Negotiate?

[billyerock1991]

The Chutzpah of “Compromise”

For the first time, a single party, controlling a single house of Congress—despite having lost the popular vote for that chamber by more than a million ballots in the most recent election—is refusing to fund the government unless the other chamber and the president agree to suspend previously enacted legislation.


That’s some chutzpah. No wonder President Obama and the Senate have refused to capitulate. And for this, in a final stroke of chutzpah, the GOP accuses them of intransigence.[...]

Sorry, Republicans. Nothing in the Constitution authorizes a single house of Congress to retroactively veto U.S. law by refusing to fund the rest of the government. The manner in which you’re attempting this blackmail—on party-line votes, engineered by the party that lost the popular vote—doesn’t help. The Senate and the president have no legal or moral obligation to humor your demands. Do your job, or we’ll throw you out.​

Let me stop you at the first sentence. It was "previously enacted legislation" until he chose to alter it and delay it. You can only make amendments to "previously enacted legislation" by going through both houses of Congress. Unfortunately for you, this lie didn't survive past the first sentence.

as the stupid one TemplarKormac;7976754 speaks... if he the president isn't allowed to do this then how come it happen ???? maybe you should shut mouth before you have both feet in their ... I would think one foot is enough ... one would think... don't you think that this president a lawyer would look into it before he did it ??? he's not a republican you know and it looks like it did pass your first sentance...

As for the second statement, which again doesn't make it past the first sentence, this can be easily contradicted with what I have already explained. Nothing in the Constitution allows a sitting president to go over the heads of Congress to amend or delay any "previously enacted legislation." He, like all of the other Congressmen and Senators, must submit proposed amendments or changes to laws already on the books for consideration by the appropriate congressional committee. You act as if the Republicans are the ones breaking the law, when it is actually the president.

and again I say as the stupid one TemplarKormac;7976754 speaks... if he the president isn't allowed to do this then how come it happen ???? maybe you should shut mouth before you have both feet in their ... I would think one foot is enough ... one would think... don't you think that this president a lawyer would look into it before he did it ??? he's not a republican you know ...

And your last sentence is false. The president is duty bound by the Constitution to secede his power to Congress (both houses) in matters of law. He has no power to pass laws, Congress does. It is astounding to me that people like you don't educate on the mechanics of our political system. You'd rather be lied to than learn the truth.

and like you know the truth ... that's funny .... another repub-lie-tard that thinks he knows constitutional law better then obama ... to hell with a constitutional lawyer Like Obama, who has studied the constitution back wards a forward ... good ole TemplarKormac;7976754 knows the constitution better then Obama ... don't you think if you were right, which you aren't, that the republican party would be all over that trying to impeach him for doing what he did ???? oh these morons here, they won't learn easy

 

[mudwhistle]

Oh yeah, just kick everyone with an Iota of sanity out of the GOP. Winning strategy, that.

Sorry, giving in is not leadership.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Boehner, Cantor, McCain and all the RINO are targeted for elimination from our political life

 

[Harry Dresden]

Ok but what you're not getting is that we aren't talking about some 5% lead here. Republican approval ratings are abysmal by comparison. Democrats may be unpopular, but if the country had to choose one of these parties to lead the country, people would overwhelming choose democrats at this point.

A third party is a popular idea, but the chances are pretty damn slim that an actual third party could possibly rise to power.

and the reason for that is?.....because people have your attitude that a third party is just a waste of votes so why bother,just keep voting for the same old shit year after year and keep complaining about the same old shit year after year.........im hoping that this thing happening badly damages both parties so bad that 5 new "parties" emerge.....maybe it will wake up the assholes in those 2 parties to start realizing that they are not immune to being ousted and will start putting the good of the Country ahead of their own interests.....

Look its the idea itself that is whats popular. The problem is actually having a party that would become popular. What specific politics would it have that would make it popular enough to draw people from both the left and the right? Would the candidate be charismatic enough?

how about a party that is talking about the Country and meaning it.....not this phony bullshit that is there now.....a party that isnt calling everyone who doesnt see eye to eye with them names......a party that isnt actively dividing the Country but one who you can see trying to bring everyone together to bring us back up to the levels we used to be at or higher.....and hopefully someone who is an actual LEADER,something we dont have right now,will come out of hiding and LEAD this thing.......

 

[Dot Com]

Boehner, Cantor, McCain and all the RINO are targeted for elimination from our political life

Oh yeah, just kick everyone with an Iota of sanity out of the GOP. Winning strategy, that.

what the rw'ers here like Frank & tinyd don't realize w/ their RINO purge scenario is that elections are won by getting the vote in the middle (Indies & Undecideds) You people purge all your moderates and you are doomed to being a permanent minority party.

 

[Harry Dresden]

it's really funny, I haven't heard the GOP say "We will not negotiate" not once. however that's been the mantra of obama and his minions.

Gosh, you are a fucking idiot. Dems were willing to give the GOP the Ryan Budget and compromise on tens of billions in spending.

At one point, the GOP declared this a victory, but they acted like petulant children and demanded more. After 40 unsuccessful attempts and despite the SCOTUS throwing it in their face, Republicans keep on working to deny poor people and people with preexisting conditions health care.

You people are toast. Do everyone a favor and drown yourself.

and after the Republicans drown lets hope someone pushes your wonderful party in the water after them....

 

[Harry Dresden]

I must be getting senile, I thought Obama and Reid were Democrats.

B y the way, has anyone else noticed that Reid is not part of the negotiations? Is that because Obama finally realized that he is supposed to be the President of the United States, not just the OFA?

When you think about it there's really nothing to negotiate. What will the GOP do? Shut down the government again? They have NOTHING to negotiate with.

.

I think Obama is going to give them SOMETHING to let them save face. Obama might be under the mistaken belief that IF he works to save Repubs from themselves, that maybe, just MAYBE, they will be a little grateful and work with him on some other important legislative matters.

Obama hasn't let the hatred the GOP has for him overtake his optimism. To bad. Rethugs are back stabbing assholes and they will continue to do everything they can to harm him.

Some politicians never learn.

to do that takes leadership skills.....

 

[TemplarKormac]

The Chutzpah of “Compromise”

For the first time, a single party, controlling a single house of Congress—despite having lost the popular vote for that chamber by more than a million ballots in the most recent election—is refusing to fund the government unless the other chamber and the president agree to suspend previously enacted legislation.

That’s some chutzpah. No wonder President Obama and the Senate have refused to capitulate. And for this, in a final stroke of chutzpah, the GOP accuses them of intransigence.[...]

Sorry, Republicans. Nothing in the Constitution authorizes a single house of Congress to retroactively veto U.S. law by refusing to fund the rest of the government. The manner in which you’re attempting this blackmail—on party-line votes, engineered by the party that lost the popular vote—doesn’t help. The Senate and the president have no legal or moral obligation to humor your demands. Do your job, or we’ll throw you out.​

Let me stop you at the first sentence. It was "previously enacted legislation" until he chose to alter it and delay it. You can only make amendments to "previously enacted legislation" by going through both houses of Congress. Unfortunately for you, this lie didn't survive past the first sentence.

As for the second statement, which again doesn't make it past the first sentence, this can be easily contradicted with what I have already explained. Nothing in the Constitution allows a sitting president to go over the heads of Congress to amend or delay any "previously enacted legislation." He, like all of the other Congressmen and Senators, must submit proposed amendments or changes to laws already on the books for consideration by the appropriate congressional committee. You act as if the Republicans are the ones breaking the law, when it is actually the president.

Not true. Delaying Parts of Obamacare: 'Blatantly Illegal' or Routine Adjustment?

And your last sentence is false. The president is duty bound by the Constitution to secede his power to Congress (both houses) in matters of law. He has no power to pass laws, Congress does. It is astounding to me that people like you don't educate on the mechanics of our political system. You'd rather be lied to than learn the truth.

The GOP is attempting to govern by blackmail. Were it a Republican President lol and Senate and the progressive caucus in the House were doing this over legislation they didn't like, you'd be peeing your pants here on a daily basis.

This is not how legislation is overturned.

I'm sorry, throwing links and talking points at me will not win you this argument, for which you failed to address at all. You don't simply react by circumventing the law. At least the GOP is using legitimate political processes to "govern by blackmail," Obama on the other hand flat out breached his authority under the Constitution.

What Obama did was show contempt for the co-equal branches of government. Congress alone has the power to enact legislation and amendments to previously enacted legislation.

I'm afraid legal precedent trumps your opinion of the matter.

"There is no provision in the Constitution that authorizes the president to enact, to amend, or to repeal statutes."

Justice John Paul Stevens, in Clinton v. City of New York 524 U.S. 417 (1998)

Obama violates the Presentment Clause of the US Constitution when he attempts to change law.

The Presentment Clause, which is contained in Article I, Section 7, Clauses 2 and 3, provides:

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Sorry, Republicans. Nothing in the Constitution authorizes a single house of Congress to retroactively veto U.S. law by refusing to fund the rest of the government. The manner in which you’re attempting this blackmail—on party-line votes, engineered by the party that lost the popular vote—doesn’t help. The Senate and the president have no legal or moral obligation to humor your demands. Do your job, or we’ll throw you out.

