So why should I not be ticked off with the GOP right now?

[A'isha]

There's a nuance here. The current batch of Republicans includes some that were elected after the ACA was passed. That bunch didn't vote for it and might have been elected on a platform that included getting rid of it.

Then they can do it the right way, which is by voting on it, instead of demanding that it be gotten rid of if the government ever wants to be funded again.

 

[Dymanic]

Well I'd certainly be angry still if it wasn't about the ACA. But if that was the case I doubt I'd be having the fantasies I'm currently having of starting an anti-Republican militia hellbent on disproportionate retribution.

Well, before going straight to hellbent militia, it might be worth trying something more along the lines of lawful assembly. Have you even called your Congressional Representative yet?

 

[DGM]

Well, before going straight to hellbent militia, it might be worth trying something more along the lines of lawful assembly. Have you even called your Congressional Representative yet?

Why not start at the state level? CA has one of the highest un-insured rates in the country. They fund high speed rail though.

 

[marplots]

You're wasting your time.

It's become painfully clear who understands how the process works and who doesn't. When it's time to negotiate the content of laws and proposals and when after it's been decided, to pay for them.

I've tried to use analogies to our home lives. We determine what we will spend when we decide to make the purchase. After that point, it's our responsibility to pay for it. In this case the Republicans, and only the Republicans, have decided they don't want to pay for things they (within the process) have already agreed to.

Further, in one of the proposals they wanted to including paying for something (Keystone) that wasn't even agreed to yet.

But partisan ignorant ideologues don't get.

I must be one of those, because I've read about Congress's "power of the purse." We don't need analogies with a household budget, we can see it in action historically.

For example, when the newly elected Dems wanted to defund the Iraq war - an issue that some were elected on. (http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/30/flashback-when-democrats-tried-to-defund-iraq-war/) That effort was attached to the budget as well, but didn't pass.

Or, perhaps you'd be more interested in specific programs that don't have funding - even though they were, as you say, debated and decided on. There's one at the FDA, the Food Safety and Modernization Act.

Not only is it a known technique, it's a bone of contention with states when the feds do an "unfunded mandate."

It's also how the Vietnam War was ended, Congress defunded it. Furthermore, the branch of government where spending bills originate is the House of Representatives, not the Senate.

 

[rustypouch]

There's a nuance here. The current batch of Republicans includes some that were elected after the ACA was passed. That bunch didn't vote for it and might have been elected on a platform that included getting rid of it.

Fair enough.

It goes to show that the political spectrum in the US is constantly shifting to the right.

 

[A'isha]

For example, when the newly elected Dems wanted to defund the Iraq war - an issue that some were elected on. (http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/30/flashback-when-democrats-tried-to-defund-iraq-war/) That effort was attached to the budget as well, but didn't pass.

That's right. It didn't pass, didn't even have widespread support among Democrats, and they didn't force a government shutdown to try and ramrod it through anyway.

In complete contrast to what the Republicans have done here.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Both sides are to blame. Both sides didn't want to work together. This should have been taken care of a LONG time ago. It's amazing, we're supposed to have this Obama Care, but we can't even pay the bills we have. It's time to figure out what needs to be done to get our budget under control. BOTH sides. House and Senate.

Nonsense. 100% nonsense. The budget is under control and the deficits, built up by Bush, have been on a drastic decline. Try again. You're trying to blame both the victim and the perpetrator in an extortion scandal.

 

[marplots]

Then they can do it the right way, which is by voting on it, instead of demanding that it be gotten rid of if the government ever wants to be funded again.

I think they have been voting on the budget, haven't they?

The House votes for a budget and sends it to the Senate. The Senate votes on it and modifies it and sends it back. There are lots of votes.

 

[Dymanic]

Why not start at the state level? CA has one of the highest un-insured rates in the country.

Mainly because, as I've stated, I don't see the ACA as the central issue here. The tactics presently being applied by the Teabagger extremists in Congress pose the most serious threat to our system of representative democracy since the Civil War. For me, it keeps coming back to this:

"If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution."
- James Madison, in Federalist # 10

What we have here is a faction representing less than a majority -- which, after already having its sinister views defeated by regular vote, is attempting to "clog the administration", "convulse the society", and "execute its violence." Madison clearly felt that such tactics were not consistent with the spirit of the Constitution. Unfortunately, there do not seem to be any specific remedies provided under the letter of the Constitution -- but to submit to such tactics would be to change the fundamental nature of our system, perhaps permanently.

 

[marplots]

They are a majority in the House of Representatives, and that's all that matters, unless we want to change something fundamental about how our government works.

