Quantcast

Wednesday, July 30, 2014         

 Print   Email   Comment | View 175 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

On the edge: House shutdown plan fails; now Senate

By David Espo

Associated Press

POSTED:
LAST UPDATED: 02:59 p.m. HST, Oct 15, 2013


WASHINGTON >> Time growing desperately short, Senate leaders took command of efforts to avert a Treasury default and end the partial government shutdown tonight after a last big attempt by House Republicans abruptly collapsed.

Aides to both Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and the Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, expressed revived optimism about chances for a swift agreement -- by Wednesday at the latest -- that could pass both houses. Their efforts toward a bipartisan resolution had seemed likely to bear fruit a day earlier before House conservative were given a last-minute chance for their version.

As hours ticked down toward Thursday's Treasury deadline, the likeliest compromise included renewed authority for the Treasury to borrow through early February and the government to reopen at least until mid-January.

While a day of secret meetings and frenzied maneuvering unfolded in all corners of the Capitol, Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., stood on the Senate floor at midafternoon and declared, "We are 33 hours away from becoming a deadbeat nation, not paying its bills to its own people and other creditors."

In New York, the stock market dropped and the Fitch rating agency warned that it was reviewing the government's AAA credit rating for a possible downgrade, though no action was near. The firm, one of the three leading U.S. credit-ratings agencies, said that "the political brinkmanship and reduced financing flexibility could increase the risk of a U.S. default."

According to Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew, unless Congress acts by Thursday, the government will lose its ability to borrow and will be required to meet its obligations relying only on cash on hand and incoming tax receipts. President Barack Obama and numerous other officials in government and finance have warned of severe economic consequences if federal obligations come due that can't be paid.

By all accounts, though, an end seems near for the impasse that has once again exposed a government so divided that it sometimes borders on dysfunction. Though the House failed to muster sufficient support for a conservatives-only bill in the GOP-majority chamber today, enough Republicans there seem likely to join House Democrats to approve a bipartisan version if it can be approved by the Senate and sent to them.

Politically, neither party is faring well, but polls indicate Republicans are bearing the brunt of public unhappiness as survey after survey shows their approval ratings plunging.

There was no indication tonight of the terms of a possible deal under discussion by Reid and McConnell, although the contours of an agreement had already come into shape on Monday, before what amounted to a daylong detour to give Speaker John Boehner and House Republicans time to craft their solution.

As it stood previously, the bipartisan Senate talks were focused on a plan to allow the Treasury to borrow freely through Feb. 7 and reopen the government with enough funds to carry over to mid-January.

Congressional negotiators would be appointed to seek a long-term deficit reduction plan, and in the meantime federal agencies would receive increased flexibility to deal with the impact of across-the-board spending cuts due to take effect on about Jan. 15.

With Republicans opposed, the likelihood faded for including an earlier proposal to delay a $63-per-person fee that the nation's health care overhaul would impose on companies for all who receive coverage under an employer-provided plan.

It appeared likely that any deal would include a provision requiring the Department of Health and Human Services to verify the income of individuals seeking federal subsidies to purchase coverage under Obamacare.

Before today was devoted to the House Republicans' effort, those Senate negotiations had seemed headed for success.

House Republican officials unveiled their measure at midmorning, then revised it in hopes of building more support. In its final public form, it would have permitted the Treasury to borrow normally until Feb. 7 and the government to reopen with sufficient funds to carry it to Dec. 15.

Additionally, members of Congress, the president, vice president and thousands of aides would no longer be eligible to receive employer health care contributions from the government that employs them.

The leadership projected confidence, and Michael Steel, a spokesman for Boehner said in a statement, "The House will vote tonight to reopen the government and avoid default."

Within a few hours though, objections came from all corners of the rank and file. And Heritage Action, a group with tea party ties, announced its opposition to the measure it said "will do absolutely nothing to help Americans who are negatively impacted by Obamacare." It said it would include the vote in its determinations next year on which candidates to support in the midterm elections.

That verdict came after Republicans jettisoned a pair of provisions that had drawn objections from the White House and Democrats. One would have delayed a medical device tax created under the new health care law known as Obamacare. The other would have imposed tougher income verification standards on individuals and families seeking subsidies for care under the law.

Democrats had viewed both as concessions to Republicans, and deemed their inclusion as a violation of Obama's vow not to pay a "ransom" to the GOP for passing essential funding and borrowing measures.

The day's events prompted an outbreak of partisan rhetoric, mixed with urgent warnings that both the U.S. and global economies could suffer severe damage quickly unless Congress acted by Thursday.

Even something of an appeal for heavenly aid was thrown in, as Rep. Steve Southerland of Florida led House Republicans in a rendition of "Amazing Grace" at the beginning of a rank-and-file meeting called to discuss a way out of the impasse.

Speaking with reporters, Boehner said, "I have made clear for months and months that the idea of default is wrong and we shouldn't get anywhere close to it."

Democrats jumped on Boehner and the plan he produced.

In unusually personal remarks, Reid said the Ohio Republican had "once again tried to preserve his role at the expense of the country."

That was a reference to a rebellious rank and file in the House, who routinely seek to push Boehner and the rest of the leadership to the right. A group met Monday night with Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who last summer played a public role in a campaign to demand defunding of Obamacare as the price for preventing a partial government shutdown.

The Democratic attacks were too much for some Republicans who have been among those most vocal in calling for a bipartisan solution to the impasse.

"It's piling on and it's not right," Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said of the response from the Democrats. "To categorically reject what the House and the speaker are doing -- and I think he's pretty courageous in what he's doing -- in my view is not serving the American people."

The House had been effectively sidelined in recent days as Reid and McConnell engaged in intense negotiations to reopen the government and raise the debt limit.

The twin crises began more than three weeks ago, when some lawmakers in the House insisted on seeking the defunding of Obamacare as the price for preventing a partial shutdown of the government.

The White House refused, and the Democratic-controlled Senate rejected legislation to achieve the GOP goal, as well as subsequent legislation that contained scaled-back concessions on the health care overhaul.

The partial shutdown, which began on Oct. 1, swiftly merged with the approaching debt crisis.

Whatever the outcome, the all-out assault on Obamacare that became a tea party rallying cry last summer was long gone, repulsed by the president and his Democratic allies in Congress.

Instead, Republican disapproval ratings have plummeted in public opinion polls in the past two weeks, vindicating warnings from Boehner, McConnell and other party elders that the original strategy of threatening to shut down the government in hopes of wiping out the overhaul was badly flawed.






