US government shuts down as Congress misses deadline

[Publicus]

Reopen the government unconditionally.

"Raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure".

-Barack Obama 2006

So this thread is about the debt limit, Barack Obama and 2006?!

[Credo]

This thread is about anything except the fact that the republicans have shut down the gov't and haven't learned that when your in a hole, stop digging.

[Baloo22]

Well, look what we have here. We have the Obama regime stopping World War 2 veterans from going to their memorial. But it seems that if you or your organization are political allies of Obama, then the Park Service runs things a bit different for you. One more indicator of the lack of integrity of Obama and his administration.

Source - "Park Service OKs immigration reform rally on 'closed' National Mall"

"A planned immigration reform rally will take place on the National Mall on Tuesday even though the site is closed due to the government shutdown. Organizers for the "Camino Americano: March for Immigration Reform" were spotted Monday setting up a stage and equipment on the National Mall for the rally which will take place on Tuesday."

"Susana Flores, a spokesperson for the rally, confirmed for the Washington Examiner that the Park Service will allow the event to take place under the group's rights granted by the First Amendment."

<snip>

Source - "Camino Americano: March for Immigration Reform"

"***MEDIA ADVISORY***

12:00 PM - 5:00 PM on TOMORROW, October 8, 2013

Location: Program begins at National Mall; March to U.S. Capitol"

"

WHAT: Camino Americano: March for Dignity and Respect
WHERE: Program begins at National Mall; following with a march to U.S. Capitol
WHEN: Tuesday, October 8, 2013, 12:00 PM - 5:00 PM
WHO: Los Tigres del Norte and Lila Downs

Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) who will be joined by 30 members of Congress, civil rights leader Julian Bond, high-ranking labor, immigration reform and faith leaders."

[Publicus]

So, the method by which ObamaCare passed was devious and in some posters opinion, illegal. This from the group who support reading "Green Eggs and Ham". Is that how you think the gov't should function?

Nothing devious or nefarious involved here, so not to fret.

Only the extremely desperate hard core are still cooking up ways to get the Supreme Court to reverse itself. It isn't going to happen. The Supreme Court ruled the law is Constitutional, yet the extreme and distraught far out hard core think they've found something in the law itself, or in the process of enacting the law, that is unconstitutional.

The ACA was enacted by means of the regular order of the Congress and the Executive Branch.

It even went to the Supreme Court, properly, for Judicial Review, where it was found Constitutional. The court's not suddenly going to change its mind - 'oops, we were wrong a year ago, Obamacare is now unconstitutional!' It's inconceivable except to the far out desperate hard core.

The ACA is a legitimate law which the hard right despises even though it's only in the early stages of its eventual full implementation. It's the idea of it that drives the hard right mad. It's Ideology, dogma, doctrine - their general dissonance.

The law received a lot of deliberation and amendments during more than one year of processing by the House and by the Senate. No one can say this is a rushed or hurried law, or one done in haste. It became law in 2010 and only now is beginning to experience its eventual - not immediate - implementation.

People now are shopping online for a suitable insurance program that will begin on January 1, 2014. Which has sent the far out hard core right completely out of the regular order of things.

It's time to move on.

Edited October 8, 2013 by Publicus

[MaxYakov]

So, the method by which ObamaCare passed was devious and in some posters opinion, illegal. This from the group who support reading "Green Eggs and Ham". Is that how you think the gov't should function?

The deviousness, the illegality or the reading? Can you be a little more specific? Also, you might want lose your shovel.

[NeverSure]

House Republicans have shut down the government because they want to kill Obamacare.

The Republican party in the House needs instead to pass the "clean" funding resolution so the US Government can reopen and continue to function on its everyday basis. This means decoupling Obamacare from the CR vote.

The Republicans in the House need to leave the matter of Obamacare, the Affordable Care Act, to the voters in the next election.

Obamacare was enacted into law by votes of the House and the Senate and has been upheld as Constitutional by the Supreme Court. Prez Obama last year won reelection on Obamacare.

Yet Republicans in the House have voted an absurd 42 times to repeal Obamacare, the ACA, but we still have it because no one else sent to Washington agrees with them.

House Republicans have turned this into a kind of labor-management union strike situation which engages opposing sides in a wild and protracted battle of wills rather than living by laws and a Constitution.

So let's have the rule of law, please, thank you.

Ah, yes the rule of law. Forget your history?:

The Eighteenth Amendment (Amendment XVIII) of the United States Constitution effectively established the prohibition of alcoholic beverages in the United States by declaring the production, transport and sale of (though not the consumption or private possession of) alcohol illegal.