Exactly.

There is nothing justifying republicans holding the country hostage where the ransom is the economic well-being of the Nation.

The American people know this, and are admonishing the GOP accordingly.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Sorry, Republicans. Nothing in the Constitution authorizes a single house of Congress to retroactively veto U.S. law by refusing to fund the rest of the government. The manner in which you’re attempting this blackmail—on party-line votes, engineered by the party that lost the popular vote—doesn’t help. The Senate and the president have no legal or moral obligation to humor your demands. Do your job, or we’ll throw you out.

Exactly.

There is nothing justifying republicans holding the country hostage where the ransom is the economic well-being of the Nation.

The American people know this, and are admonishing the GOP accordingly.

Who said they were "vetoing" anything? They are submitting a repeal through the proper channels. That isn't hostage taking, that's how it should be done. They passed three CR's with the repeal, delay, or repeal of the medical device tax. The Senate rejected them on each occasion. If they were serious about funding the government, they would negotiate or pass the bill as is. It appears to me that Harry Reid and the Democrats in the Senate would rather grandstand than negotiate.

 

[Seawytch]

Let me stop you at the first sentence. It was "previously enacted legislation" until he chose to alter it and delay it. You can only make amendments to "previously enacted legislation" by going through both houses of Congress. Unfortunately for you, this lie didn't survive past the first sentence.

As for the second statement, which again doesn't make it past the first sentence, this can be easily contradicted with what I have already explained. Nothing in the Constitution allows a sitting president to go over the heads of Congress to amend or delay any "previously enacted legislation." He, like all of the other Congressmen and Senators, must submit proposed amendments or changes to laws already on the books for consideration by the appropriate congressional committee. You act as if the Republicans are the ones breaking the law, when it is actually the president.

Not true. Delaying Parts of Obamacare: 'Blatantly Illegal' or Routine Adjustment?



The GOP is attempting to govern by blackmail. Were it a Republican President lol and Senate and the progressive caucus in the House were doing this over legislation they didn't like, you'd be peeing your pants here on a daily basis.

This is not how legislation is overturned.

I'm sorry, throwing links and talking points at me will not win you this argument, for which you failed to address at all. You don't simply react by circumventing the law. At least the GOP is using legitimate political processes to "govern by blackmail," Obama on the other hand flat out breached his authority under the Constitution.

What Obama did was show contempt for the co-equal branches of government. Congress alone has the power to enact legislation and amendments to previously enacted legislation.

I'm afraid legal precedent trumps your opinion of the matter.

"There is no provision in the Constitution that authorizes the president to enact, to amend, or to repeal statutes."

Justice John Paul Stevens, in Clinton v. City of New York 524 U.S. 417 (1998)

Obama violates the Presentment Clause of the US Constitution when he attempts to change law.

The Presentment Clause, which is contained in Article I, Section 7, Clauses 2 and 3, provides:

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

In fact, applicable judicial precedent places such timing adjustments well within the Executive Branch's lawful discretion. To be sure, the federal Administrative Procedure Act authorizes federal courts to compel agencies to initiate statutorily required actions that have been "unreasonably delayed." But courts have found delays to be unreasonable only in rare cases where, unlike this one, inaction had lasted for several years, and the recalcitrant agency could offer neither a persuasive excuse nor a credible end to its dithering. In deciding whether a given agency delay is reasonable, current law tells courts to consider whether expedited action could adversely affect "higher or competing" agency priorities, and whether other interests could be "prejudiced by the delay." Even in cases where an agency outright refuses to enforce a policy in specified types of cases -- not the case here -- the Supreme Court has declined to intervene. As held by former Chief Justice William Rehnquist in a leading case on this subject, Heckler v. Chaney, courts must respect an agency's presumptively superior grasp of "the many variables involved in the proper ordering of its priorities." Chief Justice Rehnquist suggested that courts could lose their deference to Executive Branch judgment if an "agency has consciously and expressly adopted a general policy that is so extreme as to amount to an abdication of its statutory responsibilities." ​

 

[TemplarKormac]

Not true. Delaying Parts of Obamacare: 'Blatantly Illegal' or Routine Adjustment?



The GOP is attempting to govern by blackmail. Were it a Republican President lol and Senate and the progressive caucus in the House were doing this over legislation they didn't like, you'd be peeing your pants here on a daily basis.

This is not how legislation is overturned.

