At least now The GOP has no excuse to not pass and send legislation to the President

At least now The GOP has no excuse to not pass and send legislation to the President. Just think Obama can really drive people like Ted Cruise crazy now by signing stuff they send up. Now all the GOP will have to admit they voted for stuff Obama signed. LOL. They have no excuses now why they cannot pass legislation.

a reply to: Xeven

Yea right. Like POTUS isnt sharpening his veto pens as we speak.

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: Xeven

Yea right. Like POTUS isnt sharpening his veto pens as we speak.

If he is smart he will sign some stuff just to make political points. For instance he should sign the Pipe line thing. It is stupid not to. Will bring gas prices down even further which could stimulate the US economy.
The pipeline is actually more environmentally safe than moving the stuff by truck and rail. Not like you can halt its use.

He could also ask Congress to pass additional funding to expedite NASA's various replacements for the Shuttle and beyond to get us off Russian Hardware. With current Russian relations the GOP could not political block such a measure.

Ask congress for more funding for DOD to expedite Nuclear deterrent weapon systems that are rusting. Expedite defensive systems development. There is an entire slurry of positive things Obama could put forward and force GOP to get behind it.

a reply to: Xeven

Now even more nothing will get done. Unless its for war expenditure.

Enjoying the "two party system"?

originally posted by: Xeven
At least now The GOP has no excuse to not pass and send legislation to the President. Just think Obama can really drive people like Ted Cruise crazy now by signing stuff they send up. Now all the GOP will have to admit they voted for stuff Obama signed. LOL. They have no excuses now why they cannot pass legislation.

Nah, they can just spend the next 2 years trying to dissolve all the legislation that Obama signed.

He's going to need that veto pen, quite a bit if you ask me.

~Tenth

a reply to: Xeven

Yea I hear you. Pass some stuff looks like he is working with others......just don't get near that health care bill.

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: Xeven

Yea I hear you. Pass some stuff looks like he is working with others......just don't get near that health care bill.

He wont sign anything to repeal AFA for sure but the AFA needs and will need modification as time passes. Just like most all large scale legislation like Social Security. Social Security was passed a long time ago and we still modify it year to year. Same will happen to the AFA. America needed a health care system, this one is not perfect and can be molded into a good system for Americans that will include GOP and Dem ideas. If the sole reason to repeal it is because Obama was the President who signed it then you got some other issues.

If you think health care should be free for all with no regulation then someone's will to repeal it may be a bit more justified. Ted Cruise could act to modify it, to improve it, to make it more conservative, but he don't, he wants it gone because he does not want Obama getting any credit.

That is sickening.

I bet the GOP Senate will send just as many federal budgets to the president as the dems over the last six years.

a reply to: Xeven

i bet he won't sign a tougher immigration bill or repeal of obumacare.
he has already threatened to write EO's and basically brushed off McConnell who warned against by passing congress.

Yet he said Obama’s plans to take executive action on immigration, if Congress doesn’t act, would amount to “waving a red flag in front of a bull”

He then brushed aside McConnell’s warning on an immigration order, repeating a promise to take action by the end of the year to halt deportations for some undocumented immigrants if Congress doesn’t move on rewriting the law. “What I’m not going to do is just wait,” he said.

both of the above from Obama Immigration Vow Clashes With McConnell’s

i don't see the man working with them, he is going to be a bitter president from now on and is going to veto out of pure spite. i expect him to have more veto's overridden than Reagan did, he had nine.

a reply to: Xeven

Oh wow no. I think the whole thing should be junked because its junk. The person that wrote it was junk. 2000+ pages of junk. The president doesn't even know all that's in the bill. Anything of that magnitude, 2000+ pages, that wasn't even read before its passage is junk. Every signature on the bill is junk and every yes vote it received is junk.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

You can tell from his speech about "working" with the republicans that he is extremely bitter that his "authority" was taken away from him, he was smug and dismissive. He choked on his word when he said that he was going to do everything possible to benefit the American people, he played it off that he was coughing, but it is my opinion that he was choking on the words he was saying, because he knew he has no intention of doing things that benefit the American people.

a reply to: Xeven

The way I see it, now the president has to grounds to feed the low-information voter the line that the republicans are the do-nothing congress. He will either have to sign or veto everything passed, and now Reid isn't there to shield him from that responsibility.

Honestly, I don't think he has what it takes to constantly veto things based on his ideology, because it will peg him as even farther left than most of us already know he is, and he can't make that political mistake because he is the main reason there was such a backlash against Dems this election (well, at least a big part of it). He would be signing the death warrant for the next possible Dem presidential candidate--Americans are already tired of his and Reid's crap. If he doubles down on that, he's going to cause more problems for the country AND for his party.

I guarantee this discussion is already taking place with him. I honestly feel that he's just a mouthpiece for the party instead of an individual who is president, and I'm quite certain that whatever they tell him to do, he'll do it, and I don't think that they're in the mood for more of what just happened during this election.

a reply to: Xeven

If the sole reason to repeal it is because Obama was the President who signed it then you got some other issues.

There's plenty of reasons to repeal Obamacare, least of which is who passed it. It was a bad idea, designed to screw the people, plain and simple.

www.nationalreview.com...

1. Employer mandate. Most companies will have to provide and pay for expensive government-determined health insurance for their employees or face federal fines.

2. Anti-conscience mandate. Religious organizations will be required to provide free sterilization, contraceptives, and abortion-inducing drugs to their employees, even if it violates their religious beliefs.

3. New and higher taxes.The law contains at least 20 new taxes totaling $500 billion that will hit medical innovators, health insurance, and even the sale of your home.

