WTF is the GOP playing at? (Read: US Budget)

[Timbuk2]

US Shutdown

US President Barack Obama has warned that Wall Street should be concerned that a conservative faction of Republicans is willing to allow the country to default on its debt.

The US government has partially closed after Congress failed to agree a budget and will run out of cash on 17 October unless its debt ceiling is raised.

In a TV interview on Wednesday, Mr Obama said he was "exasperated".
...
The shutdown has left more than 700,000 employees on unpaid leave and closed national parks, tourist sites, government websites, office buildings, and more.

However, as one budget crisis raged in Washington DC, another one - potentially more dangerous - loomed in the coming weeks.

On 17 October, the US government will run out of cash to pay its bills unless the debt ceiling is raised.

On both issues, the Republicans who control the House of Representatives have demanded concessions from Mr Obama and his fellow Democrats in return for funding the government's continued operation and for raising the debt ceiling.

Chiefly, the Republicans demand the repeal, delay or defunding of a healthcare reform law - dubbed Obamacare - passed by the Democrats in 2010.

Major portions of that law, which was subsequently validated by the US Supreme Court and was a major issue in the 2012 presidential election, took effect on Tuesday

So the GOP stands in the way of passing a budget, leaving 700,000 workers unpaid, governement offices and institutions on skeletal operation or shut down entirely, and the inability to raise the debt-ceiling with the potential to further damage the economy with cash fast running out, all due to a bit of political point-scoring and waah waah we lost on Obamacare?

Like a toddler throwing a tantrum because it isn't getting its way. Childishly pathetic.

[Hazir]

So the GOP stands in the way of passing a budget, leaving 700,000 workers unpaid, governement offices and institutions on skeletal operation or shut down entirely, and the inability to raise the debt-ceiling with the potential to further damage the economy with cash fast running out, all due to a bit of political point-scoring and waah waah we lost on Obamacare?

Like a toddler throwing a tantrum because it isn't getting its way. Childishly pathetic.

The political logic of the GOP is fairly coherent actually; they want to push back the government. And in that light the ACA is a red line they don't want the US to cross because it has the makings of an entitlement program that nobody in the future will be able to abandon again. No matter how rickety a scheme they have made it.

The problems of course is that the Tea Party folks don't understand that by using unorthodox means to rein in government they may be pulling the rug from under the financial system of the entire world. And once that happens they may indeed find that government is a lot smaller than it used to be. They will also find that all Americans will be a lot poorer than they are today, with little hope for recovery as the world will never trust US investments like they are trusted today again.

[Timbuk2]

they want to push back the government. And in that light the ACA is a red line they don't want the US to cross

But that line has been crossed. Congress passed the ACA. The supreme court subsequently validated it.

That's why this is so exasperating. Their objections are pointless, the ship has already sailed. This isn't an exercise in revoking the ACA or even limiting its scope. This is purely an exercise of tit-for-tat political horseshit. And it hurts everybody, not just the Democrats.

The problems of course is that the Tea Party folks don't understand that by using unorthodox means to rein in government they may be pulling the rug from under the financial system of the entire world. And once that happens they may indeed find that government is a lot smaller than it used to be. They will also find that all Americans will be a lot poorer than they are today, with little hope for recovery as the world will never trust US investments like they are trusted today again.

Indeed.

[Aimless]

Stop paying Republican members of the House. Fine them instead. Or fire them. Or arrest them for jeopardizing the safety and the wellbeing of the country and its citizens and acting against the spirit of democratic rule.

[Hazir]

But that line has been crossed. Congress passed the ACA. The supreme court subsequently validated it.

That's why this is so exasperating. Their objections are pointless, the ship has already sailed. This isn't an exercise in revoking the ACA or even limiting its scope. This is purely an exercise of tit-for-tat political horseshit. And it hurts everybody, not just the Democrats.

Indeed.

