Republican Suicide Caucus

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 01, 2013 5:26 AM GMT
    Where the G.O.P.'s Suicide Caucus Lives

    http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/09/meadows-boehner-defund-obamacare-suicide-caucus-geography.html

    congressdistricts_final-01.png



    If the government shuts down, it will be the fault of the GOP. But they don’t want you to believe that.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/09/30/the-republicans-are-blaming-their-victims.html

    expose them icon_evil.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 01, 2013 5:30 AM GMT


    Actually the Republicans voting for shut down can't fool the rest of the world into thinking it's Obama's fault. For some reason the US has people who think the US operates in a vaccuum. It doesn't. icon_wink.gif

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 01, 2013 5:36 AM GMT
    meninlove said

    Actually the Republicans voting for shut down can't fool the rest of the world into thinking it's Obama's fault. For some reason the US has people who think the US operates in a vaccuum. It doesn't. icon_wink.gif




    well, we will see how the markets react the rest of the week, the rest of the world only thinks fucked up dysfunction, not really pin point blame, maybe another credit rating down grade is comming

    Lets not forget, extortion is a felony, Suicide Caucus are criminals, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extortion
  • PolitiMAC

    Posts: 728

    Oct 01, 2013 5:43 AM GMT
    Hmm...yeah, the Democrats demanding that the Republicans just do what they want is totally fair isn't it?

    It's not like a postponement of an unworkable policy that is a huge drain of money and over regulation is a good thing, is it?

    Oh, no, those Republicans are just evil creatures of hell, aren't they? Only the Democrats are the Angels of Truth that must be believed at all times, right?

    In short, the Democrats' stubbornness and childishness to push for Obamacare is irresponsible and to blame it on Republicans is ridiculous and delusional.

    Now, how many people can tell me how stupid/uninformed/too young/foreign or some other supposedly discrediting description.

    Obama is continuing to demonstrate his inability to run America, as evidenced in his polling and the fact that America is losing money and increasing debt exponentially. The Leftist belief that only other Leftists can run things is damaging America and anywhere else that it happens.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 01, 2013 5:51 AM GMT
    PolitiNerd saidHmm...yeah, the Democrats demanding that the Republicans just do what they want is totally fair isn't it?

    It's not like a postponement of an unworkable policy that is a huge drain of money and over regulation is a good thing, is it?

    Oh, no, those Republicans are just evil creatures of hell, aren't they? Only the Democrats are the Angels of Truth that must be believed at all times, right?

    In short, the Democrats' stubbornness and childishness to push for Obamacare is irresponsible and to blame it on Republicans is ridiculous and delusional.

    Now, how many people can tell me how stupid/uninformed/too young/foreign or some other supposedly discrediting description.

    Obama is continuing to demonstrate his inability to run America, as evidenced in his polling and the fact that America is losing money and increasing debt exponentially. The Leftist belief that only other Leftists can run things is damaging America and anywhere else that it happens.


    I repeat: Lets not forget, extortion is a felony, Suicide Caucus are criminals, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extortion
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 01, 2013 5:52 AM GMT
    Most of them are in the most conservative, sparsely populated outposts around, not surprising that they signed on. The thing about shutting down the government is that it doesn't stop Obamacare from taking effect, because it's already funded. That's not worth furloughs that harshly effect workers.

    With that said, elections have consequences and Republicans cannot expect their every demand to be met when they only control one branch of government (and only through gerrymandering).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 01, 2013 5:55 AM GMT
    PolitiNerd saidHmm...yeah, the Democrats demanding that the Republicans just do what they want is totally fair isn't it?

    It's not like a postponement of an unworkable policy that is a huge drain of money and over regulation is a good thing, is it?

    Oh, no, those Republicans are just evil creatures of hell, aren't they? Only the Democrats are the Angels of Truth that must be believed at all times, right?

    In short, the Democrats' stubbornness and childishness to push for Obamacare is irresponsible and to blame it on Republicans is ridiculous and delusional.

    Now, how many people can tell me how stupid/uninformed/too young/foreign or some other supposedly discrediting description.

    Obama is continuing to demonstrate his inability to run America, as evidenced in his polling and the fact that America is losing money and increasing debt exponentially. The Leftist belief that only other Leftists can run things is damaging America and anywhere else that it happens.


    Uh huh, well then, perhaps you should do away with your system of health care that allows you so much and see how you enjoy the current system of the US before Obamacare. icon_wink.gif

    You are posting this yet you are enjoying a rather good deal, aren't you?

