Bachmann says this is a ‘very sad day,’ while others cheer budget deal

REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst
Members of the U.S. House of Representatives departing the U.S. Capitol after a late-night vote on fiscal legislation to end the government shutdown.

Bachmann: GOP approach will be justified

You can also learn about all our free newsletter options.

Comments (38)

  1. Submitted by Ray Lewis on 10/17/2013 - 07:13 am.

    Pause in crisis mode to reflect on process and root causes;

    “The compromise asks a joint House-Senate committee to come to sort of budget accord before mid-December, a task Congress has failed for several years.”

    Behind the rhetoric and legislative process, posturing and political theater are some tough decisions in a changing and complex environment. We have kicked these decisions into the future so often it seems like the discussion, decision-making and media interpretation are controlled by extremists and economically vested interests.

    I hope there is some way for citizens from the “center” to be represented in deciding what priorities we share as a nation. Are the impacts and value choices transparent, and do they reflect the best interests of the country? Do citizens have any role to play besides waiting for the next election?

  2. Submitted by Barry Tungseth on 10/17/2013 - 07:39 am.

    I`m suprised Bachmann could just “pray this away” and get what she wanted. But then, she probably thought the vote was taking place overseas in Iowa.

  3. Submitted by Susan McNerney on 10/17/2013 - 08:20 am.

    Aaah, Michele, there you are

    embarrassing my district all the way to the bitter end.

    • Submitted by Dennis Tester on 10/17/2013 - 08:40 am.

      What’s the matter

      Susan, don’t you believe in democracy? She’s doing what her constituents who elected her want her to do.

      • Submitted by Allan Holmstadt on 10/17/2013 - 08:55 am.

        What about the rest of her constituents?

        Only about 51% of her constituents voted for her in the last election and she’s made it pretty clear that she doesn’t care about the views of the other 49%.

      • Submitted by Bill Schletzer on 10/17/2013 - 09:05 am.

        had the Republicans believed in democracy..

        they would have counted the votes and realized they were wasting everybody’s time. They would have also realized long ago that ACA was voted and passed and that this democratic society affirmed that decision by re-electing the president. They would also realize that in a democracy you don’t get everything you want without compromise. I’d say Tea Party Republicans would function more happily in a totalitarian society where a small group of rulers dictate what they think is best for all of us.

      • Submitted by Jonathan Ecklund on 10/17/2013 - 09:27 am.


        Yes, because being embarrassed by one’s congressional representative is the exact same thing as ‘not believing in democracy.’

        And while I’m sure that some of those who voted for her were cheering the government shutdown and jeering the President as their enemy, I’m willing to bet that most people in the 6th think the shutdown was foolhardy and stupid. There IS a reason she’s not running again… and it’s because she doesn’t think the 6th will send her back to congress.

      • Submitted by Ray Lewis on 10/17/2013 - 10:29 pm.

        Shutting down federal government because ACA was not defunded

        Michele Bachmann, a tea party member who had pushed for a shutdown and argued that breaching the debt ceiling wouldn’t actually lead to a default. (PM Glean today). At this point, the Republican opposition to taxes has nothing to do with policy. It has nothing to do with the economy. It’s religion. It’s dogma. It’s identity. Refusing to raise taxes is what it means to be a Republican in this day and age. (Washington Post today.)

        I live in the 6th Congressional District and believe Michelle Bachmann is also supposed to “represent” me even if I didn’t vote for her. Moreover, I don’t think she represents the best interests of her country or constituents that include children and non-voters. How should their concerns be considered in her oath of office if they didn’t help choose her?

        I don’t believe most people think democracy is voting 42 (?) times to change the law without offering viable alternatives to addressing the root causes of health and health care problems. Harming the public when the “just say no” strategy doesn’t work is probably not an effective way to use political solutions to social, economic and dempgraphic trends.

        For example, Dean Julio Frenk in an op-ed in the Boston Globe on Oct. 2, 2013 probably expressed my view best on the “slush fund” cited by my elected representative. He notes that spending on prevention within the ACA has already been reduced from a $15 billion commitment to $10 billion. “Prevention may seem expensive, but in the long term it saves money,” said Frenk. “Consider that a scant 3 percent of current health care spending in the United States is now focused on prevention and public health, while a whopping 75 percent of health care costs are related to preventable conditions.”

        We need to change what has led is to this point. I’ve been to precinct caucuses, town meetings and other gatherings, but polarizing politics as practiced is not the answer. I sincerely hope this latest in a continuing crisis will engage active citizenship across the left, center and right to see if we can learn to talk to each other about the common good.

  4. Submitted by Tom Christensen on 10/17/2013 - 09:49 am.

    I can’t believe I agree with Bachmann

    I agree it is a sad day, but for a totally different reason. All that was accomplished was they kicked the can down the road because they need a holiday breather, and they can go through all the nonsense again in January and February. Not to mention the discomfort they gave millions of Americans, rattling the stock market, and looking like grade schooler’s, They also gave Mitch McConnell, one of the government spends too much guys, $2,200,000,000 for a Kentucky dam project. No doubt the dam will be named after McConnell. This exercise in futility was politician’s working hard for you. If you want anything wasted just give it to a politician. Nothing of substance will get done in January and February because of all the animosity that exists. It doesn’t matter which party you are with the voter’s need to clean house the first chance they get.