You may have noticed that I also think the ACA ship has sailed. However, if you are willing to accept the fall-out, as the TP people clearly are, you can still try to sink it in sight of the harbor. Closing down government by the way is causing a nuisance I think, risking default of the US debt is criminally insane and in defiance of the Constitution they claim to uphold.

[Hazir]

Stop paying Republican members of the House. Fine them instead. Or fire them. Or arrest them for jeopardizing the safety and the wellbeing of the country and its citizens and acting against the spirit of democratic rule.

And how would you frame such a rule? Is it only applicable to the TP or could any outlier position in politics be fair game. These people, deluded as they are, still think they are doing it all for the common good, the protection of the free citizen against the encroachment of the state. Their aim is not destroying democracy but to push back an overreaching government. Which actually is an entirely legitimate cause.

Question for the 'wonks' inhere; am I correct in assuming that the US government might be obliged by the 14th amendment to let service of debt go before all other obligations (such as entitlement programs etc) ? If that is the case, is there a mechanism that decides how the administration can dispense of funds left after servicing the debt? I understand that the Supreme Court has ruled that the administration is not authorized to spend either less or more than granted by Congress. But that would clash tremendously with the reality of the administration not having the funds in case the debt-ceiling isn't raised.

It would create a situation where the government is forced to spend money it doesn't have at all.

[Flixy]

I find it odd they now claim the Democrats 'want the government to shutdown' while they have a letter, signed by a whole lot of Republicans, citing this as a strategy. Do people actually buy that crap?

​

[Aimless]

And how would you frame such a rule? Is it only applicable to the TP or could any outlier position in politics be fair game. These people, deluded as they are, still think they are doing it all for the common good, the protection of the free citizen against the encroachment of the state. Their aim is not destroying democracy but to push back an overreaching government. Which actually is an entirely legitimate cause.

The ACA was passed into law in the proper way by democratically elected representatives and its constitutionality was upheld by the system put into place to safeguard the constitutionality of the country's laws. It enjoys widespread popular support. I believe the most accurate representation of the obstinate house Republicans' actions is this: a minority of political representatives want to undermine the very system of democracy and the rule of law that they profess to support through the use of threats, coercion and outright sabotage that will cost people tens of billions of dollars and may have harmful long-term consequences due to the erosion of trust in the US government's ability to function reliably.

[wiggin]

The ACA does not enjoy widespread popular support; it generally has a net negative favorability in polls. Furthermore, withholding pay from members of Congress is silly, about 100+ Congressmen already are forgoing pay during the shutdown and it isn't changing their attitudes. Lastly, if the Republicans can muster a majority in a democratically elected legislature to effectively repeal/defund a program they don't like, that's hardly undemocratic. Laws passed by previous governments get changed or repealed all the time, this is no different.

I don't like this brinksmanship, and I do think it's stupid and counterproductive. But it's hardly criminal, just politics as usual.

[Flixy]

The ACA does not enjoy widespread popular support; it generally has a net negative favorability in polls. Furthermore, withholding pay from members of Congress is silly, about 100+ Congressmen already are forgoing pay during the shutdown and it isn't changing their attitudes. Lastly, if the Republicans can muster a majority in a democratically elected legislature to effectively repeal/defund a program they don't like, that's hardly undemocratic. Laws passed by previous governments get changed or repealed all the time, this is no different.

I don't like this brinksmanship, and I do think it's stupid and counterproductive. But it's hardly criminal, just politics as usual.

I agree it's not criminal, but it is stupid and dangerous. Besides, they tried to repeal it, a lot of times, and failed. Fair enough for trying, I don't object to that. That's what te democratic process is for. But to then tie it to this.. It's close to extortion, really. The shutdown doesn't even defund the implementation of Obamacare, right? So what the fuck does it have to do with this, except extortion? Also sets a dangerous precedent - imagine every time a party disagrees with something that has passed they shutdown the government or threaten to make the US default? The country would become uncontrollable. And not politics as usual, I might add. If you'd follow the democratic process as it was intended, you'd a) stop the law from being passed in the first place (failed) b) try to repeal it (failed) c) try to amend it either before or after it's implemented d) run on the issue at the elections, if the people really support you on it that strongly, you'll win and go to step b) or c) (failed), or ultimately let the law take effect, people notice how crappy it is (assuming you are right), and win an election and repeal it. This is just crazy.

Also, it may not be that popular, but only a minority (~1/3) wants to repeal it, and it doesn't show how much they care. I mean, if voters were that strongly opposed, Obama wouldn't be in the White House. Plus, it appears that when polling on Obamacare vs ACA, the latter is a lot less opposed (while being the same), and when polling on the content of the bill, even less people oppose it. And most importantly, polls also suggest that almost nobody supports shutting the government down over it.

[Ominous Gamer]

According to cnbc is 46% negative for obamacare and 37% negative for affordable care act.


and other polls have shown negative responses drop like a rock when you explain what it is instead of labeling it with a name

people are fucking stupid

[Aimless]

The ACA does not enjoy widespread popular support; it generally has a net negative favorability in polls.

Last I heard, when you poll people on the individual provisions, there is widespread support for all of them except the individual mandate. Of course, when you poll Americans on this issue you apparently get dramatically different results depending on what you call the overall system, and you also fin that half of all people polled don't really know what the reform entails, so who knows what Americans think. It seems they absolutely think the government shutdown is lunacy so you could perhaps safely claim that there is widespread opposition there

Furthermore, withholding pay from members of Congress is silly, about 100+ Congressmen already are forgoing pay during the shutdown and it isn't changing their attitudes.

Sure but only half of them are Republicans and I can't tell how many of those are responsible for the shenanigans regardless of whether or not they change their attitudes, their pay should be witheld for their failure to serve the people well and for their abuse of their influence. I'm more interested in the firing option myself

Lastly, if the Republicans can muster a majority in a democratically elected legislature to effectively repeal/defund a program they don't like, that's hardly undemocratic. Laws passed by previous governments get changed or repealed all the time, this is no different.

Sure, if they could change or repeal the law itself on its own merits, you'd have a point. They couldn't and so they're turning to extortion and the subversion of the democratic processes they claim to believe in.

I don't like this brinksmanship, and I do think it's stupid and counterproductive. But it's hardly criminal, just politics as usual.

One day it might become criminal

[wiggin]

I agree it's not criminal, but it is stupid and dangerous. Besides, they tried to repeal it, a lot of times, and failed. Fair enough for trying, I don't object to that. That's what te democratic process is for. But to then tie it to this.. It's close to extortion, really. The shutdown doesn't even defund the implementation of Obamacare, right? So what the fuck does it have to do with this, except extortion? Also sets a dangerous precedent - imagine every time a party disagrees with something that has passed they shutdown the government or threaten to make the US default? The country would become uncontrollable. And not politics as usual, I might add. If you'd follow the democratic process as it was intended, you'd a) stop the law from being passed in the first place (failed) b) try to repeal it (failed) c) try to amend it either before or after it's implemented d) run on the issue at the elections, if the people really support you on it that strongly, you'll win and go to step b) or c) (failed), or ultimately let the law take effect, people notice how crappy it is (assuming you are right), and win an election and repeal it. This is just crazy.

Also, it may not be that popular, but only a minority (~1/3) wants to repeal it, and it doesn't show how much they care. I mean, if voters were that strongly opposed, Obama wouldn't be in the White House. Plus, it appears that when polling on Obamacare vs ACA, the latter is a lot less opposed (while being the same), and when polling on the content of the bill, even less people oppose it. And most importantly, polls also suggest that almost nobody supports shutting the government down over it.

