|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 4, 2013 8:44:02 GMT
I agree. Pres. Obama can stop it tomorrow.....if he would just be a statesman for a chance and compromise on something......and drop the "my way or the highway; I want it ALL," mantra.
The majority of the members in the House want to vote to approve this legislation that will end the shutdown.
The majority of the members of the Senate have already voted to approve this legislation that will end the shutdown.
The President of the United States wants to have this legislation voted on that will end the shutdown.
The vast majority of Americans also want this legislation that will end the government shutdown voted on.
John Boehner is not allowing for that vote to take place and he's the only individual person in the United States that can call for that vote. |
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Oct 4, 2013 14:26:42 GMT
I agree. Pres. Obama can stop it tomorrow.....if he would just be a statesman for a chance and compromise on something......and drop the "my way or the highway; I want it ALL," mantra.
The majority of the members in the House want to vote to approve this legislation that will end the shutdown.
The majority of the members of the Senate have already voted to approve this legislation that will end the shutdown.
The President of the United States wants to have this legislation voted on that will end the shutdown.
The vast majority of Americans also want this legislation that will end the government shutdown voted on.
John Boehner is not allowing for that vote to take place and he's the only individual person in the United States that can call for that vote.
"Senator Heidi Heitkamp won her race in North Dakota last year by 1% running as a supposed moderate Democrat. The people of her state overwhelmingly oppose Obamacare. But Heitkamp, like Manchin, would rather shut down the government than compromise over Obamacare.
The last CR the Republican House sent over to the Democrat Senate even funded all of Obamacare, except it required a one year delay in the highly unpopular individual mandate, to match Obama’s arbitrary and illegal one year delay in the employer mandate that Obama declared by decree without legal authorization. And it nullified the special exemption from the requirements of Obamacare for Congress and its staff that the Obama Administration decreed as well without legal authorization."
Now....what the Senate could have done IF they and Obama weren't the "my way or the highway" types......they could have chosen one of those things to go with (its called negotiations), and marked out the other two....and sent it back. They could have said.....we'll give you one, but not both. I think Republicans would have taken that deal. But no.....Harry Reid and Obama are saying, we will accept only a CLEAN CR, and that's that! That is NOT negotiations; that is NOT being a statesman; that is NOT comprimising at all!! Now....if you'll recall the Dems were once in a divided gov't with a Republican president.....as as the Minority, I don't recall them EVER saying.....'okay, Republicans and Pres. Bush, we'll just rubber stamp EVERYTHING you want from us.' Do you? ?? Can you give us that example if there is one??? www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/10/04/victory-over-obamacare-how-to-embarrass-the-democrats-into-funding-the-government/ |
|
|
|
Post by maniacalhamster on Oct 4, 2013 16:06:23 GMT
how much do you want to water it down anyway. it was argued to almost death and compromise was done and redone to get something resembling what was asked for in the beginning. so basically it's hang out to dry anyone who is poor... Nobody's looking to 'water it down' -- we just want the people who passed Obamacare to have to use Obamacare like the rest of us. LOTS of people have gotten exemptions from Obama, including CONGRESS, his union buddies, and politically favored businesses. Fair is fair. Either we all have to participate or nobody does. so basically it's like this then.. sorry you got cancer and were laid off and no insurance wants to insure you ..but hey the rest of us are paying our way so buck up ... oh so you are one of these depressed mental midgets that can't take care of yourself...well why should we help.. oh so you have zero education cause your parents beat the bejeevers out of you as a child and now crippled emotionally and mentally you want us to pay for your breast cancer... Smartie...you sound like the most uncaring unknowing person on the forum"S".. I'm financially stable...i met with robin and doug once at their home...they know i'm not some nut case my humour has provoked from people. i was brought up in a ghetto...kids would line up the back door at me house for food from me mum....me old man left his door unlocked to his car so kids had a place to sleep.. being poor is not a character builder...it doesn't mean you want to be poor... |
|
|
|
Post by snarky on Oct 4, 2013 16:50:49 GMT
Why aren't the Democrats willing to negotiate? Nothing gets passed without compromise... at least thats the way it was before Mr. Mywayorthehiway took office.
"...The question now is whether he can work things out with the president. At his news conference on Tuesday, Obama threw out a challenge: “Once John Boehner’s sworn in as speaker, he’ll have a responsibility to govern. You can’t just stand on the sidelines and be a bomb thrower,” the president said.