To be repealed by:

The Twenty-first Amendment (Amendment XXI) to the United States Constitution repealed the Eighteenth Amendment (Amendment XVIII) which had mandated nationwide Prohibition of alcohol on January 17, 1920

But the really bad one, IMHO was this one:

The Sixteenth Amendment (Amendment XVI) to the United States Constitution allows the Congress to levy an income tax without apportioning it among the states or basing it on the United States Census.

Which gave the Federal Government the power to confiscate private wealth by force and distribute it as it sees fit. We see the results of that 'rule of law' these days, don't we? But even the extraction of taxes from citizens was not enough funding for Congress, given the nearly 17 trillion dollar debt, was it?

It's a sobering thought, to me anyway, to realize that borrowing is required to operate the Federal government. Hence the approaching debt-limit standoff. Obviously, contrary to Obama's statements, if the debt-limit is raised, that implies that continued borrowing is intended. Otherwise, why raise it?

Obamacare

(Could it be a parallel to the 18th amendment - attempting to mandate morality through legislation?):

You might want to research the way the so-called Obamacare was passed and how, exactly, the Supreme Court was able to declare it constitutional or have you been asleep the last four years or so?

Note: All of the above constitutional amendment-related quotes are easily-searched Wiki article extracts

Argue your case to the electorate of the United States.

Simultaneously, reopen the Government of the United States.

And honor, respect, maintain, the full faith and credit of the United States.

Observe and respect the regular order of lawmaking in Washington.

It's called the rule of law.

I just told you about the rule of law. The Senate must propose a budget every year. They have failed to do that for 3 years while they have continued to run us deeply into debt, and to come back to the House for increases in the debt limit.

The rule of law is that no spending happens unless the house approves the budget. Where is that budget?

Re-opening the government means more wild spending, completely out of control, and writing the Democrats a blank check. It means more and more debt.

The law is being followed and everyone but apparently you knows it or this would be in court.

Obama has sworn from the beginning that he won't negotiate about this, so nothing that the Republicans have proposed has even been acknowledged.

If Obama was a leader (something he never had experience at) he would get the parties into a room and hammer out a deal. That's how leaders do it. His refusal to negotiate is outright childish and is the real problem.

[NeverSure]

This thread is about anything except the fact that the republicans have shut down the gov't and haven't learned that when your in a hole, stop digging.

The US is in a 17 trillion dollar hole and the Republicans want to stop digging. What they are doing is exercising their power under the constitution to stop spending until a reasonable spending level is agreed on.

It is the Democratically controlled Senate, and the Democrat President who refuse to propose a budget or to negotiate on spending in direct disobedience to the law which requires the House to vote on the Senate's (non existent) budget.

The Republicans are following the law. The Democrats aren't. Obama is showing NO leadership, either.

[NeverSure]

OK. The Supreme court ruled that Obamacare is legal because it is a tax, and congress has the right to levy taxes.

BUT it is a tax on the individuals who are required to buy obamacare or pay a fine. These are only people who have no insurance, and are some of the poorer people in America. So Obamacare forces the poorest to buy insurance or pay a fine. The premiums are at market rates and they are expensive.

But what the heck? It's just a tax, declared so by the Supreme Court.

One more time. Obamacare is a mandate that everyone buy insurance or pay a fine. Those who have jobs which provide insurance are exempt. Federal employees are of course exempt. The President is exempt. Congress is exempt.

So who gets screwed? Those who have no insurance and who must now buy it, to be checked by the IRS annually and be fined if they don't have it, and the taxpayers who pay for the massive costs of implementing this and enforcing it.

Obamacare has been open for business for 8 days. How's it working out? How many people when they log onto the website to see about buying insurance can or will sign up to pay the premiums for health insurance? It's a big bust. The fines are small - something like $95 a year which still leaves someone uninsured. But premiums for actual Obamacare for expensive US health care are really big. Too big for most people.

This thing will self destruct. Oh, the Dems won't admit it self destructed, they'll just keep changing the rules and backing off and exempting more people until it's effectively uneffective.

It's a piece of shit where the people don't know they are screwed. They will though so wait for the next election.

[MaxYakov]

This thread is about anything except the fact that the republicans have shut down the gov't and haven't learned that when your in a hole, stop digging.

The US is in a 17 trillion dollar hole and the Republicans want to stop digging. What they are doing is exercising their power under the constitution to stop spending until a reasonable spending level is agreed on.

It is the Democratically controlled Senate, and the Democrat President who refuse to propose a budget or to negotiate on spending in direct disobedience to the law which requires the House to vote on the Senate's (non existent) budget.

The Republicans are following the law. The Democrats aren't. Obama is showing NO leadership, either.

