New House Rules

[maxx]

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/...ew-house-rules
"...While under current statutory pay-go rules, a bill must be offset within one-, five-, and 10-year budget windows, in the 112th Congress budget projections must be made for four additional 10-year budget [COLOR=#005497 ! important][COLOR=#005497 ! important]windows[/COLOR][/COLOR]
..."

I heard on Michigan Radio today that the Republicans are exempting their repeal of healthcare from this budgetary consideration. The word "despicable" isn't strong enough. The English language fails me.

[ghettopalmetto]

The GOP leadership is also exempting all tax cuts from "pay-go" rules. As we all know, tax cuts pay for themselves.

It's about time we got someone like John "Agent Orange" Boehner to teach us about fiscal responsibility!

[Chuck La Chez]

I heard on Michigan Radio today that the Republicans are exempting their repeal of healthcare from this budgetary consideration. The word "despicable" isn't strong enough. The English language fails me.

What word would you use for a president who enacts a law despite 60% opposition?

[ghettopalmetto]

What word would you use for a president who enacts a law despite 60% opposition?

The bill passed Congress, the President signed it. It's law. The federal lawmaking process is not subject to popular vote [[let alone a FoxNews poll)--read your Constitution.

[Chuck La Chez]

The federal lawmaking process is not subject to popular vote

Your response appears nonsensical to me. You're establishing that Constitutionality is the standard by which criticisms are justified. However, suspending House rules does not violate the Constitution. Therefore, your argument has an internal contradiction and that is known as the logical fallacy appeal to absurdity.

[ghettopalmetto]

Your response appears nonsensical to me. You're establishing that Constitutionality is the standard by which criticisms are justified. However, suspending House rules does not violate the Constitution. Therefore, your argument has an internal contradiction and that is known as the logical fallacy appeal to absurdity.

Don't read too much into what I wrote. All I meant is that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

[Chuck La Chez]

All I meant is that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Of course, but it seems to me that you should do so sensibly in order to avoid betraying the opposite.

[oladub]

The White House claims that not raising the US Debt Limit ceiling would be 'catastrophic' but must think that raising it every year is good. Republicans in the House are considering not raising the debt ceiling. Is the party over?
http://www.cnbc.com/id/40885372

Meanwhile Sen. DeMint is talking about having "a big showdown" over raising the debt ceiling. There will be fireworks and it looks like the Republican House victory could mean a funnel point through which only so much spending will be allowed. My guess though is that Republicans will raise the budget ceiling in return for some more favors for the rich.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...g-debt-ceiling

[rb336]

What word would you use for a president who enacts a law despite 60% opposition?

which law is that?

[gdogslim]

Excellent new rule!
We all know Pelosi could care less about the constitution. Thats why Obama don't care will be held unconstitutional.
The democrats are afraid of the Constitution, they hate it, Obama despises the Constitution and will do anything he possibly can to go around it to push his socialist agenda.
Just about anything the libs are scream out against, I am for it.

[gdogslim]

ps: ALL bills that raise revenue MUST originate in the House, another reason why commie care will be repealed.

Pelosi is FINALLY gone from House Speaker !!! Woo hooooo Happy New Year !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Remember Pelosi is the evil witch that said, re: obama don't care, “You will have to pass the bill to see what is in it.”

[johnsmith]

The tone that the Republicans are setting right away is a good sign. The Democrats will now be the "party of no". I actually always felt that the "party of no" label was stupid anyway. As if saying no to something that should be said no to is a bad thing.

Someone above brought up "pay-go." I think the Democrats put us trillions more in debt immediately after patting themselves on the back with that one.

[ghettopalmetto]

The tone that the Republicans are setting right away is a good sign. The Democrats will now be the "party of no". I actually always felt that the "party of no" label was stupid anyway. As if saying no to something that should be said no to is a bad thing.

Someone above brought up "pay-go." I think the Democrats put us trillions more in debt immediately after patting themselves on the back with that one.

Oh, don't worry. The Republicans will find ways to fuck us commoners over. They always do. These folks have made it clear they are more interested in the failure of President Obama than the well-being of our nation.

Don't be surprised if their agenda consists entirely of:

1. Whatever Obama did, then the opposite of that
2. Tax cuts

[maxx]

What word would you use for a president who enacts a law despite 60% opposition?

You think most people want to go back to the system we had where premiums were rising and people were being dumped by their insurance companies, where kids were denied coverage and people denied because of an undisclosed yeast infection and such trivia, where Congress has a gold-plated healthcare plan while some Americans are seeing doctors in animal stalls courtesy of Remote Medical International? Any opposition came from people who wanted a public option or from rightwing propaganda manufactured by the healthcare industry.

Why don't the Republicans show that the old system is financially better than the new one they want to scrap? Or suggest ways to make it even better financially? But they're more interested in keeping their political contributors happy. Under the present system, it's a wonder the average citizen gets any sort of benefit from the gov.. And that's just what the conservatives want people to think about gov., that it doesn't do anything right. They certainly worked hard under W to prove that. If you elect people who don't think gov. works, don't be surprised when they spend their time proving that point.

[Detroitej72]

The democrats are afraid of the Constitution, they hate it, Obama despises the Constitution

Who was it who called the Constitution a g-damn piece of paper? Oh, that's right, the great con president W.

People who have been indoctrinated by Fox News have short, simple memories and are the most gullible of God's creatures.

[laphoque]

Americans didn't want the health insurance expansion bill we got, we wanted single-payer universal healthcare.
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/SunMo_poll_0209.pdf [[Under Health Insurance heading).

However the fault for the lack of a public option IMO falls in the lap of the Republicans and those Democrats who sided with them. Those Democrats who failed to stand by the bill before or after passage also lost more than those who stood by their convictions.