The House has successfully repealed Obamacare on several occasions. It just didn't make it through the Senate and White House. The point isn't that Obamacare should be repealed - the point is that the populace elected one house of the legislature with a majority of members diametrically opposed to the legislation. When you get a deadlock like we have, that doesn't mean that both sides should entrench their positions (which has happened with both Republicans and Democrats), but rather that some sort of compromise must be found. Just ignoring the majority of the House is not democratic. They DID run on the issue at elections, and the GOP had very good results in the legislature on Obamacare - that's why they run the House and have a filibuster block in the Senate.

I don't like their tactic - it does amount to extortion, though I think it's more of a bargaining position aimed at the midterm elections - but I have no doubt that in a similar position, the Democrats would do the same thing. Personally, I think it's going to backfire on them - they have gotten blamed for previous budget impasses and got the blame for the big shutdown back in the 90s, and it comes back to bite them in the ass during elections. I think they're trying to frame the debate in a way that places the blame on the Democrats (e.g. 'the House passed multiple funding bills, and the Senate ignored every one!') but so far it doesn't look like that tactic is working. So, poor tactics, and stupid, but hardly undemocratic.

According to cnbc is 46% negative for obamacare and 37% negative for affordable care act.


and other polls have shown negative responses drop like a rock when you explain what it is instead of labeling it with a name

people are fucking stupid

I think people have blown that result out of proportion. I'm sure some people react negatively to Obamacare the same way some people have a visceral reaction to Reaganomics. But I suspect most of the difference is familiarity. People are familiar with Obamacare and what it means for them, but they probably have not heard of its alternate name. Instead of saying they don't know the law, they just figure 'hey, affordable care sounds good, let's say we support it!' Don't underestimate the willingness of people to lie to avoid looking ignorant, even if it exposes them to the risk of looking even more ignorant.

Last I heard, when you poll people on the individual provisions, there is widespread support for all of them except the individual mandate. Of course, when you poll Americans on this issue you apparently get dramatically different results depending on what you call the overall system, and you also fin that half of all people polled don't really know what the reform entails, so who knows what Americans think. It seems they absolutely think the government shutdown is lunacy so you could perhaps safely claim that there is widespread opposition there

So, they support everything except the central premise that keeps the law working? See above about names.

Sure but only half of them are Republicans and I can't tell how many of those are responsible for the shenanigans regardless of whether or not they change their attitudes, their pay should be witheld for their failure to serve the people well and for their abuse of their influence. I'm more interested in the firing option myself

The list includes most of the GOP leadership and many right wing Tea Party types.

I don't have an issue prima facie with a law that withholds Congressional pay if a real budget isn't passed on time, but that de facto happens for many members of Congress anyways. I definitely oppose various automatic measures that would, e.g., call a by-election if Congress is deadlocked on buget issues or the like. That's a recipe for continually unstable government - just look at some parliamentary systems in Europe (Belgium? Holland?) that are held hostage by such tactics. There's some room for make budgets automatically continue at the last year's level in the event of a funding deadlock, but that can lead to all sorts of awful event. No, what's needed is for Congressional leaders to do their job and find an appropriate compromise. Clearly these tactics may backfire on the GOP, but they didn't backfire enough after the budget negotiations in the last couple years to change Congress in the 2012 election, I question whether that would change now.

Sure, if they could change or repeal the law itself on its own merits, you'd have a point. They couldn't and so they're turning to extortion and the subversion of the democratic processes they claim to believe in.

How, pray tell, do you determine whether a law is being repealed on its own merits? Do you psychoanalyze the members of Congress?

Extortion, politics, potaeto, potahto. This is not unusual, it's just stupid.

Regardless, I'm sure you could make a reasonable argument about how the budget is tied to Obamacare - and that by trying to stop its key provisions from taking effect, they're trying to do some medium term budget consolidation. That's a reasonable position to take for tying PPACA repeal to the budget.

[Hazir]

The ACA does not enjoy widespread popular support; it generally has a net negative favorability in polls. Furthermore, withholding pay from members of Congress is silly, about 100+ Congressmen already are forgoing pay during the shutdown and it isn't changing their attitudes. Lastly, if the Republicans can muster a majority in a democratically elected legislature to effectively repeal/defund a program they don't like, that's hardly undemocratic. Laws passed by previous governments get changed or repealed all the time, this is no different.

