Let's say we are back in 1983. We have a Republican president, Ronald
Reagan. We also have a Republican Senate. The House of Representatives is
controlled by the Democrats. Now during Reagan's presidency, the debt limit
had to be raised eighteen times. Let's say that during one of those times,
the Democratic House said, " Mr. President, we will only raise the debt
ceiling if you rescind all of your tax cuts."What would Reagan
have done? Would he have negotiated? Would he have offered to scrap half of his
tax cuts in exchange for a debt limit increase? I'm quite sure the answer
would be no. What the current Republicans are demanding amounts to exactly the
same thing.No president should ever give in to such extortionary
demands. It would completely undermine our constitutional system of government
if a minority party can demand action that they are unable to achieve by either
legislative means of through elections.Had Mitt Romney won and the
Republicans won control of the Senate, they could repeal Obamacare. They
didn't and they have no right to nullify our last two presidential
But Democrats have compromised; they've agreed to lock the sequestration
cuts into the budget. The Republicans are the ones who have refused to meet
with the Democrats about long-term planning for the future. The Republicans are
the ones who refused to fund the government and are threatening to sabotage our
economy because they don't have the votes to stop legally enacted
legislation from going into effect. The Republicans are the ones who currently
flailing and are more interested in getting "points on the board" than
in the stability of this country. Obama was reelected last year and
the Democrats gained seats in the Senate. Instead of accepting that and working
in good faith, Republicans are throwing a tantrum. Yes, I will
blame Republicans. This mess is all on them.
What is there to compromise? One side prefers uninsured and therefore no
access to healthcare for millions of Americans. How do you compromise on that?
Lynn,The debt ceiling is about allocating money to pay the bills
that congress voted on previously.It has nothing to do with new spending,
the ACA, abortion, gay marriage or tax rates.It is about paying the
bills that were racked up previously. The GOP controlled house voted to spend
every dollar that we spend. Now its time to pay the bill.It is NOT
a tool to to change laws that you don't like.
Parrots the letter writer from "talk radio".Get out of your
little bubble world, and read the polls.Congress now has a 5%
approval rating -- and 68% of AMERICA blames the Republicans [as they
should].Sending a letter into the DN editor is like preaching to the
Democrats tried at least 19 times since March to compromise with the
Republicans. Democrats passed a budget in March.Republicans have
blocked each attempt to negotiate a budget. The whole shutdown could have been
avoided if Republicans would have negotiated in good faith over the last 6
months.People keep saying Republicans have compromised and
negotiated.A true negotiation is both parties meeting with a list of
everything they want, over the course of the negotiations, items are dwindled
down to a list that both sides will be okay with.Currently,
Democrats only want a funded government. That is it. Republicans want that
too, as long as they get something for it. That isn't negotiating, that is
extortion.Democrats can't negotiate with Republicans in this
setting because it would mean that anytime a party wants anything, just shut
down the government, ruin the economy just to get their way.That is
not how this country was formed and it isn't how the country should
operate. It is also why we don't negotiate with terrorists. Once they get
their way, they will escalate their tactics to get more of what they want each
time. That's bad for everyone.
Lynn, the entire ACA is a compromise. Republicans are being blamed because
they're responsible. Isn't personal responsibility the greatest
Republican tenet? It's time to own it now.
Lynn, you've got to get your news from more reliable sources than FOX.Look - Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and other Tea Party leaders were writing
letters and making speeches last summer in which they spoke gleefully about
shutting down the government.The "clean" budget resolution
that the Speaker Boehner refuses to allow to come to a vote is for funding
levels that satisfy Paul Ryan's budget proposals from the 2012 election.Republicans lost in 2012. They lost the White House, they lost seats in
the Senate, they lost seats in the House, and their suit against the Affordable
Care Act lost before the US Supreme Court.But the Tea Party wing of
the GOP refuses to accept the message. They're basically holding a gun to
America's head and saying, "Undo the election of 2012 or we pull the
trigger."The Republicans most certainly _are_ the reason the
government is shut down.
I see I'm late to the table today. Every valid point I would make has
already been made by the writers above. Blue - in this case even
Fox News is telling the Republicans they are foolish for causing the shutdown
because the should be celebrating the changes that the President and Democrats
have already agreed to - continuation of the sequestration cuts. That's
how bad things are right now - even Fox News agrees with the liberal side of the
aisle. I fear that if the Republicans don't wake up we will end up with a
one party system and that's never a good idea.
Democratic Senators requested 19 times that the Senate go to conference.
Republican Senators blocked it 19 times.Who is responsible for the
Absolutely ridiculous letter. The Republicans couldn't get their way
through legislation, through a Supreme Court challenge (with a
conservative-leaning Court, I might add), and through elections. So they have
resorted to extortion. This crisis is 100 percent Republican caused. Any other
interpretation of the situation is sheer fantasy.
Boehner admitted on "This Week" he and Harry Reid had an agreement on
the budget that was lower than what the Senate wanted, but then House
Republicans decided they wanted to take aim against Obamacare. Oama
delayed the employer mandate to accomodate businesses. But there are many
uninsured people, some who have serious illnesses, who've been waiting for
the day they could get insurance, so it would be improper for Obama to delay
their ability to do so.
How incredibly narrow- minded and tunnel-visioned.
I hear radio spots for Valvoline---it claims to "remove performance robbing
gunk" from your engine.Perhaps they should pour some onto the
Do we, the people, want Congress to represent us or do we want Congress to
represent the President and Harry Reid? The People, 59% of them, told the House
that they didn't want ObamaCare. The House ignored the people. The States
told the Senate that they didn't want ObamaCare. The Senate ignored the
States. Bribes were offered, i.e., the famous "Louisiana purchase" and
the messing around with Nebraska. When that still wasn't enough, unions
received exemptions. When that still wasn't enough, the Senate changed the
rules for that one bill. Not one Republican in either the House or the Sentate
voted for ObamaCare.Everything about that process stinks to high
heaven. Now, that many Democrats have been fired, the House is
listening to the People. The People still don't want ObamaCare. The
House's bill represents the will of the people. The Senate is still
dictating to the States instead of serving them. Obama is having a meltdown
because the People had stood up to him. He's trying to hurt us by striking
out at WIC and at WWII vets. Could anyone possible do anything more devious
Democrats compromised by agreeing to all of the House funding levels set for the
rest of the budget (which is a lower discretionary spending amount than even the
original Paul Ryan budget had).
Mike Richards - I'm being admittedly facetious in this scenario but
here's what it sounds like your saying. You find honor and credibility in
a group of like minded legislators scheming together to not give the newly
elected president one vote in favor of his key legislation. Despite the fact
that those same legislators and their supporters from the think tanks and other
such organizations previously supported, and in fact, were the creators of such
ideas until this president was elected. Gosh, one of them even implemented
almost the same program in the state over which he governed, and then made an
about face and said he would destroy or do away with that legislation as his
first priority if he were elected president. He lost, by the way. So you
believe that it is that group of legislators who are acting honorably and the
president, who has made compromises every day that he has been in office to
appease those legislators and keep the country running, is the bad guy.Yesterday John Boehner, and presumably the rest of the House Republicans,
changed the subject from Obamacare to the deficit. What are your thoughts about
RolandThe previous 2 elections were not just about healthcare. Assuming
the President winning means Congress or the SC can do nothing about that one
thing he supports is bogus logic. Republicans also won elections
(by bigger margins than Obama). So by your logic their constituents didn't
want ObamaCare. So they are obligated to represent their constituents and
oppose ObamaCare (exactly what they are doing).There's nothing
that says Congress or the Court can't oppose something the President wants,
or change existing law. I can give you dozens of examples if you need them.------Your Reagan example is a great example. Search
"Government shutdown in the united states" in Wikipedia. You will see
8 government shutdowns during Reagan Admin. The first one was because Reagan
pledged to veto the budget if Democrat Senate failed to include at least HALF of
his budget cuts. They didnt.So Reagan was willing to accept HALF
of what he wanted. Would Obama accept HALF of what HE wants on Obamacare? NO.
Democrats wouldn't even give Reagan HALF of what he wanted
then... but today you expect Republicans to give Obama 100% of what he wants or
Republicans are 100% to blame?
The supine major news media is Mr. Obama's 12th man. They ignore the
issues of burgeoning debt, outlandishly expensive medical care, entitlement
reform and define legislative "compromise" as an act of Republican
obeisance to the White House.
Second submit try:The so-called "clean CR" is the product of a
negotiation between the Senate and House, the agreement was made during the
summer 2013. Obviously, the HOUSE majority leaders negotiated in bad faith. In the NEGOTIATION, the Senate agreed that the "clean CR" would
include sequestration cuts, it's a very bad budget for the democrats but
they agreed to avert a government shutdown. The House agreed that this version
WOULD BE PASSED WITHOUT A SHUT DOWN OF THE GOVERNMENT. Both agreed it would last
through Dec 15, 2013. The intervening time was to be used to negotiate the
budget for the rest of FY 2014.The HOUSE has not followed through on
their agreement. Obviously. To the public delight of the tea party. Some people
believe this was their objective all along. For these reasons, I think that the
Senate should not be held to the austerity budget represented by the so-called
"clean CR". The President's budget should be restored to the CR,
since the HOUSE did not follow through with the original negotiation in good
faith.Why should the democrats negotiate more and more and more,
when the republicans don't honored their agreements? Would you?
When the House voted to repeal the AFA 40 times, how often did they negotiate or
compromise.....zero. Now they want compromise?
2 bits:Taking your argument at face value, the democrats should add
demands for repeal of Citizens United, demands for fire arm registration,
assault weapon bans, and repeal of stand-your-ground laws next time they
negotiate a budget with republicans.These demands obviously
don't belong in a budget showdown. Your suggestion is against
standard constitutional order, as are my suggestions above. The ACA is a
standing law, not a bill, and the republicans haven't been able to repeal
it. What the republicans are doing now on ACA is extortion to get their way
since their orderly efforts to repeal it have failed. Your support of this
extortion attempt is wrong headed, as you can see when the shoe is on the other
foot. If you get your way this time, it opens the door for your opposition to
use the tactic, but more so, next time.
Mike, I have seen no polls out there that favor defunding via debt
ceiling debate as a means of ending the ACA, even among those who dislike it.THAT is why the GOP is getting blamed. They are threatening the economy
to get their way.Everyone will lose.
Oh, playing the blame game without any facts. Back in July John Boehner and
Harry Reid met several times and agreed to a "compromise" - a
"clean" raising of the debt ceiling with 70 billion in budget cuts come
October. There was NO mention of the ACA. Due to Tea Party pressure, the
Republicans have now renigged on the original offer.
2 bits, How do you accept half an Affordable Care Act? Make it half way
affordable? Offer it to half of the people who need it? Only penalize people
for half of their pre-existing conditions? Let parents keep 1/2 of their young
adult offspring on their policies?
What an excellent suggestion, Lynn! In the spirit of your
suggestion, here is what I propose:The Senate should take the
whatever the current House funding bill is (with its anti-ACA rider *du jour*
attached), attach a Senate rider requiring universal background checks on ALL
firearm sales and banning magazines with an ammunition capacity greater than 12,
pass the amended bill on the Senate floor, and send it back to the House for
conference, with the message that the final bill HAS to include the background
check/high-capacity magazine rider as written, or will be defeated in the Senate
or vetoed.That sounds like a pretty fair compromise, don't you
to 2 bits: Republicans controlled the Senate from 1981-87. Your example is
Really, Lynn? You must get all your news from FOX. The Republicans were invited
to collaborate on the health care bill from its inception, but they refused.
They were asked to draft their own health care bill so the best aspects of both
plans could be included in it. Again, they refused. Universal health care has
been on the Republican agenda for decades. It's Obama they hate, not health
care. Republicans didn't want Social Security when it was first
proposed, and they didn't want Medicare either because they were
"Socialist" programs. Now, they regard those programs as sacred while
they whine about the ACA, which someday, like Social Security and Medicare,
Republicans will wonder how we ever got along without. It's not Republicans
who won't compromise.
I'd hate to be married to anyone who thinks that the democrats have got
100% of what they wanted in the ACA. There's no dealing with that.
Time for a reality check. All the revenue the federal government takes in now
can't pay the social security, unemployment, and medicare that we pay
today. We have to borrow to even cover that. Then there is national defense and
all the other programs we are borrowing to cover, on top of the entitlement
social programs. If the social programs we have already implemented
are eating up more than the revenue, how can it be sensible to add another
social program like the ACA? It isn't sensible. That is why the
only sensible approach is to oppose it like the country's life depends on
it, because it does.
Another victim of large overdoses of hate radio.
The defenders of the House Republicans really ought to keep quiet on this one.
Crow tastes really awful.
Let's negotiate. What do the Republicans have to offer? You say they can
give the funding of the government. Does that mean they, and they alone are
responsible for the shutdown. If not who else do they have to consult in order
to give it in a negotiation. Ahhhh, nobody. They own it.It's
almost too funny to believe to see Republicans saying we should not do something
because the polls say it's unpopular. Do you want a leader or a consultant
as President..the following taken from 8 years of listening to Republicans
complaining about Clinton.
When your planning for years for a shutdown and talking it up, you own the
shutdown fiasco forever. The tea party should start folding up the tent.
annes,You may not be aware of this.. but "stand your ground laws"
are STATE laws. The US Congress does not vote on State laws. So no... your
proposed tactic would not work there.Democrats shutdown the
government 3 times in the 80s over government funding for Abortions... so
don't pretend Democrats are above doing the same thing Republicans did.I agree the ACA should not be attached to a budget bill. But the House
voted and passed 40 bills to address the ACA and the Senate wouldn't act on
them. So they had to attach it to something that had actual weight, or
something that Democrats wanted. That's the way politics work (and yes
Democrats attach things they want to bills they know Republicans want real bad
all the time). Not just budget bills. But they have done it with budget
bills in the past too. Google "US Government Shutdowns" and read the
reasons for each of the 18 in Wikipedia. You will see that this isn't
just a Republican thing (IF you care to take an open-minded look at history).You pretend a standing law can't be challenged... it happens all
the time. Remember DOMA?
Blaming Republicans for everything is a full time job for Democrats. Obama has
been doing it his whole Presidency.I wonder if he's EVERY going
to take ownership of the country he is leading.Maybe IF ACA is a big
success... he will finally own his job, and quit blaming Republicans for
everything that's happened during his Presidency.
Lynn: No. Your request reminds me of a quote from the TV show
'cheers': Frasier asks Cliff: 'Tell me, Cliff, what colour is the
sky in your world?'
Only giving credit, where credit is do.[Yes, blaming Republicans.]
Roland Kayser,RE: " Republicans controlled the Senate from 1981-87.
Your example is therefore invalid"...Republicans controlled the
Senate, Democrats controlled the House... so it's the same situation we
have today (only reversed). So how does that invalidate what I said?
@2 bitCottonwood Heights, UTRepublicans controlled the Senate,
Democrats controlled the House... so it's the same situation we have today
(only reversed). So how does that invalidate what I said?8:37 p.m. Oct. 9,
2013======== And?You blamed the Democrats in
the House, and now can't blame the Republicans in the House - in
reverse?Talk about lack of honesty and integrity.
Yes, the Democrats should compromise and insist that taxes on the rich be raised
and background checks on all gun sales be implemented before they agree on the
budget or increase the debt limit. What? You don't think that's a
compromise? Yeah, me either. That's what you call tea party logic.
two bitsYou may not recall but you and I have had this conversation
before.1. DOMA was not repealed using extortion, it was repealed by
the SCOTUS. Really, two bits, I am thinking you are fairly intelligent. This is
the second time I've refuted your badly made point. It may be you
don't check for responses to your comments.2. I'm aware
that the 'stand your ground' laws are state laws. It is still possible
and appropriate for the federal government to make conditions against these laws
on the basis of either hate crimes or deprivation of constitutional rights of
fellow citizens. I strongly urge democrats to make this a part of future
negotiations with the gotp. 3. I checked your claim that democrats
have attached similar debt ceiling conditions and refuted in a previous thread.
President Obama refuted this gotp talking point much better in this week's
presser than I can in 200 words. This extortion / hostage taking is
unprecedented in American history, and I am glad POTUS is standing strong
against this evil tactic. You should be too, instead of parroting gotp talking