  5. Submitted by Duke Powell on 10/17/2013 - 10:17 am.

    Well, now….

    As a constituent of Rep Kline, I cannot say how disappointed I am in his vote. I cannot say how disappointed I am in how he has rolled his eyes whenever Bachamann’s name was mentioned…..

    Former State Reps, like myself, have seen this all before.

    While I won’t vote for Democrats in the 2014 elections, I cannot see myself advocating for Kline and Paulsen.

    ObamaCare is that important to this constituent, health care professional, and close observer.

  6. Submitted by Barbara Gilbertson on 10/17/2013 - 11:42 am.

    Mrs. Bachmann

    “…and (Bachmann) said Obama ‘got 100 percent of what he wanted’ in the bill…” Ink still wet and the truth-twisting, mind-boggling spin begins anew.

  7. Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 10/17/2013 - 11:56 am.

    This article would have been better…

    Without so much type devoted to Bachmann. In fact, if you take Bachmann’s quotes out you lose absolutely nothing. Just because she “is”, doesn’t mean she needs to be quoted.

  8. Submitted by Kevin Watterson on 10/17/2013 - 03:00 pm.

    There’s nothing to cheer in this budget deal. It continues the no-regard spending that necessitates continuing increases in the debt ceiling. I find no way to color that as a good thing.

  9. Submitted by Richard Steuland on 10/17/2013 - 05:56 pm.

    Again Bachman reveals her ignorance

    Yes, she is an embarrassment to Minnesota. If she were so concerned over deficits she could propose even a 10% cut in the military budget. She could also propose higher taxes on luxury items . But no she demonizes a program that is humane and decent for all . That she claims to be a Christian is quite a stretch of the imagination.

    • Submitted by Bill Schletzer on 10/18/2013 - 06:43 am.

      Salon yesterday

      Yesterday Salon had a brief article with sound bite by a guy arguing that it was unChristian for teh government to help people in poverty because the Bible doesn’t say that. He used the “..Give unto Caesar..” quote to make his argument. He further argued that the government is the people and the people will be responsible to God for its laws. Seperately he argued that it is up to individuals to give away their wealth and directly help those in poverty (like that’s gonna happen, even among these socalled Christians). Somehow the ideas that the government is the people and that the people are responsible to end poverty never coincided in his mind or in the mind of the sympathetic interviewer. I had to stop listening because it was so stupid and convoluted I was afraid of getting a headache. Just shows how fundamentalists can twist the words of the Bible to any end.

      • Submitted by John Appelen on 10/18/2013 - 03:39 pm.

        Give to Attain

        Charity is what Conservatives support and it has been proven over and over that they are more charitable than Liberals. They believe that the giver and receiver gain through the free will exchange. I don’t think that using government to rob from Peter to give to Paul is very efficient or in line with the intent of charity.

        Just curious, what % of your household income is given to charity? Or do you just strive to give other people’s money to charity. Thoughts?

  10. Submitted by John Appelen on 10/17/2013 - 06:06 pm.

    Obama: Character?

    Like Liz Warren, he almost sounds like a Republican in his definition of government.

    “And we hear all the time about how government is the problem. Well, it turns out we rely on it in a whole lot of ways. Not only does it keep us strong through our military and our law enforcement, it plays a vital role in caring for our seniors and our veterans, educating our kids, making sure our workers are trained for the jobs that are being created, arming our businesses with the best science and technology so they can compete with companies from other countries. It plays a key role in keeping our food and our toys and our workplaces safe. It helps folks rebuild after a storm. It conserves our natural resources. It finances startups. It helps to sell our products overseas. It provides security to our diplomats abroad.”

    And yet when it comes to policy, he promotes government as needing to provide food, housing, healthcare, education, etc to able bodied adults. Is this an intentional attempt to mislead the Moderates and Republicans? (ie lack of character)

    Or what am I missing here? I mean he obviously is pro-socialized healthcare, welfare, etc… Why doesn’t he come out and say that he believes a key role of government is to arbitrate fairness by raising the taxes on the rich so the money can be given to the poor?

    No where in that speech does he even indicate or support a core part of his platform… I mean I don’t see ACA or Medicare expansion in those priorities. Wouldn’t someone with character say “I am very concerned about the wealth distribution problem in the USA, let’s do something about it? Because the people of America think it is important !!!”


    • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 10/18/2013 - 12:01 pm.


      Nowhere in his speech does he say “and this is an exclusive list of the functions of government.”

      If you truly believe that the ACA, which compels purchase of a product from private businesses, is “socialized” health care, I don’t think you know what the term means. By that definition, we have socialized motor vehicle insurance.

      • Submitted by John Appelen on 10/18/2013 - 02:47 pm.

        Who pays?

