WEATHER »

The government shutdown is over … till January?

Get your act together, Congress. In unity is prosperity. 17% 25 votes
I'm a nihilist. Let's fall into a debt crisis. 6% 9 votes
Thanks, Tea Party! I see a Democratic House in 2014! 45% 63 votes
The Affordable Care Act makes our debt worse. 15% 22 votes
This nonsense masks real issues. Anyone remember climate change? 15% 21 votes
140 total votes

Vote in this poll »

Comments

Independent Discussion Guidelines

Once again, the Indy gives us an incomplete set of possible choices. Under the Constitution, the House creates the budget and is not required to fund anything in particular, the Senate is to consider and debate the budget and propose compromises, the President is not involved. In this case, the House presented many possible budgets, Harry Reid refused to bring any of them to the Senate floor for debate, and the President attempted to become Legislator in Chief by bullying the Republicans.

The correct answer is that the Democrats, under Barry and Harry, were the root cause of the shutdown.

JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
October 22, 2013 at 10:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh come on JL, the Pres. was hardly "bullying the Republicans"! A small band of united Tea Party Republican fools were bullying the American people, the US Congress, the President, and especially more genuine conservatives in their own venerable GOP. The House already MADE huge budget cuts via the sequester, the Tea Party radicals - unpatriotic Americans, really -- kept insisting on more and on eliminating a LAW that was in existence for over two years (ACA). Get with it, ACA is the law of the land, passed by both Houses of Congress, signed by the Pres., upheld by the Supreme Court, supported by O's '12 re-election... you are disguising the facts, John.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
October 22, 2013 at 11:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

No, DrDan, JohnLocke is 100% correct if you actually paid attention to what was happening instead of listening to MSNBC talking points.

That said, you know what they say.. When they start electing libertarians, you know the ship is about to go down. They hate giving any credibility to libertarian ideas because of their authoritarian nature.. So they often let libertarians win when the ship is about to go down to discredit them. I'm looking for and still hoping for a Rand Paul 2016 victory, and then I look toward working very hard to argue against all of the anti-libertarian propaganda that will follow when the system collapses, which would have never happened if we followed Constitutional, libertarian ideals to begin with.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
October 22, 2013 at 12:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dem. Rep Uses Burning Cross to Spell 'Tea Party'

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/d...

I honestly can't wait for 2014. What will be your excuse then?

loonpt (anonymous profile)
October 22, 2013 at 12:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

loonpt, you should actually pay attention to your own prior comments since you regularly accuse me and others of "listening to MSNBC talking points" -- tired, hackneyed comment, and I've told you more than once I don't own a TV and never watch MSNBC or Fox... try a new angle. Laughing pretty hard at your Rand Paul hopes...where is John Galt?

DrDan (anonymous profile)
October 22, 2013 at 12:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

A bill to open the government could have been passed had Boehner brought it to the floor of the house on Sep 30 - there were enough Republicans to pass it, as was shown on the day of the vote. No question.

The only person responsible for this delay was John Boehner.

This would NEVER have worked, as John McCain said (a fool's errand) and Ted Cruz said beforehand. If the bill had been passed in the Senate (fat chance), the President would not have signed it.

tabatha (anonymous profile)
October 22, 2013 at 1:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What a world it would be if we could incorporate modern technology with Independent, off-the-grid self-sufficiency of days of old and not have our lives so affected by the actions of people thousands of miles away.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
October 22, 2013 at 10:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Bill - do you mean like deficit spending?

Botany (anonymous profile)
October 23, 2013 at 5:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

DrDan, the sequester was originally proposed by Obama to, in his mind, prevent exactly what happened. Didn't work very well, did it...

JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
October 23, 2013 at 9:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

AS reported in Forbes magazine in March 2013:

"None other than NBC’s David Gregory today pressed Obama’s chief economic advisor, Gene Sperling, whether his boss told the truth in the third presidential debate that “the sequester is not something that I’ve proposed. It is something that Congress has proposed.” Sperling finally wilted under the pressure of tough questioning to admit that “yes, in fact, the sequestration was President Obama’s plan.”

On Tuesday February 19, press spokesman Jay Carney admitted “The sequester was something that was discussed… and as has been reported, it was an idea that the White House put forward.”"

JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
October 23, 2013 at 9:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

JL, you will not and apparently cannot accept that ACA is the LAW of the land, all the Republicans' shenanigans were to stop it, and they failed miserably but did succeed in damaging this country they supposedly love.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
October 23, 2013 at 11:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

DrDan you don't have to watch MSNBC to repeat their talking points, you just have to listen to somebody who does watch MSNBC.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
October 23, 2013 at 3:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

DrDan, my last post was about the sequester, not ACA; let's try to keep the discussion linear instead of avoiding valid counterpoints. I do accept that ACA is the law of the land and believe it to be flawed but fixable. The Republicans acted legally, albeit stupidly, at every step, but then, they're not acting much differently than did the Dems during the Bush years. whoever's ox. etc.

BTW, if you don't have a TV, where do you get your news and other info?

JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
October 23, 2013 at 4:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

printed material mostly, JL: WSJ, NYT, LAT, Guardian, Wash. Post, and a variety of internet sources too numerous to list. On computer one can get streaming video of some stuff, I'll watch a Pres. address or specific interview (e.g. some with Netanyahu)... boring for others to list all here. How about your sources, JL?

DrDan (anonymous profile)
October 24, 2013 at 5:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Same as you minus WSJ, Guardian, Post plus The Economist. Dropped Newsweek after they went off the rails.

JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
October 24, 2013 at 9:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Obama has had a LOT of ideas and plans, many of them not implemented. Why because people disagree with them. Or they have been filibustered, and not even made it to a vote.

Sequestration MAY have originated with him, but it had to take votes for it to be implemented. Everyone who voted is responsible. Period.

tabatha (anonymous profile)
October 25, 2013 at 10:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

event calendar sponsored by: