Should Obama have let them shut down the government again?

[malaise]

Your thoughts

[Autumn]

1. Yes. that is my thought.

[elehhhhna]

2. volcanically

[daleanime]

3. Yes.

[G_j]

4. probably better than

future taxpayer bailouts for Wall Street

[SamKnause]

5. YES !!!!!!!!!!!!

I just called my Senators and told them to vote no on the Cromnibus Spending Bill.

SHUT IT DOWN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[joeybee12]

6. Yes...it would have been a win situation...

Not sure why he has never grasped that concept.

[JustAnotherGen]

7. Caveat

My mom is retired and well - rich. So it's very easy for me to say -

Yes. They should have.


It's not so easy to say 'yes' - when you consider that we have senior citizens, disabled folks, veterans, and government employees at DU who would be seriously impacted by a government shut down.


Last year - remember - Seniors were picking out their annual health care plans . . . if I recall correctly. And we had members who were not bringing in any money.

In theory - a LOUD RESOUNDING YES.

But they've got me by my ovaries - because I don't want regular every day people to go without.

[bigbrother05]

29. As a gov't employee, YES

Still lingering issues from the sequester and last shutdown, but we should have done the right thing.

[JustAnotherGen]

30. Thanks so much

Because my gut is - I don't want you to suffer. But if enough of you folks stand up and say -

Shut this shit down!

I'm totally on your side.

[1StrongBlackMan]

32. There you go again ...

thinking actions to prevent something that might happen (affecting your pocket), actually would have a very real and direct affect on the pockets of those least able to afford it.

I've said before ... The beauty of the internet: One gets to weigh in without having the least bit of accountability for the effect of their opinion.

[JustAnotherGen]

33. Down thread a Government Contractor has stated no

Now see - in my ideal world -

Those assholes would do the job they get paid by US - the US rank and file to do.

Unfortunately - that monumental group of assholes care more about what the rich lobbyists who put them into office think about them - than us.

The reality is - until 2016 - and we have a chance at grabbing back the Senate - we are going to have to get used to their stupidity.

[1StrongBlackMan]

39. Well ...

someone else said it would be an inconvenience (for just one or two weeks), so no worries!

It's amazing how (the REAL Democratic) folks cry "it's about the poor" until something comes up that might affect the not so poor.

[Tatiana]

8. Yes. This sets the stage for future Wall St. bailouts.

At some point, we need to draw the line somewhere.

If the Republicans passed a bill next year that was even worse, Obama should have used his veto powers.

[fadedrose]

9. We'll never know now

If Obama had stuck with Warren and would not accept the Wall Street derivatives addition to the bill, who knows what would have happened. Would they withdraw it from the bill? McConnell said last month that they would not shut down the government and maybe Obama could have taken his word on this....and perhaps the poison pill would have been deleted. Maybe retaliation for its removal would be no funding for ACA or something similar.

[sendero]

15. They are going to do their best..

... to defund the ACA no matter what.

All acquiescing to this sort of agreement does is convert it from Republican fiasco into bi-partisan fiasco.

[aspirant]

23. We have millions on Medicaid now

So, maybe we can organize them to vote if the repubs defund. Remember McTurtles pretzel logic of supporting Kynet and criticizing Obamacare. It may not be that easy next time around with better attack candidates.

[QC]

10. Yes, but the Republicans would have said mean things about him

and Jamie would have been mad!!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. The "Not as bad" president and party purists have decided on collaboration with the Repugs.

[Fred Sanders]

12. Of course, then liberals could explain all about the derivatives default thing to Americans....

I am sure the folks and the folks media will rally to your cause for shutting down the government, because that is how the debate will be framed during the shutdown, no?

Let's see, you got your banksters and you got your financial swap derivatives, and the banksters should not be allowed to mix business with gambling, ha see, and if they lose the bet the tax payers will have to bail them out, again, because you folks and mass media all remember what happened about 6 years ago, right?

So the public will hear "Blame Obama", and then what? At least there should be some rational understanding of the man's position on this so called liberal site.

Good luck with bashing Obama and mansplaining your reason to the public, worked out great during the past election.

[truebluegreen]

34. Actually I think is pretty easy to explain to even teabaggers

about putting the taxpayers on the hook for more bailouts.

