Senate attempts to reach compromise, but will the House buy it?

Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by thisnumbersdisconnected, Oct 15, 2013.

  1. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0

    Typical Senate deal-making nonsense. There is no way this passes the House, unless GOP moderates join the Democrats in forcing it through. I don't think Boehner will let that happen.
     
  2. shodan

    shodan
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2005
    Messages:
    678
    Likes Received:
    1
    As the deadline looms, they will pass something. They always do.

    Some thoughts from Breakpoint:

    Back in 1992, Chuck Colson recorded a BreakPoint commentary about government gridlock. Now, gridlock in general is of course a lot different than a shutdown. But I think a lot of what Chuck had to say still applies today. See if you agree.

    Here’s Chuck, from way back in 1992.

    Now that President Bush has suffered his first veto override, here's betting we will hear even more complaints about government gridlock.

    President Bush blames it on a Democratic Congress that won't pass his initiatives. Governor Clinton promises he'll solve gridlock if elected. And Ross Perot says when he gets under the hood, the engine of government will hum along without a creak.

    Now, it's true that our government is slow and unwieldy at times. But is government gridlock necessarily a bad thing?

    If you think about it, the only thing that happens when government is gridlocked is that it doesn't pass as many laws. The White House and Congress each set up barriers to keep the other side from getting their legislation through. Well, if you say this is bad, you're really saying we need to unclog government so it can churn out more laws, more quickly.

    But does America really need more laws?

    Every law Congress passes puts one more restriction on what private individuals and groups can do. Every decision Congress makes means one less decision people are free to make on their own. Every bill allocating money to some worthy project means there's less money in your pocket and mine to allot to our own worthy causes.

    In short, pretty much every law Congress passes takes power out of private hands and puts it into the government’s hands.

    The only people who could be in favor of this are those who don't trust private agencies, like families, churches, and businesses--people who think government is the solution to all our problems.

    Well, our Founding Fathers didn't think that. They realized that an ever-expanding state could become a threat to liberty. And so they decided to build barriers into the system right from the beginning—to prevent Congress from passing laws in a casual manner. They designed the system so that Congress is held in check by the President, with his veto power. And in turn the President is held in check by Congress. Checks and balances prevent any one person or group from holding absolute power.

    You see, the Founders weren't concerned about government gridlock; they were concerned about excessive government growth and power.

    The system they set up may be inefficient—bills may be held back while people argue and debate them. Congress and the President may have to work out compromises. But the alternative is to get rid of the checks and balances, and then just let a single group in government make all the decisions.

    Whenever power is concentrated, it may be more efficient, but it inevitably spells trouble, and even can easily lead to tyranny.

    So the next time you hear people complaining about government gridlock, don't be taken in. Ask them which they prefer: a system of checks and balances where power is spread out among all the branches of government—or a system that concentrates power in a small group?

    Do they prefer a system that gives freedom to private agencies, or one where the government makes all the decisions for them?

    Then you might be able to tell them that the frustration of gridlock is just one of the prices we pay in order to enjoy a free society and limited
    government.

    http://www.breakpoint.org/resources/subscribe-to-bp
     
  3. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,249
    Likes Received:
    619
    Watch and learn that the Senate runs the Congress. You keep saying things will never happen, never this, never that. If GOP moderates join Democrats that's called bipartisanship, not "forcing it through". I await your argument on semantics.
     
  4. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    If that were true, the shutdown would already be over.

    Hide and watch. All budget legislation must start in the House. The Senate can reach any kind of "agreement" they want, but if the House GOP doesn't want to author the bill as the Senate negotiates, nothing happens.
     
    #4 thisnumbersdisconnected, Oct 15, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 15, 2013
  5. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    There will be some type of agreement, but it will not help. You know why? Because the time they buy, say two to three months, will be wasted away because the Congressmen have to go home for Christmas, Thanksgiving and New Years. They will not spend the time to hammer out a more lasting, permanent agreement to put our nation in fiscal good order. Mark my word, towards the middle of February, these sad excuses for human beings will be going through this same down to the wire act.

    I do not know what the solution is but the French Revolution comes to mind. Sometimes I wonder which one of the four makes the American people vomit the quickest, Reid, McConnell, Boehner, or Pelosi. It is my prayer one year from now these four will be a distant memory after the elections.
     
  6. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,361
    Likes Received:
    789
    The Senate doesn't need to try to pass something they know the House already said it would not pass.
     
  7. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,249
    Likes Received:
    619
    I'm saying the Senate will pass a budget bill, it will be sent to the House, they will introduce a bill very similar to the Senate bill, and the House will approve it. It will then go to conference and it will become law.

    Probably Thursday morning around 1:00 am.
     
  8. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,249
    Likes Received:
    619
    Ahhh...I see. But it's just fine if the House tries to pass something that they know the Senate already said it would not pass. Which is exactly what has been happening since Oct. 1st.
     
  9. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    ITL, read my lips: The Senate cannot originate budgetary legislation. Any Senate compromise reached will still have to originate in the House.
     
  10. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,249
    Likes Received:
    619
    TND, read my post:

    I'm saying the Senate will pass a budget bill, it will be sent to the House, they will introduce a bill very similar to the Senate bill, and the House will approve it.

    Now tell me what chamber, House or Senate, originally passed a version of the ACA that was ultimately passed by both chambers?
     
  11. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    The ACA was not a budget bill, originally. It was funded in the budget, but it was not a budget bill.

    Do you understand the term "originate"? It is something the Senate cannot do, relative to budgetary legislation.
     
  12. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,249
    Likes Received:
    619
    <Sigh> Apparently you love to argue. The Senate will write a bill, send it to the House. The House will copy it, rename it, and introduce it to the House. There--the bill originated in the House.
     
  13. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,249
    Likes Received:
    619
    Now tell me what chamber, House or Senate, originally passed a version of the ACA that was ultimately passed by both chambers?
     
  14. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    Doesn't matter. Not germane to the discussion. We're talking about which chamber can originate a budget bill, not which chamber originated the ACA, which was not a budget bill.
     
  15. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,249
    Likes Received:
    619
    OK, you win. You're the greatest debater in internet forum history!
     
  16. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's not even legal. No member from the other chamber can author legislation introduced in the other, without the first chamber having voted on it. The bill could be "dictated" by the Senate conferees, but that wouldn't be as practical as sending over the outline, and letting the House aids for some congressman frame it properly. Legislation in the House isn't even written in the same format as the Senate. Betcha didn't know that.

    No, not even close. But when the opponent hands you the argument on a silver platter, it looks pretty easy.
     
  17. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,249
    Likes Received:
    619
    Senate Paves Way for End to Fiscal Crisis

    WASHINGTON — Senate Democratic and Republican leaders on Wednesday reached final agreement on a deal to reopen the government and extend its borrowing authority into February, with final passage looking increasingly possible by Wednesday evening.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/17/us/congress-budget-debate.html?_r=0
     
  18. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeah, they said that two days ago, too. If it had been true then, the crisis would be over. It isn't. Won't be after this one, either. Republicans over there are weak-kneed and just want it to be over, whether they can derail, detour or defund the ACA or not. The House is more committed to that mission, and won't consider anything the Senate GOP approves that doesn't accomplish at least some of that.
     

Share This Page

Loading...