Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
The Tea Party is back in business! (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
snogger
Footballguy
a Todd posting without the word Kooks in it.. feel free to lock the thread now mods we've seen it all. 
spreagle
Footballguy
Technically the default already happened, way back in 1971 when we went off the international gold standard and started paying IOUs with more IOUs fresh off the printing press. That is when our debt began to skyrocket, when we abandoned the discipline of gold. The passage of time doesn't heal that default. We can pretend like this is potentially an unprecidented default that has never happened before, but that wouldn't be true.
dparker713
Footballguy
bagger
Footballguy
ok crazy train. Incurring debt does not equal default.
John Maddens Lunchbox
Footballguy
Wouldn't it be nice if for once the people could win?
When so many don't have medical insurance or die because they can't afford care, something is seriously wrong. The affordable Care act is at least a step in the right direction. It's easier to fix a problem that it is close your eyes and pretend it isn't there
When so many don't have medical insurance or die because they can't afford care, something is seriously wrong. The affordable Care act is at least a step in the right direction. It's easier to fix a problem that it is close your eyes and pretend it isn't there
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
I really hope it isn't most. The data will tell us what we need to know. I hope folks don't continue to get sucked into the spin zones.
The Commish
Footballguy
I can understand just fine what our actual issues are with healthcare without understand the "positions" of these politicians. As a matter of fact, I'm not sure I give a single #### about the political positions of these rubes in office. Those are their problem, not mine, not yours, not anyones. If they robbed Peter to pay Paul and made deals with the devil to get where they're at, that's on them. Leave me out of it. Leave the country out of it. For example....I'd probably be on the Dem side of this one had they gone full on single payer while addressing the costs as well. But no...we get watered down bull#### solutions because Dems have to make sure they keep their jobs so they cut out "controversial" parts of the bill.
You're the second person that has used the phrase "equal". I can only assume that's TGunz putting words in mouths. My opinion is that there's no significant difference where one group can claim they are "better" than the other. To me it's like listening to a 299 lb chick arguing with a 300 lb chick over what "fat" is. Yeah, one's technically lighter than the other, but so what?? Is that difference really something to pound your chest over? I don't consider them "equal". As a matter of fact, the GOP is leading the dysfunctional movement at the moment. But again, when they are simply trying not to trip over the bar rather than actually raise it does it matter who's leading??
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Where did I say the positions of politicians? And how is this entire rant not asserting the virtue of being closed minded? Na na na, I can't hear you! Na na na, I can't hear you!
The Commish
Footballguy
Sand
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
I think we're getting an inkling here of how this is going to play out:
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/gene-sperling-jason-furman-playbook-breakfast-97919.html
The Obama administration would be open to a bill that boosts the debt ceiling for a few weeks, a top White House official said on Monday, a move that could buy time for congressional Republicans and the White House to find a way to end the current series of fiscal fights.
National Economic Council Director Gene Sperling said that how much to raise the debt ceiling is up to Congress and that the administration would prefer a longer term solution.
This move would allow Obama and the Dems to negotiate because the debt ceiling was raised and they can claim it wasn't blackmail. It allows the Republicans to save face because they do it in exchange for negotiation. With both sides in negotiation, they can come up with a larger face-saving solution: a replacement for the device tax, perhaps some other minor changes to Obamacare, the Keystone pipeline, changes to the sequester, etc. The Tea Party will hate it because Obamacare will largely be untouched, but #### them. Hope this happens soon.
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/gene-sperling-jason-furman-playbook-breakfast-97919.html
The Obama administration would be open to a bill that boosts the debt ceiling for a few weeks, a top White House official said on Monday, a move that could buy time for congressional Republicans and the White House to find a way to end the current series of fiscal fights.
National Economic Council Director Gene Sperling said that how much to raise the debt ceiling is up to Congress and that the administration would prefer a longer term solution.
This move would allow Obama and the Dems to negotiate because the debt ceiling was raised and they can claim it wasn't blackmail. It allows the Republicans to save face because they do it in exchange for negotiation. With both sides in negotiation, they can come up with a larger face-saving solution: a replacement for the device tax, perhaps some other minor changes to Obamacare, the Keystone pipeline, changes to the sequester, etc. The Tea Party will hate it because Obamacare will largely be untouched, but #### them. Hope this happens soon.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Eg. In the case of the current show down. What are the positions being represented by those willing to shut down government and potentially put the nation in default? Why now? Why was nothing done in advanced? Why is it important to each side not to blink first? How do political careers fit in?
