It’s Official — the Republican Party Has Now Become the “American Taliban”

boehner-cruzFor years now, liberals have referred to the tea party as the “American Taliban” for their policies which almost certainly would devastate millions of Americans.  But for the most part I’ve refused to call them that because, while their partisan obstruction was obvious, the comparisons just seemed a little too radical for me.

Well, not anymore.  Not with this continued insistence by Republicans that “Obamacare” be defunded, and their willingness to take down our nation to do just that.

Weeks ago when I heard people like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul talk about a push to shutdown the government to try to force the defunding of Obamacare I figured it would make news — but I thought it was so radical that I wrote it off as their push to set themselves up for their 2016 presidential campaigns.

I never thought it would be taken seriously by “mainstream” Republicans because even they would know it was a horrible plan, right?

Wrong.

It appears now that House Speaker John Boehner is prepared to move forward on a proposal that will fund our government only if Obamacare is defunded.

This in response to repeated comments by the president that he will not, in any way, sign anything that defunds the Affordable Care Act.

So basically what Boehner is saying is that his “plan” to fund our government proposes something that the president has clearly said he will never sign.

In other words, Boehner, and fellow Republicans, are willing to shut down our government (hurting millions of Americans in the process) on some futile attempt to defund something that was passed by Congress, signed by the president and declared Constitutional by our Supreme Court.

And this is just their first plan.  There’s still talk that if this ends up falling through, they’re going to use the debt ceiling vote as another way to try to “defund Obamacare.”

A vote which, if not passed, could send our economy straight into an economic depression.

It’s one thing when these types of things are discussed among the far right members of the Republican party and dismissed by anyone who would even consider themselves someone to be taken seriously nationally, but these ideas are now being fully embraced by the Republican party.

Just think about that for a moment.  A political party that’s willing to crash our economy or shutdown our government to avoid complying with a Constitutionally-upheld law.

And they don’t want liberals to consider them the “American Taliban” or some other form of domestic terrorist?  Not all terrorism involves the killing of innocent people.  Terrorism can be seen as any calculated, and planned, attack on the United States meant to purposefully inflict harm.

Tell me, how is willingly crashing our economy not a “purposeful” act which would harm millions of Americans?  How is shutting down our government not a “purposeful” act to harm our nation?

Because President Obama has made it clear that the law of the land as per our Constitution “Obamacare” will not be defunded.  So if the Republican responses to that are proposals which include it being defunded, they are then willingly threatening to crash our economy or shutdown our government unless “their demands are met.”

And Republicans like Boehner damn well know what either of those actions would cause.  Oh—and neither of these actions would ultimately defeat “Obamacare.”

What if al Qaeda came out said they planned to crash our economy if specific demands weren’t met (say, the immediate withdrawal of our troops in Afghanistan), then after those demands weren’t met—they did crash our economy?

We’d call it a terrorist attack and label them criminals, right?

Yet that’s exactly what many Republicans are pushing for.  A direct attack on our country and our economy if their demands aren’t met.   An attack which would devastate millions of Americans and potentially send not just our economy, but the entire global economy, into a free fall.

So tell me, what’s the real difference?  Because they’re elected officials and not Islamic radicals?  It seems to me that both seem to wish harm on millions of Americans if they don’t get their way, and are willing to go to great lengths to do so.

And if you think the killing of Americans is what makes Islamic radicals that much different, you’re being naive.  Because I promise you, shutting down our government or purposefully crashing our economy will cost — and irreversibly ruin — American lives.

Let’s not also forget that these Republican acts are in “defiance” of a health care law which seeks to provide millions of Americans with health insurance.  How many lives would be lost if conservatives got their way and saw the health care law defunded?

But this isn’t really anything new for Republicans.  Since President Obama was elected in 2008, tea party Republicans and the GOP as a whole have been going out of their way to try to sabotage our economy in hopes that they could defeat him last November.  Of course that plan failed, and now we’re left with these same Republicans now fully embracing the most radical parts of the dangerous tea party agenda.

Or let’s just call them what they really are — domestic terrorists.  People who are willing to go to any lengths, even if it means crashing our economy, to try to force the president to “give in to their demands.”

These people are reprehensible.  My biggest hope is that next November, the American people don’t forget these moments when the Republican party put the lives of millions of Americans in jeopardy simply to try to blackmail the President of the United States.

The fact is that the “extreme” is now the “mainstream,” and because of that I can no longer view these people as belonging to a legitimate political party.  They really have turned into the “American Taliban.”

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • TeaDrinker

    I’d offer you one suggestion, Mr. Clifton. Please keep in mind that a terrorist’s job is not necessarily just to harm people. That might be HOW they DO their job. But a terrorist’s JOB is to spread TERROR. To make civilians so frightened and demoralized that they’ll @!&%$ their pants when commanded to. So I would say that the situation is even worse than you’re saying. Because the tea party’s threats are WORKING. They’re doing exactly what a terrorist is supposed to do– to spread TERROR.

    • Mark Fey

      Killing the nations credit standing is damaging to everyone.

      • Guy_in_Kingston

        America has been broke for several years now. $15 TRILLION in debt and $5 TRILLION in just the last 5 years alone. Another $55 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities….You’re only trying to buy time before the collapse….raising the debt ceiling every few months to buy a few more months. America is only living a few month at a time.

      • D_C_Wilson

        So, let’s vote out the republicans who are creating these artificial crises and replace them with adults who are willing to fix the nation’s long-term spending and funding issues,

      • Guy_in_Kingston

        You have no money to spend…..your at a record debt and even if you raise the ceiling America becomes broke again in a month when the interest payment on bonds is due. You can’t address anything until you get spending under control and pay down some of the debt. America is only living 3 months at a time….hoping to stall the collapse. The best thing to do is let the government stay closed and put that money towards the debt. It is only the dead weight that’s going to be closed anyways and you can’t afford them with record debt.

      • kissyface

        it costs us $220 million every day the gov’t is closed

      • Guy_in_Kingston

        and you believe that? LOL

      • Jim

        You are obviously an idiot!

      • Jeff Moen

        The primary reason this country is in debt is because the republicans instituted tax cuts for the wealthy and then led us into two wars. If you remove these two items we would not be in bad shape. The thing that is not sustainable is the vast economic inequality that exists in this country.

      • gemma liar

        do u think smarmy GUY will actually accept that TRUISM? cmon!! he’s a tea drinking patriot (SEE: anti negro president)

      • JudyBuda

        wake up the DEMON crats are spending us into oblivion

      • gemma liar

        hey!!! its smarmy guy in Kingston!! he has blurted!!! funny how GUY–and all OTHER regressive CRYBABIES– said NOTHING when GW bush-following the FAILURES (long term) of policies initiated by “st Reagan” — sent our country; our housing and our economy rocketing towards the abyss. NOTHING!! ,,,then: VOILA! a black progressive liberal president and HERE THEY ARE!! showing concern for “AMERICA” (NOTE: guy didn’t cry when his new heroes (cruz/lee ET HOC GENUS OMNE) shut down the government over something they would never get thus SCREWING many many hard working AMERICANS….. hey GUY: hows that crow youre eating taste??? want some tabasco?

      • secondlook

        BUNK. When our economy gets stronger it will sure help things. Only these freaks are making darn sure we don’t recover.

    • Adrian

      Terrorists’ “job” isn’t to spread terror; it’s to affect change. Terror for the sake of terror is a psychopath. Terrorists want something to change. They want independence (the IRA, Basque separatists), they want animals freed (animal rights extremists), they want abortions to stop (abortion clinic bombers). They all want something. Terror is a means to an end to an end for them, not the end itself. They can be terrorists without actually causing anyone harm, i.e., by threatening harm. Again, this shows that terror is a tool. In the case of the right, they want to shrink our government, take away our protections, etc.

      And terrorism is really just extortion taken to the extreme. Sometimes done in the reverse order (threat carried out BEFORE demands are given). A mugging at gunpoint is really just terrorism on an individual scale – the threat of violence to change something (e.g., money, watch, phone, from me to you). A bully taking your lunch money is exactly the same, except probably done without a gun. If someone threatens to burn your business to the ground if you don’t pay “protection” money, that’s extortion. It could also be called terrorism, on a slightly larger scale than the mugging example.

      • DAV

        “The purpose of terrorism is to inspire terror.” Terrorists use their techniques not because of valid political beliefs, but because they want to demoralize and frighten their opponents into doing what they are told. The object of terrorism is not “to affect change” it is to terrify people into doing what you want. There is a huge difference. If it were merely to “affect change” it would not be necessary to terrorize people to affect that change. Bullying people into doing what you demand is terrorism, blowing up a building is just bullying taken to extreme.

      • Adrian

        You admitted in your reply that I’m right:

        “they want to demoralize and frighten their opponents INTO DOING WHAT THEY ARE TOLD.”

        The point is that they aren’t committing violent acts for the sake of violence, but to get something to change. They want people to do what they’re told, in your words. Implicitly, this is because they WEREN’T doing what they were told previously. So, in your example, the change desired is for the other people to go from disobedience/noncompliance to obedience/compliance.

        In other words, they want to affect change. Which is what I said from the beginning.

        As for the validity of their beliefs, that’s irrelevant. Whether your objective is something valid (allowing for marriage equality) or invalid (forcing everyone to practice as Muslims), blowing up or shooting people who don’t allow/favor marriage equality, or who don’t practice Islam, are equally terrorist acts.

        If I wanted to do away with guns in the US, I could a) organize, lobby, petition, and vote to pass a constitutional amendment repealing the second amendment and banning guns, or b) blow up gun manufacturers, stores, and owners. Likewise, if I wanted the federal minimum wage to be $15/hr, I could a) organize, lobby, petition, and vote to increase the federal minimum wage, or b) blow up employers who pay less than $15/hr, representatives who vote against increasing the minimum wage, etc.

        Reasonable minds can disagree on the wisdom of eliminating guns or raising the minimum wage that high, but you can hardly say that wanting to do so isn’t a valid belief in either case. But I think everyone can agree that a) is the proper course of action in both cases, and b) is terrorism in both cases. So, terrorism can absolutely be used in support of valid beliefs, though I believe it would be ineffective, and certainly illegal.

      • Marilyn

        A very rational analysis of irrational behavior.

      • Michelle

        Nobody admitted anybody is right.
        And the definitions of “terror” and “terrorist” have changed so much- so ambiguous, so vague. I can’t imagine anybody can define “terrorist,” least of all, the American Government, who purposely leave that word to the interpretation of the person using any given act in order to arrest or detain people. I’d be careful using the term at all, especially because it’s so tenuous, you can be right one second and wrong the next. Which is what happened.

      • Adrian

        Just because DAV didn’t explicitly use the words, “You’re right,” doesn’t mean it isn’t in there. He (she?) argued against my point by using language which means the same thing as my point.

        It would be no different if I said I had spaghetti for dinner, and then he disagreed by arguing that I had noodles for dinner instead. Spaghetti is noodles, and “demoraliz[ing] and frighten[ing] their opponents into doing what they are told” is affecting change.

      • Michelle

        Well, yeah I got what you meant. I just don’t agree. First, I understood you to have said that terrorists use terror to “affect change.” Then you describe terror as a tool to make a change, which is different. So I assume you mean “effect change,” though it wouldn’t matter anyway; because I understand DAV as meaning that terror to get make somebody do something, is not “affecting change,” (or “effecting change”). Not only doesn’t it work but because it isn’t necessary. Terrorists, according to DAV, demoralize and frighten people, then, not because they’re righteous but because they, like bullies, are selfish. He doesn’t believe that the intent has much at all to do with valid political belief (often connoted, as you describe by your examples). I thought that DAV was clear that (s)he does not equate the two. So I don’t see that what DAV wrote and what you wrote to be the same; and if they were, rather than saying, “you’re right,” it would mean simply that you were, essentially, in agreement. You know what, it’s semantical, but DAV thought it was significant. I also think the difference is significant, but that first sentence in my reply, which I find an odd point to argue because in the big picture, it shouldn’t matter what I think at all about if DAV thinks you’re right or agrees or not; was followed by my point, which is that both definitions of “terror” (or “terrorist”) are erroneous. My point is that we can argue all day and night about what terrorism is, because there is no agreed vocabulary around the term or the deed. The reason that it’s so important, is because the definition is left vague on purpose. It’s especially critical when its interpretation by somebody in a position of power (as intended) will have a profound effect upon the structures that inform our culture, that will define what is now thought of as a remarkably unstable future.

    • Cutler Hamilton

      ^Nice.

  • Michelle Gould

    So I simply ask what the meaning of words is or is another question of what is is. The logical thinking has been lost.

  • Grand1

    Perhaps a small group of wealthy progressives will file suit against the Republican leadership if they actually do this and charge them with sedition, reckless and dangerous behavior, conspiracy, and other charges under the RICO Act. I would do it but I cannot afford to even have the papers drawn up. Someone should take the initiative to get a restraining order against Boehner if a vote is allowed and this threat becomes reality.
    Even if it has no chance, at least something is getting done to show these people that their actions are borderline criminal.

    • onewhoknows

      borderline? This is out right treason.
      Treason:
      1. the offense of acting to overthrow one’s government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
      2.a violation of allegiance to one’s sovereign or to one’s state.
      3.the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.

      • Furnaceguy

        You’ve just described President obama!

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Uh, how exactly? Who did he try to overthrow? He was legitimately elected…TWICE.

        He is the sovereign of our state. He was legitimately elected…TWICE.

        Betrayal of trust? He was legitimately elected…TWICE.

        You lost. Get over it.

      • Snuff

        Yes, please Furnaceguy, shed some light here. How did the President commit the high crime of treason?

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        He got re-elected.

      • Snuff

        LOL, welp, there ya go ;-).

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Prove your point or get out of the kitchen, son.

      • Snuff

        Chill! I’m on your side! My previous reply was tongue-in-cheek.

      • Marilyn

        We really DO need a special font for that!

      • Chomper Lomper Tawee

        Don’t feed the Troll

      • Rebecca Anne Inkster

        My guess is blatant, unapologetic blackness and daring to lead.

      • drywaller

        hmm massive voter fraud in election some counties in ohio had 120% of the population vote 99% for obama.

        let americans die then lied about how and why.

        has given weapons to our enemies.

        went to school on foriegn student aid.

        ACA has a tax in it which means it must come from congress not the house the supreme court is just to liberal to do its job there

        why is it wrong for the republicans to say no we won’t do this but just fine for obama to take that exact same stance on the other side of the issue?

      • Scott Stull

        Because Republicans made it very clear that they don’t care about the people. They flatout said in 2008 that they don’t care about anything except saying “no” to anything Obama puts forth. They stopped being a party and started being whiny children. “No! No! No! I don’t want that! NO!”. They don’t even offer compromise. It’s just “No, no no.” If you attempt any form of compromise, or even put forth the very notion that “maybe this is a good idea, even though Obama put it forward”, you get kicked out of the Republican party, called a RINO, and are publicly ostracized. Look at John McCain. I disagree with just about every platform he stood on, and he certainly isn’t the sharpest knife in the drawer, but he at least has the decency to work to compromise and actually do his job. The current Tea Party regime can call themselves “conservative” all they want, but no decent Republican should every try to associate with them. The Tea Party really is the American Taliban, and they’re taking the party of Eisenhower and Lincoln down with them into the books of infamy.

      • MinnesotaConservative

        I’m glad to see that you are so concerned with compromise. Hopefully, the next Republican who proposes changes to, say, Social Security or perhaps the elimination of the Department of Education will have a receptive, compromise-minded audience in persons such as yourself.

        While we are on the subject, please explain how the way that Obamacare was passed reflects and furthers Democratic politicians’ concern for compromise?

      • stephen

        The ACA was nothing BUT compromise. We wanted single payer, universal health care like other civilized countries have, who spend less tax dollars for more care. The ACA was a total compromise using republican ideas, borrowed from the conservative Heritage Foundation and Romney Care in Massachussetts.

      • MinnesotaConservative

        Republicans in Congress, as well as most Americans, did not want the ACA. The legislation was not a product of compromise in any meaningful sense of the word. As you well know, not a single Republican voted in favor of it. President Obama promised a spirit of compromise and governance from the center. This is not what happened.

      • Rebecca Anne Inkster

        Yeah, but the majority of the country DOES want it, so why should the GOP in congress’ wants count more than the staggering number of people that outnumber them? Just because the GOP politicians and the lobbyists want something does NOT mean the whole country wants it!!!

      • Rebecca Anne Inkster

        And if you care about the “spirit of compromise”, when someone extends their hand, don’t stomp on their fingers!

      • onewhoknows

        Yes while we’re at it, please explain how anything could get done in congress if the republican house refused to work with the president since DAY 1?! Congress has a responsibility toward the people and by doing things like blocking the jobs act, repealing tax cuts only for the middle class, allowing corporations to vote, shows who butters their bread. If the govt shuts down, it will be squarely on their shoulders.

      • MinnesotaConservative

        Sure, compromise is a two-way street. It is also true that both parties play political games. But I have not seen efforts by this Administration to really reach out to Republicans in Congress. Instead, I have seen near constant efforts to demonize and it would appear that the political climate has become so poisoned that compromise is impossible. I’m sure that the Republican leadership could have done more to avoid this. Are you really saying that this Administration, and the Democratic leadership in the Senate, bear no measure of blame for the current state of affairs?

