Speak Out: Who's not willing to compromise again?

Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Oct 6, 2013, at 9:42 AM:

The House Republicans have submitted bills to reopen parts of government, but the Democrats have refused to accept any non-comprehensive bill. Commonsensematters insists that they should pass bills funding those parts on which they are all in agreement, but the Democrats refuse to accept any "piecemeal" submittal of funding even though, as commonsensematters notes, they are all in agreement that things such as parks and the CDC should be funded. Thus, it would seem, it is the Democrats who want this thing prolonged, and it is they who are being "unreasonable"...

Curiously, our government has traditionally been funded "piecemeal", at least until the Democrats lost interest in budgets. The government was always funded through various appropriation bills: a military spending bill, a farm bill, a transportation bill, etc., etc. Now, the Democrats insist upon omnibus bills that roll all spending into a single package, lacking ample time to debate their contents. We just have to pass it to find out what's in it, it seems.

I find it interesting that we have not had a budget since before 2009, and that continuing resolutions have been passed to keep funding at those levels. Consider that 2009 included the Stimulus Funding and TARP, which boosted federal spending from 2008's $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion, with its resultant $1.17 trillion dollar deficit. Since that time, despite winding down wars and ending the "Great Recession", spending has increased, rather than decreased. This is, in large part, due to the lack of a budget, and we largely have the Democrats, particularly in the Senate, to thank for the lack of one.

Small wonder they like continuing reslutions, and dislike budget debates. Isn't anyone else curious as to why all that temporary spending hasn't ended?

Replies (124)

  • democrats.

    -- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Sun, Oct 6, 2013, at 9:56 AM
  • democrats yes.

    -- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Sun, Oct 6, 2013, at 11:00 AM
  • Posted by miccheck on Sun, Oct 6, 2013, at 8:55 AM:

    Perfect!

    -- Posted by Deb56 on Sun, Oct 6, 2013, at 11:08 AM
  • A compromise is when both parties give a little and find middle ground so that an agreement can be reached. What you posted looks more like a cave-in by republicans and you want to declare victory by the democrats.

    -- Posted by Robert* on Sun, Oct 6, 2013, at 11:33 AM
  • -- Posted by miccheck on Sun, Oct 6, 2013, at 10:10 AM

    "Elections have consequences..."

    "I won, you lost"....

    "Sit in the back of the bus..."

    Democracy sucks doesn't miccheck?

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Sun, Oct 6, 2013, at 11:40 AM
  • The American people have been compromised by both house and senate under this presidents watch.

    -- Posted by Old John on Sun, Oct 6, 2013, at 11:49 AM
  • -- Posted by miccheck on Sun, Oct 6, 2013, at 12:07 PM

    Another good response!

    -- Posted by Deb56 on Sun, Oct 6, 2013, at 3:39 PM
  • democrats refuse to compromise.

    democrats gave their fat cat corporate buddies a pass on the ACA mandate, republicans now asking for common citizens to be allowed the same pass. democrats refuse.

    -- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Sun, Oct 6, 2013, at 4:07 PM
  • The Congress has no obligation to fund or to continue a programme passed by a prior Congress. The Democrats passed Obamacare with no Republican votes, and the people rewarded them by throwing them out of power. That hardly sounds like a mandate to me. To be sure, the Republicans who now have held the House through two election cycles since the passage of Obamacare ran largely on a campaign against it. Thus, not opposing it would be to reneg on the promise.

    The Democrats prefer to continue the illusion that the matter is settled. It is not.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Oct 6, 2013, at 4:19 PM
  • Only 15% of the non-essential employees are not on the job, 85% of the government is up and running every day. I feel no affects matter of fact the people I have talked too have told me they hope it stays shut down even longer and the 15% that is furlough and are classified as non-essential what do we need with them any way, they need to move to the real world of the private sector. Good time to down size and stream line the government like the Businesses and States do, why can't the Federal government do the same thing. Missouri reduced the State payroll by 4,500 employees during the financial crisis the Feds did nothing but keep spending money and increasing even more bigger government.

    -- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Sun, Oct 6, 2013, at 9:50 PM
  • "...has no obligation to fund or to continue a programme passed by a prior Congress."

    If they would like to change it, they have the right to do so under normal legislative procedures. They do not have the right to do so under threat of a government shutdown or a debt ceiling default of government.

    "...continue the illusion that the matter is settled. It is not."

    Of course it's settled. See above. If there were actual problems with the ACA the republicans would not have to panic and use blackmail to try to change it,

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Oct 6, 2013, at 10:03 PM
  • "If there were actual problems with the ACA the republicans would not have to panic and use blackmail to try to change it,"

    Among other things, you don't comprehend the definition of "blackmail".

    Or is that some sort of veiled racism on your part?

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Oct 7, 2013, at 6:51 AM
  • If they would like to change it, they have the right to do so under normal legislative procedures. They do not have the right to do so under threat of a government shutdown or a debt ceiling default of government. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Oct 6, 2013, at 10:03 PM

    Another bald-face lie. They have the right and they are doing it. You love it when Obama puts in illegal executive orders or refuses to enforce the law - like drug and immigration laws that he ignores.

    You just hate it when REAL democracy gets in your way. I would expect nothing less from an Obama lover at all costs.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Oct 7, 2013, at 7:59 AM
  • Another good response! -- Posted by username1 on Sun, Oct 6, 2013, at 3:39 PM

    Looks like the racist teacher is back! Are you also a cheerleading coach? Apparently all you can contribute here lately are cheerleading comments.

    Still hating those white young men that are in your classes?

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Oct 7, 2013, at 8:00 AM
  • Whats funny is how the SO liberals say give Obama a clean CR and them he will talk.

    Give me what I am asking for my truck now and then we will negotiate a price some other day.

    -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Oct 7, 2013, at 9:07 AM
  • -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Oct 7, 2013, at 9:12 AM
  • "Sell me the truck for the price you agree with yesterday, and then we can talk about the other items you want to buy." -- Posted by miccheck on Mon, Oct 7, 2013, at 9:25 AM

    And the problem with this approach is? According to Common this is the perfect "negotiating 101" approach. Let's deal on what we agree on and "talk about the other items".

    Obama doesn't want to deal on what he agrees with and won't talk about anything.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Oct 7, 2013, at 9:44 AM
  • Bait and switch! Car turned into a truck overnight. I'm only interested in bidding if it's one of those sporty little 2 seat convertibles with a hard top that goes down into the trunk.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Oct 7, 2013, at 10:28 AM
  • "Sell me the truck for the price you agree with yesterday, and then we can talk about the other items you want to buy." -- Posted by miccheck on Mon, Oct 7, 2013, at 9:25 AM

    The problem is this; there is a toolbox full of tools in the back of that truck and once common takes possession of it I have lost all leverage in the negotiations concerning the toolbox and tools.

    -- Posted by Robert* on Mon, Oct 7, 2013, at 12:35 PM
  • Common says: "If they would like to change it, they have the right to do so under normal legislative procedures. They do not have the right to do so under threat of a government shutdown or a debt ceiling default of government."

    I think the gruff of the matter is that the president changed it not through normal procedure but by his presumed authority.

    It's the law of the land for everyone except the ones he says.