And what didn't work out in the last election was doing the same thing as Republicans, only slower (kinder and gentler).

[1StrongBlackMan]

36. That's just it ...

Good luck with bashing Obama and mansplaining your reason to the public, worked out great during the past election.

They wouldn't be explaining anything ... they'd just post a "This is terrible thing" post; and, move on to the next issue for which a "statement" must be made.

[sendero]

13. Rather than give the banks..

.... the permission to gamble with depositor funds? You betcha.

[procon]

14. Yes, just to stand up to some of corrupting influence of corporate money

The blame would have fallen on the GOP -- again -- for once again shutting down the whole country to get their way through extortion rather than participate in government by negotiating.

[think]

16. The American people seem to lose no matter what happens. Politicians suck....

[Scuba]

17. Call the Republican's bluff. Their masters on Wall Street won't stand for a prolonged shutdown.

[Shivering Jemmy]

18. given that I am a government contractor

I would hope not.

[1StrongBlackMan]

37. You don't count ...

I line must be drawn!



I only regret, you have but one life to give for our making a statement.

[Odin2005]

19. Yes. No compromise with thugpublicans

[on point]

20. Yes, and explain why. He should grow a backbone and use veto now

[Brigid]

21. Yes.

But unfortunately we have a Labrador Retriever in the White House when we need a Rottweiler.

[world wide wally]

22. We saved a week or two of inconvenience for some more than others.

But we pretty much guaranteed another great recession that at worst is the death knell for the middle class, and at best will take another 5-10 tears to recover from.
But I think the former is the master plan.
The aristocracy and the working class.

[Prophet 451]

31. "Brazilification"

Doug Coupland, in "Generation X", coined the term Brazilification to describe what happens in a country where the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer: Eventually, the middle class disappears entirely.

The ultimate aim for the corporate PtB has always been to have a populace so desperate that they will work 12-16 hours, for pennies, or a meal, or a dosshouse bed for the night. And if you won't take it, fuck you, there's millions desperate enough to take it. The only reason they're not pushing to bring back slavery is that wage slavery is cheaper and the public can be brainwashed into worshiping your "job creator" ass.

[1StrongBlackMan]

38. Not eating ...

homeless shelters shutting down, the impact on all the other safety net programs' funds being withheld, are summed up as "a week or two of inconvenience"?

Okay.

[world wide wally]

41. So, you think we took the better choice by subjecting ourselves to a great recession again?

Some of us pay for it now. Or all of us pay for it later/
Believe me… it pains me to say that

[1StrongBlackMan]

43. No ...

better choice by subjecting ourselves to a great recession again. I hate that the CR contains a lot if the stuff that's in it ... beyond the derivative stuff; but, the more accurate statement would be: "Some of us THEM pay for it now. Or all of us pay for it later/
Believe me… it pains me to say that."

(That's assuming you are not the beneficiary of one of those programs whose funding being cut off would "inconvenience" you. Which is a reasonable assumption because those living on the edge, spend very little time worrying about what might happen, if ...)

[Johonny]

24. Given he let them before... why would he not let them again?

The tactic did not seem to hurt them at the polls but it certainly did prevent the worst of the Republican ideas from passing before. In this case with the senate out as a negotiating tool... IDK. Losing the senate certainly hurt the Democrats ability to push back on bad ideas. The democratic leadership doesn't appear to have convinced their own caucus so I have no reason to be totally convinced.

[sabrina 1]

25. Yes, and then Democrats should have been all over the media slamming them

for it.

[geek tragedy]

26. It would have been Democrats shutting down the government

so probably not a great idea, politically.

[Marr]

40. It isn't hard to say you're not pre-approving more Wall Street bailouts.

It's a very understandable point-- and the bailouts are still a big issue with voters of both parties. That's a huge political winner, an no politician who wants to keep his job is going to fight long over that point-- let alone shut down the government.

Isn't the simpler explanation that they are *trying* to do Wall Street's work here? C'mon.

[Xyzse]

27. Absolutely.

Though I really feel tired.

[fredamae]

28. Let The GOP Shut It Down? Hell Yes w/Vengence! n/t

[truebluegreen]

35. Yes!

What does it take for Democrats to show a spine?

[obnoxiousdrunk]

42. On DU I say yes

In the real worl I say No.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

44. yes

[TeamPooka]

45. Yes.