Is This the GOP Shutdown — Or President Obama’s?

ShutdownI interviewed George Carlin many years ago when I was still with CBS News.  We hit it off.  He was both funny and very smart.  Very liberal, too, but that never came out in our interview.  One of his points was that we humans had made a mess of things and he wanted the world as we know it to end.  He wanted a big meteor to destroy the planet.  And for good measure he wanted it to sail right through the hole in the ozone layer. But he wanted Los Angeles, where he lived, to be the last to go.  Why?  Because, he told me, he wanted to watch the destruction, one city at a time, on CNN.

George was a strange cat.

I ran into him later that night (in Aspen, Colorado) and he said something like, “Hey Bernie, I’ve been thinking about our interview.  And you know what it comes down to for me?  I root for chaos.”

I think he really did.  But part of it was an act.  He had a family.  I’m sure he didn’t want to see them go up in smoke.  But I’ve been thinking about that line, about why some people root for chaos. And it hit me:  You know who else is rooting for chaos?  President Barack Obama.

First, a few words about the Republicans. They didn’t think this government shutdown thing through.  They picked a fight they couldn’t win.  They went into battle with the President of the United States but they didn’t have a battle plan.  They didn’t have an end game.  And now, if the polls are right, they’re getting the lion’s share of the blame for the shutdown.  You can’t blame that on the liberal media.

But it didn’t have to happen.  All the president and his equally hyper-partisan pal Harry Reid over in the senate had to do was throw the Republicans a bone.  Give them something.  Anything.  And there would have been no shutdown.  The president could have said, “Ok, let’s repeal the tax on medical devices.”  But he wouldn’t do it.  He could have said, “Congress gets no special treatment, no subsidies.”  But he wouldn’t do that either.

In a few weeks we’ll have a showdown on raising the debt ceiling.  Republicans want any increase tied to spending decreases.  The president has already indicated he won’t compromise on that one either.

Barack Obama is rooting for chaos because he knows most Americans won’t blame him.  And that is his only hope for capturing the House next year.  And if he manages to pull that one off, he will make good on his campaign promise — to fundamentally transform the United States of America.

And while the so-called mainstream media are predictably telling us all about the shutdown at Yellowstone and how the panda-cam went offline, they’re telling us precious little about why the president is so obstinate.

What I have just written is clearly my opinion.  It’s commentary.  It’s not irrefutable fact. But hard news reporters could take those ideas and turn them into legitimate questions.  They could ask serious non-partisan political thinkers if the president is refusing to compromise for political gain. They could ask if they believe he’s prepared to throw the American economy under the bus hoping it will benefit him in 2014?  Is this part of his  plan to transform America?  And then they could ask:  Is the president of the United States rooting for chaos?

 

Bernie's Next Column.

Enter your email and find out first.

  • http://att.net/ patty

    WoW! How about the Republicans as well as millions of Americans are tired of this delussional, controlling, dictator, my way or the highway President Obama and finally standing up to him. Shouldn’t have taken the debt ceiling for grounds to STAND UP and NOT STAND DOWN like in Benghazi?

  • D Parri

    Democrats ran a triple-header for the first two years and the president has NEVER passed a budget. That’s a pathetic record for any leader.

    • Lee Church

      see my previous comment.
      we are done.. as i told you , adults will take care of the situation.. good luck to you.

  • D Parri

    I don’t want to grant more than necessary in time and words regarding those whose agenda is clearly nothing more than sniping and provoking, but it is to be expected if the cause that they are attacking is just and they actually see a liability working against themselves.

    The single voice that I referred to is achievable and I think that more emphasis should be given to it as a goal for the GOP and all conservatives.

  • Sheila Warner

    It’s funny to see how many people are still trying to converse with Lee Church. Apparently they haven’t figured out that he doesn’t read their entire comments, just picks out a few things and then writes about 20 paragraphs of nothingness. If we all ignored Lee Church, there would be a whole lot less comments to wade through, and it would be easier to find intelligent discourse on here. But, as you all have 1st Amendment rights, and apparently some of you spend ALL DAY on the computer, have at it.

    • Sheila Warner

      Sigh. Lee’s post just above mine proves my point, exactly. A waste of time trying while trying to find intelligent discourse.

      • Lee Church

        exactly.. so that is the answer to Goldbergs wondering why the President isn’t bothering to ‘negotiate’.
        I said as much a few days ago…. but had to demonstrate because peopel didn’t understand why he can’t negotiate this.
        1) it’s just a bunch of yelling and hollering
        2) there is nothing to negotiate.. there demands are as silly as my demands.
        pass a C.R. and raise the debt ceiing .. then debate and pass legislation to change Obamacare and change the budget all they want. but threatening to hurt one’s own country unless they get their demands met isn’t negotiable.
        so this was all just a waste of time.. you got that right.

        • Sheila Warner

          Returned to sender: unopened.

          • Lee Church

            come now.. we were having a dialogue.. an exchange of ideas.. you were sharing home credit card debt reduction tips and i was telling you the debt ceiling and the deficit isn’t the same as household finances.
            it was good.. i learned alot! I learned to ask for extreme things.. because if one is reasonable.. well then the other extreme position gets to move the needle.
            i learned to that both side should take the same hostage for ransom.. then the hostate is pretty much doomed.
            i learned a lot from these very intelligent negotions, and as you say, compromise came from both sides.
            i compromised and asked for their rolex watch, and public option but i didn’t just demand stuff.. i offered that in exchange for not ruining the country.
            So, dispite you not thinking i read.. i read every word.. sometimes twice because i can’t believe what i read to begin with.

      • D Parri

        Whenever you see his post…just collapse it. There’s no use in engaging him in a conversation.

        • Sheila Warner

          Thanks. I don’t read a word of anything he writes, anymore.

          • T Ko

            Excellent!

    • Lee Church

      sheila.. sheila.. the TP wanted to negotiate.. we were negotiating!
      your TPers demanded the we defund obamacare in exchange for the country..
      I counteroffered with a demand for a public option in exchange for the country.
      now the truth lies between them, as you said in another post (not the one where you were giving home finance spending reduction tips).
      so by taking the opposite extreme position, the middle is:
      pass a C.R. resolution and raise the debt ceiling.
      then they can introduce whatever legislation they want to change , repeal or whatever with obamacare, whatever budget they want, and if they get enough votes for it to pass, then so be it.
      It’s that simple.. all the rest was garbage from start to finish.
      but you didn’t understand why the President wouldn’t compromise with the hostage takers.. i explained why. and demonstrated.
      and extreme position on one side can’t be rewarded particulary when the other side values whatever they are demanding more than the county.
      and i would have preferred to not have to say it and be extreme..I don’t even want to be here.. I’m here because they are holding the country hostage.
      and if that gets the hostage freed, and you and everyone else hate me.. well, no offense but i really don’t care one way or the other. i’m just making it clear that’s it something that we will NOT negotiate.
      free the hostages.. pass a C.R. and raise the debt ceiling.. then do all the politics you want.

      • Sheila Warner

        Returned to sender.

        • Lee Church

          one thing i learned was from John k.. he said paulson said clinton was responsible for housing bubble and even gave a source.
          but when i read that source (you can find it on this thread huffington post john kohos) i found that it didn’t really way what john quoted it as saying..
          you know what else i found? i found that it was an article that was talking about a nytimes article.. that really had the interview with Paulson.
          and that article (you can find the link in john’s article) didn’t say anything at all like john said it did.. in fact.. it spread the blame far and wide.. and that article referenced another article from cnbc with the earlier quote and that also didn’t say what john said it did.
          so the sourcres folks paste here are questionable at best.. and in john’s case, he didn’t bother to read it, or get a primary source.
          so he got a very strange result.
          which is why the misinformation here is so rampant. they post ‘facts’ that when you check them out, are not at all what they said they were.
          but hey.. i just look at the avatars.. i don’t bother reading the posts.. they make me feel dirty.

    • Larry_Texas

      Very good, Sheila. Every columnist @ Town Hall, Blaze, et al has at least one trollish, blithering, self-satisfying gasbag poster and LC is the one here. The best fun is ignoring them.

    • T Ko

      You do realize, don’t you, that Lee is a writer for Organizing For Action, a 501(c)(4) organization established to support the agenda of Hussein Obama? If there was any question as to his purpose that information should clear it up. And I agree, the shorter, more to-the-point comments help others in being able to read their comments and share ideas.

  • Lee Church

    and negotiations have stalled.. the TPers have fled.
    When pressed with the same contruct as they employ:
    TP – “defund Obamacare or no C.R. and no raising the debt ceiling”
    LC – “fund a public option and a national exchange or no C.R. and no raising of the debt ceiling”
    the TP has abandons the promising negotiations.
    perhaps it’s because I also asked for their watch, and a puppy?
    Thing is, the demands have as much legitimacy, and both hold our country as hostage. Both are wrong and both put our country last.. not first.
    TPers complain.. we want to debate existing law.. ok
    I say go to law school, that’s what they do there,
    or if you want to be serious,
    propose legislatoin and get enough votes to pass it, just how Obamacare was passed to begin with.
    But the TPers are not serious.. and Goldberg is just serious about protecting his mini-Beck empire.
    the TPers have fled the building.. and while I’ve seen no intellectuals here, i’ve seen those TPers who are master debators.. and to tell you the truth, i fell a bit yucky after making contact.
    adios.. and good luck in your hostage taking (i’ve seen the movie..and spoiler alert – it doesn’t end well for you).
    Lee (designated ‘negotiator’ and future owner of two rolex watches, and a new puppy dog).

  • Lee Church

    of course they were responsible.. and so were the lendors.. and so were the borrowers etc etc.. of course government was responsible.
    Shouldn’t government be responsible? Oh wait.. the TPers think the government should NOT be responsible.. free market should just do it thing…
    So you have to make up your mind.. do you want the government responsible, or don’t you?
    I’m on the side that the government SHOULD be responsible. Requiring Fannie Mae loans to have proper documentation, not allowing that MERS silliness, making a reasonable down payment, and not regulating the silly appraisals (best use and cost to build diverged greatly from comparables.. but the appraisers still approved those valuations for loans).
    the credit expansion started way earlier than the 1990s.
    if a dollar is a dollar, then companies taking on debt, and pension plans funded by forecasting high rates of return (while reducing their cash ), and loading companies with debt to pay back the corporate raiders was credit expansion. It was not the kind YOU complain about.. but if a dollar is a dollar, it’s credit expansion. you have a certain level of economic activity, and you increase the debt leverage and have the same level of activity.. (more or less because the corporate raiders paid themselves and took the extra off the table as profit), then it’s credit expansion.
    We cherry pick and package up this stuff.. then use it as a weapon to make our case.. it’s not debating.. it’s
    politcal tourettes.
    without context all this stuff is meaningless.. starting the clock i nthe 1980s is wrong, as i have done to demonstrate it’s silliness, and it’s just as wrong to start the clock in the 1990s..
    but hey.. we are debating.. ok… now you go.. you make up some number out and warp it’s context, and then it will my turn.. and then everyone can laugh.. and sing songs, yes?
    we will all go down together.. ..
    we will all go down together.
    when china starts dumping 10 years,
    and it’s too late to bring down rates.
    something something.. etc. etc.. fade to apocalyse.
    So this is it.. we trade meaningless bits and this is debating? is there anything else to this debating activity? because it seems like a boring game to me.

    • JohnKohos

      Lenders aren’t elected.

      • Lee Church

        the folks responsible for the housing bubble are everyone that participated. not JUST government.
        The pension plans, that were like high yield addicts creating a demand for collateralized mortgage backed securites. Banks had an eager buyer for these toxic things..
        The lenders, or banks, who put short term profits ahead of there very survival, and some didn’t make it.. they have themselves to blame. there were not forced to buy and trade these things, and then to create deriatives indexed to them..and they were not forced to give loans to folks some of which didn’t even file federal tax returns (tax protester sovereign citizen folks are one example).
        and the homebuyers.. overpaying for housing. Not saying (as some of us did) this is too much , “i will reframe from buying and be a seller instead”. in this i can put the realtors.. who pushed the notion that real estate prices only go up up up.. and the media’s hype as well.
        And the government’s uncheced policy that put homeownership as way too high a priority. where cost of housing was really what the goal should be. So definately I agree with Paulson, and i agree with you.. government is to blame.. partly.
        It’s this lac of context.. everything has to be some sort of weapon to confirm your idelogy that makes you folks nutty.. can’t even quote a source like Paulson without totally missing what he is saying.. argh.
        I listened to Benanke in the past two Fed reserve news conferences.. and i heard the media’s inability to grasp that unemployment isn’t a magic number.. that it’s an indicator.. but and it’s a good indicator but it doesn’t fully represent the employment picture. He went out of his way to say repeatedly that many factors are evaluated.. and discussed and mentioned some such as cultural changes, and preferences.. and the so called journalists didn’t get it. I think one guy understood what Ben was talking about. Everygody else was looking at it as if it was some mine to mine political weapons.. statistics and phrases that could fit their agenda.. how they will spin it.
        So the market got the taper wrong.. well, no i didn’t. The market didn’t listen to what Bernanke told them.. repeatedly. I think he has the patience of a saint to sit there and answer the innane questions they ask.
        I doubt many here even pay attention and listen to the full news conferences, nor the q&a afterwords.. you catch the spin on the news and think you get it.. but you only get the mischaracterized news.. and that includes Goldberg (particularly him, as he is total spin).

        Yes, lendors are not elected..well they are sort of.. you choose, or elect to go to a bank.. so you could say they are elected.. 1-0 vote.
        You likely thought i meant leaders.. you misread. a Lender .. as in bank loans. i did mistype..but given how much i’ve had to type in the last two days.. i’m ok with that.. (yes i know.. no typos allowed .. zero strike rule and all that).
        There is plenty of blame for the housing bubble.. your pinning within the confines of anti-government ignores all the other factors… you folks do this with so many things.. you only cherry pick a number.. and elevate it to god status..and you don’t know what it meant to begin with.. it just seemed to be a good one at the time.. (the headline unemployment figure is an example). it goes up by .2 and you get excited.. even if it was statistically just noise.. but if it goes down you argue that it really is a lie.. the BLS cheats.. etc.
        I prefer the digit 1 and 4.. they are nice figures to use as weapons.. and i like the decimal point as you can do this
        …………………..blamo
        but all that quoting whether the bill had 19 changes or 2 changes is meaningless. just as some out of context $26 billion number from the CBO. They are not “wrong”, but you don’t use them “right”.
        The whole silly top% pay 98% (put in whatever the number of the day is) of the taxes that we hear over and over.. without dealing with the full context of effective tax rates, business cycle, income distribution (and where that income came from. foreign income?) and on and on..
        The media, and Goldberg make a fortune off you.. even if you don’t pay them a dime (how might that be you might ask… that’s a another topic i’ll be glad to discuss if you buy my newsletter).
        But you can feel good about yourself.. folks can quote a fake statistic (again, number might be accurate,and you still are wrong if you don’t know what it means). wow aren’t we the intellectuals..
        Well, paulson who you quoted… thinks you have hijacked the debate.. but you can just ignore him whenever you want and then half quote him out of context the other times. that’s making up your own reality. and that’s why i say the TPers are nuts.

        • Lee Church

          and crickets..

          • Lee Church

            So the official TP position is government was the only party to blame for the housing bubble.
            ok. but it doesn’t deal with any of the other parties involved.. ahh.. they don’t fit the theory.. so they don’t count.. ok.. got it..
            government bad.. busines good.. government must be solely responsible.. aha..
            that’s the TPers alright.. a stand up bunch of intellectuals.. and we are another day closer to default..

        • JohnKohos

          You say an awful lot for somebody with nothing to say.

          • Lee Church

            and you say a lot that just isn’t true. you misquoted Paulson, and the full text, even if we look at both the NTtimes or cnbc interview (referenced in huffington.. your ‘source’) they say the opposite of what you said it does.
            You were right though.. when you shorten Paulson’s remarks, then drop the middle of the sentence, then add your end of the sentence it does specifically say whatever you needed as your ‘fact’.
            Why didn’t you read the interview of what you quoted?
            It’s an example of just using this stuff as weapons instead of understanding.
            And it’s why the TP is nuts.

          • Lee Church

            and what you posted that Paulson said just was not true.

  • Lee Church

    paulson said “every financial crisis”.. you contained it to starting with Clinton.
    Best i can tell there were financial things happening before then.. i recall something in the the 1900’s.. i’m not too clear.. but i think we had a depression or something.. was Clinton that old? he looks younger than that to me..
    (sarcasm intended.. is that the intellectual TPers logic.. history starts with 1990?.. that’s odd that ‘deficits don’t matter’ times don’t count.. but it’s clear that Paulson is saying EVERY crisis.. what that doesn’t say is that lag times are fixed, and every crisis is realised at the time of the mistake… you make those presumptions).
    and this is what goes for ‘debate’.. it’s just sematic lies.. you twist something.. someone else comes back with something.. and then something.. .. it’s all a bunch of hooey.. ‘debated’ by a bunch of folks that Paulson says “have hijacked the debate and are seeking the wrong solutions”. (he is talking about YOU.. in case you missed that). And he is the GUY YOU ARE MISQUOTING in your hijacking..
    this i the best the TP has to offer? meanwhile we another day closer to default (and china jumping the gun to get a head start dumping treasuries).

    • JohnKohos

      You again. (Sigh)

      I quoted Hank Paulson to make the point about government’s role in things. The fact is, he is the fox, a former Treasury Secretary and a CEO at (where else) Goldman Sachs with enough self-interested dirt under his fingernails to plant a victory garden. But there was an admission in his statement I wanted to bring out.

      And I’m not limiting financial crises to Clinton. But there is a movement on the left to perpetuate a fraud about what really happened in the 90s and the genesis of the current crisis.

      As for that thing in the 1900s, I presume you mean the one that led to Glass-Steagall which prevented the same thing from happening again until it was revoked in 1999. And here we are again, which is the same point I was making.

      As for your obscure, incoherent references, your sarcasm and your name-calling, knock yourself out.

      Find a new TV station to watch or something. Seriously.

      • Lee Church

        he is the fox, and you are the ayatollah?
        and you mischaracterized your quote. Paulson didn’t say since 1990s.. he didnt limit it and package it up the way you did… and your source was not even a primary source.
        Basically you took something, warped it, and used it as a weapon.. it’s not debate.. it’s just noise.
        I happen to agree with Paulson. I think it’s certainly true that the grown up should be government. whether it’s addressing dumping toxins, or adjusting incentives so they avoid adverse outcomes.
        But you mischaracterize Paulson. And it’s precisely the stuff like that, so prevalent in the media, the stuff Goldberg does as well, that creates the frankenstein creature of the TPers.
        It’s a poor substitute for debate.. slinging sound bites that seem to say one thing, but really mean something else in a wider context.
        Taking a bunch of words and rearranging them to come up with something completely different is a profitable enterprise for the media.. Goldberg sells books and profits off the TPers, as does Beck and others.
        I’m all for glass-steagall being put back.. but we didn’t get a lot of cooperation on that front in the last four years from the TPers.. you oppose the compromise of the Dodd Frank legilslation says if they want to do it, then they have to do it under careful watch. They are free to be a pure bank and not do it, and they are free from the extra regulation if they are not a bank.
        But you TPers hate everything about Dodd/Frank.. you oppose it all the way.
        We get it.. we really do.. i like the quote.. but i don’t think Paulson meant what you think he meant.
        And of course if you accept use of Paulson there.. then the offhand rejection of Paulson saying this past week that “a faction of the republican party has hijacked the debate” and that we should just pass a C.R. and increase the debt limit. He thinks you are wrong… and he is your source, though you twisted what he said quite a bit.. but hey.
        so sure… i think you ayatollah’s of Goldberg’s creation, which he hasn’t the guts to deal with himself.

        • JohnKohos

          What’s wrong with you? You build your own straw men and then you dispute them. You misinterpret my reference to Paulson and then… I don’t know what you did.

          And this silly Ayatollah thing. You personify the notion that those who protest the loudest tend to be the worst offenders themselves.

  • lark2

    I have enjoyed our exchanges over the last few days but as you can see, we just go round and round and get nowhere. Everyone has a … “yea, but …” It is
    an example of where we are as a society in this country. I respect everyone’s views but, we are all so political, we can’t communicate. We can’t even speak as Americans … we speak as Liberals, Conservatives, Democrats, Republicans, and Libertarians. We have no unity and it seems we are not Americans anymore and what national unity we may have, is unseen. We are the greatest country in the history of the world and though, imperfect … untold numbers die every day trying to get here and join us in the greatest place on earth … and we are destroying ourselves. I’m 71 .. I’ve had a great life and a great education. I have a great family and I have lived an accomplished life. I feel sad to see what is happening in my country and I fear our nation may need to suffer a great period of national calamity before we can right the ship. While our multiplicity is our strength, it has become our greatest weakness because …. Our multiplicity has become all there is. I miss the months after September 11 because the calamity brought us together as a people and as a nation but then, 6 or 7 months later, began a downward spiral … driven by politics … that continues today with an intensity that grows each day. I will retire from the incessant posting. I will continue to listen & observe ….. and
    hope for the best.

    • D Parri

      L, I appreciate your sentiment and share your same concerns about the polarization of our country, as represented in this blog by a wide-ranging spectrum of perspectives and thought. It is much different to see our country as a united people who come from many backgrounds but at the same time can share a sense of patriotism.

      I have said it before and been attacked for stating my opinion, but I still hold that the problems we are seeing today come from a single core of greed that is insidious by nature and is capable of corrupting our leadership and our government.

      There was once a time when I felt that those who chose public service careers over more lucrative pursuits were in some way altruistic in wanting to help others through their talents, skills and dedication. That picture does not ring true anymore, and that is very disheartening.

      I would encourage you to continue contributing in whatever way that you deem appropriate, but please do not become one of those who allowed evil to triumph simply because you did nothing. I don’t think that’s what you want to do. Also, I try to ignore the people who have nothing more to offer than to criticize other’s comments on simple and ignorant ideological bases. Hang in there!

    • Sheila Warner

      You need to learn when to hold ‘em, learn when to fold ‘em….I hope that things start looking up for American soon. I’m 58, and the American in which I grew up was pretty good.

      • legal eagle

        and tomorrow will be better,…

      • drkmwinters

        Segregated America.

        • Sheila Warner

          ?????

  • Gloria

    As someone who has been very politically aware and involved for many years, it pains me to say that I am so disgusted and discouraged at this point that I have virtually given up on my own country. Seems hopeless to me now.
    We have a truly arrogant narcissist as ‘commander in chief’ who has clearly taken his promise to fundamentally transform America as far and as fast as possible through his first term successfully and shows no sign of stopping now. Feeling frustrated and helpless, and angry at my fellow Americans who have fallen for this hook, line and sinker, I can hardly watch any more of this crap. And even angrier at a liberal media who consistently give this guy a pass. Our news is filtered and often distorted through the lens of liberalistic journalism with NO true objectivity and it does not stop. SIck of it.

    • legal eagle

      You are angry at whom? Obama? You didn’t vote for him so go stew with your Tea Party compatriots and stop whining….If your news is “filtered” as you claim it is, go watch Fox News and listen to Limbaugh and Savage…I’m sure you’ll find solace for your anger…

      • Sheila Warner

        I did not vote for the President, but I don’t like the Tea Party, either. I don’t follow the Goldwater philosophy of extremism. It’s extremism on both sides that has left us where we are. Some of us want our representatives to act like adults and resolve conflicts. Right now both sides look like children fighting over a ball.

        • Seattle Sam

          Democrats want the country to rapidly spend its way into insolvency. The Tea Party wants the country to balance its budget. The conflict could be resolved by agreeing to bankrupt the country more slowly — which is what most Republicans in the Senate seems to want.

          • Lee Church

            no, we are now demanding a full public option and your watch.. . if we don’t get that.. by noon tomorrow, then you force ‘insolvency’.
            Solvency.. I don’t think that word means what you think it means.
            Any country that has it’s own floating fiat currency can print and devalue it’s currency.
            One of the defects of the EU is that member nations CAN overspend, and NOT print money within their country.. they have to devalue the euro to do it.
            So sure.. if we could not print money.. then sure it would be possible to go insolvent.
            You can argue that we should have a gold standard.. fine.. well 1) we don’t so it doesn’t apply and 2) it doesn’t allow for growth.. it assumes a commodity based fixed size economy that can only change size when you find more gold (or whateve you want to base the currency on).
            So you are arguing about a situation that doesn’t exist. You folks are pure madness.. you have no idea of reality.. you create what you decide on a moment’s notice to be a ‘good idea’, and wonder why others don’t agree.
            You have these resident intellectuals here that claim that you use socialist, communist, and fascist as intellectual concepts to describe the President because they all share that individuals give up freedoms..
            well news flash folks, any organisation requires it’s members to give up freedoms.. any.. you might as well argue against small town government.. because you have a town council that votes, and folks give up those decision to them.. any organisation has that property.
            so you might as well yell out that the President is an “organisationalist”.. which is odd because your silly Goldman is arguing that the President is ‘rooting for chaos’ as the talking point now.
            but you say insolvency.. you project the Goldberg silliness and suggest not only that you are the arbitrator of what someone else wants (since when do you get to say what someone else wants? i thought you were for individuals deciding for themselves?), but you suggest that the democrats don’t know we have a floating fiat currency.. which is odd because ‘fiat currency’ is one of your slurs. the icing on the cake is suggesting that we can’t or won’t print, while complaining that we are printing too much.
            You make all these arguments on a daily basis.. and they are absolutely contradictory.. sometimes you make the opposite arguments i the same post.
            and here is the thing.. you don’t ask, why on earth would any President WANT to lower his approval ratings.. why would any President want to make himself look bad.. and you chaulk it up to some sort of 1) lie or 2) conspiracy and then dismiss it with no further inspection.
            if it doesn’t fit, and you can’t deny it you say “so sometimes the data is noisy.. but look over here.. and pick up digit 3 and say look this digit went up ! (it’s that meaningless, yes.. ).”
            We heard for years that Obamacare was unconstitutional.. well that was the argument.. well turns out the supreme court thinks it is.. so we dismiss them, and then we dismiss that it was the part we argued about.. and go on to then argue on ideological grounds.. etc. etc.
            insolvency.. that’s a laugh.. you have no idea what you are talking about.. like the other resident intellectuals here.
            geez.

          • legal eagle

            Don’t forget..The Republicans want to government closed until all federal funding for Planned Parenthood and the EPA are cut by 98%…LOL

          • kidwinona

            Just remember Obama does not care about the actual areas of the government that are shut down and he is right. Though he won’t admit this they are the least needed but you think everyone should be employed by the government and be paid high salaries with 4 months paid-vacation that just in the first year of employment. Go study Greece or move to California

          • Sheila Warner

            “Democrats want the country to rapidly spend its way into insolvency.” You actually believe that the Democrats want the country to become insolvent? They are trying to bankrupt us, on purpose? No sense discussing anything further with you. I will add you to my short list. No more conversation with your or with Lee Church.

          • Lee Church

            sheila, goldberg told them that obama is ‘rooting for chaos’.. he got that from george carlin.. and just decided to apply it the President.. which makes is a slur.. and then Goldberg’s zombies use it in a sentence.. or the theme..
            that’s how it works…
            and the funny thing is, think you are still trying split the two.. as if the truth lies in the middle.. it doesn’t. the sun still rises in the east sheila.. it rises in the east.. now the guy up above… says it rises in the north..
            and you say.. both must be wrong.. it must rise in the north east.. do you see where the logical fallicy is?
            Your logic gets exploited by folks then taking an extreme position.. there is no penalty.. because you think the truth is in the middle..
            and if i say it’s in the east.. then being accurate is penalized. thus i’m trying to tell you that thinking is part of the problem we have. there is no penalty for lies.. no penalty for extremists..
            My ranting last few days was to point out the zaniness of demanding extreme things.. if we ask for what we want.. and they ask for the moon.. it’s not something we should negotiate.. we are penalized for being reasonable.
            That’s what the silly demands show.. that you can’t negotiate on those terms…
            anyway, the truth doesn’t always lie in the middle.
            (and i hope you read the President’s budget.. i would love to hear which items you disagree with and why sometime.. but not here.. it’s too zaney for me feel free to let me know what you think over on OFA blog.)

          • Sheila Warner

            Returned to sender: unopened. You do know I’m not even reading your stuff, right? As soon as I see your name, I don’t even bother.

          • kidwinona

            Well Sheila, you don’t like what they have say as if you somehow you take it personally. I notice your responses are sometimes overreacting or to say you take some poster’s statements as literal making you appear to be offended with justifiable reason

          • Sheila Warner

            Offended with justifiable reason? Or, over-reacting? Which is it? Look up justifiable.

          • kidwinona

            Slow down. You appear to show justifiable reason,but the truth is lost in your overreacting. Just like Lee explained

          • Sheila Warner

            I don’t read a word Lee Church writes anymore. Please give me an example where I jumped to a conclusion. I’d like to be clearer in my remarks and appreciate it when someone gives me a specific example with the reasoning behind why my conclusion was incorrect. Lee Church writes tomes dripping with sarcasm and I am done with him.

          • D Parri

            They have only one agenda–to provoke. Their rant is the same over and over. TP…BAD…president…GOOD! If that’s what you want, go for it.

        • legal eagle

          Shelia,
          Who are the Democratic “extremists ” you refer to ? Are there Democratic “extremists” in Congress?
          The fact is there is no Democratic equivalent to the Republican Tea Party members whose only agenda is to obstruct government.
          Media talking heads often use this false equivalency to justify the outrageous conduct of some Republican members of Congress and some tea party members…
          Democrats can be “extremists” but its generally on issues of war and peace or cutting programs that hurt the poor and elderly.

          • Lee Church

            so your child demans a soccer ball or he stops you from paying your mortgage.. so you meet him halfway.. he gets a basketball instead..
            you think that’s a good policy? you just told your child they can do that anytime they want.. even for stuff in the past..
            there is no truth lies somewhere in the middle on this. You keep saying that.. and it’s just not true.
            You say one side says the sun rises in the north.. and the other that the sun rises in the east.. it does not mean the sun actually rises in the north-east. it still rises in the east.
            Your logic is horribly faulty, and you keep repeating the mistake in pretty much every post you make.
            If you want extremists.. then the democrats should hold out for single payer in return for raising the debt ceiling.. that’s the point.. that’s NOT what is happening here.
            We have a spoiled child , the TP demanding they get a toy or you they will stop you from paying your mortgage.
            I doubt you will ‘get it’, you didn’t even listen to Paulson as I asked.. it would have taken a few minutes at most.. and i doubt you took even that much time. Instead you say i didn’t read what marvelous things you did with your finances. (i could have just as well read recipes for all that it relates to raising the debt ceiling).
            argh.. yes.. it’s hopeless.. you have no chance of understanding why appeasement in WWII failed so miserably. You discount someone (paulson no less) with far more expertise than all of the folks on this blog combined, and then some) and instead insert your false notion that the truth is the difference between what two parties say.. reality just doesn’t work that way.. and in fact, your making that mistake ENCOURAGES extremists.. if i know you divide by two, i’ll multiply by four to get what i want.
            you are right though.. it is hopeless.

          • Lee Church

            someone doesn’t like soccer.. ok.. football?

          • Lee Church

            Folks that watch price is right have a better understanding than most.. i’m serious.. they at least get that just because the two ‘contestant’s make guesses, they actual price doesn’t have to be between the two.. sometimes the price is way higher or lower than either guesses.
            this idea that the answer is averaging the two positions encourages extremism.. if i know i’ve having my number cut in half, i’ll ask for twice.. and so on.
            We have apopulation that has neither the facts, nor the ability to evaluate them, and worse the wisdom to know that they don’t know. It’s a national example of Dunning/Kruger effect.
            But hey.. i have to get back to ‘negotiations’.

          • D Parri

            Yeah, you got some learnin’ and bloviatin’ to do!

          • Sheila Warner

            Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi come to mind as Democrat extremists. I should probably clarify what I mean by that label. Democrats who march in lock step regardless of whether or not their actions are good for the nation, or whose policies are obviously incorrect on their face. Nancy Pelosi said there’s nothing left to cut in the budget. Does anyone really believe there is absolutely no unnecessary spending taking place that can be cut? Harry Reid, for tabling reasonable bills sent over from the House. We haven’t had a budget in five years because Reid won’t let the Senate vote on GOP bills, which could then be reconciled in conference. There are extremists on both sides of the aisle who don’t want negotiations or compromise. Boehner won’t let a vote on a clean CR take place right now, but you asked me about Democrats. I used to be a Democrat, but now I’m an independent because neither side of the aisle is looking out for the country–IMHO, of course.

          • legal eagle

            You are mistaken about the budget process but I sound like I’m lecturing and I don’t mean to do that….Didn’t they cut spending with the sequester…It’s not about cutting spending it’s what they want to cut…Ever hear Republicans asking to cut the enormous farm subsidies paid to large corporate farms? How about the bloated defense budget? How about enormous amounts of corporate welfare?

          • Sheila Warner

            You are making my point. Remember you asked me about Democrats, not the GOP. Do you agree with Nancy Pelosi that there is nothing left to cut?

          • legal eagle

            She’s referring to entitlement programs and I agree…

          • Lee Church

            I think she may think you agree with Sheila.. not Pelosi.. remember that the lens is different here.

            anyway.. good luck. i have to attend to other tasks.

          • legal eagle

            Thanks….I hereby confirm, under penalty of perjury, that I agree with Nancy Pelosi…Republicans want to cut everything except the U.S. war machine and Congressional perks…

          • Lee Church

            that’s funny.. but i really do have to get going.. i can’t play with these clowns further..

            I think they are best left in their own devices.. literally

          • Sheila Warner

            Thank you. That clarifies things. I’d like to know what this “entitlement reform” is supposed to look like. Talking points without substance. I’ll give Paul Ryan this much: he had details for his plan (vouchers, which was a terrible idea). But I hear the GOP throw around “tax reform” and “entitlement reform” and “cut spending” and don’t know exactly how they intend to do it. Where are the details? This is the extreme GOP view–shut down the government & give us what we want, and we’ll give you details in the future. No coherent plan. So you see, I am not at all in favor of the GOP.

          • legal eagle

            You are correct…entitlement reform is Republican code for ” those poor and old folks are living large and we can’t afford all of their large living”….LOL
            Keeps their base happy particularly the older folks who are already on Social Security and Medicare…

          • Lee Church

            if the budget is over a penny there is something left to cut.

            but your frame is that we have only a spending problem.. and that’s incorrect.. we also have a revenue problem..

            obviously it becomes an issue of values and priorities.,and and holding the country hostage over differences in what your values and priorities are is insane.

            but again, you have not bothered to even open and read the President’s budget document so you like someone looking for a word, but refusing to open the dictionary.

            but hey.. you are done.. as you say.. and i agree..

          • Lee Church

            has anyone here actually read the President’s budget proposal document he produces each year? anyone read the actual document?
            in all of this , i see not one reference to it… i don’t think anyone has even read it.. but folks sure do talk about it a lot.
            it’s an easy read and spells out the reasoning behind his spending cuts, his loophole reductions, and the revenue increases.
            i know you view yourself as ‘reasonable’ sheila, but why not read what the President proposed for yourself? and then make up your mind? and same to the everyone here.. folks seem to get a lot of sources but no actual primary information from the source.. it’s always what somebody else said, calculated, etc. about it.
            but hey.. whatever.

          • Sheila Warner

            Returned to sender: unopened. I am done talking to you.

          • kidwinona

            No one likes a quitter. How could you give up? That’s what a liberal does. I am offended that you would ACT offended, my friend

          • Sheila Warner

            I haven’t quit at all. I am done with Lee Church, however. Have you actually read every back and forth between us? He loves tomes and he loves sarcasm. I only talk to people who can be succinct and respectful.

          • Sheila Warner

            Oh, I am not on here to be “liked”, either. The fact that you believe I am a liberal also demonstrates that you have not been following my posts. I am a moderate.

        • kidwinona

          So they’re fighting like children?? Really?? Then explain this. Did our problem start yesterday, one week ago, a month ago, or last year? How about a fact, that in general shut downs , along with elections are because of differences first the debate starts, most of the public doesn’t care, the natural communication from media creates the interest slanted or not. Then at the last minute the fear is built by those who can’t comprehend or don’t want to deal with it, the suggest save for another day. The same cycle again and again. Always someone, you, I, or whoever will try to rise above or in some sense belittle the situation with “they’re acting like children”. Well this is true but for some reason it’s interesting that those who claim these people over here are extreme and these other people on this side are extreme, are usually the ones that are caught up in the play by play of the repeating cycle, then conveniently forgetting that this cycle happened a year ago. So now we have these independent types that are really just this poison of “go along to get along” , “can’t we all work together” etc. with the result —business as usual. Again a year goes by, we’ve raised the ceiling , borrowed more money and right into the next year of ignoring what just took place. Today to be reasonable with the left is to be lazy and complacent. To be firm and stubborn is the only way to beat the left.

          • Sheila Warner

            “Today to be reasonable with the left is to be lazy and complacent. To be firm and stubborn is the only way to beat the left.” I don’t accept your premise.

          • kidwinona

            I didn’t think you would accept it. I notice this in many middle of the road types. That being, they confuse themselves with where they stand on many issues because they love to be in the gray areas, not being pinned down and sometimes appearing to be on everyone’s side. In recent years there have been more noticeable internal fights within the two major parties resulting in the “I’m an independent” self-labeling trend, mostly coming out of the right. What’s amazing there’s two types leaving or distancing themselves more and more from the Republican party those who think the party is too moderate and those who think it’s too extreme

          • Sheila Warner

            I left the Democratic Party. So once again your premise as it relates to me is incorrect. As to being in the gray area, most people live in the gray. Not too many are black and white. It’s a pity that there are black and white views that exclude any other view as at all valid.

          • kidwinona

            Well , now that’s a start I am proud of you. This may sound confusing but they would have probably kicked you out for being too conservative. Now isn’t that nuts. Anyhow at least you took the first step but you still need to rid yourself of the denial you carry-that will come but you must be patient . What an exciting time – you think?

