People in WI who supported the Capitol Disruptions back when Act 10 was passed should be reminded of that when they object to Republican instransigence on ACA. I don't see how the two points of view are any different."This is what democracy looks like" was the most prominent of the chants chanted by the Wisconsin protesters in 2011, as they tried to stop the GOP agenda. In the 2010 elections in Wisconsin, the Democrats had not only lost the governorship, they'd lost both houses of the legislature. That is, they didn't even have the power base of one legislative chamber — as the GOP today has in Congress — and yet they believed that their cause was founded in democratic principles and they were willing to do everything they could to prevent the state government from proceeding to implement policies of the party that had decisively won the elections.
This is what Democracy Looks Like, indeed.
I would love a Journolist to ask a Democratic Politician this very question when they complain about Republicans: Back in [2011], when Wisconsin Governor Walker passed anti-Union legislation, Democrats did everything they could to slow implementation. Did you think that was a good idea?
३ ऑक्टोबर, २०१३
A question for Democrats who are complaining about GOP obstructionists in Congress.
MadisonMan, in the comments here, says:
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
९९ टिप्पण्या:
And, there's a bit of distinction between the "obstruction" the House is doing (offering alternatives -- completely within the rules that govern how the houses of congress and the branches of government are to interact) and having legislators leave the state (country?) in order to prevent a quorum from being achieved.
Apparently Democrats don't really like democracy.
When they say "democracy" what they really mean is tyranny.
Honesty would clear up a lot of confusion.
The House Republicans are doing what they are supposed to do.
It is right there in the Constitution; if the Admninistration wants to spend money, it has to ask the House for authorization, and if the House does not believe in the purposes for which funds are requested, it is not supposed to grant them.
it's only bad when Republicans do it because Republicans are bad. Everyone knows that!
Very apropos topic, Ann, thanks for posting it.
I have a legal question for you. Given the many breaches of presidential responsibility, are there appropriate grounds for impeachment yet? If so, who is allowed to file for impeachment? Why hasn't anyone fled yet? Is it simply the black pres thing that no one will support impeaching or do his transgressions not rise to that level yet?
So now both sides understand civil disobedience. Sounds fair. I guess we’re not as different as we think.
This Wisconsin example demands from partisans a sense of history that only goes back a few years.
Liberty as a product of budget impasse goes back centuries, if not millennia. The power of the purse has ever been a check on the power-hungry.
My reaction to the shutdown is not how extreme and awful it is. Rather, think how wonderful it is that we live in a country where political power struggles are hashed out in the form of budgets rather than mobs and firing squads.
Mike and Henry,
This is not done yet, though the Republicans have little appetite for speech of impeaching the president, given their experience with Billy Jeff and the current idea that impeachment is only for actual felony criminal behavior.
However, I think several present administration officials indeed could be subject to impeachment (Pigford, "Fast & Furious," IRS, etc., etc.), and if this administration keeps pushing, it may well come to that for some of them at least.
I am a Democrat, and I definitely am not complaining about GOP obstructionists in Congress. In fact, I think most loyal Democrats hope the Republicans keep doing exactly what they're doing. Please GOP...more Ted Cruz!
*sigh* If it seemed like republicans had a plan I would be behind them, but as Jonah Goldberg points out republicans plan seems to consist of #1. Shut down government,. #2. ????? #3. Win!
Whether the Wisconsin Democrats did "everything they could" seems quite irrelevant (not to mention inaccurate -- they didn't kill anyone, for example). The question is what they did. They didn't cause a fraction of the economic waste and human suffering the House Republicans have already caused.
The other problem with the analogy is that there has been an election since Obamacare passed, whereas in Wisconsin the voters elected the Republicans in 2010 (just as US voters elected Democrats in 2008) but didn't have a referendum on the specific policy in question until the Walker recall vote. If the Wisconsin Democrats had kept on going after Walker won the recall, they would indeed have been nuts. But less dangerous nuts than the House Republicans.
The gimee dat party is trying its best to hassle the public, the public that pays taxes for services. Better to ground AF One and use that money for the parks.
What about when a minority of the minority withhold putting legislation to vote?
A clean CR would pass this afternoon if offered, but Speaker Boehner does not want to lose his position...so we lose $300 million a day.
