Quantcast

Elizabeth Warren: “Hostage tactics are the last resort for those who can’t otherwise win their fights”

warren-elizabethElizabeth Warren might just be my favorite United States Senator.  She’s not been one to mince words on key issues, and when it comes to this ridiculous government shutdown, she pulled no punches.

While addressing the antics of House Republicans that have forced our government to shut down, Senator Warren said what many liberals have been saying all along:

“The threats may continue, but they are not working.  And they will never work.  Because this is a democracy.  And in a democracy, hostage tactics are the last resort for those who can’t otherwise win their fights through elections, can’t win their fights in Congress, can’t win their fights for the presidency, and can’t win their fights in Courts.  For this right-wing minority, hostage-taking is all they have left.  A last gasp of those who cannot cope with the realities of our democracy.”

I don’t think I’ve heard anyone else say it better, and she’s absolutely right.

This shutdown is a result of the fact that Republicans have lost when it comes to “Obamacare,” and they simply can’t handle that.

They lost in 2008 when President Obama was first elected.  They lost in 2010 when the bill was made law.  They lost in mid-2012 when the Supreme Court upheld that the law was Constitutional.  They lost last November when President Obama was overwhelmingly re-elected and Democrats were given more seats in the House and Senate.

The fact of the matter is they’ve lost, and now they’re throwing a tempter tantrum like a petulant child.  They’re trying to blackmail the president by holding the government (and the American people) hostage.  Now they’ve shutdown the government simply because they didn’t get their way.

It’s honestly the most pathetic display I’ve seen from a major political party in my lifetime.  They lost the presidency and they lost in the Supreme Court, so now they feel they have no other choice but to take our government and the American people hostage.  Because, you know, that makes far more sense than working toward actual compromise or doing their jobs. 

And I will keep repeating this anytime the subject comes up because it simply can’t be said enough—”Obamacare” is the law of the land.  It isn’t some piece of legislation Democrats and President Obama are trying to force through Congress, it’s the law—period.

What Republicans are doing is basically going “nuclear” because they’ve run out of options.  The only “plan” they have left at this point is to hold our government (and in a few days, our debt ceiling) hostage to try to force the defunding or delay of the health care law.

Which is not going to happen under any circumstance.  It’s amazing how “patriotic” Republicans often claim to be, yet now many of them are embracing this idea that the attempted extortion of our government is a viable means with which to govern.

And that’s exactly what Senator Warren targeted with her comments.  A defeated (and delusional) Republican party that’s lost elections and lost court battles, grasping at straws because they’ve simply lost the fight.

It’s a pathetic display, and one Senator Warren called out perfectly.

The following two tabs change content below.
Allen Clifton is from the Dallas-Fort Worth area and has a degree in Political Science. He is a co-founder of Forward Progressives, and author of the popular Right Off A Cliff column. He is also the founder of the Right Off A Cliff facebook page, on which he routinely voices his opinions and stirs the pot for the Progressive movement. Follow Allen on Twitter as well, @Allen_Clifton.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • jjt34

    The public overwhelmingly said no to Obamacare but the democrats still pushed it through and basically snubbed their noses at America public.
    Now, the Republicans are standing up and trying to block this unpopular plan and all the Democrats can do is point their fingers and blame them for the mess we are in today.
    Sorry but there is enough blame here to go around for BOTH parties and shame on a Congress and the President for letting it get to this point.
    Instead of shutting down the government and furloughing all the federal workers… Instead, all of Congress and the President and his Cabinet should suspend their pay and their lavish (and sometimes outrageous) expense accounts until this is resolved. Also, the U.S. should suspend ALL foreign aid and instead take care of it’s own during this time of crisis.
    The time has come for America to wake up before it is too late.

    • Angel Rivera

      Actually the law is only unpopular because its called Obamacare and not the Affordable Care Act. People are actually evenly split on Obamacare. Both houses of congress voted and passed the law. The president signed it into law. Republicans challenged in court and the supreme court said it was constitutional. The republicans tried to repeal it many times but the senate refused as they have the right to. Then the republicans used the need to repeal the Affordable Care Act as a prerequisite for passing a spending bill. It undermines the senate’s right to reject something that they already said they will not look at. thus the Republicans play lead to a government shutdown by holding the government hostage until their demands are met.