That last one is a consideration here, but it is not the only one nor really the main one for understanding the issues involved.
Ultimately politics is the "art of the possible". You may not like it, but compromised solutions, desperate political power plays, etc. are not really a function of the people but the design. Making change hard, having artificial deadlines serve as wake up calls, crisis being opportunities not to waste, etc. is how things are supposed to work. It is supposed to be messy. It is supposed to be ugly. It is supposed to be unsightly. Inefficient, ineffectual government is what smart people want. We never want Y23 to have his 5 years being in charge uncontested no matter how much smart and reasonable we think he is. We don't want me to in charge uncontested. The political division. The ugly, sometimes nasty arguments. This is how it is supposed to be! It is only through all of this that the good ideas - mine rise to the top.
Todd Andrews
Footballguy
Mr.Pack
Footballguy
Krauthammer
Who shut down Yellowstone?
By Charles Krauthammer,October 03, 2013
(/ )
The Obamacare/shutdown battle has spawned myriad myths. The most egregious concern the substance of the fight, the identity of the perpetrators and the origins of the current eruption.
(1) Substance
President Obama indignantly insists that GOP attempts to abolish or amend Obamacare are unseemly because it is “settled” law, having passed both houses of Congress, obtained his signature and passed muster with the Supreme Court.
Yes, settledness makes for a strong argument — except from a president whose administration has unilaterally changed Obamacare five timesafter its passage, including, most brazenly, a year-long suspension of the employer mandate.
Article I of the Constitution grants the legislative power entirely to Congress. Under what constitutional principle has Obama unilaterally amended the law? Yet when the House of Representatives undertakes a constitutionally correct, i.e., legislative, procedure for suspending the other mandate — the individual mandate — this is portrayed as some extra-constitutional sabotage of the rule of law. Why is tying that amendment to a generalized spending bill an outrage, while unilateral amendment by the executive (with a Valerie Jarrett blog item for spin) is perfectly fine?
(2) Perpetrators
The mainstream media have been fairly unanimous in blaming the government shutdown on the GOP. Accordingly, House Republicans presented three bills to restore funding to national parks, veterans and the District of Columbia government. Democrats voted down all three. (For procedural reasons, the measures required a two-thirds majority.)
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid won’t even consider these refunding measures. And theWhite House has promised a presidential veto.
The reason is obvious: to prolong the pain and thus add to the political advantage gained from a shutdown blamed on the GOP. They are confident the media will do a “GOP makes little Johnny weep at the closed gates of Yellowstone, film at 11” despite Republicans having just offered legislation to open them.
And besides, whence comes the sanctity of the “clean CR,” the single bill (continuing resolution) that funds all of government? The Democrats have declared it inviolable — and piecemeal funding, as proposed by the Republicans, unacceptable on principle. On what grounds? After all, the regular appropriations process consists of 12 separate appropriation bills. The insistence on the “clean CR” is just a fancy way to suggest some principle behind the president’s refusal to compromise or even negotiate.
(3) Origins
The most ubiquitous conventional wisdom is that the ultimate cause of these troubles is out-of-control tea party anarchists.
But is this really where the causal chain ends? The tea party was created by Obama’s first-term overreach, most specifically Obamacare. Today’s frantic fight against it is the echoing result of the way it was originally enacted.
From Social Security to civil rights to Medicaid to Medicare, never in the modern history of the country has major social legislation been enacted on a straight party-line vote. Never. In every case, there was significant reaching across the aisle, enhancing the law’s legitimacy and endurance. Yet Obamacare — which revolutionizes one-sixth of the economy, regulates every aspect of medical practice and intimately affects just about every citizen — passed without a single GOP vote.
The Democrats insist they welcomed contributing ideas from Republicans. Rubbish. Republicans proposed that insurance be purchasable across state lines. They got nothing. They sought serious tort reform. They got nothing. Why? Because, admitted Howard Dean, Democrats didn’t want to offend the trial lawyers.
