Oct 3rd 2013, 4:00:56
Originally posted by Pang:
Angel1, you are incorrect. Not just about whose fault the shutdown is, but in your beliefs if you claim to be a conservative.
If you claim to be someone who supports the constitution (and by extension, America), how can you believe that holding up a law's implementation after it was passed -- and affirmed by the supreme court -- just because you don't like it is an OK thing to do? This debate isn't a negotiation point. This is funding the damn government to continue functioning.
If you claim to be someone who supports the constitution (and by extension, America), how can you believe that holding up a law's implementation after it was passed -- and affirmed by the supreme court -- just because you don't like it is an OK thing to do? This debate isn't a negotiation point. This is funding the damn government to continue functioning.
The Supreme Court has affirmed parts of Obamacare and struck down other parts. For instance a number of Americans won't qualify for subsidies despite being very poor because the US Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Government could not blackmail the states into expanding their medicaid coverage. Which brings up another point, they upheld the individual mandate as a tax (saying that it was otherwise unconstitutional); unfortunately, the Supreme Court did not hear arguments on the fact that this revenue bill originated in the US Senate and thus did not make a ruling on that. Now the President will argue that Obamacare originated in the House as a bill to provide for veterans housing and it was stripped in the Senate and then sent back to the House. This however, essentially blackmailed representatives and denied Americans their equal representation in the US House of Representatives. If the Supreme Court follows that line of logic, they will be forced to conclude that Obamacare originated in the Senate when it gets back to the Supreme Court. That's the complicated part to prove, but once that's proven it becomes very easy to prove the law unconstitutional:
Article 1, Section 7, Clause 1 states, "All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills."
When does this make it's way to the Supreme Court? First, someone has to have standing to sue...they must have been impacted by the individual mandate and probably been forced to pay the individual mandate tax. The tax makes it a revenue bill, paying it gives someone standing to sue. This kind of makes me uncertain as to whether or not Republicans should be trying to stop the individual mandate because this could very well be the quickest way to get rid of Obamacare entirely.
I don't know wtf you're talking about re: "majority of americans". You're just pulling words out of your ass. The polling states that a MAJORITY of Americans WANT Oabamacare to go into effect as an incremental step toward a better healthcare system. A MAJORITY of Americans feel that this government shutdown isn't what they want. A MAJORITY of Americans feel that this is on the Republicans and not Obama or the Democrats. This was the polling as recently as last night when I watched both Canadian and American news on the topic.
If you want to talk about the last time an election was held, a majority of Americans voted for Barack Obama. A majority of Americans voted for Democratic senators. In the House, the Democrats gained seats. The Republicans lost and lost badly, mainly because of the kind of vitriol and obstructionism that they showed during Obama's first term. Holding secure right-leaning seats in gerrymandered districts is about all the Republicans did in 2012.
If you want to talk about the last time an election was held, a majority of Americans voted for Barack Obama. A majority of Americans voted for Democratic senators. In the House, the Democrats gained seats. The Republicans lost and lost badly, mainly because of the kind of vitriol and obstructionism that they showed during Obama's first term. Holding secure right-leaning seats in gerrymandered districts is about all the Republicans did in 2012.
Republicans won the House of Representatives in the election after Obamacare was passed. They still control the House. Clearly Americans want compromise...that's why we didn't one party control even in the most recent election. Though for the record, America is first and foremost a federal republic and only after that is America a representative democracy. This was put into place to protect against the tyranny of the majority and I would defy you to say that a majority of Americans don't want the individual mandate delayed since so many other entities including the congress are getting waivers on Obamacare.
So, to summarize:
a) Republicans lost the last election, which they claimed was a referendum on Obama and Obamacare. They lost seats in both chambers of congress and were trounced nationally by Obama. As John McCain said "there are consequences to losing elections" so you'd think it's time to stop being obstructionist.
b) The supreme court affirmed the law as constitutional, meaning that by not funding it, Republicans aren't as fond of following the constitution as they claim to be.
c) Republicans are basically becoming anarchist because of a small wing of their party, and the party seems fine with that.
d) Only one party holds the country hostage when it doesn't get it's way, and that party is the Republicans.
Anyway, thanks for making our crappy Canadian government look like a bunch of all-stars...
a) Republicans lost the last election, which they claimed was a referendum on Obama and Obamacare. They lost seats in both chambers of congress and were trounced nationally by Obama. As John McCain said "there are consequences to losing elections" so you'd think it's time to stop being obstructionist.
b) The supreme court affirmed the law as constitutional, meaning that by not funding it, Republicans aren't as fond of following the constitution as they claim to be.
c) Republicans are basically becoming anarchist because of a small wing of their party, and the party seems fine with that.
d) Only one party holds the country hostage when it doesn't get it's way, and that party is the Republicans.
Anyway, thanks for making our crappy Canadian government look like a bunch of all-stars...
a) Americans still left the Republicans in control of the US House of Representatives, so you would think the Democrats and President Obama would get the idea that Americans want them to compromise.
b) We'll see what the Supreme Court says when the law makes its way back to the Supreme Court and it is going to go back. Constitutionality remains an open question. The Supreme Court's own ruling allowing the individual mandate instead of just striking that part of the law down could very well force them to strike the whole law down.
c) The Republican run House of Representatives sent two budgets to the Democratic run Senate. In the second, they toned down their efforts and upped their ante to make a budget deal. What did the Democrats do? After the first budget, they stripped the budget of the provision to defund Obamacare and sent it back. After the second budget, they didn't do anything. Republicans plainly made an effort to get a budget and Democrats did nothing to try to reach a deal. They didn't even offer the Republicans a carrot on reducing the deficit. They didn't do anything but say that they're not going to negotiate. Actions speak louder than words. The Democrats' actions are saying exactly what their words are, "We're not going to negotiate!" The Republicans' actions are saying, "We are negotiating the best we can with our colleagues." One party is negotiating through their actions and the other is shutting down the government through their inaction. Anarchy is refusing to negotiate in any way, shape, or form to pass a budget. That's really all there is to the government shutdown.
d) See point "c". I have clearly shown that the Democrats are the party that refuses to negotiate, so who's holding the government hostage again? I'm confused because it doesn't make sense to say that the party that's actually negotiating is holding the government hostage and that's what you're saying. I have to conclude that you're completely wrong on this point.
-Angel1