    " Australia the current system, known as Medicare, was instituted in 1984. It coexists with a private health system. Medicare is funded partly by a 1.5% income tax Medicare levy (with exceptions for low-income earners), but mostly out of general revenue. An additional levy of 1% is imposed on high-income earners without private health insurance. As well as Medicare, there is a separate Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme that considerably subsidises a range of prescription medications.

    Like so: "Life expectancy in Australia is among the highest in the world. According to the 2013 Global burden of disease study Australia was ranked third highest in life expectancy.[4] The life expectancy (at birth) in 2005 was 78.5 years for males and 83.3 years for females. In 2006, the birth and death rates were 12.8 and 6.5 respectively, per 1,000 people. The infant mortality rate was 5.0 per 1,000 live births.[3] In 2002/2004, less than 2.5% of the population was undernourished."

    ..now guess what? "In Australia the current system, known as Medicare, was instituted in 1984. It coexists with a private health system. Medicare is funded partly by a 1.5% income tax Medicare levy (with exceptions for low-income earners), but mostly out of general revenue. An additional levy of 1% is imposed on high-income earners without private health insurance. As well as Medicare, there is a separate Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme that considerably subsidises a range of prescription medications."

    You don't want the US to have anything close to what you have. I wonder why.
  • PolitiMAC

    Posts: 728

    Oct 01, 2013 6:14 AM GMT
    meninlove said
    PolitiNerd saidHmm...yeah, the Democrats demanding that the Republicans just do what they want is totally fair isn't it?

    It's not like a postponement of an unworkable policy that is a huge drain of money and over regulation is a good thing, is it?

    Oh, no, those Republicans are just evil creatures of hell, aren't they? Only the Democrats are the Angels of Truth that must be believed at all times, right?

    In short, the Democrats' stubbornness and childishness to push for Obamacare is irresponsible and to blame it on Republicans is ridiculous and delusional.

    Now, how many people can tell me how stupid/uninformed/too young/foreign or some other supposedly discrediting description.

    Obama is continuing to demonstrate his inability to run America, as evidenced in his polling and the fact that America is losing money and increasing debt exponentially. The Leftist belief that only other Leftists can run things is damaging America and anywhere else that it happens.


    Uh huh, well then, perhaps you should do away with your system of health care that allows you so much and see how you enjoy the current system of the US before Obamacare. icon_wink.gif

    You are posting this yet you are enjoying a rather good deal, aren't you?

    " Australia the current system, known as Medicare, was instituted in 1984. It coexists with a private health system. Medicare is funded partly by a 1.5% income tax Medicare levy (with exceptions for low-income earners), but mostly out of general revenue. An additional levy of 1% is imposed on high-income earners without private health insurance. As well as Medicare, there is a separate Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme that considerably subsidises a range of prescription medications.

    Like so: "Life expectancy in Australia is among the highest in the world. According to the 2013 Global burden of disease study Australia was ranked third highest in life expectancy.[4] The life expectancy (at birth) in 2005 was 78.5 years for males and 83.3 years for females. In 2006, the birth and death rates were 12.8 and 6.5 respectively, per 1,000 people. The infant mortality rate was 5.0 per 1,000 live births.[3] In 2002/2004, less than 2.5% of the population was undernourished."

    ..now guess what? "In Australia the current system, known as Medicare, was instituted in 1984. It coexists with a private health system. Medicare is funded partly by a 1.5% income tax Medicare levy (with exceptions for low-income earners), but mostly out of general revenue. An additional levy of 1% is imposed on high-income earners without private health insurance. As well as Medicare, there is a separate Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme that considerably subsidises a range of prescription medications."

    You don't want the US to have anything close to what you have. I wonder why.


    It must mean that I'm an evil person who wants to murder you all, right?

    And trying to say that Australia's public health system is somehow able to be replicated identically in America is bloody stupid.

    Our federal government has far more influence in how the country is run, due to our small population, and the states have far less by comparison. It's like the reverse of America.

    That in ITSELF is enough to already put SERIOUS doubt to whether Obamacare can work identically to our public health system.

    Your simplification to an idea is not how reality works, unfortunately. If it did, we would all live in Socialist countries where everyone was free to do whatever they pleased (Like a weird Socialist-Anarchic blend).

