Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The difference between the overall vote and actual outcomes is directly attributed to gerrymandering. In a non-gerrymandered system, the Democrats would control the House with a 212 to 211 majority (and there would be 12 third party Reps). The fact remains, more people voted for Democrats than Republicans in the last election. The OP is being disingenuous when he states that "the American people voted to put more Republican Representatives into the House than big-government Democrats".
In a democracy, voters select their representatives. With gerrymandering, representatives select their voters.
There is no fact that more people voted for Democrats than Republicans. It says as much in your article. It does say that Dems led in the popular vote, but the author then dedicated almost a paragraph explaining the anomalies......
On the subject of Gerrymandering, I am wondering if you are actually serious.... Look at districts/states with Democrat leadership for the last 4-5 decades and compare states with Republican leadership for the same time period. Gerrymandering is done by both parties. Funny how Democrats only complain about it when they are behind or lose a branch of government. Look at the staunchly blue northeastern states as an example of what I mean. If you can honestly look at an electoral map in one of those die hard blue states and tell me the districts are not drawn to benefit Democrats, I will entertain further allegations of Republicans gaming the system...
The House just passed a Continuing Joint Resolution that funds the entire Federal government for a year, including all the Democrats' pet projects and funds, even an odd payment of $170K to the widow of former Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ). The vote was mostly along party lines, with a finaly tally of 230-189.
Since the American people voted to put more Republican Representatives into the House than big-government Democrats, the 2012 election has now resulted in a Continuing Resolution funding the entire government and all its perks, except for a few new ones such as Obamacare, which is not mentioned in the Resolution.
The passage of the bill leave open the possibility for Representatives to put together a separate bill funding Obamacare on its own. Current progress on such a separate bill by House Democrats, is not known.
With the major compromises offered in the newly-passed bill by Republicans, funding many projects they had previously opposed, it now remains to be seen whether the Democrat-controlled Senate will be in an equally compromising mood. WIll they vote to fund most of the Democrats' pet projects as the Republicans have done?
Or will they decide to shut down the government anyway, despite Republican's compromising on so much, because the Democrats did not get EVERY single item they wanted?
So, back to the subject:
If the Democrats shut down the government depspite these Republican compromises, will there really be much effect?
No, not really.
The biggest effect, might be that millions of American who have been swallowing the line of the Democrats that government is absolutely essential for their lives, and they can't possibly get along without it.... might find they've been fed a lie.
Govenment was never meant to be a major part of Americans' lives. It was mostly a custodial function - something set up to take care of mundane functions like foreign relations, setting national standards, coining national money, and keeping people from killing each other.
The leftist big-government types (in both parties) have been trying to make it much more than that, of course... and mostly failing. The programs they HAVE set up that go outside government's true role, have mostly been so inefficient (an inherent government characteristic), that they haven't gotten much done. And so, seeing them go away, won't make much difference.
And in fact, as the article points out, most of them WON'T go away anyway. So a "shutdown", won't shut much down.
Bill Clinton does a good job of explaining both the benefits and the parts of the law that still need work. He's right that there are things that need to be tweaked.
Now the question I have for you is, will you support the efforts to improve the law, or will you side with the minority crybabies in the Tea Party and do whatever you can to make it fail?
I just heard on NPR today that the house plans to shut down the government, unless the government agrees to basically kill ObamaCare. When is this belligerent stupidity going to stop? Sheesh, they are sounding more and more like the Taliban.
What is wrong with rational, centrist governance? When did conservatives decide to send in the goon squad instead of real leaders? It is just getting insane.
What?
They're just undoing what BELLIGERENT DEMOCRATS FORCED ON US.
Romney promised to repeal Obamacare. Obama promised to keep it.
Obama won.
And Americans lost.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
