The Tea Party is back in business! (2 Viewers)

[Scoresman]

The Washington Examiner's Byron York interviewed an anonymous Republican congressman about the shutdown. The congressman was clearly not happy that Republicans had let themselves end up in this position. "This isn't exactly the fight I think Republicans wanted to have, certainly that the leadership wanted to have," he said.But that didn't matter anymore. Obama, the congressman continued, is "going to try to humiliate the speaker in front of his conference. And how effective a negotiating partner do you think he'll be then? You're putting the guy in a position where he's got nothing to lose, because you're not giving him anything to win."

You can see the results in the collapse of the GOP's demands. They're not trying to undo Obamacare anymore. They're embracing the kind of budget commissions they've spent six months opposing. They're just trying to find some way to eke out a win. This isn't about the policy anymore. It's about Obama. And Obama isn't giving Republicans a clear path to backing down without looking like they lost.

The White House knows this perfectly well. They just don't believe it's healthy to bend and buckle until Republicans find a way out. It's not their job, they say, to help Boehner out of promises he shouldn't have made. They weren't the ones who promised their base that the debt ceiling would be a moment of triumph. They weren't the ones who bowed to pressure from their extreme wing and chose a reckless strategy of brinksmanship. They weren't the ones who set up a political dynamic in which keeping the government open and paying our bills counts as "a loss" for one party or the other. Boehner needs to learn to stop writing checks he can't cash.

All that may be true. But the White House is still pursuing a strategy that makes it harder for Boehner and the Republicans to back down. Their gamble is that the power of public opinion will overwhelm the power of presidential polarization. And if the Republican Party loses totally -- loses in a way where they can't tell themselves it was a win -- that'll be the end of these tactics.

It might be a bet worth making. But it's still a bet. And every time Obama goes out and lashes the Republicans for shutting down the government, the stakes get a little bit higher.

When your opponent is drowning throw the son of a ##### an anvil.

~James Carville

What I find so odd is this insistence that the Republicans must have an out somehow. Sometimes you lose. Happens to everyone. Sure it sucks, but its not the end of the world.

I understand this and I can't blame Obama or the Dems. But I don't think weakening the Republicans in this manner is good for our country in general. Personally, I don't want a republic dominated by one political party, and that's where all this may be leading.

The other risk is that if Boehner is not given some kind of face-saving solution, the result will be a strengthening, not a weakening, of the Tea Party as they completely take over the Republican party. And finally of course, the the third risk is the worst one of all, that in the end, the Republicans will stubbornly NOT fold, carrying us over the debt ceiling cliff.

That's a lot of risk. If I were Obama I would be more pro-active in looking for some way to help Boehner get out of this.

So you feel that both sides share blame in continuing this shutdown, even if the Republicans are the ones that started it?

Read what I wrote again. I don't blame Obama at all. I noted that in my first sentence. But now I wish he would be more pro-active. I don't want him to concede anything of significance though, because that would only make it more likely that this crap would happen again and again. But if there's a way to help the Republicans save a little face without giving up anything of value- do it.

I don't think there's a danger of falling into a one party system anytime soon. So long as places like the south and Midwest exist, there will be enough people with conservative views trying to keep America in the past

The biggest danger here is if Obama concedes and the precedent it sets.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Exactly. You feel he should be doing something to end this.

They should all be doing something to end this - they are, after all, getting paid to get something done.

 

[jamny]

Exactly. You feel he should be doing something to end this.

They should all be doing something to end this - they are, after all, getting paid to get something done.

 

[Scoresman]

Obama should be doing something to end this, so long as that "something" is not conceding to any of the Republicans demands or anything else that would make this sort of behavior desirable for any future Congress to repeat.

 

[jamny]

Obama should be doing something to end this, so long as that "something" is not conceding to any of the Republicans demands or anything else that would make this sort of behavior desirable for any future Congress to repeat.

Whatever.

He should get Pelosi, Reid, Boehner and McConnell and lock them in a room until they get it done.

 

[timschochet]

Obama should be doing something to end this, so long as that "something" is not conceding to any of the Republicans demands or anything else that would make this sort of behavior desirable for any future Congress to repeat.

Whatever.

He should get Pelosi, Reid, Boehner and McConnell and lock them in a room until they get it done. FOREVER!

Fixed.

 

[jonessed]

The Washington Examiner's Byron York interviewed an anonymous Republican congressman about the shutdown. The congressman was clearly not happy that Republicans had let themselves end up in this position. "This isn't exactly the fight I think Republicans wanted to have, certainly that the leadership wanted to have," he said.

But that didn't matter anymore. Obama, the congressman continued, is "going to try to humiliate the speaker in front of his conference. And how effective a negotiating partner do you think he'll be then? You're putting the guy in a position where he's got nothing to lose, because you're not giving him anything to win."

You can see the results in the collapse of the GOP's demands. They're not trying to undo Obamacare anymore. They're embracing the kind of budget commissions they've spent six months opposing. They're just trying to find some way to eke out a win. This isn't about the policy anymore. It's about Obama. And Obama isn't giving Republicans a clear path to backing down without looking like they lost.

The White House knows this perfectly well. They just don't believe it's healthy to bend and buckle until Republicans find a way out. It's not their job, they say, to help Boehner out of promises he shouldn't have made. They weren't the ones who promised their base that the debt ceiling would be a moment of triumph. They weren't the ones who bowed to pressure from their extreme wing and chose a reckless strategy of brinksmanship. They weren't the ones who set up a political dynamic in which keeping the government open and paying our bills counts as "a loss" for one party or the other. Boehner needs to learn to stop writing checks he can't cash.

All that may be true. But the White House is still pursuing a strategy that makes it harder for Boehner and the Republicans to back down. Their gamble is that the power of public opinion will overwhelm the power of presidential polarization. And if the Republican Party loses totally -- loses in a way where they can't tell themselves it was a win -- that'll be the end of these tactics.

It might be a bet worth making. But it's still a bet. And every time Obama goes out and lashes the Republicans for shutting down the government, the stakes get a little bit higher.

When your opponent is drowning throw the son of a ##### an anvil.

~James Carville

What I find so odd is this insistence that the Republicans must have an out somehow. Sometimes you lose. Happens to everyone. Sure it sucks, but its not the end of the world.

I understand this and I can't blame Obama or the Dems. But I don't think weakening the Republicans in this manner is good for our country in general. Personally, I don't want a republic dominated by one political party, and that's where all this may be leading.The other risk is that if Boehner is not given some kind of face-saving solution, the result will be a strengthening, not a weakening, of the Tea Party as they completely take over the Republican party. And finally of course, the the third risk is the worst one of all, that in the end, the Republicans will stubbornly NOT fold, carrying us over the debt ceiling cliff.

That's a lot of risk. If I were Obama I would be more pro-active in looking for some way to help Boehner get out of this.

So you feel that both sides share blame in continuing this shutdown, even if the Republicans are the ones that started it?

Read what I wrote again. I don't blame Obama at all. I noted that in my first sentence. But now I wish he would be more pro-active. I don't want him to concede anything of significance though, because that would only make it more likely that this crap would happen again and again. But if there's a way to help the Republicans save a little face without giving up anything of value- do it.