Boehner: We have to govern. That’s what we were elected to do.
Stahl: But governing means compromising.
Boehner: It means working together.
Stahl: It also means compromising.
Boehner: It means finding common ground.
Stahl: Okay, is that compromising?
Boehner: I made it clear I am not gonna compromise on my principles, nor am I gonna compromise…
Stahl: What are you saying?
Boehner: …the will of the American people.
Stahl: You’re saying, “I want common ground, but I’m not gonna compromise.” I don’t understand that. I really don’t.
Boehner: When you say the word “compromise”…a lot of Americans look up and go, “Uh-oh, they’re gonna sell me out.” And so finding common ground, I think, makes more sense.
Stahl reminded him that his goal had been to get all the Bush tax cuts made permanent.
Stahl: So you did compromise.
Boehner: I’ve, we found common ground.
Stahl: Why won’t you say you’re afraid of the word.
Boehner: I reject the word..."
www.clipsandcomment.com/2010/12/12/transcript-john-boehner-on-cbs-60-minutes-december-12-2010/ |
|
|
|
Post by smartmouthwoman on Oct 4, 2013 17:57:42 GMT
Not possible to find common ground as long as the Dems refuse to negotiate.
Reps are fighting for what Americans want. Dems are fighting for what Obama wants. Obvious which side you're on.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 4, 2013 21:45:16 GMT
Let's clarify this. The Republicans in the House sent three CR's to the Senate that included unacceptable provisions by Republicans that didn't have any bi-partisan support in the House. There was bi-partisan support in those CR's for Republican proposals to cut federal spending by $70 billion. The Senate returned those same CR's after stripping out the Republican partisan provisions related to the Affordable Care Act but kept the Republican spending cuts intact.
That legislation is sitting on John Boehner's desk and every indication is that if John Boehner, as Speaker of the House, brought it to a vote in the House it will receive bi-partisan support from both Democrats and Republicans and will pass ending the government shutdown.
The solution is "Bi-Partisan" if John Boehner brings the legislation on his desk to a vote right now.
The "Bi-Partisan" solution already exists. There is no need for further negotiation because the House has the legislation that can be passed based upon bi-partisan support. It just needs to be voted on.
|
|
|
|
Post by snarky on Oct 4, 2013 22:07:30 GMT
Not possible to find common ground as long as the Dems refuse to negotiate. Reps are fighting for what Americans want. Dems are fighting for what Obama wants. Obvious which side you're on.on this issue? d-u-h. you had a yr & 1/2 of debate. it still became law & the deciding vote was a (R) remember? i do... supreme court chief justice roberts... a republican. that made it all the more delicious. |
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Oct 4, 2013 23:57:43 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Leo on Oct 5, 2013 1:18:01 GMT
Nobody's looking to 'water it down' -- we just want the people who passed Obamacare to have to use Obamacare like the rest of us. LOTS of people have gotten exemptions from Obama, including CONGRESS, his union buddies, and politically favored businesses. Fair is fair. Either we all have to participate or nobody does. so basically it's like this then.. sorry you got cancer and were laid off and no insurance wants to insure you ..but hey the rest of us are paying our way so buck up ... oh so you are one of these depressed mental midgets that can't take care of yourself...well why should we help.. oh so you have zero education cause your parents beat the bejeevers out of you as a child and now crippled emotionally and mentally you want us to pay for your breast cancer... Smartie...you sound like the most uncaring unknowing person on the forum"S".. I'm financially stable...i met with robin and doug once at their home...they know i'm not some nut case my humour has provoked from people. i was brought up in a ghetto...kids would line up the back door at me house for food from me mum....me old man left his door unlocked to his car so kids had a place to sleep.. being poor is not a character builder...it doesn't mean you want to be poor... I have to commend you on the sentiments expressed in the above post (with the exception of personal comments). I am always appreciative of anyone who has had a less than fortunate upbringing, yet develops compassion for others who may be even less fortunate. The opposite is often the case, and expressed as "If I could make it without help, why can't they?" Not unlike yourself, I am puzzled by the opposition the PPACA seems to have generated in sections of the US public. From what I know of the Act, it is little more than welfare for the insurance companies, but I expect it will be better than the present situation. Why an universal health care system financed by taxation - as operates satisfactorily in the rest of the developed world (and has done for half a century,) is unacceptable to the American public remains a mystery to me. But that, I guess, is what people refer to as 'the real world'. I have been brought up to believe that a society is best judged by how it treats its least fortunate, not by how well its most successful fare. To revert to the topic, having been familiar with the Westminster System in more than one country, I have no idea how it is possible to 'shut down' a national government. But that can be the topic of another discussion. |
