Republicans pass bill to fund govt, Dems refuse to even vote on it, and blame Republ

[Little-Acorn]

If the government doesn't get funded by October, it will shut down.

Republicans in the House have passed a bill that will fund all of the government at last year's levels, even including all the Democrats' pet projects from last year that Republicans (or at least conservatives) normally object to.

Deomcrats in the Senate have refused to pass that bill, or even vote on it, because it doesn't fund one new Dem pet project that wasn't part of the government last year, the ACA. But they are doing nothing to write a separate bill to fund that new pet project.

The more fanatical Democrats are insisting it's Republicans' fault that government isn't getting funded.

Can they get any sillier?

[CSM]

If the government doesn't get funded by October, it will shut down.

Republicans in the House have passed a bill that will fund all of the government at last year's levels, even including all the Democrats' pet projects from last year that Republicans (or at least conservatives) normally object to.

Deomcrats in the Senate have refused to pass that bill, or even vote on it, because it doesn't fund one new Dem pet project that wasn't part of the government last year, the ACA. But they are doing nothing to write a separate bill to fund that new pet project.

The more fanatical Democrats are insisting it's Republicans' fault that government isn't getting funded.

Can they get any sillier?

They can and will get sillier ... just wait and see!

[Arbo]

The (R)'s offered up a CR that simply delayed the individual mandate a year. Considering that a good portion of the ACA has already been delayed because of various issues, and considering that many of the 'exchanges' and the records side of things are not ready or are full of bugs, it only makes sense to delay it.

Thus any further delay in passing a CR falls SQUARELY in the (D)'s lap.

[Noir]

Is there precedent for this?

[Arbo]

Is there precedent for this?

Precedent for both sides blaming the other side, or precedent for a CR with conditions?

[Noir]

Precedent for both sides blaming the other side, or precedent for a CR with conditions?

Precedent for the government shutting down.

[Gaffer]

Yep, twice. Once in 95 and once in 96, you know, the last time we had a dem president. That president was an arrogant piece of shit as well And thought he didn't have to answer to congress.

[Arbo]

Precedent for the government shutting down.

There have been 17 shutdowns since 1976...

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/09/23/225462813/8-things-to-know-about-a-government-shutdown

[gabosaurus]

Of course, you are forgetting that the Dems also passed a bill to fund the government and GOP refused it.

[Arbo]

Of course, you are forgetting that the Dems also passed a bill to fund the government and GOP refused it.

It doesn't matter what the senate passes on their own. All spending must originate in the House.

[gabosaurus]

It doesn't matter what the senate passes on their own. All spending must originate in the House.

It originated in the House and the Senate refused it. That is why there are two chambers. It is checks and balances. The two chambers need to agree. Both the House AND the Senate are being incredibly stupid and selfish.
If both the House and the Senate would take out the merely political portions of the bill, it would get passed. But that is not how Washington works. You can't just blame one side. But you will, of course. :rolleyes:

[Arbo]

It originated in the House and the Senate refused it. That is why there are two chambers. It is checks and balances. The two chambers need to agree. Both the House AND the Senate are being incredibly stupid and selfish.
If both the House and the Senate would take out the merely political portions of the bill, it would get passed. But that is not how Washington works. You can't just blame one side. But you will, of course. :rolleyes:

No, I blame both sides, but I also note that it is very reasonable to put a 1 year delay on the individual mandate. Have you read the news today? Most of the states systems are not even running, plagued by bugs and system failures. So the blame for any 'bad' that comes of the shutdown this time falls on the (D)'s who are the one's playing politics with a system that isn't even ready to be used.

[gabosaurus]

Why do you think it is "reasonable" to include an item that the Dems will surely object to? Take out the references to Obamacare and the bill passes. This is what I call "playing politics." It is Ted Cruz and his fellow teabaggers trying to run for office instead of funding the government.

[Kathianne]

Why do you think it is "reasonable" to include an item that the Dems will surely object to? Take out the references to Obamacare and the bill passes. This is what I call "playing politics." It is Ted Cruz and his fellow teabaggers trying to run for office instead of funding the government.

One may more reasonably ask why Reid has blocked a budget for 4 years. If people grasped what is happening, they'd be in an uproar; as it is the media has allowed the party in power a blank check.

I agree that the Republicans are not making their argument on that point.