    EDIT: Also, Obamacare forces everyone to pay it, regardless of whether they want to. In Australia, it is optional. Another reason of why it's different and cannot be analogised to America.
  • seafrontbloke

    Posts: 300

    Oct 01, 2013 6:37 AM GMT
    It seems really bizarre from this side of the pond. If congress doesn't want an act to have effect, (in this case the affordable care act) surely they vote it down. You have a bicameral legislature and both houses have to vote in the same direction.

    The fact that the Republicans can't makes their current actions look petulant and foolish, more akin to a school debating society than to a legislature.

    We can see what you're doing, it's not clever.

    That being said, you need to spend less. One day your overdraft will be called in. And you need to remember who holds it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 01, 2013 7:34 AM GMT
    The Congress' obligation to fund a law goes back to the Constitutional crisis of April 1796 on the Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and Navigation, Between His Britannic Majesty and The United States of America - also known as the John Jay Treaty.

    President Washington wanted the treaty and the Senate approved it. The House did not want to fund it since it did not approve. In the end, there were enough defections and funding was approved in the House by 3 votes.

    From the May 8, 1796 letter from President Washington to John Jay on the crisis: "...but in some parts of the Union, where the sentiments of their delegates and leaders are adverse to the government, and great pains are taken to inculcate a belief that their rights are assailed, and their liberties endangered, it is not easy to accomplish this; especially (as is the case invariably) when the Inventors, and abetters of pernicious measures, use infinitely more industry in dissiminating the poison, than the well disposed part of the Community do to furnish the antidote."

    In the end, those who opposed the law (Jefferson and Madison) did amend it in 1801 after their party had taken the Presidency. It was once reason, however, that they lost the election of 1796.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 01, 2013 8:01 AM GMT
    neuergriff1 saidThe Congress' obligation to fund a law goes back to the Constitutional crisis of April 1796 on the Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and Navigation, Between His Britannic Majesty and The United States of America - also known as the John Jay Treaty.

    President Washington wanted the treaty and the Senate approved it. The House did not want to fund it since it did not approve. In the end, there were enough defections and funding was approved in the House by 3 votes.

    From the May 8, 1796 letter from President Washington to John Jay on the crisis: "...but in some parts of the Union, where the sentiments of their delegates and leaders are adverse to the government, and great pains are taken to inculcate a belief that their rights are assailed, and their liberties endangered, it is not easy to accomplish this; especially (as is the case invariably) when the Inventors, and abetters of pernicious measures, use infinitely more industry in dissiminating the poison, than the well disposed part of the Community do to furnish the antidote."

    In the end, those who opposed the law (Jefferson and Madison) did amend it in 1801 after their party had taken the Presidency. It was once reason, however, that they lost the election of 1796.



    Since extortion was 'known' only by those in power at this time, I will categorize this one as Influence Peddling, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influence_peddling
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3274

    Oct 01, 2013 8:03 AM GMT
    neuergriff1 saidThe Congress' obligation to fund a law goes back to the Constitutional crisis of April 1796 on the Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and Navigation, Between His Britannic Majesty and The United States of America - also known as the John Jay Treaty.

    President Washington wanted the treaty and the Senate approved it. The House did not want to fund it since it did not approve. In the end, there were enough defections and funding was approved in the House.

    From the May 8, 1796 letter from President Washington to John Jay on the crisis: "...but in some parts of the Union, where the sentiments of their delegates and leaders are adverse to the government, and great pains are taken to inculcate a belief that their rights are assailed, and their liberties endangered, it is not easy to accomplish this; especially (as is the case invariably) when the Inventors, and abetters of pernicious measures, use infinitely more industry in dissiminating the poison, than the well disposed part of the Community do to furnish the antidote."

    In the end, those who opposed the law (Jefferson and Madison) did amend the law in 1801 after their party had taken the Presidency. It was once reason, however, that they lost the election of 1796.


    Lets take it to the next level, how was your interpretation of the John Jay treaty overide ariticle 1 section 8?
    It doesnt. icon_wink.gif

    Your statement makes no sense. Congress can choose to fund or not to fund . It can repeal or enact law in a budget bill. Basically it has plenary power of the purse.

    If your ridiculous legal argument is valid, why couldn't the President obtain a court order for a vote to fund? Now how ridiculous would that be. Congressional history is full of the use of defunding or underfunding in policy. Ex 1986 immigration act. Subsequent congresses kept the boarder patrol levels stagnant despite the rapid influx of new emigrants who took the roles of former illegals given amnesty.

    All of this talk of "extortion" , is meant for the ears of people who a naive on how the Congress works. The push and pull of power in the Congress is full of hold outs that get worked out mostly through compromise.

    How ironic does ScruffLa talks of influence peddling. Obama has categorically given special waivers to businesses that lobbied for it, even including Congress that was specifically named in the statute and voted on. What Obama did with the waivers and refusing to delay the mandate is the definition of influence peddling. Its a power of prosecution he frequently waives. An illegal act ignored only by his supporters because "the end always justify the means"
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 01, 2013 1:51 PM GMT
    scruffLA said
    If the government shuts down, it will be the fault of the GOP. But they don’t want you to believe that.


    Seems to me that the House (Republicans) passed several CR bills just in the past few days that completely fund the government, with the exception of Obamacare.

    Harry Reid (DEMOCRAT) who controls the Senate has held the entire U.S. government hostage because of his precious Obamacare law.

    Reid would rather shut down the government than see any changes to Obamacare.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 01, 2013 1:55 PM GMT
    The point regarding the 1986 statute is that the Congress did fund the law. The funding level is left to Congress. But perhaps it is not clear if both President Washington and Madison could not agree and they were both at the Constitutional Convention. Nonetheless, it would be wise to heed President Washington who stated, regarding the crisis of 1796: it "...brought the Constitution to the brink of a precipice..." President Obama will win on this, there is no reason to make it a greater crisis.

    Should this ploy work by the GOP it would bring chaos. That would mean any body of the Congress when it doesn't control the other, could stop anything from funding Courts, to tax policy, to gay marriage to immigration. What is next, not funding the military due to allowing us in the military, or perhaps defunding the Supreme Court due to the gay marriage issue? Sounds crazy, in Iowa, the GOP wants to cut the pay of the judges that ruled in favor of gay marriage.

    The GOP would be wise to follow the example of Jefferson and Madison..if you don't like a law you win election to change it. On this the GOP lost. They failed to take back the Presidency or the Senate because they as a party have failed to put anything else on the table.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 01, 2013 1:56 PM GMT
    franktats said
    scruffLA said
    If the government shuts down, it will be the fault of the GOP. But they don’t want you to believe that.


    Seems to me that the House (Republicans) passed several CR bills just in the past few days that completely fund the government, with the exception of Obamacare.

    Harry Reid (DEMOCRAT) who controls the Senate has held the entire U.S. government hostage because of his precious Obamacare law.

    Reid would rather shut down the government than see any changes to Obamacare.

    Yeah, you're kind of stupid if you believe the tripe you spew. The teabaggers need to get over trying to ruin the country to make the big old black man in their white house look foolish. Only brainwashed Fox News junkies believe congress is anywhere close to doing their jobs.
    2012 will see the end of the baggers, even after they have gerrymandered their districts and pushed for restrictive voting laws. Even the zombie republicans can see this for what it is, a high school level scheme to appease their base.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 01, 2013 1:59 PM GMT
    smartmoney said
    franktats said
    scruffLA said
    If the government shuts down, it will be the fault of the GOP. But they don’t want you to believe that.


    Seems to me that the House (Republicans) passed several CR bills just in the past few days that completely fund the government, with the exception of Obamacare.

    Harry Reid (DEMOCRAT) who controls the Senate has held the entire U.S. government hostage because of his precious Obamacare law.

    Reid would rather shut down the government than see any changes to Obamacare.

    Yeah, you're kind of stupid if you believe the tripe you spew. The teabaggers need to get over trying to ruin the country to make the big old black man in their white house look foolish. Only brainwashed Fox News junkies believe congress is anywhere close to doing their jobs.
    2012 will see the end of the baggers, even after they have gerrymandered their districts and pushed for restrictive voting laws. Even the zombie republicans can see this for what it is, a high school level scheme to appease their base.


    FACT: The (Republican) House has passed several CRs to fully fund the government, with the exception of Obamacare

    FACT: The (Democrat) Senate has refused to fully fund the government because they do not want to allow any changes to 1 particular law: Obamacare

    FACT: Democrats are holding the entire country hostage because they are obstructing the normal Democratic process.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 01, 2013 2:01 PM GMT
    franktats said
    smartmoney said
    franktats said
    scruffLA said
    If the government shuts down, it will be the fault of the GOP. But they don’t want you to believe that.


    Seems to me that the House (Republicans) passed several CR bills just in the past few days that completely fund the government, with the exception of Obamacare.

    Harry Reid (DEMOCRAT) who controls the Senate has held the entire U.S. government hostage because of his precious Obamacare law.

