Republicans Got less out of the deal than had they agreed to it before the shut down..

[crockett]

Not only did the shutdown cost our economy over 20 billion dollars and the country lost some trust on the world market. Lets not go into all the lost wages of the hundreds of thousands of people whom lost their paychecks.. All this so Republicans could show everyone how bad they are at negotiations..

Turns out Republicans got less after shutting the govt down, than had they agreed to pass the clean budget that was offered on Sept 30th. They lost a key bargaining points and lost a hell of a lot of public support.. Their only gain was adding something that was already part of Obamacare..

Ohh yea Obamacare is still law..

Let's review: Had the House passed the "clean" continuing resolution it was offered on September 30, the government would have remained open only until November 15, at the reduced funding levels determined by the "sequestration" cuts imposed by the 2011 debt-limit deal. Republicans still would have had the debt-ceiling deadline Thursday, plus another budget fight on the horizon a month later, as perceived points of leverage. (Democrats insist this leverage is illusory as the White House would refuse to negotiate, but to Republicans, that's what these deadlines are: valuable bargaining chips.)

Instead, the House is poised to pass a measure that funds the government through January 15 and lifts the debt ceiling until February 7—taking the heat off Congress for months and eliminating three pressure points (the September 30 funding expiration, the October 17 debt-ceiling target, and the hypothetical November 15 funding expiration) in one go. The proposed deal negotiated by Senate leaders also would force the two houses to convene a budget committee, something Democrats have been demanding since the Senate passed a budget in March—and conservative Republicans have repeatedly blocked, for fear that any compromise negotiated between the two houses would mean selling out their principles.

The "concession" extracted by the GOP in the deal, the sole change to the health-care law, is purely cosmetic: a reinstatement of the requirement that people seeking subsidies under the Affordable Care Act furnish proof that they qualify. That requirement was in the original law, but the administration delayed it when implementation hit snags in July.

full article..

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...othing/280611/

[Barry-xlovecam]

You mean they painted themselves into a corner then capitulated to fight again in January 2014.

Who is the House Republican chief strategist -- Yogi Bear? "the picnic basket is in the near future, pour me some more tea ..."

[Vendzilla]

I'll believe it when it's all done

They should have asked for a working website!

[bronco67]

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

I'll believe it when it's all done

They should have asked for a working website!

If that stupid fucking website worked, this would have been the death blow to the GOP.

[AsianDivaGirlsWebDude]

Colbert: End government shutdown so GOP can get back to ?important work of crippling the government?

Back to work slackers...



ADG

[2MuchMark]

I hope John Bohner cries himself to sleep tonight.

[Robbie]

Weird that people are cheering for the govt. to re-open (well, the 17% that was actually shut down) on a CR (continuing resolution) and to continue to spend money we don't have that is destroying our future.

YAY! (I guess)

[Barry-xlovecam]

Next time you have an emergency don't call 911 -- call 1-900-RON-PAUL it's only $25.00 /minute -- they will send help but the help will expect cash before assistance is rendered.

[kane]

Republicans should have taken a note from the unions that they hate so much. Most of the time when unions strike they eventually end up getting a deal done, but often the workers end up losing. They either end up with less than they could have gotten before the strike or the strike cost them so much that what they get is offset by that.

A friend of mine's wife is a nurse. Several years ago they went on strike and were out for about four months. They ended up getting raises etc in their new deal. My buddy and I sat down and did the math. Their new deal was for three years. When they factored in how much his wife would get from the raises over the next three years it was less than what she had lost being on strike so she will actually net less over the next three years.

[bhutocracy]

It's great they didn't destroy the faith in the ability of the US to pay it's bills and crash the whole world economy, but really they're just setting it up so the idiots aren't in charge of the February push and they actually target something they can get at like social security. It was pretty obvious the repubs would be forced to do a deal, their actual employers (the corporate donors) don't want them destroying the market. It'll be the same in Feb.. A big scare, the market will slide a couple of points, you could put on a few big bets and they'll do the grand bargain or something and it'll be easy money so long as you can leverage that few %.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

Next time you have an emergency don't call 911 -- call 1-900-RON-PAUL it's only $25.00 /minute -- they will send help but the help will expect cash before assistance is rendered.

Why would I do that? Ron Paul is a Republican House Member from Texas.

I live in Las Vegas Nevada.
The federal govt. doesn't run 911 dispatch for local cities.

Dude you really need to learn how things work. LOCAL and STATE govt.'s fund most things you use in your everyday life. And a lot of that is funded through local taxes and property taxes.

Your federal income tax? Military, social security, and almost a million lifetime career bureaucrats and a few hundred politicians and their staff.

It's amazing how uneducated you and many others are on things, and yet you'll repeat foolish things you read on Democrat blogs.

This is why we get the kind of govt. we have.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by bhutocracy

It's great they didn't destroy the faith in the ability of the US to pay it's bills and crash the whole world economy.

Thing is...there is no need for the govt. to "default" when the debt ceiling hits. They could simply STOP spending money. The govt. takes in a few billion dollars a day in revenue every day.

And the funny thing is...BOTH sides (including Pres. Obama as a Senator) has decried raising the debt ceiling when the OTHER side is in power.

And they all refer (rightfully so) to it as "Kicking the can down the road" instead of fixing the spending problem.

And the media and politicians now have us all CHEERING that they "kicked the can down the road" again!
It's been an amazing bit of PR and seems to have worked on a lot of people.

But when I talk to working people at the gym or at a bar? They have a completely different take on this.

They see the REALITY. That our govt. spends money like a drunken sailor and it never ends.

[Barry-xlovecam]

LMAO -- Ron Paul is the Libertarian who runs as a Republican get so he can elected.

I might have bought some of the Libertarian line 15 years ago but I have come to see it for what it is -- it is just as workable as Marxism. Utopian organized anarchy (an oxymoron).

Don't waste my time with that "Libertarian Line" ultimately it goes down to the essential services too. Might as well just have no government -- good luck with that one -- you'll be standing in your window with a loaded 12 gauge riot gun or an AK-47.

Small government is better government and the best government is no government ... that is the slippery slope of "Libertarianism". Show me ONE PLACE where Libertarianism is functioning as a working government. ONE PLACE.

[Barry-xlovecam]

Uneducated my ass. Maybe not high enough or drunk enough to buy that bullshit.

[bhutocracy]

Originally Posted by Robbie

Thing is...there is no need for the govt. to "default" when the debt ceiling hits. They could simply STOP spending money. The govt. takes in a few billion dollars a day in revenue every day.

And the funny thing is...BOTH sides (including Pres. Obama as a Senator) has decried raising the debt ceiling when the OTHER side is in power.

And they all refer (rightfully so) to it as "Kicking the can down the road" instead of fixing the spending problem.

And the media and politicians now have us all CHEERING that they "kicked the can down the road" again!
It's been an amazing bit of PR and seems to have worked on a lot of people.

But when I talk to working people at the gym or at a bar? They have a completely different take on this.

They see the REALITY. That our govt. spends money like a drunken sailor and it never ends.

It's likely what they're going to try and do in February. Obama can't come out and cut social security and other things but if the republicans are threatening to put the US into default the democrats can say "oh look we were forced into it, ow, ow my arm was twisted look at how reasonable we are coming together to look at entitlements". I suspect they would have done it this time around if the idiots didn't rush in without a gameplan and grandstanded instead of the establishment republicans getting something effective to their cause out of it.

I however have no problem with raising the debt ceiling and have a big problem with the government stopping spending. It's largely about how often you raise the limit (you have to just for inflation) and where you spend. Spending is called investment when a business does it and I have no problems with government spending on productive assets (with certain caveats) and infrastructure that increases tax revenue. I have a problem with unproductive spending. I don't even have a problem with military spending so long as the spoils of war are taxed and provide some kind of revenue neutrality rather than as a gift subsidizing corporations that pay no tax.

[PornoMonster]

Originally Posted by kane

Republicans should have taken a note from the unions that they hate so much. Most of the time when unions strike they eventually end up getting a deal done, but often the workers end up losing. They either end up with less than they could have gotten before the strike or the strike cost them so much that what they get is offset by that.

A friend of mine's wife is a nurse. Several years ago they went on strike and were out for about four months. They ended up getting raises etc in their new deal. My buddy and I sat down and did the math. Their new deal was for three years. When they factored in how much his wife would get from the raises over the next three years it was less than what she had lost being on strike so she will actually net less over the next three years.

Not always true...

UPS went on strike in 97, Workers got way more than even what was asked for Before the strike.

Also, in your story, sure she Lost the amount of the raise by not working, but what WAS the offer by the company. Then you also have to keep in Mind that that Raise she got will continue to be added on Every year...

IE some people want a One time $500 bonus sounds good. I will take a $.50 raise over the next 20 years...

[DraX]

That's why bullish and dumb goes hand in hand with the republicans.

[Barry-xlovecam]

The only way to decrease the debt is with new revenues. The best new revenues are income taxes raised from new jobs.

Private industry is not doing its part to take advantage of the capital they are just sitting on. Capital flight is a real issue. When it is possible to create products or render services to Americans using low wage workers in other countries -- the capital flees to those countries.

I don't pretend to have an answer but the quality or efficiency of those products or services makes you realize what you pay for is what you get. Are the quality of American made products or service that much better to justify their higher price? In many cases they are not. So, I have to be sympathetic to some degree of the capital flight from America.

We need a huge government investment in new research for basic technologies to create value rated jobs. Just think, if it were not for the huge capital expenditure by the US government on the space program in the last century we might not have computers or an internet today. Military spending is not only about building better weapons -- often, maybe not intended so directly, it is about creating new technologies that can find peaceful purposes too at times.

Spend money were it will do good for the citizenry and the taxpayers. They have been blabbering about waste in government spending as long as I can remember and probably will be complaining of this long after I am dead. It is a argument for the discontented and the simpletons of this world. Make more money is always the answer -- move forward not backward.

Creating a political tantrum like a 5-year-old child like the House has just done is idiocy. In the end the Senate smacked down their lessers (the equivalent of spanking a child or sending the child to bed without supper). We elect these people to act like 5-year-old children? I guess they are a mirror of the persons who elect them ...

[kane]

Originally Posted by PornoMonster

Not always true...

UPS went on strike in 97, Workers got way more than even what was asked for Before the strike.

Also, in your story, sure she Lost the amount of the raise by not working, but what WAS the offer by the company. Then you also have to keep in Mind that that Raise she got will continue to be added on Every year...

IE some people want a One time $500 bonus sounds good. I will take a $.50 raise over the next 20 years...

In the case of my friend's wife what they ended up getting was almost exactly what was offered before hand.

Sure, there are some unions where the strikes work out for the better, but it seems to me like if the strike goes for any amount of time the workers end up losing out.

[woj]

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

The only way to decrease the debt is with new revenues.

That is clearly not true, you can decrease debt by a:
1. decrease in spending
2. increase in revenue
3. combination of both

How come "decrease in spending" is off the table? What makes you think that "increase in revenue" [and then subsequent increase in spending] is the only rational solution?

[mikesinner]

Originally Posted by woj

That is clearly not true, you can decrease debt by a:
1. decrease in spending
2. increase in revenue
3. combination of both

How come "decrease in spending" is off the table? What makes you think that "increase in revenue" [and then subsequent increase in spending] is the only rational solution?

The problem is the government isn't spending much right now. Name one job creation project that the government is funding.

Right now if we cut anything we are most likely hurting the middle class. You want to cut education, public services? Other than the defense budget I can't see anything being cut. We need to start creating jobs like we did with the new deal.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by Robbie

Weird that people are cheering for the govt. to re-open (well, the 17% that was actually shut down) on a CR (continuing resolution) and to continue to spend money we don't have that is destroying our future.

YAY! (I guess)

Robbie.. did you miss the part where it cost our economy over 20 billion?? Perhaps you would be more happy had we been downgraded on our credit rating once again. Would that make you feel better to know that your fellow tax payers and business owners had to pay more to get loans?

[crockett]

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

Next time you have an emergency don't call 911 -- call 1-900-RON-PAUL it's only $25.00 /minute -- they will send help but the help will expect cash before assistance is rendered.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by Robbie

Why would I do that? Ron Paul is a Republican House Member from Texas.

I live in Las Vegas Nevada.
The federal govt. doesn't run 911 dispatch for local cities.

Dude you really need to learn how things work. LOCAL and STATE govt.'s fund most things you use in your everyday life. And a lot of that is funded through local taxes and property taxes.

Your federal income tax? Military, social security, and almost a million lifetime career bureaucrats and a few hundred politicians and their staff.

It's amazing how uneducated you and many others are on things, and yet you'll repeat foolish things you read on Democrat blogs.

This is why we get the kind of govt. we have.

Are you kidding me? He ran three times for President. Are you really going to sit there and say he wasn't a libertarian? He ran as a Republican to get their money.. The same fucking thing every libertarian does and to get that money he voted right along side them in any vote that needed his vote to pass.. Hence the reason no one takes them serious because they are for the most part inseparable from Republicans and not a viable third party.

[Barry-xlovecam]

Originally Posted by woj

That is clearly not true, you can decrease debt by a:
1. decrease in spending
2. increase in revenue
3. combination of both

How come "decrease in spending" is off the table? What makes you think that "increase in revenue" [and then subsequent increase in spending] is the only rational solution?

I left out the words "effective and "realistic" from that sentence.

I just came back from Greece this month -- you should see how the austerity spending cuts have worked there. They arrested the Golden Dawn's (a neo-Nazi movement) leaders and a few of their Members of Parliament the day I left. (For complicity in the stabbing death murder of a leftist leader.)

Just as an hypothetical: I can just imagine the the Tea Party and OWS elements (or similar) taking to the streets here in the face of severe spending cuts that affect social stability -- we have loaded weapons in America -- they don't have many in Greece.

And that is were we are heading with our social warfare. Even the Romans had their Colosseum with its free bread handed out to the masses toward filling the bellies of the poor and maintaining social control.

Much of the spending that is touted to be eliminated by the budgetary extremists is in entitlement programs -- these are the ugly prospects if they succeed.

[Tom_PM]

The more recent trend is for believers in GOP platforms to identify as Independents. A rose by any other name smells just as sweet.

[Joshua G]

Originally Posted by crockett

Robbie.. did you miss the part where it cost our economy over 20 billion?? Perhaps you would be more happy had we been downgraded on our credit rating once again. Would that make you feel better to know that your fellow tax payers and business owners had to pay more to get loans?

perhaps the national credit rating deserves to be downgraded, since the budget is hopelessly out of control. It now runs trillion dollar annual deficits after 3 years of economic growth. at what point do the keynesians say the government has spent enough? it never, ever happens.

worse, the dems say we must keep spending a trillion too much forever or else the economy will tank! whose keeping who hostage?

Surely you understand the one sided nature of the media on this matter & realize the dems who insist no spending ever be cut are never tarred as extremists? The dems are saying - spend more money or else we will crash the economy, just as much as the repubs were saying - cut spending or we will crash the economy.

& the dems always win, cause deficit spending does not hurt today. instead it will hurt the 20 somethings who will pay the tab for their parents reckless spending.

[Barry-xlovecam]

I live in Las Vegas Nevada.

I feel your pain ...

The federal govt. doesn't run 911 dispatch for local cities.

True dat? I can only imagine how well the 911 system would be run if parts of it were not operated with federal grants > http://www.911.gov/grants.html With Las Vegas' eroded property tax base it matters.

[Minte]

Originally Posted by Tom_PM

The more recent trend is for believers in GOP platforms to identify as Independents. A rose by any other name smells just as sweet.

So what would you classify a person that believes in a womans right to choose, that doesn't go to church, doesn't carry a bible around in their pickup truck, believes that gays have the same rights as everyone..doesn't have an arsenal of guns....but still believes that we don't need such an enormous government and that the US has to stop borrowing and spending so much money. And lastly that the government has no right to tax it's citizens at the rate it is.


Who is that person?

[Black All Through]

The republican party is divided on its inside, it's a good job it's not an election year

[crockett]

Originally Posted by JoshGirls Josh

perhaps the national credit rating deserves to be downgraded, since the budget is hopelessly out of control. It now runs trillion dollar annual deficits after 3 years of economic growth. at what point do the keynesians say the government has spent enough? it never, ever happens.

worse, the dems say we must keep spending a trillion too much forever or else the economy will tank! whose keeping who hostage?

Surely you understand the one sided nature of the media on this matter & realize the dems who insist no spending ever be cut are never tarred as extremists? The dems are saying - spend more money or else we will crash the economy, just as much as the repubs were saying - cut spending or we will crash the economy.

& the dems always win, cause deficit spending does not hurt today. instead it will hurt the 20 somethings who will pay the tab for their parents reckless spending.

Look I'm a "realist" I don't subscribe to a all left mentality nor do I subscribe to a all right mentality. I look at what both sides have done and that leads me to have to side with the left just about all the time.

The right does NOT cut the overall spending. I don't know why people are still brainwashed into believing this bullshit. The right is like a broken record.. They are always for cutting social programs but then turn around and give that money to big business or military spending. They never reduce our deficit.

Reagan, Bush 1 & 2.. did not cut spending, they greatly increased it and put us further in the hole.

This is where realism keys in for me. I look at it as a very simple choice. I'm paying taxes no matter what.. I have a choice to vote for guys that spend like crazy and don't do shit for me.. or vote for guys that spend like crazy and I get something from my tax dollars rather than having it all redistributed to big business.

Seems like a easy choice to make to me.. Also I'm very much against the whole Religion thing being involved in our govt, which puts another strike against the right.

[vdbucks]

Republicants this, Dummycrats that... as long as people keep playing "sides" then nothing will ever change... nothing.

When will you people realize that all this horseshit over "sides" is nothing more than a distraction to keep you idiots busy while everyone in power continues to rape and pillage your pockets, and turn you into slaves?

[Minte]

Originally Posted by vdbucks

Republicants this, Dummycrats that... as long as people keep playing "sides" then nothing will ever change... nothing.

When will you people realize that all this horseshit over "sides" is nothing more than a distraction to keep you idiots busy while everyone in power continues to rape and pillage your pockets, and turn you into slaves?

What's the option...not unicorns and rainbow options. What are the real options.

[BFT3K]

McConnell needed $3 Billion to make a deal...

http://wfpl.org/post/mcconnell-reid-...ntucky-project

[BFT3K]

The estimate is that this idiotic shutdown has cost the US $20 Billion... so far.

[PR_Glen]

Originally Posted by Minte

So what would you classify a person that believes in a womans right to choose, that doesn't go to church, doesn't carry a bible around in their pickup truck, believes that gays have the same rights as everyone..doesn't have an arsenal of guns....but still believes that we don't need such an enormous government and that the US has to stop borrowing and spending so much money. And lastly that the government has no right to tax it's citizens at the rate it is.


Who is that person?

it's clear this person is Hitler!! ;)

[arock10]

Originally Posted by Minte

So what would you classify a person that believes in a womans right to choose, that doesn't go to church, doesn't carry a bible around in their pickup truck, believes that gays have the same rights as everyone..doesn't have an arsenal of guns....but still believes that we don't need such an enormous government and that the US has to stop borrowing and spending so much money. And lastly that the government has no right to tax it's citizens at the rate it is.


Who is that person?

Good question, politically party speaking this doesn't exist. The tea party sure doesn't represent this. But the traditional republicans don't either.... Maybe a wake up call for them to try moderating versus trying to become more radical to appease the tea party.

[Joshua G]

Originally Posted by crockett

Look I'm a "realist" I don't subscribe to a all left mentality nor do I subscribe to a all right mentality. I look at what both sides have done and that leads me to have to side with the left just about all the time.

The right does NOT cut the overall spending. I don't know why people are still brainwashed into believing this bullshit. The right is like a broken record.. They are always for cutting social programs but then turn around and give that money to big business or military spending. They never reduce our deficit.

Reagan, Bush 1 & 2.. did not cut spending, they greatly increased it and put us further in the hole.

This is where realism keys in for me. I look at it as a very simple choice. I'm paying taxes no matter what.. I have a choice to vote for guys that spend like crazy and don't do shit for me.. or vote for guys that spend like crazy and I get something from my tax dollars rather than having it all redistributed to big business.

Seems like a easy choice to make to me.. Also I'm very much against the whole Religion thing being involved in our govt, which puts another strike against the right.

you are correct. the repubs have sold off their core issue of budget restraint from their own conduct while they were in power.

& should the repubs get the power back, their cutting priorities would surely fall more squarely on the poor than the rich.

But thats why we need dems that are going to be pragmatic on spending. Dems can't forever behave like the federal budget has unlimited scale. there will be a day of reckoning where the govt is too debt ridden to pass the next bailout when the economy busts again. When that happens, the people will put ted cruz types in power, because its still only a 2 party option for voters.

So at what point do the dems get the budget under control so the government can remain the bulwark of the economy?

[Tom_PM]

Originally Posted by Minte

So what would you classify a person that believes in a womans right to choose, that doesn't go to church, doesn't carry a bible around in their pickup truck, believes that gays have the same rights as everyone..doesn't have an arsenal of guns....but still believes that we don't need such an enormous government and that the US has to stop borrowing and spending so much money. And lastly that the government has no right to tax it's citizens at the rate it is.


Who is that person?

I'm only referring to people who are republican who call themselves independents. The real independents will clear their own house of them I'm sure so as not to feel tainted. The same can be said of solid democrats who just don't want to be labeled anymore so they register as independent.
There are currently 0 independents in Congress, and 2 in the Senate. Probably soon to change and we'll see who they caucus with I suppose in good time.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by BFT3K

The estimate is that this idiotic shutdown has cost the US $20 Billion... so far.

Well to be fair S&P is saying about $24 billion by their estimate. However that wasn't 24 billion out of the gov't pocket, it was $24 billion out of the US economy. Meaning $24 billion out of the hands of average working Americans, small and big business.

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by Minte

What's the option...not unicorns and rainbow options. What are the real options.

thinking outside the box.. however try not to jump to 'unicorns' while you're doing so.

[Minte]

Originally Posted by _Richard_

thinking outside the box.. however try not to jump to 'unicorns' while you're doing so.

Do you wonder why most people here have you on ignore?

I can answer that before I put you back on ignore. You seem to be either a serious substance abuser or slightly retarded. Regardless, your quick meaningless jabs at people are foolish.'

I seriously considered making an offer on the program you work for. But at the end of the day I don't miss this business at all. So you can rest easy. You won't be working for me.

[Minte]

Originally Posted by Tom_PM

I'm only referring to people who are republican who call themselves independents. The real independents will clear their own house of them I'm sure so as not to feel tainted. The same can be said of solid democrats who just don't want to be labeled anymore so they register as independent.
There are currently 0 independents in Congress, and 2 in the Senate. Probably soon to change and we'll see who they caucus with I suppose in good time.

You see where the problem is with the *sides* we have to choose from.
To me the problems with borrowing/taxing and spending are more personal and critical than abortion, bibles or guns.

Maybe some election in the future will offer that person. But I'm not seeing it anytime soon.

[LAJ]

Originally Posted by Minte

So what would you classify a person that believes in a womans right to choose, that doesn't go to church, doesn't carry a bible around in their pickup truck, believes that gays have the same rights as everyone..doesn't have an arsenal of guns....but still believes that we don't need such an enormous government and that the US has to stop borrowing and spending so much money. And lastly that the government has no right to tax it's citizens at the rate it is.


Who is that person?

A fiscally conservative Democrat.

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by Minte

Do you wonder why most people here have you on ignore?

I can answer that before I put you back on ignore. You seem to be either a serious substance abuser or slightly retarded. Regardless, your quick meaningless jabs at people are foolish.'

I seriously considered making an offer on the program you work for. But at the end of the day I don't miss this business at all. So you can rest easy. You won't be working for me.

speaking of quick meaningless jabs.

but, back to the matter at hand. can you think outside the box without automatically thinking unicorn?

what would possibly be the answer to 'what other choice do we have, than these two parties'

do you think it's funny the people who 'have me on ignore', are busy talking about rape, drugs, and other mindless drivel?

do you think it's funny that's the group you identify with?

i do. very much.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by crockett

Ohh yea Obamacare is still law..
[/url]

Yet they are still vowing to repeal it.

The Republican party is like a little girl who refuses to give in. They need to put on their big boy pants, and instead of vowing to repeal it, fix it. We need Healthcare.

No matter how fucked Obamacare is, if they completely repeal it... The general public will be even more pissed because at that point it would have wasted four years (plus) of our time and trillions of dollars.

The Republicans cannot seem to understand this, and they are intentionally backing themselves into a corner all over again. Even if they win, they will still come out being losers.

[Minte]

Originally Posted by LAJ

A fiscally conservative Democrat.

That's what we've been missing for decades. I find it very annoying when I get painted as a republican. I voted for Bill Clinton his second term. I would've voted for Hillary if she had gotten the nomination. I thought it was unbelievable that she didn't win the nomination.

The country might not be better today if she had been elected, but I don't see any way it would've been worse. Bill Clinton knew how to make it work with people. His influence would've been good with her in charge.

[OldJeff]

Originally Posted by LAJ

A fiscally conservative Democrat.

They call those Libertarians

[Vendzilla]

Originally Posted by Robbie

Weird that people are cheering for the govt. to re-open (well, the 17% that was actually shut down) on a CR (continuing resolution) and to continue to spend money we don't have that is destroying our future.

YAY! (I guess)

They are blowing their own horn for a 90 day continuance , 90 days later, it can happen again. That's when Obamacare kicks in, hopefully the website will work and all those people will see how much it cost with the high co pays and deductibles. Could be a completely different game then.

[LAJ]

Originally Posted by OldJeff

They call those Libertarians

No they don't. He's not a gun nut or a bible thumper or against having a government. Almost all Libertarians are into guns, little or no government and many are religious.

You are thinking of socially liberal republicans ;)