For once, the Republicans stood up for the people who elected them. Just like they'll do again in a month or two when this deal expires. More than the spineless Obama sheeple in Congress can say.
We already borrow about $.35 of every dollar the Government spends, where is the line for you where enough is enough because your kids and grand kids will have to pay for it. Either by living in abject poverty their whole lives or with blood by picking up guns and trying to stop the countries we owe the money to from coming to our soil and collecting on debts owed. If you have another scenario, I'd like to hear it. I've got no dog in this fight because I have no kids, I just don't want a pagoda built on top of where I'm buried.
If you read the OP, you'll see that I've only criticized him for pandering to his crazies in the first place. I did not criticize him for deciding, in the end, to save the economy instead of his caucus. But hey, feel free to set up any strawmen you feel you need to. Because Democrats did not attach a single partisan political demand to the debt-ceiling bill. They were and are ready to pass it with no conditions whatsoever. How was the president supposed to avert a crisis that was caused by Tea Party conservatives in the House? By simply caving to their one-sided demands? That train has already left the station, and is one of the root causes of this current crisis. It's not GOP vs. Dem -- it's a GOP civil war. I don't care if Boehner keeps his job or not. All I care about is that the GOP put its fringe crazies back in the bottle, where they can no longer pose a threat to America's credit rating. I've said this before, but: Both parties have their fringe crazies. The difference is that Democrats have succeeded in keeping their fringe on the fringe, while Republicans are letting theirs drive the car. Hopefully this last crisis will persuade majority Republicans to put a stop to that.
Developing... Chase Bank Limits Cash Withdrawals, Bans International Wire Transfers Preparing for looming financial crisis in U.S.? Paul Joseph Watson Infowars.com October 16, 2013 Chase Bank has moved to limit cash withdrawals while banning business customers from sending international wire transfers from November 17 onwards, prompting speculation that the bank is preparing for a looming financial crisis in the United States. http://www.infowars.com/chase-bank-limits-cash-withdrawals-bans-international-wire-transfers/ Gee I wonder why they would suspect that???
The GOP is NOT "retreating"... this is more of an "involuntary strategic withdrawal to the rear" - - - Updated - - - How many times has Watson and pretty much everybody on InfoWars been proven wrong???
I think you just confirmed what I said. You criticize him on both ends, especially by calling it "surrender". But they did. It was, give in to everything we want or we'll shut down the government and default on the debt. I think that the crisis is caused by the passing of a healthcare law with a party-line only vote, and the decades of growth in government spending. That is why the Tea Party was formed, to combat this. The root cause is the failure of both political parties to get a grip on reality. This temporary delay of the debt default is just drama masking the reality that default is on the horizon regardless, especially of both parties refuse to do anything about the $17 trillion dollar debt, and the over $100 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities that the taxpayers are on the hook for. Frankly, I don't either. I can't wait to get a Tea Party Republican running the House. Fringe democrats on the fringe? Like gay marriage? Like gay agendas in the military, public schools? Like amnesty for illegals? Like the NSA spying and the politicizing of the IRS? Like socialized medicine? Catholic priests not being allowed to practice their faith by the government? Even as little as 20 years ago even democrats would have told you that you were crazy regarding these issues. Without leadership in the White House, further confrontation is inevitable.
The leader in the White House got Boehner, the supposed "leader" in the House....to cave. I'd say he's doing pretty good.
It is a surrender. That's not a criticism, it's a fact. What was "everything we want?" The GOP demanded a defunding of Obamacare; the Democrats made no demands. Please don't try to make the Orwellian argument that by simply refusing the GOP demands, the Democrats were making demands of their own. And that justifies threatening to tank America's economy? Obama and many Democrats are on record supporting deficit reduction through a combination of tax hikes and spending cuts -- the only realistic way to close the deficit. What's holding things up? The GOP's refusal to consider any tax hikes as part of such a reduction. After this debacle, it's just not going to happen. Heck, Democrats have offered to help Boehner keep his seat if the Tea Party tail keeps trying to wag the dog: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/10/john-boehner-democrats-debt-ceiling-deal-speakership Times change. Equal rights for gay people is no longer fringe. Nor is immigration reform. They both enjoy broad public support. Most western democracies have some form of national health care. It isn't fringe, either. NSA spying isn't any more popular on the left than on the right. But it's hardly "fringe". The politicizing of the IRS is a fake scandal that has all but collapsed under its own non-weight. Oh, c'mon. Now your'e calling the military "fringe" for telling contract priests that they couldn't do any work during the shutdown? Without rational partners to negotiate with, no compromise is possible. Tell me: If you were Obama, how would you "lead" in this instance? What would you have done to resolve the crisis?
Looking at the emerging deal, it looks like the GOP will end up getting *less* than they would have gotten had they never picked this fight: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...-shut-down-the-government-for-nothing/280611/ House Democrats have reportedly offered to help Boehner keep his speakership if the Tea Party crazies try to cause trouble: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/10/john-boehner-democrats-debt-ceiling-deal-speakership The mere threat of Democrats doing so may be enough to protect Boehner. Some serious conservatives are starting to make themselves heard, talking about what an economic disaster the Tea Party was courting: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/strangelove-republicans/ He might get his wish: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...shutdown-disaster-could-give-dems-a-big-lift/ More importantly, if the GOP decides to pick this same fight again in February, we'll be that much closer to the November elections. And that's not a good thing for the GOP. Nice work, conservatives!
Obama and his government cronies have gone flat broke, yet again, using our credit. Yep, that's what the Dem's consider a win.
Congrats Ray for being so supportive of the horror of Obamacare and racking up more debt via the progressive propaganda machine. I hope you got paid well for your efforts because you'll need it to pay for your healthcare. Thanks loads!
Sure seems that way. That doesn't make him a good leader. A good leader would compromise so that both sides are happy and for the good of the country. Leadership mean governing for the entire nation, not just those of your political persuasion. That is language that you take delight in and thus in celebrating his "surrender" you are rubbing it in. You are criticizing his weakness at the same time. Right. Each congress can decide what laws they want to pass. Just because the previous congress passed Obamacare, doesn't mean that this congress has to fund it. We can defund anything we don't want to spend money on each year. That is called governing. Demanding the GOP to fund Obamacare is a demand. Republicans voted for their lawmakers to repeal Obamacare. If they can't do that, then at least defund it. That is what democracy looks like. People are not subjects of the government. We don't have to submit to your cult of personality they way you have. We don't want Obama as our dictator. We will fight democrats socialism. The debt is the main threat to America's economy. Well now that is just fantasy. I'm willing to debate with you just about anything, but not imaginary democrat policies. Did they ask him to sign anything in blood? DON'T DO IT JOHN! No it's not fringe anymore. Now Christianity is fringe. How long before you start crucifying them again? Yeah, like the USSR, Cuba, Nazi-Germany to name a few. Well I just happen to notice that it is no big deal since Obama is in charge. It isn't fake if you were one of the victims. It actually succeeded in thwarting the Tea Party and getting Obama re-elected. When the government is used to suppress freedom of speech and political opposition people of all political persuasions should take it seriously and not dismiss it as "fake". They are just following the unlawful orders of the commander in chief. I agree. Obama and the democrats are completely irrational. If I were Obama, I would do exactly what he is doing. But then I would be a socialist commie liberal bent on the destruction of the country. If I were a president, it is not hard to ask each side what they want, and give each side half of what they want and have them agree on that.
After the financial catastrophe that would result, I'm pretty sure he's not that much of a slave to the Tea Party. Cruz slept with dogs, he got fleas. He'll have to find another Tea Party cause to get them riled up with. There's always some kind of "tyranny" going on.
Yes, the TP goofballs have done immeasurable harm to American and the Republicans, but even the dysfunctional Party's critics should acknowledge Boehner's and McConnells's finally succumbing to reality. Normally, that would be a given, but lately it has become quite an impressive stretch for the GOP.
Just the quote you posted from the atlantic is so strewn with lies that I don't have to read the rest of your post. - - - Updated - - - Is Ted Cruz the president?
I would have to say no. In fact the Tea Party defeated itself. I think this has been an unmitigated disaster for the Tea Party, which for some reason allowed itself to be talked into a strategy that was unwinnable. I think the only thing achieved is that taking the Senate is going to be that much more unlikely.
Ted Cruz said there would be no compromise, yet you still insist that President Obama tried to compromise with him. That is absurd. The Tea Party and their "my way or the highway" tactics are destroying the USA. The GOP is probably going to ditch them before they suffer more losses. Good riddance to the TP.
I think most liberals here don't have children or they're just out of college, so why should they give a ^&#*#(*@.
And now conservatives have moved back to familiar territory: "talking out our ass". - - - Updated - - - LOL. Such as?
Man, you sure read a lot of subtext into what I write. I'm rubbing the fact of surrender into the face of Tea Partiers, not Boehner. Boehner didn't want this fight; no sane Republican did. Throughout this artificial crisis I've made it abundantly clear that the problem is the fringe crazies, and the solution is for responsible Republicans, such as Boehner, to put them back on a tight leash. Except that Obamacare is self-funding, so there was no demand to fund it. And *more* people voted for Democrats. That, too, is what democracy looks like. Which is why, in our democratic system, the GOP demands had no chance of success. The Tea Partiers knew this, which is why they tried to take the economy hostage. Irrelevant delusional screed. In the long term, I agree. In the short term, a GOP-caused credit default is a much bigger threat. The solution to fixing our long-term debt problem isn't "crash the economy." Never mind that the Tea Party conservatives weren't refusing to raise the debt limit in order to address the debt problem; they were refusing to raise the debt limit in an attempt to defund Obamacare. And pass abortion restrictions. And pass a whole laundry list of pet conservative demands. Fantasy? Here's a Senate Democrat plan that was roughly 50/50 tax hikes vs. spending cuts: http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/03/12/senate_democrats_deficit_reduction_plan.html Here's Obama's deficit reduction plan, again using a combination of tax hikes and spending increases: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...r-means-and-investing-future-president-s-plan Here's Republicans refusing to even consider tax hikes as part of any deficit-reduction plan: http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/13/r...on-plan-but-refuse-to-consider-tax-increases/ So what's the barrier to a realistic deficit-reduction plan? That's right: Republicans. More substance-less pap. It was supposed to be a big scandal because the extra vetting was supposedly politically motivated. But more and more it's becoming clear that it was a bureaucratic issue, not a political one. Nobody was targeted simply because the administration disagreed with their politics. Groups of all persuasions were investigated. There was no political direction from the White House or its representatives. And the groups in question were not silenced. Yuh-huh. Sure. When the government actually does that, I will. Yet more substanceless pap. You certainly produce a lot of it. I see. So if one party says "Repeal the Second Amendment or we crash the economy", and the other party says "no", what Obama should have done is say "Well, I'll split the difference. We won't ban all guns, just guns that can fire more than one round per minute." Or if one party says "I want to kill you" and the other party says "no," then Obama should have said, "No killing; you'll have to settle for maiming instead"? "Splitting the difference" only makes sense if there were semi-equal demands being made in the first place.