        I hope this gets to you, some of my comments to you have disappeared in the ether… As for ACA, I am not so concerned about who is “selling” and “buying” as much as who is “paying”…

        From what I understand ACA relied on the expansion of Medicare, and that all people on Medicare are exempt from having to buy insurance. Meaning that the tax payers will be “paying” for more medicare via their Fed/State level. Correct?

        Also, a great many people will receive a subsidy to help cover the cost of their insurance policy via tax credits etc. This loss of revenues or payment of credits will need to be funded by tax payers at the Federal level through various tax increases. Now I know that my company subsidizes my insurance premiums to motivate me to continue working for them. (ie my work has value) Now why are tax payers subsidizing private citizens?

        The management of exchanges, advertising, bureacrats, etc costs money that has nothing to do with healthcare. We tax payers are paying for it somewhere.

        Additional mandatory coverages increase the risk pool, so premiums have to go up to cover these higher risks or expenses.

        ACA may have benefits, but it makes no sense to deny the costs. By the way, do you get a tax sibsidy on your auto insurance? I have to get that policy…

        • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 10/21/2013 - 09:51 am.


          Handing over tax money–either directly or indirectly–to private enterprise is socialism now? That’s agood one.

          • Submitted by John Appelen on 10/21/2013 - 05:59 pm.


            Technically we are collecting money into the government… Most of it from the wealthy folks since they have it. Then we are distributing the money amongst people… Mostly to the the non-wealthy who don’t have it.

            What does that sound like to you? I really am curious.

            • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 10/22/2013 - 07:48 am.


              What is the ultimate destination of the wealth that is collected from the poor, put-upon wealthy? The subsidies flow through the hands of the people who get it, right to the private insurers.

              The same thing happens with defense contracting, spending on privatized corrections, or any other government subsidy or “partnership.”

            • Submitted by Pat Berg on 10/22/2013 - 07:59 am.

              What it sounds like to me . . . . .

              is sour apples.

              (And I don’t plan to bite.)

  11. Submitted by John Appelen on 10/17/2013 - 07:15 pm.

    Elizabeth’s similar comment

    “It’s not complicated. Our government has three basic functions: Provide for the national defense, put in place rules of the road – like speed limits and bank regulations that are fair and transparent, and build the things together that none of us can build alone – roads, power grids, schools – the things that give everyone a chance to succeed.”

    Not a word about wealth transfer as a basic function… Error or misleading?

    • Submitted by Logan Foreman on 10/17/2013 - 10:59 pm.


      See Iraq war, war profiteering, see mortgage fiasco, no real new regulations for banks, corporate welfare (subsidies, tax breaks, offshore accounts); see socialism for corps – poor paying for rich. No chance to exceed except for the rich. Want more? Biggest gap in wealth between the rich and poor in generations, probably since the robber baron era. More? LOL

  12. Submitted by jason myron on 10/18/2013 - 12:03 pm.

    “Poor Character?”

    Since you’ve mentioned this outright or implied it in every one of your posts, is it safe to assume that this is the latest meme in the GOP playbook to use to taint the President? I’ll just file this, along with… “He’s not one of us”, “the most divisive president in history”, “low information voter”, “free stuff” and “we stand for a more traditional America”, under “lame GOP rhetoric designed to make the user feel superior after losing to the community organizer again”

    • Submitted by John Appelen on 10/18/2013 - 02:32 pm.


      Since I play the middle, I am indifferent if this was Bush or Obama being inconsistent.

      Why do you think he/she didn’t list “enforcer of equality” as a key function of government?

      My belief is that most people are not in support of that position… Thoughts?

      • Submitted by Jonathan Ecklund on 10/18/2013 - 04:35 pm.

        The Middle

        You may only be in the political ‘middle’ because the GOP has moved about 2 astronomical units to the right (and 200 years into the past) in the last 30 years.

        • Submitted by John Appelen on 10/18/2013 - 10:20 pm.

          Remember the question

          Do you have an answer?

          As for what or who is moving… Remember that ever increasing govt cost curve… It seems the Republicans are seeking to stay in the same spot and the Democrats keep pulling to the Left.

          Isn’t that what “Progressive” is about? (ie change)

          • Submitted by Jonathan Ecklund on 10/21/2013 - 09:17 am.

            I can’t ‘answer’ your repeated assertions that the president is of ‘low character,’ which is what I was responding to. I disagree with it, and as Jason pointed out, it seems to be another in a long line of conservative attacks on President Obama that don’t reflect reality. You claim to represent a political ‘middle,’ when the people I know who are true centrists aren’t interested in more character assassination.

            • Submitted by John Appelen on 10/21/2013 - 04:03 pm.

              Actually It was a Question

              I am not sure if it shows Poor Character, that is why I asked it in question form…

              I would like you to help me understand why Obama/Warren don’t bring “wealth equity” up as a key governmental role in these speeches? It seems like an aggregious oversight based on their actions and goals.

              And it certainly would play well with the Liberals…

  13. Submitted by jason myron on 10/18/2013 - 05:37 pm.


    “Charity is what Conservatives support and it has been proven over and over that they are more charitable than Liberals.” ……..Really? By whom? Krauthammer, Coulter and Newsmax?

Leave a Reply