A President Who Is More Like Harry Reid than Harry Truman

ObamaPresident Obama says if Republicans fail to increase the debt ceiling they will be responsible for an “economic shutdown.”  The Treasury Department says if the U.S. government defaults on its obligations, it would be “catastrophic.”

D-Day is October 17.  That’s when the government of the United States technically runs out of money to pay our debts.  You’ll be hearing a lot about a U.S. government “default” – the first in our long history — but that’s misleading.  There will be enough money to pay bondholders, so there won’t be any real default.  Still, the government won’t be able to pay all its bills on time and that could turn out to be serious, especially if the financial markets get spooked and stocks tank while interest rates soar.

Here’s how bad things could get, according to the Obama administration:  “In the event that a debt limit impasse were to lead to a default, it could have a catastrophic effect on not just financial markets but also on job creation, consumer spending and economic growth,” according to a report put out by the Treasury Department.

“Credit markets could freeze, the value of the dollar could plummet, U.S. interest rates could skyrocket, the negative spillovers could reverberate around the world, and there might be a financial crisis and recession that could echo the events of 2008 or worse,” the report added.

Wow!  Sounds pretty serious.  So what is the President of the United States of America planning to do to make sure Armageddon doesn’t come to pass? The best I can figure, the answer is … nothing.

Republicans want spending cuts tied to increases in the debt ceiling.  Mr. Obama says he won’t negotiate.  Let’s see if I understand this:  President Obama thinks failure to increase the debt ceiling could shutdown our economy and lead to lots of bad stuff, but he won’t compromise to avoid disaster?  Is trying to humiliate Republicans so important to him that he would actually stand by and do nothing in the face of an economic crisis?  I’m guessing the answer is yes.

Mr. Obama says that raising the debt ceiling won’t add to the national debt.  “That’s not what this is about,” he recently said. “It doesn’t cost taxpayers a single dime. It doesn’t grow our deficits by a single dime. …What it does is allow the U.S. Treasury, the U.S. government to pay the bills that Congress has already racked up.”

Technically, the president is right.  But continuing to raise the debt ceiling allows Democrats in Congress to keep spending more than the government takes in, knowing that at some point down the road – after they’ve spent a few trillion dollars more than they collect — they’ll again be faced with a crisis that would force them to once again … raise the debt ceiling.  Can you say “vicious circle”?

That’s why the Republicans are pretty much saying, “We’ll pass an increase, but help us out Mr. President.  Let’s reduce the current levels of spending.  We can’t go on like this forever.”

Mr. Obama wants none of it.  He’ll talk about spending he says, only after Republicans give him his increase in the debt ceiling.  Of course, after the increase takes effect, the GOP will have a lot less negotiating power – which is just how the president and Democrats in Congress want it.

In our system, the president has two roles.  He’s the leader of his party, but he’s also the president of all Americans.  He has an obligation to do more than score political points for his team.  But for quite a while now Mr. Obama has been acting like Harry Reid, not like Harry Truman – or any other president who didn’t consider himself above it all, looking down on the peons from a cloud.

Speaking of Harry Truman, here’s what freshman Senator Barack Obama said back in 2006 when President Bush asked Congress to raise the debt ceiling:

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here’. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”

I couldn’t agree more.

But it was all a mistake, Barack Obama, has since said — a foolish mistake made by a rookie senator who was thinking more about politics than the good of the nation.   “I think that it’s important to understand the vantage point of a senator versus the vantage point of a president,” he told George Stephanopoulos. “When you’re a senator, traditionally what’s happened is, this is always a lousy vote. Nobody likes to be tagged as having increased the debt limit – for the United States by a trillion dollars. As president, you start realizing, you know what, we, we can’t play around with this stuff. This is the full faith and credit of the United States. And so that was just an example of a new senator making what is a political vote as opposed to doing what was important for the country. And I’m the first one to acknowledge it.”

That’s one way to put it.  Here’s another way:  The most partisan American president in a very long time is also the most cynical.  He will say and do anything that suits his purpose at the moment.

As I write this most of the blame for the partial shutdown of the government is being put on Republicans.  If the president refuses to make a deal on the debt ceiling – just as he’s refused to compromise on the shutdown – the tide may change; the American people may finally wake up and start blaming Barack Obama for being obstinate.  They may start to see him as the politician that he is, despite his lofty rhetoric to the contrary. But I’m not betting on it.

Bernie's Next Column.

Enter your email and find out first.

  • potemkin_village_usa

    HARRY REID COMPARES GOP’s OBAMA CARE COMPLAINTS AS LAME PRISON JOKES!!
    SO LET’S SHARE THESE TWO JOKES BELOW WITH HARRY REID SO HE CAN SHARE THEM WITH HIS SOUL MATE THE PRESIDENT!!

    ****JOKE #1
    UNION LABOR MAKES 50 PERCNT MORE IN WAGES AND 100 PERCENT MORE IN BENEFITS AND
    OBAMA IS ABOUT TO EXEMPT UNIONS FROM OBAMA CARE TAX!!
    __The union members make a hell of a lot more in wages and benefits than non union folks make but still they are bawling their eyes out to Obama about the cost of Obama Care and that they will be losing their union benefits and paying a hell of a lot more for them.
    __Not to worry!! Obama to the rescue!! Now those of us who make less in wages and benefits will now shoulder the cost of the elite Obama supported union folks by exempting them from the Obama Care tax. He’ll rescue them in the same way he rescued the UAW when he illegally hijacked the Indiana police and the Indiana Teachers $5.6 billion pension funds and gave it to the UAW.
    ****You think Obama Care is expensive now, wait until you shoulder the cost
    shucked off by the union people!!
    __Please call the Whitehouse and give them a piece of your mind at: (202)-456-1111 and at: (202)-456-1414.
    __Please call your Congressional delegation, and, Harry Reids office, at:
    (202)-224-3121 and give them a piece of your mind.

    ****JOKE #2
    PRESIDENT OBAMA BEGAN SELLING HIS LATEST CONVENIENT FICTION:
    ‘OBAMACARE GREAT PRODUCT, TOO BAD THE CASH REGISTER IS BROKEN’
    __The fallacy of a false conclusion from a false causal relation (Called:
    Nonsequitur Fallacy)!
    __The president is now selling false causality declaring that the massive
    increases in health benefit costs are due to his broken website, whereas, the
    government predicted this massive increase in the cost of premiums and plan
    cancellations due to the increased coverage under gov’t mandate two plus years ago. Now, this forecast is being realized by the actual cancellation of
    millions of private healthcare plans with the options raising the premiums by
    as much as 300 percent and the deductibles many times their previous number.
    __Please call the White House, and, your Congressional delegation and tell them you are flabbergasted by the endless flow of misinformation and deceit coming from the White House and the congress in regard to this disaster of a law.
    ****Please call the White House at: (202)-456-1111 and at: (202)-456-1414 and tell that fibber to stop insulting our intelligence. Call your Congressional
    delegation at: (202)-2243121

  • Lc Goodfellow

    If you’re hungry enough, roadkill will make for a king’s feast. Liberals were so hungry for someone like Obama, he seemed like so much more than he really was. ” …. one speech, two books …. ”

    “I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I’m not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.”
    “That One” didn’t say it, but it sure does fit.

  • Bob Hadley

    Your quotes are from President Obama. I got the 2.7 million figure from a doctor who advises President Obama (HINT: they’re two different people, I kid you not). The 2.7 million figure may be an overstatement or an understatement. Hopefully, we’ll find out soon.
    Yes, there computer glitches. Yes, there’s no decent excuse for it (I think).
    But, hopefully there’ll be millions of young, healthy people added to the health care market. That’ll begin to drive down the costs. How much? Hopefully, we’ll know soon.
    BTW, what Pres. Obama obviously meant to say by “if you like your doctor you can keep it” was that nothing in Obamacare requires you to give up your doctor. Employers can and always have been able to switch carriers.
    In Hawaii, our health insurance costs are reasonable, compared to most parts of the mainland because we have an employer mandate. Any employer must provide health care coverage to its employees, even if it has only 1 employee. Because of this, we have a lot of young and healthy people in our market.

  • Joh

    The moment Harry Reid steps up to the microphone and begins to speak, I flash back to the cantankerous old fart whose yard your ball always landed in. Now instead of your ball, he has our country and he isn’t giving it back.. I despised that old fart and now I feel the same about Harry Reid

  • D Parri

    Bernie,

    It is clear that Obama is willing to SAY things like “… the vantage point of a senator versus the vantage point of a president…” in order to somehow seek absolution from his previous mistakes. The words mean nothing because he demonstrates no sincerity in saying that. Rather, he appears as the child who gets caught doing something wrong, knows he did something wrong, and says “No, I shouldn’t have done that”, and hopes that this will be sufficient to avoid punishment. He does not want to own up to what he said, and he certainly doesn’t mean that he is sorry.

    You picked an appropriate graphic by using an illustration which points out the ‘speaking from both sides of the mouth’ comment, or maybe even a ‘speaking with forked tongue’ comment of yesteryear.

  • D Parri

    Bernie,
    In response to your reference to “Armageddon”, I think we may be seeing the outcropping of Obama’s personal and professional Armageddon which is continuing to unfold.

    The commander-in-chief, or King in this case, has suffered a number of setbacks and failures since losing the House to the Republicans. What was once so easy a role to play has become a much more bumpy road, a road certainly less traveled for him until now.

    It is absolutely against his nature to attempt to reign in the attack on Republicans and the Tea Party initiatives that have so far survived all attacks. That is why Obama and the Democrats–who, by the way have been hugely successful in mobilizing the negative PR attack upon Republicans–have been so vehement and vicious in their rhetoric. It is a power struggle for a Whitehouse and leader who desire ALL power and ALL voting voices in Congress.

    I certainly hope you are correct that some eyes are beginning to open. I also hope that the only answer to our current dilemma–which is to win the majorities of both House and Senate in 2014–will be executed properly by the GOP and with the help of the Tea Party.

  • D Parri

    Bernie,
    When in history has the U.S. debt NOT gone up after raising the debt limit? Perhaps, technically, that may have happened, but do you believe–or do you know anyone else who believes–that the U.S. debt will not rise if the debt ceiling is raised?

    As you said, “Technically, the president is right”. If this measure will not raise the U.S. debt levels, then why raise the debt ceiling?

    I believe that it is preposterous to say that raising the debt limit is NOT a precursor to increasing debt levels. That would be a statement predicated on an obvious lie. It is a despicable example of leadership failure.

  • D Parri

    Is it no wonder that the Democrat now want to debate the ‘law of the land’, i.e., the sequestration measures signed into law as a result of compromise coming from the 2011 debt limit standoff?

    “Democratic man speak with forked tongue!”

  • OncealwaysaMarine

    The Obama/Reid (Leftist Progressive) argument is that the House should vote on a “clean C.R. – continuing resolution. In other words, more of the same government irresponsibility Obama and Senate Democrats have been exercising from his 1st day in office. “Clean?” What’s clean about not doing your Constitutional duty to operate on a yearly budget? There is nothing “clean” about ANY “continuing resolution.” It’s farce. It’s government malfeasance.

    And why, if Obama can unilaterally and unconstitutionally grant exemptions and postponements from Obamacare’s corporate and union mandates, is it so wrong to require that Congress legally grant the same stay-of-execution to the middleclass workers out here? THIS is what Obama and Reid refuse to do or negotiate with House Republicans about. WE are the ones they’re giving the middle finger to; not House Republicans and not the Tea Party. US!

    And they are going to the mat over what they feel is their RIGHT to use and abuse us. And it will take many more with the courage to call them out — Democrat Socialist Progressive and Colluding Republican alike — (like Ted Cruz) before they will be removed.

    What’s “clean” about carve-outs for corporations and unions…but not for what the Communists like to refer to as “the working class” they claim to champion?

    • D Parri

      I’m afraid he is using the term “clean” to mean a non-negotiated settlement to allow the president to usurp the power and authority of the House through skullduggery and lies. The ACA was passed by a strictly Democratic vote–no Republican votes.

      Problem for them now is that the House has the “power of the purse”, and they are now Republican controlled. President Obama does not control the House, and neither does Heinous Harry. This is the only card that the House is able to play at the moment, and they should not give it away.

      As a proud Marine, think about this. What if you were on the battlefield and some manner of truce or peace agreement looked like it might be possible to achieve. Now, what if your adversary told you that they would be glad to sit down and talk to you about a peace agreement but you must hand over your only weapon first. I think I know, but what would be your answer?

      The current impasse is analogous to such a situation. It will require a good-faith negotiation where both parties lay their weapons on the table while they sit down and talk. Otherwise, they’re gonna’ keep spittin’ in the wind.

    • T Ko

      Any doubt who they intend to serve?

  • plsilverman

    Bernie, now calm down. The President said he won’t negotiate with ACA used as a baraghaining tool. He has compromised all over the place with the most obstructionist Congress in history – which has served notice they will not deal with him – or any part of him that wants to decrease unemployment. Obama is more like Harry Reid? well, Reid is a War Hero and his service continued in DC. You obviously would have preferred Sharon Angle. Now go back and redo your Commentary and leave out the bias. So you *don’t* get your weekly pat on the head by Roger Ailes. deal with it.

    • D Parri

      In one hour he said 137 times that he would “talk” with the GOP leaders about anything they wanted to talk about–after he got everything he wanted. He would talk about golf, the weather, the family dog…anything! The only thing he didn’t say was that he would negotiate or compromise.

      • legal eagle

        He didn’t say he would talk about Republican delusional ideas about the functions of the federal government….Maybe they an talk about Texas seceding from the Union or Ted Cruz’s nut job father…

        • D Parri

          Well I guess you weren’t listening. He said he would talk about ANYTHING they wanted to talk about. That means the weather, golf, the family dog…ANYTHING–maybe even politics.

          • legal eagle

            Did Obama say he would talk about what nut jobs some of these tea baggers are?

          • D Parri

            How should I know? Were you there? If so, draw your own conclusions. The attack on “tea baggers” comes from fear that they will stand their ground. Scary, isn’t it?

          • legal eagle

            I hate to break this to you but legislators generally govern by compromising with diverse constituencies not stand their ground….
            No wonder you like the tea baggers….they don’t care about governing, they care about showing off for their fellow cultists.

          • mcveen

            beagle, I hate to break this to you but legislators generally govern by compromising their wallets, just like the rest of us. Elementary principles of physics & chemistry say that those that have, get more. That’s why Dems vote for gov’t coersion & repubs vote earnings via private sector. Can you understand that?

          • legal eagle

            No…Hard to understand people who speak in generalizations and clichés…

          • Jeff Webb

            >>generalizations and clichés..<<

            Like "political cult," "tea baggers," "old/bitter/white," "GOP party of the rich/corporate welfare," etc.?

          • D Parri

            That is his most-preferred tool–projection. It is clearly a sign of weakness to accuse someone of the very faults that they are plagued with.

          • plsilverman

            some clichés have truth. I’ll take any “cliché” of the Legal Eagle over any burst of creativity by any of his blog “adversaries”.

          • D Parri

            McVeen, the Legal Weasel does not follow those basic principles because his goal is to distract you from any honest and decent conversation. He is not interested in anything but attacking Republicans and conservatives. Also, he is a pervert…read his comment he sent to me when he just couldn’t quiet my voice.

            ————————————————————
            legal eagle > D Parri

            • 17 days ago
            Yes…….reading your nonsense gives me a four hour erection…
            ——————————————————————————————————————————————-
            That is Legal Weasel’s comment to me. Very sick, but it was all he could say.

          • Jeff Webb

            Goodness, libs sure do get nasty whenever they see the Constitution being held in high regard.

            Tell you what, Mr. Potty Mouth: I’ll hold off on questioning the Tea Party Patriots’ mental health until I see them do something really twisted, like ardently support the starvation death of newborn children.

          • legal eagle

            I would say that being a member of a political cult whose only agenda is cutting spending except on defense, agriculture, wars and corporate welfare takes a certain amount of delusional thinking….

          • Jeff Webb

            “Delusional thinking” describes your belief that I’d buy your lie about the TPP agenda.

            Can’t entirely blame you. Seeing the words “Constitution” and “high regard” in the same sentence must’ve shaken your foundation.

          • D Parri

            Yes, that’s why he chose the name “Legal Weasel”. He is mentally sick.

          • plsilverman

            how about TP support the hoaxed war in Iraq? Many deaths of unborn and born children as a result?

          • Jeff Webb

            Now, now, don’t go throwing Hillary, Teddy, and all the other democrats under the bus just because they supported the war. They, just like the White House, truly thought Saddam was a threat.

            Now stop distracting and go clean your room.

          • plsilverman

            I think that’s a darn cute reply. You’re right, because so many Dems believed the intel’, the War was not hoaxed! Thank you.

      • plsilverman

        he has spoken with GOP many, many times…the GOP planned the shutdown for months ..and the GOP must be the ones to officially end the shutdown. but the snake dancers at the Capitol think that a shutdown ends only when a President is bullied into amending a law. obviously, those extremists thought that shutting down the government on the day the healthcare exchanges started would prevent those transactions. so, it will be another 1996 in the Congress. GOP will lose seats. we will have a fully Democratic administration. and it did not have to be that way but once again Boehner was intimidated by the Koch Bros., I mean the Tea Party.

        • D Parri

          Wasted words # 4 .

          • plsilverman

            then quit wasting them.

          • D Parri

            Wasted words # 10.

          • plsilverman

            please stop looking in the mirror not the monitor when you type.

          • D Parri

            Wasted words # 11.

          • plsilverman

            quit wastin’ ‘em. :)

          • D Parri

            Wasted words # 13.

          • plsilverman

            you are a genius.

          • D Parri

            Wasted words # 14.

          • Guest

            we all agree.

          • D Parri

            Wasted words # 15.

          • plsilverman

            you ARE a genius!

          • D Parri

            Wasted words # 16.

          • plsilverman

            who is we and agree about what? :)

          • Lc Goodfellow

            Down here on the ‘Border’ you would be one of the,”crazy as a s*** house rat ” type.

          • plsilverman

            say what? :) please restate.

          • Lc Goodfellow

            Read It real slooow and try to comprehend what the words mean for you.
            If not, find j.copper and have him ask the Preacher.

          • plsilverman

            hehehe…you have some major fetish for conversing with slow-witted people, eh?

          • D Parri

            Wasted words # 11.

          • D Parri

            Wasted words # 12.

    • mcveen

      Let’s be honest and acknowledge that neither federal republican or democrat sen/reps give a burp for ordinary American taxpayers. Federal politicians care only about money and power to advance their own self interests and operate gov’t accordingly. Isn’t the amazing story of modest means turns into great wealth upon reaching DC alarmingly automatic? Any idea of gov’t shutdown is a sham/scam perpetrated by DC politicians on both sides to increase their own personal wealth. DC insiders make huge $ creating false crises by rallying supporter donations from rabid idea merchants and others. Or not. Doesn’t much matter to our politicians where they get money, as long as they get it. Is it any wonder that all levels of gov’t operate the same way?

      • plsilverman

        I try to stay “centered” as a centrist but this shutdown was planned for months by the [GOP] extremists at the Capitol and is *particularly* egregious.

  • Bob Hadley

    “…continuing to raise the debt ceiling allows Democrats in Congress to keep spending more than the government takes in, knowing that at some point down the road – after they’ve spent a few trillion dollars more than they collect….Of course, after the increase takes effect, the GOP will have a lot less negotiating power…”
    Surely, Bernie knows better than this. First, the stand-off was originally about defunding Obamacare. Now, apparently it’s about delaying implementation of the individual mandate for a year – which is closely related to defunding Obamacare – or maybe lesser compromises on Obamacare. The individual mandate is the basic cost-cutting measure of Obamacare. Only after the entry of the healthy uninsured into the health care market will insurance rate BEGIN to plummet.
    O’Reilly’s statement on his show to the contrary was blatantly false. He essentially said that competition in absence of the individual mandate – i.e. in absence of healthy people already being in the health care market – would lower costs. Only the low information voter would fall for this poppycock!
    Second, the deficit has been decreased by more than half and is shrinking at a record rate, mainly due to the sequester (although the deficit was shrinking before the sequester, but not nearly as fast). So this whine about continued over-spending – while technically having some truth – is a misleading appeal to the low information voter
    Third, the Democrats already proposed a compromise. They were ready to accept a continuing resolution (CR) for far less than they wanted. In fact, it’s been reported that the CR compromise accepted by the Democrats was slightly higher than Rep. Ryan’s austerity budget.
    Neither party likes the sequester. That’s all the negotiating power either side should have. Republicans should negotiate with Democrats over a sensible alternative to the sequester – one that involves targeted spending cuts, with each side giving a little. The Republicans have chosen the nuclear option to try to gain negotiating. Bernie correctly opposed this option.
    O’Reilly was correct when he said that, at this point, Obamacare should only be dismantled through the normal democratic (i.e. electoral and legislative) process.

    • plsilverman

      a fantastic reply. thanks. I gotta favoritize this baby.

      • legal eagle

        This guy D Parri is like some attorneys I del with who must get in the last word regardless of the subject….If you say right, he’ll say left and then come up with some b.s. poll on why he is right.

        • D Parri

          And, Mr. Wall Street broker/Attorney, could explain to the people how you are in ANYWISE different from the attributes you project onto others? Thanks!

          • legal eagle

            I have the ability to reason and compromise….Most reasonable people do…you obviously don’t…

          • D Parri

            Sounds like the typical Legal Weasel talk to me.

          • legal eagle

            Typical response from you….Try reading a newspaper today… I know reading anything but right wing crap is difficult for you but perhaps you might try…

          • D Parri

            Unimaginative, aren’t you? Not worthy of my time.

          • legal eagle

            You can read the newspaper sitting on the toilet , which is what I presume you do most of the day…

          • D Parri

            Wasted words # 1 .

    • D Parri

      The individual mandate is the basic cost-cutting measure of Obamacare.

      Well that’s funny, it doesn’t appear to cut any costs for folks who are essentially healthy and have been able to purchase a plan that is ‘tailored’ to their needs. Poppycock!

      However, it is a good mechanism for redistributing the wealth. Only thing is that Obama won’t be participating in it. The King has own gold-plated chariot to travel in. Oh, and one for the family dog, too.

      • legal eagle

        I’m sure he wouldn’t talk to you as you are a mentally constipated
        ideologue….That’s why you’ve never held a position of responsibility…

        • D Parri

          That’s why you never tell the truth…you never know WTF you are talking about. But you are a pervert, so I guess that explains it.

          • Bob Hadley

            But you’re a prevert! :)

          • D Parri

            Whatever that means….

      • Bob Hadley

        The individual mandate has not been fully implemented yet. But the industry estimates are that costs for healthy (and, in particular, young AND healthy) individuals would be low.
        Redistribute wealth? Not quite. It just makes it so others don’t have to keep paying for the uninsured’s use of the ER.

        • D Parri

          Some more Poppycock! But you are well-versed in Pres O’s talking points.

          • Bob Hadley

            Actually, I simply deal in facts and reason, both of which apparently fail you. Apparently, you’re incapable of using facts and logic to explain your position, you resort to a personal insinuation.
            BTW, that might make you a liberal! :)
            I get my facts from a variety o places, including Fox News. If you pay close attention to things said on Fox News (by “news” reporters and on its talk shows) you eventually get most of the pertinent facts, even though the facts you apparently don’t want to hear are greatly de-emphasized on Fox News..

          • D Parri

            Facts? Have you checked out the cost for health insurance? Have you checked out the policies available? Have you compared what is available to you now versus what you have had in the past? I have.

            There is an approx. 300% increase in the cost of premiums for someone like me (non-smoker), and the co-pays and deductible would come to over $10,000/yr, plus the premiums. I am healthy, but it doesn’t matter. It is the age that makes ALL the difference in whether you get any subsidies and how that subsidy is.

            When you get some actual facts, come back and we’ll talk. I am not a liberal, but I can tell that you are a liberal in some kind of clothing–I can’t tell. I can tell that it doesn’t include good information, though.
            BTW, I was actually able to go to the marketplace and research the costs of coverage–the day before it started up!

          • Bob Hadley

            Thank-you for your attempt at a reasoned reply. But still no cigar. :)
            You’ve got to read these posts carefully. I said, and any thinking and informed person knows, that the major cost-cutting measure in Obamacare is the individual mandate. We won’t see the full effect of the individual mandate for quite some time. When there are enough young and healthy people in the medical insurance market, there will be a decline in costs. How much? Who knows?
            I don’t know how successful Obamacare will be, especially since the right-wing ideologues and the right-wing haters are doing everything to make Obamacare fail and because of the Obama administration’s snafus. Even if executed properly and even if there were no attempts at sabotage, we’d still have to see how well Obamacare would work. But it’s got to be better than the current system

          • D Parri

            I said I was a non-smoker. I don’t want a cigar from you or anyone else.

            Sometimes you seem reasonable, so I will ask you this question. When an industry is supported by the government, its products are mandated by the government, and the industry-government regulation apparatus have a symbiotic relationship, does this not indicate an environment of absolute and full control by either the government, the industry, or both? I know that you will not accede to that point, but I am convinced that this is absolutely the ‘commercial’ environment that is being created in the health industry.

            The problem is, though, that it is no longer a commercial environment at that point and competition will not be a factor at work for the consumer. Have you ever seen a competitive government agency–maybe the IRS? It will not happen, and the price consumers will pay for their healthcare will be the price determined by the government after working out the profit margins with faux-industrial healthcare providers.

            So, continue the mantra of “declining costs, greater accessibility, better coverage…”, yada, yada, yada. The program will be an enormous failure, and no one will be better off in the end. But…healthcare providers will sell tons of insurance and they will be able to line the lawmaker’s pockets with–literally–gold.

          • Bob Hadley

            Your comment above is almost purely theoretical, if not ideological. And yes, there are many Obamacare naysayers/ They’re mostly on the on the right, but there’s also substantial number who think Obamacare will either fail or be inadequate without a single payer system or a government option.
            Now that it’s the law of the land, why not let Obamacare unfold and see if it works? I think the only ones who oppose this approach are the ones who desperately want Obamacare to fail even if it means having an anti-Obamacare campaign and forcing states to exempt themselves from the medicare expansion. These people may want Obamacare to fail for ideological reasons or other reasons.
            As to your question about absolute control by the gov. or the industry or both, it’s not necessarily absolute, or even close to absolute control.
            In Hawaii, we have an auto insurance mandate. The gov. creates the customers and the “industry” supplies the insurance. There’s a lot of competition among insurance companies. I don’t see why there similarly wouldn’t be competition among health insurance carriers. There are differences between auto insurance and health insurance, however I don’t think these differences are material in this respect.
            The question is what pool of consumers will health care insurers compete over? How many young, healthy consumers will there be to go around. I’ve heard that as long as there are at least 2.7 million healthy, young, new health care consumers, the costs will go down substantially.
            Again, Obamacare is the law of the land. Unless you can repeal it through the normal electoral and legislative process, why not just let it unfold? Why predict doom and gloom?
            A case that is at least equally compelling can be made that Obamacare will work. If you haven’t heard that case being made, you need to diversify your sources.
            .

          • D Parri

            Yeah, where did you get those numbers from? I’m sure it was the same liars that told us we could keep our current health plan if we wanted to.

          • Bob Hadley

            As far as I know, the only person that said something to that effect was President Obama. What he obviously meant was that Obamacare would not require anyone to give up their current medical plan.
            Obviously, employers supplying medical coverage for their employees can and sometimes do switch medical plans whenever they want. That was the case before Obamacare and will continue to be the case after Obamacare. I guess Fox News and the right-wing blogosphere doesn’t point that out.
            Now, read this blog a few more times and maybe you’ll respond to what I actually have said instead of what you want to react to.

          • D Parri

            A single reading is all that I can tolerate from the Dem-head talking points blogosphere, i.e., you.

            A “fundamental change” is what Pres O seeks for this country. Socialized medicine is his dream. It is such a despicable lie, though, for a leader to claim that he is trying to help the people when he is so far-removed from having to deal with the same standards of care that he sets up for everyone else–excluding cronies.

          • Bob Hadley

            Actually, this is the only blog I regularly read.
            You’re ignoring that we already have socialized medicine – through the ERs. An ER nurse told me that every day they have patients coming though the ER without insurance and who cannot afford their treatment. Many of these patient are admitted for hospital stays and surgeries through the ER. And Hawaii has a low number (and percentage) of uninsured compared to many other states.
            What we now have is bad – very bad – socialized medicine.

          • D Parri

            Great Britain has socialized medicine. We do not. You are very lacking in your knowledge of the real world. I received a triple bypass operation. I did not have any coverage and was not approved for a disability. The hospital provided me with lifesaving medical treatment on a charity basis. I would be just another statistic today if it had not been for the kindness and generosity of the hospital and doctors who saved my life. The government was ok with allowing me to die. I will not say which hospital, but it was a Baptist Hospital facility.

            The ‘socialized medicine’ via an ER would not and cannot provide that measure of care. It was a private foundation, and that IS NOT socialized medicine.

          • Bob Hadley

            It’s good that you got the care you needed, and perhaps it was better care than that provided by many other hospitals.
            However, ERs provide good care also. When necessary, a patient admitted to the ER is transferred to other wings of the hospital for surgery or whatever other treatment is warranted.
            After Rush Limbaugh was rush to ER here when he thought he might be having a heart attack, he raved about the excellent treatment he received by all the emergency personnel, that is until he was told that the hospital was highly unionized. Then he started back-pedaling.
            A hospital that offers its services to all regardless of ability to pay does practice a type of socialism. Who do you think paid for your bypass? Unless it was paid for grants or the like, it was undoubtedly paid for by paying patients and by insurance companies who jack up their rates accordingly.

          • D Parri

            You are so wrong, again. The funds were partially donated by the hospital, doctors, and staff, and partially paid for by a charity organization established many years ago and have saved many lives. The fund was established from endowments contributed by donors far and wide, including several Baptist and other Christian organizations. Federal grants were never turned away, I’m sure, but the U.S. government is not the primary–or even major–source.

            So, patients, insurance companies, and taxpayers are not the ones who provided this benefit.

            Now, this is the end of my discussion with you on the subject because I have stated my position, given you solid information to support it, and it appears that you are not interested in hearing any of that. I will not waste any more time with you. Now, fire your final shot. Good luck.

          • legal eagle

            D Parri sounds like a grumpy old man with a 5th grade education…. That’s why he’s so defensive…

          • D Parri

            Wasted words # 3 .

          • Bob Hadley

            You’re ending this discussion because you have no facts or logic to back yourself up and you’re tired of repeating the same ad hominem remarks. I have addressed all the “information” you have imparted.
            If you read my post above, you’d know I said “Unless your bypass was paid for by grants and the like” the costs of your surgery was probably passed onto insurance companies and patients. In other words, I acknowledged that it might have been paid for by grants, etc. And I bet that hospital does not have the incoming funding to absorb the burgeoning PR costs.
            Many and probably most hospitals are not so revenue rich that they can absorb such costs on even a semi-regular basis (without hitting up insurance companies and patients).

          • D Parri

            Wasted words # 8.

          • legal eagle

            You can’t talk logic with this moron Parri…He’ll argue about anything with no factual basis or logic…When he says he’s given you solid facts you know he’s full of crap…

          • legal eagle

            You’re on Medicare you old fart so what are you talking about….

          • D Parri

            Wasted words # 2 .

          • D Parri

            I don’t have any problem with rolling out the law that Congress approved. This is not that law, though. King Obama has already modified this one to his liking.

          • Bob Hadley

            So, you’d have no problem with Obamacare if it was unfolded exactly as scheduled in the law? Would you feel that way if Obamacare didn’t have any scheduling problems? And you call President Obama a liar?????
            President Obama used his presidential powers to schedule the unfolding of Obamacare in a more productive manner.

          • D Parri

            Productive according to HIS agenda–not by the letter of the law though. His agenda is focused on the mid-term elections, not the care of the American people.

          • Bob Hadley

            There’s the letter of the law and then the spirit. Pres. Obama had every right as Pres. to delay the implementation of a part (a small part) of Obamacare so that Obamacare would fulfill its purpose.
            So you’d be OK with some large companies being flummoxed by the employer mandate being enforced on schedule? Sheesh. Make up you mind!

          • D Parri

            I am ok with fair and equal treatment under the law and ACCORDING to the law without doling out partisan privileges and buying off political sway while breaking the backs of hard-working individuals who deserve those same privileges just as much as anyone else.

          • Bob Hadley

            “I am ok with fair and equal treatment under the law and ACCORDING to the law…”
            You’re tying yourself in knots again. Above, you said that you just don’t like the law and have contempt for its goals.
            Am I talking to only one person? Are there more than one D Parri’s here?

          • D Parri

            You are an argumentative knothead that cannot understand logic. This will be my last wasted energy on debating with you. But I will make it clear so that you MIGHT understand it…but I doubt it.

            I do not like the law. I am certain that it will fail. I will concede at this time to an unchallenged rollout ONLY if the law proceeds forward SANS any tinkering changes made by the president. Allow the ‘law of the land’ remain as the one passed by Congress and I would be ok with that. GET IT?

          • Bob Hadley

            Read my post above. It’s a partial reply. But why would you oppose a slight delay in the implementation of a very minor part of the law if that delay would make the law work much better?
            The President clearly has that executive authority. All I can think of is that you’re convinced that a strict implementation of the law will result in its death.

          • D Parri

            Wasted words # 7 .

          • D Parri

            I have no idea who you are talking to. Don’t care.

          • Bob Hadley

            If Obamacare works optimally, the backs of hard working individuals will be freer and healthier.

          • D Parri

            Wasted words # 6.

          • D Parri

            You should know, Bob, there are plenty more healthcare consumers than there are automobile drivers in the U.S. Do you think we should enact a mandate that every man, woman, and child buy car insurance? Even those that don’t drive and won’t need it? And you really don’t see a material difference between health and auto insurance. I believe you, but it’s too bad that you can’t.

          • Bob Hadley

            You must work on your reading comprehension if you want to have a meaningful discussion. You wanted me to agree with you that with a ” government-industry regulation apparatus” there’s an “environment of absolute and full control by either the government, the industry, or both….”
            Then you spoke of a lack of competition in this situation. You were obviously speaking with Obamacare in mind.
            I answered by using the Hawaii auto insurance mandate as an example of a “government-industry regulation apparatus” leading to a lot of competition. After acknowledging that there are differences between Obamacare and an auto insurance mandate, I said that there are no material differences IN THIS RESPECT.
            But you had to play gotcha. And the only way you can play that game is to misconstrue what I say. So, you’re tacitly admitting that you have NO facts and/or logic to challenge me with.
            BTW, speaking at your level, that there’s plenty more healthcare consumers than automobile drivers precisely supports my point! Ergo, there’s a good chance that under Obamacare there’s going to be much more competition than under an auto insurance mandate.
            You’re not only playing a bad gotcha game, you’re tying yourself in knots.
            Now, read this post a few more times before you go off. That way maybe, just maybe, you’ll address real issues.

          • D Parri

            Where are your FACTS to support the claim that the ACA will need 2.7 million healthy, young consumers to support the program? Is what you “heard” a FACT? If so, you are definitely short on facts.

          • Bob Hadley

            I heard it from the M.D. who’s advising Pres. Obama on the ACA. His last name is Emmanuel (yes, he’s Rob’s brother). I never presented it as a fact. Hopefully, there’ll be at least 2.7 million young and healthy people getting health insurance.

          • Bob Hadley

            Hopefully, Obamacare will be given a good try. That way, we’ll see if it’s inherently a disaster. If it’s not given a good try (i.e. a fair shot), we wont know if it’s a workable law.

          • D Parri

            Wasted words # 9.

          • D Parri

            You are the one that needs to quit misconstruing and get the cite right. Every man, woman, and child is NOT required by law to purchase auto insurance. Every man, woman, and child ARE required to be covered by health insurance.

            One coverage is for the privilege of driving on our streets and highways, and the other is for the right of being a citizen of the U.S. and still breathing.

          • Bob Hadley

            That is irrelevant to the specific question you asked and to the specific question I was addressing: competition and a “government-industry regulation apparatus” creating an “environment of absolute and full control either by the government, the industry or both.”
            With respect to that specific subject, you raised a distinction without a difference.
            The only way you can oppose me is to ignore the discussion and to try to change the subject.

          • D Parri

            The tentacles of government are reaching further into the lives of each individual at an alarming rate with this law. The government mandate affects all American citizens, although its affect has been neutralized by the presidential pardons given out to his cronies and political targets of desire.

            The health care providers are GUARANTEED an increase in consumers irrespective of the personal freedoms that must be nullified in order to establish and enforce the mandate.

            Full control of the DECISION to buy or not buy a product, i.e., health coverage, is paramount to the viability of this law as there is not a position that can be taken by any consumer which does not result in a purchase or paying a penalty. That is full control. It will not foster a market whereby costs will decline and coverage will improve.

          • D Parri

            No, you are correct. It is a losing proposition for me to try to challenge ignorance. Ignorance is not debatable.

          • Bob Hadley

            All you’ve given me is ignorance, circular reasoning and generalities. Where’s the beef?

          • D Parri

            There’s no beef for me. You like the law and I don’t.

            Whatever personal slurs you choose to throw at me…well, right back at you. You have given me nothing but ignorance, foolishness, no facts, and a totally ideological rant without reason. But that’s what I expect from you. That all you have ever presented.

          • Bob Hadley

            You don’t know what I present because you don’t read (or comprehend) my posts. I suspect that you ignore anything you have basic disagreements with. That tends to make you intellectually ingrown.
            But you’re right, our basic difference is I like the ACA law (or at least want to give it every chance of success) and you don’t. You don’t like it no matter how well administered it is, how it’s rolled out (contrary to what you said elsewhere in this thread) and how effective it is. in fact, the more effective it is, the more threatened you feel.
            Let me suggest that you feel threatened by and IDEA not a REALITY.

          • D Parri

            You are correct. You are intellectually ignorant and incapable of understanding logic and reason. That makes you stupid by choice.

            I do not like the law but am willing to give it a try. I think that it is contemptible for Obama to try and manipulate and alter the law in order to try and secure the mid-term elections and try and take back the House.

            Let me point out to you that you are unable to either recognize REALITY or be HONEST…probably both.

          • Bob Hadley

            “The tentacles of government are reaching further into the lives of each individual at an alarming rate with this law. The government mandate affects all American citizens, ”

            “Every man, woman, and child ARE required to be covered by health insurance.”

            “One coverage is for the privilege of driving on our streets and highways, and the other is for the right of being a citizen of the U.S. and still breathing.”
            You go on rants spewing verbiage like that above, and then you say that you want to give the ACA every chance of success. Any sane person who actually believes what you say above would be hoping (nay, praying) that Obamacare is killed at the soonest time possible.
            That’s why I don’t believe you when you say that you have no problem with Obamacare rolling out as stated in the ACA. That is, unless you believe that rolling out Obamacare strictly as stated would be the best chance of killing it.
            Again, I think you’re more frightened by an idea (a boogey man) than a reality.

          • D Parri

            Wasted words # 5 .

          • D Parri

            Bob, did you know that the Constitution is also the “law of the land”? Read it, it talks about a House of Representatives as one co-EQUAL branch of government. As matter of fact, the House owns the “power of the purse”.

            So, see? It IS a normal legislative process to fund anything they choose to pass to the Senate and the president for approval. This is called “checks and balances”. Neat, huh?

          • Bob Hadley

            Apparently, you don’t know that the House is NOT a co-equal branch of the federal government. The House AND the Senate together comprise the legislative branch, which is co-equal with the executive and judicial branches
            As a matter of fact, you’re right that bills to fund the gov. (i.e. discretionary spending) and to raise the debt ceiling originate in the House. As a matter of fact, raising the debt ceiling or funding the gov. has very little to do with Obamacare. As a matter of fact, Obamacare is fundamentally an entitlement. Less than 10% of Obamacare depends on discretionary spending.
            For the House to refuse to fund discretionary functions of the federal gov. and to threaten to refuse to raise the debt ceiling unless Obamacare is defunded, is beyond – far beyond – the normal legislative process.
            Now, go back and read this post a few more times before going off. You have a special talent for misreading my posts.

          • D Parri

            The legislative branch IS comprised of the House and the Senate. The Constitution never uses the term coequal.

            The fact is that the Founding Fathers did not create a system of co-equal branches of government. Rather, they intended for the legislative branch to be dominant, as is evidenced in the Federalist Papers.

          • Bob Hadley

            “Bob, did you know that the Constitution is also the “law of the land”? Read it, it talks about a House of Representatives as one co-EQUAL branch of government.”

            “The fact is that the Founding Fathers did not create a system of co-equal branches of government.”
            Do you ever bother to read what you write? I guess if you take two positions on an issue, you double your chances of being right once.

            Which of the Federalist papers are you referring to? In case you don’t know, there were 84 of them. Please cite the Federalist Paper to which you refer. If you read the constitution carefully, you’ll see that the three branches are to work together and also in an adversarial manner when appropriate. You’re probably right (in your second version, that is) that they aren’t completely equal, but it’s close enough.

            I”m glad though that you now realize that both the Senate and the House comprise the legislative branch.

          • legal eagle

            A 300% increase over what? Do you currently have an individual plan? How old r you? What state?
            You probably don’t have a clue but then again you generally are not great with the facts…

          • D Parri

            I deal in facts. The ones I used here are the facts that I gathered and can personally vouch for. I’ll even tell you the lowest premium quoted was from UnitedHealthCare, and it was for $213/mo. It carried a $10,000 deductible with a 30% co-pay for covered charges.

            Do those facts sound good to you? There were several other plans available with premiums ranging upwards towards $900/mo. That’s for a single individual. I’d say that is incredibly LOUSY!

          • legal eagle

            Why are you talking about someone’s poppycock? You sound repressed…

          • D Parri

            Stop that! Do I have to remind you again what a pervert you are?

            Your comment, not mine…pervert.
            ——————————————————————————————————————————————-
            legal eagle > D Parri

            • 17 days ago
            Yes…….reading your nonsense gives me a four hour erection…
            ——————————————————————————————————————————————-

          • legal eagle

            Are you jealous because you haven’t had one in the past 30 years?…LOL

          • D Parri

            You freak! Why are you asking me weird question like that? Go play with yourself.

  • Wil

    Bernie,

    What should happen is the House should be PERMITTED TO VOTE on a clean bill.

    Funny thing, it turns out that the House changed its usual rules for this spending bill to ensure that a vote on a clean bill from the Senate could not be forced as a “privileged” motion. Here’s what they did:

    “But the House Rules Committee voted the night of Sept. 30 to change that rule for this specific bill. They added language dictating that any motion “may be offered only by the majority Leader or his designee.”

    For this one bill, they put the power to allow a vote ONLY in the hands of the GOP leadership. So, who’s keeping the gov’t shut down?

    LET THEM VOTE!

    • D Parri

      The ones who have the power, i.e., the president and Heinous Harry.

      • Wil

        The Senate passed a budget last May and since then Senate Democrats tried all Summer to negotiate with the House Republicans in a Conference on the budget, only to see House Republicans refuse – 18 TIMES!

        Now we know WHY Republicans refused — they didn’t want to pass a budget — which would interfere with their scheme to take the country HOSTAGE!

        • D Parri

          Ooooooo! So, what are you going to do about that? Negotiate? Never, according the president and Heinous Harry.

          • plsilverman

            nah, nah…they will not negotiate any amendment to a law.

          • D Parri

            No, not when the president can make any unilateral changes he wants.

          • plsilverman

            he has already made adjustments > the GOP has sent him a number of these and he has signed them. he has offered waivers to the states to adjust ACA, accordingly. yeah, a real Dictator > that is not operating under threats -making demands of a President with the ultimatum that we will shutdown the government/keep it shutdown. quite different and very odious to about 70% of the American people, who blame the GOP for this crisis.

          • D Parri

            You need to argue with the Constitution about the various powers and authorities of our government. If you don’t like them then change them, or move.

          • plsilverman

            I think the Religious Right needs to go back to school, pal, not me.

          • D Parri

            Ok, then explain the purpose and intent of the constitutional principle of the separation of powers. Give it shot…go ahead…try!

          • D Parri

            The 70% you speak of are made up of 100% of the folks that voted for Pres O. They couldn’t afford to admit that they voted for the wrong candidate. Surprise!

  • D Parri

    It is pretty clear that Obama has chosen to serve everyone EXCEPT the American taxpayer. In order to shut down the WWII veteran’s memorial it took tax $’s. In order to open the national mall grounds up for an immigration rally it took tax $’s. In order to pay the death benefits due to servicemen who lost their lives while serving under the current commander in chief, it didn’t cost the commander in chief a single penny to overlook the humanity owed to these families. It is a disgrace!

    • plsilverman

      oh, really? Obama, who never raised taxes on 95% of the taxpayers?

      • D Parri

        Obamacare does contain tax hikes. Tons of them. From taxes on tanning beds to taxes on employment and investments, Obamacare is a certified job-killing machine.

        President Obama refused to admit his individual mandate was a tax. However, in preparation for defending constitutionality of the Obamacare individual mandate in court, an Obama Justice Department legal brief argued that the penalty used to enforce the mandate is a valid exercise of Congress’s power to impose taxes.

        This law, if fully implemented, will deliver the largest tax hike on the broadest spectrum of working and non-working individuals in American history.

        And he never raised taxes on 95% of the taxpayers? Go stick your head back in the marshmallow.

        • plsilverman

          cute! he never did raise taxes on 95% of taxpayers, pal. sorry to disappoint you. there are taxes in ACA, 18 of them – to be paid by the very rich to collect 30+ billion dollars over 10 years. again, sorry to upset you.>>>Obama refused to admit? that’s just a biased “take” on the proceedings…if Judge Roberts himself needed to pour thru the bill to see ACA had a “tax” basis, then it’s fair to assume Obama was not sure. so…smile.

          • D Parri

            Since when do you classify 20-yr olds as “very rich”. The whole ACA is dependent upon premiums paid by the ‘very young’ who will need the coverage ‘very little.’

            You didn’t upset me…I’m used to your absurdities.

            In an interview with G. Stephanopoulos, George asked him repeatedly was this not a tax. He never ‘manned up’ in the interview and said it was. What a liar!

            I believe that Obama did not know WTF the law contained. He did not care. His ‘legacy bill’ had to pass. What a narcissist!

          • plsilverman

            “narcissist”? I thought the RNC dropped that one. Listen & learn: the 18 taxes in ACA are for the “very rich” which will be those above “middle class”, assuming those who have 345k in income. I don’t know the number…but it most likely will not be taxing those who make 250 to 345. look it up, yourself.>>>Obama promised healthcare reform and he delivered. he enlisted Romneycare experts. it is now the law and affirmed by the supreme court. now it’s time for you guys to go back to monitoring how many times per. mo. Obama cuts his toenails.

          • D Parri

            Beats me…I have no idea what the RNC dropped.

            Thanks for letting me know that the young all earn $250k-$345k. I did not know that. Otherwise, you’re just wrong. The $95 penalty is a tax–per Justice Roberts. The most likely to pay that tax are the ones who don’t want coverage and guess what–they’re young!

          • plsilverman

            your reply is very foggy. the “young”? it’s for the “very rich”, assuming those who make 250-345, etc., in income. look it up 4 yourself. nothing to do with the “young”.

          • D Parri

            The “very rich”…those are your words. See it?

          • plsilverman

            I say with respect, whatever you’re drinking, get me a case of it. The President said “the very rich” would pay those taxes. that’s all. for the 3rd time, look it up. Unless you want to nitpick THIS one into oblivion, too.

          • D Parri

            Start drinking. Stop nitpicking. Read.

            Chief Justice Roberts agreed with the government’s position that the “[s]hared responsibility payment” under the Affordable Care Act is a “tax” and not a “penalty.”

            “The payment is not so high that there is really no choice but to buy health insurance; the payment is not limited to willful violations, as penalties for unlawful acts often are; and the payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of taxation.”

            Chief Justice Roberts went on to explain that “[n]either the Affordable Care Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS.” He particularly stressed that “Congress’s choice of language…does not require reading §5000A as punishing unlawful conduct. It may also be read as imposing a tax on those who go without insurance.”

          • D Parri

            The taxes are to be borne by the young who not need to use the healthcare services. The disparity between a free-market rate and a government-mandate coverage rate reflect the marginal difference that will accrue to government coffers in order to subsidize the less healthy.

          • D Parri

            If the “very rich” will be the ones to subsidize the program’s needs, then the $250k-$345k target would HAVE to be young, because the young are the primary profit targets. Without profits, it will fail. The young will cost less and pay more than they would in a free-market based system. Figure it out. It might be too complicated 4U though.

          • D Parri

            The whole precept of ACA viability is predicated upon participation of the young. Why? Because those are the ones where the profits will come from.

          • D Parri

            The notion that this is a ‘fair’, income-based orientation of the assignment of government benefits and relative costs to consumers is ABSURD. It is built upon one economic principle, and one alone. The young will provide profits that will subsidize the less healthy.

          • Jeff Webb

            You’re either intentionally avoiding facts or being terribly dense.
            The tax that uninsured people are forced to pay applies to them whether their annual salary is $350K or $35K.
            The only people who won’t end up paying the medical device tax are the people who don’t buy one. If you now want to try claiming that only rich people buy stuff like hearing aids and blood pressure moniters, don’t bother.

            We didn’t buy BO’s lies before the law was rammed through; it’s kind of pitiful how you’re trying to sell them now.

          • D Parri

            If they ever had a ‘thinking cap’, BO (not the family dog) must have taken it from them. I think dense is close–like lead.

          • plsilverman

            the taxes to raise 30 billion over 10 years does not apply to the “uninsured”. there are penalties, yes. so instead of suggesting I’m a liar (which you would never suggest to my face, would you?) just look up the facts. Obama’s “lies”…there are none. but keep repeating RNC mantras into oblivion. and quit trying say I’m of low character.

          • Jeff Webb

            Obamacare requires people capable of buying insurance to buy it, EVEN IF THEY AREN’T RICH. If they decide to go uninsured, they pay what John Roberts said was the reason Obamacare would be upheld: a tax.

            Obama said nobody but the very rich would see an increase in taxes, and yet his administration’s argument to the SC, which was agreed to by Roberts, was its power to tax. Obama lied, your “95%” contention is incorrect, and you can’t post anything factual on this matter that makes BO suddenly look trustworthy to the people he misled.

            You misjudge, BTW. If you tell me in person something you know is untrue, then I’ll absolutely tell you right then and there that you’re lying. What makes you think I wouldn’t?

      • D Parri

        There you go, great! I knew you had some more BS. The only problem you’re having though is that it sticks to you when you try to sling it. Go wash your hands!

        • plsilverman

          I don’t dig your sense of humour..by the way, you would never talk like that to my face. you want to be a respected pundit? drop the highschool locker room trash. a fact he has not raised taxes on 895% of taxpayers.

          • D Parri

            WOW! 895% of the taxpayers? That’s more taxpayers than we have EVER had! Where did you get that number?

          • D Parri

            Now, if you meant 95% of the taxpayers, then read my post below. It’s too much to think that you might learn something, but just try it for fun.

          • D Parri

            Respected? Maybe, not a big deal. By you? Who cares.

          • Jeff Webb

            >>you would never talk like that to my face.<<

            Sounds a tad threatening. Think maybe you could try to use a different tactic to silence people?
            Speaking of which, kudos on going so long without crying racism. Your psychotherapist must be very proud.

    • Wil

      The Republicans should have thought of that, when they planned to shut down the federal government, months ago! When you purposely shut down our government, bad things happen.

      • D Parri

        Yeah, perfect time for taking a five-week vacation too, isn’t it? The Dems & Pres O never had any intention of negotiating. Railroading tactics worked in the past, but not when they don’t have complete control.

      • Jeff Webb

        Republicans forced BO to cherry-pick which/when monuments get closed, sometimes at more expense than leaving them alone? Republicans forced BO to close up places that cost no tax dollars to operate? Republicans, the people who supposedly act mostly out of hatred for BO, haven’t taken away a single perk enjoyed by the president?

        You’re just flailing now; even a dementedly partisan guy like you can see Obama is being a petulant little thug.

        • Wil

          What did you people think would happen, when you shut down the government?

  • D Parri

    “…a foolish mistake made by a rookie senator who was thinking more about politics than the good of the nation…”

    That was Barack Hussein Obama reflecting upon himself. Ok, so what has changed? He’s still a rookie. Is his feigned attempt at explaining his motives as being anything other than purely political and control-driven fall very short of the mark of plausibility.

    His goal as a “rookie senator” was to carry a ‘big stick’. It wasn’t his time, though. Now that he wields the biggest stick in the world, it’s still not enough. I doubt that one-sixth of the American economy carrying his name under a single package of healthcare programs would be sufficient for him.

    Make no mistake, though, it isn’t about “looking out for the average American.” It is about looking out for Barack Hussein Obama and his megalomaniacal bent for power. No doubt that the power of that office can be intoxicating.

    • plsilverman

      oooh, look! Barack HUSSEIN Obama! wow..that middle name sez alot, don’t it? sounds just like one of them names of our enemies over yonder!

      • D Parri

        No, he’s an enemy behind the lines.

        • plsilverman

          subjective, isn’t it. enemy, why? because he has continued Bush II programs. added an 11th yr. to the Bush II tax relief program. what other “anti-Christ” maneuvers can you conjure? :)

          • D Parri

            I don’t do any “anti-Christ”. That is a abrication of your own making.

  • D Parri

    He has the distinction of being the first person of African-American descent to become POTUS.

    Apparently that’s not enough. He also wants to be the president with the highest accumulated debt and the first one in history to allow the Fed to default on it’s debt.

    • plsilverman

      now, now, mr. fair and balanced. he inherited 11+ trillion in debt and has been forced to pay about 4 trillion in interest of that debt PLUS cover the 2 unfunded wars, unfunded pharma., and, in a compromise, extend the bizarre 10 yr. tax relief program, another year.

      • D Parri

        Is that all the phony information that you can come up with? Surely you have more lies in your pocket.

  • Randy

    I have never seen a president intentionally try to crash the market. Now that he has outdone Carter, perhaps he is going for Hoover?

  • Brian Fr Langley

    okay, okay, I’ll do better.
    .
    Mr. Legal likes picking a fight,
    especially with those on the right,
    but all his attacks,
    are quite short on facts,
    so he just calls them all old and white.

    • D Parri

      The nail is on the head hit,
      Brian is the one that ALLways manages it,
      Crafting the words into an excellent fit;
      So, like they say, you should ne’er take a knife to a gunfight,
      And you should think twice before coming here to attack the right!

    • D Parri

      Hey, man, I like this!

  • Brian Fr Langley

    Limerick @ D Parri’s request
    .
    There once was a liberal named “Eagle”,
    who Obama he thought was his Regal,
    yet it’s kind of their thing,
    Americans hating a King,
    So a Regal has never been legal.

    • D Parri

      Brian, you are the best!

    • plsilverman

      care to explain Regal in light of, at one point, essentially giving away his re-election in 12, with his approx. 4 trillion dollar deficit reduction package? the only thing “regal” in recent times is Mr. Cheney being crowned Commander-In-Chief and Energy Czar.

      • D Parri

        WTF are you talking about?! You are a loon to be sure.

      • Brian Fr Langley

        You have one thing absolutely right. Many Republicans and all democrats would like Executive Presidential powers to be massively enhanced. That is they really want a King (A Regal) Many in both groups have worked tirelessly to get the executive so powerful that essentially a King (or Queen) is what they’d be. (although they’d keep the name President) Obama’s group has taken this to hitherto unseen heights. America fought a bloody war to shed itself of the last King, it’d be a shame to go through that again. I have no idea what you mean By Obama giving away his election?

  • D Parri

    The POTUS wanted to make everyone feel the pain. He is now beginning to feel the pain of the hot-seat he’s now sitting on.

    It was an OUTRAGEOUS disgrace to fail, as Commander in Chief of all military forces, to provide death benefits ON TIME just as they always have for our fallen soldier’s families. Whoever does not think that this was not an intended action by the administration is a FOOL. When you combine that with the attempt to lock WWII veterans out of their memorial site–while holding an immigration reform rally on the adjoining grounds, then it becomes irrefutable what the president’s agenda is.

    Pres O will gain the distinction of becoming the WORST president in history. Well, at least he’s earned it.

  • Inwood

    We should suspend ALL non-obligatory payments to foreign countries during our fiscal crisis and beyond. It’s time we use taxpayer funds to manage our problems. Funds going to foreign countries should be used for USA needs.

  • Jeff Webb

    Sure enough, I never caught the story you linked.

    I really wish that a substantial number of voices, big & loud, had spoken up as Paul did. Too many toothless pansies in the GOP.

    The more time passes, career Congresspeople get more and more unlikable as far as I’m concerned. Most of the time you’ll see one of two types: the aggressive ones biting, scratching, and clawing to get more control over whatever/whomever they can, or the pillowy-soft ones who sit back & play nice, doing only as much as they need to be re-electable. Damn easy to identify which ones represent which party, ain’t it?

    Some people are afraid of heights, others fear spiders, but what petrifies long-timers in the Legislative Branch is the mere notion they’d stop being the richly-paid, benefits-engorged, cocooned residents of the ivory tower.

  • Brian Fr Langley

    At D Parri’s request
    .
    He was elected for Pres. not for king,
    the law’s his to obey, not to bring,
    If this were old France,
    the peasants would dance,
    and off with his head they would sing.

    • T Ko

      I, for one, LOVE IT! Let’s get it published!

      • Brian Fr Langley

        I think it just was.

        • T Ko

          ;)-

          • Brian Fr Langley

            what does I)- mean? What I meant, was since it’s here on this site, it’s published. (well kind of)

          • T Ko

            That’s a smiley for a happy grinning cat. I liked the limerick.

          • Brian Fr Langley

            as the kids say lol, who knew??

    • D Parri

      That’s it! Brian, I enjoy your talent for the limerick and I enjoy your insight. Thank you!

    • legal eagle

      You should be a rapper….

      • Brian Fr Langley

        Sorry I could not be a rapper,
        my age would be a career capper,
        also my pants have been cut,
        so you can’t see my butt,
        In other words, my dress is to dapper.

        • legal eagle

          You have a gift….Perhaps you can become a political speechwriter…LOL

  • D Parri

    It is clear that the president is starting to worry about having his balls busted by the PR which is not helping him. He would have the distinction of being the ONLY president in history that permitted the United States of America to default on its debt. His reasons are clear: he would in no way be personally affected by any economic calamity; he signed a bill that is known by his name (very narcissistic); he is not a good leader (history will bear that out).

    • T Ko

      That must be why he is starting to run scared. It shows.

    • legal eagle

      Why do you keep repeating yourself? Did Fox News not have some new talking points for you to keep repeating…You know you have a bad case of Obama Derangement Syndrome..
      Go to a doctor and get some help…Are you a former NFL player who suffered too many concussions?

      • D Parri

        Help yourself if you can. You are not part of this discussion.

  • D Parri

    The best thing that the GOP can do for the People at this point is to exercise their constitutional power to check the president’s overreach of power. Hold a poll today…ask all Americans if they would vote to elect Obama as King of America.

    I can give you the results now…a resounding NO!

    • T Ko

      I agree with you. The Republicans need to speak with ONE voice. The democrats, and especially the president, have tried their best to divide the party by saying that a few Rep’s are “holding the party hostage.”

      Bullsh*t!!! The Tea Party has given the GOP some balls and the president and his lemmings are beginning to see their dilemma! You can defeat a House divided, but not one undivided!

      • legal eagle

        Nice set of balls ………Just 28 percent of Americans have a favorable impression of the Republican Party, down 10 percentage points from last month, according to a Gallup poll. The polling firm called it a “record low,” noting that “this is the lowest favorable rating measured for either party since Gallup began asking this question in 1992.”

        While the Democratic Party isn’t popular either, it fared better, with 43 percent of Americans approving of the party — down a comparatively small 4 points from September.

        • Integrity

          That poll just proves that 28% and 43% of those that were polled are stupid. QED

          • plsilverman

            how about the poll that says more than 50% hate the shutdown and blame the GOP?

          • D Parri

            How ’bout the 100% that say you’re stupid.

          • legal eagle

            The poll proves you are mentally constipated…

          • Integrity

            A 4th grader could do better than that! You are starting to bore me again. QED

          • legal eagle

            The QED moron is back….another loser rejoins the cult…

          • Integrity

            I bet you don’t even weigh 100 lbs wet. QED

        • D Parri

          37% for the president. Hmmmm….how low can you go?

          • legal eagle

            The average gives Obama a 45 percent approval rating, and that’s even baking in the newsy AP/GFK poll that puts him at 37 percent. And the AP/GFK is 1) conducted online and 2) making the most news for giving Congress a 5 percent approval rating. The average gives Congress an 11 percent approval rating. Since the start of the shutdown, Congress is down from -57 to -74 in Gallup, from -58 to -68 in Fox, -58 to -77 in CNN, and stable at -66 in YouGov.

          • D Parri

            Nice little cherry picker, aren’t you! Please don’t worry about the truth…you’re not the source for that.

  • D Parri

    The president said in his 1-hour long news conference that after the House passed everything that the Dems wanted, then the president stated he would be glad to sit down with the GOP leadership and “talk” about anything–including golf, the weather, the cost of flying his family dog at the expense of the American people (while cutting some of the Headstart program funding to pay for Bo’s trips).

    Well…isn’t that nice.

    What he did NOT say was that he would feel compelled in any way to compromise or even negotiate with the Republicans on ANY issue. If my count was correct, he stated that he would “talk” 137 times in one hour. He was careful not to say “compromise” or even “negotiate” (i.e., set up formal negotiations; he did use the word negotiate, but it was not indicative of any full-faith talks).

    • plsilverman

      why should he negotiate if that means illegally amend a law in the process?

      • D Parri

        Because he’s already illegally amended it, idiot.

  • D Parri

    A quote from Legal Weasel:
    “Lets string up that Obama from a tree and castrate him…”

    I guess that helps to demonstrate his brilliance!

    • MarioG

      You string him up and YOU go down in history. You impeach him and HE goes down in history. Ipso facto, we need to impeach the sucker for impersonating a president so that HE goes down in history. Just imagine the trillions he has wasted and the lives of working Americans he has destroyed by trying to take a page out of Karl Marx. Now he thinks he’s a tin-pot dictator from some banana republic and will not negotiate and is throwing tantrums and wants to take his ball and run home to Michele working on her next tasteless menu so people can look like her. Good grief!

      Look, they impeached Nixon for lying to cover up a political stunt of a burglary and Clinton for doing what he does best, which is to look us in the eye and wag his finger in our faces and lie with a straight face with his trousers around his ankles. Obama gets elected under false pretenses of hope and change and post-racialism, then pulls Fast & Furious and Benghazi where people died and NSA and IRS where people’s freedom was abridged. What a joke. Would be funny like a clown show if not so serious.

      Eric With-Holder needs to be impeached as well for being the most corrupt and racially biased AG in history. Now he’s fighting tooth and nail to make the country safe for voter frauds. What do those poor people he’s worried about disenfranchising do when they need photo IDs to get their welfare payments and food stamps and Medicaid and such.

      I tried to open a PO Box at the Post Office last week and had to show TWO IDs, one with a photo and one without. For some reason two photo IDs were not acceptable – it had to be one without a photo. That’s how bureaucrats roll.

      • D Parri

        Absolutely, positively! The LAST thing we want to do for him is to make a martyr figure out of him.

        I provided the quote from Legal Weasel in order to demonstrate his idiocy.

        • MarioG

          Some people just need a little help to get pointed in the right direction, especially if they have been getting their news from MSNBC or Jon Stewart.

          • plsilverman

            much better to get newz from Fox, from Glenn Beck, malkin, Coulter, Ingraham, Levin, Gaffney, Corsi, Alex Jones, Hannity.

          • MarioG

            Damn straight. Independent studies have shown that Fox News treated the presidential candidates far more fairly than MSNBC, ABC, CBS and NBC, the NY Times, WaPo, LA Times, etc, – collectively the MSM – in 2008 and 2012.

            Their daily news is also fair and balanced. They have only one real conservative host on their opinion shows, that being Sean Hannity, and he doesn’t pretend he is anything but conservative, whereas the MSM pretend to be unbiased, which is a joke.

            That doesn’t do much to neutralize the brazen propaganda from so many left wing sources, whose reporters admit when polled to being some 85% plus DemocRATS.

          • plsilverman

            what garbage. Foxnews? sure, they treated the GOP candidates great. see the lovefest between Greta and Santorum? re. the Democratic candidate – the usual 24-7 vilification and insane lies about him and his adm. Hannity is no conservative…he’s an extremist. As is every single full time host except O’Reilly, who is a generally fair and balanced host. the only one with credentials and a working brain. actually has a sense of humor and is wiling to read the riot act to extremists like Ingraham, Palin, and Malkin. I know about Fox…I watched them 5 nights per week until about 2007-8, or around when they snapped and became a 1000% political organization. Bought O’Reilly’s books and enjoyed his show, nite after nite. usually 60 minutes of it.>>>.You are very wrong about MSNBC..yes, there is that sarcasm but their research is impeccable and they treat opposing viewpoints very professionally….they treat McCain-Palin campaign mgr. and Michael Steele and every Conservative guest with respect. Hannity, Doocey, they are pseudo journalists. Foxnews? what a laff..read THE FOX EFFECT and watch the DVD Outfoxed!

          • MarioG

            No really. Studies showed that Fox News was the most unbiased of all between Obama and McCain and Obama and Romney in their hard news reporting. The studies actually counted positive and negative comments about the candidates. You don’t seem too smart so you are probably confused between hard news and opinion shows, or are believing the Soros-funded propaganda outlets like Media Matters, Daily Kos, Think Progress and others that are in cahoots with the White House and DNC.

            MSNBC research impeccable? Now THAT’s a laff. What a gullible doofus. LOL!

      • Jeff Webb

        FYI, while likely to happen if he hadn’t stepped down, Nixon wasn’t impeached.

        • MarioG

          Jeff, you are right, except that Nixon’s impeachment was more than just likely, it was almost certain. The point I was trying to make was that no one died from Watergate or its cover-up or any of Nixon’s other shenanigans, nor from Clinton’s lying under oath and obstructing justice. Unfortunately, Obama is likely to skate for the same reason he was elected – white guilt over slavery and white terror at being called racists.

          When the country was ready for a non-white president the Democrats gave us a clueless, self-indulgent spoiled brat, trained and mentored by anti-American anti-Semites, and the Republicans gave us an unreliable RINO, John McCain, and then one of the best candidates ever, who was defeated by voters making less than $30K a year who beat the voters making over $30K a year. The takers had finally exceeded the makers and now everything that made this country great is in jeopardy.

          • legal eagle

            Thank you for bigoted rant Mario…..You’re a credit to your race..

          • MarioG

            Illegal Beagle – a) You have no idea what my race is, b) I am bigoted against liars and stupid people and far left wing ideologues and Barack Obama meets all three standards, c) some of the most intelligent Americans happen to be black, including Clarence Thomas, Tom Sowell, Walter E. Williams, Dr. Ben Carson, Deneen Borelli, Carol Swain, Herman Cain, John McWhorter, Shelby Steele, Larry Elder, just to name a few.

          • legal eagle

            and some of your best imaginary friends are black……LOL

          • MarioG

            Actually, I don’t choose friends by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. You libs should try it sometime, before you give us another affirmative action president again. But wait! You have Hillary Clinton waiting in the wings, who has exactly the same list of achievements as Barack Obama. Zero, Zip, Nyet, Nada.

          • legal eagle

            Your previous remarks have contained racial references….Choose whatever friends you want and be as close minded as you choose…
            If you don’t believe that calling Obama an affirmative action president is race baiting then I will leave you to your bigotry…

          • MarioG

            What’s wrong with “racial references”? How is it “close minded” to recognize FACTS about someone from a different race? It is actually “close minded” not to.

            BASED ON HIS RESUME there’s no question that Barack Obama was first elected based on affirmative action thinking . The whites who voted for him did so out of a deep seated guilt over slavery they had nothing to do with, and the non-whites because he was non-white and wanted to make history. He has let them down.

            He was re-elected by voters making less than $30K a year to preserve the free stuff they need to survive in his jobless economy where millions of Americans have simply given up – which is a terrible thing to do to Americans. Voters making more than $30K a year gave Gov. Romney a 3 1/2 million vote margin. These are simply facts.

            Gov. Romney just happens to be the anti-Obama – a highly successful investor, administrator and philanthropist who made millions for himself and others and created tens of thousands of jobs overall. And yet, because there are now more takers than makers, the clueless dunce, who has less business experience than my 12-year-old lemonade tycoon, got re-elected and is preaching to us about how to run an economy, and telling the 12-year-old that she did not build her lemonade empire. It would be funny if so many lives were not being destroyed right now, not to mention the debt load that will be like a millstone around the necks of several generations yet unborn – the “lucky” ones who are allowed to live by their mothers.

            BTW, this is the LEAST racist country in the universe, which is why everyone and his brother and sister want to eventually come here.

          • legal eagle

            Hard to explain why using racial references makes you a racist…Harder to explain to someone why this is unacceptable behavior in a civilized society…If you believe bigotry is acceptable because “I’m just telling the truth” that’s your belief and you’re welcome to it…

          • MarioG

            Of course it’s hard to explain because the explanation would be spurious. The truth always sets one free and the truth is that it is liberals and DemocRATS who have oppressed blacks from the days of slavery on.

            A civilized society is based on the content of one’s character, not the color of one’s skin. Where have I heard that before? I vaguely recall that it was a black guy who said that.

            Bigotry is not talking truth to someone of a different race. It is what DemocRATS and liberals have callously and cynically done to the blacks in the virtual plantations they have built in every inner-city since LBJ finally found a way to destroy the black family that had survived the dark days of slavery and Jim Crow (D), by paying them to have babies without a stable relationship with an interested partner.

            With the assistance of their subsidiaries in the teachers unions, the NAACP, Urban League, etc. they have trapped as many as possible in a permanent underclass and dependent voting block.

            Now some blacks who have escaped are writing books like “Blacklash – how Obama and the left are driving Americans to the government plantation” by Deneen Borelli, and making documentaries like “Runaway Slave” where Rev. C.L. Bryant, an ex-NAACP Chapter Chairman, tells how he escaped from the government plantation and urges others to join him.

            These are the blacks who are in my foxhole in the current culture war against Obama, the grievance industry, the race hustlers and the major Washington and New York media. Try making something “racial” about that.

          • legal eagle

            And you know all of this how? From your vast business experience? From your education? From your parents?

          • MarioG

            I know that liberal DemocRATS have oppressed blacks from the days of slavery by studying US history where all this is well documented. I know about the DemocRAT government plantation because of what happened to the black family, which had survived slavery and Jim Crow (D) after LBJ finally started paying them to have babies without getting married. I know about the DemocRAT subsidiary teachers unions because they run the public schools and lobby against school choice vouchers for inner city kids. One of the first things Obama did as President was to cancel the school voucher program for Washington, DC kids, who are mostly blacks. I know about the other two major subsidiaries, the NAACP and the Urban League because they support every liberal DemocRAT policy that keeps the poorest blacks trapped in government dependencies as a permanent underclass.

          • plsilverman

            I did not know that since 1964 the Democratic party oppressed Blacks. I thought it was the extreme Conservative Dixiecrats, Dem. in name only, and traditional Confederates who created apartheid conditions in several states, denying education, transportation and healthcare to African-Americans. what graduate classes do U teach? I want to audit those classes.

          • MarioG

            There is a lot you don’t seem to know.

            You need to get over your Dixiecrat fetish. There were never any Dixiecrats in all the failing urban centers in the northern states, and all the anti-black policies in the south were by DemocRATS. It is the DemocRATS who refuse to give poor blacks school vouchers and support the teachers unions who are primarily responsible for the failing inner city schools.

            One of the first things Obama did after taking office was to cancel the school voucher program for black kids in the DC school district. Right now, Eric With-Holder is attacking Louisiana for giving school vouchers to black kids.

            After passing Civil Rights legislation in 1964, LBJ embarked on his Great Society and War on Poverty programs to patronize minorities who had finally gotten full civil rights. LBJ found a way to break up black families by paying them to have babies out of wedlock to increase their welfare checks. The birth rate to single black mothers went from 24% in 1965 to 73% today which puts tremendous pressure on the poorest blacks given they are also trapped in failing schools.

            The poverty rate for single-parent black families is over 50%, whereas it is only 8% for two-parent black families which is lower than the 11% rate for all two-parent families.

          • plsilverman

            your take on Black families is so outdated and bizarre it does not warrant a real reply…but here I go: my Dixiecrat “fetish” pal? do you think the Dems of today resemble the DINOs of pre-1964, who were stone segregationists? ever hear of Confederates? they were Dems in 1865 and Dems in name only in 1965. >>>patronize? well, if that’s what it takes to get Civil Rights and Voting Rights legislation thru, sobeit. the Tea Party wants to take away those rights and go back to 1963…they are funded by the Kochs, who are fundamentally JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY.
            failed urban centers? anti-Black? all SUBJECTIVITY, on your part. a good frame work for a good program can be set up but if the hard rightwing in DCV refuses to FUND then there’s problem. if those great society programs had serious flaws and did not create real jobs, fine….but the alternative was business as usual, meaning outright denial of constitutional rights. if there were/are abuses of the system, not really since welfare reform, then say what it is: a monster of American Apartheid.
            Blacks – African-Americans – are now equal in the middle class with whites. and poor blacks and poor whites still fight the manufactured wars of the top 5%. so ethnicity is nullified, isn’t it?
            and, pal, give me your definition of “fetish”. :)

          • MarioG

            My gullible friend from planet Mars with the double digit IQ, Al Gore Sr., Wm. Fulbright, George Wallace, Fritz Hollings, Robert Byrd among others were all proud liberal DemocRATS.

            The Confederacy were all DemocRATS. The KKK were all liberal DemocRATS. Robert Byrd was a sheet-wearing, cross-burning KKK member. Fritz Hollings raised the Confederate flag over the statehouse in SC. Wm. Fulbright was a segregationist and Bill Clinton’s mentor.

            DemocRATS fought to preserve slavery, terrorized blacks through the KKK, filinustered Civil Rights legislation and LBJ, another proud liberal Democrat, finally found a way to break the black family which had survived the dark days of slavery and Jim Crow (D) by paying the poorest blacks to have more kids out of wedlock.

            The rate of births in the black community has gone from 24% in 1965 to 73% today – apparently unbeknownst to political hacks like you.

            Blacks are trapped by the DemocRATS in failing schools run by their subsidiary teachers unions, and deprived of entry level jobs from which to climb the economic ladder by their subsidiary labor unions and their demands for minimum wage laws and prevailing wage laws.

            You need to have someone read you the following book by Deneen Borelli who grew up in a welfare home, “Blacklash – How Obama and the left are driving Americans to the government plantation”, or the book by Star Parker, who once was on welfare herself, “Uncle Sam’s Plantation”, or “Pimps, whores and welfare brats”

          • plsilverman

            what is affirmative action thinking? I worked over 30 years as an employer advocate and I was charged with the responsibility of applying those A.A. standards. do U know what A.A. is? In 1967, it was introduced as a measure for EMPLOYERS, to encouraged them to use the widest possible recruitment net. You equate QUOTAS with Affir. Action but it’s not true…or at least until 1971 when a Republican adm. decided that A.A. was not working well enough. aw shucks, U knew that.>>>Yes, Obama’s resume was comparatively light in ’08 but he accomplished a lot of things, as I listed above > actually compromising many times, and continuing GOP programs and policies. By 2012, he had healthcare reform passed, 65 years in the making and co-written partially by Romneycare expetts – EIGHT of them.

          • MarioG

            Affirmative action thinking is electing someone with Obama’s resume, who had never run anything but his mouth and had less business experience than my 12-year-old lemonade tycoon, to run the largest organization in the world.

            The only affirmative action that makes sense is to prevent qualified minorities from being discriminated against in housing, jobs, college admissions etc.

            When unqualified minorities are put on the same level as people with superior qualifications it is a recipe for their failure and further loss of self esteem. The better affirmative action would be to help them improve their qualifications through remedial programs so that they can compete head-to-head with anyone.

            Minorities are as capable as anyone else when given the same educational opportunities and family support. The poorest of them have neither – they are trapped in failing schools and 3 out 4 of them are now being born to unwed mothers who have a 50% plus poverty rate and no father figure around, which is a steep hill to climb relative to two-parent families.

            Obama, Reid and Pelosi rammed the Unaffordable Care Act down the country’s throat with a 2,400 page bill that no one was allowed to read, no debate, no amendments and thus not a single Republican vote – the only major entitlement in history rammed through by only one party. Then John Roberts had to turn the bill on its head and turn himself into a pretzel to misconstrue the penalty in the statute into a tax, which was a naked abuse of his power that will go down in infamy.

            Now, un-named, un-elected bureaucrats at HHS have written 11,000 pages of legislation on every aspect of the bill which the DemocRATS in Congress who rammed it through had declined to write.

            Nice try, but Romney had nothing to do with Obamacare which he would have vetoed because of what he had learned from Romneycare.

          • MarioG

            Bald Eagle – Since you are sensitive to racial issues and are getting loose stools at my describing president Obama as an affirmative action president, let me tell you about several minorities whom I do admire immensely based on the content of their character. All these people came from humbler circumstances than Obama, who grew up middle-class.

            Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, Walter E. Williams, Herman Cain, Ben Carson, Deneen Borelli, Carol Swain, Angela McGlowan, Amy Holmes, Larry Elder, Shelby Steele, John McWhorter. There are more but I rest my case. They are in the same foxhole as I am and we watch each others backs.

            None of these folks whine and moan about life even though their lives were tougher than Obama’s was. They just accept the FACT they are minorities and a minority person’s responsibility to themselves and their families is to make it as difficult as possible for anyone to overlook the content of their character by being distracted by the color of their skin.

            They recognize US history where most DemocRATS and liberals first enslaved them, then terrorized them, then tried to deny them civil rights, and finally paid them to destroy their families. In the meantime, most Republicans and conservatives fought to free them, helped put the KKK out of business, helped pass civil and voter’s rights laws, and since then have tried to make them co-equal members of this most color-blind society in the universe where what you can do always eventually trumps what you look like.

            The proof lies in the FACT that the top 4 or 5 ethnic groups in the US when ranked by family income are brown-skinned Asian immigrants who come from a different culture, LEGALLY, without being invited, almost all married to THEIR Baby Mommas, have no “national leaders”, and embody what was called the American spirit.

            Many elite American universities now have affirmative action programs for whites to provide some seats for them, which would otherwise be taken by these Asians if all admissions were merit based.

            Yet while so many blacks are trapped in inner cities with failing schools that deny them a decent education and prevailing wage rates that deny them decent entry level jobs, by the DemocRATS and their subsidiary teacher’s unions, NAACP, Urban League, etc. in an inversion of common sense, most blacks keep voting DemocRAT due to some sort of group Stockholm Syndrome to protect their free stuff and be dependent on politicians and government bureaucrats.

            The poorest blacks need to escape from these government plantations and join the rest of American society, which includes many of their fellow blacks who dominate entire sectors of Americana without any affirmative action programs but simply by character, attitude and relentless hard work to develop their skills and talents.

          • legal eagle

            You and Clarence Thomas are watching each others backs…..and some of your “best friends” are black conservatives……any Hispanics, Jews or Muslims you “admire”?

          • MarioG

            Of course I do, but no one enslaved them, terrorized them, and then trapped them in government plantations. They don’t need my help. They’ll be fine by themselves.

            However, I am on the front lines of Israel’s battle to survive adversaries who have refused to recognize their right to exist as a Jewish state, even though all their neighbors are Muslim states that are essentially cleansed of non-Muslims. These organizations like Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Muslim Brotherhood, etc, are REQUIRED by their founding charters to wipe Israel off the map and kill Jews. Thank Allah they are unable to.

          • legal eagle

            I think you are watching to much Fox News….As someone of the Jewish faith I can tell you that we probably don’t need you on the front lines when Israel is under attack….

          • MarioG

            You are right. I must watch the other channels so that I can get the same bogus information as you have. Fox News is too fair and balanced to be of any use.

            BTW, if you are an American Jewish liberal, like David Axelrod, Rahm Emmanuel, Debbie Blabbermouth-Schultz, Barbara Boxer, Jerrold Nadler, Ed Koch, Penny Pritzker, etc. you are dangerous to the security of Israel and Israel does need every Christian who believes in the Bible on its side to offset people like you.

            Did you even know that the radical Palestinians are REQUIRED to wipe Israel off the map and kill Jews, or that their maps show no Israel?

          • legal eagle

            Stop repeating idiocy…..you know as much about middle eastern history as a three year old…and the last think Israel needs is you on the front line…
            You are just a hater….You and your right wing cult members are rooting for the country to fail so you can say I told you so….Go spread you hate to your family…They may listen to your nonsense…

          • legal eagle

            I hate to let you in on a secret but Israel has taken care of its business in the Middle East since 1948 and doesn’t need your help or your hatred…

          • MarioG

            You are absolutely correct. Israel has been accepted by all its Muslim neighbors, and peace and brotherhood reigns throughout the middle-east. Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and the Muslim Brotherhood all have elected representatives in the Knesset, and Jews are migrating in droves to all the neighboring Muslim states where they are being welcomed with garlands of flowers, milk and honey. Let me know when you wake up from your dream.

          • legal eagle

            You are so deluded you cannot tell the difference between political rhetoric and actual reality…

          • MarioG

            Here is actual reality:
            a) 23 million Americans unemployed or underemployed
            b) 70% of jobs under Obungler are part-time jobs
            c) 48 million Americans on food stamps
            d) 15% Americans in poverty
            e) labor force participation rate lowest since 1978
            f) Palestinians REQUIRED by their founding charters to wipe Israel off the map and kill Jews
            g) Israel unable to trust Obungler on when they will neutralize Iran
            h) Obungler laughing stock of the world for “leading from behind”
            What do you have?

          • legal eagle

            keep up the hate….It will continue to eat you up after Hillary is elected…..I feel bad for your family….

          • MarioG

            So, now, facts that you are unable to refute are “hate”? What planet do you live on?

            No wonder real Israelis despise liberal Jews like you.

          • legal eagle

            Been nice knowing you…..go rant to someone else or discuss your theories with your imaginary real Israeli…

          • MarioG

            Most of my Jewish friends are conservatives, have more than half a brain and are staunch defenders of Israel. I can’t say the same about liberal American Jews who could care less about Israel, know nothing about why there is no end to the conflict, nothing about the radical Palestinian objectives which are IN WRITING, and know nothing about the Palestinian maps which show no Israel or what that means THAT is how dumb they are.

          • legal eagle

            More imaginary Jewish friends?….Are these in addition to your Israeli friends? Palestinian maps? Do you have a clue what you’re talking about and why does anyone give a damn about Palestinian maps?
            Where do you come up with this nonsense?

          • MarioG

            Thanks for confirming once again that you are a classic liberal American Jewish Quisling cynically callous not only to the facts but the jeopardy that Obama has placed Israel in.

            All my conservative Jewish friends are intelligent, unlike you who a) has no idea of the written objectives in the charters of every major Palestinian organization requiring them to wipe Israel off the map and kill Jews, and b) is so incredibly dumb that he cannot figure out what it means for Palestinians to draw maps that show no Israel.

            God help Israel from Jews like you.

            Thank God Christians have taken the place of liberal American Jews in supporting the Israelis and conservative Jews who truly care for the security and survival of Israel.

          • MarioG

            Thanks for confirming once again that you are a classic liberal American Jewish Quisling cynically callous not only to the facts but the jeopardy that Obama has placed Israel in.

            All my conservative Jewish friends are intelligent, unlike you who a) has no idea of the written objectives in the charters of every major Palestinian organization requiring them to wipe Israel off the map and kill Jews, and b) is so incredibly dumb that he cannot figure out what it means for Palestinians to draw maps that show no Israel.

            God help Israel from Jews like you.

            Thank God Christians have taken the place of liberal American Jews in supporting the Israelis and conservative Jews who truly care for the security and survival of Israel.

          • legal eagle

            Where are these secret maps? Can you tell me where to find them online…What year were they created?
            By the way, which God are you thanking?
            What exactly have these conservative Jewish friends of yours done for Israel? Did you ever consider that only one Republican member of Congress is Jewish?

          • MarioG

            More proof of how clueless about Israel some liberal American Jews are. The maps are not SECRET, dumbkof, – they are openly used by the Palestinians. In the Bing search engine, type in “Jewish Virtual Library – Palestinian Maps Omit Israel” and click on the first link that comes up. Imagine a Gentile teaching you this basic stuff that has been going on for decades. Tell your “Reform” Rabbi who probably is as clueless as you are.

            If you knew anything about your religion, there is only one God who created everything.

            Almost every one of my conservative Jewish friends have served in the Israeli armed forces including the women, some in combat.

            One Republican member of Congress being Jewish shows how powerful the clueless, cynical and callous liberal American Jews are. They helped elect and re-elect the most anti-Semitic president in history, who says he will watch their back, but is more likely to stab them in the back and leak sensitive intel to their enemies. Besides he has created economic chaos especially for the poor and downtrodden that liberals pretend to be concerned about.

            Liberal black activist and radio host Tavis Smiley just said, ‘Black People Will Have Lost Ground in Every Single Economic Indicator’ Under Obama…

          • legal eagle

            There are 34 Jewish members of Congress…33 Democrats and one Republican…I wonder why that is?
            Maybe you can explain the reason for this….I’ll hold my breath waiting for your response…

          • MarioG

            The reason for this is liberal American Jews, who helped elect and re-elect the most anti-Semitic president in US history who has also created economic chaos in the US, especially for the poor and minorities:

            Black liberal activist and radio host, Tavis Smiley, just said, ‘Black People Will Have Lost Ground in Every Single Economic Indicator’ Under Obama…’

            When I ask liberal Jewish businessmen if they would hire Obama to run their businesses, they run away from me. I had to do a Heimlich on one when I asked him this question over a meal.

          • MarioG

            The actual reality that Israel faces is that Obama has put it in more jeopardy than before because they cannot trust him to watch their back when time comes to neutralize the Iranian nuclear threat. Vlad Putin made a monkey out of Obama in Syria and Mahmoud Rouhani made a monkey out of him in Iran. What you have is a neighborhood community agitator from the mess in Chicago being schooled by KGB operatives and Iranian horse traders.

          • legal eagle

            I think some Xanax would do you good…..If you have health insurance you should get medical care….If you don’t sign up for Obamacare…

          • MarioG

            Bibi Netanyahu, who is brilliant, needs Xanax after every meeting with a clueless dunce like Obama

          • plsilverman

            really? ya mean the segregationists were true Democrats? you ever hear of Dixiecrats? those who are actually Confederates? segregation was ended by Democrats. the segregationists who said they were Dems were really extremist Conservatives…they are Democrats in name only. they are “historical” Dems, meaning they think the wrong side won in 1865. after 1865, the African Americans were made “free” but faced apartheid in several states – they were denied their rights, systematically…not by Democrats. they were not allowed in school, to ride as equals in public transportation; they could not get bank services, or ambulance services – they could not vote, in most cases. which party led the charge for civil rights and voting rights legislation? the Democrats. today the hard rightwing wants to take those rights away.

          • MarioG

            Yes, really. It was DemocRATS who fought a bloody civil war to preserve slavery, and then terrorized blacks through their subsidiary KKK. It was DemocRATS who filibustered civil rights legislation – a higher percentage of Republicans voted to pass the Civil Rights and Voter Rights legislation than the percentage of DemocRATS. It was DemocRAT LBJ who finally found a way to break up the black family that had survived the worst days of slavery and Jim Crow (D) by paying the poorest among them to have more babies without getting married to increase the amount of their welfare checks.

            It was DemocRAT Gov. Fritz Hollings who first flew the Confederate flag over the state house in Columbia, SC. It was segregationist, Sen. Wm. Fulbright, who was Bill Clinton’s political mentor. It was Sen. Al Gore. Sr. who participated in the filibuster of civil rights legislation

            Today, through their wholly owned subsidiaries like the teachers unions, the NAACP and the Urban League, it is DemocRATS who refuse to fix failing inner city schools and then trap poor blacks in them by refusing to give them school vouchers. They support prevailing wage laws and minimum wage laws that make it difficult if not impossible for young blacks to get entry level jobs so they can then start climbing the economic ladder.

          • plsilverman

            really? Aw, that’s cute: Obama’s achievements: ACA, using Romneycare experts as co-writers; restoration of auto industry; restoration of FEMA; credit card reform; student loan reform; ending DA-DT; done more for Veterans and Military spouses than the last two GOP Presidents, combined; Identifed the location of BL in ’08 – and sent Seals to get BL , 2 yrs. after W. and the CIA gave up (and, no, there was no enhanced interrogation help); created a decent # of jobs despite the most Obstructionist Congress in history. so, pal;, U are wrong, aren’t you? but I guess you loved Romney, who would have ended medicare and started 3 new wars. the great corporate raider and outsourcer!!!

          • MarioG

            When you wake up from whatever you are smoking or drinking here is what you’ll find:
            1. 23 million Americans unemployed or underemployed.
            2. 48 million on food stamps
            3. 11 million claiming to be disabled
            4. 15% in poverty
            5. Unemployment rate for blacks 13.5%
            6. Over 40% of black youth unemployed
            7. Labor force participation rate lowest since 1978.
            8. Obama a laughing stock around the world for “leading from behind” and drawing imaginary “red lines” and then denying he had done so.
            9. Our strongest ally, Israel, unable to trust Obama with classified intel for fear he will leak it to their enemies.10. Putin and Rouhani making monkeys out of Obama on Syria and Iran – and he doesn’t even know it.

          • D Parri

            And you are a disgrace for your race.

          • Ted Crawford

            Spot-On Mario! What concerns me greatly is the fact that Obama has made it difficult to consider any minority, racial or gender, in the near future. If a President cannot be criticized or even questioned with respect to their policy decisions, without the cry of discrimination being raised, then saddly America may not really be ready for a Minority President!

        • D Parri

          And what about Clinton? The history books say he WAS impeached by the House. Unfortunately, he was also acquitted.

          Given a choice between Hussein and Jefferson, though, I would take William Jefferson in a heartbeat!

          • plsilverman

            Clinton likes ACA and the restoration of autos and getting out of the War for Halliburton.

          • D Parri

            So?

    • legal eagle

      Taking my quote a little out of context? It’s called sarcasm…Might be a little too complicated for you?

      • D Parri

        Yeah, you know me…I’m just a Republican so I must be stupid…right?

      • D Parri

        But at least I’m not a pervert. Thankfully, you were able to admit it…maybe there’s hope for you…NOT!

        ————————————————————————————-
        legal eagle > D Parri

        • 17 days ago
        Yes…….reading your nonsense gives me a four hour erection…
        ————————————————————————————–

        Now, that’s S-I-C-K!

      • D Parri

        I gotta’ grant you, though, you are consistent.

      • D Parri

        You are always the same…a S-I-C-K-O….

      • D Parri

        I don’t try to understand perverts like yourself. A quote is sufficient.

  • Brian Fr Langley

    Limerick?
    .
    The President has made his big play,
    time will tell if it wins him the day,
    if intransigence bashes,
    and economy crashes,
    His only vote left will be gay.

    • D Parri

      Brian, I have another request, but I don’t know if you want to do one of these. I would like to hear one regarding Legal Weasel. There’s a whole lot more out there, but he seems to be one of the most active nuts that we see. His only goal is to attack, disrupt and annoy. And he doesn’t mind lying at any time. Just a thought. I’ll respect whatever you decide. Thanks.

  • tb thomas

    Monthly tax-revenues $200-billion plus. Monthly debt service: $25-billion. If America defaults on it’s debt, it will be a deliberate act of treason by a President who clearly despises this country, and wants to punish Americans for being Americans.

    The disgust I feel for this man is hard to quantify. Last night, I called several Republican members of Congress asking that instead of sitting in their seats in their respective chambers, they walk out of the Capitol building, roll up their sleeves, and tear down the barriers Obama has put up around national monuments and parks in Washington D.C. I would encourage anyone else reading this who feels the same way to do the same. If members of Congress were to do just that, it would probably earn them a 20-point bump in their approval rating.

    • legal eagle

      have you discussed your “disgust” with a mental health professional….It sounds to me like you’re reaching the danger level….

      • Jeff Webb

        Say, that reminds me: does it appear your shrink can help you with your chronic projection problem?

        • legal eagle

          “chronic projection”? Sounds like a problem on an HD TV….LOL
          I’ll ask my shrink next time he calls me for legal advice….

          • Ted Crawford

            Anyone, intentionally calling you for ANY advice on any issue, clearly needs far more help than any shrink could possibly provide!

          • legal eagle

            I bill at $350 per hour…You can call me anytime intentionally or not…

          • mcveen

            Turd talk.

          • Integrity

            And yet, you still shop at Walmart to be among the little people. QED

          • legal eagle

            I like shopping at Wal-Mart but I love shopping at Costco…

          • D Parri

            To engage with his ilk is a non-winning proposition. His agenda is malevolent and never leads anywhere except to get into a tit-for-tat. He is hoping to draw anyone wishing to have an honest conversation into a waste of time with him. Just my advice.

            In trying to start up any useful conversations, I would suggest using someone else to reply to, or make a new comment so that others can see it. If you get into these conversations with moronic Weasels, then they have a tendency to get buried and it’s only wasting your time.

          • brickman

            Very good. A+

      • tb thomas

        “Have you discussed your disgust…”

        That’s a catchy lyric Mr. Eagle (has a sort of Cole Porter bounce to it!)

        I am curious though: when we go to single payer, and all the docs are just government employees, what are the ambulance chasers of the world going to do for a living? (But then that’s silly of me…you can always become a shrink!)

        • legal eagle

          They will probably sue you…LOL

    • D Parri

      TB, don’t worry about Weasel, he uses the ‘mental’ snipe regularly. It’s one of his canned responses.

      • legal eagle

        Good job D Parri protecting a fellow cult member…..

    • MarioG

      The Obama media, all auditioning for jobs in the WH, have been blaming the GOP. From Sept. 17 to 30 out of 25 shutdown stories, 21 collared Republicans for “triggering the crisis” compared to four that blamed both sides and absolutely none, as in zero, zip, nyet, nada, blamed Democrats.

      On the other hand, the public may be waking to the clueless, petulant, spoiled brat they elected and are blaming both sides, which is unfair but progress nevertheless because it is Reid and Obama who have shut the government down.

      Affirmative action only goes so far before the performance catches up, and that may be finally happening to our affirmative action president.

  • Tim Ned

    Few Americans will remember decades from now who their representatives were when the debt ceiling hit. But many will remember who was president. Obama faces the same legacy as Hoover and Bush. Because everyone remembers who was driving when disaster strikes, but not the cause.

  • Wil

    Bernie, In the USA, in 2013, we find leading members of a major political party expressing the desire that the federal government should be deconstructed, diluted, disappeared and even drowned. And that is something completely new – never seen before. Are you betting on this?

    • Tim Ned

      Actually it was seen before, not the Armageddon you try to accuse the Republicans of, but Calvin Coolidge reduced government spending and the debt during his term. He left office quite popular and the country was extremely healthy.

      • Wil

        Herbert Hoover would strongly disagree with you!

        • Tim Ned

          And what Wil is Herbert Hoover’s legacy in history? You have very strange political hero’s?

          • tb thomas

            Herbert Hoover’s legacy in history, Mr. Ned? Glad you asked…

            “When World War I began in August 1914, Hoover helped organize the return of around 120,000 Americans from Europe. He led 500 volunteers in distributing food, clothing, steamship tickets and cash. “I did not realize it at the moment, but on August 3, 1914, my career was over forever. I was on the slippery road of public life.”

            “When Belgium faced a food crisis after being invaded by Germany, Hoover undertook an unprecedented relief effort with the Commission for Relief in Belgium (CRB). As chairman of the CRB, Hoover worked with the leader of the Belgian Comite National de Secours et Alimentation (CN), Emile Francqui, to feed the entire nation for the duration of the war.”

            “As Secretary of Commerce in 1921, Hoover provided aid to the defeated German nation after the war, as well as relief to famine-stricken Bolshevik-controlled areas of Russia in 1921, despite the opposition of Senator Henry Cabot Lodge and other Republicans. When asked if he was not thus helping
            Bolshevism, Hoover retorted, “Twenty million people are starving. Whatever their politics, they shall be fed!”.

            The Russian famine of 1921–22 claimed 6 million people, after V.Lenin confiscated the grain and seed stocks of Russian and Ukrainian peasant farmers to pay for the “change Russians believed in” as of 1917.

            Hoover found out about it after reading a plea for help in a European newspaper by Russian author, Maxim Gorky. Thanks to massive shipments of corn from the US and a distribution network in Russia organized by Hoover, 10-million more who would have otherwise perished, survived.

            In July 1922, as American food aid was sustaining the lives of millions of his fellow Russians, Gorky wrote to Hoover:

            “Your help will enter history as a unique, gigantic achievement, worthy of the greatest glory, which will long remain in the memory of millions of Russians whom you have saved from death.”

            It is said that Hoover was personally responsible for saving the lives of more human beings than anyone else in recorded history. Not bad for a Republican Capitalist Pig, eh Mr. Ned?

          • Tim Ned

            You obviously didn’t understand my post. I am well aware of Hoover’s accomplishments. I was referring to Wil’s post in relation to his historical attack on any political leader who was either conservative or republican.

          • tb thomas

            Sorry Tim, upon rereading, I see I misunderstood your point (well taken).

          • legal eagle

            Very strange? Tricky Dick Nixon must be his other political hero…

  • gold7406

    any administration that has it’s mind clouded by social justice and “you didn’t build that,” can not be objective. they feel justified in doing and saying anything to achieve their end result.

    • Wil

      >”you didn’t build that,”<
      .

      'All by yourself', with no help from anyone. There, I fixed it for you.

    • Ted Crawford

      They simply follow the teachings of their Prophet.
      “Their mutual goal is so good and so bright that it is not important if one must go through a few devious valleys and Shadows” Reveille For Radicals
      ” All effective actions require the Passport of Morality” Rules For Radicals
      Saul Alinsky

      • gold7406

        thanks for the info…..”passport of morality”…”you didn’t build it,
        you didn’t earn it, you don’t deserve it, we’re going to take it.”
        sounds like huey newton too.

  • Chet Przygoda

    The solution, simple as it is for the rest of us in the real world, is not to borrow more but rather to cut spending. Exactly how important are some of the agencies that are now sitting at home doing nothing but eventually getting paid to do nothing? All too obvious why people like the prez are in government or teaching. They couldn’t get a real job in the real world doing what they do period. Maybe we should treat them the same way the private sector treats its excess labor and management when things are tough. Fire them and wish them a nice day – somewhere else.

  • D Parri

    The bill which resulted from negotiations and compromise in 2011 (Budget Control Act of 2011, BCA), and ended the debt ceiling impasse at that time, originated as an idea put forth by White House Budget Director Jack Lew and White House Legislative Affairs Director Rob Nabors as a potential solution to the “fiscal cliff” crisis of 2011. Both Boehner and Reid opposed it initially. The solution, however, was clearly a bipartisan agreement. This the beginning of the current sequestration “triggers” and spending control measures.

    It is important to note that this compromise and the legislation that resulted are the keys to all deficit reductions that have been manifest since 2011. These were not the president’s goals or any part of his policy agenda.

    The compromise and acquiescence by the president to deficit reduction measures would have never come about but for the GOP–with the Tea Party fighting the hardest–and their “hostage-taking” move with the debt ceiling limit.

    BTW, the vote for the BCA of 2011? House vote: 174 Republicans Yea, 66 Nay; Democrats, 95 Yea / 95 Nay.

  • D Parri

    There is a Machiavellian strategy to his constitutional violations. He hopes that by the time any case is heard by the SCOTUS, then the law will have been fully implemented, the delays will have expired, the mid-term elections will be over, and the issue at hand in any lawsuit will then be moot. Clever, devious, and dangerous.

  • D Parri

    When, in the past have you know of the president having the authority to modify a law–a tax law at that, per Roberts? So, when the GOP completely ignores the president’s modifying of the law (tinkering) and proceeds as if nothing is wrong, what kind of precedent does that establish?

    The SCOTUS in 1998 ruled that the Congress CAN NOT delegate any of the powers under their authority. President Clinton did not keep his line-item veto power that he had worked so hard to get.

    This action by Obama parallels the case from 1996 which now stands as the precedent to be recalled and reaffirmed.

  • D Parri

    A spending legislation bill that reaches the president’s desk is one that has been approved by the House and the Senate. The SCOTUS ruled that the president does not have the authority to change or modify these bills.

    The ACA was passed and became law. The president does not have the authority to change or modify any of its provisions unilaterally by himself, a fact in precedent set out by the SCOTUS ruling of 1998 regarding the president’s line-item veto power–repealed. This is the same thing.

    The problem with waiting for the SCOTUS to weigh in is because by the time that they do the mid-term election will have already taken place. Hence, the full impact of the law would be avoided just long enough for the president to take back the House and maintain control of the Senate. It is a Machiavellian strategy for getting the job done via whatever means possible–whether good or bad, honest or dishonest.

    When the SCOTUS hearing takes place after January 2015, the issue of temporary exemptions and waivers will be moot and there will no longer be a cause of action. However, the damage will already be done.

    This is a Machiavellian ploy by the president and it should be exposed.

    • legal eagle

      Can you tell us the name of the case you are referring to?

      • D Parri

        Do your own research. You’re not part of this discussion.

        • legal eagle

          I know the case.. As usual you have no clue what you’re talking about but that doesn’t stop you….I realize you don’t like being asked for specifics but it would be nice if you keep implying that you know something about the law that you actually do a little research…

          • D Parri

            Tell me the case–that is, if you are not lying.

          • legal eagle

            Clinton, et al. v. City of New York, et al., 118 S.Ct. 2091 (1998)

          • D Parri

            Very good. Now, remember that the SCOTUS said that “a bill must be approved or rejected by the President in its entirety.”

            That ruling also embodies the principle (Constitutional) that Congress MAY NOT delegate it’s authority to make, change, or repeal legislation to another branch of government. The president cannot change the law by granting exemptions, waivers, and subsidies through executive order.

          • legal eagle

            Well then sue the government….

          • D Parri

            Fine. But by the time the SCOTUS hears the case the whole issue will be null and void and the mid-term elections will be over. That is Pres O’s goal. It is a Machiavellian buy-off of the large corporations who own the ‘mainstream’ media. Simple and outrageous.

          • legal eagle

            It would prevent this happening in the future….Your rationale for not bringing a lawsuit is nonsensical…

          • D Parri

            It would not prevent it. That’s why precedents are used to recall previous rulings of a similar nature.

          • legal eagle

            I would suggest you call Judicial Watch and discuss your brilliant idea for a lawsuit about Obamacare…It’s actually mentioned on their website…

          • legal eagle

            Thank you for your opinion Judge D Parri….

          • D Parri

            Anytime.

          • D Parri

            Actually, I just read the SC opinions in order to get the background.

    • tb thomas

      You are technically correct, the President does not have the authority to unilaterally “change or modify” any act of Congress once signed into law. The lesson of history being inflicted upon this country by Barrack Obama is that our Constitution is inadequate to the task of restraining a President who is both a pure narcissist and megalomaniac, absent a Congress and/or an electorate populated by people of conscience.

      The shared national conscience which once existed in this country, appears to have lapsed in favor of “plausible explainability” (government by talking point), and a general acceptance that “the end justifies the means”. The only real constraint on a renegade Chief Executive is articles of impeachment voted by the House, followed by a trial in the Senate.

      I believe Obama should have been impeached long ago, on any number of counts. But when one considers the execrable nature of the Democrat majority and their leader, we have no choice but to accept that for the moment at least, our Constitution and/or our fellow voters, have failed this country miserably.

      • D Parri

        Agreed. But for the Constitution of the United States we would be looking at a far worse situation though. It is fully up to the GOP leadership to recognize this fact and stick to these principles.

  • D Parri

    I believe that the GOP should stick to the demand for negotiation. At a minimum, the terms of any compromise should include a reversal of the president’s executive orders granting special privileges to some and not others. That would mean that either everyone or no one should be granted a 1-year delay, or all of the waivers, exemptions, and special subsidies made by the president be repealed.

    It is clear that there will have to be some compromises on both sides. That would mean passage of a ‘clean CR’ if the law were to be returned to the ‘untinkered’ state before the president’s modifications.

  • D Parri

    I would vote for a clean CR if the president agreed to remove all waivers, exemptions, and special congressional subsidies that he has put in place through executive order/administrative actions. I feel absolutely confident enough that the law will not be sustainable, but more than that, if there had not been special privileges doled out by the president in order to secure support by large employers (corporate media, mainly), legislators, and other special interest groups, then the law would not have survived or it would be repealed in the first year.

  • D Parri

    Too many people view the 1-year exemption as simply a measure that will make it easier to implement by avoiding an overburden on the system. That is not the reason. The president is delaying the mandate for employers (large) for a year in order to get past the mid-term elections because he knows that the more people who feel the pain of this law, the more people will be outraged. His goal is to keep the Senate and regain the House. It is a political move pure and simple.

    He has already confessed to being an animal of pure politic and little or no authentic concern for the people.

  • D Parri

    I believe that the GOP should stick to the demand for negotiation. At a minimum, the terms of any compromise should include a reversal of the president’s executive orders granting special privileges to some and not others. That would mean that either everyone or no one should be granted a 1-year delay, or all of the waivers, exemptions, and special subsidies made by the president be repealed.

    It is clear that there will have to be some compromises on both sides. That would mean passage of a ‘clean CR’ if the law were to be returned to the ‘untinkered’ state before the president’s modifications.

    Obama’s Machiavellian tactics are somewhat clever, but very despicable.

  • Cecilio

    AMEN to that Mr. Goldberg… oops, that is the wrong thing to say in today’s America. F*ck that! AMEN to that Mr. Goldberg!!!!

  • Josh

    Yes, I also see this outside of the professional field, for lack of a better term. I’m 33, and I mostly socialize with 20-somethings to folks a few years older than me, most of whom are liberal progressives. It’s very tough, but the skeptic crowd just so happens to be primarily made up of liberals. Unfortunately. Not because they’re bad folks, of course, but because it’s incredibly frustrating that people who claim to champion logic and reason throw both out of the window to hold social standing.

    There are many people who have a legitimate fear of being thought as even the least bit insensitive, much less a full-on racist.

    If Hillary is President, I do suppose those same folks will be calling the men who criticize her misogynists, and the women self-haters or sheep or something to that effect. But the social taboo isn’t so great, so I do predict that she could be turned on. She was dismantled by a lot of Democrats when running against Obama in the primary, so I think skin trumps gender.

  • Brian Fr Langley

    Limerick?
    .
    President Barry, Pelosi and Harry,
    have decided our wealth we should shary,
    they have such an itch,
    to steal from the rich,
    to this end the nation they’ll bury.

    • D Parri

      Hey, I got a request. Give us one, “Ode to King O (Obama, that is!)”

  • SoylentGreenIsPeople!

    Here’s what I don’t get. If the national debt of seventeen trillion dollars is all that serious, let’s stop spending now. If it’s not all that serious, let’s run it up to a hundred trillion and let the party begin. When does it get serious enough to stop spending? And while we’re at it, let’s make the minimum wage a hundred dollars an hour, and that way, everybody will be rich! There, President Obama, I fixed all your problems so go play some more golf. (But, please stop wearing short pants. No one wants to see their President wearing short pants!)

    • Ted Crawford

      A Majoriety of us would prefer not to see him at all, with the exception of his and Michelle’s backsides as they expatriate to Iran or Back to, in Michelle’s own words ” Barack’s Homeland”, Kenya !

      • brickman

        Hate to be the grammar police again. Majority is spelled incorrectly and should not be capitalized. Neither should back. You expound on legal doctrine as if you’re a constitutional scholar. Your writing skills lead me to the conclusion that you would be unable to comprehend a legal text.

  • SkyCitizen

    On Oct. 2nd I saw a
    news clip showing a government worker bemoaning his furlough and questioning how
    he will pay his bills. I bet there isn’t much sympathy from the 20% of the
    population who couldn’t buy a job. All this because some politician that we
    elected can’t control himself or herself from spending your money. Like a James
    Dean movie it looks like it’s going to be a drag race to the
    cliff.

    • Seattle Sam

      Those workers already know they’re going to eventually get paid for every day they haven’t worked. What’s to moan about? Paid vacation!

  • FriscoWalt

    A pair of losers.

  • rbblum

    Actually, it currently appears as though Obama is Harry Reid’s shadow.

  • phillyfanatic

    BTW, it is Ollie North’s 70th BD today. He is a better man than Reid and Obama put together with lots left over to still love and help America. Bless him and as for the other two………………….let the Lord sort them out .

    • legal eagle

      and a convicted perjurer….What a guy that Ollie North…

      • Ted Crawford

        A true American Patriot, who, after many years of risking his life for America, sacrificed his reputation and personal Freedom for the sake of the Nation! True to his Oath, he defended his country from it’s enemies, both Foreign and Domestic!

        • brickman

          Freedom,nation, foreign,domestic. All !

          • legal eagle

            Oliver L. North — Indicted March 16, 1988, on 16 felony counts. After standing trial on 12, North was convicted May 4, 1989 of three charges: accepting an illegal gratuity, aiding and abetting in the obstruction of a congressional inquiry, and destruction of documents. He was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Gerhard A. Gesell on July 5, 1989, to a three-year suspended prison term, two years probation, $150,000 in fines and 1,200 hours community service. A three-judge appeals panel on July 20, 1990, vacated North’s conviction for further proceedings to determine whether his immunized testimony influenced witnesses in the trial. The Supreme Court declined to review the case. Judge Gesell dismissed the case September 16, 1991, after hearings on the immunity issue, on the motion of Independent Counsel.

      • Jeff Webb

        >>and a convicted perjurer<<

        Please provide a link.

        • legal eagle

          Oliver L. North — Indicted March 16, 1988, on 16 felony counts. After standing trial on 12, North was convicted May 4, 1989 of three charges: accepting an illegal gratuity, aiding and abetting in the obstruction of a congressional inquiry, and destruction of documents. He was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Gerhard A. Gesell on July 5, 1989, to a three-year suspended prison term, two years probation, $150,000 in fines and 1,200 hours community service. A three-judge appeals panel on July 20, 1990, vacated North’s conviction for further proceedings to determine whether his immunized testimony influenced witnesses in the trial. The Supreme Court declined to review the case. Judge Gesell dismissed the case September 16, 1991, after hearings on the immunity issue, on the motion of Independent Counsel.
          You are correct…indicted for perjury…not convicted…

          • Jeff Webb

            Good boy.

  • Shane

    Yes, Obama is a lot like Harry Reid, that despicable human being. There will be no default as the monthly government income is over $200 billion.

  • phillyfanatic

    This man in the WH is our new Putin on the Potomac. He is much more like some Trotskyite than a Dem like Sam Nunn, Hubert Humphrey, Sam Rayburn, old time Dems. In my 75 years, he is the worse national leader, even worse than Carter , that I can note as a polysci prof and pastor over those years.

    • Ted Crawford

      AGREED ! ! As a grateful recovering Liberal Democrat, who while suffering in my delusion actually worked for Pat Schroeder in the late ’60’s’ and early ’70’s’, I can attest to the disingenuous nature of the Progressives that have Murdered and Purged every Liberal from the ranks of the once proud Democrat Party!

      • brickman

        Liberal,murdered and purged. All !

      • mcveen

        Quite a few more they forgot about.

  • Dan

    The full faith and credit of the American government is all used up Bernie. It’s time to take our medicine, even if the day traders have to get a real job.

  • danM

    what is the point of having a debt ceiling if there is never an attempt to manage within it?

    • TheOriginalDonald

      Exactly! Which is why Boehner should offer to increase the debt ceiling to one quadrillion

  • Wil

    > He will say and do anything that suits his purpose at the moment.<
    .
    Bernie, That statement also applies to John Boehner!

    • RussFelix

      Or any other political hack for that matter. But which political hack has the final say? Obama owns it

  • joepotato

    Hey Bernie, El Residente is looking at an economic collapse as a win-win. Contrary to what many people believe, Indonesian Barry’s plan to fundamentally transform the USA depends on this very scenario. Collapse the economy and blame others. That begs the question, who does the Indonesian Muslim Brotherhood sympathizer really work for? There are several viable options…. but it’s obvious to many of us out here in flyover country, the Indonesian, Sideshow Barry does NOT work for the people of the USA or our national interests.

  • Guest from Ca

    Jeff. This is my day for errors. Missed the J in my post to you. Sorry.

    Guest from CA

  • Guest from Ca

    To: eff Webb…I did not check the stats on the population. I apologize, totally. I just meant there are so many more of us the that weasel!
    Appreciate your correction, Jeff.

    • Jeff Webb

      Just don’t effing let it happen again! ; )>

  • sam

    I think I’ll be investing in stocks after a few more down days cause they’re NOT going to let D-Day pass with out raising the debt limit. The day it happens it will be at least a 300 to 400 point gain for the Dow (30 or 40 for the S&P) Mark my words.

    • brickman

      A lot of righties want the market to crash. Lefties keep using as a talking point how the Dow went from 6500 early in the administration to circa 15000 today. Besides thanks to Sean Hannity and his good friend Allen Stanford a lot of them have their money tied up in gold. Or seeds.

      • Ted Crawford

        Todays Stock Market, has very little to do with the American Economy! Nearly 75% of the current increases in the market were driven by Multi-National Corporations, with over 65% of that growth being in their off-country branches. Resulting in approximately only a 37% effect on the American Economy. When coupled with the fact that 78% of all “New Jobs”, being Part-Time, without benifits and at lower wage scales, it becomes abundantly clear that even an Economy as robust as ours, cannot sustain this assault for three more years! And it most definately cannot absorbe the hugh shortfalls resulting from PPACA! The Straw, albeit a rather significant one, that broke the Camel’s back!

        • brickman

          Too many to mention. Please read about rules of capitalization before you come back on line.

        • brickman

          When the market continued its tanking when Obama first became president, Glen Beck went on the radio everyday questioning whether Obama “could survive” if the Dow went under 7500. Every time the market took a triple digit dip Rush Limbaugh yelled ” Obama’s costing you money”. The stock market (no caps, Ted) has recovered and since Obama might receive credit for it, it no longer matters. Don’t you guys realize how ridiculous you seem?

        • brickman

          Obama took office during the tanking of the Dow. Mr.Beck didn’t know if Obama ” could survive” if it went under 7500. Mr. Limbaugh yelled after each 100 point drop day, “Obama is costing you money”. Now that the stock market(no caps, Ted) has recovered it doesn’t matter because Obama may receive some credit. How pathetic.

          • Ted Crawford

            More Alinsky rhetoric! Never even a hint at actually addressing the facts presented! That is the Text Book defination of pathetic.
            OH, by the way, if your were to contact your Dear Leader, he just might make you his Spelling Czar!

  • independance41

    Too many Americans in this
    country just love our current oval office occupant. They just love this guy to the point of Hysteria. No rime or reason required. If he were
    to put a reed pipe instrument up to his mouth and we could spy through his eye you would see the town
    of Hameln clear as can be. If this be the sound of music play on as once Nero had? What you might ask has this got to do with this ongoing topic? Nothing and Everything.

  • Guest from CA

    Obama has only one purpose….HIS….everyone else better lie down and be a
    speed bump. One cannot even express dissidence. Like Ben Carson now
    being audited by the IRS.
    He must have learned this at Clinton’s knees who also punished people with
    IRS audits.
    I have no doubt he would make Concentration Camps. Don’t think so? As Jim
    posted “Obama is like a child having a tantrum and he will do anything to get his way.”
    Worse, he thinks and acts like a tyrant. Boehner was never elected to be the
    President., by the way…..would never be as cruel as Hobo-Bama!
    A country of billions of us run by a bully-in chief. Too arrogant to negotiate and
    too small of a man missing a heart!. Time to fight back! The bully needs to be
    removed from office!

    • Jeff Webb

      You’ll get no argument from me that Obama is a weak little bully, but this country’s population is actually less than 1/3 of a billion people.

    • CentralScruntinizer

      No president, Democratic or Republican would deal with the opposition party under these circumstances. The Democrats negotiated with the Republicans on budget and the CR is 200 billion off the Dems budget and 19 billion off the Republican budget. Who compromised more?

      Further more, the ACA spent nearly a year in conferences negotiating GOP concerns in return for GOP votes. The GOP got Single Payer and Public option taken off the table in compromise, added thousands of riders and changes, then in the end failed to deliver the votes they offered in exchange for those massive changes.

      Sorry of that doesn’t fit the artificial right wing narrative of Obama being stubborn or a Tyrant. The Defund Obamacare initiative is one cooked up by the Kochs and championed by Cruz, Lee and the Tea Party in the House. It’s unprecedented to the degree that non-Te Party conservatives in both chambers are going bananas publically (King and a handful of others) and privately (according the the WaPo, hundreds of Reps, donors and sr. Party officials are weighing in behind closed doors.)

    • legal eagle

      Lets string up that Obama from a tree and castrate him…You tell em Guest from CA….
      I hope you live in Northern California so I don’t have to worry if your in my neighborhood…

      • Ted Crawford

        No need of that. If we were simply successful in legally removing him from office, with or without the much deserved prison sentence, Michelle will divorce him as she once intended. His rampant Narcissism will force him back into his drug use. He will soon squander the wealth he’s stolen from the American Tax Payer, and become unwelcome in any polite society! Where he always should have been in the first place!

        • brickman

          Who’s the narcissist?

          • Ted Crawford

            You mean. of course, in addition to Obama…AHH, perhaps Macgyver?

          • mcveen

            NOW!

        • legal eagle

          Who are the “we” you refer to? The 65 million Americans who voted for him twice?

          • Ted Crawford

            Not at all, as Ron White pointed out so clearly “You can’t fix Stupid”. I was refering to the other 80% of the American Population that didn’t!

          • mcveen

            You do not deserve to be in this discussion. Please leave.

        • mcveen

          That post was extremely stupid.

  • lemonfemale

    Why you might not see him negotiating is that he is not completely political. This has his ego involved and Barack Obama always has both hands on his ego (as it were). He’s President, by God! “L’etat, c’est moi.”

  • MSMFail

    Republicans get blamed because those on the left are predisposed to blame. That’s what they do. They blame others for the inequality of outcomes. They blame others for the breakdowns of family. They find external excuses for a lack of personal accountability, discipline and sacrifice. They are prone to “blaming” and they sure aren’t going to blame themselves or their heroes. Those on the right don’t play the “blame game” quite the same way, do they?

  • floridahank

    Obama budget: $1.2 Trillion. I know that I could find 10% and put it to use to open many agencies and services that are closed to the American citizens. There is so much BS that the govt. does and wastes that only the politicians have ignored — as long as they get paid they don’t care what happens to working Americans. The best thing that could be done is to reject 90% of them for reelection.

  • floridahank

    Will somebody give me a rational economic/financial answer to this from the article:” But continuing to raise the debt ceiling allows Democrats in Congress to keep spending more than the government takes in, knowing that at some point down the road – after they’ve spent a few trillion dollars more than they collect — they’ll again be faced with a crisis that would force them to once again … raise the debt ceiling.”
    Even the average American knows you shouldn’t and can’t spend more than you have. Eventually, the creditors will and should demand payment with $$$ that have some meaningful backing behind the $$$ — otherwise the entire transaction is nothing more than a Ponzi scheme, and we should let Bernie Madoff back into doing $$$ dealings — why is he a criminal and not the Govt?

    • Seattle Sam

      Actually you’re not correct. You can keep spending more than you have forever AS LONG as you can service the debt. Many capital intensive companies do this routinely and their value increases because of it. Now if the revenue/profit trajectory starts to flatten, then you have a problem. Unfortunately for the US that trajectory is flattening now PRECISELY because government has become such a huge drag on growth. More unfortunately, the people who say “debt doesn’t matter” don’t understand WHY this can sometimes be true. They assume that economic growth will continue no matter how much government discourages it.

      • MarioG

        Debt hasn’t mattered so far because it has been a manageable percentage of the US economy. Only the US can service debt with funny money they are printing without anything to back it up. However, the value of the dollar is weakening relatively and eventually inflation will kick in that could make us like Greece, which was Obama’s objective all along, just to be fair. This can all be turned around but odious tumors like Obama and Reid will have to removed first. The damage they are doing is enormous especially to the lower rungs of our society, who are becoming virtual zombies from government dependency.

        • legal eagle

          The dollar is weakening? The only thing weakening is your brain function…

          • MarioG

            You call yourself a “legal eagle”, but you write like an “illegal beagle” yapping in an alternate reality.

            If you type in “US $ weakening” into your Bing search engine, you will see a very recent report from Agence France-Presse titled “Dollar stays weak on US budget woes”. Read it – you may learn something.

            BTW, when Bernanke is pumping out $85 BILLION a month in funny money to keep the Obungler’s economy from collapsing, EVERYTHING becomes weaker, sooner or later. That’s just common sense. You may see some weaker currencies that are stinkier intestinal waste than ours, but in the long run we are heading in the direction of Greece.

          • mcveen

            Very good.

          • Ted Crawford

            Google “SDR’s”

          • D Parri

            Trying to discuss with Legal Weasel is a non-starter. He’s not only an ass, but he has already admitted to me that he is a pervert. I can provide you with his comment if you like.

        • legal eagle

          Let us now when inflation will kick in? Perhaps you’ll be dead by then so it wont matter…

          • Ted Crawford

            The current house of cards, with respect to our Economy, will begin a rapid decent into hyper-inflation as soon as Bernanke realizes that he can no longer pump $85 Billion a month, in Fiat money, into the housing and bond markets! At that point the “wonderful gains in the stock market” will evaporate within a month, and the 8000 point DOW will be a far away goal! If, however, Obama and Reid continue their policy of no negotiations, we won’t have to wait even that long!

          • MarioG

            Illegal Beagle – You are obviously as brilliant an economist as President Obama, who knows less about business than my 12-year-old and her lemonade stand. Google “Money Morning – Why there’s no inflation – YET” – maybe you’ll learn something about why we have stagflation like Japan.

          • D Parri

            ;)> !!!

      • Wheels55

        True and not true. Servicing debt is the main issue. However, unlike businesses, the government does not create and hold value.

        • brickman

          The US government owns a lot of land. They also hold 236 military golf courses. Perhaps it’s time to sell them back to the private sector.

          • mcveen

            Very good.

      • floridahank

        Hey Sam, you say “Many capital intensive companies do this routinely and their value increases……”
        But I argue that our Govt. does nothing that produces anything that private companies can’t do more efficiently and therefore the Govt. is declining in its necessity. We could do with probably 75% less Govt. if private enterprise were free to conduct its business without Govt. regulations, etc. In theory, private enterprise as it has developed, could conduct the entire workings of our nation without any Govt. — private enterprise is more efficient, more productive and has a mentality of providing profits for its energy, something the Govt. doesn’t do. Too much waste and useless employees. The less Govt., the better run is our nation.

        • Seattle Sam

          That may be true, but government can continue to borrow as long as it’s income stream continues to increase. The problem the government eventually has, though, is that, like any parasite, if it saps too much strength from the Host, the Host dies.

          • Ted Crawford

            I’m curious, given you post in an Academic vein, rather than a Pratical one, what do you see as the current ‘parasite, to host’ relationship, given that the Revenues this year are at Record levels, yet this administration projects an over $700 Billion deficit,(which everyone knows will be significantly less than the Actual deficits)?

          • Seattle Sam

            Government is a parasite. It derives 100% of its funding from taxing the private sector (the Host).. That’s just the definition of the Host-Parasite relationship. And it’s not at all “impractical” for government to borrow lots of money as long as the Host continues to feed it — which it stops doing when it gets weak (see France. for instance. where economic growth as come to a standstill). .

          • Ted Crawford

            YADA,YADA, YADA! While that’s all true, you did not answer my question, but subjected us to more Academic Psyco-Babble, seemingly intended to obfuscate, rather than enlighten.

          • brickman

            Academic,practical(misspelled), revenues,record,billion,actual.

          • mcveen

            Unsequencial. Doesn’t make sense.

          • mcveen

            That’s true.

        • legal eagle

          Great idea. I’m sure the pharmaceutical industry would be far happier with no regulations as the FDA just gets in their way..
          And lets get rid of that peaky EPA…Who cares if some people are drinking polluted water?
          Don’t forget the FAA…what’s a few airplane crashes when regulation is annoying the airline industry…
          Amazing how foolish your comments are…Are you 5 years old?

          • floridahank

            The reality of why none of this would work is the natural corruption of human nature. We can see great examples of individualism working, Edison, Ford, etc. who created new industries for us through their own idealism and talents. The Govt. is very inept in their oversight — the FDA. EPA, FAA — if your examine their workings closely, you’ll see their many deficiencies. In many cases, private enterprise would do much better and be less costly.
            Everywhere improvement is needed, but our present Govt. is very much inept, wasteful, and doesn’t have the American citizen at heart — we need a total overhaul of these people and get more private-minded individuals running our nation — not more politicians.

          • legal eagle

            So in your opinion there are only government deficiencies but not individual deficiencies? Having worked on Wall Street I can tell you that private industry is not good at providing self regulation…Improvements are always needed both in government and private industry…

          • mcveen

            Good point!

          • legal eagle

            If Henry Ford, a virulent racist and anti-Semite, is one of your corporate heroes I feel badly for you…

          • mcveen

            Turd talk.

          • Seattle Sam

            You really think that what prevents airplane crashes is the FAA? You think if you were running Delta Airlines, that would be in your business interest to do if the FAA allowed?

          • legal eagle

            I believe that if not for FAA Delta airlines would be doing far less maintenance on their planes……profits always trump safety…

          • Seattle Sam

            Yeah. Being seen as a safety risk would do wonders for their profits.

          • legal eagle

            I assume they wont be putting out a press release announcing they have cut back on maintenance…do you think otherwise?
            The point is that there is overregulation at times but minimal regulation is what the U.S. had in the 20’s…didn’t work out too well did it?

          • D Parri

            Legal Weasel is always an ass.

          • mcveen

            floridahank is essentially correct in his observation that it takes a million gov’t bureaucrats costing nearly a $trillion each year to uncover some occasional minor threats to our well being. Lets be honest about gov’t employment. Most all of it is unnecessary and only represents votes for the Democrat party, purveyors of the ‘easy train’. If allowed to continue, we will become Greece in just a few more years.

          • legal eagle

            More whining from the right wing cult members…..Let us know when “we become Greece”.

      • legal eagle

        Don’t be so rationale…Don’t you understand that 90% of the people on here only know what Fox News tells them…

        • mcveen

          Heavyweight thinking, Mr. Nasty!

    • legal eagle

      Raising the debt limit does no such thing…

  • CentralScruntinizer

    Bernie, I can appreciate your attempts to mend the bridges with your flock after the rift over Bolling, Ayatollahs & everything.

    That said, there are some facts you gloss over that won’t fly outside the Right Wing feedback loop: The debt limit being raised doesn’t set the table for Democrats spending more, it sets the table for both parties spending more. You don’t just get to brush the 3+ trillion dollar cost of Iraq, the Department of Homeland Security or Medicare Part D into the memory hole to advance your narrative.

    I also agree that it was a twit move by Freshman senator Obama in 2006 to strike a purely political pose against the hike of the Debt Limit. But making a posture in the other direction when the vast majority vote is en route to fixing the problem is a far cry from the nihlistic behavior being attempted now.

    Finally, the idea that the administration can “negotiate” on the shutdown or debt limit completely ignores the massive change to the way the US legislative system is run thereafter. If Obama starts to allow funding to be an a la carte process, then the entire process of enacting Bills into Laws become moot. Think about that for a second: No law is actually a law because the House can invalidate it by defunding the agency in charge of administering it.

    It also allows for funding games beyond even that construction: When the House is in Democratic hands, they threaten no funding of the entire Government unless an amendment is added and ratified adding a ban on assault weapons, 30 round magazines and instituting a universal background check. A GOP president says ‘no, it faced a vote in Congress and was defeated.’ Fine says the Speaker, then we’ll settle for just the Assault weapons ban in return for funding government and/or raising the debt limit. “No” say the GOP Administration. “It was defeated in Congress.” “The President Refuses to Negotiate!”

    If Obama opens the floodgate to this style of Hostage negotiation, he forever changes our Government in ways that will be damaging to all Americans, left, right and center.

    • Jeff Webb

      Obama and the democrat majorities in Congress used illegal and unprecedented tactics to pass a law that contradicts this country’s founding. Now we have a House Republican majority lawfully doing their job and libs are suddenly worried about floodgates. Priceless!

      • CentralScruntinizer

        Would you care to describe how the legislative tactics were either illegal or unprecedented? Assuming you are describing the “Deem and Pass” while it definitely is political hardball, it has been used by republicans in the past, and is most certainly legal.

        • Jeff Webb

          The bill didn’t originate in the House.

          It was depicted as a budgetary law so they could get past the majority requirement..

          The Republicans were shut out of the entire process (and then accused of not participating).

          • USMC69

            That is why the SCOTUS (Robert’s reasoning especially) was wrong on Obamacare. It may be constitutional as a tax, but then, it has to be a tax and all taxes are to originate in the House. Thus, Robert’s reasoning was wrong. Also, keep in mind that SCOTUS serves at Congress’ pleasure. There is no constitutional requirement that the SCOTUS is composed of 9 justices. It could be 1 or 101. SCOTUS is suppose to rule on laws as they apply, not as “well, if they followed the right process it would be legal”….

          • Jeff Webb

            >>It may be constitutional as a tax, but then, it has to be a tax and all
            taxes are to originate in the House. Thus, Robert’s reasoning was
            wrong.<<

            And the Republicans were about as weak and stupid as humanly possible to fail to fight with this fact. They aren't getting much better without at least trying it. If democrats can pass a crap law via technicalities it'd be righteous justice to eliminate it thus (except Republicans wouldn't be acting like sleazebags).

    • Patrick

      It’s called “checks and balances.” It was put in place when the Founders established a bicameral legislature. To prevent the tyranny of the majority, to give the minority some say in governing.

      • CentralScruntinizer

        Yup – Checks and balances are in play when the legislative branch vote a bill into law or defeats it.

        Also, the risk of ‘tyranny of the majority’ is supposed to be remedied by the judicial branch – Go review your civics.

        • Jeff Webb

          Review yours.

          This is a Representative Republic, founded on the principle of limited gov’t. This principle (not to mention all laws), which I’m hoping you know, is supposed to be respected and followed by all three branches. Only half of one of the 3 branches is doing that, for the first time in years.

          Agree with the majority’s tyrannical policies and conduct all you want, but don’t then lecture others about civics.

        • Sheila Warner

          So why hasn’t the GOP challenged, in court, the changes made by the President? Could it be that they are afraid of the result? I’m tired of hearing the GOP leadership say the President’s executive orders on changes to Obamacare are unconstitutional, while doing nothing about their opinion. If it’s unconstitutional, then appeal to the courts!

          • Jeff Webb

            If the GOP leadership (term used loosely ; )>) has said specifically that BO’s delays and exemptions are unConstitutional, I missed it. They have said that regular people are no less deserving of a 1-year delay if he’s going to give it to businesses.

            Republicans have been a pathetically spineless bunch for too long. They could have employed any number of means to keep things in check, but didn’t.

            I personally think it would’ve been better from the outset to flog the dems with their “law of the land” tack and demand an end to all the post-passage tweaks.

          • T Ko

            I think D Parri had it right when he said that by the time it got to the SCOTUS, the issue would be over and the mid-term election would be settled. It is a devious ploy and very despicable by the president.

        • Patrick

          Actually, per Madison in Federalist 51, it’s all three branches, not only judicial. Review the debate regarding the Constution.

          But Article 1, section 7 of the Constitution places appropriations (money for laws) squarely with the House. Hence, Boehner et al are working within the Constitution in making this a funding issue, passed law notwithstanding.

      • floridahank

        I admire the Founding Fathers for their fantastic creation of our Constitution, but I can’t understand how they just couldn’t foresee the need for term limits for politicians because I know they realized the weakness of human nature when it gets involved with power and with money.

    • Ted Crawford

      Au Contraire! This exact situation has occured 17 times from Jimmy Carter thru today. The last time the issue was exactly the same one; Government manipulation of Private Infrastructure through our Health Care Industry!
      In each previous case the President, in respect for his position and Job Description negotiated with the opposition and an answer was found and the Government reopened!
      What is unprecedented in this case is Obama’s Immature and Irresponsible refusal to negotiate! Giving credence to the belief of many Americans that this has been his intent since January of 2009! Appearently his amaturish manipulations have finally borne fruit!

      • CentralScruntinizer

        I would actually be quite willing to read anything you have to link regarding any other situation where the Democrats (or even the formerly sane GOP) held up the debt ceiling or shut the government under these conditions.

      • brickman

        Not every word of more than 2 syllables gets capitalized. Not every sentence needs an exclamation point. Calm down.

        • Ted Crawford

          I see ‘ole obfuscating one’, Tell me, would the statement hold any more meaning if the capitals were removed? DUH !
          In other words even you are aware of the truth here and are angry, yet have no substantive arguement to refute it!
          Your sad attempt to intimidate me with what you believe is your superior education, simply reminds me of other, wiser men than myself;
          ” Nothing in education is so astonishing as the amount of ignorance it accumulates in the form of inert facts” Henry Adams
          “We are faced with the paradoxical fact that education has become one of the chief obstacles to intelligence and freedom of thought” Bertrand Russell
          ” Education is the crutch with which the foolish attack the wise to prove that they are not idiots” Karl Kraus

          • brickman

            Adequate. I notice you’re getting better. So it wasn’t out of ignorance ,it was out of laziness.

    • MarioG

      I’m not sure what you’ve been scrutinizing, Scrutinizer. At the end of the Bush era the national debt was around $10 trillion in spite of the Clinton recession he started with, Clinton’s weakening our national defense with his “Cold War dividend”, his emboldening Al Qaeda by refusing to confront them, and the resulting shock of 9/11. This was followed by two wars to keep us safe while liberating two countries that were being brutally oppressed by tyrants. The deficits during the 8 years of Bush had averaged 3.5% of GDP and the unemployment rate averaged 5%.

      Obama has kicked up the deficits to over 10% of GDP, the rate of unemployment is actually through the roof as is the national debt and the labor force participation rate is the lowest since 1978, in spite of winding down both wars and “leading from behind” which has made us the laughing stock of the world. What a wuss.

      Our constitution was specifically designed for the House to start the budget process to be followed by negotiations between all the parties in the Legislature and Executive, which Obama and Reid have refused to do.

      The one holding the country hostage right now is Obama aided and abetted by the odious weasel Harry Reid. Their refusal to negotiate cannot be allowed to stand because we are not a dictatorship just yet.

      • CentralScruntinizer

        Except for the fact that Clinton left Bush a surplus that was demolished by: two huge tax cuts targeted at the very rich (top 1% of wealth holders got 40% of the entire cut, top 10% got 68%) two wars, one of choice spun from hamfisted fabrications and lies (agree we had to go into Afghanistan given the circumstances but there is no upside to being there now) Medicare Part D.

        The global economic meltdown of 2008, which was driven primarily by the deregulation of the Financial sector and Greenspan’s economic policy (sorry, the standard RW myths about GSEs, Barnie Frank are as quickly disproven as the cannards about the Community Re-investment Act) contracted the economy by 2.2 Trillion dollars in the last quarter of 2008.

        While Clinton definitely shares in the blame for the repeal of Glass Steagall (Wall Street financed, GOP sponsored, Clinton signed with Rubin cheering him on) which most directly led to the crash, those are overwhelmingly the drivers of our current fiscal mess: Regressive Tax Cuts, Unfunded Wars, Medicare Part D, Economic Collapse of 2008.

        You can argue entitlement programs from the right and Corporate Welfare and massive corporate tax avoidance from the left, but in looking at the impact on the deficit and debt 2000-2012, it’s on paper that those are the largest contributors to the gap between Revenues and Spending.

        • legal eagle

          Glass-Steagall directly led to the crash? Where did you get that from?

      • CentralScruntinizer

        Mario, your subsequent post is embargo’d because of links embedded, but I read it. This is in response:

        Agree that Clinton absolutely must share credit for surplus with GOP congress and tech boom. However that does not alter the fact that Bush was left with surpluses which he quickly and cynically squandered with considerable help from Dick “Deficits don’t Matter” Cheney.

        However you’re way off on Glass Steagall – They were a series of law and regulations put in place progressively during the 30s and covered much more than prohibiting Investment banks from merging with Insurance companies and Commercial banks & accessing their huge pools of capital.

        And the ruse of the Community Reinvestment Act vaporizes when you see a graph of the percentage of total mortgages initiated vs the total number of sub-prime mortages initiated. They constitute a tiny fraction both before and after the CRA under Carter and again following its extention under Clinton. Only 18 months after the repeal of Glass Steagal, when formerly prohibited investment vehicles and hedges like the credit default swaps that were laid off on AIG became commonplace did the profit potential in these loans outweigh the risk which had formerly kept them a non-starter. By 2007, Wall Street had buried most of this garbage 30 tranches deep in bizantine securities that had been sold to pension funds and every other institutional buyer worldwide.

        Better resources than anything written by George Will, who is not a financial writer, would be the oscar winning documentary “Inside Job” or The Big Short by Michael Lewis.

        • MarioG

          George Will did not write the book, which contains far more documentation in black and white than any documentary, and cites names, dates and figures. Reckless Endangerment was written by Pulitzer prize winning investigative reporter for the NY Times, Gretchen Morgenson, and Joshua Rosner, a housing finance expert.

          The Fox News report documents how the Bush administration tried to stop the madness but were thwarted by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.

          We may have to agree to disagree, but, in my opinion, the repeal of Glass Steagall is a convenient whipping post for those who believe in government regulations. Repealing a law and giving businesses more flexibility is not a license for them to mismanage their portfolios. The banks were opportunists and made huge profits and paid huge bonuses and took huge risks and their losses should not have been socialized with bailouts when their profits were privatized. There were plenty of watchdogs who could have intervened including the bank examiners, the SEC, the FDIC, the SIPC and the major ratings agencies.

          There’s no such thing as too big to fail in fundamental free market economics – there are thousands of banks and financial institutions who would have purchased the assets of the failing banks for pennies on the dollar thus placing the losses where they belonged – on the owners and managers of the errant institutions.

          The financial system would not have collapsed – all the Fed had to do was open the spigot a tad for a few months and everything would have settled down and he bad actors would have disappeared in disgrace as they deserved.

          • legal eagle

            Mario , you are correct…Glass- Steagall was unenforceable because of the unregulated derivatives market…and derivatives were unregulated because of Alan Greenspan and Phil Graham…

          • MarioG

            Unregulated investments are not the problem, bad investments are. There are plenty of banks and investment banks that did not get into trouble after Glass Steagall was repealed. There were plenty of bank regulators and watchdogs who failed to do their jobs. The beauty of capitalism is that success is rewarded, and failure is not. Every time a Henry Paulson or a Tim Geithner or a Barack Obama is allowed to abuse capitalism by allowing profits to be be privatized and losses to be socialized as the Treasury Secretaries did, or choosing winners and losers as the Obungler has wasted BILLIONS on while trying to ram alternative energy scams down our throats, we all lose.

            What we have right now is the most unqualified and inexperienced president in history, elected without even a legislative achievement to his name and less business experience than my kid and her lemonade stand, preening and preaching economics to this most competitive of countries.

            A mid-level KGB operative recently made a monkey out of him on Syria, and now he is trying to punish the rest of us by refusing to negotiate like the Constitution requires of our Executive and Legislature, whining like a brat about how nasty his opponents are, and taking his national parks and monuments and running home to Momma Michele busy plotting our next school menu.

      • legal eagle

        Isn’t leading from behind the policy of the Greeks?

        • MarioG

          The Greeks are begging Germany to bail them out as we speak, so in no position to lead from behind or front..

          The Obungler is leading from behind and is quite proud of this. He would be wise to keep the Greeks in front of him if you know what I mean, him being a pencil neck in Mom jeans riding girls bikes and throwing like a girl and all. But I digress.

          Sadly, no one on the international stage believes a word he says anymore, neither friend nor foe, which is what you get for drawing red lines and then denying this in the face of videos to the contrary and making speeches blaming everyone but himself for his own actions and inaction, and then playing golf in short pants.

  • legal eagle

    If the nation is lucky, this October will mark the beginning of the end of the tea party.

    The movement is suffering from extreme miscalculation and a foolish misreading of its opponents’ intentions. This, in turn, has created a moment of enlightenment, an opening to see things that were once missed.

    Many Republicans, of course, saw the disaster coming in advance of the shutdown. But they were terrified to take on a movement that is fortified by money, energy and the backing of a bloviating brigade of talk-show hosts like Hannity and Limbaugh

    • Jeff Webb

      There is a reason liberals lie, insult, and project the way they do when talking about the Tea Party Patriots: they can’t handle American citizens demanding the Constitution actually be followed.

      Pretend this isn’t the true grass-roots movement it is if you must, but don’t think for a minute that your side’s motives are the least bit pure.

      • CentralScruntinizer

        Say whatever you will about the Tea Party, it doesn’t qualify as a true grass roots movement. It was funded, created and piloted by Freedom Works & Americans For Prosperity, which are political action arms of the Kochs (AFP) and big business (FW)

        • Jeff Webb

          Link, see voo play.

        • Stimpy

          And the President’s career was funded by Saul Alinsky, Acorn, and all manner of communists.

          • CentralScruntinizer

            Except for the fact that every word you wrote is a comical random buzz word salad: Alinsky died in ’72 and Acorn, while they were in existence, did not fund candidates. You’d probably make more headway saying that he was funded by Benghazi.

          • Stimpy

            Wow, you really got me there. Allow me to make a correction. Alinksy and Rev Wright were Barry’s spiritual sponsors. Geogie Soros and his ilk were Barry’s financial sponsors.. While I am in a corrections mood — it is “scrutinizer” not “scruntinizer” — if you are trying to use a real word.

          • CentralScruntinizer

            Indeed you are correct – I noticed the misspelling a day or two after registering this name 5-6 years ago, and to correct it I’d need to start a new account. May the ghost of Frank Zappa forgive me.

            As for Soros, no doubt he is an active funder of progressive politics and organizations in this country. I have yet to ever see any large soros backing of Obama. Can you point me to any links or evidence?

            And, sadly for your narrative, Acorn was in no way the launching pad for Obama. He never worked for them, although he and his law firm did represent ACORN in a “motor voter” challenge in court back in Illinois. Also, James O’Keefe ended up having to turn over the raw tapes to the alleged ACORN stings and the CA Atty generals office released them to the public years ago all of which displayed how misleading and doctored the tapes were. ACORN was primarily an inner city organization that helped with low income housing, housing disputes and helping lower income urban residents access city services and assisting with get out to vote efforts in the inner city. In short, they helped inner city African Americans exercise their right to vote. Is it any wonder they were in the cross hairs of the GOP?

        • USMC69

          It really doesn’t matter how it’s founded. It only matters how many Americans are climbing on board.

          • CentralScruntinizer

            About 14% of the population self-identify as Tea Party supporters or members. More self identify as conservatives.

    • Brian Fr Langley

      Just what the liberals said (and hoped and prayed) just before 2010. I think most Americans are starting to understand an unsustainable path when they see it. If some sanity doesn’t arrive and fast, you’ll see standards of living not just continue to drop, but drop precipitously.

  • mary frances

    Again Bernie,You are correct.The lack of leadership this man shows precedes
    his lack of intelligence. Again,he is totally committed to getting what e wants regardless of the side effects that fall on the American people. He has absolutely
    no loyalty to anyone except for himself. It is very earth shattering to realize that
    he was put back in office. I just can not understand what people would risk
    destroying what this country was founded on and what it stands for,just by placing such trust in such a sheep in wools clothing?

  • Jim

    What were dealing with is a man child having a tantrum. Barry Soetoro AKA Barrack Hussein Obama, and I may add Harry Reid, will do or say anything they have to to get their way. They will lie and throw a tantrum just like a child. What do you do when you have a child that does that? The first thing you don’t do is give them their own way like they have been getting their whole life and political carrier thanks to Congressman like King, McCain, Graham, Cornyn. You put the child in time out and make him irrelevant. The Peoples House should continue to pass funding bill after funding bill as well as significant cuts in the budget attached to a debt ceiling increase and let Barry and Harry reject them over and over again. If only the turn coat blue blood country club type RINO’s had stood up against closure, We wouldn.t be having this debate!

    • Seattle Sam

      Obama has been told his entire life that he is a Great Man. He got into the best schools, became a Senator and President and a Nobel recipient without having to actually do much of anything. Of course he’s going to throw a tantrum if someone isn’t bowing before him. It’s called the Regal Syndrome.

      • legal eagle

        Can I assume Obama’s accomplished much more than you?

        • floridahank

          Do you mean legally, or illegally?

          • legal eagle

            Either…Does it matter?

        • PolkaDot

          No. Plain and simple.

        • Patrick

          And John Boehner more than you, too? This a petulant response. So, no one is entitled to an opinion unless they’ve accomplished more than the person they criticize? Then we should see the last of your opinions, right?

        • Jim

          No! Barry has never made a payroll, balanced a budget, dealt with the over barring Federal Government and all it’s crap as I have for the last 30 years. He hides behind the Government proclaiming that he knows better when he knows nothing just like he admitted in this article, he’s a political hack. If you don’t believe me than please show me his great accomplishments of community organizing? I think that’s were the gangs are running rampant and killing each other left and right along with the innocent. To accomplish something you have to be successful. Look at the bitter failure of barrycare his signature piece! The only thing I can say, without a doubt, that Barry has accomplished that I haven’t is a better handy cape!

          • legal eagle

            He was elected POTUS twice…Know many people who accomplished that?

          • Drew Page

            George W. Bush was elected twice.

        • Seattle Sam

          No, you cannot. Unless your measure of “accomplished” is just that he served as CEO of a larger organization than I. And I didn’t lead mine off a financial cliff, either.

        • Ted Crawford

          So also did Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Lenin, and Pol Pot, what’s your point?

          • USMC69

            You just made his point.

        • Stimpy

          Obama must be great. Didn’t he say so himself in his autobiography .. before he had accomplished a thing?

        • USMC69

          It depends on how you define “accomplished”. If you are like Jimmy Carter, yeah, he’s accomplished a lot with all the executive orders he’s signed. That is, if you measure “signing” as accomplishing something. A Nobel prize for “he’s going to….” kind of degrades the past prizes given out for real accomplishment. If you measure “accomplishment” as getting the most fools in history to vote for you, I guess he’s accomplished something. As for accomplishing anything worthwhile (as I measure it), he’s useless.

  • PeterFitzwell

    The federal govt is still paying interest on the money borrowed to pay me when I was a civil servant over 25 years ago. That’s just plain nuts.

  • metheoldsarge

    P { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

    This could backfire in the faces of both parties. All
    of this is getting very old very fast. Makes me wonder what these
    politicians want to be when they grow up. Everyone is pointing the
    finger of blame everywhere but where the real problem is. People are
    getting fed up with the blame game. It wouldn’t surprise me if the
    people get so outraged at the politicians in both parties and the
    President, that they just may take their anger out at the polls. We
    need to send those old career politicians from both parties into
    forced retirement. There are people who are not happy with the
    people they sent to Washington or State and Local office. They will
    vote to re-elect them anyway because they cannot bring themselves to
    vote for anyone in the other party. There are a lot more people that
    think that way than many realize. There are voting alternatives
    without breaking party loyalty. It is called Primaries. Join
    political groups or organizations that can work to seek out and
    encourage new people to run against the incumbents in the primaries.
    Then you can vote to help get that incumbent out of the general
    election. That way you can vote against the incumbent without having
    to sacrifice party loyalty. If you remember, Senator Arlin Specter
    had changed from Democrat to Republican. Then he thought he would
    have a better chance of re-election in 2010, if he changed back to
    Democrat. That didn’t work. Senator Specter lost in the 2010
    Primaries. RINO Pat Toomey then went to win that Senate seat in the
    General Election. This can work against everyone in public office
    from the President right on down to the local office holders. I say
    re-elect no one. Fire them all.

  • Bob Olden

    We Americans have the government we asked for. We would never elect a politician from the “WE CAN’T AFFORD IT” party! Far too many Americans want the “PLEASE TAKE CARE OF ME” party. Like a bunch of spoiled adolescents, we think it’s “unfair” to have to be disciplined in any way, to pay what it actually costs for the lifestyle we demand. In fact, we have a “right” to everything we demand! Food, housing, health care, jobs — all these things should be handed to us. Tell that to people, and you are sure to be elected.

    • Stimpy

      Well said. Now can I get some pot with this chicken?

  • Jimmy Cooper

    This POTUS won’t even take responsibility for the things he has said on the record! He said it was the difference between a Senator & a President I say it’s the difference between a community organizer and a community organizer playing President!!

  • RickonhisHarleyJohnson

    Your second to the last paragraph says it all, Bernie.

  • JMax

    Obama budget: $1.2 Trillion. Ryan/House budget: $967 Billion. Senate Democrat’s “clean” CR backed by the president: $986 Billion.

    So president gives over $200 billion and House won’t give $19 Billion? Who is not negotiating?

    • CentralScruntinizer

      Agreed, but ultimately this isn’t about the number. It’s about the reversing the ACA bill that was voted in by the majority of both chambers of Congress, was signed by the President then passed a challenge before the SCOTUS now is hated by the Tea Party who represent 15% of the population but scare 100% of the GOP enough to do their bidding

      • JMax

        Totally agree.

      • USMC69

        SCOTUS failed the people here. The “majority” voted against same sex marriage, but that didn’t seem to prohibit it. So why should it matter in ACA? Besides, it’s the “majority” of the people that really count. Put the ACA to a public vote and let’s see how it fairs.

        • CentralScruntinizer

          It went to a congressional vote in 2009 and passed with a majority in both chambers. That’s how it became law.

          • Jeff Webb

            >>It went to a congressional vote in 2009 and passed with a majority in both chambers. That’s how it became law.<<

            That is absolutely correct, but against the majority will of the people they were supposed to represent, and using bribery and slight of hand to get at least a couple of people to sell out their constituents.

          • CentralScruntinizer

            Universal Background checks were supported by 91% of the population but, thanks to NRA dollars and the NRA scoring the vote for GOP and red state dems, it failed. Many, many other cases like this. Should be open them all back up? Our system has tons of shortcomings, but it’s better than anarchy.

          • Jeff Webb

            You said earlier that Obamacare is “hated by the Tea Party who represent 15% of the population but scare 100% of the GOP enough to do their bidding”. I was actually pointing out this statement’s inaccuracy in my most recent post.

            You really shouldn’t cite universal background.checks if you’re trying to bolster your argument.

            If a pollster asks “do you support a law forbidding car dealerships from selling unsafe vehicles?”, and it’s asked in the aftermath of a traffic accident with several fatalities, it’d almost be a shock to not get a yes every time. But if it were well-known that said law allows the president to appoint anti-car federal bureaucrats who can define “unsafe” any way they see fit, outlaws the sale of used cars more than 2 years old, results in doubled prices, and wouldn’t have prevented the aforementioned accident, it would absolutely be a shock if more than 10% support it.

            Now, suppose the democrats, in a rare moment, decide to push for more gun control without waiting for a mass shooting; do you think you’d be boasting a poll number of 91%? Were people polled whether they’d support a universal check law even if it doesn’t tightly safeguard their own Constitutional rights? Were they polled whether they’d support it even though it wouldn’t have had stopped the Newtown shooting?

            Unless you can demonstrate that the 91% were given all the info or they were asked properly-informed questions, you may as well have posted gibberish.

            Tell you what: you quit with all the pathetic NRA/Tea Party distractions, and I won’t flood you with the countless wealthy power-players in bed with the democrats. Mmkay?

          • CentralScruntinizer

            You can spout NRA talking points all you want, Universal Background checks was even supported by the majority of NRA members. But thats all beside the point: the comparison is the the Dems lost that vote, but you don’t see them trying to reverse it during the funding process. Thats opening pandoras box by voiding the legislative process.

            And yup, there are many wealthy people of influence in bed with the dems. And the Tea Party is, as we’ve discussed, the political action wing of the Koch brothers. And the number of Fat Cats in bed with the establishment GOP dwarfs both the Dems and the Tea Party. Did you even have a point?

          • Drew Page

            It became law because it was bribed through the Democrat controlled Senate, arm twisted through the Democrat controlled House and signed into law by a Democrat president, none of whom bothered to read it because they were going to be exempt from it. There was not a single Republican vote for it in Congress.
            The legislation was sold to the public based on a pack of lies. “You can keep your own health plan if you want to.” “You can keep your own doctor.” “No one making less than $200,000 annually will see their taxes go up by even a dime.” “The ACA will cost “only” $900 billion over ten years.”

          • CentralScruntinizer

            Correct, there was not a single Republican vote for it, in spite of the bill spending more than 8 months in conference and negotiation between the parties with compromise after compromise being added at the request of republicans who committed to vote for it if those compromises were added. Those compromises included removing the public option, which would have drive the overall expense down significantly. And in the end, in spite of their committments in conference, the republicans who initially agreed to vote for the bill after their changed were implemented backed out at the last minute due to arm twisting from the GOP leadership.

            Arm twisting, influence & everything else that distinguishes our political system were both in full force for both sides on this bill, as they are on most legislation of any consequence. We have a pretty cynical system on both sides, but it is infinitely better than the nihilistic vision forward outlined by the Tea Party.

  • Drew Page

    Bernie — I like your article. I think it’s right on the money and I couldn’t have said it better myself.

    • legal eagle

      You cant say it better as long as Bernie agree with you….

  • mthammer

    What I dont understand Bernie, where are the true patriots of this country,. You can’t tell me that federal employees have any alegiance to this country. We have over 800 thousand who work at the Pentagaon and you cant tell me that everyone of these people are necessary to run this country. These people in Washington are all crooks including the representatives and Senators from every state in the Union. The only true Americans are the fighting men in this country , not the generals and the officers running the military but the grunts. When I was in Vietnam , we had the Rules of engagement that all Military have to put up with during war times. There should be no rules when fighting wars in other countries, you would have thought we had learned our lessons from my war in Vietnam , but no we didnt , why becuase of the asshole politicians in Washington. Its just like the media we have today on the left. They will tell lies , all coming from the Obama administration , because if they dont , they wont have a job. The only answer to getting things right in Washington is 3 million of usgun toting citizens , going there and taking over. Look how much crap was brought up from the last incident with the lady with Mental problems tryig to run the barricades in Washington. Another African American with mental problems , plus a dental assistant driving a $45 thousand dollar InFinniti , with her baby without a father in the back seat . Come on who is kidding who here, if I had the reputation as you have being a journalist , I would call out these people on MSNBC and CNN , ask them to be on their show and tell them what liars they really are . You think 3 million Gun Toting Citizens marching on Washington is not realistic , when its being planned , 1 million Veterans have already signed up and is part of the group. Bernie get out there and call yur fellow reporters liars , terrorists , traitors to this country , because that is what their spreading lies and noone is getting in their face about it.

    • Ksp48

      My father was a mid level attorney for a federal agency back when the federal government was only a sliver of what it is now. He used to tell me that if someone fired every third employee, far more work would get done. I suspect, its more like every other federal employee today.

      • legal eagle

        I’m sure your family would have been thrilled if they fired your father…

        • Patrick

          His/her father probably accomplished more than you. Your opinion doesn’t count.

          • legal eagle

            He may have….however I was responding to his absurd comments…so mind your business…

          • Jeff Webb

            >>however I was responding to his absurd comments…so mind your business…<<

            Patrick has as much right to respond to your petty little comments as you do to post them.

            Disagree with Ksp or not, nobody forced you to take the curt, snide approach.

          • legal eagle

            He’s commenting on my response without reading what I was responding to…..If he can’t be bothered reading both, he should mind his business…

          • Jeff Webb

            Patrick read Ksp’s comment, as did I, and your comment was beneath absurdity.

            Around here, it is no more your business to act like a childish little jerk than it is someone else’s to react to it. No matter how partisan-blind you are, you’re too smart to not understand this.

          • legal eagle

            You are correct… I should not respond to the son of a federal employee who thinks federal employees should be fired ….Nothing ironic about that?

          • Jeff Webb

            The only thing you gleaned from the comment was these people had to be some kind of hypocrites? You couldn’t at any point consider any other possibility, show a little liberal nuance?

            If you’re going scoff at the notion there was anything of substance in what Ksp said about his dad, you’re being knee-jerk. Or maybe you did understand that an educated man employed by the gov’t could witness inefficiency and might be in a position to comment. Had that possibility entered your supposedly tolerant, open mind before you posted that knee-jerk response?

            I’ll say it again: disagree with Ksp or not, nobody forced you to take the curt, snide approach.

          • legal eagle

            No.. I don’t think Ksp is a hypocrite…I think he is missing the empathy gene….Of course there is inefficiencies…If 20% of every large organization’s employees were terminated there would still be inefficiencies…
            My point with Ksl is that his father supported his family by working for the government…so do the other government employees….
            I will attempt to keep my use of snide remarks to a minimum….It’s part of my New York genetic code….LOL

          • Jeff Webb

            >>No.. I don’t think Ksp is a hypocrite…I think he is missing the empathy gene….<<

            Glad that you clarified, but it's still pretty quick conclusion on your part. It didn't occur to you that Ksp's dad's statement, about which you didn't have or get the whole context, was merely about the degree of inefficiency?

            With some open-minded consideration, maybe even a little empathy, you might've merely seen a guy who, was only to be observing that excessive manpower (at our expense) was being used unnecessarily, not some unthinking ghoul who wants others to get fired.

            Comments on gov't waste of money or resources (a near-certainty that is far less common at private corporations) don't suddenly become absurd when a gov't employee is the source. Regardless of where their paychecks originate, who is a more credible witness, counselor? The guy who was in the middle of it for years or the people who find out via word-of-mouth and occasional press coverage?

            The dad's statement actually reminded me of something I said at a Charger game years ago. I was in line at the concession stand, and a young couple at the counter was taking their sweet time deciding what to get. I jokingly told my friend it would sure speed things up if Junior Seau (God rest his soul) ran up and sacked the couple. Now, ponder a moment and tell me if you think I'd actually want to see two average people get assaulted by a speeding 250LB tackling machine.

          • legal eagle

            Now you have me thinking about Junior and his tragic death….Hope you got to see Frontline last night and the story about how the NFL has tried, for the last 20 years, to avoid the subject of football related brain trauma….

          • Jeff Webb

            Didn’t see it.
            I don’t know what amount of focus is currently being put on long-term consequences of playing football when aspiring teenage boys are instructed. In my high school years, we were told we’ll likely have some discomforts and injuries that are mostly unavoidable with the sport’s violence, but not much more than that.

            My hope, which I think the recent lawsuit will make a reality, is that kids who really want to play are force-fed all the grim realities they’ll be stuck with for life if they’re among the precious few who make the NFL, even possibly college.

            I envision a Scared Straight-type video featuring retired players living with pain and diminished basic physical ability like Earl Campbell, and relatives of deceased players like Junior Seau. Watching footage of Hall-of-Fame players dominating games, and then of their relatives, peers, and fans following their passings, could be the most effective way to have young men (the majority ones who don’t change their minds) at least enter the game without the illusion of immortality.

            It’ll only go so far. As author and former Atlanta Falcon Tim Green said, few players aren’t familiar with Lyle Alzado’s devastating final days that steroid use gave him. Practically nobody who’d stoop to juicing would care, though; unlike Alzado as he faced imminent death, they feel it’s worth the fame & fortune. The same applies to the non-juicing better citizens whose fates, just because they played, could include permanent brain damage or useless limbs.

            At least we did all we could to warn them, right?

            Wow-like an episode of Sports Tangent Theater.

          • legal eagle

            As a former Pop Warner coach I would say that parents who are concerned about their kids health might think twice about having the child continue to play and get a medical opinion if the child complains of headaches…

          • Jeff Webb

            If my son ends up wanting to play football, not only will he get our permission, we’ll be in the bleachers every game, proud & loud as it gets.
            Should he get his bell rung a time or two, and we get so much as a whiff of a problem with his brain or skull, he’d have to murder us and have incriminating photos of the coach to ever play another snap.

          • legal eagle

            I agree….but can you describe the nature of the photos?……LOL

        • floridahank

          Hey if you have any guts, you take the bad with the good if it’s a truthful cause. But I wouldn’t depend on you in a foxhole during a war.

  • brickman

    When you say Obama is technically correct what you mean is he’s correct. Obama cannot spend money not authorized by Congress. A Congress where each party controls one House. If they want him to spend less they should not pass laws that authorize him to spend more. Since most of the states that contribute less in taxes than money spent in them are red states, how about passing a law that prohibits that from occurring. I would exempt Hawaii and Alaska for national security reasons (if Eric Cantor can stand the unfairness) but just by doing that we’ll cut spending.

    • Ksp48

      No, it means that the argument, like statistics, is misleading. Each debt ceiling increase may “fund” excesses already spent, but until they stop spending (and a small reduction in that spending is all that the Republicans are seeking), the debt burden will necessarily continue to grow. As it has from $8.5 Trillion when Senator Obama thought raising the debt ceiling was un-American) to $17 trillion now and more than $20 trillion by the end of President Obama’s 2nd term. It might be @7 Trillion by the end of Hillary’s second Term. When do you think the house of cards falls down?

      • brickman

        The Republicans can stop spending anytime they want. All they have to do is stop authorizing the money. The Stimulus Bill illustrates their attitude. They were publically opposed to the spending but showed up to have their pictures taken at every photo op that brought money to their district.

        • legal eagle

          Good idea…Authorize no money for anything..That would make the Tea Baggers very happy…

          • Jeff Webb

            People like Dan Savage would be happy?

          • floridahank

            Can you justify to any citizen that they should just continue spending, buying more even if they don’t have the $$$ to pay for it later? Why should a company let someone buy their products when they have no intention on paying for it? Only an idiot would run their business in this manner. And that’s why our idiot government is in such chaos and debt. Nothing but morons in DC (at least 90% of them — a very few exceptions)

          • Patrick

            Ad hominem name calling only minimizes your argument. It proves you have nothing of substance to add to the conversation.

          • brickman

            No it wouldn’t as the “government keep your hands off my Medicare” signs at Tea Party rallies attest. Many corporations have declared bankruptcy and screwed their workers out of benefits. Even benefits obtained in union contracts are declared null and void by courts. If the Tea Party thinks the USA is bankrupt they won’t mind having Social Security, Farm subsidies and Veteran’s benefits eliminated? They want spending for them(the people who earned it) and they want cuts for those other freeloaders.

          • Ted Crawford

            They were doing exactly what is expected of any representative. They fought against it as hard as they could, but given the nature of our Government, they were out voted. In that case their responsibility becomes to get the best return on the Dollars the Progressives are taking to fund these idiotic programs. You seem jealous that your Progressives are very good at creating these self destructive programs, then prove incompetent to understand how best to utlize them!

          • brickman

            I’m not a Progressive. I’m a moderate who is registered Republican(you might be even more appalled). All I’m saying is that if you believe ANY pol (the late Wm. Proxmire being the exception) is trying to cut spending you don’t the purpose of government.

          • brickman

            I am not a progressive. I’m a moderate Republican(maybe worse in your book).All pols consider money spent in their districts or on their friends money well spent. They never mention at the photo op that they opposed the bill that funded it.

          • Drew Page

            If someone says government spending should be cut, or that government should be smaller, you over react and come back with “Authorize no money for anything…” then you go on to name calling, “That would make the Tea Baggers happy.”
            No one has suggested that all government spending should stop and you know it. You exaggerate to try and make a point and all that does is prompt exaggerated counter-points.
            I think reasonable people know that government is necessary and needs to be funded, but that doesn’t and shouldn’t mean that irresponsible spending should be tolerated. Irresponsible spending con be defined as spending more than you earn, year after year, continually borrowing money that future generations will have to pay back without ever having received any benefit.
            An average overall cut of 1% in actual, not proposed, government spending would bring down the national debt.

        • Ted Crawford

          The Stimulus Bill was passed under Progressive Control of both houses of Congress!

          • brickman

            Yes, the Republicans voted against the spending but each time a project came to their districts they would pose with the big fake check in a photo op because all pols want to be associated with bringing home the bacon. Bad spending is spending in someone else’s district.

          • Ted Crawford

            They did exactly as any competent Representative would do, they fought against these idiotic programs as long as possible. Given the proceedures in our government they were out-voted!
            Their responsibility therefore becomes to find the best way to get their constituents a return on their tax dollars confiscated by the Progressives self-defeating programs.
            It seems you are jealous that while your Progressive politicians are good at creating idiotic programs they are grossly incompetent on how to use them for the benifit of their constituents!

  • Wil

    This man is the worst President in the brief history of the Republic. He has single-handily created a non-bloody Civil War. What an amateur.

    • PeterFitzwell

      Wil. Are you OK?

    • Ted Crawford

      I’m concerned your statement was incomplete, and might well be more accurately stated as “created a non-bloody, YET, Civil-War”

    • legal eagle

      Civil war? Between whom the super rich and the rest of the country?

      • Ted Crawford

        A War between Americans and Progressives!

        • CentralScruntinizer

          Actually, while more Americans identify themselves as neither Tea Party nor Progressive, there are more liberals than Tea Partiers.

          • Ted Crawford

            And there are more Conservatives than there are Liberals, however neither fact has the first thing to do with my post!

          • CentralScruntinizer

            Indeed, there are slightly more self identified conservatives than liberals. But not all Conservatives are Tea Party members by a long shot. That should be made all the more clear in the fact that, according to the Washington Post, Boehner is being hammered by conservative donor who are screaming at him for allowing the shutdown and for threatening default.

          • Jeff Webb

            >>But not all Conservatives are Tea Party members by a long shot.<<

            Conservatives, TP or not, are pro-restraint when it comes to spending and legislating. No solid conservative would give BO the limitless spending power he demands, and no semi-conservative would give him even most of what he demands without an iron-clad, net decrease in wasteful spending.

            It's both ridiculous and sad that the TP is accused of being fringe; they want the politicians to follow the law & the Constitution. JUST LIKE THEY SWORE TO BEFORE THEY TOOK OFFICE!

          • CentralScruntinizer

            Your comment seems to be willfully ignoring the fact that Republicans increase the deficit faster – often by increasing spending faster – than dems. It’s only when Democrats take over the White House do the GOP deficit hawks re-awaken. When the GOP is in the Oval Office you have Dick Cheney braying that “Deficits Don’t Matter.”

            And no president has limitless spending power, nor is raising the debt limit (which was done for GW Bush 11 times without any resistance) granting additional spending power without congressional input.

            The big difference here is that the Tea Party is squared off not only against liberals and moderates, but also against sane conservatives who fully understand the potential impact on the bond market of even posing like we may default.

          • Jeff Webb

            You absolutely ignored my point.

            Conservative spending was not practiced when President Bush was in office; nobody who spends like he did would qualify as fiscally conservative.

            Republicans have been mischaracterized by liberals who don’t care, want, or know how to differentiate. Remember hearing how McCain’s ’08 loss demonstrated a public rejection of conservatism? Newsflash: McCain was/is a liberal Republican!

            The TP’s point is essentially telling the GOP to emulate President Reagan, and they are aware he worked with democrats out of pragmatism.

            Obama has clearly shown he WANTS limitless spending power, as well as every other kind of power there is.

          • CentralScruntinizer

            OK, assuming you are saying that Cheney, Dubya and Reagan (who also exploded deficits) were not conservative, you are apparently saying that conservatives are in such a minority nationwide that they cannot get any conservative candidates on a national ticket?

            Also, care to show any way in which Obama has demonstrated a desire for limitless spending power? Also, while I have many foreign policy differences with this administration, I do think his moves to get Congressional support for airstrikes on Syria was a move to step back from the unitary executive branch policy of Cheney & Addington. That would be the definition of voluntarily limiting presidential power.

      • floridahank

        I’m certain Obama and his family will never have to worry about needing $$$ when he leaves (not soon enough).

    • CentralScruntinizer

      Don’t kid yourself – This cold civil war has been going on since Reagan, and is essentially using 15% of the country as proxies for a few hundred hard-right Millionaires and Billionaires. And as cynical as they are, they have done a great job of hiding harshly regressive policies that destroy middle & working class quality of life behind the flag and false claims of “Freedom” (for corporations and the rich.)

      The best description is that they’ve gotten the Chickens to cheer for Col. Sanders.

      • Ted Crawford

        Yes! Of Course! We should pine for all the benifits that have arisen in the other “Workers Paradises” Around the World, like Russia, China, North Korea! It’s a difficult decision …but NO THANKS! I’ll trust in my ability to carve out a decent portion of prosperity, SANS the “benifits(?)” of government “Help(?)”

        • CentralScruntinizer

          You do realize that center left Americans have very little in common with your communist examples there, right? We can all play that game and say that the right either pine for the US to be like Somalia or Germany in 1933, but where does that leave us?

          I would say a more realistic debate is whether or not we want edge halfway in the direction of other first world Industrial democracies like Germany in our provision for the poor, sick, elderly etc.

  • Seattle Sam

    Obama in 2008: “Leadership means that the buck stops here”.
    Obama in 2013: Leadership means blaming those in Congress who stop the bucks.

  • chrismalllory

    Since Truman was a war mongering, mass murdering sociopath it is a good thing Obama is not like him.

    • Callipygian1

      Take your meds.

    • Ksp48

      Fortunately Truman won WWII so that you can express such thoughts without going to jail and having your family liquidated. Say thank you and then take the needle out of your arm.

      • legal eagle

        Harry Truman won World War II? Are you kidding?

        • Ted Crawford

          Truman (not one of my favorite Presidents) deserves at least the same credit for ending WWII, as your messiah Obama deserves for the death of bin Lauden!

          • legal eagle

            He certainly does….He was the closer but FDR pitched a helluva game….LOL

    • legal eagle

      You must be talking about Douglas MacArthur not Harry Truman…

      • floridahank

        MacArthur wasn’t warmongering enough — he wanted to win the war against Korea and could have but the Presidency didn’t have the guts to let him.

  • Wheels55

    MY Obama supporter friends take the stance that it is the Republican’s fault for not doing what the President wants. When I mention that the President of the U.S. is not supposed to be a dictatorship position, they change the subject.
    When I mention the last government shutdown was under Clinton, they say it was the Republican’s fault back then. I reply that it wasn’t anyone’s fault, it’s how our system works sometimes. At least Clinton was very engaged in the compromise process.
    Is Obama the worst President ever? In terms of what appears to be laziness, yes he is. I still think LBJ and Carter are right up there. But we didn’t have 8 years of those clowns.

    • chrismalllory

      Not even close to being the worst president ever. Lincoln, the idiot Roosevelt cousins, Wilson, Johnson, and Truman were all worse. Carter was the last Christian president.

      • Hambone

        That is probably the craziest post I have ever read. Congratulations!

      • Callipygian1

        I would expect a post like this from someone who can’t even spell their own name…

      • Skip In VA

        Which history book are you reading? Alfred In Wonderland? Or maybe you just made that up, huh?

      • Stephen Randall Malone

        Are You Mentally Ill? Please take your Anti-Stupid Pills..ASAP!

      • Wheels55

        I’m not sure why you think Lincoln was a lousy President. I also wonder why you think Carter was the last Christian President. He was the last peanut farmer to be President. He was also a nasty, hateful selfish person. There have been better Christians as President since the Brother of Billy.

    • jondaris

      If your friends change the subject with a softball like that says more about your friends that it does liberalism. The GOP is holding goernmental functioning and the American economy hostage. You don’t negotiate with terrorists. So far the only thing the GOP has offered Obama is to let the government run and raise the debt ceiling. These are not optional for Congress — they are part of their job.

      • Drew Page

        Blaming Republicans isn’t going to fix anything. Calling them terrorists and hostage takers is not only untrue, it’s inflammatory. Republicans in the House have offered to fund everything except Obama Care. They have even offered to fund Obama Care if the Senate would agree to postpone the individual mandate for one year, like Obama did for businesses, and make federal employees and elected officials subject to Obama Care without any taxpayer subsidies.
        The House of Representatives has the Constitutional right to fund or withhold funding of government programs. If they didn’t have that right, there wouldn’t be an argument or a government shutdown. Don’t try to say, or even imply, that the House of Representatives doesn’t have the right to do what they are doing. Name calling isn’t going to change anything.

        • legal eagle

          Let me know when the House is allowed to vote on a CR?
          The House has the Constitutional right to vote…Boehner believes otherwise…

        • metheoldsarge

          To a liberal, anyone that supports our Constitution and the Bill of Rights is a terrorist.

        • WhiteHunter

          When a reporter explicitly asked Reid, he said he wouldn’t allow a separate vote at least to fund the NIH’s program to save hundreds of young children with terminal cancer–to Reid (and Osama), it’s either “all or nothing, and tough if the kids die; it’s the Republicans’ fault, not ours.”
          If an idiot like “jondaris” doesn’t recognize THAT as hostage-taking in the truest, most literal sense of the word–which he clearly doesn’t–he’s either a cold-blooded, delusional liar, or a loyal Dem. Or rather, both, since there’s no difference.

      • chiefjgmac

        Demo ‘talking points’…..

      • Ted Crawford

        Thank you comrade ‘ I have absolutely no personal thoughts of my own’! If we were interested in idiotic nonsense we would listen to Chris Matthews, or Rachel Maddow!

      • floridahank

        I’m glad you got advice and comments from Putin — keep in contact with your ally.

    • Michael Greco

      Well I have seen more Presidents than most here because of my age. I fancy myself as a non partisan sort who has voted all over the page so I try to judge by merits and pitfalls rather than ideology. In my lifetime 3 worst Presidents were: 1.) Carter: – A guy who was so ideological that he let the realities of facing world crisis and addressing an economic nightmare (18% home mortgage rates, and crazy long gas lines), get in the way of leading. A weak President who was defecated on by every Middle Eastern cleric or Russian leader. 2,) Obama: – A guy who is too weak to stare down world threats and bullying leaders like Putin or Kim Jong Un. And is too naive and inexperienced to recognize being conned by others like Bashar al Assad. Sprinkle in real scandals like the IRS bullying his rivals, the Benghazi cover up, NSA spying on Americans to a large degree and being allowed to lie about it under oath and acting like Emperor Nero and failing to negotiate while the economy burns and debt soars and saddling the country with an inept health care bill that no one read, understands or can afford.3.) Bush – Started an avoidable and deplorable Iraq war with poor planning, which was headed by a non military Secretary of Defense who had profit on his mind. Lined the pockets of oil buddies and let foreign policy get dictated by his inept Vice President, also a non military guy ! Bungled the reorganization of the government by killing off some effective agencies and morphing them into a hot mess called DHS. Also created TSA, a hybrid agency with no identity, no leadership, no intellectual direction and no teeth, .Expanded the powers and jurisdiction of an inept, parochial agency, the FBI, which should stand for Famous But Incompetent. 4.) Nixon: A liar, a schemer, a crook and a highly insecure man who I suspect had a small, mostly flaccid penis.

      • Wheels55

        Can’t disagree. I would put LBJ in at around #2 or 3. After all, he escalated this entitlement garbage and really put us in a horrible war.
        I will trust your judgement on the size and usefulness of Nixon’s privates.

  • Eric Johnson

    You would think that after 4+ years of on-the-job training, that Obama would understand that being presidential means working WITH Congress, not against them 24/7. He demands his way or the highway!

    Sorry (not really). But, the Constitution is against him in his many actions of late. The Executive branch is equal to the Legislative branch and that simply means he needs to WORK with House Republicans & Senate Democrats to come up with a solution that neither side completely likes. It’s worked for 200+ years and he should reconsider how much history is against his position of no compromise.

    • ksp48

      What after all is Community Organizing than getting one group to work against another?

    • Oldephardt

      He has no respect for The Constitution as has been said on many occasions. He is sheltered by a media system that is, in reality, the propaganda arm of the Democrat Party . The real shame is that there must be a few Democrats who are opposed to the style of government being forced upon us and yet, they stay will not speak to those basic truths which have been this nation’s hallmark. We witness our government lying and nothing is done. We see questions raised ( Benghazi, for one ) and there are no answers. We observe totally inane spending of the nation’s wealth and there are few voices raised in dissent. . We have become a government of them against us and the concept of We The People has been slowly killed. Once America loses the last vestiges of freedom, the people will be as slaves under an increasingly oppressive, demanding and controlling cadre of fools.

    • brickman

      The dollar figure in the cr is of the Republican’s choosing. That’s the compromise. Actually, it’s a victory for them but instead of taking it they went a bridge too far. Dems don’t like all sorts of laws passed in the past but they don’t make funding the govt dependent on the repeal of say, Taft Hartley. The GOPs idea of compromise is ” what’s mine is mine, what’s yours is mine, but I’m willing to compromise on the second part.”

  • DonaldYoungsRevenge

    Obama is a Fraud and until the Conservative media begin broadcasting that with the evidence to back up that claim, this Fraud in Chief can do whatever he damn well pleases. When the “4th estate” becomes completely corrupted the 1st Amendment isn’t worth the paper it was printed on. That “4th estate” has turned a blind eye to the massive corruption and criminal activity of this administration and by remaining silent they have become nothing but a bunch of worthless chatter.

  • Josh

    I personally place blame on a lot of politicians in office, their party be damned; though we’re speaking not only about our current President, but a man who, as repeatedly as humanly possible, makes it a point to tell us how non-politician he is as a politician and how clean his hands are in all that goes on. He touts himself as above the basic schmo in office, smarter than the
    average bear and fairer than the fairest maiden.

    And, obviously, what we see is a 180 from what we hear.

    If the nation hasn’t turned on him yet, it’s not going to happen.

    I speak here from a position many readers of this blog do not share, in that I’m a nonpartisan whose social circle is made up almost entirely of liberals and progressives. So I can say this and feel confident about it. The number-one reason a lot people fail to turn on him or even call him
    to task is that they are frightened beyond belief at even the thought
    of being labeled racist for disagreeing with a non-white individual in public. It is a standard they created by labeling all dissent, valid or otherwise, as outright racist. They created the scale; now they fear defecting will make them social pariahs. In the progressive world, the worst thing you can possibly
    be is a bigot. With racism, of course, being the bell on the high
    striker.

    It’s the same reason gangs are never brought up in gun-control debates. Or why single mothers in minority communities are completely excused or ignored when the subject broaches crime, welfare, etc. Or why not hiring a pregnant woman is the patriarchy at work, but throwing acid in a woman’s face is a cultural issue we’re not qualified to speak on. That racist label, so freely given out by these folks, paralyzes them from approaching any issue honestly if it involves non-white players. It’s easy to attack the GOP for these folks. Mostly white, wealthy men — damn, it’s like playing tee-ball with a softball bat.

    Obama is a walking target for racist scum. He’s also an impenetrable shield for leftist diehards who would rather keep silent and parrot the latest highly-polled talking points than to hold the man accountable and be labeled a Tea Party or GOP member.

    If you think it’s rough with the right-wing ayatollahs and their with-us-or-against-us mentality, just try being an average white leftist with negative views about a black man. Hell hath no fury like a woosie scorned.

    • JJ

      You are absolutely correct. He is NOT brought under scrutiny as a WHITE president would be! He is not brought to task as a WHITE president would be.He is black first, and the President second. People cannot move past the first without fear of being called RACIST, in order to examine the second, his policies as the President! !
      And you know that is EXACTLY what he and his party want! Absolute power through “racism”

      • Josh

        I agree that’s what his party wants. The true-blue Democrats happily roll around in this muck, smiling from ear to ear because they have such an out for all criticism. “You racists!”

        But I’ll tell ya one thing: The progressives who are anti-war, anti-government-spying, 100% all-in on same-sex marriage, and who think guys (girls?) like Snowden are heroes — they really do disapprove of Obama and aren’t happy at all. But they’re being held under thumb by the bullies who will gladly throw them out of the club (literally sometimes) if they dissent.

        These people don’t care what happens to the country as long as they’re not labeled as bigots and find that the echo chamber can go on without them. Being a progressive is their whole identity, and risking that by daring to criticize anyone other than a white person is something very few have the courage to do.

        These are the people, after all, who love the idea of being on their parents’ insurance until 26. And why not? Their parents have already paid for everything else, including their expensive, pointless liberal arts degrees. There’s barely an ounce of courage to go around for the lot, and even less individuality. So they’re simply never going to turn on Obama, even after he’s out of office. They’ll continue to be good little progressives and point the finger solely at the Republicans.

  • Brian Fr Langley

    The mega disaster coming, that’s QE1,QE2, and QE3, may actually be triggered by a debt ceiling fight. But that’s like saying, that a guy who dies of a heart attack, after climbing a long flight of stairs, was killed by the stairs.Not the fact he weighed 300 plus pounds and had a long family history of heart trouble. Despots for centuries have added base metals to their gold, in order to stave off financial disaster, (meaning they’re lining their own pockets). Just because the current system lines the pockets of Wall street, (rather than a President), doesn’t make it less despotic or rapacious. Whether you hold adulterated gold or adulterated money, you’ve been just as cheated.

    • Bob Olden

      Your analogy of the 300 pound man is priceless! What a gret description of our dysfunctional nation.

      • Ted Crawford

        Indeed! We could use Chris Christie as the poster boy !

        • brickman

          I live in NJ. I’ve been seeing a lot of lawn signs and posters for Chris Christie. I have a feeling he will win reelection and govern NJ for 4 more years. I haven’t been seeing much support for Steve Lonegan. He will lose. Wait…how can a RINO win and a true conservative lose? They’re called elections.

          • Ted Crawford

            What it’s called is The Peoples Republic of New Jersey! Saddly for you poor delusional souls Christie might actually seem Conservative! You like him, PLEASE keep him ! He’s completely unwelcome at the National Level!

          • brickman

            According to the posts I read we have the People’s Republics of : VT, CT,NY,NJ,MA,MD,WI,MN,IL,CA,CO,OR and WA. You know, almost half the population of the US. You think because you say something it makes it true. It doesn’t. Let me ask you a question which states that Obama carried last time will pick Cruz or Paul over Clinton? Maybe Colorado. If you don’t like President Christie, say hello to President Hillary Clinton. Your choice.

          • Ted Crawford

            In the first case, anybody giving more than a cursory thought to 2016, has been seduced by the Progressive hype, and are playing straight into the hands of Obama and the Progressives! If America does not awaken from this Progressive trance before November 4, 2014, even if there is an election in 2016, it will be no more meaningful than those held in Iran, Russia, China, of North Korea!
            There are presently 49.7% of the American population depending on the Federal Government for some form of Government Largees! Unless they, finally, become aware that these Progressive programs and subsequent tax increases, are rapidly depleting both the Treasury and the sources of Revenues for replentishing the Treasury!
            Many of our employers and impressive numbers of our most affluent Citizens are simply leaving for Countries with governments not seduced by these idiotic Keynesian’s !!

          • brickman

            So paying our soldiers, sailors and airmen is leading to our country’s downfall. I must ask you what school system taught you to capitalize so many words?Federal,government,largess(misspelled),revenues,citizensand countries in this post. Conservative, national and level in the last. Sadly is also misspelled and every sentence ends with at least one exclamation point. I know I’m breaching internet protocol by pointing this out and everyone makes a few mistakes but since you dissed NJ, I wonder what state educated you so poorly.

          • Ted Crawford

            Nice try Comrade. However your sad attempts to obfuscate, with idiotic statements ,and continuous refrences to my spelling, capitalization, and punctuation, are clear evidence that you are aware of the truth supported as it is with facts. Unable to argue with any substantive facts, you seem to believe that you can intimadate through your self proclaimed superior education. Guess again ole myopic one!

          • brickman

            My comments to everyone else’s posts are on point. I’m not trying to intimidate(spelled correctly) anyone. I never proclaimed my superior education since I only have a B.A. The reason I went after you is that you make unsubstantiated claims in a semiliterate style that borders on hysteria. You could not pass a 9th grade English course in a NJ high school but went after Chris Christie with a fat joke. I presume that’s your version of the truth supported by facts. You also used a People’s Republic of NJ argument. Truth supported by facts? The fact is that for the over 60 years I’ve been alive, the NJ taxpayer has supported much of the country.I could have pointed out more mistakes. I found 12 errant capitalizations in a 3 sentence post. I am through wasting my time.

  • Wil

    Hey Bernie, How about House Speaker John Boehner? You forgot to mention him at all. All John Boehner has to do, is have the CR vote, but he refuses, to do it. What is he afraid of?

    • DonaldYoungsRevenge

      Boehner has counted his votes and there are not enough to present a “dirty” CR, so why the hell ask for a vote when you know you don’t have enough votes to give this Fraud in Chief what he wants?

      • Wil

        Let them vote and we will see if Boehner is telling the truth. Boehner has proved his ‘word’ is useless.

        • Jeff Webb

          You seem to trust BO, a known liar and serial promise-breaker, and you have posted defamatory lies on this site, so you aren’t exactly in a position to judge.

          • Wil

            Boehner is the known liar and serial promise-breaker, you just haven’t been paying attention.

          • Jeff Webb

            >>Boehner is the known liar and serial promise-breaker, you just haven’t been paying attention.<<

            Said the guy who was suspended for posting lies.

            Read my comment again and YOU pay attention this time.

          • Wil

            I was suspended because, I wasn’t nice. Lets get it straight!

          • Jeff Webb

            Now you’re lying about your suspension, and you damn well know it.

            Just quit the crap already. Nobody believes your mistrust of Speaker Boehner is anything more than political and partisan.

    • Wheels55

      Just like Harry Reid who almost never bring a Republican idea to vote, politics rules the day – every day. Boehner is constantly between a rock and a hard spot. He will never look good no matter what he does. If you can get Reid to vote on things he doesn’t like, I bet Boehner gets the House to vote on things that Republicans find unpopular.

    • Drew Page

      He is afraid of not doing what his constituents elected him to do.
      I for one don’t want him bowing every time Obama snaps his fingers. If you don’t like that, tough toe nails.

    • Ted Crawford

      Other than ushering in the ultimate collapse of our Economic System, probably not much!

  • Concernedmimi

    Or could it be Peter calling wolf? With all the idiotic policies currently in place, maybe the American economic system will right itself in spite of the kensian experiment!!!

    • Ted Crawford

      A great thought, but it’s not going to happen. Even if it were to start to have positive results Obama and the Progressives would inject poison pills to derail any progress!

  • Mike

    Regardless of the near 50% of “takers” who will always support the Juvenile Obama, History will clearly place blame for current financial disasters, shutdowns, and many other issues on Obama. That blame, in my opinion, will be 100% correct because of his obstinacy. Having said that, many often forget budgets, spending, and debt remains the function of Congress who has continuously failed in the past. We are where we are because of the failure of Congress to exercise sound fiscal responsibility.

  • SpeedGibson

    What’s different this time is that everything is recorded now, including his absurd closings of Mt. Vernon and Mt. Rushmore. But whether the Republicans will take advantage remains to be seen.