      • onewhoknows

        yes. Laws begin in the house. The president has tried to reach across the aisle during his 1st year of presidency but learned quickly they didn’t want to compromise on anything. What followed? EO’s Look up any of the CSPAN videos from 2008..

      • cloudshe

        that’s why this prez has been given the “leading from behind” tag. what compromise has ever been offered the republicans?

      • onewhoknows

        Too many.. ACA was heavily compromised to appease the Reps and then none of them voted for it.. Their agenda was clear from day one. Say no to anything Obama presents or agrees with, even if it’s your idea. I think Obama panders too much to the right..

      • cloudshe

        too many? specifically what? are we supposed to believe this? SOS imho

      • onewhoknows

        Why do I have to do your homework for you? Look it up for yourself..maybe that’s why you’re so uninformed. The original ACA bill is not the same as what was passed. Look it up..

      • cloudshe

        such crap mrknowitall. you make stuff up and can’t explain it then you want others to do your homework. pretty sad imho

      • onewhoknows

        Obama tried reaching out to the right since day one.. if you want proof.. go back and watch any of the cspan videos.. Reps were more concerned on making him a “one term” president..(their exact words)

      • MinnesotaConservative

        I guess we just see things differently. And what is wrong with making him a one-term president? Isn’t that what the other party always wants? If his program was popular, I think Republicans would have suffered in the midterms, Instead, President Obama’s approval is as low as it has ever been, and the ACA, always unpopular, is more unpopular then ever. On what issues do you see the President’s outreach most clearly?

      • MinnesotaLiberal

        More unpopular than ever where? Southern red states who need it the most.

      • Rebecca Anne Inkster

        No, you don’t get to spread the blame around for what ONE side has the lion’s share of doing. You’re like a rapist trying to say the victim is to blame too!

      • Rebecca Anne Inkster

        Why is it the only areas you idiots ever want to “compromise” on are ones which hurt people in need? What kind of a sick bastard is only ever interested in hurting people, oh yeah, the “conservative” kind.

      • Glenn Beck is an entertainer, not a reporter. The House of Representatives is part of Congress and the ACA did originate there. Perhaps you should stick to drywalling.

      • SNG123

        Weapons to our enemies?? -Like Reagan and Bush did right?? Let Americans die?- is that a reference to Benghazi, because that is a non issue as much as Republicans would like it to be. School on Foreign aid, ACA….. what on earth are you talking about? Quit listening to Glen Beck and Alex Jones; like one poster said, they are entertainers, they make shit up to freak people out and make money, that is all.

      • onewhoknows

        Beck admitted to being schizophrenic and bipolar.. Explains alot..

      • qcubed

        He’s MORMON…that’s all you need to know.

      • Rebecca Anne Inkster

        Not all mormons are bad people, maybe bad politicians and pundits…

      • Pipercat

        Was overheard during a tachyon transmission to planet Zargon and his overloard Flimbob saying the following: “Yes, yes a mass amnesia bomb to forget how wonderful bacon tastes to Canadians in a sandstorm!”

      • M Shadows

        LOL voter fraud?!?! Dude voter fraud nowadays is like 0.00013%!!! Thats not enough to win by a landslide like president Obama did. Let what Americans die??? The ones he’s trying to help with the Affordable healthcare act??? Given weapons to our enemies??? If I recall, we never sent weapons to aid the Syrian rebels!!! Dude republicans just “black-track” president Obama, when he arees with some conservative stuff, you guys change your mind to the opposite!! Are you serious dude?????

      • Chomper Lomper Tawee

        Is that you Glenn?

      • qcubed

        Fraud…poppycock. Links for citation, and NOT from a conspiratorial right wing blog.
        Supreme court LIBERAL? LOL…now we KNOW you are high.

        When a radical MINORITY has the power to obstruct ALL work in congress and threaten our nation with default and economic doom…it’s time to start filling the prisons.

      • Rebecca Anne Inkster

        Well shit, if we get to just completely make up total bullshit in our points… The GOP is responsible for putting Sauron in power, creating the Daleks and single-handedly corrupted Anakin Skywalker!!! Obama defeated Voldemort, trained with Yoda, built the TARDIS and saved the crew of the Serenity! And that’s totally shiny by me!

      • Mike

        Obama is not “the sovereign of our state”. He is chief of the executive branch, but that branch is co-equal with the legislative branch. The president is not sovereign.

      • Rebecca Anne Inkster

        Exactly.

      • onewhoknows

        Thank you all.. you beat me to it.. 🙂

      • qcubed

        Oh the fear of the dying rightwing….

      • Rebecca Anne Inkster

        Except he’s doing what the majority of the people want in accordance to the laws and not harming anyone in doing so, but yeah, same thing… ::facedesk::

      • MinnesotaConservative

        Oh, come on. You realize how silly you sound? What law do you think has been violated by Republicans in the House? What actions are you alleging meet any of the definitions of treason that you have supplied?

      • onewhoknows

        did you not see this?
        “2.a violation of allegiance to one’s sovereign or to one’s state.
        3.the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery”
        Do you really think the house is thinking about their state constituents when they want to shut down the govt? Trying to undermine the president and hijacking congress is treachery” Conspiring with Taliban rebels in Syria is conspiring with the enemy.

      • MinnesotaConservative

        Yes, I did see your prior post. It prompted the questions I posed.

        1. Either party could compromise and avoid shutting the government down, so that is a bipartisan issue and a failure by either party would not constitute “treason”. C’mon.

        2. You contend that undermining the President is treason? Is that the job of the opposition party? Didn’t Democrats spend 8 years trying to belittle, damage and, yes, undermine the Bush Administration?

        3. What conspiracy have Republicans entered into with Syrian rebels that warrants the label of “treasonous”? What do you advocate should be done at this point in Syria?

      • onewhoknows

        I appreciate you candor. 🙂 in reference to your questions.. the only compromise the republicans will accept is total defunding of ACA. why not offer alternative solutions? Because they don’t have any. 2. Dems didn’t undermine Bush but I wish they did. Maybe we wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in now. 3. Syria.. we are supplying the rebels with weapons to take over the govt. These rebels are Al qaeda, the same people we are fighting in Afghanistan. Conflict of interest? you betcha!

      • Marilyn

        Disagreeing with the opposing party is one thing. Extorting what you want by holding the country for ransom is immoral and unethical. And very unpatriotic. That is NOT how the government was designed to work. There a little document called the consitution that pretty clearly explains how the government works. If you don’t respect that, how can you possibly call yourself a patriot? Or even an American? There are lots of things wrong in America, but we have a structure and laws and way of dealing with them. They may be slow and at time, frustrating … but that’s the way it goes in a republic. Our form of government — any form of democracy — is slow and clumsy. It’s true here and everywhere that people get to vote. You can’t have it both ways you know. You either want a republic or you want some version of totalitarianism. There really isn’t any other option. Watch “Seven Days in May.” Either the old or new version. Think about what it means. Think hard what kind of message you send when you support dissent by fiat.

      • MinnesotaConservative

        Please identify, with specificity (i) the treasonous actions you allege, (ii) the identity of the traitor, and (iii) the statute that was violated.

      • onewhoknows

        still true.

      • Rebecca Anne Inkster

        Telling the truth a thousand times doesn’t make it a lie, and your party needs to learn that the reverse is equally true!

  • cloudshe

    such crap. the “affordable care act”, since its inception, has universally been known to be a joke, a product of a 2 yr congress/president combo that no one else would EVER pass. pretty telling that the Tea Party is always scorned by liberals; you HAVE to hate them if you want to sell your commie agenda.

    • Pipercat

      It’s not hate, it’s pity…

    • Pat

      To: Cloudshe: Your thinking has been “clouded” by the GOP. Time for you to get your “head out of the clouds”, and stop being delusional about the GOP. They are NOT your friends. (Unless you are one of the top 2 percenters, then I can see why you side with them).

      • cloudshe

        man, i see your point. they are not my friends. now i get it

      • Pat

        So, you are not one of the top 2 percenters, just like I suspected! Maybe you have found yourself enlightened now as to the truth about the GOP. (Stands for “Greedy Opportunist Pricks”!) Glad you got it now!

      • cloudshe

        i DO feel enlightened! those GOP Pricks! why fight government control, don’t they know the Democraps are looking out for all of us, as long as we afford footing the bill (oops)?

      • Pat

        I have no problem taking care of my fellow citizens who are in true need of my help. You obviously are one of those people who would rather let them die! Have fun then when YOU die, you typical, greedy, cold-hearted, selfish Repiglican snake! (oops!)

      • cloudshe

        you really have very little say about who has “true need of your help”. many gov’t programs have failed to produce results despite huge budgets (your money). the mega-legislation ACA is seen as another POS program by many americans, but obama can’t back off for political reasons. so who’s Truth do you believe? is it killing jobs, making health care unaffordable for many, putting grandma’s life at risk, just another bureaucratic money destroyer? why doesn’t obama want to discuss the gripes? all he can do (like you, apparently) is call the gop names. where’s the honesty in that?

    • wilwave

      No cloudshe …the people elected this president on Obamacare ( twice ) and where it’s been implemented the states have shown savings, as well as helping PEOPLE. The Tea Party is willing to screw over the entire country if they don’t get their small-minded backwards way. If you have a problem with competition to the plutocratic collusive health care industry – which has tripled costs to Americans in 10 years – then YOU are the commie. Competition works. Most of the Tea Party can’t even name the parts of Obamacare that they are so vehement about. It’s because the Tea Party are phony dumb asses that are being used by rich folk to keep their corporations as profitable as possible. 90 percent of Americans favor universal background checks but the radical Tea Party republicans blocked it. This makes them a Taliban. Get it ? They also want to make Christianity the state religion, like radical Muslim country theocracies. This makes them a Taliban. Get it ?? They want to block women’s reproductive rights, which Americans are against. This makes them a Taliban. It’s a radical small group that wants to force its backwards control on the majority. I know I’ve used some big words here that you don’t understand, but take your time, look them up, and you’ll be smarter than most Tea Party tools. You won’t reply because like it would require thinking, which the Tea Party is allergic to of course.

      • onewhoknows

        Well stated!

      • Furnaceguy

        And then the people overwhelmingly elected the current Congress on there pledge to get rid of obamacare so that is exactly what they are doing now. And not just America but the entire world knows what a joke it is but obama, like most politicians, is to stubborn to admit his mistake!

      • wilwave

        You mean the rest of the world that has a socialized health system ? Which ones, exactly, think their own system is a joke and want to go back to corporatized medicine? LOL. We are the only modern country that doesn’t have gov backed health care. Turn off Fox News, dude, it’s making you dumb. Or maybe you just made that up thinking everyone is dumb like you and won’t call you on it ?? Congress was elected by dumb people that were scared and used by the republicans…saying Obamacare is the worst thing in the history of the entire world. Scare the dumb, uninformed folk – this is how the rethugs work, and it worked on you.

        Why do you think your own party is calling itself the party of dumb ?? Are you against not getting coverage for pre-existing conditions ? EVERYONE is against that, tool. How about being able to take your coverage with you from job to job? Everyone wants that. College kids keeping family coverage until they are 24, and not the current 18 years old ?? Everyone wants that. Preventative medicine which saves BILLIONS ? Everyone is for that. What exactly are you so against, dumb party member ?

        I’m not calling you personally dumb because you’re a republican, – but because of your dumb comment. Which was dumb. Dummy.

      • cloudshe

        so many words! yet you say so little, and most of it is just dumb personal attack. have you been taking your medicine?

      • wilwave

        you too, cloudshe…what parts of Obamacare do you find so atrocious as to shut down the entire country over it? do you like any of it ? it came directly from Nixon, Bob Dole, and your guy Mitt Romney. But when Obama endorses it, – it’s suddenly bad. This is why republicans have no credibility.

      • cloudshe

        obamacare is a Gigantic government intrusion into our healthcare system. my complaint (having worked for/with various gov’ts at various levels) is how POORLY american government does pretty much ANYTHING. and how much room for corruption there will be for Years while we figure out how this is supposed to work. if you don’t believe the liberals are seeking Complete (and unnecessarily expensive) control over your health, you just haven’t been paying attention

      • wilwave

        Cloudshe, you obviously believe there is no healthcare crisis in America; that prices to biz and families haven’t tripled in 10 years. The country doesn’t agree with you. Competition to the existing mess is an improvement on any measure. It can be fine tuned over time. Unfortunately people that deny reality can’t be fine tuned.

      • cloudshe

        so you’re one of the “never waste a crisis” crowd? how will getting the gov’t intimately involved increase competition? “the country” is scared to death that the ACA is an affront to their pocketbooks and the economy, look at the recent polls and phone calls to representatives. but, hey, the folks who think they’ll be getting something for free will probably agree with you. is that your reality?

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        What “overwhelming” elections. Democrats got more votes in congress than Republicans because of gerrymandering. And the rest of the world has universal coverage, thank you.

      • Nikta

        Ummmm….I believe you have that gerrymandering comment backwards. Please look at the re-districted 2010 maps of Texas, et al.

      • Lenna Hanna-O’Neill

        Actually, that is correct. Dems got more votes, but because the districts were gerrymandered, Reps got the nominations.

      • CJ Schmidt

        No, the people did not elect the current Congress. By the popular vote, Congress should now be under control of the Democrats. The Tea Party only held onto their jobs due to gerrymandering. In short, they rigged the system.

      • CT14

        Actually, Democratic representatives got more than a million MORE votes than Republican representatives. The reason one half of one body of government is run by the GOP is gerrymandering.

      • Chomper Lomper Tawee

        Wow….what a dumb statement!!!

      • cloudshe

        so full of false liberal canards, get it? what does obama know about competition? get it? what about the grass roots legacy of the tea party has to do with the rich? get it? what about your adolescent insults have to do with reality? get it? you repeat the standard liberal bologna and expect to be recognized as a thinker? oh, but obamacare will pay for itself, and you can keep your doctor, and it’s the Right of every american for Other americans to pay for their health care, their sex life, their kid’s meals! funny how you missed throwing out the racist accusations, are you slipping up?

      • Michael Case

        You’re a sanctimonious dooshnozzle. There! That should cover everything.

      • cloudshe

        dang! i must learn to call Republicans snarky names, or folks like you will try to corrupt my karma!!

      • Jessica Mills

        I can’t claim to know everything about the ACA, but I do know that it
        doesn’t take away from competition. I live in Kentucky, and we have
        already started our healthcare exchange, where people can go to choose
        between different insurance companies. Before, there wasn’t a choice,
        and insurance companies could band together on policies that prevented
        people from getting the care they needed. Now, you can choose between
        insurance companies, which encourages competition and could actually
        bring down costs.

        Also, I don’t have a problem paying for other
        peoples’ healthcare or their kids’ meals. Mainly because a lot of
        people, even though they work full time, can’t afford these things. If I
        had my way, jobs would be plentiful and people would make enough money
        to support their families themselves, but there are plenty of
        situations, even then, that could prevent a person from working.
        Sometimes unexpected things happen. People are injured or become ill,
        and they can’t work. Sometimes they have a sick child they have to take
        to the doctor or sit at the hospital with all the time. If you’re ok
        with letting them starve or die, I don’t know what to tell you. That’s
        what’s in your heart.

        As for the Tea Party’s grass roots legacy,
        you really need to dig a little deeper and read about the John Birch
        Society. Their modern incarnation took over the tea party long ago, and they have shaped it into what it is today.
        Frankly, I don’t care what you think and I don’t even know why I’m
        wasting my time. I don’t consider myself to be a liberal. I
        consider myself to be a compassionate person. I think everyone should
        have to work for what they have, but I also think that everyone deserves
        a chance. If people aren’t going to pay enough (and don’t give me that
        crap about job creators and taxes. If so called job creators could, they
        would ship every job to China to save a penny. Only demand creates
        jobs. The people who run businesses will create them regardless of taxes
        or anything else when there is demand. Job creators often create the need for welfare. If you’ve never met a working poor person than you are deeply out of touch) then what do they expect people
        to do? Everyone can’t make good money. Somebody’s got to do the grunt
        work, the service work, the non-skilled labor, but if it doesn’t pay
        enough to afford a doctor’s visit or food, what are people supposed to
        do? I guess your answer is that they should starve or steal or go to a
        church. They shouldn’t ever have sex because they shouldn’t have
        children or birth control. They don’t deserve anything because, unlike
        you apparently, they don’t make enough to get by. It doesn’t matter how
        hard they work or how they’re treated in their crappy service or hard labor jobs.

        Finally, if you think you’re not full of false…I wouldn’t even call them conservative…maybe talk show radio host or Fox news Canards, you need to have a long look at yourself. You should be researching the truth of every thing you hear from them. I do that for liberal sources, and I have found that a lot of the time, they are full of crap too. Truth is not subjective.

      • wilwave

        True! ( true and true ).

