Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by diehardgator1, Oct 1, 2013.
You sound like you're crying. Hate to burst your bubble but this isn't the fault of one side.
Because if the house pass a set of bills to get people back to works and reopen services it will box in the senate.
So why is it that one side are focusing their efforts on funding national parks instead of clinical trials and medical research?
The fact is, if the House Republicans brought the Senate bill to the floor, it would pass. They refuse to do so based on a completely arbitrary rule that more than half of all Republicans have to agree on something in order to bring it to the floor.
Weren't you the one that wanted to set aside every developed rule for one dying kid? I guess it is true what they say. 1 dying kid really is a tragedy. 30 dying kids a week are a statistic and not worth even discussing (as long as we can go to National Parks without delayed flights).
shutting down a bloated, corrupt government---a good thing. keep it shut down for awhile and the economy will go wild.
It boxes in the Senate how? Obamacare is funded and will continue to be funded regardless of whether the Republicans arrive at a clean spending bill one item at a time, or all at once.
Except they are only passing bills for programs that are highly visible. The programs being extended are some of the less crucial effects. Republicans just don't want this to kick back onto them. If they were really interested in limiting damage, they would be looking to fully fund things like NIH. Instead, as only 200 or so people and their families a week are affected, they will fund things to stop minor inconveniences instead.
Again you sound like you're crying. You fail to see both sides are responsible for this shutdown.
Get off the funding of Obamacare, there's more involved here.
They can fund everything piecemeal if they want and have not accomplished anything because the ACA is funded primarily by non-discretionary spending that doesn't have to be separately appropriated this year.
How is the Senate boxed in? It's the House giving up without getting anything in return, just doing so more slowly than they would if they passed a clean CR.
Then how does it box in the Senate?
Well, potentially there could have been, but the House essentially gave up their opportunities to seek further spending cuts when they decided to hang their fight on Obamacare instead.
(That's why House leadership initially wanted to pursue a clean bill with lower spending levels, but got run into chasing this can't-win Obamacare game by the Conference instead.)
Now if they try to shift priorities from their unwinnable Obamacare fight to spending cuts, they're going to be met with the charge that they aren't negotiating in good faith since they proposed a lower spending level, Democrats already agreed to it, and now they want to fight for a spending level lower than the one that they themselves proposed.
If the House gets the 2/3rd vote to start funds non-essential areas of the government t will force the Senate to act. If Harry Reid blocks the votes it's a bad move.
Not crying (no idea how somebody can sound like they are crying on the Internet, but whatever). I just don't put much stock into political gamesmanship when real people's lives are actually being endangered. The House is spending all this effort on War Memorials and National Parks, while this action has real life-and-death effects. This is just like the screeching about delayed flights and White House visits due to the sequester, when far more important programs were cut.
Okay, since both sides are to blame, lets send the full house CR to the Senate and put it up for a vote. Send the full Senate CR to the House and put it up for a vote. The first has already happened. It was rejected (well technically an amendment was approved removing the part that offended more than half of the Senate). The Democrats are certainly not preventing the second. By just about every head count, if it happened, the Senate CR would pass the House. So how is it the Democrats fault that the House Republicans won't propose a bill that would pass their own chamber if it was allowed to do so?
Your looking through partisan lens, both sides are to blame. I get you don't want to see it.
I still don't see what you're getting at. What is the House forcing the Senate to do that it doesn't want to? If the Republicans want to arrive at a clean spending bill (a.k.a. not tied to defunding Obamacare) one item at a time, it's still giving the Senate what it wants, albeit slowly and inefficiently.
How does it force the Senate to act? The House can fund the government by passing a separate bill for every dollar spent if they want to, the Senate can approve them all, and eventually we wind up at the exact same place that just passing the Senate bill would have, just much more slowly. The government fully funded, and no real effect on the ACA.
Your assuming the Senate will sign off. That remains to be seen
As are you.
Again, there is a CR bill, proposed by Democrats, that would pass both chambers of Congress and be signed into law by the President. Which side is not letting it pass? Both? Or only one of them?
No, at least I see both sides are to blame.
There is a bill that would pass both Houses of Congress today if it went up for a vote. It has already passed the Senate. The only reason it hasn't passed the House is because it doesn't command "a majority of the majority," thus leadership won't bring it to the floor because of the Hastert Rule.
How are Democrats to blame for House Republicans not allowing a vote on a bill that by all accounts would pass right now if it went to the floor? I'm pretty sure they aren't the ones who came up with the House Republican Conference's silly, unwritten, non-binding rule. And that rule is the sole thing keeping the House from having already passed a bill that even Republicans admit has the votes to pass.