[gabosaurus]

That is part of my point. Reid has been obstructionist for a while. If the GOP would sent over a clean budget bill (without Obamacare), Dems would have to pass it.
Let's suppose Dems said "OK, we'll take the one-year delay in funding Obamacare, but we want to add a large tax increase for the top 2 percent of income." The GOP would howl like crazy.
You can't throw bombs and not expect some to be unhappy about it.
Propose the bill without Obamacare and fund the government. You can fight the other battle later.

[logroller]

It doesn't matter what the senate passes on their own. All spending must originate in the House.
Is that true? I know it is for revenue (taxing) but is it for appropriations (spending) as well?

[Kathianne]

That is part of my point. Reid has been obstructionist for a while. If the GOP would sent over a clean budget bill (without Obamacare), Dems would have to pass it.
Let's suppose Dems said "OK, we'll take the one-year delay in funding Obamacare, but we want to add a large tax increase for the top 2 percent of income." The GOP would howl like crazy.
You can't throw bombs and not expect some to be unhappy about it.
Propose the bill without Obamacare and fund the government. You can fight the other battle later.

Actually they are making a point, badly. There needs to be a stop somewhere, this is an entitlement too large. IMO though, they should have stood against a CR and said only a real cap would be considered. End point.

[jimnyc]

As soon as one starts calling another a 'teabagger', the others should realize that person has little interest in serious discussion.

[Arbo]

Why do you think it is "reasonable" to include an item that the Dems will surely object to? Take out the references to Obamacare and the bill passes. This is what I call "playing politics." It is Ted Cruz and his fellow teabaggers trying to run for office instead of funding the government.

Because MOST of the stuff needed for the ACA to become active is not ready. That's why they have delayed so many other parts of it. Security analysts have even come out and said there were massive security holes in the computer systems for this individual mandate. Give it a delay so there is time to at least fix that stuff.

How is that not reasonable?

BTW, the other part the Senate knocked down was the part that made the ACA apply to THEM. Madison addressed this in Federalist 57:


I will add, as a fifth circumstance in the situation of the House of Representatives, restraining them from oppressive measures, that they can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society. This has always been deemed one of the strongest bonds by which human policy can connect the rulers and the people together. It creates between them that communion of interests and sympathy of sentiments, of which few governments have furnished examples; but without which every government degenerates into tyranny. If it be asked, what is to restrain the House of Representatives from making legal discriminations in favor of themselves and a particular class of the society? I answer: the genius of the whole system; the nature of just and constitutional laws; and above all, the vigilant and manly spirit which actuates the people of America -- a spirit which nourishes freedom, and in return is nourished by it.

The whole point of the set up of the legislature was for all laws they pass to apply to them as well. That they have continually ignored this and exempted themselves from much of what they pass, has indeed elevated them above the people. This is the wrong path, and against the ideas and ideals of the Constitution.

[Arbo]

Is that true? I know it is for revenue (taxing) but is it for appropriations (spending) as well?

Good question, the Origination Clause does deal with revenue. Appropriations are different, and I'm not quite sure as some of the language is a bit unclear to me.

[aboutime]

As soon as one starts calling another a 'teabagger', the others should realize that person has little interest in serious discussion.


Jim. That all stems from, and is perpetuated by the intentional Destruction of, or Absence of Education that more or less, breeds Ignorant Street Talk. All dependent upon languages that are mostly limited to FOUR LETTER WORDS, or Combinations of Four letter words as Standard Lingo.

It also is the breeding ground where the "N" word is as common as PANTS down around knee's.

[Arbo]

As soon as one starts calling another a 'teabagger', the others should realize that person has little interest in serious discussion.

To be fair, many think the same about the use of 'queer'. Or 'dumbocrat' or 'rethuglican' or whatever other made up words people use rather than actual words.

[revelarts]

http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r124/Loralei_01/whowillfundthem_zpsc931a3af.jpg

OHH that comes out of the the "black/secret" portion of the budget...
nevermind

[DragonStryk72]

Why do you think it is "reasonable" to include an item that the Dems will surely object to? Take out the references to Obamacare and the bill passes. This is what I call "playing politics." It is Ted Cruz and his fellow teabaggers trying to run for office instead of funding the government.

So, the dems putting out a knowingly shoddy system that isn't even ready yet because they don't want to wait a year isn't playing politics. Most of Obamacare isn't even going into effect until then anyway

[DragonStryk72]

snip