      • Matthew Reece

        The PATRIOT Act was only popular at the time because it was not called the Repeal the Fourth Amendment Act, which would have been a more accurate description. You must learn that most Acts of Congress have Orwellian names.

      • cloudshe

        …because “the affordable care act” is such an accurate description of a giant tax bill totally hidden from the public until after passage

      • Marlon

        My insurance bill goes down greater than my taxes go up. This is net gain for me. I am an employer who operates a small business, and I am satisfied with the early estimates. What am I missing?

      • pat

        u arn’t missing anything, who does not want health care??? we all have to pay for it but at least now we will be able to afford it and get it, previous health problems do not matter anymore. Canada has a good health care system, not perfect, but it works, Drs. and Insurance companies do not like this because they probably wont get as much money from us..they never should have been allowed to refuse people with pre existing problems, what does that say about us as a whole. It is pretty disgusting when the country is lied t`o on a daily basis, everyday, about all things and what do we believe??? the one thing that will make lives healthier and less costly???? no, just the negative stuff, we seem to love negative stuff! is it easier to believe?

      • Kojo

        You’re missing the memo that the GOP sent out telling business owners to lie about how ACA will effect them. Thanks for speaking the truth from the less popular business side.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Do you even know WHERE Obamacare funding comes from???

      • cloudshe

        my reference is to the SCOTUS finding, among other things. my big error is overestimating the intellect of some of the posters here, apparently

    • paul

      grow up!!!!!

    • speakoutforscience

      Thanks to mainstream media, most people don’t even understand what the Affordable Care Act is about.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        No, thanks to FOX.

    • April Breck

      Sure, sure, they overwhelmingly said no to Obamacare…by reelecting Obama by 8 million votes. You are so, so dumb.

    • Sam Knudson

      57% is not over whelming and they are more accepting when asked “do you support ACA?” Also that number includes people who do not think it goes far enough. I say no to ACA because Universal is what we should have in place. But ACA paves the way for it so i dont mind that much

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Yep, single payor like Medicare. The sooner, the better.

    • deckbose

      Speaking of waking up before it’s too late, you have a child’s grasp on political realities. The ACA is a law. Passed by Congress, signed by the President and validated by the Supreme Court. Whether a law is unpopular does not change the fact that it is a law. But your claim that the ACA is unpopular is entirely without substance. Yesterday, in NY State alone, more than 2 million people called about acquiring health care in the first two hours that the exchanges were open. That is far from unpopular. Stop whining about the ACA and let people judge for themselves. And stop supporting political hostage-taking. It is unseemly and unAmerican.

      • pat

        wonderful reply! my sentiments completley.

    • Burzghash

      The people did not say no to Obamacare. He ran for re-election on Obamacare, and he won a second term. It was vetted through Congress, and the Supreme Court. While the people who are not in favor of Obamacare is only SLIGHTLY higher than those who are in favor, that also INCLUDES people who are against it because IT DOES NOT GO FAR ENOUGH, and would’ve liked to see it go even further.

      Basically, your rhetoric isn’t founded by reality. Sorry.

    • fcsuper

      “public overwhelmingly said no”. No we didn’t. A very vocal minority from particular regions said no. On the whole, Pres want the election, Dems won seats in both the House and Senate. I would say, the people overall said we either don’t care, or we want this.

    • dancer61958

      Hmm I have Romneycare and it’s worked great for years!

    • suburbancuurmudgeon

      Uh, so the process for enacting a law is OK as long as it’s a law you approve? And the public loves Obamacare when they finally figure out what’s in it. And PUH-LEEZE stop talking about foreign aid, which is 3% of the budget. Two thirds of the budget is defense, social security and health care. Where do you want to start cutting?