          • Sheila Warner

            It’s difficult discussing issues with you and with everyone, because we send replies to other comments, almost piecemeal style. I’m not sure I’d call these exciting times but it sure is interesting. I still don’t get what “denial’ I am carrying.

      • Gloria

        Sir, as I clearly stated, I am angry with fellow Americans who fall for the liberal media’s reportage, characterized by their constant and consistent inability to report with a modicum of the journalistic integrity that they are supposed to possess. We might as well have Pravda. The so called Tea Party is not in my frame of reference, nor do I listen to bs on talk radio. I use my own education and experiences to make judgments on what is happening in what used to be a great country. Stating my disgust and disappointment is not whining. Have a nice day.

        • legal eagle

          If you are disgusted with people who have “fallen” for the media “crap” you obviously feel that you are smarter than they are because you really know what is going on, but they are too stupid to know it…The “we are victims of the liberal media” propounded by Conservatives is just an attempt to claim group victimization….Nothing as troubling, or self serving to a political group. as being victimized

          • Gloria

            Yes, you are correct. However, never considered myself a victim of anything (not my mentality), or a part of any ‘group’ or brand. As I said, have a nice day.

          • Larry_Texas

            “Meager beagle” would be a better handle for you LE.
            You have been blinded, dumbed down and indoctrinated by the left. Oh, the MSM is not stupid, I agree there, but they are nothing more than the DNC’s Pravda and have been for decades. Not seeing that proves my read on you. You are part of the problem.

          • legal eagle

            Just 28 percent of Americans have a favorable impression of the Republican Party, down 10 percentage points from last month, according to a Gallup poll. The polling firm called it a “record low,” noting that “this is the lowest favorable rating measured for either party since Gallup began asking this question in 1992.”

            While the Democratic Party isn’t popular either, it fared better, with 43 percent of Americans approving of the party — down a comparatively small 4 points from September. Keep up the good work Right Wingers…

  • Scott

    I think that the whole U.S. economy has to tank in order to bring attention to the American people as to who we vote into office and the damage those people cause by keeping them in office each election. This goes for both Democrats and establishment Republicans.

    • disqus_AV1LCnOJEL

      No, then the Rs would get the blame and the Ds would say “give us more power and let us raise taxes on the evil rich…” The solution from the Left is always more power, more money, more scapegoating. They never seem to learn, both from here and abroad, that their philosophy doesn’t work. Ours is not perfect, but nothing human ever is. Utopia is a silly fantasy. But, our philosophy gives people a shot at a good life and makes people strong. Theirs merely infantalizes the population,

    • Lee Church

      Yes, the TP has been advocating for a depression for long time now.. Pento and austrian economics..
      But that would undermine Goldberg’s claim that it’s the President that want that chaos. no worry, this site is a contradiction free zone..
      So, you advocate a depression.. ok.. and you are holding the country for ransom.. saying either you give us what we want, or you get a depression and default..
      you realise how silly you folks are? and you wonder why folks are not negotiating?
      well, we are negotiating.. i say give us a full public option or we not only default, but launch the nukes too.. and a puppy.. we want a puppy too.. and your watch.

      • T Ko

        You really are an idiot.

        • Lee Church

          that’s what i said when i listened to pento suggesting that a depression was a good thing.. that was your economic theory, TPers.. do you wish to disavow it? then do so.. but until you do so credibly you what you advocated..

          go ahead and disavow austrian economics..

          but folks, i have to run.. i’m busy elsewhere and you can’t play.. going to work on taking your keys away.. so gotta run..

          oh.. and if you want to negotiate again.. send me money to tell me your serious and then we will talk.. otherwise you don’t want to negotiate.. so stop saying you do.

  • Concerned

    The president is for himself only, the country can go to hell in a hand basket as far as he is concerned. I am old, yet I have never seen such a narcissistic president with a mindless senate majority “leader” in my 3/4 of a century.

    • legal eagle

      You are an old, bitter and Republican….I’m sure Obama is for himself by allowing all Americans to have healthcare just like you have Medicare..

      • Lee Church

        and raising his own taxes..
        he is for himself, in a negative way.
        It’s the President’s evil scheme to go be looked at historically as a great President.. it’s pure evil.. but i like that plan.

        • Lee Church

          Someone obviously thins the president lowering his own taxes would not be “for himself only”..
          ok.. one vote for special rules for the President’s taxes.

          • D Parri

            “…thins the president….” How do you “thin” the president?

          • Lee Church

            because my k key was sticking.. switched keyboards.. that’s better..
            i was having to what that k key several times.. and i would still not catch all the misses.
            thanks for pointing out that.. the keyboard problem has been solved.

  • Cecilio

    Anything government-run, is a failing proposition… including government. The Founding Fathers admonition, “We gave you a republic, if you can keep it.”, is biting America in the proverbial butt. When chaos comes (it will, eventually) there will be two immediate reactions: indignation or reaction. Indignation will come, mostly, form true American-loving, taxpayers. If there are is a noticeable majority of those, recovery will be fast and easy. Reaction will come, mostly, from the “entitlement” mentality. Those who will lose whatever “free- benefits” they are now receiving from the government. If there is a noticeably majority of those… well, I am preparing for that scenario (prepare for the worst and hope for the best.)

    • legal eagle

      What a stupid statement…You are just a mindless anti- government Republican..

    • Lee Church

      ok.. they go to the next town council meeting and say “anything government-run, is a failing proposition”..
      but htis poster suggest anything government run.. which means anygovernment , any time, anywhere… news to the chinese.. who have done pretty well for a few thousand years.
      The TPers are on record as wanting that chaos.. Pento in 2010, austrian economic austerity suggests that a depression is a good thing.. these are TP ideology.. we listened over and over to how good a ‘reset’ will be.
      we see that in his post as well, but shirking personal responsibility, oddly enough.
      So they finally are in a position to get what they have been demanding and they start complaining that they might get it?
      dog finally catches car story.

      • Lee Church

        someone doesn’t like town meetings, or school boards?

  • disqus_AV1LCnOJEL

    I’ve been out the proverbial loop the past few days, so I may have missed something in the news. Please forgive any outdatedness in the following post.

    The Ds here are miffed because they blame the Rs for holding the gov’t hostage. However, and what I don’t understand is, what is wrong with wiping out taxpayer subsidies for Congressional members and/or giving the individual mandate a year break? What is wrong with being willing to cut back spending in exchange for a raising of the debt ceiling? (Not that I think ANY raising of the debt ceiling ought to be okayed by a soul at this point, but the Rs in the House did offer it as a compromise to get things moving.)

    You may not like what the Rs are doing, and I don’t think their policy makes good political sense (the latest polls show this), but they ARE doing what their constituents put them there to do. “Law of the Land” is not a justification for your angst. They’re legislators and changing laws is part of what they do. Also, most of you guys on the Left are perfectly happy that sanctuary cities are not brought to task, states legalizing drugs that are federally illegal will not be held to account by the DoJ, and Obama has already changed 17 provisions in the ACA that, constitutionally, he does not have the authority to do. That’s why we have a separation of powers. You know damn well that you’d be pissed off if a Republican president were in the WH now doing that. You’d be crying out for the execution of the fascist in the WH.

    I also have to ask, that if the situation was reversed, and the Ds decided to, say, defund the Iraq war or not agree to a budget, if you’d be just as outraged by the resultant gov’t slim-down.

    I believe that your outrage is selective. I will concede that we on the Right also turned a blind eye to things in past administrations because of ideological reasons. You do not have a monopoly on selective outrage. I am here trying to be reasonable. Are you capable of reciprocating that?

    Also… could someone on the Left please tell me why I am wrong in anything I’ve written here?

    • D Parri

      Sorry, I’m not from the left so I can’t tell you that you are wrong. Matter of fact, you just said what I’ve been engaged in discussion over for the past two weeks. It becomes very frustrating trying to discuss anything intelligently with the bashers and Tea Party haters.

      So, simply thanks for your comments…I am so glad to hear from reinforcements.

      • disqus_AV1LCnOJEL

        We have a lot of “reinforcements” here. Just that this is the ‘net, and it is inhabited by many on the Left and it attracts people who’d never have the guts to be so confrontational in real life.

        There’s no reasonable reason to hate the TEA Party. None. I’ve been to a meeting and seen even MSNBC clips. I’m still searching for the violence and blistering racism I keep hearing so much about by MSNBC and others.

        D, extremists will always hate. They do so because their world view becomes synonymous with their identity (I believe this applies to the Right and the Left). Attack their world view and you attack their core. Look out! Also, many on the Left in particular do not have God. I don’t know if you do or not, but when one doesn’t, usually they try to find a substitute. For the secularist, that substitute is often politics, charismatic politicians and government itself — all as they warn us of the fascist monster looming on the Right. Hence my comment mentioning the “god-state”.

        • Lee Church

          address please.. lunch would be great.. i can pick up the sincertity pledges then.. super.. and let’s not somewhere cheap.. make it nice.. ok?

          • Lee Church

            bummer, no address provided.. can’t very well negotiate to pick up the loot without and address now can we.. I thought the TPers wanted to negotiate? that’s what we heard.. so i popped over to negotiate.
            Guess i’ll have to tell everyone that the TPers didn’t really want to negotiate after all.
            oh well.
            (and we are day closer to disaster.. )

          • Lee Church

            I guess the reinforcements left..
            what were they reinforcing? you had several negotiators going already.. are you selecting a new negotiator?
            well, we are going to have to re-evaluate our pre-negotiation demands if you keep running away.

          • Lee Church

            i guess the TPers are still reinforcing their shelters.. they don’t want to negotiate today..
            and i wanted a puppy .. dang.

          • LS_Texas

            You’re nothing but a hateful, godless, little troll, aren’t you Lee? The question is rhetorical.
            Oops. I slipped into that bastion of leftist tactics: name calling. Sorry. You’re a whimsical, loving, little rascal.

          • Lee Church

            I’m a negotiator.. i’m negotiating.. that is what you wanted. yes?
            i take it you don’t like to negotiate?
            yes, no one has ever called the President a socialist, communist, fascist, non-citizen, or god forbid.. a muslim.
            that has been the left, planted, and if that doesn’t hold an isolated incident.. and if that doesn’t work.. then used for intellectual purposes only.
            yes yes.. but let’s negotiate.. i’ll remind you that we might add launching some nukes to our hostage list…. would you like to play for global thermal nuclear war?
            that would be the most fun, don’t you think?
            let’s see.. how about you say “LS_Texas is a moron” ten times loudly in your front yard or we launch the nukes.. deal? like playing so far?

          • D Parri

            “Hear! Hear!”

            Keep up the good work!

        • Lee Church

          Our world view is that banks are setting up trading systems for defaulted treasury securities due to the TP silliness. And China, along with other sovereign funds won’t want to wait around while you decide if you are going to default.
          but you folks carry on.. though if you want to negotiate.. we can start any time.. so i really don’t know why you are avoiding it.
          we have tried to negotiate, what.. maybe at least 20-40 times just today, on this blog.. yet you rebuff even the smallest compromises.
          I’m here.. and ready to negotiate.. is that a real rolex you are wearing? i would like that.. mind handing it over as a show that you are serious about negotiating?

          • legal eagle

            “our world view”? Do you get this news on your secret computer network? LOL

          • Lee Church

            You are part of the network? LOL…. ah. we are so secret we don’t even know who our members are.. LOL..
            (isn’t all of this the most ridiculous thing in quite awhile?)

        • D Parri

          I will gladly tell you that I am a Christian and the hardest thing to do is to try and engage with someone in a respectable manner and remain civil when it appears that their only agenda is to attack me for what they claim is their ideological perspective. It appears to me that they are liars and as we both know, you cannot negotiate with a liar.

          I admit that I am not perfect by a long shot, and I find it necessary to ask God for forgiveness when I have not followed His will. It is not part of the Christian heritage, however, to be wimpish in the face of malefactors.

          • Lee Church

            Given how many stones you throw, i would have thought you were “he without sin”.
            But what is this you are saying.. you don’t want to compromise? i thought compromise was what you were demanding? i gave you compromise.. you wanted to link the debt ceiling to Obamacare.. so i said fine, give us a public option and we will agree to raise the debt ceiling.
            What’s wrong with that.. we gave you compromise.. and all i demanded.. and it really wasn’t a big deal.. was your watch.. and you would not even give up your watch..
            Talk about no compromise.. geesh!

          • disqus_AV1LCnOJEL

            I read your last 3 posts in response to mine, and I agreed with pretty much everything you said. I was going to say the same thing to you: these guys are tails and we’re the dogs trying to chase them in vain when we think we can actually make them consider — not even accept, just consider — an alternative possibility. Pride makes us continue the pursuit and we’re trapped. It’s one reason I don’t post comments in public fora as much as I used to. Most people are not here to engage like mutually tolerant Americans, but as either people trying to “beat” us in order to validate their POV, or as trolls, who have truly nothing of a more constructive nature to pursue, and so spend hours in front of their machines in their mothers’ basements getting a huge kick out of how they can rouse other people. There comes a point when you realize what they’re here to do and, like a bonfire, you stop putting wood on it and it eventually goes away.

            And speaking of having a life beyond the machine, I gotta get out of this apartment and be somewhere brutha. I think I’ve engaged well more than enough in this “thread”. We’ve made our points. He who has ears to hear,… as the Lord said.

            Like you said, I am certain I will be notified to dozens of posts by the typical two here, each posting longer than the last. LOL I’ll give them their eternal home in the digital trash.

            See you in another thread I am sure ;-)

      • Lee Church

        I love you guys.. i really do.. i like your watch.. so if you are serious about negotiating.. why allow a default, why not show you are serious about wanting to negotiate by just giving it to me?

        • D Parri

          Exactly! You the man, Hussein!

          • Lee Church

            So give me your watch.. and stop this nonsense.. this isn’t a damned game(to borrow a phrase from speaker of the house)).
            Why won’t you compromise and even come to the negotiating table?

    • Lee Church

      i see you would lke to negotiate.. ok..
      first.. i require $300.. no reason.. just give it over.. otherwise no dem votes and no C.R. and default on debt.
      second.. i want you to change your picture.. it’s horrible.. that’s got to be part of the deal.
      Do you like negotiations so far? we are negotiating.. isn’t it fun?
      in rsponse to your question.. hand over the money and we can talk about your question.
      see how it works? would you like to negotiate some more?
      that is what is wrong with saying you won’t raise the debt ceiling unless.. ____ doesn’t matter what ___ is.. .and same for C.R.
      that IS negotiating.. FYI.. and we really are demanding that $400 (it went up).. and the picture change.. before we get started on the your question..
      meanwhile we are that much closer to china selling treasuries to jump the gun before default.. if they do it now they can save billions.. and lower downside risk.. so forget the deadline .. things will move far faster than you can keep up with.. and make that a new puppy.. we want a new puppy.. or no deal..

    • Lee Church

      yes yes.. the far left now is pushing as well, they like the TP idea of holding the debt ceiling hostage. that’s whey they are demanding a full public option in healthcare.. and or no d votes for C.R in senate or house and default on debt.
      yes, we love your new approach.. everyone can take a hostage.. and everyone gets what they want. isn’t this great!
      the TPers like yourself.. the intellectuals of high something or other, will go down as the greatest innovators in Congress. Nothing standing your ground as the nation crumbles as we approach default.. even more important when china rolls it’s tanks onto your toes.. after the collapse.. so i guess the history book yof the TP standing their ground will be written chinese, or will it be russian?

    • legal eagle

      Spending has been cut back…..but lets not let the facts get in the way?

    • Sheila Warner

      Michele Bachmann claims the President changed his law 19 times. Is there anyone out there with the correct number? And, more to the point, what are the changes he has made? I haven’t seen a list.

      • disqus_AV1LCnOJEL

        Unfortunately, I do not have a list in front of me for every single violation. Some however include last year’s violation of the WARN Act and several delays in the ACA’s implementation. He had no authority to do that, yet did it anyway.

        • Lee Church

          sounds like another ‘constitutional’ claim there.. you say violated. but yet, after all is said and nothing is done, you will just move to another accusation.. and from time to time drag up the old discredited accusations..
          violated.. depends whose standards.. when you start with the premise that everything the President does is wrong, then it sure is easy to come up with your ‘list of violations’.
          You are the TP resident intellectual? The TP has some serious serious problems..
          and we are a day closer to default.. but you work up that list…

          • legal eagle

            Amazing how D Parri has become an expert on Presidential powers and how regulations are issued by governmental agencies.
            Another excellent example of ODS (“Obama Derangement Syndrome”).

        • D Parri

          It is a mixed bag regarding who, when, where, and what for. (see my answer to Sheila, above)

          There is a Machiavellian strategy to his constitutional violations. He hopes that by the time any case is heard by the SCOTUS, then the law will have been fully implemented, the delays will have expired, the mid-term elections will be over, and the issue at hand in any lawsuit will then be moot. Clever, devious, and dangerous.

          • Sheila Warner

            Your responses are coherent. Thanks for that.

          • legal eagle

            Do you really think that if Obama was doing something “illegal” the Right Wing Nut Jobs would not be calling for impeachment?

          • Sheila Warner

            There are some of those that are saying he should be impeached. It’s crazy.

        • Sheila Warner

          I keep hearing these numbers thrown around, and I want sources cited. I want to know what all of the changes are. Until then, I am not paying attention to numbers without verifiable, and reliable, sources.

      • legal eagle

        “Changed his law”? The ACA is not his law…LOL…If “modifications” have been made in its implementation by HHS and Republicans believe this is “illegal” the procedure is to file an action in Federal Court and let the Courts decide.
        As the Republicans in Congress have not done this one can presume that they don’t believe the Administration has violated any “law”…
        Sorry to be overly lawyerly but that’s the system of law that we are governed by….

        • Sheila Warner

          The bill is the President’s baby, which is why I said “his” law. I have already argued that the Courts should be contacted regarding his changes. If the GOP really thinks the President’s actions were unconstitutional, why haven’t they filed suit? D Parri thinks that since it will take a long time to go through the courts, by the time a decision is reached, the point will be moot. I disagree. But, if you read all of my posts, you’ll find I already made your “lawyerly” point in other places.

          • legal eagle

            Motion affirmed…..LOL

      • Lee Church

        obviously if the 19 is 15 it means one thing.. and if it goes to 23.. well that’s another matter..
        it’s at least hopeful that one wants a list.. but look at how you go about getting that list, shall we?
        you ask on a TPer blog for someone to provide you with a list. I wonder what the chances are that you get a biased spin on that answer.. hmmm.. do we really have to debate that?
        You say you do research.. yet you get your inputs from the echo chamber.. you just feed yourself what you want to hear.
        but you are open minded.. sure.. right..
        we argued for several years just on whether there were death panels.. and we are still not done. Now we can develop meaningless statistics on changes to regulations,whether that counts as a change to a law, and how to handle when the law directs HHS to create and maintain regulations.. depending on how you count.. i would estimate about zero to 10 billion changes to the law. somewhere in that range.. and we can make an argument with hard ‘facts’ for the entire range.
        this is pathetic.. and we are another day closer to WWIII..great work folks.. argh.

      • D Parri

        Apparently, Mr. Church either cannot read or maybe understand. It’s obvious that he is not capable of researching his facts. But he is pretty good at bloviating though!

        • Lee Church

          i’m a negotiator. we are negotiating.. shush..
          and i want a kobe.. we all want kober readers or the dems add that to our demands or we won’t sign onto a C.R or raising the debt ceiling..
          are we approaching a deal?

          • Lee Church

            the TP isn’t compromising? I thought you wanted to negotiate?
            oh well.. brave brave sir robin.. part II i suppose.

          • D Parri

            What a foolish rant.

      • D Parri

        I would venture that if Legal Weasel were a lawyer, he would not be wasting his time here.

  • the Hankster

    Baaaaaaaaaaa…!!!! We are such stupid sheep! Let’s see… “Obamacare” will add about 114 new agencies to the federal government; Congress doesn’t have a clue about immigration, can’t balance a budget, can’t work with one another, We spend more than we collect and borrow the difference, the tax code is broken, Wall Street controls Congress more than ever, the gap between the rich and poor has grown astronomically, we think that global warming is the cause of at least half our problems, we let the media tell us how to think, the legal profession tells us how to act, morality and ethics are becoming part of the history books, and… wait for it… most of us will vote either Republican or Democrat next year because we think the country will implode if we don’t… can we say, Baaaaaaaaaaaaaa…!!!

    • D Parri

      It is a dismal picture at times. The only thing that motivates me when I feel that way is the sentiment embodied within the saying, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should do nothing.”

      Pick a side…good or evil? As we are able to live only one day at a time, then it is reasonable to hope that we can do little more than to finish our work today by leaving the world better than we found it when we woke.

      • Lee Church

        the presumption is that you can tell good and evil to begin with. that a big presumption.
        i tend to think that the TPers are more of the “path to hell is paved with evil intentions”. (well the original doesn’t describe the TP).
        You folks are on record as saying a depression would be a good thing.. you argue austrian economics and austerity would create a ‘small depression’ but we would bounce right back.. this is what you argued as the TP.
        have you folks disavowed that? if not, then your prefered outcome is default on debt and get the depression you wanted.
        and you have argued that pain is good .. thins out the weak.. culls the herd.. etc.. it’s a very Un-Christian belief. yet the pretzel logic you have re-defined it into ‘good’.. as the commenter ( the resident ‘intellectuual i presume) says, the slurs you use on a daily basis are really intellectual terms because you folks deal with such nuance they are use purely for intellectual purposes.. and the other slurs.. is Omaba muslim” a non-citizen.. is he “rooting for chaos” are planted by the left.. or simply an isolated incident.
        I think anyone can google any of the slurs and Obama’s name, including when folks insinuate he is muslim with the middle name (as done in this thread.. but the resident intellectual denies.. ) it doesn’t take a lot of effort to go outside of you sphere.. or bubble..
        and then there is the discounting of even prominent republicans that say the party has a faction (you) that have hijacked the debate.
        Yet you feel most americans.( because the only true americans are TPers.. the others jsut don’t count.. ) support the TP.
        Like a cult you think, those that don’t would, if there were only smart enough or understood, or could get past their liberal bias, etc. there is always something wrong with them.
        your theories fit together so nicely.. a work of art. they must be right.. so you think.. Goldberg feeds them..says “Obama rooting for chaos” and you don’t question it.. you just say.. yes. yes.. or in defense of it, well others do it, or did it in some distant past. My bet is that Occam would say the explanation your theories are so simple and work so nicely isn’t because they explain the word well , it’s because they don’t model the world very well at all. For example Austrian economics failed, and Keynes has worked (at least so far). no hyper inflation has happened though you called for it. You theories simply ignore what doesn’t fit.. so your theories are always right. budget, social policies, etc.. you just make stuff up and deny anything that doesn’t fit. (denying the slurs is a good example of this).
        if you manage to get the default that you want, you will get inflation and deflation and you can say ‘look it was right after all’. and you can go on pretending it wasn’t because you caused a depression. you can show yields rising prior to the default, and say.. look it was happeneding before! (and deny that china will get antsy and folks will race to the exits early).
        i don’t know what principles suggest creating a depression but it’s clear to me the TPers are completely stark raving mad.
        You can’t tell good from evil any more than a WWII prison guard. But hey.. sure sounds good for awhile anyway.
        May God Bless America, we are going to need it.

        • LS_Texas

          Verbosity, noun,
          1. the quality of using more words than necessary
          2. Lee Church

          Boor, noun
          1. An unrefined, ill-mannered, belligerent person
          2. Lee Church

          • Lee Church

            thank you… but we were negotiating.. you TPers wanted negotiations. you have them .. so let’s negotiate..
            where were we.. ah yes.. the puppy dog..

          • D Parri

            Amen, brother!

          • Lee Church

            Not our job to be nice.. job to negotiate.. so get it on.. you heard our demands.. start handing stuff over or the country gets it.

          • D Parri

            Well, it sure ain’t my job to be nice so go for it.

          • LS_Texas

            Negotiation, noun –
            1. A mutual discussion and arrangement of the terms of a transaction or agreement.
            2. A skill unknown to Lee Church other than to ridicule and use as a satirical tool. Please refer to previous definition for “boor”.
            Bye, Lee, we’re all yawning.

          • Lee Church

            then pass a C.R. ., raise the debt ceiling and then we can debate any issue you want..heck we might even agree on some of them.
            At present the terms from the TP are “give us what we want or we shut down government and default on our debt”.
            that fits the same terms of my offer: “give us a full public option in healthcare, and your watch, or we shutdown government and default on our debt”.
            What on earth is the difference, other than it’s a different demand.
            So i’m negotiating as much as the TP. Do you get it now? any of you?

          • Lee Church

            The TPers don’t seem able to respond to anything unless they are mocked.. apparently so, given the lack of a serious reason why my demand is any different than the TP demand.
            One possible answer, because the TPers seems stymied, is that they believe that the difference lay in that the TP is always right, and the left always wrong. thus it’s not possible that my demands are reasonable.
            and because the TP is always right, by definition, their demands are reasonable.
            even if we evaluate on might makes right, we come down to no difference. We control the senate and WH. Are the TPers suggesting that might makes right proves the President is required to take-over the country, because he can declare them all enemy combatents? is this why they suggest he is weak? is this what the TP would try if they held the WH? this is left unanswered, as the TPers can’t say what the difference is between my demands and theirs… except i’m demanding a watch as a bonus.. but i like the watch:)

          • D Parri

            LS, please give LC an accurate definition of “negotiation”. He does not appear to know what it is.

        • D Parri

          I make my own judgments regarding good and evil, and you should too.

          “You folks…” is not me…I am me.

          “… is Omaba…”, who the hell is Omaba?

          Like I said, “You folks…” is not me, but that’s the best you can do.

          It’s nice to see that you don’t use slurs.

          “…happeneding…” ?

          “…stark raving mad…”, yeah, that’s a good non-slur.

          “…WWII prison guard…”? You can kiss my ass, you ignorant moron.

          I would say that it was a pretty good rant, but it wasn’t–it was very boring.

          • Lee Church

            i have replace my keyboard.. which should address the dropped keystrokes i was getting.
            and yes.. stark raving mad does indeed fit.. sorry to say.would you prefer if i just say ayatollah?
            and yes, the prison guards did choose the side of good, as they saw it.. you disagree? you think they choose knowing what they were doing was evil? i suspect you don’t fully understand the implications of the Stanley Milgram experiments. I may be ignorant, but my understanding is that folks do evil quite often thinking they are doing good..
            which is why the saying the road to evil is paved with good intentions.. but since the TP is on record as wanting a crash, and a small depression, i could not say that the TP actually wanted ‘good’. Do you disavow that the TP has advocated for a depression, that pento and austrian economics and all the previous year’s arguments that we should just do a ‘reset’ on the economy with a depression?
            Because if you don’t disavow pento’s remarks (and the debate stuff on CNBC and other sources) then it’s hard to argue now that you don’t want a depression, that you don’t want people to suffer and you are choosing ‘good’.
            So yeah.. the ayatollah of the TP are very much like the prison guards in germany of WWII. You follow the Goldbergs.. and you are ‘good’.
            Hey, like my replacement keyboard?

  • Kathie Ampela

    I know doctors that are already refusing Medicare patients because the government is an unreliable payer, that is a separate issue. Don’t know what’s going to happen with 30 million new enrollees, if Medicare is in trouble.

  • RussFelix

    Bernie, You tha Man! I have admired you since I read your first piece in the WSJ about Liberal bias. You broke the dam. I know there have been millions of conservatives like me and my Father before me that sat in front of the TV and cursed Huntley, Brinkley , Dan Rather and the other liberal ,so called ,news men for spinning the news, which is something that makes anyone who thinks feel like a fool for listening. There were complainers before you but you had the courage to follow through. RussFelix

    • Lee Church

      and since then we have reached new heights in journalism.
      Without folks like Goldberg and the exposed liberal bias the country would not know that we have a non-citizen, muslim, socialist, communist and fascist president who is ‘rooting for chaos’.
      The country would be stuck with folks like Walter Cronkite… and Peter Jennings and those you mentioned.
      Glad that is fixed.. let the truth ring free.. freedoooom freeeeedommmm.. freeeeedom.. yeah.. !
      I would rather have folks learn real stuff than think they have a muslim socialist fascist communist president. Goldberg and you seem quite ok with those ‘facts’ and that they are propagated on FOX and the media.
      new fact from Goldberg.. he is asking.. so he didn’t say it.. just raising the question.. is the President a secret muslim? it’s an important question that inquiring minds what to know!.. what about that his extensive kenyan upbringing as a non-citizen.. that’s important too..
      glad you and Goldberg have brought these ‘facts’ to light.. where.. the world would not be the same without you TPers..
      (mocking you and Goldberg, in case it was unclear)

      • Lee Church

        someone here is against freedom! that’s sad.. let the record show one ‘no freedom’ vote.. and proceed..

      • disqus_AV1LCnOJEL

        Hmm… reread the above editorial. Where does Bernie or the FNC declare or imply that the president’s a “muslim socialist fascist communist”? I won’t return mocking for mocking, since that only diminishes your intellectual or moral authority in a debate, but I have to ask where any of this comes from. I watch the FNC and the idea on his being a Muslim, e.g., is mocked by Bill O’Reilly. He also disacknowledges that the president’s a socialist. Hannity might be saying that, I have no idea. Is any other commentator advocating those ideas and, if so, what are they using for justification?

        For the record, socialism, communism, fascism and progressivism all have the same intellectual parentage and are indeed merely only subtle variants of the same basic idea that the god-state has to plan the society socially and economically, that individualism no longer matters and must be replaced by collective action, etc.

        • Lee Church

          no today’s meme is the President is ‘rooting for chaos’.
          Those are past and future claims.. i know i know.. the etch-a-sketch rule.. you just shake and presto.. yesterday doesn’t count…
          So skipping the non-citizen claims of the TPer trump, and others.. and skipping that fox went on and on for what was it a two years? and this after the the criticism over Rev Wright no less.. we just pretend that it all was just questions being raised.
          well, glad that’s settled.. and that folks aren’t mislead at all.. where.. what a relief.. you are so right!. literally right… i mean as far right.
          Even if it’s not for the record all of this socialist, communist eetc, stuff is used to stir up fear.. you won’t admit it.. but it’s used to paint the President as foreign, a threat.. and gin folks up that he must be stopped because, according to goldberg , he is “rooting for chaos”.. that’s fits in pretty well..
          what a bunch of hooey. You are like the poster that said he never heard those things said. so you come along and argue that they are said but mean something sweet and simply intellectualisms for complex concepts that require McCarthy terms. You both can’t be right.
          is the TPer that posted that the were not used right? they were an isolated incident, or a plant from the left? or are you right and they are used, but for intellectual purposes?
          or does each TPer just make up a new reality as they go along?

          • disqus_AV1LCnOJEL

            Riiiiiiiiiiiiight. Not that I am scared of your insan… err… blistering logic and consistency of reason, but I think it’s best I move along. You’re just too smart for me.

            Sorry to get sarcastic, but there comes a point when you realize that continuing to argue is a pointless exercise.

            Good night.

          • Lee Church

            um.. when were you sarcastic? i am too smart for you.. i agree.. see how we can agree on so many things.. and negotiate.. you like negotiating. . compromising.. too.. yes?
            oh.. the TPer doesn’t want to negotiate.. what now.. as we move closer to default and the damage piles up to our country.. back to singing the songs i guess..
            we will all go down together.. hum de dummb
            we will all go down together (it’s fun.. you can join it… because there isn’t any negotiating happening.. )
            it was either that or a rendition ot the second part of “sir Robin from Monty Python”.. and i know how intellectual you folks like to be when negotiating..
            you have to freaking kidding me.. one guy claims the slurs are from the left , planted, or possible isolated incidents.. another claims they are for intellectual purposes..
            another guy claims he disagrees with everything i said, while agreeing with Cruz.. but Goldberg disagrees with Cruz, and i disagree with Goldberg.. so doesn’t that mean that “i disagree with everything you said” guy then must agree with goldberg, which means he really does disagree with cruz, with would then make him agree with me.. and on and on..
            but to you interluctutionists.. i mean intellectuals.. i’m sure you have it worked out.. it’s a world view thing..
            did i mention we are now even closer to default and china getting even more antsy?
            Former treasury secretary Paulson has been frozen out of the TPer sphere .. him being a republican and maybe knowing a bit about the Treasury.. and debt ceilings and all.. but as one poster here says to me.. that has nothing to do with the topic.. nahh..
            this space.. the TPer sphere is reserved for intellectuals.. the forward thinkers of returning to the valuations of 100 years ago.. oops.. i mean validations.. no that’s not it.. well, returning something..
            but hey.. the TP sphere.. like a bubble really.. it’s good because you can design a complete system which doesn’t have the defects of reality based systems.. it can be that the slurs i mentions don’t exist.. and that they do exist.. harmoniously together.. it’s beautiful really, until that cat get’s out of the bag and run over by reality. at that point all the debate can stop.. because that cat will be fully passed on.. gone to meet it’s maker.. etc. but the TPers can argue that longer than arguing about legislation that passed over two years ago.
            The point with all these posts is your position, which you think is so awesome is actually horrible. not only can the left or any other faction do exactly the same thing right at this exact moment you don’t appreciate that the President, nor the Senate will not allow your hostage taking to work out for you. It would mean that any group could use any reason take downthe country. Don’t like that law passed 50 years ago. but don’t have enough to change it.. no problem, if you have enough to bring down the country by defaulting then you are in.. or atleast you try.. and maybe 9 times out of 10 you either suceed or fail.. (yes there are more than two outcomes silly people) but the 10th time a mistake happens and we default.. game over.. wipe out all previous ‘victories’ and reset world with WWIII and massive depression that makes your hoaded gold worthless and perhaps a liability. There is no way any responsible party can let this go forward.
            So there won’t be any ‘negotiating’.. there will be the TP either recanting on your own, the GOP taking away your keys to drive, or a bilateral effort that bypasses your hostage taking. in all outcomes, you will fail.
            The choice you need to be planning is how you are going out. It’s expected you will continue to duck personal responsibility for what you did. and you won’t see that you put your ideology for your own gains ahead of the country.
            and yes, talking about it is fruitless.. you have no idea what you are doing. not a clue. and you have no idea you don’t have a clue.. Goldberg deserves credit he spent years building you in a way that would make tyler durden proud.
            You have created quite a mess. at this point don’t worry.. we will take care of it regardless of what you do.

          • Jeff Webb

            Wow, it’s a good thing you typed this. You would’ve used up all your oxygen saying it out loud.

            Ranting & rambling is not the same as debating & discussing. If you want to avoid the two latter, posting the two former will help.

          • Lee Church

            I thought all your TPers read this out loud.. you demand we read it outloud.. yes.. we read it outloud.. then we discuss it.. the Pelosi rule. it’s your rule. :)
            I am negotiating…not debating… i want a puppy dog or we won’t vote to raise the debt ceiling.
            would you like to debate? that sounds like a fun game.. would you like to play?

          • D Parri

            That’s good! Remember, “Bloviating hath no limit!” Especially with the ignorant.

          • D Parri

            There are a couple here that only comment for one thing and it is in no way a constructive dialogue. However, I am becoming less impresses with their crudeness because they have no imagination at all. They were never intending to engage in a healthy debate.

            Lee Church, Legal Weasel, and a few others have only one agenda–stir resentment while claiming to carry the banner for their party. It is a polarizing tactic that works only until their purpose is recognized. Then you simply ignore them.

            BTW, watch for their comments regarding this expose of them by me to you. It will be laughable.

          • Lee Church

            actually i was making the point that taking your country hostage is a non-negotiable tactic.
            I would think after so many posts you would have gotten that message.
            If not, I can go back negotiating.. either you paint my house.. or we veto all legislation. See how stupid that is?
            well , that’s the TP position. and after a couple of days, you sstill don’t get it…
            that is what we call.. a slllloooooww learner.

          • D Parri

            LOL! I knew you wouldn’t let me down! Now, once again…can you say M-O-R-O-N?

            Answer: “Yes, Lee Church!”

          • D Parri

            Great! If you would please continue your insanity (maybe a little longer next time) you will have won the argument!

            That is, for your opposition.

          • Lee Church

            My insanity is exactly the same position a the TP.
            Are you calling Cruz insane? that would be bad.. Bernie tried.. but you ‘teached him well’.
            new TP rule.. Tp negotiation is good.. same negotiation by any other party bad… got it…

          • D Parri

            So…are you sayin’ that you are a member of the TP’s?

            Hmmmm. Oh, no. You said that they are insane and you are just like them! Got it.

          • Lee Church

            isn’t that great.. ?
            and so.. you would be best to hand over that wallet or we allow the country to default and no C.R. You don’t want to argue.. with a crazy negotiator, .. just give me what i demand.. or the country gets it..
            heck, even arguing with you.. i delay the country suffers every second you delay..and it’s YOUR fault for not giving in to a little compromise..
            (is there any doubt now, mr Goldberg, why the President doesn’t negotiate or compromise on this now? do any of you get it at all? do you have any idea of your own insanity?)
            i was asked, do you suffer from insanity? and my reply “no, i enjoy it”.
            i suggest that the TP and moreso the GOP take control of these nutty TPers.. particularly the ones that DON’T think they are insane.
            but hey, that wouldn’t be you D parri.. noooOOOOOooo… shuush.. people, don’t want to ‘disturb the inmates’.

        • Sheila Warner

          Socialism involves forfeiture of property. Those who call the President a socialist state that their money is property, and therefore the President is a socialist because he wants to raise taxes. I wonder if they thought George HW Bush was a socialist. Or, Ronald Reagan, when he raised taxes. It’s in the eye of the beholder.

          • Jeff Webb

            Obama may or may not be a Socialist, but it’s true that he believes in at least one aspect of Socialism: strong gov’t control.

