The US Government Shut-Down - Whom to Blame

Post Reply New Topic

There are a huge number of crybabies among the Republicans AND the Democrats. A great many members of both parties refuse to grow up.

It is the duty of the minority party to voice concerns and to attempt to change opinions and minds. In this case, though, the Republicans are not trying to change minds, they are just making (and making good on) threats. That being said, I think the behavior of the Democrats was childish during W's reign (although not to the extreme of the present Repubs), and in Reagan's time they were deplorably wrong any way you slice it. That's not to say I fully disagreed with the Democrats' positions, I just think that they went about change in a very counterproductive (and very childish) way.
The ACA was passed by both House and Senate, signed by the president and upheld by the Supreme Court. The only real option the Republicans have on that front is to attempt to gain a majority in House and Senate and the presidency. At that time they can ethically (politics-wise) and legally repeal (or change) the law.

Maybe. But this is the GOP's doing. And they are getting crushed in the polls. People can see it very clearly.

no offense to you, but when I see any person siding with people who are doing me and mine dirt, I can't help but wonder if they are in alliance with said dirt-doers. so yes, I had the impression that you were GOPTP. so does it not anger you that the local powers that be instituted "top two" which has had the effect of making it a monopoly?

It is a win win solution for individual Republican representatives to side with the 'blind sheep' of the supported republican party..to get re-elected individually..But this whole idea of government shut down to stop health care for the whole is only assurance for a continued domination of this nation by Democrat led Presidents...

And while many of these house representatives are safe in their rural leaning states...

It is not the same for larger responsible demographic who elect the more limited Senate seats...

So...this only delay..on the eventuality that the Affordable Health Act will stand..and yes many of these house representatives who are Republican will retain their seat..

But in the long run...It is only health for the democratic party as a whole in this country...

As It almost assures continued Senate Majority, Executive, and potentially even Judiciary Branches of government to Democratic leaning servants of this nation...

So not only is the Affordable Health care act a winner for the American People as whole..It is also a strategic masterpiece to watch the dominoes fall in the direction of the Democrat Party in this nation...

There is no turning back now..and there are no lies or tricks like we saw with IRAQ to lead the more 'thinking mind' sheep away from Truth..as the information revolution IS continuing to expose any and all government lies...

So in metaphor get ready for Obama Clones for al ong time..and so long Republican Party Presidential Winners...

The REagan days..appear to be gone forever now...thanks to George W. Bush and the failings of that administration more than any other republican mistake....

As the people of this nation have grown a few more brains...

Yeah, there is that theory that Republican gerrymandering has essentially put them in a hole nationally. They will have a perpetually crazy wing that doesnt play well on the big stage. And that's building on the fact that a GOP candidate has lost the popular vote in five of the last six Presidential elections. We'll see if the theory pans out in 2016.

one can at least hope, that GOPTP will eventually "whig" out.

I must be doing something correct. The Democrats think I'm a Republican and the Republicans think I'm a Democrat.

I think that not being aligned with either major party gives me a better look at things. When the Republicans are more in the wrong than the Democrats, I say so. When the Democrats are more in the wrong than the Republicans, I say so.

In this case, it is clear to me that the Democrats are more in the wrong.

to each his own.

You mean, like the balance between the Senate and Congress? The check where the Judicial branch has the power to uphold a law, or declare it unconstitutional? The check where the president can sign or veto a law?

Yes, I have heard of those things. You apparently have not; you think that one half of one branch should be able to shut down the entire rest of the government if it disagrees with a decision that the rest have all agreed on.

So if most of the Senators are of the same party as the President, then the House should behave like good little boys and do whatever they are told to do by the President and the Senate?

Can you cite ANY legitimate source that supports your wacky position?

just because something is legal doesn't make it right. shutting down the government [with all of its nasty ramifications] is beyond the pale. this is not civil behavior and is barely above bareknuckled brawling.

It would probably surprise you to learn that there have been more government shutdowns when the President was a Republican and the Republicans had a majority in the Senate then there have been when the President was a Democrat.

If you aren't a hypocrite, then those Democrats during those shutdowns (except for one where the disagreement was between a Republican President and the Senate with a Republican majority) must have been committing some kind of treason in your eyes.

The president, the senate, and the SCOTUS. And, yes, I can cite a source:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charte ... ution.html
This is what 'the rule of law' means. The SCOTUS is the last stop. There is no right to unlimited appeal.

I draw the line at shutting down government, it is not good when anybody does it. it should be off-limits and considered an act akin to sedition.

You post a link to a site about the Constitution and claim that is a cite to support what you want?

Precisely what language on that site or in the Constitution says that the House of Representatives must be bound by the wishes of the President and the Senate?

It may come as a surprise, but the Supreme Court has, in the past, reversed itself when presented with similar cases to that which they had already decided. For example, consider Gideon v. Wainwright in which the Supreme Court ruled that legal counsel must be provided to criminal defendants who cannot afford their own lawyers. But that wasn't the first time a case made it to the Supreme Court over that issue. In Bretts v. Brady, the Supreme Court ruled just the opposite -- that if a criminal defendant cannot afford his own lawyer, then the court is under no obligation to appoint one for him.