  • cloudshe

    this is the problem when we listen to poly-sci types who have no understanding of banking, economics, business, or our economy in general. EW is a grandstander who continually shows her ignorance of the business world, yet as a strong woman who delights in bullying business folks who the government regulators want to reign in, she has built a fawning fan base. will she be the next barney frank/chris dodd, haphazardly making disastrous policy and telling her supporters how much she’s doing for them, just as the next bubble bursts?

    • Pipercat

      A poly-sci type? Oh, that’s what a JD degree from Rutgers is all about!

      • cloudshe

        i was referring to the genius who wrote the article

      • deckbose

        You specifically said “EW is a grandstander who continually shows her ignorance of the business world,” then switched your very specific complaint to the author of the article, whose initial are not EW. Your comments are not only without sense or substance, you fail to even uphold your own mindless convictions. I don’t think I’ve seen a more tragic failure to make a legitimate point in all the internet commentary I’ve read this week.

      • cloudshe

        oh gee, i must have failed in my attempt to ‘splain why the writer’s impression of EW is inaccurate. are you sure you’re not just pissed by my lack of admiration for the voters of massachusetts? damn, now i’ll have to explain THAT connection. so many liberals, so little time

      • zjm555

        I’m no liberal, but you lost this fight mate.

      • cloudshe

        or just maybe scott brown and the people of massachusetts lost it

      • deckbose

        Just try making sense next time. We’ll all consider that a huge improvement.

      • cloudshe

        as i’ve mentioned to others, it helps if you can read and understand the article. maybe you just looked at it from a different angle than me. in case you missed it, my post WAS a negative commentary on BOTH clifton and EW. hope i didn’t break up the progressive love fest going on here

      • deckbose

        I love when a poster tries to explain away the confusion resulting from his/her soggy prose by suggesting there’s a comprehension issue among the readership. Not unlike a very bad comedian who insists that the absence of laughter resulting from his bit indicates a moral failure on the part of the audience.

      • cloudshe

        hey, i realize my conciseness was a little hard for some to understand, but i tried to correct it. you, on the other hand, are just being antagonistic. you think i’m getting paid for posting my brilliance in front of you swine? (don’t get too worked up, that’s a joke)

      • LetsDebateProperly

        “i must have failed in my attempt to ‘splain why the writer’s impression of EW is inaccurate.”
        Yes. Your attempt to explain was so terrible that even you yourself are aware of it.

        “now i’ll have to explain THAT connection”
        So why don’t you? Obviously because you don’t have a point. If you did you’d be posting that point instead of merely implying it (implying poorly I might add) and you wouldn’t be trying to act like a victim.

      • cloudshe

        well, it helps if you read the article, written by a poli-sci guy, about how politically wonderful EW is in her analysis of the shutdown. her typical “not mincing of words” involves trying to make business people look bad to sell her ideas of how they should be regulated. MY POINT IS politically astute folks (in this case either EW or Clifton) don’t necessarily come up with practical or realistic opinions on stuff they know little about, even though their media coverage makes them look swell. and i guess YOUR point is since you don’t agree with me i must be illiterate. hope that works for you mr. debate pro, next time try acting like you understand the english language

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        How about tell us where you think Clifton is wrong using factual data instead of digging yourself in deeper?

      • cloudshe

        i never claimed clifton was Wrong, but he and EW are good examples of folks who are politically and legally clever who can do great harm through their ignorance of business, economics, and history

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Yes, you failed. Try again.

      • cloudshe

        still looking for the FACTS? why don’t you try using some of your own

      • Marlon

        Actually, you weren’t, but let’s go with your version of events. It is more entertaining. Why exactly is Allen Clifton’s initials EW? What was his momma smokin’ when he was born? His initials should be PEW for “Whooee! I smell a Progressive (as in it’s getting progressively smellier in here. Did someone cut a Libtard?” Ain’t nothing wrong with Sen. Warren a trip to a decent hairdresser can’t fix. She looks like my Great Aunt with her pucker lips on. I love Freedom, and hate Democracy. I don’t like smart people! Regulation’s immoral! There’s no business like the business we call “show”. ‘Trying to help you out here, Pard. I’m right behind you (about 300 yards).

