Bachmann-If amnesty passes you'll never have a GOP president

[RATTdrools]

According to Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), if this current iteration of immigration reform passes through Congress, there will never again be a Republican president; and, instead, the United States will be governed by a permanent “liberal progressive” majority.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/michele- ... president/

For once I can say the psycho is right!

[Bludegeon]

Exactly..

And the ONLY reason why the Dems give two shits about ILLEGALS anyways.

[MurrayFiend]

Exactly..

And the ONLY reason why the Dems give two shits about ILLEGALS anyways.

Yep. Just another minority group they can promise free stuff for votes, all the while ensuring they keep them down (using said free stuff) so they don't get too powerful and think about voting for the other guy.

[Tommy2Tone84]

Did Ronald Reagan give illegals some free shit back in the day? What was that called again? Oh yeah! Amnesty!!!!!

[Stoner]

Twenty bucks says her husband's boyfriend is brown.

[Turner Coates]

According to Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), if this current iteration of immigration reform passes through Congress, there will never again be a Republican president; and, instead, the United States will be governed by a permanent “liberal progressive” majority.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/michele- ... president/

For once I can say the psycho is right!

Translation:
Mexicans frighten me.

[Nemesis]

So, is that a bad thing?

[DEATH ROW JOE]

House GOP Doesn't Care About A Republican White House In 2016
15 Jul 2013

Make no mistake about it; House Republicans definitely prefer that a Republican be elected president.

But what's been clear for years on things related to the budget has become even more obvious in recent weeks with the take-no-prisoner decisions House Republicans made on immigration and agriculture: The House GOP is increasingly unwilling to make its own political lives even slightly more difficult by making accommodations (that is, compromises) that make the election of a Republican candidate in 2016 more likely.

And I don't just mean compromises with Democrats. These days House Republicans are as unwilling to make deals that make life easier for their R Senate colleagues as they are with the Ds in either house.

The implications of this situation for the federal budget debate in the coming years is simple. Without a major crisis that changes the situation (and given the "crisis fatigue" we have these days I'm not even sure then), the debates on federal spending and revenues, the national debt, and the deficit are going nowhere in the next few years. There will be no big deals, possibly no small deals and fiscal policy is going to continue to be net negative for the U.S. economy.

It also means:

1. Annual sequesters for 2014 - 2017 are far more likely than anyone has yet admitted. The activities of both military and domestic departments and agencies will be under significant pressure over the next four years. Expect continued reduced services, more furloughs, less federal employment and decreased agency effectiveness. Also expect increased spending on bad situations -- natural as well as man-made -- caused by a growing federal inability to prevent disasters.

2. As I've said before, comprehensive tax reform is not likely until the end of this decade.

3. There is no more than a 10 percent chance of getting a budget resolution conference report, that is, an agreement between the House and Senate on the appropriate fiscal policy for the coming year until at least the next president takes office. And 10 percent may even be a reach.

4. Multiple yearly fights over continuing resolutions and debt ceiling increases will be the norm. It may not be called a fiscal cliff or -- my preference -- "#cliffgate," but the last-minute, year-end legislative games of chicken should now be expected and planned for.

This is happening because the House GOP sees doing anything else as hurting its chances of staying in the majority.

This is the (perhaps) unintended consequence of the redistricting that occurred after the 2010 census. Rather than increase the number of congressional districts they could win, the House GOP strategy was to reinforce the likelihood that existing Republican districts would stay Republican. To do this they made each GOP-controlled district more red and less blue.

It's worked as planned. Even with the record-low job approval rating for Congress as a whole and House Republicans in particular, the House GOP majority now appears to be very secure through at least the first election after the next redistricting in 2022.

But the electoral benefits have also had an extraordinarily negative impact on the ability of House Republicans to legislate. Most GOP representatives are not worried about losing their seat to a Democrat in the general election; they are instead most concerned about getting a primary challenge from another Republican. To avoid that the GOP incumbent has to play to those who vote in the GOP primaries and that group tends to be far more fiscally conservative -- radically more fiscally conservative is actually a more accurate description -- than those who vote in the general.

In other words, to keep their power House Republicans have to play to a very different target audience than both their GOP Senate counterparts and Republican presidential wannabes who typically need independents and some Democrats to get elected.

This is not just a theory; we've seen the implications of this extraordinary internal Republican political conflicts many times in recent months.

For example, House Republicans were more than happy to score political points with their primary voters by insisting on the "No Budget No Pay" provisions earlier this year because, they said, they wanted to force the Senate to pass a budget resolution, something that was a red-meat issue for GOP primary voters.

