Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Customer Service | Contact Us | Routes Available | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS

House Democrats say President Obama should consider invoking a constitutional provision that they say gives him the power to raise the debt ceiling without going through Congress. Your initial reaction?

  1. Great idea, do it
  2. Bad advice
  3. What nerve
  4. Borderline criminal
  5. Other
sort: oldest | newest




Jan-10-13 6:32 AM

President POS needs to be in a country where they appreciate dictators, not the US. but we have a lot of sheep now instead of entreprenuers that can't think for themselves so they still need someone else to run their life for them. and to steal from others because they 'deserve it'. welcome to the once great usa.

14 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-10-13 8:09 AM

I am all for anything that will hasten a financial collapse, and more debt will definitely do that, so I am all for Obama's reckless spending.

Bring it on

3 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-10-13 10:23 AM

We are not going down the same old road where the republicans try to shut down the gov't and down grade the gov't credit rating again! Raise the debt ceiling, pay the bills, and get to work with cutting spending and balancing the budget, stop acting like a bunch of spoiled brats at act like the elected officials we all sent there to do a job!!!

3 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-10-13 10:34 AM

minreader The House Speaker Boehner said that he will no longer talk with the President any longer! Now does that sound like an adult trying to work out this nation's serious issues?

5 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-10-13 11:27 AM

animal if the idiots won the majority that makes the minority party what? MORONS!

1 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-10-13 1:30 PM

What "da messiah" said when he was a senator. Notice he couldn't be bothered to vote in 2007 & 2008.

Here are Obama’s thoughts on the debt limit in 2006, when he voted against increasing the ceiling:

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. In 2007 and in 2008, when the Senate voted to increase the limit by $850 billion and $800 billion respectively, Obama did not bother to vote. (He did vote fo

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-10-13 5:31 PM

hj & h4c seem to have all the answers! They should go to DC and and meet with the House majority and get this all settled RIGHT now!

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-10-13 5:32 PM

“The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but that the lightning ain't distributed right.” - Mark Twain

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-10-13 7:10 PM

How can you spend 3.9 trillion dollars, receive revenues of 1.9 trillion, borrow 2 trillion, pay 250 billion in interest and borrow more to spend more because you are spending more and make any attempt to reduce spending?

You're always spending more, reducing the increased spending and calling it a reduction in spending from the increased amount of spending?

It's looney tunes.

e. other

f. looney tunes

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-10-13 7:43 PM

I think we have two Megalomaniacs (HJ & H2C)! :-)

5 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-11-13 10:45 AM

I would think most on welfare do not belong to any political party-more than likely--they are more sympathetic to the democratic party as opposed to the Spencerian repubs posting on this site.

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-11-13 11:05 AM

Federal spending in North Dakota has increased dramatically even over just the last few bienniums (my numbers don’t even include federal monies going straight to county/township/municipal governments). Given the relative fiscal health of North Dakota’s budget, and the absolute mess that is the federal government’s fiscal situation, wouldn’t it make sense for North Dakota leaders to begin weening the state off federal spending so that any impending national “fiscal cliffs” in the future put the state at less risk?

That would be the prudent thing to do, but federal money is like cat****to far too many local officials. Too often, they just can’t say no.

Rob Port is the editor of SayAnythingBlog****.

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-11-13 11:05 AM

According to a pamphlet of North Dakota’s financial facts created by the state Office of Management and Budget for legislators in advance of the upcoming session, in the 2011 – 2013 biennium federal money makes up 33.9% of total state spending:

Since the 2005 – 2007 biennium federal dollars in the state budget have increased 52.7% in relation to an overall increase of 82% in total state spending.

The share of federal spending as a percentage of overall state spending has decreased since the 2005 – 2007 biennium, from over 40% to 34%, but that has more to do with the rapid growth in spending from state revenues which has increased nearly 104% over that time.

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-11-13 12:09 PM

"Just spent another 12 hour day mopping up after someone who thinks & spells like you Henry!!"

Just another of Veritas' infinite references to how "smarter" Easterners/Westerners are compared to Central US folks, condescendingly gracing the little people with comments/wisdom/viewpoint/etc.

Now how could we live without that?

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-11-13 12:16 PM

hj & Capt.h2c were federal gov't employees. How long did we support you two?

2 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-11-13 12:21 PM

To me, it's a positive disgrace that So Much Money is redistributed from DC in the first place.

Subsidies, grants, welfare, programs, entitlements....arrgghh!

It seems everyone has their hand out for something, and now here's squabbles over what states get more and/or what states pay more.


Ideals like "hard work will pay off" or "there's no such thing as a free lunch" seem absolutely archaic, null and void, when stacked next to this inane bickering.

People like me (hope it's not just me) who take a small break from the rat race to tune in to MDN online, and see this malarkey going back and forth (blue vs. red, rich vs. poor, this vs. that) end up amazed and perplexed. Not to mention a trifle irked.

Guess what? Life ain't fair. No politician can make it fair for you. Ever. Don't believe any campaign promises. Ever. Statistics can be used to state anything. Anything at all.

Sorry to vent, but really, folks. Get a grip.

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-11-13 8:55 PM

Veritas, I'll admit that some of your posts added to the reasons just why I had to post at 12:21.

If that can somehow be construed as "liking" a post, well, you can just have at it then.

Have a happier weekend, all...

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-12-13 2:51 PM

Yawwnn, and your interest in ND is...


...precisely what?

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-12-13 6:37 PM

AS disgusted said elsewhere, bye bye, Yawwnn.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 19 of 19 comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web