I don't like this brinksmanship, and I do think it's stupid and counterproductive. But it's hardly criminal, just politics as usual.

I think any statement about the popularity of ACA should be qualified by the fact that the fast majority don't really know what it is. Which of course doesn't mean that the GOP hasn't effectively spread the notion of government overreaching, which I presume isn't what most Americans like from their government.

But then again; does it really matter? Once you have a couple of millions of Americans covered under the stipulations of this law, abolition will become as feasable as the abolition of Social Security or the deduction of interest on home loans. The latter of which has to be counted amongst the biggest fuck ups a government is capable of.

[wiggin]

I think any statement about the popularity of ACA should be qualified by the fact that the fast majority don't really know what it is. Which of course doesn't mean that the GOP hasn't effectively spread the notion of government overreaching, which I presume isn't what most Americans like from their government.

But then again; does it really matter? Once you have a couple of millions of Americans covered under the stipulations of this law, abolition will become as feasable as the abolition of Social Security or the deduction of interest on home loans. The latter of which has to be counted amongst the biggest fuck ups a government is capable of.

Most people don't follow any politics. If you asked a bunch of left wingers about the Patriot Act, I'm sure they wouldn't have a clue about its main provisions. Just because most populations are ignorant doesn't mean you can ignore opinion polls showing a clear preference for something - especially if it's largely borne out by elections run on that basis.

And you're coming up with a very cogent reason why the GOP acted now and so precipitously - if they waited any longer to get a Republican in the White House and a few more in the Senate, they wouldn't be able to easily roll back Obamacare without making a gigantic headache.


I just want to emphasize - I actually don't hate PPACA too much. I'm frustrated with it, since it did little to fix most of our underlying issues in healthcare, but I don't mind its basic premise. I think the Republicans are being dangerously obstructionist. But I think that this is a democracy, and their voice is hardly some marginal constituency that is just shouting very loudly.

[Loki]

But that line has been crossed. Congress passed the ACA. The supreme court subsequently validated it.

That's why this is so exasperating. Their objections are pointless, the ship has already sailed. This isn't an exercise in revoking the ACA or even limiting its scope. This is purely an exercise of tit-for-tat political horseshit. And it hurts everybody, not just the Democrats.

The legality of the policy is irrelevant. The GOP wants to undo it because they object to it politically. Believe it or not, political parties are allowed to try to undo the acts of their predecessors. The problem that the GOP faces is not that Obamacare is legal, but that Obama is still in office (and that the Senate is controlled by Democrats). They have no political mechanism through which they can meet their objective. Instead, they're trying stupid gimmicks that will make everyone worse off.

[Flixy]

The House has successfully repealed Obamacare on several occasions. It just didn't make it through the Senate and White House. The point isn't that Obamacare should be repealed - the point is that the populace elected one house of the legislature with a majority of members diametrically opposed to the legislation. When you get a deadlock like we have, that doesn't mean that both sides should entrench their positions (which has happened with both Republicans and Democrats), but rather that some sort of compromise must be found. Just ignoring the majority of the House is not democratic. They DID run on the issue at elections, and the GOP had very good results in the legislature on Obamacare - that's why they run the House and have a filibuster block in the Senate.

I.e. congress has not repealed Obamacare on any occasion - senate and white house are part of the process. And since said process is democratic, ignoring them is democratic by default. And slightly amusing that you think it's undemocratic to ignore a majority of the House, while mentioning filibusters, which are a way of ignoring the senate majority. But I assume you mean they should be listened to and a compromise reached - but that isn't helped by the fact that cooperating is seen by many politicians (apparently) as weakness, or at the very least an electoral risk. Still, they have tried the democratic processes that are available, and failed - which should be a sign to either give up (for now), or keep trying to use the process as it was intended. But this (to me) seems like abusing the rules as they were intended. I can understand going for a shutdown if the conflict is actually about the budget (i.e., we won't agree to this budget/CR because of things that are actually in said budget or CR, and therefore won't vote for it) but now apparently the vast majority has no objections against the actual CR.