But once the Senate passed a budget resolution, House Republicans have been completely unwilling to go to conference with Senate Democrats because they might be forced to compromise on spending and revenues, and that's something their compromise-is-a-sin voters won't like.

The result? No budget resolution, no reconciliation, no deal on the deficit or debt, and very serious procedural and political problems with the fiscal 2014 appropriations that need to be in place by October 1 to avoid a government shutdown.

It's hard to see how this changes any time soon because the only-primary-voters-can-eliminate-our-majority thinking that's so prevalent among House Republicans will continue until (1) they get swept out of office in a wave election or (2) there's a new redistricting. Given that the first isn't predicted any time soon and the second won't happen for nine years, it's likely to be a long while before House Republicans do anything that makes it easier for a GOP candidate to get elected president, or for the budget debate to produce a serious agreement.

[Luminiferous]

House passes two bills to delay key Obamacare requirements

Washington (CNN) - The House of Representatives passed two bills Wednesday postponing two key provisions of Obamacare, marking nearly 40 times that the Republican-controlled House has attempted to repeal or roll back parts of the president's signature first term accomplishment.

One measure, which passed 264-161, delayed for one year the requirement that employers provide health insurance, something the Obama administration already announced it was doing earlier this month. Thirty-five Democrats joined Republicans on the vote.

The other bill, approved 251-174, also postponed for one year the mandate that individuals sign up for health care coverage. That legislation was backed by 22 Democrats. One Republican, Rep. Morgan Griffith, R-Virginia, opposed both bills.

Republicans argued it was unfair for the White House to give businesses a reprieve, but still require individuals to comply with the mandate or face a penalty.

“Why is it that working Americans have to suffer the financial burdens of an overreaching government-run health care system while the same consequences for big business are delayed a year?” House Majority Leader Eric Cantor asked on the House floor.

As it has on most other House Republican measures to change or repeal the health care law, the Obama administration threatened to veto both bills, but they are unlikely to go anywhere in the Democratic-controlled Senate

House Republicans know neither bill has any chance of actually becoming law. Wednesday’s votes were more about ramping up political pressure on congressional Democrats for the midterm elections. Obamacare continues to split the public, and GOP leaders believe a string of stories about delays and other potential problems enacting the law will create a public backlash.

The GOP campaign committees have made a top priority of putting Democrats in competitive districts - specifically those elected in 2012 - on the defensive on health care. And in fact the list of those who supported the GOP bills mirrored a list of Democrats whom Republicans believe they can defeat in 2014.

Illinois freshman Rep. Cheri Bustos is one of the House GOP's targets. She voted with Republicans on both bills to postpone the mandates and told CNN she has been hearing concerns from small businesses all over her district about dealing with Obamcare's requirements.

"If we're going to say that for small businesses then how do you separate out that it should be different for individuals, it's a consistency thing." Bustos said, echoing an argument that House Republicans made throughout the debate on the House floor.

The Illinois Democrat, who worked for a health care system before coming to Congress, said she supports Obamacare but was open to making changes to improve the law. She also emphasized the need to educate the public about the benefits.

"I think in the end if we fix some of the flaws and if we roll this out in a way that people can understand how it will help, then I think we'll be OK - over time, but I think it will be one of those over time kind of changes. This is a huge change."

But most Democrats argued Wednesday that the House vote delaying the employer mandate was a waste of time since the president already said he'd postpone that provision.

"Here we go again. Another repeal vote. Another political sideshow. And another blow to bipartisanship which is so vital to addressing a whole host of important issues including an issue important to our committee: tax reform,” Michigan Democratic Rep. Sander Levin said. “Instead of moving forward, once again my Republican colleagues are looking backwards."

House Speaker John Boehner argued that it was Congress' job to approve any change to Obamacare, citing the Constitution gives Congress the authority to draft the laws. "The idea that the president can merely go out there and make a decision about what he's going to enforce and what he isn't going to enforce is fundamentally wrong," he said.

Most Democrats did support the administration's decision to give businesses more time to implement the law, but they insisted that delaying the mandate for individuals – a centerpiece of the law – would put at risk health care coverage for millions.

Debate on the House floor showed the massive partisan gulf between the two parties on how the controversial health care law is working now.

"Delaying the employer mandate shows the train is in fact not coming off the rails, it's already off the rails,” Texas Republican Rep. Michael Burgess said.

California Democrat Jim McDermott cited new reports about health care costs dropping in many states and pointed to a report out Wednesday that premiums in New York state are being cut in half.

"There is no evidence of the sticker shock you will hear about. The promises we made Americans are being fulfilled and Republicans see a giant election map slowly losing red dots," McDermott said