Shutdown and democracy
16 Oct 2013, 3:27 pm
Jacoby wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
This is a failure on the part of the administration for a)passing the monstrosity that is Obamacare and b)not passing a budget since 2009 and before you say Republicans! Know this, the Democrats controlled the White House, the Senate, and the House in 2010 and didn't pass a budget. They had complete control of government. The same way you still got the evil corporatist Obamacare which passed completely down partisan lines. Obama is bought and paid for and he serves his master's well.
The GOP controls the House, they control the purse strings. The Democrats declaring that they will not negotiate or compromise is undemocratic. Obama is not a king or dictator no matter how much some of you guys wish he was. Obama is a liar and is orchestrating this so called shutdown. They're the ones repeating the lies about the US being at any danger of default, they're spending money barricading monuments for the purpose of what? They're doing everything in their power to scare the American people.
The GOP controls the House, they control the purse strings. The Democrats declaring that they will not negotiate or compromise is undemocratic. Obama is not a king or dictator no matter how much some of you guys wish he was. Obama is a liar and is orchestrating this so called shutdown. They're the ones repeating the lies about the US being at any danger of default, they're spending money barricading monuments for the purpose of what? They're doing everything in their power to scare the American people.
The Affordable Health Care Act or any legislation is not a valid excuse for this. It's time to amend the constitution so this never happens again.
Amend the constitution so it says what? That sounds like you want to do something but I'm not sure you know what.
Isn't it some kind of Fillabuster thing Cruz did? Obviously I am no expert but I am sure someone somewhere can think of something to add.
Ted Cruz's filibuster which wasn't actually a real filibuster(it did not block senate procedure, he just talked a long time) had zero bearing on the shutdown besides maybe inspiring some members of the House. The shutdown happened because the government has been funded by Continuing Resolutions since 2009 and this last CR ended on October 1st, Obamacare funding started at the begining of the 2014 fiscal year which is October 1st. Barack Obama and the Democrat controlled Senate have not been able to an agreement with the GOP controlled House over a new CR, thus the so called government shutdown of non-essential services and personal. The House passed a CR that defunded Obamacare and Harry Reid stripped that provision out of senate bill sending it back to the House. The House has since passed numerous piecemeal bills to reopen parts of government that have been shut down(such as the national parks/monuments, the NIH, paying backpay to federal employees, etc) Obama and Democrats in the House and Senate are against the piecemeal approach and have voted against measures to reopen government and demand complete capitulation by the GOP because they've made the political judgement that the American public will not blame them for their unwillingness to compromise or negotiate. You can thank the MSM for the assist.
Interesting spin but I thought it was because someone in the house wouldn't let anyone vote? Well they should be allowed to vote regardless it should just happen.
And as for people required to have health insurance it's just a matter of time before states jump on that anyway because so much money is being lost due to people not having insurance. It's harming society which is why there's an urgent need for people to be covered, so there will be a place to send a bill that will pay the bill. That's just part of life. Welcome to reality. If you don't like it, pressure congress and the President to do away with health insurance entirely and then no one will be required to have it. Just pay out of pocket. But don't complain about something that is necessary considering.
16 Oct 2013, 3:35 pm
simon_says wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
The shutdown happened because our government has been funded by Continuing Resolutions since 2009 because Barack Obama and congressional Democrats have been unwilling or unable to pass a budget since then, the last CR ended at the end of the current fiscal year on October 1st. Funding for Obamacare started at the start of this fiscal year.
The GOP won control of the House in 2010, the president and congressional Democrats can't ignore that. That Democratic majority in the House was suppose to last a generation and it was wiped away because the American people rejected Obamacare. Elections DO have consequences, you cannot declare that you will not negotiate or compromise and still accuse the other side of being undemocratic. The law has already been changed unilaterally by the Obama adminstration, they've given waivers to their corporate masters and campaign financiers. They've done everything to protect themselves from the law they've made.
