GOP Donors Revolt Against Republican-Led Government Shutdown

[Common]

It’s not just Democrats who are angry at the Tea Party-led shutdown. Republican donors are furious their party has managed to ‘grab defeat from the jaws of victory’ on Obamacare—and some are withholding funds, reports David Freedlander. On a Monday last month, Rep. Greg Walden (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/04/11/why-greg-walden-won-t-worry-about-a-primary.html), chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, met with some top GOP donors for lunch at Le Cirque on Lexington Avenue in Manhattan. The donors, a youngish collection of financial industry types and lawyers, had some questions for Walden, a mild-mannered lawmaker from eastern Oregon known for speaking his mind.

Why, they asked, did the GOP seem so in the thrall of its most extremist wing? The donors, banker types who occupy the upper reaches of Wall Street’s towers, couldn’t understand why the Republican Party—their party—seemed close to threatening the nation with a government shutdown, never mind a default if the debt ceiling isn’t raised later this month.

Listen,” Walden said, according to several people present. “We have to do this because of the Tea Party. If we don’t, these guys are going to get primaried and they are going to lose their primary.”



When you have a small segment who dictate to the rest of the party, the result is what we have seen in the last two days. People need to stand up and not be afraid of the Tea Party.”


http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/10/03/gop-donors-revolt-against-republican-led-government-shutdown.html

[Green Arrow]

Why do you hate freedom and diversity of thought, Common?

[Singularity]

New guys who don't know any better are one thing, but the amount of veteran Congressmen who will go to any length to avoid a primary challenge is absurd. Do they truly believe that simply because the Tea Party can kick a hornet's nest in a low turnout primary that this will mean the end of their political career? Have they no faith whatever in running as an independent?

I mean, it's not like it hasn't been done before (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Murkowski), and she wasn't even on the ballot!

[Alyosha]

Why do you hate freedom and diversity of thought, Common?

It begs the question if corporate donors are angry at them for stopping Obamacare what does that say about Obamacare?

It says I'm right. Again.

[jillian]

It begs the question if corporate donors are angry at them for stopping Obamacare what does that say about Obamacare?

It says I'm right. Again.

Thats an awfully large leap. Perhaps it's more that they don't want the extreme right to screw up the economy and make republicans unelectable on a national level.

[Singularity]

It begs the question if corporate donors are angry at them for stopping Obamacare what does that say about Obamacare?

It says I'm right. Again.
Actually Obamacare is not affected by the shutdown in any real respect. If you read the OP, you'd know that they're pissed about the shutdown.

[patrickt]

Me? I hope liberals keep believe propaganda sites like TheDailyBeast. All class.

[Alyosha]

Thats an awfully large leap. Perhaps it's more that they don't want the extreme right to screw up the economy and make republicans unelectable on a national level.
jillian

I don't play this stupid extreme right and extreme left garbage. You can't even define the "extreme right" other than "Tea Party" which is what is very alienating about the Democrats and why I left that garbage behind my second year in undergrad.

Justin Amash would be categorized by you as extreme right and yet he believes gays should marry, that pot smokers shouldn't be locked up in jails, that the government is wrong to try and legislate against abortion.

Your old categories don't fit anymore, so you need to break out a new rhetoric and new party line.

[Alyosha]

Actually Obamacare is not affected by the shutdown in any real respect. If you read the OP, you'd know that they're pissed about the shutdown.

So sources say...so they say. What again, was Obamacare based off of? I forget...hmmmm...where did they get the idea for an insurance based program..oh! --SNAP-- I forgot

The Heritage Institute.

[Singularity]

So sources say...so they say. Golly gee, if you've got no sources to countermand what's been presented, you figure we can treat it as fact for our purposes here?

Or would you instead prefer to establish once and for all that you're not really interested in a logical, orderly and productive exchange?

[Alyosha]

Golly gee, if you've got no sources to countermand what's been presented, you figure we can treat it as fact for our purposes here?

Or would you instead prefer to establish once and for all that you're not really interested in a logical, orderly and productive exchange?

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that snark was reserved only for people who use appropriate negative labeling. If I call someone a right-wing extremist am I allowed just to ad hoc conjecture then?

[Singularity]

@Alyosha, please select one of these three options so I can have some understanding of what your objective here is...

1) You accept that Republican donors are angry over the government shutdown as you have no sources to countermand the OP's well-sourced claim that they are.

2) You reject that they are angry or you suggest that they are instead angry over something else and you have source information to support this claim.

3) You're not interested in constructively engaging this topic at all and are just here to get a rise out of those who are.

[Alyosha]

http://images1.dailykos.com/i/user/151025/Romneycare_v._Obamacare.jpg

http://media.townhall.com/townhall/reu/ha/2012/83/2012-03-23T154325Z_01_MET005_RTRIDSP_0_USA.jpg


The Republicans bigwigs don't hate the idea of this "type" of government program. Romney's sign back there didn't say: REPEAL it says REPEAL AND REPLACE

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2011/10/20/how-a-conservative-think-tank-invented-the-individual-mandate/


This came up at Tuesday’s Western Republican Leadership (http://www.forbes.com/leadership/) Conference Debate, where Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich tussled on the question:

ROMNEY: Actually, Newt, we got the idea of an individual mandate from you.
GINGRICH: That’s not true. You got it from the Heritage Foundation.
ROMNEY: Yes, we got it from you, and you got it from the Heritage Foundation and from you.
GINGRICH: Wait a second. What you just said is not true. You did not get that from me. You got it from the Heritage Foundation.
ROMNEY: And you never supported them?
GINGRICH: I agree with them, but I’m just saying, what you said to this audience just now plain wasn’t true.
(CROSSTALK)
ROMNEY: OK. Let me ask, have you supported in the past an individual mandate?
GINGRICH: I absolutely did with the Heritage Foundation against Hillarycare.
ROMNEY: You did support an individual mandate?
ROMNEY: Oh, OK. That’s what I’m saying. We got the idea from you and the Heritage Foundation.
GINGRICH: OK. A little broader.
ROMNEY: OK.



I'm sorry, but you're not going to make me believe they hate it. Their constituents hate it. They don't hate it.

[Alyosha]

@Alyosha, please select one of these three options so I can have some understanding of what your objective here is...

Okay




1) I think this is bullshit.

2) I reject that they are angry.

3) I think that this topic is to get a rise out of people who are already angry.


All of the above.


Taranto, who employs the royal “we” in his column, writes that he was there when the Heritage Foundation was promoting the mandate:
Heritage did put forward the idea of an individual mandate, though it predated HillaryCare by several years. We know this because we were there: In 1988-90, we were employed at Heritage as a public relations associate (a junior writer and editor), and we wrote at least one press release for a publication touting Heritage’s plan for comprehensive legislation to provide universal “quality, affordable health care.”
As a junior publicist, we weren’t being paid for our personal opinions. But we are now, so you will be the first to know that when we worked at Heritage, we hated the Heritage plan, especially the individual mandate. “Universal health care” was neither already established nor inevitable, and we thought the foundation had made a serious philosophical and strategic error in accepting rather than disputing the left-liberal notion that the provision of “quality, affordable health care” to everyone was a proper role of government. As to the mandate, we remember reading about it and thinking: “I thought we were supposed to be for freedom.”
The plan was introduced in a 1989 book, “A National Health System for America” by Stuart Butler and Edmund Haislmaier. We seem to have mislaid our copy, and we couldn’t find it online, but we did track down a 1990 Backgrounder (http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/1990/pdf/bg777.pdf) and a 1991 lecture (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Lecture/Is-Tax-Reform-the-Key-to-Health-Care-Reform) by Butler that outline the plan. One of its two major planks, the equalization of tax treatment for individually purchased and employer-provided health insurance, seemed sensible and unobjectionable, at least in principle.
But the other was the mandate, described as a “Health Care Social Contract” and fleshed out in the lecture.



http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2011/10/20/how-a-conservative-think-tank-invented-the-individual-mandate/

[Common]

Why do you hate freedom and diversity of thought, Common?