          • Lee Church

            May or may not be a muslim communist non-citizen too.. we just have a lot of uncertainty.. and uncertainty is killing our economy.. so President is bad..
            Yeah yeah yeah.. it’s just raising the question.. as if you may or not be a pedophile.. but do we really want to take that chance?
            ‘control’? in some areas.. sure.. but so do you TPers.. you declare that your priority is the military, and import restrictions, and stuff like that.. so it’s just that your priorities that you want to control are different.
            that’s why we have elections.. and the people clearly voted the President’s policies, not MittRomney’s policies.
            SO you can say.. who cares what the people think, if we have the power to make the majority bend to our demands then we must take it..
            If you thnk that, then you are suggesting that i make you bark like a dog or the President will launch a few nukes. That’s what you suggest.. just blackmail whener you can..
            so, speaking of blackmail… we now demand you wear a dunce cap for week, or we will veto any C.R. and we will also force a default. are we negotiating and using the power correctly now? are you liking how negotiations are progressing?

          • D Parri

            So, did you actually say anything? I mean anything relevant?

          • Lee Church

            Nothing relevant to a TPer.. no.

          • D Parri

            How ’bout to the human species?

          • Lee Church

            You would not be a good judge of that.

            If you think you are, then perhaps i should call you ayatollah? would you prefer i call you that, out of respect of course.. and for intellectual purposes.

          • disqus_AV1LCnOJEL

            Not so, no more than a military dictatorship is just in the eye of the beholder. Merely raising taxes does not constitute socialism. Redistributing wealth, trying to equate economic outcomes is socialism or at least socialistic. Presidents and congressional members have put such policies into law for decades. They weren’t necessarily socialists, but had socialistic elements in their philosophy.

            Is the current president a full-blown socialist? Only he knows that, but his policies and associations lend some credence to that proposition: policies like socialized medicine in the ACA and a 50% increase in food stamp distribution; associations like Van Jones, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.

          • legal eagle

            Ah… the old guilt by association… still playing that old Joe McCarthy card….

          • Lee Church

            all taxes are redistribution on the wealth.
            if each party pays $1, and each gets back in the same proportion, than we have a return of taxes – friction = benefits.
            there would be no point in taxes other than to redistribute wealth.
            It’s a great line though. it plays to the zany TPers..but the TPers don’t use that silly line.. that never happened, it was a plant from the left.. and an isolated incident..
            and it was purely an intellectual pursuit.. it wasn’t to stir fear against those ‘commies’… nah.. that had nothign to do with it at all.. LOL
            I think you actualy believe the nonsense you say.. which is my criticism of Goldberg.. he is then suprised what Cruz believes this stuff..
            dog catches car story for sure..

          • Sheila Warner

            “Redistributing wealth, trying to equate economic outcomes is socialism or at least socialistic.” Right. So you understand what I said. And, it is in the eye of the beholder.

          • disqus_AV1LCnOJEL

            Umm… I am stunned, but that’s okay. To come to the conclusion you did is… well, kind of scary. This explains much of what is going on today in the U.S.

            Good night, Sheila. You may have the last words if you wish.

          • Lee Church

            socialism involves forfeiture of property.. ok.. well have you looked at the upcoming treasury auction in friday harbor, WA?
            The TPer didn’t pay his federal taxes.. didn’t even file tax forms.. so after a long court process, with due process, they are finally auctioning off the house.
            you are correct is seeing the faulty logic starts with the premise that ALL confiscation of property is socialism. that would mean capitalism, or even anarchy doesn’t have forfeitture.. well, last we looked, monarchy also had the ability to seize property.
            These folks are ‘debating’ and just make this stuff up..
            geez.. capitalism, a monarchy, and every organisation requires that folks give up something.. even a town city council or school board. they delegate the text book selection for example. might as well call the school board a government take over and communists.
            so there silly defending calling the president a socialist, communist, fascist, etc. because he for folks giving up their freedoms is like complaining about the President being an organisationalist.. someone who prefers order to .. wait for it.. chaos..
            which makes the sillness of goldberg and pretzel defense of the slurs pathetic from these TPs (i am figuring you are just confused, but these other intellectuals.. well that’s what they think they are.. they are pathetic).
            self-agrandized.. or whatever you call it.. it’s a bunch of hoooey.. as much reality as a harry potter or load of the rings fantasy world.
            they deny the slurs were ever used, they say if they were it was a plant by the left, and they say if the were repeated 24/7 on fox, it was an isolated incident…and if that doesn’t work, then it was intellectual purposes.
            then then go back to making new claims. “President wants Chaos” sort of thing, and the use the discredtied claims worked into sound bites to sprinkle in again in the future.
            Fake claims don’t die, they just go to TP/GOP talking point heaven.

      • LS_Texas

        The problem with the left – and RINOs for that matter – is they NEVER admit their mistakes. Even when slapped In the face with them.
        Utopians are consistently blind, deaf and stupid. Gotta give’ em that. Right, Lee?
        Failed program after failed program after failed program.
        “Well, we just didn’t stab ourselves enough with that ice pick. THAT’S why it didn’t work!”

        • Lee Church

          i get that you start with you conclusion as your premise.. i get that..
          failed program.. like Social security? like medicare? like medicaid?
          I’ll take a few more of those ‘failed’ programs.. thank you
          and if you want to avoid default, we will also take a full public option on a nationwide exchange.. or no deal..
          are you the new TP negotiator.. they said they would put their best intellectual on it.. is that you?

          • D Parri

            Sorry, I’m just a conservative, ex-democrat, and I did not understand what you said.

          • Lee Church

            then you can’t be the TP cheif negotiator.. who is this negotiator you have that wants to negotiate?
            well i must take a break.. but don’t worry.. get them together. and let’s get a deal done..
            I’ve been here trying to negotiate with you folks.. but you don’t seem serious.. let’s take a break, you get your negotiator linied up and we start again.

          • D Parri

            Hey you got it right! I am NOT the “chief” there…chief!

          • Lee Church

            there was a typo.. not my keyboards fault on that one.. but typing was hobbled by that darned k key.. made the rest of it way harder.. kind of like a small group making things difficult for everyone else..

            you are the chief honcho? or you can’t really agree to anything? you are just here to get your talking points and reinforce your pre-existing notions?
            I thought you folks wanted to negotiate. i even replaced my keyboard .. and can now start the bidding on how much before we pass a C.R. and increase the debt ceiling.
            when can we start?

      • legal eagle

        It would appear that HBO, which employs Bernie, must not be part of the liberal media….Could have fooled me because I did watch the Liberace movie recently on HBO …Hmmmm…Wonder, if Bernie’s media outrage only pertains to those who don’t pay him?

        • Lee Church

          well, his outrage on TPer tactics only pertains to when they attack him. so it’s at least consistent there.

  • Greyledge Gal

    After your three replies which all show up for me, I would have loved to find out what a disaster the policies offered in my area for Obamacare might be. Unfortunately, nothing on the exchanges work and I am not interested in giving all my personal information on a site that is so obviously a trainwreck and thus quite open to hacking just to look at costs.

  • Greyledge Gal

    With all due respect, the money invested correctly would be worth much more than $100,000, considering appreciation, dividends/interest, etc., now and I would have all of it to pay for anything that happened to my husband or to me.

    I will never! sign on to Obamacare.

    • JMax

      You could have invested the money and made tons of money, but if your child developed cancer or your husband fell off the roof in the first 5 years, you would have lost your house and everything else. That’s the nature of and the reason we have insurance of all kinds. You pay to protect against something you hope will never happen. But things happen. You might have had the money now, but you wouldn’t have had the money then. With insurance, you did.

      If you could get a policy for $350 a month with a $1,000 deductible, $8-10 office visits, and free mammograms, would you not take it?

      • Greyledge Gal

        JMax, my position is predicated on knowing what I know now I would have kept my $ and invested it. I also know that I am a responsible person and that is why we enrolled in health insurance in the first place, even though my parents said it was a waste of money for young people.

        I don’t believe even people without insurance lose their houses unless they are bad money managers. Even large bills can be paid off in time. People with little money buy $50,000 cars all the time on credit. It is a matter of being willing to budget money and/or give up some things you like to be able to pay for things you think you’ll like more. It’s more likely that the people who have to declare bankruptcy are already over-extended and try to dodge the bill for a long time until they have no other recourse but to file bankruptcy.

        Finally, who wouldn’t like the plan you describe. Sadly, there is no such animal.

        • JMax

          Had we known then what we know now, we all would have invested in Apple. :-)

  • Lee Church

    Goldberg,
    The President has explained why he won’t negotiate over the debt ceiling or a C.R. You know that, but you write your talking points for the monsters you call ayatollahs.
    If you want to negotiate, let’s say we demand a full public option or we shutdown the goverment, and default on our country’s debt. And then it’s your fault because you didn’t give in.. yeah.. that’s a plan .. for disaster.. holding the country hostage is not a valid tactic.. you know that. and the President has explicity said so as well. You pretended to not hear him and avoided even discussing that. You create these deceitful memes which are thinly veiled talking points, which folks that actually believe the stuff you write then try to do. You helped create these monsters.. you need to deal with them, not the President… they are your zombies.
    But to you this appears to be a game… you hide behind.. well, i’m not really saying this.. i’m raising the question.. yeah yeah yeah..
    on your own blog, there folks, your followers who express concern about Cruz damaging the party’s credibility. What they don’t express is any concern about Cruz damaging the country. and you worry about what it might do with independent voters.. not what it does to our country.
    The GOP and folks like you had better start dealing with these TP zombies you created. They are marching and believe what you told them is true.. they think the President is a muslim, a communist, etc.
    Your only concern recently was that these zombies started to turn on you for saying unkind things about Cruz. You ask folks to deal with these ayatollahs, (what you call the TPers that turned on you) when they appear on your blog. and you specify, ON YOUR BLOG. because that’s the game.. you are creating them to attack others, not you. You are ok creating folks who might believe your half truths, mixed with omissions and acceptance of outright lies.
    You are pathetic.

    • Bernie

      Lee

      I do NOT think it was reasonable for the Ted Cruz wing to call for repeal of ObamaCare. I do NOT think it was reasonable to call for defunding.
      But if President Obama really wanted to avoid a shutdown he could have tossed the GOP a bone. He could have said OK to repealing the medical device tax. He could have said OK to making sure Members of Congress and their staffs that earn up to $170,000 do not get subsidies to pay for their insurance premiums. These are reasonable compromises, I think.

      Now a bit of free advice: You are way, way too angry. Calm down. Reasonable people may disagree.

      Bernie

      • Wil

        Bernie, The Republicans don’t seem to understand the same tactic can be used against them, if they should ever be the ones in charge.

        Once the precedent is set, then it is A OK for the minority party to hold the government hostage to their whims. Regardless of the Constitution, elections, or public opinion.

        • Lee Church

          Goldberg gets it.. he pretends that the President hasn’t already said that (and repeated it several times). He pretends instead that the President doesn’t anwer why he doesn’t negotiate with these hostage takers.
          in other words, this goldberg guy well knows he has created a fantasy version for his zombies. He is just trying to figure out how to stop without them turning on him.
          If he tries to talk them down the TPers will disown him, so he goes back to feeding them re-inforcement for their distorted view.
          He and others in the media have created the Shelley monster, and now they are trapped in a device of their own making. Unfortunately it’s extremely dangerous for our country.. extremely.

        • RussFelix

          Wil, No offense but the precedent was set many administrations ago. Reagan had several shut downs in his administration. The only thing different this time is that the President refuses to negotiate or ameliorate problems created by the shutdown. That makes it Obama’s shutdown. I admire his courage and ability to hold out and not negotiate but in doing so it becomes his crises and he seems to like it like that. What do they say? “Never let a good crises go to waste”

          • Wil

            Why won’t Speaker John Boehner let the House vote, on a clean CR? What is your answer to that?

          • legal eagle

            They have no answer….The right wing cult members aren’t aware that the Speaker has the power to block votes…They only know what Fox News tells them..LOL

          • legal eagle

            Reagan’s shutdowns involved budget issues not specific laws Tip O’Neill didn’t like…

          • Lee Church

            and existing laws that were passed years ago at that.

          • legal eagle

            exactly….

        • legal eagle

          Democrats don’t act like Republicans except when the issue involves fraudulent wars…

          • Wil

            Sadly, that is correct.

      • Lee Church

        1) i’m not angry in the slightest. You misread and misinterpret and then project what you think in correctly, which doesn’t seem uncommon with you. Trust me, i’ll let you know if i get angry.
        2) you ARE responsible. you gin up these people and then you wonder why they believe the President must be stopped by any means necessary. You suggest even in the post above that folks should ask some ‘questions’, distancing yourself.. you are just raising the question of whether the President is a muslim, you didn’t say he was.. you are asking if the President is a communist, you are not saying he was.. yeah yeah.. we get it. geez, dude.
        The point was you were only interested in savng your own skin when the TPers or ayatollahs turn towards you. You suggest that your supporters take these extremists on.. on your blog.. not elsewhere.. in your post above you suggest that your attack zombies are fine as long as they are attacking others.
        You created Cruz.. he believes the stuff you have been saying.. he thinks the President needs to be stopped by any means.. speaking until he can’t stand.. etc etc.
        The problem you have with him is he is now hurting you.. poor guy.
        And you continue to suggest these hostage takes are the good guys…. well you ask the question.. your headline.. read it.
        So tell you what.. the left demands you are castrated.. or we will shutdown the governmet and default.. obviously it’s your fault the government is going to shutdown and we default because you call more about saving yourself than your country..
        the thing is if you complied you would lose nothing.
        And in that situation, according to your headline, you suggest you are to blame.
        You have quite a game going on. it’s absurd.
        I’m astonished, i’m not shocked, and i’m certainly not angry.. it’s not me they are going to hurt.. it the GOP.
        here is the problem.. a default means the rich GOPers will lose big time.. the poor dude that has nothing, well he still struggles the same whether under a chinese government or present one.
        So you folks in the GOP better get a plan together to deal with your TP zombies that are holding the counry hostage.. because they are so delussional they are aiming at you.. not the left.
        It’s laughable how you are surprised when the TPer mob turns to you doing exactly what you taught them to do. You teach them this behavior and then don’t understand why they are purity driven.. You taught them that. You taught them to ignore information that they disagree with.. everything they don’t agree with is a lie.. they believe that.
        so you created this mess. You might want to take some personal responsibilitty and clean up your mess.

        • allen goldberg

          Permit me to disagree with everything you say. period. As far as Mr. Cruz, his bowels movements have more class, more courage than the entire Democratic party.

          • Lee Church

            my dear and savacious sir, good day to you.. are you from africa too? the motherland is wonderfual a place, yes?
            geez.. great.. Cruz.. has class.. has the bell run yet?
            Permit you. to say.. I don’t permit or don’t permit you.. aren’t you folks always talking about the 1st amendment and all that?
            So I disagree with Goldberg.. you disagree with everything i say.. and goldburg disagrees with Cruz.
            that means that you would agree with Goldberg because you disagree with everything i said.. so then you are saying you disagree with Cruz.. but that can’t be because you seem to praise him.
            oh my.. compute.. compute.. compute.. warning will robinson.. warning.. illogical humans .. great fear.. warning..
            I think you folks think you are smarter than you are..
            but you have class.. so maybe there is room for improvement.
            geez.. folks..

          • legal eagle

            Goldberg appears to be off his meds again…pay him no mind…Goldberg is probably an alias for Sarah Palin. Perhaps Palin is familiar with the composition of Ted Cruz’s bowel movements.

          • Lee Church

            Somebody obvious dislikes logic.. ok.. record a ‘no’ for logic.. as.. count is at one. we have another.. make two votes against logic.. as recorded.

            Here is a hint for people trying to solve the above riddle.. at one of them has to be wrong. If i actually agree with Goldberg then that would mean the ‘i disagree with everything you say guy” would disagree with Goldberg, and then the cruz supporter would disagree with goldberg and me. that would work, only i disagree with goldberg.

            If the entire GOP/TP has a caucus to figure this one out i suspect we will be here awhile, long after defaulting on the debt and china builds a new city where DC used to be.

      • RussFelix

        I don’t consider passing legislation to eliminate subsides for congress “throwing a bone” . That is a ethical issue that all of Congress should agree upon. Not throwing a bone.

        • Lee Church

          pass all the legislation you want.. but don’t hold the country hostage.

          • Lee Church

            somebody is either against passing legislation or for hostage taking.. not sure which…
            hmm.. wonder if that could be a TP member voting that down?
            i suppose had i said pass gas they might vote it up?

        • D Parri

          Absolutely.

        • legal eagle

          This is a political issue, not an ethical issue…Don’t be so naïve…

      • allen goldberg

        Is it reasonable for one party to jam a law down the throats of everyone, without reading it? To demand everything, and never ever speak to the other party. Angry? You have not seen anything yet sir. Again,to you and the rest of the liberals…. reasonable people means..the conservatives, must capitulate. Period. Its your way or nothing.

        • Lee Church

          let’s you could argue then that we need another civil war.. that’s one big F’n deal of a law that got jammed down there.. wasn’t it?
          So why not have the TPers demand we re-debate the whole civil war period.. yeah.. that ought to go over big with the soveriegn nations holding our debt.
          excuse me china.. i know your culture has patience.. could you wait about 100 years while we debate every law from the civil war forward before we pay that interest on that loan(Treasury) you are holding?
          is that what you propose.. to ask china and everyone holding treasuries to simply wait? It took years of debate to just listen to the death panel thing.. over and over.. and over again… and again.. and again.. and again.. etc.. over and over again.. and again..
          if that’s tough to read.. it was even tougher to listen to the first time around.. it took years.. and it was all nonsense.
          So you want to debate any old law.. and take as long as you want.. don’t hurry.. china will wait..
          where do you people get these ideas? do you just make this stuff up? from Austrian economics.. to you proposing that anytime a law is passed that the minority was not able to block, then it’s up for hostage taking time.
          Geez folks you have had holds on nominees for over 4 years.. just because you are opposed to any nominee. it doesn’t even come up for a vote.
          And the current hostage situation is the same.. a C.R. would pass.. but it doesn’t come up for a vote (or prove it won’t pass by bringing it to a vote).
          So you are not the majority.. you are the minority and saying that unless you get your way the country suffers..
          that’s just not putting your country first, nor is it respecting that we had an election where the main theme was repeal or not repeal Obamacare.. you folks in the TP/GOP lost. both in majority of voters and in the result.. It’s President Obama.. it’s not like he ran on repealing Obamacare and then changed.. the majority has already spoken,, twice.
          So you are small group willing to harm the country unless you get your way. Just fess up to that and take some personal responsibility.. stop trying to say the President Obama should be bowing to the minority (and ignoring the majority).
          and stop trying to say the President is holdiing the country ransom for.. what we already have. geez.. you folks have dug yourselves almost all the way to china.. and I would be happy to let you finish .. but you are hurting the country in the process.
          adults in the GOP need to take your keys.

          • legal eagle

            You are right. The next time the Republicans will want to renegotiate the passage of Social Security…Think all members of Congress read that bill?

          • Lee Church

            Have these folks actually tried to read legislation? it goes “remove section 2, paragraph 3 “or” and insert “and”.
            of course that’s what you ‘read’ when you read the legislation.. it’s modifies existing law. the chairman’s mark is as cryptic as HTML vs viewing a web page.
            Folks are viewing this web page (most likely), and not saying.. wait.. i viewed this webpage as “view source” option.
            This silly talking point of the GOP/TP that tries to be a gotcha for Pelosi, shows more about the GOP/TP than it does about their ‘target’. Many of these silly talking points fall into that category.. folks think they are ‘debating’ by hitting someone with a talking point. Everybody has heard the talking points.. saying them over again isn’t debating.. it’s a form of ‘asked and answered”.. a great delaying tactic, just keep debating the same thing over and over.
            So if some less that serious person asks me, i would say wait until it’s published and read the CFR. all those changes from ‘and’ to ‘or’ will be more clear to them. I don’t say to someone that doesn’t know HTML, sure.. i’m changing Jijf.up(‘A’ +g -1/2 * f) to Jinefy(eval (j-13.5* f) and expect someone to ‘read’ that.
            it’s a comlex law.. it was negotiated.. that how the votes were obtained to pass it, which also is a complain of the GOP/TP.. they say that any changes to get votes is a bribe.. or underhanded.. at the same time they demand that they want changes for their vote on an entirely different matter.. a C.R. and the debt ceiling.
            So the notion that it was rammed through.. is nonsense.. it was done without their support.. no kidding.. they opposed and oppose everything. that was the stated strategy. oppose for opposition sake.
            Now that didn’t work, so they tried delay.. the supreme court ran it’s course, and now they say , ‘negotiate’ (again).
            They opted out during the process, and instead opposed.. so we worked out a bill that would pass.. that’s why it’s already compromise.
            The goldberg nonsense is just that.. nonsense.

          • Lee Church

            I didn’t know they even COULD read.

          • allen goldberg

            your lack of logic and acumen of the constitutional process is stunning. the House funds laws, and has at their discretion whether to,or not based upon their stance on whether laws are worthy of your dollars….many times democratic houses have blocked funding laws , voted through and signed..this is called checks and balances and provides for debates…yet now the Senate and this Fraud in the white house, demand total capitulation to everything and anything…you are aware these are elected officials, who are not dictators, right?

          • legal eagle

            Why don’t you tell us when the Dems shut down the government attempting to defund existing legislation? An actual fact might be helpful because to my understanding this has never happened before…..

        • D Parri

          The constitution sets out our form of government, and it IS the ‘Law of the Land’.

        • legal eagle

          This sis coming from some stooge who probably has healthcare, but is upset about other having it. Perhaps Mr. Goldberg should check his policy to see if he has mental health coverage…LOL

          • disqus_AV1LCnOJEL

            Personally attack when you don’t have a reasonable answer? Typical.

          • Lee Church

            stooge is an intellectual concept denoting a state of mind so it’s related to ‘reason’, which is what the original question is about.. i mean.. if communist, socialist non-citizen, fascist are used by TPers daily to describe the President, it’s fair that stooge is used, for intellectual purposes of course, to describe someone that uses “jam a law down the throats of everyone” when a majority of people effectively supported it be re-electing the President in 2012.

          • allen goldberg

            thank you. proving once again, facts mean nothing to liberals…so name calling and demeaning is their only debate strategy. all in support of a party, whose leaders refuse to debate and even have had to apologize for their nasty vile name calling on the floor of the senate, as they did friday. and i am the stooge….really?

          • legal eagle

            I wouldn’t call you names if you’d deal in some facts instead of ranting about how the world will come to an end if Obamacare is implemented….

      • Lee Church

        Goldberg, you go on a show that has been peddling this stuff for years. I’m preltty sure you have heard the various lies.. I’ve cited a few already a few times. You have no problem with the alattolah TPers.. you say “Barack Obama is routing for chaos”.. that’s your words Goldberg. That’s just one of the silly inflamatory statements you made on a regular basis to gin these folks up.

        And you pretend you are reasonable. You have to be kidding. You know exactly what you are doing in playing these folks. You very carefully suggested that they are ayatollah’s when they turned on you, but you go right ahead and suggest they act that way to others. In fact you asked folks to defend YOU on your blog from exactly the same ayatollah behavior that you suggest on others.
        You were just trying to save your own skin.. I’m likely not the only one that sees that.
        They are your monsters.. i’ve already outlined that according to your model you should be held hostage and when you don’t throw em a bone, then you are at fault. So i demand your watch, tv, and iphone.. or we shutdown and default. You give in, even partially, because that’s what you argue the President should do.. ok.. great.. now i demand your car, your house, and your wallet.. or we default and shutdown. care to keep playing?
        I’m not angry.. you are mistaken on that, but hey.. it’s one way to discount the message. I get that… it’s standard procedure in your version of the fight club.
        You ginned up these folks and now you are like the dog that finally caught the car. You fix up your mess.
        And stop blaming the folks being held hostage for what the hijackers are doing. Former Treasury Paulson says the GOP needs to deal with these hijackers, and he is right. I hear a lot about taking responsibility.. but I don’t see a lot of it. You keep evading your culpability in this.. you say not your fault.. you just gin folks like Cruz up and they actually believed you.
        You and folks like you, created these monsters.. they are your Frankenstein monster that you released on the world. Go clean up you mess.
        That’s all we are going to discuss this issue. enough of the hogwash. the hostage situation is your problem to fix, so just stop trying to avoid personal responsibility.
        Goldberg, you saying you are reasonable, doesn’t make it so. You say it’s ALL your opinion.. so be it.. It’s only your opinion that you are reasonable. You either accept that you can be held for ransom of your watch or the government shutdown and debt default.. or you don’t. If you accept that it ok please start sending your stuff to an address i have for you. :)
        If you don’t accept it, then you admit the President should not capitulate (where did i put those keys to the club biffy? I say, dear sir, that perhaps we should have double double or what do you say darhliiiing.. should we have a capitulate after dinner?.. geez.. ‘give in’ works.. ).
        So either start handing over your stuff or give up your silly evasion of your personal responsibility.. but don’t bother to answer.. you will blather more nonsense.
        It’s your problem.. deal with it… or not. That’s up to you (and we pretty much know which option you will take.. don’t we.. tyler Durden?).

      • D Parri

        Mr. Bernie,

        It may, by all appearances, seem irrational or unreasonable to take the approach that the GOP has taken, but would like to ask for your opinion on one aspect of the logjam in Congress.

        Do you feel that President Obama’s authority to modify the ACA is in any way different from the line-item veto power that Congress had delegated to the executive office during Clinton’s administration? Congress passed the bill in 1996 and the SCOTUS ruled the act to be unconstitutional in a 6-3 decision in 1998. I propose that this is an overreach of the same nature by the executive branch, and it could be ruled unconstitutional.

        If the ACA were granted full funding with no opposition by the GOP today, then it is likely that there will be a future battle taken up over the constitutionality of the president’s actions.

        Aye, therein lie the rub. A future SCOTUS hearing on the constitutionality of the president’s actions would provide little benefit because by the time the hearing were to proceed to the ruling phase, the law will have been fully implemented and all delays and temporary waivers will have expired. However, the Machiavellian maneuver of committing a wrong today if there is no chance of being liable for the infraction in the future would obviously be deemed successful. The delays and temporary waivers will/have earned a vital base of support for the law from large corporations–including the corporate media giants–and that is critical for the Democrat strategy of regaining control of the House.

        Now, to give the Dem’s a free pass now, give the House back to the Dem’s, and set a very dangerous precedent for usurp of the Congress’ power by the president, I contend that this would be a death-knell loss for the GOP.

        I know that in straight PR talk and terms the GOP is fighting from a come-back position. The stakes are incredibly and I believe that the cause is both just and critical to our nation’s future.

        • Lee Church

          you are wasting valuable time trying to save face. There is no way after all the years of government take over lies that the President do any kind of executive ‘reach’ let along ‘over-reach’.
          You folks complain day in and day out about the President being a dictator.. so you made this mess.. you will have to find your own way out. Stop waiting the President to so something extraordinary.
          deal with it.

          • D Parri

            Oh, yeah? Well Clinton thought he had it in 1996 with the line-item veto, but the Supreme Court said “No” in 1998. It has been tried by the Democrats before and they failed. I guess you are determined to repeat the same foolish mistakes, ad nauseam.

          • Lee Church

            had it? i’m not suggesting some line item veto.. i’m saying in you want the CR to pass the senate and you need a clean bill.. unless you want to start negotiating with me again.. we can if you really want to, but i need you give me $200 before we get started..
            just give it up.. trying to get any concessions for holding the debt ceiling or C.R. isn’t going to work. you either want a default, in that case you are going do it anyways, or you don’t which means i can extract concessions from you or we make it happen on our end.
            You really don’t understand negotiating… do you.
            Heck, we could demand that congress pass a line item veto bill as a condition as well. so you have a good idea there.

          • D Parri

            Been done. Didn’t work. Pay attention.

            BTW, want a ‘clean CR’? Sorry, we’re closed.

          • Sheila Warner

            I thought a line item veto entailed the President “lining out” parts of a bill he didn’t like before signing it. Obamacare has been signed. The President is using executive order to change parts of it. Is this the same thing as a line item veto? Perhaps. Anyway, why isn’t the Congress taking the matter to the Supreme Court if they are so certain his actions were not constitutional? I’m tired of hearing how terrible it is without any plan to do something about it. We need the Court to weigh in.

          • D Parri

            A spending legislation bill that reaches the president’s desk has been approved by the House and the Senate. The SCOTUS ruled that the president does not have the authority to change or modify it.

            The ACA was passed and became law. The president still does not have the authority to change or modify any of its provisions unilaterally by himself. This is the same thing.

            The problem with waiting for the SCOTUS to weigh in is because by the time that they do the mid-term election will have already taken place. Hence, the full impact of the law would be avoided just long enough for the president to take back the House and maintain control of the Senate. It is a Machiavellian strategy for getting the job done via whatever means possible–whether good or bad, honest or dishonest.

            When the SCOTUS hearing takes place after January 2015, the issue of temporary exemptions and waivers will be moot and there will no longer be a cause of action. However, the damage will already be done.

      • legal eagle

        Bernie,
        Do you really think that compromising on these two issues would have prevented the same situation three months from now? These CRs at issue are for a few months at a time…Republican demands about Obamacare would go on ad infinitum…

      • Lee Church

        I don’t think it’s reasonable for you to go “ayatollah on Obama” when you just got done a few days ago compaigning that TP radicals should not go ayatollah on you for saying something they don’t like.
        So you don’t like that the President won’t negotiate.. what’s with going with saying he is “rooting for chaos” then.. that’s just what you complained about a few days ago.. but it’s ok when the TP does it to others. in fact you egg them on.. but no.. it’s not right when they turn on you.. noooo.
        It’s pathetic.. as i’ve said before.
        meanwhile the hostage takers you trained are bringing us closer to disaster.. partly of your making.
        But i’m not angry. i’m disgusted, yes.. i’m doing what i can to get responsible folks to step in (that’s not you.. so don’t worry about that part), but i’m not angry.
        You are more concerned about 1) yourself, and saving your own skin 2) the image of the TP and GOP 3) and a distant third.. so distant that even for a small token you will trade it.. our country.
        argh.

        • legal eagle

          Bernie’s playing both sides because he doesn’t want to piss off the right wing wackos who read his column…

          • Lee Church

            Of course he does.. he knows he is a fraud. his complaints were about them attacking him, not about them going ayatollah on Obama. then he goes back to encouraging these TPers to do what he just complained about .. because it’s ok only if the zombies attack the who he says they should. but not him.. then it’s bad.
            ‘rooting for chaos’ really… asking folks to take on these folks only when they turn on him, not anyone else.
            it doesn’t get much lower than this Goldberg fellow.
            but in good news, they really care about orphan baby whales.. with cancer. a compassionate and fair lot each one of them they are.. each and every one.
            they eriously need to get their act together, they don’t have much time. The scary part is the TPers are so clueless about economics that they have no idea what danger they have put the country and what damage is already done (yeah yeah they will say less that the President.. yes yes.. heard that many times.. GOP/TP talking point #2348898765).

      • Bob Hadley

        You must know that throwing the Repubs a “bone,” as you call it, would reinforce their conduct or, put another way, whet their appetite. In short, it MIGHT do immediate good, but would make worse a long term problem of dealing with the Cruz-ites.
        If someone filed a claim on your house, alleging some cock-eyed reason why it was his, would you throw him a bone? Would you be reasonable to offer him your backyard? Would you be reasonable enough to offer him to $100,00 to go away. Would you do this if you knew he also had his eyes on some of your other assets?
        I know this is not a complete analogy. Yes, the House has a responsibility to be part of the whole budget process. But, as I think you indicate, Obamacare was legitimately passed by the Congress and signed into law by the president, upheld (at least as far as the individual mandate is concerned) by the Scotus and arguably affirmed by the mandate given Pres. Obama in the recent election.
        BTW, haven’t the Dems already compromised. Isn’t their proposed CR significantly lower than what they wanted and just slightly more than what Rep. Ryan had proposed in his austerity budget?
        A poster raised a good point. What if the Dems were able and shut down the gov. because Pres. Obama and the Repubs wouldn’t give them a public option or a single payer system? What kind of article would you have written in that event? How would you propose to break the stand-off?

        • D Parri

          When, in the past have you know of the president having the authority to modify a law–a tax law at that, per Roberts? So, when the GOP completely ignores the president’s modifying of the law (tinkering) and proceeds as if nothing is wrong, what kind of precedent does that establish?
          The SCOTUS in 1998 ruled that the Congress CAN NOT delegate any of the powers under their authority. President Clinton did not keep his line-item veto power that he had worked so hard to get.

          This action by Obama parallels the case from 1996 which now stands as the precedent to be recalled and reaffirmed.

          • Bob Hadley

            So, if President Obama let Obamacare unfold as stated in the law, you’d have no problem with Obamacare?
            You did not respond to my post. You simply threw up a Red Herring.

          • D Parri

            Sorry that you think that was a red herring, but I will give you a very clear answer to the one you just posed in its current context.

            YES. I would vote for a clean CR if the president agreed to remove all waivers, exemptions, and special congressional subsidies that he has put in place through executive order/administrative actions. I feel absolutely confident enough that the law will not be sustainable, but more than that, if there had not been special privileges doled out by the president in order to secure support by large employers (corporate media, mainly), legislators, and other special interest groups, then the law would not have survived or it would be repealed in the first year.

            Too many people view the 1-year exemption as simply a measure that will make it easier to implement by avoiding an overburden on the system. That is not the reason. The president is delaying the mandate for employers (large) for a year in order to get past the mid-term elections because he knows that the more people that feel the pain of this law, the more will be outraged. His goal is to keep the Senate and regain the House. It is a political move pure and simple.

          • Bob Hadley

            In other words, you favor a CR with strings attached, strings that you specify above. FYI, that’s NOT a clean CR.
            I think he’s probably wise not to agree to modify Obamacare as a condition for a CR. The Dems have apparently already compromised significantly on the amount of the CR.
            I think there’s both a political advantage and a policy advantage to Pres. Obama delaying the employer mandate. If you’re opposed to Obamacare, then you tend to think Pres. Obama is simply sticking his finger in the wind. If you’re for Obamacare, then Pres. Obama is doing the right thing.
            I don’t know what goes on in his head, and neither do you. But since I favor giving Obamacare every opportunity to succeed, I favor his hold off on the employer mandate.
            There’s no need to delay the individual mandate because it’s much less complicated. And if you delay the individual mandate, you delay the major cost-cutting mechanism. Then the Repubs will scream, “See, we told you that Obamacare would boost health insurance costs.”
            BTW, I think there’s probably a material difference (legally) between Congress giving the president the authority to delete item from a bill before he signs it into law (the line item veto) and the president delaying the implementation of part of a law.

          • Bob Hadley

            The crazies in the Republican Congress, and their fellow travelers, want to kill Obamacare in the crib.
            That’s why if Pres. Obama were to throw them a “bone” on Obamacare, he would be creating a CR (conditioned response) in those Republicans.

        • Lee Church

          it not a just a public option.. it’s his watch.. i think it’s a rolex.. we want the watch too or no deal.. no C.R.. and no debt ceiling vote.. without the watch too…
          what standoff.. i’ll keep making additional demands.. and i can always go back .. there was that oil subsidy in 1979. yeah.. let’s to that (i made that up.. i have no idea of the year…. as a technical note.. but the point is the same).
          Using the debt ceiling as a hostage.. and damaging or economy after a tough recovery from the worst financial meltdown in the history of the world – though we avoid the worst effects.. due to Fed policy.. at least so far.. but not according to the TPers.. of course). is literally putting whatever their demand is, before the country.
          So the watch is more than a joke, it illustrates that as the TP says.. what about just this? it means that they are willing to trade the country for as little as whatever they end up with, but it’s always that they value that more than the country..
          and what if multiple parties hold the country hostage at the same time? is that next? (that’s also illustrated in my mocking ‘negotiations’.).
          Not only have TPers no thought it through, but Gold berg has not either. In both cases it’s purely about them and their political gains.. and the country is just a pawn in their game.
          so are those shoes real leather? nice.. we changed our mind.. we want those shoes too. :)

      • Bob Hadley

        Remember, in our democracy, process is paramount.

    • RussFelix

      The only question here is who is sacrificing the Nation on the Cross of Obamacare .

      • Lee Church

        nobody wants to negotiate wth me anymore.. what happened?
        we were ‘negotiating’.. did folks decide they didn’t like ‘negotiating’?
        humpf.. well, i thought folks wanted negotiations.. i guess not.
        oh well.. so what now.. we all sit around and wait for default?
        shall we sing songs? i like that.. i know one.. um….
        We will all go down together.. .. (come on sing along.. it’s fun!)
        we will all go down together..
        something.. something.. and something else..
        that is the silliness of goldberg, and the TPers. It’s gone on about 5 years too long now.

      • pat brady

        It’s the republicans hanging US on the cross though, no one else. If you think this is what democracy is about then we have FAR different views of how the system is supposed to work. Im my view you run on your ideas. When you have the support of the people you win and you repeal the law you disagree with. Republicans TRIED that idea and it didn’t work. Romney made it his #1 priority to repeal the law. In fact he said he’d do it on the first day in office but he LOST.

        • D Parri

          But the Republicans have not voted for a ‘clean CR’ yet, have they?

    • RussFelix

      Lee, if you are still around, I would like to have you explain the Presidents reason for not compromising to me. His explanation, and I listened to it twice, all seemed to center around “Obamacare is the Law of the Land” but then so was slavery, Prohibition, racial discrimination etc. before they were repealed. In addition, delaying the employer mandate which was part of the law by fiat undermines the “law of the Land” argument. Help me here.

      • Lee Church

        (my comment is awaiting moderation.. so if you want to see it, ask the moderator folks.. ) again.. it’s your problem.. not mine.
        so i answered russ.. but your 1st amendment friends here won’t let you see it. :)

      • D Parri

        It is the ‘law of the land’, but a CR is not. The Dem’s cannot go forward until they get a CR. They will have to negotiate for it–whether they want to or not.