I don't think there's a danger of falling into a one party system anytime soon. So long as places like the south and Midwest exist, there will be enough people with conservative views trying to keep America in the past

The biggest danger here is if Obama concedes and the precedent it sets.

The precedent of what? Negotiating over the debt limit twice?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Obama should be doing something to end this, so long as that "something" is not conceding to any of the Republicans demands or anything else that would make this sort of behavior desirable for any future Congress to repeat.

Whatever.

He should get Pelosi, Reid, Boehner and McConnell and lock them in a room until they get it done.

Didn't that happen a couple of years ago? And when Boehner took it to the house he was told nope.

 

[jamny]

Obama should be doing something to end this, so long as that "something" is not conceding to any of the Republicans demands or anything else that would make this sort of behavior desirable for any future Congress to repeat.

Whatever.

He should get Pelosi, Reid, Boehner and McConnell and lock them in a room until they get it done.

Didn't that happen a couple of years ago? And when Boehner took it to the house he was told nope.

Wasn't that just between Obama and Boehner?

 

[parasaurolophus]

The Washington Examiner's Byron York interviewed an anonymous Republican congressman about the shutdown. The congressman was clearly not happy that Republicans had let themselves end up in this position. "This isn't exactly the fight I think Republicans wanted to have, certainly that the leadership wanted to have," he said.But that didn't matter anymore. Obama, the congressman continued, is "going to try to humiliate the speaker in front of his conference. And how effective a negotiating partner do you think he'll be then? You're putting the guy in a position where he's got nothing to lose, because you're not giving him anything to win."

You can see the results in the collapse of the GOP's demands. They're not trying to undo Obamacare anymore. They're embracing the kind of budget commissions they've spent six months opposing. They're just trying to find some way to eke out a win. This isn't about the policy anymore. It's about Obama. And Obama isn't giving Republicans a clear path to backing down without looking like they lost.

The White House knows this perfectly well. They just don't believe it's healthy to bend and buckle until Republicans find a way out. It's not their job, they say, to help Boehner out of promises he shouldn't have made. They weren't the ones who promised their base that the debt ceiling would be a moment of triumph. They weren't the ones who bowed to pressure from their extreme wing and chose a reckless strategy of brinksmanship. They weren't the ones who set up a political dynamic in which keeping the government open and paying our bills counts as "a loss" for one party or the other. Boehner needs to learn to stop writing checks he can't cash.

All that may be true. But the White House is still pursuing a strategy that makes it harder for Boehner and the Republicans to back down. Their gamble is that the power of public opinion will overwhelm the power of presidential polarization. And if the Republican Party loses totally -- loses in a way where they can't tell themselves it was a win -- that'll be the end of these tactics.

It might be a bet worth making. But it's still a bet. And every time Obama goes out and lashes the Republicans for shutting down the government, the stakes get a little bit higher.

When your opponent is drowning throw the son of a ##### an anvil.

~James Carville

What I find so odd is this insistence that the Republicans must have an out somehow. Sometimes you lose. Happens to everyone. Sure it sucks, but its not the end of the world.

I understand this and I can't blame Obama or the Dems. But I don't think weakening the Republicans in this manner is good for our country in general. Personally, I don't want a republic dominated by one political party, and that's where all this may be leading.

The other risk is that if Boehner is not given some kind of face-saving solution, the result will be a strengthening, not a weakening, of the Tea Party as they completely take over the Republican party. And finally of course, the the third risk is the worst one of all, that in the end, the Republicans will stubbornly NOT fold, carrying us over the debt ceiling cliff.

That's a lot of risk. If I were Obama I would be more pro-active in looking for some way to help Boehner get out of this.

So you feel that both sides share blame in continuing this shutdown, even if the Republicans are the ones that started it?

Read what I wrote again. I don't blame Obama at all. I noted that in my first sentence. But now I wish he would be more pro-active. I don't want him to concede anything of significance though, because that would only make it more likely that this crap would happen again and again. But if there's a way to help the Republicans save a little face without giving up anything of value- do it.

I don't think there's a danger of falling into a one party system anytime soon. So long as places like the south and Midwest exist, there will be enough people with conservative views trying to keep America in the past

The biggest danger here is if Obama concedes and the precedent it sets.

This is a pretty ignorant post.

 

[Dr Oadi]

The precedent of what? Negotiating over the debt limit twice?

Negotiating over it the first time is what got us here.

1970: The practice of attaching non-germane provisions to debt limit legislation began in earnest. Three unsuccessful amendments to the 1970 debt limit bill were: 1) cut defense spending by $6 billion; 2) freeze congressional pay until Congress passes a balanced budget; and 3) institute a federal spending cap.1971: Social Security changes were included in the debt limit bill. This was the first time that Social Security changes were made in a debt limit bill.

1972: President Nixon included a spending cap and impoundment powers in his proposal to increase the debt limit.

1973: A campaign finance reform amendment to the debt limit bill was filibustered in the Senate and caused a delay in passing the underlying bill until after the previous “temporary” increase had expired.

1974: During consideration of this debt limit bill, attention was already shifting toward budget reform and what would become the Budget Act of 1974. The Ways and Means Committee said that the pre-Budget Act debt limit bill would provide some budget control “until Congress enacts legislation creating a legislative system” for budget control and consideration.

1979: Senators proposed an amendment to a debt limit bill that would require a balanced budget.

1980: While debating a debt limit bill, the Senate considered an amendment that would have strengthened the President’s rescission authority.

1980: Congress repealed an oil import fee in a bill that raised the debt limit. President Carter vetoed the bill and Congress overrode the veto 335-34 and 68-10.

1981: Multiple fiscal reform amendments were filed to a debt limit bill. Notable amendments included one to reduce tax deductions for business meals and another that would alter President Reagan’s 1981 tax cut law.

1982: Majority Leader Howard Baker allowed Senators to propose any amendment they wished to the debt limit bill. More than 1,400 amendments were filed. The Senate spent weeks debating Senator Jesse Helms’ amendment regarding federal court jurisdiction over busing and school prayer.

1983: Congress defeated a debt limit increase bill. Senator Russell Long linked the debt limit to future deficits, saying, “When you vote for this motion, you are voting to continue” large deficits.

1984: While debating a debt limit bill, the Senate considered an amendment that would have imposed a federal spending freeze.

1985: After three months of intense negotiations, Congress passed the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings deficit reduction plan as a part of a bill that raised the debt limit. Efforts during negotiations to allow short-term increases in the debt limit failed until Social Security checks were in jeopardy, at which point a temporary increase was allowed.

1987: A debt limit increase was the vehicle for a constitutional fix to Gramm-Rudman-Hollings. The sequester contained in Gramm-Rudman-Hollings was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1986.

1987: The New York Times editorialized that “[e]ach time government borrowing gets close, the ceiling is raised — but not without costly eleventh-hour shenanigans that force the Treasury into devious financing.”

1990: Congress increased the debt limit in the same legislation as the 1990 budget deal. The debt limit was temporarily increased six times in the course of these negotiations.

1993: Congress increased the debt limit as part of the 1993 budget deal between President Clinton and a Democratic Congress.

1996: After two short-term increases in February and March, Congress increased the debt limit in the Contract for America Advancement Act, a bill that created the Congressional Review Act.

