Quantcast
  

Saturday, April 19, 2014         

 Print   Email   Comment | View 169 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

Prospect for quick end to shutdown is remote

By David Espo

AP Special Correspondent

POSTED:
LAST UPDATED: 07:19 p.m. HST, Oct 04, 2013


WASHINGTON >> Prospects for a swift end to the 4-day-old partial government shutdown all but vanished today as lawmakers squabbled into the weekend and increasingly shifted their focus to a midmonth deadline for averting a threatened first-ever default.

"This isn't some damn game," said House Speaker John Boehner, as the White House and Democrats held to their position of agreeing to negotiate only after the government is reopened and the $16.7 trillion debt limit raised.

House Republicans appeared to be shifting their demands, de-emphasizing their previous insistence on defunding the health care overhaul in exchange for re-opening the government. Instead, they ramped up calls for cuts in federal benefit programs and future deficits, items that Boehner has said repeatedly will be part of any talks on debt limit legislation.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., also said the two issues were linked. "We not only have a shutdown, but we have the full faith and credit of our nation before us in a week or 10 days," he said.

Reid and other Democrats blocked numerous attempts by Sen. Ted Cruz to approve House-passed bills reopening portions of the government. The Texas Republican is a chief architect of the "Defund Obamacare" strategy and met earlier this week with allies in the House and an aide to Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., to confer on strategy.

In a lengthy back-and-forth with Reid and other Democrats, Cruz blamed them and the White House for the impasse and accused them of a "my way or the highway" attitude.

But Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., likened the Republican strategy to "smashing a piece of crockery with a hammer, gluing two or three bits back together today, a couple more tomorrow, and two or three more the day after that."

For all the rhetoric, there was no evident urgency about ending the partial shutdown before the weekend.

The Republican-controlled House approved legislation restoring funds for federal disaster relief on a vote of 247-164. Another allowing the resumption of the Women, Infants and Children nutrition program was approved 244-164.

Saturday's agenda called for passing a bill to assure post-shutdown pay for an estimated 800,000 furloughed federal employees off the job since mid-day Tuesday, then turning off the lights on the House floor until Monday night to allow lawmakers to fly home for two days.

After issuing a string of veto threats against GOP spending bills, the White House did not object to the one to assure pay for furloughed employees.

There was no doubt about the political underpinnings of the struggle. Democrats and most Republicans have assumed the GOP would be hurt by a shutdown, citing the impact of the last episode, in 1996.

But Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said of Democrats, "I don't think they've poll tested 'we won't negotiate. I think it's awful for them to say that over and over again." His words recorded on videotape, he said, "I think if we keep saying we wanted to defund it (the new health care law), we fought for that and now we're willing to compromise on this we're going to win this, I think."

The shutdown caused the White House to scrub a presidential trip to Asia, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics delayed its customary monthly report on joblessness as impacts of the partial shutdown spread.

According to warnings by the administration and Wall Street, failure to raise the debt limit, by contrast, had the potential to destablize financial markets and inflict harm on the economy quickly.

Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew has said that unless Congress acts, the government will be unable to pay all its debts and will run the risk of default. He has urged lawmakers to act by Oct. 17.

Debt limit bills typically pass first in the House, then move to the Senate. So far, neither Boehner nor the rest of the leadership has said when they expect to draft and have a vote on one. More than a week ago, they circulated a list of items that might be included-- calls for higher Medicare costs for better-off seniors, a wholesale easing of environmental regulations and approval of the Keystone Pipeline among them.

Republican officials said that in a closed-door session with the rank and file during the day, the speaker renewed his long-standing commitment to seeking reforms and savings from benefit programs to help reduce federal deficits. They spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to discuss a private meeting.

At the White House, Obama has said repeatedly he will not negotiate over the terms of debt limit legislation but is willing to discuss a range of issues once the government is reopened and the Treasury able to borrow freely again.

The shutdown began Monday at midnight after Republicans demanded the defunding of the nation's new health insurance system in exchange for providing essential federal funding, and the White House and Democrats refused. Boehner and the House followed up with several other measures to reopen the government, all of them with other health-care-related conditions attached, and each subsequently rejected by Democrats.

In a counter move, Democrats took steps to force a vote by midmonth through a discharge petition, a procedural maneuver that only needs the signatures of a majority of House members and no action by the GOP leadership.

Emerging from their closed-door meeting during the day, several Republicans conceded they are unlikely to achieve that goal as long as Obama is in the White House.

"It's time to move to fixing the financial problems of this country," said Rep. Chris Collins, R-N.Y.

Ironically, Boehner and the leadership more than two weeks ago outlined a strategy that envisioned avoiding a shutdown and instead using the debt limit bill as the arena for a showdown with Obama. Their hope was to win concessions from the White House in exchange for raising the debt limit and agreeing to changes in two rounds of across the board cuts, one that took place in the budget year that ended on Sept. 30 and the other in the 12 months that began the following day.

The strategy was foiled by a "Defund Obamacare" movement that Cruz, Sen. Mike Lee of Utah and tea party groups generated over the summer.

Despite the discord, there was unity on one front. One day after a car chase ended in gunfire outside the Capitol, lawmakers in both parties wore lapel buttons that read: "Thank You Capitol Police."

--------

Associated Press reporters Alan Fram, Henry C. Jackson, Stephen Ohlemacher, Charles Babington, Donna Cassata and Alicia A. Caldwell contributed to this report.







 Print   Email   Comment | View 169 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

COMMENTS
(169)
You must be subscribed to participate in discussions
By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the TERMS OF SERVICE. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. Because only subscribers are allowed to comment, we have your personal information and are able to contact you. If your comments are inappropriate, you may receive a warning, and if you persist with such comments you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines, email commentfeedback@staradvertiser.com.
Leave a comment