What happened in Madison is what Cruz said would happen now...but didn't.
So, what you're saying is, what happened in Madison was right, true, and the correct path to take?
Isn't it more that the president and his party should have had a Plan B for what to do when the House majority says no, we are not going to fund that?
Again, read the Constitution. No House majority in favor, no funding.
There is no equivalence. If they had shut down the government of Wisconsin then I could see a similarity. Government continued to be funded, laws were pushed through both State houses, during the protests after the Democrats returned. They followed the Constitution of Wisconsin and had a recall, they did not hold hostages of the people of Wisconsin because they didn't get what they wanted. Hundreds of thousands of people were not prohibited from working and earning a living.
The Wisconsin ferals were right. That WAS what democracy liked like. Which is why this country has never been, and was never intended to be, a democracy, but a Republic.
So now both sides understand civil disobedience.
Eh...so now normal legislative process is civil disobedience?! They haven't even tried gaming the rules by, e.g., preventing quora or deeming. They just passed a bill that is not to others' liking.
Also...since Republicans have been set against Obamacare since before it was passed, why does it surprise Democrats that Republicans elected after it was passed are still against it? The criticism of Wisconsin Democratic legislators wasn't that they voted one way or the other, but that they were impeding any voting at all.
Voters kept Republicans in the house in the most recent election; your strawman is strawful.
I think it's adorable that Ann proceeds as if she expects intellectual and principled consistency on the part of the left.
The only "principle" the left has is increasing it's power.
It doesn't matter what they said yesterday or last week or last month or last year or 20 years ago.
History begins anew each day for them. Whatever cudgel can be used today to gain additional power, even if it is in direct contradiction to something they said 5 minutes, is happily wielded without a scintilla of shame or even the sense that they need to explain the inconsistency.
This is nothing new and will never change.
@AF
'.. They didn't cause a fraction of the economic waste and human suffering the House Republicans have already caused. ...'
Yeah, 'economic waste' and 'human suffering' LOL
"...and if the House does not believe in the purposes for which funds are requested, it is not supposed to grant them."
The let the full House vote on a clean CR and we'll know.
"We're not going to be disrespected, We have to get something out of this. And I don't know what that even is."
Brilliant
machine: What about when a minority of the minority withhold putting legislation to vote?
A clean CR would pass this afternoon if offered, but Speaker Boehner does not want to lose his position...so we lose $300 million a day.
Are all your comments self-refuting?
Inga dear,
do you ever listen to yourself?
It is not the House doing all those things in order to get their way, but the Administration, because those are the weapons they have.
The House has passed any number of bills funding all those things; they just do not fund "Obamacare," because that is the weapon the House majority has.
All according to Hoyle.
AF,
The other problem with the analogy is that there has been an election since Obamacare passed, whereas in Wisconsin the voters elected the Republicans in 2010 (just as US voters elected Democrats in 2008) but didn't have a referendum on the specific policy in question until the Walker recall vote.
But the difficulty here is that the Administration has been repealing little and not-so-little bits of the PPACA all by itself (by God knows what legal authority) for some time. The tax on medical devices that the House wanted repealed in exchange for raising the debt ceiling is a provision even Harry Reid called "stupid."
He'll fight to keep it anyway, though. It's the principle of the thing. Bills raising the debt ceiling ought to be "clean," i.e., unsullied by repeal of legislative provisions that practically everyone currently thinks are a bad idea. Cleanliness is next to godliness!
"No House majority in favor, no funding."
We don't know this...Speaker won't bring a clean CR to a vote.
This is about saving the Speakership...at $300 million a day.
Hippies in Wisonsin didn't do this.
human suffering
Yeah, too much of this, like the kids with cancer that Reid doesn't want treated.
Reporter: "”But if you can help one child with cancer, why wouldn't you do it?”
Reid: “Why would we want to do that?”
So, when did the White House and Harry Reid let anything get voted on in the Senate?
That is a weapon they have.
Hagar darling, sweetie, honey. As Machine and others here have said, including me, they could vote on a clean CR, why won't they? Do you ever ask yourself such questions, or would you rather be condescending and rude?
Maybe I'm just incredibly obtuse, and maybe the answer will come to me just as I submit this.
What does CR mean? Continuing Resolution?
Continuing on to what, I suppose is a question I'd ask.
The house has passed numerous bills funding all the things that without present funds are "causing pain and suffering" but intransigent Harry Reid and "I shouldn't have to offer anything" Obama won't allow a vote on those measures.
So back to you Inga and Machine: Why won't Harry allow a clean vote on the numerous little CRs? This government is too big and complex to try to do Omnibus measures.
I wonder how Big Labor feels about Obama's apparent condemnation of strikes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEHKBqlpYwM
The let the full House vote on a clean CR and we'll know.
Why are you supporting treating individuals worse than you treat big businesses?
I thought you were supposed to be OPPOSED to that.
There is an ACTUAL budget process. CR shouldn't be used in the first place. Reid won't negotiate a budget in the Senate.
As Machine and others here have said, including me, they could vote on a clean CR, why won't they?
Democrats are the ones refusing to fund cancer treatment for kids. Democrats are the ones shutting down private parks and open-air monuments.
Why should the GOP move forward? We want spending cut. Guess what --- it's CUT. Hard. We can easily pay our debt, but those programs that nobody likes --- well, they won't do as well. You'll be amazed at how non-mandatory "mandatory" spending is.
You want spending? Then you might want to negotiate a bit.
Hagar darling, sweetie, honey. As Machine and others here have said, including me, they could vote on a clean CR, why won't they? Do you ever ask yourself such questions, or would you rather be condescending and rude?
The D-controlled Senate could have passed a budget for years, but didn't. Why didn't they?
Also, I love how you passively-aggressively call him condescending after starting your comment by addressing him as "sweetie honey".
After 31 comments, we have learned that according to progressive Althousians:
The party that demands a vote for everything or nothing is the party of moderation and compromise.
The party that continually offers to continue funding items that both parties believe are important while continuing to argue about issues in dispute is the party of obstruction.
The party that is spending extra money to close things that are always open is the party that is not responsible for the problem.
The party that is using its Consitutionally mandated powers to fulfill its Constitutional function is engaging in "civil disobedience".
In-fucking-credible.
The question about the "Continuing Resolution" vote/non-vote is an important one.
And it all goes back to the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. That Act says that if no new budget is formulated we will continue to fund the government on using baseline budgeting.
Spending like the Stimulus Package would not be part of the baseline if a new budget (omnibus or otherwise) were passed. By avoiding a budget vote, Senator Reid has effectively caused what should have been one-off spending to become part of the baseline.
Thus, Senator Reid has not passed a budget. And it is Senator Reid who will not -- because of a law passed at the urging of the murderer Ted Kennedy -- allow the normal budgeting to happen.
Blame shifting only works (note to all you ignorant Leftists) when you are dealing with idiots like yourselves.
Put me some f*ck!n knowledge!!
In 1629 Charles I Stuart raised his standard to make war on Parliament because the House refused to fund his projects.
That did not end so well for Charles I, and in 1650 England became a republic. That did not go entirely well either, so in 1660 the monarchy came back, but in a much subdued form, and no British monarch since have claimed a God-given right to exact taxes without authorization by the House of Commons.
19 times the Democrats asked to have a budget conference, 19 times Republicans blocked the requests. The time for negotiations were before a shut down or after a budget CR. Since when is it good practice to use the American people as hostages in order to get a law, the ACA, nullified? The SC said it was the law of the land and it appears that this is nothing more than another attempt to deny healh insurance to Americans. It is nothing less than shameful and moderates and the left will not forget it. To try to blame the closing of the government on the Democrats is ludicrous.
The NIH can be funded within minutes after a VOTE on a clean CR. Republicans and the TeaParty extremists will carry the blame for this one for years to come. Too bad Boehner is such a coward. He could do he right thing and be the responsible rational face of the Republican Party.
People keep talking about a "clear CR" - but the House has done this already, a really clear CR without funding for Obamacare. You cannot be cleaner than that.
"Since when is it good practice to use the American people as hostages in order to get a law, the ACA, nullified?"
Since when is it good practice to hold children and WW2 veterans hostage in order to fund an unpopular and destructive liberal program?
machine: "A clean CR would pass this afternoon if offered, but Speaker Boehner does not want to lose his position...so we lose $300 million a day."
LOL
Who is "we", and where do you think that $300 Million comes from?