1997: Congress increased the debt limit as part of the balanced budget deal struck in negotiations between President Clinton and a Republican Congress.

2010: Congress, with both chambers controlled by Democrats, passed a debt limit increase as part of a bill that reestablished statutory Pay-As-You-Go budget rules.

2011: Congress passed the Budget Control Act that both increased the debt limit and cut federal deficits.

2012: President Obama claimed that the Budget Control Act was the first time that debt limit was taken to the brink as a part of budget negotiations.

 

[TxBuckeye]

Three government agencies responsible for ensuring food and drug safety and curbing disease have recalled furloughed workers to investigate outbreaks.

The Atlanta-based U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention brought back 10 of roughly 9,000 furloughed employees Tuesday to monitor food-borne disease outbreaks, including a cluster of salmonella cases tied to tainted chicken. It's unclear whether they're being paid.

The same outbreak prompted the U.S. Department of Agriculture to recall one furloughed public affairs worker to put out a health alert Monday.

"This is one of those outbreaks they're worried about," ABC News chief health and medical editor Dr. Richard Besser said. "The number of people hospitalized by this salmonella is higher than they would expect, and the strains of the organism, many of them are resistant to antibiotics."

Read about the five riskiest superbugs.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, meanwhile, has "called a couple of technical experts back in to help" investigate an outbreak of nonviral hepatitis in Hawaii linked to the dietary supplement OxyElite Pro, an agency spokesman told ABC News.

"This is very frightening," Besser said of the outbreak of liver disease that has sickened 29 people and killed one. "The company stands by their product but they said they're recalling it for now, they're not putting any more on the market. If you have OxyElite Pro, don't use it at all."

Read about other side effects of the government shutdown.

Besser said he thinks the government shutdown, which is in its ninth day, has affected public health "in a big way."

"I think we are all at great risk here," said Besser, who served as acting director for the CDC during the 2009 swine flu outbreak. "The CDC can call people back to assist when they think there's a national emergency. But their job is to be looking for these in the first place and they're not able to do that.

 

[quickhands]

Everyone panic!

Why do you love Kooks?

I cant speak for joe t. but I admire your kook power ring.

 

[Scoresman]

The Washington Examiner's Byron York interviewed an anonymous Republican congressman about the shutdown. The congressman was clearly not happy that Republicans had let themselves end up in this position. "This isn't exactly the fight I think Republicans wanted to have, certainly that the leadership wanted to have," he said.

But that didn't matter anymore. Obama, the congressman continued, is "going to try to humiliate the speaker in front of his conference. And how effective a negotiating partner do you think he'll be then? You're putting the guy in a position where he's got nothing to lose, because you're not giving him anything to win."

You can see the results in the collapse of the GOP's demands. They're not trying to undo Obamacare anymore. They're embracing the kind of budget commissions they've spent six months opposing. They're just trying to find some way to eke out a win. This isn't about the policy anymore. It's about Obama. And Obama isn't giving Republicans a clear path to backing down without looking like they lost.

The White House knows this perfectly well. They just don't believe it's healthy to bend and buckle until Republicans find a way out. It's not their job, they say, to help Boehner out of promises he shouldn't have made. They weren't the ones who promised their base that the debt ceiling would be a moment of triumph. They weren't the ones who bowed to pressure from their extreme wing and chose a reckless strategy of brinksmanship. They weren't the ones who set up a political dynamic in which keeping the government open and paying our bills counts as "a loss" for one party or the other. Boehner needs to learn to stop writing checks he can't cash.

All that may be true. But the White House is still pursuing a strategy that makes it harder for Boehner and the Republicans to back down. Their gamble is that the power of public opinion will overwhelm the power of presidential polarization. And if the Republican Party loses totally -- loses in a way where they can't tell themselves it was a win -- that'll be the end of these tactics.

It might be a bet worth making. But it's still a bet. And every time Obama goes out and lashes the Republicans for shutting down the government, the stakes get a little bit higher.

When your opponent is drowning throw the son of a ##### an anvil.

~James Carville

What I find so odd is this insistence that the Republicans must have an out somehow. Sometimes you lose. Happens to everyone. Sure it sucks, but its not the end of the world.

I understand this and I can't blame Obama or the Dems. But I don't think weakening the Republicans in this manner is good for our country in general. Personally, I don't want a republic dominated by one political party, and that's where all this may be leading.The other risk is that if Boehner is not given some kind of face-saving solution, the result will be a strengthening, not a weakening, of the Tea Party as they completely take over the Republican party. And finally of course, the the third risk is the worst one of all, that in the end, the Republicans will stubbornly NOT fold, carrying us over the debt ceiling cliff.

That's a lot of risk. If I were Obama I would be more pro-active in looking for some way to help Boehner get out of this.

So you feel that both sides share blame in continuing this shutdown, even if the Republicans are the ones that started it?

Read what I wrote again. I don't blame Obama at all. I noted that in my first sentence. But now I wish he would be more pro-active. I don't want him to concede anything of significance though, because that would only make it more likely that this crap would happen again and again. But if there's a way to help the Republicans save a little face without giving up anything of value- do it.

I don't think there's a danger of falling into a one party system anytime soon. So long as places like the south and Midwest exist, there will be enough people with conservative views trying to keep America in the past

The biggest danger here is if Obama concedes and the precedent it sets.

The precedent of what? Negotiating over the debt limit twice?

The precedent that whenever one party does not get its way it can basically take its ball and go home.

 

[Woogie Lee]

The Washington Examiner's Byron York interviewed an anonymous Republican congressman about the shutdown. The congressman was clearly not happy that Republicans had let themselves end up in this position. "This isn't exactly the fight I think Republicans wanted to have, certainly that the leadership wanted to have," he said.But that didn't matter anymore. Obama, the congressman continued, is "going to try to humiliate the speaker in front of his conference. And how effective a negotiating partner do you think he'll be then? You're putting the guy in a position where he's got nothing to lose, because you're not giving him anything to win."

You can see the results in the collapse of the GOP's demands. They're not trying to undo Obamacare anymore. They're embracing the kind of budget commissions they've spent six months opposing. They're just trying to find some way to eke out a win. This isn't about the policy anymore. It's about Obama. And Obama isn't giving Republicans a clear path to backing down without looking like they lost.

The White House knows this perfectly well. They just don't believe it's healthy to bend and buckle until Republicans find a way out. It's not their job, they say, to help Boehner out of promises he shouldn't have made. They weren't the ones who promised their base that the debt ceiling would be a moment of triumph. They weren't the ones who bowed to pressure from their extreme wing and chose a reckless strategy of brinksmanship. They weren't the ones who set up a political dynamic in which keeping the government open and paying our bills counts as "a loss" for one party or the other. Boehner needs to learn to stop writing checks he can't cash.

All that may be true. But the White House is still pursuing a strategy that makes it harder for Boehner and the Republicans to back down. Their gamble is that the power of public opinion will overwhelm the power of presidential polarization. And if the Republican Party loses totally -- loses in a way where they can't tell themselves it was a win -- that'll be the end of these tactics.

It might be a bet worth making. But it's still a bet. And every time Obama goes out and lashes the Republicans for shutting down the government, the stakes get a little bit higher.

