jump to last post 1-9 of 9 discussions (148 posts)

The Government Shutdown

  1. peoplepower73 profile image89
    peoplepower73posted 3 years ago

    Read this article from the NY Times.  It's about a well planned, highly funded conspiracy to shutdown the government if Obama Care is not defunded.  Please share this with everybody you know.  The republican extremists are not playing by the rules of democracy and are making a mockery of it to the free world.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/us/a- … 3&_r=0

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      You mean much like the "conspiracy" to shove it through congress before anyone had time to read and understand it, let alone discuss it in detail?  A conspiracy like that one?

      This whole thing leaves a sour smell behind it wherever it goes, democratic OR republican.  House, Senate OR presidency.

      1. gmwilliams profile image85
        gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        +1,000,,000,000,000-the Republicans are doing the right thing.  They are protesting this Obamacare which they know will be detrimental to the economy and health care of America.  It is PRESIDENT OBAMA and his cohorts who are pushing and otherwise forcing this monstrous health insurance policy on America.  President Obama has the God complex, he believes that he knows what is best for the American people as fas as health insurance/health care goes.  He intends for Obama"care" to be HIS baby, no matter how it affects others.  The Republicans are showing that there are still freedoms and rights in America, THANK YOU EVER SO KINDLY!
        http://s3.hubimg.com/u/8417746_f248.jpg

        1. peoplepower73 profile image89
          peoplepower73posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Sure, that's why they are holding the government and the people hostage.  If they wanted to use the democratic process, they would file a bill to repeal ACA, Submit it to the senate, if the senate approved it, it would go to the president for his approval.  But they know that is not going to happen, so instead, they ignore the democratic process and uses extortion by holding the government hostage.

          1. 0
            SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Hate to break it to you, but this is the democratic process. There are 2 chambers of Congress for a reason. They are to work together to form a budget. It isn't about the Senate getting everything they want without offering anything in return. It isn't about the House getting everything they want. It isn't about the President getting everything they want.
            What isn't the democratic process is the President, using government agencies such as HHS, to change the law without going through the Congress.
            The GOP offered up 3 separate funding bills. One defunded Obamacare entirely. One delayed it entirely for one year. One delayed the individual mandate & the taxes on medical devices (such as pacemakers) for one year. I take no issue with the Senate denying the first 2 but given the level of incompetence with the exchanges, the last seems only fair to the American people. Especially when thousands upon thousands of employers have been given a years reprieve to provide insurance to their employees. Why should individuals have to shell out money they cannot afford if the businesses are getting waivers?
            The Democrats & the President have not offered one iota of compromise. The GOP has put forth over fourteen spending bills to open up parks, fund veteran affairs, clinical trials, etc and the Senate will not vote on any of them. Doesn't sound like they care anything for those who suffer to me.
            We've had government shut downs before and not once has any open air monument been barricaded, yet this President felt the need to keep veterans in wheelchairs from the WWII memorial. Why is that? The Lincoln Memorial has never been barricaded before, but it is under this President. Ridiculous. Talk about holding the American people hostage.
            That is true extortion.
            In 2006 this President had this to say about raising the debt limit:
            "“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. government can’t pay its own bills. ... I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”

            — Then-Sen. Barack Obama, floor speech in the Senate, March 16, 2006

            Nice words. Leadership failure. Yet this President  asks Congress to raise the debt limit over and over and over and offers no real spending cuts at all.

            1. Cody Hodge5 profile image81
              Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              My god....so many talking points....

              1. 0
                SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Not really. This financial dance we do so often is due to the failure of the Democratic held Senate to pass a budget for President Obama's entire term, until this past March. Then they asked for over $1 trillion in new spending, offered no spending cuts and raised taxes. Of course, they only even put forth a budget after the House showed them up and put forth their own. Once again, the Dems and the President refused to negotiate. They blamed the GOP but really they brought nothing to the table. They wanted it all their way.
                Government shutdown isn't a tactic I would have taken. Obamacare is a train wreck that is only going to get worse. I would have let it fail and let the President & the Dems take the fall. The problem with that? People get hurt because they can't afford the atrocious premiums they are being offered. Unless you're on the government teat. Then you're a-okay! Which is what they want. Everyone attached to the government's teat. In need.

                1. peoplepower73 profile image89
                  peoplepower73posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Sure you know it's a train wreck and it's going to get worse because that is what the right wing mantra is. And they have repeated it enough times to where you believe it as fact. Here are the GOP house demands

                  One Year Debt Limit Increase - Not a dollar amount increase, but suspending the debt limit until the end of December 2014.Similar to what they did earlier this year.They want the year long to align with the year delay of Obamacare.

                  Tax Reform Instructions - Similar to a bill passed last fall, laying out broad form Ryan Budget principles for what tax reform should look like.

                  Energy and regulatory reforms to promote economic growth. Includes pretty much every jobs bill they have passed this year and last Congress, including: Repealing the Public Health trust Fund

                  The most important one here is the last one. (Repealing the Public Health trust Fund). This is the code for defunding Obama Care.