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        I’m not sure if you’re sarcastic or believe what you are saying.

    • speakoutforscience

      Really? I guess having been a Professor of Bankruptcy Law at Harvard just makes her plain stupid. She could run circles around you until you disappear into thin air.

      • cloudshe

        look at who the article was written by, it was Not warren. sorry for the confusion

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        You’re not forgiven. You are still wrong.

      • cloudshe

        how does it feel being among the easily confused? BHO depends on folks like you

      • Mizdmc

        I loved your response.

  • Marc

    If Obamacare is so wonderful, why is the president and congress exempt? It is also the “law of the land” that congress shall pass no law that they exempt themselves from.

    • Pipercat

      Totally misleading statement. The issue revolves around a special subsidy that Congress, and their staffs, get towards their employer sponsored healthcare. The subisdy amounts to 5000 to 12000 per year. The Congress and staff must choose their policy from the Federal Exchanges, just like me. I don’t hear the insurgents giving up that subsidy in their patriotic and selfless revolt to the insidious ACA…

    • kissyface

      read the Grassley amendment and get informed

    • Jeffrey Zamora

      It is amazing the level of ignorance idiots like you spew no matter how embarrassingly naive it makes you look.

    • suburbancuurmudgeon

      Swing and a miss.

  • Matthew Reece

    ”Obamacare” is the law of the land.

    The “law of the land” is nothing but a collection of murder threats, in that anyone who peacefully disobeys a statutory law and acts in self-defense against agents of the state who come to kidnap and imprison that person risks being murdered. This is not law; it is the whims of the ruling class inflicted upon everyone else. The only valid law is the natural law, which arises through logical proof.

    • Roasted Vegetables

      Don’t you have cabin in the woods to go home to?

    • deckbose

      The ACA was passed by Congress, signed by the President and confirmed as constitutional by the Supreme Court. That, sir, constitutes the legitimate process by which the US federal government creates laws, whether you like them or not. Stop whining and deal with it.

      • Matthew Reece

        There is no such thing as a legitimate government because all governments initiate force against people who do not consent to be governed. The ACA does not have to have such stipulations in order for agents of the state to kidnap and imprison people. Whenever anyone resists the state long and strong enough, the guns will be drawn.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        I suggest you find a country with no legitimate government. Try Somalia.

      • Matthew Reece

        I suggest you tell a woman in an abusive marriage that she should have to either marry another abusive husband or be forced to remain in the house with her current one in order to get a divorce. It is the same logic applied to an equivalent situation.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Who is being abused? You are free to leave anytime.

      • Matthew Reece

        Ever heard of passports? You can’t get one without being a citizen of some country, and if you go to another country, there is another abusive state waiting for you. So the “love it or leave it” argument is a red herring fallacy, as it does not address the issue.

        Any act that violates the non-aggression principle abuses someone, and all governments do this. In fact, it is the definition of government to have a monopoly on the initiation of force.

    • zjm555

      Natural law arises through logical proof? I’d love to see that…

      • Matthew Reece

        I will give you the first step. The most fundamental of all logical rights is the right of bodily ownership, to own one’s own body. To argue against this right, one must communicate. To communicate, one must use the body which one can control. One cannot legitimately use that which one does not own. Therefore, to argue against bodily ownership, one must implicitly assume bodily ownership. This is a contradiction, which falsifies the argument. Thus the right of bodily ownership is logically proven.

        Everything else follows from the implications of bodily ownership.

      • shenagig

        Own? You are just renting for 70 or 89 years.

      • dirt e. hairy

        oh, crap. do we really have to put up with him for that long?

      • Matthew Reece

        To rent something requires an external owner, a “landlord” of sorts. Going down this path forces you to do something along the lines of proving the existence of God. I wish you good luck, because no one has succeeded with that thus far.

      • zjm555

        Not that I am assuming your “proof” by contradiction to be correct, but even taking bodily ownership as an axiom (which I am happy to do), how do you derive the role of government from that principle?

