Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Newspaper contacts | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Not two-sided

October 20, 2013

The current fiasco the U.S. government is in has been provoked entirely by one of the major political parties....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(29)

Sullivan11

Oct-20-13 2:27 PM

Farmer, I'm saying we are supposed to be a nation of law. If we (The People and our elected representatives) disagree with a provision in the US Constitution, then we can change it via a Consitutional amendment.

But to simply ignore our bedrock document will and has resulted in the vile, corrupt, eletist oligarchy we have in DC today. Our forefathers carefully crafted The Constitution to prevent changes to the law for reasons of expedience, convenience, emotionalism, greed,*****for power, political ideology, ignorance or apathy.

So to answer your questions, the entitlement programs you list are not constitutional; therefore, they should be administered by the States, not the federal government.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

USABorn

Oct-20-13 2:26 PM

CaymanJim - 4:35 AM

"Why believe anything about Tedeaux's comments when he doesn't know that "White House" is two words, not one. Also, if Congress were, as he asserts, truly controlled by the Democrats, the Speaker of the House would NOT be John Boehner. Instead, that job would be in the hands of the highest-ranking Democrat in the HOR."

Cayman.....that kind of nitpicking is getting old. Anyone with a brain (INCLUDING TED)knows White House is two words.

In addition, perhaps you should re-read his comment and you will see he was talking about congressional control AT THE TIME DUMBAMACARE WAS PASSED.

Doesn't look like Cayman's comments are too believable!

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

farmer

Oct-20-13 1:45 PM

Where in US The Constitution is the federal government given the authority to administer social programs?

Mr. Sullavin, I'm not a constitutional scolar so I can't comment on the legality of Federally funded social programs. B ut just so I understand you, You think Wic., Medicaid, Veterans Affairs, Social Security,and such should be done away with? I'm not going to agree or disagree till I know for sure if I understand your position.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Sullivan11

Oct-20-13 1:03 PM

cmreeder, your comments are more often than not generalities rather than specifics, comments on contributors' personalities rather than on the issue at hand.

Sans generalities and personal confrontations, do you care to comment on the Constitutionality of federal entitlement programs?

To be clear, can you tell us specifically: where does the Constitution allow the US Federal government to administer/fund entitlement programs?

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Oct-20-13 12:47 PM

"Please don't let the exploits of the far left cloud your thinking. Most Conservative views see our personal rights taken away in small incriminates in the guise of helping those less fortunate. When is enough enough? When Christians have to where a symbol so the left knows who the enemy is?"

Even more delusion.

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Ritty77

Oct-20-13 11:16 AM

Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Oct-20-13 8:36 AM

...and for those who truly do not understand, a CR (Continuing Resolution) keeps the spending levels for each of area's of the Government at their currently budgeted levels, and they are generally passed to keep the Government operational current budget is being negotiated.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Sullivan11

Oct-20-13 8:33 AM

Respectfully, all of you are missing the fundemental issue:

Where in US The Constitution is the federal government given the authority to administer social programs?

The Constitution prohibits the feds from doing anything not specifically authorized by The Constitution. The feds are authorized to establish a postal service, build roads, regulate interstate commerce, arm and discipline a militia (section 8, not the 2nd amendment), etc, where where is their authority to take my money at give it to someone else just because that someone else is less productive than me?

Our founding fathers specified an extremely limited federal in The Constitution because they were deathly afraid of a massive, corrupt, out-of-control, unaccountable central government.

So. Do you think their fears were well-founded?

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Oct-20-13 8:30 AM

"The letter gives many facts and specific dollar figures, to which the typical wing nut hasn't been exposed to in wing nut media land." - FortySixand2

They have already been fact checked and found to be false. Now what?

6 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

FortySixand2

Oct-20-13 8:28 AM

Unfortunately for the rest of us who live in the reality based community, the right wing media bubble doesn't do facts and truth. That's the very reason fo its creation. The letter gives many facts and specific dollar figures, to which the typical wing nut hasn't been exposed to in wing nut media land. And in true cult like fashion, they are taught to mistrust all others.

3 Agrees | 11 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Oct-20-13 8:26 AM

They are using proposed levels of spending from back in 2009 and calling it a spending cut.

Drink!

7 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Premier

Oct-20-13 8:25 AM

"Wow! You surely did tell HIM...and, all it took was...the usual biased "conservative" talking points with no basic facts provided." -Sham

Uh Sham, I provided a factoid for you but seemed to have over looked your little copy and paste finger thingy.