Moreover, the administration was clearly warned. Republican Scott Brown ran in the most inhospitable of states, Massachusetts, on the explicit promise to cast the deciding vote blocking Obamacare. It was January 2010, the height of the debate. He won. Reid ignored this unmistakable message of popular opposition and conjured a parliamentary maneuver — reconciliation — to get around Brown.
Nothing illegal about that. Nothing illegal about ramming it through without a single opposition vote. Just totally contrary to the modern American tradition — and the constitutional decency — of undertaking major social revolutions with only bipartisan majorities. Having stuffed Obamacare down the throats of the GOP and the country, Democrats are now paying the price.
I don’t agree with current Republican tactics. I thought the defunding demand impossible and, therefore, foolish. I thought that if, nonetheless, the GOP insisted on making a stand, it should not be on shutting down the government, which voters oppose 5-to-1, but on the debt ceiling, which Americans favor 2-to-1 as a vehicle for restraining government.
Tactics are one thing, but substance is another. It’s the Democrats who have mocked the very notion of settled law. It’s the Democrats who voted down the reopening of substantial parts of the government. It’s the Democrats who gave life to a spontaneous, authentic, small-government opposition — a.k.a. the tea party — with their unilateral imposition of a transformational agenda during the brief interval when they held a monopoly of power.
That interval is over. The current unrest is the residue of that hubris.
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
Krauthammer
Who shut down Yellowstone?
By Charles Krauthammer,October 03, 2013
(/ )
The Obamacare/shutdown battle has spawned myriad myths. The most egregious concern the substance of the fight, the identity of the perpetrators and the origins of the current eruption.
(1) Substance
President Obama indignantly insists that GOP attempts to abolish or amend Obamacare are unseemly because it is “settled” law, having passed both houses of Congress, obtained his signature and passed muster with the Supreme Court.
Yes, settledness makes for a strong argument — except from a president whose administration has unilaterally changed Obamacare five timesafter its passage, including, most brazenly, a year-long suspension of the employer mandate.
Article I of the Constitution grants the legislative power entirely to Congress. Under what constitutional principle has Obama unilaterally amended the law? Yet when the House of Representatives undertakes a constitutionally correct, i.e., legislative, procedure for suspending the other mandate — the individual mandate — this is portrayed as some extra-constitutional sabotage of the rule of law. Why is tying that amendment to a generalized spending bill an outrage, while unilateral amendment by the executive (with a Valerie Jarrett blog item for spin) is perfectly fine?
(2) Perpetrators
The mainstream media have been fairly unanimous in blaming the government shutdown on the GOP. Accordingly, House Republicans presented three bills to restore funding to national parks, veterans and the District of Columbia government. Democrats voted down all three. (For procedural reasons, the measures required a two-thirds majority.)
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid won’t even consider these refunding measures. And theWhite House has promised a presidential veto.
The reason is obvious: to prolong the pain and thus add to the political advantage gained from a shutdown blamed on the GOP. They are confident the media will do a “GOP makes little Johnny weep at the closed gates of Yellowstone, film at 11” despite Republicans having just offered legislation to open them.
And besides, whence comes the sanctity of the “clean CR,” the single bill (continuing resolution) that funds all of government? The Democrats have declared it inviolable — and piecemeal funding, as proposed by the Republicans, unacceptable on principle. On what grounds? After all, the regular appropriations process consists of 12 separate appropriation bills. The insistence on the “clean CR” is just a fancy way to suggest some principle behind the president’s refusal to compromise or even negotiate.
(3) Origins
The most ubiquitous conventional wisdom is that the ultimate cause of these troubles is out-of-control tea party anarchists.
But is this really where the causal chain ends? The tea party was created by Obama’s first-term overreach, most specifically Obamacare. Today’s frantic fight against it is the echoing result of the way it was originally enacted.
From Social Security to civil rights to Medicaid to Medicare, never in the modern history of the country has major social legislation been enacted on a straight party-line vote. Never. In every case, there was significant reaching across the aisle, enhancing the law’s legitimacy and endurance. Yet Obamacare — which revolutionizes one-sixth of the economy, regulates every aspect of medical practice and intimately affects just about every citizen — passed without a single GOP vote.