        • Lee Church

          sure, let’s negotiate.. we demand a full public option in exchange for our votes on a C.R.
          and your shoes.. they are nice.. give us your shoes as well or no C.R… and we also default on our debt.

          Just let us know when you want to stop negotiating and pass a C.R.

          • D Parri

            How about leave the law in place in the same form that Congress passed and then sign a clean CR? It was Obama who has attempted to usurp Congress’ authority to pass and amend legislation.

          • Lee Church

            nah.. the position is now, we get a full public option or no deal.. we default and no C.R. as well. and we want the deed to their house now.. and the condo, but only the ‘good’ weeks..
            or we default and no C.R.
            are we negotiating? oh yeah.. i like negotiating.. it’s fun, don’t ya think?

          • D Parri

            Negotiation with more than two parties involved usually includes input, demand and compromise from both all parties.

          • Lee Church

            We don’t do it that way.. are you wearing anything nice? we demand that too.. we demand from all parties.. or no C.R. and no raising of the debt ceiling.
            What we offer as compromise is.. our votes on C.R. and debt ceiling.
            Is that a real rolex you are wearing?

            (meanwhile the debt ceiling issue ticks off Treasury holders and they start dumpting them on the markets.. and we do more damage to the country)

            Is that really what we want to do? it’s not the brightest thing to hold the country hostage.

            It might be wisest for the adults in the GOP to step in and take the TP out of the driver seat… ahem..cough cough.. anytime soon would be nice ..

          • legal eagle

            The first rule of negotiation is…..find out who the decision maker is…..otherwise you’re wasting your time…
            So who is the Republican decision maker? Anyone know the answer?

          • Lee Church

            no.. not wasting time.. i have two rolex watches and a condo. how is that a waste of time?
            :)
            (do agree with your point.. but even if they did ‘identify someone, negotiation is out of the question with the country held hostage.)

          • D Parri

            I guess that is a relevant question. Do you know who proposed the idea in 2011 which ended the looming fiscal crisis? Hint: it became the Budget Control Act of 2011, and it included sequestration measures.

          • Sheila Warner

            That was the exact point made by some political commentator the news. I wish I had paid attention to who it was that made that point. Because that is the core of the issue. Who is calling the shots in the GOP? It’s so chaotic, even the members of the GOP don’t have an answer to that one.

        • pat brady

          Obamacare is SELF funded so ironically they shut down everything BUT the one thing they wanted to. Go figure

          • Lee Church

            but we should still negotiate.. i think they might have a condo somewhere.. they should hand that over or the dems won’t allow a CR and we won’t raise the debt ceiling. and make it furnished.. and nice pastels.
            I am getting the impression that the TPers here don’t want to negotiate with me anymore..i thought that is what they wanted? so i offer to negotiate with them.. i will go back to the left with our final deal.. and i’m sure i’ll be able to sell it to them (particularly the rolex i got earlier i pre-negotiation concessions, but shhh.. im’ not telling anyone about that $100 cash .. guess i should not have said that..huh?).
            Let’s get this done.. the default will be their fault for their unwillingness to compromise.. so let’s go TPers.. negotiate with me. :)

          • disqus_AV1LCnOJEL

            Yikes…. these pro-ACA comments are passing off as reason? Seriously? D Parri, I think you nailed it and it fell on a hardened heart. Move on and avoid men selling watches. These folks here will never concede that maybe, juuuuuuust maybe, their side actually does bad stuff sometimes. It’s religious in nature. They’re saints and we’re devils. Pure good vs. pure evil (and from the world view that rejects the notion of “evil”). Pure wisdom vs. pure stupidity (I will concede that the Ds are politically smarter than the Rs, if not less wise in their overall world view). Pure love vs. pure hate (as they are quite blind to their own hate for us).

          • Lee Church

            everyone does bad stuff.. but i like your hat.. the deal has to include your hat..
            Good is power to extort.. evil is weakness.. it would be wrong of me not to maximize our demands.. less than optimal solution.. not the free market way.. no sir..
            you like free market, yes? world view free market.. yes? well china dumping US treasuries even before a default.. is that worldlyish enough?
            seriouslly, you talk about world view while having a bubble that is clearly protectionist and isolationist. The entire every person self-sufficient self-reliant and all that is not a world view.. it’s provincial.. you think locally, and act globally..
            if it’s good for you, then it must be good for your neighbor.. so go ahead and dump that oil in the drain.. free market says you will stop when the neighbor sues you.. well his kids sue you.. well, unless you move first..well yeah.. practicaly speaking you won’t be held accountable.. it untraceable to begin with… that data is private.. so who is to know anyway?
            You TPers make a big deal about personal responsibility, but I don’t see any of it. if yo ucan’t be held accountable, then there you can’t be responsible.
            I don’t hate you.. i pity you.. big difference.. and you keep saying i’m angry.. i’m not the least bit angry.. you folks are nothing to me.. i don’t care about you personally . one way or the other.. the only reason i’m here is you are wrecking the country. otherwise I have no interest in helping you with your grand delusional disorder.
            but lets get back to negotiating.. you are the ones saying you wanted to negotiate, and you are running away for these reall good offers.

          • D Parri

            Oh, so the CBO was lying when they said that the ACA obligations would add $2.6 trillion to the national debt?

            They should have asked you before putting out their report!

          • pat brady

            FROM the CBO-

            What Is The Impact Of Repealing The ACA On The Federal Budget?

            Assuming that H.R. 6079 (bill to REPEAL the affordable care act) is enacted near the beginning of fiscal year 2013, CBO and JCT estimate that, on balance, the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting that legislation would cause a net increase in federal budget deficits of $109 billion over the 2013–2022 period. Specifically, we estimate that H.R. 6079 would reduce direct spending by $890 billion and reduce revenues by $1 trillion between 2013 and 2022, thus adding $109 billion to federal budget deficits over that period.

          • pat brady

            ALSO from the CBO:
            Taking the coverage provisions and other provisions together, CBO and JCT have estimated that the ACA will reduce deficits over the next 10 years and in the subsequent decade. (We have not updated our estimate of the total budgetary impact of the ACA since last summer; for that most recent estimate, see Letter to the Honorable John Boehner providing an estimate for H.R. 6079, the Repeal of Obamacare Act.)

          • D Parri

            Not updated since last summer? The CBO report I cited was from September 2013. That’s an update.

          • pat brady

            that was from May 2013. Go to the CBO and do a search on the Affordable Care Act. My text was directly from the CBO.

        • pat brady

          And what happens if they don’t?

      • legal eagle

        Let me try to help…The Government was not closed down over Prohibition, slavery or any other such law..The Dems have compromised on discretionary spending…The Republicans now say, lets negotiate over individual laws…This has never happened in U.S. history…
        If Obama gives in on this when does this type of “renegotiation” end? The answer is never because it sets a precedent….
        Obama should not let this type of re litigation of legislation occur..

        • Lee Church

          it ends when you give me your watch.. it’s a real rolex, yes?? oh and you sign over your bank accounts to me.. yeah.. that’s when it ends.. so just hand them oooover.. you can do it.. or it’s all your fault that we don’t pass a C.R. and we default.
          You must want to hurt the country.. goldberg says so.. he knows stuff like this like nobody else.. (ain’t that the truth!).
          (i’m mocking the GOP/TP of course.. but they just think it’s ok to blackmail the country.. it’s not the smartest move, but hey).

      • pat brady

        So providing healthcare for those that can’t afford it is now equivalent to slavery? Take a look at the type of people that were against abolishing slavery. Where are those people in THIS fight?

        And how was slavery abolished?

  • jasvn67

    I believe a once Great Nation is no longer stranding. It’s on its knees. Where to place the fault lays within ourselves. The rancor in Wahington could spark a civil war in our very streets. It is being fostered by a mostly bias media and a gullible populace who believe lies passing for the truth. A populace which believes that you can get something for nothing. A once rugged people who could fend for themselves now rely on government for handouts and dubious politicians. Ask me no questions and I’ll tell you no lies. The Greatest Generation who fought our Nation’s enemies to preserve our freedom and way of life would not recognize the America of today. We, the beneficiaries of their sacrifices are sowing the seeds of our demise. Will we the people demand that the insanity in Wahington stop before America’s last gasp and is no more? My fear is that inflated egos will not see the forest for the tree.They have forgotten how to talk. They have forgotten that a house devided can not stand. (Abraham Lincoln)

    • legal eagle

      I would suggest you hunker down in your basement and wait patiently for the apocalypse. When it starts bite down on the cyanide pill…

      • Lee Church

        I disagree with you there .. i think a spell check is top priority in this situation.. as my esteemed uncle from zymzaba says.. he who writes strange makes for reading sloh.

        • legal eagle

          If spell check doesn’t correct it then it must be right….LOL

  • pat brady

    @criolle – Clinton was PRESIDENT. He inherited a HUGE budget deficit and reduced it every year until it eventually turned it into a surplus. Say whatever you want about the republican house. I find it amazing that when it’s a deficit it’s on a the president as long as he’s a democrat. If we have a SURPLUS then the congress gets credit as long as it’s a republican congress. Interesting how that works isn’t it? So I guess this deficit is on the congress then?

    What happened when Clinton left? I mean NOW you republicans running everything so what happened? Only ONE thing changed right? Tell us what happened to the SURPLUS when a conservative came in. If you have ANY guts at all you’ll answer the question honestly but I don’t expect you will.

    • criolle

      1. PLEASE do not call me a Republican! I hate what both parties are doing to MY Nation!
      2. What happened when Clinton left? Why not talk about WHY Clinton inherited a huge deficit?
      The Kennedy and Johnson Administrations fought a war on credit (and by robbing Social Security). Nixon ended that war and was impeached for his efforts.
      Jimmy Carter gave away as much of the Free World as he could and Reagan/Bush I spent a generation’s income destroying the Soviet Union. THAT was the deficit Clinton inherited.
      3. The 110th and 111th CON-gresses were BOTH controlled by Democrats. You can try to count the trillions of dollars spent by those felons yourself. Future generations of Americans will be doing so for decades, if not centuries.
      They will also spend their lifetimes trying to discover where the money WENT.
      4. As for the SURPLUS that vanished, when you tax citizens less and let them keep their own money, government has less on the government ledger.
      That eliminates a government surplus. It forces government to spend less. It’s REAGANOMICS.
      When government creates spending programs that are unfunded, it forces taxation on future generations.
      That’s Reaganomics in reverse. It has a HISTORIC side-effect of destroying economies and representative governments.
      READ. Learn.

      • pat brady

        Criolle-
        “when you tax citizens less and let them keep their own money, government has less on the government ledger.
        That eliminates a government surplus. It forces government to spend less. It’s REAGANOMICS. ”

        It doesn’t FORCE the government to spend less which is where the flaw is. I think that’s the WHOLE plan though. Run up huge deficits and then cry about having to cut spending. Bush created the deficits but giving tax breaks to the people that needed them the least. After 12 years of that then republicans want to scream about the need to cut spending. The reality is that the problem is too big to attack from one side.

        • criolle

          When Reagan got his tax cuts, Tip O’Neal and other Democrats were discussing WHERE, not IF they would cut spending.
          Spending WAS actually cut.
          You do have a legitimate point in that the problem is too large to attack from one side.
          One of the many problems is that neither side is willing to make any concessions.
          They are all firmly entrenched due to the rules that they have written for themselves. Voter imposed term-limits may well be the only solution.

  • Joh

    I regularly follow the results of my favorite baseball teams. That means checking in on the SF Chronicle. I also read their coverage of news items. The latest being the government shutdown. I expect the Chronicle’s coverage to be from the far left slant, but what is the real eye-opener are the reader’s comments. They are, with a few exceptions, vitriolic and hateful. If you had been in a coma for the past 7 years, you would read these comments and assume George Bush was still president. Obama will never be given a realistic review by the press or his followers

  • TheOriginalDonald

    So Mr. Goldberg, should the house members of the GOP do as I suggest, and raise the debt limit to one quadrillion, and see how fast the Spaceballs blow it IF Pelosi is Speaker again??????

    • pat brady

      You mean like they did 17 times fro Bush without question?

      Is the deficit growing or shrinking under Obama?

      • TheOriginalDonald

        Lost the bleeps, the sweeps, and the creeps, eh patty?

        • pat brady

          Didn’t take Nancy Reagan’s advice I see Donald?

          Just say no to drugs!

          • TheOriginalDonald

            Better hope you’re not locked in a limo with Pizza the Hut, or Michael Moore WILL eat you alive!

          • pat brady

            Fat drunk and stupid is no way to go through life son!

          • TheOriginalDonald

            Just go back to sleep, Prince Valium

          • pat brady

            Try to remember to wipe the vomit off of your yellowed fruit of the loom t-shirt before you head out for another quart of Old Milwaukee.

          • TheOriginalDonald

            Go back to eating that five-gallon bucket of ice cream, Barf

          • pat brady

            Go back to pulling cigarette buts out of the urinals

      • D Parri

        The national debt total is increasing.

        • pat brady

          Is that what I asked? Did you not understand the question or did you choose not to answer?

          • D Parri

            I chose to answer that way because many people–not including you–do not understand the difference between an annual deficit and the total debt balance.

            Yes, I understood your question and will respond that the deficit has decreased only recently. I will also qualify that fact with the reminder that the deficit has decreased as a result of the sequestration measures put in place as a compromise with the Republicans on raising the debt ceiling the last time.

          • pat brady

            I understand the difference perfectly well. Bill Clinton ran a SURPLUS but it did nothing to pay down the debt because that was an act of congress. Bush came in and thought we shouldn’t use the surplus to pay down the debt and republicans jumped RIGHT on board with the idea. Gore was very up front about wanting to pay down the debt. Fast forward 13 years and here we are. THAT is why it’s very hard to take republicans serious on this issue. Obama has reduced the deficit as quick as just about anyone in history. That is a fact. The truth is that the first year’s budget had already been decided before he was elected.

          • D Parri

            Obama did absolutely nothing to reduce the deficit. If it had not been for the Republicans rejection of increasing the debt ceiling UNLESS Obama acquiesced to the sequestration measures, then Obama’s deficits would be setting an all-time record for INCREASES. Obama does not take any credit there.

          • Sheila Warner

            Excellent point!

          • pat brady

            “Excellent point!”

            ^^ thank you Sheila!

          • pat brady

            Interesting how that works. The sequester was agreed to by Obama wasn’t it? What about the expiring tax cuts for the wealthy? No? No effect on the deficit? That was a republican idea? If you’re worried about deficits then don’t elect people that say deficits don’t matter. Don’t KEEP electing people that walked in lock step with the people that said deficits don’t matter.

          • Drew Page

            Sequestration was Obama’s idea. He never thought the Republicans would go along with it because it included cuts in defense spending. But he guessed wrong. In order to get some cuts in government spending the Republicans didn’t fight sequestration. Realizing that he just screwed himself, Obama went on the attack again, blaming Republicans for holding Obama to his own idea.
            I would agree with your premise that we shouldn’t keep electing those who believe that “deficits don’t matter”. that goes for Republicans as well as Democrats.

          • pat brady

            So it was Obama’s idea, we followed through with it, it’s reducing the deficit but the Republicans get credit. VERY hard logic to follow.

            BTW, the very same republicans that are NOW deficit hawks were the same guys voting along to increase the deficit for 8 years. They’ll do the EXACT same thing as soon as they’re in charge again. Cut taxes on the wealthy and run big deficits. THen a democrat will come into the white house and be expected to pay the bills while cutting spending at the same time.

          • D Parri

            When you run an annual deficit of over $1 trillion annually for 2 years it is not difficult at all to slow or reverse the RATE of deficit spending by the fourth year–especially when the Republican house refuses to increase the debt limit unless the president concedes to reducing the rate of spending increases. The Budget Control Act began the slowdown in deficit increases in 2011. The bill was passed with a vote of 193 Democrats and 240 Republicans. This is considered a bi-partisan effort with a majority of Republicans.

            So, YES, the Republicans do get credit because the logjam that precipitated the bill WAS caused by an adamant GOP.

            BTW, those ‘”deficit hawks” were dealing with less than half of the current outstanding debt in FY2001-2002. At the beginning of Bush’s administration the debt was barely over $5.7 trillion. Obama has been at the helm while the debt limit has gone from $9.8 trillion to over $16 trillion (soon to be $17 trillion or more).

            If Obama’s increase had run at the same rate as Bush’s, then we would be seeing a debt of only $12.5 trillion today. So, Obama’s deficit spending has already exceeded Bush’s deficit spending by $3.5 trillion, and he will no doubt more than double the deficit spending of Bush by the end of his tenure as president.

          • pat brady

            So if the congress takes the credit for the budget then I guess they take the blame for the deficit too right? No?

            The “deficit hawks” were throwing away a surplus to give tax breaks to millionaires. They voted in lock step. Not ONE of them agreed with the man that wanted to pay down the debt. They made up a fairly tale about tax breaks paying for themselves. HALF of our debt is due to the Bush tax breaks and the wars. You don’t care about that half of the debt? The first year under Obama was the worst but guess who’s budget that was? ONE president was handed a SURPLUS and one was handed the biggest economic downfall since the great depression so it seems like we’re comparing apples and stupid. None of the republicans said a PEEP when the debt was soaring. None of them said a word when Cheney was saying that deficits don’t matter. What he meant was they don’t matter to THEM because they’re the ones benefiting from them. WE’RE the ones paying for them.

          • D Parri

            It is unfortunate that you are SO misinformed. Obama’s deficits have accumulated $6.884 trillion in 5 years. Bush’s deficits AND surpluses accumulated $3.865 trillion in 8 years. Do the math. That’s a 20% increase in 8 years and a 32% increase in just 5 years.

            BTW, Bush’s surpluses came WITHIN his term…not before or after. Aren’t you the one that is supposed to understand the difference between an annual deficit and the total accumulated debt?

          • pat brady

            Wait, Bush had a SURPLUS now? That’s news to me. I know he was HANDED one but I’ve never heard that he ever RAN a surplus. Must be the liberal bias of the media right?

            You realize that the Bush tax cuts went into Obama’s term right? You realize that they’re still partially in place right? You realize which party has insisted on that right? You realize which president was in place for both wars right? The facts are that the FIRST year of Obama’s term was Bush’s budget. I know you want to put that deficit on Obama but guess who set that budget? The reality is that nearly half of our national debt can be attributed to the Bush tax cuts and the 2 wars. I know that can’t sit well in you head because you WANT to think that republicans are the fiscally conservative party but the facts don’t back that up.

          • D Parri

            Take a look at the budget history–by month. Do your own research…I did.

          • pat brady

            I did, judging by your views on everything I doubt you ever did a lot of homework.

          • D Parri

            Yeah, you’re right. How’d you know that? They actually give away graduate finance and accounting degrees along with the CPA license. You are so smart!

          • Jeff Webb

            You libs really need to learn just how stupid they sound when they slam the GOP with the “tax-cuts on the wealthy” cliche. First, it’s a thoroughly dishonest implication that ONLY rich people get the cut. When taxpayers got to keep more of their money under presidents Bush, Reagan, and Kennedy, it wasn’t just the rich ones.

            Second, it’s at least an intellectually dishonest implication that Republicans are the party of rich cronyism. Democrats arguably fit that description better with their fortunes and their conduct; your cronyism only becomes more sleazy when you claim you’re too good for it.
            Third, if you want an example of an ivory tower fat-cat who avoids paying taxes whenever possible, you won’t do better than a democrat, even one of the more sanctimonious ones.

            The last time the Reps (deservedly) lost control of Congress, it was mostly because they spent irresponsibly. It was a key reason, along with Obamacare, the same thing recently happened to the dems.

            We finally have at least some people truly interested in fiscal prudence, and you cry foul and get nasty.

          • pat brady

            I know the truth hurts but it doesn’t mean it’s nasty. You start out with “You libs” but I’M the nasty one right?

            The Bush tax cuts benefitted ONE tax break more than any other. It’s the old tried and UNtrue lie about trickle down. Trickle down is exactly what it sounds like, the wealthy pissing on everyone else.

            As far as which party is more reprehensible just look at the party that wants to cut THEIR OWN taxes. Everyone in congress is rich so when the democrats push for higher taxes on the wealthy they’re pushing for higher taxes on themselves. At LEAST they’re honest about the fact that raising taxes on the top 1% does absolutely NOTHING to stall job growth or investing. I think it’s hard to find an honest political on either side but trickle down is the biggest lie out there.

            To say we “finally have people truly interested in fiscal prudence” is just plain laughable. I’ll ask again, why weren’t they “truly interested” from 2000-08? Why didn’t deficits matter then? What changed besides the party of the presidency? If they were “truly interested” then why wouldn’t they have used the surplus in the budget to pay down the debt? I remember that being an issue in the 2000 election. I remember one candidate saying we should do that. I never realized what a conservative Al Gore was.

          • pat brady

            The funniest part of your post is that the democrats lost seats in the house because of Obamacare. It’s interesting that they GAINED seats in the last election though isn’t it? Interesting that if Obamacare was so unpopular that he actually got RE-elected. I mean Romney made it his #1 priority, said he’d repeal it in his first day and yet he STILL lost. Seems to me that it might be a little more popular than you’d lead us to believe.

            Keep them coming buddy. I swat you guys away like flies.

          • Sheila Warner

            And yet the House remained in GOP control. We Americans are funny like that. We vote for divided government, then get upset when the divisions are so sharp. I include myself in that assessment. I split my vote all the time. But thank goodness there are elections for Congress every two years. At least we can look at what has taken place and determine if we want to try someone new. The beauty of the Constitution.

          • pat brady

            Unfortunately the man with the most money almost always wins though. I’m not sure that’s how they envisioned it back then. It seems that they’re also pretty careful in how they draw the district to make sure they remain in control. I don’t see how much changes until we take the money out of it but these guys are never going to do it unless their hands are forced. They all leave the government SO much richer then they were when they went in.

          • Sheila Warner

            Very good points. Gerrymandering and money certainly contribute to the outcome of elections. What really upsets me, though, is that it seems we have no chance to get a decent candidate in play in the first place. The party leaders have a set of people in mind they’d like to see run. The support goes to those candidates, and that’s who ends up on the ballot. In the 2012 Presidential primary, I was amazed at the GOP process. So many people, and one could see the conservatives trying to find the “right” person as candidate after candidate surged and then fell. The conservatives couldn’t or wouldn’t unite behind one candidate, and thus we got Mitt Romney. He was no match for the President. Too bad so many conservatives seemed to have sat out the election in November, too. It is complex.

          • pat brady

            Ironic how it works with the republicans now too. You have to have extreme views to make it through the primaries and then you spend the whole general election trying to explain the crazy stances you took just a few weeks ago. It’s impossible for a guy like Huntsman to get any traction in the republican party. I mean the guy had to explain that he actually believed in science. You had one candidate saying we should abolish the minimum wage, another that child labor laws are holding back the poor, another that we should let those without health care die…

          • Lee Church

            The squester was proposed by the whitehouse..as a way to create incentive for both sides to reach an agreement. It was intended to make cuts that both didn’t want to make.
            It’s interesting how it’s presented that the President didn’t have a hand in that..
            It’s like Obamacare.. it’s called Obamacare when complaining, and ACA when it’s good.. that way the GOP and TPers can claim they do ‘good’, and President Obama is ‘bad’.
            We get it already.. these folks are hopeless and while we have a situation that could very well end the debate for good by ending our country.. folks will argue these types of things.
            I think the GOP needs to rescue the hostage from the TPers and forget about these sorts of mock debates… but hey.. i read they are more concerned on how it damages their image than what damage the country sustains.

          • jondaris

            That’s a really bizarre position. The debt ceiling is the authorization to spend money that has *already* been approved by Congress, so to blame it on Obama (or any president) is simply wrong.

            You’re one of the more intelligent commenters here in understanding the difference between debt and deficit, but I wholeheartedly disagree with your philosophy.

          • Sheila Warner

            The debt ceiling is the amount of money that Congress is allowed to be raised through borrowing. It’s a “debt” ceiling, meaning the debt can be increased. Not the spending. Which is why the GOP wants cuts commensurate with the amount the debt ceiling is raised. If the government starts to pay down the debt, then hopefully we won’t have an increased debt which limit has been raised. When I am faithfully paying my credit card, my line of credit is sometimes raised. But I don’t spend a bunch of money until I hit the end of the credit line; I continue to pay down what I owe so I have more breathing room, and lower interest, on my credit card.

          • pat brady

            Sheila- The money was ALREADY spent. In your credit card analogy you’d be saying I can’t borrow enough money to make payments to the people I ALREADY owe money to.

            This isn’t a credit card though. Right now we have to increase the debt ceiling to make payments on our debt. Those are the facts. We run a deficit at the moment, so we spend more than we take in. If we tried to make payments on our debt without borrowing then there would be DRASTIC cuts. No one wants to reduce programs that affect THEM though and no one wants to raise taxes but you can’t have it all. Even with the sequester we’re still running a deficit. What do you think would happen to military spending if we tried to go to where we are to a balanced budget in one step? What would happen to programs like Head Start? Clinical research, food programs… It wouldn’t be pretty. And the whole point is that the republicans are ONLY upset about deficits when they’re run by a democrat. I agree, at some point we need to take in more than we spend but that doesn’t happen overnight.

          • Sheila Warner

            Sorry, I disagree with your premise, or perhaps you just didn’t understand me. I got into credit card trouble, nearly maxing out the cards. I began making increased monthly payments, thereby very slowly reducing my debt. I also stopped using them to borrow any more. Once I had them well on the way to being paid off, the credit card companies raised my credit lines. Instead of using the cards, however, I kept on paying down the debt. I’m not certain we have to raise the ceiling to make interest payments. What we have to do is move money around, making priorities about what we spend our money on. In my case, eating out was something I didn’t do. I used that money to add to my monthly payments until I was debt free. There is money in the treasury for interest payments on the debt. It’s just that the Congress has to figure out what not to spend it on instead. Everyone believes the sequestration was a deep cut, but it was only a decrease in the rate of spending. That’s the shell game of Congress, and has been for decades. That’s why it was so dumb of GW Bush not to use the “surplus” (which merely meant no deficit spending) to pay down the debt. He kept using that line of credit. Are we on the same page, now?

          • pat brady

            Sheila-

            ” I’m not certain we have to raise the ceiling to make interest payments.”

            They can pay the interest on the debt but what about social security? In your analogy you’re taking care of yourself but imagine you had to feed your grandparents who couldn’t fend for themselves and your infant? You may have to go to your boss and ask for a raise right or figure out a way to bring IN more money. Well in this analogy your boss is the wealthy and the republicans have made it a point to protect your boss at any cost because if he can’t afford a car elevator and a 40,000 sq ft house then, well, that would be the biggest tragedy in this whole thing. Your analogy is WAY to simple, it’s not a matter of eating Ramen noodles for dinner for a year. It’s matter of throwing your loved ones out on the street, selling your car, not feeding your animals…

          • Sheila Warner

            During the 2011 debt ceiling debate, Tim Geitner was able to move money around to service the debt. As far as social security, that is an entitlement, and that would not be subject to any cuts. We’re talking about discretionary funding when we speak of cuts. It really can be that simple. I am not advocating not raising the ceiling, however; I am advocating making cuts to spending along with the raising of that ceiling. What I don’t want is for the government to just start spending money hand over fist when the ceiling is raised again. Hence, my example of cutting my own discretionary spending while paying off my credit cards. Surely you don’t agree with Rep Pelosi that there isn’t any place left to cut? There is plenty that we spend money on that is foolish–like treadmills for shrimp. That was my favorite.

          • Lee Church

            i don’t think you understand that the debt celing is like running up a credit card bill and then simply deciding not to pay it.. the US can ALWAYS pay it’s bill.. if you could print more money in your house you could fire the up the press and pay the bills you already already racked up (agree with merchants that you would pay).
            that is what is goofy.. the debt ceiling is just an arbitrary thing like you saying (i won’t pay any bill higher than $100), and then you also say “i’ll buy this the $200″.
            when it comes time to pay, you either can’t pay your bill, or you have to change your rule that says you won’t pay anything over $100. Congress makes both rules, just like my example. So that’s why Paulson (who i pointed you to without sucess) thinks it’s a dumb thing Congress does, , it just says they have to agree to the same thing twice.. and as we can see Congress often can’t agree once on anything..
            It is why a guy that was in charge of handling that process a former treasury secretary should at least be heard.. and he says congress should just raise the debt ceiling.. and pass a C.R.. that simple.
            Congress already oked all this stuff… congress knows it’s dumb so they raise the debt ceiling as a matter of course.. usually.
            This debt ceiling thing should not be a matter of national debate.. but as Paulson points out, the TP has hijacked the debate.. made the debate about doing what is essentially a procedural vote into a crisis.
            Totally self inflicted, and we simply can’t allow some small faction in congress to take the country hostage every time they disagree with a law that was already passed. very very bad idea.
            anyway, not surey you get it yet.. hope so.. it’s like an extra ok to approve spending you already approved and spent… not realy like your cc, because the US just prints money if necessary to pay that bill. That allows the currency to get weaker in relation to other currencies, but otherwise.. nothing else happens.
            One thing folks don’t get is there is no magic debt amount that is bad. we think of it in terms on interest rate per annum.. but as economist Shiller has said, there is nothing special about the number of days it takes for the earth to go around the sun and debt. it’s entirely a confidence issue.. do folks have confidence you will pay the debt.. that is what it’s about.. especially when currency can float (and we can print).
            it’s not like your credit card. that rates on existing treasuries don’t change.. (excepton TIPS and i-bonds, but their formula is also coupled with CPI so there are lot of moving parts with those.. and they are minor compared to the workhorse of debt, the 10 year benchmark treasurey bond).
            anyway.. with days left untl we blow it.. it’s really not the time to get into this sort of debate. every second that goes by, confidence is eroded. the dumping of treasuries starts not on default (do you sell your house after the flood or do you prefer to sell beforehand?) but when countries see real risk that we will simply decide not to pay.. and that moves up if it looks likethe TPers are not under control.
            Again, if you go to the bank and say you are not going to pay, then the bank is not going to give you a loan, regardless of what your credit history is. The TPers are telling the world, don’t buy our treasuries, we are not sure if we are going to want to pay the interest on the treasuries you already bought.
            good luck.. we need it.

          • Sheila Warner

            “… the debt ceiling is just an arbitrary thing like you saying (i won’t pay any bill higher than $100), and then you also say ‘i’ll buy this the $200′”. Except that is not what I did. Once again, you did not read my post. These conversations are going nowhere. If you choose to reply again, you will have the last word. Anyone else who might be following this thread knows that you are not paying attention to what I actually say.. Sometimes it’s better to walk away. That’s what I’m doing.

          • Lee Church

            that’s why the country’s debt ceiling IS different.
            it’s great what you did.. it works for you.. but unless you can print money in your basement.. unless anyone in your family can stop the mortgage payment… (your kids can demand a soccer ball in exchange for allowing the mortgage payment).
            it’s great what you did.. it really is.. yeah.. Sheila.. yeah.. you go girl..
            But as you point out it’s not the same as the debt ceiling issue. You keep saying so yourself.
            Your finances are NOT the same as the US governments. I totally agree with you… and Former treasury secretary Paulson would i’m sure agree with you there.
            and you can’t walk away.. you are the folks that wanted to ‘negotiate’.. so ‘negotiate’..
            our demands are now your purse, in addition to a public option, or we don’t give democrat support to raising the debt ceiling. there.. that’s negotiating..
            I don’t know why you don’t want to negotiate… we even met your demands to tie the debt ceiling to health care…
            and we demand cute puppy too…yeah..or no deal.

          • Lee Church

            and sheila, please stop saying your finances have any connection to the US budget.
            you are right.. they ARE two different things.
            you are trying to solve a problem with the wrong model. avery incomplete model, that not only lacks the complexity, but also the basic premises are wrong.
            If you husband gets sick and misses a day of work, you don’t cut off his health insurance premium, or cut back on his food because he isn’t making money.. you feed him and make sure that health insurance in paid.
            In fact, you have extra expenses of driving to the doctor, etc. your expense go up, when your income goes down.
            Your briliant handling of your credit card is NOT at all like the debt ceiling, and your household finances are not a match for the budget of government.
            You don’t understand and the problem is you think you do.. which makes you dangerous.. like many TPers.. you discount folks that have expertise, while listening to wackos, because they relate to your misconceptions better… of course they relate better.
            this is pathetic. and we are another day closer to default.

          • Sheila Warner

            Oh, and if the Treasury really can’t work its magic with the money like it has time and time again, then raise the debt ceiling. Just decrease that spending, too, just as i did with my credit cards. It’s really not a difficult concept until you actually try to decrease spending in someone else’s backyard.

          • D Parri

            The amount of debt added each annual fiscal period to the nation’s total accumulated debt is a function of the deficits which play out each fiscal period. I.e., a $1 trillion deficit this year will add $1 trillion to our current balance of outstanding debt. In order to pass a budget (which Obama never has in 5 years) which will run a $1 trillion deficit, i.e., expenditures will exceed revenues by $1 trillion, the Congress has to authorize that we will be able to increase our debt ‘ceiling’ by $1 trillion–before the monies are EVER spent.

            So, to say that this is money already spent is not correct. It is money AUTHORIZED to be spent. The current debt ceiling is a mixture of past annual budget deficits and the PROJECTED current fiscal budget deficit.

            I thought that you knew this. I guess that I was wrong.

          • Sheila Warner

            So, the GOP forced the President to acquiesce to his own idea? I think you’re mistaken. Neither side wanted sequestration. Both sides of the aisle called the move “dumb”. Let’s remember how often the GOP has blown up the deficit in years past. This is a bipartisan mess.

          • D Parri

            The president fought against spending cuts that the GOP pushed for in order to reduce deficit spending. This was all part of the pending 2011 debt limit crisis. The president took credit for reducing deficit spending, but if the TB’s had not fought fearlessly then the president’s spending increases would not have been reversed.

            This was a bipartisan deal to plug a hole in a sinking boat. It is a bipartisan mess, no doubt, but worse than that it is an American mess that we will leave to our future generations to settle.

          • Sheila Warner

            I know that. Notice I didn’t give any kind of credence to the idea that the President is the one who has brought the deficit spending down. And, you are correct; it is future generations which will suffer because of this mess. I blame everyone.

          • D Parri

            BTW, the actual bill originated as an idea put forth by White House Budget Director Jack Lew and White House Legislative Affairs Director Rob Nabors as a potential solution to the “fiscal cliff” crisis of 2011. Both Boehner and Reid opposed it initially.

            I still hold that the compromise and acquiescence to deficit reduction measures would have never come about but for the GOP–with the Tea Party fighting the hardest–and their “hostage-taking” move with the debt ceiling limit.

            BTW, the vote for the BCA of 2011? House vote: 174 Republicans Yea, 66 Nay; Democrats, 95 Yea / 95 Nay.

          • Sheila Warner

            At this point in time, who came up with the idea is a side show. It was proposed, it was accepted, and now we have to deal with it. Both sides have contributed to this mess. Both sides need to drop the partisan posturing and figure out a coherent way forward. Let’s face it, the sequester was supposed to be a strong arm tactic that both parties went along with. I think neither side understood just how dug in the TP members were. And, of course, how dug in they still are. I believe that most Americans want their tax dollars to be spent wisely, and don’t want out of control spending. It’s getting to a reasonable spending plan that is proving to be so difficult. All sides should be willing to negotiate.

          • D Parri

            Sheila, I agree with you. But I have to ask you a question. If not for the Tea Party, do you think the Republican party would have the guts to stand up to the president and the entrenched Democrat party?

            I can not assign blame to anyone but the president. He is the elected leader of the nation, and he is responsible for providing executive leadership. That includes negotiating when there is an impasse in the Congress.

          • Sheila Warner

            That was an excellent question. And, no, I do not think the GOP would have banded together and tried to defund apart from the Tea Party. I know that in 2010 the Tea Party candidates took back the House because of Obamacare. But I didn’t agree with the tactics of the TP members when they tried to defund the bill. I have no doubt as to their patriotism and their sincerity.

          • D Parri

            I would have preferred a different path to follow because the war of words in Washington right now is very damaging to everyone. The environment is extremely hostile and it is polarizing the government and the electorate in what appears to be an unhealthy and divisive manner.

            It is also quite evident that the Democratic leadership is most concerned about the Tea Party and their influence within the GOP. That is why you hear such vile language and epithets used by the Democrat PR machine in referring to the GOP and especially the Tea Party.

            I have no doubt as to their patriotism also, and I would love to see a re-uniting of the party so that the GOP would be seen as speaking with one voice. That is the key to strength that we of a like mind should strive for. Likewise, that is the thing that the Democrats should fear most.

          • Sheila Warner

            You hit the nail on the head. I wish everyone here was as coherent as you are.

          • D Parri

            Thanks, Sheila. Sometimes I wonder why I am now spending the time on these forums–I have only recently begun. I believe, though, that with a forum of constructive input from many who are interested in the same goals, then there is an opportunity for each of us to contribute in a productive fashion. It is really neat to find that once our vision is honed properly and we look at things more clearly it tends to solidify the group of people who are approaching the debate and its issues in an honest manner.

            I don’t want to grant more than necessary in time and words regarding those whose agenda is clearly nothing more than sniping and provoking, but it is to be expected if the cause that they are attacking is just and they actually see a liability working against themselves. The single voice that I referred to is achievable and I think that more emphasis should be given to it as a goal.

            It is interesting that Bernie, Bill O’Reilly, the Tea Party, Republicans, Fox News, John Boehner, opponents of Obamacare, et al, are all taking their hits from what appears to be a very unified camp that appears to speak with a single voice. The attackers have played an instrumental role in dividing their opponents. It is time to set a reversal in place and meet strength with strength.

          • D Parri

            Also, the sequester was an measure that was intended to ensure a reasonable amount of self-discipline in spending reduction.

          • Josh

            The number games are enough to give someone a headache for three weeks straight.

            Hypothetical POTUS Josh wants to try to play. 2016 needs me.

            “Well, okay. Let’s try to set the budget for 3 trillion this go ’round. Last year’s was too low and we blew it.”

