In other news today:
OOPS!
Mainstream!
Oh No!
Harry is going to go thermonuclear!
He might even raise his voice!
NOOOOOOOOO!
We are winning folks!
Boner grew a pair? Well, color me surprised. Let's hope he keeps it up.
This is a fight worth having to the bitter end.
Democrats are such phony snakes. This whole thing has its roots in their refusal to pass a budget. That's the whole cause of this constant state of "oh noes, we're about to go over a cliff" every three or four months. You want every agency open? Then pass a budget.
How about this idea: Go through the enumerated powers and provide reasonable funding for each of them in turn. When you get to the end of the list, stop.
This is the way to deal with pinpricks.
Where’s the bill that requires all members of Congress and the President to not be exempt from Obamacare?
Durbin should look at the market today, the first day of the "shutdown".
Exactly.
Deal with it.
Gee, you’d think Susan Ferrechio might have included some positive quotes from Repubs, rather than just the hissing and mockery from the Marxists.
So far the stock markets almost all seem to be *up* on the news.
Why should a Republican controlled House reopen the EPA? Did the Department of Education get partially closed? If so, why reopen it? Our education system is becoming obsolete anyway because of the internet.
“Mini”? Really?
In celebration of todays government shutdown and the obvious pain being felt by the libs, we are cooking a turkey dinner with all the trimmings.
Unpopularity of prohibition and repeal movementAs early as 1925, journalist H. L. Mencken believed that Prohibition was not working. As the prohibition years continued, more of the country’s populace came to see prohibition as illustrative of class distinctions, a law unfairly biased in its administration favoring social elites. "Prohibition worked best when directed at its primary target: the working-class poor." Historian Lizabeth Cohen writes: “ A rich family could have a cellar-full of liquor, but if a poor family had a bottle of home-brew, there would be trouble.” Working-class people were inflamed by the fact that their employers could dip into a cache of private stock while they, the employees, were denied a similar indulgence.
Indeed, before the date that the Eighteenth Amendment became national law, many of the upper classes stockpiled alcohol for home consumption. They bought out the inventories of warehouses, saloons, club store rooms, they emptied out liquor retailers and wholesalers. American lawmakers themselves followed these practices at the highest levels of government. President Woodrow Wilson moved his own supply of alcoholic beverages to his Washington residence after his term of office ended. His successor, Warren G. Harding relocated his own large supply into the White House after inauguration.
In October 1930, just two weeks before the Congressional midterm elections, bootlegger George Cassiday, "the man in the green hat," came forward and told how he had bootlegged for ten years for Congress. One of the few bootleggers ever to tell his story, he wrote five front page articles in The Washington Post. He estimated that eighty percent of congressmen and senators drank, even though these same people were the ones passing dry laws. This had a significant impact on the midterm election, which saw Congress shift from a dry Republican majority to a wet Democratic majority. The Democrats understood that Prohibition was unpopular and called for its repeal.
Does anybody see any parallels with today's fight over Obamacare? Switch the parties, but history is repeating itself. The politicians are doing for themselves the opposite of what they're mandating for the rest of the country. Waivers from Obamacare for politicians and big business, but not for individuals.
-PJ
Good going Republicans:you didn’t back down and you went through with shutting down the government. standing ovation to them
This makes sense. The House of Representatives is where spending bills originate. Piecemeal funding by the House for noncontroversial spending makes sense.
For the Democrats to reject a spending bill that is perfectly acceptable otherwise might be viewed as foolish and mean spirited. The Democrats may want the government to stay shut down, but why, we ask?
Are the Senate Democrats dictating to the House or Representatives how the House should do their work? Do the Senate Democrats want to take over the responsibility of originating spending bills? Is that okay with the low information voter?