't you?

you just described Bush's second term.

Not even close...

 

[ilia25]

false premise. there is no reason to shut down any govt functions except obamacare. All other govt functions can be fully funded and can operate as usual. Just no funding for obamacare.

That would only work if it becomes a law (Senate has to vote for it and Obama has to sign it). In the absence of the law the whole government will get defunded.

 

[TooTall]

The problem is what right considers nonessential.

The next time they shut down DC for a snow storm, why don't you make a list of who the government sends home as non essential.

 

[The T]

The problem is what right considers nonessential.

The next time they shut down DC for a snow storm, why don't you make a list of who the government sends home as non essential.

Add weekends and Holidays to the mix as well.

 

[TooTall]

I never made that claim. I've consistently stated through this thread that the "guilty party" is a matter of opinion, but I did point out a deficiency in the argument that says the Democrats are more at fault. If you consider that blaming Republicans, that's your view, but it doesn't mesh with what I've stated.

If the topic is 5 years with no budget, then the dems are clearly the obstructors. The GOP led house has passed budget bills every year but Reid has not let a single one be discussed or voted on in the senate. He has not allowed a conference committee on any budget bill. Reid is the reason we have not had a national budget for 5 years.

The House passed a budget that they knew wouldn't pass the Senate and wouldn't be signed by the President.

Are you sure it wouldn't pass the Senate? How about taking a vote and finding out. The Senate used to debate a budget bill sent by the House, amend it, vote on it, and if it passed, send it back to the House and eventually to a conference committee. Hasn't happened because of the obstructionist Harry Reid, who does what Obama tells him to do.

 

[TooTall]

A better questions is, is Obama willing to shut the government down over Obamacare?

I think he is because he feels that the GOP will get blamed.

So the only shutdowns will be at the hands of Obama and the obstructionist Democrats, not the GOP. The GOP has made no decision to shut anything down because it is not within their power to do so. The House has continued to govern while Democrats have decided not to. The House has continued to vote for and submit budgets for the last several years and the Democrat controlled Senate has not. Obama has submitted ridiculous budget proposals that nobody will vote for, so we're stuck with a series of continuing resolutions rather than budgets to keep the government running. This has never been done before.

Basically, the Dems and the White House have decided that they will use the budget as a foil to attack and to undermine their opposition. They haven't governed, just acted politically.

The Dems decided to exempt themselves from Obamacare and they think they can impose it on the rest of us. This is the ultimate of hypocrisy.

The idea that the Democrats are the obstructionists in this situation are laughable. There are three institutional veto points and an additional artificial one created by the Republican leadership in the House. The artificial one is the only one a "clean" CR can't get past.

It reveals some of my reporting on the Republican plot to obstruct President Obama before he even took office, including secret meetings led by House GOP whip Eric Cantor (in December 2008) and Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (in early January 2009) in which they laid out their daring (though cynical and political) no-honeymoon strategy of all-out resistance to a popular President-elect during an economic emergency. “If he was for it,” former Ohio Senator George Voinovich explained, “we had to be against it.”

Read more: The New New Deal: Why the GOP Became the Party of No | TIME.com

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtMV44yoXZ0"]Whatever it is I'm against it![/ame]

How would you know about this if the meeting was SECRET?

 

[Greenbeard]

this really isn't difficult or complicated. Change the law and allow medical insurers to compete in all states, with the provision that they MUST compete in all states and all locations.

Who's responsible for regulation and oversight of them? The federal government?

Little details, like how those these schemes are actually supposed to work.

 

[The T]

If the topic is 5 years with no budget, then the dems are clearly the obstructors. The GOP led house has passed budget bills every year but Reid has not let a single one be discussed or voted on in the senate. He has not allowed a conference committee on any budget bill. Reid is the reason we have not had a national budget for 5 years.

The House passed a budget that they knew wouldn't pass the Senate and wouldn't be signed by the President.

Are you sure it wouldn't pass the Senate? How about taking a vote and finding out. The Senate used to debate a budget bill sent by the House, amend it, vote on it, and if it passed, send it back to the House and eventually to a conference committee. Hasn't happened because of the obstructionist Harry Reid, who does what Obama tells him to do.

And Dingy Harry has already stated it's D O A. No Discussion. Reid needs to go.

 

[mudwhistle]

Who's responsible for regulation and oversight of them? The federal government?

Little details, like how those these schemes are actually supposed to work.

Just ignore the law or apply it wherever you want.

That's what Obama does.

 

[The T]

Little details, like how those these schemes are actually supposed to work.

Just ignore the law or apply it wherever you want.

That's what Obama does.

Just forgoe the LAW to your pals...friendlies...THAT is what Obama is doing.

And WHO gave him hat right to subjugate the law to your own whim(s) for politics sake?

Obama should have been called out on this with threat of impeachment...NO ONE has the BALLS to challenge the wannabe Dictator.

I DO.