• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

John Boehner: Obama owns this shutdown now

unless you consider the reimplementation of the filibuster a dire consequence, which it is---parliamentary tricks are not Boehner's forte
Fishstyx said:
There were no dire consequences to refusing to conference then, there are now. Its how divided government works, negotiations occur when stakes are high. Not sure why so many don't get this concept.
Click to expand...
 
FederalRepublic said:
It's also common knowledge that the senate failed to pass a budget for four years under Harry Reid's leadership. How have the republicans been refusing to go to conference when there hasn't been anything to conference over?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/24/u...rillion-budget-its-first-in-4-years.html?_r=0
Click to expand...

Whoa, it looks like each side made a wish list, doesn't it? Nevertheless, both sides produced a budget and they should have gone to conference way back in March instead of waiting hours before the debt ceiling deadline. So why didn't they?



"....Passage of the competing spending plans does advance a more orderly budget process after nearly three years of crises and brinkmanship. If House and Senate negotiators can agree on a framework for overhauling the tax code and entitlement programs like Medicare, Congress’s committees could go to work on detailed legislation, possibly under special rules that protect the bills from a Senate filibuster...."


FederalRepublic said:
Why did the senate send back a bill they knew wouldn't pass the house?
Click to expand...
I don't think either side expected the other to pass each others bill right out of the gate. Instead, each side seems to have put all their pet projects and demands in their bills thinking they would spend the next six months negotiating and hashing it out to come up with something both sides could agree with. I understand that the Senate even appointed conferees, but Boehner refused to appoint any from the House. Why?
 
head of joaquin said:
They don't have the votes to repeal it. So they want to hurt America for not giving them more destructive power.

That's how sick and nihilistic conservatism is.
Click to expand...

It wasn't conservatism that gave us the ObamaCare scam. Those who are responsible for this train wreck, and those who continue to defend it, are in no position to call anyone else “sick and nihilistic”.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
It wasn't conservatism that gave us the ObamaCare scam. Those who are responsible for this train wreck, and those who continue to defend it, are in no position to call anyone else “sick and nihilistic”.
Click to expand...

You would need to understand the mental condition of the poster to place the posts somewhere in reality
 
NIMBY said:
which doesn't answer the charge that they voted yes to allow the measure to be voted on and THEN voted NO to stop the measure--now there is no filibuster unless the Senate goes to conference, which the House refused to do 18 times--and Dems accepted your budget sequester #
Click to expand...

Good evening, NIMBY! :2wave:

All apparently legally done following the rules. I must remember to give thanks to whichever deity is responsible for seeing that I did not go to law school when I had the opportunity to do so. I think I would probably be in a padded cell now, knowing that I did understand what convoluted routes they can take to achieve a goal. I'm convinced I'm better off not knowing! :lamo:
 
As soon as the Senate goes to conference, the filibuster is back in place. Neither of us want that.
polgara said:
Good evening, NIMBY! :2wave:

All apparently legally done following the rules. I must remember to give thanks to whichever deity is responsible for seeing that I did not go to law school when I had the opportunity to do so. I think I would probably be in a padded cell now, knowing that I did understand what convoluted routes they can take to achieve a goal. I'm convinced I'm better off not knowing! :lamo:
Click to expand...
 
Bob Blaylock said:
It is necessary to clear out the trash before something useful can be put in the space that it occupies.
Click to expand...
But, again, put WHAT in the space it occupies? ---- crickets
 
NIMBY said:
why was a thread started by ChezC3 to get rid of these 25 Repub Senators?
Click to expand...



:skull2:




Because the Establishment must DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
NIMBY said:
Was it ok for the feds to borrow the money you mentioned on Obama's first budget?
Click to expand...

You all are missing the point.
How long can the Feds spend 40% more than they bring in?

and no, it was not alright. Has not been alright for many years.
 
greengirl77 said:
Well considering not one Republican was crying about Regan, Bush 1, Bush 2 spending everything they could get their hands on. Bush 2 was handed a surplus and wasted it. I have a problem with it for 30 years now. However to hear a Republican cry about it is funny because they are some of the biggest spender we have ever seen. Tell me one Republican President that has lowered the deficit since 1981.
Click to expand...

Did I make it about one party or another? NO. I blame both and the President.

It was not ok for past Presidents to run the debt to what it is now.
Your logic we just as well keep spending and spending.
Got it.
 
mike2810 said:
Did I make it about one party or another? NO. I blame both and the President.

It was not ok for past Presidents to run the debt to what it is now.
Your logic we just as well keep spending and spending.
Got it.
Click to expand...

No it not my logic it the point that Republicans didnt have a care in the world when they were spending money and leaving the economy in ruins and left a Dem to clean up the mess. The debt is a republican problem and so is the teaparty both created by them!
 
Thank you.
Someone not blaming Obama for what he inherited and the interest on the TAD.
Your name is on my rational list, and it is damn short.
I believe the clean CR accepting the Repubs sequester # is a compromise.
Then we could go to conference with an agreement not to default on our debt.
mike2810 said:
You all are missing the point.
How long can the Feds spend 40% more than they bring in?

and no, it was not alright. Has not been alright for many years.
Click to expand...
 
head of joaquin said:
We have nihilism scorched earth conservative liftoff.

This is why there is not point in talking to conservatives. They have to be removed from office, one way or another.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a threat to me, too bad we all know you better than that
 
Moot said:
Well, if you call twenty years of proposals, bills, debating, amendments, negotiations and a SCOTUS ruling.."ramming down your throat"...then I suppose it was. lol So yeah, let the Dems suffer good healthcare....that'll teach em. :lamo

Btw, my insurance is still the same. :nails
Click to expand...

crappy plans didn't change much
 
Fishstyx said:
I wonder if people could step away a take a truly objective look at the last CR that the House sent to the Senate. It had two riders. Giving the same delay that the Obama Administration gave to corporate and Wall Street interests (making them rather happy) to every American and removing a subsidy for Congress and their staffers which no American making the same income could ever qualify for. This is actually a rather reasonable compromise.