                  The republican house, driven by the minority Tea Party says if you don't defund Obama care we aren't going to approve your budget. Therefore, the government cannot pay its bills and government service will be shutdown.

                  Now that services have been shutdown, the republicans are blaming Obama for being an obstructionist and creating the blocking of services, So a little girl gets lost in the hills of Yosemite and there is no one to rescue her...blame it on Obama. The world war II memorial is closed and veterans are upset...the Tea Party goes to the site and says blame it on Obama. A storm is brewing off of the gulf coast. There are no FEMA personnel available. The republicans say...you got it...blame it on Obama. A republican farts in the house and they say, blame it on Obama.

                  The minority Tea Party is confident they will get the votes from their constituents, because they have gerrymander (re-district) the states where they live to exclude all but the people they know who are going to vote for them. Therefore, this minority Tea Party is controlling the majority of the house, because they feel confident they will be elected next term with out any consequences of what they have engineered.

                  Obama won the election fair and square on his platform.  This gives him political capital.  If they don't like what he has done.  Let them use due process of law and the democratic process to repeal Obama care.  Don't hold the country hostage and use mafia extortion tactics.  They should own the fact that they created the shutdown.  All Obama wanted to do is get a clean CR passed.  They made the demands and then blamed him for it.

                  1. 0
                    SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    There have been 17 shutdowns. All but 2 of them were orchestrated by the Democrats. Bet it was fine & dandy then huh? Was the democratic process at work then wasn't it? But any time the GOP uses the same tactics, they are holding the people hostage. Too funny.
                    You've failed to address why the President didn't use the rule of law and go through Congress to implement his changes to Obamacare.
                    You've failed to address why this is the only time that open air monuments have been shut down. We all know why. It's so the people see it more prominently and blame the GOP. Only it isn't exactly working out that way.
                    Answer me this as well...why can this Administration not answer one simple straightforward question on death benefits for military personnel? When did the President know they were cut off. It would have been amusing watching Carney lie & squirm his way to avoid answering that simple question if not for the people affected. Bet he thought the GOP would take the hit for that too. When he found out different he scrambled to come up with a solution.
                    I don't need anyone to tell me anything about the failure of this law. It's everywhere. From the states that have no competition because providers are not offering options, the abysmal failure of the websites to even function properly, the IRS official sending private info from the websites about citizens to the WH, the limited doctor access from the plans, the inflated deductibles, and the over the top prices. Don't need Fox news for that, it's everywhere.
                    I also love how everyone on Hub pages decries Fox news when MSNBC is the most biased and vitriol filled news site on the planet.
                    He won the election, so what? Reagan won by a way greater margin and the Dems shut down the government on him more than once. He has no political capital lmao Winning an election by 2 percentage points hardly gives him carte blanch. Too amusing.
                    Again, you've simply stated you're "talking point rhetoric" from left wing news sources without addressing anything.
                    Perhaps I can simplify it:
                    1. Why won't he say when he knew about the death benefits being cut off?
                    2. Why are open air monuments barricaded? Which btw is costing more than keeping them open! Never happened before.
                    3. Why are private businesses being forced to shut down simply because they rest on public land? They do not receive any federal funds.
                    4. Why is delaying the individual mandate a big deal when it is a-okay for all of Obama's union friends & campaign donators to receive one year waivers for the requirements to provide health insurance?
                    5. Why won't the Federal government offer any numbers for how many have signed up?
                    6. Why are the premiums so high for something called the AFFORDABLE Care act?
                    7. Why is it the sole responsibility of the GOP to compromise over and over and over when this Administration & the Dems have not compromised one iota?
                    8. What are the Dems bringing to the table to try to end the stalemate?
                    9. Why, if they are so concerned about the people, is the Senate not approving the mini spending bills to help them?
                    Of course he wants a clean CR. That's laughable! Then he does not have to live up to his promises of cutting spending.

                  2. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    You list quite a few things Obama is being blamed for (little girl in Yosemite, Fema's absence, WWII memorial, etc.).  Did not the House R's fund all those things in the budget bills they have sent to the house? 

                    As the answer is "yes", who else should carry the blame then?  The Democratic Senate that won't approve the spending bills submitted by the House?  But they would approve them if Obama asked for it, you know - it would just ruin the blackmail opportunity for holding the country hostage for the funds to operate the abortion called Obamacare.  For it's not the House holding the country hostage with mafia extortion tactics; it's Obama and his cronies made because they can't squeeze money from the House budgets.

                2. Don W profile image83
                  Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  You can try to spin as much as you want. Republican obstructionism is the real problem:

                  March 23 -- Senate passes first budget in four years. After the House passes its budget, regular order dictates that both chambers name members of a conference committee to resolve the difference.

                  April 23 -- Harry Reid requests unanimous consent for naming a conference committee on the budget. Senator Toomey blocks this request.

                  May 6 -- Majority Leader Harry Reid requests unanimous consent for naming a conference committee on the budget. Senator Cruz blocks this request.

                  May 7 -- Senator Murray requests unanimous consent for naming a conference committee on the budget. Senator McConnell blocks this request.

                  May 8 -- Senator Warner requests unanimous consent for naming a conference committee on the budget. Senator McConnell blocks this request.