The Democrats insist they welcomed contributing ideas from Republicans. Rubbish. Republicans proposed that insurance be purchasable across state lines. They got nothing. They sought serious tort reform. They got nothing. Why? Because, admitted Howard Dean, Democrats didn’t want to offend the trial lawyers.
Moreover, the administration was clearly warned. Republican Scott Brown ran in the most inhospitable of states, Massachusetts, on the explicit promise to cast the deciding vote blocking Obamacare. It was January 2010, the height of the debate. He won. Reid ignored this unmistakable message of popular opposition and conjured a parliamentary maneuver — reconciliation — to get around Brown.
Nothing illegal about that. Nothing illegal about ramming it through without a single opposition vote. Just totally contrary to the modern American tradition — and the constitutional decency — of undertaking major social revolutions with only bipartisan majorities. Having stuffed Obamacare down the throats of the GOP and the country, Democrats are now paying the price.
I don’t agree with current Republican tactics. I thought the defunding demand impossible and, therefore, foolish. I thought that if, nonetheless, the GOP insisted on making a stand, it should not be on shutting down the government, which voters oppose 5-to-1, but on the debt ceiling, which Americans favor 2-to-1 as a vehicle for restraining government.
Tactics are one thing, but substance is another. It’s the Democrats who have mocked the very notion of settled law. It’s the Democrats who voted down the reopening of substantial parts of the government. It’s the Democrats who gave life to a spontaneous, authentic, small-government opposition — a.k.a. the tea party — with their unilateral imposition of a transformational agenda during the brief interval when they held a monopoly of power.
That interval is over. The current unrest is the residue of that hubris.
And BOOM goes the dynamite. Check and mate.
Fennis
Footballguy
yay republicans?Krauthammer
Who shut down Yellowstone?
By Charles Krauthammer,October 03, 2013
(/ )
The Obamacare/shutdown battle has spawned myriad myths. The most egregious concern the substance of the fight, the identity of the perpetrators and the origins of the current eruption.
(1) Substance
President Obama indignantly insists that GOP attempts to abolish or amend Obamacare are unseemly because it is “settled” law, having passed both houses of Congress, obtained his signature and passed muster with the Supreme Court.
Yes, settledness makes for a strong argument — except from a president whose administration has unilaterally changed Obamacare five timesafter its passage, including, most brazenly, a year-long suspension of the employer mandate.
Article I of the Constitution grants the legislative power entirely to Congress. Under what constitutional principle has Obama unilaterally amended the law? Yet when the House of Representatives undertakes a constitutionally correct, i.e., legislative, procedure for suspending the other mandate — the individual mandate — this is portrayed as some extra-constitutional sabotage of the rule of law. Why is tying that amendment to a generalized spending bill an outrage, while unilateral amendment by the executive (with a Valerie Jarrett blog item for spin) is perfectly fine?
(2) Perpetrators
The mainstream media have been fairly unanimous in blaming the government shutdown on the GOP. Accordingly, House Republicans presented three bills to restore funding to national parks, veterans and the District of Columbia government. Democrats voted down all three. (For procedural reasons, the measures required a two-thirds majority.)
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid won’t even consider these refunding measures. And theWhite House has promised a presidential veto.
The reason is obvious: to prolong the pain and thus add to the political advantage gained from a shutdown blamed on the GOP. They are confident the media will do a “GOP makes little Johnny weep at the closed gates of Yellowstone, film at 11” despite Republicans having just offered legislation to open them.
And besides, whence comes the sanctity of the “clean CR,” the single bill (continuing resolution) that funds all of government? The Democrats have declared it inviolable — and piecemeal funding, as proposed by the Republicans, unacceptable on principle. On what grounds? After all, the regular appropriations process consists of 12 separate appropriation bills. The insistence on the “clean CR” is just a fancy way to suggest some principle behind the president’s refusal to compromise or even negotiate.
(3) Origins
The most ubiquitous conventional wisdom is that the ultimate cause of these troubles is out-of-control tea party anarchists.
But is this really where the causal chain ends? The tea party was created by Obama’s first-term overreach, most specifically Obamacare. Today’s frantic fight against it is the echoing result of the way it was originally enacted.