Explain how you determined I hate freedom and diversity of thought by my posting an article about GOP Donors disliking the direction their party is going. It seems it would be more relevent that you asked that question of the republican donors that are not donating

[Singularity]

OkayI appreciate you coming clean and declining to waste my time any further. Have a nice day.

[Green Arrow]

Explain how you determined I hate freedom and diversity of thought by my posting an article about GOP Donors disliking the direction their party is going. It seems it would be more relevent that you asked that question of the republican donors that are not donating

I ask because all I ever see you and others doing is hating on the Tea Party, and treating them like the GOP ought to shut them out of the party completely. Am I wrong in this?

[Alyosha]

Explain how you determined I hate freedom and diversity of thought by my posting an article about GOP Donors disliking the direction their party is going
Common

do you believe that GOP donors hate corporations making money? You see, the one thing common with the GOP for the last 40 years is that they swing to coporations.

Have you see the stocks of insurance companies in the weeks before Obamacare?

It's not that I don't believe that they are angry about the shutdown. Shutdowns puts lots of contractors, their bread and butter, out of business. I don't believe they are anti-RomneyO'bamacare.

[Common]

The article wasnt about that, it was specifically about gop donors revolting against the teaparty and its control over the GOP. The donors feel the teaparty agenda is a loser for the GOP and they arent going to throw their money away on a Loss again.
There are many conservatives coming out against the teaparty. The teaparty is going to be relegated to small pockets of local control, but in the future you will see their national footprint and influence reduced considerably.

[Green Arrow]

The article wasnt about that, it was specifically about gop donors revolting against the teaparty and its control over the GOP. The donors feel the teaparty agenda is a loser for the GOP and they arent going to throw their money away on a Loss again.
There are many conservatives coming out against the teaparty. The teaparty is going to be relegated to small pockets of local control, but in the future you will see their national footprint and influence reduced considerably.

Could you answer my question?

[Common]

I ask because all I ever see you and others doing is hating on the Tea Party, and treating them like the GOP ought to shut them out of the party completely. Am I wrong in this?

You observed correctly about me, I can speak only for myself. I am totally against the teaparty and their agenda. I think they are a collective group of starting middleclass asswipes that never had a bad day in their lives, who are against anything for the working man. Let me give you a few examples.

They want to gut Social Security, Medicare.
They want to end medicaid or gut it.
They are against a raise in the minimum wage which assures if you work full time you cant feed your kids.
They want to reduce food stamps while 10% of the country is out of work.


They fight for billions in subsidies for Big Oil, Big Corporate Farms and Big Pharma.
They are for tax cuts for the rich and corporations while taking it from the middle class and poor. <read above>
Teaparty elected Govs first thing they did was attack public WORKERS, Scott Walker, Krispy Kreme Christy and Rick Scott just to name 3 of them.

The entire identity of the teaparty is they fight against anything for the middleclass and down and fight mightly for the rich. In my opinion they just suck.

[nic34]

You observed correctly about me, I can speak only for myself. I am totally against the teaparty and their agenda. I think they are a collective group of starting middleclass asswipes that never had a bad day in their lives, who are against anything for the working man. Let me give you a few examples.

They want to gut Social Security, Medicare.
They want to end medicaid or gut it.
They are against a raise in the minimum wage which assures if you work full time you cant feed your kids.
They want to reduce food stamps while 10% of the country is out of work.


They fight for billions in subsidies for Big Oil, Big Corporate Farms and Big Pharma.
They are for tax cuts for the rich and corporations while taking it from the middle class and poor. <read above>
Teaparty elected Govs first thing they did was attack public WORKERS, Scott Walker, Krispy Kreme Christy and Rick Scott just to name 3 of them.

The entire identity of the teaparty is they fight against anything for the middleclass and down and fight mightly for the rich. In my opinion they just suck.

Ironically, most of them are middleclass and down....

[Green Arrow]

You observed correctly about me, I can speak only for myself. I am totally against the teaparty and their agenda. I think they are a collective group of starting middleclass asswipes that never had a bad day in their lives, who are against anything for the working man. Let me give you a few examples.

But do you think the GOP should kick them out of their ranks?


They want to gut Social Security, Medicare.
They want to end medicaid or gut it.

Oh really?

http://soldiersystems.net/blog1/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Medicare-keep-your-hands-off-my-medicare.jpg

^ Those were very popular during the heyday of the Tea Party movement.


They are against a raise in the minimum wage which assures if you work full time you cant feed your kids.
They want to reduce food stamps while 10% of the country is out of work.

Raising the minimum wage won't help as long as the Federal Reserve keeps causing serious inflation.


They fight for billions in subsidies for Big Oil, Big Corporate Farms and Big Pharma.

Like the Corporatcrats?


They are for tax cuts for the rich and corporations while taking it from the middle class and poor. <read above>

Again, like the Corporatcrats?


Teaparty elected Govs first thing they did was attack public WORKERS, Scott Walker, Krispy Kreme Christy and Rick Scott just to name 3 of them.

And what have the Corporatcrats done for workers? Nothing, except go to union fundraisers and pay lipservice. Now they've passed Insuracare, which gives big mondo handouts to the big insurance and pharmaceutical industries on the backs of workers and the poor.


The entire identity of the teaparty is they fight against anything for the middleclass and down and fight mightly for the rich. In my opinion they just suck.

You just described the entire GOP and the Democratic Party.

[Common]

But do you think the GOP should kick them out of their ranks?



Oh really?

http://soldiersystems.net/blog1/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Medicare-keep-your-hands-off-my-medicare.jpg

^ Those were very popular during the heyday of the Tea Party movement.



Raising the minimum wage won't help as long as the Federal Reserve keeps causing serious inflation.



Like the Corporatcrats?



Again, like the Corporatcrats?



And what have the Corporatcrats done for workers? Nothing, except go to union fundraisers and pay lipservice. Now they've passed Insuracare, which gives big mondo handouts to the big insurance and pharmaceutical industries on the backs of workers and the poor.



You just described the entire GOP and the Democratic Party.


No I dont think the GOP should throw them out of their ranks, they should however not pay any attention to their incessant loud mouthed bs that most of america is against. They should also TROUNCE the teaparty candidates that are using the GOP as dishrags to advance their own personal aspirations Ted Cruz and Rand Paul and Marco Rubio

[Green Arrow]

No I dont think the GOP should throw them out of their ranks, they should however not pay any attention to their incessant loud mouthed bs that most of america is against. They should also TROUNCE the teaparty candidates that are using the GOP as dishrags to advance their own personal aspirations Ted Cruz and Rand Paul and Marco Rubio

Right. So, allow me to explain my question:

You oppose free and diverse thought. You want the GOP to essentially silence the Tea Party and keep them out of office, which also means you want to thwart the representative system by denying people their choice in representative, all because you personally don't like that choice's ideology.

That, sir, is straight up tyranny.

[jillian]

@jillian (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=719)

I don't play this stupid extreme right and extreme left garbage. You can't even define the "extreme right" other than "Tea Party" which is what is very alienating about the Democrats and why I left that garbage behind my second year in undergrad.

i can define extreme right... there is an extreme right on social issues and an extreme right on fiscal issues and an extreme right on governmental issues and an extreme right on issues of hawkishness... sometimes they're wrapped up in one person... sometimes not. the tea party is, imo, nothing more than the furthest third of the right who still approved of bush at the end of his second term.... they just happen to have gone into meltdown since they lost.


Justin Amash would be categorized by you as extreme right and yet he believes gays should marry, that pot smokers shouldn't be locked up in jails, that the government is wrong to try and legislate against abortion.

amash is an extremist. the fact that he and i might agree on an issue or two doesn't change the fact that his beliefs are extreme and his tactics are extreme.

i prefer the grown ups in the room to the temper tantrum throwing crowd.

Your old categories don't fit anymore, so you need to break out a new rhetoric and new party line.[/QUOTE]

[jillian]

Right. So, allow me to explain my question:

You oppose free and diverse thought. You want the GOP to essentially silence the Tea Party and keep them out of office, which also means you want to thwart the representative system by denying people their choice in representative, all because you personally don't like that choice's ideology.

That, sir, is straight up tyranny.

how is wanting the big mouths to know their place since they do not represent a majority of the american people or even a majority of the GOP tyranny?

tyranny is the little group of big mouths holding the country hostage.

[Mister D]

I assure you all that "extremist" is as meaningles as "racist".

[Alyosha]

i can define extreme right... there is an extreme right on social issues and an extreme right on fiscal issues and an extreme right on governmental issues and an extreme right on issues of hawkishness... sometimes they're wrapped up in one person... sometimes not. the tea party is, imo, nothing more than the furthest third of the right who still approved of bush at the end of his second term.... they just happen to have gone into meltdown since they lost.

This is sophistry. Bush was a neocon with progressive ideology. Justin Amash was not a fan. You cannot categorize everyone in that segment as a Bush fan or deny that Bush and Obama have similar policies, thus making Obama a Bush fan, as well.




amash is an extremist. the fact that he and i might agree on an issue or two doesn't change the fact that his beliefs are extreme and his tactics are extreme.

What is extreme about his tactics?




i prefer the grown ups in the room to the temper tantrum throwing crowd.


I missed the temper tantrum. Do you have video? I'd love to see it.

[Green Arrow]

how is wanting the big mouths to know their place since they do not represent a majority of the american people or even a majority of the GOP tyranny?

tyranny is the little group of big mouths holding the country hostage.

It's tyranny because the majority has no right to demand that the representatives of the minority STFU and stop representing that minority. Some of you seem to think that just because you're in the majority, you're entitled to do whatever you want with no opposition. That's not how it works.

[Alyosha]

how is wanting the big mouths to know their place since they do not represent a majority of the american people or even a majority of the GOP tyranny?

tyranny is the little group of big mouths holding the country hostage.


You mad?

[Peter1469]

i can define extreme right... there is an extreme right on social issues and an extreme right on fiscal issues and an extreme right on governmental issues and an extreme right on issues of hawkishness... sometimes they're wrapped up in one person... sometimes not. the tea party is, imo, nothing more than the furthest third of the right who still approved of bush at the end of his second term.... they just happen to have gone into meltdown since they lost.



amash is an extremist. the fact that he and i might agree on an issue or two doesn't change the fact that his beliefs are extreme and his tactics are extreme.

i prefer the grown ups in the room to the temper tantrum throwing crowd.

Your old categories don't fit anymore, so you need to break out a new rhetoric and new party line.[/QUOTE]

The Tea Party(ies) were / are anti-Bush. They formed in response to the GOP spending like drunken democrats.

[AmazonTania]

Oh how fresh. It's another 'Republicans who disagree with the Government shutdown' post from Common again.

Truly a thing of brilliance. Peachy...

[zelmo1234]

It’s not just Democrats who are angry at the Tea Party-led shutdown. Republican donors are furious their party has managed to ‘grab defeat from the jaws of victory’ on Obamacare—and some are withholding funds, reports David Freedlander.

On a Monday last month, Rep. Greg Walden (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/04/11/why-greg-walden-won-t-worry-about-a-primary.html), chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, met with some top GOP donors for lunch at Le Cirque on Lexington Avenue in Manhattan. The donors, a youngish collection of financial industry types and lawyers, had some questions for Walden, a mild-mannered lawmaker from eastern Oregon known for speaking his mind.

Why, they asked, did the GOP seem so in the thrall of its most extremist wing? The donors, banker types who occupy the upper reaches of Wall Street’s towers, couldn’t understand why the Republican Party—their party—seemed close to threatening the nation with a government shutdown, never mind a default if the debt ceiling isn’t raised later this month.

Listen,” Walden said, according to several people present. “We have to do this because of the Tea Party. If we don’t, these guys are going to get primaried and they are going to lose their primary.”



When you have a small segment who dictate to the rest of the party, the result is what we have seen in the last two days. People need to stand up and not be afraid of the Tea Party.”


http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/10/03/gop-donors-revolt-against-republican-led-government-shutdown.html

Ok lets just get this straight.

There is a very small faction of these TEA party nut jobs that want the republicans to stand up to the democrats, who want a dictatorship!

The current reasonable Republicans, (representing the vast majority of the people) don't dare go against the FEW TEA Party members, because they will get challenged in a Primary? AND LOOSE???

So if they are going to loose in the primary? Doesn't that tell you that the majority of republicans want them to stand up to the Dictator Democrats

I love the lengths that Democrats and liberal will go to to try and scare the republicans into submitting to their will! They even contradict themselves in the same article

[zelmo1234]

The article wasnt about that, it was specifically about gop donors revolting against the teaparty and its control over the GOP. The donors feel the teaparty agenda is a loser for the GOP and they arent going to throw their money away on a Loss again.
There are many conservatives coming out against the teaparty. The teaparty is going to be relegated to small pockets of local control, but in the future you will see their national footprint and influence reduced considerably.

And yet they are very concerned that they will loose in the primary to these unpopular TEA party right wing extremist that nobody likes?

IF what you say is true? why would they not go on record standing against them. This would be the popular thing to do right?

And yet they don't because they know that if conservatives stay home they will loose their elections and the conservatives want the to fight

[Common]

Right. So, allow me to explain my question:

You oppose free and diverse thought. You want the GOP to essentially silence the Tea Party and keep them out of office, which also means you want to thwart the representative system by denying people their choice in representative, all because you personally don't like that choice's ideology.

That, sir, is straight up tyranny.

That is your spin, the rest is my opinion based on what I believe. If you consider that tyranny, then your opinions are treason :)

[zelmo1234]

Oh how fresh. It's another 'Republicans who disagree with the Government shutdown' post from Common again.

Truly a thing of brilliance. Peachy...

Well look on the bright side, he has not posted his daily class warfare thread demonizing anyone that makes more money than he think is necessary in a while?

He is a good little Communist and will do the administrations bidding no matter what that is

[Codename Section]

Ok lets just get this straight.

There is a very small faction of these TEA party nut jobs that want the republicans to stand up to the democrats, who want a dictatorship!

The current reasonable Republicans, (representing the vast majority of the people) don't dare go against the FEW TEA Party members, because they will get challenged in a Primary? AND LOOSE???

So if they are going to loose in the primary? Doesn't that tell you that the majority of republicans want them to stand up to the Dictator Democrats

I love the lengths that Democrats and liberal will go to to try and scare the republicans into submitting to their will! They even contradict themselves in the same article

http://i.imgur.com/3zs1M.gif



Applause for your logic zelmo1234

[Mainecoons]

Let's face it. The Democrats are used to Republicrat "moderates" who basically roll over and help them grow government and raise taxes for a few crumbs thrown their way. They hate the TP Republicans because they don't roll over and play liberal.

We've compromised and compromised until we have this bloated, tyrannical thug government that screws up everything it touches and spies on its citizens. The time for compromise is past, the time for ROLLBACK is now.

[Peter1469]

The Tea Party(ies) just want to keep the US from spending itself to death.

[jillian]

The Tea Party(ies) just want to keep the US from spending itself to death.

except they weren't overly concerned with that when baby bush was running two wars of choice on china's dime
By Dylan Matthews (http://www.washingtonpost.com/dylan-matthews/2012/07/16/gJQAH7AyoW_page.html), Published: October 4 at 12:28 pmE-mail the writer (dylan.matthews@washpost.com?subject=Reader%20feed back%20for%20'You%20probably%20think%20the%20shutd own%E2%80%99s%20about%20spending.%20It%20isn%E2%80 %99t.')