                  May 9 -- Senator Murray requests unanimous consent for naming a conference committee on the budget. Senator McConnell blocks this request.

                  May 13 -- Senate and House Republicans are refusing to meet with Democrats to negotiate over the budgets passed by each chamber. Four times in the last two weeks, Senate leaders have proposed beginning a conference committee to hash out a federal budget; four times they have been blocked by Republicans.

                  May 14 -- Senator Warner requests unanimous consent for naming a conference committee on the budget. Senator McConnell blocks this request.

                  May 15 -- Senator Wyden requests unanimous consent for naming a conference committee on the budget. Senator McConnell blocks this request.

                  May 16 -- Senator Murray requests unanimous consent for naming a conference committee on the budget. Senator Lee blocks this request.

                  May 21 -- Senator Murray requests unanimous consent for naming a conference committee on the budget. Senator Paul blocks this request.

                  May 22 -- Senator Kaine requests unanimous consent for naming a conference committee on the budget. Senator Rubio blocks this request.

                  May 23 -- Senator McCaskill requests unanimous consent for naming a conference committee on the budget. Senator Lee blocks this request.

                  May 25 -- ''This to me is an issue of integrity. We've pressed for a budget. We ought to go to conference.'' (Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee)

                  "What are we on my side of the aisle doing? We don't want a budget unless we put requirements on the conferees that are absolutely out of line and unprecedented?" (Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona)

                  and this is only part 1 . . .

                  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-wei … 74372.html

                  1. 0
                    SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Really? And just who was the obstructionist for the over 800 days that the Senate did not only not pass a budget, but never even worked on one?
                    So suddenly, after 4 years without adopting or proposing a budget, the GOP is supposed to snap to attention now that the Senate has done what they were to do every single year BY LAW?
                    What about the Senate's inaction on the Budgets passed by the House from 2011, 2012 and this year? (passed prior to the Senate passing one btw).
                    That is what I mean. Dems sit on their laurels and do nothing. You say nothing.
                    Suddenly, they do something and if the GOP plays politics (like the Dems did for all those years because they didn't want the people to see their idea of a budget), they're the bad guys.

                3. peoplepower73 profile image89
                  peoplepower73posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Sassy:  What do the democrats bring to the table?  They bring a budget that will pay for what congress has already borrowed. That's called paying your bills. Pure and simple that's all they want is a clean continuing resolution (CR) . 

                  Everybody talks about cutting spending.  It's not about spending; it's about borrowing. We are a debtor nation. We borrow money and then try to pay it back via the budget and the debt ceiling.  Raising the debt ceiling, just allows congress to borrow more money for the next fiscal year.  Every administration inherits the debt of the previous administration.  That's the national debt and it is never going to be eliminated because the government lives on a credit card. So if a republican was elected next term, his baseline for the national debt, would start where Obama's ended, just like Obama's started where Bushes ended.

                  The only way the budget can be balanced is if revenue equals borrowing and that isn't going to happen. That's why we have taxes.  That's why Obama wants to tax the super wealthy.
                  Everybody blames Obama for spending too much.  It's actually congress that's borrowing too much.  Obama can either approve the bills or veto them.

                  The only thing the GOP has brought to the table is a list of demands to bring their agenda into play and the biggest one they focus on is to destroy the ACA which has already been funded.  The people voted against their agenda when Romney lost the election...get over it! 

                  If you read the link to the article I posted, it describes how the Tea Party got it's power from being funded by big moneyed interests and that this conspiracy started just after Obama got re-elected.  Their mission is to destroy Obama care and make life as hard as possible for Obama.  Even if they have to do a little at a time.  They will kill their prey and eat it a little at at a time. That's what they did with Glass-Stegal and that's what they want to do to ACA. Their tactics are to stall and eat away at laws and regulations by so called negotiations until it's all gone!

                  1. 0
                    SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    lol peoplepower really.

                    How to stop being a debtor nation? Keep borrowing? No.
                    How do you curb the need to borrow? You cut spending.
                    It most certainly IS about spending. You cannot keep spending more and more and more and stop being a debtor nation.
                    The Senate's so-called "clean" resolution includes MORE spending. That isn't clean.

            2. Don W profile image83
              Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              "There are processes that are in place that allow us to solve the challenges that we have in a deliberative way, in an open way, in a transparent way, and it is the processes of governing and legislating through the House and the Senate." - (Rep. Tom Price (R) of Georgia)

              I agree. Getting an idea through the House, the Senate, the Judiciary and ultimately the ballot box, is good governance because of the checks and balances those processes represent. Holding a gun to the country's head and saying "do what we want or she gets it" not good governance in my opinion.

      2. peoplepower73 profile image89
        peoplepower73posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Nope, the one about extortion of the President of the United States of America.