6 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Oct-20-13 8:21 AM

Straight from The Center For American Progress;

"When President Barack Obama first took office in 2009, his budgetproposed $1.203 trillion in discretionary spending for FY 2014. The Senate CR is about $216 billion, or nearly 18 percent, lower than that. Actual enacted funding levels for FY 2010, when the Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress, totaled$1.185 trillion in 2014 dollars. The Senate CR is about $200 billion below that, a cut of nearly 17 percent.

After the 2010 midterm elections, the Republican Party took control of the House of Representatives and offered a budget plan that proposed dramatic spending reductions. That plan, authored by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI), envisioned FY 2014 funding levels at $1.095 trillion. Note that the funding in the current Senate-passed CR is about 10 percent less than the levels in the original Ryan budget."

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Oct-20-13 8:20 AM

This letter is so much liberal clap trap, the least Mr. Saunders could do is get his information right. Apparently he wasn't fully paying attention while listening to MSDNC.

The proposed budget passed by the Senate was the sequestration level funding, nothing less.

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

hopeforfuture

Oct-20-13 8:17 AM

The right is still very delusional about what they have done.-CMReeder

Please don't let the exploits of the far left cloud your thinking. Most Conservative views see our personal rights taken away in small incriminates in the guise of helping those less fortunate. When is enough enough? When Christians have to where a symbol so the left knows who the enemy is?

7 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

FortySixand2

Oct-20-13 8:00 AM

Facts, honoring truth even if not convenient. Both concepts that have well known liberal biases.

4 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Oct-20-13 7:50 AM

The right is still very delusional about what they have done.

4 Agrees | 10 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrShaman

Oct-20-13 7:26 AM

"I have traveled a bit recently and have spoken with many walks of life, to find the overwhelming majority are fearful of this mess called ACA--from millenials to the retired, they all say the same thing." - nobud74

*

I'm guessing you'd prefer NOT to explain why you're walking...from-bar-to-bar, presently...right??

2 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrShaman

Oct-20-13 7:22 AM

Another liberal LTE who said nothing when House Democrats used the same tactics to negotiate cuts in military spending under Reagan." - eriklatranyi

*

That's what Porky Limbaugh said, huh??

*

See:

THE RONALD REAGAN MYTH . . . The Progressive Review

*

"THE BIGGEST REAGAN LIE...is that he won the Cold War by terrifying the Soviets with Star Wars, upping defense expenditures, and generally being such a tough guy. The myth, though basically just GOP campaign spin, has been widely promulgated in current news coverage. The facts of the matter are quite different."

2 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrShaman

Oct-20-13 7:11 AM

How to explain so much to poor Richard with so little space to comment? The Republicans have very little chance to have an impact on legislation these days with the Democrats blocking from the Senate and Whitehouse so the Republicans waited and chose to attach the defunding of Obamacare to a major funding bill." - Tedeaux

*

Yeah...Republicans have a habit of DOING that...when the legislation, THEY prefer, has no chance of passing on its own merits.

*

See:

Q&A: Leslie & Andrew Cockburn - YouTube

(Watch: 4:45 thru 12:00)

2 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrShaman

Oct-20-13 7:06 AM

"If we are to deal honestly with the situation, basic facts must be recognized."

I would suggest Mr. Saunders, that a good place to begin would be with your own provision of misinformation. Perhaps admitting your LTE is all just the usual biased democrat talking points with no honesty or basic facts provided." - USABorn

*

Wow! You surely did tell HIM...and, all it took was...the usual biased "conservative" talking points with no basic facts provided.

3 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mikekerstetter

Oct-20-13 6:48 AM

First I heard that one..... the Dems already compromised a great deal on the CR. Somebody's been drinking WAY too much of the kool aid.

9 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Premier

Oct-20-13 6:35 AM

"President Obamas budget for 2014 was $1,203 billion."

Wow, that would have been sweet. Unfortunatly it's 3.77 Trillion.

8 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

nobud74

Oct-20-13 6:23 AM

Cap, don't try to make sense with the libs here. They are drunk on power and kool-aid. BOTH parties are to blame. The Dems control 2/3 of our federal govt and when ACA was passed so we could read it they controlled the whole thing. But, let's not let facts get in the way of a good spin. I have traveled a bit recently and have spoken with many walks of life, to find the overwhelming majority are fearful of this mess called ACA--from millenials to the retired, they all say the same thing. I just can't understand where all the support for this law comes from, except maybe those who are expecting something for nothing.

8 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Capricorn1

Oct-20-13 5:26 AM

CaymanJim, you need to read Tedeaux's comment more carefully. He stated that currently the White House and Senate is controlled by Democrats, but when the ACA was passed, Democrats had full control.

8 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 29 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web