The US Government shutdown

[asperity]

The President is NOT the government. The issue is the budget regardless of Obamacare. What the Republicans are asking is that Obamacare be delayed by 12 months to allow this years budget to be balanced without increasing the deficit above the ceiling that has already been set. This delay would also allow the whole Obamacare project to be properly scrutinised by the politicians and the electorate and for the IT systems to be fixed (there's a surprise - a government IT system that doesn't work. Unheard of - NOT). Meanwhile in a fit of pique the President has allowed the shutdown of government to try to force his will onto an unwilling people. Because, like it or not, that is the constitution of the country. If the required majority of Congress doesn't vote for a measure, you can't just start throwing accusations around about the problem being "Right Wing Tea Party Nutcases". These are elected representatives and the democratic process has to be followed.

[Lt Kije]

Asp, the republicans are trying to wreck the bill, as you know well, the 1 year delay is just one of many tactics to do this

[Bazj]

Kije; that is the way their democracy works... just like here when the government won't give us a referendum on hanging or to leave the EU because they think they know what's best. The Republicans must think they know best and are using their legal right to try and block it

 

Happens all over the world in such democracies

 

[asperity]

Lt Kije, I'm sure you would be amongst the first to protest if our government railroaded their Welfare Reform legislation through Parliament without allowing anybody time to fully understand it's implications.

[Lt Kije]

The republicans took it to the Supreme Court Asp, AND LOST, the bill was passed in 2010,

[asperity]

So what? The argument is over the funding, as well as other concerns about Obamacare which have only come to light since the Bill was passed. This is why even the unions are against a lot of the provisions of Obamacare despite having previously being in favour of it. A majority are very much in favour of the idea of universal health care, but not the way Obamacare is going about providing it.

[Lt Kije]

It's over Obama care, the republicans have rapped it around funding having failed on all other ways to wreck the bill. They lost when the Supreme Court came down against them, this is them not excepting the rule of law, and trying another way, that's why the population are blaming them as well, and that's why Obama will win this one in the end, Moderate republicans are now demanding they stop as they are being damaged in polls and their are elections next year.

[asperity]

So you don't think that the politicians should express any concerns they have about Obamacare, despite half of the electorate having those same concerns? They should just let the President act like a dictator and do whatever he likes, at whatever cost, without any oversight? If that were the case they might as well shut down Congress altogether and save on the salaries and cost of elections. Welcome to the United States of Soviet America.

[Lt Kije]

They took their concerns to the Supreme Court and lost Asp that should have been an end to it. But they cannot accept it, if politicians cannot accept the rule of law what example does that give the population, the law is ok as long as it agrees with us?

[observer]

Think part of the problem is the checks and balances provided by the US political system; which can be a good thing. However, where an impasse occurs, there needs to be a resort to legal interpretation, which would rest with the Supreme Court, I suppose.

[asperity]

They took their concerns to the Supreme Court and lost Asp that should have been an end to it. But they cannot accept it, if politicians cannot accept the rule of law what example does that give the population, the law is ok as long as it agrees with us?

What sort of rubbish are you coming up with now? That once a piece of legislation, however bad or harmful, has been passed that's it for evermore? There's no going back? We are back to what I said before, they may as well abolish Congress and just elect a President to do what the hell he wants. And we know how long that first President would be in charge don't we!!!!!!! His first move would be to abolish the Supreme Court :lol: :lol:

[asperity]

Obamacare  (the proper title is The Patient Care and Affordable Care Act) is a very large document, over a thousand pages long. It was presented to Congress, unread and unseen, and Congress was given precisely 24 hours to pass it immediately before the 2011 election and while the Democrats had small majorities in the Congress. The  Speaker, Democrat Nancy Pelosi, told those who objected,  "You have to pass this Bill to be able to read what's in it."There is no way such an Bill can be properly scrutinised in just 24 hours.

 Nowhere in the world  can complex Bills be tabled, unread, unopposed, and adopted in 24 hours. In Britain, it would take up to three years to get legislation like this through the Houses of Parliament, because part of the democratic process is to allow public consultation, multiple reviews, revision of the text, judicial reviews, scrutiny by both Houses and finally it emerges as an Act. You cannot claim to be making good laws when you throw a thousand page document at the House, tell them to pass it, and then read it.
 

Many members of Congress are facing an election next year. President Obama doesn't, so he's not bothered what the electorate think of him. He just wants his signature legislation, Obamacare, to be his legacy.  The impact of the Bill on the voters is starting to bite and to produce some very angry voters who have been  told that their existing Health Care Plan was going to cost them 2 to 3 times what it used to cost, or that they must now pay the first $5,000 of any major treatment. Yet that is what is happening. Obama has also 'rewarded' Congress by exempting them  and around 1,200 other institutions and large donor concerns from the provisions of Obamacare, but the small businesses are being crippled by it. If you employ fifty or more people you must provide a Health Care Scheme. The cost to employers has been hiked by the Insurance providers, so  businesses on that threshold, are cutting staff.

Despite what a lot of  people outside the US seem to think, Obamacare is NOT about providing a National Health Service. It is about compelling people to buy Health Insurance. Those in work, in employers schemes or in private schemes are being made to pay more in order to fund those not in work. It is now illegal to NOT take out Health insurance, and that is hurting a lot of people on low wages.