    2. Onusonus profile image87
      Onusonusposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Let's see;
      Social security -Broke.
      Medicare- Broke
      Medicaid- Broke
      UPS- Broke
      Fannie may- Broke
      National debt 17 trillion
      Gee, lets try it with healthcare...
      http://pumabydesign001.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/thomas-sowell-on-healthcare.jpg?w=529

      1. gmwilliams profile image85
        gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Bad......worse......cataclysm........destruction!
        http://s1.hubimg.com/u/8420468_f248.jpg
        Obama= demise of America as we know it!  He has an underlying agenda for America. So many people, esp. Liberals, refuse to see and acknowledge this.  They are so enthralled with his "New Deal" social and health policies, not knowing how detrimental these programs are for the economy.  He was imbued with socialist and communist ideology from childhood and he intend to implement socialized programs in America.  He even stated that the Constitution was a replica from colonial times and it's flawed.  Someone had to STAND UP to him and the Republicans have had ENOUGH and are taking back our country.

        1. Onusonus profile image87
          Onusonusposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          A fundamental fact about the ideology of a world which is in constant need to improve its economic social programs because every one of its predecessors was a failure, is the admittance that economic planning has never worked. Yet for some special reason it will work this time.

        2. peoplepower73 profile image89
          peoplepower73posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, they are trying to take back the country instead of moving forward. The national debt is not created by one president. Each president accrues the debt from the previous president and then adds his debt to it. Bush did not fund two wars and medicare part D. Obama accounted for Bushes debt. ACA is already funded and has been law for two years.  It's the right wing extremists who are trying to unfunded it by using extortion to shutdown the government and not raise the debt ceiling to pay our bills.

        3. 0
          mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          What President Obama said about the constitution is that, like any "charter" (his word) it is flawed.

          If those so hostile to President Obama read a little history (and stopped listening to right-wing talk radio and television pundits, stopped reading conspiracy websites) and learned a little bit about the Constitutional Convention or just remembered a little bit of middle school social studies, they would know that the men who wrote the Constitution understood that it was, inherently, "flawed". This is why the Founders included a provision for AMENDMENT of the Constitution.

          The Bill of Rights are AMENDMENTS---needed to fix "flaws" in the Constitution and needed in order for the original charter to be ratified.

        4. adagio4639 profile image80
          adagio4639posted 2 years ago in reply to this

          "He even stated that the Constitution was a replica from colonial times and it's flawed.  Someone had to STAND UP to him and the Republicans have had ENOUGH and are taking back our country."

          A "replica from colonial times"? What does that even mean, and where and when did he say that? Furthermore, the constitution as written, was flawed. Whatever gives you the impression that the framers thought they were creating a "perfect Union"?
          Preamble: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." It states a "more perfect union". That means better, and closer to what we would hope for.  The Constitution provides for an amendment process to deal with things that the framers could not yet have envisioned. A perfect document wouldn't need that. Does it somehow offend your sensibilities to think that the Constitution isn't perfect? 
          The Constitution also codified slavery as an institution in this country.
          Article 1 sec. 2. (basing a states representation in the House on its FREE population, and 3/5 of "all other persons";
          Article 1 sec 9 (barring Congress from abolishing the slave trade before 1808) and;
          Article 4 Sec 2 ( providing for the return of runaway slaves)

          Are we to think that you think that slavery was a great idea?

          Your entire post smacks of Apocalyptic fear mongering. The "demise of America" as we know it? We survived 8 years of Bush/Cheney. I think we can manage to get through anything after that debacle. The destruction of 9/11, the launching of a war of choice, and the destruction of the US economy. Great work by the Republicans. Republican policies only work in isolated gerrymandered districts in areas of the country filled with low information voters predisposed to hyperbolic fear mongering. "Obama wants to kill your granny". "Healthcare reform = Armageddon"."Evolution is a theory straight from the pits of Hell." Everything they say is an appeal to emotionalism. No thought required. Your post is one more example of this kind of irrational nonsense.

      2. 0
        mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Let's try some just one thing from your list---since the others require more explanation that I am interested in offering:

        What could possibly---in the Digital Age, in a time when transactions from holiday greetings to banking are done electronically, be the cause of financial problems at the Post Office (which for the record is NOT run by the US government, but is a private agency)?

        What could possibly be the cause of a brick-and-mortar, paper-based business experiencing financial problems in a digital world?

        That said, as for Fannie Mae:

        In May 2013, Fannie Mae announced that it is going to pay a dividend of $59.4 billion to the United States Treasury. Do you understand what a dividend is and when a dividend is paid? If yes, then you would understand that this company---though founded during the New  Deal and private traded (that means on Wall Street) since 1968 is not "broke", but doing very well.

        1. Onusonus profile image87
          Onusonusposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Which brings us to the housing market crash. Remember those last few years of hearing the president say the economy was recovering? I don't know about you but I'm upside down $50,000 on my place. So we create a crisis so our lord and savior Obama can swoop in to save the day. Meanwhile people are defaulting on their loans in droves. Liberal Cronyism at it's finest.

    3. 0
      Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks for posting this people.  I'll read it soon and provide a response.

    4. 0
      mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Have any of those of you in this forum who blame President Obama for the closure of all national parks, memorials, and monuments ever asked yourselves a simple question:

      Why when warned PRIOR to the shut-down of the fact that parks,. memorials---including the World War II memorial, and monuments would be closed (under the legislation passed by Congress) AND why when warned PRIOR to the shut-down that veteran and survivor benefits would be curtailed during the shut-down, did the Republicans in the House do nothing to preempt the closures and curtailments of benefits?