Please login to leave a comment.
ahi1pfb wrote:
It is time to let it collapse and start over. Remove all political parties and elect new politicians without any party affiliation. If you were a part of a political party you will be banned from running for office. Idiots from both parties ran this country into the ground based on greed for power. Things are screwed up in this country based on party ideology.Remove um and start over.
on October 4,2013 | 06:16AM
OldDiver wrote:
The screwed up party ideology is on the Republican side. House Democrats are united in re opening government. Most House Republicans feel the same way. Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner is caving to the extremist Tea Party Republican House members who number about forty. The point is about forty crazy Republicans of 435 House members have closed down government.
on October 4,2013 | 06:24AM
OldDiver wrote:
The behind the scenes story is Boehner has a Tea Party candidate running against him in his primary election. If Boehner reopened government the Tea Party billionaires (Koch brothers) who fund the Tea Party movement will throw hundreds of millions the his race to defeat him. This is about self preservation. This is putting himself and the Tea Party before Country.
on October 4,2013 | 06:30AM
Anonymous wrote:
compromise is when both sides give up something in order to come to an agreement. The democrats are unwilling to give up their credit card and turn off the printing press. Too many in america are dependent on handouts they feel they are entitled to that many are unwilling to pay for.
on October 4,2013 | 06:40AM
OldDiver wrote:
Boehner and the Tea Party demanded the Senate reduce their budget proposal by over $700 billion. Democrats in the Senate cut their budget by the exact number demanded by the Tea Party Republicans and sent the continuing budget resolution back to the House. Tea Party Republicans in the House then rejected their own budget number and closed down government. Senate Democrats already compromised to Tea Party demands and gave them what they wanted.
on October 4,2013 | 06:54AM
hawaiikone wrote:
Od, what you sadly don't realize is that your continuous demonizing of anything republican only mimics precisely what's wrong with our country today. Until we move past the cr*p and start seriously communicating we're left with this indefinitly deadlocked political game of one upmanship. Neither side, the 51% nor the 49%, has the mandate of the people. What the people do have is an expectation that those we've sent can work with one another with respect for all opinions. That "mandates" compromise, despite what either Bill OReilly or Rachael Maddow have to say.
on October 4,2013 | 07:33AM
lee1957 wrote:
OD is a partisan ideologue thru and thru, don't waste your time.
on October 4,2013 | 08:31AM
CriticalReader wrote:
HK, HAHAHAHA! Neither 51 nor 49% have a national mandate? So, nothing should be done? More Hawaii Kai sophistry. Even if the Dems and Obama ONLY had a 51% plus on the issues surronding this situation, they have a mandate. But, it ain't 51-49. It's way more lopsided in favor of Dem and Obama thought. You're trying to be funny, or at most loyal to this siide you've taken, right? You don't actually believe what you're spouting, do you? Please acknowledge those things. Please.
on October 4,2013 | 08:37AM
primowarrior wrote:
I might agree that compromise should be reached, if both sides had attached demands to the CR. In that case, I think both would be equally to blame for this shutdown, and should negotiate. If Democrats in the Senate had attached a provision to raise taxes, or increase spending on their side, would Boehner be willing to negotiate? No way he would, or would the Tea Party allow him to. The Democrats are willing to continue funding the government at levels the Republicans wanted, no strings attached, which I think is reasonable. This thing seems pretty much one sided to me.
on October 4,2013 | 09:30AM
OldDiver wrote:
Yes, I am a partisan ideologue. It's too bad you can't admit the same.
on October 4,2013 | 09:40AM
EightOEight wrote:
You got it right, primowarrior, re compromise. Blackmail and extortion do not equal compromise.
on October 4,2013 | 02:23PM
hawaiikone wrote:
As expected, reader, your dogma ignores reality. You and od would prefer seeing the 49%simply vanish. Well, it appears your "no compromise" stance will run us right up to the default. You're actually hilarious in scary way, so adament in your perceived rightness. The upper hand does often reveal true character though. Since the majority provides your version of a mandate, how ironic that the current majority oppossed to the ACA doesn't. Double standards are nothing unusual in either party, although it's a shame the one in control gets to get away with them.
on October 4,2013 | 04:54PM
CriticalReader wrote:
HK, in reverse order: If you do homework on the ACA polling, you'll discover that opposition includes a high percentage who object to the ACA because it does not do ENOUGH. In other words, the single payer advocates, those who believe tweaking is in order (like me), and those with problems caused by gaps in coverage of a portion of the population. Those objections don't mean no universal healthcare mandate, nor that the ACA should not proceed, but rather, that it should but be expanded. Then there's the 51-49 argument. Or, make it 24-25-51. or, actually, something closer to 15-34-51. Certainly there is the "more power to you, 49%, if you can get away with something. But, there's a line and there's the wisdom of crossing the line. The line in this case, even assuming a 51-49 split, which is inaccurate, is whether or not America functions or not, economically, politically and from a National Security perspective. When the 49% intentiionally seeks to cripple America's functioning in those areas, then crossing the line is not only futile and ineffective from a result standpoint (as the Tea Party position in this dispute was from the onset), but also cynically harmful. That makes the futile inefffectiveness stupid and cruel. THAT is the reality.
on October 4,2013 | 05:56PM
hawaiikone wrote:
Do variations in percentages negate the responsibility to consider the opinions of the minority?. From a purely logical perspective, if an impending application of a law generated such significant objection, regardless of the basis for those objections, delaying it's implementation for those least able to either comphrehend or absorb the requirements seems not only appropriate and prudent, but necessary as well. Therefore, regardless of the republican motives driving their initial efforts to stop the ACA, reasonable onlookers would view a year's postponement as a quite fair compromise to be offered, especially considering the array of entities already being granted exemptions. As I personally have mentioned before, I tend to lean slightly right, but consider the extremes of both directions as equally ridiculous. Therefore, just as you do, I consider the threat of not funding our obligations as inappropriate, and also regard the partisan motivation driving the refusal to even discuss the proposed compromises as unecessarily harmful.
on October 4,2013 | 07:40PM
CriticalReader wrote:
Anyone "unclear" on where the GOP stands? Have they not been heard? Either by governmental leaders or, by now, all of America? No, they've been heard. But, they're goals and positions are not supported by a majority of America, not even close. And, because they lack the votes to get what they want passed as law, or actually removed from the law, so they act in the ONLY vindictive way at their disposal, refusing to permit funding of the government. In the process, they have shutdown the government. Everyone knows that too. And, they do it for a singular purpose: to eradicate an American program aimed at making affordable health insurance available to Americans. You're reaching badly on this one, HK, and in doing so, you once again emulate a losing GOP stance: "OK, we don't have the majority, and we don't have the votes from members of the majority crossing over, and, America doesn't agree with us, and, we can't get what we want through achieving democratically bestowed power and authority. SO, we're going to shut down the government - how do you like them apples?" Real admirable and logically consistent. Up there with, "there's no such thing as global warming", and "a woman's body can reject becoming pregnant by a rapist".
on October 4,2013 | 09:34PM
hawaiikone wrote:
A lot of words with no response to the core question. Truly a democrat's best defense. Everything has to relate to the r&d struggle, right? Can't make it any simpler for you. 67% of us have "issues" (I'm being kind) with obamacare, anyone with ipower is waived, and yet you prefer not deferring it simply because you can. Choosing partisan supremacy over doing the right has become second nature in DC. Too bad you support it.
on October 4,2013 | 09:59PM
hawaiikone wrote:
