A federal shutdown does not mean that the federal government will actually shut down. That would be nice, but it won't actually happen.
Instead, Democrats will aim the shutdown where their voters will feel it the most. They will keep business as usual, except for targeting their voters' benefits in order to motivate those voters into a revolt in the streets, just as they did in Wisconsin over the state budget battle.
Democrats will try to make even a partial shutdown as painful as possible for the voter's in this country who are trained government dependents. They are already out telling their voters to hold Republicans responsible for the big "shutdown" which will only impact government dependents.
Since social spending now exceeds 60% of the entire federal budget, there is no way to rein in the federal government without reining in social spending.
Yes, it will be painful. But not as painful as driving the nation and every state into bankruptcy and then cutting off all aid to those truly in need.
Republicans simply must grow a spine, and do the work they were elected to do. Cutting Obama's spending spree by a lousy $30 billion is merely symbolic, an effort to demonstrate to their voters that they did something, even though it amounts to nothing.
The cuts need to be fifty-five times that number, $1.65 trillion. Even then, the interest alone on past spending will still add to the current debt level. But at least we have stopped the bleeding and set a new course for fiscal sanity.
If the voters throw Republicans out for doing that in 2012, then the voters deserve national bankruptcy.
Go ahead, shut it down and don't open for business again without a total fiscal restructuring that demonstrates a willingness in government to be much better stewards of the people's resources.
Go ahead, shut it down now! It is the only hope for freedom and liberty to survive!
When Obama and the Democratic Socialists of America passed unconstitutional acts like ObamaCare, Obama Czars, deep intrusions into private sector banking, manufacturing and education, Republicans should have shut it all down then.
They simply didn't have the backbone to do what they should have done on behalf of every American citizen, including the ones not smart enough to know that they can't survive a bankrupt nation either.
As British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher said so well – "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." – We ran out of other people's money more than $14 trillion ago.
Republicans should up the ante here… Instead of allowing Democrats to accuse them of shutting down the government over a measly $30 billion, they should force Democrats to blame them for eliminating the entire $1.65 trillion deficit proposed in Obama's budget.
Are Republicans scared of being accused of balancing the budget? Most Americans want somebody to balance the budget and stop the insane march into the financial abyss, under the unbridled command of the international socialist left now known as the Democrat Party.
Our federal budget has only been balanced once since Andrew Jackson was president. Republicans balanced one annual budget during Bill Clinton's second term. Then they returned to spending like Democrats and under Obama, they have increased the debt of every American taxpayer by more than 40% or $4 trillion during Obama's first two years in office.
To put it lightly, Obama is unsustainable. Democrats are unsustainable. And only Republicans have the power to do something about it.
Shut it down and shut it down now!
Don't start it up again until you have a balanced budget approved and signed by the president who makes a drunken sailor look like a penny pincher.
At this late date, the people of this nation are on an austerity program no matter what happens in DC. But unless they force Republicans to put the fed on an austerity program now, the people will be all alone in their austerity and the Fed will drive this nation into a financial disaster that the nation cannot survive.
It may be too late for fiscal sanity already, but here's where we are. We can't change the past and our only hope of altering the future is by acting today.
The decision is easy and if we refuse to face the music today, there will soon, be no decision to make.
There should be no debate over spending in DC at this point. Over the last seventy years, our federal government, behaving as an unconstitutional supreme central power, has spent the most productive and prosperous nation on earth into third world status.
Bickering over a few billion in planned deficit spending above $1.65 trillion in just the next year, when the nation is already more than $14 trillion in unsustainable debt threatening the very existence of our dollar - is the definition of insanity.
Democrats are forcing a so-called shutdown in their effort to keep spending money we don't have. Republicans are only calling for a symbolic level of spending cuts. Nobody in Washington DC seems serious about ending the fiscal insanity. Even the president's bi-partisan debt panel is recommending deficit spending for at least another twenty-five years.
I say, shut it down! The federal government has done more to harm the union of states than they have ever done to improve freedom and liberty in America. We will be better off without a federal government, each state able to fund and govern itself better than the Fed ever will.
Extreme threats demand extreme measures, and nothing threatens the future freedom and prosperity of the United States more than our own federal government. Enemies beyond, we can deal with. It's the enemy within which threatens us most today. It's time to shut it down and reset.
As we have proven in election after election, changing the players on the field from time to time does not change the game. We need a game changer here, beginning with forcing our elected servants to live within the confines of the Constitution, existing laws and the budget that we allow them.
