Quantcast
U.S. & World

Gov't open again, Obama bemoans senseless damage

Comments

Return To Article
  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 21, 2013 7:39 a.m.

    The attackers of the President are attacking each other now. A wild pack of animals.

  • New to Utah PAYSON, UT
    Oct. 19, 2013 12:56 p.m.

    Obama and Reid wanted to have the shutdown. It was a political calculation that they could count of the MSM blaming Republicans and the tea party. We saw the disenguous Reid and the ruthless
    Obama sink to gutter attacks against the Tea Party and Republicans. The false narrative was paroted thru the ABC,CBS, NBC anchors just as expected. It was the Democrats shutdown but who would be able to figure that out with the bombastic press.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Oct. 18, 2013 11:22 p.m.

    @atl134:

    * living within our means would cause a recession?
    * spending money we don't have is irresponsible, and un-patriotic---Barack Obama 2008
    * it's not the role of government to manage health care, or education.
    * eighty percent of the poor, are that way because of their own decision making, and government policies. That doesn't give political leaders the right to steal from those who were responsible. Help must come from local churches, communities, or relatives.
    * pre-existing conditions? Companies would go broke, because people would wait for an illness before getting insurance. Do the math. Simple to understand.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 18, 2013 5:54 p.m.

    @worf
    "Give some specifics of how a higher debt ceiling, and Obamacare is good for this country. "

    The cuts needed to stay compliant without a debt ceiling increase would trigger another recession. Obamacare will help people better afford insurance through subsidized policies (subsidies being why this isn't a hammer being dropped on the poor). While we're at it, the subsidies aren't freebies, the subsidies are weighted so that the most poor only have to pay around 3% of income on premiums, increasing to around 6 or 9% as you go up to the middle and then upper middle class. But you go on ahead and explain why letting companies deny coverage due to pre-existing conditions is a good thing.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 18, 2013 5:50 p.m.

    @Counter Intelligence
    "The people also voted for the House to oppose Obama. "

    Actually they voted for a Democratic House in that more votes were cast for Democrats than Republicans. Turns out Republicans boxed Democrats into gerrymandered districts so badly (look at Ohio 13Rs and 5Ds but they voted for Obama) that they ended up with the majority. In the Senate, where you can't gerrymander, Democrats picked up two seats in 2012.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 18, 2013 5:46 p.m.

    @patriot
    Obama and Democrats accepted the funding proposals that the House made for gov't, despite their objections to many of those levels (particularly things cut from the sequester).

    @Mountanman
    "Obama's approval numbers according to a recent A.P. poll= 37%"

    The Republican party's approval rating in a recent Gallup poll: 29%

    @Herbert Gravy
    "How quickly he forgets or ignores the "senseless damage" his IRS folks did to the opposing party in the last election."

    They targeted liberal groups too (a liberal group was the only one to get their tax exempt status denied). I guess your side of the media ignored the details.

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    Oct. 18, 2013 3:04 p.m.

    It is odd that the CEO or President of our nation doesn't want to share responsibility for his actions during the past 3 years with the House or Board of Directors not wanting to go his way in everything. Fortunately or unfortunately, we have the 100 other members of the Board or Senate that have used their power and influence in the media to sway the balance and not necessarily in the right direction, since they are left of center.

    Fortunately, whoever the next President will be is not the one in the office for the present time. What a blessing to have Senators on a 6 year with 1/3 up every two years and the House members elected every two years. That must have been an inspired document to have such thought and inspiration for the Founding Fathers to put in when a President is elected every four years. With the Press leaning toward the liberal media presentation of almost everything including movies and television programs, we will have to fend off the transparency this President has brought into his position.

    With his wife happy for the first time in her life to be an American, we lose.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Oct. 18, 2013 2:41 p.m.

    Silly arguments between democrats, and rebublicans, doesn't solve problems, but a waste of time.

    Tax cut for the rich, is a cut to those who pay eighty percent of our taxes.--How is that a disaster?---What about those who don't pay income taxes?

  • Itsjstmeagain Merritt Island, Fl
    Oct. 18, 2013 10:12 a.m.

    For those who bemone that the President would not negotiate the Continuing Resolution Authority (CRA).

    The action in question was to pass a (CRA). A CRA is a procedural funding process to keep the Govt funded at the previous FY levels until a full year budget is passed. I understand it, I spent many years managing contractor efforts and waiting for an annual budget or the CRA so I could continue supporting the Army. The only adjustments to the CRA permitted were prenegotiated contract cost changes for inflation and for approved salary changes during the previous year.
    This was not a full Fyscil Year budget process which is to be completed (should have been completed)by the end of Sept. The word Bubget was used too often in the wrong context in the media. The Legislative process to repeal ACA was correctly attempted nearly 50 times last Legislative season and failed. It is still the Law, confirmed by the Supreme Court. Attacking funding in the CRA process was illegal.
    The President will need to negotiate with the Congress on the FY14 and FY 15 budget, no doubt.

  • Badger55 Nibley, Ut
    Oct. 18, 2013 8:58 a.m.

    Itsjstmeagain,
    "It is the Congress who passes a budget, not the President"

    Your right! You should research what party controlled the house and senate the last half of Clinton's time as president...

    Bush had to get approval from Congress for funds spent on Iraq and any other Overseas Contingiency Operations/war on terror. Iraq and Afghanistan were funded through Supplemental appropriations that had to be passed in Congress. Obama signed one in 2009.

    The biggest jump in spending yoy in in the last 30 years was a 16% increase from 2008-2009. What party was in control of Congress? To be clear, both parties are to blame when it comes to the debt. But, I am astonished at how many people blame one political party, who by the way is in the minority(Dems control the senate and presidency). When will either party take responsibility? The sad part is, Congress has about 535 people in it that all have a vote. The Presidency has one guy, the president. Placing blame in Congress can prove difficult, however the president has no one else to blame except himself.

    Bush gets blamed for everything. Obama gets blamed for nothing...Interesting.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Oct. 18, 2013 8:12 a.m.

    itsjustmeagain
    the house DID pass a budget - harry and the DEM senate ignored it. How does that make it the GOP's fault?

    BO increased the debt more in 38 months than bush did in 96. how is that bush's fault?

    The last time gross federal debt decreased was in 1969, under Nixon (R). There was no surplus under slick - gross federal debt INCREASED every year during his administration. IF there was a surplus (some use fuzzy accounting to say there was) it was from a GOP budget, as YOU point out in your snarky comment about reading your kid's civics book!

    PS, you need a possessive apostrophe between "kid" and "s", otherwise you are talking plural children, rather than about a possession belonging to your child. Now, I know sometimes the DN's page cannot handle punctuation, so if that is the reason you left the apostrophe out, you can ignore my PS.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Oct. 18, 2013 8:07 a.m.

    @Itsjstmeagain-- give examples of "senseless and dangerous antics of Cruz". Give some specifics of how a higher debt ceiling, and Obamacare is good for this country. What's been done to reverse passed spending, and clearing up the interest we pay?

    Blaming is not curing.

  • Itsjstmeagain Merritt Island, Fl
    Oct. 18, 2013 6:06 a.m.

    Bemoans? He and everyone else should be outraged at the senseless and dangerous antics of Cruz and the other followers of doom.

    For other commentators: It is the Congress who passes a budget, not the President. Bush started spending outside of the budget for his wars in the middle east. Todays debt is far more accruing interest from the debt left since Reagan and every President since except Clinton. Bush took care of the surplus, not paying down the debt but disbursing it to the 10%.

    Please consider reading your childs Civics book as a refresher, like me it's been a long time since HS.

  • Grammy3 SOUTH JORDAN, UT
    Oct. 18, 2013 12:57 a.m.

    I am so sick and tired of hearing all of the time that everything that goes wrong in Washington is Bushes fault. Come on people he has not been the President for five years almost six. Obama can never take blame on anything. That is how a child reacts not an adult. I am so mad at every single person back there in Washington and it starts with Obama on down.Reid Pelosi are the worst and for the first time I saw Bohner have some guts to do something even though he caved in at the end. So let me be clear here. Our Country is in great trouble and for those who want to keep blinders on then just do that. Those of us who want to see things happen will start to be more vocal about how we feel. I am not a Tea Party person, a Democrat or a Republican I am a citizen of the greatest Country in the World and I want to keep it that way. So I just want it to be clear I feel we need to fire every single one back there and start all over.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    Oct. 17, 2013 9:47 p.m.

    Mike in Sandy
    Esquire
    Dave 4197'

    Please explain how the shut down is Lee's fault. What did he do? He is just one dude in the senate. How did he control the whole government?

    Reid, Obama, Boehner have the power. How is it Lee's fault?

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Oct. 17, 2013 8:06 p.m.

    @one old man--Talk is cheap. Give some examples of what the previous administration left for Obama to spend our money on.

    Give some examples of how Obama has worked to reverse the damage made by George Bush.

    Let's blame George Bush for the over forty percent increase in debt, in the passed five years.

    Man up and give some facts.

  • Tom in CA Vallejo, CA
    Oct. 17, 2013 7:25 p.m.

    I have news for Barry -

    The "damage" he speaks of here was done BEFORE any government shutdown. And HE KNOWS IT. This is nothing more than a feeble attempt at shifting the blame to anyone but him. He is the master of deception. Worst President in American history.

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 17, 2013 5:34 p.m.

    Esquire

    "The people effectively ratified it in the 2012 election by re-electing the President." The people also voted for the House to oppose Obama. Funny how you ignored that.
    (Obama is the first president in history to win re-election with FEWER votes than he had the first time and Romney lost because he could not inspire his base that he would repeal Obamacare)

    BTW funding for the Vietnam war was "settled law" too. Liberals didn't care, they protested vigorously - and they look spectacularly hypocritical now when they complain that conservatives are acting mean, when in fact conservative are acting more civil than liberals ever have. It must be very annoying for the left to have the right assume they get to play by the same rules.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Oct. 17, 2013 5:02 p.m.

    WRK - pure nonsense. But that's okay, huh?

  • dave4197 Redding, CA
    Oct. 17, 2013 4:28 p.m.

    DN sub 2
    Defense spending should be cut in half. Then start talking about changes needed in social programs. But defense needs a haircut now, 60 years after WWII ended, 30 years after the cold war ended. Exit bases in Europe, Okinawa, that were set up to guard against enemies who are now our allies. End silos here that aim nuclear tipped missiles at Russia. Reduce our submarines similarly expensively maintaining nuclear tipped missiles aimed at Russia.
    Time to cut the military industrial complex in half, without taking an extra breath.
    Your post says $793B for medicare / medicaid, I'll have you know that I paid for medicare so it's coming from my pocket, and medicare / medicaid helps real people with people problems. In your post you say $701B for social security, ditto. In your post you say $689B for defense (this year, from my current taxes), that is for bullets that go into bodies that end up dead or disabled, a terrible wasted expense. In our guns and butter economy, time to cut the guns 50%, and we could cut more.
    I've more ideas if you've got the time and the DN allows.

  • UtahBruin Saratoga Springs, UT
    Oct. 17, 2013 4:02 p.m.

    To all Obama supporters

    So what I have read here so far is that it is Congress' fault and still President Bush's fault.

    So my question is this.

    Who's fault will it be when the next failure takes place?

    Who's fault will it be when Americans who did not get the more expensive health insurance are penalized and hit with this penalty on their taxes? Now, all of you have been saying that Obama Care / Affordable Health Care Act is to help the less fortunate. I would have to assume that those who did not have health care before are not going to have it now, because it is just as expensive and or more expensive. If they choose the penalty which they will get? What makes you think they are going to pay that when they can't afford the health care to begin with?

    So who foots that bill? And who's fault will it be then?

    Seriously, how can you not see that Obama and his cronies are not the answer. More problems since he was elected. Who's fault? Nobody else's but his. Own It!

  • Fitz Murray, UT
    Oct. 17, 2013 3:47 p.m.

    Everyone wants to lay blame on the other side, but there is enough to go around. Those that point out that Congress passes the budget are correct. Pursuant to Article 1 of the Constitution, the budget starts in the House. But it is negotiated, used lightly, between the two political parties in both the House and the Senate. The President is also included in these negotiations, he has veto powers. The results of all this is that the 3 parties involved are working from idealistic positions and not from reality. And the results are that unless the President gets his way, he will veto the budget bill.

    In this last budget mess, they all gathered together a couple of times, and they all came out standing on the same positions they went in with. Sen. Reid, along with the President, have refused to work with the GOP on any budget issues. It is either their way or no way. Obama, unconstitutionally, gave big business a one year delay in having to meet ACA requirements. The GOP said, the second time around, let's delay it all for 1 year. Both Reid and Obama refused. But it sure seemed fair.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 17, 2013 3:32 p.m.

    The problem is mainly in Texas and this State. The extremists need to be ousted from both parties. There should be a Constitutional Amendment to punish congressman who use a shutdown to attempt to force the enactment of legislation. That way if they fail, they are immediately impeached.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Oct. 17, 2013 3:31 p.m.

    BO bemoans the senseless damage
    Then he should not have inflicted it in the first place.

    Why does the article lie? It calls obamacare a health care law – it is not. It is an insurance law.

    Moderate,
    Had BO and the dems accepted the repub budget, there would be no funding for obamacare. Why are you telling untruths?

    Old man, atl134
    BO had every opportunity to reduce spending, not just increase it by less. Any reduction in spending has been forced on him by prior fiscal cliffs

    Bungalow – Mike in Sandy
    Debt run up by bush in 96 months - $4.9 trillion
    Time it took BO to run up $4.9 trillion – 38 months
    You say the repubs are more fiscally irresponsible? Really??

    Mike in Sandy
    I continue to be amazed at the narrow minded tunnel vision offered by the left. Today’s misadministration is still showing itself headed by an improvident lack-wit.

    Esquire,
    S&P said the damage was $24B. YOU assigned blame. The GOP voted to keep the government open, dems voted to shut it. dem responsibility

    Dave4197,
    Stopping discussion, stopping progress, stopping listening – BO’s pledge not to negotiate, right?

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Oct. 17, 2013 2:57 p.m.

    @ WRK, Obama did not "put out the law". He signed a law passed by both Houses of Congress. The law was challenged and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. The people effectively ratified it in the 2012 election by re-electing the President. The President's duty is to execute the laws passed by Congress. Mike Lee's duty is to propose legislation and try to get it approved by Congress, which will happen if it has enough support or merit. He has done none of this. Instead, he is interfering with the Constitutional duty of the President by stopping the entire government. Lee and his ilk have had over three years to move legislation. That is plenty of time to propose constructive changes and get them passed. This is the way government is supposed to work, not by thuggery, extortion, threats and similar tactics followed by jack-booted Tea Partiers who somehow fooled voters into sending them to Washington.

  • SpanishImmersed Mesa, AZ
    Oct. 17, 2013 2:42 p.m.

    I just heard that our fallen soldiers were not being returned home during the shutdown! Funeral homes are starting to expedite the backlog today.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Oct. 17, 2013 1:32 p.m.

    Re: ". . . showing such disdain and contempt for our system reminds me more of early 1930's Germany rather than a modern, mature democracy."

    You're clearly talking about the Obama regime.

    They're the ones that don't care what our Constitution or laws say -- they'll just blithely skip on down the road toward socialism, not because it's legal, but because they believe they can get away with it.

    Passing oppressive, unpopular laws they then won't enforce against cronies and major campaign contributors, but which they use as the basis for admittedly false promises of future nirvanas to buy off new low-information voters. Refusing their clear duty to enforce ANY law that might offend or alienate an important constituency. Subverting, and using its thoroughly politicized Department of Justice, to oppose the will of the people at every turn. Using unreasonable and unconstitutional executive-branch rulemaking as an illegal intrusion, evasion, and takeover of legislative branch prerogative.

    All these, and more, show the Obama regime's clear, unabashed admiration for early-30's Germany.

    And, even more clearly, 1917 Russia.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Oct. 17, 2013 1:10 p.m.

    Re: "Let's RECALL SEN LEE now."

    Yeah, let's do that. Because he had the unmitigated gall to stand up to Democrat party bosses' anointed one, and to Congressional tax-and-spend liberals. He is such a rube, he insists on representing the clear will of Americans, particularly those that elected him.

    And, of course, he ran the serious risk of that worst-of-all Washington fates -- being dropped from all the best cocktail-party invitation lists, and being labeled un-collegial by disingenuous party bosses of both political stripe!

    How can he possibly live with himself after choosing what's best for America and his constituents, over what's best for inside-the-beltway Washington elites?

    As our other senator apparently did.

  • Herbert Gravy Salinas, CA
    Oct. 17, 2013 1:05 p.m.

    Ha! "$24 billion" couldn't begin to put a dent in what the so-called AFFORDABLE Care Act is going to cost the American taxpayer. Stay tuned.

  • Herbert Gravy Salinas, CA
    Oct. 17, 2013 12:59 p.m.

    "Esquire" But, this country is being put in SHACKLES by the people who won!

  • WRK Riverton, UT
    Oct. 17, 2013 12:50 p.m.

    Those like Esquire that forget how our three legged government system works astound me. It is Mike Lee's job to question a law that was put out by the president. It is called checks and balances folks, it's how our form of government works.

  • ThornBirds St.George, Utah
    Oct. 17, 2013 12:48 p.m.

    Lost count now of how many times the Conservative Republicans thought they had their way and President Obama "would be finished, impeached, ruined".
    Lost count of how many times this has not happened :)

  • toosmartforyou Farmington, UT
    Oct. 17, 2013 12:44 p.m.

    Look in the mirror, sir, the lack of leadership and refusal to negotiate lies directly at the door of the White House.

  • DN Subscriber 2 SLC, UT
    Oct. 17, 2013 12:42 p.m.

    Bungalow's criticism of Defense spending relative to other countries is something which could be debated. It would be best to wait until those waging war against us (their choice, not ours) cease.

    However, Defense spending has been steadily declining. The largest items in the federal spending (2010):

    Medicare and Medicaid- 23% or $793 billion
    Social Security- 20% or $701 billion
    Defense- 20% or $689 billion
    Interest on the debt- 6% or $197 billion (at a time of record low interest rates, but when inflation or skepticism force rates to 1980 levels, this will exceed any of the above categories!)

    As a percentage of GDP, defense spending in 1963 was 9%, but now it is 4%.
    As a percentage of GDP, mandatory spending on entitlements and interest in 1963 was 6.1% but now it is 14.5%.

    Defense is not the cause of our unsustainable debt, "free stuff" to buy votes from low information voters is the problem. And, people who refuse to admit we are out of money and cannot continue to borrow and spend, or even tax and spend.

  • dave4197 Redding, CA
    Oct. 17, 2013 12:25 p.m.

    The Tea Party deserves an award for being the "biggest loser" in this congress. Of course they don't realize this. But they've lost a lot of political weight since they've been in this congress. A force for stopping progress, stopping discussion, stopping listening. They deserve an award for being the "biggest loser". The sooner they're unelected the better for all. Let's RECALL SEN LEE, let's not wait for his next election, let's boot him out before he tries to do more damage to civil debate in the congress. We can have differences, we do still have differences, about problems and how to solve them, but Sen Lee and his tea party cohorts stunk up the place, poisoned the water, and there may be less chance now that both parties will work well together to tackle change in our spending priorities. And we do have spending problems. But Sen Lee did not help with his blocking and cliff's edge extortion tactics. Let's RECALL SEN LEE now.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Oct. 17, 2013 12:12 p.m.

    All the right wingers here who want to blame Obama - ridiculous. THe conservatives, led by our own Mike Lee, just cause $24 Billion in damage to the U.S. economy according to S&P. FOr what? Their utter disrespect for the Constitution and our system of government. These people are bullies and thugs - nothing more. I am sick and tired of the coutnry being held hostage by people who lost the election (twice). If they can their their person elected, then they can propose their policies. There is an orderly process in our system, and showing such disdain and contempt for our system reminds me more of early 1930's Germany rather than a modern, mature democracy.

  • Samson01 S. Jordan, UT
    Oct. 17, 2013 12:09 p.m.

    So...IF the posters here are to be given any ounce of credibility then we would surmise that President Obama is only spending what congress has authorized but it really is all President Bush's fault that President Obama has to spend so much because President Obama has introduced new spending far less than President Bush that only congress can approve.

    The logical gymnastics required to follow liberal thought process is astounding!

    " The President clearly stated this morning that he was willing to get advice from everyone to help boost the ecomony, get jobs, immigration, farm bill, budget, and so on. "

    You did notice that his lips were moving right?

  • Herbert Gravy Salinas, CA
    Oct. 17, 2013 12:06 p.m.

    OK. How about his hiring of 32 "czars"? Were they approved by Congress? Can anyone tell me how much of OUR tax money HE spends on them including all the staff they require and all of the perks they get? Please. Can anyone tell me?

  • Mike in Sandy Sandy, UT
    Oct. 17, 2013 12:04 p.m.

    Bush was the poster boy for reckless spending.
    Today's administration is still battling the fallout from that improvident lack-wit.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Oct. 17, 2013 12:04 p.m.

    There are holocaust deniers (Ahmadinejad -- did I spell that right?)
    There are climate change deniers -- some we know because they post here.
    There are deficit deniers -- "We will just keep on going as we are doing and we need to keep borrowing money to keep up our prosperity."

    The Republicans have exhibited a double standard. But the Dems first impulse is to promise to spend.

    Neither side wants to be the first to say, "Hey we should raise the retirement age." Or "It is criminal to tax the working poor and then turn around and give the money to well to-do seniors. We should means test for SSI."

    I think that the Republicans would like to propose means testing, but as soon as they do the Dems are going to demagogue them over it. ("Throwing granny off of a cliff.") And it will work. So they don't do anything until, one day, in the not too distant future, Chinese banks are going to wake up and go, "Wait a second, are we going to get paid back?" And then granny will be thrown off cliff, as well as veterans, soldiers, the poor, college students, future generations, etc.

  • Mike in Sandy Sandy, UT
    Oct. 17, 2013 12:03 p.m.

    I continue to be amazed at the narrow-minded tunnel-vision offered up by the GOP.

  • Herbert Gravy Salinas, CA
    Oct. 17, 2013 12:02 p.m.

    How quickly he forgets or ignores the "senseless damage" his IRS folks did to the opposing party in the last election. Go figure.

  • samhill Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 17, 2013 12:00 p.m.

    "Gov't open again, Obama bemoans senseless damage"

    -----------------

    Yes, bemoan if you will Mr. Obama, but you and your administration did and do bear large large responsibility for the "senseless damage".

    To those who rightly point out that it is Congress who holds the purse strings and is and has been largely responsible for the incredible deficits we've been having in the last decade or so, and stupendous $17 **trillion** (yes, that's with a "T") debt we're now on the hook for, AND, the almost unimaginable TRUE debt (the more than 100 **trillion** in unfunded liabilities most people ignore) that is about to land on us all like a ton of bricks, I say, I agree.

    I will add that it is the **President** who presides over the entire mess and who, at least since Truman, has been considered the one at whose office the buck of responsibility stops.

    And, that of all the presidents since Truman, it is surely Obama who has sought most to evade responsibility for any setbacks and eagerly, rapaciously, accepted responsibility for anything he found favorable to voters.

    Finally, I will point out that it is WE, the electorate, who are, ultimately, responsible.

  • Kouger Lehi, UT
    Oct. 17, 2013 11:59 a.m.

    Obama likes to spend money that is not his, and why not? He's been doing that his whole life. Ohhh, Bummer!

  • Mike in Sandy Sandy, UT
    Oct. 17, 2013 11:59 a.m.

    Mike Lee and Ted Cruz are paving the way, and rolling out the red carpet for our next president...Hillary Clinton.

  • ute alumni paradise, UT
    Oct. 17, 2013 11:53 a.m.

    patriot
    ideologues don't negotiate, therefore barry is doing what one would expect

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Oct. 17, 2013 11:47 a.m.

    Obama's approval numbers according to a recent A.P. poll= 37% Is that the damage he is talking about?

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Oct. 17, 2013 11:41 a.m.

    senseless damage? You mean refusing to talk for 3 three weeks? That senseless damage? A 'real' president knows how to negotiate. Barack has never managed anything in his life - just a college professor and a year in congress voting present. Negotiate? Is that where the other side does EXACTLY everything I say? No Barack that is NOT negotiating. That is called conforming and that my friends is EXACTLY what a demagogue like Barack expects.

    Kennedy negotiated
    Johnson negotiated
    Nixon negotiated
    Ford negotiated
    Carter negotiated
    Reagan negotiated
    Bush I negotiated
    Clinton negotiated
    Bush II negotiated

    Obama does NOT negotiate

    See the patterns here? See the problems? Government does NOT work when the White House lives in another world and refuses to negotiate.

  • WRK Riverton, UT
    Oct. 17, 2013 11:33 a.m.

    How long will we hear that this is all Bush's fault? One old man sugests that everything is Bush's fault and that Obama holds not blame for anything. Even when Obama has done more to take away our constitutional rights than any other president.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Oct. 17, 2013 11:27 a.m.

    "It is Obama's reckless debt spending"

    A great line if the intention is to whip the base into a frenzy.

    However, please point to a couple of $dollars$ that Obama has spent that was not approved by congress.

    Yes, we spend too much, but if one looks at the facts the blame cannot be put on Obama.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 17, 2013 11:21 a.m.

    @DN Subscriber 2
    Obama's reckless spending? Congress is the one that passes budgets. Any need to increase the debt ceiling is because Congress made it that way (even the Ryan budget would necessitate a 5 trillion debt increase over a decade).

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Oct. 17, 2013 11:21 a.m.

    Subscriber, you really, really, really do need to do some research and learn the truth.

    How much of "Obama's spending" is money that must be spent as a result of laws and obligations passed under previous administrations -- particularly that last one?

    If you will make an honest attempt to learn the truth, you will amaze yourself.

    NEW spending initiated by Obama and his administration is the lowest in over 50 years. What you are bemoaning is NOT Obama spending, but left over BUSH spending.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Oct. 17, 2013 11:18 a.m.

    Re: "Obama bemoans senseless damage"

    As well he should -- he inflicted it. Made it worse at every opportunity. And prolonged it as long as possible.

    Knowing all the while that the media would cover for him -- is did NPR's Morning Sedition today, in one of many sickening displays of fawning, sycophantic partisanship.

  • Moderate Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 17, 2013 11:11 a.m.

    DN Subscriber 2 "It is Obama's reckless debt spending,"
    In ending the shutdown, the President and Democrat-led Senate accepted the Republican Budget. Obama is spending money as directed by Republicans.

  • DN Subscriber 2 SLC, UT
    Oct. 17, 2013 11:03 a.m.

    You simply cannot believe a word this man says. His only goal is personal power, and much of what he says is demonstrably false, or contradicted by his own actions within days. He bears equal responsibility for the "senseless damage" along with his Democrat cronies in the Senate and House, and the befuddled Republicans.

    It is Obama's reckless debt spending, which is already nearly equal to the entire debt run up by all previous presidents COMBINED which is the worst problem facing us. But he refuses to even consider any reduction in spending (except cutting national defense.)

    Regardless, we will do this same kabuki theater all over in a few weeks when we once again run out of money to fund government operations, and need to borrow more money (assuming the Chinese are foolish enough to lend to us). Obama will demonize and demagogue the Republicans who demand timid changes, to be totally rebuffed until the last minute when they will cave. Again.