Is there any bigger liar that Obama? He voted against raising the debt ceiling calling it a 'failure of leadership to do so', he railed on the constitutional abuses of Bush, he even hammered Hiliary's insurance mandate during their primary debates. How can anybody that liked Obama the candidate like Obama the president?
The GOP won control of the House in 2010, the president and congressional Democrats can't ignore that. That Democratic majority in the House was suppose to last a generation and it was wiped away because the American people rejected Obamacare. Elections DO have consequences, you cannot declare that you will not negotiate or compromise and still accuse the other side of being undemocratic. The law has already been changed unilaterally by the Obama adminstration, they've given waivers to their corporate masters and campaign financiers. They've done everything to protect themselves from the law they've made.
Is there any bigger liar that Obama? He voted against raising the debt ceiling calling it a 'failure of leadership to do so', he railed on the constitutional abuses of Bush, he even hammered Hiliary's insurance mandate during their primary debates. How can anybody that liked Obama the candidate like Obama the president?
What are you talking about? The reason we don't have official budgets is that the House and Senate are too far apart to agree on anything. The White House submits a budget proposal every year. The Senate passed one this year. The Republican House passes their far right wish-list budget every year. These are statements, not real budgets that will be enacted. We will still likely have a continuing resolution in place of a budget for the same reasons as before and the CR authorizes every penny that we spend.
You need to question your track record on these predictions you make. Garbage in, garbage out.
What's the hang up with this post? What I said is factual, Obama and congressional Democrats have been unwilling or unable to pass a budget since 2009. When has the Senate passed a budget? A new CR is not a budget, it's a short term stop gap measure. I know Obama submitted a proposal which was promptly laughed and never considered by the GOP and his own party. Harry Reid won't even bring a budget up to vote despite only needing 51 votes to pass one, a vote that cannot be filibustered by the way.
16 Oct 2013, 3:51 pm
Jacoby wrote:
simon_says wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
The shutdown happened because our government has been funded by Continuing Resolutions since 2009 because Barack Obama and congressional Democrats have been unwilling or unable to pass a budget since then, the last CR ended at the end of the current fiscal year on October 1st. Funding for Obamacare started at the start of this fiscal year.
The GOP won control of the House in 2010, the president and congressional Democrats can't ignore that. That Democratic majority in the House was suppose to last a generation and it was wiped away because the American people rejected Obamacare. Elections DO have consequences, you cannot declare that you will not negotiate or compromise and still accuse the other side of being undemocratic. The law has already been changed unilaterally by the Obama adminstration, they've given waivers to their corporate masters and campaign financiers. They've done everything to protect themselves from the law they've made.
Is there any bigger liar that Obama? He voted against raising the debt ceiling calling it a 'failure of leadership to do so', he railed on the constitutional abuses of Bush, he even hammered Hiliary's insurance mandate during their primary debates. How can anybody that liked Obama the candidate like Obama the president?
The GOP won control of the House in 2010, the president and congressional Democrats can't ignore that. That Democratic majority in the House was suppose to last a generation and it was wiped away because the American people rejected Obamacare. Elections DO have consequences, you cannot declare that you will not negotiate or compromise and still accuse the other side of being undemocratic. The law has already been changed unilaterally by the Obama adminstration, they've given waivers to their corporate masters and campaign financiers. They've done everything to protect themselves from the law they've made.
Is there any bigger liar that Obama? He voted against raising the debt ceiling calling it a 'failure of leadership to do so', he railed on the constitutional abuses of Bush, he even hammered Hiliary's insurance mandate during their primary debates. How can anybody that liked Obama the candidate like Obama the president?
What are you talking about? The reason we don't have official budgets is that the House and Senate are too far apart to agree on anything. The White House submits a budget proposal every year. The Senate passed one this year. The Republican House passes their far right wish-list budget every year. These are statements, not real budgets that will be enacted. We will still likely have a continuing resolution in place of a budget for the same reasons as before and the CR authorizes every penny that we spend.
