• 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

Democrats agreed to Republicans sequester budget number and Repubs moved the goalposts as in the past.

But with respect to Defense spending didn't the Republicans agree to the Democrat's budget numbers alike?
 
The simple fact is Obama and the Democrats vowed to shut down the entire government if the House won't fund Obamacare.

THUS, the TRUTH is that Republicans have shut down Obamacare and Obama and Democrats have shut down everything else. Yet not one media source is reporting that obvious truth.

They don't need the house to fund Obamacare. Obamacare already is funded.
 
Anyone know the current death toll caused by the government shutdown?
 
With respect to the entire sequester, Dems agreed to Republican numbers.
In the past, Repubs have added to the numbers the Joint Chiefs have asked for and Cantor specifically said they were not telling the truth.
But with respect to Defense spending didn't the Republicans agree to the Democrat's budget numbers alike?
 
The simple fact is Obama and the Democrats vowed to shut down the entire government if the House won't fund Obamacare.

THUS, the TRUTH is that Republicans have shut down Obamacare and Obama and Democrats have shut down everything else. Yet not one media source is reporting that obvious truth.
Thats probably because it's not the truth.

The simple fact is that 40 house Republicans have vowed to shut down the government if Obamacare isn't defunded.

Another fact that seems to allude you is that Republicans deliberately missing the debt ceiling deadline and shutting down the government doesn't defund or prevent Obamacare from going into effect.
 
You're kidding right? The GOP offered ~100 amendments to the original bill and NONE of them were considered...wondering how you define 'stone walling'?

Which begs the question, why was the house offering so many amendments and preventing an up and down vote on a clean CR when they KNEW their amendments wouldn't pass the senate or the president?
 
Which begs the question, why was the house offering so many amendments and preventing an up and down vote on a clean CR when they KNEW their amendments wouldn't pass the senate or the president?

? the amendments I am speaking of were 3 years ago when PPACA was initially debated on...what are you talking about?
 
The republicans knew that they couldn't get a bill that defunded Obamacare, so instead of compromising and getting a budget passed like any rational adult would, they acted like ****ing children and basically said "If you don't do what we tell you we're taking our toys and going home!!".

****ing children, anyone who votes for any republican that has supported this shutdown is a ****ing idiot.
 
Amendments designed to make it unknowable are hardly "contributions."

Furthermore, many of their ideas are already in the bill:

Ezra Klein - The six Republican ideas already in the health-care reform bill

44 - Top House Republicans throw cold water on health-care summit

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?
 
They own it if the premise is that by accepting or rejecting a given proposal they are taking action and thus direct the outcome of the event. However, is the kink in this argument that key Republican figures propelled a maneuver that they knew would be unacceptable (and fail in the process) to their opposition, which would then bring us to this point?

They all own it because it's nothing but pure ignorance to look at the fact we're at the end of the fiscal year needing a year long piece of legislation that historically was used for short term emergency cover for the FIFTH YEAR IN A ROW.

I absolutely actually agree with the Democratic premise that Continual Resolutions, historically, should be sent as clean bills. They absolutely should be...because the entire premise of them is to give an emergency, TEMPORARY, extension of the status quo to allow the government to finish hashing out an ACTUAL budget for the next fiscal years funding. And it's during said BUDGET discussions and votes that the House, with the power of the purse, historically is supposed to have some power to force compromises and negotiations from a potentially split Senate so that both sides come together to actually do it's job and pass a budget.

However, for FIVE YEARS now we have been absolutely unable to actually get a budget passed and we have been relying on what has historically and traditionally (Since so many keep liking to use those words when talking about how unusual it is to put additional demands attached to a CR) been an TEMPORARY EMERGENCY type of funding measure.

The fact it's reached the point that we're even NEEDING a Continuing Resolution to continue funding the government at the sequestration lowered 2009 levels at the very moment of the start of the fiscal year is due to the fact that we've still not had an actual budgetary process occur and have no good faith reason to believe an honest one will occur anytime soon.

Again, I'm not blaming the Democrats solely on that, but what I am saying is that there's been an across the board failure in a MULTITUDE of ways over the past few years leading up to this point that led up to the situation where this is even a possibility.

As I said in another thread...this is a situation akin to three guys going out to a bar, buying each other shots and drinks as they get **** faced, competing all night in bar games and going after women, then at the end of the night arguing whose going to get to drive home. Then, once they finally get in the car and drunkedly slam into a tree, the two that ended up in the passengers seat points at the driver and goes "THIS WAS ALL YOUR FAULT"

No, it's all three of their faults, because **** doesn't happen in a vacuum and it was the actions and poor decisions of all of them that led to the inevitable conclusion.