    Kind of like calling the credit card company to put a hold on payment for services not rendered.

    -- Posted by Old John on Mon, Oct 7, 2013, at 12:37 PM
  • Maybe defaulting on out obligations will be just the "Crisis" needed to prompt these pompous arses in Washington to do something about our spending habits.

    I think this debt ceiling should be brought up every 30 days until Congress gets off their duff and presents to Obama a budget and he signs it. Then we can talk about a year's worth of debt ceiling to match the budget, with no room for finagling by Congress or the President. Provable National Defense of this country excepted and no one man decisions on that short of being attacked on our soil.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Oct 7, 2013, at 2:32 PM
  • It is also more than a bit strange that the Congressional House of Representatives has passed a bill to pay the furloughed government employees for the time they are off. It would make a tremendous amount of sense to just send them back to work, rather than paying them to not work.

    And then it would be completely logical for the House to pass a clean CR. However, acting illogically, as conservatives are prone to do, they decided to pass a bill to pay for no work. Really odd for the theoretically financially responsible republican party to do something so wasteful.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Oct 7, 2013, at 9:37 PM
  • "It would make a tremendous amount of sense to just send them back to work, rather than paying them to not work."

    Common,

    Makes as much sense as not allowing Priests to volunteer their time as private individuals. Not to mention threatening them with arrest if they do volunteer.

    Isn't it great to be the spinner in chief on the threads and doing it for such a dumb arse.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Oct 7, 2013, at 10:20 PM
  • "It is also more than a bit strange that the Congressional House of Representatives has passed a bill to pay the furloughed government employees for the time they are off. It would make a tremendous amount of sense to just send them back to work, rather than paying them to not work."

    Common, I agree with that part and point out Ombama has spent more money keeping some stuff closed than what it cost to run them. His tactic of punishing the citizenry for the chance to blame republicans is pretty transparent.

    Does that count as a promise kept regarding a transparent administration?

    -- Posted by Old John on Tue, Oct 8, 2013, at 12:07 AM
  • Rick, I may be wrong but I thought the guarentee of back pay was a done deal.

    Makes no sense to me.

    B. Insane Obama seems to be running the show by picking and choosing what the lack of funding authorization by congress affects.

    Is Decatuer Illinois still in the same state as Chicago?

    -- Posted by Old John on Tue, Oct 8, 2013, at 12:41 AM
  • "...not allowing Priests to volunteer their time as private individuals."

    They are "private individuals," they're contractors, not military chaplins. When the House took action to suspend their contracts through the shutdown, they were no longer allowed entry to the base. Off-base they can conduct as many volunteer services as they wold like to

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Oct 8, 2013, at 5:41 AM
  • Another perfect example of the many "...slightly over-the-top partisan fantasies, [that count] on readers' own prejudices to make them believable" that pop up on SO many times per day.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Oct 8, 2013, at 5:46 AM
  • Common,

    What does this government accomplish by not allowing ministers to voluntarily provide a service to our men and women in the military (hold religious services) I will concede the point that military bases are government property but who is the government other than the representatives of 'we the people'. It can't be for security; these ministers have already been cleared.

    They may have the legal right to do this, but doing so is childish and spiteful. And it is a slap in the face to men and women of faith who serve in the military.

    -- Posted by Robert* on Tue, Oct 8, 2013, at 6:25 AM
  • "Another perfect example of the many "...slightly over-the-top partisan fantasies, [that count] on readers' own prejudices to make them believable" that pop up on SO many times per day."

    Not unlike such claims as there being no 30,000 additional troops in Iraq during the "Surge", or the claim that Mr. Bush was responsible for the totality of FY2009 spending, or the claim that the recession was the fault of Mr. Bush's war.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Oct 8, 2013, at 7:06 AM
  • "What does this government accomplish by not allowing ministers to voluntarily provide a service to our men and women in the military"

    Nothing but furthering Obama's agenda of hate towards our country!

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Oct 8, 2013, at 8:44 AM
  • "...men and women of faith who serve in the military."

    Those individuals have commissioned military chaplins to provide services for them. And as mentioned before the contract chaplins can conduct services off-base. As contractors the republican decision to shut down the government placed all contracts on hold and the contractors are not permitted on base except in performance of their contract.

    I guess it is unfortunate that the Speaker did not realize this fact when he decided to close the bases to contractors. Now that he may be aware of this (and numerous other unnecessary roadblocks) perhaps the Speaker could graciously yield to the wishes of the majority of House members and allow a vote on a clean CR which would solve the entire priest problem.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Oct 8, 2013, at 8:56 AM
  • "(and numerous other unnecessary roadblocks)"

    Common,

    You said a mouthful there. Most of the roadblocks set up by the administration are unnecessay and in a lot of cases cost government more to maintain than leaving them open.

    For instance all of the cones on the roads around Rushmore. If I was that State's governor, the next time it snowed Obama's cones could be picked up out of the road ditch.

    Your boy, and I mean boy, because he is thinking at about the level of a 12 year old is wrong in what he is doing it and even you diehards know it.

    The Boy King either grows up and starts acting like and adult or we need to boot him, because in his present state of mind he is unfit to be a head of state.

    So increase your shrillness Common to try and distract from the real problem.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Oct 8, 2013, at 9:10 AM
  • From your top news source common - MSNBC:

    "...the United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers, and Allied Workers released a statement demanding "repeal or complete reform of the Affordable Care Act..."

    "... as the law it stands it will hurt millions of Americans including the members of our respective unions," wrote the presidents of THREE MAJOR LABOR UNIONS in a July letter to Congressional Democratic leadership. The subsequent three and a half weeks have not assuaged their fears.

    "There are members of Congress who have met with us who have been somewhat responsive and concerned about the situation," said a spokesperson for the hospitality union UNITE HERE, whose president signed the letter. "But there's been NO ACTION ADDRESSING OUR CONCERNS FROM THE ADMINISTRATION."

    ---------------------------------------------------------

    A huge majority of Americans don't want Obamacare. Obama has personally delayed 19 provisions of the bill to avoid disaster. Unions are against it. Many democrats are against it. And when it comes to negotiation, the unions say "NO ACTION ADDRESSING OUR CONCERNS FROM THE ADMINISTRATION"...

    You still stuck in that corner you painted yourself into? You know - that good negotiation starts with passing what you agree on?

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Oct 8, 2013, at 9:19 AM
  • Dug,

    Somebody needs to tell those union leaders to call Boehner and offer some support.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Oct 8, 2013, at 9:26 AM
  • "...cones on the roads around Rushmore..."

    Too bad you missed the photo of helicopters hovering over Mt. Rushmose holding a sheet over the presidential faces.

    "Shrillness???" Huh... What shrillness?

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Oct 8, 2013, at 9:26 AM
  • You may want to check the facts...

    But maybe that's too much to expect.

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/09/29/fact-check-ted-cruz-obama...

    "FACT CHECK: Who's telling the truth about Obamacare?

    UNIONS WANT TO 'REPEAL' OBAMACARE?

    Cruz said unions, including the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, want to "repeal" the health care law "because it is a nightmare." Three unions used the word "nightmare" in a letter to Democratic leaders in Congress. But they asked that the law be fixed, not repealed. James P. Hoffa, the Teamsters president, has asked Cruz to stop "misusing" the unions' words.