Everything in this country is backwards, up-side-down and inside-out. The people can never win a game in which they are not even a player. DC players make up the rules as they go and those rules never benefit the people.
Just like you don't have the right to tell us who to vote for or who to support or how to run our country, etc. Americans, also, have the right to say what they want just as you do Dude.
Al Smith lost, of course, and by 1960, such sentiments seemed to be changing. But the media just loves to beat people up over faith. The American public, however, does intuitively seem to understand (although we can often get confused by the headlines). As talk-show host Hugh Hewitt says in "Article VI," 95 percent of the electorate just wants to know whether someone is a good person, not what his theology is. Otherwise, Hewitt notes, we wouldn't have elected Abraham Lincoln, who "wasn't remotely an orthodox Christian." Lincoln read the King James Bible and spoke openly of God, but he belonged to no specific domination.
In "Article VI," we hear from Jews, Hindus and Muslims who express their love for this country. We also hear from David French, a constitutional lawyer who advocates Christian rights. As a Christian, he says, he doesn't believe Muslims and Christians worship the same God, "because the Allah of the Koran bears zero resemblance to the God of the Bible. But there's a First Amendment in this country. People of all faiths are equal citizens of this republic."
Whether it's Mitt Romney speaking boldly of his Mormon faith, Mike Huckabee as an ordained Baptist minister, or Barack Obama taking the pulpit in churches across the country, the personal practice of deep faith by our would-be leaders must be passionately protected. As Kennedy told the Houston ministers: "Today, I may be the victim. But tomorrow, it may be you."
By the way, The Heritage Foundation will send you a free pocket copy of the Constitution so that you'll always be armed with the truth about your freedoms. Heritage will even pay the postage -- just visit heritage.org for your free copy.
###
Rebecca Hagelin, a vice president at The Heritage Foundation, is the author of "Home Invasion: Protecting Your Family in a Culture That's Gone Stark Raving Mad" and runs the Web site HomeInvasion.org.
Independent filmmakers Bryan Hall and Jack Donaldson explore the current debate over the issue and remind us that ignorance on the subject is nothing new. They show how during John F. Kennedy's campaign for the presidency in 1960, Kennedy had to go to great lengths to assure non-Catholic Americans that he wouldn't be a tool of the Vatican -- that the Catholic Church wouldn't be dictating policy decisions if he were elected. Addressing the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, Kennedy said: "I am not the Catholic candidate for president. I am the Democratic Party's candidate, who happens to be a Catholic."
Fast forward 48 years, and it seems remarkable that Kennedy's faith was an issue. With Catholics serving alongside Protestants and the adherents of other faiths (and no faith) for years, the furor almost appears quaint. You would think the "faith" issue was settled once and for all. But as Hall and Donaldson reveal, when they interviewed people across the country from many walks of life, the way people reacted when Romney, a Mormon, was running for president sounded eerily familiar.
Like Kennedy, Romney had to tell voters repeatedly why his faith didn't disqualify him for the Oval Office. Are we really still asking such questions in America?
Part of what makes "Article VI" such a compelling film is that Hall and Donaldson give us historical context. They remind us, for example, that there's a shameful tradition of anti-Catholicism in the U.S. When Al Smith ran for president against Herbert Hoover in 1928, he was pilloried for his Catholic faith. It was denounced as anti-democratic, monarchical -- not in tune with American institutions. And there's also an appalling tradition of prejudice against those of the Jewish faith who seek high office. Remember the horrible questions the press asked of Sen. Joseph Lieberman when he ran for president? Some things never change. For many in the media, it seems, Mormonism is the new anti-semitism.
Of course, every voter should feel free to NOT vote for a candidate based on any reason -- their politics, their ideology, their position on this issue or that ... even their faith. But if a potential candidate is loyal to America, to say that he is unfit to run for office or unfit to govern because of his faith is just plain wrong -- and the Constitution makes that perfectly clear.
Now that Mitt Romney is out of the presidential race, it's the perfect time to discuss what we should have learned from all the chatter about his faith. The questions and answers relating to faith and holding public office are far more important than one candidate.
If you ask almost any American where the Constitution provides for religious liberty, what are you likely to hear? The First Amendment. There, in words many of us know by heart, we read: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …"
But there's another important reference to religion in our Constitution. Considering the vitriolic manner in which our modern media culture treats faith in general, though, if you haven't read the Constitution yourself, you probably don't even know it's there.