I don't like their tactic - it does amount to extortion, though I think it's more of a bargaining position aimed at the midterm elections - but I have no doubt that in a similar position, the Democrats would do the same thing. Personally, I think it's going to backfire on them - they have gotten blamed for previous budget impasses and got the blame for the big shutdown back in the 90s, and it comes back to bite them in the ass during elections. I think they're trying to frame the debate in a way that places the blame on the Democrats (e.g. 'the House passed multiple funding bills, and the Senate ignored every one!') but so far it doesn't look like that tactic is working. So, poor tactics, and stupid, but hardly undemocratic.

If by being in a similar position you mean they'd have the same amount of crazy people in their party, then yeah, probably.

I think people have blown that result out of proportion. I'm sure some people react negatively to Obamacare the same way some people have a visceral reaction to Reaganomics. But I suspect most of the difference is familiarity. People are familiar with Obamacare and what it means for them, but they probably have not heard of its alternate name. Instead of saying they don't know the law, they just figure 'hey, affordable care sounds good, let's say we support it!' Don't underestimate the willingness of people to lie to avoid looking ignorant, even if it exposes them to the risk of looking even more ignorant.

To be honest, I think people are familiar with the term Obamacare, but not with what it means for them, considering politicians and media on all sides are spewing untruths about what the hell it is constantly. Which makes polls sortof meaningless, too. I mean, the ads with uncle Sam in the doctor's room pretty much raping a patient? Wtf, that doesn't have anything to do wit hthe actual bill - Doctors and insurers will still be private, not public. Which is also why I'm also very much annoyed about the constant comparisons to the UK's NHS - that is entirely different. Anyway, I'm drifting.

I don't have an issue prima facie with a law that withholds Congressional pay if a real budget isn't passed on time, but that de facto happens for many members of Congress anyways. I definitely oppose various automatic measures that would, e.g., call a by-election if Congress is deadlocked on buget issues or the like. That's a recipe for continually unstable government - just look at some parliamentary systems in Europe (Belgium? Holland?) that are held hostage by such tactics. There's some room for make budgets automatically continue at the last year's level in the event of a funding deadlock, but that can lead to all sorts of awful event. No, what's needed is for Congressional leaders to do their job and find an appropriate compromise. Clearly these tactics may backfire on the GOP, but they didn't backfire enough after the budget negotiations in the last couple years to change Congress in the 2012 election, I question whether that would change now.

I may be wrong, but we do not have an automatic measure that calls for an election if our congress is deadlocked on any issue. Only when the congress pass a vote of no confidence, elections have to be called. If there is a budget proposal that is supported by the legislature but does not (or may not) pass the senate, which is what happened with you guys, and might happen right now over here, they simply negotiate with the opposition until a result is reached. There's no automatic new election, though the government can resign if they feel they have lost support.

By the way, last time our cabinet fell (over budget, no less) - a new budget proposal was passed by negotiations with the other parties, a compromise was found and the budget passed, before new elections. I dare say our process was held hostage far less by this, than your process is by this kind of shit. Of course it helps that our representatives tend to at least try to do their job, as you say, by finding an appropriate compromise. And having more than one party, moderate opposition fractions won't feel obliged by the mroe extreme opposition to block everything. I mean, several republicans have stated they'd prefer a clean CR, so why the fuck don't they just vote like that? Or won't a clean CR come to a vote in the House?

[Ominous Gamer]

“We’re not going to be disrespected,” conservative Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-Ind., [told the Washington Examiner]. “We have to get something out of this. And I don’t know what that even is.”

Thats what the GOP is playing at

[GGT]

IMO this isn't "politics as usual", or representative democracy that's often messy. I think this all traces back to The Republican Party's identity crisis, internal fighting, their existential crisis, and local vs national political power.