    Cruz, Sept. 24:There is a reason why labor unions want out. There is a reason the Teamsters, who describe that they have been knocking on doors as loyal foot soldiers for the Democratic Party, are saying: This is a nightmare. Repeal Obamacare. Repeal it because it is a nightmare.

    Presidents of three labor unions criticized parts of the health care law in a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. The union leaders said the law had "unintended consequences" that will lead to several "nightmare scenarios." They complained the law will "destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week" by creating incentives for employers to schedule workers for less than 30 hours a week. And they said the law taxes union workers with nonprofit health insurance plans to help pay for government subsidies those workers will not be eligible to receive.

    But the letter didn't say lawmakers should "repeal" the law. Hoffa, Joseph Hansen of the United Food and Commercial Workers, and D. Taylor of UNITE HERE said they "continue to stand behind real health care reform, but the law as it stands will hurt millions of Americans including the members of our respective unions." In conclusion, they wrote: "We are looking to you to make sure these changes are made."

    On the same day that Cruz concluded his floor speech, Hoffa issued a statement telling the senator to stop misrepresenting what he and the other union presidents had said.

    Hoffa, Sept. 25: Though we may have concerns with specific provisions of the ACA, we share the president's goal of ensuring that every American has affordable access to top-quality health care. It is on this main point that we disagree wholeheartedly with the efforts of extreme right-wing Republicans to gut the ACA. Any suggestion otherwise is simply political posturing.

    I call on Sen. Ted Cruz, Sen. David Vitter and others to cease and desist from misusing our constructive comments in their destructive campaign to hobble the president and the nation.

    Cruz didn't listen. He was back to using the words of Hoffa and company in a speech on the Senate floor on Sept. 27."

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Oct 8, 2013, at 9:32 AM
  • -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Oct 8, 2013, at 9:26 AM

    Wheels - I was thinking that Boehner should call the union leaders and get them to support what they believe in - getting rid of Obamacare.

    But then I thought about Common, miccheck, howdyunion, dexterity, usernameX, etc. - there is NOTHING that Obama could do that would get them to go against him. Nothing.

    The union leaders are no different than the Obama gang on SO. They hate Obamacare but they wouldn't dare walk away from Obama. They are on the plantation - just like Common.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Oct 8, 2013, at 9:33 AM
  • From your top news source - MNSBC - verbatim:

    "...the United UNION of Roofers, Waterproofers, and Allied Workers released a statement demanding "REPEAL or complete reform of the Affordable Care Act..."

    Spin that.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Oct 8, 2013, at 9:35 AM
  • "Too bad you missed the photo of helicopters hovering over Mt. Rushmose holding a sheet over the presidential faces."

    Common,

    You get to wear the dunce's hat. Go sit in the corner.

    Did you not read that was a joke? It was right there. Clean the accumulation off your spectacles.

    An amateur should be able to recognize that picture as doctored.

    Come on now, don't leave us hanging out here, give us that...... I made an error and it won't happen again. ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺

    Four smiles for that one common.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Oct 8, 2013, at 9:40 AM
  • I guess it is unfortunate that the Speaker did not realize this fact when he decided to close the bases to contractors. Now that he may be aware of this (and numerous other unnecessary roadblocks) perhaps the Speaker could graciously yield to the wishes of the majority of House members and allow a vote on a clean CR which would solve the entire priest problem.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Oct 8, 2013, at 8:56 AM

    Common, I did not realize Speaker Boehner was the Commander-in-Chief of the military.

    After your complaint about

    'James P. Hoffa, the Teamsters president, has asked Cruz to stop "misusing" the unions' words.'

    it amazes me that you continue to do the same to conservatives with whom you disagree. What is the definition of hypocrite?

    a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

    -- Posted by Robert* on Tue, Oct 8, 2013, at 9:46 AM
  • "But then I thought about Common, miccheck, howdyunion, dexterity, usernameX, etc. - there is NOTHING that Obama could do that would get them to go against him. Nothing."

    Dug,

    Which groups them into some sort of union. One synonym for gang is 'herd'.

    Hmmmmm! They act like a bunch of sheep, easily led. Since Common, likes to brand anyone who doesn't buy into his BS a part of the SO Gang, perhaps we should just label his little group of sheep as the 'Obama Herd'.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Oct 8, 2013, at 9:56 AM
  • "Did you not read that was a joke?'

    Of course I did. You guys are the ones that believe all that type of BS.

    "I did not realize Speaker Boehner was the Commander-in-Chief of the military. "

    Why would you think that, he isn't. But he is theone that refused to pass a clean CR that would have prevented all of this.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Oct 8, 2013, at 9:58 AM
  • "Among other things, you don't comprehend the definition of "blackmail"."

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Oct 7, 2013, at 6:51 AM

    "the use of threats to persuade a person or government to do what you wantmore..."

    I'd say this dictionary definition covers the Speaker Boehner's use of threats pretty well. As in "I'll close down the government, unless you do what I want. And don't call the FBI, I've closed them too." (The last sentance was a joke, for benefit of the SO gang.)

    Other definitions involve the extortion of money for non-disclosure of unfavorable information, but Macmillon includes mine also.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Oct 8, 2013, at 10:08 AM
  • " But he is theone that refused to pass a clean CR that would have prevented all of this."

    Common quit lying about that. Boehner is not the only "one" who could have prevented the shutdown. There were two other 'titular' heads of government office who could have prevented it.... Obama and Reed.

    And I say 'titular' because they are not acting as if they were real heads of their particular branch of government.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Oct 8, 2013, at 10:13 AM
  • "the use of threats to persuade a person or government to do what you wantmore..."-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Oct 8, 2013, at 10:08 AM

    From Reuters: "Democrats vow not to negotiate on the funding bill or the debt ceiling."

    From The Hill: "President Obama phoned Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) on Friday to tell him he will not negotiate with Republicans on the debt ceiling."

    Looks like Obama is blackmailing... according to your definition and the news media.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Oct 8, 2013, at 10:22 AM
  • "From The Hill..."

    As usual, you left out significant details...

    "The White House confirmed the call and said Obama repeated to Boehner "what he told him when they met at the White House last week: the president is willing to negotiate with Republicans -- after the threat of government shutdown and default have been removed -- over policies that Republicans think would strengthen the country."

    Since when is it smart to pay the blackmailer (i.e. the republicans and the Speaker) before the hostage (i.e. the CR and debt ceiling increase) is released.

    The President also suggested that it would be feasible to pass the clean CR and extend the debt limit for a relatively short span of time which removes the nation from damage and permits the negotiations to begin.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Oct 8, 2013, at 1:47 PM
  • "...negotiations started like in May or June instead of now?"

    Good question. Why did not the negotiations start in March of this year when the Senate sent their budget to the House for conference action?

    What have they been doing for the past 6 months?

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Oct 8, 2013, at 2:06 PM
  • "the use of threats to persuade a person or government to do what you wantmore...

    Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Oct 8, 2013, at 10:08 AM

    Using your definition and your logic, I could accuse Harry Reid or Obama of blackmailing the nation to get their way, but I am not.