 Print   Email   Comment | View 175 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

COMMENTS
(175)
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.
busterb wrote:
I bet it's fair. They are all about fair. lol
on October 15,2013 | 06:02AM
hanalei395 wrote:
"Fair", in this case, .... The GOP want the Democrats to stop making the Republican losers, ... look like losers.
on October 15,2013 | 07:47AM
hanalei395 wrote:
Breaking news .....Tea Party orders Boehner and House Republicans to vote "No" .....not to re-open the government.
on October 15,2013 | 12:09PM
HD36 wrote:
But Obama says it's the job of congressman to raise the debt ceiling. It's too hard to figure out what to cut and much simpler just to raise it again.
on October 15,2013 | 04:22PM
CriticalReader wrote:
Under these circumstances, DEFINITELY. And, it's not too hard to figure out what to cut. The problem is that you need to cut and raise taxes on the upper income brackets, and that's a reality the Tea Partiers simply do not want to permit to be discussed in a formal negotiation setting. They'd rather just scream, "CUT, CUT, CUT!" That's as irresponsible, if not impossible as it is for there not to be problematic repercussions from the GOP shutdown and default.
on October 15,2013 | 05:32PM
HD36 wrote:
Ok so what would you cut? What amount of income line for you is the upper income? $250k? I thought Obama already raised their taxes? Isn't it better if we can prioritize our cuts today rather than have it forced upon us indescrimanently from the market?
on October 15,2013 | 07:34PM
CriticalReader wrote:
Talked about cuts below. I'd like to see it go directly to Clinton era tax rates just prior to Bush tax cuts.
on October 15,2013 | 08:48PM
hanalei395 wrote:
Obamacare is back on the table. Orders to Boehner and Republicans by the Tea Party ....Shutdown Obamacare, completely, OR, ... the government will CONTINUE to be shutdown.
on October 15,2013 | 05:44PM
BluesBreaker wrote:
Hahahaha!!!11! The Tea Bagger Party is going down to complete defeat and humiliation. Total subjugation to the Harry Reid. The Reid-McConnel (mostly Reid) bill will pass the Senate. Boehner will put it up for a vote and it will pass with all Democrats and twenty-something Republicans voting for it. There will be nothing in it restricting Obamacare. Nothing. Just a vague promise about meeting next year to talk about the budget. Total victory for the Dems! Yeehaw!
on October 15,2013 | 10:47PM
tigerwarrior wrote:
The approval rating of Republican congressmen was already very low before the shutdown--and now has hit rock bottom--less than 5%! The irony in all of this is there will never be an unprecedented Treasury default--yet despite this the GOP will continue to get the public riled up and panicking for nothing--only to see their approval rating drop even further.
on October 15,2013 | 06:43PM
udabest wrote:
When the U.S. government can't act responsibly in the face of a common crisis, there is a great deal to be worried about.
on October 15,2013 | 09:34PM
OldDiver wrote:
Republican House leaders should allow an up or down vote on he Senate bill. This is a democracy, isn't it?
on October 15,2013 | 06:49AM
busterb wrote:
Not when Cruz and Palin got you by the alas.
on October 15,2013 | 06:58AM
Kuniarr wrote:
Are all these Democrats who everyone believes look out for you and me, for the poor and the helpless so callous and hypocrites as to insist at the cost of shutting down the government to tax medical devices such as wheel chairs, crutches, etc., etc.? Are all these Democrats who tells everyone to envy the rich so hypocritical as to insist that the government help pay for their own health care insurance at the cost of holding government hostage?
on October 15,2013 | 08:32AM
RichardCory wrote:
I don't care whether or not the Democrats look out for anyone or not. All I know is they keep the wheels turning; the Republicans just want to clog them up. Sick of their nonsense.
on October 15,2013 | 08:44AM
thepartyfirst wrote:
The Democrats are'nt interested in good or bad or what's right for the country, only what's good for the Democrat Party. When the Republicans wanted to fund the government but not Obamacare the Dems said no. When the effects of the partial shut down started taking effect, the Dems in partner with the media started assigning blame. The Dems don't mind hurting the citizens in the partial shut down. They use the shut down and blame the Republicans so they look good, especially to the low voter IQ airheads.
on October 15,2013 | 10:10AM
CriticalReader wrote:
The Tea Partier's obstructionism comes from a perspective that blows the top off of the myopic meter with a blast radius that far, to an extreme, exceeds anything you ignorantly accuse the Dems of.
on October 15,2013 | 10:27AM
thepartyfirst wrote:
You must really like my comment.
on October 15,2013 | 10:39AM
HD36 wrote:
Tea Party just wants a smaller government. Tell the American people that their taxes will double in order to pay for this massive beuarocratic government and then they'll realize its not for free.
on October 15,2013 | 07:36PM
nalogirl wrote:
Totally agee with you thepartyfirst.
on October 15,2013 | 10:56AM
South76 wrote:
I agree with you. They are only interested in taxing and spending, buying votes with social programs we can't afford or maintain.
on October 15,2013 | 11:39AM
EightOEight wrote:
And Tpublicans are only interested in protecting plutocrats, the NRA, and oil barons, and denying affordable healthcare to the poor, elderly, those with pre-existing conditions, and the working poor.
on October 15,2013 | 03:51PM
Warrior32 wrote:
The republican spend more, than the DNC. The debt and deficit were larger under these administration
on October 15,2013 | 09:31PM
EightOEight wrote:
Thepartyfirst, your name is so apropos...country comes second. The Dems said no to defunding Obamacare...duh? And the Dems are in collusion with the media how? Because the media are not "low voter IQ" and have a better idea of where the real BS is coming from? Tpublicans are making themselves look bad, they don't need help from anybody else.
on October 15,2013 | 03:46PM
kolohepalu wrote:
The Dems and the media blame the repubs- because they ARE to blame. Completely. Funny how the "low voter IQ airheads" tend to congregate in major cities and universities- places of education and diversity.
on October 15,2013 | 06:49PM
Kuniarr wrote:
Who keeps the wheels turning, RichardCory? Are you not forgetting that the Republicans control the House which keeps the wheels turning? All tax bills must come from the House. And taxes keep the wheels turning.
on October 15,2013 | 01:26PM
EightOEight wrote:
Kuniarry, we're paying our taxes and THE WHEEL AIN'T TURNING! And that is why Tpublican rating with Americans is at an all time low. Let's see, it was at 74%...isn't that a lot higher than 47%??
on October 15,2013 | 03:54PM
Kuniarr wrote:
So who is stopping the wheels from turning? An offer was made and the Demoncrats refused that offer.
on October 15,2013 | 09:01PM
udabest wrote:
Republicans, mainly tea party, need to play big and stop holding the majority hostage. Blackmail, extortion, hostage-taking and brinksmanship are the tools of terrorists, not legislators.
on October 15,2013 | 06:17PM
Kuniarr wrote:
Nobody is holding anyone hostage. All that is needed is for the Demoncrats to accept the offer of the Republicans. It is a simple as that.
on October 15,2013 | 09:02PM
bsdetection wrote:
The government pays for Federal workers' health care whether they are Republicans, Democrats, or Independents. The Vitter amendment (which has nothing to do with its author's penchant for wearing diapers while he patronizes prostitutes) says that Congress members should give up their employer-paid healthcare and pay out of the pocket for another plan. Would you do that? Of course not. This is a bogus amendment which has one purpose only — to set a "trap" so that Democrats who vote against taking a pay cut can be accused of voting against the Affordable Care Act. Informed people can see through this nonsense.
on October 15,2013 | 12:04PM
Kuniarr wrote:
Why not an up and down vote on both the Senate and the Republican bill?
on October 15,2013 | 08:18AM
HD36 wrote:
