quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

They are legislating as they were elected to legislate.

Threatening to shut down the entire U.S. government (upending the lives of federal workers used as pawns, cutting off services for countless citizens, and making us a global laughingstock) strikes me more as blackmailing than legislating. But then, perspectives vary.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
When has the majority of people been in favor of Obamacare or PPACA?

Ever since it was passed. Just check the polling where it is described or not called obamacare.

http://kff.org/interactive/health-tracking-poll-exploring-the-publics-views-on-the-affordable-care-act-aca/

Yep, there were times. But, for most of the time the KFF graph shows more people were against it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

They are legislating as they were elected to legislate.

Threatening to shut down the entire U.S. government (upending the lives of federal workers used as pawns, cutting off services for countless citizens, and making us a global laughingstock) strikes me more as blackmailing than legislating. But then, perspectives vary.

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

maybe it was not due to the gerrymandering but that they candidated one jerk too much

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Aldredge Gerry.

Democrat.

Elbridge Gerry (hard G) and he was a (Jeffersonian) Republican.

He was also a very important Founder and was just about everywhere a patriot could be around Boston from 1770-1775. He was a founding member of the "Committee of Safety" and just about single highhandedly, ensured the storing of weapons and ammunition at Concord. Gerry was also major player in both the Second Continental Congress and in the Constitutional Convention.

quote:

The same paintbrush that you use to paint the republicans strikes equally well at democrats.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy
DS makes himself clear when he thinks the USA not paying its bills (and risking a much higher interest rate on the national debt) is a mainstream, acceptable form of politics. I have no desire to try and reposition Pluto closer to the sun, and there is a longstanding futility on the part of anyone who debates him.
I don't mind politicians being zealous, but threatening the overall well-being of the economy and our nations credit rating because your own party can't muster the votes at the polls is unacceptable.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy
DS makes himself clear when he thinks the USA not paying its bills (and risking a much higher interest rate on the national debt) is a mainstream, acceptable form of politics. I have no desire to try and reposition Pluto closer to the sun, and there is a longstanding futility on the part of anyone who debates him.
I don't mind politicians being zealous, but threatening the overall well-being of the economy and our nations credit rating because your own party can't muster the votes at the polls is unacceptable.

The House passed a spending bill that funds all of government except for Obamacare. Sure sounds like they are willing to pay the bills, doesn't it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy
DS makes himself clear when he thinks the USA not paying its bills (and risking a much higher interest rate on the national debt) is a mainstream, acceptable form of politics. I have no desire to try and reposition Pluto closer to the sun, and there is a longstanding futility on the part of anyone who debates him.
I don't mind politicians being zealous, but threatening the overall well-being of the economy and our nations credit rating because your own party can't muster the votes at the polls is unacceptable.

The House passed a spending bill that funds all of government except for Obamacare. Sure sounds like they are willing to pay the bills, doesn't it?

No. It does not. They know that the other two elements of the government that must agree will not go along with that.
The sad thing is what refusing funding for the ACA would do. It would not stop the various insurance regulations or state run exchanges. All if would stop are the federally run exchanges in those states that have refused to set up their own exchanges. So what the Republicans are doing is trying to deny health care to their own voters.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy
DS makes himself clear when he thinks the USA not paying its bills (and risking a much higher interest rate on the national debt) is a mainstream, acceptable form of politics. I have no desire to try and reposition Pluto closer to the sun, and there is a longstanding futility on the part of anyone who debates him.
I don't mind politicians being zealous, but threatening the overall well-being of the economy and our nations credit rating because your own party can't muster the votes at the polls is unacceptable.

The House passed a spending bill that funds all of government except for Obamacare. Sure sounds like they are willing to pay the bills, doesn't it?

No. It does not. They know that the other two elements of the government that must agree will not go along with that.
The sad thing is what refusing funding for the ACA would do. It would not stop the various insurance regulations or state run exchanges. All if would stop are the federally run exchanges in those states that have refused to set up their own exchanges. So what the Republicans are doing is trying to deny health care to their own voters.

That's just it, Ken. The House passed a bill. According to you, it's on the House to pass bills that will also pass the Senate and get the President's signature. That sure sounds like there is no reason to have two chambers of Congress when one shares the same party as the President. The House only has to pass bills that will pass the House. If that bill doesn't pass the Senate, there will have to be negotiating.

quote:

If a bill passes both chambers of Congress, is it okay if the President vetoes it, or has he been required to sign it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
If a bill passes both chambers of Congress, is it okay if the President vetoes it, or has he been required to sign it?

No. All 3 bodies decide whether to support a bill or not. If any one of them really wants a bill to succeed it is incumbent on that one to get the consent of the other two. Only in those rare cases where 2/3rds of both Houses of Congress disagree with a veto does that change.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
If a bill passes both chambers of Congress, is it okay if the President vetoes it, or has he been required to sign it?