From Social Security to civil rights to Medicaid to Medicare, never in the modern history of the country has major social legislation been enacted on a straight party-line vote. Never. In every case, there was significant reaching across the aisle, enhancing the law’s legitimacy and endurance. Yet Obamacare — which revolutionizes one-sixth of the economy, regulates every aspect of medical practice and intimately affects just about every citizen — passed without a single GOP vote.
The Democrats insist they welcomed contributing ideas from Republicans. Rubbish. Republicans proposed that insurance be purchasable across state lines. They got nothing. They sought serious tort reform. They got nothing. Why? Because, admitted Howard Dean, Democrats didn’t want to offend the trial lawyers.
Moreover, the administration was clearly warned. Republican Scott Brown ran in the most inhospitable of states, Massachusetts, on the explicit promise to cast the deciding vote blocking Obamacare. It was January 2010, the height of the debate. He won. Reid ignored this unmistakable message of popular opposition and conjured a parliamentary maneuver — reconciliation — to get around Brown.
Nothing illegal about that. Nothing illegal about ramming it through without a single opposition vote. Just totally contrary to the modern American tradition — and the constitutional decency — of undertaking major social revolutions with only bipartisan majorities. Having stuffed Obamacare down the throats of the GOP and the country, Democrats are now paying the price.
I don’t agree with current Republican tactics. I thought the defunding demand impossible and, therefore, foolish. I thought that if, nonetheless, the GOP insisted on making a stand, it should not be on shutting down the government, which voters oppose 5-to-1, but on the debt ceiling, which Americans favor 2-to-1 as a vehicle for restraining government.
Tactics are one thing, but substance is another. It’s the Democrats who have mocked the very notion of settled law. It’s the Democrats who voted down the reopening of substantial parts of the government. It’s the Democrats who gave life to a spontaneous, authentic, small-government opposition — a.k.a. the tea party — with their unilateral imposition of a transformational agenda during the brief interval when they held a monopoly of power.
That interval is over. The current unrest is the residue of that hubris.
And BOOM goes the dynamite. Check and mate.
Lutherman2112
Footballguy
"Earl Conlon, a Georgia trucker who is handling logistics for the protest, told U.S. News tractor-trailer drivers will circle the beltway "three lanes deep" as he rides with other participants to Congress to seek the arrest of congressmen for allegedly disregarding the Constitution."
Earl Conlon's Page at Tea Party Command Center
Where you can find inspiration in his words:
"i've always believed Obama to be the Anti Christ from the day i first laid eyes one him.. not to mention the dreams i have had for the past 15 years showing me a man in office who i've never heard of before. then comes 2008 and the dreams get more detailed and intense... you figure it out..
maybe i am crazy?"
Throw out another:
"Just a word of warning. anyone who thinks this attack on their source of Power couldn't turn bloody better rethink it.. and be prepared to defend your self..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJdr7clZm74"
Last edited by a moderator:
Fennis
Footballguy
the unintended consequence of the Union winning the Civil War is sometimes highly disturbing.
Lutherman2112
Footballguy
From http://ridefortheconstitution.org: (beware live streaming radio show on each page of site, turn down sound)
I just can't help myself.
Last edited by a moderator:
Jojo the circus boy
Footballguy
yay democrats?Mr.Pack said:
yay Obama?
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
Wait- the TSA is committing sexual misconduct? What's up with that?
Schlzm
Footballguy
It's so easy to only focus on the facts that a few TP Repubs forced this issue but any bit of continued and escalated pain falls almost entirely on the shoulders of the administration and Harry Reid. Sure Boehner could concede to demands and get everything back up and falling down the hill of status quo, but where would that get anyone? Why not even try to get something out of this fiasco at this point since they are going to get blamed for anything and condemned for everything else alongside a very colourful slew of names called and insults hurled?
Schlzm
Schlzm
Last edited by a moderator:
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
That pretty much sums up the situation/people we have to deal with.Fennis said:
Schlzm
Footballguy
cstu
Footballguy
Obama isn't the one making the demands. All he wants is for the House to do their job and vote.
Are you guys living on a different planet than me?
pizzatyme
Footballguy
I don't think Obama is the anti-Christ, but I do feel he was terribly under-prepared to be POTUS.
