You agree with Fear Itself that it is unfair extortion contrary to the constitutional legislative process, so you only want them to use it if it will work?
Not on the debt limit. The debt limit should not be screwed with, not only because it courts economic disaster, but also because the money in question has already been appropriated. If REpublicans didn’t want to raise the debt limit, they shouldn’t have appropriated money that took us over the debt limit.
However, on the CR, there’s no disaster and no money appropriated yet. And the health care law’s funding is 100% germane to the CR, so unlike with the debt limit it’s not trying to extract an unrelated concession on a must-pass bill. Secondly, the REpublicans may just get what they want. If Reid brings it up for a vote, who is to say that the GOP won’t get 5 red state Democratic votes to defund? Then it’s the President’s fault if there’s a shutdown.
So when you said you agree, what was it in the post you were agreeing with?
The red state Democrats are in a politically untenable position. Their constituents want them to oppose ACA, so there’s nothing wrong with Republicans putting them in a position where they have to either do what their constituents want or defy them.
So you did not agree with the post when you said “I agree”? That’s all I’m asking. Someone said it was unfair extortion and you said “I agree.”
I’m not asking you a hard question here.
I agree with the principle, but in this case I’m not entirely opposed to it because the Democrats are in trouble over ACA and there’s nothing wrong with making them stand by it, repeatedly.
So, you agree in principle that it’s unfair extortion contrary to the constitutional legislative process, but that unfair extortion contrary to the constitutional legislative process is okay if it will work.
It puts blue state Republicans in the same dilemma. In the House vote today, two Democrats voted for the bill, and one Republican voted against it. Pretty much a wash.
Or were you talking about some other Democrats?
While I’m not a big fan of Obamacare and feel it has many, many flaws, if Obama care suddenly evaporates then as of January 1st I will have NO health insurance whatsoever. Given a spouse with chronic health problems requiring daily medication to keep his health from deteriorating it is currently in my self interest to want Obamacare to be funded at this point, flaws and all, as the alternative means choosing between rent and food or keeping my spouse healthy.
So, yes, for some of us it really is true that Obamacare is better than no Obamacare at this point.
It’s okay in this case because of the history of the ACA and the fact that Democrats continue to defy the will of the public. Or at least that’s what we Republicans believe( so as to avoid this thread getting sidetracked).
Democrats use parliamentary tricks to pass the bill, no reason Republicans can’t resort to the same to defeat it.
There is no way they can defeat it with the parliamentary tricks seen so far.
It is hard to believe that the Republican leaders are not aware of that, this would end as a declared swing to Obamacare but they will hit the Department of Defense.
I’m shocked.
Especially since he continues to assume (or assert) that the polls mean that the majority of the American people don’t want any changes to the health care system, and/or oppose the principles and goals of Obamacare, an assertion already opposed several times in this very thread, IIRC.
[quote=“jasg, post:64, topic:669152”]
[li]Less malpractice - Tort Reform[/li][/QUOTE]
:rolleyes::mad: As a personal-injury lawyer, I say “tort reform” is cynical, dishonest, Republican bullshit. Stephanie Mencimer has the right of it.
See post #10.
Thus my addition that WE do believe it’s unpopular and are acting accordingly. We could be wrong.
♪ Why must BG post like that, why must BG chase the cat? ♫
These “parliamentary tricks” the Dems used? Would that be voting? Or counting the votes?
The biggest one was revenue bills have to originate in the House. The health care bill originated in the Senate. But once Scott Brown was elected, the House had no choice but to pass the Senate health care bill. They used some legalistic bullshit to make it fit the letter of the law somehow, but it clearly was parliamentary gimmickry.
By contrast, the parliamentary gimmick seen recently by the Republicans looks like the “Winning” one from Charlie Sheen.