|
|
|
Post by smartmouthwoman on Oct 5, 2013 1:35:54 GMT
Not possible to find common ground as long as the Dems refuse to negotiate. Reps are fighting for what Americans want. Dems are fighting for what Obama wants. Obvious which side you're on.on this issue? d-u-h. you had a yr & 1/2 of debate. it still became law & the deciding vote was a (R) remember? i do... supreme court chief justice roberts... a republican. that made it all the more delicious. Democrats don't get to pick which issues are important to Republicans, the people who elect Republicans do. |
|
|
|
Post by smartmouthwoman on Oct 5, 2013 1:45:51 GMT
Nobody's looking to 'water it down' -- we just want the people who passed Obamacare to have to use Obamacare like the rest of us. LOTS of people have gotten exemptions from Obama, including CONGRESS, his union buddies, and politically favored businesses. Fair is fair. Either we all have to participate or nobody does. so basically it's like this then.. sorry you got cancer and were laid off and no insurance wants to insure you ..but hey the rest of us are paying our way so buck up ... oh so you are one of these depressed mental midgets that can't take care of yourself...well why should we help.. oh so you have zero education cause your parents beat the bejeevers out of you as a child and now crippled emotionally and mentally you want us to pay for your breast cancer... Smartie...you sound like the most uncaring unknowing person on the forum"S".. I'm financially stable...i met with robin and doug once at their home...they know i'm not some nut case my humour has provoked from people. i was brought up in a ghetto...kids would line up the back door at me house for food from me mum....me old man left his door unlocked to his car so kids had a place to sleep.. being poor is not a character builder...it doesn't mean you want to be poor... Just because you're capable of stringing together political rhetoric doesn't mean you have a clue what you're talking about. Obamacare isn't free except for poor people who've always had free healthcare in this country. I was raised dirt poor too my friend, in various inner-city ghettos. You were lucky to have an old man with a car, I had a single mom and attended 12 different elementary schools because we moved everytime we got behind on the rent. This issue has nothing to do with being poor. Except many people will become a whole lot poorer paying for health insurance premiums they didn't have last week. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 5, 2013 10:33:53 GMT
Still a pretty good Approval Rating compared to the Congressional Approval Rating that hasn't even been above 20% for as long as I can remember and still far better than Obama's predecessor's rating that was under 30% during a good part of his administration.
But there is a more damning poll out there that Republicans should be paying attention to.
|
|
|
|
Post by snarky on Oct 5, 2013 11:25:42 GMT
on this issue? d-u-h. you had a yr & 1/2 of debate. it still became law & the deciding vote was a (R) remember? i do... supreme court chief justice roberts... a republican. that made it all the more delicious. Democrats don't get to pick which issues are important to Republicans, the people who elect Republicans do. the LAW was passed. it passed by both parties after debates were over & compromise from both sides was already reached [ ie no single payer, no public option & the individual mandate ORIGINATED by the (R)] all the way up to the SC vote. the deciding vote was a (R). as expected you'll run way from that fact, but you can't say anything to the CONtrary. it 'tiz what it 'tiz. shutting down the govment for a minority amt of whackjobs is insanity. repeal yet again then...go for the LOLOL 42nd time... despite the already $50 million that has cost the taxed enough already AMERICANS. that IS the proper protocol. not this silly hold yer breath tactic. it's not LA-LA-LA i am hearing... it's WAH-WAH-WAH..... wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh..................... |
|
|
|
Post by snarky on Oct 5, 2013 11:52:34 GMT
Fair is fair. Either we all have to participate or nobody does. tsk tsk tsk... more facts... your 'speaker' is only speaking NOW on behalf of the small group of whackjobs holding a shiv to his ribs. it was a differant story a few months ago behind closed doors: "On the House floor Monday night, House Speaker John Boehner urged his House colleagues to pass amendments to a bill that would keep the government funded and avert a shutdown. The amendments, he said, were necessary changes to Obamacare, including one that gets rid of what he called an "exemption" for members of Congress and their staff.