When your opponent is drowning throw the son of a ##### an anvil.

~James Carville

What I find so odd is this insistence that the Republicans must have an out somehow. Sometimes you lose. Happens to everyone. Sure it sucks, but its not the end of the world.

I understand this and I can't blame Obama or the Dems. But I don't think weakening the Republicans in this manner is good for our country in general. Personally, I don't want a republic dominated by one political party, and that's where all this may be leading.

The other risk is that if Boehner is not given some kind of face-saving solution, the result will be a strengthening, not a weakening, of the Tea Party as they completely take over the Republican party. And finally of course, the the third risk is the worst one of all, that in the end, the Republicans will stubbornly NOT fold, carrying us over the debt ceiling cliff.

That's a lot of risk. If I were Obama I would be more pro-active in looking for some way to help Boehner get out of this.

So you feel that both sides share blame in continuing this shutdown, even if the Republicans are the ones that started it?

Read what I wrote again. I don't blame Obama at all. I noted that in my first sentence. But now I wish he would be more pro-active. I don't want him to concede anything of significance though, because that would only make it more likely that this crap would happen again and again. But if there's a way to help the Republicans save a little face without giving up anything of value- do it.

Exactly. You feel he should be doing something to end this.

Like what? Be specific.

Any thing related to the debt ceiling is totally on the shoulders of Congress. Obama only signs on the dotted line, it's Congress' job to get their #### together. The ACA is NOT in play, it's the law....deal with it.

 

[Scoresman]

The ACA is NOT in play, it's the law....deal with it.

 

[Dr Oadi]

The ACA is NOT in play, it's the law....deal with it...........unless you got a waiver

fixed

 

[Sammy3469]

Lol at 28% approval...lowest ever for a political party. Keep up the good work Tea Party

 

[Woogie Lee]

Does anyone have any good numbers about how spending and/or the size of government has shrunk when Republicans have been in charge?

 

[dparker713]

The Washington Examiner's Byron York interviewed an anonymous Republican congressman about the shutdown. The congressman was clearly not happy that Republicans had let themselves end up in this position. "This isn't exactly the fight I think Republicans wanted to have, certainly that the leadership wanted to have," he said.But that didn't matter anymore. Obama, the congressman continued, is "going to try to humiliate the speaker in front of his conference. And how effective a negotiating partner do you think he'll be then? You're putting the guy in a position where he's got nothing to lose, because you're not giving him anything to win."

You can see the results in the collapse of the GOP's demands. They're not trying to undo Obamacare anymore. They're embracing the kind of budget commissions they've spent six months opposing. They're just trying to find some way to eke out a win. This isn't about the policy anymore. It's about Obama. And Obama isn't giving Republicans a clear path to backing down without looking like they lost.

The White House knows this perfectly well. They just don't believe it's healthy to bend and buckle until Republicans find a way out. It's not their job, they say, to help Boehner out of promises he shouldn't have made. They weren't the ones who promised their base that the debt ceiling would be a moment of triumph. They weren't the ones who bowed to pressure from their extreme wing and chose a reckless strategy of brinksmanship. They weren't the ones who set up a political dynamic in which keeping the government open and paying our bills counts as "a loss" for one party or the other. Boehner needs to learn to stop writing checks he can't cash.

All that may be true. But the White House is still pursuing a strategy that makes it harder for Boehner and the Republicans to back down. Their gamble is that the power of public opinion will overwhelm the power of presidential polarization. And if the Republican Party loses totally -- loses in a way where they can't tell themselves it was a win -- that'll be the end of these tactics.

It might be a bet worth making. But it's still a bet. And every time Obama goes out and lashes the Republicans for shutting down the government, the stakes get a little bit higher.

When your opponent is drowning throw the son of a ##### an anvil.

~James Carville

What I find so odd is this insistence that the Republicans must have an out somehow. Sometimes you lose. Happens to everyone. Sure it sucks, but its not the end of the world.

I understand this and I can't blame Obama or the Dems. But I don't think weakening the Republicans in this manner is good for our country in general. Personally, I don't want a republic dominated by one political party, and that's where all this may be leading.

The other risk is that if Boehner is not given some kind of face-saving solution, the result will be a strengthening, not a weakening, of the Tea Party as they completely take over the Republican party. And finally of course, the the third risk is the worst one of all, that in the end, the Republicans will stubbornly NOT fold, carrying us over the debt ceiling cliff.

That's a lot of risk. If I were Obama I would be more pro-active in looking for some way to help Boehner get out of this.

You're leaving off the option where Repubs examine why they've lost yet again, decide to try to be a national party again and find new leaders and new ideas.

 

[jon_mx]

Obama should be doing something to end this, so long as that "something" is not conceding to any of the Republicans demands or anything else that would make this sort of behavior desirable for any future Congress to repeat.

When the Democrats accomplish something by using a crappy process, you guys are giving each other high-fives......Nothing but a bunch of hypocrites who don't give a rats ### about what is best for the country. Just what is best for the D's. Lots of people showing their colors on this thread.

 

[dparker713]

The problem in a nutshell

Lawmakers said Ryan did not make the case for the need to authorize more borrowing, and some questioned claims that a default would be inevitable without it.

“Somebody needs to convince me why we need to raise the debt ceiling,” freshman Rep. Ted Yoho (R-Fla.) said after the meeting

This is why we need to limit the voting pool. Idiots vote for other idiots because they don't know any better.

 

[Woogie Lee]

these new tea party guys are ####### clueless. It's amazing to read the stories about how they got elected.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Until recently I worked in a small part of a big organization that was funded primarily by federal dollars. My particular unit didn't get any government money, but we basically operated in parallel with the larger organization so had to deal with the threat of a government shutdown several times while I was there.

Everyone knows the date that the funding expires months in advance. So starting months in advance people have meetings to plan meetings, then meetings to talk about what to talk about, meetings to plan for how to handle a shutdown and then meetings to tell everyone else what to do in the event of a shutdown.

It's a huge cluster#### and wastes a ton of time, but it's not like people are scrambling at the last minute -- everyone has a plan well in advance of the closings and finding a sign that says 'We're Closed' is pretty straightforward.

You didn't intend to, but you just illustrated exactly why we need to make cuts. Lots of them.

 

[Slapdash]

Obama should be doing something to end this, so long as that "something" is not conceding to any of the Republicans demands or anything else that would make this sort of behavior desirable for any future Congress to repeat.

When the Democrats accomplish something by using a crappy process, you guys are giving each other high-fives......Nothing but a bunch of hypocrites who don't give a rats ### about what is best for the country. Just what is best for the D's. Lots of people showing their colors on this thread.

Are you talking about the ACA? Since when is passing a bill when you hold the majority of the House and Senate a crappy process?

 

[MaxThreshold]

these new tea party guys are ####### clueless. It's amazing to read the stories about how they got elected.

Sure, because Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are the voice of moderate, objective reason.

They're nuttier than the Tea Party could ever be.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Obama should be doing something to end this, so long as that "something" is not conceding to any of the Republicans demands or anything else that would make this sort of behavior desirable for any future Congress to repeat.

When the Democrats accomplish something by using a crappy process, you guys are giving each other high-fives......Nothing but a bunch of hypocrites who don't give a rats ### about what is best for the country. Just what is best for the D's. Lots of people showing their colors on this thread.

