Exactly what is their positive message? Can you be specific? It seems to me that mostly their message is negative. I know what they are against, but I know little about what they are for, other then the vague message of small government and maximum individual freedom. They are specific on what the want to eliminate or destroy; they are non-specific on what they want to build. This leaves the impression that they just want to eliminate and see what happens, rather than having thoroughly thought through what the results of these eliminations would be... surely there must be bad consequences as well as good ones. How do they propose to deal with the bad consequences.
They failed to repeal it through the Democratic process, the process used to pass it, so now they are throwing a tantrum.
The Tea Party is like the people doing a drug intervention on a hopeless addict. Of course those doing the intervention will meet resistance from the addict. In this case we have some problems. Normally those doing the intervention would outnumber the addict. Not so with this crowd. The addicts outnumber the interventionists by large numbers. Add to that the reality that some addicts are just beyond saving...well, we are where we are. Outnumbered by a bunch of hopeless addicts who in reality are past the point of recovery. As a note, if you've ever dealt with addicts(I have) it's not at all surprising that the rest of the family is quite pissed off by the time everyone finally gets together for the actual "come to jesus" moment. Hence the really annoyed Tea Party memebers.
An interesting perspective... John Boehner's new debt ceiling offer: It's a trap http://theweek.com/article/index/250973/john-boehners-new-debt-ceiling-offer-its-a-trap
why the distortions? failed to repeal it. what? not funding is what they can do and what they are doing. the founders set up the purse strings with the house because they are elected every two years. the house chose to fund the entire govt but obamacare... this is the democratic process... The house is doing what the founders would desire.... the peoples wishes. The dems are using selective govt closures and the press to extort the house.
that is an interesting suggestion. I hope they are right about the R leadership knowing they have to make sure obamacare is not funded til the next election.
You're wrong of course.. They need the Senate and the President. It won't happen, not now. You should read up on the way your government works. They can't unfund it, this time around. They should work on something positive that they might have a chance to do. Maybe you and Lucrum can start a reading club on government.
Why do the Republican's have a death wish? Entitlement reform??? Don't make me laugh. They want to weaken the two most popular government programs, and one of these works as well any any program the government has ever initiated. The only way for them to succeed without being killed in the process is to use tactical Saran weapons on the entire AARP membership before they embark on this bound to lose battle. What is it with these folks? Are they trying to prove what we already suspect, viz., the only part of their noggins left functioning is their brain stems.
You are another one of those leftists unconstrained by reality and truth. Of course they can defund... they are the house they have the purse strings. http://www.examiner.com/article/obamacare-can-be-defunded-without-senate-approval âNext, he stated that, because Congress doesnât have the ability to mandate, it must, to fund Obama-care, rely on its power to tax. Therefore, the mechanism that funds Obama-care is a tax,â said Atkinson. âHe struck down as unconstitutional, the Obama-care idea that the federal government can bully states into complying by yanking their existing medicaid funding. Liberals, through Obama-care, basically said to the states â âcomply with Obama-care or we will stop existing funding.â Roberts ruled that is a no-no.â When the House attached Obamacare to the legislation in funding the government, it made a mistake in doing so and the funding of Obamacare should have been separate, thereby giving the Senate no power in denying the Housesâ request to defund Obamacare. Pease said, âHouse opposition to funding Obamacare would have been far more powerful if made a âstand aloneâ bill not attached to general funding, but it is not. âStand alone,â having no other parts, would have left the Senate no wiggle or compromise room once it went to them, nor would there be for the Joint Conference Committee thereafter that reconciles any differences between the two houses. There would be nothing to reconcile, Obamacare is merely defunded.â âStill, the intent of the Founding Fathers was to give the people, through their House of Representatives, the power collectively to say no to any proposed federal tax, which she is decidedly doing.â [Edited for clarity] If Obamacare is removed from the government budget, presented, and voted on as a separate bill, Obamacare can be defunded by the House. If that is the case, then the Senate and the President can vote yes or no and if the vote is no, then the Obamacare bill can sit in the House with no funding. --- which is part of the reason Buchanan and then I insisted the house send over a section by section budget. there is then no way for the senate to fund obamacare but by extorting the house.