Letter: So unnecessary

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Oct. 8, 2013 9:08 a.m.

    patriot: one sentence from Barack says it all about the shutdown..."make it hurt".

    Please provide a reference as the only references I can find are by the GOP and Fox news saying

    Obama administration is employing a make-it-hurt strategy.

    or I'm sure it's 3 words taken out of context as per usual with conservative quotes, the clue is they never have a complete sentence, as then your would have a complete quote.

  • rabbut Ogden, UT
    Oct. 8, 2013 1:15 a.m.

    I see...so the reasonable thing for the President and congressional Democrats is to give into changing a law they have long ago signed into being to appease a bunch of anti-government zealots who made it very clear long ago they wanted to shut down the government while asking no concessions in return? Oh you tea partiers have been spoiled a bit too long when you think you own the country that much. But, unlike the government of Utah, the government of the U.S. is largely composed of what we call Democrats. They are not there because nobody voted for them. And if they give in to the demands of the extreme right on this, nobody will EVER vote for them again.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Oct. 7, 2013 11:06 p.m.

    one sentence from Barack says it all about the shutdown..."make it hurt".

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Oct. 7, 2013 1:53 p.m.

    Seriously HaHaHa. There had zero influence because they said no to their own idea. They didn't have any ideas of how to improve and implement. They simply said no. Then they said no again, then again.

    "the new law was 100 percent them." that's exactly the point Republicans could have embraced their own idea and joined the conversation they didn't then, and they aren't now. They couldn't see a win if it smacked them in the face..oh wait it did and they said no.

  • HaHaHaHa Othello, WA
    Oct. 7, 2013 10:07 a.m.

    @ pragmatist

    You can say it was a Hilary victory, but not GOP. The GOP had almost zero influence and involvement in the obamacare debate. They were told to "get on the back of the bus, and just come along for the ride". If the Democrats showed any restraint, or pulled back at all, it was only because they realized it was obvious that the new law was 100 percent them.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Oct. 7, 2013 7:58 a.m.

    You know the Republicans are first of all not the least interested in governing, and secondly in a world of hurt because they can't see and thus react reasonably to reality when they can't take yes for an answer. ECR all ready mentioned the CR is a Republican victory, but so is the whole ACA. If you recall the Democratic debate in 2007 was single payer (supported by the President) versus a private insurance, individual mandate plan (Republican idea) supported by Hillary Clinton. Obama wins the election, but the private insurance idea wins the health care debate.

    If the Republicans had the least interest in governing they would have stood up declared victory and joined the discussion of how to implement and administer the program, but what did they do, they spent 4 years throwing a hissy fit and losing "negotiation" after negotiation until here we are. What are they continuing to do? Throw a hissy fit.

    If they were interested in governing, they would let the law be, let it be implemented and over time they probably could get every adjustment they wanted. But no can't do that.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Oct. 6, 2013 2:47 p.m.

    Perhaps the shutdown of the American government will be a good thing. It may bring enough pain and suffering to the American people that they will change the American government to a government of the people and discard this undesirable government of businessmen.

    A national referendum could end the argument about health care being a right and whether a private system or government system would be better.

    A national referendum could remove the Bill of Rights for state governments and replace it with a Bill of Rights for people like the original Constitution and Declaration of Independence intended.

    A national referendum could put business into its proper place as a servant of the people rather than as the master.

    A national referendum could do away with the unnecessary state governments and the multitude of city and town government that exist every couple of blocks.

    All it would take is a nation wide election where every American as allowed to vote.

  • Steve Cottrell Centerville, UT
    Oct. 6, 2013 1:36 p.m.

    It's not difficult to see two sides of the ACA. There are clearly advantages and disadvantages to implementing this law. On the other hand, there is no advantage to shutting down the government. Let's end this misguided action.

  • HaHaHaHa Othello, WA
    Oct. 6, 2013 11:44 a.m.

    How dumb can democrats be? Throwing a tantrum is all they are doing!! The GOP (house) made a strategic move, in reaction to the president and the senate, and the implementation of obamacare. The president, in his self indulgent supreme commander role, is constantly making changes and exemptions for his friends and supporters, so why cant the GOP do the same thing? Throw your tantrum, I'm just going to laugh at you. I love the government shut down. We need regularly scheduled government shutdowns. If you think what the GOP or house has acted illegally or unconstitutionally, take them to court. Sue them and make the court order them to recognize your precious obamacare!!

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Oct. 6, 2013 11:39 a.m.

    When you tell your adversary that you only want to kill him temporarily and that he can come back to life next year, do you really expect him to negotiate?

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 6, 2013 11:26 a.m.

    @Mike Richards
    The Senate authorized all that too and keeps passing their version of it.

    Meanwhile the House is engaged in a discussion along the lines of (borrowed from elsewhere)...

    Can we burn your house down?
    How about just the second floor?
    What about the garage?
    Why won't you negotiate?

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Oct. 6, 2013 10:50 a.m.

    We have all read, with horror, the news reports of foreign governments that seized the food, medicine and welfare aid that the citizens of the United States have paid for with the taxes levied on us; yet, right now, today, two men in our government have denied welfare, food and medicine that the People have instructed the House to give to women, infants and children. The House authorized all government funding that the majority of the people authorized. The House denied funds to be paid to ObamaCare because a majority of the people still reject ObamaCare. In this country, Congress is under oath to do the will of the people. Two men, Obama and Reid, have diverted WIC funding and they have used government assets to barricade our monuments. The cost of the barricades exceeds the cost of "guarding" those monuments.

    Which model is Obama and Reid following? Their model is foreign to America. What they are doing is unnecessary. What they're telling us is a lie. Foolish leaders depend on foolish people. We Americans are not all fools. Obama and Reid will soon realize that they, themselves, are the "fools".

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    Oct. 6, 2013 10:26 a.m.

    I wonder if the republicans in congress are that bright. If the ACA is as bad as they say it will be, they should force the implementation of the whole law and fund it and watch it implode.

    My guess is that corporations and businesses are really going to love the ACA. The bean counters at these companies will figure they can get rid of their employee health plans and make that much more money.

  • Res Novae Ashburn, VA
    Oct. 6, 2013 9:47 a.m.

    The shutdown isn't over the budget itself (or the CR, to be more accurate), but it's worth noting that tbe CR at the center of the fight accepts the terms of the sequester, which is a compromise given the White House's preference that a more rational approach to spending cuts be hammered out.

    As to the defunding of the ACA? Why should Obama compromise over something he's already had enacted and funded and upheld bySCOTUS? Especially when it's increasingly clear that the root cause of all of this is a Republican civil war between its governing wing and its nihilist wing.

    No matter what one's views on ACA happen to be, what's happening right now should be a deep concern for anyone concerned with the integrity of the legislative process, and I am puzzled that the self-described experts on the Constitution who frequently post here haven't understood this.. It would be a terrible precedent to set, and one with all the potential to be used against Republicans someday. Don't let this genie out of the bottle.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Oct. 6, 2013 9:44 a.m.

    What part of the constitution allows the president to make 19 changes in this or any changes in the law without congressional approval? Obama is NOT upholding the constitution, he is not King nor is he emperor. Shame on Americans for sitting by and allowing him to mock the constitution. Imagine if any president changed all our laws at their political whims. Recipe for dictatorship.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Oct. 6, 2013 9:33 a.m.

    Where have you been?
    The current sequester will reduce federal spending in the 2013 fiscal year by $85 billion (and by a total of $1.2 trillion over 10 years).

    "This year sequestration mostly required agencies to make cuts across the board. Next year the magnitude of the 2013 cuts will be preserved and $19 billion more will need to be cut from the discretionary budget,
    So in 2014, some agencies may be spared, while others may be hit even harder than they were this year.
    In addition, the law calls for another across-the-board cut in so-called mandatory spending next year, a fact often overlooked in budget discussions, according to experts at the Bipartisan Policy Center."

    Congress, Unions and everybody is subject to the law. Obama has delayed the employer mandate to give employers more time to transition. Unions aren't happy because generous--"cadillac" health care plans they offer members will now be taxed.

    I am so sad--and scared, for our country too, because we have a group of hostage takers who know nothing about governing or the process of legislating.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 6, 2013 9:20 a.m.

    The Democrats already made a concession by agreeing to the House continuing resolution budget numbers for everything else, including the sequestration cuts Democrats would like to undo.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    Oct. 6, 2013 9:05 a.m.

    Ms. Bennett is mistaken in her assertion that the President and the Democrats in Congress have not been willing to negotiate. Even Fox News weighed in this issue on their website:

    "One of the great mysteries of the current budget crisis is why Republicans did not declare victory and pass a continuing resolution last week funding government through the end of the year.

    "The resolution that is at the root of this crisis already establishes sequestration-level funding that President Obama and Senate Democrats have repeatedly said is unacceptably low but which they were willing to swallow in order to avoid a government shutdown.

    "That is the kind of compromise that, under normal circumstances, Republicans should celebrate." But instead Republicans have ignored this good faith jesture and put 800 thousand people out of work.

    And Ms. Bennett is mistaken in her interpretation of the ACA. All Americans are subject to its laws. Federal workers will not have to sign up with an insurance exchange because their employer provides them with health insurance coverage just like every other American in the same situation. Those without that benefit finally have a source to get insurance at a reasonable cost.

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    Oct. 6, 2013 8:49 a.m.

    President Obama was elected to two terms, fair and square. The ACA was passed by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court. Again, fair and square. If Republicans want to change any of this, they can follow the due process of law. They don't have the votes to do this, so they're throwing a tantrum instead.

    Why should Obama compromise anything? He's the one playing by the rules.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 6, 2013 8:46 a.m.

    The president will negotiate if the unilateral threat to close and ruin the government is withdrawn. This is the way it has to be our all minority will start using this. What if it is repealed and the Democrats are in the Republican position. It will be okay for them to shut down and threaten the credit to force refunding and reenactment?

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Oct. 6, 2013 8:36 a.m.

    The idea that obamacare needs to be delayed is also unnecessary. And it's not the president throwing the tantrums in this unnecessary fight.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    Oct. 6, 2013 8:16 a.m.

    This president can't miss the chance to raise taxes. Never mind that the individual mandate is really a tax on low income people, per the Supreme Court ruling. (The money goes to corporate welfare for big insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies, a noble cause if ever there was one, wink wink.)

    Republicans warned the country that if raising taxes on the rich was accepted, raising taxes on the middle class was next. But with so little middle class left, Obama went after low income people to fill his cofers in the form of a tax called the ACA/Obamacare.

    For the democrats, there can never be too much tax, on anyone.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Oct. 6, 2013 8:12 a.m.

    "The president is not willing to make any cuts even though the U.S. has to borrow money to continue operating. So who is unreasonable? It sounds as if it might be our president." Well said Darlene!

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Oct. 6, 2013 7:46 a.m.

    What Obama is showing us is just how unnecessary much of the Federal Government is. How many of us have seen any impact in our lives because of Obama's "shutdown"? How many of us care if Harry Reid's tantrum continues indefinitly? Most of us can and will send a bag of groceries to anyone who is on Obama's list of unworthy Americans - those that he has chosen to throw under the bus, those who receive help through WIC and other programs. Obama must truely hate those people because he and Reid refuse to accept the House's funding of their programs.

    Obama is being shown for who he is - a petty tyrant who will shout and stomp and sulk if he does not get his way. Reid is being shown for who he is - Obama's pawn who will table any bill that comes from the House unless ObamaCare is fully funded. America now knows that two petty tyrants have shutdown the government. The history books will not be kind to Obama or to Reid. Future generations will group Obama and Reid with other tyrants from other countries who caused unneeded suffering and unneeded havoc.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 6, 2013 7:20 a.m.

    Darlene, you're wrong.

    Republicans don't want to "refine" the ACA - they want to kill it. They can't muster the political support to pass a superior alternative to it, so they have resorted to bald-faced extortion.

    They essentially want to undo the 2012 election. They lost - the White House, the Senate, and seats in the House, but they're trying to pretend the election didn't happen.

    Regardless of who's president or serving in congress, our budgets will require borrowing. BTW, the deficit has been shrinking lately, and fast.

    Yes, this shutdown is unnecessary, but it is wholly brought to you by irrational Tea Party extremists who don't have a clue how to govern our nation - they only know how to throw a tantrum.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Oct. 6, 2013 12:56 a.m.

    Regardless of how you feel about Obamacare - or any other law - Congress should not be able to bypass that law by attaching it to other legislation.

    The President swore to uphold the Constitution - he is completely correct in refusing to negotiate with Congress as they attempt to bypass it.