Bad deal I
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Tuesday, Oct. 22, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
Is anyone aware that neither the government shutdown nor this debt-ceiling crisis had to happen?
The tea-party-controlled House voted several times to fund the government, but each time was told “no” by the Democrat-controlled Senate and Obama administration.
Yes, conservatives initially wanted to defund the Affordable Care Act. Democrats said “no.”
Conservatives acceded and asked to delay the individual mandate for one year. Democrats said “no.”
Conservatives acceded again and asked to require Congress to participate in the ACA. (Heaven forbid the federal government be required to live by its own laws. I suppose such logic is beyond the comprehension of liberals.) Democrats said “no” again.
With all that said: If a government shutdown and failure to increase the debt ceiling is so critical to our nation and the world, why were any of those requests from conservatives so outrageous?
The tea party is demonized for its efforts to get Democrats to compromise — something that should have happened prior to the ACA even being signed into law.
Oh, is anyone even aware the ACA did not garner one single conservative vote in the House or Senate? Tell me again who doesn't compromise?
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Lebo’s coyotes
- Fix icy hazard on Rt. 66
- Saved her life
- Conspicuous by absence
- Wildlife & humans
- We pay to keep poor warm
- Weakness shows
- Beneficial, irreplaceable
- Behavior counts
- Guzzardi for guv
- Enslaving themselves