I am a Democrat, and I definitely am not complaining about GOP obstructionists in Congress. In fact, I think most loyal Democrats hope the Republicans keep doing exactly what they're doing. Please GOP...more Ted Cruz!
Be careful what you wish for. That's exactly what the Democrats were saying about Reagan in 1983.
That would be the TeaPublicans that are doing the hostage taking, NOT Democrats, get it right. You can continue to deny this and spin it, but it speaks for itself. 2014 and certainly 2016 will tell the tale.
"The NIH can be funded within minutes after a VOTE on a clean CR."
In short, unless you get funding for Obamacare, you will get children die. Is this right, Inga?
Inga: "That would be the TeaPublicans that are doing the hostage taking, NOT Democrats, get it right. "
Inga: "The NIH can be funded within minutes after a VOTE on a clean CR. "
Sounds like NIH and the children are now the hostages - if GOP does not fund Obamacare, Obama and the libs will let kids die, and refuse to fund it.
Sounds like Inga is the hostage taker, who try to pretend that someone else is doing this.
Spin away, don't get dizzy.
Inga - speaking of spin, Republicans voted to fund NIH. And Reid specifically said that he won't approve this money to save the children. Explain why Reid is not the hostage taker? Why does Reid want to kill the children?
Inga, Citizens United is the law of the land. I see plenty on the Left opposing it.
Current gun rights are the law of the land. The Left wishes to change those as well.
So, what laws of the land are beyond reproach and cannot be repealed? Especially since the party who opposed it and was ignored about it is now being asked to support funding it.
BTW, the Democrats have asked for a budget conference 19 times? For the ONE budget they passed?
Seems unlikely.
Stop with CR's in the first place. They are not budgeting. That is why we have had the stimulus of 2009 spent every single year since then...because CR just says "Well, we'll spend what we spent last year plus some"
Senator Patty Murray asked for a budget conference 18 times since March, blocked by Republicans every single time. Why?
Correction,18 times, not 19.
Walker defused the reaction among voters by behaving as a gentleman. Harry Reid, the National Park Service and the national mall are showing what crude intimidation looks like. They are losing and Walker won. The park service is spending money to impede use of open spaces. It really looks like Fascist Italy in 1930.
Ann,
You're a bit of a language junky and there is an aspect of this government shutdown that I would expect you to address but haven't seen on this website.
Words are being used and left unanalzyed by you.
For example, "hostage" has been used. The Republicans are holding the government hostage to defeat Obamacare. Bombs strapped, terrorist, gun to the head, etc.
I'd love to see your analysis of these words and who they ought to apply to.
Is it a case of projection?
If you want 100% of a thing and I agree to help you with 99%, we have a difference of opinion. If I agree to give you all 99% but you insist it's all or nothing, then who is holding what hostage?
Inga, do you have any independent confirmation of this? Cause you know, quoting a far-left liberal is not sufficient.
And speaking of far-left liberals, the DNC controlled Senate refused to pass a budget for 4 years. Does it mean the GOP now has 4 years to do same? Fair is fair, right?
wow madison man...that sure is 4 pounds of it in a 2 pound box.
would you care to demonstrate how the lunatic fringe in congress compares to what?
you fools keep making the same pan of shitpie and wonder why no one is buying.
Madison Man has been promoted!
GOP senator objects to budget conference committe
""Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) objected Wednesday to a Democratic proposal to fund the government and form a budget conference committee.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) offered Republicans an opportunity to go to conference on a budget after the House passes the Senate continuing resolution (CR) to fund the government through Nov. 15.
“Speaker [John] Boehner can end this legislative shutdown today,” Reid said. “We’re saying we’ll go to conference on anything you want to go to conference on.”"
"This was the 19th time Senate Democrats have asked to form a budget conference committee.
“I am so disappointed that the Republicans are saying 'hold the country hostage' and that’s the place we’re left in,” said Murray, who serves as chairwoman of the Senate Budget Committee."
"Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) offered Republicans an opportunity to go to conference on a budget after the House passes the Senate continuing resolution (CR) to fund the government through Nov. 15."
In other words, funding for Obamacare first, conference second.
Inga, you just proved my point. DNC does not want to negotiate without pre-conditions, acting like PLO.