            “Good idea, sir. Let’s up it. I love you like cotton candy.”

            “Gracias. Now, let’s not spend everything we cleared ourselves to spend, and then we’re actually ‘saving’ money, even though we’re still spending incredibly vast amounts of it! Voila — a surplus!”

            “I see what you did there.”

            “You like that? Wait until you hear about the new numbers game. If the debt doesn’t increase by the projected amount, that means we’re lowering the debt!”

            “Oh, like if you were expecting a $10 raise, but only got a $5 raise, so that means your pay has actually been cut by $5?”

            “Exactamundo.”

            “Sir, should we tweak those unemployment numbers again for good measure? You know, so the hundreds of thousands dropping out of the job hunt won’t be counted negatively against the total number of unemployed?”

            “Make it do what it do, baby. I’m out for 18. BBL.”

            Ah, politics. I’m glad I don’t actually involve myself in this mind-numbing stuff too often. 20 minutes a week gives me the trots. And it’s plenty to see that the biggest different between Bush and Obama is the ability the latter has to coherently speak. And a better tan.

          • Sheila Warner

            Not only that, but the deficit was blown up so many times by the GOP, that they are really hypocritical on the whole issue. I am a bipartisan basher.

          • Sheila Warner

            Which is a real hoot, since both sides called the sequestration dumb.

          • D Parri

            Yes, both Reid and Boehner originally opposed the idea. Then it became the Budget Control Act of 2011, and it was passed with bipartisan support.

          • Sheila Warner

            Any thoughts on where we go from here? The fight has been about the process up to this point. What do you think needs to happen to resolve this? You can tell that I am angry at both sides. I’m an Independent, and don’t care which party “wins”. I dislike both of them.

          • D Parri

            Yes, I do.

            I believe that the GOP should stick to the demand for negotiation. At a minimum, the terms of any compromise should include a reversal of the president’s executive orders granting special privileges to some and not others. That would mean that either everyone or no one should be granted a 1-year delay, or all of the waivers, exemptions, and special subsidies made by the president be repealed.

            It is clear that there will have to be some compromises on both sides. That would mean passage of a ‘clean CR’ if the law were to be returned to the ‘untinkered’ state before the president’s modifications.

          • Sheila Warner

            I like your ideas.

      • lark2

        Pat, In 2007 … then Sen. Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi all voted against extending the debt limit. When asked about it in a press conference, Pres. Obama said .. “oh, that was just politics”! No follow up questions were asked.

        • Franklyn Douglas

          I have a simple question. When Obama, Nancy, and Harry were railing against raising the debt limit under Bush. What were the republicans doing ? In general I remember they supported bush and voted to raise it. My point is that knife cuts both ways. It’s all politics on both side. I’m sure you didn’t expect to call you on that.

          • lark2

            The vote to raise the debt limit is ALWAYS political. The party that is out uses it to point out the free-spending ways of the party that’s in. I was just pointing out how hypocritical things are. Although, the Bush debt limit vote was for 10.5 Trillion accumulated by Bush and all previous administrations. The current request is for 17 Trillion … 6.5 Trillion accumulated from 2008 – 2013. That is a lot of cash to go through in 5 years. Given the “financial crisis” effective financial management would call for “CUTS” commensurate with expenditures but, no. just SPEND, SPEND, SPEND. That is why our credit rating took a hit.

          • Franklyn Douglas

            Bush added about 4.7 trillion to the debt in his 8 years. That was about as much as all the presidents before him. And Obama has added just under 7 trillion in 5 years. Both are huge numbers that will never be repayed. My question is when I hear this argument about BO and his 7 trillion being so bad. Versus bush and his 5 trillion. My question is if the republicans had no problem with bush I guess they are saying 5 trillion is ok, but if you go over that….then your the worst president ever. It’s just hypocritical no matter how the right tries to spin it. They both have spent too much. Bush blames the war, and Obama blames the financial crisis. The fact is…they both have spent too much. But conservatives tout how they are all about less spending. So that makes it a few degrees worse in my book.

          • Lee Church

            um.. a lot of that 7 billion is because we still had to pay for the wild party that left some unpaid bills behind.. that 4.7 doesn’t count the unpaid bills… it certainly doesn’t count the continued unemployment and lower revenue as a result of the bubble.
            and it’s fine to blame President’s based on the numbers.. they are nice looking numbers.. i like the digit 4 myself.. but that’s just me..
            however, with an aging demographic increased SS payments and two wars that had to wrapped up responsibly there was, and still is a lot that has nothing to do with the current or future President.
            I hear folks doing all this math stuff.. and i like math.. i really do.. i use it to aid in understanding.. not as some sort of club to hit people with (which seems like an all too popular use of statistics.. oops i mean used 95% of the time).
            Without understanding, these and other numbers are really quite meaningless.. a guy dealt a bad hand might play it well, and the guy dealt a great hand might not.. but the guy dealt a great hand sure looks good in statistics. So sure, if it were some business, one could say “smart CEOs don’t join bad companies”.. sure.. but government isn’t and hopefully never has the same goals as a business (to max profits and min service, but rather the reverse).
            So while i agree with what you might be trying to say, the numbers are meaningless given the context of the time period. I once was in a board meeting where the sales VP was proud of his 15% increase YOY.. sounds great.. only the industry as a whole was growing at a much higher rate.. oops.. he left that out.. but some might say that losing market share isn’t something to be proud of.
            And not only do we have to consider the various lag times and such, but the impact of monetary policy in addition to the fiscal policy, and the social context (people feel poor after the housing bubble so they anchor down, and addressing that take a jolt as well, as one example). Then there is stabilization issues, such as policies to avoid overshooting on the downside in housing (at least dampening it), and a whole host of issues that we have to take in to consideration. But nominal numbers taken from two different time periods (even consecutive is different) have to be thought of in context.
            then of course you focus on debt.. not the revenue decline which was severe as a result of the housing bubble collapsing. If you peeked a bit, you might see that Bush squandered revenue, and Obama was dealt severe decline in revenue before he took office. So sure.. his debt number is likely larger just on that alone.
            but all of this might, just might be why baseline accounting is used. But who really cares about that stuff. LOL
            the take away?
            – context is key
            – numbers are not a substitute for understanding, not a substitute for reality, just a crude modeling tool
            – this is brought to you by the digits 4 and 7 and the decimal point. (ok.. i had to put that joke in sorry).
            after factoring the digits in your post.. i’ll give you a 2 out of 10 in my book.. (everyone makes up their own accounting system it seems, so i wanted to try too!)
            good luck with your continued analysis.

          • Franklyn Douglas

            Ummmmm my head is still spinning from your post. But I think we can boil it down to context. Yes context of the numbers and what’s going on at the time does matter.

          • Lee Church

            that’s what stats are about.. making folks head spin.. isn’t that the only use of statistics.. making one’s case.. or as i put it using the numbers as a weapon?
            so you get it. glad to hear it.
            the framing is spending.. and debt.. that’s a narrow window considering that chronic world wide unemployment from demographics, automation and other factors. if we look at the data, which i cringe at saying because people will immediately try to spin things and hide data points that don’t tell their tale, but if we actually look at recessions in the past, we see that recession recoveries since the 1970’s have had less and less labor recoveries.. one guy asked me during the last election, “that stimulus to rebuild roads didn’t hire many local people! (it was supposed to be a question.. but he expressed it that way)”.. well, unlike the new deal reconstruction projects now they have this toad machine.. you drive it along and it chops, scooops, heats, and lays down finished road behind the machine. pretty cool progress. but it’s expensive and means that about 3-4 guys now can do more road rebuilding than 30-40 guys. So you do that road project now vs the 1930s or 1950s or even the 1970s, and you have a real boost to the economy… do that same project now, and you hired 3-4 people.. cost per ‘job’ is higher, and because it’s more specialzed, they likely won’t be as local.
            that’s context. we can swing around that the cost per job proves government waste.. or that it’s a bad program. and look how our country has fallen because of x, y or zz, but fact is the world is a different place.
            As former treasury secretary Paulson said a few days ago.. there is a faction of his party (republican) that is angry.. he get’s that, but they don’t know why, and they have hijacked the debate, working towards the wrong solutions.
            Paulson suggests we pass the C.R. and raise the debt ceiling. we don’t need self goals against our own country at this time (is there ever really a ‘good ‘ time for that?)
            So sure.. budgets make budget directors heads spin too.. that’s the nature of that beast. the simplistic view that folks have about the national budget is naive and has become dangerous. Folks don’t have a clue about what these numbers really represent.. they are just scary digits (i find the digit 9 has a menacing look to it, don’t you?).
            that was the point of the post. number can help us understand, but they don’t replace reality.. and they are not weapons to be swung at opponents for extra points. Unfortunately that’s the norm.. in fact the top 50% misuse 95% of the statistics (not that meaningless misleading slogan again!.. lol).
            the media likes to do it. this Goldberg fraud.. he does it.. and folks have taken up doing it.. mimicing what they see (like ALL of the comments here.. not an original thought in the bunch, just an echo chamber of repeated talknig points by various factions).
            The idea that there is going to be some national debate that can debate each and every budget line item implication is silly. we keep hearing about the debt in part because they can’t argue about the deficit well 1) the GOP’s past that ‘deficits don’t matter’ and 2) it’s actually going down (an indicator that the President is doing a great job, particularly given the context of revenue reductions). so it’s framed as spending and debt.. we get it.. we really do.
            Folks in the GOP need to deal with the hostage situation.. they created the problem with all this half true , omission and outright lying and now some believe it.. they are the dog that finally catches the car.

          • pat brady

            Our credit limit took a hit because of a dysfunctional congress. That was reported. Bush was handed a SURPLUS. Republicans walked in lock step while Bush and Cheney were telling us that deficits don’t matter. Suddenly as SOON as they left office deficits are the ONLY thing that matter. Where were they all when Al Gore was saying we should use the SURPLUS to pay our debt? It’s one thing to have a protest vote it’s another to hold the country hostage by saying if we don’t get our way we’ll shut down the government. Obama may have voted against raising the debt ceiling but they never got together and said unless they end the Bush tax cuts they’ll let the country default on its debt. DRASTICALLY different scenarios.

          • Lee Church

            you mean even when ‘deficits didn’t matter’ in the 1980s? you mean during all that credit expansion where leveraged buyouts loaded up companies with debt after raiding the pension plans to pay back the corporate raiders?
            You mean even then it was politcal? wow dude..
            so let’s default on our debt.. i’m sure the chinese won’t mind.. nah.. it’s always just politics.. you tell them that for us.. ok?

          • Lee Church

            Ok.. give us public option in health care.. or we launch the nukes.. i mean let’s get it on.. heck give us your wallet too.. or WE shutdown government and default on the nations debt.. sounds great..

            you have a false equivalence, and to suggest that your cited case shutdown the government is flat out wrong (it didn’t shut down), and the suggest that they held Congress hostage over the debt ceiling is a bit overstated.. but you equate jaywalking with capital crimes… we get it.
            So let’s really make it equal.. we demand a full public option now, in return we won’t shutdown the government. and we demand you give us your shirt.. we like your shirt, really we do..or we won’t raise the debt ceiling. but we are only going to raise if for a week.. and then we want your shoes.. we likes those very much.. yes.. your shoes.. or we default.
            that’s what you are suggesting.. that’s fruity, dude.

          • Franklyn Douglas

            Lee What are you talking about. I dont see how your post has anything to do with my above post

          • Lee Church

            the point is that the knife has not even started to cut both ways.. if it’s ok to take the country hostage for disagreement on past legislation we might as well start demanding ransom for our entire agenda.. point by point.
            we can have both sides demanding stuff or they shut the government down and default. Imagine both sides doing that at the same time.
            That would perhaps the only thing more silly than one side doing it. but if one argues that the TPers doing it is ‘good’, then both sides doing it at the same time is ‘better’.. lol so so the logic goes.
            that’s the point.. it’s nuts.

          • Franklyn Douglas

            Ok now I follow and your right.

          • Drew Page

            The government isn’t asking for my wallet, they are confiscating my money before I even get to see my paycheck.
            Obama and the Democrats lied when they said if you like your current health plan you can keep it. They lied when they said you can keep your own doctor. They lied when they said it would bring down the cost of health insurance by $2,500 a year for family coverage. They lied when they said no one making less than $200,000 per year would see their taxes increase by even a dime. They lied when they said there would be no rationing of health care. they lied when they told the country that the ACA would cost “only” $900 billion over 10 years.
            The Democrats used every maneuver possible to push the ACA down our throats. They bribed it through the Senate thanks to the Second Louisiana Purchase (Mary Landrieu) and the Cornhusker Kickback (Ben Nelson). They never allowed any Republican input and never got a single Republican vote. They didn’t bother to read it because they exempted themselves from it.
            Now you are whining about the Republican House exercising its Constitution right to fund or defund legislation they do not believe is in the best interests of the country. The Constitution gives the House the power of the purse and you don’t like it. Well there is nothing about ObamaCare that millions of people in this country like.

          • Franklyn Douglas

            True millions don’t like it. But it’s also true that millions do like it or at least will wait and see what happens. What makes the republicans that are against it’s views or wants more important then the views of others ? That’s the part I don’t understand. You act like more people didn’t vote in the last election in support of it and the people that put the ACA in place.

          • Lee Church

            ok.. i’ll take the public option, a raise and your shoes or we shut the government down and default..
            and no.. not interest in your wife.. you keep her or we shut the government down and default..
            Fact is that sort of ‘negotiating’ isn’t negotiating at all it’s hostage taking and descructive to our country.
            disagree all you want about policies.. go on for the next hundred years about Obamacare talknig points.. and yes i now the GOP/TP now want to call it ACA.. very funny.. very funny.. it’s Obamacare.. you named it that.. but now the ploy is that the GOP has to start calling is something neutral .. ACA.. so that in a few years you can claim you came up with ACA.. Obamacare was ‘replaced’ by ACA.. of course ‘everyone’ knows that.. because ACA is based on ROmneycare.. yeah yeah ..
            So you should keep calling it Obamacare.. that’s your term.. what’s wrong with the term now?
            and that last post of yours.. we will take your car or we will shutdown the government and default.. throw that in too..
            That’s the negotiating you want is you accept demanding changes to existing law in order not to shutdown and default on our debt. So don’t pretend that they aren’t.. you aren’t holding the country hostage.
            You are so mixed up, no wonder you mess everything up.. the hostage takers think they are doing the hostage a favor.. geez.. rubbish.

          • Drew Page

            Lee — Your response to my last post is incoherent.

          • Lee Church

            good.. then you are catching on.. for that we wil shutdown the government and default on our debt.. unless you say “Drew page is a dummy” from your roof top.
            But remember, if you don’t comply than the default and shutdown is your doing.. you obviously care more about yourself than your country.
            That more clear for you? and oh.. give us your ipod.. i lie the color of it.. or we default and shutdown..
            (in other words, once you start giving hostage demands they never end.. that’s the point for the slow readers here).
            geez.. you have a problem.. you created a hostage situation.. now go fix it instead of playing stupid.
            thanks.

          • LEE

            Don’t you have better things to do on a Saturday? Get a life.

          • Lee Church

            sorry i didn’t get back to you, i was out enjoying the day.
            what were you saying?

          • Lee Church

            you are the substitute negotiator for the TP side? not surprised.. the others were losing their shirts.. watches and shoes.. did you volunteer to negotiate, or did they appoint you.. and are you rich? just like to get to know who i’m negotiating with..
            (whenever the TPers agree that withholdig the C.R. and not raising the debt ceiling is totally in appropriate and wrong on all counts, then we might be able to conclude these negotiations.. but only after we get some token.. at least a new TV.. or cell phone.. )
            See how freaking ridiculous the TP position is yet?
            oh.. nobody wants to negotiate from the TP anymore? bummer.

          • legal eagle

            So tell us what healthcare you have that you can no longer have? Spouting talking points you’ve heard on Fox News over and over does little to advance the discussion..

          • Lee Church

            i’m guessing they wil come up with the one impacted by the out of pocket costs delay.. that’s my hunch.. that’s on the talking point list.. but they have to find it there first…so
            please hold while we search for talking point…
            and fade to music..

          • legal eagle

            The best Republican talking point is “The American people want us to defund Obamacare…and “this disaster called Obamacare”…..
            Now say each one slowly and then repeat them every ten minutes for the next 6 hours….LMAO

        • pat brady

          Obama answered to that if you watch the news. They didn’t have the votes to do it so it was nothing more than a protest vote which he acknowledged at the time I think. There was also no hostage taking, no one said if you don’t end the war we’ll shut down the government. I don’t remember democrats saying that if the tax rate on the wealthy wasn’t raised that they’d shut down the government.

          • Lee Church

            pat,
            It might be that larks suggesting that we take hostages too.. I think he is suggesting that the President says “give me the national public option in healthcare or we take down the country.. maybe that is what he is suggesting is the correct response from the President.
            I mean, since both side are supposed to do it.. I can only imagine that lark means doing the same thing.. not a protest vote on something that passed without an issue.
            (i’m not actually suggesting we do that.. but pointing out the precedent would allow any President or branch, heck even the supreme court could get in that action.. either give us X, or we rule to shut down everything as unconstitutional.. every week we could have a hostage taking.. sound like a wonderful plan for disaster)

          • Drew Page

            The Democrats didn’t have to say it, they just went ahead and did it, increasing the tax rate on the wealthy.

          • legal eagle

            And the wealthy are sure suffering aren’t they?

          • Jeff Webb

            And increasing taxes on the wealthy sure does wonders for the economy, doesn’t it? And equal treatment under the law sure doesn’t apply to people if they’re wealthy, does it?

          • pat brady

            They did? They demanded that Bush raise the tax rate for the wealthy or they’d shut down the government? I don’t remember ANY of that. What year was that exactly?

          • Lee Church

            but we didn’t have the votes for a public option.. so we didn’t get that.. but hey.. since the new negotiations are on.. um.. give us the public option or we let the country default and no C.R…
            deal?

          • legal eagle

            You are quite correct…However, most of the people on this site watch Fox News and so they have no sense of reality….

          • Lee Church

            and even if folks did happen to know the right answer.. it’s always good policy to simply recycle the old talking point.. i think it’s listed in the instructions..
            lifted from top secret GOP/TP talking point memo (this is made up, for the record, but it’s mocking them)
            and i read…..
            (when you reach the bottom go back to the top of the list.. and try combining two or more GOP/TP talking points for extra credit)
            so i thnk.. ah.. that’s it.. they get extra credit.. that’s good.. i like that! credit is GOOD..GOP/TP needs credit…no. that’s not right.. they need credibility.. that’s close enough.

      • JohnKohos

        Seriously? In five years, Obama has doubled the accumulated US debt of all previous administrations that came before him. Combined. Including Bush.

        To reiterate… When Obama took office, the total accumulated US debt from ALL previous administrations, incluing Bush’s was $10 trillion. Five years later, Obama increased that debt to $17 trillion on its way to $20 triilion in 2016. And that is the optimistic estimate.

        No. Obama has not decreased the deficit.

        And by the way, the NASDAQ tech bubble created by Clinton that fueled the illusion of prosperity of his presidency burst only months into Bush’s presidency when Abby Joseph Cohen’s proclamation about the state of the markets opened the door and caused a panic.

        Then the housing bubble Clinton created that added more fuel to the illusion of that phony prosperity also burst early in Bush’s term when Democrat Chuck Schumer on the Senate Banking Committee started a run on the banks by announcing out-of-school that he wouldn’t trust them with his money.

        And for those who didn’t follow the details closely, Republican attempts to stop the growing sub-prime mortgage bubble were blocked by Democrats like Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee who just happened to be sleeping with the guy at Fanny Mae that they were supposed to be regulating.

        So Bush got blamed for what Clinton did before him and now Bush is getting blamed again for what Obama is doing after him.

        Nobody else is responsible for anything. Remarkable. But that really isn’t the point. The point is that Obama is the president now. Deal wit that.

        • legal eagle

          So you believe the government created the tech bubble? Abby Cohen was so influential that she caused the bubble to burst?
          Wall Street created the tech bubble and the housing bubble because that’s how they make money…The government doesn’t issue worthless IPOs or crap mortgages…
          I’m not sure if you have a short memory or just don’t care about the facts….Probably the latter…

          • Lee Church

            oh i like this .. is this what is called ‘debate’? it looks fun?
            may i play too?
            i have credit.. can i play.. i got my credit during major expansion . that spanned decades.. yes. yes.. my brother bought the company and then took out loans at the company.. then paid himself hansomely.. but sadly not enough.. so he got lucky and saw the pension plan was overfunded.. with a few calculations he found that the company could buy stock for the pension plan in his other company.. a new company.. and then his company could take money out of pension plan because the stock was going up.. up up.. tht’s the only way stocks go you know..
            but he could finaly pay himself almost enough.. but still not.. so he sold the company again.. after taking out loans and paying himself more.
            ———
            Great.. now days before we default folks are going to try to debate decades of mismanagement, an assign causation, and the fixes.. we have the brighted all gathered here, i can see.
            ——
            meanwhile we get day by day closer to defaulting, and the the shutdown hurts the economy.. this is debating.. this is fun! let’s play more, yes?
            (that’s my best zymbaha fake accent.. about as reality based as the GOP/TPers and goldberg types).

          • JohnKohos

            legal eagle, eh?

            To increase home ownership Clinton “imposed” lower lending standards on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, requiring them to accept paper-thin down payments from first-time buys who didn’t have the finances or income to afford them.

            And they threatened civil rights action against lending institutions who statistically refused disproportionate numbers of mortgage applications minorities regardless of whether they disproportionately failed to meet prudent lending criteria.

            The result pushed prices up and led to waves of defaults.

            There’s your housing bubble.

            Then in 1999, Clinton repealed Glass-Steagall which previously separated commercial and investment banking since it was enacted after the Great Depression to prevent exactly what Wall St did after he repealed it.

            So the worthless mortgages were converted to junk bonds with ludicrous fraudulent valuations. The banks were trading with themselves using everybody else’s money. And the stock markets flourished with all the free money flying around. Suddenly everybody was prosperous.

            Nero fiddled while Rome burned and the entire US economy under Clinton was never going to come down to Earth because the ends were never going to meet. Hooray.

            It’s called kiting.

            Now… Obama comes along to set everything straight. Except that Wall St has never been held accountable. They are still reaping record profits while everybody else twists. And Eric Holder has been threatening civil rights action against lenders who statistically refuse disproportionate numbers of mortgage applications from minorities, regardless of whether they disproportionately fail to meet prudent lending criteria.

            Sound familiar?

            You’re not sure whether I have a short memory or just don’t care about the facts? You suppose it’s probably the latter?

            Here’s a thought for you. Do a little research. Then have a big mouth.

          • legal eagle

            I would suggest to you that you read the book “The Big Short” by Michael Lewis….The Clinton administration opened the door and Wall Street exploited the loophole to create trillions of dollars of junk mortgages….That’s equivalent to me telling my kid he can “borrow my car” and he uses that to take my car and drive it cross country….When I ask him why he did that he says ” you told me I can borrow the car…what’s the problem?”

          • JohnKohos

            No. It’s equivalent to the Clinton administration removing the speed limits from all the roads and then trying to blame the speeders for dangerous driving.

          • legal eagle

            By the way…tell me when Clinton “imposed” lower lending standards on Fannie Mae?
            Who was behind Congress and the Fed’s refusal to regulate derivatives?
            Who forced AEG to insure trillions of dollars of derivatives?

          • JohnKohos

            The government was responsible for regulating these things and they removed the existing barriers barriers. Explain why Glass-Steagall was revoked and the foxes left to regulate themselves..

          • legal eagle

            Glass-Steagall was “revoked” because Wall Street and Bob Rubin wanted it gone so they could make more money…The foxes regulate themselves because they buy the politicians….The best example of this is Dodd-Frank which has many of its important provisions blocked by the Republican house….I practice securities law…I can tell you that it is virtually impossible to implement new securities regulations without Wall Street lobbyists watering down proposed legislation…

          • JohnKohos

            So you exonerate the elected officials on the grounds that they have been bought. That’s an interesting moral perspective.

            It sounds a lot like the fellow who murdered his parents and then pleaded for clemency on the grounds that he was an orphan.

            Glass-Steagall was revoked because the Congress voted to do it and President Bill Clinton signed it.

          • legal eagle

            Your naiveté is charming…I didn’t exonerate anyone I stated how the system works…If you knew anything about the derivatives market you’d know Glass-Steagall meant little as did its demise…Do you have any interest in knowing the facts or do you want to argue generalities?

          • JohnKohos

            My staff and I know more than enough about derivatives to know that you are full of baloney. And I’ll take your word for the fact that you are some kind of securities lawyer.

            You didn’t exonerate anyone? You just stated how the system works? I haven’t resorted to double-talk like that since high school.

            You diverted all the blame to the perpetrators and away from the regulators who turned them loose because that’s what you intended to do. I don’t know why. It doesn’t really matter.

          • legal eagle

            Blame whomever you want…if your kid takes your car, goes for a joyride and hits someone is it your fault for not hiding the keys or his fault for taking the car?
            I’ll leave it to you to apportion the blame…the Clinton Administration left the keys but Wall Street was the driver…
            If you want to read about it read The Big Short by Michael Lewis,,,informative and entertaining..

          • JohnKohos

            If I hand my kids the keys to the car and the liquor cabinet, I’m responsible because I am supposed to be regulating them. That doesn’t exonerate the kids. But I would be a moral reprobate to point the finger at them instead of myself.

            And evidently, you would be my lawyer.

          • Sheila Warner

            The regulators indeed dropped the ball. It’s not just the perpetrators. I’m amazed that no one has gone to jail. What do you think of Dodd-Frank, which still isn’t up and running because the regulations are not finished? I know nothing about the financial markets.

          • JohnKohos

            In 1999, Fannie Mae came under pressure from the Clinton administration to expand mortgage loans to low and moderate income borrowers by increasing the ratios of their loan portfolios in distressed inner city areas designated in the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) of 1977

            Start there and then research the pressure exerted by people like Barney Frank and now by Eric Holder to compel bankers to make substandard loans to low income people who wouldn’t otherwise qualify.

            Here a hint… In an end-of-year press release, Holder’s DOJ posted “Accomplishments Under the Leadership of Attorney General Eric Holder” in which they boasted charging “nearly 3,000″ bankers with lending discrimination and fraud” based solely on rejection and higher interest rate statistics that would have reflected the normal outcomes for lower income applicants who (unfortunately) tend to be minorities.

            No evidence of actual race-based discrimination was ever offered and banks either capitulated or settled.

            As for the behaviour of Wall St, nobody forced the speeders to speed. They just removed the speed limits from the roads with predictable results.

            So they took the leash off the dog and then blamed the dog for attacking pedestrians because they aren’t responsible for forcing people to do the right thing. But they have no qualms about forcing people to buy healthcare insurance.

          • legal eagle

            Wall Street has been held accountable financially …J.P Morgan just agreed to pay $11 billion for mortgage fraud….Until the securities laws are changed, which will not happen, convicting Wall Street executives for securities fraud is impossible because intent cannot be established…Wall Street owns Congress and Congress makes the laws not Obama or Eric Holder…

          • Sheila Warner

            President Clinton did not repeal the Glass-Steagall Act. Congress did that, with both parties voting for its repeal. President Clinton signed it. Once again, blame all around.

          • JohnKohos

            President Clinton did repeal the Glass-Steagall Act, using the same signing authority Barack Obama vows to withhold now to keep the government closed regardless of what bill gets to his desk unless he gets everything he wants.

            Having said that, the Congress did pass the repeal of Glass-Steagallas. So you are at least half right and there is plenty of blame to go around on both sides of the aisle, although Obama and Geitner have both since blocked efforts again to reinstate it..

            My point was that the fuse was lit during the so-called prosperity of the Clinton years. A fact that gets whitewashed by people who are rewriting history to confuse Americans while they take America down an even darker rabbitt hole.

          • Sheila Warner

            Any President can push for an agenda; in President Clinton’s case, he was pressured by Wall St to pursue repeal of the G-S Act. But a President cannot repeal a thing. Only the Congress can do so, and if a President doesn’t get his Congress to go along with him, then nothing happens.

          • JohnKohos

            Presidents can circumvent Congress with Executive Orders and they can veto anything that comes across their desk. Obama has demonstrated both without hesitation.

            But it’s a good debate that might benefit a population no longer educated about civics because of a political class that doesn’t want them to know.

            What leads you to believe Clinton was pressured against his will on Glass-Steagall?

          • Sheila Warner

            I don’t think he was pressured against his will. I think the climate was right for the change, and Wall St knew that if they pushed everyone, they’d get what they wanted. Timing is everything. I do agree with you that people don’t understand civics. Yes, the President can issue executive orders, but can he do so with only a portion of a law? He is supposed to uphold the law. Changes in legislation are supposed to start in the Congress. I’d love to hear what the courts say on this, but I think the GOP might be afraid that they are wrong on this, so they haven’t pursued that course of action.

          • JohnKohos

            Your question about whether the President can issue Executive Orders with only a portion of a law is both insightful and timely because that is exactly what President Obama is doing with the Affordable Care Act.

            Have a look at the selective changes he’s making to appease unions and other supporters while refusing to discuss changes with Congress. It’s a shame it isn’t getting more airtime because it’s pretty significant.

            Thanks for the relevant input. It’s a refreshing change.

          • Lee Church

            ultimately, if one says that government should be the grown up, i agree, government could have done more to stop the great depression.. and didn’t. could have done more to stop the silly 1980s corporate leveraged buyouts, which drove the next leg of the great credit expansion. and when the credit expansion (that is, leverage ratios) finally tops out, things break.
            not to mention that changing demographics, and changing labor component in the economies of the world mean that chronic unemployment is an ongoing world wide problem. folks argue about this , and argue about that.. and the really big drivers are lost..
            since the guy is quoting Paulson, i’ll also quote paulson of a few days ago saying that the faction that has hijacked the debate is angry, and working on the wrong solutions (paulson’s words, not mine).
            The TPers are focused on things like spending.. and that’s not really the issue.. and entitlements.. and that’s not really the issue.. and communism, and socialism.. etc. etc… so they these TPers are really just lashing out and have no clue.. they know they want an answer, and the fantasyworld answers they get fit their lord of the rings and harry potter made up ‘world view’.
            anyway.. looks like we will just have to take the keys away from them.. folks like Goldberg aren’t man enough to step up and tell them he has been feeding them BS. All goldberg is trying to do is save his own skin.. so he goes back to getting them to go ayatollah on Obama.. then it’s ok.
            oh well.

        • Lee Church

          created by Clinton.. so the dems built that? you mean Al Gore really did invent the internet?
          Seriously, the way you use attribution of credit or blame is silly.. Clinton didn’t create the tech bubble anymore than al gore inventing the internet. in Al’s defense he was saying he promoted bills that funded getting it started (depending on what ‘start’ is in history.)
          but the meme that you use Al gore inventing the internet is the opposite of what you are doing here.. saying Clinton created the tech bubble.
          It’s this distortion.. a re-writing of ‘facts’ that remain ‘facts’ to the TPers after alteration. Like the guy misquoting paulson on this thread, and like many many many of the talking points .. they are basically garbage.. based on some sort of ‘fact’ that long lost it’s meaning.
          if the TP were a washing machine, it would only have one cycle.. spin.
          For regular folks, there were many reasons for the tech bubble.. and some of those had nothing to do with Clinton anymore than netflix going back up to 300 per share now and a ridiculous P/E as well. President Obama didn’t re-repeal glass steagal. there are many factors, not the least is silly consumers.. buying the tweeter home services by mistake instead of twitter.
          Folks that have read The Intelligent Investor konw that bubbles form and market dislocations occur frequently.
          Folks in the TP have a bad habit of seeing correlation and mistaking it for causation.

          • JohnKohos

            You are not only incoherent and incomprehensible, You are completely unhinged.

            On a small side note, I don’t belong to the Tea Party or any other party. I’m not even American.

            That said, if I had to identify myself politically, I suppose I am a modestly right of center Independent and I support whoever seems to be on a constructive path. Failing that, I grudgingly support whoever is on the least destructive path.

            Ironically for you, I was a big Clinton fan who yelled at the TV a lot during the impeachment hearings. It was a huge distraction when there was so much important work to do.

            Get a real education. Stop ranting. Whatever it is you represent, you are not representing it well.

          • Sheila Warner

            The impeachment of Bill Clinton is a black eye in American history. What a circus.

        • legal eagle

          Obama doubled the debt? I thought you were smarter than that but I guess spewing Republican talking points works for you…..

      • D Parri

        You do not have the facts correct. The limit was adjusted during Bush’s term 8 times, not 17. Also, the Congress was a split House and Senate and it was approved each time with bi-partisan support. Barrack Hussein Obama voted against raising the debt limit.

        • legal eagle

          Obama voted against the debt limit because it had enough votes to pass….It’s called a political vote, a concept too complicated for most Republicans to comprehend.

          • Sheila Warner

            Yes, when he was a senator, the President did not vote to raise the debt ceiling. Now that he is the President, he has a responsibility to the nation, not just to his constituents. I think every President ends up making some changes when faced with reality. Remember that the economy really crashed during the 2008 presidential campaign. One of GW Bush’s last economic acts was to push for TARP. He said he had to abandon free market principles in order to save the free market system. And you conservatives think this President has it wrong??? God save us from those who think Bush’s sh*t didn’t stink.

          • D Parri

            Thank goodness we have you brilliant Demo Rats to lead the lemmings.

          • Sheila Warner

            A political vote? What does that mean? Are you referring to a protest vote? Well, there are enough TP members of the GOP that a “protest” vote ended up shutting things down. Smooth move by the TPers. Way to hurt the average American. I hope they all lose their seats in the next election. Same thing for the Democrats who won’t budge. Throw ‘em out, and let’s have people who want to work for the good of the entire country.

          • legal eagle

            A “political” vote is when you know your vote does not count but you want to be on record for political purposes…This is a common practice is all legislatures particularly by politicians looking to higher office…

          • Sheila Warner

            When your vote does not count? You mean when your vote has no chance of effecting meaningful change? That’s a protest vote. It’s also called standing on principle, and following your conscience. The things the Tea Party claim they are doing. But if your vote really can change the outcome, and that outcome is bad for the nation, do you end up cutting off your nose to spite your face? At what point do principles and desired outcomes contradict?

        • Lee Church

          that’s a relief, i would be worried if the President did that.. glad it was that Hussein guy.. whew.
          Serioulsy.. you say it was 8.. so aha.. but eight isn’t a good weapon.. no siree.. there is simply no way to grab an eight easily.. the digit 1 is good.. yes? digit 4 is my favorite.. see the little barb? that one is preferred when trying to have something stick when you use it.
          The president has acknowledged that it was a mistake to vote against the debt ceiling, but in his defense it was a symbolic dissent that didn’t stop the country from raising the debt limit (wasn’t even close.. what was the count on that vote you mention).
          Also, i like how you make your case.. it’s nice to imply that the President did so many times.. perhaps 17? you don’t say..
          so let’s argue about that.. i’m game.. we can do that for a few days but i think the phones all ringing when china starts calling might delay us.. can you ask them to wait while you argue about a symbolic dissent vote and use false equivalence? I’m sure they will wait to dumpt their treasuries if you negotiate.. you like negotiating.? would you like to play ‘negotiate’ with me? i like that game too!

          • D Parri

            Play all the moronic games you want to play. As a matter of fact, go ahead and play with yourself when you get ready. I’ll be somewhere else.

        • pat brady

          Just curious why you choose to call him Barack Hussein Obama? Do you refer to George Bush as George Walker Bush? Bill Jefferson Clinton? Ronald Wilson Reagan? Something tells me it’s JUST when the name sounds foreign to you. You’ll of course never admit where it comes from but you have my pity because it comes from an ugly place.

          I’ve asked this question several times and no one has answered it. When Obama voted against raising the debt ceiling did they have the votes to stop it? Did he demand an end to the war or to raise taxes on the wealthy? No?

          • D Parri

            No, he did not have the votes but that wasn’t his purpose.

            I do not know why you think that his full name is anything other than his full name. I’d say that it is your attempt at projecting your own ugly thoughts at me as if they were mine. You own it because you brought it up.

          • pat brady

            Just curious why you use HIS full name and no one else’s? I don’t have any ugly thoughts. I couldn’t care less what his middle name is but you guys use it for SOME reason. I’m just asking you why? If his middle name was Harry you KNOW you’d never use it. If you were HONEST (which of course you’ll never be) you’d admit it’s to stress that he’s different. There is NO Other reason to use it.

    • Bernie

      No

  • Sheila Warner

    I think the President loves to fight. As in the campaign style of fighting. He is energized when he goes out on the stump, attacking those who are his opponents and rallying his base. This is just another fight for him. I don’t think he has seriously thought long term about how this impasse affects the American people. He enjoys division, and he sows it wherever he goes. We don’t know too much about what the President studied in school, but if he was on a debate team, he didn’t learn much about the true art of debating. That is to listen carefully to your opponent’s point of view, and then counter it with a substantive answer.

    • legal eagle

      How do you expect Obama to negotiate when the negotiation involves a short term fix and Republicans will want to negotiate again 90 days from now?

      • Sheila Warner

        I actually agree with your point. Some talking head on Fox News pointed out that the President doesn’t even know who he would be negotiating with: the SOTH? the Tea Party? moderate Republicans? Your point is well taken. A quick fix now with another fight in 90 days is stupid. But the President does love to rally.

        • Drew Page

          That’s right Sheila, blame Fox News for the government shutdown.
          The Democrats controlled the white House, the Senate and the House from January of 2009 through January of 2011. They had every opportunity to pass a budget and they didn’t do it. They still haven’t done it. They don’t want there to be a budget because that would mean they would have to limit their spending. If there is no budget, they can’t be accused of exceeding it. So please don’t try to tell us that the president doesn’t want another budget fight. He lives for this; it gives him more opportunities to criticize the opposition.