    -- Posted by Robert* on Tue, Oct 8, 2013, at 2:07 PM
  • "...of blackmailing the nation to get their way, but I am not."

    And rightfully so, because they are not "blackmailing the nation." They are asking only what both the republicans and democrats have agreed they want, re-opening the government.

    It is the republicans that are making an additional demand, that being the defunding of the ACA. The democrats are making no such equivalent demand.

    Having the government operate as funded by Congress is not an extraordinary demand, it is normal business. And as the President indicated, budget levels can and will be negotiated after the shutdown is over and the debt ceiling raised.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Oct 8, 2013, at 2:55 PM
  • The democrats are making no such equivalent demand. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Oct 8, 2013, at 2:55 PM

    They made a demand when Obamacare was passed. They submitted a bill called the "ACA" and pushed to get it passed - they did get it passed.

    The Republicans have submitted several bills to keep the government open. If that is a "demand" then so is the ACA - it was a demand.

    What about democracy, bills and laws don't you get? Everything the republicans are doing is legal and a result of an election.

    When Obama bribed 2 democrat senators to rush the ACA through before a new republican senator from Massachusetts was sworn in he did it legal.

    You like it one way, just not the other - because of your partisanship.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Oct 8, 2013, at 3:08 PM
  • Senator Barack Obama wrote and signed this memo:

    "Increasing America's debt limit weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means "the buck stops here". Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices onto the backs of our children and grandchildren.

    America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

    I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit.

    Signed: Barack Obama, March 16, 2006

    The actual document is here:

    http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2013/10/08/remember-obamas-2006-thoughts-on-raising...

    Just look at the "herd" of liberals on SO that swallow every word this man says. He's the liar-in-chief and clueless. Yet the Obama worshippers pray at his altar daily. I would be embarrassed to follow such a man.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Oct 8, 2013, at 3:18 PM
  • Common,

    Wants to give the decision to Obama and to hell with anybody else. Obama has proven himself to be one about the poorest choice to decide how to budget and spend.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Oct 8, 2013, at 3:48 PM
  • They made a demand when [the ACA] was passed."

    That was a bill made into a law and approved by the Supreme Court. It is not a demand, whatever you may believe.

    - - - - - - -

    "...several bills to keep the government open."

    All of which had "poison pills" attached. None of which were for a clean CR which is the fastest way to settle this since the Senaye has already passed the reasonable clean CR.

    - - - - - - -

    "What about democracy, bills and laws don't you get?"

    I understand clearly that the House would pass a clean CR if the Speaker would allow it. That is the majority rule principle that Constitution is based on. What part of that don't you understand?

    - - - - - - -

    "...bribed 2 democrat senators..."

    That's your imagination running wild again. What "bribes" are part of the law?

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Oct 8, 2013, at 4:47 PM
  • "...choice to decide how to budget and spend."

    Check your copy of the Constitution, and I believe you'll find that it says that Congress has the final word on how to budget and spend. Blame the House if you want to complain.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Oct 8, 2013, at 4:52 PM
  • "That was a bill made into a law and approved by the Supreme Court. It is not a demand, whatever you may believe."

    The Democrats should have checked when they passed the POS to see if the House would fund it.

    I believe the house still initiates spending, so without their approval, there will be no spending. The House is willing to fund all other items and Obama and Reed say no. But that is not really the problem. The Republicans in the House have changed their demand to merely postponing the law for everyone for one year, not just Obama's chosen few.

    ****************************************************************************

    "Check your copy of the Constitution, and I believe you'll find that it says that Congress has the final word on how to budget and spend. Blame the House if you want to complain."

    Obama still has to sign it and you know it. So, if there is a problem, all parties need to talk. Obama says no to talking we do it my way or it's the highway. If he was a little smarter talks would have already been held and the problem would be at least on it's way to a solution. It is not The House's duty to bow to the President as he is no Deity. He negotiates or no deal is what the house needs to stand steady for.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Oct 8, 2013, at 5:16 PM
  • When Obama bribed 2 democrat senators to rush the ACA through before a new republican senator from Massachusetts was sworn in he did it legal.

    You like it one way, just not the other - because of your partisanship.

    -- Posted by Dug on Tue, Oct 8, 2013, at 3:08 PM

    "...bribed 2 democrat senators..."

    That's your imagination running wild again. What "bribes" are part of the law?

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Oct 8,

    2013, at 4:47 PM

    Cute, Common,

    Your little edit job is too obvious. That copy and paste totally misrepresented Dug's statement. If you are going to use Obama's tactics here you will find that we may have been born at night........just not last night.

    If you want to disagree with some of us, that is fine. But we would appreciate if you made points rather than attempt to twist someone's words.

    -- Posted by Robert* on Tue, Oct 8, 2013, at 5:45 PM
  • "...twist someone's words."

    What is twisted? The entire quote was still there. There is no reason why I should have to repeat the entire thing.

    Duggie was claiming bribery. I just pointed out that the Nebraska deal was not consummated. I don't recall which other state was involved, but I don't think that one went through either.

    Looking back it's clear that had both republicans and democrats worked together on the ACA, a better product may have emerged. Since none of the republicans were allowed to work a compromise, each and every democratic vote was needed, which tempted some of them to try to insert some favorable clauses.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Oct 8, 2013, at 6:55 PM
  • "...no to talking we do it my way or it's the highway."

    You seem to forget all the FBI kidnap shows. They always said don't pay the ransom until the hostages are released.

    The President has agreed to negotiate (i.e. pay the ransom) but only after the hostage (the shutdown and debt ceiling) has been released. It's entirely up to the Speaker.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Oct 8, 2013, at 7:01 PM
  • "...how do you know for sure?"

    Because Speaker Boehner won't bring it to a vote.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Oct 8, 2013, at 7:05 PM
  • Those FBI kidnap shows, that's where to get real life understanding of how legislative negotiations work. :)

    -- Posted by Old John on Tue, Oct 8, 2013, at 8:01 PM
  • "Check your copy of the Constitution, and I believe you'll find that it says that Congress has the final word on how to budget and spend. Blame the House if you want to complain."i

    I believe that, if you check again, you'll find that the Constitution does not mention budgets at all.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Oct 8, 2013, at 8:11 PM
  • Duggie was claiming bribery. I just pointed out that the Nebraska deal was not consummated. I don't recall which other state was involved, but I don't think that one went through either.

    Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Oct 8, 2013, at 6:55 PM

    Obama, Reid, and Pelosi were intent on passing ACA as the insurance lobbyists had written it. They could not get any republicans to vote for it as written. Rather than compromise with the republicans, they used their influence and public funds to give special deals to the democrat and independent senators who were swing votes.

    Using public funds to pay off special deals (buying votes with taxpayer money). Dug hasn't forgotten it, I haven't forgotten it, and many other taxpayers haven't forgotten it either. I could possibly have stomached ACA until they did this. Not only did they refuse to listen to the voters; they used voter's taxes to buy the votes necessary to pass a law the voter's detested.

    Ben Nelson's "Cornhusker Kickback," as the GOP is calling it, got all the attention Saturday, but other senators lined up for deals as Majority Leader Harry Reid corralled the last few votes for a health reform package.