Article 6, Clause 3 states: "… no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." That phrase, and the troubled intersection of private faith and public office, is the subject of a fascinating new documentary titled "Article VI."
Analysis: GOP won first round of budget battle By CHARLES BABINGTON Associated Press The Associated Press Sunday, April 10, 2011 12:57 AM EDT
WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican conservatives were the chief winners in the budget deal that forced Democrats to accept historic spending cuts they strongly opposed.
Emboldened by last fall's election victories, fiscal conservatives have changed the debate in Washington. The question no longer is whether to cut spending, but how deeply. Rarely mentioned is the idea of higher taxes to lower the deficit.
Their success is all the more notable because Democrats control the Senate and White House.
But more difficult decisions lie ahead, and it's not clear whether GOP lawmakers can rely on their winning formula. They pushed Democrats to the brink, then gave in just enough to claim impressive achievements, rather than holding the line and triggering a government shutdown that might have yielded far less politically.
The GOP victories came on spending. Their concessions dealt mainly with social issues, where they tried to limit abortions and restrict environmental rules.
House Republicans who care intensely about such social issues may fight harder next time, giving Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, fewer bargaining chips to appease Democrats. Tea party Republicans, some of whom found the cuts too small in Friday's last-minute agreement, might insist on deeper ones from now on.
Two fast-approaching debates could make this past week's showdown look like a preliminary skirmish.
Congress soon must vote to increase the government's borrowing limit to avoid the first-ever default on U.S. loan payments. With the 2011 budget battle still fresh, lawmakers are now focusing on the spending debate for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1. The House Budget Committee has approved, on a partisan vote, a bill that would cut spending by $5.8 trillion over 10 years and make major cost-saving changes to the Medicare and Medicaid health programs.
These are the big-picture, big-money issues that tea partyers have awaited eagerly. Many have pledged to vote against a higher debt ceiling without major give-backs from Senate Democrats and President Barack Obama. The 2012 spending blueprint written by the House Budget Committee chairman, Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., is on a collision course with Democrats determined to allow only modest changes, if any, to Medicare, Medicaid and other programs.
By JESSICA GRESKO Associated Press The Associated Press
Monday, April 11, 2011 5:27 PM EDT
WASHINGTON (AP) — The budget deal lawmakers struck to avoid a government shutdown was greeted by some with relief, but it has one city already reeling: the capital itself.
City officials say Washington was used as a pawn last week's budget bargaining, with new restrictions part of the price of a deal. Under the budget agreement reached Friday, the details of which are still uncertain, the city will likely be unable to spend city dollars on abortions for low income women. It may also be banned from spending city money on needle exchange programs believed vital to curbing the spread of HIV in the city, where the disease is considered an epidemic. Also back, a school voucher program favored by Republicans.
Angry that Congress appears ready to take away autonomy granted to the city in the last several years, city officials and residents plan to rally Monday outside the Capitol to oppose the changes, but they may be inevitable.
The news is considered a setback for the city, which is in the unique position of having its own city government but its budget and laws overseen by Congress. The city had enjoyed more freedom in the past four years when both the House and Senate were controlled by Democrats, the party traditionally more friendly to pleas of autonomy from the heavily Democratic city. When Republicans took control of the House in January, the city readied for changes. Still, city leaders said they are outraged that Washington appears to have been used as a bargaining chip.
The city's mayor, Vincent Gray, said in a statement Saturday after the deal was announced that he was "angry and terribly disappointed that the District of Columbia suffered collateral damage amidst partisan bickering."
Ilir Zherka, the executive director of D.C. Vote, a nonpartisan group that lobbies for more independence for the District, said his group doesn't intend to let the budget pass this week without a fight.
"We're not going to accept that they decided to throw the District of Columbia under the bus," said Zherka, whose group is planning a rally Monday evening on Capitol Hill.
Don't start it up again until you have a balanced budget approved and signed by the president who makes a drunken sailor look like a penny pincher.
At this late date, the people of this nation are on an austerity program no matter what happens in DC. But unless they force Republicans to put the fed on an austerity program now, the people will be all alone in their austerity and the Fed will drive this nation into a financial disaster that the nation cannot survive.
It may be too late for fiscal sanity already, but here's where we are. We can't change the past and our only hope of altering the future is by acting today.