      • Pipercat

        Give him credit, it’s his own take of the natural rights argument.

      • Matthew Reece

        I believe it is the only valid take on natural rights. Otherwise, one has to say that they come from God, or government, or something else which is asserted without proof.

      • Matthew Reece

        The second step is that because each person has bodily ownership, any act of aggression against another person is a violation of the logical right of bodily ownership. This is commonly called the non-aggression principle. A government is a group of individuals who maintain a monopoly on the initiation of force within a geographical area. Initiating force violates the non-aggression principle, so there is no role for government within a logical rights framework.

      • Tom Zarek

        TIL: Paralyzed people don’t own their bodies.

      • zjm555

        His proof is wrong, but that’s not why. He made the claim “X->Y” and you’re criticizing the claim “Y->X”, so your point is logically fallacious.

      • Matthew Reece

        Don’t just say that something is wrong. Prove the case.

      • zjm555

        You framed your series of claims as first principles and declared no axioms, but your claims require several, the most contentious of which is “One cannot legitimately use that which one does not own.” If you look at that specific assumption relative to the claim trying to be proven, it is no more than begging the question (in the logical sense).

        My problem with that is moot though; I am happy to take the notion of bodily ownership as an axiom. I’m much more curious as to how you derive the rest of your moral code therefrom.

      • Matthew Reece

        My axioms are the three classical laws of thought: the law of identity, the law of non-contradiction, and the law of excluded middle.

      • zjm555

        Then how do you derive “One cannot legitimately use that which one does not own”?

      • Matthew Reece

        I suppose bodily ownership would also be an axiom, and the proof is really to show what happens when someone tries to dispute the axiom.

        Property rights are the third step. Because a person has bodily ownership, one owns the consequences of one’s actions. Thus, when one mixes one’s labor with unowned natural resources, one acquires those natural resources as physical property.

        To use something which one does not own, apart from unowned natural resources, is violating someone else’s property rights. One would be in a continual state of trespassing by remaining in one’s body if one does not own it.

      • zjm555

        Dude. Pretty much everything you just stated came out of nowhere. I have no problem with you saying that “hey, this is what I believe to be true”, that’s great, that’s how morality works. But to claim it is some absolute truth is ridiculous. “One owns the consequences of one’s actions”? Where does that even come from? And what does it mean even?? You haven’t even introduced the notion of “unowned natural resources”, not to mention the notion of ownership, or “natural”… Believe what you want to believe, but know that what you are saying is not formal logic.

      • Matthew Reece

        I just explained this. Owning one’s body has the corollary of owning its effects in the external world. One is thusly entitled to the fruits of one’s labors and is responsible for one’s infractions against the rights of other sentient beings.

        The three classical laws of thought and the right of bodily ownership do not have to “come from” anywhere. They are valid simply because their invalidity leads to contradictions and absurdities which make any kind of rational discourse impossible.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Uh, and where might those laws be codified?

      • Matthew Reece

        They do not need to be codified anywhere. They are valid simply because their invalidity would negate meaningful discourse.

      • Matthew Reece

        Then who does?

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        You ARE off your meds!

      • Matthew Reece

        Ad hominem admits defeat and ignorance.

    • suburbancuurmudgeon

      WTF? You off your meds?

      • Matthew Reece

        Ad hominem is an admission of defeat and ignorance.

  • francisco

    The public said overwhelmingly said no to Obamacare that is why the PEOPLE ELECTED THE one who invented twice………….IDIOT

    • deckbose

      That’s not even comprehensible. You should be much more careful about calling anyone else an “IDIOT” when your words are only barely understandable.

  • raggedcompany

    That’s the part that continues to baffle me – people keep saying over and over that Americans don’t want the ACA, but if that was the case, why didn’t Mitt Romney win the election? Didn’t he promise to repeal the law? Either Americans are confused and voted for a president who supports a law they do not (which wouldn’t surprise me), or they actually DO want the ACA.