I'm sorry, throwing links and talking points at me will not win you this argument, for which you failed to address at all. You don't simply react by circumventing the law. At least the GOP is using legitimate political processes to "govern by blackmail," Obama on the other hand flat out breached his authority under the Constitution.

What Obama did was show contempt for the co-equal branches of government. Congress alone has the power to enact legislation and amendments to previously enacted legislation.

I'm afraid legal precedent trumps your opinion of the matter.

"There is no provision in the Constitution that authorizes the president to enact, to amend, or to repeal statutes."

Justice John Paul Stevens, in Clinton v. City of New York 524 U.S. 417 (1998)

Obama violates the Presentment Clause of the US Constitution when he attempts to change law.

The Presentment Clause, which is contained in Article I, Section 7, Clauses 2 and 3, provides:

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

In fact, applicable judicial precedent places such timing adjustments well within the Executive Branch's lawful discretion. To be sure, the federal Administrative Procedure Act authorizes federal courts to compel agencies to initiate statutorily required actions that have been "unreasonably delayed." But courts have found delays to be unreasonable only in rare cases where, unlike this one, inaction had lasted for several years, and the recalcitrant agency could offer neither a persuasive excuse nor a credible end to its dithering. In deciding whether a given agency delay is reasonable, current law tells courts to consider whether expedited action could adversely affect "higher or competing" agency priorities, and whether other interests could be "prejudiced by the delay." Even in cases where an agency outright refuses to enforce a policy in specified types of cases -- not the case here -- the Supreme Court has declined to intervene. As held by former Chief Justice William Rehnquist in a leading case on this subject, Heckler v. Chaney, courts must respect an agency's presumptively superior grasp of "the many variables involved in the proper ordering of its priorities." Chief Justice Rehnquist suggested that courts could lose their deference to Executive Branch judgment if an "agency has consciously and expressly adopted a general policy that is so extreme as to amount to an abdication of its statutory responsibilities." ​

Citing the Executive Power Vesting Clause does not apply, it is outrightly irrelevant. An opinion from a columnist does not trump case law. The flaw in citing Heckler is the fact that while the FDA was an Administrative Agency, the President is in charge of the Executive branch of Government, which is checked by the Legislative and the Judicial. He is thereby subject to Separation of Powers, as well as the presentment clause. Under the separation of powers, each branch is independent, has a separate function, and may not usurp the functions of another branch.

 

[Seawytch]

I'm sorry, throwing links and talking points at me will not win you this argument, for which you failed to address at all. You don't simply react by circumventing the law. At least the GOP is using legitimate political processes to "govern by blackmail," Obama on the other hand flat out breached his authority under the Constitution.

What Obama did was show contempt for the co-equal branches of government. Congress alone has the power to enact legislation and amendments to previously enacted legislation.

I'm afraid legal precedent trumps your opinion of the matter.

"There is no provision in the Constitution that authorizes the president to enact, to amend, or to repeal statutes."

Justice John Paul Stevens, in Clinton v. City of New York 524 U.S. 417 (1998)

Obama violates the Presentment Clause of the US Constitution when he attempts to change law.

In fact, applicable judicial precedent places such timing adjustments well within the Executive Branch's lawful discretion. To be sure, the federal Administrative Procedure Act authorizes federal courts to compel agencies to initiate statutorily required actions that have been "unreasonably delayed." But courts have found delays to be unreasonable only in rare cases where, unlike this one, inaction had lasted for several years, and the recalcitrant agency could offer neither a persuasive excuse nor a credible end to its dithering. In deciding whether a given agency delay is reasonable, current law tells courts to consider whether expedited action could adversely affect "higher or competing" agency priorities, and whether other interests could be "prejudiced by the delay." Even in cases where an agency outright refuses to enforce a policy in specified types of cases -- not the case here -- the Supreme Court has declined to intervene. As held by former Chief Justice William Rehnquist in a leading case on this subject, Heckler v. Chaney, courts must respect an agency's presumptively superior grasp of "the many variables involved in the proper ordering of its priorities." Chief Justice Rehnquist suggested that courts could lose their deference to Executive Branch judgment if an "agency has consciously and expressly adopted a general policy that is so extreme as to amount to an abdication of its statutory responsibilities." ​

Where did you get this? Citing the Executive Power Vesting Clause does not apply, it is outrightly irrelevant.

Ah, so you don't read facts provided. No wonder you can stay in your little RW bubble. It's from the link I provided..the one that talks about how delaying the employer mandate doesn't violate anything...if it did, noted car thief and suspected arsonist Daryl Issa would be all over it.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Sorry, Republicans. Nothing in the Constitution authorizes a single house of Congress to retroactively veto U.S. law by refusing to fund the rest of the government. The manner in which you’re attempting this blackmail—on party-line votes, engineered by the party that lost the popular vote—doesn’t help. The Senate and the president have no legal or moral obligation to humor your demands. Do your job, or we’ll throw you out.

