Conservatives are welcome to make their case. Meanwhile, the underlying question remains: Should Democrats have stood off the debt ceiling under George W. Bush ... • ... to stop the Iraq War? • ... to stop domestic spying? • ... to close Guantanamo? • ... to demand President Bush be tried for war crimes? See, here's the thing about the above list: The justifications for the administration are sketchy. This is not the case for Obamacare, which was invented by the Heritage Foundation, introduced to Congress by Republicans, enacted at the state level by a Republican governor, and otherwise the Republicans' preferred alternative until President Obama chose to meet them more than halfway by abandoning single-payer in favor of the individual mandate. The present argument between the partisan factions boils down to two basic, competing assertions: • The Republican-devised health reform is so dangerous that Americans should destroy the nation's economy and good credit. • There is no good excuse for threatening to damage the country so severely just because you lost a fucking election, you grotesque whiners, so shut the fuck up and stop selling out your country like a bunch of petulant children. The underlying question, then: Are Republicans prepared to win? Go ahead, imagine your victory. And then consider, amid your mental-masturbatory revels that the market has just validated obstructionism that threatens the country's faculties for existence. Do you have any idea what the left is going to do to you? What we're going to demand? This is what you want. You are willing to wreck the nation in order to get what you want. If you win, will you complain when the marketplace adapts in order to compete and survive? Or will you be proud of what you have wrought? If your answer is not pride, then use your power of the people to convince your politicians to stop this. On the other hand, if you're simply proud of yourself, well, I'm not going to tell a crack whore she's wrong, so I guess you get the same courtesy. It's just that when you complain about leftists threatening to destroy the country, we'll have no choice but to point to marketplace dynamics and remind that this is how you wanted it. Up to you guys. But what do you want?
wouldn't it have been congress themselves who had to try Bush? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Congressional Prerogative, Executive Privilege Well, yeah, but consider this: Impeaching Clinton? Congressional prerogative. Impeaching Bush? Executive privilege. See, the thing is that the Jones lawsuit was never supposed to go that far. The Supreme Court bent over backwards to invent a reason to force the president to answer that suit. However, Bush's crimes occurred within the context of his office, therefore in order to prosecute one must overcome the assertion of excecutive privilege, and since the Bush administration was successful at asserting executive privilege over Congressional prerogative, we can't expect that Congress would actually do anything. Besides, murdering Muslims is a matter of national security. Making sure our nation doesn't drown in medical bankruptcy is a Jewish-Nazi, fascist-communist-socialist, secret Muslim plant plot to bring down the nation. You forget how much hatred burns at the heart of America to warm our gelid souls.
In the 110th Congress (2007-2008) Democrats controlled the House and the Senate was evenly split between Democrats and Republicans with 49 seats for each party. Prior to 2007 Republicans controlled both houses of congress. If congress were to have impeached Bush Junior the articles of impeachment would have been drafted in the House and the Senate would have conducted the impeachment trial. Tiassa's point is well taken. If Democrats did what Republicans are now doing, Republicans would be screaming like a stuck pig.
Feel free to split this into a new thread if you think its to offtopic but you just reminded me of something. Currently the US is trying to force a treaty on Australia and the other countries in the pacific which if passed would allow off shore companies to sue our government for regulations like laws on health and environment which they didn't like. How hypocritical that the president is protected from actions brought by there own citizens for illegal activities but that the Government can be sued by companies for laws they don't like The irony is that this clause will allow all non US companies to sue the US government over this
That is a misleading summary of events. Obamacare certainly was not introduced to Congress by Republicans. It didn't receive a single Republican vote. Whatever plan the Heritage foundation dreamt up in the nineties was never one that enjoyed broad support among Republicans or one that most Republicans were even aware of. Furthermore, even if the general concept behind Obamacare was indeed the product of the conservative Heritage foundation, supporting a concept in principle does not equate to supporting every possible plan inspired by it. FAR FROM IT. Obama may have honestly thought that he was meeting Republicans halfway, but if he had included any actual Republicans in the creation of Obamacare, he might have understood that he was mistaken. That is, again, an intentionally misleading statement. Republicans had zero input into Obamacare. Describing it as a Republican devised plan is dishonest. Who's damaging the country? The Republicans have sent over many reasonable compromises, but the Democrats and Obama refuse to negotiate. It takes two to Tango. Our nation was created with a separation of powers specifically to make large changes (like Obamacare) extremely difficult to impose based upon a temporary supermajority. Obama and the Democrats chose to ignore that reality and rammed it thru using every trick in the book. The Tea Party caucus was the response. Gridlock is not a bug, it's a feature. A nice summary of what led to the current impasse Medical device tax, the repeal of which enjoys broad support, would have probably been enough to avert this crisis. But no. We have multiple branches of government controlled by different parties. They need to work together. They need to negotiate. Instead, we get this kind of crap: Worse yet, Obama is making the same mistake he made on Syria: The Republicans have handled this situation very poorly, the so called Republican leadership seems to have very little control. But Obama and the Democrats aren't doing much better. You have to allow the enemy to retreat with some dignity. Instead, Obama and the Democrats are choosing to humiliate Boehner. They are backing him into a corner in which he has no choice but to fight. Meanwhile, Obama is also painting himself into a corner with his multiple public statements pledging that there will be no negotiations with terrorists (er...... Republicans). Once again, Obama will face the choice of going to war or looking weak. I wonder if Putin will be able to save him (and us) this time?
None of their compromises were reasonable. And as Tea Party Republican shill are now saying, this is no longer even about Obamacare, but about your pride. And this is reality: A U.S. government default, just weeks away if Congress fails to raise the debt ceiling as it now threatens to do, will be an economic calamity like none the world has ever seen. Failure by the world’s largest borrower to pay its debt -- unprecedented in modern history -- will devastate stock markets from Brazil to Zurich, halt a $5 trillion lending mechanism for investors who rely on Treasuries, blow up borrowing costs for billions of people and companies, ravage the dollar and throw the U.S. and world economies into a recession that probably would become a depression. Among the dozens of money managers, economists, bankers, traders and former government officials interviewed for this story, few view a U.S. default as anything but a financial apocalypse. Perhaps the Tea Party caucus can explain this to everyone? Oh wait, that's right, Cruz had no exit strategy going into this obscene debacle. Obamacare is law. Deal with it. The Republicans failed at every single point to have it 'disabled'. But they failed. The law stands and is, by your Supreme Court's findings, constitutional. If handled poorly is the new saying for acting like petulant children throwing a massive tantrum when they don't get their own way, then yes, they have handled this poorly. It is astounding for those of us looking at it from the outside, because the mass hysteria about 'Obamacare', is, well, goddamn stupid. Lets have a look at the attitude the Democrats are having to deal with regarding this shutdown: Rep. Lee Terry (R-Neb.) said this week that there is no way he's giving up his salary during the government shutdown. "Dang straight," he said when asked by the Omaha World-Herald Bureau whether he would keep his paycheck. [HR][/HR] "Whatever gets them good press," Terry said of members giving up their salary. "That's all that it's going to be. God bless them. But you know what? I've got a nice house and a kid in college, and I'll tell you we cannot handle it. Giving our paycheck away when you still worked and earned it? That's just not going to fly." Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) also said on Wednesday that he would be keeping his salary, because he's "working to earn" it and even came in on the weekend. I'm sure furloughed workers would also like to be earning a paycheck, you know, for the mundane things such as paying the mortgage, sending kids to school, medical care.. But because of twats like Terry and Cramer, they are prevented from doing so and many are working without pay, such as the police officers currently working, without pay, to protect the likes of Rep. Terry and Cramer.. But this is the self serving attitude of Republicans in this obscene situation they have created. And now they hold the Government, the country and in a way, the world hostage, until they get what they want. And you think this is acceptable? I wonder if the founding father's realised that their checks and balances would one day be used by people hell bent to exact revenge because they lost?