And the people who voted him in primarily due to party lines and skin color are who "we have to deal with".
There is a whole lot of stupid in this county from all sides of the aisle.
And the people who voted him in primarily due to party lines and skin color are who "we have to deal with".
There is a whole lot of stupid in this county from all sides of the aisle.
Schlzm
Footballguy
Well he did state that he would veto anything other than a "clean" bill... Not to mention the House has been voting, quite a bit, the senate on the other hand...Might want to double check your solar system.
Schlzm
cstu
Footballguy
Schlzm
Footballguy
Let's go something really old school serious at this point. I want some no nonsense Babylonian or Aztecan evil. Enough with the watered down western theology and unbased Revelations declerations.Schlzm
Last edited by a moderator:
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
Mr. Pickles
Footballguy
It's times like these that I long for the steady hand of Willie Neslon at the tiller.
Schlzm
Footballguy
True. The blind shills skew things so much it's impossible to find any type of actualized balance through the noise.Schlzm
sporthenry
Footballguy
See this ignores the story coming out that Democrats tried 19 times to go to conference over the budget but were blocked by Republicans. You don't sit out the first 58 minutes of a game, then think you are going to go in for the last 2 minutes and get the ball.
The one good thing about MSM is that it makes these bull#### tactics more apparent. Sadly, people just ignore noise that doesn't jibe with their current POV and seek out that which solidifies their stance.
So sure, I could agree that on the surface, wow, Dems won't negotiate with Republicans. But that ignores the fact they want to use the government shutdown as a bargain chip and that they didn't want to negotiate earlier.
Schlzm
Footballguy
Better re-read the first line of my first post. Did Sen. Cruze go on a tirade to block anything from happening? You bet your lame ###! However after those first 48 hours laws and resolutions had been drafted to keep specific areas functioning but it was voted down even though it went against specific legislators own values (source forthcoming). This has become a purely partison ####st0rm and we (some more than others) get to taste the spinoff!Schlzm
source
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
No, my thread title remains 100% accurate. And until longtime conservatives such as you finally recognize that radical extremists like the Tea Party, and not the Democrats, are the true threat to our democratic republic, this sort of #### will keep happening.
The real ####ty position is the absurd belief that all the problems are with the other side. I am more than willing to give much ownership to the GOP. But it is when people give excuses for one side over the other, nothing will ever get done. Congrats!
So the Republicans want to choose which parts of the Govt should be open and are crying that the Dems want all if the Govt open?
And yet the Dems are to blame? How about the house put it to a vote and let the chips fall. If it goes down then we will know that the Dems need to offer something, but if it passes then te agovt is open and everyone wins!
And yet the Dems are to blame? How about the house put it to a vote and let the chips fall. If it goes down then we will know that the Dems need to offer something, but if it passes then te agovt is open and everyone wins!
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
You can blame both sides for the deficit, but you can't blame both sides for the current impasse. Democrats adopted the Republicans' spending level for the continuing resolution and they still won't allow a vote on it in the House.
Actually you can blame both sides in the sense that you'd blame a person being extorted for refusing to pay the blackmail.
Party A: Give me $1,000,000 or I'll release the photos.
Party B: No.
But that seems sort of silly.
Actually you can blame both sides in the sense that you'd blame a person being extorted for refusing to pay the blackmail.
Party A: Give me $1,000,000 or I'll release the photos.
Party B: No.
But that seems sort of silly.
Of course you frame this in the most ridiculous terms. The reality here is both sides are taking hardline positions that make it impossible. You can always negotitate something. This idea that you can't even talk to the other side is absurd arroagance of power. If you can't acknowledge that, you are just being a partisan hack.
Todd Andrews
Footballguy
Except for the future generations who are being left with this huge albatross of endless debt around their necks. Big win for them.
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Sorry Jon, but the deadlock here is all Republicans.
The budget issues involve both sides, but there are no budget issues in the shutdown or debt limit showdown.
The budget issues involve both sides, but there are no budget issues in the shutdown or debt limit showdown.
Todd Andrews
Footballguy
Why do you hate Republican Presidents for doubling and tripling the national debt and vastly expanding federal deficits over the last 35 years?