Are you talking about the ACA? Since when is passing a bill when you hold the majority of the House and Senate a crappy process?

When you don't #######g read it before you pass it?

 

[Todd Andrews]

Everyone panic!

Why do you love Kooks?

I cant speak for joe t. but I admire your kook power ring.

Thank you. I polish it regularly to keep it super shiny.

 

[Woogie Lee]

these new tea party guys are ####### clueless. It's amazing to read the stories about how they got elected.

Sure, because Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are the voice of moderate, objective reason.

They're nuttier than the Tea Party could ever be.

Are you reading or flat out ignoring the quotes from the these guys regarding the debt ceiling?? It's almost like they don't even know how the government runs.

 

[Slapdash]

Obama should be doing something to end this, so long as that "something" is not conceding to any of the Republicans demands or anything else that would make this sort of behavior desirable for any future Congress to repeat.

When the Democrats accomplish something by using a crappy process, you guys are giving each other high-fives......Nothing but a bunch of hypocrites who don't give a rats ### about what is best for the country. Just what is best for the D's. Lots of people showing their colors on this thread.

Are you talking about the ACA? Since when is passing a bill when you hold the majority of the House and Senate a crappy process?

When you don't #######g read it before you pass it?

y'all are cute

 

[Sammy3469]

these new tea party guys are ####### clueless. It's amazing to read the stories about how they got elected.

Sure, because Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are the voice of moderate, objective reason.

They're nuttier than the Tea Party could ever be.

Are you reading or flat out ignoring the quotes from the these guys regarding the debt ceiling?? It's almost like they don't even know how the government runs.

Almost?

 

[avoiding injuries]

The ACA is NOT in play, it's the law....deal with it...........unless you got a waiver

fixed

Or unless the President wants to make changes to it. So you'll have to deal with that, too.

 

[MaxThreshold]

The ACA is NOT in play, it's the law....deal with it...........unless you got a waiver

fixed

Or unless the President wants to make changes to it. So you'll have to deal with that, too.

He made exceptions for businesses, so we know that he DOES and CAN, in fact, negotiate. Now he can do it for the American people - or doesn't the left fight for "the working man" anymore?

Funny how all you lefties deride business, but in the end you bow before it's altar like you accuse the GOP of doing. If there was only a word to describe someone who says one thing but does another. Hmmm....

 

[DrJ]

So far nothing bad has happened.

 

[The Z Machine]

I kinda wish the GOP would start bowing before altar of big business again. Things would go a lot smoother on this debt ceiling business.

 

[MaxThreshold]

So far nothing bad has happened.

You mean all the doomsday scenarios laid out by the left aren't happening? WTF?

 

[The Commish]

The precedent of what? Negotiating over the debt limit twice?

Negotiating over it the first time is what got us here.

Actually, what got us here is the decades and decades of poor money management by our government. If we didn't have "debt" to use as a weapon in the first place, this wouldn't be happening.

 

[DrJ]

I kinda wish the GOP would start bowing before altar of big business again. Things would go a lot smoother on this debt ceiling business.

I wish Obama would just repeal Obamacare, it would be done with.

 

[jamny]

The Washington Examiner's Byron York interviewed an anonymous Republican congressman about the shutdown. The congressman was clearly not happy that Republicans had let themselves end up in this position. "This isn't exactly the fight I think Republicans wanted to have, certainly that the leadership wanted to have," he said.But that didn't matter anymore. Obama, the congressman continued, is "going to try to humiliate the speaker in front of his conference. And how effective a negotiating partner do you think he'll be then? You're putting the guy in a position where he's got nothing to lose, because you're not giving him anything to win."

You can see the results in the collapse of the GOP's demands. They're not trying to undo Obamacare anymore. They're embracing the kind of budget commissions they've spent six months opposing. They're just trying to find some way to eke out a win. This isn't about the policy anymore. It's about Obama. And Obama isn't giving Republicans a clear path to backing down without looking like they lost.

The White House knows this perfectly well. They just don't believe it's healthy to bend and buckle until Republicans find a way out. It's not their job, they say, to help Boehner out of promises he shouldn't have made. They weren't the ones who promised their base that the debt ceiling would be a moment of triumph. They weren't the ones who bowed to pressure from their extreme wing and chose a reckless strategy of brinksmanship. They weren't the ones who set up a political dynamic in which keeping the government open and paying our bills counts as "a loss" for one party or the other. Boehner needs to learn to stop writing checks he can't cash.

All that may be true. But the White House is still pursuing a strategy that makes it harder for Boehner and the Republicans to back down. Their gamble is that the power of public opinion will overwhelm the power of presidential polarization. And if the Republican Party loses totally -- loses in a way where they can't tell themselves it was a win -- that'll be the end of these tactics.

It might be a bet worth making. But it's still a bet. And every time Obama goes out and lashes the Republicans for shutting down the government, the stakes get a little bit higher.

When your opponent is drowning throw the son of a ##### an anvil.

~James Carville

What I find so odd is this insistence that the Republicans must have an out somehow. Sometimes you lose. Happens to everyone. Sure it sucks, but its not the end of the world.

I understand this and I can't blame Obama or the Dems. But I don't think weakening the Republicans in this manner is good for our country in general. Personally, I don't want a republic dominated by one political party, and that's where all this may be leading.

The other risk is that if Boehner is not given some kind of face-saving solution, the result will be a strengthening, not a weakening, of the Tea Party as they completely take over the Republican party. And finally of course, the the third risk is the worst one of all, that in the end, the Republicans will stubbornly NOT fold, carrying us over the debt ceiling cliff.

That's a lot of risk. If I were Obama I would be more pro-active in looking for some way to help Boehner get out of this.

So you feel that both sides share blame in continuing this shutdown, even if the Republicans are the ones that started it?

Read what I wrote again. I don't blame Obama at all. I noted that in my first sentence. But now I wish he would be more pro-active. I don't want him to concede anything of significance though, because that would only make it more likely that this crap would happen again and again. But if there's a way to help the Republicans save a little face without giving up anything of value- do it.

Exactly. You feel he should be doing something to end this.

Like what? Be specific.

Any thing related to the debt ceiling is totally on the shoulders of Congress. Obama only signs on the dotted line, it's Congress' job to get their #### together. The ACA is NOT in play, it's the law....deal with it.

I don't know. I'm not the President, the most powerful man in the world. I never said it had to be anything to do with Obamacare but someone has to be the bigger man in this, the leader. Someone in this completely dysfunctional government needs to step up and take control instead of criticising and pointing fingers. There is no one more capable of doing that than the President. I'm not well versed in federal budgets and continuing resolutions but this childish bickering every few months needs to stop so there can be some sense of stability.

 

[MaxThreshold]

The Washington Examiner's Byron York interviewed an anonymous Republican congressman about the shutdown. The congressman was clearly not happy that Republicans had let themselves end up in this position. "This isn't exactly the fight I think Republicans wanted to have, certainly that the leadership wanted to have," he said.But that didn't matter anymore. Obama, the congressman continued, is "going to try to humiliate the speaker in front of his conference. And how effective a negotiating partner do you think he'll be then? You're putting the guy in a position where he's got nothing to lose, because you're not giving him anything to win."