Theyv'e done this charade 18 times in the last 30 years: kick the can down the road for a year or two. Each time the debt gets larger and now we are the largest debtor nation in the history of the world. The end comes when we reach the lending ceiling.
on October 15,2013 | 06:57AM
CriticalReader wrote:
The answer to the US debt is not in a single maneuver. For instance, you can't shut down government and expect the debt to magically disappear. Likewise, you can't permit the US to go into default and expect the debt to go away. That simple locks in the debt figure and creates a debt ceiling artificially and suddenly. And, reaching the debt celing means economic armageddon. I notice, HD36, that you resist talking about the need to increase governmental revenues as part of an overall approach to reducing the US long term debt position. And, if you either refuse to consider that (like all deluded Tea Partiers, for instance), cannot see the need for that (like all deluded Tea Partiers - as opposed to dishonest ones), or simply cannot wrap your mind around it because you're trying to protect what marginal wealth you have, then, of course, the doom and gloom you chant about will come. But, like Reagan and Clinton (the first eventually but quickly, the second presciently) realized and implemented, tax increases to achieve top to bottom tax equity are the only way out of this. Without tax increases and borrowing power, our Country is no better than a third world country financially. Of course, I am happy to be contradicted with good, evidence based discussion. So, if you can overcome the dogma or greed of your thought processes, and refrain from spouting the proven stupidity of the concept of "job craetors needing to keep ALL their wealth", or "trickle down economics", then let's talk. Otherwise, you merely are spouting Tea Party manufactured fear aimed at a pretty counterproductive and dangerous situation: Virtual oligarchy with the possibility of fascism, destruction of the middle class, and a severe form of poverty in which the word "cake" would become obsolete in a generation.
on October 15,2013 | 09:29AM
TLehel wrote:
How much they paying you at the disinfo agency?
on October 15,2013 | 10:07AM
CriticalReader wrote:
Nothing. I have no relationship with either Fox News OR the Heritage Foundation (you didn't specify WHICH disinfo agency so I answered as to both).
on October 15,2013 | 10:21AM
TLehel wrote:
>Implying those are the only ones
on October 15,2013 | 11:37AM
EightOEight wrote:
And who are you a shill for, TLehel?
on October 15,2013 | 03:57PM
TLehel wrote:
I think you mean a shill gambit. Good one, but really I am just a man trying to expose frauds and their fallacies.
on October 15,2013 | 05:22PM
HD36 wrote:
Raising taxes to 75% on the richest people has already been tried in socialist France. Guess what happened? They moved out of the country. Try it here and how much longer do you think a dentist or doctor will want to work over 8hrs a day when the government will take most of it in taxes to build another missile? Like all left wing liberals who think government has the answer to everyone's problems you fail to realize the unintended consequences. People put a value on free time. They won't work for free.
on October 15,2013 | 03:26PM
EightOEight wrote:
So eventually the rich will run out of places to relocate then, no? There is ample documentation out there on the income disparity between rich and poor growing exponentially over the past few decades, which most economists agree is a big problem. The middle class is has lost ground steadily. There needs to some equalizing, and it isn't going to be through trickle down economics!
on October 15,2013 | 04:04PM
HD36 wrote:
We already have a progressive tax system from what democrats label a great thinker- Karl Marx. Why work harder if you get taxed twice as much?
on October 15,2013 | 04:53PM
star08 wrote:
This is just the comparative advantage assumption applied to private capital. And we all know that comparative advantage is not a viable planetary economic strategy in the long run.
on October 15,2013 | 05:16PM
star08 wrote:
Bush spent over a trillion dollars of debt on oil wars. USGovt needs revenues to pay for all of the militaristic adventurism since Korea. Revenues must go up or we default. Which will it be?
on October 15,2013 | 05:15PM
HD36 wrote:
Let's see, do I want to pay twice as much tax next year or do we have enough missiles already to blow the world up 10x
on October 15,2013 | 07:47PM
HD36 wrote:
No raising the debt ceiling is not a single manueuver that will shut down the entire government. It only puts constraints on how much larger the government can grow.
on October 15,2013 | 07:46PM
South76 wrote:
We have already kicked this issues to the next five generations...they will be paying for debt we have already accrued and the money we trying to borrow to pay for social programs for the lazy a55e5 and ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.
on October 15,2013 | 11:43AM
TLehel wrote:
Oh God I forgot about the illegals. Where is the logic in ILLEGAL immigrants being able to get driver's licenses and now being able to vote? This is blasphemy!
on October 15,2013 | 12:37PM
EightOEight wrote:
Guess we shouldnt have gone to war with Iraq and Afghanistan. We're STILL paying for those wars...
on October 15,2013 | 04:11PM
HD36 wrote:
True Story: EBT cards didn't work because of the shutdown a couple days ago. Walmart decided to be cool and went on an honor system. They told the welfare people to just take what you need and write down how much you owe. In a matter of hours the shelve's were empty by welfare EBT card holders who then told their friends.
on October 15,2013 | 07:50PM
hawaiikone wrote:
Didn't believe it. It's true. And we wonder what's wrong with this country.
on October 15,2013 | 08:28PM
markat wrote:
Here's a theory. Key lawmakers conspire to take the country hostage by shutting down the government and threatening to take the country into default. They have shorted the stock market big time, knowing that it will plunge as the default approaches and they will make millions on the backside. Just saw the move 'The Taking of Pelham 123' the other night and it reminded me exactly of what we are facing. The only difference is that the 'terrorist' was a former Wall St. guy and he took a train hostage. Today, the 'terrorist's are our own lawmakers and they are holding the country hostage. Would be interesting to see if any lawmakers come into some huge windfalls from the stock market this year.
on October 15,2013 | 07:18AM
Kuniarr wrote:
Nobody is being held hostage. What is going on is a clash of ideas. Anyone remember "Give me liberty or etc....."? Now then. Why the heck are those who are supposedly looking out for you and me, for the poor and the helpless would insist upon taxing medical devices? And would insist on taxing wheel chairs, crutches, and other medical devices at the cost of shutting down our government? The Republicans want those taxes suspended. The Democrats insists that those taxes remain.
on October 15,2013 | 08:25AM
HawaiiCheeseBall wrote:
The revenue from the medical device taxes are going to fund a reinsurance pool that helps the insurance companies defray the risks of high risk patients. It is not going to the government; the revenue will eventually go to the insurance companies. Both the insurance industry, the healthcare industry and even most consumer groups are not opposed to the tax because it goes to help provide insurance for higher risk patients.
on October 15,2013 | 02:35PM
hawaiikone wrote:
So who pays the tax?
on October 15,2013 | 03:24PM
EightOEight wrote:
IT GOES BACK INTO THE PROGRAM TO KEEP THE PREMIUMS AFFORDABLE.
on October 15,2013 | 04:13PM
hawaiikone wrote:
Where does "it" come from. Think about it now. Caps not necessary.
on October 15,2013 | 04:57PM
EightOEight wrote:
You don't know where "it" comes from? No wonder you usually don't make sense.
on October 15,2013 | 05:43PM
hawaiikone wrote:
So I'll make it clear for you. We pay. You and me. Kinda why I wanted you to think about it....
on October 15,2013 | 06:27PM
HD36 wrote:
What about all the companies that will move manufacturing offshore and the jobs lost?
on October 15,2013 | 07:53PM
Kuniarr wrote:
You guys simply make up fiction such as "it goes back into the program".

