Skip to main content

View Diary: Conservatives really do hate democracy (158 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  As opposed to you thinking quite highly... (0+ / 0-)

    of yourself for engaging in the tired right wing ritual of arguing that America is not a democracy.  It is widely accepted that a constitutional republic is a limited form of democracy so for all intents and purposes it is appropriate to refer to the United States as such.

    •  I don't (0+ / 0-)

      think unusually highly of myself. I have a healthy amount of self esteem, no more, no less. I think we agree that the US is a constitutional republic. That was my point all along. It isn't a pure democracy, as you said.

      Sometimes facts can appear to be "tired arguments".

      •  The fact is that Kos never referred to the US as (0+ / 0-)

        a "pure democracy" per the qualification that you are now acknowledging, thus your initial correction was unwarranted... and petty.

        •  My initial post (0+ / 0-)

          was warranted and certainly not petty. Kos's point was that since Obama won the election, under our democratic system, there was nothing that could be done to stop ACA implementation until the next election cycle. That's not true, however. As I've said, under our representative government, the House has the constitutional authority to withhold ACA funding.
          Kos is a major Democratic Party mover/shaker/stirrer and it's shocking, and more than a little disappointing, that he doesn't understand how our government is supposed to work.
          Anyway, good discussion. Have to get back to work.

          •  The sudden embrace and overstating of (0+ / 0-)

            "the power of the purse" wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that despite receiving fewer votes, the Republicans currently have control of the house (much the way inmates would run the asylum)?  The power of the purse does not exist solely within one half of one branch of our government, it is shared.  That is why the Senate has the final say in approving and the President has the ability to veto.  

            It is highly disingenuous to suggest that the intent of our system of government, under whatever label suits your needs, was to repeal or enact laws through hostage-taking rather than winning elections.  ACA funding was never in doubt and mentioning it only serves to undermine your credibility.

            •  You're confusing (0+ / 0-)

              the passage of a bill into law and funding the implementation of a law. You're right that creating a law requires passage by the House and Senate and signature by the President. The funding process is different. Only the House has the authority to introduce spending bills. The intent of the Constitution is to restrain the power of the Federal Government and giving the House, which is closer to the People than the Senate, the power of the purse is consistent with restraining government.
              If the Democrats controlled the House and we had a Republican President and Republican controlled Senate, the Dems would probably use the same tactic and  kos would probably endorse it. As far as which party are the inmates , that just depends on which side of the aisle you're on and which party is in power.

              •  No, your hostage-taking pals are confused... (0+ / 0-)

                as are you.  Shutting down the government and nearly defaulting on the debt was of no consequence to the already funded ACA.  Any spending bill the House introduces has to make it through the Senate, then survive a potential veto.  Had the intent ever been for the House to have unilateral control over spending, I'm quite certain that America's founders would have made it so.  Instead they created a series of checks and balances, encouraging compromise but ultimately favoring the majority, which best reflects the will of the people and brings us full circle back to... if you don't like the ACA, work to improve it or win some elections and repeal it.

                As for your attempt at false equivalence, the Democrats did not cause America's credit rating to be downgraded over Medicare Part D.

                •  Please read my comment. (0+ / 0-)

                  I agree that spending bills have to be approved by the House and Senate and signed by the President, however, in my post I said that the House has the unilateral power to INTRODUCE spending bills. If the House doesn't include funding for a particular law in a spending bill, that law isn't funded. Our founders intended the House to have unilateral power over spending as part of our system of checks and balances. In England,  the House of Commons also had this power. The founders acknowledged that the central government had to be sufficiently powerful, but they felt that power had to be limited.
                  Joan McCarter had a diary on Monday saying that a recent poll showed a large percentage of the US population, 47%, oppose the ACA. Republican control of the House gives those people a say.
                  If Democrats don't want Republicans to have this much control over spending, they should win some elections and take control of the House.
                  Regarding your false equivalence comment, both parties are guilty of too much spending. I disagree with Dr. Krugman, the deficit is a huge problem. And I don't have any "pals" in the House that I know of. At least they haven't invited me to any DC parties!

                  •  Last time I checked... (0+ / 0-)

                    Republicans still controlled the House (despite receiving fewer overall votes) and the ACA remains funded, how can this be?  Is the much vaunted purse truly no more powerful than a piece of paper in a suggestion box?  Are you implying that our founders forgot to cross a few tees since the Senate can amend spending bills?  Or maybe, just maybe, it has always been understood that the power of the purse was never meant to be abused by the fringe of the fringe in an attempt to impose their will on the majority.

                    If you truly believe the deficit is a huge problem, tell your people to stop wasting millions trying to repeal the ACA, a law that helps reduce spending.

                    •  Here are answers to your questions: (0+ / 0-)

                      1. "Republicans still controlled the House (despite receiving fewer overall votes) and the ACA remains funded, how can this be?  
                      The ACA remains funded since the House introduced spending bills which included funding for it. Republicans weren't united in the move to defund.

                      2."Is the much vaunted purse truly no more powerful than a piece of paper in a suggestion box?"

                      No. The ability of the House to unilaterally introduce spending bills is very powerful, but not infinitely so.

                      3. "Are you implying that our founders forgot to cross a few tees since the Senate can amend spending bills?"

                      Not at all. Our founders gave the House a lot of power, but they crossed all their tees and even dotted their i's  by giving the Senate the power to amend and approve spending bills. This restrained the House's power.

                      4." Or maybe, just maybe, it has always been understood that the power of the purse was never meant to be abused by the fringe of the fringe in an attempt to impose their will on the majority."

                      The 47% of the population opposed to the ACA cited by Joan M. is hardly a "fringe". The power of the purse was also meant to prevent the majority from imposing its will on the minority.

                      I don't think I have any "people" in the government. At least I've never met any of them. The "millions" you claim they've wasted is nothing compared to the trillions wasted by the Feds over the years on all sorts of programs, including the ACA. They wasted about $ 300M alone on

                      Please feel free to ask any other questions you have. I'm here to help.

                      •  You're here to be helped. (0+ / 0-)

                        It's hardly unexpected that even though you've taken your first steps outside the protection of the right wing echo chamber, you'd act out and try to assert yourself.  Much the way a child does upon discovering that the world works differently than he or she thought, you are finding out that throwing a fit doesn't mean getting one's way.  Such lessons will serve you well in the years to come as the fringe views you represent continue to lose support.

                        The Republican majority in the House was and is united in their desire to repeal, defund, delay or otherwise hamper the ACA.  They failed after finally coming to terms with the limits of their power and out of fear over the repercussions of their reckless and destructive tactics, which were rightfully opposed by the vast majority of Americans.

                        As you've learned over the last few days, our government is in fact a form of democracy and attempts by the fringe to subvert it are viewed as hostile towards it.  That was largely the point of the diary, although in your zeal to spread right wing talking points concerning matters that at best you only have a loose grasp of, it escaped you.

                        •  If you want to discuss (0+ / 0-)

                          the issues, please put together a valid argument. An angry rant isn't very effective.

                          •  Ready to take your toys (or weak tea) and (0+ / 0-)

                            head home?  Is that the stomping of feet I hear?  Perhaps the whine of a Hoveround?

                          •  OK. Take a deep breath and relax. (0+ / 0-)

                            A valid argument has to be coherent. You're all over the map. Why don't you start by taking one of my points that you disagree with and posting your counter-argument.

                            Can someone here please help there^3? kos? Anyone?

                          •  Right wing troll wants help? From Kos? (0+ / 0-)

                            That's good stuff right there.

                            You've already conceded that our system of government is a form of democracy and that the House of Representatives power of the purse is limited to introducing spending bills, thus dooming their hostage-taking.  If you need anything else, you're free to ask.

                          •  Read my post. (0+ / 0-)

                            I said someone please help there^3 (there to the third power, aka. theretherethere), that's you. You're the one I'm calling on kos to help.

                            I haven't conceded anything.  I've always said that the power of the purse concerns the INRODUCTION of spending bills.

                            Please re read my posts. Slowly this time.

                          •  You could be suffering (0+ / 0-)

                            from short term memory loss in addition to being full of it.  Take your own advice... calm down and start over at the beginning, get schooled a second time.

                            While you're doing that, keep in mind that this isn't Redstate or whatever bubble you're accustomed to.  You're free to comment but no one really cares, least of all Kos, what a right wing troll thinks/wants.  I found you slightly amusing in your alpha posturing, that's about it.

                          •  There cubed, some comments: (0+ / 0-)

                            "You're free to comment but no one really cares, least of all Kos, what a right wing troll thinks/wants."

                            So you're completely close-minded to any opinions you disagree with. And kos is even more close-minded than you. How sad. What were saying again about a "bubble"?

                            I apologize for upsetting you by bringing up the Constitution and the truth. I'll make a note not to do that again..

                          •  I actually enjoy spirited debates but... (0+ / 0-)

                            you need to elevate your game beyond repeating the crap you're being fed by right wing radio jocks.  It isn't having different views that makes one a troll, it's intent.  Bring something new to the table, speak your heart and maybe then you'll have accomplished something worth apologizing for.  

                          •  If you think my argument is crap (0+ / 0-)

                            explain how I'm wrong when I say that the House was acting Constitutionally when they introduced a spending bill that did not include ACA funding.

                            Let's have a debate.

                          •  You're trying to redefine your original argument (0+ / 0-)

                            that America is not a democracy and that the House has the power to defund the ACA.

                            Our system of government is a form of democracy and the House has the ability only to propose defunding the ACA (they started off by demanding repeal you'll recall).

                            As for divining the intent of the Founders, attempts to cast the agonizingingly slow death of the modern Republican Party as being about minority rights are hysterical.  You have a bright future in comedy, of the unintentional variety.

                          •  You're wrong, (0+ / 0-)

                            the House CAN defund the ACA since they have the sole power to appropriate funding. If they don't introduce a spending bill that includes ACA funding, then ACA isn't funded.

                            The intent of the Founders was to give the House the sole power to introduce spending bills. That's why they included the following language in the Constitution ""All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.." And as I said in my first post "The House is absolutely within its constitutional powers to defund Obamacare. " So my original argument is unchanged.
                            I'm disappointed you don't want to debate my point.

                          •  It's disappointing that you're being disingenuous (0+ / 0-)

                            or are truly ignorant with regard to how the ACA is funded, the difference between mandatory and discretionary spending, the Senate's ability to amend whatever the House sends over and/or pretty much anything outside the usual pseudo constitutional claptrap that insufferable blowhards on the right are so fond of spewing.

                            Whatever your reasons, you remain wrong that the House can defund the ACA... they tried and failed, just like you.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site