Republican Party Favorability Sinks To Record Low

[Isidore_of_Seville]

Both parties use these rule changes all the time. Other examples would be the roads taken on the passage of the Un-Affordable Care Act by the Democrats. 

 

lolwut?

 

 

 

And the Tea Party didn't kill 'democracy' the Founding Fathers did. This is a Republic, but even if one wants to call our Republic a democracy this rule change didn't kill it, no more than any of the other rule changes.

 

LOLWUT?

[KnightofChrist]

lolwut?

 

 

LOLWUT?

 

Both parties do use rule changes that favor the party that is making the rule change. The Untied States is a Republic, the Founding Fathers feared democracies because of the danger that the majority will always at some point abuse the minority or otherwise force it to do its will.

Edited October 14, 2013 by KnightofChrist

[havok579257]

Basically,the tea party recognizes that there is a rift in  their own party in Washington. They think too many republicans are becoming reasonable, or as they call it "liberal"

so they voted on a new rule that would prevent any of these rational people from compromising on anything with the senate and president.

 

The tea partiers decided to change one of the house regulations so that the only person in the house who can put forward a motion to reopen the government is the speaker.

 

 

oh you mean Harry Reids favorite tactic for democrats.  Reid uses this tactic all the time to stop any vote that makes liberals or Obama look bad.  can you really complain about this when Reid is the biggest abuser of this?

[havok579257]

lolwut?

 

 

LOLWUT?

 

 

Do you know who Harry Reid is?

[Isidore_of_Seville]

The anti-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-healthcare senate majority leader? Yeah, I know who Harry Reid is. He makes a lot of sense.

 

Which regulations did he change in order to pass the ACA? What is when the Republican party gained control of the house in 2011 and then spent tens of millions of dollars on votes to repeal the ACA, every one of them failing. Was it when the Obama administration used the ACA as it's primary platform in the 2012 election and won both the electoral and popular vote?

 

If you want to participate in an argument, you should really support your claims with evidence.

[Isidore_of_Seville]

If you guys don't like the ACA, please feel free to move to another country that doesn't have a similar health care policy, if you can find one.

[KnightofChrist]

The anti-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-healthcare senate majority leader? Yeah, I know who Harry Reid is. He makes a lot of sense.
 
Which regulations did he change in order to pass the ACA? What is when the Republican party gained control of the house in 2011 and then spent tens of millions of dollars on votes to repeal the ACA, every one of them failing. Was it when the Obama administration used the ACA as it's primary platform in the 2012 election and won both the electoral and popular vote?
 
If you want to participate in an argument, you should really support your claims with evidence.

 
Reid is not pro-life, no one in their right mind would believe otherwise. He likes to give pretense that he is Pro-life but it is a sham.
 

 

How Obamacare Became the “Law of the Land”

 

So how did Obamacare become a law.  It’s actually pretty interesting.  If you recall, the Democrats in the House weren’t able to pass their version of a Healthcare law.  Because all revenue bills have to originate in the House of Representatives, the Senate found a bill that met those qualifications: HR3590, a military housing bill.  They took out essentially all of the wording of it, and turned it into the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Obamacare.  It gets better.

 

The Senate at that time had 60 Democrats, just enough to pass Obamacare.  After the bill passed the Senate tho, Democrat Senator Ted Kennedy died.  In his place, Massachusetts elected Republican Scott Brown.  That meant that, if the House made any changes to the bill, the Senate wouldn’t have the necessary number of votes to pass the corrected bill, since they knew no Republicans would vote for Obamacare.  So they made a deal with the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives:  the House would pass the Senate bill without any changes, IF the Senate agreed to pass a separate bill by the House that made changes to the Senate version of Obamacare.  This second bill was called the Reconciliation Act of 2010.  It made a bunch of detail changes, and added some things.  So the House passed PPACA, the Senate bill, as well as their Reconciliation Act.  So now PPACA was ready for the President to sign, but the Senate still needed to pass the Reconciliation Act from the House.  Confused yet?