    Nelson's might be the most blatant -- a deal carved out for a single state, a permanent exemption from the state share of Medicaid expansion for Nebraska, meaning federal taxpayers have to kick in an additional $45 million in the first decade.

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30815.html

    -- Posted by Robert* on Tue, Oct 8, 2013, at 8:17 PM
  • "All of which had "poison pills" attached. None of which were for a clean CR which is the fastest way to settle this since the Senaye has already passed the reasonable clean CR."

    That's not true. There were no 'poison pills', they were 'clean' bills that funded only certain parts of the government. Mr. Obama says he will not sign them becuase he doesn't want to have to answer questions about why some parts were funded and some weren't.

    The answer, of course, would be simple: I signed the approporations that were submitted to me for signature. It's not that he doesn't have an answer, he just doesn't want to face the questions.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Oct 8, 2013, at 8:17 PM
  • Duggie was claiming bribery. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Oct 8, 2013, at 6:55 PM

    And poor Common is crying "blackmail". See how simple your twisted logic works?

    Louisiana was the other bribe Obama paid - remember the "Cornhusker Kickback" for a democrat senator and the "Louisiana Purchase" for a democrat senator? Immediately after they were given lucrative tax dollars they changed their vote for Obamacare.

    Bribe.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Oct 8, 2013, at 8:22 PM
  • Factcheck:Mike Lee says unions call Obamacare bad for workers

    "Mostly True"

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/aug/21/mike-lee/sen-lee-...

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Oct 8, 2013, at 8:32 PM
  • "I guess miccheck is still locked down in re-hab...."

    Rick,

    Is that why I haven't been reminded that I was "Intellectually" deficient in the last 24 or so hours? ☺ ☺

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Oct 8, 2013, at 8:32 PM
  • Union Letter: Obamacare Will 'Destroy The Very Health and Wellbeing' of Workers.

    http://blogs.wsj.com/corporate-intelligence/2013/07/12/union-letter-obamacare-wi...

    "Dear Leader Reid and Leader Pelosi:

    "you and the President sought our support for the Affordable Care Act (ACA), you pledged that if we liked the health plans we have now, we could keep them. Sadly, that promise is under threat. Right now, unless you and the Obama Administration enact an equitable fix, the ACA will shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class.

    "Like millions of other Americans, our members are front-line workers in the American economy. We have been strong supporters of the notion that all Americans should have access to quality, affordable health care. We have also been strong supporters of you. In campaign after campaign we have put boots on the ground, gone door-to-door to get out the vote, run phone banks and raised money to secure this vision.

    "Now this vision has come back to haunt us.

    "Since the ACA was enacted, we have been bringing our deep concerns to the Administration, seeking reasonable regulatory interpretations to the statute that would help prevent the destruction of non-profit health plans. As you both know first-hand, our persuasive arguments have been disregarded and met with a stone wall by the White House and the pertinent agencies. This is especially stinging because other stakeholders have repeatedly received successful interpretations for their respective grievances. Most disconcerting of course is last week's huge accommodation for the employer community--extending the statutorily mandated "December 31, 2013" deadline for the employer mandate and penalties.

    "Time is running out: Congress wrote this law; we voted for you. We have a problem; you need to fix it. The unintended consequences of the ACA are severe. Perverse incentives are already creating nightmare scenarios:

    "First, the law creates an incentive for employers to keep employees' work hours below 30 hours a week. Numerous employers have begun to cut workers' hours to avoid this obligation, and many of them are doing so openly. The impact is two-fold: fewer hours means less pay while also losing our current health benefits.

    "Second, millions of Americans are covered by non-profit health insurance plans like the ones in which most of our members participate. These non-profit plans are governed jointly by unions and companies under the Taft-Hartley Act. Our health plans have been built over decades by working men and women. Under the ACA as interpreted by the Administration, our employees will treated differently and not be eligible for subsidies afforded other citizens. As such, many employees will be relegated to second-class status and shut out of the help the law offers to for-profit insurance plans.

    "And finally, even though non-profit plans like ours won't receive the same subsidies as for-profit plans, they'll be taxed to pay for those subsidies. Taken together, these restrictions will make non-profit plans like ours unsustainable, and will undermine the health-care market of viable alternatives to the big health insurance companies.

    "On behalf of the millions of working men and women we represent and the families they support, we can no longer stand silent in the face of elements of the Affordable Care Act that will destroy the very health and wellbeing of our members along with millions of other hardworking Americans.

    "We believe that there are common-sense corrections that can be made within the existing statute that will allow our members to continue to keep their current health plans and benefits just as you and the President pledged. Unless changes are made, however, that promise is hollow.

    "We continue to stand behind real health care reform, but the law as it stands will hurt millions of Americans including the members of our respective unions.

    "We are looking to you to make sure these changes are made.

    "James P. Hoffa

    General President

    International Brotherhood of Teamsters

    "Joseph Hansen

    International President

    UFCW

    "D. Taylor

    President

    UNITE-HERE"

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Oct 8, 2013, at 8:36 PM
  • Senator Landrieu from Lousiana did not receive anything. The medicaid funding provided for Lousiana was also available to all states, although some like Missouri refuses to accept it even though they have collectively millions of citizens that need it.

    The Cornhusker "kickback" was repealed and never was part of the law.

    No bribes. Sorry.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Oct 8, 2013, at 8:41 PM
  • From wikipedia:

    Landrieu was opposed to the public health insurance option in the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009[25] (HR 3200) until the bill was rewritten to send a $300,000,000 payment to Medicaid for her home state.[26] When two pages were added to the bill to place $300 million in Louisiana's Medicaid system, she changed her web page in order to reflect her support of the program.[27] Conservative figures referred to the deal as the "Louisiana Purchase"

    Spin that common...

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Oct 8, 2013, at 8:44 PM
  • "The White House confirmed the call and said Obama repeated to Boehner "what he told him when they met at the White House last week: the president is willing to negotiate with Republicans -- after the threat of government shutdown and default have been removed -- over policies that Republicans think would strengthen the country."

    Which is absolutely absurd. What he is saying is, once they pass bills that allow spending to continue unabated, he will be willing to talk about abating it...

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Oct 8, 2013, at 8:45 PM
  • "There were no 'poison pills..."

    Of course there are. The very idea of partial bill is exactly that. If you plan on funding the entire CR by partial bills, there is no reason to not do the whole thing all at once. Unless you have an ulterior motive. When to set of partial bills add up to a complete CR with no exceptions, it coul probably be signed.

    Otherwise the process is a political stunt, pure and simple. And why will the Speaker not allow a simple up or down vote on the entire clean CR?

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Oct 8, 2013, at 8:49 PM
  • The Cornhusker "kickback" was repealed and never was part of the law.

    No bribes. Sorry.

    Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Oct 8, 2013, at 8:41 PM

    This was done after the vote was cast. Obama got Nelson's vote but the amendment was taken out in the House version. When it got back to the Senate, needing only 51 votes Nelson voted against it. Thus, he was against ACA before he was for it, before he was against it. Flip, Flop, Flip! Common should really do more research.

    The deal that Scalia was referring to -- legendary in conservative anti-Obamacare circles -- was not a classic "kickback." Nelson negotiated for indefinite, unending Medicaid funding for his state. That ended up as part of the bill that initially passed the U.S. Senate on a 60-40 vote.