You need to question your track record on these predictions you make. Garbage in, garbage out.
What's the hang up with this post? What I said is factual, Obama and congressional Democrats have been unwilling or unable to pass a budget since 2009. When has the Senate passed a budget? A new CR is not a budget, it's a short term stop gap measure. I know Obama submitted a proposal which was promptly laughed and never considered by the GOP and his own party. Harry Reid won't even bring a budget up to vote despite only needing 51 votes to pass one, a vote that cannot be filibustered by the way.
What's amusing here is that you are typing on the internet. Why not spend the 10 seconds to check your facts for once? The Senate passed a budget over six months ago. The President submits one every year. We still have a CR. Maybe this fall Murray and Ryan will successfully tilt at the windmill and come up with a compromise. I wouldnt bet on it.
As Republican Peter King said, Obama has repeatedly offered Republicans a very favorable deal on spending and they should take it and run. But they won't. Boehner can't control the tea party and the tea party, like yourself, just hates Obama and will give him nothing.
16 Oct 2013, 3:51 pm
Jacoby wrote:
simon_says wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
The shutdown happened because our government has been funded by Continuing Resolutions since 2009 because Barack Obama and congressional Democrats have been unwilling or unable to pass a budget since then, the last CR ended at the end of the current fiscal year on October 1st. Funding for Obamacare started at the start of this fiscal year.
The GOP won control of the House in 2010, the president and congressional Democrats can't ignore that. That Democratic majority in the House was suppose to last a generation and it was wiped away because the American people rejected Obamacare. Elections DO have consequences, you cannot declare that you will not negotiate or compromise and still accuse the other side of being undemocratic. The law has already been changed unilaterally by the Obama adminstration, they've given waivers to their corporate masters and campaign financiers. They've done everything to protect themselves from the law they've made.
Is there any bigger liar that Obama? He voted against raising the debt ceiling calling it a 'failure of leadership to do so', he railed on the constitutional abuses of Bush, he even hammered Hiliary's insurance mandate during their primary debates. How can anybody that liked Obama the candidate like Obama the president?
The GOP won control of the House in 2010, the president and congressional Democrats can't ignore that. That Democratic majority in the House was suppose to last a generation and it was wiped away because the American people rejected Obamacare. Elections DO have consequences, you cannot declare that you will not negotiate or compromise and still accuse the other side of being undemocratic. The law has already been changed unilaterally by the Obama adminstration, they've given waivers to their corporate masters and campaign financiers. They've done everything to protect themselves from the law they've made.
Is there any bigger liar that Obama? He voted against raising the debt ceiling calling it a 'failure of leadership to do so', he railed on the constitutional abuses of Bush, he even hammered Hiliary's insurance mandate during their primary debates. How can anybody that liked Obama the candidate like Obama the president?
What are you talking about? The reason we don't have official budgets is that the House and Senate are too far apart to agree on anything. The White House submits a budget proposal every year. The Senate passed one this year. The Republican House passes their far right wish-list budget every year. These are statements, not real budgets that will be enacted. We will still likely have a continuing resolution in place of a budget for the same reasons as before and the CR authorizes every penny that we spend.
You need to question your track record on these predictions you make. Garbage in, garbage out.
What's the hang up with this post? What I said is factual, Obama and congressional Democrats have been unwilling or unable to pass a budget since 2009. When has the Senate passed a budget? A new CR is not a budget, it's a short term stop gap measure. I know Obama submitted a proposal which was promptly laughed and never considered by the GOP and his own party. Harry Reid won't even bring a budget up to vote despite only needing 51 votes to pass one, a vote that cannot be filibustered by the way.
That's why amending is needed. Something that says they must pass a budget.
GoonSquad
Veteran
Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...
16 Oct 2013, 3:57 pm
albedo wrote:
zugunruh3 wrote:
In my opinion it is inherently undemocratic. With many peoples' lives dependent on whether or not they get food stamps, social security, etc, this isn't the political process... it's a hostage situation.