No wonder, HA, ha. You really want to believe what you want to believe. What about the 18 OTHER times?
Flamen Portunalis FTW!
Inga, I'm not understanding your point.
It appears the Republicans are finally giving the Democrats what they want. A budget conference committee.
Instead of celebrate, they are rejecting it because the Republicans rejected them 18 times before?
This seems a bit childish.
Inga, I quoted the article that you yourself posted here. It's not a question of blind belief. I wonder if you know the difference.
Too little too late. They will "confer" while the federal employees don't get paid and while the NIH is not funded and cancer patients don't get their treatment. WHY wait so long? Why block requests for a budget conference 18 times since March?
Really? It's a darn sad joke, they are playing with people lives. If this is how Republicans do the People's business, no thanks.
"Too little too late. They will "confer" while the federal employees don't get paid and while the NIH is not funded and cancer patients don't get their treatment....
Really? It's a darn sad joke, they are playing with people lives. If this is how Republicans do the People's business, no thanks."
Wait a second, the hypes voted to fund nih and give funding to cancer patients. Reid and Obama refuse to find them. Apparently you have no problem with Obama and Reid killing children if it promotes your agenda. Right?
Harry Reid specifically said, why would he move a finger and save children. Did he make you proud?
Republicans fought to deny health insurance to children with preexisting conditions.
HA... I could ask you the same question, do they make you proud?
"Republicans fought to deny health insurance to children with preexisting conditions. "
Sigh.inga, here is Obama and Reid openly denying money to,cancer patients, but you cannot talk about it. These are children he will die because of th actions of your party.
Why can't you talk about it? What's wrong? Or do you, like Reid, don't understand why it's better to have these children with cancer to get help if it hurts obamacare?
"Republicans fought to deny health insurance to children with preexisting conditions. "
According to Obama, 26 year old men are children. So,s top with dishonesty, and answer why Reid wants those cancer patients to die?
Anyone telling you about how a clean CR would pass, no it would not. A clean CR for a week to further negotiate from was offered to Harry Reid, and he refused it before the shutdown even started.
The votes might be there in the House, but what is the point of passing it if the Senate REFUSES to listen? No, a clean CR is dead in the Senate, per Reid. Democrats need to start seeing what they can concede.
Inga,
The NIH is funded, by the House Republicans. I can see your concerned about that.
Maybe you should call the Democrats who are blocking the NIH from being funded? That seems like the wise thing to do.
Being petulant and saying too little too late isn't going to be much comfort to those who aren't getting the treatment they need.
I'll stipulate for the sake of argument that you're 100% correct that Republicans are horrible people who rejected Democrats 18 times and now it's past the 11th hour.
Finally, the evil Republicans have come around and agree to fund something the Democrats want, which is the NIH, the National parks and D.C.
Why reject that?
Now it's the Democrats who are playing the games. They are saying they will hold up funding for D.C., hold up funding for NIH, hold up funding for our national parks, all things they want, why?
To be petulant, spoiled, little children?
C'mon.
"They will "confer" while the federal employees don't get paid and while the NIH is not funded and cancer patients don't get their treatment. WHY wait so long? "
-- Republicans offered to fund the NIH. Reid almost, word for word, said he didn't care if kids die from cancer.
"Republicans fought to deny health insurance to children with preexisting conditions."
-- Republicans offered multiple alternatives to the ACA that would have covered those with pre-existing conditions. These were ignored during the passing of the ACA.
Honestly, how much do you pay attention to what Republicans actually do?
Inga is either an LIV or a liberal. Obama and his Senate ignore the law and refuse to submit a budget for 4 years. Then they finally do, and when they tell the Republicans to "jump", the Republicans are supposed to say "how high?"
That's what THEY call compromise. I won't tell you what I call it, since this is a family forum.
Matthew, I and every liberal out there are well aware that the Republicans are offering up piecemeal tidbits in order to make themselves look better. It's a ruse.Good grief. Why should Democrats negotiate with hostage takers, I don't mean to demagogue. I simply don't know what else to call it.
Inga: Piecemeal funding of the government is what we've been doing for at least, what, four years? We've yet to pass a real budget, instead using CRs, etc., to pay for things.
Not only that, Obama and Reid signed/passed another piecemeal bill earlier to ensure the Armed Forces were paid.