Exactly.

There is nothing justifying republicans holding the country hostage where the ransom is the economic well-being of the Nation.

The American people know this, and are admonishing the GOP accordingly.

Who said they were "vetoing" anything? They are submitting a repeal through the proper channels. That isn't hostage taking, that's how it should be done. They passed three CR's with the repeal, delay, or repeal of the medical device tax. The Senate rejected them on each occasion. If they were serious about funding the government, they would negotiate or pass the bill as is. It appears to me that Harry Reid and the Democrats in the Senate would rather grandstand than negotiate.

there is a reason i call this Asshole....No_Reply_Jones.....just sayin.....

 

[Katzndogz]

obama acts illegally on so many levels, Issa can only hit the high spots. obama should really be impeached for severe malfeasance of office.

 

[Hoffstra]

Obama and the GOP should negotiate on the govt. shutdown.

I have no problem with that.

But negotiate over the debt ceiling? no way!!!!!

Congress approved the spending and the tax policies, and the debt & deficit is a result of that.

They MUST approve all required borrowing to pay for the spending they approved!!!!

 

[TemplarKormac]

In fact, applicable judicial precedent places such timing adjustments well within the Executive Branch's lawful discretion. To be sure, the federal Administrative Procedure Act authorizes federal courts to compel agencies to initiate statutorily required actions that have been "unreasonably delayed." But courts have found delays to be unreasonable only in rare cases where, unlike this one, inaction had lasted for several years, and the recalcitrant agency could offer neither a persuasive excuse nor a credible end to its dithering. In deciding whether a given agency delay is reasonable, current law tells courts to consider whether expedited action could adversely affect "higher or competing" agency priorities, and whether other interests could be "prejudiced by the delay." Even in cases where an agency outright refuses to enforce a policy in specified types of cases -- not the case here -- the Supreme Court has declined to intervene. As held by former Chief Justice William Rehnquist in a leading case on this subject, Heckler v. Chaney, courts must respect an agency's presumptively superior grasp of "the many variables involved in the proper ordering of its priorities." Chief Justice Rehnquist suggested that courts could lose their deference to Executive Branch judgment if an "agency has consciously and expressly adopted a general policy that is so extreme as to amount to an abdication of its statutory responsibilities." ​

Where did you get this? Citing the Executive Power Vesting Clause does not apply, it is outrightly irrelevant.

Ah, so you don't read facts provided. No wonder you can stay in your little RW bubble. It's from the link I provided..the one that talks about how delaying the employer mandate doesn't violate anything...if it did, noted car thief and suspected arsonist Daryl Issa would be all over it.

The fact you cannot refrain from namecalling means your argument is thereby wrong. Read the edition and get back to me. I have over 220+ years of constitutional doctrine backing my argument. You have an opinion piece.

 

[birddog]

Obama and the GOP should negotiate on the govt. shutdown.

I have no problem with that.

But negotiate over the debt ceiling? no way!!!!!

Congress approved the spending and the tax policies, and the debt & deficit is a result of that.

They MUST approve all required borrowing to pay for the spending they approved!!!!

Congress responded to Obama blackmail. Congress did not approve increased spending by citizens for/on Obamacare.

Congress "fighting fire with fire" is acceptable.

Obama and cohorts are incompetent liars, and need to be stopped wherever possible! Anyone supporting them around here are dirtbags!

 

[Hoffstra]

The House approved all spending in 2011, 2012, and 2013.

All of that spending came with a big fat deficit.

They now need to approve more borrowing to fund the deficit spending that THEY approved.

Otherwise they are liars and thieves.

holding the debt ceiling hostage to budget cuts and therefore threatening a default, is unPatriotic.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Sorry, Republicans. Nothing in the Constitution authorizes a single house of Congress to retroactively veto U.S. law by refusing to fund the rest of the government. The manner in which you’re attempting this blackmail—on party-line votes, engineered by the party that lost the popular vote—doesn’t help. The Senate and the president have no legal or moral obligation to humor your demands. Do your job, or we’ll throw you out.

Exactly.

There is nothing justifying republicans holding the country hostage where the ransom is the economic well-being of the Nation.

The American people know this, and are admonishing the GOP accordingly.

There is no ransom or hostage. Commerce is continuing. The people are admonishing both parties. Just so we're clear.