Democrats confront Republicans over changing House rules to keep gov't shut down.

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

dawheat

Diamond Member
Sep 14, 2000
3,132
93
91
Wait, this is what you guys actually believe?

The affordable care act is the law. Full stop. Republicans wish to change this law.

If you wanted to use an employment metaphor it would be once you ALREADY HAVE AN EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT:

You say "pay me $50 more an hour or I destroy your company." Your boss says no.

"Ok, pay me $30 more an hour or I destroy your company. " your boss says no.

Your boss then offers to negotiate on your salary if you are willing to take on some new responsibilities, but that he won't talk about that until you stop threatening to destroy the company.

Then you scream about how unreasonable your boss is.

Plus to this - I wish more people would understand this. Demanding something and offering to keep the government running/pay your debt is not a compromise.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,201
14,877
136
Oh I agree. Who else is he going to have such any easy job of making look like a fool than you?

Yes, I think it's unreasonable. If he gives you that much distress, either ignore him on your own or use the forum tools. You have choices - exercise them.

So you both are unwilling to compromise and will not take Anands lesser offer of having Matt not post for a week?

Why not? How much time off are you willing to take? A week isn't very long so I don't see why you don't just take the deal.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
So you both are unwilling to compromise and will not take Anands lesser offer of having Matt not post for a week?

Why not? How much time off are you willing to take? A week isn't very long so I don't see why you don't just take the deal.

Is me taking a week off the only way you will win a debate around here?
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Jd-iaYLO1A&feature=share

As I understand it, the House would have been forced to take up the clean bill that was offered by the Senate if this rule had remained.....but Republican leadership amended the rules to prevent that from ever happening. Had the rules not changed, we now know that there would be sufficient votes to pass a clean CR through the House.. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...in-house-supports-clean-govt-funding-measure/

Republicans keep trying to pin the shutdown on Democrats....but it will never work. Republicans own the shutdown, it's irrefutable at this point.

I'm at work and can't watch the video. I heard this on TV (bolded part) and my question is if the Constitution requires spending bills to originate in the House, how in the heck can the Senate first pass a bill and then send it to the House?

BTW: The article about sufficient votes in the House is old and, IIRC, more recent info has it that some of those GOPer's claimed to be for a clean bill have subsequently said that they are not.

Fern
 

tweaker2

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
14,478
6,901
136
I'm at work and can't watch the video. I heard this on TV (bolded part) and my question is if the Constitution requires spending bills to originate in the House, how in the heck can the Senate first pass a bill and then send it to the House?

BTW: The article about sufficient votes in the House is old and, IIRC, more recent info has it that some of those GOPer's claimed to be for a clean bill have subsequently said that they are not.

Fern

What's of more importance is if those GOPer's that had that "change of heart" are enough in number to actually stop a clean CR from being passed whereas it otherwise would have went through successfully. Is there any evidence of this from the sources you're referring to?
 

Ryan

Lifer
Oct 31, 2000
27,519
2
81
I'm at work and can't watch the video. I heard this on TV (bolded part) and my question is if the Constitution requires spending bills to originate in the House, how in the heck can the Senate first pass a bill and then send it to the House?

BTW: The article about sufficient votes in the House is old and, IIRC, more recent info has it that some of those GOPer's claimed to be for a clean bill have subsequently said that they are not.

Fern


Because it would have been the amended version of the bill that the House originally sent to the Senate.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/the-house-gop-s-little-rule-change-that-guaranteed-a-shutdown
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,567
6
81
Because it would have been the amended version of the bill that the House originally sent to the Senate.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/the-house-gop-s-little-rule-change-that-guaranteed-a-shutdown


I hope this "little rule change" will be trumpeted in the press, along with a clear statement that without this rule change by Republicans, a vote in the House on the Senate's "clean CR" revision to the House bill would have occurred two weeks ago, and a government shutdown would probably have been averted. Same for a vote on a Senate cleanup of a "poisoned" house bill to raise the U.S. default ceiling.

Republicans deserve to be tarred and feathered with this in front of the American electorate.
 

compuwiz1

Admin Emeritus Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
27,113
925
126
Without reading through the entire thread, this is a house resolution, which is perfectly legal, not some sneak through sleazy work, as some would have you to believe. It was voted on and passed 228/199. The dems lost the vote on this one. Sorry.

Here is your reference:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll505.xml
 

Ryan

Lifer
Oct 31, 2000
27,519
2
81
Without reading through the entire thread, this is a house resolution, which is perfectly legal, not some sneak through sleazy work, as some would have you to believe. It was voted on and passed 228/199. The dems lost the vote on this one. Sorry.