The decision is easy and if we refuse to face the music today, there will soon, be no decision to make.
A federal shutdown does not mean that the federal government will actually shut down. That would be nice, but it won't actually happen.
Instead, Democrats will aim the shutdown where their voters will feel it the most. They will keep business as usual, except for targeting their voters' benefits in order to motivate those voters into a revolt in the streets, just as they did in Wisconsin over the state budget battle.
Democrats will try to make even a partial shutdown as painful as possible for the voter's in this country who are trained government dependents. They are already out telling their voters to hold Republicans responsible for the big "shutdown" which will only impact government dependents.
Since social spending now exceeds 60% of the entire federal budget, there is no way to rein in the federal government without reining in social spending.
Yes, it will be painful. But not as painful as driving the nation and every state into bankruptcy and then cutting off all aid to those truly in need.
Republicans simply must grow a spine, and do the work they were elected to do. Cutting Obama's spending spree by a lousy $30 billion is merely symbolic, an effort to demonstrate to their voters that they did something, even though it amounts to nothing.
The cuts need to be fifty-five times that number, $1.65 trillion. Even then, the interest alone on past spending will still add to the current debt level. But at least we have stopped the bleeding and set a new course for fiscal sanity.
If the voters throw Republicans out for doing that in 2012, then the voters deserve national bankruptcy.
Go ahead, shut it down and don't open for business again without a total fiscal restructuring that demonstrates a willingness in government to be much better stewards of the people's resources.
Go ahead, shut it down now! It is the only hope for freedom and liberty to survive!
There should be no debate over spending in DC at this point. Over the last seventy years, our federal government, behaving as an unconstitutional supreme central power, has spent the most productive and prosperous nation on earth into third world status.
Bickering over a few billion in planned deficit spending above $1.65 trillion in just the next year, when the nation is already more than $14 trillion in unsustainable debt threatening the very existence of our dollar - is the definition of insanity.
Democrats are forcing a so-called shutdown in their effort to keep spending money we don't have. Republicans are only calling for a symbolic level of spending cuts. Nobody in Washington DC seems serious about ending the fiscal insanity. Even the president's bi-partisan debt panel is recommending deficit spending for at least another twenty-five years.
I say, shut it down! The federal government has done more to harm the union of states than they have ever done to improve freedom and liberty in America. We will be better off without a federal government, each state able to fund and govern itself better than the Fed ever will.
Extreme threats demand extreme measures, and nothing threatens the future freedom and prosperity of the United States more than our own federal government. Enemies beyond, we can deal with. It's the enemy within which threatens us most today. It's time to shut it down and reset.
As we have proven in election after election, changing the players on the field from time to time does not change the game. We need a game changer here, beginning with forcing our elected servants to live within the confines of the Constitution, existing laws and the budget that we allow them.
Everything in this country is backwards, up-side-down and inside-out. The people can never win a game in which they are not even a player. DC players make up the rules as they go and those rules never benefit the people.
When Obama and the Democratic Socialists of America passed unconstitutional acts like ObamaCare, Obama Czars, deep intrusions into private sector banking, manufacturing and education, Republicans should have shut it all down then.
They simply didn't have the backbone to do what they should have done on behalf of every American citizen, including the ones not smart enough to know that they can't survive a bankrupt nation either.
As British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher said so well – "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." – We ran out of other people's money more than $14 trillion ago.
Republicans should up the ante here… Instead of allowing Democrats to accuse them of shutting down the government over a measly $30 billion, they should force Democrats to blame them for eliminating the entire $1.65 trillion deficit proposed in Obama's budget.
Are Republicans scared of being accused of balancing the budget? Most Americans want somebody to balance the budget and stop the insane march into the financial abyss, under the unbridled command of the international socialist left now known as the Democrat Party.
Our federal budget has only been balanced once since Andrew Jackson was president. Republicans balanced one annual budget during Bill Clinton's second term. Then they returned to spending like Democrats and under Obama, they have increased the debt of every American taxpayer by more than 40% or $4 trillion during Obama's first two years in office.
To put it lightly, Obama is unsustainable. Democrats are unsustainable. And only Republicans have the power to do something about it.
Dude, am not a fan of religion. When asked what religion I am I always reply I am the same religion Jesus is. So, seeing how you feel so inclined to tell me what to do...can to tell me what religion I should study?