You can see the results in the collapse of the GOP's demands. They're not trying to undo Obamacare anymore. They're embracing the kind of budget commissions they've spent six months opposing. They're just trying to find some way to eke out a win. This isn't about the policy anymore. It's about Obama. And Obama isn't giving Republicans a clear path to backing down without looking like they lost.

The White House knows this perfectly well. They just don't believe it's healthy to bend and buckle until Republicans find a way out. It's not their job, they say, to help Boehner out of promises he shouldn't have made. They weren't the ones who promised their base that the debt ceiling would be a moment of triumph. They weren't the ones who bowed to pressure from their extreme wing and chose a reckless strategy of brinksmanship. They weren't the ones who set up a political dynamic in which keeping the government open and paying our bills counts as "a loss" for one party or the other. Boehner needs to learn to stop writing checks he can't cash.

All that may be true. But the White House is still pursuing a strategy that makes it harder for Boehner and the Republicans to back down. Their gamble is that the power of public opinion will overwhelm the power of presidential polarization. And if the Republican Party loses totally -- loses in a way where they can't tell themselves it was a win -- that'll be the end of these tactics.

It might be a bet worth making. But it's still a bet. And every time Obama goes out and lashes the Republicans for shutting down the government, the stakes get a little bit higher.

When your opponent is drowning throw the son of a ##### an anvil.

~James Carville

What I find so odd is this insistence that the Republicans must have an out somehow. Sometimes you lose. Happens to everyone. Sure it sucks, but its not the end of the world.

I understand this and I can't blame Obama or the Dems. But I don't think weakening the Republicans in this manner is good for our country in general. Personally, I don't want a republic dominated by one political party, and that's where all this may be leading.

The other risk is that if Boehner is not given some kind of face-saving solution, the result will be a strengthening, not a weakening, of the Tea Party as they completely take over the Republican party. And finally of course, the the third risk is the worst one of all, that in the end, the Republicans will stubbornly NOT fold, carrying us over the debt ceiling cliff.

That's a lot of risk. If I were Obama I would be more pro-active in looking for some way to help Boehner get out of this.

So you feel that both sides share blame in continuing this shutdown, even if the Republicans are the ones that started it?

Read what I wrote again. I don't blame Obama at all. I noted that in my first sentence. But now I wish he would be more pro-active. I don't want him to concede anything of significance though, because that would only make it more likely that this crap would happen again and again. But if there's a way to help the Republicans save a little face without giving up anything of value- do it.

Exactly. You feel he should be doing something to end this.

Like what? Be specific.

Any thing related to the debt ceiling is totally on the shoulders of Congress. Obama only signs on the dotted line, it's Congress' job to get their #### together. The ACA is NOT in play, it's the law....deal with it.

I don't know. I'm not the President, the most powerful man in the world. I never said it had to be anything to do with Obamacare but someone has to be the bigger man in this, the leader. Someone in this completely dysfunctional government needs to step up and take control instead of criticising and pointing fingers. There is no one more capable of doing that than the President. I'm not well versed in federal budgets and continuing resolutions but this childish bickering every few months needs to stop so there can be some sense of stability.

And this BS about Obamacare not being in play is just that: BS. It's in play when it comes to business or any of his political cronies, but when the GOP requests it suddenly "it's the law!" and nothing can be done.

Obama can delay the penalty tax for the American people for another year like he did for business.

 

[Dr Oadi]

The Washington Examiner's Byron York interviewed an anonymous Republican congressman about the shutdown. The congressman was clearly not happy that Republicans had let themselves end up in this position. "This isn't exactly the fight I think Republicans wanted to have, certainly that the leadership wanted to have," he said.

But that didn't matter anymore. Obama, the congressman continued, is "going to try to humiliate the speaker in front of his conference. And how effective a negotiating partner do you think he'll be then? You're putting the guy in a position where he's got nothing to lose, because you're not giving him anything to win."

You can see the results in the collapse of the GOP's demands. They're not trying to undo Obamacare anymore. They're embracing the kind of budget commissions they've spent six months opposing. They're just trying to find some way to eke out a win. This isn't about the policy anymore. It's about Obama. And Obama isn't giving Republicans a clear path to backing down without looking like they lost.

The White House knows this perfectly well. They just don't believe it's healthy to bend and buckle until Republicans find a way out. It's not their job, they say, to help Boehner out of promises he shouldn't have made. They weren't the ones who promised their base that the debt ceiling would be a moment of triumph. They weren't the ones who bowed to pressure from their extreme wing and chose a reckless strategy of brinksmanship. They weren't the ones who set up a political dynamic in which keeping the government open and paying our bills counts as "a loss" for one party or the other. Boehner needs to learn to stop writing checks he can't cash.

All that may be true. But the White House is still pursuing a strategy that makes it harder for Boehner and the Republicans to back down. Their gamble is that the power of public opinion will overwhelm the power of presidential polarization. And if the Republican Party loses totally -- loses in a way where they can't tell themselves it was a win -- that'll be the end of these tactics.

It might be a bet worth making. But it's still a bet. And every time Obama goes out and lashes the Republicans for shutting down the government, the stakes get a little bit higher.

When your opponent is drowning throw the son of a ##### an anvil.

~James Carville

What I find so odd is this insistence that the Republicans must have an out somehow. Sometimes you lose. Happens to everyone. Sure it sucks, but its not the end of the world.

I understand this and I can't blame Obama or the Dems. But I don't think weakening the Republicans in this manner is good for our country in general. Personally, I don't want a republic dominated by one political party, and that's where all this may be leading.The other risk is that if Boehner is not given some kind of face-saving solution, the result will be a strengthening, not a weakening, of the Tea Party as they completely take over the Republican party. And finally of course, the the third risk is the worst one of all, that in the end, the Republicans will stubbornly NOT fold, carrying us over the debt ceiling cliff.

That's a lot of risk. If I were Obama I would be more pro-active in looking for some way to help Boehner get out of this.

So you feel that both sides share blame in continuing this shutdown, even if the Republicans are the ones that started it?

Read what I wrote again. I don't blame Obama at all. I noted that in my first sentence. But now I wish he would be more pro-active. I don't want him to concede anything of significance though, because that would only make it more likely that this crap would happen again and again. But if there's a way to help the Republicans save a little face without giving up anything of value- do it.

Exactly. You feel he should be doing something to end this.

Like what? Be specific.

Any thing related to the debt ceiling is totally on the shoulders of Congress. Obama only signs on the dotted line, it's Congress' job to get their #### together. The ACA is NOT in play, it's the law....deal with it.

I don't know. I'm not the President, the most powerful man in the world. I never said it had to be anything to do with Obamacare but someone has to be the bigger man in this, the leader. Someone in this completely dysfunctional government needs to step up and take control instead of criticising and pointing fingers. There is no one more capable of doing that than the President. I'm not well versed in federal budgets and continuing resolutions but this childish bickering every few months needs to stop so there can be some sense of stability.

And this BS about Obamacare not being in play is just that: BS. It's in play when it comes to business or any of his political cronies, but when the GOP requests it suddenly "it's the law!" and nothing can be done.

Obama can delay the penalty tax for the American people for another year like he did for business.