CR, good morning. We may disagree on ideology, but I do at least appreciate the effort shown in your replies. Certainly far preferable over routine rhetoric. However this shakes out, it does seem sad that both sides are losing much needed respect for each other, without which the road ahead will continue to divide rather than unite. Perhaps that's inevitable, but nevertheless regretful.
on October 5,2013 | 07:29AM
serious wrote:
Let us not forget: there are THREE branches of government. Obama who does nothing but go on TV and give useless speeches about the rich vs the poor or the R's vs the D's--all he does is divide the country. The Legislative branch should do their job without interference from the President--look at HIS Senatorial record and speeches!!!
on October 4,2013 | 10:09AM
CriticalReader wrote:
I enjoy Obama's speeches. That speech at the correspondent's ball in 2011 was great! The look on Trump's face, what we found out was really going on afterward.
on October 4,2013 | 11:10AM
Bumby wrote:
You got that right. He likes to be on TV and as I mentioned on another article he must be the president with the most air time on TV. I would say a good leader will be on the tube a lot less and be at his office researching, talking to his cabinet, etc and finding a way to be a problem solver instead of adding rhetoric over the tube.
on October 4,2013 | 09:38PM
EightOEight wrote:
Every president has used the bully pulpit to make their case to the people. Too bad, so sad. Besides, Boehner, Cantor and the rest of the Tpublicans in lab coats wearing stethoscopes are spewing a lot of rhetoric themselves on tv. Every time I see Boehner, he's more orange than before so I don't think he's in the office much doing his research and problem solving.
on October 4,2013 | 11:16PM
Denominator wrote:
MSNBC praddle. Get your own brain.
on October 4,2013 | 03:32PM
CriticalReader wrote:
Yes, go to the brain outlet store - Fox News.
on October 4,2013 | 04:03PM
Kuniarr wrote:
The reality about Obamacare is that its tax consequences and impact on the budget deficit was never ever gone thru a thorough debate and discussion. In fact not a single Democrat senator nor congressman knows exactly all the bells and whistles of this law contained in over 11,000 pages.
on October 4,2013 | 06:35PM
SteveToo wrote:
You got that right. To Democrats the only compromise that can be excepted is on the Republican side of the isle.
on October 4,2013 | 04:49PM
saywhatyouthink wrote:
Why do you right wingers keep insisting it's Obama and the dems that are at fault for deficit spending? Spending now is at the same level it was when Bush was in office. Congress hasn't passed a budget in 4 years, they just keep passing resolutions that allow spending to continue at the same level. ALL spending is authorized and appropriated by congress, NOT Obama.
on October 4,2013 | 06:02PM
tigerwarrior wrote:
@saywhatyouthink Agreed. For FY 2012, a whopping 83% of federal spending involves either entitlement programs (i.e., Medicare & Medicaid 23%, Social Security 22%, Other entitlement programs 13%, Net interest 6%) or Defense Spending which accounted for 19% of all federal spending. The remaining 17% involves discretionary spending which must be approved by the GOP-led House and Senate Appropriations Committee.
on October 4,2013 | 07:30PM
thepartyfirst wrote:
I would like to see the Dems get by without the help of the bias corrupt media.
on October 4,2013 | 08:35AM
EightOEight wrote:
It's the "bias corrupt media" when you don't like what they report. Not surprising though, considering you probably voted for Romney whose campaign staffer said they wouldn't let fact checkers dictate their campaign, they would not let truth get in the way.
on October 4,2013 | 02:41PM
TheFarm wrote:
I would like to see the Republicans get by without the help of illiterate fools.
on October 4,2013 | 10:55PM
frontman wrote:
Boehner is not a conservative Republican anyway. Vote him out of office especially if he kowtows to one more democrat. RINO is the word for all of the old Republicans.
on October 4,2013 | 10:15AM
EightOEight wrote:
Frontman, you are the RINO. Why don't you tea pees stop destroying the Republican Party like a cancer within and form your own party.
on October 4,2013 | 02:46PM
Kuniarr wrote:
In a country under Marshal Law or under a dictator, all laws passed do not go thru a debate or discussion such as Obamacare - a law that did not undergo debates or discussion.
on October 4,2013 | 06:32PM
ahi1pfb wrote:
No it's both parties. Greed for power effed us all. Harry Reid is just as bad as Boehner. When will you get it that politicians are only in it for themselves. Unwillingness on both sides to do what is right for all americans not just those who fit your ideology, or support your base. My way or the highway is not leading it's arrogance. kick um all out and start over.
on October 4,2013 | 07:08AM
boshio wrote:
Its not between Republicans and Democracts anymore. It is between the very rich and the poor. But tell me, who exactly represents the "regular" people. New congress please....
on October 4,2013 | 07:19AM
false wrote:
That's a load of baloney. If you think that both parties are in the pockets of the big corporations, you're fooling yourself.
on October 4,2013 | 07:35AM
false wrote:
Pepperoni. Only the D's.
on October 4,2013 | 08:28AM
cojef wrote:
What about the lobby who actually draft up the bills to their taste. Then the congressional aides re-draft the bill to conform to legal protocols. Then figure out who pays the lobby?? Term limits and set wages and no perks will preclude the existence of career politicians who are only looking after their selves. Prime examples are their salaries and perks. Even under the ACA health insurance law they exempted. Why??? Not good enough for themselves. Yet they persist that it is good for the rest of the country. Their mantra is let the peasant eat crow, while we dine on pheaseants . Fire the whole bunch, except the first termers. Limit terms for reps at 6 terms and senators 3 term, a total of 12 years each. Patriots will emerge and so will brain powered individuals.
on October 4,2013 | 08:42AM
saywhatyouthink wrote:
I do think they're both in the pockets of some special interest group, whether it be wall street, big business or unions. Neither party ever does what is best for the country, they do what is best for themselves and their campaign donors.
on October 4,2013 | 06:10PM
thepartyfirst wrote:
Reopen the Government if they balance the budget like the Pres said he would.
on October 4,2013 | 07:20AM
Ronin006 wrote:
How can Obama balance something that does not exist? He has not submitted a budget in four years as he was required to do by law.
on October 4,2013 | 11:03AM
Pacej001 wrote:
Your perpetual stream of venom, false innuendo, and distorted facts is pretty tiresome. There's always two sides to a story or political position, even, I'll admit, with democrats. Worth thinking about, unless we're just beyond thinking.----- As to your assertions: The Tea Party began as, and still is, a legitimate populists movement. Vilifying them is low class. Funding of the group: Unless you're blind/deaf, there are ample sources of big money funding for the far left groups. -----------As to Boehner's motivation, you ignore the constant negative polling (and factual news) about the public's view of Obamacare, transformative legislation forced on the country by a slim majority, a majority you no longer have.--------- And that the "CR" contains the sequester budget targets means nothing in particular other than the democrats acknowledging that increasing spending wouldn't work. The House is well within its constitutional right (and the reason the GOP got control) to demand changes (not repeal) to a law that the President himself has changed repeatedly (delayed employer mandate) without even bothering to consult with Congress. The logic that once passed, a law can't be modified is laughable, happens all the time. Yet, those on the left have chosen the low road of name calling and political brinksmanship--- All for political advantage in the next election. I wasn't for the shutdown initially, but now I am. Let's roll the dice and see how long the American public will tolerate a President and democrat party that won't even talk to the opposition about a law that the majority dislikes.
on October 4,2013 | 08:45AM
Ronin006 wrote:
OldDiver, the government shutdown could end right now if the Democrats would agree to delay Obamacare for one year for the common folks just like Obama has delayed Obamacare for corporations, unions and the politically-connected (to the Democrat Party). Why would anyone be opposed to that?
on October 4,2013 | 10:28AM
inverse wrote:
Demos are EQUALLY at fault. Repubs are offering to fund Obamacare in its ORIGINAL state before Obama made 19 unilateral changes, which were giving exemptions to Obamacare to private business and congressman and their staffers. It is the HYPOCRISY of the the Demos and Obama force Obamacare in existence at everyone's expense except their own and the special interest that financially support congressman and Obama. Who do you think you are kidding with the Demo rhetoric? It is BOTH Demos / Obama and Repubs fault. Also I am surprised you sleep at night with forcing the Aloha train to nowhere into existence at Hawaii residents expense. Of course if you stand to personally benefit then that is okay. Is that reason why Horner is now a minister?
on October 4,2013 | 10:38AM
bsdetection wrote:
Congress and their staff were NOT given exemptions to ACA. They were Federal employees with Federal employee healthcare. The ACA is for people without healthcare, so it didn't apply to them. Grassley then proposed a gimmick amendment saying that Congress would give up their Federal healthcare and join the ACA marketplaces. The sole reason for this amendment is that he assumed the amendment would go nowhere and Republicans could then announce that Dems rejected a plan that they passed for everyone else. Dems called his bluff and passed his amendment. There's a popular right wing myth that they receive a "subsidy," but what they receive when they join the marketplaces is the same amount that the Federal government was previously paying for their healthcare when they were enrolled in the Federal plan.
on October 4,2013 | 11:00AM
inverse wrote:
I double checked and what you wrote has some truth, HOWEVER the lowest paid congressional staff who do not have the "Cadillac" plans as their congressional bosses, WILL be given waivers or modifications to the ACA that are not available to regular US citizens. You comments do not refute that BOTH Demos/Obama and Repubs are to equally blame for this situation.
on October 4,2013 | 02:20PM
hanalei395 wrote:
The Republicans call Obama "The Great Divider". But Obama wants the Republicns to unite ("The Great Uniter") by having the regular Repubs telling the Tea Party Repubs to drop their ransom demands of shutting down Obamacare ... or the government will continue to be shutdown. ... Right now, the Republican Party is also on shutdown.
on October 4,2013 | 12:08PM
Kuniarr wrote:
Postponing Obamacare until everyone gets to look at it and debate and discuss its consequences upon the budget deficit (Obamacare requires the establishment of a huge bureaucracy) and tax consequences. Geez. This law has over 11,000 pages that became law without debate nor discussion which can only happen in a communist country like China or Russia but not the US.
on October 4,2013 | 06:39PM
EightOEight wrote:
Right, the Tpulicans will want to debate ad nauseum while millions with pre-existing conditions, part-time workers, and lower income people can't get health insurance. Why not direct energies toward figuring out how to improve the law instead of killing it? Because Tpublicans love the status quo and their talk of wanting to help these Americans is S.H.I.B.A.I. If the ACA were killed (defunded, repealed, whatever), what do you think the chances are that something will replace it that will help these people? That's right....ZERO.
on October 4,2013 | 07:56PM
meat wrote:
On Oct. 1 the House put up a CR that no longer delayed Obamacare but suspended the mandate forcing individuals to buy insurance (avoiding the fine) and to nullify the regulation that allowed Congress to get a special subsidy to buy insurance from Obamacare exchanges. Sounds fair right , The Democrat led Senate KILLED it. Also on Oct. 1, The House passed bills to fund veteran benefits and its affairs and to fund D.C. operations. The Senates sitting on both bills. Oct 2, the House voted 252 - 173 to fund the National Parks services. The Senates sitting on that one too. Same date, the House voted to fund the N.I.H. which provides services to children with cancer. The Senate... you guessed it sitting on their hands again. Harry Reids answer to that bill, "Why would we want to do that?". Oh, did I mention that the House is led by the Republicans and the Senate is led by the Democrats? Or did you already know that? It seems like the House and John Boehner are trying to get us through this charade, while the Senate and Harry Reid wants to keep playing.
on October 4,2013 | 01:29PM
EightOEight wrote:
Repubs want piecemeal negotiating now. They can go fish. They had 18 opportunities earlier this year to go to budget conference and negotiate a budget. If they were so concerned about sick kids, veterans, and FEMA workers (because red states are bracing for another superstorm now) etc they would have entered into negotiations earlier. They wanted the shutdown, period.
on October 4,2013 | 06:44PM
AhiPoke wrote:
I totally agree with your comments. IMO, career politicians is the most significant reason for the dysfunction in all of our legislative functions. Gone are the citizen servants, replaced by the new elite, government officials. They have made themselves above the law and granted themselves pay and benefits that we dream about. Now in order to maintain their lucrative positions they are more concerned about political issues that will help them get re-elected as opposed to solving problems that are greatly affecting our nation.
on October 4,2013 | 07:26AM
frontman wrote:
Democrats are LIARS and the problems not the Republicans
on October 4,2013 | 10:12AM
frontman wrote:
Funny how anything negative about obama or a democrat magically disappears.
on October 4,2013 | 10:20AM
redneckMT wrote:
sounds good to me
on October 4,2013 | 11:13AM
soundofreason wrote:
WAIT a minute. The government has BEEN shutdown? Who knew? Roads to work are opened - McDonalds still took my order at lunch - The phones still worked throughout the day. The little Mrs had dinner ready when I got home. I'll check back when I actually notice.
on October 4,2013 | 06:32AM
artmurch wrote:
You must be one of those folks who call themselves ‘conservatives‘, who are actually social provincials; i.e., “There is nothing wrong in my neighborhood. I’m doing fine so I assume everyone else is and if they are not it is their fault.”
on October 4,2013 | 06:52AM
soundofreason wrote:
If everyone took care of their own neighborhoods - all neighborhoods would be taken care of.
on October 4,2013 | 07:06AM
Publicbraddah wrote:
Does anyone know how I can get a list of senators and representatives in Congress who essentially voted for the shutdown? I think we should start naming names of people who are putting Americans out of work. It's good to be in Congress. You can cause a shutdown of government and still collect a paycheck and benefits, which by the way, is well above what the average American makes. And most of them are tenured so they don't care if they lose their jobs because they'll get lucrative retirement benefits. And.........we can't change the law regarding their benefits and pay because Congress has to pass that bill and they surely won't slit their own wrists. As usual, the American public is screwed.
on October 4,2013 | 06:59AM
nitrobreath wrote:
The names are all published in the book "The Enemies Within" Communists, Socialists, and Progressives in the U.S. Congress. 2013-2015 Edition by Trevor Loudon. The author is from New Zealand and is concerned about the direction our country is heading. He saw the same thing happening in his country and researched the members of Congress and the House for the last 17 years in order to "name the names." ISBN 9781490575179
on October 4,2013 | 08:02AM
saywhatyouthink wrote:
There's only one name to blame, Boehner. The votes to approve the CR are there, he just won't hold a vote on it.
on October 4,2013 | 06:18PM
HonoluluHawaii wrote:
Although it is highly unlikely that an Average Joe would get into Congress let alone The White House, so those guys in Washington, D.C. are a privileged group, whether we praise them or not. Private Enterprise is much different as if they fail, they go out of business. If a person leading a company, namely a CEO, can't stand the heat in the kitchen, the CEO gets replaced. Talk about it, think about it, decide. That's all there is to it and THE deadline is October 17.
on October 4,2013 | 08:18AM
lee1957 wrote:
Depends on who you ask. Half the people will say its everyone with an R by their name, the other half will say those with a D.
on October 4,2013 | 08:34AM
ellinaskyrt wrote:
Here's the house bill wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_Appropriations_Resolution,_2014_(H.J.Res_59;_113th_Congress) This is the House bill that tied government appropriations with the defunding of Obamacare. This is how the House voted. Dems voted nay because they feel Obamacare should have nothing to do with government appropriations. Yay votes by Repubs indicate not wanting to fund the government unless Obamacare is defunded - in other words, cause a government shutdown unless Obamacare is not funded. Both Gabbard & Hanabusa voted nay. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/113-2013/h478
on October 4,2013 | 12:31PM
McB0B wrote:
They had to pay extra to cart in and erect barriers to prevent people from seeing monuments yet the golf course at Andrews Airbase where Obama plays is being kept open. That kind of mean spirited and childish approach to the shutdown isn't exactly winning a whole lot of love for Democrats despite their attempts to pretend they didn't choose each cut based on maximizing the pain to the general public while minimizing their own inconvenience.
on October 4,2013 | 07:00AM
soundofreason wrote:
It doesn't end there - FAR from there.....

