I agree that it seems only one party is making an effort. It's just not the party you think.
LOL Oh really? What has the senate done to compromise on their position in an effort to end the shut down?
Oh yea, they said "we won't compromise." Yup, CLEARLY they want it to end... VERY badly too I can see...
Your car analogy is out of place and nothing like what passing a clean bill would be.
Oh no? why not?
That's EXACTLY what you're saying. You agree to this bill and I will negotiate what you get later. You, yourself just said exactly that.
I've never seen or heard of ANY constituent demanding a govt shutdown. And if one did, they should have to answer to one of the thousands of people currently not working and tell them why they don't get a paycheck.
Nope, what they demanded was for our elected officials to fight back against the ACA law. And that is what they are doing.
Now, I wouldn't expect the democrats to cave on it either, because I would have to assume that they constituents would be in favor of the law. That's where COMPROMISE comes into play.
Also, your condescending remarks are ridiculous and unwarranted. But if you need to stoop to that, I understand.
Not condescending at all, apparently you don't understand how things work when 2 sides don't agree on something, they come to the table and COMPROMISE. Wow, what a thought... I know, AMAZING!
So your telling me that when the govt shutdown ends, we as a nation lose? I'm sure there are thousands of currently furloughed workers that would disagree with you.
If it means the country continues down the path we are currently on? Yes, we do. And I am sure there are MILLIONS of non-furloughed workers that would agree with me.
Oh, I know there have been plenty of shutdowns before. That doesn't excuse the fact. So just because the threat of a govt shutdown has been used as a bargaining chip in the past, doesn't mean it should now or in the future. For everytime that it's been used like this, there have been many instances when congress didn't.
Man, maybe we are getting somewhere! lol
First you said: "But keeping the govt running isn't something to be used as a bargaining chip." But now you admit that it has happened in the past. In fact, it has happened 17 prior times since 1976.
And hmmm for everytime it WASN'T shut down, why do you think it was avoided? Maybe because there was a COMPROMISE!
Much like in the 95-96 shutdown when Bill Clinton was dealing with his opposition nearly every single day working towards a compromise.
Maybe Obama should get some advice from Clinton...
I am neither misinformed NOR ignorant, intentionally or otherwise.
Well based on your prior comment I would have argued that you were, but you've since kind of changed on that, so I will somewhat agree with you on this.
Why was it illegal?
Why? Because it's not written in the law. Therefore any NON-enforcement of the law is in fact illegal. But you didn't answer the question, tell me why that's ok?
Why can Obama issue/grant delays and waivers to groups or businesses to anyone HE (or THEY) want, but we can't get the same delay?
I would have NO issue with this compromise if a delay was put into place on the individual mandate. My issue is with it being tied to a bill that could have prevented the govt shutdown and could now end it.
That makes ZERO sense! The house passed that EXACT CR prior to the government shutdown, and that CR is still sitting on the senate awaiting a vote. It could have avoided this entire mess!
AND IT'S ACTUALLY FAIR!!! For EVERYONE!
It still stands today, all the senate has to do is vote on it.