    Here's the rub: It's not actually part of the law. Democrats removed the Nebraska deal in the final tortured negotiations that passed the PPACA in the House. When it got to the Senate again, Democrats only needed 51 votes to pass it; Nelson, who'd gotten the bad press from the deal AND nothing to show for it, glumly voted no.

    -- Posted by Robert* on Tue, Oct 8, 2013, at 8:54 PM
  • Reid has several clean CRs sitting on his desk that would fund federal parks, bike paths, boat ramps, parking lots that are now closed. But he refuses to put them to a vote. Does that make him as powerful as Boehner and as responsible for the shutdown?

    -- Posted by Robert* on Tue, Oct 8, 2013, at 9:06 PM
  • States, local governments, and even individuals have offered to provide funding to keep memorials, parks, and other facilities open. But orders have come down from the Obama White House 'to make this as difficult as possible' (anonymous Park Ranger) If the public does not feel the pain, this shutdown can not be used to blame the republicans for playing petty politics and not caring for the welfare of the people.

    We are witnessing a high-stakes political game of chicken. And those who are ignorant followers of one ideology or the other will play into their hands by playing the democrat good/republican bad; republican good/democrat bad game.

    It is time for voters to realize they are seen as merely a pawn in this game. It is time to return the power to the states, the local governments, and the people. I hope that this manufactured crisis accomplishes that; gets the ball of public opinion rolling and creates a grassroots demand to decentralize our government.

    -- Posted by Robert* on Tue, Oct 8, 2013, at 9:18 PM
  • "Which is absolutely absurd."

    How so? Why is this more absurd than the President accepting a CR that exclides the ACA when it will help millions of Americans. The budget has already been reduced by about 60 billion and the ACA is a drop in the bucket that is only an unneeded political move.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Oct 8, 2013, at 9:19 PM
  • A $671 BILLION new entitlement "drop in the bucket". According to the latest CBO figures.

    Only a liberal would consider that a "drop in the bucket". This is how we got to these problems in the first place. A so-called "recovery" completely borrowed on TRILLIONS in additional debt under Obama - the record holder.

    But we are supposed to ignore the debt and pay attention to the measly employment gains.

    Absurd.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Oct 8, 2013, at 9:33 PM
  • "...place $300 million in Louisiana's Medicaid system..."

    Are you being intentionally obtuse? All sates are eligible for that amount of Medicaid money or more. How is it "special treatment" if every state gets it, even Missouri could?

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Oct 8, 2013, at 9:43 PM
  • Ask wikipedia. You are wrong. It was a special allotment to get the vote.

    Are you saying that wikipedia - which was just updated yesterday on Landrieus page - is lying?

    You're wrong Common. Spin all you want. Wrong.

    It was a bribe.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Oct 8, 2013, at 9:47 PM
  • It is 'special treatment' when legislation is written in such a way that only specific states qualify. How about this, Common. Governor Jindal was seeking more funding for the state but he was not willing to sell his soul for it. Senator Landrieu had no such compunction.

    Are you going to use us 'gang' members to do all your research?

    Section 2006 of PPACA, a "Special Adjustment to FMAP Determination for Certain States Recovering from a Major Disaster," was designed to temporarily increase the federal government's FMAP contribution to Louisiana to the tune of around $200 million. It contains extremely complicated legislative language, whose main purpose is to ensure that only Louisiana benefits from the specified FMAP increase

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2012/03/06/the-4-billion-typo-in-obama...

    -- Posted by Robert* on Tue, Oct 8, 2013, at 9:53 PM
  • 'The budget has already been reduced by about 60 billion'

    How is that so? We have yet to have a budget bill passed since Prsident Obamam took office. The only spending reductions I know of were because of sequestration and Obama does not want to take credit of that.

    Be specific about the spending cuts.

    -- Posted by Robert* on Wed, Oct 9, 2013, at 6:13 AM
  • "The budget has already been reduced by about 60 billion and the ACA is a drop in the bucket that is only an unneeded political move."

    There is no budget, ergo there has been no budget

    reduction. You know better, but you continue to make that claim.

    I assume you mean "spending has been reduced", but even that is not true. Planned spending was stopped, but expected expenditures this year would still exceed last years, unless the Republicans can be successful in getting Mr. Obama to negotiate. His argument now is to permit spending to continue unabated for the first six months, and he'll talk about cutting something in the following. His track record on that is not good. The "spending cuts" which you cite are the result of the sequester, which Mr. Obama fought tooth and nail to defeat, after first proposing the idea. The are proof that the only way to get spending reductions out of this administration is to leave them no other alternative.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Oct 9, 2013, at 6:13 AM
  • "Why is this more absurd than the President accepting a CR that exclides the ACA when it will help millions of Americans."

    For one reason, a CR (Continuting Resolution) continues spending at last years' level. Including the ACA spending which is scheduled to begin in FY2014 does not simply continue last years' spending, it increases it. Thus, it is not 'clean'.

    The inclusion of new spending in a continuing resolution defies the definition.

    _______

    "In case there is any shred of doubt in the minds of our House counterparts, I want to be absolutely crystal clear. Any bill that defunds Obamacare is dead. Dead." - Harry Reid -

    Hardly sounds like a willingness to negotiate once the "Clean CR" is passed...

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Oct 9, 2013, at 6:33 AM
  • Outrage over the government shutdown has been different than politicians calculated. As politicians lose control of the 'spin' they find it necessary to find an end to their constructed crisis. As voters we must remember what we have learned about how much influence these politicians are able to exercise over our daily lives and their willingness to do so.

    -- Posted by Robert* on Wed, Oct 9, 2013, at 12:57 PM
  • An interesting article from the firm that sets bond ratings - Moody's. Contrary to what Obama, Common, miccheck, etc. are parroting, Moody's says not raising the debt limit will NOT hurt the US rating. The story here:

    "One of the nation's top credit-rating agencies says that the U.S. Treasury Department is likely to continue paying interest on the government's debt even if Congress fails to lift the limit on borrowing next week, preserving the nation's sterling AAA credit rating."

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics-live/liveblog/live-updates-the...

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Oct 9, 2013, at 1:47 PM
  • In addition to Moody's contradicting Obama on the so-called "debt crisis" (never let a good crisis go to waste), here is an analysis on the last 2 years of Obama's stewardship:

    "U.S. Adds Two Times More Debt than Economic Output in Last 2 Years"

    The story here: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/us-adds-two-times-more-debt-economic-output-...

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Oct 9, 2013, at 2:43 PM
  • -- Posted by miccheck on Wed, Oct 9, 2013, at 3:05 PM

    "If the impasse over the debt limit lasted through November, the Treasury would have no choice but to eliminate a cash deficit of approximately $130 billion by slashing government spending. This is about 9% of annual GDP, enough to trigger a severe recession."

    This article supports my link. Thanks. So a debt limit refusal would still allow the US government to pay it's debt with interest and principal to keep from affecting our debt rating of AAA.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Oct 9, 2013, at 3:09 PM
  • "President says raising our Debt Ceiling will not increase our debt at all"

    This ill thought out statement by Obama was beat to death last week, I believe it was, in a Thread by that same name.