If I Said It Was a Nice Try, I Would Be Lying True or false: Sen. John Chafee (R-RI) introduced the "Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993", with nineteen of twenty-one co-sponsors being Republicans? Avik Roy for Forbes, October, 2011: James Taranto, who writes the Wall Street Journal’s excellent “Best of the Web” column, put forth a lengthy and informative discussion yesterday on the conservative origins of the individual mandate, whose inclusion in Obamacare is today its most controversial feature on the Right. This came up at Tuesday’s Western Republican Leadership Conference Debate, where Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich tussled on the question: ROMNEY: Actually, Newt, we got the idea of an individual mandate from you. GINGRICH: That’s not true. You got it from the Heritage Foundation. ROMNEY: Yes, we got it from you, and you got it from the Heritage Foundation and from you. GINGRICH: Wait a second. What you just said is not true. You did not get that from me. You got it from the Heritage Foundation. ROMNEY: And you never supported them? GINGRICH: I agree with them, but I’m just saying, what you said to this audience just now plain wasn’t true. (CROSSTALK) ROMNEY: OK. Let me ask, have you supported in the past an individual mandate? GINGRICH: I absolutely did with the Heritage Foundation against Hillarycare. ROMNEY: You did support an individual mandate? ROMNEY: Oh, OK. That’s what I’m saying. We got the idea from you and the Heritage Foundation. GINGRICH: OK. A little broader. ROMNEY: OK. And Avik Roy in February, 2012: Some conservatives, seeking a more market-oriented path to universal coverage, began endorsing an individual mandate over an employer mandate. An individual mandate would address the “free rider” problem caused by EMTALA, by requiring people to buy their own insurance. In addition, moving to a more individual-based system from the employer-based one would significantly increase the efficiency of the health-insurance market. With these considerations in mind, in 1989, Stuart Butler of the Heritage Foundation proposed a plan he called “Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans.” Stuart’s plan included a provision to “mandate all households to obtain adequate insurance,” which he framed explicitly as a way to address the “free rider” problem and employer mandates. True, that's a different citation than I used last time, but since I have already cited this particular article to you in a recent discussion, I find it difficult to believe that you were somehow unaware of it. Furthermore, as Avik Roy, Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich all know damn well what I'm talking about, it's hard to believe that you don't. Well, at least you're trying to be funny. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Like I said the other day (really, click the image), you'd think that sort of explanation wouldn't be necessary, but I'm starting to suspect that it isn't, at least insofar as we cannot assert with any confidence that makes any difference whether Republicans are capable of comprehending the point or not. (Oh, yes, and thank you for answering the point about comprehension, or, more specifically, the impossible lack thereof.) The constitution is not a suicide pact. Republicans are threatening a default because they lost straight up-or-down votes, and again before the Supreme Court. Republicans like to make shit up about how things wree rammed through using every trick in the book. And, really, when you're handing me articles in which the GOP is comparing itself to the goddamn Confederate army, I think you're making the point for me. As to the rest of your post: We can brush the stupid bit about terrorism aside by reminding that no matter how much people might object to someone describing the GOP as suicide bombers, Republicans have proudly compared themselves to Al Qaeda, before. More to the point, though, you're overlooking one major problem when clinging to your story about how the big bad Democrats won't negotiate with the nice, innocent Republicans: That story is a lie. It’s become a common House Republican talking point that Senate Democrats and President Barack Obama could end the shutdown of the government if they simply chose to negotiate. “What we are looking at here again is an administration and president that seems to be unwilling to sit down and talk to us,” House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) bemoaned at a press conference on Saturday morning. While Cantor is right that Democrats aren't exactly in the talking mood, the suggestion that they aren’t willing to negotiate ignores that they’ve already given Republicans a major win. The continuing resolution that the White House and congressional Democrats have agreed to funds the government at sequestration levels. And even some members of Cantor's own caucus admit that they got the good end of that deal. “It is a concession, I acknowledge that,” Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.) told The Huffington Post on Saturday. “I was glad to see that lower number. It didn’t take defense spending into account. We still have a big discrepancy between the House and Senate version. But there has been some compromise and I acknowledge that.” (Stein) The problem is that for the GOP, compromise means Republicans do their part by making demands, and everyone else does theirs by giving over. (Also, by the way, Peggy Noonan has lost a lot of her credibility in recent months. That's what happens when you get caught complaining no matter what, for no better reason than to complain. And of everyone reminding that presidents do negotiate debt limits, none have yet even attempted to make a relevant evidentiary case.) (Oh, and, quite frankly, no, Obama and the Democrats are not "choosing to humiliate Boehner" by refusing to "allow the enemy to retreat with some