You guys simply don't get it do you? The justice system of the US is based on the concept - The End does not justify the Means nor The Means is not justified by the End. It is inhumane to indirectly tax the cripple, the maimed, the wounded, etc. by taxing medical devices such as wheel chairs, crutches, devices used by those with COPD to breathe, etc. and for what? To keep premiums affordable?

Inhumane acts are not and never justified so as to keep premiums affordable.
on October 15,2013 | 08:48PM
HD36 wrote:
Ultimately the consumer
on October 15,2013 | 07:52PM
Kuniarr wrote:
If our society do not condone inhumane acts against animals, it just amazes me how you guys can callously talk about revenue from the medical device taxes which is inhumane to the cripple, the maimed, the wounded, the sick and the elderly.

Such act of brutality against the sick, the wounded, the cripple, etc. in the form of taxing the medical device necessary for them all to live is inexcuseable.
on October 15,2013 | 08:53PM
loquaciousone wrote:
I don't envy John Boehner. He will go down in history as the sorriest pathetic Speaker in US history.
on October 15,2013 | 08:20AM
Kuniarr wrote:
That's only your biased opinion.
on October 15,2013 | 09:31AM
loquaciousone wrote:
Just look at his face every time he speaks. He looks like a man about to go get a colonoscopy.
on October 15,2013 | 09:45AM
Kuniarr wrote:
Obama, not Boehner, loquaciousone. Obama. What all you Demoncrat lovers do not know is that even though all tax bills must originate from the House, the Senate cheated by having a tax bill HR3590 ( Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009 ) awaiting action in the Senate undergo an "amendment" which in reality was a complete replacement by throwing away all the contents and title of the original HR3590 with the contents and title of Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

The legality of the Senate replacing instead of amending or changing the entire provisions and title of HR3590 is questionable. The word "AMENDMENT" implies only a change but not an entire REPLACEMENT of contents and title.