      Could it be that they thought such closures and benefits could be of some political use? Of some use as a plot twist in this political theater that would garner them support somewhere among the masses?

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        The house funded those things in a budget proposition - there was no reason to stop operation.  Except, of course, that they were warned of being blackmailed if they didn't fund other pet projects we can't afford.

        Or is your idea of "preempt" the closures to abrogate their duty to provide a budget themselves and just rubber stamp what the Democrats want?

        Could it possibly be that the R's failed to cave in to blackmail, leaving the D's to blame for shutting down the govt.?  At least when my kids warn me that my decisions will somehow "cause" them to do bad things I don't back off from what is right...

        1. 0
          mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          My idea of preemption is one that would have demonstrated that this is not just political theater, but an attempt to govern meaningfully.

          There was no blackmail. There was only hardball politics---and at its very worst. The closing of parks, and memorial, and monuments is a national disgrace, but both parties are to blame as it the problem of governing with the TV cameras on---whether those cameras are the unedited and unscripted cameras of C-SPAN or the edited, scripted, and highly-agenda driven cameras of ALL of the cable news networks and ALL of the web-based news outlets.

          I suspect that IF these negotiations can ever get away from the cameras and the celebrities (from both sides of the aisle) that both sides will then have the opportunity (perhaps the luxury) to "give" or "blink" and some mutually-agreed to resolution found.

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            The only thing I could see as a preemptive move to avoid govt. closure is for the House to knuckle under to the threats of the D's and give them whatever they demanded.  Whereupon one wonders why the House is there at all if they are just going to rubber stamp what the Senate demands.

            Blackmail; of course there was.  The senate has the money to operate the country; they refuse to use it until their pet project is also paid for. The very definition of blackmail.

            So the R's are using the law to avoid activation of a properly assigned law (Obamacare) - they are playing hardball politics to avoid what was legally voted into place.  Disgraceful.

            The D's have blackmailed the R's to provide a budget they like, and have shut the government down when it the House failed to follow their orders.  Disgraceful in the extreme as we now have millions of people being hurt by congress playing a political game

            Kick the entire group, including the President, out of the town and keep them out.

            1. 0
              mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              With one thing I agree but I also know from many years of observing that it AIN'T GONNA happen: Get rid of any and all incumbents in the House and Senate who have refused to negotiate with each other---without reference to the White House or the President, and who have allowed factions within their respective parties (from the right for the Republicans; from the left for the Democrats) as well as media personalities (left and right) to control how they do business.

              It's not going to happen. While the current aggregate approval of Congress is at an all-time low of 10% (and falling I suspect), approval of most individual members of Congress is well into the 50-60% range. The public blames "Congress" as though it is some independent entity independent of the members who comprise it; members Americans see as working hard for them.

              1. 0
                SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I'd agree but why is the President exempt? You know as well as I that if he had agreed to negotiate the Senate would have followed along.
                Personally, we pay them too much. Once upon a time you're Congressman & Representative was Joe Schmo from the neighborhood. If he wasn't middle class, he came from middle class.

                1. 0
                  mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Constitutionally, the President---no matter who he is, should not be involved in these negotiations. In fact, historically, any presidential involvement in the business of Congress was frowned upon and understood as an intrusion at best and a violation of the "separation of powers" at worst.

                  I am seeing popping up all order the news in the last hour or so that  some deal is in the works about the debt ceiling issue that may end the shut-down.  It appears that Boehner is taking the lead now from Paul Ryan (who just yesterday offered some very pragmatic solutions to the budget problems but made NO mention of the Affordable Care Act). Only time will tell.

                2. 0
                  mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Benjamin Franklin advocated at the Constitutional Convention that members of Congress be retired men who would be paid nothing. As such, he reasoned, Congress would would be populated by the  "disinterested" (in 18th century parlance meaning having no financial stake in something) parties who could focus on governing.

                  1. 0
                    SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Yeah Boehner offered up a short term agreement until November 22nd I believe.

                    Not sure if it ends the shutdown though or just raises the debt ceiling until that time. Trying to get more detail.

                    Okay it does not end the shutdown. In exchange for raising the debt limit temporarily to avoid default, the GOP is requesting the following:
                    "In exchange, he wants Obama "to sit down and discuss with us a way forward to reopen the government and to start to deal with America's pressing problems."

      2. 0
        SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        How could they have been warned prior to the shutdown about the death benefits when even the President claims "he didn't know about it"?
        They had already passed a bill that they believed covered survivor's benefits, so no, they did not know the shut down would halt those payments.
        "The “Pay Our Military Act” – which guaranteed paychecks for members of the military during the shutdown – easily passed both houses of Congress before the shutdown began.

        That bill appropriated “such sums as are necessary to provide pay and allowances to members of the Armed Forces” as well as money for some civilian personnel and contractors considered essential to the support of soldiers. The bill’s drafters say it was intended to cover survivor benefits as well."