Here is your reference:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll505.xml

It may have been legal, but it was totally a sleazeball move. Republicans knew they weren't going to win this battle unless they changed the rules.
 

compuwiz1

Admin Emeritus Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
27,113
925
126
It may have been legal, but it was totally a sleazeball move. Republicans knew they weren't going to win this battle unless they changed the rules.

LMAO, if you think the repubicans own the sleazeball move department. Seems some trainwreck healthcare plan managed to slime it's way into our lives, in the middle of the night, with no republican votes. Just stop it with the ridiculousness.

The way the ACA passed is one of the sleaziest moves I've ever witnessed. Pass it so you can know what's in it.........LOL
 

Ryan

Lifer
Oct 31, 2000
27,519
2
81
LMAO, if you think the repubicans own the sleazeball move department. Seems some trainwreck healthcare plan managed to slime it's way into our lives, in the middle of the night, with no republican votes. Just stop it with the ridiculousness.

The way the ACA passed is one of the sleaziest moves I've ever witnessed. Pass it so you can know what's in it.........LOL

Your response is indicative of the pathetic state of politics in this country. Everything boils down to a "well Jimmy did the same thing, they're just as bad!!!" argument. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Also, as far as I can tell, the ACA passed using existing reconciliation rules. Democrats did not have to change the rules of the game just to get it passed.....
 
Last edited:

schmuckley

Platinum Member
Aug 18, 2011
2,335
1
0
Congress is standing firm because THE PEOPLE are burning up their phone lines.THE PEOPLE do not want to be forced to buy health insurance via THE FED.THE PEOPLE do not want to pay the added salaries of 1600 added IRS agents.Ever heard of government
by THE PEOPLE for THE PEOPLE?That's what this country was founded on.Not someone thinking they are better or smarter than everyone else dictating and manipulating what will be law.Seriously, the propaganda is bad.Just remember:You can fool some of THE PEOPLE some of the time;You can fool some of THE PEOPLE all the time;but you CANNOT fool ALL THE PEOPLE ALL THE TIME.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,201
14,877
136
Congress is standing firm because THE PEOPLE are burning up their phone lines.THE PEOPLE do not want to be forced to buy health insurance via THE FED.THE PEOPLE do not want to pay the added salaries of 1600 added IRS agents.Ever heard of government
by THE PEOPLE for THE PEOPLE?That's what this country was founded on.Not someone thinking they are better or smarter than everyone else dictating and manipulating what will be law.Seriously, the propaganda is bad.Just remember:You can fool some of THE PEOPLE some of the time;You can fool some of THE PEOPLE all the time;but you CANNOT fool ALL THE PEOPLE ALL THE TIME.
^
|


I guess we all know who is being fooled here.
 
Apr 20, 2008
10,161
984
126
What has Obama offered?

The delay of the ACA will not kill the system; it was an olive branch and refused.

What does he need to compromise about? A lawful bill (ACA) passed all branches of government and was upheld in the supreme court. What compromise needs to be done? If they want something changed, propose an AMENDMENT and CALL A VOTE! That's what amendments are for.

But hey, playing by the rules is too much to ask for some people.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,201
14,877
136

So by this authors own admission of the use of checks and balances, the house sent a CR that didn't include funding for the ACA and the senate used its power to decline said bill?

If a terrorist threatens to kill hostages unless his terrorist friends are released from imprisonment, you don't blame the terrorist for creating the situation in the first place?

Congrats! You've been brainwashed!
 

schmuckley

Platinum Member
Aug 18, 2011
2,335
1
0
Equating Congress to terrorists is just shameful.Congress is the branch of government closest to the people.The one who sympathizes with Muslim terrorists would be Mr. Obama.I notice he didn't offer offer any help to those people in Kenya;yet wanted to bomb Syria to help AL-Qaida take over?
 
Last edited:

Juddog

Diamond Member
Dec 11, 2006
7,852
6
81
Equating Congress to terrorists is just shameful.Congress is the branch of government closest to the people.The one who sympathizes with Muslim terrorists would be Mr. Obama.I notice he didn't offer offer any help to those people in Kenya;yet wanted to bomb Syria to help AL-Qaida?

You just went full retard, son.

You think the Socialist Muslim Kenyan-born Nazi Hitler Obama is somehow now a terrorist sympathizer to Al-Qaida. You are nuts; it's time to shut down the computer and step away from the keyboard.
 

evident

Lifer
Apr 5, 2005
11,894
496
126
Congress also passed the second ammendment, doesn't stop anyone from trying to change it. Picture for dramtic effect.

1377162_594821143889783_1638559592_n.jpg

Then isn't this whole bs like if Obama /dems shut down govt until the 2nd amendment was repealed?