          • Sheila Warner

            Blame Fox News? All I said was that it was a talking head on Fox (whose name I forget) who made the statement I quoted. No media outlet is responsible for the shutdown. The blame belongs to the President and Congress. They are our leaders, they make the decisions, and we the people have to live with the consequences. The point made on that particular Fox show was that the President is not merely having to face negotiations with John Boehner, but with the various factions within the GOP too. This makes negotiations difficult, because you don’t really know which faction will finally listen. That’s all. Brush up on reading comprehension. I never blamed Fox News. Never.

          • Lee Church

            Former treasury secretary Paulson, a republican thinks that a faction of the GOP has hijacked (his wording, not mine) the debate, and that the GOP needs to pass a C.R and raise the debt ceiling without this so called ‘debate’ as it’s damaging our country even going this far.
            He suggests the debt ceiling was always a bad idea, as congress already passed legislation to ok expenditures.
            Now one an say Paulson doesn’t know anything.. or is part of the conspriacy, or that he is not a true republican, but he likely knows more about the nation’s finances and finance in general than anyone here (i include myself and goldberg in ‘anyone’).
            but we can debate and re-debate until we default.. or not. hopefully adults will step in and take the keys from the TP soon.

          • Sheila Warner

            Once again you seem to be replying to points I didn’t raise. I said in my opinion the blame for the current stalemate is shared by both the President and the Congress. Next thing I read, you’re referring to Paulson’s opinion, as if somehow I had made a judgment on the merits of the shutdown. I have discussed those ideas in other posts to other people, but the comment of mine to which you are replying only states that I think there is blame on all sides for the current situation. Nothing more and nothing less. Your prior reply to me also was not in response to anything I said, for I have never ever blamed Fox News for the shutdown. You might want to write down the user IDs of the people on here when you read their comments, because you clearly aren’t keeping track of what I have said, anyway.

          • Lee Church

            Yes, Paulson disagrees with you. He thinks a faction has hijacked the GOP.. and encourages the GOP to do something about it. He does NOT lay blame on the President..
            I cite him a republican who disagrees with your contention that there is some sort of shared blame.
            I think it relates to your post (we have to argue about arguing about arguing now? is this a new game too?.. i think i might like it.. can we play more and see?)
            geez.Paulson IS blaming the TP.. not fox news.
            you are not following along.. i suspect you have not bothered to listen to what he has to say, he is only the treasury secretary under the Bush administration.. that’s all.. he was involved.. and he knows how the debt ceiling works..
            but if knowledge and experience, and perspective as a republican disqualifies him.. i guess we are left with people who don’t know anything, have no experience in finance or as treasury secretary (the debt ceiling authorizes the treasury department to pay what congress already approved.. so one might think they have something to do with it)… but hey.. i can see how some say it’s not important.. because we want to blame the President and congress.. you know the old he said, she said and the truth is in the middle .. you know that faulty thinking.
            Some say the sun rises in the north.. others in the west.. thus, we conclude the sun rises in the northwest? really?
            Your logic if faulty, and your selection of reputable sources is questionable.. and yes, that applies to your post on the debt ceiling, particularly when you are blaming the President for what is the job of congress.
            the sun rises in the east.. no matter what talking points say to the contrary.

          • Sheila Warner

            Arguing about arguing. Hmmm. All I did was point out that your comments are based on opinions I did not say, such as Fox News caused the shut down. Do I disagree with Paulson? Yes. Do I disagree with you? Yes. That doesn’t automatically make your position the correct one. Both are to blame, period.

          • Lee Church

            Ok.. i’ll tryto get through to you again.. another way..
            let’s say you insist that the President must negotiate.. ok..
            what is he negotiating for.. what to give up so they pass a cr and not default on our debt? ok..
            what if the left also decides to makes demands.. or not vote for the CR, and default on our debt. We didn’t get the public option, so the left can demand that.. or anything (i used your watch.. to make a point you didn’t grasp).
            Fact is there is rule that any party at any time can’t then say, give me what i want or the country goes down.
            and there is no rule that says after you give them what they want.. they don’t say.. ok.. but i changed my mind.. give me more.. (that’s already happened.. we already gave up the public option to pass the bill to begin with).
            That’s why i offer to negotiate with you.. give me your house.. your car and whatever else we demand or we shutdown government and default on our debt. why not? there is no rule that the GOP/TP are the only ones that can make demands. that’s your assuption..
            But I don’t think you grasp the problem.. and that is the blackmailers don’t stop after one payment. We went through this in 2011… and we are now no longer AAA+ rated.

      • Drew Page

        I don’t expect Obama to do anything except blame Republicans.

    • Drew Page

      It’s right out of his playbook, Rules For Radicals.

  • Irene Elizabeth Grooms

    HOPE YOU’VE HAD A NICE DAY (BRADY).

  • D Parri

    BERNIE: “Is the president of the United States rooting for chaos?”

    PATRIOT: “Yes.”

  • floridahank

    This is typical of the mentality and lack of intelligence in DC,

    “May 18, 2013 … But when Obamacare takes effect, many employers will simply change them …. coup as Pelosi said, “Lets just pass it, and we will read it later”.
    Is there any question that 99% of them should never be reelected?

    • D Parri

      Well, none of the GOP members voted for OCare…they might get a break.

  • SoulSeekerUSA

    Let’s see how Hobama likes chaos when he has a revolution at his doorstep. You can listen to whatever news you like but none of them know the truth about how the American people really feel. We do not want any of this anymore and we want the traitors out of DC at all along with their non American Muslim president. The government is planning something very sinister and all this crap you are seeing is just a diversion from the real evil growing in DC.

    • pat brady

      Sounds like you’re another one of those America hating conservatives!

      Love it or LEAVE it buddy! That’s the advice conservatives gave from 2000-08 isn’t it?

      • SoulSeekerUSA

        This is not our country anymore. They have taken it over, traitors muslims and commies. If you are that blind to not see what is going on you are a Fool-Aid drinker and there is no hope for you. This has nothing to do with Dems or Gop, they are all worthless and need to go.

        • pat brady

          This isn’t YOUR country anymore, thank god! I’ll say it again, love it or leave it brother. It’s a democracy and the people elected this administration. It’s a FREE country meaning you are FREE to LEAVE.

          Based on your comments I find it hard to believe you’ll be missed by anyone.

        • gracie

          Love it or LEAVE it.

          • SoulSeekerUSA

            Keep drinking buddy keep drinking. Did you know we went to war in 1776 over a 3% tax on tea and now our very freedom is being taken away and you and other cowards sit back and let it happen. News Flash: Not all of us are cowards and will not sit back and let this happen. What needs to happen for you to grow a spine and say enough already? This has nothing to do with conservationism it has to do with what is right and this my friend is so far from right that only a lemming would fallow what is happening and praise the holy one Hobama.

          • Lee Church

            and many folks don’t even drink tea why should those folks be subjected to a war when they didn’t even drink tea.. it didn’t effect them.. the tea drinkers are the ones that should deal with.. right? geez..
            i bet there was at least one, or two people who didn’t drink tea.. they should have just ‘negotiated’ and held the country hostage until the tea drinkers relented to that 3% tax. minority rules.. that’s what you are suggesting.. well you really are suggesting that the TP is some sort of majority.. or your choice of reference is really realy poor.. perhaps both.

          • brickman

            You’re so brave.

    • pat brady

      Better barricade the doors, I think they’re coming for you!!!

      It’s a scary world you live in huh?

  • Hammockbear

    Does anyone in Washington know how to negotiate? Or is this more party division driven ego/ Regardless, it is the People who feel the pain. As a kid I recall hearing the adults get mad and say, Vote Em All Out. I thought that was rubbish, but now am thinking they may have been right. This administration has created a streak of hatred in this country and that is nothing to be proud of. Pray the elected will wake up and work together for the good of the People.

    • D Parri

      Yes, and I place the bulk of responsibility upon the person at the top. Although our government framework is designed to have three co-equal branches of government, the president always is in possession of the ‘bully pulpit.’ The air in DC has emanated throughout the country and it is very divisive and contentious. I believe that the commander-in-chief should focus more on settling disputes rather than fostering them.

      • Patrick

        Indeed. After all, didn’t he win the Nobel PEACE prize? For doing absolutely nothing?! He should try using some of that “laureate” with Congress.

        • Josh

          Well, it wasn’t “nothing.” He killed a shit-ton of people to get that prize.

  • AgentofACORN

    The blame for the government shutdown lies solely at the feet of the Teabaggers in the House and of course Speaker Elect Ted Cruz. The ACA has been the law of the land since March of 2010. It is nothing more than blackmail on the part of the GOP. I think we already know that the American people are blaming the House Teabaggers for the shutdown. Why else would the Fox “News” Channel be calling it a “slimdown” instead of a shutdown? It’s Fox’s primary purpose to spin things positively for Conservatives. Note to Roger: It ain’t working.

    • D Parri

      Ok, ACA has been the ‘law of the land’, but if you’re not aware of it the CR is NOT the law of the land…yet. Negotiation and compromise is the only path for resolution.

      • AgentofACORN

        The President and House Democrats have already negotiated. Now it appears that House Democrats will be using a procedural move to force a vote on a clean CR and that they will be able to get enough Teabaggers to join them to make it happen. Its a shame that John Boehner and the House Teabaggers can’t do the right thing for America and stop this blackmailing, but thanks to incoming Speaker Pelosi (after the 2014 election), the government will be up and running again shortly.

        • D Parri

          Nice try but NO! All spending bills have to originate in the House. Now unless Reid has also taken control of the House, then it ain’t gonna’ happen! Period.

          • AgentofACORN

            The only Senator who controls the House is Ted Cruz. I was referring the discharge petition that incoming Speaker Pelosi and the House Democrats are going to introduce to force outgoing Speaker Boehner and the House Teabaggers to do the right thing for our country and pass a clean CR. The Teabaggers have lost the Obamacare fight. This is all about pride which will lead to a great big fall in 2014.

      • Bob Olden

        The ACA might be the law that was passed, but the exemptions were not part of it!! How can anybody not be enraged that Obama refuses to change this? There is absolutely no justification for anyone to be exempted, above all the idiots who voted to pass the bill.

        • D Parri

          Absolutely. And when I say shout it out from the rooftops…I mean, SHOUT IT OUT FROM THE ROOFTOPS!

        • D Parri

          Yes, this is the message that I keep trying to emphasize. It should apply to all, and the ones that the president has given waivers to should be the LAST ones to get waivers.

    • Stimpy

      AgentofACORN – is that you Barry? I know you are the campaigner in chief but could you come back and preside over some discussions instead of insisting on NO COMPROMISE? BTW, how’s your golf game coming along?

      • nickshaw

        I’ll bet he’s really Chad Henderson, Stimp.

      • AgentofACORN

        Who is Barry? Not familiar with anyone in our government currently with that name.

        • Stimpy

          Barry O’Bama, your old pal. Maybe you know him by his middle name Hussein.

          • AgentofACORN

            There is no one in any part of the US government named Barry Hussein O’Bama.

          • Lee Church

            then why does FOX news say there is!.. huh.. answer that one.. everyone knows fox is truth.. goodness and the american way.
            originally from kenya.. not a us citizen, and a muslim socialist communist and a fascist that attends a firey christian church with reverand Wright as pastor.
            They not only know there IS such a person, but everything about him.. all sorts of ‘facts’.
            (mocking the GOP.. humor intended)

          • Sheila Warner

            FNC has not said that our President’s name is Barry Hussein O’Bama. Cite your source. The President’s nickname while growing up was Barry. As to O’Bama? NO ONE has said that is his real name, not on any network. Do you stay up all through the night thinking this stuff up?

          • AgentofACORN

            Ahh, I see. You are referring to President Barack Hussein Obama. No one calls him Barry and his last name is not spelled ‘Irishly’. The president was born in Hawaii and is a US citizen.

        • nickshaw

          Figures.

    • nickshaw

      Why do you people keep saying, “It’s the law of the land!” , as though that’s supposed to mean something?
      If it’s the “law of the land” why does Skeeter keep changing something in that law? How come you don’t mention that?

      Besides, the Volstead Act was the law of the land for 13 years, a constitutional amendment at that, and it was repealed.
      I don’t know where you get your ideas.
      Well, yes, I do.

      • Sheila Warner

        There is a Constitutional method to removing laws. The President has already usurped his Constitutional authority to “tweak” the law. But voting to de-fund a law also is not Constitutional. It needs to be properly repealed by both sides of Congress, and then signed by the President. Neither side is doing right by the American people.

        • D Parri

          Responsibility for the origination of spending bills rests within the House. If a bill does not fund the implementation of a law or the requisite operations needed to support its implementation, then ‘technically’ there never was a vote to “de-fund” it. It simply fails to be implemented for lack of funding. This is the only tool that the GOP has at this point, and if they conceded now it would set a dangerous precedent by allowing the president to modify any law–without input or debate.

          • Sheila Warner

            Is there another instance in the past where this happened? I mean, under another President. I know the closing of Gitmo was stopped when funds were denied to the plan, but Gitmo isn’t a law.

      • D Parri

        Well, if it’s the ‘law of the land’ and that’s the only thing that’s important to them, then why are they so adamant about making the CR the ‘law of the land’ also? Republicans don’t appear to want to go along with that as long as the Obama-modified version of OhNo!Care remains the “law of the land”.

    • disqus_AV1LCnOJEL

      “Why else would the Fox “News” Channel be calling it a “slimdown” instead of a shutdown? It’s Fox’s primary purpose to spin things positively for Conservatives. Note to Roger: It ain’t working.”

      Because it is a slim-down. The most important areas of the government are still functioning. The entire government is hardly shut down. Non-essential positions were furloughed (which begs the question, why do those jobs exist at all with an ~$16.7T debt??)

      You’re a rabid, left-wing partisan. Anything conservative is evil and anything progressive is good. Your attitude is religious in nature. Amazingly judgmental for a world view that doesn’t like the term “evil”. FNC’s reporting on this is accurate, whether or not you care for the station’s editorial slant.

      My take? The R’s picked the wrong strategy with no foresight (I guess I agree with Bernie on this) and the D’s have refused to even agree to a compromise, because, instead of looking out for the best interests of the people, they see this as having the potential to break the back of he GOP.

      I think both sides of this — and I am a conservative (before I’m a Republican) — have screwed things up. But, I will say this: the D’s are living true to their “progressive” world view: raise taxes and socialize the nation, creating a seculocratic god-state. The R’s are supposed to be believe in the opposite: the private sector, individualism and small government. But, for political expedience they have implemented hypocritical policies. Hence, the NEED for the TEA Party, which you so crudely and uncivilizedly called disparaging names.

      • AgentofACORN

        Democrats have already compromised. If you watched an actual news station instead of the Fox “News” Channel, you’d know that.

        • disqus_AV1LCnOJEL

          Hmmm… I’m sorry. I’ve been a bit out of the loop the past few days, not paying too much attention to any news source. Can you tell me what the Dems did to throw the Repubs a bone that they in turn threw back?

          Thanks.

          • AgentofACORN

            According to to Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Co), harry Reid agreed to fund the government at sequestration levels. This was a lower number than what Democrats originally wanted.

      • Lee Church

        you want to negotiate? ok..
        I want your watch.. come on.. give it up or we are not going to get any further.. it’s just your watch.. no big deal..
        you want to pass a c.r? you don’t want to default.. well, hand over your watch.. i’m just asking for your watch..

        then after that.. we start.. that’s a nice car.. it yours?

        don’t you like how negotiations are progressing? this is fun.. we should do it more often.

  • Paul Rush

    Bernie, You are spot on. Obama is dancing with glee over the shutsown. Between the rhetoric of Reid and Obama and the lamestream media they can’t wait until 2014. They will remind the voters of the shutdown and know that people will march lockstep and the Dems will take control of the House. Obamas’ last two years will be his legacy and the Dems will pass every bill that Obama wants passed. Look out America here it comes…………….

    • D Parri

      And I see it coming out just the opposite. Overtures being made by the GOP to compromise have all been rejected. The results of the Dems stance on non-negotiation will pile up and provided that the GOP does not vacillate, then the scenario is clearly focused upon a law that already has had much controversy and a Democratic leadership that will not negotiate. It is politics and PR…the GOP has to win the latter.

      • Sheila Warner

        The GOP has to win. The fact the this is a win or lose issue is awful. How about a win for the American people for once?

        • D Parri

          YES! I agree.

      • Lee Church

        “I AM negotiating.. i am.. really am.. give me your car.. come on.. if you want a CR passed and debt ceiling raised.. just do it.. or the disaster will be because you didn’t compromise.”
        and we sit here ticking closer to default.. and doing permanant damage every second along the way. great.

        • D Parri

          So, why worry about it? The democrats are in control, right?

  • docww

    President Obama doesn’t have a clue about what it would take to turn our economy around or solve our domestic problems, let alone solve the problems facing the world at large. After all, at heart he’s just a two-bit community organizer.

    But he does have a great deal of skill in the dark side of politics—the part that focuses on your own power. If you have ultimate power you can reward your friends and punish your enemies. This is easy to do in a dictatorship but it’s also possible to do so in a Democracy and he’s writing the book on how to do it. You give crumbs to the masses, gold to your friends and crush your enemies. It also helps to have a liberal press to look the other way.

    • D Parri

      But he’s one hell of an insurance salesman, ain’t he!

      • docww

        Yeh, he could sell snow to the Eskimos. As they say in Texas, all hat and no horse.

        • D Parri

          But VERY windy!

      • Hammockbear

        Don’t you mean, Snake Oil?

        • D Parri

          Indistinguishable.

  • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

    The Drudge Report pointed this out today:

    PARK RANGER: ‘We’ve been told to make life as difficult for people as we can. It’s disgusting’…

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/3/pruden-the-cheap-tricks-of-the-game/

    • D Parri

      It IS disgusting. Please point out the administrative delegation of authority who is responsible for this order–i.e., Obama.

    • lestye

      The opinion of a park ranger is now national “news”?
      It’s no surprise that some Teapublicans also have government jobs…and they take every opportunity to complain about their employer.

      • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

        His opinion isn’t nearly as important as the information he relayed. Tell me, do you not think what he said is disturbing? Government employees being instructed to go out of their way to make things harder on taxpaying citizens? Why doesn’t that bother you?

        • Drew Page

          The same thing happened with the sequestration cuts. Some officials in the administration instructed their staff to make the cuts painful to the public. this was done for the strict purpose of making Republicans look bad for not giving Obama a blank check.
          That should bother all Americans.

          • Lee Church

            pain is good! depression is good the US.. austrian economics theory says so.. TPers like austrian austerity.. yes?
            depresion good.. you like steps taken to make what you asked for happen?
            so all that stuff about having a depression would be good for the country didn’t really mean what you said it meant?
            government small enough you can drown it in a bathtub.. that’s what you wanted.. but you don’t..
            since when are parks.. essential? i thought it was only defense and oil comany subsidies? or something like that..
            I would be happy to lead negotiations from the left with the TP.. but i get the impression you don’t want to negotiate.. let me know if you do. we can get started as soon as you make your first payment of $100, to show you are serious of course..
            looking forward to resolving this unfortunate impass soon, yours sincerely and with great and flourished fanfare.. Lee

        • Lee Church

          It’s the suspension of disbelief because it fits what you want it to fit. You don’t say, hey, why would a park ranker make such a statement unless he wanted to cause trouble.. or another way, would a ranger make such a statement if he didn’t want to cause trouble?
          but through the glasses.. you suspend that obvious problem and then go on to make a lot of assumptions..
          if he wanted to cause trouble there is reason to doubt it’s true, and if he didn’t there is reason to doubt why he would say such a thing.
          But it’s cool that you skip over that, as an author and all.. all that journalistic instinct and training let you do that.. and go right after the ‘truth’ i like how the story has three sources.. (me myself and I) built in as well.
          It’s journalism as it very best.. you show us how it’s done.. i’m impressed.. (not).

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Oh brother. I love how “wanting to cause trouble” is now the assumed motive for anyone saying something that isn’t favorable to the Obama administration.

            The mere fact that open monuments are being barricaded for no comprehensible reason is proof of what the park ranger has to say. It make no sense whatsoever why more money and manpower is being used to prevent Americans from visiting such places than would be used just to have a few park workers stationed there to keep an eye on things and make sure nothing gets vandalized… that is UNLESS a political point is being made.

            Lastly, I’ve never claimed to be a journalist. I have no journalistic background. I’m a regular guy who comments on what he sees and offers up reasons for why he believes in what he does. I form opinions based on the facts. I’m not a hard news reporter who isn’t allowed to offer commentary.

  • dktrdktr

    The worse the better. V I Lenin & B H Obama?

  • joepotato

    Hey Bernie, you are on point about Soetorobama wanting chaos… Never let a crisis go to waste, even if you have to create the crisis… The GOP (leadership) is controlled opposition at best. So BH O’Soetoro wants it all his way, maybe he should go to Burger King… Sideshow Barry wants to create hate and discontent just so the Repelicans can be blamed… What a great strategy… Long live the “shutdown”… and may King O’Barry be deposed…

  • sam

    The GOP has painted themselves in to a corner. The dems are going to run up the score until the Republicans say “UNCLE”, and who can blame them. They’ve got em’ by the short hairs and they’re pulling a little bit as each day goes by.

    • D Parri

      When you got the dog by the short hairs you better beware–he may turn and bite you in the butt!

    • floridahank

      I don’t understand why the GOP has to say “uncle” — let things go as long as the Dem’s let it go. Why should we be the fall guy again. We should stay tough and keep telling the public Obama won’t even meet with us to talk. — let the Dems cave in first. I know the media is against the Reps but when you’re right, fight for your position and keep telling the public Obama doesn’t even want to meet with us.

      • pat brady

        He doesn’t have to meet with them. The responsibility is theirs to vote to keep the government running. They chose to shut it down. THAT is on them. It’s a temper tantrum plain and simple. They don’t like the ACA and they made promises to their supporters to do anything in their power to repeal it. They can’t do it through a democratic process and so here we are. The president ran on it and got elected on it TWICE. Republicans ran against it and got defeated twice.

        • Murphy

          Pat, do try to keep current. The House HAS voted to keep govt running. They’ve even tried to just keep certain VA services running. It’s the DEMS in the senate that refuse. The House has dropped the defunding demand. Plus, the Repubs WON in the House elections, where they’re closest to the people. Twice.

          • pat brady

            And yet the CONGRESS is the only one that holds the power to close the government down and the government is close down. I’ll let you put together the pieces.

            Republicans LOST seats the last election. They’re closest to their districts where they very carefully draw lines to make sure they stay in power. You had a man run that made repealing Obamacare his #1 priority. How’d that work out? If you think some nut winning an election in a DISTRICT in Texas speaks for the whole country then I have to say, that really strange logic.

          • Sheila Warner

            Pat, if you are referring to Senator Cruz, then I have to disagree here. Senators are selected to represent the entire state, not just a district. When it comes to representatives, I’m with you.

  • Cordelia Mae Crockett

    it isn’t health care it is sick care! you don’t get it or need it unless you are sick. unless you have a congenital problem or other mitigating circumstances, denial of treatment is the best thing that could happen to those who refuse to live a healthy life style, you know like the first lady is rightly championing. unfortunately too many fools want to engage in a life style that prevents good health. you can pay their way if you want. leave me alone! those who are truly in need sometimes are neglected because of the wicked. usually liberals!

    • Wil

      Let me guess, you are not a church going lady. Right?

    • pat brady

      Hey, I hear ya sister! My son was born with health problems but I told him right then, he brought this on himself. Don’t look to me to solve YOUR problems. That’s what this country needs, some tough love! So what if he was only a month old. He can’t sponge off me ALL his life!!

      Same goes for those kids with Juvenile Diabetes. You know they had cotton candy at a ball game somewhere along the way and now they want ME to pay their bills! ;)

      • D Parri

        I’m sorry, but that isn’t even funny.

        • pat brady

          It’s not but it’s the reality of what the original poster said.

        • pat brady

          No problem with the original sentiment though right? Naaah!

          • D Parri

            No, I think you’re off-base. People who ruin their own health and then need a system to bail them out have been helped by the masses of taxpayers–both liberal and conservative.

            If the personal choice of ruining one’s health could be isolated strictly to that person, then there would obviously be more resources available to help the sick and lame–children and adults–who found themselves in their plight through no action of their own. That is generous charity.

            When those who chose to ignore their own health and take care of it tap into the system that is helping others who could not help themselves, then that is stealing from charity. It may seem to sound harsh, but try explaining to a child that the reason they cannot receive medical help is because everything has already been spent helping addicts and alcoholics.

            I do not want that responsibility.

          • pat brady

            I don’t even know what your point is? We should screen people to see what caused their illness? The pre-existing conditions clause helps people like me who have had diabetes all their lives. It helps PLENTY of people that have no share of the blame for their health issues. Obamacare does NOTHING to deny children of healthcare. You seem very mixed up.

            The reality is that it’s better for everyone if everyone HAS to have some kind of coverage. Denying coverage is not going to stop people from getting sick. ALL it does is force them to go to a more expensive source for care. Who pays for that? The answer is the people that already HAVE coverage. That is the reality of the situation. Unless you’re going to turn people away from the ER if they can’t afford to pay for it which was actually applauded by a republican crowd when Ron Paul mentioned it, well then we’re all going to wind up paying for it in the end.

          • D Parri

            The point was an esoteric argument over where our limited resources will be spent and what outcome you can expect from expending benefits for people who have no sense of the real cost of those benefits.

            Since you said that I made the claim that OCare denies healthcare to children, please show me where I made that statement. There truly is someone who is mixed up.

            How many times were you denied coverage? When did you go without treatment? Have you ever considered that your diet could cause problems for you? Haven’t you been responsible for trying to live with your condition in the most healthy manner possible?

          • pat brady

            “try explaining to a child that the reason they cannot receive medical help is because everything has already been spent helping addicts and alcoholics” <– your words right? Why would you HAVE to expalin to a child that they're being denied coverage?

            I have been and my family members have been denied coverage at least 10 times in the last year by my insurance company. Sarah Palin and some of the other nuts like to talk about "death panels" as though the insurance companies don't make decisions that affect our coverage.

            TREATMENT and COVERAGE are 2 very different things. My doctor knows I have insurance. What he doesn't know is that the insurance will look for any way they can to deny a person coverage and there's absolutely no penalty to doing so.

            As far as healthy living goes you're talking to the wrong person. I'm 5'9", 180 pounds with 11% body fat. I workout 5 times a week and I eat healthier than 95% of the population. If you're implying that I got juvenile diabetes because I had a bad diet then I suggest you do some research. It's hereditary but don't let that stop you from lumping everyone into one group and judging them.

          • D Parri

            You’ve got nothing to tell me about being denied that I don’t already know. I had my first seizure when I was twenty. I chose to live as healthy as I could manage and, in effect, ignore my condition, take my medicine, and live as a ‘normal’ person ever since. I drove a vehicle, played in a band, pursued graduate degree, and finally obtained a professional license in accounting. I could have opted many years ago to whine about my misfortune and ask for someone else to take care of me. I did not.

            Unfortunately, I could never tell an employer that I was epileptic and this always came back to haunt me whenever I was let go for ‘other reasons’ after having a petite mal seizure. Obviously, I never reported my condition to any insurance company. So, I would have been denied as many times as you state that you were if I had reported my condition.

            The very best thing I could do for myself was to stay as healthy as possible and the epilepsy probably motivated me to do that to some degree. So, motivation comes in many forms and this was mine.

            The insurance companies have ALWAYS held the last word on granting coverage, and the same black and white factors of revenue vs. cost of benefits will be present with OCare although there will be an added layer of bureaucracy contributing their costs.

            In order for us to continue any discussion, you will need to try and better understand my comments. The explanation to a child reference was representative of a point I tried to get across in that there are limited resources and we should use them wisely and help the MOST deserving. Ask me if I feel a child in need of medical help is more deserving than a junkie or alcoholic and I WILL give you a very clear answer on that issue.

            The questions I posed to you may have been taken as judgmental, but that was not my point. You actually confirmed the fact that you have taken responsibility for your health and it has actually benefitted you to do that. I commend you for helping yourself and desiring to help others.

          • pat brady

            Insurance companies should have their feet held to the fire when they deny coverage. There is absolutely no drawback to denying coverage to people like me. They do it and put the onus on US to fight it. It costs them pennies on the dollar to deny coverage. My son has Apraxia. It was diagnosed by the school. He’s on the spectrum for Autism. A speech therapist that I spoke with called my insurance company, go the approval information FROM them and we went ahead with service. That didn’t stop them (Cigna) from denying coverage. It’s a business model they obviously have. They claim it was filed under the wrong code. I asked them if Apraxia is covered and they said yes. I asked them how it could be covered and they said by filing it with the correct code but they don’t give out the code. :-S I’m stuck either paying the $!,000+ bill or fighting them on it to eternity. THat’s how they work.

            The affordable care act though forces them to use a higher percentage of their budget actually providing coverage. If they haven’t they’re required to issue rebate checks. I don’t know how anyone can be against that.

          • Sheila Warner

            The code to which you are being referred is the “ICD-9″ code. This is entered by the person who is responsible the billing of the services rendered. You need to contact whoever that person is and let him know what your insurance told you. The biller can correct the code and resubmit the bill. I worked for several years in a doctor’s office, so I know about this.

          • pat brady

            It SHOULD be that easy. The speech therapist apparently filed it under a code that meant PRE-authorized. Cigna tells me there’s a code that COULD be filed under and the therapist has actually filed it under that code but Cigna denies the claim time and time again saying it was not PRE-authorized. It’s a tactic to wear you down and there’s absolutely no penalty for it. It’s MY credit, it’s my reputation and it’s my time. Every time I appeal it’s a 3 month process and they KNOW I’ll eventually have to give in and pay. They denied ME coverage for a pre-existing condition. They said I had to prove I had coverage prior to this. Ok, but the coverage I had prior to this was with THEM. I had to prove to Cigna that I had coverage with CIGNA. I had to get a certificate of coverage MAILED to me by Cigna so I could mail it to CIGNA. No one can tell me that this is legitimate. It’s a stalling tactic to avoid paying the bills and they should be fined for it.

          • Sheila Warner

            We had a similar issue with our son’s medical bills. He had to be put under general anesthesia for a dental procedure, which isn’t the norm. He had medical issues which made the anesthesia necessary. It was precertified but we got bills afterwards claiming it was not. I, of course, had the precertification number from the insurance company, as well as the date I was notified and the name of the person who gave me that information. It took months of fighting, but we finally got the bill covered by the insurance. This was years ago, before any laws prohibiting denial for pre-existing conditions. If your insurance company is claiming a pre-existing condition, the denial is illegal, because that portion of the law has been in place for quite some time. If you have proof of prior coverage with a pre-certification number, you can fight this. A letter to your state’s insurance regulator, cc’d to the insurance company, is also something you should do. As far as your credit, you have the legal right to challenge medical bills, if done within the time frame, and your credit cannot be affected by doing that. I don’t know all of the particulars, such as when you initiated your challenge of the bill, but I’m telling you to continue to fight. I am, of course, assuming you’ve kept all of the paperwork surrounding everything. This is what drove me nuts when I was working in the doctor’s office. The greedy for-profit insurance companies will pull out all the stops to try to deny payment, with the intention of wearing you down. It’s why I support a single payer system. I detest the health insurance industry.

          • Sheila Warner

            It’s true. Juvenile diabetes has nothing to do with lifestyle. It’s Type II diabetes that can be mitigated with a healthier lifestyle. That’s why there is such concern about children getting Type II diabetes. “Juvenile” doesn’t mean “child”, so much as it reflects the fact that JD most often makes its appearance when you are young. JD is caused by a pancreas that doesn’t make insulin. Type II is when the body becomes resistant to insulin, usually as a result of constant release of insulin related to poor eating. Very different diseases.

      • Stimpy

        Barry is setting a fine example. Wonder if he has a cigarette I could bum off of him.

        • pat brady

          Maybe, he quit a long time ago.

  • Arnold

    Thank you Bernie for showing us what is common sense! Truth is louder than words! We must stop “One-Sided Leadership” by voting with our hearts in 2014. Treat this vote as term limits! Vote for People first, Party last!

  • Cordelia Mae Crockett

    who cares any more. this country SUCKS!! too many liberals and not enough kind hearted people.

    • pat brady

      Yeah, we need more kind hearted people to make sure we can deny more people of health care!

      • paulbopko

        kind hearted persons are libs? Wow.

        • pat brady

          I’ll let you decide. ONE side if for feeding he poor and providing them with health care while the other side is for tax breaks for millionaires.

      • joepotato

        The Fascist-Care law is not about health care and never was… It’s about control and tyranny…

    • Wil

      Like you? Lol!

  • MarioG

    So, let me get this straight. The DemocRATS are refusing to negotiate, so the RepublICANS are to blame for the shut-down? Hmmmm. Makes perfect liberal sense.

    • Wil

      Refusing to negotiate what? The present law!

      • MarioG

        I guess you don’t know how the “present law” was passed.

        Back in 2009 because Harry Reid did not have the 60 votes he needed in the Senate after Scott Brown was elected, he used a budget reconciliation bill to pass it with a simple majority. No one in either the House or the Senate was allowed to read the bill, debate it or make amendments because the DemocRATs had the votes and scams they needed and not a single Republican voted for this bill that Karl Marx would have loved.

        It took John Roberts to play politics and abuse his power and construe the penalty written into the statute as a tax for the SCOTUS to pass the illegal individual mandate. Of course the 4 liberal judges can always be counted on to ignore the Constitution.

        This law is so fantastic that President Obama and his family, the SCOTUS justices, Congress, their staff and every federal employee have excluded themselves from the provisions of Obamacare.

        In fact, everyone who wrote this insidious, intrusive and diabolical law and everyone who will be be administering it will not be covered by it if President Obama and Harry Reid get their way.

        If you had grown up in a socialist country as I did, you would know that this is how socialists operate. This is a classic example of socialism in action through its statist version, for the benefit of the elites and political class and at the expense of the poor they pretend to help.

        • D Parri

          I will keep repeating, get the responses back to Boehner and the GOP…pass a CR ONLY if Obama rescinds his waivers, exemptions, and subsidies. SHOUT IT OUT!

          BTW, the total Democratic leadership said the same thing, “We will pass this bill one way or the other.”

          • MarioG

            That would at least be a start. It will set a terrible precedent for Obama and Harry Reid to get their way without negotiations because both are on the record as wanting a single payer system as their ultimate goal, and they cannot get to that unless the current intestinal waste fails.

          • D Parri

            Yes, and if Obama is allowed to put into operation a law that he himself has already modified in order to perform his Machiavellian strategy of quieting the media UNTIL the law has become entrenched and the mid-term elections have been held, then this redistribution of wealth function will live a little longer.

            The precedent set by allowing the president to choose who the law shall apply to and when it will apply is one of the most dangerous aspects of all. It carries the potential to render our constitutionally established government macrostructure meaningless.

          • MarioG

            We need to impeach the sucker – for this, the IRS scandal, the Fast & Furious boondoggle, and for Benghazi where he was briefed but did nothing to send reinforcements and then went on a fundraising trip the next morning. Only a DemocRAT would do that.

        • Wil

          I have a good health care plan and I plan on keeping it. How about you?

          • MarioG

            Unless you are an Obama crony or with one of the organizations that got waivers chances are you will not keep bubkis unless you are on Medicare or Medicaid already, and the DemocRAT sons of unwed mothers took $600 billion out of the Medicare budget to try and fool people that the Unaffordable Care Act would cost $900 billion. Now the CBO says it will cost $1.9 trillion which means another inch on Obamanocchio’s nose.

          • D Parri

            Actually, the last I heard (via Hannity) was that it will now cost $3.4 trillion–about four times the president’s selling point figure.

          • MarioG

            Hannity keeps saying that but I cannot find anything from the CBO or the Heritage Foundation that supports his figure, and they don’t reply to questions asking where the number came from.

          • D Parri

            I’ll try to do some research.

          • D Parri

            The latest numbers from the CBO appear to be $2.6 trillion. I’m not sure where Sean is quoting from.

            Keep in mind, though, those are in current dollars and the estimates span the next decade. So, $2.6 trillion today, $900 billion three years ago…$3.4 trillion by 2023 might even be a low estimate.

          • MarioG

            Could you point me to where you got the $2.6 trillion?

            The point is that they lied about the cost to get it passed even to their own people. Lying is a fundamental liberal MO from the days of Karl Marx. They have to lie about almost everything so as to fool as many people as they can. Everything that Obama promised was a lie except the part about pre-existing conditions, which is one of the most destructive features of Obamacare to anyone with any common sense.

            Everyone thinks this is a great feature but it’s going to sink the health insurance companies because it’s like forcing auto insurance companies to sell you insurance after you have had an auto accident, or forcing homeowner’s insurance companies to sell you homeowner’s insurance after your house is damaged. No one with more than half a brain will buy health insurance under Obamacare because a) the penalty is much lower than the premium, and b) they can buy insurance after they get seriously ill.

            These are among the reasons I KNOW this Unaffordable Care Act was deliberately designed to fail because it’s main perpetrators like Obama, Reid and Pelosi are all on the record as saying their ultimate goal is a single payer system which will make our health care as bad as Canada’s and Britain’s who haven’t been able to get it right after several decades of trying.

          • Wil

            Moan and groan, that’s all you people do. And, as for your slur, you should be ashamed of yourself!

          • Wil

            So, you are a Glenn Beck fan!
            ,
            ’nuff said!

          • MarioG

            Who’s Glenn Beck?

    • jondaris

      The “libs” negotiated plenty when the ACA was up for debate. But it was passed and signed into law by the president. There’s nothing left to negotiate. The GOP are terrorists, and as Reagan rightly said, we don’t negotiate with terrorists.

      • joepotato

        It seems like Osamabama is the terrist… supporting AQ in Syria and the Muz Bros in Egypt… and implementing tyranny here in the states… Step away from the Fool-aid….