No. All 3 bodies decide whether to support a bill or not. If any one of them really wants a bill to succeed it is incumbent on that one to get the consent of the other two. Only in those rare cases where 2/3rds of both Houses of Congress disagree with a veto does that change.

No, Ken. The House passes a bill. The Senate can either pass that bill, or pass one of their own crafting. If the Senate doesn't pass the House bill, the bill goes to the House for a vote. That's the way it happens.

Thus, the House passed a bill. The Senate didn't pass that bill, but passed their own.

The ball is now in the House's court, to either pass the Senate bill, or pass their own. I will agree that waiting until the last week is in bad form.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Aldredge Gerry.

Democrat.

Elbridge Gerry (hard G) and he was a (Jeffersonian) Republican.

He was also a very important Founder and was just about everywhere a patriot could be around Boston from 1770-1775. He was a founding member of the "Committee of Safety" and just about single highhandedly, ensured the storing of weapons and ammunition at Concord. Gerry was also major player in both the Second Continental Congress and in the Constitutional Convention.

The Republican party did not exist until 1856 I doubt that he was a member.
To be fair the democratic party did not exist until 1828 so I doubt he was a democrat either.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
If a bill passes both chambers of Congress, is it okay if the President vetoes it, or has he been required to sign it?

No. All 3 bodies decide whether to support a bill or not. If any one of them really wants a bill to succeed it is incumbent on that one to get the consent of the other two. Only in those rare cases where 2/3rds of both Houses of Congress disagree with a veto does that change.

No, Ken. The House passes a bill. The Senate can either pass that bill, or pass one of their own crafting. If the Senate doesn't pass the House bill, the bill goes to the House for a vote. That's the way it happens.

Thus, the House passed a bill. The Senate didn't pass that bill, but passed their own.

The ball is now in the House's court, to either pass the Senate bill, or pass their own. I will agree that waiting until the last week is in bad form.

NO! That is not the way it happens. When the House was functional if the two bodies passed different versions of the same bill both would appoint members to a conference committee that would work out the differences and both bodies would then pass that consensus bill. The House just simply no longer appoints conferees.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_conference_committee

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy
DS makes himself clear when he thinks the USA not paying its bills (and risking a much higher interest rate on the national debt) is a mainstream, acceptable form of politics. I have no desire to try and reposition Pluto closer to the sun, and there is a longstanding futility on the part of anyone who debates him.
I don't mind politicians being zealous, but threatening the overall well-being of the economy and our nations credit rating because your own party can't muster the votes at the polls is unacceptable.

The House passed a spending bill that funds all of government except for Obamacare. Sure sounds like they are willing to pay the bills, doesn't it?

No. It does not. They know that the other two elements of the government that must agree will not go along with that.
The sad thing is what refusing funding for the ACA would do. It would not stop the various insurance regulations or state run exchanges. All if would stop are the federally run exchanges in those states that have refused to set up their own exchanges. So what the Republicans are doing is trying to deny health care to their own voters.

That's just it, Ken. The House passed a bill. According to you, it's on the House to pass bills that will also pass the Senate and get the President's signature. That sure sounds like there is no reason to have two chambers of Congress when one shares the same party as the President. The House only has to pass bills that will pass the House. If that bill doesn't pass the Senate, there will have to be negotiating.

There has been negotiating. The Senate passed their version. If the House was actually interested in compromise they could have created a conference committee with the Senate and worked out the differences and then put a bill out that would pass both. But that no longer happens. The House routinely refuses to appoint any conference committee members so nothing gets done.

Instead look at what the House did they're about to pass yet another gutting of the ACA, with a special windfall for medical device makers no less, knowing full well it won't pass the Senate much less get the President's signature and that even in the House they don't have the votes to override that veto. It is not just wrong it is reckless and damaging to this nation.

quote:

If a bill passes both chambers of Congress, is it okay if the President vetoes it, or has he been required to sign it?

No. All 3 bodies decide whether to support a bill or not. If any one of them really wants a bill to succeed it is incumbent on that one to get the consent of the other two. Only in those rare cases where 2/3rds of both Houses of Congress disagree with a veto does that change.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy

I don't disagree but only ONE of the two party's squeals like a stuck pig and fights tooth and nail to stop anything that would reform and stop gerrymandering.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Aldredge Gerry.

Democrat.

Elbridge Gerry (hard G) and he was a (Jeffersonian) Republican.

He was also a very important Founder and was just about everywhere a patriot could be around Boston from 1770-1775. He was a founding member of the "Committee of Safety" and just about single highhandedly, ensured the storing of weapons and ammunition at Concord. Gerry was also major player in both the Second Continental Congress and in the Constitutional Convention.

The Republican party did not exist until 1856 I doubt that he was a member.
To be fair the democratic party did not exist until 1828 so I doubt he was a democrat either.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux



The party was Democratic republican party, part of which and followed andrew jackson and vanburen and became the democrat party.