 

Now, remember that the Senate only had 59 votes to pass the Reconciliation Act since Republican Scott Brown replaced Democrat Ted Kennedy.  In order to pass the Reconciliation Act, therefore, the Democrats in the Senate decided to change the rules.  They declared that they could use the “Reconciliation Rule”—this is a different “reconciliation” than the House bill now.  This rule was only used for budget item approval, so that budget items could be passed with only 51 votes in the Senate, not the usual 60.  This rule was never intended to be used for legislation of the magnitude of Obamacare.  Too bad… they used it anyway.  So then both of the “Acts” passed both houses of Congress and were then signed by President Obama.  All done by Democrats without a single Republican vote in favor of it.  To quote Democrat Rep. Alcee Hastings of the House Rules Committee during the bill process:  “We’re making up the rules as we go along”.  They certainly couldn’t have made this law without it.  How do you feel about that?       


(Note: This commentary is by Dr. Jill Vecchio.)

Edited October 14, 2013 by KnightofChrist

[KnightofChrist]

If you guys don't like the ACA, please feel free to move to another country that doesn't have a similar health care policy, if you can find one.

 

But why not be more Christian, charitable and American about it? Remember the things called liberty and freedom? Why not allow people to freely sign up for Health Care if they so choose rather than force and coerce them to do so even if it is against their will?

[havok579257]

The anti-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-healthcare senate majority leader? Yeah, I know who Harry Reid is. He makes a lot of sense.

 

Which regulations did he change in order to pass the ACA? What is when the Republican party gained control of the house in 2011 and then spent tens of millions of dollars on votes to repeal the ACA, every one of them failing. Was it when the Obama administration used the ACA as it's primary platform in the 2012 election and won both the electoral and popular vote?

 

If you want to participate in an argument, you should really support your claims with evidence.

 

your delusional if you think reid is anti-abortion.  that's laughable.  also reid is anti-immigration(well only if its a republican idea- for further evidence see what he said when Regan was president and granted amnisty) and he is not pro healthcare.  reid is 100% a politician and will do or say whatever he needs to, to get re-elected.  to think other wise is delusional with democratic love.

 

in years past harry reid has refused to put obamas budget on the floor for a vote because it would embarrass the president. the house shot down his bill unanimously.  reid to avoid the president looking incompetent refused to put his budget on the floor even though republicans were asking for it.

 

also reid never allowed a real budget to be put on the floor so the senate did not pass a budget(which is required by law) for years due to harry reid never allowing one on the floor to pass.

 

reid does this a lot.  although, its way easier to ignore democratic party politics and focus on republican party politics.

[havok579257]

If you guys don't like the ACA, please feel free to move to another country that doesn't have a similar health care policy, if you can find one.

 

 

you would have been great shrill for the democratic part during slavery and segregation and the racism days.

 

"hey if you don't like slavery or segregation, move to a different country.  If not, then shut up."

 

way to go democrats on that one.  pushing for slavery and segregation.  guess they got that one wrong.

[Isidore_of_Seville]

1. So, here is the real story as to why the Senate chose another bill and rewrote it - (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr3590#summary). There's nothing dubious going on, that's just how it has to work in order for the senate to generate a bill for health care reform.

 

 

 

This is the Senate's health care bill. The bill started off with text regarding an unrelated matter but the Senate is co-opted this bill as a vehicle for passage of their reform and changed the text in whole to the health care bill. They do this because the Constitution requires all revenue bills to start in the House, and their health reform plan involves revenue. So they have chosen to work off of a bill that started in the House, even if that bill is unrelated.

 

2. The reconciliation rule wasn't changed in any way in order for the senate to pass the ACA. It's used to conform bills to budget constraints and that's exactly what it was used for.

 

3. Let's also take a look at the timeline of the bill - 

Introduced Sep 17, 2009

Passed House Oct 08, 2009

Passed Senate with Changes Dec 24,

2009 House Agreed to Changes Mar 21, 2010

Signed by the President Mar 23, 2010

 

All of this happened well before the presidential election of 2012, where Obama ran his campaign on the platform of the ACA and won the electoral and the popular vote. so not only is it law, the majority of Americans want it. 

 

What does all of this mean? 

 

4. It's law. We can fight to repeal it, or just specific parts we don't like (like the HHS mandate), but holding the government hostage with a shutdown isn't a constructive way to go about that.