The argument holds no water. There is no moral reason to disagree to this compromise for the parks and cancer kids.
Inga: When was the last time a hostage taker came out to the police and said: "Here, you can have these three hostages for free, you don't have to give us anything," And then the police said: "NEVER! We won't negotiate with you! You three, get back in there and suffer with the other hostages!"
Even the left's little meme makes no sense. The Republicans are holding no hostages; Reid and Obama are the ones refusing to negotiate so kids are denied cancer treatments.
(Also, appropriation bills in the past WERE separate. Remember farm appropriations? Defense appropriations? The belief that the Republicans are doing something new is historical illiteracy.)
Matthew, the shutting down of the government is not a negotiation tool. Full stop.
Bill Clinton knew how to negotiate.
Inga: Tell that to Reid and Obama. They're the ones who chose to shut the bill down. They were even offered what you say they want: A clean CR to continue negotiations. They rejected it.
It's no wonder that nothing is accomplished between the Parties, just based on the discussion on this thread. It still amazes me that two groups of people can see things so differently.
Inga, you are pure evil. I mean it...
"Matthew, I and every liberal out there are well aware that the Republicans are offering up piecemeal tidbits in order to make themselves look better. It's a ruse."
Saving children makes GOP look good and they passed the budget to save them. DNC understands that saving children would make GOP look good, so they said - nope, no children saving.
In other words, GOP, according to you, are saving children to make themselves look good.
The DNC wants these children to die, because saving them would make GOP look good.
Who is the hostage taker here? you would rather see the children die, than allow GOP look good. That's one cold-hearted bitch, if you ask me.
"It's no wonder that nothing is accomplished between the Parties, just based on the discussion on this thread. "
Agreed. You would rather see children die, then have them live and make GOP look good. You are an evil person, Inga, literally, evil. You want children die in order to achieve your political goals.
Inga, you aren't saying anything other than no.
What is the reason for rejecting funding of things like the NIH, the National Parks and D.C?
The Democrats are just playing into the Tea Parties hands here. The Tea Party would love to defund 90% of the government. They'd love to get rid of funding to PBS, Department of Education, the NIH, D.C., hell, you name it and the Tea Party would love to do away with it.
Who would have thought that i'd see the day Democrats are on the side of the tea party?
Instead, the Republicans, the sane ones anyway, have come out and offered compromise. They've said look, we will fund the NIH, we will fund the national parks, we will fund D.C. Here, here is the money, take it.
And the Democrats have flatly refused.
It boggles the mind.
Inga: We're seeing things differently because you're ignoring the facts, such as that piecemeal funding of the government is normal. You've been led to believe it is abnormal and wrong; it is not. It is how things should and have been done.
HA, it was the TeaPublicans that wanted the government shut down. Have you seen the video from 2010, in which some apparatchik says their goal is to shut down the government and the audience cheers? What the heck do they think was going to happen when the government shuts down? They KNEW the NIH would be shut down, they KNEW federal workers would be furloughed. Tell me WHY they cheered a government shut down, HA.
Because they were planning on using it as a tool to dismantle the ACA. Shame on them, THAT is malpractice, they do not have what it takes to govern.
That is actually quite evil HA. Hold up the mirror.
... Reid was given a chance to avoid the shutdown. It would have given him exactly what he says he wants (a clean CR.)
After... Never mind. You don't want to listen. I'm not wasting any more time with you in this thread.
Good. I'm quite sick of it too. Impasse.
I actually agree with you Inga, it was the Republicans and the Tea Party who wanted to shut down the government.
And now they've gotten what they wanted. And for some weird reason, they've decided to re-open parts of the government, like the NIH.
Why aren't the Democrats jumping on this and saying, "Thanks! Finally!" Instead of keeping the government closed?
Because Eric, it would set a terrible precident, negotiating with "hostage takers". Do we want to run our government like this? What would they hold hostage next?
Inga, Obama has no problem negotiating with terrorists - Taliban, Iran, you name it. But he cannot talk to Republicans, who followed the constitution and decided to defund unpopular Obamacare.
And you said it here - if saving children makes GOP look good, then DNC will make sure those kids die. You said it. Don't deny it. GOP are not hostage takers - you and Reid and Obama are.