        • jondaris

          Really, this is why I find debating the right so frustrating. You don’t have any real point, you just resort to glib namecalling and falsified issues. I know it makes you feel better, and gets you pats on the back from your tea party brethren, but it really has nothing to do with any actual point. Obama is not supporting Al Queda, and it’s ludicrous to suggest that he is.

          • D Parri

            I agree with you. By the same measure, the Republicans are acting completely within the constitutional framework of their authority. They are not anarchists, terrorists, or jihadists.

          • jondaris

            Dude, have at it. Let the majority of Americans view you as a dangerous criminal and anarchist. See how far that gets you.

          • D Parri

            It won’t get a ‘clean CR’, will it?

          • jondaris

            But see, this is why arguing with you morons is so frustrating. Is what they are doing legal? Of course it is. Otherwise John Boehner and Eric Cantor would be in chains. Is it ethical? Of course it’s not. The right’s insistence on conflating the two is driving people nuts. You guys cannot stick to one argument to save your life. It’s whatever the fuck we can throw at you is fair game.

          • D Parri

            Whenever you cannot discuss or debate the issue based upon the merits of your argument, then resort to vitriol and incivility. That happens to be ignorance showing.

          • jondaris

            Please reread this thread. I came here here arguing my position clearly and logically, and was berated for my “terrist” position. It’s not ignorance, vitriol or incivility, it’s frustration with fucking morons.

            If you want to discuss this logically and rationally then let’s have at it, but if it’s a name calling contest then what’s the fucking point?

          • D Parri

            Ok, have it your way you fucking cocksucking idiot moron.

            I’m sure we’ve both got lots more we could hand out, but I’m through.

          • jondaris

            And really, this is the problem. It’s simply not possible to engage in a civil manner with today’s right. They absolutely refuse.

          • D Parri

            It’s called projection. I.e., when you accuse me of doing the very thing that you are doing. And you want to call me a moron? Yeah, that’s REAL civil. Spouting out profanities and then accusing me of refusing to engage in a respectable conversation.

            Projection. It does not work because it ties you down to a single vein of thought and there is no possibility of communicating with others.

            So, if you want to continue that pursuit…go ahead. It won’t be pointed at me when you call me a moron.

          • Drew Page

            It seems you are the mad F-bomber in this debate.

      • BHill

        There weren’t any negotiations during the debate of Obamacare. The Dems had complete control of the House and Senate. It passed on party line votes. That’s good old fashioned liberal negotiations: do what we say, when say it and like it. Guess what, I don’t like it and I hope you like the taste of your own medicine.

        • D Parri

          The Dems, Reid, Obama, Pelosi all said the same thing–“This bill is going to pass one way or another…with or without the Republicans.”

        • jondaris

          Actually, that’s the sad part. There *were* negotiations, but Republican hatred for Mr. Obama was so strong that in the end none of them would vote for it. Also, please look at party negotiations during the Bush years — aside from Senators from conservative districts like Ben Nelson, everything except war votes was strictly party line.

          Also, nothing in your response rebuts my basic point — that Republicans are holding the operation and good faith and credit of the United States hostage for their own political ends, and that they are traitors who deserve the penalty usually reserved for such. The modern GOP hates America, hates Americans, and wants to see it fail.

          • D Parri

            The Democrats have refused to negotiate…that’s their prerogative. The Republicans refuse to pass a ‘clean CR’…that’s their prerogative. Negotiation is the only solution for the impasse.

      • MarioG

        Jon – what alternate reality do you exist in, or are you simply another liberal propagandist?

        When the bill was rammed down our throats in 2009 there was no debate, no amendments allowed and not even an opportunity for anyone to read the statute before voting, which is why not a single Republican voted for it. Don’t you remember Nancy Pelosi bragging that one had to pass the bill to know what was in it?

        Because Harry Reid did not have the 60 votes he needed in the Senate for cloture after Scott Brown was elected, he used a maneuver by inserting it in a budget reconciliation bill so that it required a simple majority.

        Part of the definition of a terrorist is someone who is such a fanatic about getting his or her way that they will not negotiate. This fits Barack Obama and Harry Reid far more closely than any of the Republicans.

    • joepotato

      There should be nothing to negotiate … The 20,000 page Fascist-Care tyranny law must be disposed of, any which way …

      • D Parri

        Correction: the CR has not been signed into law; therefore, there IS something to negotiate.

        • MarioG

          What the negotiation should be about is whether we want to become more like Greece, or not. Britain and Canada have been trying to get their systems to work for decades and still cannot get it right.

          If the DemocRATs wanted a workable and efficient system they would adopt the Singapore system which has removed the government and health insurance companies from getting between the patient and the health care providers except for catastrophic situations by using health savings accounts and catastrophic health insurance.

          The problem is that the DemocRATs want a system that will fail because both Obama and Reid and Pelosi are on the record as a single payer system being their ultimate goal. They can smell it now. THAT is why they don’t want to negotiate, because even improving this monstrosity will delay their goal.

          • D Parri

            Yes, and the single issue that would ensure fairness for all under the law would be to make sure that all are subject to it. I’m do not know if Greece, Britain, Canada, etc., grant waivers and exemptions for special classes of people based upon pure political power and sway. I would venture that they do not. After all, Obama has never been their king before.

  • Guest from CA

    Ouch! MAZEL Tov, Bernie! You sure will raise the ire of the GOP for sure.
    Both parties are sprouting horns! I do not understand Obamas stubborn
    as a mule attitude. He has been that day since Day 1 as POTUS.
    As for our part! Well, one must be a D or an R…I see this a major failing.
    We are brow beaten to vote for goofs, if we do not vote for either goof, we
    are wrong and called unpatriotic. We learn this at our parents knees and
    later in schools and at election time..things get worse!
    To illustrate,, here is a fantasy ticket, pick one..no write ins allowed and no
    third parties,
    Vote now..Hitler or Stalin. Sure that is an outrageous example. But to be
    forced to vote for the lesser of two evils is equally skewed., Rare is the person who agrees with me!
    But all who voted..you put the goofs in Office. You gave them jobs and you
    gave them power. Horrid to see how they are not serving you….all of
    them.
    I will never vote for the lesser of two evils. Or, if these goofs keep up their
    antics, why vote at all?
    Personally, I do not want to give a job to incompetents who care nothing
    about us or this country!, just their own backsides.
    And if you believe campaign promises, they are about as real as a bubble
    blown by a seven year old. Beautiful, shining like a prism in the sun then
    POOF…..gone,

    • pat brady

      I actually agree with a lot of what you said. The man with the most money wins 90% of the time. Where does the money come from? I think we all know. Who do you think the politicians are going to serve under this scenario? They play to their base and serve the donors which is big business.

  • pupster40

    Putin said it best;”negotiating with Obama is like playing chess with a pigeon”. The first thing he does is defecate on the board, then he knocks over the chessmen and then claims “I’ve won”.

    • pat brady

      What news site did you get this from?

      So you’re more in line with the Soviet Union that you are with America I guess? Sounds to me like you don’t love America buddy! That’s what liberals were told for 8 years under Bush isn’t it?

      • pupster40

        Do you read or just look at the pictures? I said Obama isn’t a negotiator, he is a demander. Take a course in reading comprehension!

  • drhoffman

    Regardlesss of which side of the isle you want to lean toward, the real problem is what was warned by Thomas Jefferson when he stated issues with a “two party system”. It has come to roost. The political parties fight for ideologies, not for their constituents. Both sides want “control”, not to govern. Politicians are now “career” people, no longer servants of the democracy. The affordable health care act is not “affordable” to everyone. The ACA should have been termed the accessable care act, because its legistaltion is about accessability. Back to our congress…..How dare they be able to “exempt” themselves from ANY law of the land. As for a shut down, the only government paychecks that should be stopped is “theirs”. Ask yourselves why the government has grown to such dimensions over the past 20 years? Do “we” need Big Government? If you look at countries like Greece/Spain, you see “we” are headed down the same path. Our “national debt” is already crippling the ability of the government to function as it was set up to do. Again, its both sides of the isle. Remember, “WE” are the govenment, not them. The simply represent “US”.

    • wally12

      I agree that both parties have messed up this nation. However, there are a number of politicians who are attempting to reduce the size of the government. Those are the ones who believe as you and me and that we should vote and support.

  • ksp48

    I think that the MSM overwhelmingly (exclusively) telling the public IN ADVANCE that any shutdown would be entirely, completely and solely the fault of the Republicans might have something to do with the resulting belief among a majority of Americans that the Republicans are responsible for the shutdown. Which came first Bernie, the MSM or the public reaction.

    • Jim

      Absolutely correct! I too would like Goldie to answer that.

  • gold7406

    ms. pelosi, the fog has lifted. what sounded so good in beautiful oratory, should haven’t gotten any farther that the university classroom.
    even you would not invest in this.

  • Chet Przygoda

    No game plan? While many would like to believe this I am of the opinion that the so called game plan was too simple for those who think too much to understand. The game plan, aside from the attempt to stop funding for a law that the vast majority of Americans do not want in its present form, was to make those same Americans admit that we are spending ourselves into bankruptcy. The concept that you can print your way out of problem or to keep raising the borrowing limit is an economic impossibility. Try doing it with your own finances. Aside from the fact that you cannot print money to continue to buy more with less is just plain nuts. If nothing else happens out of this shut down one thing is starting to take root. Americans are finally recognizing that we cannot continue to spend like drunken sailors and Obamacare is just another facet of that spending.

    • Jim

      Spend like Drunken Democrat’s and moderates!

      • Chet Przygoda

        Jim, I do not limit the spending to just the dems and those who pretend themselves to be moderates. Anyone who votes for a bill that in anyway is not revenue neutral (does not spend more than the income available) is a part of this mess. We have got to start to blame each and every pol who does not toe the fiscal line or we might as well simply shut the whole darn thing down and wait for the Chinese or whomever holds our debt to come to run the joint.

  • Ivals

    We the American people are responsible for the current situation. Those who voted but for ‘losing’ candidates would be the only exception. Those who didn’t vote are just as guilty as those who voted for the current crop of self serving elected Representatives, Senators, Vice President and the President. It is not the greed of businesses that is hurting the people so much as the power greedy politicians. The polarization will worsen as more and more people become dependent on the Federal Government for their funds or benefit. We have lost our way!!!!

  • Reese

    What a joke this article is! Do you you really believe this or are you playing your “fair and balanced I back all things republican” antics again? Republicans have tried at every turn to repeal Obamacare and have gotten slapped down hard every time. 45 failed votes in the Congress (by the way Republicans haven’t passed any legislation but continue to try to restrict reproductive and voting rights), a Supreme Court loss, and an overwhelming loss in the Presidential Election were the proper channels to try to challenge the law. The ACA is law and Republicans need to try to win the 2014 and 2016 elections to try to repeal it.

    Shutting down the government is their last ditch, shameful, pathetic way of trying to reverse the law. We all know Tea Party crazies are the reason the government is shutdown, leaving many people in distress, so you should stop trying to place the blame on President Obama and tell the truth, for once, Bernie.

    • someguyintexas

      Polly wanna cracker?

      • Reese

        Lost me on that???

        • Thinkin’ out loud

          That’s the problem, Reese. You just don’t get it. Think about it…

  • Larry blaspheming liberalism

    Obama is still the ideological (if not physical) progeny of Frank Marshall Davis. He hates America and wants to destroy it.

  • Wil

    I understand the pragmatic approach to this problem. What I don’t understand is the loss of the American Spirit to stand up for what you believe, even if you the odds are against you. Losing battles like the Alamo, Bunker Hill, Wake Island and the Philippines, and countless others, were fought not because we could win, but because they were worth fighting for. I have drawn a ‘line in the sand’ and unlike our President I am willing to stand and fight for the principle of the thing, win, lose or draw!

    • Patrick

      Right on. Panem et circenses! We’ve become a spectator sport society. We want everything to be about winning or losing. Even in the aftermath of the Boston bombing, when one of the suspects was captured, people were lining the streets shouting USA! It was as if we won some kind of Olympic event.

      And with all those battles listed, though we lost them, we won those wars. I wonder how they would have been covered by the media.

    • JMax

      The way you fight for your principles is through the Constitutional process, not by threatening to blow up the government. You win seats, you propose legislation, and legislators vote. If you don’t get your way, it means that more people want it their way than want it your way. It’s pretty fundamental civics.

      • Jeff Webb

        It’d be great if the democrats respected the Constitution like you do.

  • JohnKohos

    Instead of calming people down and trying to find common ground to get them to work together, this president is dividing America by ruthlessly fanning the flames of racism and class-ism to turn Americans against one another.

    A nation united benefits it’s people, while a nation divided benefits only the political class, special interests and the exploiters.

  • rgcomega

    Sometimes when your back is to the wall, as is the case of the Republicans with only 1/2 of 1/3 of government to leverage, plan or no plan you just have to fight the fight. This “if you can’t win don’t fight back mentality” is not befitting, as it wasn’t when the Colonials picked a fight with King George. They had principle on their side…and so let it be the same today. If the Republicans lose, they lose, but there is no honor in tucking your tail. Ask any veteran. Those who fight only when they can win are usually called bullies. Ring a bell? The problem with the Republicans is not an issue of fighting, it’s that they have leadership that can’t cope with the crap that comes out of the White House and the liberal media, and they eat their own young that at least try. God forbid we would hear from anyone other than McCain or Graham who would willingly give the Dems all they ask for just for one more day in Congress. Isn’t that how we got into this mess in the first place!

  • JohnKohos

    So the president won’t negotiate with the House because THEY are not bi-partisan.

    Ultimately, the American people get the government they deserve. Unfortunately, the rest of us will also get stuck with the government they deserve.

  • lark2

    I recall how many times Obama and the Democrats have cried wolf about all the calamitous things that were going to happen if they didn’t get their way. Of course, nothing they said ever happened. I am beginning to look at the government “shutdown” as a opportunity to save some real money. Does anyone agree? Our credit rating has already taken a hit and it was because the rating agency had no faith in our gov’ts willingness to control spending…. not for any other reason. OBAMA and the Democrats took no hit over that and it came at a time when they controlled all three branches of government. OBAMA himself, along with Reid and Pelosi voted AGAINST extending the debt limit in 2007. No one ever mentions that.

  • gonaes

    We all know that Obamacare is Obama’s signature piece of legislation. He has spent god knows how many days, weeks, months and now years and mucho piles of taxpayers money and he is still trying to sell it to the American people. It’s still not 100% sold. When the hell is he going to stop playing “I’ve got the ball and bat and if you don’t play the game my way…well.” I hope the Republicans will pull up their socks and strenghten their challenge to Obama, Reid and Pelosi…the unholy trio.

  • Robustoman

    As Charles Krauthammer pointed out, instead of stories about how unprepared Obamacare planners were for its roll-out, the lead stories are all about the shutdown. This was never a battle they never could have won and certainly doesn’t help the GOP in 2014.

    • Jim

      Charles Hu, Well Charles spent the 1980’s working for and trying to get Walter Mondale elected instead of Ronald Reagan. Though Charles may know a little something about conservatism now he knows NOTHING about winning. Ask yourself, what conservative win has Charles been apart of? The very people that are trying to quell Senator Cruz and Lee can not point to one conservative policy win! They always fall in with the Liberals like McCain, Graham, Romney or they cave.

  • pat brady

    It comes down to one party, scratch that, the extreme wing of one party that shut down the government. Like it or hate it Obamacare is the law. You don’t like the law then try to win elections and repeal it through the democratic process. Obama has won TWO elections on the issue. If it was so unpopular he wouldn’t have won either of them as it was front and center in both campaigns.

    The shutdown also has NOTHING to do with whether congress gets special treatment. Do you honestly believe that anyone in this congress on either side would be upset that THEY benefit too much? Not likely Bernie

    • michael buccasio

      if its the law then why did he change it 17 times?
      if its so good,why doesn’t he and his buddies have to take it?
      why are the unions not getting it?
      you see,that would hurt him politically,thats why.
      we have had laws abolished before,like slavery or liquor.
      if its so good,why are his buddies in big business excempt?

    • JohnKohos

      If Obama won re-election because people approved of Obamacare, why did the Democrats lose the House? The fact is, The Republicans did win an election in 2012 vowing to fight the new law. And they are not only within their right to do what they are doing, they are doing what their constituents elected them to do.

      Again, people didn’t re-elect Obama because they approve of Obamacare. People voted for Obama because they liked him more than they liked Mitt Romney. A real shame, considering Romney is a generous man of faith (not my faith, but so what) who always supported his community, people in need and the creation or promotion of some of the most successful businesses in America.

      By contrast, Obama is a lazy, pot-smoking “community organizer” (I don’t know what he organized) who seems to spend his life on expensive vacations (on the taxpayer’s dime) or jet-setting with celebrities, when he isn’t on television making lofty speeches or imperial demands

      And you don’t seem to be aware that Obama himself keeps changing his own 2,700 page health insurance law (which I don’t believe he ever read) by Executive Order to exempt unions and large contributors who don’t want it.

      • pat brady

        They gained seats the last election didn’t they? Also do some research on how districts are drawn, it’s part of the problem for BOTH parties not just the republicans. It’s the reason why Ted Cruz can exist. He can be as crazy as his district will allow him to be.

        • JohnKohos

          Maybe that’s what his constituents want. And maybe the Democrats should stop insulting them while demanding bi-partisanship and cooperation.

          • pat brady

            So they should keep electing him to get absolutely NOTHING done.

            Pretty sure John McCain and Peter King are republicans though. Look at what they had to say about Cruz. Look at what BERNIE said about him.

          • JohnKohos

            They should keep electing him if they want him to keep blocking a spend-crazy Democrat party from bankrupting the country. There is plenty that
            could get done if the Democrats are forced to make real compromises. Take a moment to look at the shell game they are playing.

            Last year, they made a deal to increase the debt ceiling by agreeing to an automatic sequester offered by the president if an appointed committee failed
            to agree on targeted cuts. The committee failed to agree on targeted cuts. Then the president condemned the Republicans for his own sequester.

            And keep something in mind…..

            When they were wrestling over last year’s debt ceiling, the president and the Democrats made a big deal about the fact that the increase was not for new spending, but rather to cover money already
            spent that had to be covered. Then they spent TRILLIONS more that they didn’t have over the next 12 months and made the same argument again that these are not new expenses, but rather money already spent that has to be covered again.

            Think about it a second…..

            What would you do if your teenager came to you and said they far exceeded their credit card limit and demanded you give them a higher limit to delay the consequences… and then came back to you again and again with the same story?

            And what if your teenager continues from increase to increase, refusing to reduce their spending (even increasing it) and insisting it is a matter of your honor to keep increasing their limit forever so the balls never hit the ground?

            Of course, we are talking about a teenager who never gets tired of spending somebody else’s money. So where are the adults in the room who know that everything eventually has to land?

          • pat brady

            That’s the narrative but not the reality. The last time we had a balanced budget was when? Who was that republican president? Bill Clinton? Who followed him? That crazy spending liberal George Bush right? We also had that hippie loving liberal Reagan before that.

            The REALITY is that you can’t name a president who has cut a deficit faster than Obama.

            As far as the debt ceiling goes, how many times did Bush raise it? How many fights and threats were there then? Oh, ZERO right? Where were all your budget hawks then? .

          • pat brady

            The credit card analogy is a GREAT one. Under your scenario you’d stop paying the bill right? That’s what you’re proposing isn’t it?

            Under your scenario I’d ask the parents why they kept increasing the limit the LAST EIGHT years without ever questioning it. I’d wonder why they expected the behavior to change after increasing the limit for EIGHT years.

          • JohnKohos

            And what is your scenario? The teenager can just keep spending because we have no choice but to pay the bill?

            This week isn’t about defaulting on the bill. It’s about slowing down the spending and making difficult choices. Something nobody seems prepared to do without a gun to their head.

          • JohnKohos

            Not at all. I would pay the bill because it’s owed. But I would require the children to reduce spending as a condition. And whatever the last eight years may have been, things have to change now, because here we are again.

          • pat brady

            You HAVE to raise the debt ceiling to PAY the bills.

            I would ask the parents why they raised children from 2000-08 to think they can spend as much as they want and then expected them to suddenly be prudent with their money when their child became a teenager. I’d ask them why they’re SO concerned now when the child is actually being more responsible than they were from the years 2000-08. I’d be REALLY interested in the answers.

            Is it because their daughter brought home a black boyfriend?

          • JohnKohos

            It doesn’t matter why it happened before. It has to stop. And I see no evidence of greater responsibility.

            As for racism, the only evidence I see of rampant racism here is the endless accusations of racism promoted by the flourishing racism industry which seems to have recruited you, either knowingly or not.

            No. It isn’t because Obama is black. And this conversation is done.

          • pat brady

            I’ll quote Columbo, “”just one more thing”.

            I’m just SO interested in the answer though. WHY didn’t it matter before? Why didn’t deficits matter before? Where you complaining when Cheney was selling us that load of nonsense? Why would you support anyone that agreed with that line of thinking?

            As far as racism goes it was rampant when Obama ran. The REAL leaders of the party using Hussein constantly? The demanding to see a birth certificate for years? No one needed to see McCain’s birth certificate? You all saw Romney’s birth certificate? Palin’s? No?

          • JohnKohos

            I’m not even suggesting the debt ceiling shouldn’t be raised if it is truly necessary. But where is the restraint? Where do you see evidence that the teenagers understand that the pot isn’t limitless?

            $10 trillion when Obama took office. $17 trillion today, five years into his presidency. $20 trillion projected by 2016. He doubled the debt of all previous administrations combined. Hard numbers. Bush has nothing on this guy. And Bush isn’t the president. Obama is.

            So where is the breaking point?

          • pat brady

            The restraint is in place. I know the story line is that democrats are the reckless free spenders and republicans are the careful conservatives but that’s not the case. I hate to bring up the past but Bush inherited a SURPLUS and Obama inherited a disaster. Obama has cut the deficit faster than it’s ever been cut since WWII so that is the restraint. Not paying the debt is not an answer. Holding the country hostage because you don’t like Obamacare isn’t the option either especially since the CBO says it doesn’t add to the deficit. If you’re that upset by the deficit then I would look to replace everyone that voted to make the biggest surplus in our history turn into the biggest deficit in our history. The speaker of the house fall into that category.

          • Sheila Warner

            It’s true that the surplus disappeared under GW Bush. Another thing to remember is that the initial bail out of the big banks happened under his administration. I remember actually feeling sick to my stomach when I saw the amount of money we were spending on TARP. Even though it took President O longer than he expected to cut the deficit, it is true that the deficit is smaller. GOP members of the Congress voted for the increased taxes on the wealthy and the sequester. The current financial situation is a result of what both parties have done. I don’t see why conservative GOP members don’t grasp this. We’ve incurred debt and must pay it back.

          • JohnKohos

            First of all, you don’t hate to bring up the past. Your stumbling blocks seem to be the present and the future.

            There is no question the Democrats are reckless free-spenders. But I never said Republicans are careful conservatives. A plague on both of their houses. Whoever wastes the taxpayer’s money is guilty.

            Now, where did you get the unfathomable idea that Obama has cut deficits? The numbers aren’t that complicated. In less than two terms, Obama has doubled the entire US debt accumulated by all previous administrations combined.

    • lark2

      Obama’s electoral victories had NOTHING to do with Obamacare. He was put in office by an uninformed and uneducated electorate that allowed themselves to be BOUGHT by cel phones, food stamps and the promise of more to come.

      • pat brady

        That’s a GOOD one!!! Wait, were you serious?

        Obama ran on the issue not once but TWICE and won both times. Tell yourself whatever you want but those are the facts. I realized facts are like the Easter Bunny with people like you though.

        Weird that Obama and the democrats actually do much better with the college educated crowd. By your description you’d think he won the least educated crowd. Huh, guess the polls are wrong ;)

        • Indi4ever

          You are both right. There is a distinction between being educated and those who borrowed money to simply attend rah! rah! classes in college. A college education is often worthless now.

        • lark2

          Pat, I earned my Ph.D. in Physiology from the University of Michigan. I don’t mean to one up anybody but, neither election of Barack Obama was based upon Obamacare. You voted for him twice and I didn’t mean to imply that all those who voted for him were “uninformed and uneducated”. I apologize if you took it that way. I should have said that a large percentage of his voters were poorly educated and voted for him because of “things” they expected to get. Others were just anti-George W.Bush, or anti-war. Some thought it was time for a Black man, others were just Democrats who thought the White House belonged to them, some thought the Economy needed whatever Barack said he would bring. Others just hated McCain. There were a whole host of reasons for Obamas election. Healthcare was not a huge issue because no one knew what he was proposing … including those in congress who voted for it. You will recall that no one read the 2700 page bill and Pelosi said you have to vote for it to find out what’s in it. I respect your position … I just don’t agree with any part of it.

          • pat brady

            Well, more than anything I respect a civil debate.

            Obama made healthcare front in center in both elections. I can come up with 100 reasons why both McCain and Romney lost but healthcare was front and center in both elections. Obama never ran from it and in fact he embraced the term Obamacare.

            I don’t understand the “poorly educated” thing. He actually lost with the poorly educated crowd. Are you implying that his voted weren’t educated on the issues? If so that’s nothing more than opinion on your part. If you think no one knew what he was proposing then I don’t understand how you can say his voters were uneducated. He was proposing what is Obamacare. He may have been vague about certain aspects but certainly NOT about the mandate. It was a VERY big issue in both the primaries and the general election. I don’t know anyone that voted for him that expected to get anything. I DO know people that voted for him to gain access to healthcare though. I don’t know about you but I never got the iPhone that everyone talks about. I’m not getting my Obama money every month either. I voted for him because I thought he had the better ideas.

          • D Parri

            I agree, and I want to add that the whole ACA was tremendously misrepresented by those who were trying to get it passed. It is not the pie-in-the-sky proposal that was put forth during the campaigns to have the law passed by Congress.

        • D Parri

          I know lots of college educated and professional folks, but I’ve yet to find one of them that either support Obama or his OhNo!Care.

          • pat brady

            And yet the polls told a different story. I thought the conservative script said that our liberal colleges brainwash our youth?

            Seems to me that a LOT of people were signing up for it. Where’d they all come from?

          • D Parri

            And you need to pay attention to what I say, as well. I said COLLEGE-EDUCATED, not college students.

            Liberal colleges foster a liberal culture, but I assure you that most Business colleges do not. They DO foster an educational environment that is liberal in its approach to studies and learning.

          • pat brady

            Obama WON the college educated voting block. It’s a fact. He lost with high school educated crowd, also a fact. The MORE educated you were, the more likely you were to vote for Obama.

          • D Parri

            That’s not true according to the Roper Center, University of Connecticut. Romney received 51% of the college educated compared to Obama’s 47%. That’s a 4% advantage for Romney among college educated.

            The HS crowd (younger, less informed) went for Obama at 51% compared to Romney’s 48%.

            So, unless you have a source for your data I think you should correct your spiel.

  • http://gamewhen.com/ Michael T

    Another good article Bernie. However, one point you made has been a source of bewilderment.

    Why do you and those on the right persist on bringing up the tax on medical devices.? Do you and they not know that this is not a tax on consumers?

    Just who are the House Republicans trying to appeal to here? Is it the lobbyists for manufacturers of medical devices? {head scratch}

    • seriouslysickntired

      Really Michael T? Don’t you realize that it all rolls down hill. Taxes too. The end consumer will foot the bill.

      • http://gamewhen.com/ Michael T

        You make a fair point that the 2.3% tax increase could be simply passed on to consumers.

        However, I think the opposition to the tax (which exempts anything sold directly to consumers — such as hearing aids, contact lenses and eyeglasses) is largely driven by the medical-supply industry having spent more than $150 million lobbying Congress since 2008.

        It just strikes me as disingenuous that the House Republicans are representing their position as pro consumer. I just don’t agree that this is the case.

        • Indi4ever

          Could be? It always does. Taxes are a cost just as any other input to the product. That they have to be paid, means there has to be revenue to cover it. Further, it causes industry to consider alternative investments–viz. those that could provide more revenue/profit for less risk, or lower investment capital.

    • JohnKohos

      Ironically, Al Franken has been lobbying to eliminate the tax on medical devices because he says it will have a devastating effect on that industry in his state. And you can’t get further left than Al Franken without falling off the planet.

  • 633

    Never take an economic hostage you can’t afford to shoot.

  • seriouslysickntired

    Chicago Thuggery at it’s best. Deliberately hurting people to achieve his end. Hmm….where did I read about the ends justifying the means. Oh yeah, I remember now.. good ol Saul tactics.

  • Irene Elizabeth Grooms

    YOU GOT TO BLAME BOTH PARTIES BUT I THINK THAT OBAMA WANTED THIS SO THE DEMOCRATS COULD WIN MORE SEATS IN OUR 2014 ELECTON. THE ONLY WAY THAT THIS LIAR THAT IS IN OUR WHITE HOUSE CAN DO HIS DIRT.

    • pat brady

      Good thing he somehow convinced the republicans to shut down the government huh?

      • Jeff Webb

        The Republicans didn’t shut down the gov’t–the democrats did. Deal with it.

        • pat brady

          Oh, I didn’t realize the democrats controlled the congress now. I must have missed that story.

          Someone needs to take a civics course.

  • http://unseenmoon.wordpress.com/ Felipe Zapata

    Non-partisan political thinkers? Name just one, Bernie. But I mean real ones, not just those who say they are.

  • Jim

    Hey Goldie, The “end game” is to bring attention to this failure obamacare and to try and minimize the pain to the people as much as humanly possible! It’s too bad your premature mouth insist’s on failure before the possibility of success can even try to prevail. Talk about aid and comfort to the enemy!!! Sorry Goldie but we have been down your path for 30 years+ and where has it gotten conservatives? Why don’t you and the rest of your blue blood country club types just shut up, if you can’t support We The People, sit this one out please and let the men with back bones take this hill because you sir are a coward!

    • Indi4ever

      Don’t confuse moderation with strategy. Moderation is often the way the GOP loses. But zealotry combined with idiocy loses every time! This was bad strategy. Thanks so much for that.

      • Jim

        What Crap! “Moderation is often the way the GOP looses” Who do they loose to? Do the Democrats fight in moderation? If you say yes your full of crap! They are all in all the time! Why don’t you sit this one out with the women and children TOO and let the men fight this one out. Since Ted Cruz’s 22 hour statesmanship on the floor of the Senate there has been more light shined on the failure of obamacare, the oligarchy of the Democratic party and their distain for We The People then there has been since Ronald Reagan shed a few lights on them 30/35 years ago! I’ve waited my whole life for people like you to grow a backbone. Enough is enough, NOT ANYMORE!!!!!

        • Indi4ever

          Thanks for the ever brilliant analysis–Mr. Crood!

          • Jim

            You are a fool sir and by the way, you don’t fool me.

          • Indi4ever

            The evidence shows you don’t know what the word means. You are more interested in zealous display than in anything unfoolish. Just re-read your message and see if isn’t the case.
            No matter how big your type, or how many exclamation marks you use, your analysis (and the Cruz strategy) remains stupid. Or should I spell it stoopid for you.

          • Jim

            You can spell it anyway you want and you can try and minimize and demean me and Ted Cruz all you want with your High Brow snarky little attitude Jay Carnie. You are still a FOOL SIR weather your trying to quell conservatism for your Demo Rate cohorts or your just one of the SHEEPLE that will follow “The Architect” down the same old rat hole! Sorry, Not Me.

  • keith hart

    Why does it have to be an either or? They’re dance partners, aren’t they?

  • Ed in Albany

    I’m pretty sure of a couple things about the president, he thrives on chaos, he needs a boogyman for everything, he will never accept responsibility for anything and he does not believe in representative government. When has he ever personally negotiated with anyone? Not even Putin, he just does what he says.

  • Jesustheonlyway

    Obama’s goal is and was always to destroy America – and he’s doing just that.

    • Indi4ever

      So nice that Cruz & Co. can help with that this time.

  • shinbone

    Obama must be stopped. No more kicking the socialist can down the road. Obama has nothing but disdain for America. Left to his fanatical spread the wealth socialism plan for Americans-Obama will kill the American Dream.

    Time to take-on and confront this man from WHERE?. Only a low information person can still support this failed president. I wish Bernie Goldberg and other informed journalist would start going after the Obama- ruination- administration like the leftist journalist go after the Conservatives. America is in deep trouble and someone has to print a form of the Shinbone Star newspaper.

    • Jim

      Great Idea accept, Goldie is no Conservative just like Indi4ever. If they were they would be cheering from the mountain tops but no, their trying to quell us! This is the IDEAL time for Goldie to Shine The Light of Truth on obama, obamacare and the Elite Democratic party that puts themselves above their own law and We The People, but what does Goldie do? Rails against true Conservatives and preaches wait a little longer, this isn’t the right fight we need moderation while SCREAMING DEFEAT in the presents of victory! For God’s sake isn’t that what we have been doing and what they have told Conservatives for 30+ years? How’s it been working for you??? If NOT NOW WHEN??? WHAT’S YOUR PLAN??? HOW LONG AM I SUPPOSE TO LET THE LEFT DEFINE ME???????The country is slipping away piece by piece and were still listeining to these Dinosaur’s??? They are the problem! They are why the left has gotten a free pass all these years. They are the reason good men with backbone are aloud to be beaten down! NOT ANYMORE, ENOUGH is ENOUGH!!!

      • Indi4ever

        How could anyone possibly see Obamacare now? Cruz & co. are sucking up all the airtime with the spectacle of idiocy. You are not helping the situation because you support him, …and even mimic his antics. Does your caps lock stick that much?

        • Jim

          refer to what i’ve written above. you will find your answers there unlike you answering any of my questions. When your done scroll around until you find Wil’s post ” some battles are fought not because we could win, but because they were worth fighting for”. but you wouldn’t know about that. you are morn than willing to give away even more. by the way, you can’t name one battle that you have even fought let alone won. ASK YOURSELF THAT!

    • pat brady

      Sounds to me like YOU don’t love America! I men that’s what liberals were told when they complained about republican presidents. Take your own advice “love it or leave it!”

  • gbandy

    The single biggest point is this “shutdown” was coming months ago. Obama has not had a working Budget now in 5 years so FED money problems are no surprise. Now obviously this crisis will end soon and than we go into raising the Debt Limit. Well everyone should just read again the speech of Senator Obama from 2006 and realize Obama can talk out of both sides of his mouth.

  • jondaris

    Bernard,

    I have no idea why I’m getting your newsletters — my guess is that some point I was trolling some wingnuts and ended up here. But you surprise me. I don’t agree with you on much of anythng, but you’re at least thoughtful and smart.

    But I strongly disagree with you here. Essentially the Republicans have taken our economy hostage and are threatening to shoot it if the Dems don’t negotiate. As Reagan said, we don’t negotiate with terrorists, and sadly that’s what the GOP is doing here.

    I may be a liberal, but I’ve never been a hyper partisan. I like and respect many conservatives, you among them. But the GOP is broken, badly. Unless we return to a political culture where destroying the nation is no longer an acceptable option for policy differences, I don’t see much hope for America. No one likes to lose — I spent most of the 2000’s depressed over the direction of the nation. But I, and the Democrats, never treated the well being of the country as up for grabs.

  • ronneeh

    It’s bho’s shutdown.

  • VermontAmerican

    Bingo, Bernie.

  • savage24

    It is my opinion that the MSM has lost its legitimacy the day they became the lapdog of the liberal government instead of the watchdog of all government. The reason they blame the Republicans for the shutdown is because that is a lot easier than looking for and reporting the truth. The MSM is liberal by choice, not by necessity. I will not give the MSM a pass on this or any of their reporting until they become nonpartisan, and that means never.

  • kayakbob

    With regard to the shutdown, and all the hullabaloo surrounding it, the Republicans in Congress telegraphed a shutdown to the WH months ago – with no plan for how to deal with the inevitable consequences of that stance. The WH saw a golden opportunity, and made absolutely certain the shutdown happened. Boehner could have then proposed spending be doubled, and the WH would have insisted it be tripled and said, “no deal”.

    The WH made sure it happened, but the House of Representatives set this in motion.

    Years after Nixon left office in disgrace he said, ‘I got stabbed in the back. But I gave them the knife to do it with’ (paraphrase). I am not ‘blaming the victim’. I am simply saying I am baffled by the notion – what did Congressional Republicans think was going to happen?

  • Drew Page

    Bernie — You are right about Obama not wanting to throw Republicans a bone to settle the issue. It would cost the Democrats nothing to waive the tax on medical devices. That concession alone would most likely allow Republicans to save enough face to pass the CR. I believe that President Obama wants chaos and wants to blame the Republican party for it and thereby win the House in 2014. At this point, I would suggest Republicans retreat and just vote “present” on the CR. Let Obamacare ruin what’s left of the economy and when it aggravates enough Democrats, maybe they will demand its repeal.
    I am certain the Democrats are going to resort to the same tactics when it comes to the vote on the debt ceiling. Unless the Republicans roll over and give the President a blank check, they will be blamed for causing America to “default” on its obligations. President Obama is already doing it. Is that yet another fight the Republicans can’t win?
    I have a serious question for you Bernie, should the members of one political party just pack up and go home when the other party has control of the Senate and/or the White House? Because if that’s the case, there is no sense in one party trying to do anything unless it controls both Houses of Congress and the White House.

    • Indi4ever

      It is not about doing ‘nothing’, but rather about doing what you can. If the GOP had started with the individual mandate (something very popular), this would have put real pressure on the Dems. Furthermore, Obama is extremely weak (or WAS), and all the trouble with this ACA rollout would have had them playing defense for a long time. The 2014 election would actually be in play. Sadly, this is all going away.

  • gracie

    The Republicans have picked a fight over nullifying a law that they don’t like in a budget resolution. Democrats have already compromised. The monetary figure is of the GOP’s choosing. Many dems don’t like Taft-Hartley, they don’t use a government shutdown to get rid of it. Eric Cantor is now on a “fairness” mantra to get waivers removed. I have an idea for you Eric; remove a 2005 law passed by a Republican Congress and President that makes firearm dealers and manufacturers the ONLY industry exempt from product liability lawsuits. It’s only fair.