Since at least one on this thread is often citing the rule of law, I thought I'd respectfully expand on your very timely post (from the Wiki, link is below, emphasis mine):

"Power of the purse, generally

Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 imposes accountability on Congressional spending:

No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

The first half of this clause indicates that Congress must have appropriated by law the funds to be spent before the funds can be released from the Treasury. It serves as a powerful check of the legislature on the executive branch, as it further secures Congress's power of the purse. This provision, when also combined with the bicameral nature of Congress and the quorum requirements of both the Senate and the House of Representatives, serves as a constitutional check and balance on the legislature itself, preventing most spending that in effect does not implicitly have broad support with respect to both representational popular will in the House of Representatives and inter-regional approval in the Senate.

No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_and_Spending_Clause

I get the distinct impression that President Obama does not appreciate being checked by Congress. Especially when the intent is to check his signature legislation. Hey, but maybe that's just me.

Edited October 8, 2013 by MaxYakov

[Publicus]

This thread is about anything except the fact that the republicans have shut down the gov't and haven't learned that when your in a hole, stop digging.

The US is in a 17 trillion dollar hole and the Republicans want to stop digging. What they are doing is exercising their power under the constitution to stop spending until a reasonable spending level is agreed on.

It is the Democratically controlled Senate, and the Democrat President who refuse to propose a budget or to negotiate on spending in direct disobedience to the law which requires the House to vote on the Senate's (non existent) budget.

The Republicans are following the law. The Democrats aren't. Obama is showing NO leadership, either.

No one can do anything about a budget while the government is closed. And both political parties share blame for the budget troubles you write about.

As to a previous post of yours, this dispute between the Republicans in the House and the president and Democrats in the Congress does not have standing in a court of law. It falls under the Doctrine of Political Question, which means it's between the Executive and the Legislative branches of the government to settle between themselves. It's a dispute between the two in respect of policy, processes, procedures. The Supreme Court has no authority in this to order anything to happen (or not to happen).

The ACA was enacted by the regular order of the Congress and the Presidency.

Republicans in the House are, however, completely out of order. Republicans in the House are extreme, out of bounds.

Republicans have made the budget issues into an old fashioned style of labor-management conflict, the old time long and drawn out slugfest to assert who has the stronger will. The laws and the lessons of history be damned, is the Republican party attitude here.

[Credo]

Obamacare is legal and we need to have health care for US citizens. When Hillary Clinton tried to get it through, the Republicans shot it down. Obama got it through and we need it. You don't like it, you want input, but you had plenty of time to make your wishes known. You simply don't mind having large swathes of the public go without health care.

Oh, and by the way, you and I and all tax payers pay for those people when they end up on medicare/medicaid, or go into a publicly funded hospital.

[NeverSure]

This thread is about anything except the fact that the republicans have shut down the gov't and haven't learned that when your in a hole, stop digging.

The US is in a 17 trillion dollar hole and the Republicans want to stop digging. What they are doing is exercising their power under the constitution to stop spending until a reasonable spending level is agreed on.

It is the Democratically controlled Senate, and the Democrat President who refuse to propose a budget or to negotiate on spending in direct disobedience to the law which requires the House to vote on the Senate's (non existent) budget.

The Republicans are following the law. The Democrats aren't. Obama is showing NO leadership, either.

No one can do anything about a budget while the government is closed. And both political parties share blame for the budget troubles you write about.

As to a previous post of yours, this dispute between the Republicans in the House and the president and Democrats in the Congress does not have standing in a court of law. It falls under the Doctrine of Political Question, which means it's between the Executive and the Legislative branches of the government to settle between themselves. It's a dispute between the two in respect of policy, processes, procedures. The Supreme Court has no authority in this to order anything to happen (or not to happen).

The ACA was enacted by the regular order of the Congress and the Presidency.

Republicans in the House are, however, completely out of order. Republicans in the House are extreme, out of bounds.

Republicans have made the budget issues into an old fashioned style of labor-management conflict, the old time long and drawn out slugfest to assert who has the stronger will. The laws and the lessons of history be damned, is the Republican party attitude here.

You don't understand it at all. The House is exercising its Constitutional duties. The Democrats aren't. The President is missing in action.

I see that now it is extreme and out of bounds to want some accountability for US spending which has brought us the 17 trillion dollar debt.

My, how things have changed.

Wow.

[Publicus]

This thread is about anything except the fact that the republicans have shut down the gov't and haven't learned that when your in a hole, stop digging.

The US is in a 17 trillion dollar hole and the Republicans want to stop digging. What they are doing is exercising their power under the constitution to stop spending until a reasonable spending level is agreed on.

It is the Democratically controlled Senate, and the Democrat President who refuse to propose a budget or to negotiate on spending in direct disobedience to the law which requires the House to vote on the Senate's (non existent) budget.