Dude, I have all ready dared to take a deep critical look about 25 years ago. This is nothing that you as an athiest can tell me that will cause me to lose my faith, my belief and what I know to be true.
Washington, DC – Today President Barack Obama instructed the U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder, and the Department of Justice to cease defending the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). “This is outrageous and unthinkable that the President would abandon the defense of marriage,” said Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel. “President Obama has betrayed the American people by his refusal to defend the federal law that affirms what many courts upheld as constitutional, namely, that marriage is between one man and one woman,” said Staver.
In a letter addressed to congressional leaders, Attorney General Holder said that President Obama has instructed that the defense of DOMA should be withdrawn in two pending cases, Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management (United States District Court for the District of Connecticut) and Windsor v. United States of America (United States District Court for the Southern District of New York). These cases challenge Section 3 of the federal DOMA, which defines marriage as one man and one woman for purposes of federal law and federal benefits for federal employees. There are three other similar challenges pending: Dragovich v. U.S. Department of the Treasury (United States District Court for the Northern District of California); Gill v. Office of Personnel Management (First Circuit Court of Appeals arising out of Massachusetts); and Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (same).
“Regardless of President Obama’s own ideological agenda, as President, he and his Attorney General have a duty to defend lawfully passed legislation, especially when the essence of the law has been upheld by many courts. Thirty states have passed marriage amendments affirming marriage as one man and one woman. Today President Obama has abandoned his role as President of the United States and transformed his office into the President of the Divided States. He has been the most divisive president in American history. He has today declared war on the American people and the fundamental values that are shared by most Americans. His radicalism resulted in the historical push-back in the 2010 elections. His radicalism today will come back around when the people respond to this betrayal in 2012,” said Staver.
“We will not allow one President and one Attorney General to toss natural marriage aside,” concluded Staver.
What proof do you have that God doesn't exist? Wouldn't you have to be God in order to know this to be true? Ooops that's right. You can't be God because you are an athiest.
President Jimmy Carter's Promotion of Socialism Through The Social Gospel
By Thomas E. Brewton
To give him the benefit of the doubt, former President Carter may have Christian intentions, but he supports a major swath of the atheistic materialism of liberal-socialist-progressivism.
While Franklin Roosevelt remains, without contest, our worst-ever President, Mr. Carter is our worst living ex-President.
What emerges is the picture of a man prepared to present half-truths and deliberately distorted versions of fact, a man ready to praise the most loathsome of dictators, while denouncing the policies of the United States.
Another aspect of his liberalism is explained by Mr. Carter's brand of Christianity, which is more akin to the last century's Social Gospel movement than to the Bible-based traditions of Judeo-Christianity.
Even before the 1917 Russian Revolution, leading universities in the United States had begun a transition from the Christian roots of our nation into atheistic, secular materialism in their teaching of the so-called social sciences.
Nominally-Christian theological seminaries were in the vanguard of the movement toward socialism. Rochester Theological Seminary's professor Walter Rauschenbusch, one of the best known socialist spokesmen of his era, was a founder of the Social Gospel movement late in the 19th century. Social Gospel was nothing more nor less than socialism masquerading as Christianity.
Social Gospel embraced the avowed aims of socialism, which sound similar to the results that flow from the Bible's commandment to love one's neighbor as he would wish to have his neighbor love him. The insurmountable problem is that socialism, and therefore Social Gospel, is atheistic and materialistic, i.e., the antithesis of Christianity and religious Judaism.
To believe that Social Gospel is true Christianity is to believe that the Soviet dictatorship of the proletariat was truly democratic.
Similarly, Paulson didn't really admit that he himself had made a mistake. Instead, he declared on Wednesday that "It was clear to me by the time the bill was signed on October 3rd that we needed to act quickly and forcefully, and that purchasing troubled assets¯our initial focus¯would take time to implement and would not be sufficient given the severity of the problem."
In other words, by the time that the bill had been signed, Paulson knew that the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) that he had proposed wouldn't work. That is why he quickly changed the plan to use the taxpayer money to buy stakes in banks. Now, "new strategies" are being tried and developed, he says. And it is all being done, of course, at our expense.
One of the new strategies, he indicated, will come out of Saturday's international financial summit in Washington, D.C. The nations of the world must develop a "shared interest in a solution" on a global level, he says.
Bush, in his speech, called for "leading nations" to "better coordinate national laws and regulations." He urged the "reform" of international financial institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank so that their "governance structures" come to "better reflect the realities of today's global economy."