    Over and over to ad nauseum it was stated that we would default if the debt limit was not raised. People were called liars and it may have been the first time I was deemed "Intellectually" deficient, cannot remember that either. Then we read the following this afternoon.......

    *************************************************************************

    An interesting article from the firm that sets bond ratings - Moody's. Contrary to what Obama, Common, miccheck, etc. are parroting, Moody's says not raising the debt limit will NOT hurt the US rating. The story here:

    "One of the nation's top credit-rating agencies says that the U.S. Treasury Department is likely to continue paying interest on the government's debt even if Congress fails to lift the limit on borrowing next week, preserving the nation's sterling AAA credit rating."

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post...

    -- Posted by Dug on Wed, Oct 9, 2013, at 1:47 PM

    Obviously someone is plainly not well versed on the subject or lying, by parroting a lie to further Obama's desire to have a higher debt limit, ultimately leading to more debt.

    Curious as hell I think that Moody's opinion differs with the Leftist Wingnuts on Speak Out and the Threads who claim to be intellectually superior to poor fools like me.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Oct 9, 2013, at 6:13 PM
  • Now I think I will "Better" myself by popping the cap on a long neck and resting for a spell.

    Ahhhhhh....... Heinekens sweet elixir from the Fatherland!

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Oct 9, 2013, at 6:20 PM
  • This has worked out well in the Middle East , no ?

    -- Posted by ..Rick* on Wed, Oct 9, 2013, at 6:22 PM

    Yes.... yes it has Rick. It has worked out really well wherever they have tried it out. A socialistic state is the ultimate end to people's problems. Worked out really well for the USSR too, I believe.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Oct 9, 2013, at 6:46 PM
  • -- Posted by ..Rick* on Wed, Oct 9, 2013, at 6:53 PM

    Makes one wonder why those crazy Europeans and others left the country of their Fathers where they had such a Utopean situation to come to the New World. Must have been to see if they could long range f*** up the world of your fore Fathers as bad as the country they came from. Doesn't seem like the long range plan was freedom and a better life.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Oct 9, 2013, at 7:04 PM
  • Rick, Is that a list of who America owes a balance after considering what they owe America?

    -- Posted by Old John on Wed, Oct 9, 2013, at 7:06 PM
  • "Latest SEMO poll:"

    Would you expect something different...

    The latest Gallop poll...

    Favorability ratings:

    Republicans -- 28%

    Democrats -- 43%

    The American public seems toknow who's at fault.

    Even republicans don't like republicans,

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Oct 9, 2013, at 8:06 PM
  • Simple question common. Why do you think the democrats do not want the delay for the ACA given to individuals?

    -- Posted by rocknroll on Wed, Oct 9, 2013, at 8:18 PM
  • Presidents rating: 37%

    -- Posted by Old John on Wed, Oct 9, 2013, at 8:30 PM
  • Highlighting "major problems" with the website of ObamaCare's federal exchange, CNN's Wolf Blitzer said the administration should have accepted the Republican proposal and delayed implementation of the health care law for a year.

    "Yeah. If they had three years to get this ready, if they weren't fully ready, they should accept the advice that a lot of Republicans are giving them, delay it another year, get it ready, and make sure it works," Blitzer said on Tuesday.

    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matt-hadro/2013/10/09/wolf-blitzer-obama-should-acc...

    -- Posted by Robert* on Wed, Oct 9, 2013, at 8:31 PM
  • Wheels is from the netherlands???

    -- Posted by Spaniard on Wed, Oct 9, 2013, at 8:56 PM

    You betcha and proud of it. Third generation American born.

    Just watched a program that showed New York going to Holland to get some advice on keeping their swamp from flooding. Anything I can help you with?

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Oct 9, 2013, at 9:04 PM
  • Spaniard, Don't get him started. You might learn something about hub caps. :)

    Is Wolf your guy?

    -- Posted by Old John on Wed, Oct 9, 2013, at 9:33 PM
  • Now Old John, You didn't need to hint at the reason we had to leave Holland.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Oct 9, 2013, at 9:38 PM
  • I guess a simple straight forward question to common has confused him.

    -- Posted by rocknroll on Wed, Oct 9, 2013, at 10:24 PM
  • Seems like the adult reublicans are about to tell the child republicans to shut up and go to their room.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Oct 10, 2013, at 5:38 AM
  • When common can't answer the question he goes to his "Rules for Radicals". Getting a bit dog eared,eh?

    -- Posted by rocknroll on Thu, Oct 10, 2013, at 6:17 AM
  • "Seems like the adult reublicans are about to tell the child republicans to shut up and go to their room."

    'Tis a pity there are no adult Democrats to do the same with their party regulars...

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Oct 10, 2013, at 6:21 AM
  • http://www.examiner.com/article/sheila-jackson-lee-on-continuing-resolution-we-h...

    "On Monday, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, said from the floor of the House of Representatives that America is now under martial law because of the continuing resolution.

    "This is not an idea of anyone over another person. Republican and Democratic Senators have already voted for this clean bill that we could vote on today. We have martial law. What that means--and my colleagues know what it means--is that you can put a bill on in just minutes," she said.

    "Jackson Lee's startling comments received absolutely no mention from the so-called "mainstream media," but was picked up Wednesday by several "new media" outlets, including WND.com.

    "The comments from Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, took some listeners by surprise, since a common understanding of "martial law" would be of an authority -- a president or a military commander -- using military force to impose its will on an uncooperative people," WND said. "Think tanks, machine guns and jail cells."

    "A post at Washingtonsblog observed: "The last time we heard Congress members use the phrase martial law was when Congressmen Brad Sherman and Paul Kanjorski, and Senator James Inhofe, all said that Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson warned of martial law if the TARP banks bailouts weren't approved"."

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Oct 10, 2013, at 6:48 AM
  • Posted by miccheck on Thu, Oct 10, 2013, at 5:33 AM

    Actually, we are debating raising the debt limit, not default. No one wants a default. We understand that. Conservatives (especially small government conservatives)want a government which understands it cannot run these huge deficits indefinitely. There must be some restraint in spending.

    President Obama is kind of like the person who says, 'I can't be out of money. I still have some checks!"

    We are not quite ready to order more checks before we reach an understanding.

    -- Posted by Robert* on Thu, Oct 10, 2013, at 6:55 AM
  • Speaking of children, or childish;

    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid scolded D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray on the steps of the U.S. Capitol Wednesday after Gray crashed a Senate press conference as part of his campaign against the federal government shutdown.

    "I'm on your side," snapped Reid (D-Nev.), to the D.C. mayor. "Don't screw it up, OK. I'm on your side."

    Gray is calling on city residents to join him in speaking out against the federal government shutdown. He appeared Wednesday morning alongside D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) at a rally outside the Capitol, steps from the site of another event headlined by Reid.

    After Gray's rally, the mayor went over to Reid's press conference and stood next to him, then tried to talk to him, demanding a vote to let D.C. spend its own money. That's when Reid gave him the terse response.

    http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/DC-Mayor-to-Speak-Out-Against-Government...

    -- Posted by Robert* on Thu, Oct 10, 2013, at 9:27 AM
  • Rick*,

    Apparently, some believe that anyone who opposes Obama's policies must be republican. I would contend that those who have this belief are the same ones who echo democrat talking points. Those who do not think for themselves do not expect others to do so.

