Harry Reid--Why would we want to save one child with cancer?

The tea party republicans own this shut down. Vote the tea party out, all of them. Originally Posted by flghtr65

In a sense that's true. Supposedly eighty (80) Republicans in the House Of Rep all signed letter to Speaker Boehner demanding a Government shutdown in lieu of defunding Obamacare. They got exactly what they wanted. On the flip side of that coin, Obama refuses to negotiate. Simply because any negotiation at this time may jeopardize Obamacare. Obamacare is his baby it's all he really has. To lose Obamacare would be equivalent to a kite losing it's tail string, this administration would fritter aimlessly about till it crashed. It's like the GOP has handed the Libs their ass on this deal. Now the ball is in their court. So what will they do now. Allow Obamacare to be defunded and open up Gov't or play a game of political chess.

Jim

They are free to purchase insurance in the private market. Originally Posted by lostincypress

They are also "free" to not run for office or apply for a government job and ...

... free to quit sopping up on the taxpayers' tit.

If "government people" (whether elected or hired) were REQUIRED to live on and under the same standards as they impose on the taxpayers (and non-taxpayers) who they continually bleed excessively for their sustenance ... there would be fewer "government people" AND fewer REGULATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS.

What part of the Constitution? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Article I, Section 9, 7th clause: "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time."

There is also Article I, Section 8, 12th clause: "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;" This requires the Congress to appropriate money to run the military at least every two years.

A technical argument can be made that the ongoing Continuing Resolutions are unConstitutional, as they are not actually Appropriations.

They are also "free" to not run for office or apply for a government job and ...

... free to quit sopping up on the taxpayers' tit.

If "government people" (whether elected or hired) were REQUIRED to live on and under the same standards as they impose on the taxpayers (and non-taxpayers) who they continually bleed excessively for their sustenance ... there would be fewer "government people" AND fewer REGULATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Except of course when say Bush is in office...Let Bush have say the same security that you or I am afforded. Of course your hypocrisy is never self examined.

Except of course when say Bush is in office....... Originally Posted by WTF

Perhaps then, you should run for President, and .....

.... use your superior intellectual ability and

.....gift for bullshit in sorting all this mess out.

I thought you would be advocating equality. Isn't that your "strong suit"?

Article I, Section 9, 7th clause: "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time."

There is also Article I, Section 8, 12th clause: "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;" This requires the Congress to appropriate money to run the military at least every two years.

A technical argument can be made that the ongoing Continuing Resolutions are unConstitutional, as they are not actually Appropriations. Originally Posted by Sidewinder

COF is a lawyer, you'll have to excuse his ignorance

I love the panic from the left. Somehow 50 members of Congress have shut down all of the government. If only Reid has passed budget or Obama had cultivated some GOP members into Obamacare... Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

He attempted to, but was told no way, nohow, forget it by Boehner, McConnell, and Kyl.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles...mpaign_id=yhoo

Nice try, but you will never dent the vacuum JD has around his head.

Article I, Section 9, 7th clause: "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time."

There is also Article I, Section 8, 12th clause: "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;" This requires the Congress to appropriate money to run the military at least every two years.

A technical argument can be made that the ongoing Continuing Resolutions are unConstitutional, as they are not actually Appropriations. Originally Posted by Sidewinder

Ok. Look up what an "appropriation" is, and get back to me. But I like the idea that CRs may be unconstitutional. Like that matters anymore.

Congress can pass whatever law or program they want. The appropriation is a separate bill. CBJ7, you are SO stupid. Chump.