Both Sides Are To Blame | Buy Reprint Rights | License Candorville | Get Candorville In Your Paper | Buy Candorville BOOKS
October 8th, 2013
Both Sides Are To Blame
Discussion (20)¬
…or via Paypal
COLLECT CANDORVILLE BOOKS
COLLECT POLITICAL CARTOON BOOKS by DARRIN BELL
COLLECT RUDY PARK BOOKS by DARRIN BELL
Between Boehner, Reid, and Obama, I don't think the three of them combined could put together a two car funeral.
It's like we're living in one of the "…stans," those former Soviet republics. All we need is someone in Congress to take a poke at somebody and we're there.
The government's totally dysfunctional.
I believe this article says it pretty well. Here are some excerpts:
"Obamacare was unpopular with the public when it passed, and it has only become more so. Republicans generally think it will have bad effects on the economy and on health care. And it isn’t yet entrenched. Why wouldn’t they keep opposing it?"
"Most of what the law’s supporters call “sabotage” is perfectly legitimate political action.:
"Obamacare’s critics are actually doing a better job of obeying the legislation than the administration itself, which has repeatedly found creative ways around the law’s requirements or just acted as though it says things it does not say."
"There’s no reason for conservatives to accept rules of the game in which it’s always appropriate to agitate for an expansion of government, but illegitimate to roll it back. Republicans may have all sorts of things for which to apologize, but wanting to scrap Obamacare isn’t one of them."
Here is a link to the original article.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-30/the-repu…
The article's attacking a straw man argument. Nobody's saying it's illegitimate to roll back the expansion of government. Wanting to scrap it is fine. Here's the thing, though: if Republicans want to roll back the ACA, they can Introduce a bill (for the 44th or 45th time) to do so. If they can't get the votes, their repeal bill doesn't pass. If they want to chip away at it, they should introduce bills doing that, not shut down the government until they get their way on one existing law they don't like. And if they can't get ANY of their bills enacted into law then they should either go out and appeal to more people and win more elections, or live with it. That's how our republic is supposed to work.
But it isn't Darrin and the article below explains why.
http://www.humanevents.com/2013/10/03/who-shut-do…
That article's incorrect. It's misleading. It wants you to believe that the House of Representatives has discretionary power over which LAWS to fund and which not to fund. That is incorrect.
The House of Representatives does indeed have the right to choose which items to fund. When it's still a BILL, they can choose to send it to the Senate and fund it, or they can choose to kill it. They chose to send it on to the Senate and they chose to fund it, THREE YEARS AGO. When they did that, the Senate approved it and sent it to the President, and he signed it into law.
THAT is the procedure for choosing what they will and will not fund. If they want to DEFUND it, they have to go through that whole procedure again. They would have to approve a new spending bill, get the Senate to approve it, and get the President to sign it into law.
They have not done that. They've TRIED to do that, about 45 times, and they've failed each and every time. So they've decided to shut down the government in the hopes that the Senate and the White House will capitulate to their demands and help them pass a new law defunding the ACA. That's what's happening.
So you are saying that the president can choose to not enforce laws that he doesn't like but the house can't choose not to fund laws they don't like?
No. The President cannot choose not to enforce laws he doesn’t like. But he can choose not to enforce laws that he believes are unconstitutional. Then Congress or others could sue the President and the Supreme Court would have to determine whether the President is correct. That’s exactly what happened when President Obama refused to enforce the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act.” The Supreme Court ruled that the President has this authority back in 1991, in the case of Freytag v. Commissioner.
And no, the House cannot choose not to fund laws they don’t like. The Executive – the Presidency – is its own branch of government. The House is NOT its own branch of government. The House is one HALF of one branch of government, and it cannot make those decisions on its own, as I’ve already explained. It has to get the other half – the Senate – to agree with it before its wishes have a chance of become law.
Amen, Darrin. Great response!!!! ⚐
I feel bad for our Democratic system being victimized by thugs.
Well said, all of you! Bubbeleh, I have had some of the same useless conversations. Oy is right!!!
Actually, to hear Reps talk about it these days, it's ALL Obama's fault. I hope this blows up in their collective faces!
You tell him. Now open the Government again and choose your medical options under Obamacare. It's the law of the land!
The Supreme Court said Obamacare was legal. They didn't say it was smart and no longer open to discussion.
What they said was good, bad, or indifferent, it would be the law.
It being law is the point. The Republicans in the House are talking and behaving as if it's still just a bill. There's nothing stopping them from introducing bills separate from the funding resolution to alter the ACA (Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security have been amended several times since they were enacted). That's what they're supposed to do. If they want to see those bills become law, all they have to do is win more elections.
The time to negotiate on the ACA was when it was a bill in Congress. The GOP, led in the House by Bohner, opted to renege on their responsibilities and not participate in creating the final bill sent to Obama.
They continue to renege on their responsibilities with this silly hostage situation they've come up with (and apparently didn't have a plan B for) instead of doing their job and introducing new legislation to affect any changes they may want to see.
I remember Pres. Obama telling us that it is NOT perfect, but AFTER the bill was made into law, there can be amendments discussed to change it. This is proper protocol, to FUND the law and then work on amending it. What the Republicans are thinking is actually illegal. It is, in fact, a coup takeover attempt of our system of Democracy. People holding our country hostage should not only be fired, but also tried for treason..
your phrase for the day … "false equivalency" …. since when is the proposed "Boehner-Care" the same as Obamacare ??
{ "Boehner-Care" = free Viagra, Dr Oz + antibiotics in the ground water}
THANK you! I have a couple of conservative Facebook friends like that– childhood friends reconnected thanks to FB, but only on FB. Always liked them as a kid and they're really nice, caring people. BUT… myopic on politics– posting real crap, much of it from delusional blogs, on Obama and ACA, totally blaming him for the shutdown, not paying our troops, being mean to old WWII heroes, etc. So, for the sake of the friendship, I just naturally don't follow them much except for family news and photos, maybe some of their charity work.
Ah, but then one of them actually asked one of those "Can somebody please explain to me, nicely, WHY. yada, yada, Obama won't negotiate, won't compromise, when the Republicans are doing so…?" So…. I thought I'd give it a quick shot [foolish & pointless, I know] post a pretty simple answer. Maybe correct her misinformation. No reply from her. But, friend of the friend answers that my article is from a leftist source [yet all it stated were straight facts, footnoted and everything.] Then he posts a right-wing source. I counter with a HuffPo article, b/c his comprehension doesn't seem up to a WaPo or NYT [& he seemed the type to call that liberal MSM anyway .] I was trying to keep it short, b/c my original FB friend had clearly gone to bed, and I didn't want to stay up all night fighting w/ a stranger on the wall/timeline of someone I really like on a purely non-political level. [Plus, her son survived 2 deployments, only to come home to a cancer dx, so I really don't want to fight with HER, either! I was quickly regretting posting at all.] So, I answered this guy that since I clearly wasn't going to change any minds, I didn't want to drag out the thread on my friend's page arguing w/ someone I don't know, thank you and goodnight.
But, oy, tonight, I find that his post that he'd like to adjourn the discussion to HIS page [and man, didn't HIS wall look a treat!] and to his friend request. What, so we could trade rants every night? No, thanks. WHY didn't I just repeat three times fast, "I will NOT feed the trolls, I will not…?
Love it! So many of us in the same boat! Too bad the Repug-licans are determined to sink it!