    Reid would rather shut down the government than see any changes to Obamacare.

    Yeah, you're kind of stupid if you believe the tripe you spew. The teabaggers need to get over trying to ruin the country to make the big old black man in their white house look foolish. Only brainwashed Fox News junkies believe congress is anywhere close to doing their jobs.
    2012 will see the end of the baggers, even after they have gerrymandered their districts and pushed for restrictive voting laws. Even the zombie republicans can see this for what it is, a high school level scheme to appease their base.


    FACT: The (Republican) House has passed several CRs to fully fund the government, with the exception of Obamacare

    FACT: The (Democrat) Senate has refused to fully fund the government because they do not want to allow any changes to 1 particular law: Obamacare

    FACT: Democrats are holding the entire country hostage because they are obstructing the normal Democratic process.

    Just because you put FACT in front of a lie does not diminish the lie. The senate and the president wanted a "clean" CR and the teabaggers continue to play games. One tiny group of angry white men do not get to control the debate.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 01, 2013 2:52 PM GMT
    The Senate has passed as many CR's as the House.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3274

    Oct 01, 2013 3:14 PM GMT
    Some really need to check there anger and maybe read some history before throwing around epithets and denouncing facts as lies.

    The history of the Affordable care act shows that the Democrats would use EVERY legislative means to pass the bill. One method was to employ "Reconciliation" to pass it in the Senate. The irony of that was the Democrats and Harry Reid's idea was to pass the ACA as a piece of budget legislation which would negate the need for a 60 votes to cut off debate. It could have passed with 51.

    How ironic now in 2013 some would cry foul that Republicans with a majority in Congress, elected specifically with the task of curtailing a specific law without bipartisan support would not use every legislative tactic they could.

    Before the 2012 election, the Senate Democrats SPECIFICALLY did not pass budgets to avoid this public crisis happening now. They wanted to avoid the Affordable care act which needed appropriation from going on the table just as every other program does.

    We are still reliving the naive mistake made in passing the ACA in that it was rammed through with thin majorities and no bipartisan support and little amendment. Its a fact that needs to be reconciled. Its either going to be done now or in the future but its going to happen.

    Hillary Clinton did not make that naive mistake in the 90's.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 01, 2013 3:15 PM GMT
    socalfitness said, " They want to spend the country into bankruptcy."

    To what end? Hmmm? What would they gain?
    'Splain.

  • musclmed

    Posts: 3274

    Oct 01, 2013 3:19 PM GMT
    meninlove said socalfitness said, " They want to spend the country into bankruptcy."

    To what end? Hmmm? What would they gain?
    'Splain.



    via continuing resolution you suspend the budget act which is a short circuit to just fund the government.

    It happened 3/4 years of Obamas first term to avoid this specific situation for the obvious political implication.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 01, 2013 3:22 PM GMT
    musclmed said
    meninlove said socalfitness said, " They want to spend the country into bankruptcy."

    To what end? Hmmm? What would they gain?
    'Splain.



    via continuing resolution you suspend the budget act which is a short circuit to just fund the government.

    It happened 3/4 years of Obamas first term to avoid this specific situation for the obvious political implication.

    Hmm, are you a sock of socal's? I asked him a question. I'll clarify. To what end, socal? What would the democrats gain if the country was bankrupt?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 01, 2013 4:17 PM GMT
    meninlove said socalfitness said, " They want to spend the country into bankruptcy."

    To what end? Hmmm? What would they gain?
    'Splain.



    I wish I knew the answer, it's something I wonder about a lot. What happens when quantitative easing stops and stock and bond markets crash??
  • JuneauMike

    Posts: 326

    Oct 01, 2013 4:29 PM GMT
    We are going camping for the next few days, even though the cabin we rented is in the Tongass National Forest - federal land. We had already paid for the use of it, and we have been told that backcountry access isn't restricted.

    On the topic at hand, while Republican's love to point out President Obama's 44% approval rating, Congress' approval is now just 10%! Literally, 10%! John Boehner is quite possibly the worst Speaker of the House ever.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 01, 2013 4:31 PM GMT
    Blakes7 said
    meninlove said socalfitness said, " They want to spend the country into bankruptcy."

    To what end? Hmmm? What would they gain?
    'Splain.



    I wish I knew the answer, it's something I wonder about a lot. What happens when quantitative easing stops and stock and bond markets crash??


    Before I can entertain such a thought, you'd have to show me that no democrat in power has any stocks or bonds.