    • Indi4ever

      The 2005 law is irrelevant to what is going on now. You should
      know that a ‘clean’ CR is historically rare. The Cruz faction just
      picked off more than they should have for negotiations.

      • gracie

        The 2005 law is relevant in that it shows how Cantor’s call for fairness is phony. There’s a reason the approval rate for Congress is about 10%. There’s now a paper trail available at the touch of a finger where we can all view each politician’s hypocritical past. I’m always amazed that the pols don’t think about that.

  • John Colburn

    If you allow Congress to get away with this it sets a dangerous precedent. Next time they can hold another law hostage such as Medicare or Social Security and maybe something you care about. Yes, I’m over 65.

    • Carlos.Danger

      Bad laws should be held hostage. The Affordable Care Act is a bad law. Lawmakers pushing it lied to us and other lawmakers to ensure its passage. Medicare and Social Security are failing and need to be scrutinized in order that they can become viable once again.

      • John Colburn

        OK but “bad laws” can be defined by whoever controls congress, without necessarily getting input from the President or Senate. You are assuming that in every case Congress will agree with you.

        • Carlos.Danger

          Excuse me…but the president and the senate had lots of input. The Affordable Care Act they are pushing thru doesn’t even resemble the one they passed. It went to committee and was changed by the senate long ago. Therein lies the problem…they are playing a shell game with the American public and it was the public who rose up and spurred their congressmen and senators to action.

          Can you keep your doctor…… no
          Can you keep your hospital….no
          It will be cheaper…..no

          • John Colburn

            I still have my same doctor and hospital. As far as cheaper goes the jury may still be out on that, but I know at least some states have it cheaper. I have Medicare of course, but let’s wait and see when the dust settles.

  • moafu

    Thanks, Bernie,
    Good suggestions on questions that the media could ask. We should keep in mind that this president’s track record is one incident after another of narcissistic behavior – the series of scandals, his posturing, his campaigning when decisions are needed, his agenda to ‘transform’, etc. The real person was reflected in his behavior, choice of words, and demeanor in that first debate. What a revelation! should have scared everyone of his supporters away – except for the “free stuff” offers.

    One wonders if your concern about a lazy and uninformed voting public will cost the nation even more. No one person, company, or nation can borrow its way out of debt.

  • Jeff

    Everything obama does thing reeks of Cloward-Piven.

  • Timothy Hadley

    “they’re getting the lion’s share of the blame for the shutdown. You can’t blame that on the liberal media.” What? Hello–where have you been, Bernie? The last 3 days–21 news stories blame Republicans, NONE blame Democrats. Yes, I think we CAN blame it on the liberal media.

    • gracie

      The Republicans are getting blamed more the Dems because GOPers areopening their big mouths. Most people don’t really pay attention to stories like this until a shutdown happens. They then see 2 tthings in the media; dems talking about the horrible shutdown hurting people, and some GOPers talking about how life is rosy and government not needed beyond the military. Who do you think they’ll blame?

      • Carlos.Danger

        The government has shut down??? I and millions of others haven’t noticed. I suppose if the spiteful Obama administration hadn’t ordered parks to be barricaded and the liberal media playing the blame game, millions of others wouldn’t have noticed either.

        • gracie

          Most Americans of all political stripes don’t trust the media. They read between the lines on stories. What they know on this one is that people on your side either think the shutdown is no big deal and/or are happy about it. Thus , you get the blame. This is not a political statement. It’s a fact. If you think it’s the liberal media’s fault you’ll never have the right strategy.

          • Carlos.Danger

            Actually, government shut downs are no big deal. After all there were many shut downs throughout the years and we did fine. If you don’t think the liberal media isn’t playing the blame game on behalf of the democrats maybe you need to read between the lines.

          • brickman

            Answer one question. Do you think more of the american people blame republicans over democrats for the shutdown because they are stupid?

          • Sheila Warner

            Tell that to the children who won’t be seen for cancer research trials. Tell that to Federal workers whose pay will be delayed while the bills aren’t delayed. Tell that to the CDC, who cannot properly track the flu season and help keep the public & the medical community informed about complications or problems with vaccines. Tell that to the woman who can’t ship her valves to the Navy because there is no one to inspect them for safety. Those who say the shut down is no big deal live in a narrow world view.

          • Carlos.Danger

            Yeah okay ………..the sky is falling …..the sky is falling. Get a grip and stop peddling your nonsense.

          • kidwinona

            I get it just over expand government then when it is cut back we can talk about lost jobs. You need to study up on flu tracking, the whole program is very very controversial even Obama realizes it can be put on hold. I don’t think you want a manageable government because you fear everything, this how government uses and tugs on your heart for their desired power grabs. What will you do when they stop the mail delivery on Saturdays.More overreacting

          • Sheila Warner

            I wouldn’t mind at all if we only got mail Mon-Fri. As to the CDC flu tracking, as a nurse I can tell you that the program is valuable. What controversy are you referring to? Source, please?

          • kidwinona

            Let’s just say, that you being a nurse should know it is controversial but because you defend it as if it is the law shows you don’t understand the complexity of the program and where the need for it is. I will say my background trumps yours but I understand your naive view for I am employed by ,well, I will say one of the best if not the best Health care institutions on the planet, and yes they almost stuff the options of receiving the recipe. But there, it is a facility of dealing with all sorts of measures that may or may not be acceptable in other places. So if one works in the healthcare industry (as in services) well that would be a place where those employed probably would/should be advised to . But that is not to be taken like therefore everyone on this planet needs the recipe

          • Sheila Warner

            I really did not understand at all what you said. Recipe? What recipe? So, let me clarify. The CDC tracks outbreaks of flu across the country. They also try to determine how effective the flu vaccine is in each season. Making an effective vaccine is really a crap shoot each year. Even if they get it right, there are those who get sick from a different virus, or whose immune response doesn’t kick in so they get the flu, anyway. Overall it is difficult to sift through the data and come up with logical conclusions. But there is no other mechanism in place right now. If the controversy is due to that last statement, so be it. But it’s still a vital component of what the CDC does. I know it’s not a law, by the way. Epidemiology isn’t always easy, but we need it.

          • kidwinona

            Why should you understand? Here comes your Napoleon complex again. I have to admit that you confuse yourself. Public schools do that. “No other mechanism” Right, but based on that you lose, this is what I said , then you explain deeper with alluding to the endless amount of data- that data tells everything but the answer. This idea that the government shutdown will make people get the flu is like saying more pregnancies will happen without Obamacare being funded. I’ll just say your wrong even if there’s a rise in pregnant women who get flu. You worry too much but as an Orderly you should worry, it helps the team

    • Indi4ever

      That the media is biased is a shock to you? Blame all you want–it is
      feckless. This is, one of many reasons, why the whole shutdown thing
      was a mistake from the get go! You pick fights you can win. You can’t
      control the media (not that anyone should be able to), but we sure as
      hell can predict what they are going to do. It is pure idiocy to expect
      anything different.

      Unfortunately we have elected
      mutated political genes (who think they are geniuses) that are now
      causing a Darwinian extinction of the Republican party.

      As an independent it is sad to watch this happen, as they used to be the check on the Liberals.

      Thank you Mr. Cruz so much for ensuring we get the WORST possible government!

  • Nicholas344

    I heard Mark Levin explain it. Obama wants the govt. shutdown and debt crisis so that he can deny congress and rescue the world by raising the debt limit on his own authority. Of course it is illegal but as I see it, Obama is an illegal president. The Constitution simply doesn’t apply or matter to him.
    It is a normal strategy in the attempt to transform America. Some would call it despotism

    • gracie

      Some would call it paranoia.

    • Mike Pechner

      Hey, jim, I believe it is Benard Goldberg is the author, not Goldie as you say. If you want respect then show some yourself!

  • JGA

    Yes I can blame the liberal media for the poll results. How people respond in a poll usually depends on where they get their news from, doesn’t it? Until more folks visit you and Sowell and FNC, we’re cooked!
    JGA

  • Mike

    My guess is that the American people will, possibly before the 2014 elections, be so overwhelmingly against the Unaffordable Care Act that the dems won’t want to run on it and 1 of 2 things might happen – they get Obama to fix it or they don’t and they lose the Senate too

  • Celsius1939a

    Bernie, you are about as bright as Obobo, Pelosi and Reid. That means my dog wins hands down.

  • IUBBallfan

    Well, every day the government is shut down and the sun continues to rise shows me we can exist without big government. That’s the motivation behind the complete panic and the terrorist language we’re hearing from the left: We’re threatening their existence.

    The media is the biggest culprit in this theater today. If we walk away from the news stations and newspapers — dethrone MSM — we’ve won about 3/4 of any political battle.

  • Seattle Sam

    Real leaders recognize that their role involves more than diagnosing a problem and assigning blame. They take responsibility for resolution no matter whose fault they think it is.

  • rbblum

    Government shutdown ? As though the sun is not rising in the east . . . or setting in the west.

  • Big Truck Joe

    The Republicans cant win a war with the Democrats in the media because the Democrats are the media and vice-versa. I dont know why they cant see that. Its maddening that the Repubs are Charley Brown and the Media (aka Democrat mouthpieces) are Lucy. The Repubs keep thinking their intentions will get an honest review in the media and the masses will make an informed decision…and the Media/Dems keep pulling the ball away in the last second. Arrgghh.

  • EddieD_Boston

    The MSM is rooting for Obama. It’s not even on their radar screen that Obama needs to compromise. As far as they’re concerned Obama is, and will always be, 100% in the right and republicans in the wrong. The story was already written before the shutdown.

    • tylrgu

      MSM media? Fox News has about half, if not slightly more, of news traffic. That’s mainstream if i ever did see it.

  • D Parri

    Oh, but there is an end game. The president has already ‘tinkered-up’ the law in ways that are not sustainable. Ultimately, the law will apply to more and more folks. Pres O only chose to grant employer exemptions and delays in order to not encompass the media corporations before the mid-term elections. Once the media employers fall under the law with no way out, then there will be a very loud and vociferous outcry from even the lamestream media. It won’t be good.

    However, the GOP is currently ‘passing out their cards’ so that the electorate will know who to call for help during the next election. What better way for Speaker Boehner to tell people who to call (or vote for) than by offering to compromise with a no-compromise president?

    Don’t lose sight of the end game strategy.

  • D Parri

    You really want to find out? Then convince John Boehner to make a compromise offer. Agree to passing a ‘clean’ CR if Pres O will rescind the exemptions, waivers, and special subsidies that he has already passed out. Let everyone come under the same umbrella.

    Then, once the offer is made, then make sure to get the news of this offer out so that the lamestream media HAS to report it. Shout it out from the rooftops!

    Pres O will not take the offer and that will put the responsibility for a government shutdown squarely on his shoulders. It will become the worst PR debacle of his career. Checkmate!

    • The DA

      This definitely strikes a nerve.

    • Drew Page

      Boehner has already made that offer. Obama and his stooge Reid have said they aren’t going to talk about it, end of story.

    • WhiteHunter

      That would be a very good thing to do…except that Osama, Reid, et al. have already declared that a CR that includes those entirely reasonable and necessary “strings” and requirements (or any other conditions, for that matter) is ipso facto not “clean.”
      To them, “bipartisan” and “common ground” mean exactly this: Give us everything we demand; you’ll get nothing from us in return, not even a fair hearing of your ideas. Then shut up and sit down.”

      • D Parri

        It is unfortunate that this is being played out that way, but I agree with your perspective.

        If the president wanted a ‘clean CR’, then why did he start tinkering with the law and grant exemptions and waivers to his special class of voters? That one is easy. If the media–lamestream and honest–were required to implement at the same time as individuals, then there would be a hue and cry go out that the Obama camp could not quell.

        I encourage everyone to send their support to Boehner and the GOP to hold the line and offer again and again the compromise of a ‘clean CR’ for a clean law that has not been tinkered with by the presidential king.

  • Kathie Ampela

    Rooting for chaos? I’m really tired of the divide and conquer playbook. There is no political solution when both sides are diametrically opposed. Only the people can decide next November. The government shut down means nothing to Driveby America. It’s utterly meaningless and a bore. When Obamacare bites their ass, they will fix the problem with votes. We either have a new beginning or fundamental transformation next November. This government shut down thing will be long forgotten by then, it doesn’t personally effect enough people. And I’m not buying the argument that once enough people get hooked on government healthcare they will never get rid of it. You don’t get hooked on a crap sandwich.

    • KStrett

      “There is no political solution when both sides are diametrically opposed.”

      I believe that is the direction the country is going. For decades the debate has been between the establishment big government GOP progressives and bigger government progressives. The progressives lie about what they really believe. Progressives to small incremental baby steps to get to their ultimate goal.

      For example, if they were honest they would admit they want to ban all guns but they just lie and tell everyone they want common sense provisions. After they pass 500 bills containing common sense restrictions on buying a gun, guns become illegal or next to impossible to buy because of all the regulations.

      People are getting tired of the big government vs bigger government choice. I also think the far left is sees the finish line, wants to win the race quickly but also wants to be honest about what they believe.
      In the future the debate will probably be between libertarian vs Marxism.

      ” And I’m not buying the argument that once enough people get hooked on government healthcare they will never get rid of it.”

      The bill is designed to destroy the current health care system. After some time has passed and people are suffering, they will argue the healthcare system doesn’t work and America needs a single payer socialized system.

      If you don’t think this is likely, remember the President Obama was reelected despite the condition of the economy. If the past election was held twenty years ago, he would be kicking back in Hawaii. The country has changed.

      • Kathie Ampela

        Your post was very interesting and I agree with some of it. The end game of the progressives, I believe, is a single payer system. However, the people do not want that much of a dramatic change, I know the way driveby America thinks. They should be ashamed of themselves for not paying closer attention to what’s going on, they are guilty of apathy, not wanting a Marxist system. They will wake up when they finally see what’s going on.

        • Drew Page

          A single payer, national health care system has been the goal of liberals from day one. Only time will tell if America will stand for it.

        • KStrett

          Do you think if the health care system is in chaos the majority of the American people are informed enough to understand how it happened and how to fix it?

          If they are not informed, the democrats will appear to be coming to the rescue on a white horse when they argue we need a single payer socialized system.

          How did President Obama get reelected?

          The old constant maxim “it is the economy stupid” did not apply. If we are not at the 51% tipping point of becoming an idiocracy, we are close…

          I hope you are right and I am wrong…

          • Kathie Ampela

            There isn’t enough time for that kind of extreme change. The midterms are in 13 months. Obama got re-elected because the perception was the economy was not that bad, the false narrative being peddled that “Al Qaeda is on it’s heels on the path to defeat” and they didn’t like Mitt Romney. Healthcare is basic and personal and effects everybody, when it’s a mess caused by Obamacare, the democrats will be held responsible. No one will remember a government shut down. Why wait 3 and 1/2 years to implement the damned thing if there were 30 million uninsured out there that were “suffering” and in need of help right away? Why wait unless you are worried about political consequences?

          • KStrett

            The democrats are clearly worried about the political consequences of Obama-care. At one point they were talking about putting it off until after 2014. The more time passes, the better chance they have to make the socialized medicine argument.

            “Why wait 3 and 1/2 years to implement the damned thing if there were 30 million uninsured out there that were “suffering” and in need of help right away?”

            You would think the media might ask them that question…. but then again the media might also ask them why they told the American people they wouldn’t lose their coverage or their doctor and that isn’t exactly true….

          • Kathie Ampela

            You made an interesting point about in future the debate will between libertarian vs. marxism. A new poll suggests Elizabeth Warren in MA surpasses Hillary Clinton in 2016. So the partisan base prefer an honest marxist to a dishonest politician, a good thing. Explain to driveby America watching Dancing with the Stars if they REALLY want Marxism. Which brings me back to the question, why did Obama and the dems wait 3 1/2 years to implement Obamacare?

          • Sheila Warner

            I’ll chime in with an answer to your easy question. It had to be implemented after the 2012 elections so that the President could be re-elected. That’s my opinion, of course. I think everyone knew this would be a huge program with snafus. The Dems own the law, and they don’t want to be negatively affected by it. I also believe the exemption for businesses was to get the Dems past the 2014 mid-terms. Again, my opinion.

  • Wil

    Bernie,There are 30 individual Republican congress people who are whining their way into infamy by forcing a shutdown of the federal government. They are aided and abetted by Ted Cruze’s puppet. All they have to do is pass the clean CR bill sent to them by the Senate and then engage in a conference over the budget bill sent to them by the senate in the spring of this year. So, we can accurately say that the Republican leadership in the house has chosen to shut down the government and create massive problems for millions of Americans because they couldn’t get their way.

    • KStrett

      So basically your position is the GOP should just give the democrats whatever they want? Couldn’t someone make the exact same point about the democrats?

      The GOP can at least argue they compromised. They wanted to defund Obama care and then compromised to put it off a year. The democrats haven’t budged at all.

      They argue the government shutdown will delay a possible cure for cancer but won’t pass a provision to fund cancer research but you believe the blame is 100% on the GOP?

      If this is creating massive problems for millions of Americans why can’t they pass certian bills to fund some government programs until they work this out? That way millions of Americans won’t be hurt.

      • Wil

        They wanted to defund Obama care and then compromised to put it off a year.>>

        .
        So, they wanted to trash the ACA and then compromised to just delay it for a year. Some compromise! NOT!

        • KStrett

          “Some compromise! NOT!”

          I believe the GOP has abandoned putting Obamacare off for a year and now just wants the exemption for the house and senate removed. Where have the democrats compromised?

          Republicans have passed bills to fund areas of the government that are currently not funded. If the democrat controlled senate passed the bills, it would mean less Americans would be hurt but the Senate refuses to act.

          If your position is the government shut down hurts millions of Americans, shouldn’t you be more upset with the democrats?

          The Obama administration is also shutting down places that are privately funded. If they don’t get their funding from the government, they don’t need to be shut down. This shows the Obama administration is playing political games. Where is your outrage?

          • Wil

            House Speaker John Boehner should call for a vote on a spending bill that would allow Congress members to vote their concience. Where is your outrage?

          • KStrett

            First of all, the house has passed a few spending bills. You are also forgetting that the democrats refuse to pass a budget. President Obama’s own budget was unanimously rejected.

            Secondly, you did not answer my questions.

            1.Where have the democrats compromised?

            2. If your position is the government shut down hurts millions of Americans, shouldn’t you be more upset with the democrats because they haven’t budged at all?

            3. The Obama administration is clearly playing politics with the shut down. If your position is the government shut down hurts millions of people and the Obama administration is playing political games, you should be very angry at the democrats. Yet, you continually place 100% of the blame on the GOP.

            Why aren’t you outraged at the Obama administration for playing political games with an issue that is hurting millions of Americans?

          • Wil

            All Boehner has to do is put a clean bill up for a vote and it will pass and the government would be back in business. But, cowardly puss that he is, he’s afraid of the nut jobs in his party.

          • Jeff Webb

            If you want an example of a nut job, look no further than a guy who is comfortable hanging out with a terrorist, supports letting a newborn baby die from medical neglect, and shuts down popular parks at extra expense to punish the people trying to save money.

          • Wil

            Speaker John Boehner who won’t let the House vote on a clean CR. I agree.

          • KStrett

            1.Where have the democrats compromised?

            2. If your position is the government shut down hurts millions of Americans, shouldn’t you be more upset with the democrats because they haven’t budged at all?

            3. The Obama administration is clearly playing politics with the shut down. If your position is the government shut down hurts millions of people and the Obama administration is playing political games, you should be very angry at the democrats. Yet, you continually place 100% of the blame on the GOP.

            Why aren’t you outraged at the Obama administration for playing political games with an issue that is hurting millions of Americans?

          • Wil

            *Where have the democrats compromised?*

            ,
            The bill was voted on and passed. Compromise what?

          • KStrett

            Obamacare is a disaster and that is coming from democrats and unions. Why would you let a “train wreck” continue and not stop it?

            If the law is so great why are the politicians getting special treatment to immune themselves from it?

            If the law is so great why are certian business getting special treatment?

            Why can’t you answer my questions?

          • Wil

            Try it, you might like it. Hey, If the law is successful, will you all still keep calling it Obamacare?

          • tylrgu

            What have the democrats negotiated?

            Watch this youtube vid: watch?v=ruww7_WP6gE

            The Republicans are not trying to fairly negotiate Obamacare. Their delay is a ploy. They will delay Obamacare just in time for the next debt ceiling showdown. Guess what they plan to do then? If you guessed “allow Obamacare to go into effect” you are wrong.

          • tylrgu

            I returned here expecting a response. Shame the discussion died so quickly Now that the shutdown is over, for now, it seems the Dems have the upper hand.

      • WhiteHunter

        Harry Reid came right out and said he doesn’t care if the several hundred children desperately sick with terminal cancer who were ready to start a last-chance NIH oncology program died, if that’s the price of Republicans’ not immediately surrendering to his all-or-none, take-it-or-leave-it demands. IT’S ON TAPE!
        Republicans wanted to fund that life-saving program, and other equally urgent ones, NOW, and then deal with the hard stuff separately, later. Reid, Pelosi, and Osama flat-out refused. They want these innocent children to die–just as that other “compassionate Democrat,” Sebelius, did with the 10-year-old girl who needed a lung transplant.
        Every Republican needs to run that video clip endlessly in every campaign in next year’s election, and wrap it around Reid’s and the other Dems’ throats. They’re coldblooded monsters.

        • KStrett

          Harry Reid’s reaction to being asked a fair question was interesting to. They are so used to the media being in the tank for the democrats, they don’t know how to react when they are asked a fair question. They don’t believe the press is supposed to ask democrats tough questions.

    • Drew Page

      All the Republicans have to do is give Obama everything he wants and there will be no problem, right? What makes you, or anyone else, think that the Democrats won’t do exactly the same thing when it comes to raising the debt ceiling? Obama wants a blank check and has already started blaming Republicans for America defaulting on its obligations “for the first time in history” if they don’t give him what he wants. So how do you propose Republicans “engage in a conference over the budget bill sent to them by the Senate in the Spring of the year”? This is really a rhetorical question, as I believe your position will be the same as it is for the current attempt of Republicans to compromise on the CR, “just give Obama what he wants”.

      • Wil

        All the Obama has to do is give the Teabaggers everything they want and there will be no problem, right?

  • Wil

    Obama’s health care reform bill was passed into law three years ago and Republicans have since voted more than 40 times to try to repeal it. They’re now shredding Congressional tradition by holding the federal budget hostage if the president doesn’t agree to repeal his own landmark legislation.

    • KStrett

      If the Republicans repealed Obamacare the same way the democrats passed it, what would you say?

      • Wil

        If the Republicans repealed Obamacare the same way the democrats passed it, what would you say?>>
        .
        Okay.

        If a Republican president just declared the government isn’t going to enforce Obamacare or defend it in court what would you say?>>
        .

        Not okay.

        • KStrett

          You must have a major problem with the Obama administration because he has continually been side stepping congress. The have decided not to enforce certain laws or defend certain laws in court.

          If the Republicans repealed Obamacare the exact same way it was passed, the entire main stream media complex would be foaming at the mouth and going into convulsions. I have a hard time believing you would have a different view but I will take your word for it.

        • Jeff Webb

          Therefore, you must think it’s wrong for Obama to refuse to uphold/enforce certain laws, right?

    • Jeff Webb

      You’re okay with your president shredding American laws, so don’t get all whiny about supposed shredding of Congressional tradition.

      I understand it’s not in libs’ nature, but please try to post facts. Nobody has demanded the president “agree to repeal his own landmark legislation.”
      As democrats have been insisting, Obamacare is the law of the land. Would it be fair to demand the president act like it, and agree to immediately put an end to all waivers, subsidies, and delays?

  • Doctor_B

    Those pictures of ‘guards’ in front of monuments that are unstaffed and open 24/7 are hilarious. Any idiot can see Obama is using disgraceful ‘theater optics’ — even to the extent of attempting to cancel military academy football games whose funding is not linked to the shutdown. Any idiot except the MSM. Here in San Diego county, this weekend’s air show is being canceled. Last year it brought in a profit of over $1M! But the local press is dutifully reporting it as being caused by those nasty Republicans.

    But the more this debacle continues, I firmly believe it will rest squarely on O’s head. Just as Hoover is viewed poorly in history (not the Congress or other government officials of that era), eventually ‘O’ will own this. Polls out today confirm that the public blames Republicans and ‘O’ equally.

    Of course O is not helping himself by going off prompter (aka TOTUS) and equating striking union workers to Republicans and suggesting they all should be fired. (And they thought Bush was dumb???)

    One has to wonder if this is not a blessing, though, by blowing up in the Democrats’ ‘ruling class’ faces. Why not keep it up? Let the house pass small funding bills to keep essential things going. I am not losing any sleep over having a smaller government. And the average American is not affected by this just like they weren’t over the Sequestration.

    How about reducing foreign aid instead of ‘Barry-cading’ monuments? How about firing some of Michelle O’s 22 personal assistants? (21 more than any former First Lady) How about closing the Andrews AFB golf course? But, of course, I’m being logical and asking questions the MSM lapdogs never would.

  • rider237

    I have to admit that i am enjoying the show. the American people have such a short attention span that i am not worried about blame.
    i am thrilled to see some of our pols have grown a set and are standing up to the machine. considering where the McCains and Grahams have gotten us, this can’t be worse.

    what has been most amusing is the press. i have come to the conclusion that all the press lives in the same apartment complex. to be sure, it’s a nice one. they don’t have to gossip over the buck fifty laundry machines. they have a nice coffee shop.
    when the government slow down went into effect, the more liberal press was dancing down the isle of the shop singing with glee. the more conservative press was hunched over their latte trying to avoid the high kicks of Nancy and Harry. the conservative press was absolutely convinced that this was the end of the republican party.

    fast forward….3 whole days….

    the left is beginning to panic. this isn’t going the way the thought it would. 1st they are finding that the majority of the country is happy to have the government shut and blames everybody. 2nd, they have the gift of Harry and his mouth to contend with. 3rd, they have their fearless leader popping onto the TV encouraging the plunging of the stock market and whining like a 5 year old in the candy isle.

    the right, (Bernie :-) are not beginning to un-hunch because they took the time to check out what real people were saying. they can see that conservatives are behind this revolt and the moderates don’t seem to upset either. even many of those furloughed are cheering the action.

    can it go on forever? no. will it make a long term difference? probably not until we can get these guys out of office. are a lot of us seeing who in our party has the nuts to fight and who needs to go? you bet. there are a lot of RINOS out stuffing socks in their cups….to little to late ;-)

  • sjangers

    You’ve hit the nail directly on the head, Bernie. There’s much more that could be said about the current government crisis that might be informative, even enlightening, but the fundamental issue is the President’s unwillingness to seek any sort of real accord with the Republican House. And at the heart of that uncompromising attitude is almost certainly his belief that he will benefit politically from the pain his fellow citizens will feel as the funding impasse plays out, with his administration making strategic decisions about where to apply the pain and his shill in the Senate refusing to allow any proposals to reach the floor of his body that might alleviate some of that pain.

  • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

    I remember years ago, after the Supreme Court knocked down some of President Bush’s domestic, anti-terror policies, Bush got on a microphone and started off by telling Americans that they were still safe, and not to worry. He told them he would do what he could to work with congress and come up with a way to keep the quality of American security elevated, and he did just that.

    Such an amazing contrast in leadership styles against our current president who uses the pain of Americans to leverage himself politically. It’s amazing.

    • sjangers

      Good point, John. And wasn’t it just yesterday that James Clapper, speaking for the Obama Administration, warned the American people that they were in increased danger because of the spending crisis and then proceeded to tell us and any terrorists who might be listening exactly where he had made the cuts that would put Americans in greater danger?

    • sniper2535

      For sure! Leaders lead. Obama is already playing the “social security” card. (About a week ahead of schedule.)

    • KStrett

      Great point! Never let a good crisis go to waste is the mindset of the Obama administration. The government is shut down so they attempt to keep World War 2 veterans from going to the monument? What normal person would do that? They are shutting down places to launch PR attacks against the GOP.

      Democrats: The government is shut down which is stalling a cure for cancer.

      Honest Media: Why don’t you pass the bill that funds the cancer research?

      Democrats: I will refer you to the crickets… who will be glad to answer your question.

    • KStrett

      PS. I am still waiting for your article that juxtaposes the movie Red Scorpion to the current political climate.

      • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

        Red Scorpion? That one with Dolph Lundgren? lol

        • KStrett

          It was. I suggested you write a Red Scorpion story as a follow up to the I Come In Peace article.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            lol. I’d have to watch Red Scorpion first. Never seen it. But maybe I have a reason to now. ;)

          • KStrett

            You are telling me you have seen I Come in Peace but you haven’t seen Red Scorpion? Without Red Scorpion there would be no I Come In Peace……

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            I had no idea. ;)

    • PeterFitzwell

      The President reminds me of the kid who owned the ball at the sandlot football game If he didn’t get his way he took the ball and went home.

  • Brian Fr Langley

    By now I have no doubt but that Obama’s economist’s are telling him the truth about the Ponzi scheme we call QE1,2,and 3. I don’t know why so many folks think quantitative easing is about deficit and debt? It’s not. It’s about printing money out of thin air (you know, paper). The truth is QE1,2, and 3, like all Ponzi schemes is going to end badly. History is replete with Governments (usually despotic ones) adulterating their currency. Obama may well know the end of the dollar is nigh, and what better patsies, than obstinate debt ceiling “tea partiers”. He and his media cronies can claim the economic collapse, was not due to 5 years of reckless (and feckless) spending and money printing. It was them recalcitrant “tea partiers” what done it. Remember, you heard it here first.

  • Seattle Sam

    This President takes direct responsibility for almost nothing. Never has. He still votes “present” in effect. Chaos simply enhances his stature as an “observer”. Just like chaos is useful to you, Bernie. It gives you reason to write a column. The difference is the President was elected to do more than be an observer.

  • Greyledge Gal

    The President does everything based on political leverage. He compromised with Republicans on some things before he was elected a second time. He has no reason to compromise now – it is not advantageous to Democrats, politically.

    He has already fundamentally transformed the USA through Obamacare. Even if it utterly fails, we won’t be able to go back – the plans are gone. He has also transformed us into the most divided nation since the Civil War and maybe even moreso.

    One ray of hope is that the CBS poll today on who’s to blame gave us this nugget: Both polls had 79% respondents answering either Republicans in Congress or President/Dems in Congress. BUT as opposed to 1995-1996 shutdown, 7% more respondents blame Pres/Dems and 7% fewer respondents blame Reps now. Over time I’ve noticed that whenever the President’s rhetoric goes over the top, independents start to move against him and toward Republicans. We’ll see how close the blame game comes out in a few more days.

    • Jim Maxedon

      “The plans are gone”? No, the plans are ALL private insurance company plans. Even if Obamacare failed, the private insurance companies could simply revert to their policies of denying people benefits like they always have.

      If Obamacare has problems, they can be fixed through the normal legislative process, not by threat.

      • Greyledge Gal

        No, sir. The plans are no longer active – many private plans owned by people like me who individually insure (do not have insurance through an employer) have been scuttled. Many private insurers are not part of exchanges because they could not offer plans at the prices the Obama administration wanted them to be. Others are offering plans with $5-10 thousand dollar deductibles in order to keep premiums low – that is rife for bait and switch at the next open enrollment period and certainly will do nothing to help people avoid medical bankruptcies. Doctors have stopped accepting any insurance in many cases and are opting for cash on the barrelhead.

        Out here in flyover country, we actually help people by donating money to funds set up for their medical bills. The truly selfish are those that blow up a great healthcare system for political gain.

        • Jim Maxedon

          A really great healthcare system? Really? One of the most expensive per capita and least effective in the industrial world?

          And if Obamacare goes away, insurers are just as free to screw you over as they were before Obamacare. The real bait and switch was “we’ll cover you, but no we won’t”.

          • Greyledge Gal

            Yes, really, because we had choice to do with our money what we wanted to do as consumers. You asked someone above if they knew anybody who went without insurance by choice. I’ve known many. Most young people choose not to have insurance and always have because the odds are in their favor.

            I am 51 years old now and my husband and I did the responsible thing when we got married in our early 20s and started buying health insurance. In all these years, we have MAYBE gotten $10,000 covered. My current self-insured policy costs $1565/mo for the two of us and there was a time we were up to $2000/mo before we moved from one state to another.

            Do you think I would not like to have back the $100k plus we have spent on health insurance (as well as those 25 plus years) so I could invest it rather than pay it away to health insurance providers?

            I don’t love insurance companies; however, I completely differ from you. I think we should all return to a pay as you go system and choose the doctors and hospitals we want to patronize rather than being forced into Obamacare gulags.

  • BHill

    I’m rooting for choas too! Let the games begin! The republicans have yet to withstand the heat long enough for the buck to stop at the Presidents door. Hold on until the debt ceiling debate needs to happen, lump them together and then we can get to the real battle: The fight against socialism and the collapse of the United States as we know it!

  • sniper2535

    I love this battle! 2 parties going at it. The media is the media. You know what they’re going to say before they say it- it’s not even worth further discussion. Because of how broke we are as a country, I see this as the last great battle or a new beginning. 1/6th of the economy in government hands is too much to overcome. 1000 years of darkness and big government or a new beginning. I love this battle.

    • Jim Maxedon

      Private doctors, private insurance companies, private hospitals, private clinics, private drug companies, private pharmacies, private device manufacturers. Is this the 1/6th of the economy you think is in “government hands”?

      • sniper2535

        Jimmy doesn’t understand government regulations and its effects. Jimmy goes down.

        • Jim Maxedon

          Snippy doesn’t understand that most of the American economy is effected by regulations. Does the FAA control the airline industry? Does the FDA control the food industry or the drug industry? Does the FCC control the communications industry? Snippy?

          • sniper2535

            run along

          • Jim Maxedon

            You go first, snippy.

      • BHill

        Yes. In case you didn’t know on October 1st the government put a stake in the heart of the freedom to choose by making it a punishable offense to not carry health insurance. By making it illegal to choose to not have health insurance, the government is now totally in control of 1/6 of our economy.

        • Jim Maxedon

          In case you didn’t know, the ACA was passed in 2010, not last Tuesday. How many people do you know who voluntarily don’t carry health insurance?

          • BHill

            I’m well aware the 2010 legislation went into effect in 2013. It takes 3 years to implement? But don’t look behind the curtain, you may find the great and powerful Oz! Funny how that works.

            And as far as who does or doesn’t choose to have health insurance isn’t the issue. The issue is it’s now illegal whether or not you voluntarily choose to not be covered or you can’t because you don’t have the money. There is no differentiation, it is illegal to not carry health insurance, punishable by fine, period.

          • Jim Maxedon

            Three years to implement? Seriously? You expected processes, procedures, networks, websites, education, and rollout in what? 30 days?

          • BHill

            No, I didn’t expect it to take 30 days to take control of 1/6th of the economy. 3 years seems about right. Then again maybe I’m more realistic about this than most. The sad reality was summed up by Dr. Drew Pinsky when he said his patients “don’t want free if they have to pay for it.” And let’s be honest here if we aren’t doing it for the people who can’t afford health care (aka the people who want it for free) then why are we doing it. Oh, let me guess, it’s to take control of the health care system (aka 1/6 of the economy). Or “fundamentally change” the country.

          • Guest

            What Dr. Pinsky says doesn’t really make sense unless you think people don’t want air traffic controllers for free because they have to pay for it. My doctor fully supports ACA and so does everyone of the doctors in his group. Kaiser has been very supportive. All of this doctors are going to do this or not do this is purely speculation and mostly fear-mongering.

            The people who want it for free? I have a relative member who has a chronic disease. If he had to get insurance today without ACA, that would be a pre-existing condition and he would likely be denied. ACA is also for people like me who can reasonably afford insurance but could be denied, kicked off, or run up against annual or lifetime benefit limits. I don’t want it for free, I don’t get it for free. I want it when I need it. ACA guarantees that. The “free market” doesn’t.

          • BHill

            Let me know how getting it when you want it works out for you when the government decides you don’t get it because they can’t afford it or you’re not worthy enough!

          • JMax

            Since I will CONTINUE to pay my premiums to and get my benefits from the insurance companies and not to the government, why should I worry about the government not being able to afford anything?

          • Jeff Webb

            The gov’t now has the power to demand you change your insurance, as well as tell your insurance company to change their benefits. THAT’S what you should worry about.

          • KStrett

            It also has the power to tax behavior …..

          • JMax

            So you never heard of taxes on liquor or taxes on tobacco?

          • KStrett

            Taxing a product isn’t the same as taxing a person.

            Can a state tax citizens for not owning a gun? Can a state tax citizens for being over weight?

            If you can tax people’s behavior you can ostensibly make them do what ever you want.

          • JMax

            Before that, my employer had the power to change my insurance and my employer and the insurance company had the power to change my benefits or deny them. Since the new law protects me from being dropped from my insurance for any reason, I’ll go with that.

          • Jeff Webb

            Naivete at its best.

            When it comes to the state of your health plan, you’d actually prefer:

            A) total executive control at the whim of an unelected presidential appointee, executed by a government bureaucrat whose job is secure;

            over

            B) private insurance staffers whose jobs are not guaranteed, who have to answer to their superiors, who in turn have to answer to both the stockholders and to the employer customers.

            It’s actually silly to explain this. Anyone who thinks government involvement is the best way to make something more efficient or effective is either ignorant, delusional, or a liar.

          • JMax

            Ignorance at its best.

            Do you not understand that Obamacare IS B?

  • Jim Maxedon

    House budget $967B, Senate budget $1.06T. Senate CR $986B. Who’s not negotiating? Senate Democrats already made concessions.

    If Republicans want to change Obamacare, do it through legislation, not through threats. Obama is willing to fix ACA issues but not under threat.

    • Wil

      Yes, the procedure is call government by extortion and the Republicans are using the extortion by trying to get a concession to prevent the shutdown.

    • Jeff Webb

      Unless he is the one doing the threatening.

    • Mike

      Obama willing to fix ACA??