Is the Obama administration employing a make-it-hurt strategy to gain political leverage in the budget battle on Capitol Hill? Republicans are making that charge as the stalemate drags on, and point to the Pentagon furlough of 400,000 civilian staffers -- even though Congress passed and the president signed a bill to supposedly keep them on the job.


on October 4,2013 | 07:09AM
lee1957 wrote:
I believe the bill your are referring to was to insure the military and those civilian employees still working would be paid on time. Absent the bill, checks would be late or not at all.
on October 4,2013 | 08:38AM
nitrobreath wrote:
They laid off the security guards and workers, then erected cones, barriers, and notices of closure. You can still walk past all those cones and see whatever....the only difference is you are doing so at your own risk.
on October 4,2013 | 08:05AM
CriticalReader wrote:
And if the monuments had been damaged? The GOP would have been howling and turned it into some sort of National Security issue.
on October 4,2013 | 09:21AM
false wrote:
Hey, Obama's "My way or the highway" approach is the main reason why compromise can't be achieved. Hard headed bozo, just like our beloved Mufi.
on October 4,2013 | 07:27AM
HonoluluHawaii wrote:
Tom, we would have loved it if TheRail issue came to this, wouldn't we?
on October 4,2013 | 07:45AM
false wrote:
Wrong if you think I'm Berg. Should include you with the other bozos.
on October 4,2013 | 08:24AM
bsdetection wrote:
R: I want to burn your house down. D: No. R: How about if I just burn the 2nd floor? D: No R: Then I'll burn the garage. D: No R: You won't compromise!
on October 4,2013 | 01:34PM
jussayin wrote:
The blame game continues. We can expect three more years of the same.
on October 4,2013 | 07:40AM
HonoluluHawaii wrote:
Lol yes, it's not even one year since Obama got reelected and The House taken over by The GOP. That's was this is all about, partisan politics. Mr. President u may have defeated Romney, however u lost the bigger battle as The GOP has the House.
on October 4,2013 | 07:49AM
HonoluluHawaii wrote:
Think of what would happen in a typical American household if issues are not resolved. Couples either work it out soon enough, separate or someone files for a divorce. I don't think there are irreconcilable differences between The President and The Republicans, because if there were, THIS IS THE END OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA as we know it. Barry think of Sasha and Malia, would u want them to matriculate at Harvard, or have no money to go to college at all??
on October 4,2013 | 07:55AM
CriticalReader wrote:
This happens in plenty of typical American Households. It looks like this: Ignorant, narcissistic wife beater (Tea Party) abuses spouse and children for years until wife has had enough and says no, so wife beater burns the house down. Can't you just see Ted Cruz standing there in a white T-shirt, sleeves cut off, sickly arms with some contrived "tough" guy tattoo? Not too hard to compare this to American households, HH. We see them on the trash reality TV channels all the time, in between the conservative foundation commercials.
on October 4,2013 | 09:43AM
EightOEight wrote:
The TP infested Republicans got the majority in the House in 2010, not 2012. Up for re-election next year. Be afraid...be very afraid.
on October 4,2013 | 08:20PM
saywhatyouthink wrote:
you got that, republicans hate Obama and will oppose anything he does without regard for what's best for the country. Why? probably because he's black and they just don't respect him, that would be my guess, they just won't admit it. Knowing this, It would have been better for the country if Obama had stepped aside and let Clinton run instead,
on October 4,2013 | 06:26PM
HonoluluHawaii wrote:
"Speaker John Boehner won't even let the bill get a yes-or-no vote, because he doesn't want to anger the extremists in his party. That's all. That's what this whole thing is about," Obama said Thursday at a campaign-style event at a Rockville, Md., construction company. Really? I think it is analogous to a tie in tug of war, a tie in Football, a tie in Soccer, we are in the 19th inning in Baseball, we are in fifth overtime in Basketball. Someone make a move before we ALL LOSE, Mr. President !!
on October 4,2013 | 07:43AM
nitrobreath wrote:
Right. And the President is one who is not taking a "Lead from the Front" attitude. Rather, he is leading from behind.
on October 4,2013 | 08:08AM
HonoluluHawaii wrote:
Basically what's happening is that the CEO of the United States is not in agreement with his Board of Directors. What happens in a private firm when that happens? For one, it can't happen for any length of time, and if a CEO is bothersome, the board of directors fire the CEO. Notice I don't say him, rather I say The CEO, knowing full well it could be a woman.
on October 4,2013 | 08:28AM
CriticalReader wrote:
Wrong. Congress did not elect the President aa a corporate board would a CEO. The President does not serve at the pleasure of Congress. And, even if your CEO/Board analogy were funtionally accurate, the actual comparative reality would be that the CEO was disliked and therefore the corporation's functions brought to a screeching halt (with a clear prospect of Chapter 11 bankruptcy on the table), because of a minority of board members, representing a minority of stockholders, using procedural maneuvers to harm all stockholders and place their investments at catastrophic risk.
on October 4,2013 | 09:35AM
saywhatyouthink wrote:
Considering the lack of respect and unwillingness to work with Obama in congress, he would do us all a favor if he just resigned. There's going to be another 3 years of this gridlock, republicans will oppose anything Obama wants to do, regardless of what it is.
on October 4,2013 | 06:32PM
EightOEight wrote:
Ridiculous.
on October 4,2013 | 06:51PM
mcc wrote:
Where's Mazie? Her office is closed. Has she finally been furloughed as non essential?
on October 4,2013 | 07:52AM
HonoluluHawaii wrote:
Don't know and yes.
on October 4,2013 | 07:57AM
soundofreason wrote:
She was employed as a non-essential so.........yes.
on October 4,2013 | 08:10AM
false wrote:
Has Brian found out where he can get Similac? Same place where Mazie and Colleen can get metamucil.
on October 4,2013 | 08:27AM
HonoluluHawaii wrote:
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha !!!
on October 4,2013 | 08:30AM
EightOEight wrote:
Romney's an unemployed non-essential government employee, too. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!! Fun acting like we're in grade school, yeah??
on October 4,2013 | 08:55PM
scooters wrote:
Obama and his radical followers need to have windows placed in their guts so they can see where their going.Cause you know where their heads are...
on October 4,2013 | 08:19AM
EightOEight wrote:
Boehners lemmings don't need windows in their guts. The alcohol infused muck is so thick they can't see anything anyway. I definitely know where THEIR heads are.
on October 4,2013 | 08:28PM
Pacej001 wrote:
The barricading of the WWII memorial in DC is the perfect metaphor for Mr. Obama's conduct during this shutdown. Along with other open air monuments in DC, it has been barricaded closed when, under normal circumstances it is never really closed. Same for the Jefferson and Lincoln memorials, normally open, now mysteriously closed. --------------- Further, Mr. Obama's National Park Service (NPS) has barricaded turn-offs from the public highway to viewpoints through the Great Smoky Mountains NP for no visible reason. Even privately funded parks which have an "association" with the NPS have been ordered closed.--------------- Why is this happening? Why are House bills to fund the National Institutes of Health and the VA rejected? Pure, nasty political vindictiveness on the part of Mr. Obama and the democrats. The Wall Street Journal quotes a senior administration official: "We are winning...It doesn't really matter to us" how long the shutdown lasts "because what matters is the end result."----- There you have it: an executive branch, run by tiny little men, driven by nothing but partisan political calculation, your well being and that of the country be d@mned.
on October 4,2013 | 08:28AM
CriticalReader wrote:
There is usually far more personnel on the clock to monitor and supervise. If you're going to take people monitoring or supervising off duty, securing a site, ANY site, makes sense.
on October 4,2013 | 09:23AM
Pacej001 wrote:
There is no on there after hours, except, possibly park police passing by (evidently they're still on duty). Does not make sense at all to put up barricades.
on October 4,2013 | 09:39AM
CriticalReader wrote:
You're either unsophisticated, dishonest, or the likeliest, disingenuous. The easiest visuals I can conjure for you, using the WWII Veterans Memorial are these: Litter, people wading/swimming in the pond, hooliganism (graffiti, vandalism, etc.). I would think the park service rangers would be tasked with watching out for, such activities, actively engaging in deterrence of those activitiies, and to the extent they are furloughed, would place the monument at risk of physical damage or other harm because whatever is done by non-furloughed park personnel is no longer being provided during a government shutdown. The most obvious one to me is litter. Park maintenance is in perpetual motion and abundant all the times I've been to the Washington monuments. As we know only too well in Hawaii, tourists create a lot of trash.
on October 4,2013 | 11:07AM
Pacej001 wrote:
These insults come easy for you, no? Here's the only visual you need: Groups of 80-90 year old veterans being turned away from their memorial on the advent of the only visit they be able to make in their lifetimes. And little people like you are more worried about litter. Our great national monuments closed as a noble litter prevention effort? Sir, have you no shame? --- And I suppose those overlooks of the public highway through the Great Smoky Mountain NP are barricaded due to the intense litter threat, also? -----------------What about the many privately funded/operated parks ordered closed by the NPS? Could it be that the NPS must supervise the management of those places in litter collection or it just won't get done?----- And what about the closure the privately funded/operated Mt. Vernon of which a Park Ranger said, “It’s a cheap way to deal with the situation,” an angry Park Service ranger in Washington says of the harassment. “We’ve been told to make life as difficult for people as we can. It’s disgusting.” (washington Times).---------- This is just a partial list of the intentional harassment of the public by Mr. Obama's National Park Service. However, I would guess that a pusillanimous rationalizer such as yourself would describe it as a valiant effort of a beleaguered chief executive determined to preserve our invaluable public spaces from the ravages of Dixie cups and gum wrappers.
on October 4,2013 | 06:34PM
CriticalReader wrote:
In answer to your first question, under the circumstances, yes. "Groups of 80-90 year old veterans being turned away from their memorial on the advent of the only visit they be able to make in their lifetimes." This is exactly why the GOP House should not have done what it did. Any verterans unable to visit that Memorial at this point in time, were not accounted for by the GOP House, and Tea Party in particular, when they embarked on this gambit. The same is true for Federal employees of all shapes, positions and sizes. as well as the business owners and employees feeling the effects of this Tea Party ideological jihad. Certainly the Tea Party's victims are to be sympathized with. Certainly it is important to consider that impact. But, what the singular question this situation and the victims raise are whether it was OK to do this in the first place. Your reasoning is similar to saying that a bank robber holding a bank full of customers and employees hostage should be given whatever they want out of sympathy for their victims. That is the fundamental reasoning of a criminal and/or terrorist.
on October 4,2013 | 06:47PM
CriticalReader wrote:
So, in my view, the House Tea Party members are like a bunch of bank robbers or a bunch of terrorists with sympathetic hostages, yelling from the window of the building in which they are hunkered down, "look! look! If we shoot these hostages, it will be the police's fault for not giving us a plane to escape in! It is the police's fault for not giving us what we want - what we are trying to take, that which is not ours to take."
on October 4,2013 | 06:56PM
CriticalReader wrote:
And, the worst part of this is, because we're also talking about health care, one of the hostage takers' demands in this gov't shutdown case seems to be - no, IS - wel'll give you the hostages back, but only if you commit to letting even more die.
on October 4,2013 | 07:03PM
Pacej001 wrote:
"jihad", "shoot the hostages",letting even more die", "bank robber": You, my friend, are unhinged. Get some rest. All this vituperation has to be exhausting.
on October 4,2013 | 07:52PM
EightOEight wrote:
As are your Fox regurgitations, pace. Oh, and you used a big word...to show us you're smarter?
on October 4,2013 | 08:31PM
CriticalReader wrote:
jihad? Look it up. Shoot the hostages? Yeah seems analogous. Letting even more die? ABSOLUTELY. This started and persists because of the Tea Party's obsession with abolishing a law that has as a central feature accessibility to health care for those who are otherwise unable to obtain it or afford it. For far too many, that is a death sentence, Bank robbers? Once again, to the extent bank robbers end up taking hostages, the analogy is apropos. Not unhinged, but very annoyed with a firm view of the Tea Party motive and behavior in this instance. And, it's not as if I'm doing much interpretation. I've merely re-labeled in blunt terms precisely what the Tea Party Congress members strategized on paper.
on October 4,2013 | 08:34PM
CriticalReader wrote:
If it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, it's a duck. NOT a "Patriotic Great American".
on October 4,2013 | 08:37PM
Pacej001 wrote:
Your perpetual stream of false innuendo and distorted facts is pretty tiresome. There's always two sides to a story or political position, even, I'll admit, with democrats. Worth thinking about, unless we're just beyond thinking.----- As to your assertions: The Tea Party began as, and still is, a legitimate populists movement. Vilifying them is low class. Funding of the group: Unless you're blind/deaf, there are ample sources of big money funding for the far left groups. -----------As to Boehner's motivation, you ignore the constant negative polling (and factual news) about the public's view of Obamacare, transformative legislation forced on the country by a slim majority, a majority you no longer have.--------- And that the "CR" contains the sequester budget targets means nothing in particular other than the democrats acknowledging that increasing spending wouldn't work. The House is well within its constitutional right (and the reason the GOP got control) to demand changes (not repeal) to a law that the President himself has changed repeatedly (delayed employer mandate) without even bothering to consult with Congress. The logic that once passed, a law can't be modified is laughable, happens all the time. Yet, those on the left have chosen the low road of name calling and political brinksmanship--- All for political advantage in the next election. I wasn't for the shutdown initially, but now I am. Let's roll the dice and see how long the American public will tolerate a President and democrat party that won't even talk to the opposition about a law that the majority dislikes.
on October 4,2013 | 08:50AM
Pacej001 wrote:
Your perpetual stream of false innuendo and distorted facts is pretty tiresome. There's always two sides to a story or political position, even, I'll admit, with democrats. Worth thinking about, unless we're just beyond thinking.----- As to your assertions: The Tea Party began as, and still is, a legitimate populists movement. Vilifying them is low class. Funding of the group: Unless you're blind/deaf, there are ample sources of big money funding for the far left groups. -----------As to Boehner's motivation, you ignore the constant negative polling (and factual news) about the public's view of Obamacare, transformative legislation forced on the country by a slim majority, a majority you no longer have.--------- And that the "CR" contains the sequester budget targets means nothing in particular other than the democrats acknowledging that increasing spending wouldn't work. The House is well within its constitutional right (and the reason the GOP got control) to demand changes (not repeal) to a law that the President himself has changed repeatedly (delayed employer mandate) without even bothering to consult with Congress.-------- The logic that once passed, a law can't be modified is laughable, happens all the time. Yet, those on the left have chosen the low road of name calling and political brinksmanship--- All for political advantage in the next election. I wasn't for the shutdown initially, but now I am. Let's roll the dice and see how long the American public will tolerate a President and democrat party that won't even talk to the opposition about a law that the majority dislikes.
on October 4,2013 | 08:52AM
CriticalReader wrote:
One reality here. The House GOP, led by Tea Party radicals, caused the shutdown of government. They were told their demands would not be met before they did it. They were told they could not raise enough "votes" or a refrain from veto to get what they demanded. They did it anyway. That lays the government shutdown squarely on them. The purpose of international terrorism against the US is plainly and simply to shut down the US government. So, in addition to the allege purposes of the good people of their districts, Tea Party representatives also represent the purposes of international terrorism.
on October 4,2013 | 09:28AM
Pacej001 wrote:
You've edited reality down to fit the little peep hole through which you view the current political impasse. The authority of the House to attach amendments to the Senate's proposed CR is unquestionable. What Obama said he would veto or what the Senate declared are meaningless in this regard. In the 2010 election, the House went to the GOP for one reason, to stop Obamacare. This republican house is neither logically nor legally bound by the actions of a prior House to fund ANY program. They are doing what they were elected to do.---------- And this comparison of the Tea Party to international terrorists is just more of the illiterate, destructive trash talk that has become your party's hallmark. Where does this below the belt stuff come from? Answer: Obama himself who, just today, said (to paraphrase) that he wouldn't negotiate with people who were holding a gun to the head of the American public. Contempt is the only reaction you deserve for such conduct.
on October 4,2013 | 06:49PM
CriticalReader wrote:
WE AGREE! Contempt is the only reaction the Tea Party deserves for their conduct!!!
on October 4,2013 | 09:17PM
nyewarrior wrote:
I think it's important to not vilify either party and look at representation. The current bunch want to be the only party representing the people to the exclusion of the other. Our government can't work at all with this attitude and needs to get back to bargaining with each other and quit the "My way or the highway" mode. We should not be electing anyone who doesn't follow this or we are doomed as a nation.
on October 4,2013 | 08:56AM
Ewasohappy wrote:
That would be great! but, where do you find a person willing to put their constituents ahead of themselves?
on October 4,2013 | 09:00AM
HonoluluHawaii wrote:
uh I think ur comment got orphaned, like mine does sometimes.
on October 4,2013 | 10:43AM
kennysmith wrote:
obama can stay home and hie obama care suck, don't get it or take it. it will cost you more for you all.
on October 4,2013 | 09:10AM
HonoluluHawaii wrote:
How u doin' Kenny?
on October 4,2013 | 10:46AM
CloudForest wrote:
The only sane members of congress are the Tea Party members - all of the others find it impossible to do basic math. $16 Trillion in debt and heading towards oblivion at an ever increasing rate - all at the hands of the Democrats and their minions.
on October 4,2013 | 09:25AM
HonoluluHawaii wrote:
Unfortunately The Democratic Party is associated with The Middle Class and The Lower Class, while The Republican Party is associated with The Upper Class. I think ALL politicians need to be for ALL people, then this infighting will end.
on October 4,2013 | 10:52AM
saywhatyouthink wrote:
Outlaw ALL campaign contributions, until that happens both parties will be corrupted by special interests.
on October 4,2013 | 06:37PM
tigerwarrior wrote:
Like I mentioned previously, the vast majority of our federal spending goes towards entitlement programs or defense spending. It's hard to argue against cutting entitlement programs such as Medicare, Social Security or Medicaid. So I'll focus a bit on Defense Spending--which the GOP thinks we don't do enough of. Some experts estimate that military spending on the Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan wars have topped $6 trillion! And because much of this spending is financed with borrowed money, this adds billions of dolars each year to our federal deficit via net interest. Isn't it a bit hypocritical that the very ones who say we should defund Obamacare are spendthrifts themselves?
on October 4,2013 | 07:53PM
titasmom wrote:
I agree with cojef. Term limits (2 times and that's it) and no special compensations for Congress that are not available to other Federal workers. Being a politician should not be a career choice. Serve your state for the betterment of your state and constituents and not for the Lobbyists who wine and dine you to get you to vote for their agendas. Once you serve your 2 terms, then get out! Only problem is that Congress is not going to make this a law, but they make laws that allow them to get paid during a government shutdown, better benefits than other Federal workers, and give themselves raises - make the madness stop.
on October 4,2013 | 10:10AM
HonoluluHawaii wrote:
It's about the special interest groups as much as elected officials. We know which groups got Obama into office and he is stubborn because he is catering to those groups now. I wish our political system did not need media and big money to get elected. STOP THIS PAY FOR PLAY LOL !!
on October 4,2013 | 10:30AM
frontman wrote:
Democrats are LIARS and the problem not the Republicans
on October 4,2013 | 10:11AM
CriticalReader wrote:
That's a lie.
on October 4,2013 | 04:05PM
EightOEight wrote:
Notice frontman just makes statements with nothing to back up his lip service?
on October 4,2013 | 06:57PM
titasmom wrote:
Just to clarify...Non-furloughed, Civilian federal workers who are working will not get paid on time, just the soldiers. But when/if furloughed workers get paid, they just got a paid vacation. But until that bill is passed, it's a stressful time to figure out how to pay the bills coming in now.
on October 4,2013 | 10:16AM
frontman wrote:
White House supports back pay for federal workers .......... this is how the democrats keep federal workers voting democrat.........buy their vote
on October 4,2013 | 10:17AM
HonoluluHawaii wrote:
White Collar Welfare
on October 4,2013 | 10:42AM
CriticalReader wrote:
Eventually, if you call "unemployment benefits" "welfare", that will happen for a large portion of the 800K federal workers unless the GOP wises up and just passes clean funding of continued operations and raising of the debt ceiling.
on October 4,2013 | 04:08PM
CloudForest wrote:
KERNING ............. look it up!
on October 4,2013 | 10:35AM
HonoluluHawaii wrote:
A comet will hit Washington, D.C. on October 13, 2013 at 1313 hours (1:13pm Civilian Time). This is your friendly Martian saying: We will all be gone and the roaches will take over the world so why bother?
on October 4,2013 | 10:39AM
HonoluluHawaii wrote:
A comet will hit Washington, D.C. on October 13, 2013 at 1313 hours (1:13pm Civilian Time). This is your friendly Martian saying: We will all be gone and the roaches will take over the world so why bother?
on October 4,2013 | 10:39AM
CloudForest wrote:
Gov shutdown gov shutdown ----------> now that I've included that in my comment, maybe this will be posted! KERNING is the overlapping of two letters so as to save space while typing a word. It is only possible with computer generated documents. Why does the most famous birth certificate on earth have kerning when computers were not invented at that time and typewriters were the only method available? Why Why Why?????? It's a 'photocopy', so there is only one possible answer .............
on October 4,2013 | 10:48AM
nodaddynotthebelt wrote:
This is not a "My way or the highway" issue. It is about keeping the budget bill from being used as hostage by future party leaders who will use it every time a bill is passed and they do not agree with it. It is about keeping the budget bill the budget bill. Giving in to the demands of a party leader in order to pass the budget would set a precedent that future presidents will have to contend with. The budget bill should never be held hostage. The effects of a government shutdown is not only debilitating for those who are directly affected but it sets into motion many things that can be very debilitating to an already fragile economy. We may see the immediate effects such as the shutdown of services that many of our citizens rely upon but we do not see the effects on furloughed workers who live form pay check to pay check. Many may lose their homes or be unable to pay their rent and end up homeless. Many of these workers have families just like you and me. They, too, will be affected greatly by this shutdown. With these workers being unable to work and receive their pay businesses will generate less revenue as these families will have less to spend. Businesses then have to lay off workers as a result of the loss of revenue. The budget bill should just be that, a budget bill. No one should be able to hold it hostage. For Boehner to put our citizens in jeopardy and at the same time claim to be about the people is outrageous. A law should be made to prevent this kind of thing from happening in the future. The budget bill should never be allowed to be used to further the cause of a party's agenda. The costs are too high and the effects are to devastating.
on October 4,2013 | 10:55AM
HonoluluHawaii wrote:
Thanks Ben.
on October 4,2013 | 11:02AM
irwincathy wrote:
yap
on October 4,2013 | 12:05PM
EightOEight wrote:
You got it, no daddy.
on October 4,2013 | 07:17PM
Ronin006 wrote:
I regret saying that most people commenting about the shutdown do not have the foggiest idea about the basic issue involved, that being Obama’s implementation of Obamacare. Since Obamacare became law in 2009, Obama unilaterally has granted more than 1,000 exemptions to Obamacare and has delayed the laws’ implementation for one year for corporations employing more than 50 people, for unions and for the politically-connected (to the Democrap Party). Republicans also want it delayed for one year for the common folks, but Obama and his lackeys in Congress refuse to do so. It is matter fairness by treating everyone the same. Why would anyone be opposed to that?
on October 4,2013 | 10:56AM