The Republicans are following the law. The Democrats aren't. Obama is showing NO leadership, either.

Since at least one on this thread is often citing the rule of law, I thought I'd respectfully expand on your very timely post (from the Wiki, link is below, emphasis mine):

"Power of the purse, generally

Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 imposes accountability on Congressional spending:

No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

The first half of this clause indicates that Congress must have appropriated by law the funds to be spent before the funds can be released from the Treasury. It serves as a powerful check of the legislature on the executive branch, as it further secures Congress's power of the purse. This provision, when also combined with the bicameral nature of Congress and the quorum requirements of both the Senate and the House of Representatives, serves as a constitutional check and balance on the legislature itself, preventing most spending that in effect does not implicitly have broad support with respect to both representational popular will in the House of Representatives and inter-regional approval in the Senate.

No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_and_Spending_Clause

I get the distinct impression that President Obama does not appreciate being checked by Congress. Especially when the intent is to check his signature legislation. Hey, but maybe that's just me.

A waste of space.

[NeverSure]

Obamacare is legal and we need to have health care for US citizens. When Hillary Clinton tried to get it through, the Republicans shot it down. Obama got it through and we need it. You don't like it, you want input, but you had plenty of time to make your wishes known. You simply don't mind having large swathes of the public go without health care.

Oh, and by the way, you and I and all tax payers pay for those people when they end up on medicare/medicaid, or go into a publicly funded hospital.

You make my head spin. Right now the poor and the uninsured by your own statement can get healthcare at taxpayer expense.

Obamacare makes those same people buy healthcare insurance out of their own pocket. Yet you seem to be arguing that this is for the good of those people.

Please knock off with the "we need to have health care of US citizens." Obamacare doesn't come close to doing that. It forces people to buy their own in insurance, or pay a fine and remain uninsured.

And somehow you like that alternative.

[NeverSure]

Since at least one on this thread is often citing the rule of law, I thought I'd respectfully expand on your very timely post (from the Wiki, link is below, emphasis mine):

"Power of the purse, generally

Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 imposes accountability on Congressional spending:

No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

The first half of this clause indicates that Congress must have appropriated by law the funds to be spent before the funds can be released from the Treasury. It serves as a powerful check of the legislature on the executive branch, as it further secures Congress's power of the purse. This provision, when also combined with the bicameral nature of Congress and the quorum requirements of both the Senate and the House of Representatives, serves as a constitutional check and balance on the legislature itself, preventing most spending that in effect does not implicitly have broad support with respect to both representational popular will in the House of Representatives and inter-regional approval in the Senate.

No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_and_Spending_Clause

I get the distinct impression that President Obama does not appreciate being checked by Congress. Especially when the intent is to check his signature legislation. Hey, but maybe that's just me.

A waste of space.

Comments like that prove you are losing the debate.

Can't you address the poster's points, one by one? Nope, guess not.

[Credo]

And your head should be spinning. I didn't say everyone could get health care. You have to be eligible and to do that you have to be poor.

Please don't tell me I don't know what I am talking about because I had a childhood illness and I was precluded from getting insurance as an adult. l

In order to get medical assistance, I would have had to quit working and own no property.

Edited October 8, 2013 by Credo

[Publicus]

Since at least one on this thread is often citing the rule of law, I thought I'd respectfully expand on your very timely post (from the Wiki, link is below, emphasis mine):

"Power of the purse, generally

Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 imposes accountability on Congressional spending:

No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

The first half of this clause indicates that Congress must have appropriated by law the funds to be spent before the funds can be released from the Treasury. It serves as a powerful check of the legislature on the executive branch, as it further secures Congress's power of the purse. This provision, when also combined with the bicameral nature of Congress and the quorum requirements of both the Senate and the House of Representatives, serves as a constitutional check and balance on the legislature itself, preventing most spending that in effect does not implicitly have broad support with respect to both representational popular will in the House of Representatives and inter-regional approval in the Senate.

No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_and_Spending_Clause

I get the distinct impression that President Obama does not appreciate being checked by Congress. Especially when the intent is to check his signature legislation. Hey, but maybe that's just me.

A waste of space.

Comments like that prove you are losing the debate.

Can't you address the poster's points, one by one? Nope, guess not.

Vote in the House on a clean CR now.

If a clean CR doesn't have the votes, as Boehner claims, then let him prove it, let him show it. The public, the people, deserve to know, to find out.

The House has voted an absurd 42 times to repeal Obamacare, so it can vote today on a clean CR to fund the government so it can reopen.

Let the members of the House vote on a clean CR today.

John Boehner is a pathetic speaker of the House, maybe the worst ever.

[Publicus]

Obamacare is legal and we need to have health care for US citizens. When Hillary Clinton tried to get it through, the Republicans shot it down. Obama got it through and we need it. You don't like it, you want input, but you had plenty of time to make your wishes known. You simply don't mind having large swathes of the public go without health care.

Oh, and by the way, you and I and all tax payers pay for those people when they end up on medicare/medicaid, or go into a publicly funded hospital.

You make my head spin. Right now the poor and the uninsured by your own statement can get healthcare at taxpayer expense.

Obamacare makes those same people buy healthcare insurance out of their own pocket. Yet you seem to be arguing that this is for the good of those people.

Please knock off with the "we need to have health care of US citizens." Obamacare doesn't come close to doing that. It forces people to buy their own in insurance, or pay a fine and remain uninsured.

And somehow you like that alternative.

Obamacare is modeled on Massachusetts and Switzerland and there aren't any disasters there. The plans in both places are working excellently.

You are misinformed.

You are grossly misinformed.

[NeverSure]

EPIC FAILURE – Just “Hundreds” Signed Up For Obamacare So Far…

by Ulsterman on October 7, 2013 with 8 Comments in News

"Last week some suggested the Obama White House was unwilling to state how many people actually enrolled in Obamacare following the online launch of the program. This week, the Wall Street Journal explains a very possible reason as to why – the trillions dollar program has only attracted “hundreds” to sign up so far." Link

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

HHS Secretary Sebelius: 'I don't know' how many have signed up for ObamaCare."

Fox News ‎- 4 hours ago

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

Treasury Secretary Stonewalls When Asked How Many Have Signed Up for Obamacare

"Treasury Secretary Jack Lew refused to answer Fox host Chris Wallace's simple question this morning: How many people have signed up for Obamacare?"

11:22 AM, Oct 6, 2013• By DANIEL HALPER Link

[Publicus]

This thread is about anything except the fact that the republicans have shut down the gov't and haven't learned that when your in a hole, stop digging.

The US is in a 17 trillion dollar hole and the Republicans want to stop digging. What they are doing is exercising their power under the constitution to stop spending until a reasonable spending level is agreed on.

It is the Democratically controlled Senate, and the Democrat President who refuse to propose a budget or to negotiate on spending in direct disobedience to the law which requires the House to vote on the Senate's (non existent) budget.

The Republicans are following the law. The Democrats aren't. Obama is showing NO leadership, either.

No one can do anything about a budget while the government is closed. And both political parties share blame for the budget troubles you write about.

As to a previous post of yours, this dispute between the Republicans in the House and the president and Democrats in the Congress does not have standing in a court of law. It falls under the Doctrine of Political Question, which means it's between the Executive and the Legislative branches of the government to settle between themselves. It's a dispute between the two in respect of policy, processes, procedures. The Supreme Court has no authority in this to order anything to happen (or not to happen).

The ACA was enacted by the regular order of the Congress and the Presidency.

Republicans in the House are, however, completely out of order. Republicans in the House are extreme, out of bounds.

Republicans have made the budget issues into an old fashioned style of labor-management conflict, the old time long and drawn out slugfest to assert who has the stronger will. The laws and the lessons of history be damned, is the Republican party attitude here.

You don't understand it at all. The House is exercising its Constitutional duties. The Democrats aren't. The President is missing in action.

I see that now it is extreme and out of bounds to want some accountability for US spending which has brought us the 17 trillion dollar debt.

My, how things have changed.

Wow.

You are grossly wrong.

It is exactly the opposite of what you claim.

You are grossly and wildly wrong.

What I wrote in my post is accurate.

The proof is that 70% of Americans disapprove of the Republican party's decisions and actions concerning the budget.

Republicans are out of the regular order of lawmaking in what they are doing. The Republicans are out of bounds.

[NeverSure]

You make my head spin. Right now the poor and the uninsured by your own statement can get healthcare at taxpayer expense.

Obamacare makes those same people buy healthcare insurance out of their own pocket. Yet you seem to be arguing that this is for the good of those people.

Please knock off with the "we need to have health care of US citizens." Obamacare doesn't come close to doing that. It forces people to buy their own in insurance, or pay a fine and remain uninsured.

And somehow you like that alternative.

Obamacare is modeled on Massachusetts and Switzerland and there aren't any disasters there. The plans in both places are working excellently.

You are misinformed.

You are grossly misinformed.

Massachusetts state budget

"Governor Deval Patrick signed the Massachusetts state budget into law on July 8, 2012, ten days after lawmakers sent it to him on June 28, 2012. Accounting for both general fund and non-general fund monies, the FY2013 "all funds" budget totaled $32.2 billion. FY2013 began on July 1, 2012, and with no budget signed into law, legislators passed a temporary spending measure to keep the state government operational.

The state operates on an annual budget cycle and is currently in FY2014. The state's fiscal year begins July 1.

As of 2012, Massachusetts had a total state debt of approximately $102,258,050,000, when calculated by adding the total of outstanding official debt, pension and other post-employment benefits (OPEB) liabilities, Unemployment Trust Fund loans and the state budget gap. The 2012 total state debt was higher than the prior year's total of $97,940,986,000.

As of 2012, Massachusetts's total state debt per capita was $15,522.96.

Proposed fiscal year 2014 state budget

On January 25, 2013, Governor Patrick unveiled his $34.8 billion proposed FY2014 state budget." LINK

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

So you like their state debt of $102 billion dollars and climbing - or $60,000 per family of 4.

Do you call that "good" in a state with only 6 million people - fewer than the population of NYC?

Edited October 8, 2013 by NeverSure

[NeverSure]

The US is in a 17 trillion dollar hole and the Republicans want to stop digging. What they are doing is exercising their power under the constitution to stop spending until a reasonable spending level is agreed on.

It is the Democratically controlled Senate, and the Democrat President who refuse to propose a budget or to negotiate on spending in direct disobedience to the law which requires the House to vote on the Senate's (non existent) budget.

The Republicans are following the law. The Democrats aren't. Obama is showing NO leadership, either.

No one can do anything about a budget while the government is closed. And both political parties share blame for the budget troubles you write about.

As to a previous post of yours, this dispute between the Republicans in the House and the president and Democrats in the Congress does not have standing in a court of law. It falls under the Doctrine of Political Question, which means it's between the Executive and the Legislative branches of the government to settle between themselves. It's a dispute between the two in respect of policy, processes, procedures. The Supreme Court has no authority in this to order anything to happen (or not to happen).

The ACA was enacted by the regular order of the Congress and the Presidency.

Republicans in the House are, however, completely out of order. Republicans in the House are extreme, out of bounds.

Republicans have made the budget issues into an old fashioned style of labor-management conflict, the old time long and drawn out slugfest to assert who has the stronger will. The laws and the lessons of history be damned, is the Republican party attitude here.

You don't understand it at all. The House is exercising its Constitutional duties. The Democrats aren't. The President is missing in action.

I see that now it is extreme and out of bounds to want some accountability for US spending which has brought us the 17 trillion dollar debt.

My, how things have changed.

Wow.

You are grossly wrong.

It is exactly the opposite of what you claim.

You are grossly and wildly wrong.

What I wrote in my post is accurate.

The proof is that 70% of Americans disapprove of the Republican party's decisions and actions concerning the budget.

Republicans are out of the regular order of lawmaking in what they are doing. The Republicans are out of bounds.

I wish you'd stop just saying what YOU think, and post some links to show that the "Republicans are out of bounds." We have been posting link after link and showing you that the Republicans are doing what the law allows them to do.

If the public disapproves of the Republicans, there's always the next election. For now, no one is stupid enough to challenge them in court because they are well within bounds, and duly elected to have these powers.

You just don't like it, Tough.

Edit: Oh, and you don't respond to my comments about Obama's lack of leadership here, or the Senate's refusal to even review proposals made by the House.

Obama and the Senate don't have the legislative power to override the House. They need to get together and compromise, but Obama has refused to meet or compromise from the beginning.

This is Obama's and the Senate's stalemate and they can't override the House. They need to put on their deal making hats, but they won't.

Edited October 8, 2013 by NeverSure

[Chicog]

There's a great irony in all the GOP fans here banging on about them wanting to stop the borrowing, when it's their hamfisted and criminal abuse of the banking system that led to it being required in the first place.

[NeverSure]

You don't understand it at all. The House is exercising its Constitutional duties. The Democrats aren't. The President is missing in action.

I see that now it is extreme and out of bounds to want some accountability for US spending which has brought us the 17 trillion dollar debt.

My, how things have changed.

Wow.

You are grossly wrong.

It is exactly the opposite of what you claim.

You are grossly and wildly wrong.

What I wrote in my post is accurate.

The proof is that 70% of Americans disapprove of the Republican party's decisions and actions concerning the budget.

Republicans are out of the regular order of lawmaking in what they are doing. The Republicans are out of bounds.

"Perhaps as a result of the ongoing political battle for hearts and minds, a rising percentage of Americans reports feeling "more negative" toward Obamacare's impact on their own health care. They now lead those who feel "more positive" by 31% to 11%, or nearly 3 to 1. Last month, the ratio was 2-to-1, with 28% feeling more negative about the law's effect on their health care and 14% feeling more positive.

Bankrate's second monthly Health Insurance Pulse survey was conducted Sept. 19 to 22 by Princeton Survey Research Associates International with a nationally representative sample of 1,003 adults living in the continental United States. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3.6%."

"...Asking the public whether Obamacare should stay or go is tricky, he says, "because people either: a.) don't have the information to answer that question; or b.) are badly misinformed. And I think, frankly, that most people are badly misinformed."

Link

[NeverSure]

There's a great irony in all the GOP fans here banging on about them wanting to stop the borrowing, when it's their hamfisted and criminal abuse of the banking system that led to it being required in the first place.

The "hamfisted and criminal abuse of the banking system" cost $17 trillion, LOL?

[Publicus]

You make my head spin. Right now the poor and the uninsured by your own statement can get healthcare at taxpayer expense.

Obamacare makes those same people buy healthcare insurance out of their own pocket. Yet you seem to be arguing that this is for the good of those people.

Please knock off with the "we need to have health care of US citizens." Obamacare doesn't come close to doing that. It forces people to buy their own in insurance, or pay a fine and remain uninsured.

And somehow you like that alternative.

Obamacare is modeled on Massachusetts and Switzerland and there aren't any disasters there. The plans in both places are working excellently.

You are misinformed.

You are grossly misinformed.

Massachusetts state budget

"Governor Deval Patrick signed the Massachusetts state budget into law on July 8, 2012, ten days after lawmakers sent it to him on June 28, 2012. Accounting for both general fund and non-general fund monies, the FY2013 "all funds" budget totaled $32.2 billion. FY2013 began on July 1, 2012, and with no budget signed into law, legislators passed a temporary spending measure to keep the state government operational.

The state operates on an annual budget cycle and is currently in FY2014. The state's fiscal year begins July 1.

As of 2012, Massachusetts had a total state debt of approximately $102,258,050,000, when calculated by adding the total of outstanding official debt, pension and other post-employment benefits (OPEB) liabilities, Unemployment Trust Fund loans and the state budget gap. The 2012 total state debt was higher than the prior year's total of $97,940,986,000.

As of 2012, Massachusetts's total state debt per capita was $15,522.96.

Proposed fiscal year 2014 state budget

On January 25, 2013, Governor Patrick unveiled his $34.8 billion proposed FY2014 state budget." LINK

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

So you like their state debt of $102 billion dollars and climbing - or $60,000 per family of 4.

Do you call that "good" in a state with only 6 million people - fewer than the population of NYC?

This thread is about the shutdown of the US Government by the Republicans in the House.

I made passing reference to the fact the Affordable Care Act is modeled on the health and medical insurance programs of Massachusetts and of Switzerland. The thread is not about the debt of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, nor is it about the debt of the United States.

It's about the Republicans in the House violating the regular order of the Congress by refusing to vote a "clean" CR or a budget to allow the United States Government to remain open and functioning.

Obamacare is a side issue drawn into the budget issue by the House Republicans.

Speaker Boehner has to allow a vote in the House now on a clean CR. The American people need to know if the votes are there to reopen the government now. Speaker Boehner is denying Americans the knowledge of how their Representative in the House would vote on the clean CR today - literally today.

[Publicus]

NeverSure, you repeatedly reference the fact the dispute is not in court, further making the wild and wrong claim that it's not in court because the Republicans are acting Constitutionally (which they are not doing) and within the normal framework (which is wrong to claim).

I quote in Italics below one of your more recent posts in which you are redundant in the statement:

"If the public disapproves of the Republicans, there's always the next election. For now, no one is stupid enough to challenge them in court because they are well within bounds, and duly elected to have these powers."

So I will say again, that this dispute between the Republicans in the House and the president and Democrats in the Congress does not have standing in a court of law. It falls under the Doctrine of Political Question, which means it's a political dispute between the Executive and the Legislative branches of the government to settle between themselves. It's a political dispute between the two in respect of policy, processes, procedures. The Supreme Court has no authority in a political dispute to order anything to happen (or not to happen).

The dispute is not in court because the courts do not have jurisdiction, not necessarily because the Republicans are or might be right. The courts are neutral in this kind of political dispute.

Stop making false claims about why the dispute is not in the courts and won't ever be in the courts (as the dispute currently stands).

[Publicus]

You don't understand it at all. The House is exercising its Constitutional duties. The Democrats aren't. The President is missing in action.

I see that now it is extreme and out of bounds to want some accountability for US spending which has brought us the 17 trillion dollar debt.

My, how things have changed.

Wow.

You are grossly wrong.

It is exactly the opposite of what you claim.

You are grossly and wildly wrong.

What I wrote in my post is accurate.

The proof is that 70% of Americans disapprove of the Republican party's decisions and actions concerning the budget.

Republicans are out of the regular order of lawmaking in what they are doing. The Republicans are out of bounds.

"Perhaps as a result of the ongoing political battle for hearts and minds, a rising percentage of Americans reports feeling "more negative" toward Obamacare's impact on their own health care. They now lead those who feel "more positive" by 31% to 11%, or nearly 3 to 1. Last month, the ratio was 2-to-1, with 28% feeling more negative about the law's effect on their health care and 14% feeling more positive.

Bankrate's second monthly Health Insurance Pulse survey was conducted Sept. 19 to 22 by Princeton Survey Research Associates International with a nationally representative sample of 1,003 adults living in the continental United States. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3.6%."

"...Asking the public whether Obamacare should stay or go is tricky, he says, "because people either: a.) don't have the information to answer that question; or b.) are badly misinformed. And I think, frankly, that most people are badly misinformed."

Link

Misinformed or confused people are so mostly because of multi-million dollar advertising campaigns over the past four years by far and hard right conservatives against the Affordable Care Act.

Again, it's the one percent against the 99%.

And of course it's the 99% who need Obamacare, i.e., the Affordable Care Act.

[Publicus]

This thread is about anything except the fact that the republicans have shut down the gov't and haven't learned that when your in a hole, stop digging.

The US is in a 17 trillion dollar hole and the Republicans want to stop digging. What they are doing is exercising their power under the constitution to stop spending until a reasonable spending level is agreed on.

It is the Democratically controlled Senate, and the Democrat President who refuse to propose a budget or to negotiate on spending in direct disobedience to the law which requires the House to vote on the Senate's (non existent) budget.

The Republicans are following the law. The Democrats aren't. Obama is showing NO leadership, either.

Since at least one on this thread is often citing the rule of law, I thought I'd respectfully expand on your very timely post (from the Wiki, link is below, emphasis mine):

"Power of the purse, generally

Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 imposes accountability on Congressional spending:

No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

The first half of this clause indicates that Congress must have appropriated by law the funds to be spent before the funds can be released from the Treasury. It serves as a powerful check of the legislature on the executive branch, as it further secures Congress's power of the purse. This provision, when also combined with the bicameral nature of Congress and the quorum requirements of both the Senate and the House of Representatives, serves as a constitutional check and balance on the legislature itself, preventing most spending that in effect does not implicitly have broad support with respect to both representational popular will in the House of Representatives and inter-regional approval in the Senate.

No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_and_Spending_Clause

I get the distinct impression that President Obama does not appreciate being checked by Congress. Especially when the intent is to check his signature legislation. Hey, but maybe that's just me.

Tell Speaker Boehner to reverse his position to instead allow the full House of Representatives to vote now, to vote today, on a clean CR.

We the People need to know with certainty whether the votes exist to end this debacle now, today, by funding the government so it can immediately reopen to resume its vital operations.

We the People need to know with certainty how our Representative in the House will vote on the question now, today, asap, no delay, no excuses, no bullshit from Boehner who wants this crisis to continue endlessly.

Let the House vote now, today, on a clean CR.

[NeverSure]

You don't understand it at all. The House is exercising its Constitutional duties. The Democrats aren't. The President is missing in action.

I see that now it is extreme and out of bounds to want some accountability for US spending which has brought us the 17 trillion dollar debt.

My, how things have changed.

Wow.

You are grossly wrong.

It is exactly the opposite of what you claim.

You are grossly and wildly wrong.

What I wrote in my post is accurate.

The proof is that 70% of Americans disapprove of the Republican party's decisions and actions concerning the budget.

Republicans are out of the regular order of lawmaking in what they are doing. The Republicans are out of bounds.

"Perhaps as a result of the ongoing political battle for hearts and minds, a rising percentage of Americans reports feeling "more negative" toward Obamacare's impact on their own health care. They now lead those who feel "more positive" by 31% to 11%, or nearly 3 to 1. Last month, the ratio was 2-to-1, with 28% feeling more negative about the law's effect on their health care and 14% feeling more positive.

Bankrate's second monthly Health Insurance Pulse survey was conducted Sept. 19 to 22 by Princeton Survey Research Associates International with a nationally representative sample of 1,003 adults living in the continental United States. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3.6%."

"...Asking the public whether Obamacare should stay or go is tricky, he says, "because people either: a.) don't have the information to answer that question; or b.) are badly misinformed. And I think, frankly, that most people are badly misinformed."

Link

Misinformed or confused people are so mostly because of multi-million dollar advertising campaigns over the past four years by far and hard right conservatives against the Affordable Care Act.

Again, it's the one percent against the 99%.

And of course it's the 99% who need Obamacare, i.e., the Affordable Care Act.

99% need Obamacare, LOL?