"Get rid of the exemption for Members of Congress," Boehner said. "It’s a matter of fairness for all Americans."But new, leaked emails paint a different picture of how Boehner fought privately to maintain certain health insurance subsidies for federal employees under the Affordable Care Act.The emails were first reported by Politico, which detailed how Boehner worked with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (R-Nev.) to preserve these subsidies that have become a source of controversy in Congress over the past few months. A brief history: The perception that some lawmakers and Congressional staff are "exempted from Obamacare" began when Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) proposed an amendment to the Affordable Care Act designed to embarrass Democrats. It required that members of the legislative branch and their staff purchase health insurance through the exchanges. Democrats agreed to a similar provision, but there was a problem with the legislative language: It didn't offer a clear way for Congress to continue paying a part of its employees' health premiums, as most public and private employers do. The Office of Personnel Management has since interpreted the Grassley amendment to mean that the federal government may offer tax-free subsidies to help members of Congress and their staff buy exchange health plans. Many Republicans contest that legal interpretation, saying it has set up a "special exemption" for Congress not contemplated by the law. The proposal that House Republicans voted on Monday night would have ended those subsidies. This has caused angst among both Republican and Democratic staffers, who correctly fear that it would significantly hit their pockets. Boehner railed against the so-called "exemption" for Congress, but the politics of the ploy were better than the practicality. In July, Mike Sommers, Boehner's chief of staff, went through David Krone, Reid's chief of staff, to try to set up a meeting with President Barack Obama to find a way to maintain the subsidies. Business Insider obtained the email exchange (which you can see below) in which Krone requests that they come up with a different cover story than Obamacare for the meeting. "People will know we are going down there," Sommers wrote. "We can't let it get out there that this is for the [Speaker] and [Leader] to ask the President to carve us out of the requirements of Obamacare. ... I am even ok if it is the President hauling us down to talk about the next steps on immigration." Krone responded that the White House would love to say the meeting would be about immigration. "I really don't care what it is about — it just can't be about what we know it is about," Sommers wrote back. The meeting never happened. But it appears that Boehner's public reversal on this position made Reid and Democrats reach their breaking points. Michael Steel, a Boehner spokesman, accused Reid's staff of selectively leaking emails. And he said there is not a disparity between Boehner's public and private positions. "The Speaker’s position is clear: He voted against ObamaCare, and he wants to repeal ObamaCare," Steel told Business Insider. "If the Senate Democrats and the White House wanted to make a ‘fix’ to the law, it would be their fix. The Speaker’s ‘fix’ is repeal. This is just a desperate act by Harry Reid’s staff to protect their own subsidy." A GOP leadership source accused Krone of pulling this kind of "sleazy stunt" — selectively leaking emails — before, pointing to a September 2012 story in The Las Vegas Sun after frustration with Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) about an online poker bill. Nevertheless, the revelations put Boehner in a tricky position. And the leaks are sure to increase distrust among the two sides, with no immediate end to the government shutdown in sight. Politico also reported that, at one point, Boehner "wondered aloud at one point whether he and the Nevada Democrat could quietly slip some language into a bill to end the problem without it receiving any public attention." The emails between Krone and Sommers are below: Boehner Reid emails..." those emails can be read here: Read more: www.businessinsider.com/government-shutdown-obamacare-subsidies-boehner-exempt-2013-10#ixzz2gqYWHjTkoopsie daizy .......................... |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 5, 2013 14:35:53 GMT
I don't see what the problem is for the Republicans. If they don't want the subsidies for Obamacare for their staff they don't have to apply for them. Problem solved for the Republicans. They don't have to change the law to avoid getting the subsidies that Office of Personnel Management has said apply to Congressional Staff members. Just don't apply for them.
This is like the Tea Party objecting to Social Security. If they don't like it then don't apply for the benefits. It's really that simple. No one is forced to take a "government handout" in the United States.
Republican lawmakers can refuse the subsidies for their staff members and that would reduce the cost of "Obamacare" albeit only slightly but it still saves federal dollars.
In fact no one is forcing Republicans to enroll in Obamacare. They can choose a private insurance plan outside of the insurance exchanges if they want to. The law doesn't prohibit that. I don't believe they'll get the Obamacare subsidies if they do but that will reduce the cost of "Obamacare" that they keep complaining about.
|
|
?? Can you give us that example if there is one??? 