[Lt Kije]

Obamacare  (the proper title is The Patient Care and Affordable Care Act) is a very large document, over a thousand pages long. It was presented to Congress, unread and unseen, and Congress was given precisely 24 hours to pass it immediately before the 2011 election and while the Democrats had small majorities in the Congress. The  Speaker, Democrat Nancy Pelosi, told those who objected,  "You have to pass this Bill to be able to read what's in it."There is no way such an Bill can be properly scrutinised in just 24 hours.

 Nowhere in the world  can complex Bills be tabled, unread, unopposed, and adopted in 24 hours. In Britain, it would take up to three years to get legislation like this through the Houses of Parliament, because part of the democratic process is to allow public consultation, multiple reviews, revision of the text, judicial reviews, scrutiny by both Houses and finally it emerges as an Act. You cannot claim to be making good laws when you throw a thousand page document at the House, tell them to pass it, and then read it.

 

Many members of Congress are facing an election next year. President Obama doesn't, so he's not bothered what the electorate think of him. He just wants his signature legislation, Obamacare, to be his legacy.  The impact of the Bill on the voters is starting to bite and to produce some very angry voters who have been  told that their existing Health Care Plan was going to cost them 2 to 3 times what it used to cost, or that they must now pay the first $5,000 of any major treatment. Yet that is what is happening. Obama has also 'rewarded' Congress by exempting them  and around 1,200 other institutions and large donor concerns from the provisions of Obamacare, but the small businesses are being crippled by it. If you employ fifty or more people you must provide a Health Care Scheme. The cost to employers has been hiked by the Insurance providers, so  businesses on that threshold, are cutting staff.

Despite what a lot of  people outside the US seem to think, Obamacare is NOT about providing a National Health Service. It is about compelling people to buy Health Insurance. Those in work, in employers schemes or in private schemes are being made to pay more in order to fund those not in work. It is now illegal to NOT take out Health insurance, and that is hurting a lot of people on low wages.

In your opinion and your fellow Tea party members

[asperity]

Which particular parts of the above facts (not opinion - facts) do you dispute Lt Kije?

 

I don't know any members of the Tea Party, do you?

[Lt Kije]

You spout there rhetoric Asp

 

So you think it's ok, to wreck a bill even after they lost in the Supreme Court Asp, are you democratic, or only democratic when they are doing what you want, they have persuade every legal avenue and lost, should they not let the democratic process take its course, they lost this one move on, that is democracy, you can not hold a Country to ransom because you disagree with some legislation, Democracy fails when you do this, it was voted though that is it pure and simple.

[asperity]

There you go with your simplistic world view again. The reality is that the electorate now know the content of the legislation which was railroaded through Congress before the Democrats lost their majority, and can see it's not what was promised. The President isn't interested in negotiating any compromise so in reality it's him that's holding the country to ransom.

[Lt Kije]

If that is the case then Asp, wait till they are in office and put it to the people again, it came in due to a democratic vote it could go out the same way, Political parties have been known to reverse the previous incumbents polices, is it they might think they might loose. They have persuade all legal means and lost, it is you who are not seeing and is looking simplistic Asp, you cannot continue to challenge legislation just because you don't like it when you have lost in the Supreme Court. democracy has to be allowed

[asperity]

Who appoints the Supreme Court? The president. No conflict of interest there then. And what is undemocratic about using your majority in the House of Representatives to block legislation?

[Lt Kije]

Legislation that was passed in 2010 Asp, they have presumed all legal means though the courts and lost. The supreme courts are appointed by the president, but only when the previous judges leave, their are still judges serving who were appointed by republicans Asp.

[asperity]

Judging by the way you just keep repeating yourself, I gather that you don't actually have anything of any import to say.

[Lt Kije]

Because you are ignoring it, the demo rates won, it gave them the chance to put there bills forward the republicans have stalled this bill since 2010, they have had various legal chill ages they lost, they just can't except it, they should now let it though if they dint like it put it in there manifesto get elected and the with draw it simple, but to hold a country to ran sum is wrong .

[asperity]

Are you drunk?

 

Another repetition.

[Lt Kije]

It takes a while to get through to some people

[asperity]

Because you are ignoring it, the demo rates won, it gave them the chance to put there bills forward the republicans have stalled this bill since 2010, they have had various legal chill ages they lost, they just can't except it, they should now let it though if they dint like it put it in there manifesto get elected and the with draw it simple, but to hold a country to ran sum is wrong .

It did take me a while to translate this gibberish. The Republicans haven't stalled the Bill because it was actually signed into law in 2010.Various people, including the Republican party, have challenged it in law courts. They won a majority in the HoR at the last election and are trying to stop it being funded in order to prevent the budget going through the deficit ceiling which, if you remember (you won't because you didn't even know about it), Obama swore he wouldn't do before he was elected for his first term. A lot of people are very concerned about this legislation because it raises more questions than it answers. Barry isn't bothered so long as he can delay the inevitable until after the next presidential election.

 

P.S. You need to read up on the definition of "democracy". It doesn't mean the person who bores everyone the most wins.

[asperity]