        And the House already passed spending bills covering monuments, national parks, veteran's affairs, clinical trials, etc. The Senate won't vote on them.

        1. 0
          mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Again, ALL of the provisions of the shut-down; ALL of mechanisms; ALL of programs that could be targeted were listed in advance of an actual shut-down. The Pentagon---led by REPUBLICAN Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, has issued a formal statement that it warned Congress of the impending cuts to veteran's benefits as have the non-partisan managers of other government agencies. And General Shenseki---a Bush appointee and current Veteran's Administration Secretary has concurred with Hagel's statement.

          The Pay Our Military Act focused on pay for active duty personnel only and did not include any civilian personnel or any deceased and/or disabled personnel.

          And for the record: At the moment a private charity is paying the survivor benefits. That charity is called the Fisher House Foundation.

    5. tirelesstraveler profile image87
      tirelesstravelerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Is the Affordable Healthcare Act actually working for you.  Prove to me it is and I will agree with your premise that this is a conspiracy.

      1. peoplepower73 profile image89
        peoplepower73posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Tirelesstraveler: Thank you for asking. I have two prescriptions that I pay nothing for, other prescriptions cost have been reduced.  No co-pay for office visits.  My wife and I get comprehensive physicals, including all lab fees, once per year free of charge.  The medicare doughnut hole is reduced and will be completely gone in a couple of years!

    6. 0
      mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      No point peoplepower73 in trying to make ANY headway with many of the people posting on this hub.

      As someone once said referring to cults (and there is definitely a growing anti-President Obama cult in the US) and in terms of their claims:

      1.  They do not include any accurately referenced data or sources;
      2.  Proclamations are called facts and  evidence;
      3.  Such proclamations are demonstrably false.

      And in terms of those adhering to cults:

      1.  They ignore, and worse yet, cannot be bothered with facts;
      2.  They cannot attack the data and sources of those who challenge them or their thinking so they attack the people who challenge them;
      3.  They do their research by proclamation.

      1. 0
        SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        H.J.Res. 79: Border Security and Enforcement Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014
        On Passage of the Bill in the House
        House Vote #540
        Oct 10, 2013 2:18 p.m.
        Passed 249/175


        H.J.Res. 90: Federal Aviation Administration Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014
        On Passage of the Bill in the House
        House Vote #537
        Oct 09, 2013 2:19 p.m.
        Passed 252/172


        H.J.Res. 89: Making appropriations for the salaries and related expenses of certain Federal employees during a lapse in funding authority ...
        On Passage of the Bill in the House
        House Vote #535
        Oct 08, 2013 7:48 p.m.
        Passed 420/0


        H.J.Res. 84: Head Start Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014
        On Passage of the Bill in the House
        House Vote #530
        Oct 08, 2013 1:56 p.m.
        Passed 248/168


        H.J.Res. 77: Food and Drug Administration Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014
        On Passage of the Bill in the House
        House Vote #528
        Oct 07, 2013 7:14 p.m.
        Passed 235/162


        H.R. 3223: Federal Employee Retroactive Pay Fairness Act
        On Passage of the Bill in the House
        House Vote #525
        Oct 05, 2013 10:57 a.m.
        Passed 407/0


        H.J.Res. 75: Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014
        On Passage of the Bill in the House
        House Vote #524
        Oct 04, 2013 6:08 p.m.
        Passed 244/164


        H.J.Res. 85: Federal Emergency Management Agency Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014
        On Passage of the Bill in the House
        House Vote #522
        Oct 04, 2013 4:33 p.m.
        Passed 247/164


        H.Res. 371: Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 75) making continuing appropriations for the Special Supplemental Nutrition ...
        On the Resolution in the House
        House Vote #520
        Oct 04, 2013 3:01 p.m.
        Passed 222/183


        H.J.Res. 72: Veterans Benefits Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014
        On Passage of the Bill in the House
        House Vote #518
        Oct 03, 2013 4:48 p.m.
        Passed 259/157


        H.R. 3230: Pay Our Guard and Reserve Act
        On Passage of the Bill in the House
        House Vote #516
        Oct 03, 2013 1:57 p.m.
        Passed 265/160


        H.J.Res. 73: Making continuing appropriations for the National Institutes of Health for fiscal year 2014, and for other purposes.
        On Passage of the Bill in the House
        House Vote #514
        Oct 02, 2013 6:48 p.m.
        Passed 254/171


        H.Res. 370: Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 70) making continuing appropriations for National Park Service operations, ...
        On the Resolution in the House
        House Vote #510
        Oct 02, 2013 3:27 p.m.
        Passed 228/198



        H.R. 2848: Department of State Operations and Embassy Security Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2014
        On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended in the House
        House Vote #500
        Sep 29, 2013 12:29 a.m.
        Passed 384/37
        H.R. 3210: Making continuing appropriations for military pay in the event of a Government shutdown.
        On Passage of the Bill in the House
        House Vote #499
        Sep 29, 2013 12:22 a.m.
        Passed 423/0

        That is just a few.

        source: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes

        You'll notice they would have all kept the government running while all this was hashed out. You'll also notice when you go to that site the Senate did not bring up one of them for a vote.