dignity". That would be the Cruz faction. Oh, right. I forgot; anything a Republican does wrong should be blamed on Democrats.) Just out of curiosity, are you ever embarrassed by your behavior? ____________________ Notes: Kaiser Health News. "Summary Of A 1993 Republican Health Reform Plan". February 23, 2010. KaiserHealthNews.org. October 6, 2013. http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2010/february/23/gop-1993-health-reform-bill.aspx Roy, Avik. "How the Heritage Foundation, a Conservative Think Tank, Promoted the Individual Mandate". The Apothecary. October 20, 2011. Forbes.com. October 6, 2013. http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot...e-think-tank-invented-the-individual-mandate/ —————. "The Tortuous History of Conservatives and the Individual Mandate". The Apothecary. February 7, 2012. Forbes.com. October 6, 2013. http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot...nservative-history-of-the-individual-mandate/ Legum, Judd. "Can I burn down your house?" Twitter. October 2, 2013. Twitter.com. October 6, 2013. https://twitter.com/JuddLegum/status/385468973971951616 Stein, Sam. "Harry Reid Compromised On Shutdown Negotiation, House Republican Acknowledges". The Huffington Post. October 5, 2013. HuffingtonPost.com. October 6,2013. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/05/harry-reid-shutdown_n_4050400.html Byers, Dylan. "Peggy Noonan wrote about IRS 'bombshell' two months ago". Politico. July 19, 2013. Politico.com. October 6, 2013. http://www.politico.com/blogs/media...te-about-irs-bombshell-two-months-168775.html No More Mister Nice Blog. "No, Peggy, You Can't Blame Your Syria Hypocrisy On the Pope". September 6, 2013. NoMoreMister.Blogspot.com. October 6, 2013. http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2013/09/no-peggy-you-cant-blame-your-syria.html
Irrelevant. We are discussing Obamacare, not the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993. They are not identical. Again, irrelevant. Digging back thru history to find something some small group of Republicans once supported does not make Obamacare a Republican plan. That would be like the Republicans proposing a constitutional amendment making the Defence of Marriage act part of the US Constitution and calling it a Democratic plan. Actually, that would be much more reasonable than describing Obamacare as a Republican plan since DOMA once enjoyed broad support among the Democratic party. Sure, many of those people have since changed their minds, but then so did the Heritage foundation. That is untrue. The debt ceiling need not be raised to avoid default. In fact, if the debt ceiling is not raised and Obama decides to purposely default on our debt, he will be violating the constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment, Section 4, states: The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. The president is obligated to pay our debts first. Default could only happen if Obama choose to default deliberately in direct violation of the constitution. There is no logical reason for him to do that, since the Federal government takes in $250 billion per month whereas interest on loans comes to less than $20 billion per month. There is nothing made up about that assertion. Are you? You are being intentionally obtuse in referring to a plan which was passed without a single Republican vote as a Republican plan and you then go on to deny the well known history of how Obamacare was passed. You claim that a government default is inevitable if the debt ceiling is not raised, when that is clearly not true. You call the Republicans insane for daring to take the extreme step of allowing the government to shut down as though it has never happened before. It's happened 17 times since 1976, most of which occurred when Democrats controlled the house. Members of the House serve for only 2 years, presidents for 4 years, and senators for 6 years. It's no coincidence that the body given the shortest term of office was also the body given the power of the purse. They are meant to be the part of government most responsive to the people. So if members of the other branches of government do something the nation doesn't like, we don't have to wait four or six years to address the situation. We can elect new people to the house of representatives to stop it. That's what happened to Clinton with Hillarycare, and to Obama with Obamacare. The house of representatives is doing what they were intended to do by the founding fathers and by those who elected them.
Tell us another one, dude .... (chortle!) See, that's the reason people don't take you seriously, anymore. It's hard to believe you're not aware of the severity about your pedantry. Do you really think that if Obama had dug up the HEART Act of 1993, Republicans would have leapt onboard? No, seriously, this is all about trying to promote the stupid idea that a Democrat abandoning his own party's preferred policy in order to adopt the opposition's is somehow significant of a refusal to compromise with said opposition. The individual mandate was the Republican answer to single-payer. I mean, you realize that's part of why we've been laughing at the Republican morons who scream about a socialist takeover of healthcare, right? This was the Republican answer to socialized medicine. How stupid do you think people are? Or are you just trying to accidentally repeat incorrect information until people accidentally believe it? Not exactly. I'm quite certain you are capable of comprehending the difference between a statute and a constitutional amendment. Would you like the rest of us to pretend you don't? There is safety in political cowardice, and some who have discussed their changing opinions have ackonwledged the point. But that's about gay rights. The Heritage Foundation? Hell, Republicans were all good with the individual mandate up until Democrats decided to meet them on that point. I mean, shit, have you seen what Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA49) has come up with? It looks like a lightweight version of Obamacare designed to induce an insurance death spiral, which would be fine with me since it would lead to single-payer, but I'm not about to sacrifice that many lambs in the meantime. You Republicans are almost funny about this health care swindle you're trying. Some small group of Republicans? It was their answer to single-payer. Oh, come on, dude, even you are capable of comprehending what's wrong with that. Paul is suggesting a rolling blackout of the American government. FY2012 Receipts/Outlays by Month Oct 2011.....163072.....