I think I'm starting to get it. First it was "Big Government to the Rescue." But since that didn't work, we now need "Global Government to the Rescue." We will not only lose our money but the sovereignty of our nation. Our media have been active accomplices in this unfolding catastrophe.
"In many ways, Paulson was the ideal person to deal with this mess," Gross reported at the time. Paulson was "noted for self-discipline, focus on controlling risk and mastery of detail." Now he comes across as a dummy who not only doesn't know what he's doing but isn't willing to step aside so that someone more knowledgeable can take command.
Meanwhile, President George W. Bush seems even more clueless. He gave a Thursday speech to the Manhattan Institute pretending that American-style capitalism still exists. "I'm a market-oriented guy, but not when I'm faced with the prospect of a global meltdown," Bush said. He went on to say, "History has shown that the greater threat to economic prosperity is not too little government involvement in the market, it is too much government involvement in the market."
Does the President realize that he is contradicting himself? Needless to say, none of this inspires confidence. His bizarre comments receive little attention because he is considered a lame duck and Paulson is really running the show.
Now free to speak her mind, Alaska Governor and former GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin has weighed in, telling The Weekly Standard that she is getting tired of Paulson's changes to the bailout plan. "I think the surprises make the electorate distrust elected officials and their ability to appoint people who are to be looking out for the public's interest," she says. This is an understatement. People not only don't trust the government, they are getting angry at the reckless policies that threaten national bankruptcy and may consign generations of Americans to living under socialism.
However, Bill Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, tried to convince House Republicans to vote for the plan that Palin now attacks in the pages of his magazine. Kristol endorsed Paulson's plan, saying "failing to pass it will exacerbate them [financial problems], and will keep the markets in a state of roiling uncertainty at best, and meltdown at worst." So what has happened since its passage? As you may have noticed, the markets have continued in uncertainty and we seem to be undergoing a meltdown.
Kristol added at the time that "House Republicans should help pass the bill. I think it's the only responsible thing to do in terms of the economy. But I also think it's the only way McCain has a chance to win." He added that, "Passing the bailout would give McCain a fighting chance to win, which in turn provides the best chance¯the only chance¯for conservative principles to prevail in the next few years."
In fact, the best chance for conservative principles to prevail was to follow the conservative principles embodied in the 2008 Republican platform. That document declared, "We do not support government bailouts of private institutions. Government interference in the markets exacerbates problems in the marketplace and causes the free market to take longer to correct itself."
You may have noticed that McCain, who followed Kristol's advice and voted for the bailout, went down to defeat on November 4. By the way, most House Republicans voted against the bailout. They have been proven right by events. It would be nice if Kristol would admit the error of his ways. But that is not a practice that is commonplace in conservative or liberal media circles these days.
Faithfulness Forum Posts (1,056)
RE: Obama 2012! YES WE CAN again! Support Obama and keep working for american prosperity!
Part 3A federal shutdown does not mean that the federal government will actually shut down. That would be nice, but it won't actually happen.
Instead, Democrats will aim the shutdown where their voters will feel it the most. They will keep business as usual, except for targeting their voters' benefits in order to motivate those voters into a revolt in the streets, just as they did in Wisconsin over the state budget battle.
Democrats will try to make even a partial shutdown as painful as possible for the voter's in this country who are trained government dependents. They are already out telling their voters to hold Republicans responsible for the big "shutdown" which will only impact government dependents.
Since social spending now exceeds 60% of the entire federal budget, there is no way to rein in the federal government without reining in social spending.
Yes, it will be painful. But not as painful as driving the nation and every state into bankruptcy and then cutting off all aid to those truly in need.
Republicans simply must grow a spine, and do the work they were elected to do. Cutting Obama's spending spree by a lousy $30 billion is merely symbolic, an effort to demonstrate to their voters that they did something, even though it amounts to nothing.
The cuts need to be fifty-five times that number, $1.65 trillion. Even then, the interest alone on past spending will still add to the current debt level. But at least we have stopped the bleeding and set a new course for fiscal sanity.
If the voters throw Republicans out for doing that in 2012, then the voters deserve national bankruptcy.
Go ahead, shut it down and don't open for business again without a total fiscal restructuring that demonstrates a willingness in government to be much better stewards of the people's resources.
Go ahead, shut it down now! It is the only hope for freedom and liberty to survive!
Distributed by