This bill is a good step towards the admirable goal of providing reasonably inexpensive care to the sick using subsidies from those who are able to pay AKA the healthy. It's the only way that system can work. It's the only way to have a modern health care system with a general trend of raising life expectancy.

[Chuck La Chez]

You think most people want to go back to the system we had...

That false dilemma didn't work before. Why do you think it'll work now?

[maxx]

Please explain the "false dilemma".

Also do you think seniors enjoyed getting stuck in the prescription drug donut hole which the healthcare reform bill eliminated? Do you think people enjoy not having a choice of health insurance to choose from?

[Chuck La Chez]

Please explain the "false dilemma".

A false dilemma is committed when an artificial limitation is placed on available options. The false dilemma you're imposing is that America's choice is between the previous and new systems. However, during the unfolding of the healthcare debacle, much of the country agreed that it wanted reform but not what was being forced down its throat.

Also do you think seniors enjoyed getting stuck in the prescription drug donut hole which the healthcare reform bill eliminated? Do you think people enjoy not having a choice of health insurance to choose from?

Would you please explain the relevance of enjoyment?

[johnsmith]

Who was it who called the Constitution a g-damn piece of paper? Oh, that's right, the great con president W.

You forgot to add "neo-" before the con part. I think most true conservatives aren't very keen on the so called neo-cons. There's nothing in the least conservative of expanding the American empire and spending money we don't have. GWB is more like the current administration than a true conservative. As the current administration is doing absolutely nothing to reverse Bush's doings. Nothing. They're seemingly just expanding it. So make sure you add "neo" before "con", to not confuse the neo-cons with consevatives.

[johnsmith]

Don't be surprised if their agenda consists entirely of:

1. Whatever Obama did, then the opposite of that
2. Tax cuts

As long as they reduce spending, #1 and #2 sound like excellent directions to take. As Obama is just expanding GWB's BS. Actually, reducing deficit spending would be the exact opposite of what Obama is and will continue doing. #1 is a definite start to fix what ails this country.

[ghettopalmetto]

As long as they reduce spending, #1 and #2 sound like excellent directions to take. As Obama is just expanding GWB's BS. Actually, reducing deficit spending would be the exact opposite of what Obama is and will continue doing. #1 is a definite start to fix what ails this country.

Yet the Republican leadership in the House wants to:

1. Eliminate the health care law, at a cost of over $100 billion in the next decade.
2. Not consider cuts to defense, Medicare, or Social Security, which constitute about 75% of the federal budget.
3. Treating tax cuts as if they have no cost to the federal government, violating a basic principle of accounting.

I'm curious to know, though, how you managed to conclude that government spending is the Number 1 problem in the country.

[oladub]

Yet the Republican leadership in the House wants to:

1. Eliminate the health care law, at a cost of over $100 billion in the next decade.
2. Not consider cuts to defense, Medicare, or Social Security, which constitute about 75% of the federal budget.
3. Treating tax cuts as if they have no cost to the federal government, violating a basic principle of accounting.

I'm curious to know, though, how you managed to conclude that government spending is the Number 1 problem in the country.

It's silly to imagine and fear that House Republicans can even end Obamacare because even if the House voted against it and the Democratic majority Senate also voted against it [[unlikely), Obama would veto such legislation. Since President Obama promised that Obamacare was going to save taxpayers money , that shouldn't be an issue.

More of an issue is under what delegated power Obamacare, and every other government program is authorized. If it isn't a delegated power, it shouldn't be funded. The states can take over many such things. Enforcing the 10th Amendment is a powerful and largely unused weapon to reign in federal spending. You are lucky that Republicans are on such a slow learning curve regarding that issue.

Federal spending does, as you point out, include reigning in defense spending. How's Obama been doing on that? There are, as the R&R Pauls[[Rs) have pointed out, a great deal of middle management, many foreign bases, and some foreign policies which could be cut for enormous savings. I realize the Pauls don't typify mainstream Republicans but I don't see Democrats moving to make such changes either.

Obama promised to end the Bush tax cuts for the the rich. After just extending them, he still says he opposes them or at least will when he is up for reelection in 2012. Bush's temporary tax cuts for the wealthy are now also Obama's tax cuts for the wealthy.

[ghettopalmetto]

More of an issue is under what delegated power Obamacare, and every other government program is authorized. If it isn't a delegated power, it shouldn't be funded. The states can take over many such things. Enforcing the 10th Amendment is a powerful and largely unused weapon to reign in federal spending. You are lucky that Republicans are on such a slow learning curve regarding that issue.

Q. Since when does Article I of the Constitution permit the Congress to interpret the law???

A. It doesn't. Article III delegates the powers of interpretation of laws to the Supreme Court.


Q. Since when does Article I of the Constitution permit the Congress to execute [[enforce) the law???

A. It doesn't. Article II delegates powers of enforcement to the Executive Branch.


This rule is just more political posturing by the Know-Nothing party, continuing to speak in vague notions instead of focusing on specific problems. Let the courts and the President do their jobs, so that Congress may do theirs.

[rb336]

Ola, Ola, Ola.
Again with the 10th Amendment vs. the General Welfare Clause. You will lose every time.

This view of the General Welfare clause has been upheld since the beginning of the constitutionally regulated federation:
"The true test is, whether the object be of a local character, and local use; or, whether it be of general benefit to the states. If it be purely local, congress cannot constitutionally appropriate money for the object. But, if the benefit be general, it matters not, whether in point of locality it be in one state, or several; whether it be of large or of small extent; its nature and character determine the right, and congress may appropriate money in aid of it; for it is then in a just sense for the general welfare." a comment in which Story sided with Hamiltonian satatements of 1791.