      • cloudshe

        well, the opponents of obamacare seem to be all about competition and since it’s been made a federal mandate, much of the coverage restrictions that have held down the costs have now been eliminated. i haven’t heard about any intentions to do away with insurability expansion. i still don’t know why obama’s people have a problem with opening up competition across state lines, or restricting onerous lawsuits that make doctor’s insurance so expensive and add significantly to the insured’s premiums. pelosi and gang did Not want any interferrence in instituting
        these gigantic controls on our health care, because “they know what’s best for us”

        and typically, when liberals talk about “Rights”, they mean “entitlements without responsibility”. so they attack anyone who disagrees with their failed give-away programs. they attack religion because they want the gov’t to have a monopoly on charity. their only criteria for success appears to be “did the taxpayers’ money buy us any votes”. so what’s the PC method of complaining about failed liberal legislation? i don’t see any “charity” in being forced to continually provide for folks who refuse to get their act together. how has “compassion” succeeded in breaking the cycle of poverty in the inner city? do you feel charitable when the recipients of gov’t aid feel it’s their Right to be taken care of by those who work for a living?

        please (!) don’t buy into the crap that somehow entry-level jobs are cheating people out of wages or that they would be better off Without a job than working for Wal-Mart. how is that not Ridiculous in your world? again, you seem to be siding with those who believe that every american is entitled to sex, a family, creature comforts, and a care-free life without obtaining any marketable skills or living frugally enough to save for a better future. maybe one of the best benefits of going to church was being taught how to be happy with everything that God has provided, especially to those living in america. in most cultures you don’t get the benefits of a happy life without some serious sacrifices. in america we want to blame the government when we’ve made bad choices or have had a bad break. how is that the right direction for our country?

      • onewhoknows

        Please tell me more about these “give away” programs you keep mentioning..where’s your proof? I have not read of any “give away” programs. Everything has a price.

      • cloudshe

        ??? how is HHS advertising for food stamp applications (just before the election) or the “a cell phone in every pocket” not examples of this? and Obamacare has a price for those getting free insurance? what price are you talking about?

      • Fed up

        Forget America for a second. It is the right of every human being to not have to die like a dog in the streets. There’s a legal term for reckless indifference to human life that results in death: Depraved-heart murder. And you’re here advocating that more people commit it.

      • cloudshe

        well, there you have it. if you have a negative opinion of obama’s POS ACA you are as bad (or worse) than hitler’s SS death squad members. once the liberals have fully trashed the 1st amendment it will be easy to try and hang subversives like me. okay, you’re smiling now because you believe that’s not a bad idea. and you accuse ME of murderous thoughts? why you commie bastard! (LOL?)

      • Adrian

        Failing to prevent something is not the same as causing it. I’m with you on having a right to not die like a dog in the streets, but comparing it to murder is simply wrong.

      • wilwave

        The Tea Party might have started out as a grass roots movement ( suddenly when Obama was elected ) and suddenly became aware of excess spending in Gov. However since their humble phoney launch the Koch Brothers, who control Fox News, own them, along with 501c PACs that have unlimited funding from corporations. Do some research if you give a shit..but you don’t and won’t because it’s easier to watch Fox News, which has made you such an informed specimen.

        And like any Tea Party tool you can’t name anything you disagree with on Obamacare…..cuz you’re just going along with the other sheep. You don’t like paying for other people’s health care? You already are. Uninsured people raise the rates for everyone else. Having health insurance is a responsibility so your neighbors don’t have to pay your bill. Just like wearing a seat belt or a motorcycle helmet ( in most states )…consider it a tax that you’re already paying.

        Now what do you know about competition that Obama doesn’t ? I bet you’re against alternative energy because Big Oil pays your party to say that…and that’s not competition – it’s lack of competition. Don’t complain about high gas prices. Actually don’t say anything or think as you probably need to stay in your comfy zone as a dumb ass and I’m typing to a turnip.

      • cloudshe

        well, you said it so it must be true, those evil koch brothers! i wonder why the IRS hasn’t had them put in jail. speaking of sheep, have you noticed how all your talking points mimic the standard liberal BS, but of course since you did your Own research, it’s just a coincidence.

        how pleasing that you have sided w/ the Democraps on gov’t control of healthcare, of forcing americans to pay premiums, of requiring doctors to let bureaucrats decide on treatments based on cost and life expectancy. and of course the gov’t will lend such a greater degree of efficiency to the whole process, assured by their track record as top notch administrators, keeping paperwork and fraud to a minimum with their highly competent, nose-to-the-grindstone work force.

        alternative energy? what do YOU know? obama tries to stack the deck through bankrolling unproven technology and psycho-regulating traditional sources. how is that competition? what do you know about ethanol and the politics behind it? how many jobs have been lost because of obama’s phony demonizing of carbon based sources? the coal industry, the drilling permits, the pipeline snafus, the war against Oil. do you know WHY obama has avoided tax increases on gasoline? have you ever worked in the industry?

        actually, i’m a little disappointed with your “research”, but from your adolescent insults, maybe you haven’t finished jr hi yet, so “no problem”

      • onewhoknows

        “obama tries to stack the deck through bankrolling unproven technology” Most people call that R&D.. as a result of his “bankrolling unproven technology”, most every school here in Jersey has or will have solar panels to offset the taxes..

      • cloudshe

        well, i hope you think that was money well spent, because it was all borrowed “stimulus” money that obama has no intention of (or ability to be) paying back. pretty good example of the “free stuff” you libs rely on

      • onewhoknows

        Shows how dumb you are as to how govt works. If there’s a depression, only the govt has the money to spend to get the economy back on it’s feet. And where’s the “free stuff I keep hearing about? I thought that was only for republicans and corporations.

      • cloudshe

        well, what a great excuse for spending money,” it’s for your own good”. is that how gov’t works? i don’t know who you’ve been listening to, but to claim others are “dumb” is a real stretch with that idiotic logic.

      • onewhoknows

        Think about it numb nuts.. If businesses are losing money and they are not putting money back in the economy, whom do you think gets the economy moving again? The govt IS a business and they lower interest rates to free up money and spend it to keep business in business.. Economy 101..

      • cloudshe

        well, airbrain, first off, if you knew anything about econ you would know it’s not “the government” that lowers interest rates. and btw, just claiming that in our history’s Weakest recovery “it would have been worse” without a couple billion stimulus bucks that were blown on questionable issues, don’t make it so. and i would take that bet that YOU complained about Bush’s spending “off the books”, yet here you are preaching that obama’s 5 years of rolling the printing presses is good for the economy. silly stuff amigo

      • I Once Was Andrew

        Yes, the “grassroots” legacy of the tea party, a movement wholly propagated by the Koch brothers.

      • cloudshe

        oooooooo! the evil koch brothers! let’s blame them! everyone knows they’re the dark force of conservatism and own millions of weak tea party minds! them dad gum flag waving, God loving, commie hating racist SOB tea partiers! evil, evil, evil!!!

      • I Once Was Andrew

        Well, at least you’re beginning to understand how weak-minded you are.

      • cloudshe

        us2bandrew, wait! i am NOT a liberal! how did you mistake that?

      • Chomper Lomper Tawee

        I concur with you on that….

      • cloudshe

        did my sarcasm fail? Dang!

      • Chomper Lomper Tawee

        No! Not at all..

    • I Once Was Andrew

      A joke? Tell that to the millions of young Americans who were able to stay on their parents’ health insurance ’til they were 26. Tell that to the millions more benefiting from lower healthcare costs thanks to the free-market (aren’t you people supposed to like that?) exchanges set up by Obamacare. Tell that to the people who would be rejected altogether for health insurance or charged outlandish premiums due to their pre-existing conditions. Tell that to the people who are now covered under the expansion of Medicaid.

      Or just keep telling yourself that this half-measure toward some semblance of equality in the healthcare market amounts to a “commie agenda.”

      • SRNCOIC

        Those 26-year olds should grow up and take care of their own healthcare concerns. You liberals have fostered a “someone-else-needs-to-take-care-of-me-until-I-die-because-I’m-too-inadequate-to-do-it-myself” attitude that is bankrupting the US treasury.

      • onewhoknows

        coming from a man who spent his entire working career on the govt dole.. easy to talk trash when you get automatic raises every fiscal year.. Yes, i’m a vet too..

      • SRNCOIC

        Government dole. You think I just sat around collecting a check? Thirty years of jumping out of airplanes, carrying a 75-lb pack for days, living in 120-degree oppressive heat, seeing my friends injured or dead, living in tent cities, eating crappy food, etc., etc.

        Screw you.

      • onewhoknows

        and screw you for thinking anyone deserves less than you. Is that why you joined? So you can say “look at me” or did you join to “serve and protect” Today we offer more aid to our enemies than to our own..

      • SRNCOIC

        In 1977, I joined because I could TRADE MY WORK ETHIC to learn an occupation and a college education. I worked to become the highest ranking non-com in my command when I retired, with an engineering degree and an MBA, both earned while on active duty. I don’t need government benefits because I was able to parlay some investments into a steady retirement income well below retirement age. So your accusation is baseless and petty. And wrong.

      • CJ

        I’ve got to jump in here and call BS on you, SRNCOIC. You got the biggest government benefit of them all–guaranteed employment, a college education, and a pension (yes you are collecting one after 30 years of “jumping out of planes”, don’t BS us). No one in the private sector can make those kind of guarantees anymore. The big military machine is a guaranteed paycheck and you knew it.. Don’t think that your choice to stay in the military makes you superior to anyone else.

      • SRNCOIC

        I didn’t say I didn’t collect my pension, I said I don’t need it.

        Try to focus on the details instead of playing gotcha…

      • Pat

        If you don’t need it, do the honorable thing and turn it down to be put towards the benefits some other soldier needs! Now that would be honorable!

      • strayaway

        Ron Paul refuses his congressional retirement pension. Do you know of anyone else to add to that list? Social Security and government pensions are supposed to be insurance programs. Do you also suggest that individuals who have paid into private life insurance programs reject payouts out of honor? Why is refusing to accept government pensions, Social Security benefits, or life insurance benefits “honorable”? Please explain.

        Don’t forget that the Clinton-Gingrich budget balancing act deprived a lot of federal workers of most of or all of their Social Security benefits which they had paid into in good faith believing Social Security’s promises. Their Social Security benefits were “re-calculated”. (poof-gone)

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        If you are worth millions or billions, why the hell should you collect Social Security, especially when, if you are worth millions or billions, you call Social Security an “entitlement” and any recipients “moochers and takers.” I won’t get back anywhere near what I paid into Social Security, but if my retirement plans aren’t screwed up again by another Republican-induced market crash, then I’ll forgo my SS benefits.

      • strayaway

        It’s a free Country to the extent that you can refuse the benefits of programs you are forcibly or voluntarily enrolled in. No doubt, you send in more money to than the IRS requests and also refuse your allowable income tax deductions.

      • Pat

        Strayaway: First of all, good for Ron Paul. He obviously doesn’t need it, but I bet if he did need it, he would take it. And secondly, if you can’t figure out how giving money, that you don’t need, to someone who truly does, is an honorable thing to do then you have a real problem. It is honorable to give the money to someone else who needs it, if you are fortunate enough not to need it. This was something that I learned when I was a little kid. I guess you didn’t.

      • strayaway

        Wow, I didn’t realize that I had suggested not giving money that one person doesn’t need, as determined by you, to someone who does. You make keeping money, the law entitles a person to keep, sound like something dirty. The Obama’s are worth about $11M each and send their daughters to a private school that costs $31,500/each/annually. I find nothing wrong with that. Please explain how what you learned as a little kid applies to the Obamas.

      • Pat

        The Obama family was never even mentioned in your earlier question to me, so where are you going with this? Plus, I never said keeping money that is yours is something dirty. I just said that it is “honorable” to give money you don’t need, to those who are less fortunate. Believe me, I learned about compassion, kindness, and generosity at an early age, but I get the impression you know nothing about those traits. How sad for you.

      • strayaway

        Pat, Accusing me of not learning about compassion, kindness, and generosity at an early age without knowing me suggests that you aren’t as nice of a person as you think you are. Thanks for the high-handed empathy though.

        Regarding the Obamas, you wrote, “It is honorable to give the money to someone else who needs it, if you are fortunate enough not to need it.” It made me wonder what your thought of the Obamas’ accumulation of wealth were. I asked you “Please explain how what you learned as a little kid applies to the Obamas.” You chose to duck the question and list your virtues again instead. I didn’t, by the way, state or”say” you “said keeping money that is yours is something dirty.” I wrote, ” You make keeping money… sound like something dirty. ” Those are different words with different meanings.

      • Pat

        Say what??? Are you sure you are not Charles Vincent in disguise? No, probably not, even he makes more sense than you do.

      • QP

        @ srncoic- Hey numb nuts I thought you said you were never in the military and “never was son”? Sooo you are a liar and have 0 credibility at this point

      • SRNCOIC

        Basic reading skill is not one of your strengths, eh? Here’s your assignment: 1) Go back and read all my posts on this thread. 2) Come back and report what you found. 3) Make your apologies and quickly excuse yourself for remedial training. Dismissed.

      • Debra Allison

        Hopefully someday soon there will be a *means test* for Social Security & other funded, or non-funded FEDERAL $$$. If you don’t need it…. you DON’T NEED IT!!! (You have heard about the 2 plus year waiting line behind you, right? Oh, Mr. VET?) But YOU would NEVER, ever be one of those “I got MINE”, now I’m gonna yank up the ladder…. right? Cause YOU do believe in those words of the Constitution. ~~WE~~

      • SRNCOIC

        People pay into Social Security like a pension. It’s not a gift. Some people don’t save for retirement. They, like you, expect neighbors to fund it. That’s irresponsible and selfish. You liberals are generous alright–WITH OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY.

      • Pat

        You tell ’em CJ. I was thinking the same thing. Another self-righteous military employee who thinks he did it all with no help from the government. My Dad served in WWII, he went on to graduate, after the war, from Northwestern University, on the GI Bill’s dollar, and he made sure he told everyone how grateful he was that the government paid for his excellent education.

      • onewhoknows

        It’s neither petty or wrong. I’m also a vet and have worked the civilian market and believe me, the military life is a sheltered one. It’s great that you used the government and tax dollars to get an education to get a leg up. Don’t be judgmental to those who haven’t been as fortunate as you. you are a success story.. how about the disabled vets or widows with kids.. not so fortunate and need all the benefits they can get.. they deserve the help as much as anyone. Govt benefits is what got you your MBA since it was during Active duty.. You can’t claim “righteous” when you yourself have also bellied up to the same table.

      • SRNCOIC

        What part of TRADED MY WORK ETHIC do you not comprehend? And I haven’t even included the high risk for personal injury or death, time away from my family and other factors that I won’t list here.

      • onewhoknows

        oh blah blah blah.. in my afsc i worked as a 461×0, with a sprinkling of 463×0 (and i know you know what that is).. So what? it’s what we signed up to do, no one twisted our arms. People need help in the country to get back on their feet. while you were off in the military, families at home were losing their jobs..

      • CT14

        What part of trading your work ethic for GOVERNMENT BENEFITS do you not understand?

        Your income and your education were paid for by taxes from the public. You were able to get an MBA and move into a higher public sphere because of GOVERNMENT BENEFITS.

        Your work ethic was worth shit without a job, and your job was a tax payer funded job.

        Doesn’t mean it’s not due respect. Just means your successes are and were dependent on GOVERNMENT BENEFITS.

        You’re the opposite of a John Galt.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        1977 was almost 40 years ago. Things changed.

      • SRNCOIC

        True enough. And not for good either. And the blame lies squarely at the feet of liberalism.

      • onewhoknows

        funny.. I blame it on NAFTA, outsourcing of jobs and 2 unfunded wars.. ALL courtesy of the republicans..

      • SRNCOIC

        Job outsourcing is a result of union greed.

        The wars were a necessary evil, started by some ragheads.

      • dieselbug

        ragheads? You sure you want to call the Bush family and Cheney family rag heads? Want to refresh my memory on the WMDs that your guys swore blind were in Iraq? Or the depleted Uranium in Africa?

      • onewhoknows

        and now they’re trying to say the WMD’s went to Syria..thinking we’re too stupid to know Iraq and Syria are enemies.. LOL!!

      • onewhoknows

        No.. NAFTA was created by the Republicans to import more foreign crap. In those days it was the Japanese, Canadian and Mexican markets.. Why pay US wages and deal with OSHA laws when we can get a sweatshop to do the same thing for pennies? the War? Don’t get me started..

      • Outsourcing is the result of greed. It is the result of the very rich deciding they would rather pay slave wages to a foreigner than contribute to the economy that helped them earn their wealth. If you opposed to labor you are a traitor to this country and are unfit to wear a uniform.

      • SRNCOIC

        Maybe you should cross your legs to stop from procreating instead of aborting for convenience.

      • onewhoknows

        the war was bullshit perped by Bush/cheney based on lies.

      • SRNCOIC

        That is the leftwing spin—you got it down pat.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        1977 was 36 years ago. That was then, this is now. Things have changed, and not for the better. You had it lucky (and, yes, I was alive in 1977, in my third year of medical school.)

      • CT14

        You’ve had nothing but government benefits.

      • SRNCOIC

        Hey Cee Tee Fourteen, you’re brilliant in how you can type a complete sentence and add nothing to the conversation.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        You were paid with tax money. You were on the dole. The military is the single largest socialist program in the US.

      • SRNCOIC

        So a policeman is on the dole? A fireman is on the dole? A garbage collector is on the dole? A building contractor building a new courthouse is on the dole? A bridge builder on a highway is on the dole?

        Listen up, Commie, we’re all trading skill and knowledge for money. The source of the money is irrelevant as long as the contract spells out the terms.

        People “on the dole” are not trading effort and productivity for money.

      • onewhoknows

        but they all are socialist programs..

      • SRNCOIC

        Socialism is an economic system characterized by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy.

        The occupations I mentioned are a function of public safety and national security. They don’t directly manage the economy.

      • onewhoknows

        socialism: a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and
        controlled by the government rather than by individual people and
        companies.