4. The Independent Payment Advisory Board. IPAB will still stand, with its rationing power over Medicare.

5. State exchanges. States will be compelled to set up vast new bureaucracies to check into our finances and families so they can hand out generous taxpayer subsidies for health insurance to families earning up to $90,000 a year.

6. Medicare payment cuts. $575 billion in payment reductions to Medicare providers and Medicare Advantage plans will cause more and more physicians to stop seeing Medicare patients, exacerbating access problems.

7. Higher health-care costs. The Kaiser Family Foundation says the average price of a family policy has risen by $2,200 during the Obama administration. The president promised premiums would be $2,500 lower by this year. Hospitals, doctors, businesses, and consumers all expect their taxes and health costs to rise under Obamacare.

8. Government control over doctor decisions.Value-based payments, quality reporting requirements, and government comparative-effectiveness boards will dictate how doctors practice medicine. Nearly half of all physicians are seriously considering leaving practice, leading to a severe doctor shortage.

9. Huge deficits. The CBO has raised its cost estimate for the law to $1.76 trillion over ten years, but that is only the opening bid as more and more people lose their job-based coverage and flood into taxpayer-subsidized insurance. At this rate, the cost will be $2 trillion, not the less than $1 trillion the president promised.

10. 159 new boards, agencies, and programs: The Obama administration will work quickly to set up as many of the law’s new bureaucracies as fast as it can so they can take root before the election.

The November elections are the last hope — we must elect a Congress and a president committed to repealing Obamacare. They, and all of us, will need to be armed with the facts to explain to the American people exactly what is in this monstrous law.

More from Forbes - www.forbes.com...

a reply to: Xeven

You forget: The president is a true believer. He's a radical leftist and as zealous and anyone with religious convictions.

We can all hope he will sign some things to make his point, but that wasn't what he signaled in his speech. I'm afraid he won't do a Clinton.

As for the Republicans, they'll pass stuff I'm sure, but don't forget that they don't have a filibuster proof majority. The Dems can always filibuster if they're serious.

originally posted by: ketsuko
The Dems can always filibuster if they're serious.

They've certainly had lessons in that process.

originally posted by: DonVoigt
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

You can tell from his speech about "working" with the republicans that he is extremely bitter that his "authority" was taken away from him, he was smug and dismissive. He choked on his word when he said that he was going to do everything possible to benefit the American people, he played it off that he was coughing, but it is my opinion that he was choking on the words he was saying, because he knew he has no intention of doing things that benefit the American people.

Obama has not had any authority taken away from him. He can do everything now he could do before. The only difference today is that the GOP can move bills up to his desk where he has to sign them or veto them.

He has not lost any authority. I actually am happy Harry Reid is gone. He is as bad or worse than Boehner.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Xeven

You forget: The president is a true believer. He's a radical leftist and as zealous and anyone with religious convictions.

We can all hope he will sign some things to make his point, but that wasn't what he signaled in his speech. I'm afraid he won't do a Clinton.

As for the Republicans, they'll pass stuff I'm sure, but don't forget that they don't have a filibuster proof majority. The Dems can always filibuster if they're serious.

We shall know soon enough if what you have said is true. I can only hope he is not as shallow as the previous congress was. I really don't know what to expect from him now. He has been a very poor leader thus far.

a reply to: Xeven

with control of the senate they now can override his vetos, also he can't do squat without any money.
and they can defund anything that he enacts through EO's.

a reply to: ketsuko

true but i think they can use something called a cloture or some other special rule to bypass that i believe the republicans refer to it as the nuclear option

www.cnn.com... older link

Washington (CNN) -- The "nuclear option" would be the changing of Senate rules to enable judicial and executive nominees to be confirmed with just 51 votes instead of 60. Apparently you need 60 votes to do just about anything in the Senate but change the rules. That only takes 51 votes. Nuclear? That sounds harsh for something as simple as a rule change. Senators view themselves as being part of the "world's greatest deliberative body." It's a debatable point, but in order to protect the minority party and make sure nobody does anything without a full debate, Senate rules require that 60 of 100 senators agree to votes to move toward confirming a nominee or passing legislation. In the fancy language they speak on Capitol Hill, moving toward a vote is called "invoking cloture."

www.washingtontimes.com...

Conservative leaders penned a memo to Senate Republicans on Wednesday urging them not to be hasty in undoing Democrats’ “nuclear option,” directly challenging GOP leader Mitch McConnell and foreshadowing a host of internal battles ahead. Read more: www.washingtontimes.com... Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

thehill.com... few more links on the "nuclear option"

Conservatives are pressuring Senate Republicans to keep in place the controversial “nuclear option” rules that Democrats approved last year to limit filibusters of President Obama’s nominees. A group of 26 conservative academics, advocates and leaders wrote in a letter that they see “very little upside” to restoring the old rules, which had allowed the minority party to require 60 votes to confirm nominees. They say the rules would help Republicans put “committed constitutionalists” on the bench if the White House changes hands in 2016.

dailycaller.com...


so thanks to rule changes instituted a while ago filibuster is far less threatening in the senate as the republicans have more then 51 seats and thus appear to be able to bypass most attempts at a filibuster

www.thisnation.com... good read on filibusterers

A filibuster can be stopped when the Senate invokes cloture. This can be an arduous task in and of itself. To invoke cloture, a Senator needs to do the following: Wait two days after a filibuster begins. Obtain sixteen signatures on a motion to invoke cloture. Wait another two days before the Senate can vote on cloture. Make sure that three-fifths of the Senate (sixty Senators) vote to end debate. Endure and additional thirty hours of debate before the final roll call vote.

I am sorry... it was Harry Reid in the Senate that refused to let even a debate occur for some 300+ bills passed in the house...

the blame for all the gridlock the last 6 years lays firmly on both parties..