Even from a right of center perspective it undemocratic, you can compare it to politburo tactics.
It's about two stages below the Gracchi abusing the Tribune's veto power and violating term limit customs, and three stages below Optimates killing Tribunes (again, the Gracchi) to block land reform... It didn't work out so well for the Romans.
You can always find a way to break a Republic's system if you're a greedy, short-sighted douchebag.
_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus
17 Oct 2013, 7:34 am
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
That's why amending is needed. Something that says they must pass a budget.
The most effective amendment would be a loss of income and benefits (including the President) during the lapse in which there is no current budget in place....and no extensions on the deadline. Also, no "restoration" once the budget is passed. If they go 5 days without a budget approved and signed into law, that's 5 days of pay and benefits they forfeit.
17 Oct 2013, 4:09 pm
zer0netgain wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
That's why amending is needed. Something that says they must pass a budget.
The most effective amendment would be a loss of income and benefits (including the President) during the lapse in which there is no current budget in place....and no extensions on the deadline. Also, no "restoration" once the budget is passed. If they go 5 days without a budget approved and signed into law, that's 5 days of pay and benefits they forfeit.
Sound about right, after all, many federal workers aren't getting paid.
18 Oct 2013, 12:43 am
Forcing an agreement might be interesting but these same people would have to pass the law.
As it stands a House's budget is like a Santa wishlist. Everyone holds up their own and is very proud of it and then both Houses go to a reconciliation meeting and chop them all up and deal with reality. But the Republicans have prevented that over a dozen times this year. Because if they go to reconciliation they might actually give something up and they are terrified that they'll get hit from the right if they give anything. Instead they were hoping to use some threats to get free stuff while giving nothing.
Now that's over and they'll have a pre-meeting to see if enough of a deal can be found to go to an actual reconciliation meeting with the Senate. Prospect : Maybe 5%
sonofghandi
Veteran
Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,540
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)
18 Oct 2013, 7:14 am
Jacoby wrote:
What's the hang up with this post? What I said is factual, Obama and congressional Democrats have been unwilling or unable to pass a budget since 2009. When has the Senate passed a budget? A new CR is not a budget, it's a short term stop gap measure. I know Obama submitted a proposal which was promptly laughed and never considered by the GOP and his own party. Harry Reid won't even bring a budget up to vote despite only needing 51 votes to pass one, a vote that cannot be filibustered by the way.
You may want to do some research on the Republicans and GW Bush's budget track record. You may also want to consider that fact that the House speaker refused to bring a budget up for a vote many times during this fiasco. As for Reid not calling a vote on the over the top TP budget, what would be the point? You do realize that there were even some Republicans in the Senate that thought their proposal was over the top, don't you? By the way, there has never been a president's proposed budget that has gone through without so many changes that it was completely unrecognizable; Republican and Democrat alike. As for the Democrats rejecting his proposals, they were not too happy about all of the conservative concessions that were proposed within it in an attempt to gain some bipartisan support. Prior to the leadup to the shutdown, Boehner and Obama frequently discussed possible compromises many times.
_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche
18 Oct 2013, 11:00 am
zer0netgain wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
That's why amending is needed. Something that says they must pass a budget.
The most effective amendment would be a loss of income and benefits (including the President) during the lapse in which there is no current budget in place....and no extensions on the deadline. Also, no "restoration" once the budget is passed. If they go 5 days without a budget approved and signed into law, that's 5 days of pay and benefits they forfeit.
I like that idea.
18 Oct 2013, 12:11 pm
Depriving legislators and the administration of pay and benefits is simply a mob reaction. I don't like what you did, so I want to punish you.
Given the electoral machinery that surrounds any Representative (let alone Senator) do you suppose that the loss of pay and benefits would even register? These are people who are being bankrolled to ridiculous levels, and they're going to be motivated by a few thousand (pretax) dollars in lost wages? Can't you see that Ted Cruz' media exposure was worth vastly more than any pay and benefits he might have foregone?