 

5. And when this is what the representatives who oppose the ACA sound like, it doesn't give the argument much credibility. 

 

 

Edited October 14, 2013 by Isidore_of_Seville

[Isidore_of_Seville]

But why not be more Christian, charitable and American about it? Remember the things called liberty and freedom? Why not allow people to freely sign up for Health Care if they so choose rather than force and coerce them to do so even if it is against their will?

 

Because everyone person who does not have healthcare is a detriment to the themselves and to everyone else. Not having healthcare can quickly cause someone to skyrocket into debt with medical bills and it also puts a heavy burden on taxpayers to fund more emergency care.

 

This little cartoon should help answer some of the questions you may have about why things are the way they are in the ACA.

 

[God the Father]

Because everyone person who does not have healthcare is a detriment to the themselves and to everyone else. Not having healthcare can quickly cause someone to skyrocket into debt with medical bills and it also puts a heavy burden on taxpayers to fund more emergency care.

 

 

I typed up a long explanation of what "insurance" (what you call "healthcare") is, and the issues of adverse selection and moral hazard, and how "emergency care" is the socialized public insurance ghost version of Obamacare, but it's just not worth it to argue. Life with a finance degree isn't as easy as I thought it would be.

 

I'd be interested to see the reaction of the old, white, racist men who created this country if they witnessed people [i]against[/i] the federally mandated purchase of a corporate product being advised to emigrate.

[Isidore_of_Seville]

 

I typed up a long explanation of what "insurance" (what you call "healthcare") is, and the issues of adverse selection and moral hazard, and how "emergency care" is the socialized public insurance ghost version of Obamacare, but it's just not worth it to argue. Life with a finance degree isn't as easy as I thought it would be.

 

I'd be interested to see the reaction of the old, white, racist men who created this country if they witnessed people against the federally mandated purchase of a corporate product being advised to emigrate.

 

Thanks for nothing then, I guess.

 

I'd be curious to see how the founding fathers deal with a lot of what's going on these days. Nukes. Machines guns. No more slavery. The UN. Modern medicine. Modern science. The stock market. Cars. Airplanes. Photographs. Movies. The Internet. Space Travel. Satellite Communication. Toothpaste...

[KnightofChrist]

1. So, here is the real story as to why the Senate chose another bill and rewrote it - (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr3590#summary). There's nothing dubious going on, that's just how it has to work in order for the senate to generate a bill for health care reform.
 

This is the Senate's health care bill. The bill started off with text regarding an unrelated matter but the Senate is co-opted this bill as a vehicle for passage of their reform and changed the text in whole to the health care bill. They do this because the Constitution requires all revenue bills to start in the House, and their health reform plan involves revenue. So they have chosen to work off of a bill that started in the House, even if that bill is unrelated.

2. The reconciliation rule wasn't changed in any way in order for the senate to pass the ACA. It's used to conform bills to budget constraints and that's exactly what it was used for.

 
Yes, yes it was. Perhaps you need to reread and or comprehend more clearly what you've quoted. Your quote rather than contradicting my previous post and position, it helps to confirm it. Thank you for your help in this regard.
 

All of this happened well before the presidential election of 2012, where Obama ran his campaign on the platform of the ACA and won the electoral and the popular vote. so not only is it law, the majority of Americans want it.

Only a little more than half of voters in 2012 voted for Obama. The other half did not, also the members of the House won their elections as well. They too can claim a mandate from voters. This goes back to why the Framers did not make our Republic a Democracy. They purposely made it where two sides would have to compromise and work together, and helped ensure than the majority did not abuse the minority. Getting sligthly more votes does not give the President a right to force people to buy a product against their will, not in a free country.
 

What does all of this mean? 
 
4. It's law. We can fight to repeal it, or just specific parts we don't like (like the HHS mandate), but holding the government hostage with a shutdown isn't a constructive way to go about that.
 
5. And when this is what the representatives who oppose the ACA sound like, it doesn't give the argument much credibility.

It means you think the majority can rule over the minority so long as the majority party in control is the Democrat Party. The law is unjust, one reason is the HHS mandate, another is that it forces persons against their will to buy something they don't want. A law that is unjust is no law at all. Edited October 14, 2013 by KnightofChrist