    • Zwind

      People didn’t vote for Romney because the believed he was a “rich, white old man” who only wanted to help the rich be richer and leave the poor in the dust. If people actually looked at Romney’s ideas, Romney might have won. Low information voters will be the death of the US!

      • raggedcompany

        While I agree with that sentiment regarding Mitt Romney, if those who were so opposed to the ACA felt as strongly as they did, perhaps they should have taken a closer look and made a more informed decision. Maybe they should have bit the bullet and voted for Mitt Romney in order to bring about the demise of the ACA. They’ve brought their fate upon themselves.

      • fcsuper

        If this was true, Republicans should’ve won a many seats in the House and made gains in the Senate, as they normally do when a Democrat is President. However, against the normal pattern, Republicans actually lost more than a handful of seats in the House and even lost 2 seats in the Senate. It is the lost of two seats in the Senate that is the real kicker. There were two statewide elections where Republicans lost their seat. Regionality is taken out of the equation. When a party loses a Senate seat, they are losing overall across that whole state. In all 23 Democrat Senators where elected in 2012, versus 8 Republicans. It was the Democrats’ election to lose since so many Democrat Senate seats were up for grabs, versus just a handful of Republican seats. If what you are saying was true, many of the Democratic Senators would’ve been voted out of office. But in reality, nearly the opposite happened.

      • sec713

        Maybe if Romney looked at Romney’s ideas he might have won. That fool let everyone in the Republican Party use him as a puppet to get their dumb ideas some much unneeded exposure. One good idea he should’ve focused on was the one Obama stole from him and named “Obamacare”.

      • SILENTSAM69

        It was also looking at his ideas that made people scared of him. He was by far the worse of two evils.

      • disqus_6AeSbMRBY2

        I DID look at Romney’s ideas, and then I looked at his ideas after he CHANGED his ideas; and I voted for Obama. ‘Nuff said.

      • kojo

        I must be one of those ‘low information voters’ you spoke of; what ‘ideas’ did Romney have? I saw a suit talking and changing its colour every 5 minutes depending upon what camera was on it but I didn’t hear any real ideas. Oh, you mean the bit of flesh that was holding the suit up that could only say “I know business” but shot himself in the foot every other 5 minutes? Right. Off shore tax evasion, repealing health care based on his own model, pulling out on the auto industry in its time of need.. great ‘idea’ man.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Romney ideas:
        “47% of the people will never vote for us.”
        “Corporations are people, my friend.”
        “I like being able to fire people who provide services to me.”
        “I’m not concerned about the very poor.”

      • Smiley Kittenpaws

        I live in MA. I lived under Romney’s ideas. I’m still paying for Romney’s ideas. I voted for Obama. There was no way I was going to give someone, who basically prayed on the middle-class, poor and disabled while he was Governor, a chance to do the same to the rest of the country.

    • yapper

      The majority of Americans don’t know what is in the ACA. When asked if they support obamacare they are slightly opposed. When they are asked if they support the specifics of the bill they are heavily for. It is a testament to the republicans negative campaign against the ACA.

      • raggedcompany

        That’s a very good point.

    • disqus_6AeSbMRBY2

      And why are so many people trying to sign up for the ACA that it’s crashing the system? If it were really so unpopular, all they would hear would be crickets.

    • Matthew Reece

      Cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Romney lost for many reasons, and there is no way to know what role Obamacare played in his defeat, not that he was even consistently against it.

  • Louise

    Blaming the government soling on the republicans is enforcing the bi partisan warfare that is tearing our country apart. You should be a more responsible journalist and try to take an objective stance. If not, make it more obvious that you are left leaning so that people can make their own conclusions, not be blindly lead to intellectual slaughter in your monochrome view of the world.

    • LetsDebateProperly

      Yes, blaming the government shutdown solely on the republicans is bipartisan. I agree.

    • raggedcompany

      Except there are Republicans who are blaming other Republicans…

  • Louise

    Blaming the government shut down solely on the republicans is enforcing the bi
    partisan warfare that is tearing our country apart. You should be a more
    responsible journalist and try to take an objective stance. If not,
    make it more obvious that you are left leaning so that people can make
    their own conclusions, not be blindly lead to intellectual slaughter in
    your monochrome view of the world.