BTW, Inga, a few years back Obama called on the Senate to vote against debt extension and he voted against it. Was he a terrorist then? Did Obama set a horrible precedent? Did he try to shut down the country?
And once again, your position that DNC are right to kill children if it benefits them politically - this is plain evil. You said it here, and I cannot tell you how horrible a person you are. Literally, horrible, evil.
HA, quit demagoguing. Or is that all you have? I'm done responding to you.
Inga, it's not demagoguing to tell the truth. And you know this, which is why you refuse t debate the facts.
@Inga:
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. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.
Sen Barack Hussein Obama, 2006, explaining his vote against raising the debt ceiling.
Do explain why you voted for this hostage-taker.
"Blogger Inga said...
Republicans fought to deny health insurance to children with preexisting conditions.
HA... I could ask you the same question, do they make you proud?"
Inga, do you understand what insurance is ? It is a system, begun by Ben Franklin, where people pool resources, to help their members pay for unexpected events, like house fires.
One major problem with Obamacare is that it is prepaid care with all sorts of unnecessary items included.
We could have risk pools to pay for uninsurables without destroying 300 million people's insurance.
High deductible insurance for young people would be cheap. Obamacare costs thousands more with the same deductibles.
There are things called "Budgets" that used to be submitted to Congress to establish priorities for spending. There has been no budget since Obama took office. The Constitution says spending bills originate in the House. The House has passed Appropriations bills, just as it has for 200 years. The Senate refuses to consider them.
Who is shutting down the government ? The people who are passing appropriations bills or the ones refusing to consider them ?
Gabriel Hanna said...
The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit
Change a law passed by congress, signed by the President, and blessed by the Supreme Court as the Law of the Land?
Inconceivable.
Inga -- You are the vocabulary you use. Try reframing your points without the buzz words. You might surprise your brain.
You might also want to work backwards from your premise. Libertarians are happy to point out that all government is based on the gun to the head. A requirement placed on citizens doesn't mean much unless there's a consequence. A consequence doesn't mean much unless there's someone to enforce it. An enforcer is a person with a gun. Tommy Lee Jones, U.S. Marshall.
This is clearly a reductive argument. It is just the same as your "hostage" rhetoric.
All government is hostage taking. Halting government, or some part of government, takes hostage the people who depend on it. Continuing government with insufficient funds, takes hostage a future generation of taxpayers. ALL acts of government inflict an obligation on some set of unwilling citizens. Not all citizens all the time, but nonetheless, some citizens, all the time, are hostage to the abstract ideal.
Such rhetoric is a lovely narcotic. Drink deeply from the well and never wake up.
@marshall
Nicely done.
There was a segment on Fox about a park operated entirely by a private non-profit, but on Federal land, that the Park Service has ordered closed for the duration and threatened the non=profit employees with arrest and prosecution if they do not vacate the premises.
Unbelievable! Or nearly so, except that it happened. And I think they probably thought of it themselves; we won't be able to pin it on the White House.
Inga wrote: "Because Eric, it would set a terrible precident, negotiating with "hostage takers". Do we want to run our government like this? What would they hold hostage next?"
This is really confusing, Inga. This isn't a negotiation, it's a surrender. If hostage takers want to release some hostages, shouldn't we let them?
We all know the Tea Party Extremists in the Republican Party don't want to fund 90% of the government probably. Maybe that number is 99%.
Yet the Republicans have released some of the hostages. They've released funding for the NIH, they've released funding for D.C., they've released funding for the National Parks.
Who in their right mind would refuse that, unless the Democrats don't want funding for those things?
If they do, their refusal is very confusing.
Or, are the Democrats holding those things hostage in order to get Obamacare funded?
Well, thanks Ann for reminding me of this. I guess I forgot about the Wisconsin Democrats refusing to pass unrelated legislation, and threatening to destroy the Wisconsin economy by refusing to authorize the payment of the State's debt.
But ... oh yeah, the reason I forgot about that is because ... IT DIDN'T HAPPEN!
Well, thanks Ann for reminding me of this. I guess I forgot about the Wisconsin Democrats refusing to pass unrelated legislation, and threatening to destroy the Wisconsin economy by refusing to authorize the payment of the State's debt.
But ... oh yeah, the reason I forgot about that is because ... IT DIDN'T HAPPEN!
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा