Senate Rejects House Proposal to Avoid Shutdown Hours Before Deadline

reply to post by trinityalways


WASHINGTON, Aug 12 (Reuters) - The U.S. Air Force will shut down its space surveillance system that tracks satellites and other orbiting objects by Oct. 1 due to budget constraints caused by automatic federal budget cuts known as the sequestration, it announced Monday.

The conspiracy part of me wonders if they shut down the Space Program...( what a joke) would that mean they can't monitor an incoming Asteroid that would hit in FEMA Region 3 ? And therefore they weren't in the position or prepared to tell people to.........run?!!!

reply to post by tracehd1


YES it's our Space Fence!

Trinity peace

It's okay everyone. Carl's Junior won't shut down on us! Just start spraying Gatorade on the crops and we'll be fine.

reply to post by AlliumIslelily


Oh my gosh...ever since I saw that horrible movie, I can't help but compare it to what's happening to our society. I wish it were funny....

The Dems refuse to talk with a 'gun to their heads'...but what have they been doing to the American people for the past several years now? Fear is the greatest manipulator.

I am curious....can anyone find the language in the bill that the House passed that supposedly de-funded anything? According to another poster here, it matters not because the funding is derived elsewhere (still from tax-paying citizens; but I digress). If that is the case, why the fuss?

I have gone over that resolution from the House several times and have yet to find any language that modifies anything close to the Act or the Public Law.

Its a damn game and we are all suckered.

reply to post by ownbestenemy

Lets stop right there. How is it already funded? From research, I have gathered that it is funded via the "taxpayer" via wages (read income tax increase) and investment income (another income tax increase). I can say tax increase because the Supreme Court agreed with the Government on this argument; even though that very Government ardently proclaimed it was not a tax.

So yes, there is already a "fund" building that started in 2010 with the "tanning" tax and further increases in the "rich" this year contributed to that "fund", but as we have learned just recently, that a sizable portion of that "fund" is "missing"; $67 million.

Interestingly, the Government hasn't gone through great lengths to ensure that the funds set for Social Security repayment be "funded" outside of obligation.

The ACA is funded just like any other government program is funded...through taxes. The difference with the ACA is that the funding and appropriations are built directly into the legislation so that it is not dependent on budgets or CRs.

The did this for exactly this reason. If the government is going to now be involved in healthcare, it can't be linked to partisan politics and budgets.

But yes, there is already funding. If it wasn't, all the Republicans would have to do is force the government shutdown and the would accomplish their goal. But you don't hear the Republicans cheering that they stopped the ACA, have you? Because they haven't stopped anything in regards to the ACA...because it's funding is not dependent on these CRs.

Then by what you say, why are the Democrats in the Senate not just passing the CR and laughing while they do so? If there is no direct correlation between our annual authorization of funds and the PPACA, why turn down the first CR as they did? If it doesn't matter, then fund the Government and then turn and laugh at the Republicans saying it is funded outside of our normal authorization and outside of our Constitutional authority.

No?

Because the House Republicans are including legislation in the CRs that they are passing that modify the ACA by either removing the funding built into the legislation (defunding it), delaying the individual mandate by one year, repealing the medical device tax, and removing the ability for congressional staff to receive their current contribution to their heath insurance (that they have always received).

The first CR that they sent, the Senate did vote on it and amended it to remove all the modifications to the ACA and sent it back to the House, which they rejected. Every CR that the House has sent to the Senate has modifications to the ACA in it, and the Senate finally said that they aren't playing games and they will table any additional CRs that have modifications to the ACA in it. The Senate wants a clean CR that has ONLY continuing funding of the government and not legislation modifying the ACA that is already funded, passed into law, and defended by the SCOTUS.

The Republicans are simply trying to use the government shutdown as a threat to get their way.

ownbestenemy
I am curious....can anyone find the language in the bill that the House passed that supposedly de-funded anything? According to another poster here, it matters not because the funding is derived elsewhere (still from tax-paying citizens; but I digress). If that is the case, why the fuss?

I have gone over that resolution from the House several times and have yet to find any language that modifies anything close to the Act or the Public Law.

Its a damn game and we are all suckered.

Try here...

U.S. House of Representatives Roll Call Votes

( that's assuming the website isn't shut down yet )

reply to post by AlienScience


If it is funded as everything else, it requires the appropriation of tax monies and therefor, appropriation from Congress. You cannot pick and choose just because the funding is separated and placed into a slush fund (where have we seen this before...)

As I have placed a post-script in a separate thread, there is a section in which a delay was imposed and taxes halted as the bureaucracy was implemented. That necessarily isn't a bad thing; given that no one is ready for the law as is.

Why is it that Democrats do not have to negotiate or compromise but you feel that Republicans must?

ownbestenemy
reply to post by AlienScience

 

If it is funded as everything else, it requires the appropriation of tax monies and therefor, appropriation from Congress. You cannot pick and choose just because the funding is separated and placed into a slush fund (where have we seen this before...)

As I have placed a post-script in a separate thread, there is a section in which a delay was imposed and taxes halted as the bureaucracy was implemented. That necessarily isn't a bad thing; given that no one is ready for the law as is.

Why is it that Democrats do not have to negotiate or compromise but you feel that Republicans must?

It does have appropriations from Congress, it is inside the legislation of the ACA that Congress passed and Obama signed.

Do you honestly think that a CR to continue funding the government is the appropriate place to insert a delay in a non-related law?

ownbestenemy
I am curious....can anyone find the language in the bill that the House passed that supposedly de-funded anything? According to another poster here, it matters not because the funding is derived elsewhere (still from tax-paying citizens; but I digress). If that is the case, why the fuss?

I have gone over that resolution from the House several times and have yet to find any language that modifies anything close to the Act or the Public Law.

Its a damn game and we are all suckered.

Section 137 of HJ59

H.J. 59

Sec. 137. (a) In General- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no Federal funds shall be made available to carry out any provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148) or title I and subtitle B of title II of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-152), or of the amendments made by either such Act.
(b) Limitation- No entitlement to benefits under any provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148) or title I and subtitle B of title II of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-152), or the amendments made by either such Act, shall remain in effect on and after the date of the enactment of this joint resolution, nor shall any payment be awarded, owed, or made to any State, District, or territory under any such provision.
(c) Unobligated Balances- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, all unobligated balances available under the provisions of law referred to in subsection (a) are hereby rescinded.

EDIT: Thanks for the fixed link

reply to post by AlienScience


Thanks but you need to fix your link. H.J. 59

The updated language has it at Sec. 131 and reflects a one year delay of implementation.

ownbestenemy
reply to post by AlienScience

 

Thanks but you need to fix your link. H.J. 59

The updated language has it at Sec. 131 and reflects a one year delay of implementation.

edit on 1-10-2013 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)

Yes, the original bill they sent to the Senate had both 131 and 137 in it. When the Senate rejected that one, they modified it and removed 137.

Still stands, that 137 was in there and shows what the Republicans agenda is.

These don't belong in a CR to continue to fund the government.

reply to post by AlienScience


It doesn't still stand though. Sec. 137 is non-existent in the current incarnation of the resolution. Saying otherwise is pointing to the past and that has been modified.

Section 131 is harmless in terms to the PPACA, save a delay. So why reject that?

ownbestenemy
reply to post by AlienScience

 

It doesn't still stand though. Sec. 137 is non-existent in the current incarnation of the resolution. Saying otherwise is pointing to the past and that has been modified.

Section 131 is harmless in terms to the PPACA, save a delay. So why reject that?

You asked why the Senate didn't pass the CR that the House sent to them...and I answered why.

I'm not the one that started pointing to the past, that was you asking why the Senate didn't pass the original CR.

Section 131 is just as bad as 137, defunding or delaying, neither should be in a CR to continue to fund the government.

And 131 is not harmless, it is partisan politics that don't belong in a CR about funding the government.

ownbestenemy

Section 131 is harmless in terms to the PPACA, save a delay. So why reject that?

Because delaying, defunding, repealing is not for a minority extremist faction of the GOP to decide in a free democracy.

It is not republicans place to say yes or no.

ACA/Obamacare was a law EXHAUSTIVELY debated in congress and in the public arena.
It was passed and enacted by democratically elected representatives.
We had a year of debate and compromise before the law was passed.
And we have had TWO elections...One where President Obama ran on the promise of reforming healthcare and another after he had passed and championed the law.
BOTH times the majority of Americans spoke and made their will known.
The Supreme Court of the United States upheld the law.

What we have now is a minority faction of the Republican party demanding that democratically passed laws be repealed or they will sabotage the US economy

Indigo5
Because delaying, defunding, repealing is not for a minority extremist faction of the GOP to decide in a free democracy.

It is not republicans place to say yes or no.

As a Constitutional Republic, it is absolutely the place of the minority group to be in the position that the Republicans are facing today! Read Federalist Paper #51 and then come back still holding that same argument.

BOTH times the majority of Americans spoke and made their will known.

For fun lets examine this statement. You have stated that the "majority of Americans spoke..." Whilst the President did win the Electoral College and did enjoy an approximate 5 million or so lead in the popular election results; it does not equate to a "majority" of Americans.

For instance, numbers show that approximately 58% of the eligible voting public actually voted. Roughly 240 million people that are of age to vote and those who actually took to the polls is around 139 million. Of those, the President enjoyed 51% of that number. That is approximately 30% of the eligible people who can vote. How is that a majority of the American People?

Now if you meant electoral college wise; the actual way a president is selected, yes he enjoyed a majority of State support to win the presidency.

The Supreme Court of the United States upheld the law.

Yes and no. I suggest you read the Court's opinion. The Government made two arguments regarding the law. First they said they had authority via the Commerce Clause to regulate and second they argued they had the ability to impose taxes. The first was struck down and severely limited the Commerce Clause as we have known it to be. The second was the argument that they won on; not the law itself. What was won, was the affirmation that Congress has plenary power to tax.

Nothing was really ruled on the Act itself save its funding and implementation methods.

ETA:
I removed party and instead used group. Party politics is what led us here.