There is, however, a couple of practical steps that could be taken: deprive the Senate of the power to deny supply and require the concurrence of the administration on ways and means matters. Traditionally, in Westminster systems, supply has been the prerogative of the lower house--and so it was supposed to have been in Congress, too, until someone discovered that the Senate can take a House Resolution, cover it with white-out and write anything on it. So too, taxation and spending was the prerogative of the Crown, exercised by Ministers.
If you want constructive budget work, then you could do the following:
1) "Ways and means are the prerogative of the government." Impose a requirement any bill to appropriate funds or impose a tax must be accompanied by a recommendation by the Administration, or must acquire such a recommendation prior to final approval.
2) "The Upper House may not block supply." In the event that the Senate fails to pass, or refuses to consider appropriations legislation within a certain period (say 90 days?), the House may pass it a second time, and send it on to the President for approval.
These are, effectively, the Westminster Rules. But there are two big caveats. First, it significantly changes the balance of power that currently exists. The Senate is effectively neutered, and there is a significant increase in the power of the Administration over the operations of government. Second, it does not guarantee approval of a budget, and your system does not contain a mechanism to address refusal of the legislature to grant supply.
_________________
--James
18 Oct 2013, 1:00 pm
visagrunt wrote:
Depriving legislators and the administration of pay and benefits is simply a mob reaction. I don't like what you did, so I want to punish you.
Not exactly. Around here cities impose fines on contractors if they finish late to discourage them from being slow and lazy. They get rewarded for finishing early. Why not do the same for congress?
18 Oct 2013, 1:11 pm
Jacoby wrote:
That Democratic majority in the House was suppose to last a generation and it was wiped away because the American people rejected Obamacare.
And yet the American people re-elected Obama and the Senate...
And as a matter of fact, opinion polls hover at around 40% of Americans disapproving of the act. Admittedly a lot don't have an opinion...
This poll (probably with a liberal bias) says 46% oppose Obamacare and 37% the ACA: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Secti ... t_poll.pdf
This other poll (probably with a conservative bias) says 43% (page 15): http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Secti ... t_poll.pdf
18 Oct 2013, 3:30 pm
The_Walrus wrote:
And yet the American people re-elected Obama and the Senate...
1. Look at what the option was (and Romney WAS NOT the lead candidate, but he was pretty much handed it after a blood bath of every leading contender but to his emerging on top).
2. After what we saw when the GOP had both houses and the White House, the idea of maintaining political gridlock in DC is probably still the wiser move. Letting one party control it all is a recipe for disaster.
sonofghandi
Veteran
Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,540
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)
18 Oct 2013, 3:53 pm
zer0netgain wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
And yet the American people re-elected Obama and the Senate...
1. Look at what the option was (and Romney WAS NOT the lead candidate, but he was pretty much handed it after a blood bath of every leading contender but to his emerging on top).
2. After what we saw when the GOP had both houses and the White House, the idea of maintaining political gridlock in DC is probably still the wiser move. Letting one party control it all is a recipe for disaster.
It seems to me that nobody is controlling anything in DC.
_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche
RushKing
Veteran
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,340
Location: Minnesota, United States
18 Oct 2013, 5:25 pm
albedo wrote:
Those calling for more direct democracy, even politicians that talk about this are smart enough realize it is a gimmick that won't work, it is impossible to scale, and logistically infeasible, not to mention holding even a single referendum is massively expansive and a form of mob rule.
Government is impractical and tyrannical, and small scale direct democracy would be way more functional.
Mob rule is not democracy. In a direct democracy, people discuss and think critically. A group has no reason to carry out with something a minority violently disagrees with. Representative democracys create mobs with popularity contests. The glorious founding fathers ironically created the mob they were trying to "protect" individuals from. This idea that the people are too dumb to govern themselves and so they must be ruled a small number who also happen to be human beings is complete bunk.