      • SRNCOIC

        Yea….we don’t want that. It’s never worked anywhere else and it won’t work here. Eventually you run out of other people’s money.

      • dieselbug

        And trickle-down economics has been a disaster. Let’s meet in the middle, shall we? Try getting Ted Cruz to do that, and the country might be headed in a better direction…..

      • dieselbug

        Your guys want to sequester the federal budget down to nothing. Who pays for the police, firefighters and teachers then? BTW trash collection is almost completely privatized now so you can’t count them. But you don’t need to worry – the Right Wing War Machine will keep the military coffers full for years to come….and take the money from starving, under-educated families to do it.

      • SRNCOIC

        Ummmm…yea….those things are primarily local government budgetary items—not the federal budget. And we want to trim the budget down from a federal monstrosity to the state and local lever where it’s more manageable and region specific.

        National security-the military-is a federal responsibility enumerated by the Constitution.

        The last few words in your comment is pure hyperbole.

      • onewhoknows

        Ok so lets cut down the biggest part of our budget.. Military spending.. both you and I know there’s plenty of waste there. Ok with you?

      • dieselbug

        If they’re local government budgetary items, why did you bring them up as example of federally funded positions?
        I know the constitutionality of the military, but I do not agree that the country needs to spend the disgusting amount of money that it does on “defense”. It’s all about lining the pockets of owners and stockholders of defense contracting companies, not about defending the constitution. Where in your beloved document does it state the the US must go to war with anyone they don’t like, regardless of the ACTUAL threat to the nation?
        The money pumped into the Military-Industrial complex (do you see where I’m going now?) is obscene. We could spend one tenth of the money we currently spend on “defense” and still be as safe, and the government could afford to provide free education through college for those that wanted it. But who would want a better educated populace? Not the GOP. They’d get found out and run out of town.

      • Debra Allison

        The SEQUESTER is hitting the FEDERAL programs that the States have accepted money for; so, many expected increases will NOT happen, many current FEDERALLY FUNDED programs will have to stay at the same level & take a level hit. When you have a GROWING population * that is always running behind. And YES, FAUX NEWS watchers’ would believe that police, firefighters’, teachers, etc., etc… but LOCAL taxes PAY THEIR WAGES. The SEQUESTER was put in place thinking that neither side would want such radical cuts …. but if CUTS are what REPUBLICANS WANT – LET THEM KEEP THIS SEQUESTER!!!

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        You were the beneficiary of the largest socialist program in the US. Everything you got was courtesy of the American taxpayer. Therefore, you were “on the dole.”

      • Grand1

        Soldier, what is it about the preamble to the Constitution you don’t understand? Is it the part about providing for the common defence? Or is it the next part about promoting the general Welfare?
        Seems to me, soldier, that the reason we have a defense budget it to protect the people of this country, not to perpetuate the military.
        You need to look at this nation from a different perspective, soldier.

      • SRNCOIC

        I’m not a soldier there, Son-never was.

        PROMOTING the general welfare is WAY different than PROVIDING the general welfare.

        You need to check a dictionary.

        Hilldale College provides a free class on the Consitution. Seems to me that a refresher course would correct your perspective, Son.

      • Grand1

        I am not going to split hairs over words. Taking care of the people of the country is just as important as protecting them from outside forces. The Constitution is written that way. They had more sense back then. People took care of each other so government didn’t have to. All that changed and now it is all of our responsibility to ensure that elderly do not starve or die from getting a cold. That children are educated so that they can be productive members of society when they grow up. And, yes, when a financial hardship in a capitalist society occurs, that the poor don’t rob you or burglarize your home in order to eat. Man up soldier and assume some responsibilities.

      • SRNCOIC

        No one wants to starve the elderly and under-educate our kids–that’s just lying rhetoric so you can play the heroic liberal. Studies show that conservatives are far more charitable with money and time for the less fortunate. And school districts that are made up of primarily conservatives are usually more well funded and have higher graduation rates.

        You’re one of those cradle-to-grave government dependents who can’t rely on personal responsibility to make it in life.

        It appears that you are the one who needs to “man-up.”

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Conservatives are more charitable until you remove giving to one’s church, something I call “self-serving generosity,” then liberals are more generous.

      • SRNCOIC

        There’s no study that confirms your assertion. Try again.

      • dieselbug

        “No one wants to starve the elderly and under-educate our kids”. But according to the GOP, The government gets to choose whether you live or die because of DEATH PANELS.
        “Studies show” – is that like the goto phrase on Faux News – “Some say”? Cite sources, or it’s not true. And by sources, I mean credible sources – not infowars, breitbart, glenn beck or any other right-wing dogma mouthpieces.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Uh, right. Back then they had slaves, there were a few landowners and the rest were beholden to them. Then there were the Robber Barons of the early 20th century. The Wall Street crash of 1929 that started a great depression and gave us a 25% unemployment rate. The “good old days” never were.

      • Vicki

        Obamacare is not, and I repeat, is not, providing healthcare. It is a law that requires insurers to provide certain benefits, pay out 85% of their premiums as health benefits to their customers, control premium prices, compel them to insure people and children with pre-existing health issues, and much more. As part of the law, funds have been granted to the states that accepted them money to expand medicaid and set up insurance exchanges where people can select an insurance company to provide their health insurance. In this exchange, insurance companies compete with other insurance companies for their business. What’s not to like??? Aren’t Republicans the ones who best like private competition?? Maybe if you took the time to get educated about the ACA, instead of listening to Fox you would learn some things.

      • SRNCOIC

        You played the Fox card? How original is that?

        You keep on believing that, sweetie. Liberals often pass laws without regard to unintended consequences. The CBO has said that almost 30 million Americans will still be without insurance in ten years. That’s the same number that was used to warrant ramming this liberal boondoggle down the throats of the majority of Americans who didn’t want it. If it’s so great, then why is Congress exempt, along with many corporations and unions?

      • onewhoknows

        Because they’re greedy and think they are exempt from the law.. same as the teabaggers who feel they have a right to push their agenda on everyone else.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        THEY ARE NOT EXEMPT FROM OBAMACARE LAW!

      • onewhoknows

        the key words are “they think”..

      • SRNCOIC

        You don’t know what the Tea Party’s agenda is—you’re just parroting that guy Rachel Maddow and the other crazies at MSNBC. Move a little to the right–you may find that you’re not perpetually outraged.

      • onewhoknows

        I want nothing to do with the tea baggers.. i hate everything they stand for. It’s all about them and no one else.. and then claim to be “good christians”…. yeah right! As if Jesus was selfish too..

      • SRNCOIC

        Wow, I’m sorry that you are so misinformed.

      • onewhoknows

        Sorry you’re so brainwashed..

      • dieselbug

        Congress IS NOT EXEMPT FROM ACA. For FSM’s sake, please stop watching Faux News!!!!!!

      • SRNCOIC

        I NEVER watch Faux News, whatever that is….

      • onewhoknows

        now who are you kidding? You’re the mouthpiece for Beck and FOX news. No one could be this full of it without help.

      • Chomper Lomper Tawee

        YOU LIE!

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Promoting and providing are synonymous. You either make things better or you don’t.

      • SRNCOIC

        In the a liberal thesaurus, that may be true but you have to live in the real world now that you’re all grown up.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Yeah, and in my real world, people are better off when we all help each other. No one is looking for a handout.

      • QP

        If you aren’t a soldier then why the sarge bars for your avatar?

      • SRNCOIC

        Not everyone in the military is a soldier. Lemme break it down for you:

        Army = Soldier
        Air Force = Airman
        Navy = Sailor
        Marines = Marine

        No charge for the free lesson. Happy to help.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        And SRNCOIC = Poseur

      • SRNCOIC

        I’ll bet your real name is Richard Edwards, isn’t it? Your family calls you Dick Ed for short?

      • Debra Allison

        SENIORnonCommissionedOfficerInCombatAsAGirlyMan?

      • SRNCOIC

        Ahhhh….sweetie. You goofed it all up.

        Go make me a sammich, would ya please?

      • strayaway

        “General welfare” does not refer to federal welfare as we know it since FDR. “General welfare” is the opposite of “parochial interests”. For instance, imagine that the federal government came up with a program that awarded 40M new customers to insurance companies and guaranteed trial lawyers and kindred liability insurance companies a large percentage of health care dollars. The beneficiaries in this hypothetical program would be “parochial interest” groups. The 10th Amendment also clarifies the meaning of “general welfare”. Even if it meant “welfare” as we understand it today, it would be the individual states’ options to develop Romneycare, single payer plans like those of Canadian provinces, do nothing, or otherwise health care as they see fit.

      • Grand1

        OK, so according to you right wing nuts, welfare isn’t welfare. The 10th amendment is about State’s Rights. States cannot override the federal laws, or are you not familiar with the Supremacy Clause, Article VI Clause 2.

      • strayaway

        I am aware of what the 10th Amendment says. Find the place in the Constitution delegating the federal government the power to run a national health care program. What part of Article IV, section 2 are you referring to? I didn’t suggest that states override federal laws. The 10th Amendment sorts out which powers are delegated to states and the federal government. Neither did anyone state that “welfare isn’t welfare”. A clarification was attempted to discern the difference between the Constitutional term “General welfare” and “welfare” as we know it today.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Find where is says the federal government can’t. And the government is not RUNNING health care. It is PAYING for health care and has been the single largest purchaser of health care in the US since 1965. So, yes, it gets to call the shots.

      • strayaway

        There is no reason to look for things that aren’t there. The 10th Amendment says that the powers of the federal government are limited to those powers delegated to it in the Constitution although more can be added by amendment. 2,300 pages controlling health care is 50 states isn’t “RUNNING health care”? Then what would you call that? Whether or not the federal government has been heavily involved in health care, running executive wars out of Reagan, Bush, or Obama’s Oval Office, handing money to mega-banks, or anything else does not make such things consistent with the wording of the Constitution. When the Roberts Court endorsed Obamacare because it was a tax, even though the Affordable Care Health Plan language specified that it was not a tax, the force of law was, for now, solidified for Obamacare. But there is this other thing, what the Constitution really says, as noticed by some who raise hackles by claiming that there is no such power in the Constitution, that the Affordable care act says it is not a tax, and that the Emperor has no clothes. How do you stop those people from noticing and expressing such things when the our secular priesthood tell us to believe otherwise?

      • pj

        Find me any place in the constitution where it says that insurance companies shall be in charge of what doctor you can see, what hospital you can receive treatment at or what treatment you are allowed to receive. Or where it says your employer will be in charge of what insurance company covers you and can annually change his mind about who that company is. The authors of the constitution could not possibly have foreseen the mess their descendents would make.

      • strayaway

        I agree with your last sentence. Nor could they have foreseen how the Constitution would be so appallingly ignored and overridden. There is no place in the Constitution specifying all the other things you mentioned although the key words are “delegated””powers”. However, and I reiterate, the 10th Amendment leaves such details to the States and people. States can presumably make such rules and we are free to participate in, for instance, union or company health care plans or deal with private insurance companies or take chances.

      • Furnaceguy

        exactly!

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        No, jobs went overseas because CEOs could get people that worked for $3/hr or $3/day. It had nothing to do with “union greed” and everything to do with “corporate greed.” And show me where kids are being taught “social engineering crap.”

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        That was then, this is now. Kids are getting out of college and not finding jobs. Things were a lot better in your time, grandpa, but not now.

      • I Once Was Andrew

        No, it’s more like you conservatives have fostered a “screw you, I’m gonna get mine” attitude that leads to all the wealth being funneled straight to the highest earners while everyone else suffers. “Grow up and take care of your own healthcare concerns” sounds well and good — 20 years ago, when you could get healthcare through just about any employer. These days, many of our nation’s biggest (and smallest) employers skirt the law by employing part-timers to avoid having to give them benefits. “Get a better job,” say you? There aren’t many out there, especially for which people are qualified.

        Personally, I believe that healthcare is a right and that America should have socialized healthcare. It’s just better in pretty much every way than this so-called “free-market” bullshit.

      • SRNCOIC

        There are millions of jobs available for engineers, computer programmers and other science and technology segments. Because of the union greed, manufacturing jobs went overseas and left the low-skill and undereducated to fend for retail, restaurant and menial service jobs. Because of the incest between education unions and the government, children aren’t being taught skills to succeed, they’re being indoctrinated with social engineering crap.

      • I Once Was Andrew

        If you really think that union greed is to blame for outsourcing, you’re goddamn crazy. There’s no competing with the cheapness of third-world labor, and the government has paved the road to outsourcing through things like the Trans-Pacific Partnership and NAFTA.

        Similarly, if you think teacher’s unions — of all things — are preventing children from being taught the skills they need to succeed, you’re off your goddamn rocker. I don’t know where you’re getting these ideas from. If you’re aware just of the most basic facts of public education this country, you’d know that school boards, not teachers, set curricula, and our school boards are locally elected with extremely minimal influence from teacher’s unions. Meanwhile, our teachers, who supposedly have such strong unions, are often brutally underpaid.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        He and furnace guy get them from FOX and Rush.

      • dieselbug

        Because of CORPORATE SHAREHOLDER GREED jobs went overseas – it was nothing to do with Unions.
        But reading your posts I’ve figured you won’t let facts get in the way of your arguments.

      • SRNCOIC

        Corporate shareholders invest (read risk) their capital to fuel business and the economy for profit. Unions should have worked with companies to share profits based on merit instead of with threats. There are many companies where everyone is earning big money based on market demand and not because unions demand it. Detroit is a perfect example of union greed pushing corporations to earn profits elsewhere.

      • dieselbug

        The computer says “No”. The US auto industry almost bankrupted because of corporate greed. They started to acquire other auto companies outside of the US and ran them into the ground (Saab, anyone?) then came crying to the US government for handouts. The unions could not maintain the status quo on worker’s rights and benefits in the US as a result of the focus on bottom line, yet the execs were handing out bonuses and ridiculous dividends as the industry faltered and almost collapsed.
        Yeah, the unions forced the dividends and bonuses. Right.

      • onewhoknows

        Unions tried working with hostess and look what happened.. Greed is greed. corporate profits are at an all time high, CEO salaries are ridiculous yet they don’t want to share some of the profits with those who make it for them.

      • SRNCOIC

        If unions weren’t so militant, then there would be more profit sharing.

        Ever really look at union leader salaries? Average about $250-350K with all the perks. This is money that is often confiscated from workers–by law-and redistributed to union bosses and the pockets of leftwing politicians. Teachers’ unions in Wisconsin are finding that, when given a choice, teachers dump the union 2-to-1 and pocket the dues to use for their personal benefit. They even discovered that one of the unions was gouging members with higher-priced health insurance than coverage on the open market. The union was marking up the monthly costs and filling their coffers with the SKIMMED profits. The local union president was making over $200K a year.

        That’s greed by anyone’s definition.

      • onewhoknows

        manufacturing jobs went overseas because reps allow big corporations tax breaks to outsource jobs. reverse this (as in the job act) and jobs will return..

      • 65snake

        Or the savings for small businesses that already offered employer paid health care as part of their compensation package. While the cost itself has not gone down, the rate of increase has all but disappeared!

      • cloudshe

        more baloney, US2Bandrew. there’s plenty of support in congress to keep the coverage mandates yet eliminate the abusive gov’t interference in forced participation, bureaucratic rationing. and conservatives who backed cost savings through expanding competition across state lines and lawsuit limitations were ignored by democraps. yes, the commies won and are now backpedaling as the real costs of the legislation are becoming realized

      • I Once Was Andrew

        What’s it like, living in a fantasy world as a fully grown adult? Does it really comfort you?

      • cloudshe

        weak, us2bandrew, quite weak and lacking substance

      • I Once Was Andrew

        I already gave you substance. There’s just no point in putting further effort into someone who doesn’t even know what a communist is.

      • cloudshe

        no you didn’t, you ran out of argument, at least intelligent argument. btw there’s a difference between “communism” and Commies, my pinko comrade

      • I Once Was Andrew

        Yeah, there’s a difference between communism and commies — communism is a socioeconomic philosophy, and commies are the people who believe in it. Your usage of “commies” just goes to show that you have no idea what it means to be a “commie” — that to your mind, it’s just a broadly applicable term for liberals of all stripes. It’s fine, the negative connotation totally makes up for the complete lack of accuracy.

      • cloudshe

        so, us2bandrew, gov’t control and redistribution of wealth are NOT commie tactics to achieve their goals? how is that “complete lack of accuracy”? of course we expect a lot of obama apologists to defend his love of country and the constitution, now THERE’s a complete lack of accuracy

    • republicans are evil

      cloudshe, your a joke! another brainwashed sheep. i hope you are wealthy, because if you aren’t, that little kid in your picture will not have to be bankrupted by unpaid medical bills. You are obviously so uneducated and stupid when it comes to universal healthcare. Might i add that the entire planet has a form of it and is doing better than we are. Your just another white, upper/middle class, moron with zero education supporting a party that hates you. You obviously dont care about the world your going to leave that kid in your picture. you lady are the reason this country blows ass. you probably love reagan, and supported the bush wars and doctrine. you are probably the same idiot that rooted for sara Palin. too bad you have no clue what is actually going on!

      • cloudshe

        back atcha, genius

    • Angel Rivera

      It was a Republican idea, so the Republicans are commies. Don’t say that those republicans are RINOs, the fact is that the old republicans might have been greedy, but they drew a line to totally screw over the country if they didn’t get their way. They would have made deals that cover their fears but if its starts working then they would have kept it. If anything its the Tear Party that are RINOs.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Romneycare/Obamacare was originally an idea from the Heritage Foundation in response to Hillary Clinton’s attempt at changing health care. The centerpiece of the HF proposal? The “individual mandate” which the Republicans are now backing away from.

    • dylan

      No one else would ever pass—you mean like the state of Massachusetts did when Romney was governor? Romneycare and Obamacare ARE THE SAME LAW.

      • strayaway

        They are essentially the same law but please read the Tenth Amendment to ascertain if universal health care is a power delegated to individual states or the federal government.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Uh, remember it took the federal government to overturn racist discrimination policies in the South. So SCREW states’ rights.

      • strayaway

        Who was advocating states’ rights? The 10th Amendment just sorts out which powers are delegated to the federal government and which belong to states. Instead of screwing the Constitution, the Constitution can be amended as it was to allow a federal income tax and prohibition.

        Try to be a little more Constitution friendly. When Vermont tried to implement a new single payer health care plan like those of Canadian provinces, the Obamacare people essentially prevented that by requiring that the entire Obamacare package be part of the Vermont single player plan. That prevented the cost reductions in similar Canadian plans which deliver health care for 40% less because they do not include nearly so many lawyers, insurance companies, and bureaucrats to gorge themselves at the health care feeding trough.

      • wilwave

        At least we can control the feeding trough if it’s Gov runned. It can be analyzed openly and changed; appended.. This is NOT the case with the health care industry as it stands. It’s collusion with a 300 percent cost increase in 10 years and administrative costs at 30 percent. Hey…no competition, who cares.

        States rights? The way the savings are obtained besides preventative care are economies of scale and buying power. If all states are in, you get a pretty big savings on the price of a pill – especially when there is free competition to bid to the Gov on that pill from 10 suppliers. Instead of 50 individual bids to states with limited buying power – you got the best price for all – even small states that would have been screwed over get the national price.

        States rights can be a euphamism for I’m a racist or I want everyone to be MY religion or everyone needs to carry guns to school or I’m sad we lost the Civil War and now we’re trying to go back to 1840. We can have, should have, and do have national standards on pollution, safety, public well-being and greater good, equality and everything granted under the constitution ( and amendments ). Affordable Health Care Act falls under ‘ Greater Good ‘.

      • strayaway

        In theory, we can control who is at the feeding trough. In reality, the lawyers, big pharmaceuticals, and insurance companies who wrote Obamacare featured themselves at the trough; no change there.

        Your theory about the national savings sounds plausible but if that were the case, how is it that small countries like Denmark or Iceland with populations comparable to Wisconsin and Wyoming can achieve those cost savings although they are the size of small states?

        “States rights” isn’t an issue with the 10th Amendment. Rather, that amendment deals with the respective responsibility of the the federal government and options reserves for states and the people. To interpret the 10th Amendment as all about states rights sounds like the synopsis of a ninth grade Civics teacher during the week set aside for teaching all about the Constitution on the day he covered the Bill of Rights. Or maybe it’s something a student lecturer at the University of Chicago might have said to dismiss the Constitution as “a charter of negative liberties.”

      • wilwave

        The national savings come from the fact that ..even though they are small….they all can choose the bidder as one. Divide that country into 20 pieces and see what kind of offer each piece would get. 20 pieces together have more buying power than an individual bit. This is how buying groups work in the USA, to a point…individual companies that group together to get a better wholesale price – for all.

        We can adjust and vote for the parts of a national health care system – the lawyers, insurance companies…are all on the table. There is NO chance of that with the current industry, don’t you agree ? If Obamacare is too bureacratic or top heavy…it can change under Hillarycare. tada. Hey didn’t she offer that in ’92 ?

        As far as that states right stuff…just spill it …you want to ban abortion and gay marriage in your state and make guns available for sale at gas stations and church bingo night. Am I right ?

        – it’s ok I’m sure a ton of folk on here agree with you. not me.

      • strayaway

        Good luck on getting all that stuff out of Obamacare with the same cast of characters that wrote it and voted for it. Keep on believing. I get the part of collective savings. I also notice that the province of Prince Edward Island and the nation of Iceland have achieved far better health care savings although one is a tiny province and the other is a tiny nation. Somehow, that is a tipoff to me that there are better ways of achieving savings.

        No, you are wrong on two and a half of the three guesses you made. But why couldn’t Vermont have an affordable single payer plan to replace obamacare? Why dose the FDA let terminal patients die who want to try experimental drugs? Why does the federal government restrict the import of pharmaceuticals being sold at much lower prices? It’s the federal government that has sold out to special interests. Imagine the problems lobbyists would have if they had to spread their efforts across fifty state capitals instead of just focusing on bribing one legislature in Washington. Maybe that’s one of the intents the people who wrote the bill of rights had in mind.

      • wilwave

        Yes, the Bush medicare deal banned imported cheaper drugs. Where is that in Obamacare? Just cuz Bush screwed up …don’t blame all fed programs. And no the folk that wrote the constitution didn’t design it so drug lobbyists would have to go to each state to lobby lawmakers. Are you saying that big corporations wouldn’t go to each state with folk to maximize profits? Billion dollar corporations can send 50 people to each state legislature…and the fact that the states aren’t unified is how the corporations get around regulations and manipulate policy from state to state. Back door deals x 50. I’m confused how you think that a group of anything doesn’t have more control, regulation and buying power than a bunch of individuals.

      • strayaway

        I know it’s difficult for establishment Republicans and any Democrats in Washington and their supporters to acknowledge the 10th Amendment. Such an acknowledgement would destroy the raison d’etre for the existing status quo. It is difficult to accept anything that flies in the face of all that one believes. My wife tells the story of a group of Indians spotting a European sailing ship in the distance for the first time. Only the medicine man saw it for what it was. The rest thought it had to be clouds because they couldn’t even conceive of big ship. I read over the 10th Amendment a number of times myself before I grasped that it said something contrary to what i had alway been taught. i realized though that is was not very limiting because state governments can usually perform hands on tasks like education and health care better than far away Washington. Bush did screw up but I haven’t heard that Obamacare has ended the restrictions on low cost import drugs. I didn’t blame ‘all’ federal programs. It is far easier to use 2,500 lobbyists (your number) to lobby 635 legislators in one capitol working on one agenda than over 7,300 state legislators in fifty capitols working on 50 different agendas. I already explained that small countries and provinces have already beat the prices of our federal government. When’s it supposed to happen? We’ve had Medicare for a long while.

      • wilwave

        The difference between those small countries beating our federal gov pricing is largely because they don’t have huge military spending…either in $$ or percentage of their GDP. I agree that states can perform local tasks and programs more efficiently, quickly, and cheaply. I’m for national standards that affect people’s safety, rights, health and environment. If you leave those decisions up to the states the chance for corruption and incompetency is huge. You also won’t get the same quality planning as Kentucky won’t have the same scientific minds as California, i.e. You don’t want to drive through one state to another and not be sure if they keep their meat out at the fast food store 3x longer than your own state. I don’t want some local group to rewrite the history books for schools or put their particular religion over any other religion. There are local building codes and national building codes, but they have minimum standards. We need a national army and local protection as well. We need a nation for a manhatten project or centralized energy goals, to compete internationally. One crazy candidate in the last election, Newt, wanted each state to have their own NASA program. Holy shit. States would be putting all their resources into just getting a rocket off the ground. The beauty of this country are our varying regions and corners; people and states. All citizens deserve a unified backbone and standards across the land, not a bunch of kingdoms connected by roads – yes highways were a national project, too. States, or governors, that want to secede are largely the biggest neediest welfare suckers in the USA. They just don’t like a black president, science, not being able to make their religion law of their land, etc. I personally believe they are in some kind of guilty collective denial over who they elected in 2000 and how horribly screwed up the country got. It’s like doubling down on dumb…driving the truck deeper into the ditch, not being able to change their ways. Facts are facts and history is history..and if you deny it you don’t have to take any blame for it or evolve. This is why some countries move forward and some seem stuck back in time. It’s a real condition that really exists regardless of whether you accept it or not.

      • strayaway

        Before you were touting the savings possible but never realized in medicine possible if fifty states bargained as a unit. Now you are suggesting that the little countries have an advantage because they don’t blow so much money on their military. I agree that our oversized military and commitments are a drain but don’t see any connection between our military and being able to purchase medicine for less than in those countries.

        A few of the items you listed, military, highways, and science, are addressed to varying degrees by the Constitution as federally delegated. The rest can be addressed by states. You missed interstate commerce which does federally regulate things like meat if it crosses state lines. Eisenhower built the interstate highway system as necessary for defense. I’m surprised Democrats don’t similarly market electric cars and conservation as vital to our national defense to appeal to Republicans.

        Every state has its own speed limits, licenses its own doctors and teachers, has its own alcohol regulations, decides when kids can drive, has its own police forces, etc. and yet we have no problem functioning as a nation.

        There is also a middle road between state programs an monolithic federal programs. Minnesota, for instance has compacts with a number of surrounding states and one province allowing students to attend college at in state tuition rates. Similarly, states accept each others drivers’ licenses. I don’t see what the big deal is about centralized power in Washington. I personally know my state representative if I want to chew him out about something. My Congressman in Washington, by contrast, breezes through with a coterie if staffers dressed fancier than most district residents. He seems to be a resident of Washington who makes his obligatory visits here.

        I live in the upper midwest so I have a much higher confidence in my state government as being more competent and less corrupt than the federal government. We pay high taxes but get relatively good government service and education in return. Still, if the citizens of California want to pay for stem cell research or the citizens of Nevada value gambling, I don’t consider it my business to tell them how to run their states. Why on earth would I unless they came begging for money?

      • wilwave

        Obama has ( had to ) cave in to the republicans on many things and I’m not happy about it…but if he doesn’t change the current ban on imported / cheaper drugs I’ll be further disappointed. But I believe he’s smarter than his predecessors and cares more for the 98 percent as well.

        Maybe Obama assumes everyone knows that alternative energy investment is vital to national security; he might dumb it down a little or sell it better.

        Compacts with neighbor states is a great thing. I’m agreeing with you on these things. I’m just saying that things like stem cell research – which we could have been a leader in right now, like solar panels, is a national priority and not something for Arkansas to have to undertake on its own. If you think California should compete with the entire country of Germany on stem cell research, it’s a losing battle. If we left the big projects to the states we’d never have gotten to the moon, right ?

        Again I’m saying the states rights isn’t something people bring up as a constitutional or legal debate, but because they have their own axe to grind or want to rewind or force their plans on their local folk; whereas they know it won’t fly federally. Whether it is voting rights, pollution standards, gay marriage, gun sales, banning abortion ..or 50 other issues, the local politicians want the power to push that on their people to satisfy special interests groups. You know it’s true.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
        prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
        or to the people.

        Sounds like a lot of leeway there…”to the people.”

      • strayaway

        You or, for instance your union, can buy your own insurance policy, send your kids to a private school, etc. but your State does have the right to set up a health care program if it wants.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        And if your state doesn’t want to, you’re screwed. That is why the Feds are setting up exchanges in places where the states are dragging their heels.

      • strayaway

        No, you are not screwed. The voters of Oregon voted in favor of assisted suicide. The voters of California voted to subsidize stem cell research. MA voters voted for a legislature and governor who put instituted Romneycare years ago. Some states allowed gay marriage well before the federal government. Why wait for the federal government anyway? One can move if another state offers something compelling. Collectively, we can amend the Constitution to do any of these things.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        I’m talking about the recalcitrant states, not the progressive states.

      • strayaway

        I have my own ideas of what is recalcitrant and progressive, probably similar to yours, but if one state wanted to allow, for instance, gambling, private school vouchers, or a single payer health care plan, I don’t think it is my business to impose my will on the people of another state by preventing them form such choices. I assume they can decide such things for themselves. And, yes, the more “progressive’ states would probably opt for a single payer system as Vermont attempted to until effectively overruled by the Obama administration from instituting the single payer plan they wanted.

      • Publius

        That’s a great argument, except that the SCOTUS ruled that the law does not violate the Constitution. You can disagree with their decision, but they get the last word, not you.

      • strayaway

        Absolutely, The Supreme Court ruling is the law of the land until, at least, a ruling is superseded with another ruling. If the Supreme Court ruled that 2+2=5, then that is law. if the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are people, then they are people. If the Surpreme Court rules that Obamacare is legal as a tax although the bill itself says otherwise and chooses to ignore the 10th Amendment, then Obamacare is legal because it a tax.

        Throughout the dark ages, scriptures were kept locked up, written in another language, and it was not deemed necessary or desirable to teach peasants to read. When the Gutenberg press came along, literate people discovered that what the priest class said sometimes had no basis and there was religious revolt against self-serving doctrines. Most Americans don’t care what the Constitution says. Their politicians have little to gain from its enforcement. Still, it is possible that Americans will realize that something is wrong and come to understand that our current secular priestly class has developed self serving interpretations that are contrary to or ignore what is actually written. Then, in theory, new politicians are elected to put other people into our courts who don’t serve corporatist bank bailouts, corporations, wars, and the 1%.

        Some people think that judge Roberts’ freaky tax ruling conversion had to do with some dirt being dug up on him but they have never offered any evidence to support that hunch. My also unsupported guess is that he felt the best thing for the Country was to support the status quo and created a ruling to support his concern.

      • Publius

        I certainly don’t think SCOTUS is immune from terrible decisions. And frankly, I thought 4 justices were right that ACA was valid under the commerce clause. Roberts’ argument was just plain weird. I think he went along with it out of a sincere belief that issues like this should not be decided by a politicized court, but in the legislative sphere. I think he went with the taxation justification, so as to not broaden an already stretched commerce clause argument.

        As to your larger point, it is true that congress and the president (and not just the current ones) have been very casual about constitutional justifications for their actions. We have been in several major wars over the last 70 years, and when was the last time congress adhered to the constitution? Supposedly, the War Powers Act was supposed to rein in presidents going to war on their own, but actually ceded congressional constitutional authority to the president.

        As an extreme leftist, I have been very disappointed that Obama has continued the path of all of his recent predecessors in aggregating presidential power. Whatever ideology people may campaign on to win the White House, once they get there, the ideology of all presidents is presidential power. And they get away with it because they can. Congress and SCOTUS are too deeply divided among themselves to assert their authority.

        I do take issue with your notion that the meaning of the Constitution is clear. Maybe to you, but if it were so clear, there would be no need for SCOTUS. It is in fact maddeningly vague, and deliberately so. The framers themselves strongly disagreed on the very question of the scope of government. So, they left it vague enough that everyone could see in the document what they wanted to see. The idea was that each generation would then have to hash out all the details in the dirty, messy way we are doing now. And hash it is, or maybe sausage.

      • cloudshe

        it’s called DIVERSITY, dylan. massachusetts and the rest of the USA are NOT the same, culturally, economically, demographically. do you think the problems in greece or spain compared to germany are because the southern european countries are not liberal enough?

    • onewhoknows

      Bullshit..It not much different that RomneyCare, Rethuglicans had no problem with that when Romney suggested it during his campaign.. The Teaparty is all about taking down the Black president and not about serving their constituents. If you’re butthurt now, wait until 2014..

      • SRNCOIC

        LOL! Romneycare is 73 pages and The Unaffordable Care act is over 2300. That’s not much difference at all.

        About 2014—it will be a redux of 2010–only better for Republicans. Count on it.

      • onewhoknows

        romneycare covered one state.. OBCare cover the entire country.. You can’t honestly think one size fits all, do you?

      • SRNCOIC

        Of course…that’s the very definition of government in America.

        You’re not too bright are ya?

      • onewhoknows

        So what is it costing the tax payer to have the House vote 40+ times on something that is law? the supreme court, the highest authority we have in the land has said it stands. Congress has already voted and passed it going on 3 years now..the house is wasting time and taxpayer money voting on something that is already passed. this is not about OBCare, this is about supporting ANYTHING that Obama supports. the teaparty is willing to shut down the govt just to try and kill healthcare. Is this really about the people or is it about who’s in office?

      • SRNCOIC

        You should change your moniker to onewhodoesnotpayattention. The American people voted in 2010 to put the brakes on the Federal government taking over our healthcare—that’s how the Tea Party got kickstarted. Apparently they have the skill and the numbers to get the candidate that reflects their wishes. It’s working. Just like the GBLT worked to get legislation in their favor. I don’t like it but a small group is making a difference.

        You can’t always have things your way.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        No, the Tea Party got started by rich folk (Dick Armey) who didn’t want to pay taxes and hated the federal government but realizes there were enough rubes and morons they could convince that Obama was handing out shoeboxes of cash to black people and “union thugs.” That Bush and Co. were spending wildly for eight years previously meant absolutely nothing to them.

      • onewhoknows

        it is you who seems to have smelled the hydrozene one too often. ObAMACARE IS LAW.. as you’ve stated, “You can’t always have things your way.”

      • SRNCOIC

        True enough. But we’re gonna try. 🙂

      • dieselbug

        They had the money and political influence to have districts gerrymandered to ensure they would get elected. And they were calling for removal of incumbents – and I’m sure America will give them their wish next year……

      • SRNCOIC

        Wow, you have really swallowed that whole cock-and-bull about the Tea Party. You’re really gonna choke on it next November.

      • dieselbug

        The TEA Party have greatly benefited from the backing of the Koch brothers, and have landed in gerrymandered districts. That is not speculation, it is fact.
        Ted Cruz and his wingnut friends ran ads recently for the Defund Obamacare campaign, and I saw them. On BBC America. That should show you how dumb they are – they run ads on a channel primarily for UK ex-pats, complaining about government run healthcare. As an ex-pat myself, I found it ridiculous to try and argue against a healthcare system that will guarantee you don’t lost your house because you get Cancer, or a welfare system that guarantees 6 month’s sick pay (at full pay levels) and a job to go back to after you have recovered to an audience that grew up with that security and knowledge.
        The US can keep telling itself it’s the greatest country in the world, but it is not. The system of support and care for those who are sick and needy is pathetic, and the attitude of “screw you , you didn’t work hard enough to be entitled to a life after Cancer” sickens me to my core.
        This could the best country in the world again, and the best first steps towards that are to drag itself up to the standard of EVERY INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRY and provide and health and welfare safety net for those who cannot help themselves, or are suffering with debilitating or terminal illnesses.
        Back to the ad itself – these guys get elected even though they can’t even identify the correct demographic to pitch to – just goes to show there’s more at work to help them…..

      • strayaway

        The US Constitution is about 12 pages long.

      • SRNCOIC

        Excellent point.

      • Vicki

        Not if your party keeps going in the direction it is going – its like watching a slow motion implosion.

      • SRNCOIC

        That’s the same rhetoric we were hearing in 2010.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Yeah, and you overstepped.

      • SRNCOIC

        That’s your opinion. I loved it. Record gains in the House, governorships and state legislatures. We’re winning, you just can’t see it.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        So why is approval of congress in single digits? And those Republican governors like Rick Scott, Scott Walker and Rick Snyder are facing considerable backlash. Besides, you needed to cheat to win.

      • SRNCOIC

        Congress is bi-partisan and share the approval numbers. Most people, right or left, don’t trust the government.

        Scott Walker won a recall fairly handily. So did two other Republicans in Wisconsin.

        The backlash comes from two directions. The left always bashes anyone right of Karl Marx–that’s a given. And true conservatives are less trusting of a moderate Republican because they always give away too much. That’s how the Tea Party is working–to replace RINOs with true conservatives.

      • onewhoknows

        they’re winning by redistrbuting the voters.. CHEATING!

      • SRNCOIC

        LOL! Are you talking about gerrymandering? A process started by Northeastern Democrats that were controlled by unions? It was legal then and it’s legal now. If it’s legal, it’s not cheating.

        Crybaby.

      • dieselbug

        *cough* It is NOT legal *cough*
        But of course when would laws stop the GOP from doing anything?

      • SRNCOIC

        Of course I know it’s not legal—that’s political parlance for “everyone does it.”

      • onewhoknows

        Wrong again.. that was started by the reps and is illegal.
        “Although illegal, gerrymandering is the process of modifying congressional districts to benefit the party in power.
        The term gerrymandering is derived from Elbridge Gerry (1744-1814), the governor of Massachusetts from 1810 to 1812. In 1812, Governor Gerry signed a bill into law that redistricted his state to overwhelmingly
        benefit his party, the Republican Party. The opposition party, the Federalists, were quite upset.”

      • dieselbug

        Oh here we go – Congress works by the gavel of Boehner and his TEA Party cronies, and it’s the Democratic caucus that has to share the blame? Your guys were full of it when the Pelosi was running the show and how Democrats were to blame for everything. Make up your mind which way it’s got to be, because you can’t have it both ways.

      • SRNCOIC

        LMAO! Boehner hates the Tea Party—you’re really not that well informed are you?

      • dieselbug

        If he hates them so much, how come he does everything they want, like threaten to shutdown the government unless the ACA is defunded (which in an of itself could be considered sedition or treason, as has been mentioned by others…)?
        He is as much to blame as Ted Cruz and the TEA party idiots. If they don’t like government, why do they want to be part of it? Hypocrites.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Romneycare applies to one state. Obamacare applies to an entire country. It was also written by lawyers. Ever try reading it, specifically, the portion about “death panels?” The text is actually an amendment to the Social Security act

      • cloudshe

        okay onewhoknowsitall, so massachusetts is representative of the other 300 million americans. and there you go with the racist stupidity. get a brain pls

    • suburbancuurmudgeon

      How so? Millions of uninsured Americans can now get insurance. Kids can stay on their parents’ insurance until they are 26. You can’t be denied insurance for pre-existing conditions and there is no longer a lifetime cap. So where’s the joke?

      • cloudshe

        you really did believe that? the gop has repeatedly offered to keep those parts. it’s the forced participation and bureaucratic meddling in treatment that conservatives want shut down. so typical of the continuation of lies being told to save this abusive and inept legislation

    • Geanene Everson Weathers

      No President has done more for healthcare reform since the inception of Medicare…which IS a federal program. 50 years of suffering, while other countries actually provide for their citizens. At the very least, the Affordable Healthcare Act is a start. I work in the field of billing for hospital MD’s. Does anyone really understand how much a hospital writes off for charity because of the LACK of ANY insurance… for the sake of America, give this a chance. If parts of the program don’t work, change can be made.

      • cloudshe

        well, then you fully know how much is written off for Medicare. i’m glad obamacare happened, it’s a step toward making the future of care brighter, if for the main reason of bringing the problems to the forefront

    • Femfelis

      How is it a “commie agenda” when people will be paying insurance companies for the new healthcare?

      • cloudshe

        well, who exactly controls the Exchanges?

      • cloudshe

        1) the commies are forcing folks to pay for premiums whether they want it or not
        2) the legislation provides benefits for folks who don’t pay into the system “according to their need” by taxing others “according to their ability”
        sound familiar? and it’s just History that tells us how this will turn out. how do you think the “you’re not smart enough to take care of yourself” authorities will handle the Next generation of obamacare?

  • These representatives are violating their oaths of office, and their Constitutional duties. In the United States of America, if you don’t want a law passed, you vote against it. That didn’t work. So, if it passes anyway, you can vote to repeal it. That didn’t work either (40 times now). So then, if you really don’t like the law, you challenge its Constitutionality through the courts. That didn’t work either. At this point in America, you accept the law as duly passed and Constitutionally valid, and your job as a U.S. Representative, Senator – and any employee or elected official of any state government – is to ensure the law is funded and maintained. Period. Failure to do this means you are not doing your job – and technically can be expelled from Congress, or at least censured and not allowed to vote or obstruct the process of government. Democrats, Independents and Moderate Republicans: Do your job. Make it clear that these fascists will not be permitted to threaten America just to gain power for themselves.

    • Pipercat

      Challenge its Constitutionality, that sank in the swamp. Then try to repeal it ad nauseum, that sank in the swamp. Now lets use blackmail to stop it, now be prepared to burn down, tip over then sink in the swamp!

      • Michael Case

        And no singing!

      • Pipercat

        Bloody minstrels…..

      • qcubed

        Let’s not bicker over ‘who killed who’….

    • skiweed

      Now lets just hope that everyone of these dolts are voted out. They all want to destroy government so they get in there and obstruct and cause chaos and then they tell their constituents, “see the government doesn’t work” when in reality it does work. It is a real shame that more people have caught on to their games. It doesn’t help, either, when you have “journalists” such as Chuck Todd who says it is not the journalist’s job to correct lies from the rethugs.

      • Renfru

        They’ve jerrymandered their destruction, but sadly, it will lead to a lot of pain for the country. Just look at a map. It’s the Old Confederacy, signing pledges to bankrupt the government, screaming state’s rights! the base? the T Party that is on MEDICARE?MEDICAID and food stamps? they’re to old, too racist and too stupid to see past their ignorance. They will gladly continue to eat Jim Crow,

      • MinnesotaConservative

        I would like to significantly reduce federal spending on entitlements and allow each state to determine for itself how and how much to provide for its own citizens. I am quite concerned with federal spending and with our national debt, and their potential impact on my children. Do these beliefs make me racist or stupid? If so, how.

      • Adrian

        Debating how much to spend, and at which level of government to spend it, is a reasonable debate to have. But threatening to shut down the entire government or default on our debts if you don’t get your way is nothing short of extortion. It’s fairly analogous to the difference between negotiating with your boss for a raise and kidnapping his child and holding it for ransom to get your raise. Maybe you deserve a raise, maybe you don’t, but kidnapping and ransoming a child isn’t the way to go about it. Likewise, maybe we spend too much, or maybe we don’t, and maybe the federal government is stepping on the states’ toes, or maybe it isn’t, but holding the entire federal government hostage isn’t the way to go about it, either.

      • MinnesotaConservative

        But how are the parties any different in this case? Couldn’t the Democrats compromise on the ACA just as easily as Republicans can compromise on the debt ceiling? Further, if having the government shut down is such a disaster, aren’t they shooting themselves in the foot by forcing the showdown? One would think that you would want them to persist in this conduct … or do you think a government shut down will somehow damage the country beyond repair?

      • skiweed

        NO. Obama was elected president in part do to the ACA and then re-elected. Studies show that if the ACA is defunded it will increase the debt so why would they compromise on that? IT is the law and republicans are the ones forcing a shutdown and you can twist it anyway you want to but we all know which party is forcing the shutdown and using extortion. Our countries credit rating has already been downgraded due to the republicans shananigans a couple years ago too. BTW, they are spreading lies and misinformation about the ACA in order to get people on their side. They know that once people start seeing the benefits of this LAW people will like it. I have several conservative friends and family and they are already backing off and telling me that they like it due to some receiving rebates and free preventative exams etc. P.S. I’m from Minnesota too, a beautiful democratic state.

      • Adrian

        So, you’re going to argue that the boss with the ransomed child is as much responsible as the kidnapper doing the ransoming?

      • MinnesotaConservative

        No. I’m arguing that (i) if your principal concern is not having the government being “shut down”, then Democrats have just as much control (i.e., they are “bosses” in your scenario, as well) as Republicans, (ii) if your concern is making sure that the ACA is saved, then the President’s statement that he will not negotiate is, at the least, very unhelpful, and (iii) your analogy is inapt. Kidnapping is illegal; a party in Congress exercising its legal powers is just that, legal. If Americans don’t like it, then the people deemed at fault for the shut-down will be punished. Overheated rhetoric about “hostage taking” is not helping to bring the sides together. What exactly do you think is going to happen if the government “shuts down”?

      • Adrian

        You’re arguing that refusing to capitulate to extortion is equally bad as attempting extortion is. It isn’t. There is no way you can say they’re equally to blame for this scenario, if it ends with a shutdown.

        The House is at least implicitly required to come up with a spending bill, since it has to initiate in the House, and since such bills are required in order for our government to function. The President is not under the same obligation to sign it. That’s why he has a veto power, and the House doesn’t. They can choose what to include and exclude from funding, but they have to pass a bill. If they passed a reasonable bill, which made it through the Senate, and then the President vetoed it, we would have a different debate about this. But refusing to fund a duly-passed and enacted law which was upheld by the Supreme Court because you don’t like it is NOT a reasonable bill. If you want to get rid of the ACA, repeal it. THAT is the proper way to get rid of it. Which means the repeal has to pass both chambers of Congress, and then the President has to sign it into law. In this case, because the Senate is majority Democrats, and the President is a Democrat, that won’t happen. Maybe after the 2014 election it could be done, if the Republicans win a super-majority in both chambers such that they could override the President’s veto, but, until then, my opinion is that they have an obligation to fund it. They’ve tried around 40 times to repeal it, and it hasn’t gone anywhere. How much of our tax dollars has doing that over three dozen times cost us?

        As for what will happen if we experience a shutdown? Government employees will go without pay, and may not ever get back-pay for the work they perform, and may be furloughed to an even greater extent than they already are. Benefits, like my GI Bill tuition payment, which I earned for serving in the Marines, may not be funded. Service members may not be paid on the 10/15/13 payday, many of whom are already living paycheck to paycheck. Citizens who rely on government employees will have to wait in longer lines to be seen by fewer employees who have less resources with which to help them. Civil cases in federal court will probably be delayed, because accused criminals have a constitutional right to a speedy trial, so to the extent the courts lose resources, they will have to be directed at the criminal side.

        And it IS hostage taking. The government HAS to be funded. Sure, we can get by for a few days, maybe even a couple weeks, but it eventually HAS to be funded.

        Last, if they think the ACA is so awful, they should fully fund it and see what happens. If it truly is as awful as they say it will be, then there will be a massive outcry, and those who run on a platform of repealing it will be (re)elected, giving them the majority they need in order to accomplish just that. If, on the other hand, the ACA turns out to be pretty good, roughly the opposite will happen. But the only reason they want to defund it is so that it fails, so they can say, “See? We TOLD you it was a horrible law! Now, let us repeal it!” That’s not fair to anyone. And, if they’re worried they won’t be reelected if they follow that process, then the issue is that they’re more concerned with their own jobs than with helping the nation.

      • MinnesotaConservative

        I am sympathetic to the argument that “fund it and let it drag the democrats down”. But, as I believe the ACA will do great harm, I would rather not damage our nation just to prove a political point. Besides, it is already very unpopular. No, I think the Democrats have initiated this shutdown fight by passing the ACA in the first place without even bothering to work with Republicans. I also find it hard to believe that you would be against such tactics if there were something that you strongly believed in at stake (c.f., Wendy Davis, liberal hero). Let me address your point about funding the government: if the government HAS to be funded, why don’t the Democrats simply dump the ACA and start over on a more bipartisan basis? Wouldn’t such an approach lead to a much more lasting and popular result (e.g., Medicare, Social Security, the Civil Rights Act, etc.)?

        I am sure you know that the deep level of government involvement in such a huge segment of our nation’s economy is deeply distressing to Conservatives and that most of Cruz’s constituents want him to fight the ACA by any means necessary. This is a matter of first principles for Conservatives and Libertarians. I want him to win this fight because I believe many more people will be harmed by the ACA than will be harmed in a shutdown (regrettable as any of the harm is).

        Finally, thank you for your thoughts, and thank you very much for your service.

      • Adrian

        It’s the only fair way to show that a program doesn’t work. You can’t hamstring a program and then argue that, “See? It doesn’t work, just like we said it doesn’t.” It would be like challenging you to a footrace, shooting you out of the gate, winning, and then bragging that I’m the faster runner.

        American has been called the great democratic experiment in the past, which implies that we try things out, monitor the results, and then adjust as necessary. This House refuses to allow that. And, let’s address that the ACA was modeled off of Massachusetts’ healthcare plan, which, in turn was modeled off of the Heritage Foundation’s plan (hardly a bastion of liberal thought), which was offered as an alternative to “Hilarycare.” Why is it that an idea thought up by a very conservative group, and implemented by a conservative governor, is too liberal for the country?

        And, if you believe that “the ACA will do great harm,” but also that a government shutdown, and a failure to raise the debt ceiling, will also cause great harm, isn’t that a bit hypocritical? You’re basically saying, “In order to prevent great harm to this country (from the ACA), we’re willing to inflict great harm upon this country (from the shutdown and debt default), to prove a point.” What sense does that make?

        The ACA may be unpopular, but that’s largely because most people don’t understand it, and have been misinformed by the right. Polls show that the majority of people don’t like the ACA. Polls also show that the majority of people like the constituent parts of the ACA (staying on your parents’ insurance until 26, no denials for previously existing conditions, not being forced to go into bankruptcy because of a catastrophic illness or injury, etc.). There is only one way to reconcile those two opposing opinions: people don’t understand that all those benefits are part of the ACA. So, what’s actually happening is that most people like the ACA, they just don’t realize it. I’ll break it down logically:

        If: A + B + C + D + E + F = X;
        If: voters like A, B, C, D, E, and F;
        Then: voters like X.

        Here, X = the ACA, and A-F = things like remaining on your parents’ policies, no rejection for preexisting conditions, etc. The major premise is true, because it’s defined that way in the statute. The minor premise is true according to polling. Therefore, the conclusion is ALSO true, according to polling, within the margin of error. There is no way to argue otherwise, at least not if we’re going to have a discussion based in reality.

        And in what way have Republicans been willing to negotiate? “We’ll agree to let the government keep running if you agree to give up on what you want.” That’s not a negotiation. What are the Republicans giving up in that scenario? What are they offering to give up? The only way that can be construed as a negotiation is if they actually WANT the government to shut down, in which case you could say they’re giving up shutting down everything else. Is that the case? If that’s the case, then I think the American people have a right know. They (the GOP) were the ones who drew the line in the sand. They can’t then get mad that the President and Democrats aren’t willing to come to their side.

        Are you somehow arguing that the gov’t DOESN’T have to be funded? That government employees, who have relied on their contract of work-for-pay, should just get screwed out of their pay after they’ve already completed their work? That veterans, who have already earned our benefits should be forced out of school because the House is too stubborn to fund the VA which pays our tuition? That our troops should work for free, and still be punished if they decide not to work? Isn’t that called involuntary servitude, i.e., slavery? Most of them would probably continue working anyway, believing that a) it’s the right thing to do, and b) the government will do right by them and give them back pay once things get straightened out, but most of them can only afford to work for so long for free while their bills pile up. At some point, they’re going to say they can’t afford to keep working 8, 12, 16 hours a day for free, that they need to do something else (which actually pays them a salary) because they have bills to pay, and family to feed.

        Dumping the ACA is NOT a compromise. The GOP wants to scrap the ACA, and the Democrats want to keep it. So scrapping it is NOT a compromise – that’s the Republicans getting their way, and the Democrats getting the shaft, i.e., complete acquiescence. An ACTUAL compromise would be someone proposing an amendment to the ACA which could pass both chambers of Congress, and get signed into law by the President. You would know it was a compromise that the majority of people found acceptable because the majority of people would have voted for it.

        Well, I, for one, am not one of Sen. Cruz’s constituents. But I’m sure YOU know that the Senate is controlled by the Democrats, because that’s who the majority of voters in each state voted into office. I’m sure you also know that the majority of voters voted to have President Obama as their President (both in terms of the Electoral College, and the popular vote). I’m sure you also know that, going strictly by the popular vote, Democrats got more votes than Republicans did in House races. What does all that say? It says that the majority of Americans want Democrats in control, including in the While House. It also says that, since the ACA case from the Supreme Court had already been decided, that they knew voting that way would result in keeping the ACA, and that, therefore, that must have been their intention. So, what you’re really saying is that Democrat Senators, and the President, should betray the voters and go against what we told them we wanted them do to, all in the name of satisfying the minority of voters who didn’t get their way?

        And, again, if this level of involvement is so distressing to conservatives, why did they propose it?

      • Rebecca Anne Inkster

        Have you noticed how many instances there have been of people saying they liked the ACA but not Obamacare, not getting that it’s the same thing? The GOP is calling it Obamacare because they know their supporters will be against it because “black man SCARY!!!” If it works as well as it, by all evidence, looks like it will, they will stop calling it Obamacare, guaranteed! They don’t want ANYTHING the people like being associated with any of the following: a non-white, non-male, non-straight, and/or non-“chreestyeen” candidate!!!

      • Rebecca Anne Inkster

        Funny that your sympathetic to it if it drags the Dems down, wishful thinking is fun, huh? The ACA sure WILL do great harm, to your party, because they will be shown for the liars they are. Wendy Davis didn’t use the same tactics even REMOTELY, she stood up and spoke, she didn’t try to hold a gun to the country’s head if she didn’t get her way! And, again, why should the Dems just dump something that will help millions of people in need that the people CLEARLY want when they won the elections BASED on the very thing you want rid of? Compromise isn’t “GOP gets everything they want and the DEMs not only get nothing but have to keep giving things up we ALREADY have every few months to protect the people” You know, things like the Voters’ Rights Act that the GOP members of SCOTUS knocked down so they could bring back Jim Crow laws to let the racist conservative republicans could win easier…

      • Katie B

        But you ARE in favor of damaging our nation just to prove a political point. “Defunding Obamacare” is a political point, and shutting down the government is damaging the nation – and if we default on our obligations on October 17, that will REALLY damage the nation.

        Conservatives: Big fat hypocrites since forever.

      • Rebecca Anne Inkster

        They’re not worried that it will fail, they’re shitting their pants that it will work, as evidence shows that it will, and that we will see them for the liars and idiots they are!

      • Sherri G

        Well SAID!!

      • Rebecca Anne Inkster

        The GOP THEMSELVES have called what they have been doing, for a while now and not just over the ACA, hostage taking. Sorry, but we remember the screwed up stuff the GOP says and does, not just the stuff they WANT us to remember!

      • Ren Chant

        why should the president negotiate a law that has already been in place for years? they have tried to repeal it 41 times. and failed. that is legal, if stupid. shutting down the country is not legal.

      • Reverse this issue – what if a small group of hardcore pacifists decided to obstruct all government operations and threaten the economy and full faith and credit of the United States of America, until and unless all defense spending were completely eliminated from the budget? See how ridiculous this whole spectacle becomes when looking at the problem from the other side?

        The debt ceiling, and paying our bills, are not things that should ever involve any type of compromise. These aren’t policy questions. The nation has spent X amount of money, and has to pay it’s bills. Period. The debt ceiling is how we officially say this is how much we owe. Again, there’s nothing to compromise here. It is simply a statement of the nation’s debt level. And in terms of budgetary and spending policy, as many have noted here, it is perfectly reasonable – in fact, a necessary part of the American process – to argue over spending.

        But using the full faith and credit of the USA as leverage to (1) get all your previously rejected bills passed into law, and (2) to have all the other guys’ duly passed and constitutionally tested laws defunded and overturned, by all reasonable definitions of our constitutional system, should be considered an illegal act.

      • Rebecca Anne Inkster

        EXACTLY!!!

      • Sherri G

        PRECISELY

      • Rebecca Anne Inkster

        Why should they have to compromise on the issue they WON THE ELECTIONS ON??? The people WANT the ACA, it’s ALREADY the law of the land! The Generally Offensive Party lost, now they want to knock over the board and have a hissy fit because they aren’t getting their way and, like the mewling self-absorbed brats they are, they don’t care who they hurt during their little tantrum! Not only that, but they are threatening to seriously hurt the entire country for goals only THEY want, why in the F%$# should they be rewarded for such blatant terrorism???

      • Scaramongus

        The Dems need to compromise because the Repubs declared they should, period.

      • kissyface

        its too late. if we defund Obamacare he economy will collapse anyway because of the billions insurance companies have already invested into it

      • Tony Ramsey

        What you’re failing to understand is that it’s a Constitutionally upheld law. Raising the debt ceiling does not increase spending, it allows us to pay existing debt without defaulting on those debts. They go through this every year or more. We have not been able to pass a budget for 5 yrs. The Tea Party vowed to make Obama a one term president. We see how that worked out for them. Now we need every State with a Tea Party Representative, to make them a one termer.

      • I owe you some money, but I won’t pay you unless you chop your pecker off with a hacksaw. If you reject my ridiculous and completely unrelated demand, I can then accuse you of refusing to compromise. It’s a brilliant tactic… which only works on idiots.

        Long ago, politicians and party leaders spoke of an informed electorate as being the most important thing to any civilization, even if the people become informed and critical enough as not to vote for you. They loved country before party. Today’s Republican politicians seem to love no one but themselves, and their donors…. and people still dumb enough not to notice all their dirty tricks.

      • Scaramongus

        The ACA was the compromise!!!!

      • Marilyn

        Nice explanation.

      • moussetaffy

        Stupid, I would say. States get money from the federal government to run their programs for their citizens.

      • Sherri G

        reduce spending on federal entitlements like Social Security (independent of debt) and Medicare for elderly and disabled? WiC? Head Start? SNAP where 75% of those who receive it are Working Poor, Children, Elderly or Disabled? Special Education, oh yes, lets cut that since kids with disabilities deserve NO education (sarcasm)! Lets get rid of or reduce VETERANS benefits because why should EVERYONE pay for that? Or how about eliminating/reducing the Domestic Violence and Shelter monies so those who have been abused have no place to go with their kids to protect them! WOW!!!!
        Instead of believing the B.S. from FAUX, do your research!! The 24 BILLION DOLLARS wasted by the Tea Party due to the government shutdown would have FED 30+ MILLION people via SNAP! Why don’t we CUT CORPORATE WELFARE, INCREASE TAXES, CUT LOOPHOLES FOR COMPANIES HIDING MONEY OFFSHORE OR MOVING JOBS OVERSEAS….why don’t we cut SUBSIDIES for those Jets and Yachts that those rich folk need to “survive”….
        CHOOSING THE FIRST SET OF CUTS VS. THE SECOND….THAT’S WHAT MAKES ONE STUPID!!!!

      • MinnesotaConservative

        I am concerned with spending on entitlements and I would like to see the federal government shrink and more responsibilities taken up by the individual state governments. Does that make me racist or stupid?

      • kissyface

        that has nothing to do with the debt ceiling. the debt ceiling is to pay our already incurred debts

    • dana5570

      Could you imagine if the Democrats said ok, we aren’t passing a budget unless there is immigration reform, mandatory background checks and gay marriage is legal in every state before we pass your budget? First, that would never happen because Democrats know the word COMPROMISE. You don’t get everything you want all the time. Second, if somehow they did try it, can you imagine the Republicans going ok, sounds good. And their “base” saying that sounds great. It would never happen but that’s what this is like now at this point. They need to put their big boy panties on and deal.

      • wally

        Actually we don’t have to imagine “if the Democrats said” because they have done exactly that many times, in fact Its common practice for both sides to “hold the economy hostage” and since 1979 no one has done it more then the democrats! . And as far as compromise, well better take another look, see right now Obama and Reid refuse to come to the table to even talk about it. But we do know who had the option to keep the government running and chose not to. The money voted by the House of Representatives covered everything that the government does, except for ObamaCare. You cannot blame other people for not giving you everything you want. And it is a fraud to blame them when you refuse to use the money they did vote, even when it is ample to pay for everything else in the government.
        If Senator Reid and President Obama refuse to accept the money required to run the government, because it leaves out the money they want to run ObamaCare, that is
        their right. But that is also their responsibility.

  • Mister_Mean

    I have been saying just this for some time now.

  • republicans are filthy

    charge them all with treason and hang them from a tree in the white house lawn. They are a disgrace to our country and the oaths they took. They make me sick!

    • Leslie Todd

      You have the perfect ” IDEA ” Hang them on the White House Lawn , take plenty of pictures , let Americans know just what happens when Politicians turn to Treason in America , No other Country would put up with this . I understand that its about 80 Tea Party Republicans causing all of this for the last 5 years , The Ultra Right Wing Conservatives that insist on being the Evil Champions of Austerity . Its also a Coup that’s demanding that we let them take over America , We have suffered enough at the hands of the Bush Presidents this is definitely the straw that breaks the Camels back .
      Their strategy is reduce all federal programs except the Military Budget because they all get a kick back on that being GOP owned . They can steal our tax dollar , so the more money the Gov. takes in the more they can put into a foreign bank . they all have secret ,private accounts in this foreign bank , untraceable tax shelters .

  • onewhoknows

    They need to be brought up on Treason! Maybe that will get them to realize we aren’t taking their shit anymore. 2014 can’t come fast enough!

  • anderlan

    I would say we need to find a way for whoever is truly in charge here to save face but it appears that no one is in charge and that saving face for that person means punching himself in it.

  • SRNCOIC

    Very hypocritical to claim to be tolerant and compassionate and then compare your neighbors to murderers that behead their enemies, stone and kill gays, use children as bombs when they’re not raping them and who considers women as a class just above animals

    It’s Democrats who are the obstructionists. Obama can’t take a non-negotiable stance on the debt ceiling and claim he isn’t threatening default. If he wasn’t threatening default, he’d compromise.

    This is how politics is supposed to work, people. You don’t always get everything you want. The majority of people don’t want Obamacare. Neither does Congress, who exempted themselves. Neither do unions. Neither do most corporations. It’s already hurting the economy, forcing company layoffs and reclassifications of full-time people to part-time people. It’s a bad law.

    • onewhoknows

      Lets see.. was obcare passed by congress?, Was obcare upheld by the supreme court? Case closed. Thank you for your service but you have no clue about healthcare when you are retired military on vet benefits.. you’re concern is about the govt cutting your GI benefits, not the rest of us. the majority of america DOES want OBCaRE. Get over it and move on.

      • SRNCOIC

        Passed by Congress, now wanting to be changed by Congress, elected by the people. Case is not closed and you can bet that we won’t move on.

        Polls show that majority doesn’t want it. Look it up.

      • onewhoknows

        no .. wanting to be changed by the teaparty, not congress ..Maybe you should look at the 40+ times it’s been voted on.. what were the numbers? This is nothing more than obstructionism and is considered treason. No one cares if you budge or not, 2014 you will be a non issue. Why isn’t congress working on more important issues like JOBS?!

      • SRNCOIC

        It isn’t Congress’ job to create jobs.

        Treason is a big scary word to you progs but has zero relevance in legislating and politics.

        Obama has broken numerous laws but you’re cool with that….

      • RRuin

        You’re so misguided, ignorant and silly it should be funny. But its not funny because you truly believe this swill you spew.

      • SRNCOIC

        I’ll bet you say that to all people who have more common sense than you do.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        You have NO common sense. I’m surprised you can breathe and walk at the same time.

      • onewhoknows

        name some..

      • SRNCOIC

        Disobeyed a federal court order to allow drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, appointed labor board members while Senate was still in session, approved Fast & Furious and got people killed—jeez we could do this all day.

      • onewhoknows

        Drilling when they were still investigating the cause of the oil spill? not too smart is it?

      • SRNCOIC

        You arguing with a federal judge? Wasn’t my decision. I expect the judge heard both sides and made a decision based on information from smart people.

        Amirite?

      • onewhoknows

        not with these judges.. ( who were probably bought and paid for by the republicans.)

      • SRNCOIC

        And you probably are clueless since you used the word probably.

      • onewhoknows

        based on past actions.. I would say so..

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Yeah, it is when it was the government’s (read: Bush’s) fault the economy collapsed.

      • cloudshe

        why isn’t/hasn’t obama been working on JOBS? he’s the one with all the resources (and czars)

      • MrLightRail

        Bills are supposed to originate from the House, you know, that shithole full of teabaggers?

      • cloudshe

        is that really how federal legislation is enacted? although spending bills must Originate in the house, they can be suggested or introduced through the president or members of the senate. it’s not like we’re counting on the house to be the supreme brain of the land

      • onewhoknows

        because presidents don’t create jobs.. Congress does.. remember the vote by the jobs act in 2011 that Obama tried to get passed thru congress and the reps shot down? Ask YOUR republican congressman!

      • cloudshe

        because obama’s idea of a Jobs act is to let congress give him 3/4 Trillion bucks to blow on his favorite “vote democrap” giveaway schemes and add to the debt. . what part of the jobs act did you think would be money well spent?

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        SOME in congress. Not congress as a whole. We still have majority rule, and the majority wants Obamacare, more so when you tell them the benefits and don’t refer to it as Obamacare.

    • Vicki

      The only compromise your party wants is to defund Obamacare, OR they shut down the government. Sounds like extortion and blackmail to me.

      • SRNCOIC

        Goes both ways, sweetie.

      • onewhoknows

        what’s interesting is you’re against obamacare because it will affect your tricare benefits but could care less about anyone else’s benefits. “Cut their benefits, just leave mine alone, right?”

      • SRNCOIC

        Not at all.

    • dieselbug

      His stance is he will not repeal a law without a veto proof vote. Go get it, and he’ll have to sign it. Can’t do it? STFU.
      The majority of people have been greatly misinformed regarding the ACA – mostly by those who seek to profit from the misery and suffering of those who would benefit from it.
      THIS IS HOW POLITICS WORKS. You write a law, vote on it, pass it, sign it and (if necessary) test the constitutionally in court. Once all that has happened, it becomes law. Move on to the next law.

  • alpha1

    i simply hate 99.99% of the repulican party

    • MinnesotaConservative

      Why? And why do you not hate the remaining .01%?

      • onewhoknows

        They can actually think for themselves, research and make valid observations..

      • MinnesotaConservative

        Thank you for the half answer. In any case, isn’t “hate” a bit strong of a feeling for people with whom you simply disagree? And what would you say is a valid observation made by .01% of Republicans?

  • Jimmy

    These Republicans are horrible. Just because they despise Obamacare? I mean yes im a little scared of this considering I cant afford to pay for insurance and pay the fines for not having insurance but still… everytime I hear Republicans I think “yup I’m a democrat.”

    • Adrian

      They give tax credits to help make the insurance affordable, or you could qualify for Medicaid.

      • Jimmy

        I live in Texas. I doubt I would he able to get on Medicaid ajd hopefully it will I barely bring in 200 $ a week. I havent ate in about 5 days.. I really cant afford health insurance lol

  • Roger

    I personally think that every damned one of them…. Republicans AND Democrats…. need to be removed from office. This stupidity is just plain obscene!

  • Dave

    The GOP/Tea Party have all the elements of a terrorist organization…..harm the people and spread fear (terror) throughout the populace…..so shouldn’t our military be “taking these guys out”?…. They swore an oath to protect us from enemies both foreign and domestic!

    • drywaller

      odd that it is liberals that are responsible for most the mass shootings in this country and that liberals always call for the killing of those that oppose them you don’t hear that crap from democrats

      • drywaller

        odd this site just changed what i typed typical lib bull crap.

      • Nikta

        Drywaller – that communist, liberal, typing censorship is called “spell check”.

      • Adrian

        Facts, and, apparently, proper spelling, have a liberal bias.

      • drywaller

        democrats should be republicans

      • onewhoknows

        We’re to smart to be brainwashed..

      • MinnesotaConservative

        “To” smart? Ouch …

      • The neo-nazi’s that are responsible for most of the mass shootings in this country are aligned with the Tea Party. I don’t think you understand what a liberal is.

      • Sprout

        BS drywaller, almost all of the mass killers were Fox News followers. Get your facts straight. They were right wing nutjobs.

      • Guy_in_Kingston

        Yet most shooters who kill someone are black.

      • Lorrie Crabtree

        Where do you get your intel? Because so far, all but one shooter in a mass killing has been white (and the only black man was the recent navy yard shooting). As for single shootings… remember Trayvon Martin? There are more like him out there, but they’re barely statistics because the media plays to the lowest common denominator, which are usually idiots who believe everything they hear on Faux “news”… Idiots who think that all violent crime is perpetrated by blacks and hispanics. And contrary to what you keep telling yourself, if you genuinely believe that these are the primary criminals, you ARE racist.

      • Guy_in_Kingston

        No most gun murders in the US are by blacks…..even the government acknowledges this. Detroit and Chicago alone account for HUNDREDS of shootings each year…..and yes “mass shooting” 2 in the last week alone…..and yes both black.

      • Lorrie Crabtree

        Right. And the US government has neeeever had a racist agenda, right? Of course we can trust our elected officials! There has NEVER been any controversy, EVEH in any branch of the government.

        You realize, of course, that admitting to believing -anything- the US government claims on matters of race shows just how ignorant (or naive, perhaps?) you really are.

      • onewhoknows

        That is pure bullshit.. show me the facts please..

      • kimhusseinbrunelle

        What a crock of shit. Are you really trying to tell us that Adam Lanza was a flaming liberal? How about Wade Page, the lunatic who killed seven and injured four in the Wisconsin Sikh temple; a white supremacist who loved Glenn Beck and Micheal Savage. Let’s take a trip down memory lane and meet James Oliver Huberty…he hated liberals but loved shooting people so much he killed 21 at a McDonalds restaurant. But lets fast forward to 2009 shall we, when a republican campaign worker named Donnie Baker blew away 7 Chileans. Last but not least, how can we forget our all time winner, Timothy McVeigh…granted he used fertilizer and not a gun but the outcome was the same…he was no pinko, commie liberal was he? While we’re at it, name me one liberal who has called for the murder of one single person…we’ll wait, but we won’t hold our breath. May I suggest that you pull your head out of your ass and educate yourself, unless you’re satisfied with sounding like a fool for the rest of your life.

      • qcubed

        I call for disposal of all tea party congressmen and the fools who vote for them, whatever way possible.

  • Michelle Gould

    Is any of this an answer? Includes the article and the comments,.

    • onewhoknows

      the answer is vote out the bottleneck in congress.. when they think it’s acceptable to vote 40+ times on something that has been law for 3 years, what are they accomplishing? no compromise, no answers.. just no no no… 2014 can’t come fast enough..the house will fall.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        I’m not so sure because there are plenty of stupid people like SRNCOIC who will vote for tea baggers.

  • mdubya222

    Please people, convince your Christian friends to stop auto-voting for these crooks. If not for the rallied evangelics the gop’s fight for plutocracy would be over .

    • Snuff

      I try telling them that in spite of the many promises made by these God-fearin’ politicians that Roe v. Wade has not been overturned, public schools cannot require students to take part in organized prayer or religious activity, and counties still can’t display a extremely large and heavy monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments on the courthouse lawn (well, they do, but then they have to move it later). Doesn’t seem to faze them. They’ll continue to throw their votes to whatever hayseed good ol’ boy or girl who says they will personally pull this country from Satan’s grip.

  • I love coffee not tea

    They forget that they have Government funded health care.

  • SRNCOIC

    $621,000,000,000

    That’s the amount that non-partisan actuaries, in a report released yesterday, at the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) said Obamacare would increase national health spending over the next 10 years.

    So much for the law being the “Affordable Care Act.”

  • Donald Meinshausen

    Obama was defeated in his urge to start yet another war by anti-war activists in the libertarian and progressive movements. O also got his wish to arrest anyone without regard to trial by jury or even access to a lawyer in his NDAA. His NSA runs amok with our data and his DEA is the the greatest racist act oppression against Black and Brown people. Obama must be stopped from doing anything until he learns to obey our rights

    • onewhoknows

      oh shut up..

    • Chomper Lomper Tawee

      How embarrassing for you!

  • Geanene Everson Weathers

    Fire them all. If I performed the way the Republicans in Congress do, I would be in line for food stamps, (that the House defunded today)..in other words, in a grave. They are the biggest waste of taxpayers $$ this Country has EVER seen. ARRGGGHHHH

  • rablerpuser

    What I dont get is how people dont understand that the tax payers are already paying for other peoples heath care. do they really think that hospitals can really stay in business wth all the defaults in payments by persons unable or unwilling to pay for treatment ( more the former than the latter ). Who do they think picks up that tab, the tax payers. All i hear from the gop is big business this and deregulate that for bug business. might i remind people that the recession this nation experienced was brought about by the deregulation of big business (bernie madoff ring a bell to anyone ?)

  • Liberal Mom

    I have to disagree with you and respectfully say that it’s offensive to call an American “Taliban” if they are not, indeed, part of the Taliban. As awful as the tea party is and as terrible their pretend policies are, they have not committed acts of terror, have not bombed citizens, have not murdered girls on their way to school, have not murdered women for driving cars.

    • Michael Case

      Give them time. They’ll get around to it.

    • onewhoknows

      Hijacking congress and holding our economy hostage is domestic terrorism.. yes they are the Taliban.

  • Pipercat

    Ooooh cool, Edits!

  • Mike Williams

    Nothing says we are tired of your shit faster than a recall vote.

  • Adrian

    I’d offer one suggestion to Mr. Clifton, and that is to change “blackmail” to “extortion” (or “extort”).

  • If you will recall the events surrounding 9/11 (who could forget, right), the terrorists articulated the reason they went after the Twin Towers was due to the symbolism of our “economy.” Your article points very clearly to the intent of the Tea Party owned and operated Republican Party. Furthermore: Try calling one of your GOP Congressional leaders. I did yesterday only to get hung up on. Isn’t that really nice? THIS then, is the way they have decided to run the country; through strong-armed tactics, the injection of fear, and all through the spreading of lies and propaganda. If this were another time perhaps, the GOP would be sent packing, but no more. The conservative media entertainment complex fuels the entire matter by their persistent lack of respect towards the President, all the while making it about HIM, not his policies.

  • Renfru

    Al Queda did say that one of the reasons they attacked us was an effort to bankrupt the US as they did the USSR…Republicans have for 30 years signed a pledge to an individual [ he says it’s to their constituents] to bankrupt the Government they swear an oath to serve. What is the difference? and why is open sedition by the former confederacy allowed?

  • Alison

    So grateful to see that people under the severity of this issue. I agree with most statements. At the end of the day -facts are facts- and the right-wing conservatives really have turned themselves into Terrorist bent of the destruction of the United Stated.

    • Guest

      I agree that the right has had to fight rougher. However, these folks are fighting for their constituents that are losing jobs, hours and will be hurt as the ACA is executed. That is their constitutional duty. It is unfortunate as they have the moral high ground. The President has done everything as a political chess game, rather than doing what is right for the people. I believe the POTUS had good intentions with the ACA, but it’s too complicated for government to run. In only a few months, the IRS lost $67 Million! Instead, I would recommend the Fed government subsidize the States’ Medicaid programs. They will follow the rules as to subsidies and restrictions, but wouldn’t have a negative reaction to the economy as it stand now.

      Also, let’s look at the “coverage” these plans have. In Kansas, the deductible is at least $2000. Than we have a max out of pocket of $6350. In other words, my family would have to spend more than $8000 in addition to the premiums to obtain benefits of the ACA. Even if I only pay $1200 after family subsidy, the total cost can be up to almost $10,000, or a third of my earnings-not even my rent is that high. Instead, I can obtain hospital coverage with a $500 deductible and $1000 out of pocket for about $100/month on the private market. This plan was also 80/20, not 60/40. I could then pay incidental expenses as incurred and save thousands per year!

      • William Drapou

        Guest, you obviously have not “Read” the ACA.1. Are you saying that your exchange only offers 1 plan for all of Kansas? I find that hard(impossible) to believe. 2.If your earnings are only $30k per year, you are well below the subsidy level, so you won’t be paying most of the premiums, if any. 3. Your OOP (out of pocket) applies only to the Co-payments and co-insurance amounts. You don’t pay this entire amount “up-front” before benefits kick in. I call complete and utter BULLS**T. Come back once you have actually LOOKED at what the exchanges have to offer. Have a mendacious life.

  • Jack Wizo

    Terrorism is a threat or attack on LIFE. Sabotage is an attack or threat of property or ideas. Would you call a kid chained to a redwood to protest timber harvesting an eco-terrorist? No. He’d be a saboteur. This rhetoric is not going to help our (left wing) cause.

  • EnidM

    “A vote which, if not passed, could send our economy straight into an economic depression.” Are we not already in a depression js

  • I say let them shut down the government. They will be out of a job really quick because those who are out of work as a result of the shutdown will demand special elections be held immediately to replace those responsible for the shutdown including Boehner.

  • Claudia Nixon Fauver

    If the GOP does shut down the government, their paychecks should be put on hold, not our SS checks. We also need to limit their terms, take away all their golden parachute benefits, put them under the ACA, and make sure they don’t get pay for life after retirement. They should be on the same footing as the rest of us.

  • Bill T.

    Electing a teabagger to Congress is like giving a loaded gun to a child.

  • Chris Jehlen

    “We will shut the government down.” We do not care if the very men and women who have fought in the Middle East have given their lives, have been injured physically and mentally, and their family’s lives changed forever lose there benefits. Along with all the other critical government functions a shut down will hurt these veterans. ” we need to keep the country divided and to pursue our parties interest, that’s what counts.” The only shutdown that would make any sense, would be to fire all law makers, and take their party first and people whenever attitude right to hell. These egotistical party first zealots Need to stop with the blame game, and keep in mine they work for us. Every politician from the president down to the mayor of the smallest city lie and mislead people to gain some political advantage. If the right and left extremest have their way, this country will become split to the point of destruction.

  • BothEyesOpen

    Sheeple sheeple please.. Tea party “terrorists” ? Coming from the same party who is funding the FSA/Al Quaeda regime that’s a very bold statement indeed. Why do you think Barack Hussein Obama wants to go to war with Syria so badly anyways? For the good of the American people?? Or the Syrian people!?!? LOL Anyone who doesn’t realize that WE ARE IN A RECESSION RIGHT NOW is a complete idiot. *NEWS FLASH* national employment statistics are based off the number of people currently under un-employment benefits!!! Yes take a second to pull the wool off of you eyes and figure that one out. That means that “supposed” unemployment rates declining is a gross miscalculation of the actual number of Americans without jobs. Obama’s entire presidential reign has been a complete farce. Has anyone ever heard the word INFLATION before?? A strange phenomenon that happens after a process of continually printing money with no regard as to the consequence so as to artificially inflate the economy?!? It doesn’t matter if the stock market has not crashed again yet, or house prices have not fallen again BECAUSE OUR MONEY ISN’T WORTH SHIT. Why do you think so many countries are looking to opt-out of the US dollar?? And if Obamacare is so damned important for the American people to have then why the hell doesn’t congress participate?

    • Kiki Kaff

      Why do people who hate the POTUS always throw in his middle name? Is that to drive your point home he is a “muslim”? Is all this hate really about his middle name? Here I thought it was just because he was black but now I see the legitimate reason for your hate. He is black AND has an ethnic middle name!!! Well there ya go…. he is truly impeachable now.

    • SickOfTea!!!

      How many times have you heard that Congress DOES have to participate?…yet you STILL don’t believe it? Where is the Jobs Bill your beloved party has to offer or any alternatives to the ACA? All your beloved party has done since Obama was elected (TWICE) has been to OBSTRUCT & STAND in the WAY!!!

  • BluesHat

    Oh, so now, being Duped…is Winning!…….got it…

  • Guy_in_Kingston

    Shutting a government down….is better than allowing it to make mistakes.

  • Yellow Dog Dem

    I actually didn’t know that other Liberals were calling them the American Taliban. I have been saying it for years, but not because of what they are doing to the economy. My reason has to do with religion, wanting to go back two thousand years and live by Old Testament Law, & ignoring Jesus’ life and teachings. They also want to destroy our educational system, our voting system, our government, our middle class (which they have largely accomplished) and everything else we hold dear as Americans. They seek to destroy our environment; I guess they think their children and grandchildren will be living on some other planet and won”t need our air or water, or even the natural beauty of this earth.

    Approximately 25% of Americans are so mesmerized by Fix News, that they think all this is just great, & 25% more have bought the lie that the Republican Party owns the Flag and God, and that all Democrats are Godless Heathens who don’t care about our country.

    The funny part of their scenario is that the Koch Brothers and Sheldon
    Adelson will have to fight it out for the title of Dictator, and all the
    pandering members of Congress will be in the same boat as the rest of
    us.

  • Harry

    Shame on all these simple minded teatards that keep voting those vile retardlican into office.

  • Alan Foxman

    But of course when they say “shut down the government” they dont mean “not give themselves their paychecks” because thats considered “essential services”. I wonder what their tea bagger constituents think of that?

  • jim

    Syrian rebels would fit the mold of terrorists if you don’t believe me look for the youtube video of one of them eating the heart of a man he just killed. Now lets take a step back. actual members of the tea party realize this and they don’t just use the power of he purse to defund an insurance company handout disguised as real reform but Orwellian surveillance state and giving tanks missiles and aid to real terrorists in Egypt and Syria. However I can see why this blog would not consider giving military aid to actual terrorists as cooperating with them because that doesn’t fit the progressive agenda of the president. Sure call those who are trying to reign in the power of big government as terrorists. you are afraid of the libertarian plot to take over the government to give it back to the people. How can that possibly make anyone frightened.

  • Justin Tierney

    They play to exactly the same types of people that the Nazi’s did because they thought they could control them. Luckily, they couldn’t I hope we’re as lucky as the Germans were in that aspect.

  • John Oliver Mason

    The Republicans want a fight? Let’s GIVE ’em one!

  • qcubed

    After the government shutdown, PUBLIC HANGINGS, for EVERYONE who voted for this bill. Say good night, Tea Bags.

  • Gershon Wolf

    I agree

  • Gershon Wolf

    Tea party and Gop-KKK policy and antics DOES kill innocent civilians. Taking away people’s health care while stealing their money is murder and maiming.

  • Gershon Wolf

    The GOP is worst than the Taliban. Why? The Taliban has been brainwashed from birth. They don’t have access to free speech and sharing of ideas, free media and news. The GOP scumbags have the truth at their fingertips, but they still pollute, steal, lie, maim incite violence and racism, etc., and kill.

  • margieR

    So don’t fund the government and don’t give congress members any wages they would have been due during the shut down.

  • A concerned person

    Obviously no republican representative has ever been poor or gone without a meal. Now that you have shut down the government, what do you expect all the people that are without work to Do. I hope this will forever be that you never every get elected again. Do you not have a conscience?????

  • American

    This is hilarious! Guess what, Mr. President (and Mr Reid). You have bashed the right over the fact that the ACA is the law of the land. Guess what, so is the debt ceiling. Your failure to compromise only a portion of your pet law will kill more jobs than a partial shutdown. It risks pressing the credit rating of our Nation.Show some good faith and provide the option for individuals not to be penalized if they don’t want it. There has never been a “clean” CR passed as these deadlines have always been used (for both sides) to enact change. That is the nature of the beast; people do not act until it has a negative impact on themselves. The other side will not negotiate voluntarily.

    Leftists have always bashed big business, yet in this case,businesses get the pass and the people suffer? I’m confused. The truth is that the employer mandate, if enacted according to law, would cause massive unemployment that would certainly affect next year’s elections. That was the reason for the delay. The ACA needs that mandate in order to function (budget wise). All the sick and poor people will sign up; healthy people will find a job and/or just pay the penalty. Deficits will sour over this year. Without the group coverage from businesses, this law cannot financially stand. Chicken and the egg… lol

    What needs to be done is just compromise on the ACA to provide good faith on the debt ceiling. If the left gives on the CR, they have more leverage not to on the debt ceiling. Fail to do the former, and we’ll have another “sequester” on our hands. The President gave then, and he will have to again. He can play the “blame game” all day, but as the Commander, it is his name that is on the line, not Congress. The administration’s higher spending has already caused credit downgrades and fear of removal as the reserve currency. That cannot be blamed on the current Congress… Mr. President, with great power come great responsibility! It is your head on the chopping block if the credit rating falls, not Congress.

  • deacon_2112

    this is the logical result of an entrenched two party system. the same shit floats to the top in both of them.

    the irony is that when it gets down to it, they’re now both pretty much the same band of thieves bankrolled by the same special interests.

    and you’re still blind enough to call it “democracy”.

  • Lonny

    Remember this historic day, folks. You’ll tell your grandchildren about when UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE finally came to America, AND – in a stroke of cosmic justice – the racist, obstructionist, uber-arrogant TeaPublicans self-destructed trying to stop it, by bringing YOUR government to it’s knees.
    Unbelievably oblivious to their own extinction, the nut-infected right wing’s last gasps are spent cheering for the “failure” of Obamacare (citing the minor roll-out glitches that are actually proof of overwhelming demand). Today millions of citizens received what Obama promised in his first election, and it’s no longer just Hope. Bye-bye GOP neanderthals, hello progress.

  • Michael

    The “progressive” movement is a Marxist ideal, that has never been successful in the history of human civilization, a fascist that has been defeated again and again.

  • MIN9™

    Come to Mongo, we answer to only one, ME!!!! Mwa ha ha ha!!

  • Brightvalley

    They were officially the American Taliban even before it was mentioned on The Newsroom.

  • The Green Devilish One

    It’s been obvious from day one that they’re America-hating racist scum who would rather crash and burn our country than work with a black man and don’t care about the dumb yokels that make up their base, who are also a bunch of racists and are too sthpid to realize they’re slitti g their own throats.

  • Milton E. Findley

    It ain’t working on me, I ain’t terrified. Another election is coming, and maybe people will get completely fed up with them. If not, there will be another election after that.

  • fairness_rules

    The tea party republicans and insurance companies are now screwing things up so badly we may get single payer health insurance in the end. This is what many people wanted anyway since most other industrialized countries have had it for some time.