HonoluluHawaii wrote:
Did u see yesterday's New York Times headline story which said Medicaid is not able to insure many of the very people that ObamaCare was designed to help?
on October 4,2013 | 11:04AM
CriticalReader wrote:
Yes, and if you'd read it, you'd understand it's because Republican Governors backed by Republican majority State legislatures refuse to expand medicaid eligibility thresholds to cover the ACA/Medicaid gap, whereas other States have done so.
on October 4,2013 | 09:21PM
Charliegrunt wrote:
Both parties are muddying up the water so that what is important is being lost. Every one should be able to understand that this country cannot continue with uncontrolled spending and giving our depleting funds to the rest of the world. The key issue on the Republican side is that there has not been a budget passed by the Senate, as required by the Constitution, since Obama became President. Unfortunately, the Republicans latched on to OBAMACARE, which was poorly conceived because it did not study socialized medicine practiced in other countries to find out what works and what doesn't. They did this because of what is perceived as a large increase to the already uncontrolled deficit spending. Shutting down the government was definitely a wrong course of action, which hurt a significant number of citizens, particularly those who sacrifice the most. FOCUS ON A BALANCED BUDGET AND THE REDUCTION OF DEBT. Let OBAMACARE go. If it fails, BO and the Democrats will have to live with it for decades.
on October 4,2013 | 10:59AM
EightOEight wrote:
And if Obamacare succeeds you'll be eating your words. That's what's really scaring Tpublicans. So you're right, let it go...if it fails it fails, right?
on October 4,2013 | 07:24PM
HonoluluHawaii wrote:
Just raise the debt limit to $100,000,000,000,000 yes $100 trillion dollars and forget about any negotiations. As long as there are Democrats, money will fly out the window and into the hands of happy Republicans anyway !!!
on October 4,2013 | 12:20PM
HonoluluHawaii wrote:
Just raise the debt limit to $100,000,000,000,000 yes $100 trillion dollars and forget about any negotiations. As long as there are Democrats, money will fly out the window and into the hands of happy Republicans anyway !!!
on October 4,2013 | 12:20PM
CriticalReader wrote:
Maybe not. A Tea Party infected GOP is beginning to shun, and be shunned by, business. The driving forces in the GOP under Tea Party domination are no longer business based, but radicalized Christian Zealot, Racist and Stupid.
on October 4,2013 | 04:11PM
loquaciousone wrote:
Well the Republicans shut down the government to prevent Obama care from taking effect....wait...isn't Obama care up and running??? How does that work out for you Republicans?
on October 4,2013 | 01:35PM
inverse wrote:
Did you read the newspaper story about how the Hawaii health connector 'ain't' working because of technical difficulties AND when it does start working, the ONLY health plans that Hawaii residents can choose from the connector is either HMSA or Kaiser. Is that what you call 'up and running'
on October 4,2013 | 02:33PM
EightOEight wrote:
Technical difficulties can be fixed. I'm sure those who couldn't get insurance before, like those with pre-existing conditions, will be glad to have HMSA or KAISER coverage, like most in Hawaii do.
on October 4,2013 | 07:29PM
Denominator wrote:
No. Actually Obamacare is self-destructing. The Repubs should just let it go.
on October 4,2013 | 03:35PM
hawaiikone wrote:
Which would reveal it for what it is, a massive unprecedented tax. Without the republicans around to absorb the blame for everything, within a year or two even those uninsured who thought they were getting something will be buried in deductibles. Getting politics out of the way would probably be the quickest end to this fiasco and allow us to really begin working on our health care system.
on October 4,2013 | 05:12PM
saywhatyouthink wrote:
And here I thought it was just a financial Bonanza for insurance companies subsidized by taxpayers. after all, who doesn't want 40 million new customers? No single payer option will ensure Obamacare's demise eventually. As long as you have for profit insurance and drug companies involved in providing coverage, costs will never go down.
on October 4,2013 | 06:58PM
hawaiikone wrote:
Until I realized the causes behind health care costs in the US being double those of other top tier nations, I assumed the insurance industry was the primary culprit. Pharmaceutical and medical device companies enjoy absurd profits, far higher than the insurance industry. Adding 40 million new customers adds 40 million new insurance claims as well, while doing little to drive down the line item totals of each one.
on October 4,2013 | 07:53PM
EightOEight wrote:
Yes, let it go. It's so terrible it won't work, right? Then you can blame the Dems for the "fiasco". Only problem is its going work, and that's what really scares you.
on October 4,2013 | 07:34PM
thepartyfirst wrote:
Now that the public read Obamacare they overwhelmingly reject it. Even the unions don't want it. They say it is a 40hr. work week killer.
on October 4,2013 | 07:54PM
EightOEight wrote:
They want fixes, not delay or repeal.
on October 4,2013 | 08:43PM
pralix wrote:
"This isn't some damn game," said House Speaker John Boehner. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said of Democrats, "I don't think they've poll tested 'we won't negotiate. I think it's awful for them to say that over and over again." His words recorded on videotape, he said, "I think if we keep saying we wanted to defund it (the new health care law), we fought for that and now we're willing to compromise on this we're going to win this, I think." So it's not a game but they want to win?
on October 4,2013 | 01:52PM
HD36 wrote:
I haven't noticed a difference except the shopping malls are more crowded.
on October 4,2013 | 03:34PM
EightOEight wrote:
Well, a sure sign that Obama's economic policies must be working, no?
on October 4,2013 | 07:38PM
SteveToo wrote:
I sure hope we have suspended foreign aide.
on October 4,2013 | 04:47PM
HonoluluHawaii wrote:
Aid
on October 4,2013 | 06:15PM
Kapaho wrote:
I can't stand Boehner. He's doing this just to get back at Obama. Hope he loses the next election.
on October 4,2013 | 06:04PM
thepartyfirst wrote:
I don't trust anything this current disfunctional White House administration is trying force on us.
on October 4,2013 | 07:51PM
localguy wrote:
Did you notice the resemblance between Boehner and Damien from the Omen series of movies? Boenher truly is the spawn of Satan.
on October 4,2013 | 08:57PM
HonoluluHawaii wrote:
It's just sour grapes over losing The House to Republicans if u ask me.
on October 4,2013 | 06:10PM
HonoluluHawaii wrote:
It's just sour grapes over losing The House to Republicans if u ask me.
on October 4,2013 | 06:10PM
localguy wrote:
How to solve this budget problem quickly? We have the answer. In the Mel Gibson film "Thunder Dome" it was simple to settle an argument. We set up Thunder Dome just as in the movies. Then Obama and Boehner go inside and close the door. Two men enter, one man leaves. Who ever walks out gets their way. Problem solved. And think of the revenue from Pay Per View. Lets git'r done!!!
on October 4,2013 | 08:54PM
CriticalReader wrote:
NOOOOOOO. Waste time. Obama will emerge, but the Tea Party is going to claim America really wanted Boehner to win, so Obama really didn't win. Then they're going to refuse to pay the Thunderdome owners the rent owed for the event. And then they're gonna go try to pay only the event ushers but not the concession workers, until CNN does a story on the concession workers, at which point they'll want to pay the concession workers but not the janitors, which is where they DRAW THE LINE as patriotic Americans.
on October 4,2013 | 09:41PM
TheFarm wrote:
Why don't the Tea Partiers just say straight up how many people have to starve tomdeath to satisfy them?
on October 4,2013 | 10:50PM
hikine wrote:
I've heard on the news that Obama wants company CEO's to sway the Republican party to settle this dilemma. This is kind of ironic because the very rich people who he wanted to tax has now became his ally and is probably the people he bailed out in the first place. If Obama can't rectify this problem by himself then he's not a good leader. He hides behind other people to do the work he's suppose to be doing. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Run away spending is not living within your means. Emperor Obama with his new clothes looks nice and shiny but the Republicans only see his nakedness.
on October 4,2013 | 11:57PM
nodaddynotthebelt wrote:
I don't agree with what you are saying but the rich who failed in buying the presidency through last minute dumping of millions on Romney's campaign will in all probability step in because if the debt ceiling is not fixed, their investment portfolios will take a major hit and then some. The rich wield a lot of power in this country and I would not be the least surprised if there is a resolution in time to rescue the debt ceiling. Whatever it is, stay tuned.
on October 5,2013 | 12:25AM
IN OTHER NEWS
Breaking News