Whats surprising me is that liberals would be opposed to this at all. Its doesn't halt Obamacare, funding for it remains and it would stop a a sizable subsidy for people who clearly don't need it and only have it for governmental privilege. Does a someone making over $100k really need a 75% premium subsidy?
Click to expand...

The staffer thing is sort of confusing. Originally the staffers had the equivalent of employer subsidized health insurance. I for example won't be buying Obamacare because my health insurance is through my employer. Congress was the same way. With ACA an amendment required congress and their staffers to use Obamacare so that changed. The 75% premium subsidy is the equivalent of the previous employer contribution on their regular employer subsidized insurance. I receive a very similar subsidy on my health insurance, except it's greater than 75% and it doesn't require Obamacare. That is the portion of my health insurance that my employer pays. I'm not a government worker and don't consider the employer contribution on my health insurance government privilege (because I'm not a government employee).

While congressmen do make over $100k the staffers may make significantly less.
 
Boehner owns this shutdown.

He is the one who is choosing to not let the House vote on the Senate bill.

The Senate has voted on the House bill numerous times, always defeating it.

Its time for the House to vote on the Senate bill.

Its all up to you, Johnny.
 
Dickieboy said:
HUH? The ones in Klein's column:

(1) "Let families and businesses buy health insurance across state lines."
(2) "Allow individuals, small businesses, and trade associations to pool together and acquire health insurance at lower prices, the same way large corporations and labor unions do."
(3) "Give states the tools to create their own innovative reforms that lower health care costs."
(4) "End junk lawsuits

Are not included in the current PPACA. What am I missing?
Click to expand...

Did you actually read the article rather than read the bolded parts?
 
greengirl77 said:
No it not my logic it the point that Republicans didnt have a care in the world when they were spending money and leaving the economy in ruins and left a Dem to clean up the mess. The debt is a republican problem and so is the teaparty both created by them!
Click to expand...

and what mess has been cleaned up?
Debt still increasing, no passed budget in more than four years beyond a CR.


So if it was wrong in the past to overspend, then it ok to continue doing it?
 
NIMBY said:
Thank you.
Someone not blaming Obama for what he inherited and the interest on the TAD.
Your name is on my rational list, and it is damn short.
I believe the clean CR accepting the Repubs sequester # is a compromise.
Then we could go to conference with an agreement not to default on our debt.
Click to expand...

Yet, I am not giving Obama a pass, nor the Senate, nor the House.
lets see, has Obama in his time in office convinced Congress he will only accept a balanced budget? Has Obama and Congress continue to borrow money, increase our debt?

Here is a clue, no he has not accepted a balanced budget, we continue to overspend by almost 40%.

I will agree that the US should not default, therefore the debt ceiling must be raised.
That said, Congress (House and Senate) and the President needs to get their heads out of their asses and produce a balanced budget. They also need to work on a legitimate plan to start reducing the debt. In short, we can not afford all the spending the govt. does.

Last I read somewhere our debt is the equivalent to $28,000 for every man, women and child in the US. Now add that on top of what debt individuals have. The US govt has a spending problem.
 
ChezC3 said:
Senate kills latest shutdown offer as effects begin to be felt - Washington Times

I think you are confused.
Click to expand...

Now the House wants to go to conference? When they already shut down the govt.? Where was Boner when the Senate passed its budget in March? No where to be found because he refused conference. There is nothing to talk about concerning the AHC act anyway. There is a method to repeal laws and the CR is not it.
Where would we be if we let 18% of the nation decide which laws to like? Does that sound fair to you?
 
vvx said:
While congressmen do make over $100k the staffers may make significantly less.
Click to expand...

Well then they'd qualify under the same formula that every other American would. Not sure why so many would object to members of Congress and their staff's being required to participate in a system they expect the rest of the country to.
 
mike2810 said:
lets see, has Obama in is time in office convinced Congress he will only accept a balanced budget?
Click to expand...
What would have happened with the economy if we had taken a meat-axe to all portions of the economy equally in Obama's 1st budget? Imagine the Repub screamers on defense. Imagine every lobbying group. Besides, zero economists agreed with that approach.
Has Obama and Congress continue to borrow money, increase our debt?
Click to expand...
What choice did Obama have on the TAD?
That said, Congress (House and Senate) and the President needs to get their heads out of their asses and produce a balanced budget. They also need to work on a legitimate plan to start reducing the debt. In short, we can not afford all the spending the govt. does.
Click to expand...
If Repubs led by Norquist and the TEAtards had not sabotaged their own Sen. Coburn's plan in July of 2011, we'd be 2 years from a balanced budget. Coburn put it out after reelection when he was safe and will be retiring from this insanity in 2016. It was an 8 for 1 swap and remember the Repub candidates at their debate? They rejected a 10 for 1 swap--complete lunacy.
 
The House wants a conference to put the filibuster back in place.
The House figures they'll get more than 19 Senators this time to allow cloture.
iguanaman said:
Now the House wants to go to conference? When they already shut down the govt.? Where was Boner when the Senate passed its budget in March? No where to be found because he refused conference. There is nothing to talk about concerning the AHC act anyway. There is a method to repeal laws and the CR is not it.
Where would we be if we let 18% of the nation decide which laws to like? Does that sound fair to you?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom