I don't think that a government shutdown is inevitable. I don't
think Republicans want to shut the government down (they are just posturing).
They won't say it, but I think Democrats would like to see the government
shutdown more than Republicans. Then they get to make Republicans look nuts
and blame everything bad that happens in the next few years on them again.I do think ObamaCare is inevitable (and most Republicans know that).
This is all just a show. They know we're getting ObamaCare and
there's nothing they can do about it. They also know that in a decade or
so we will have single-payer National Healthcare (like Obama and his handlers
admitted when they didn't know they were being recorded).The
unintended consequences that go with ObamaCare will be so bad almost everybody
in America is going to BEG for single-payer system. It will just take a decade
or so to get everybody miserable enough to give in.But IF
Republicans hold their ground past the deadline... remember... government
shutdowns happen frequently (during Clinton administration and several during
Reagan administration), they are not a big deal.
No big deal.Congress will still get paid.The rest of us
might suffer.But Congress will still get paid.Disgusting!
Let's see if I understand what's going on. The Republicans are
refusing to fund a bill that Obama refuses to implement. Obama is threatening
to shut down the government unless the Republicans fund the bill that he refuses
to implement. What's wrong with Obama?
“Unlike mainstream Republicans, who appreciate the damage a shutdown would
inflict on their party, the Tea Partiers consider it a win-win,” says
Scheiber about the struggle going on within the GOP.======In other words, The Tea-Party is willing to sink the ship - Republican
AND all of America in order to "win".Disgusting, Treasonous!BTW- Kudo's to Freeman Stevenson - who has
done a superb job with the Deseret News so far!Keep up the good work.FYI Richards -- Your rant about Obama is OFF topic.This
article is about the House Republicans, but I know your myopic opinions
can't see that.
We have a law, that some don't like, so to prevent it from being enforced,
they choose to shut down the government, rather than do the hard work of finding
a replacement that makes everyone satisfied. Lets see, would that work with
laws about enforcement of prostitution? Perhaps speeding laws.... just defund
that State Patrol? Noise on your street, defund the DOT. Don't like that
science class - pull funds from education.This is the level of
maturity, and sophistication we now have is Washington.Let me ask
you this.... if congress has the right to pick and choose which lawfully passed
laws they want to enforce.... do we as citizens have the same right to pick and
choose which laws we agree with.... and just ignore those we don't like?
Seems the message they are sending is "just because we passed a law
doesn't mean it needs to be enforced"... great message to us all.
Money bills are to originate in the House per the US Constitution... which means
the House has prime responsibility to fund the government... The House has
completed its work funding the government. If the Senate and the President
refuse to pass and sign the House bill, the onus of shutting down the government
is in their court.And another thing... counting up the number of
Republicans and Democrats in our government who can vote... The Republicans
outnumber the Democrats by 28. Dems RepubsSenate 52 46House 199 234White House 1 0Totals 252 280Difference 28So, if the bill has to go to conference for
reconciliation, the Repubs should be in the majority.
@radically_independent:"Let me ask you this.... if congress has the
right to pick and choose which lawfully passed laws they want to enforce.... do
we as citizens have the same right to pick and choose which laws we agree
with.... and just ignore those we don't like?"Let me ask
you this... can the President choose which laws, passed by the US Congress, he
will enforce because he don't like them? Apparently he can ignore the ones
he doesn't like such as the immigration laws.
The government will shut down. It may be shut down for a week or so, then it
will be back. No lasting harm will be done, although it could cause some short
term problems. Refusing to raise the debt ceiling, however, could inflict damage
on the country that could last for decades.
Holding the US economy hostage to get what they want. When they couldn't
get it through democracy.The GOP have officially become terrorists.
Open Minded Mormon,A government shutdown doesn't "sink the
ship". Stop being over-dramatic.It's not sinking the
ship. It's more like "shutting down power to the ship". Sinking
he ship is permanent (the ship is on the bottom and can't be recovered).
Cutting power is temporary, you just have to restore power when you decide where
you're going to get it going again (no big deal, just a little delay).We've had "government shutdowns" numerous times in my
lifetime (1981, 1984, 1990, 1995, 1996). Google "Government Shutdowns"
if you were not aware of this.There were several during the Reagan
Administration when Democrat controlled Congress couldn't get along with
the Republican President who insisted on spending cuts. There were several
shutdowns during the Clinton Administration when spending was getting out of
control and Congress had a showdown with the President because they had made a
contract with America to turn entitlement spending around to get elected.Bottom line... learn your history. Government shutdowns happen
frequently. It isn't the end of the world or sinking the ship.
It's a way for Congress to get the President's to the table.
@Roland Kayser:"The government will shut down."There's no need to shut down the government... for even a second.Even without a budget approval by the Congress to 'fund the
government,' checks can continue to be written to pay the government's
bills. Why, you might ask? How can the government write checks without
permission of an enacted budget law appropriating funds? The answer is
simple... ignore the law... the same way any other law is ignored... such as the
immigration and deportation of illegal immigrants laws. Autocrats
like Obama don't need laws to hem them in.
Time for the President to declare a state of emergency, use emergency powers to
keep the government running, suspend Congress and order the arrest of the TP
anarchists who keep throwing a wrench into the works.
Well go ahead and shut it down republicans. You won't win another election
for 20 years.
Congress needs to start getting things done. You need to learn how to work with
each other - if you can't - then why are we, the taxpayers - paying you -
you are not doing anything for us at all.
Why should this surprise anyone?The Republicans start wars all the
time and never fund any of them either....
Liberal,I don't know which article you read, but if you read
the article that the rest of us read, you certainly didn't understand it.
You cided me for bringing up Obama, because you said that the article was about
the Republicans. Did you even read the third and fourth paragraphs?Let me quote: "This year, they believe a shutdown would strengthen their
hand politically, which is almost certainly true given the public outrage that
would rain down on Republicans."Obama is playing politics.
Obama is thumbing his nose at the will of the people as expressed by the
People's Representatives. Obama is demanding that implemenation of his
ObamaCare be postponed until after the 2014 election - and then getting exactly
what he wanted, just like sequestration.If the fully funded
government is shut down, that shutdown will be laid at the feet of the
Democrats. No matter how many times the President tells us that the Republicans
refused to fund government, anyone who can read can see that the Republicans
fully funded government except for the ObamaCare TAX. The Court reminded us
that Congress has the authority to levy on not levy a TAX.
The media has done a good job of convincing everyone that it will be the
Republicans fault if Obama shuts down the Govt.
@wrzConference committee doesn't treat each member equally.
You'd be getting something like 3 members of each party from each of the
House and Senate.
Consider an even darker scenario. Big capital, e.g. the Koch brothers, wants to
acquire complete control of our system. They especially despise
"Obamacare" because it might give more freedom to those lacking health
insurance and those threatened with losing it - i.e. people might become less
afraid - a frightened employee is a good obedient employee. Moreover, big
capital is willing to crash the current system, with a debt default, to gain the
upper hand; they would remain after the resultant global crash because of their
property. One thing I know for sure - the current crisis is being orchestrated
- it is not spontaneous.
I never take this seriously. It's all just a scripted Drama put out there
by Washington in order to distract us from things like NSA spying and the Syria
situation which isn't going to well for Obama.
@Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, UtahLiberal,I
don't know which article you read, but if you read the article that the
rest of us read, you certainly didn't understand it. You cided me for
bringing up Obama, because you said that the article was about the Republicans.
Did you even read the third and fourth paragraphs?Let me quote:
"This year, they believe a shutdown would strengthen their hand politically,
which is almost certainly true given the public outrage that would rain down on
Republicans."====== I read it, again, and I
didn't read "Obama" in there anywhere...again.It's your
myopic fixation with him.The article is about the chaos within the
Republican party, and mentions how the Democrats will exploit it to their
advantage, period.Obama had nothing to do with it.You keeping
reading "Obama" the bogggieman into every single discussion.It's sad really.
Liberal,How silly of me to think that you thought that Obama was the
President, you know, the man who sits behind the desk in the Oval Office. I
totally forgot that you still wish that Bush was sitting at that desk. Let me
quote a sentence from the article: "For the White House, not having to court
independents as much as they did before President Obama’s second election
frees them up to take more chances."Unless Obama is permanently
on vacation, or golfing, or bowling, or out campaigning for a impossible 3rd
term, he is still the man who sits behind the desk.The people have
directed their Representatives, including Matheson, to fund all parts of the
government except ObamaCare. The Democrats are talking about shutting down the
government. The Republicans have no interest in hurting the aged, the infirm,
the poverty stricken - but some Democrats will use those people for political
fodder. They will cause hardship and hurt on those who need help the most, and
then they'll lie and tell us that the Republicans did it.Which
is worse, their lie or their deed?
@Mike Richards - Your statement "The people have directed their
Representatives, including Matheson, to fund all parts of the government except
ObamaCare." assumes facts not in evidence. A recent poll from The Morning
Consul found that only 34% of Americans want the bill defunded. If
your case is built on the 2012 election, the results do not support your claim.
President Obama campaigned on the bill and won reelection - beating Mitt Romney
b 4% points. Nationwide, Democratic congressional candidates received 51% of
the votes cast, to Republicans 49%. In 2012, Republicans lost seats in the
House, although they retained a majority, it was a smaller majority. Democrats
retained control of the Senate against very long odds.Your claim
that Democrats want to shut down the government is patently false. It is
Republicans who are on record calling for a government shut down, including
Utah's own Mike Lee. Democrats are aware they may politically benefit from
a shutdown but they aren't causing it. If you wish to defend
the shutdown, please do so, but do so based on the facts.
If the GOP does shut government down, they are guaranteeing they will be out of
office for a long, long time.Hopefully American voters will be smart
enough to recognize total stupidity when they see it.(Even some Utah
voters might be smart enough . . . . )
@Mike Richards" The Republicans have no interest in hurting the aged,
the infirm, the poverty stricken "Yes they do, going after
Obamacare directly harms the infirm and poverty stricken.
The far right can't win on the merits in its battle against the Affordable
Care Act, so it tries an end-run by attaching an extraneous provision to a
necessary bill -- the bill to fund the workings of the federal government. What
should happen is simple -- the Senate should remove this extraneous provision
from the funding bill, pass it and send the "clean" bill back to the
House. The House, and especially its far-right members, can then determine
whether is more important to work for the good of the country (and pass the bill
funding the government) or play politics to appease its base (and shut down the
government). If the far right gives a fig about the country and its people, it
will approve the bill.I am waiting to see the far right
appropriately deal with the Affordable Care Act. Since they don't like it
they should come up with a plan that will accomplish what the ACA does --
provide universal insurance in a way they think is better. Maybe the (extremely
far right) Heritage Foundation could revise the plan they originally conceived,
since the ACA is originally their work.
Denial due to pre-existing conditions.When the Republicans can come
up with an answer that ONE condition,I'll give anything they say
consideration.Otherwise - No just means no. No ideas, No
alternatives, No plan, No suggestions, No, Nada, Zip.
The federal government pays the salary of lots of people in Utah. The shutdown
will directly hurt Utahns.
Yes, WRZ, apparently the president can choose which bills he will enforce and
which he will not.Remember all those "signing statements"
from GWBush? Statements he attached to bills he didn't like just before he
signed them because he knew he couldn't override a veto? In each statement,
he told us right up front that he would not obey the new law.Have we
had any "signing statements" from this president?
@one old man 1:12 p.m. Sept. 23, 2013Yes, WRZ, apparently the
president can choose which bills he will enforce and which he will not.Remember all those "signing statements" from GWBush? Statements he
attached to bills he didn't like just before he signed them because he knew
he couldn't override a veto? In each statement, he told us right up front
that he would not obey the new law.Have we had any "signing
statements" from this president?-------------------Yes, our President has issued signing statements. He has issued a total of 22
during all the time he has been inn office. GWBush issued more than that in
2001. He issued a total of 109 in his first term and 50 in his second term for
a total of 159. He really makes the president look like a piker, doesn't