        There is your data and facts. There is your evidence. There is your source.

        A fact I have brought up over and over and over that the left leaning hubbers have continually ignored is that we did not need to be shut down at all.
        You are the one making personal attacks. Calling people a "cult" because they disagree with you. Sorry, this is not a dictatorship. The President and the Dems are not a "ruling" class. If you want that sort of government system, there are any number of countries you can move to.

        1. 0
          mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          The US Constitution does NOT allow for a piecemeal operation of the government by the Congress.

          Passing bills selected to satisfy Tea Party supporters and passing "feel good" legislation while the country teeters on default is not governing. It is called politicking.

          The problem is that the reality of governance and the reality of how the system works---constitutionally, is not being understood by those standing by the Tea Party and by Republicans more afraid of primary challenges by the Tea Party than they are afraid of defaulting on the work they were elected to do.

          It is evident, that the issue in the House right now---even as I type these words, is NOT governance, it is NOT democracy, it is NOT the republican form of government. It is, as has been pointed out in the last few days by constitutional scholars from the right and left and center, simply unconstitutional.

          An excellent example of this: Ted Cruz---a Senator, going to and controlling a meeting of members of the House. This is entirely unconstitutional and unprecedented.

          That said, why is anyone who disagrees with you "left leaning"? Has it ever occurred to you that some people who disagree with you may an understanding of the current events in Congress and an understanding of US history (economic, political, and constitutional) that simply make it impossible for them to subscribe to the distilled commentary of television, web, and radio pundits?

          Did it ever occur to you that others may have a sense of the situation that is NOT being broadcast in the media?

          I have news for you: Conservatives agree with me (and others with whom you disagree), including Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell---among many others.

          1. 0
            SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Actually, it certainly does. There is absolutely no law or procedure against them. Furthermore, it is exactly how it was originally done and was only changed when we entered WWI in order for Congress not to have to approve each appropriation for the war.
            And talk about media BS, what are you talking about Cruz controlling a meeting of the House? Who said so?

            lmao oh too rich!
            That is a straight out headline! MSNBC and a bunch of left liberal blogs!
            Toooooooooooo funny from someone screaming about the media!

            Let's be clear, MSNBC is to the left what Fox is to the right. No credibility. I always LOVE "sources say".

            Edit: I did forget to address your last claim. McConnell & Ryan do not agree with you. Their statements came after 10 days of shutdown and neither agreed with you even in those statements. They simply both stated that they wanted to avoid default, which Boehner had stated at the beginning of this entire thing. This was about the budget and ran into the debt ceiling.

            1. 0
              mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Let me deal only with the basics:

              As for Cruz's meeting with members of the House: This information was reported in just about EVERY possible online, television, and radio media outlet. And the leak about his presence at the meeting came right from the

              House Minority Whip. And the story was reported in the "Washington Times"---a decidedly conservative newspaper and appeared in an article on "Morning Joe" [CLARIFICATION] by Joe Scarborough (former Republican Congressman from Florida). Others who reported this news: "Roll Call", the "Wall Street Journal".

              1. 0
                SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                That's entirely incorrect. The initial story came from RollCall. Scarborough was responding to a comment about the story from RollCall.
                "Former congressman Joe Scarborough said Tuesday that if Sen. Ted Cruz and top House conservatives wanted to hold a secret meeting, the Tortilla Coast restaurant mere steps from House Office buildings was not the place to do it.

                Mr. Scarborough, the host of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” was responding to a Roll Call report that said the Texas Republican, who has been blamed for precipitating the government shutdown through his demands to defund Obamacare, met for two hours with 15 to 20 House Republicans late Monday." (you'll notice the big IF in his response as well).

                source:http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2013/oct/15/joe-scarborough-ted-cruz-and-house-republicans-pic/

                Besides, I wasn't questioning the meeting anyway. I don't know why the meeting is such a problem for you. After all, Pelosi & Reid bribed Senators with earmarks to vote for Obamacare. A mere meeting shouldn't be an issue. I was talking about the claim that he controlled such meeting.

                1. 0
                  mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Whatever.

                  I have clarified my point. And in fact, and whether you can accept it or not, Joe Scarborough discussed this at length on his program yesterday morning in an article on his "Morning Joe" program.

                  And, whether you can accept it or not, Scarborough was clear on the unconstitutionality of Cruz's action and on the utter lack of precedence for such conduct.

                  Do you know why meeting a Tortilla Coast was not a good idea? Any idea where it is or who frequents it?

                  1. 0
                    SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I'm not saying he didn't discuss it. I'm saying it was discussed because it was brought up by a caller who read the initial Roll Call story. Not saying they didn't have a meeting at all either.
                    His point was: it wasn't a "secret" meeting. It was a meeting. You've proven no point other than my own.
                    There is nothing unconstitutional about it. What is unconstitutional about it? And there is absolutely nothing from Scarborough saying that it was unconstitutional. Show some source that shows that.
                    Given Cruz's comments today, it seems to me the meeting was more about him not attempting to block any deal that came out of the Senate.