    • deckbose

      Objectively speaking, the Republicans forced a government shutdown. They insisted that a legitimately enacted law be defunded for the purpose of repeal, OR ELSE. The shutdown was OR ELSE. There is nothing bipartisan about this tragic result. It lands squarely and without mitigation on the shoulders of the GOP.

    • suburbancuurmudgeon

      The government shutdown IS solely on the Republicans. If Boehner brought the clean bill to the floor for a vote, it would pass and we could get on with life.

  • Jason Vee

    Warren is a hack. If Obamacare isn’t good enough for Congress, Senate or the President, then I’m pretty sure it’s not good enough for anyone else. That should be an easy concession.

    • suburbancuurmudgeon

      Congress isn’t exempt. Stop listening to FOX. Read up on the Grassley (R-IA) amendment, which backfired on him.

  • nonpartisan

    Let’s look over here! .. and forget all about the NSA guys..

    sigh…

  • K

    WHO THE FUCK DO THEY THINK THEY ARE? HOLDING AMERICA HOSTAGE? WE ELECTED THEM! I FEEL LIKE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SHOULD DO SOMETHING

    • Eric Smith

      They did. They voted as many Democrats out of office as they could. Not even all the dead voters on Dem. voter rolls could stop it.

  • Pat

    ask any American who has not been able to afford to cover the family health care needs, Do you want affordable health care? what do you think??? the states have kicked people off access (welfare) refused to help people dying from any kind of tragedy. I was an employer and got myself and one employee insurance, she had open heart surgery on down the road and if we didnt have the ins. they would have kicked her to the curb so fast. course after that we couldn’t afford insurance anymore! wonder why…….. good thing I got old and was able to have SS insurance……oh well better than nothing eh? u gotta be nuts to not want health Insurance.

  • Davis Gilbert

    well the law was only upheld if it was changed from a fine to a tax. and while I respect senator Warren she did say something off in that quote, America is not a democracy, but a Democratic republic. so our representatives are supposed to vote as their best guess as to what those who elected them want. that being said because of a lot of factors those who have been voted in are not acting in the countries or the voters best interest. This applies to most of both the republicans and the democrats. For one consistently raising the debt limit is not a way for a government to function because there will come a point where the institutions (countries) that America is indebted to will say nope you’ve gone as high as we will accept. once that happens all the spending that America is doing will be shot down and the currency will probably hit a hyper inflation rate. Then all the people who are relying on government aid will be left to fend for themselves as the government will not be able to pay for its own support or those under its employee. Government outreach programs will shut down and those who have become reliant on the government will be left high and dry. What becomes of the country after that happens will depend on what happens with the people and how they react to this collapse.

    • BN

      Nice post!

      • Davis Gilbert

        I have mixed feeling about the government shut down.
        first off that fact that it has happened should signal to the people that something is wrong with the way the government is running. Unfortunately it seems like what the news and politicians are spinning is that it is the (insert preferred political group or vilified person here) is being blamed for this event.
        when what should be looked at is why the debt ceiling has to be raised and what can be done to clear some of the debt.
        I am hoping that the people will see beyond what the new media is saying and wake up to what needs to be done.
        I am also not happy that all those people are not working, especially with the way the economy is and has been.

        one of the ways to look into removing some of the debt that the government is incurring would be to look at what the government is doing that is unconstitutional (but hasn’t been ruled on).
        while i am sure there are many things, what i am thinking of specifically is the government created private corporation the FED. This entity is what congress is paying to do one of their jobs, creating the currency. they are paying this corporation more then a dollar for each dollar made.
        Lets think about it like this, we just created currency and we want to make some money to spend, so we promise to pay the FED 2 dollars if they make us 1 dollar. well we are now forever in their debt because we can not pay 2 dollars or any interest it may accumulate because we only have one dollar in existence.
        this is a very simplified explanation but one of the things that needs to be done is the removal of the FED.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        The biggest budget items are defense, health care and social security. Which ones do you want to cut?