 

[A'isha]

I think they have been voting on the budget, haven't they?

The House votes for a budget and sends it to the Senate. The Senate votes on it and modifies it and sends it back. There are lots of votes.

They're supposed to be voting on a Continuing Resolution to fund the government for the next few months, not voting on the defunding or delay of a passed and ruled-Constitutional law.

If they want to vote on the ACA (like they've done forty-something times already), they should do that and stop holding the funding of the government hostage to their demands, because that has nothing to do with it except that the Republicans hope to make the Democrats blink and give them what they want without having to garner the votes they need to do it properly.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I think they have been voting on the budget, haven't they?

The House votes for a budget and sends it to the Senate. The Senate votes on it and modifies it and sends it back. There are lots of votes.

They're voting on a budget that the GOP created which had the sole purpose of crippling the ACA. It's not a sincere bill.

 

[A'isha]

They are a majority in the House of Representatives, and that's all that matters, unless we want to change something fundamental about how our government works.

Thanks to them, it's not working at all right now.

 

[Dymanic]

They are a majority in the House of Representatives, and that's all that matters, unless we want to change something fundamental about how our government works.

That's happening already.

 

[A'isha]

They're voting on a budget that the GOP created which had the sole purpose of crippling the ACA. It's not a sincere bill.

It's not even a long-term budget, but just funding through December 3rd. The Republicans (right now, at least) want to delay the implementation of the ACA for an entire year in a bill that only keeps the government running for three months. Then they'll have to do this all over again and pass another Continuing Resolution or the government will just shut down again on December 4th.

If the Democrats cave here, what will the Republicans demand in return for passing that CR?

 

[Spindrift]

They are a majority in the House of Representatives, and that's all that matters, unless we want to change something fundamental about how our government works.

Obama is president and the Democrats are a majority in the Senate and that's all that matters. ACA is not going to be defunded.

 

[marplots]

They're supposed to be voting on a Continuing Resolution to fund the government for the next few months, not voting on the defunding or delay of a passed and ruled-Constitutional law.

Exactly. And part of the funding is deciding where to spend the money. That's what a budget bill is all about. They've already split out (and passed) funding for the military. It doesn't have to be all or nothing on funding.

If they want to vote on the ACA (like they've done forty-something times already), they should do that and stop holding the funding of the government hostage to their demands, because that has nothing to do with it except that the Republicans hope to make the Democrats blink and give them what they want without having to garner the votes they need to do it properly.

They aren't repealing the ACA, they are withholding money from it. The law will still remain in place. And yes, the House is empowered to decide where and how money will be spent - it is their job to do so. The Senate gets to approve or decline, and that's their job.

We have a form of government where contention and in-fighting, power struggles and deal-making all hold sway. I'm surprised the public isn't more aware of this. Do they believe that all these folks just want to get along with each other? Hardly. It's back-stabbing and hostage taking right down the line.

 

[Upchurch]

Exactly. And part of the funding is deciding where to spend the money. That's what a budget bill is all about. They've already split out (and passed) funding for the military. It doesn't have to be all or nothing on funding.

The ACA was already funded. It was completely irrelevant to the actual meat of the problem.

 

[A'isha]

Exactly. And part of the funding is deciding where to spend the money. That's what a budget bill is all about. They've already split out (and passed) funding for the military. It doesn't have to be all or nothing on funding.

Except this isn't about "deciding where to spend the money". The first version of the bill attempt to defund it, but the second is about a delay of implementation of the mandate for a year and adding the Vitter amendment, neither of which have anything to do with funding.

In other words, even that thin fig-leaf excuse has now been tossed aside.

They aren't repealing the ACA, they are withholding money from it. The law will still remain in place. And yes, the House is empowered to decide where and how money will be spent - it is their job to do so. The Senate gets to approve or decline, and that's their job.

Except that's not what the latest version of the House CR does, showing that this whole farce was never about what the House is "empowered" to do, and instead is merely about trying to force through the Republican legislative agenda by holding government hostage.

We have a form of government where contention and in-fighting, power struggles and deal-making all hold sway. I'm surprised the public isn't more aware of this. Do they believe that all these folks just want to get along with each other? Hardly. It's back-stabbing and hostage taking right down the line.

Not like this. This is, as has been said many times before, utterly unprecedented.

 

[DavidJames]

The easiest way to avoid having to think about this, in any level of detail, is to hand wave it away by saying everyone does it. I'm not sure why anyone would even take the time to say it. Unless they have an agenda and don't want ti known.