1. So this is all about the deficit, right?It's true that House Republicans are holding up a spending bill, but they're not holding it up over demands for spending cuts or tax increases or some other package of deficit reduction. In fact, they're happy with the level of spending in the bill. It's a number they proposed, after all.http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/10/CR-compromise.png (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/10/CR-compromise.png)Center for American Progress

For that reason, it was widely assumed that passing a continuing resolution to fund the government at current levels would be a relatively uncontroversial proposition. But then Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) came in. They declared that they wouldn't support a continuing resolution that doesn't "defund" Obamacare. That failed, so then they said they wouldn't vote on a CR that didn't delay Obamacare. Then it was a CR that didn't delay the individual mandate.Senate Democrats (not to mention the Obama administration) weren't willing to dismantle Obamacare as a cost of keeping the government open. Republicans weren't willing to keep the government open unless Democrats let them dismantle Obamacare. So the government closed. (Here's absolutely everything you need to know about government shutdowns (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/30/absolutely-everything-you-need-to-know-about-how-the-government-shutdown-will-work/).)2. Wait, I totally thought this was about the deficit. Why aren't Republicans worried about the deficit?There's not a whole lot left to worry about anymore. The deficit is set to fall rapidly through 2018:http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/10/deficits.jpg (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/10/deficits.jpg)Data: U.S. Budget and CBO projections; Graph: made with Infogram by Ezra Klein

Which means that the debt is going to be largely stable (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/14/cbo-says-deficit-problem-is-solved-for-the-next-10-years/) in the medium-term:http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/04/you-probably-think-the-shutdowns-about-spending-it-isnt/?wpisrc=nl_wnkpm

[Peter1469]

except they weren't overly concerned with that when baby bush was running two wars of choice on china's dime
By Dylan Matthews (http://www.washingtonpost.com/dylan-matthews/2012/07/16/gJQAH7AyoW_page.html), Published: October 4 at 12:28 pmE-mail the writer


1. So this is all about the deficit, right?It's true that House Republicans are holding up a spending bill, but they're not holding it up over demands for spending cuts or tax increases or some other package of deficit reduction. In fact, they're happy with the level of spending in the bill. It's a number they proposed, after all.http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/10/CR-compromise.png (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/10/CR-compromise.png)Center for American Progress

For that reason, it was widely assumed that passing a continuing resolution to fund the government at current levels would be a relatively uncontroversial proposition. But then Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) came in. They declared that they wouldn't support a continuing resolution that doesn't "defund" Obamacare. That failed, so then they said they wouldn't vote on a CR that didn't delay Obamacare. Then it was a CR that didn't delay the individual mandate.Senate Democrats (not to mention the Obama administration) weren't willing to dismantle Obamacare as a cost of keeping the government open. Republicans weren't willing to keep the government open unless Democrats let them dismantle Obamacare. So the government closed. (Here's absolutely everything you need to know about government shutdowns (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/30/absolutely-everything-you-need-to-know-about-how-the-government-shutdown-will-work/).)2. Wait, I totally thought this was about the deficit. Why aren't Republicans worried about the deficit?There's not a whole lot left to worry about anymore. The deficit is set to fall rapidly through 2018:http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/10/deficits.jpg (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/10/deficits.jpg)Data: U.S. Budget and CBO projections; Graph: made with Infogram by Ezra Klein

Which means that the debt is going to be largely stable (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/14/cbo-says-deficit-problem-is-solved-for-the-next-10-years/) in the medium-term:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/04/you-probably-think-the-shutdowns-about-spending-it-isnt/?wpisrc=nl_wnkpm


Wrong the entire tea party(ies) movements grew out of Bush's spending like a drunken liberal. To include the occupations. I don't know what else to say. I lived it. And there are consequences.

[Green Arrow]

That is your spin, the rest is my opinion based on what I believe. If you consider that tyranny, then your opinions are treason :)

My opinion is treason? How do you figure?