on October 15,2013 | 01:35PM
EightOEight wrote:
Quick, send a letter to Justice Roberts, he should look into it!
on October 15,2013 | 04:15PM
Kuniarr wrote:
EightOEight do you not know that HR3590 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act better known as Obamacare was in truth and reality HR3590 Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009 ? Now then. The Senate Democrats made AMENDMENTS to the original HR3590 by actually destroying the entire contents and title of HR3590 and REPLACING the entire HR3590 with Obamacare. The issue is this Is the word AMMENDMENTS or CHANGE the same as REPLACEMENT?
on October 15,2013 | 09:08PM
EightOEight wrote:
And the opinion of 74% of Americans.
on October 15,2013 | 04:13PM
Kuniarr wrote:
That's only your biased opinion.
on October 15,2013 | 09:10PM
hanalei395 wrote:
Sens. Reid and McConnel make a deal, ..... then it's sabotaged by Boehner.
on October 15,2013 | 09:58AM
EightOEight wrote:
Don't forget Cantor. That buzzard keeps a low profile, but he's a big part of the problem.
on October 15,2013 | 04:17PM
Kuniarr wrote:
Where do you get this fictional idea that a deal with the minority in the Senate is also a deal with the majority in the House?
on October 15,2013 | 09:13PM
false wrote:
Sheez... their own don't even believe them.
on October 15,2013 | 08:53AM
busterb wrote:
Yeah that's what this whole thing is about, helping the wheel chair bound. Let's completely shutdown the government and let EVERYONE suffer because of one manini tax! I say ban the tax on cat licenses! It's downright un-American. Shut it down!
on October 15,2013 | 09:12AM
Kuniarr wrote:
Anyone who thinks that Democrats love the people have only to see how these so-called champions of the poor and the helpless insists on taxing medical devices such as wheel chairs, crutches, etc. And in Hawaii those medical devices are also subject to the General Excise Tax.
on October 15,2013 | 09:38AM
nalogirl wrote:
I am so tired of the biased journalism on this site. The democrats are being stubborn read this, they reject a proposal that they have not even gotten from the House.The White House and its Democratic allies in Congress moved to shoot down an emerging House Republican budget proposal before it even left the ground, blasting the late-breaking plan as a "partisan" product that would imperil efforts to meet the looming debt-ceiling deadline. Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid turned a deaf ear, declaring categorically that it "won't pass the Senate." But Republicans, who say their counter-proposal is still being worked out, claimed the details of their plan are not so far off from a bipartisan approach being crafted in the Senate. Both plans would fund the government through mid-January and raise the debt ceiling through February -- a key difference is the House framework would delay a controversial medical device tax in ObamaCare. Republicans urged Democrats to give it a chance, and questioned why they would preemptively reject it. "To say, 'absolutely categorically not, we will not consider what the Republicans in the House of Representatives are doing,' in my view, is piling on," Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said on the Senate floor, as Democrats lined up against the House plan. "Let's sit down and work this out." Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., called on the Senate not to take a "my-way-or-the-highway" approach. A spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner turned the tables on Democrats, claiming they were the ones risking the country's financial health by refusing to consider the House's ideas. "Is Senator Reid so blinded by partisanship that he is willing to risk default on our debt to protect a 'pacemaker tax' that 34 Senate Democrats are on the record opposing," Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said in a statement, referring to bipartisan support for repealing the medical device tax. With the House pursuing a new plan and Democrats seeming to reject it out of hand, the impasse once again raises the risk that lawmakers will not meet a Thursday deadline to raise the debt ceiling. The mood in Washington has shifted drastically in the last few hours, with both sides of the aisle hurling accusations at one another when, the night before, bipartisan leaders in the Senate were claiming on the floor to have made significant progress. It's unclear what the next step will be in the tense budget negotiations. Boehner was mum on the details of the new approach, emerging from meetings with rank-and-file members Monday morning. Aides said it did not appear the House plan yet had enough votes. Boehner claimed "no decisions" had been made on the next step. "We're talking with our members on both sides of the aisle to try to find a way to move forward today," he said. Yet Democrats, reacting to the few bullet points that have emerged on the plan, slammed it. White House spokeswoman Amy Brundage called the emerging House plan a "partisan attempt to appease a small group of Tea Party Republicans who forced the government shutdown in the first place." House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said Boehner was "wasting the public's time." In the most visceral remarks, Reid alleged Boehner is trying to "preserve his role at the expense of the country" -- and said his plan will not pass the Senate. "Extremist Republicans in the House of Representatives are attempting to torpedo the Senate's bipartisan progress with a bill that can't pass the Senate ... and won't pass the Senate," he said. Amid the partisan crossfire, President Obama plans to meet with House Democratic leadership Tuesday afternoon. House Republicans, though, stressed that the two supposedly dueling plans were similar and voiced hope that the Senate might accept what they're working on. "We have a Republican alternative that is very similar to the Senate. We think it's considerably better," Issa, R-Calif., told reporters. Senior aides said the proposal would fund the government through Jan. 15, and raise the debt ceiling through Feb. 7. That tracks with what is emerging on the Senate side -- but the House version would also include ObamaCare provisions that the Senate version does not. The House framework would include a two-year suspension of the medical device tax in ObamaCare and require that all members of Congress, the president, the vice president and political appointees purchase health insurance on the ObamaCare exchanges without additional subsidies. "Now if the Senate wants to say 'my way or the highway' then I suggest that Senate Republicans not go along with that strategy," Issa said.
on October 15,2013 | 09:15AM
CriticalReader wrote:
What biased journalism? The President has said, "open the gorenment and raise the debt limit, and we can talk about the things you want to talk about". What's partisan about reporting that? What's partisan about reporting that the GOP terrorist faction is trying to do anything but? That's the bottom line. If the SA reported on EVERYTHING people are saying in Washington, then they wouldn't have room to report on UH football and all the hiking injuries being suffered by tourists.
on October 15,2013 | 09:33AM
busterb wrote:
BTW, the other night it was reported that the House stayed late and was trying to hash out stuff. Said that they were ordering food in and everytime the door opened the smoke was wafting out of the room. Can't Boehner be removed from the building for smoking in the Capitol? Or that something the tobacco lobby protected? He's always taking the Dems being hypocrites, the public can't smoke in there.
on October 15,2013 | 09:39AM
CriticalReader wrote:
Amazing that the SA missed that one.
on October 15,2013 | 10:24AM
Kuniarr wrote:
What's amazing about the SA missing anything?
on October 15,2013 | 09:16PM
nalogirl wrote:
It was just reported by KSSK, that Obama is smoking more now than ever so does Obama need to be removed from the White House for smoking?
on October 15,2013 | 10:48AM
busterb wrote:
Private residence. And now the public can't visit. LOL!
on October 15,2013 | 01:19PM
HawaiiCheeseBall wrote:
What was he smoking?
on October 15,2013 | 02:36PM
nalogirl wrote:
Biased? Are you kidding, SA is biased and so are you, Critical Reader.
on October 15,2013 | 10:44AM
CriticalReader wrote:
Aaaah, a perfect example of Tea Party type hypocrisy, and flabbergasting lack of intellectual integrity. Incredible.
on October 15,2013 | 11:07AM
TLehel wrote:
Tea Party this, Tea Party that. The spout of your mouth spews only cr­ap. We are all biased. The problem is that the bias of the lamestream (mainstream) media is to those who fill their pockets. Of course, you know who's giving the subsidies, right? Of course you do. It's the same people who said ACA wouldn't be a tax, yet it is taxing the poor and taxing for medical devices. It's the same people who have put brain toxins such as flouride, and now even lithium, in the water. It's the same people who say, "Make sure you get all your vaccines!", which are riddled with harmful additives such as mercury. It's the same exact people who have created zombie supporters of Obama who literally have no idea what political party he is with, and only support him because "he's gonna give us free stuff". Here you've got a demonic bill designed by key insurance companies and offshore banks to snuff out the competition and get everyone on the teet of government support. Designed to make people poor by taxing them more, doubling and tripling premiums, and the list goes on. And don't forget the death panels. Also, these are the same people who want to take away the exact thing that is needed to stop crime and stop tyrannical governments. Guns. There are criminal elements in our own government and they need to be stopped.