Unfortunately, the RNC/GOP decided the way to grow their party meant including radical or extreme conservatives. Factions like the Tea Party, Birthers, Christian zealots, science (evolution) deniers, conspiracy theorists, or xenophobes became part of their brand name/umbrella. And they had plenty of monied groups for funding, with media outlets ready to spread their message....wrapped in the Flag and dressed up as Patriotism.

The first time the American public realized this was a (R) 'national strategy' came with Sarah Palin as McCain's running mate. Up until then, people in congress (like Michelle Bachmann) were considered rare, isolated wackos. Even McCain "the Maverick" was rather blind-sided by (R) who didn't just want to make government more efficient or fiscally responsible....but aimed to shrink it small enough to be drowned in a bathtub.

Then, even moderate or 'conservative' Republicans who believed in governance, bi-partisanship, and reform, were replaced by rigid ideologues. They used the RNC/GOP and our two-party system to get elected...then denounced "the establishment" and party leadership. Even the elected leader of the RNC (Reince Preibus) wants 'grass roots activists' (aka Tea Party) to control the Speaker of the House.

Since the GOP can't decide who they are, or what they want....they've been reduced to an anti-government, anti-Obama party. Fraught with hypocrisy of their own making. They claim government and taxes are teh evil, and are giddy about the current defunding shutdown, yay!

Folks like Palin, Bachmann, Blackburn, Cantor, Ryan or Cruz say "People will realize they can do without so much government if we shut it down!"....until they realize "the Government" funds cancer research, public health, food safety, national park services, national monuments, air traffic control, small business loans, Veterans, civilian contractors for Homeland Security, or Military families.

Their anti-government propaganda program is fraudulent.

[Ominous Gamer]

Congressman Confronts Park Ranger Over Closed WWII Memorial

golden quote, from Texas no less: "The Park Service should be ashamed of themselves,"

[Lebanese Dragon]

I think all those political tactics are childish but they are very common. The only reason this one in particular is notable is the fact they are directly hindering our economy every day that passes. Not to mention our credibility world wide. Did they not learn from last time, this is not the bill to be trying to get your way on. We need some sort of impeachment method for these nutcases.

[Veldan Rath]

It's called elections.

[Aimless]

It's called elections.

That... doesn't sound like it has many or even any of the connotations of the word "impeachment". It's like punishing criminals by not giving them ponies

[Hazir]

This would be the moment to remind everybody so angry at the GOP that it was the Democrat leadership that squandered the chance of Health Care reform early on. If they had used their moment effectively the TP people would have had nothing to play with.

Obama really is such a failure.

[Aimless]

Two different kinds and degrees of culpability. One made the mistake of getting drunk and acting slutty, while the other is guilty of deliberate abuse. If the US hadn't, over several decades, turned into such a messed up place, the TP would perhaps have had no influence

[Veldan Rath]

That... doesn't sound like it has many or even any of the connotations of the word "impeachment". It's like punishing criminals by not giving them ponies

Because they are not acting like criminals?

[Aimless]

Because they are not acting like criminals?

What I'm saying is that LD's wish for some sort of impeachment process is not answered by the existence of elections.

[Lewkowski]

Um so its congress's fault and not the senates?

Both branches have to pass it, the house has passed several bills. Up to the senate to agree or not and then the president to sign.

[Aimless]

Um so its congress's fault and not the senates?

Both branches have to pass it, the house has passed several bills. Up to the senate to agree or not and then the president to sign.

Since when do you want to negotiate with terrorists and hostage-takers?

[Hazir]

Um so its congress's fault and not the senates?

Both branches have to pass it, the house has passed several bills. Up to the senate to agree or not and then the president to sign.

This time it's more the House than the Senate or White House yes. What they do is (as has been pointed out by several sides) is the equivalent of the Senate demanding a budget that also stipulates severe restrictions on gun ownership.