    I am tired of everyone attempting to paint me into a corner. They seem to think I must support either the democrats or the republicans. If I criticize Obama I must necessarily have been a total supporter of Bush.

    Surely it is becoming obvious to more people that neither of the major political parties is working with the interest of the people at heart. Hopefully, the debacle we are witnessing in Washington will result in real change.

    -- Posted by Robert* on Thu, Oct 10, 2013, at 11:28 AM
  • When a board of directors considers whether to permit a CEO to take on more debt, it asks whether the business will spend the money wisely.

    Americans would be nuts to want Congress to lift the debt ceiling so that the Washington establishment can continue profligate policies that will eventually bankrupt the nation.

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/10/08/house-republicans-may-be-countrys-last...

    -- Posted by Robert* on Thu, Oct 10, 2013, at 12:32 PM
  • "...adult Democrats to do the same.."

    ...are perfectly ready to negotiate after the blackmailers have released the hostage.

    The latest Gallop poll...

    Favorability ratings:

    Republicans -- 28%

    Democrats -- 43%

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Oct 10, 2013, at 4:15 PM
  • Now more Americans want a democratic controlled Congress than want a republican controlled Congress.

    It would seem that they're on their way to losing the majority in the House.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Oct 10, 2013, at 5:44 PM
  • And now the favorability rating for te ACA has risen by 8 points.

    The favorability rating for President Obama has risen by 2 points.

    And the favorability rating for the republican party has fallen by 10 points.

    I would say the republican plan to shut down the government and the not raise th debt ceiling has failed miserably. Conservative business groups are demanding that the republicans back off and admit failure.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Oct 10, 2013, at 6:39 PM
  • Now more Americans want a democratic controlled Congress than want a republican controlled Congress.

    It would seem that they're on their way to losing the majority in the House.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Oct 10, 2013, at 5:44 PM

    We will know in about 13 months. Before that, everything is speculation..........or, in commons case, wishful thinking.

    -- Posted by Robert* on Thu, Oct 10, 2013, at 6:40 PM
  • "...want a democratic controlled Congress..."

    They were talking about the House. But if the republicans keep up their craziness about the ACA and the debt ceiling, they could also lose more seats in the Senate and make the democratic majority filibuster proof.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Oct 10, 2013, at 6:50 PM
  • If something happpens to cause the iphones, student loans and grants, welfare checks, food stamps programs and other needed stuff to shut down, then we will see voter turn out to throw the bums out. And of course a certain party will blame the other for taking away the freebies.

    No voter ID needed, just jump in and we'll take you to where you can cast your votes for us! :)

    -- Posted by Old John on Thu, Oct 10, 2013, at 7:32 PM
  • This whole thing should be considered childish if the resulting consequences wouldn't be so serious.

    -- Posted by voyager on Thu, Oct 10, 2013, at 8:33 PM
  • Give him a two week CR and 30 days worth more Debt Limit to work with and see if he honors what he said and sits down and works seriously on a long term budget. If not let Obama shut it down again.

    Giving Obama and Reed what they want will not fix America's problems nor will it get them to sit down and work seriously at resolving them. Obama lies. Make a deal with them that a real budget comes out of this or else we are back at an impasse.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Oct 11, 2013, at 10:31 AM
  • There is absolutely no way the Democrats are always the "Angels" , for 5 freakin's years now the Democrats are never wrong , even after they got their butt kicked out of the House in 2010 .

    -- Posted by ..Rick* on Fri, Oct 11, 2013, at 11:08 AM

    Hey Rick, are you still doing that thing where you pretend to be unbiased until somebody questions the divine mandate of the Republican Party?

    -- Posted by DADES on Fri, Oct 11, 2013, at 4:44 PM
  • -- Posted by Old John on Sun, Oct 13, 2013, at 12:33 PM
  • "Since we cannot read minds, we cannot say who -- if anybody -- "wants to shut down the government." But we do know who had the option to keep the government running and chose not to. The money voted by the House of Representatives covered everything that the government does, except for ObamaCare.

    "The Senate chose not to vote to authorize that money to be spent, because it did not include money for ObamaCare. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says that he wants a "clean" bill from the House of Representatives, and some in the media keep repeating the word "clean" like a mantra. But what is unclean about not giving Harry Reid everything he wants?

    "If Senator Reid and President Obama refuse to accept the money required to run the government, because it leaves out the money they want to run ObamaCare, that is their right. But that is also their responsibility."

    Thomas Sowell

    http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2013/10/04/who-shut-down-the-governm...

    They had their 'clean bill', but they wanted it dirtied up with Obamacare funding.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Oct 18, 2013, at 7:48 PM
  • "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives..."

    The House does not have a line item veto in the budget process. The "originate" bills but do not have unilateral control over the content.

    The Speaker agreed to a "clean" CR earlier then reneged.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Oct 18, 2013, at 10:04 PM
  • Even in the end bill that ended the shutdown, it was not the 'clean CR' that Obama insisted on. They were willing to add some pork to the bill to buy a few key republican votes. So, apparently Reid and Obama reneged on the demand for a 'clean CR'. Apparently the 'clean CR' was just a sound bite; a bargaining chip to get what they really wanted.

    -- Posted by Robert* on Fri, Oct 18, 2013, at 10:17 PM
  • Fast freedom is always on the wrong side of a discussion. So predictable.

    -- Posted by Dexterite1 on Sat, Oct 19, 2013, at 5:13 AM
  • "Negotiating with Obama is like playing chess with a pigeon. The pigeon knocks over all the pieces, ***** on the board and then struts around like it won the game".

    -- Posted by rocknroll on Sat, Oct 19, 2013, at 6:31 AM
  • "The House does not have a line item veto in the budget process. The "originate" bills but do not have unilateral control over the content.

    Uh, yes, they do.

    But first let us address the fact that there is no budget. The House has passed a budget bill, which does not inlcude Obamacare funding and cuts spending. The Senate, for the first time in years, passed one, but refused to consider the House's version. No reconciliation was made, and no budget passed.

    But back to the original point. Congress is not obligated by the spending goals of prior congresses. They can "veto" (your word, though not an accurate description of the process) any spending prior Congresses may have engaged in, even "mandatory spending", though they pretend otherwise. The exception, of course, is their obligation to satisfy the debts incurred, that obligation exists as an extension of the borrowing authority.

    Just because a prior congress passed Obamacare, the current congress is under no authority to fund it, or to maintain it. Mr. Obama pretends otherwise, claiming that it is "the law of the land" as though it is carved in stone, even as his administration unilaterally (and unconstitutionally) alters the terms under which it was passed (delaying implementation of the insurance mandate, for example).

    The resolution passed was "clean". The press, and Obama's minions, repeated the mantra "clean CR" as if it had meaning, but it did not. What them meant was a "blank checque.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Oct 20, 2013, at 8:32 AM
  • "No reconciliation was made, and no budget passed."

    I believe you'll find that was because the Speaker refused to appoint member to a conference committee.

    With respect to the remainder of you comments, the key word is Congress, not the House alone.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Oct 20, 2013, at 12:21 PM

Respond to this thread