    7. Shyron E Shenko profile image86
      Shyron E Shenkoposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Hello Peoplepower73, thank you for this.  Unfortunately, most people believe what the want, no matter what. 
      I read the article and will re-read it.
      Aunt Jimi has a hub that explains Obamacare clearly. I hope that you will read it.
      Thank you for this.
      Your friend Shyron.

  2. 0
    mbuggiehposted 3 years ago

    Thank  you "peoplepower73". Finally facts and reason---and a civics lesson in the process!

    1. peoplepower73 profile image89
      peoplepower73posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Finally a voice of reason.  I believe most of the comments so far are from people who didn't even read the article, they just emotionally jumped on what I said in the introduction to the forum.  I can tell from the tone of their comments.

      1. 0
        mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Thanks you!

        I am rather appalled, as someone who deals with facts and evidence in my work, as to the level of disinformation, misinformation, and willful refusal to deal with the facts and evidence---and perhaps even reality, that permeates much of the Hubpages discussion not only about the current government shut-down, but also about the current administration and its policies.

        It is rather entirely perplexing to me.

  3. 0
    Sooner28posted 3 years ago

    This was a rather disturbing article.  I probably could've guessed the Republicans would try something like this, considering how they also came up with the "starve the beast" strategy.

  4. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

    Republicans could just get out of the way and let us learn from the school of hard knocks: Let China and Russia try to take us
    ... and then we will have a real enemy to fight. 

    A horrible thought, I know.

  5. 0
    Dan Bristolposted 3 years ago

    Socialism will NOT take root here. I'd rather spend the next 20 years fighting in the streets and demonstrating that Leftists are not built for direct confrontation. Not following this, so any death threats I'm about to get for daring to defy libbies will have to go right to my inbox. I use them as material.

    1. Zelkiiro profile image85
      Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Sounds like somebody's upset.

      http://i287.photobucket.com/albums/ll145/Zelkiiro/Forum%20Junk/SquirtleDeal.gif

    2. Cody Hodge5 profile image81
      Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Lol, I'd like to see a Tea Party activist spend even 20 minutes in the streets fighting for something. Of course, that would require a Tea Party activist to actually think for him or herself.

      1. 0
        SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        lmao Funny because it is the far left liberals who are always the ones afraid of fighting and want to take away everyone's guns.

        I'd like to see anyone from the left grow a brain and stop being spoon fed from the biased mainstream media.
        Because, you do realize, that the entire Tea Party thing is a product of MSNBC and not factual at all right? Not saying the Tea Party members aren't all in on the proposal, just that it isn't a case of everyone just bowing to the Tea Party.
        They are just their current scapegoats and helps them make the GOP look like it is fractured in some fashion. If they were so very fractured, they'd have completely caved by now. In fact, probably they wouldn't have attempted it in the first place.

        1. Cody Hodge5 profile image81
          Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Can you create an argument that doesn't rely on talking points?

          Progressives don't want to take your precious guns away. All we want is for some sort of responsible gun policy to be passed.

          1. 0
            SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Well I could create one infers that everyone of a certain mindset lacks any intelligence like you're comment above if that would make you feel better.

            You will note the following words in my statement "far left liberals" which would not be ALL liberals and you can use the word "progressive" all you like, it does not apply.

    3. 0
      Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      A bit dramatic huh?

  6. Jason B Johnson profile image60
    Jason B Johnsonposted 3 years ago

    Bigoted, biased, willfully ignorant. An attempt to lure in the uninformed with fraud and deceit and provoke them to rage.  That is the most favorable thing that could be said of this writing.

  7. lasina profile image60
    lasinaposted 3 years ago

    how are you doing , i am lasina by name and you

  8. 0
    mbuggiehposted 3 years ago

    So...

    Some of the details of the compromise reached in the Senate have been disclosed. My favorite from CNN:

    "Kentucky kickback?: $2.2 billion. That's the amount in additional cash authorized for a project that involved a dam and decades-old locks on a river that flows through Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's home state of Kentucky. Sounds kinda fishy, but a Democratic senate aid and a Republican senator say it's on the level. The aide tells CNN that McConnell didn't push for the project to be included. And Sen. Lamar Alexander, who's a key figure on the committee that oversees what water projects get what money, says he and another senator asked for the cash. He tells CNN's Chris Frates the new money -- which more than triples the original $775 million -- will save the federal government many millions because contracts won't be canceled due to work stoppages. Still, the Senate Conservatives Fund calls the money a Kentucky Kickback."

    1. 0
      SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Personally, I'm not sure why it was included in this particular Bill but I do know the WH has been requesting money for this project for quite awhile. It has been ongoing for 2 decades or better now. When Pelosi says a member of the GOP did nothing wrong, you know they're clean. She'd call them dirty if they sneezed the wrong way.
      Even if it is a kickback of sorts, it's not like the Democrats didn't hand them out like Christmas candy to get the needed votes to pass Obamacare.
      Democrats and the WH are both backing up McConnell that this wasn't a kickback. First thing they've agreed upon in a long time lol

  9. 60
    salah42posted 3 years ago

    Bigoted, biased, willfully ignorant

    http://www.sadasoft.net/3718/dvb-dream.html

 
working