It is the law of the land. Deal with it!

 

[jamny]

The Washington Examiner's Byron York interviewed an anonymous Republican congressman about the shutdown. The congressman was clearly not happy that Republicans had let themselves end up in this position. "This isn't exactly the fight I think Republicans wanted to have, certainly that the leadership wanted to have," he said.But that didn't matter anymore. Obama, the congressman continued, is "going to try to humiliate the speaker in front of his conference. And how effective a negotiating partner do you think he'll be then? You're putting the guy in a position where he's got nothing to lose, because you're not giving him anything to win."

You can see the results in the collapse of the GOP's demands. They're not trying to undo Obamacare anymore. They're embracing the kind of budget commissions they've spent six months opposing. They're just trying to find some way to eke out a win. This isn't about the policy anymore. It's about Obama. And Obama isn't giving Republicans a clear path to backing down without looking like they lost.

The White House knows this perfectly well. They just don't believe it's healthy to bend and buckle until Republicans find a way out. It's not their job, they say, to help Boehner out of promises he shouldn't have made. They weren't the ones who promised their base that the debt ceiling would be a moment of triumph. They weren't the ones who bowed to pressure from their extreme wing and chose a reckless strategy of brinksmanship. They weren't the ones who set up a political dynamic in which keeping the government open and paying our bills counts as "a loss" for one party or the other. Boehner needs to learn to stop writing checks he can't cash.

All that may be true. But the White House is still pursuing a strategy that makes it harder for Boehner and the Republicans to back down. Their gamble is that the power of public opinion will overwhelm the power of presidential polarization. And if the Republican Party loses totally -- loses in a way where they can't tell themselves it was a win -- that'll be the end of these tactics.

It might be a bet worth making. But it's still a bet. And every time Obama goes out and lashes the Republicans for shutting down the government, the stakes get a little bit higher.

When your opponent is drowning throw the son of a ##### an anvil.

~James Carville

What I find so odd is this insistence that the Republicans must have an out somehow. Sometimes you lose. Happens to everyone. Sure it sucks, but its not the end of the world.

I understand this and I can't blame Obama or the Dems. But I don't think weakening the Republicans in this manner is good for our country in general. Personally, I don't want a republic dominated by one political party, and that's where all this may be leading.

The other risk is that if Boehner is not given some kind of face-saving solution, the result will be a strengthening, not a weakening, of the Tea Party as they completely take over the Republican party. And finally of course, the the third risk is the worst one of all, that in the end, the Republicans will stubbornly NOT fold, carrying us over the debt ceiling cliff.

That's a lot of risk. If I were Obama I would be more pro-active in looking for some way to help Boehner get out of this.

So you feel that both sides share blame in continuing this shutdown, even if the Republicans are the ones that started it?

Read what I wrote again. I don't blame Obama at all. I noted that in my first sentence. But now I wish he would be more pro-active. I don't want him to concede anything of significance though, because that would only make it more likely that this crap would happen again and again. But if there's a way to help the Republicans save a little face without giving up anything of value- do it.

Exactly. You feel he should be doing something to end this.

Like what? Be specific.

Any thing related to the debt ceiling is totally on the shoulders of Congress. Obama only signs on the dotted line, it's Congress' job to get their #### together. The ACA is NOT in play, it's the law....deal with it.

I don't know. I'm not the President, the most powerful man in the world. I never said it had to be anything to do with Obamacare but someone has to be the bigger man in this, the leader. Someone in this completely dysfunctional government needs to step up and take control instead of criticising and pointing fingers. There is no one more capable of doing that than the President. I'm not well versed in federal budgets and continuing resolutions but this childish bickering every few months needs to stop so there can be some sense of stability.

And this BS about Obamacare not being in play is just that: BS. It's in play when it comes to business or any of his political cronies, but when the GOP requests it suddenly "it's the law!" and nothing can be done.

Obama can delay the penalty tax for the American people for another year like he did for business.

You wonder if there was any way Obama could have been approached in a reasonable way to allow a delay. This clearly wasn't the way to do it but he might have been open to a delayed implementation given the issues they are having. A cooperative government would have put differences aside to do what might be in our best interests.

 

[MaxThreshold]

And this BS about Obamacare not being in play is just that: BS. It's in play when it comes to business or any of his political cronies, but when the GOP requests it suddenly "it's the law!" and nothing can be done.

Obama can delay the penalty tax for the American people for another year like he did for business.

It is the law of the land. Deal with it!

That's great. Now only if you applied that statement to big business and political cronies.

 

[MaxThreshold]

And this BS about Obamacare not being in play is just that: BS. It's in play when it comes to business or any of his political cronies, but when the GOP requests it suddenly "it's the law!" and nothing can be done.

Obama can delay the penalty tax for the American people for another year like he did for business.

You wonder if there was any way Obama could have been approached in a reasonable way to allow a delay. This clearly wasn't the way to do it but he might have been open to a delayed implementation given the issues they are having. A cooperative government would have put differences aside to do what might be in our best interests.

Sure. I can agree to this. However, I'm not confident Obama is reasonable enough - he's too much of a narcissist.

 

[hagmania]

From my fb feed:

We had law to build a fence on the southern border, with funding, but a subsequent Democratic Congress defunded and repealed it. Why didn’t the Democrats just go along with building the fence?

 

[Woogie Lee]

The Washington Examiner's Byron York interviewed an anonymous Republican congressman about the shutdown. The congressman was clearly not happy that Republicans had let themselves end up in this position. "This isn't exactly the fight I think Republicans wanted to have, certainly that the leadership wanted to have," he said.But that didn't matter anymore. Obama, the congressman continued, is "going to try to humiliate the speaker in front of his conference. And how effective a negotiating partner do you think he'll be then? You're putting the guy in a position where he's got nothing to lose, because you're not giving him anything to win."

You can see the results in the collapse of the GOP's demands. They're not trying to undo Obamacare anymore. They're embracing the kind of budget commissions they've spent six months opposing. They're just trying to find some way to eke out a win. This isn't about the policy anymore. It's about Obama. And Obama isn't giving Republicans a clear path to backing down without looking like they lost.

The White House knows this perfectly well. They just don't believe it's healthy to bend and buckle until Republicans find a way out. It's not their job, they say, to help Boehner out of promises he shouldn't have made. They weren't the ones who promised their base that the debt ceiling would be a moment of triumph. They weren't the ones who bowed to pressure from their extreme wing and chose a reckless strategy of brinksmanship. They weren't the ones who set up a political dynamic in which keeping the government open and paying our bills counts as "a loss" for one party or the other. Boehner needs to learn to stop writing checks he can't cash.

All that may be true. But the White House is still pursuing a strategy that makes it harder for Boehner and the Republicans to back down. Their gamble is that the power of public opinion will overwhelm the power of presidential polarization. And if the Republican Party loses totally -- loses in a way where they can't tell themselves it was a win -- that'll be the end of these tactics.

It might be a bet worth making. But it's still a bet. And every time Obama goes out and lashes the Republicans for shutting down the government, the stakes get a little bit higher.

When your opponent is drowning throw the son of a ##### an anvil.

~James Carville

What I find so odd is this insistence that the Republicans must have an out somehow. Sometimes you lose. Happens to everyone. Sure it sucks, but its not the end of the world.