I don't blame the republicans in congress that did this shut down, and you know what...I'll have Schweddy hit me with the infraction...**** any one of you that want to say **** to me being biased because I GUARANTEE this is DIRECTLY affecting me more than almost any of your asses (Not saying you'd say this Fiddy, but just know it's coming from some of the normal rhetoric spewing peanut gallery). I'm in no way, shape, or form HAPPY about the actions being taken by ANYONE involved in this right now.

With the republicans, they campaigned on doing everything possible to stop this law and are standing on principle, and I'm not going to blame them for that. With that said, I ABSOLUTELY think it's a bad idea and a poor decision on their part and while I had no problem with them going to the brink I think it's idiotic for them to take it to the point of actual shut down. But I don't blame them for taking their stand because they're representing their constituents and doing what they were elected to do. I DO blame them for actually letting it get to the point of the shut down happening...and by "them" I mean the Republicans in the House, the Democrats in the Senate, and the President with his piss poor leadership on these issues for half a decade now.
 
Last edited:
Appropriations and/or continuing resolutions are the only ways to keep the government operation. A budget resolution is merely a framework under which the appropriations "should" move forward...


Appropriations are the ****ing budget bills...


Appropriations are not the budget. You got the budget part right in that it is a framework for all spending which includes mandatory and discretionary. But the House and Senate budget committees don't determine how the "discretionary" money is appropriated because the Appropriation committees do that and they work within the framework of the budget.
 
Last edited:
? the amendments I am speaking of were 3 years ago when PPACA was initially debated on...what are you talking about?

The government shutdown....you know, the topic of the thread?
 
The government shutdown....you know, the topic of the thread?

OOPs. In #75 the amendments I referred to was in responds to this:

That's true, but I'm still putting more blame on the GOP.

The simple fact of the matter is this stems back to the 2008 election. If the GOP had simply just worked with Obama on the initial bill rather than stone walling and refusing to participate, we would not be here AND we'd likely have a better bill...

Sorry for the hijack...carry on!
 
OOPs. In #75 the amendments I referred to was in responds to this:



Sorry for the hijack...carry on!

No problem. It's easy to get confused since the two are somewhat intertwined because of the Republican amendments that have nothing to do with the congressional resolution to fund the government in lieu of a shutdown.
 
You're kidding right? The GOP offered ~100 amendments to the original bill and NONE of them were considered...wondering how you define 'stone walling'?

100 amendments all involving attempts to kill or delay the PPACA? Get serious (as in strip out the nonsense).

Sorry, they might as well just put a provision that Obama should shoot himself... the fact that they compromised from a self-inflicted wound to the temple to simply being tazed while in the shower is not exactly compromise. Putting a poison pill into the CR and then only going out two months with it should be a non-starter among anyone that is being serious as it is with the Dems.

The President should not negotiate with terrorists.... for one, it sets a very bad precedent. The issue at hand is should the government be funded until a budget can be put in place or not. Anything else is an irresponsible distraction. When with the Republicans throw these buffoons out of their party and get serious. This whole thing is bordering on treasonous.
 
100 amendments all involving attempts to kill or delay the PPACA? Get serious (as in strip out the nonsense).

Sorry, they might as well just put a provision that Obama should shoot himself... the fact that they compromised from a self-inflicted wound to the temple to simply being tazed while in the shower is not exactly compromise. Putting a poison pill into the CR and then only going out two months with it should be a non-starter among anyone that is being serious as it is with the Dems.

The President should not negotiate with terrorists
.... for one, it sets a very bad precedent. The issue at hand is should the government be funded until a budget can be put in place or not. Anything else is an irresponsible distraction. When with the Republicans throw these buffoons out of their party and get serious. This whole thing is bordering on treasonous.


Of all the idiotic arguments made by politicians over the years this one takes the cake! Call it negotiating, legislating or just being a President not a dictator. Obama needs to remember that he is President, not a Chicago gang leader looking to gun down his rivals.

Talking about terrorists, what do you call a President and Senate majority leader who are willing to toss the country into turmoil because they see it as their best opportunity to win the house in 2014.
 
Of all the idiotic arguments made by politicians over the years this one takes the cake! Call it negotiating, legislating or just being a President not a dictator. Obama needs to remember that he is President, not a Chicago gang leader looking to gun down his rivals.

Talking about terrorists, what do you call a President and Senate majority leader who are willing to toss the country into turmoil because they see it as their best opportunity to win the house in 2014.