      • Davis Gilbert

        All of them. there should be cuts and changes to where money goes. maybe add some laws that state that companies that have direct government contracts can’t provide campaign money for representative in the legislative or executive branch.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        I vote for slashing defense.

      • Davis Gilbert

        oh and social security is or should i say should not be something that is spending because that money is money that was supposed to be put in an account that the legislative branch had no access to. but they had projects they wanted and they saw an untouched account and thought i will use that money. so the spending on social security is them trying to pay back what they have taken and as you have seen the government is not good with money.

    • suburbancuurmudgeon

      Raising the debt limit means the government is able to borrow money to pay for expenses already incurred. It has nothing to do with future spending. And we wouldn’t be in a financial mess if Bush hadn’t charged two wars on a Chinese credit card.

      Our “representatives” do what their corporate donors tell them to do. There is no “best guess” involved.

      • Davis Gilbert

        actually we would still be heading into a financial mess, first off, the banks still would have done what they did to cause the global crash. that was caused because President Clinton had the legislation that prevented them from gambling as recklessly with the money of their account holders. so that is one thing that can be atributed to someone other then President Bush. there is also the problem with the FED (a government created private industry) where any money that is made cost the government more then the money is worth. that right there makes the possibility of paying off our countries debt impossible. The thing that makes this so bad as well, is that the government is playing the a similar kind of game as the banks were where they are selling their bad debt to other countries to keep it from seeming quite as bad.

  • BN

    Long held US Policy… “The United States of America does not negotiate with terrorists. Period.”

  • dancer61958

    The irony of it all regarding Mitt. I live in the state where Romneycare started. People are being fed lies that it’s bad, that premiums are going to go up, now a chain letter is circulating that you are going to be fined 4,000 and your bank account put a lien on if you don’t purchase health care. It’s nothing but lies and being used by the Tea Party as a scare tactic. Mitt knows it worked in Massachusetts it took credit for it in many vids than all of a sudden he is against it. The person who did it up for him in Massachusetts is the same exact person that did it up for the country. 99% of residents now have healthcare here and we are no longer footing the expense for the people that get sick that go to the hospital. They haven’t had to change doctors..or any of the other crap that is spewed in the media. We have had it for years. The Affordable Care Act should never have been attached to the budget to begin with…they are losing a fight they will never win at everyone elses’s expense. From Day one the Tea party vowed to get the President out of office so now they are trying anything they can to ruin it for him. They are racist, claim to be Christians which they are not…they are hurting the middle class and the poor and they won’t stop until they are thrown out of the house! Ted Cruz has been running the house like he is the speaker and Boehner has let him. Please please please do not believe the lies about the health insurance. It’s not as bad as they are wanting you to believe. i don’t even like Romney and It’s the best thing and only thing he did for this state!

    • suburbancuurmudgeon

      Facts are irrelevant in the Tea Party world.

    • Eric Smith

      And one year later, rates have skyrocketed.

  • cyber_rigger

    Small businesses are being held hostage. They don’t want obamacare.

    Elizabeth Warren ought to know this.

  • Kojo

    I hope Democrats REMEMBER these petty tactics the GOP uses IF they ever lose to them in an election again. Of course, the Dems will never hold America hostage just to win political points with their extremist base. But they should be a lot tougher when it comes to pushing for their principles in the future.

    • J.t. Alwin

      With how this is working out for the GOP, the Dems probably won’t have to worry about losing an election for a long, long time.

      • Eric Smith

        One year later, how do you feel, knowing that Democrats just
        had their worst defeat since the 1928 elections? You could not have been more wrong.

  • fred schwartz

    why havent the names of the congressmen who signed for the shutdown of the government been publicised??? and why hasnt there been a recall started??

  • Anna Rather

    I couldn’t agree more with Elizabeth Warren!

  • Eric Smith

    This is now 2014. What does she say NOW that the Dems got their asses handed to them royally in the last election? Is she going to shut down the government?