I understand this and I can't blame Obama or the Dems. But I don't think weakening the Republicans in this manner is good for our country in general. Personally, I don't want a republic dominated by one political party, and that's where all this may be leading.

The other risk is that if Boehner is not given some kind of face-saving solution, the result will be a strengthening, not a weakening, of the Tea Party as they completely take over the Republican party. And finally of course, the the third risk is the worst one of all, that in the end, the Republicans will stubbornly NOT fold, carrying us over the debt ceiling cliff.

That's a lot of risk. If I were Obama I would be more pro-active in looking for some way to help Boehner get out of this.

So you feel that both sides share blame in continuing this shutdown, even if the Republicans are the ones that started it?

Read what I wrote again. I don't blame Obama at all. I noted that in my first sentence. But now I wish he would be more pro-active. I don't want him to concede anything of significance though, because that would only make it more likely that this crap would happen again and again. But if there's a way to help the Republicans save a little face without giving up anything of value- do it.

Exactly. You feel he should be doing something to end this.

Like what? Be specific.

Any thing related to the debt ceiling is totally on the shoulders of Congress. Obama only signs on the dotted line, it's Congress' job to get their #### together. The ACA is NOT in play, it's the law....deal with it.

I don't know. I'm not the President, the most powerful man in the world. I never said it had to be anything to do with Obamacare but someone has to be the bigger man in this, the leader. Someone in this completely dysfunctional government needs to step up and take control instead of criticising and pointing fingers. There is no one more capable of doing that than the President. I'm not well versed in federal budgets and continuing resolutions but this childish bickering every few months needs to stop so there can be some sense of stability.

And this BS about Obamacare not being in play is just that: BS. It's in play when it comes to business or any of his political cronies, but when the GOP requests it suddenly "it's the law!" and nothing can be done.

Obama can delay the penalty tax for the American people for another year like he did for business.

Are you guys coherent?

• This country has been trying to improve / reconstruct our healthcare system for decades
• The foundation of the ACA was based on a platform built by the republicans in the early 90s
• There was more than a year long debate where it went from possibly being Single Payer and other options to what what we have now
• Corporations (insurance, etc.) all were on board with the ACA; the republicans are pro business, pro corporations..enough said

The 2012 election was defining moment to move forward with the ACA. If the American public was so against the ACA, Romney would be President.

Get a clue.

 

[Jim11]

jim11's a troll and I don't care about him, but it seems like the whole conservative world is quoting that Moody's report this morning. Pat Toomey, Jim DeMint, Rush Limbaugh, among others, are all repeating this madness that we can go right past the debt ceiling, no big deal. It's ####### unbelievable.

Yeah, I'm a troll because I don't agree with you or cry like a little girl every time something "bad" might happen. Interestingly enough, NONE OF YOUR PANICKY, OMG THE WORLD IS ENDING, posts, have ever come true.

To be fair, that's not why you're a troll

Waaahhhhhhhhhh, you're a troll. Cry baby tactics, like your buddy Timmmyyyy. Notice that Timmmmyyy didn't deny that every single thing he's told us has to be alarmed about has yet to come to fruition. And this stock market crash won't either.

Obama counts on gullible people like you & Timmmyyy when he tosses out his scare scenarios and you fall for it.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

From my fb feed:

We had law to build a fence on the southern border, with funding, but a subsequent Democratic Congress defunded and repealed it. Why didn’t the Democrats just go along with building the fence?

Because they had the votes?

 

[Slapdash]

The Washington Examiner's Byron York interviewed an anonymous Republican congressman about the shutdown. The congressman was clearly not happy that Republicans had let themselves end up in this position. "This isn't exactly the fight I think Republicans wanted to have, certainly that the leadership wanted to have," he said.But that didn't matter anymore. Obama, the congressman continued, is "going to try to humiliate the speaker in front of his conference. And how effective a negotiating partner do you think he'll be then? You're putting the guy in a position where he's got nothing to lose, because you're not giving him anything to win."

You can see the results in the collapse of the GOP's demands. They're not trying to undo Obamacare anymore. They're embracing the kind of budget commissions they've spent six months opposing. They're just trying to find some way to eke out a win. This isn't about the policy anymore. It's about Obama. And Obama isn't giving Republicans a clear path to backing down without looking like they lost.

The White House knows this perfectly well. They just don't believe it's healthy to bend and buckle until Republicans find a way out. It's not their job, they say, to help Boehner out of promises he shouldn't have made. They weren't the ones who promised their base that the debt ceiling would be a moment of triumph. They weren't the ones who bowed to pressure from their extreme wing and chose a reckless strategy of brinksmanship. They weren't the ones who set up a political dynamic in which keeping the government open and paying our bills counts as "a loss" for one party or the other. Boehner needs to learn to stop writing checks he can't cash.

All that may be true. But the White House is still pursuing a strategy that makes it harder for Boehner and the Republicans to back down. Their gamble is that the power of public opinion will overwhelm the power of presidential polarization. And if the Republican Party loses totally -- loses in a way where they can't tell themselves it was a win -- that'll be the end of these tactics.

It might be a bet worth making. But it's still a bet. And every time Obama goes out and lashes the Republicans for shutting down the government, the stakes get a little bit higher.

When your opponent is drowning throw the son of a ##### an anvil.

~James Carville

What I find so odd is this insistence that the Republicans must have an out somehow. Sometimes you lose. Happens to everyone. Sure it sucks, but its not the end of the world.

I understand this and I can't blame Obama or the Dems. But I don't think weakening the Republicans in this manner is good for our country in general. Personally, I don't want a republic dominated by one political party, and that's where all this may be leading.

The other risk is that if Boehner is not given some kind of face-saving solution, the result will be a strengthening, not a weakening, of the Tea Party as they completely take over the Republican party. And finally of course, the the third risk is the worst one of all, that in the end, the Republicans will stubbornly NOT fold, carrying us over the debt ceiling cliff.

That's a lot of risk. If I were Obama I would be more pro-active in looking for some way to help Boehner get out of this.

So you feel that both sides share blame in continuing this shutdown, even if the Republicans are the ones that started it?

Read what I wrote again. I don't blame Obama at all. I noted that in my first sentence. But now I wish he would be more pro-active. I don't want him to concede anything of significance though, because that would only make it more likely that this crap would happen again and again. But if there's a way to help the Republicans save a little face without giving up anything of value- do it.

Exactly. You feel he should be doing something to end this.

Like what? Be specific.

Any thing related to the debt ceiling is totally on the shoulders of Congress. Obama only signs on the dotted line, it's Congress' job to get their #### together. The ACA is NOT in play, it's the law....deal with it.

I don't know. I'm not the President, the most powerful man in the world. I never said it had to be anything to do with Obamacare but someone has to be the bigger man in this, the leader. Someone in this completely dysfunctional government needs to step up and take control instead of criticising and pointing fingers. There is no one more capable of doing that than the President. I'm not well versed in federal budgets and continuing resolutions but this childish bickering every few months needs to stop so there can be some sense of stability.

So you think Obama should offer something yet expect that to end these constant fake crises?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

This is starting to be an issue in our special election but not the way you would think. Corey Booker has a fight on his hands. That would be amazing.