We wouldn't be having this discussion if Republicans weren't trying to force the defunding of Obamacare through a CR that has nothing to do with Obamcare.
 
We wouldn't be having this discussion if Republicans weren't trying to force the defunding of Obamacare through a CR that has nothing to do with Obamcare.

Some might call the above an outright lie. I can't keep up with the proposals going back and forth, but I think the last one from the house called for a clean CR for 45 days and going to conference with the Senate to actually put together a budget rather than inane CRs the country has lived with for 5 years because congress ( both house and Senate) have not agreed on a budget. To the best of my knowledge the Senate has not passed one appropriations bill.
 
Some might call the above an outright lie. I can't keep up with the proposals going back and forth, but I think the last one from the house called for a clean CR for 45 days and going to conference with the Senate to actually put together a budget rather than inane CRs the country has lived with for 5 years because congress ( both house and Senate) have not agreed on a budget.

I'm not familiar with the clean CR that the house passed.
 
Some might call the above an outright lie. I can't keep up with the proposals going back and forth, but I think the last one from the house called for a clean CR for 45 days and going to conference with the Senate to actually put together a budgett rather than inane CRs the country has lived with for 5 years because congress ( both house and Senate) have not agreed on a budget. To the best of my knowledge the Senate has not passed one appropriations bill.

Thats a new one I haven't heard yet....do you have a link?
 
Washington Democrats have slammed the door on reopening the government.

The president isn't telling the whole story when it comes to the government shutdown. The fact is that Washington Democrats have slammed the door on reopening the government by refusing to engage in bipartisan talks. And, as stories across the country highlight the devastating impact of Obamacare on families and small businesses, they continue to reject our calls for fairness for all Americans.

This is part of a larger pattern: the president's scorched-Earth policy of refusing to negotiate in bipartisan way on his health care law, current government funding, or the debt limit.

OBAMA TO REPUBLICANS: Reopen the government

As of this morning, Senate Democrats, acting in concert with President Obama, have rejected four different proposals from the House of Representatives to keep the government running and fund basic services.

OUR VIEW: The Shutdown Party

REP. CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS: It's up to the Senate

On Friday, September 20, 2013, the House of Representatives passed legislation to keep the government running – funding Medicare, Social Security, veterans benefits, and more – while removing funding for the president's health care law, which is driving up costs and hurting our economy.

The Democratic-controlled Senate rejected this measure.

On Saturday, September 28, 2013, the House passed another measure to keep the government running, delay the president's health care law for one year, and permanently repeal Obamacare's tax on pacemakers and children's hearing aids.

Senate Democrats rejected the measure on a party-line vote.

(The House also passed the Pay Our Military Act, which ensures our troops are paid during a government shutdown. Thankfully, that measure was adopted by the Senate and signed by President Obama.)

On Monday, September 30, 2013, the House passed yet another measure to keep the government running and ensure fairness for all Americans under the president's health care law. President Obama delayed the law's mandates on big businesses and insurance companies; this bill would delay the law for everyone.

The Senate rejected this measure too.

John Boehner: Obama owns this shutdown now

Did Obama remain within his budget? Is he going to stay below the debt ceiling? I mean, he is blackmailing the House to give him more. But the US already has a big budget and enough debt to break the bank. We do not need this.
 
Did Obama remain within his budget? Is he going to stay below the debt ceiling? I mean, he is blackmailing the House to give him more. But the US already has a big budget and enough debt to break the bank. We do not need this.
You've got it totally backwards. Both dems and repubs agree the debt ceiling needs to be raised in order to pay the bills, but it's only republicans holding the country hostage if Obama doesn't defund his own healthcare bill.

Do you have any idea how much the republican's "blackmailing" the government is going to cost?

$300 million a day



Thats not very fiscally responsible of the republicans, now is it?
 
You've got it totally backwards. Both dems and repubs agree the debt ceiling needs to be raised in order to pay the bills, but it's only republicans holding the country hostage if Obama doesn't defund his own healthcare bill.

Do you have any idea how much the republican's "blackmailing" the government is going to cost?

$300 million a day



Thats not very fiscally responsible of the republicans, now is it?






What is 'backwards' about living within ones means? The only way not to is to die before your overdraft is called.
Now it would appear to me that the debt is now large enough.*
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time




Maybe we can get it under control before it forces us into default. Maybe we can't. But if we are forced by other we will lose our position in the world and that would be too bad.




So stop worrying about smallish national differences of opinion and stop crying for more spending. Look at the clock.




Thats not very fiscally responsible of the republicans, now is it?[/QUOTE]
 
Back
Top Bottom