(261539)......(98446) Nov 2011.....152402.....(289704).....(137302) Dec 2011.....239963.....(325930)......(85967) Jan 2012.....234319.....(261726)......(27407) Feb 2012.....103413.....(335090).....(231667) Mar 2012.....171215.....(369372).....(198157) Apr 2012.....318807.....(259690)...... 59117 May 2012.....180713.....(305348).....(124636) Jun 2012.....260177.....(319919)......(59741) Jul 2012.....184585.....(254190)......(69604) Aug 2012.....178860.....(369393).....(190533) Sep 2012.....261566.....(186386)...... 75180 So the interest is only twenty billion. That, of course, would lose us money over the long run by not paying down the principal. Furthermore, the government cannot make those payments if it runs out of cash on hand. The problem there is that in order to ensure that cash on hand, Paul is demanding that any president should renege on his Oath of Office. What parts of the government don't run under this scenario? Doesn't really matter, except in the question of finding a way to blame Obama. So the argument comes down to, "It's irresponsible of the president to say anything about default when he can just give us everything we want or preside over a government deliberately crippled to the satisfaction of our Republican fancy." Furthermore, you do recognize that behaving that way has the appearance of a structured bankruptcy settlement? Kind of like that whole pay-the-bondholders-first legislation the House passed last time we were arguing over the debt ceiling? When a guy like Rand Paul suggests a course of action that destroys the American government, well, what do we expect of Republicans? And then here you are, seconding that hatred of the United States of America? No wonder you conservatives like your stars and stripes lapel pins. That kind of "patriotism" is a lot easier than actually giving a damn about the country. Show us the tricks. Remember, the PPACA passed on an up-or-down vote. You know what I like about this argument? The implications are clear. For how many years, then, did Republicans push the individual mandate in Congress? And then in Massachusetts? And the whole time it was a lie, so that when Democrats finally abandoned single payer and accepted the Republican plan, conservatives could run from the horrible, evil socialism they had been advocating as part of their grift? Hey, fine with me. A conservative associate recently bawled at me, the first time I'd heard from him in months, and he's upset that I think he's dishonest. And the funny thing is that if I accept your arguments, it only means he's been lying for years. I love this sort of dissonance because it really does clarify the political situation. Democrats may be incompetent, but Republicans are simply dishonest. That is, we've long known that you can't trust a damn word coming out of a conservative's mouth, but the astounding thing is how willing and even eager people like you are to reinforce that lesson. Actually, I'm listening to the economists, not a Republican senator known for irresponsible dishonesty. How about this: Why don't you go back to the topic post and answer the fucking question? After all, in running scared, you've now come around the circle. This isn't about the shutdown itself, but the reasons for it. This isn't about failing to agree on a budget. This is about threatening to destroy everything if the votes you lost in Congress and case you lost before the Supreme Court aren't entirely undone. The only real question is whether your argument is fashioned by ignorance or a lack of integrity. Well, okay, that's not fair; it can be both. And how many of those two year periods are we going to suffer through? You guys won a local insurgency in 2010, but lost on the big stage in 2012. You've had your two-year show. You elected people to the House of Representatives to stop what you don't like, and they failed. Indeed, they failed so spectacularly that the public re-elected President Obama in a year when—and this is one of the few things it seems we agree on—he shouldn't have. And, indeed, they failed so spectacularly that the House of Representatives, while it remains in Republican control according to the rules, actually saw Republicans lose nationwide. So how many do-overs do Republicans need? I mean, as long as you're demanding special accommodation, we might as well be clear as to what all that entails. How many handicaps do we owe Republicans on the scoresheet? So do us all a favor, please, and try giving an honest answer to the question: Are Republicans prepared to win? Is this really how you want things to go, now, or will you complain the day it's a Republican president and Democrats throw down a list of demands that must be met? In truth, I don't think Republicans are really ready to win. ____________________ Notes: Barro, Josh."Top Republican Calls For Replacing Obamacare With Obamacare". Business Insider. October 2, 2013. BusinessInsider.com. October 8, 2013. http://www.businessinsider.com/top-republican-calls-for-replacing-obamacare-with-obamacare-2013-10 Financial Management Service. Monthly Treasury Statement. Augus, 2013. FMS.Treas.gov. October 8, 2013. http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/index.html