on October 15,2013 | 12:19PM
CriticalReader wrote:
TLehel, I am watching you on my computer screen RIGHT NOW! Did you know that? Could you please put on some clothes? And, that thing you did yesterday? They know about it.
on October 15,2013 | 03:47PM
EightOEight wrote:
Credit is given where credit is due. The recent polls show an overwhelming majority of Americans blame Tpublicans. Most are disgusted with the Tea Party, but also blame Republicns for not having a backbone and letting them destroy the party.
on October 15,2013 | 04:23PM
HD36 wrote:
The majority of Americans are also living paycheck to paycheck and have some type of government assistance. The nation was set up to be a Republic. The founders only let educated people vote among other things. The danger of a democracy is that you get most of the populations vote by buying them off ie free Obama phone, and they'll vote for whatever you put in front of them.
on October 15,2013 | 04:58PM
CriticalReader wrote:
Or, waive a conferderate flag and voters come a runnin'
on October 15,2013 | 05:27PM
EightOEight wrote:
HD, you Tpublicans love using the free Obama phone story. It just proves what tools you are. That story has been debunked on so many fact checking websites. But I get it, Tpublicans don't let facts get in the way of the truth. The reason your party is tanking is because "educated" people like you think the way you do, like high-nosed snobs. And yes, a lot Americans live paycheck to paycheck and still need assistance because of people like you who want the country to continue on the path to a plutocratic society.
on October 15,2013 | 05:41PM
nalogirl wrote:
Critical reader all that you can say is Tea Partiers, if you are an example of a democrat then we can all see the reason why there is no compromise. You are a bully and an example of why this contry is so divided.
on October 15,2013 | 01:13PM
EightOEight wrote:
Bully, why, because he disagrees with you?
on October 15,2013 | 04:24PM
CriticalReader wrote:
No, nalo, I can say things other than Tea Partiers. I can say domestic terrorists, anarchists, racists, etc., etc., etc.
on October 15,2013 | 05:28PM
Kuniarr wrote:
Says you, CriticalReader? And who else but you?
on October 15,2013 | 09:14PM
star08 wrote:
Everyone is biased. You canʻt be neutral on a moving train!
on October 15,2013 | 05:18PM
Kuniarr wrote:
That's biased comment through and through.
on October 15,2013 | 09:16PM
Fred01 wrote:
You are brainless a fool.
on October 15,2013 | 09:36AM
nalogirl wrote:
Great on the name calling, you must be a democrat.
on October 15,2013 | 10:47AM
pakeheat wrote:
And a same-sex marriage proponent
on October 15,2013 | 12:23PM
CriticalReader wrote:
You betcha!
on October 15,2013 | 12:43PM
Fred01 wrote:
Wow, you are such a smart bigot! Get lost teparty scum. Go hate people in another country. You don't belong here.
on October 15,2013 | 01:22PM
CriticalReader wrote:
Oh wow! GOOD ONE! You got me with that one! BRILLIANT!!! You must have been the smartest person in your school and your house, huh? Beautiful! Genius, in fact. You are gifted!
on October 15,2013 | 12:43PM
nalogirl wrote:
Critical Reader, there goes the sarcasm, mock anyone hat has a differnet opinion than yours.
on October 15,2013 | 01:15PM
CriticalReader wrote:
No, not sarcastic. I mean, if you're going to try to look utterly foolish and inane, then, well, BRAVO ! You've achieved perfection!
on October 15,2013 | 03:33PM
primowarrior wrote:
You copied an pasted this article from Fox News, and you claim that the SA is "biased journalism?" Sheesh.
on October 15,2013 | 09:37AM
nalogirl wrote:
There is absolutely no give on the dems part. Fox News is biased, what about everyhting and I mean everything in mainstream media is blaming the Republicans. Maybe is you actually read the article instead of blowing it off you may learn something.
on October 15,2013 | 10:46AM
CriticalReader wrote:
"what about everyhting and I mean everything in mainstream media is blaming the Republicans" Anyone blaming the Republicans for this mess is spot on rightamundo!
on October 15,2013 | 11:08AM
nalogirl wrote:
Typical democratic response when you can't say anything, blame the republicans.
on October 15,2013 | 01:15PM
Fred01 wrote:
How in the world are the Republicans NOT to blame? Wake the heck up ding-bat!
on October 15,2013 | 01:24PM
nalogirl wrote:
Name calling again. I guess that's all you guys can do, I am not a ding-bat and I have every right to my opinion without being bullied by you! Obama, the democrats and the republicans are all to blame for this mess, at least I can admit to that without having to call you names. How old are you? You sound like those bullies on the internet. Childish
on October 15,2013 | 01:36PM
EightOEight wrote:
Nalogirl, yesterday one of your fellow Tpublicans said the biggest mistake the country made was to abolish slavery. Another said Obama was excrement filled. And more the past few weeks. I didn't see you post an admonishment to them. Who are the real bullies???
on October 15,2013 | 04:29PM
HD36 wrote:
Why should they be blamed at all? We need smaller government, we need to lower the debt, we need to let the economy build itself again through private enterprise and capitalism.
on October 15,2013 | 05:00PM
hawaiikone wrote:
808, so your "buzzard" just a few posts above is ok? Name calling isn't exclusive to one party only.
on October 15,2013 | 05:01PM
EightOEight wrote:
I'm not accusing anyone of being a bully like nalogirl. Besides, if it looks like a buzzard with glasses and sounds like a buzzard, it's a buzzard.
on October 15,2013 | 05:48PM
NanakuliBoss wrote:
The republicans will suffer on the next election cycle and in the presidential race. Cruz,hahahaha, no way. And he had the gall to be with Palin on Sunday. Hahahaha. Who? Hillary is just smiling on the sidelines. Bohner is making her run easy. Hahaha. This will give her let me see, 74% minus 47% on the polls? That's an easy 27% moving to the Hillary. Hahaha. Hey, HILLARY ON THE HILL IN 2016! I coined that term, I'll patent it.
on October 15,2013 | 06:26PM
312guy wrote:
irt nalogirl: I blame Ted Babooze Cruz he is the perfect example why we dont want someone not born in the USA to be able to run for President, He was born in Canada. Why start something and then hide , then goes to the memorials to show face and sauy that the government is spending millions on fences to keep people out. Hey baboooze your the government da!
on October 15,2013 | 05:09PM
NanakuliBoss wrote:
True 312, Not born in the USA, thinks hockey is number 1 during NFL season.
on October 15,2013 | 06:28PM
nalogirl wrote:
Many people have copy and pasted and I didn't say I wrote it, but of course if it reflected well on your views you would have no problem.
on October 15,2013 | 01:34PM
312guy wrote:
irt nalogirl: I have had enough of my party, they started with trying to defund something that is into law with the Supreme court approval yes obamacare which was started with ted babooz cruz who by the way was not born in the good old USA. The Tea party does not care about the usa they want to have the USA fall apart.. Now my fellow republicans are trying to do damage control, the best damage control would be stop listening to the Tea party, the cancer in our party. nuff said
on October 15,2013 | 05:02PM
NanakuliBoss wrote:
Retired republicans write redundant reeking reports.
on October 15,2013 | 06:15PM
primowarrior wrote:
Makes me wonder if the only reason the House is "floating" this proposal is as a countermeasure to allow them to cover their okole if they decide to reject the Senate proposal.
on October 15,2013 | 09:34AM
false wrote:
And what is our bozo president doing? Regardless of which side you are on, Obama should lock both party leaders in a room until a compromised deal is made. Instead, the bozo has again, drawn another red line like the last time from which he'll not budge. Not a great leader, not an average leader, but a very poor one. Looks like his legacy will be, "the only president which caused the U.S.government to default". As for the representatives, both senate and house, they'll probably be reelected and go on unscathed. That's how ignorant the U.S. voter has become. This is the time for Obama to show leadership but he can't because he is no leader.
on October 15,2013 | 10:15AM
South76 wrote:
You got a point there, Obama has shown leadership at all. Every time he comes out and speak to his media friends, he is always blaming. He has never taken the stand of "The buck stops here." Always blaming, he does not come up with a plan but always criticizing what are brought up by the other guys, because those plans don't support his socialist agenda. For those who wish to have the federal govt take control for every aspect of your life, why not travel to North Korea, Cuba or Venezuela and spend about a year ther and see how you like living under socialism.
on October 15,2013 | 11:58AM
nalogirl wrote:
Yep he sounds just like Reid and the other democrats, Hanabusa, Schatz, Hirono.
on October 15,2013 | 01:17PM
EightOEight wrote:
Now you see how biased you are nalogirl? I disagree with you, what a bully you are.
on October 15,2013 | 04:46PM
NanakuliBoss wrote:
Oh yeah,coming from South76. Isn't this standoff "the buck stops here" moment?
on October 15,2013 | 06:31PM
312guy wrote:
irt false: if you look at it the buck stops with our leader if it was a dictatorship but we are not. The members which I have compared to canccer in my party are doing everything possible to make this president fail. at the cost to us the american citizens. I'm tired of their agenda. and to think that they even think of nominating a non usa born to the presidency is just beyond me. GOD save America
on October 15,2013 | 05:16PM
false wrote:
STAR ADVERTISER: PLEASE STOP THE POP-UP SCREENS ASKING ME FOR MY EMAIL TO SEND ME BREAKING NEWS. -----------------------------I ALREADY GET THESE EMAILS. AS IN ALREADY GET THEM. -----------------------YOUR TROLLING FOR MORE BUSINESS IS ANNOYING, AND OBSTRUCTS ME FOR GETTING THE SERVICE I PAID FOR: READING THE NEWS.
on October 15,2013 | 10:19AM
lee1957 wrote:
I used to get the breaking news feeds but they were annoying. I didn't classifying Manti Teo breaking wind as worthy of "breaking news."
on October 15,2013 | 11:56AM
CriticalReader wrote:
But, it literally is "breaking" news.
on October 15,2013 | 03:08PM
cojef wrote:
We are a dead beat Nations as if by uppinhg the debt limit we are presumed to be solvent?? Our families do not live like how the Government conduct their business. About time we own up and balance the budget. WE ARE A DEBTOR NATION!
on October 15,2013 | 11:02AM
Pacej001 wrote:
Buried in this AP hit piece are the simple, logical Republican House proposals: 1. Drop the medical device tax, which even Harry Reid has described as bad. 2. Have Congressmen, the President and his cabinet pay the same for their Obamacare insurance as other Americans of equal income. 3. Verify that Obamacare applicants are telling the truth about their income so as to limit subsidies to those who actually qualify for them. 4. Extend the debt ceiling until Feb. to allow for negotiations.------------ The AP article above calls this "a proposal stocked with conservative priorities that the White House instantly rejected."-------- Excuse me, but it sounds like the Republicans are just asking for the law Obama signed to be applied fairly and appropriately. Why exactly are any of these proposals bad?
on October 15,2013 | 11:11AM
CriticalReader wrote:
A Husband says to a wife, "Unless you agree that you cannot leave this house, talk to your friends on the phone, or watch TV, I will not pay our mortgage or buy us food." Wife says "NO". Husband says, "fine, no food. Start eating off the canned goods in the cupboard." Wife does, but continues in her refusal to not leave the house, talk to her friends or watch TV". Husband says, better do what I say, or I default on the morgage!!!" Wife says "NO!" Husband says, OK, you cannot leave the house without me present, and you can't talk to your friends on the phone or watch TV". Wife says "NO". Husband says, "OK, you must leave the house with me, and you can make one telephone call a week to your friends, but you can't watch TV". Wife says "NO". Husband (pace) says "WHAT???? I'M BEING REASONABLE!!! I'M GONNA LET YOU GO OUT, AND YOU CAND TALK TO YOUR FRIENDS. BUT TV IS BAAAAAAD SO EVERYYTHING I'M DEMANDING IS REASONABLE. PLUS, IF YOU DON;T DO THESE THINGS, I'M GOING TO DEFAULT ON m < lt ""MSAhQ:,now.nayas, no. :tbusmorgtat
on October 15,2013 | 11:47AM
CriticalReader wrote:
(sorrry, hit send by mistake): "IF YOU DON'T DO THESE THINGS, I'M GOING TO DEFAULT ON THE MORTGAGE!!!"' The problem is that Husband's request was unreasonable from the beginning, and approach dastardly. Wife can never say OK, otherwise her life is hell. Same here.
on October 15,2013 | 11:49AM
Pacej001 wrote:
Uh, Husband sees wife spending them into bankruptcy--- demands that they control debt (knowing that they have to jointly sign off on increasing their credit card limit)---- wife refuses, leaving husband no choice but to force a fiscal problem in the present to prevent a much, much greater one in the future.--------- Worse still, wife refuses to control spending on the basis of a financial plan she put into place herself (obamacare existing law as written which is the Republican demand). ------ Goofy analogies, both, because sane people sit down and negotiate these problems before they become acute.
on October 15,2013 | 12:15PM
CriticalReader wrote:
Quit spinning. This whole mess occurred because of a single issue. Like the Husband who's an insane control freak in my example, so to are the Tea Partiers seeking insane control freak jollies fueled by an irrational hate for Obama and his signature legislation (the one designed to make healthcare affordable for all Americans). The Tea Party approach in this round was never about fiscal responsibility, and actually hasn't been for some time. It's about an ideological oppostion to the concept of an African American President and some myopic need on their part to couple a smackdown of the dude with manufactured ideological wins.
on October 15,2013 | 12:41PM
HD36 wrote:
Oh, so by failing to raise the debt ceiling the Tea Party people are trying to control spending? Could it be that the Fed balance sheet went from $700 billion in 2007 to $3 trillion in 2013? Who was president during that time?
on October 15,2013 | 05:06PM
CriticalReader wrote:
The guy trying to keep the government afloat when costs of Bush's great recession, coupled with Bush tax cuts, coupled with the Bush Iraq and Afghanistan Wars all came home to roost, and an obstructionist GOP stalled Congress made it their mission to first, make the guy a one term President by opposing all his initiatives, and are doing what they are doing now. That's who.
on October 15,2013 | 05:37PM
CriticalReader wrote:
Also, pace, once again, your own reasoning shoots you in the foot with your 2nd Amendment protected gun. OK, on the verge of bankruptcy. Let's see, how does husband deal with that in your spin attempt to rebutt? HE THROWS THE FAMILY INTO BANKRUPTCY? Even assuming the US were on the brink of bankruptcy with a clean CR and debt ceiling increase, AND Obamacare, what is the Tea Party objective here? Win the race for who can throw the country into bankruptcy? Gotta win SOME race, right? Ain't winning the Presidential race, Ain't winning the polling race, ain't winning the policy race, really ain't winning the race about race, SO, they choose to now "win: by winning the race (which you defined above) to US bankruptcy? I'll tell you how this story ends. Wife gets rid of husband, and husband lives out his days in a hovel, with no friends and his kids won't ever talk to him. That's how the Tea Party has to be dealt with.
on October 15,2013 | 12:51PM
TLehel wrote:
He said they're BOTH goofy analogies. I'd say yours is much more reta­rded, though. Your analogy cannot even be compared side by side with what's happening. What you're saying is that everything the Republicans are doing is completely unreasonable, and their demands ridiculous. What you fail to realize is that they are taking such extreme measures because there are many things, such as ACA, that will do things far worse than a default. The Republicans and I'm sure many others in politics know this. They do not want to see our country become a slave populace to the government. Also, really? You're gonna pull the race card? You have absolutely no evidence to support that and shame on you for calling people racist for your own agenda. Who's spinning here? I think it's you.
on October 15,2013 | 01:17PM
nalogirl wrote:
Pace001 has got you good Critical Reader, your analogy just backfired.
on October 15,2013 | 01:19PM
CriticalReader wrote:
The question is quickly becoming how to proceed AFTER there is demonstrably not enough money to pay existing obligations. Pay no one? Pay some according to the best judgment of the President in the absence of specific advice from Congress? Who has the power? Is there any legilslative road map to deal with this? Or, is it every branch for itself? Does the President have "emergency powers" to act? Expressly? Inherently? Could he get it from the Courts?
on October 15,2013 | 01:58PM
CriticalReader wrote:
Eh, where's the snarky comments about Obama, the economics professor brilliance, and the IMF level insight?? See, when one branch of government utterly fails, I think the other two are supposed to pick up the slack and ensure orderly government continues. What's an executive to do when there's a body politic with SOME money coming in, perhaps enough to keep SOME happy, but not all? WOW! This is just like the movies! Where the hero Prisident has to make the "tough" decisions on who to let into the safe room, and who to shut the door on. The Tea Party is about to make Obama the most powerful President ever.
on October 15,2013 | 03:39PM
HD36 wrote:
The market is the ultimate decision maker. Do I still want to lend money to the US when all they do is spend more?
on October 15,2013 | 05:21PM
CriticalReader wrote:
I don't know. Do you currently, as your question implies?
on October 15,2013 | 08:49PM
hawaiikone wrote:
CR, could I suggest that just for kicks, you give us some answers to our debt problem, instead of simply bashing the tea party. I can't agree with most of what they do, but their very existence is due to the lack of any credible answer to our insane spending. And please, something other than the typical demo tax the rich spiel, cause that ain't gonna even put a dent.
on October 15,2013 | 03:46PM
EightOEight wrote:
You want that answered in a letters to the editor blog? Ridiculous. We could say tax reform, for example...that means one thing to conservatives and another to liberals. Then you and Pace will pontificate ad nauseum with Fox facks. No thanks.
on October 15,2013 | 04:40PM
hawaiikone wrote:
Ridiculous? So tax reform will get rid of 17 trillion? Come on, that's "ridiculous". Guess your gonna stick with just attacking. That'll work.
on October 15,2013 | 05:09PM
EightOEight wrote:
Hawaiikone, what is it about f-o-r e-x-a-m-p-l-e that you don't understand?
on October 15,2013 | 05:54PM
hawaiikone wrote:
808, try again.
on October 15,2013 | 06:29PM
CriticalReader wrote:
Raise taxes on upper tax brackets, make some difficult cuts on spending (especially the military). audit Homeland security and reassess appropriations to State and local operations in particular.
on October 15,2013 | 05:14PM
hawaiikone wrote:
I can agree with reducing our military cost, especially the industry surrounding them. Taxes have to be involved as well. If we'd have spent the effort we did on the ACA on tax reform, we might be better off. I'd rather see all foreign aid suspended before we cut at earned social security benefits, but it currently seems unsustainable for much longer. I'd like to see all working productive illegals given a one time chance at joining us, and the rest kicked out. I'd really like to see charity somehow swing back towards the private side and away from the government. A helping hand is more motivational than a regular check from Uncle. Just a few things to get started.
on October 15,2013 | 06:49PM
CriticalReader wrote:
I agree on the foreign aid, although I accept there is a great deal I don't, will never, and can never know about the nerve endings of foreign relations, so although the amounts spent on foreign aid offends me, I think hegemony is an important national interest. I also think the Homeland Security apparatus has to be closely evalutated and that some of the excess of expertise currently being paid on that payroll should be re-allocated to policing benefit and contracting fraud and mistake a lot more closely. I think Homeland workforce switched over to that kind of tasking would begin to pay for themselves immediately, and probably end up tightening up government waste considerably. They might not get to play with their guns as much, but they would actually become productive.
on October 15,2013 | 07:09PM
hawaiikone wrote:
Foreign aid is a mystery to me, but our money has backfired often. Maybe some verification teams for accountability? Half of homeland to border patrol, the other half on fraud. Agreed.The sooner we quit or slow down buying our own securities the better, even though the market would deeply correct, waiting will only worsen the plunge. Create a 30 year phaseout of SS and medicare, along with serious graduated tax breaks for qualified retirement savings. Could we also accept the fact that we're gonna die, and do it on our terms, rather than spending most of our health dollar on the last year of life? Always liked Robinson's exit in Soylent Green. Maybe incentives like no inheritance tax for a DNR? I know there's a million holes in all this, but that's what discussion is for.
on October 15,2013 | 08:22PM
CriticalReader wrote:
I only like your SS and medicare ideas because I'll probably be gone by the time that kicks in. I think that's the problem with any phase out plan, at the beginning, middle and end. I think both will stay and that America should bite the bullet to fund them properly and responsibly (which means aggressively and a lot of bullet biting). Your idea about graduated tax breaks for qualified retirement savings presumes two things: 1) The vast bulk of Americans have the smarts to participate; and 2) that they make enough in wages to live currently and participate. I don't think either one is true. And, no matter what is done, the reality is that we live in a diverse nation, with diverse capacities to survive or flourish. Yes, It would be better and more honorable if everyone stepped to the plate and got smart and responsible. Yes, there is fairness in saying, you made your bed, now lie in it. But, even though some people can't and some people won't do the smartest thing, the consequences for that sort of approach would run the gamut, with little of it ending up being good. There is a correlation between hard, painful choices and the potential benefits and alleviation of future problems they bring. Ultimately, in an every man for themselves society, there ends up being one king, a circle of courtiers planning on poisoning the King's next dinner, peasants planning on cutting off the King's Head, and another King (one of a very few) in a neighboring land planning his siege. History has shown when the US moves in a direction that takes into account the collective good, things are good. When it cares for its weakest, it becomes the strongest. Corny, but true. And, the good book urges us all to seek those things. HK.
on October 15,2013 | 09:18PM
hawaiikone wrote:
There's obvious truth in what you've said. I guess the central issue is the source of our motivation for taking care of the poor. Is it a part of our ondividual character? Or do we assign the responsibilty to "employees". Christ indeed requires us to help the poor, even saying the poor will always be with us. What has corrupted the process is the loss of any stigma that once was associated with accepting charity. By making the process seemingly a "right", based on "qualifying", an entitlement mentality has replaced any regret or shame in accepting charity from others. Safety nets are necessary, vitally important in any society, and deserve our support and participation. What's regrettable is the culture that has evolved around this societal concept, which has turned a temporary resting place into a demanded lifestyle.
on October 16,2013 | 06:43AM
HD36 wrote:
You're sadly mistaken as usual. The US is already bankrupt. Your debt ceiling will get raised. But that is the biggest danger to America because in order to pay the debt, the Fed will keep printing $85 billion a month and with Janet Yellen, the Super Dove, taking charge of the Fed next year, she will increase it to $100 billion a month at least. Foreginors will throw up their hands in disgust and we'll see the biggest bond bubble collapse in economic history.
on October 15,2013 | 05:11PM
nalogirl wrote:
Thank you Pacejoo1, finally some facts.
on October 15,2013 | 01:18PM
Pacej001 wrote:
You're welcome. The facts are there, but getting people to actually think about them is near impossible. The media doesn't help, as with the original AP story, by distorting then burying the Republican position. Then you get the hysterics (not naming any particular poster on this page) all spun up and it's impossible to have a reasoned discussion.
on October 15,2013 | 03:53PM
CriticalReader wrote:
See, this is how it starts. Some Tea Party "stud" starts spinning a bunch of hypocrisy webs with dishonesty overlays, some Tea Party moll starts batting her eyes at him, and poof. Need more trailer parks.
on October 15,2013 | 05:26PM
Pacej001 wrote:
Also, Nalogirl, notice that CR chose not to address the actual substance of the latest Republican proposals. Kills me that the media is letting (helping) the democrats at the national level get away with the same thing.
on October 15,2013 | 04:18PM
CriticalReader wrote:
I don't know what the substance of the latest GOP proposal is, and neither do you.
on October 15,2013 | 05:20PM
EightOEight wrote:
Fox facts are no facts as the last presidential election clearly demonstrated.
on October 15,2013 | 04:35PM
HD36 wrote:
Roughly 70% of advanced medical devices are made in America. Put an extra tax on them and these companies will go offshore to manufacture. Secondly they'll pass the tax on by raising the price of the devices. I thought it was the affordable health care act?
on October 15,2013 | 05:02PM
CriticalReader wrote:
Hey pace, regarding your "logical Republican House proposal", know that there appear to have been two, but the last contained a provision that would completely tie the Treasury's hand to use accounting techniques to move money and continue paying US bills. Translation? The Tea Party no only was trying to prevent a debt ceiling increase, but FORCE DEFAULT not as a natural result, BUT AS A CERTAIN ONE. Intentionally trying to force non-payment by the US. Terrorists in Clavin Klein suits.
on October 15,2013 | 10:09PM
primo1 wrote:
"Even something of an appeal for heavenly aid was thrown in, as Rep. Steve Southerland of Florida led House Republicans in a rendition of "Amazing Grace" at the beginning of a rank-and-file meeting called to discuss a way out of the impasse." Great, our congress is now seeking divine intervention to resolve this crisis. Whatever happened to the separation of church and state? Check your bible at the door and get to work!
on October 15,2013 | 02:56PM
HLOEWEN wrote:
This comment has been deleted.
on October 15,2013 | 03:30PM
HD36 wrote:
One of two things is going to happen down the road: When the bond bubble pops, we'll have a historic economic collapse that'll bring the US into third world status. Either the existing government will reform itself and learn from the mistakes of the last several decades of deficit spending and adhere to the Constitution it was founded upon or they will blame capitalism, install martial law and soicialism.
on October 15,2013 | 05:26PM
islandsun wrote:
Keep the necessary going. Stop pay on the big money projects first.
on October 15,2013 | 05:49PM
CriticalReader wrote:
Tomorrow is a day for EVERYONE to watch FOX News. We should have a pool on how many Fox anchors cry on air.
on October 15,2013 | 07:18PM
HD36 wrote:
I'll bet they raise the debt ceiling. I bet the Fed keeps buying $85 billion in bonds throughtout 2014. I bet a flood of dollars will come back to our shores from foreign reserves. I bet the inflation rat will hit debt ceiling again next year as the interest rate rises
on October 15,2013 | 08:08PM
CriticalReader wrote:
OK, so jump on board and urge higher taxes and a reasonable discussion about spending cuts to slow down those things with an eye toward bringing the debt down to a comfortable level, instead of ranting stupid Tea Party solutions to all the problems you see.
on October 15,2013 | 09:21PM
BluesBreaker wrote:
No hear this. There is no deficit problem. The federal deficit fell to $1.1 trillion in the 2012 fiscal year, down from about $1.3 trillion a year earlier. That is the smallest deficit since 2008. It's no big deal. I repeat, no big deal. That is all.
on October 15,2013 | 11:05PM
IN OTHER NEWS
Breaking News