Are you worried about the government shutdown?

Well, maybe you shouldn’t be.

According to Sarah Palin, a shutdown is not to fear. In fact, she argues that it might be a good thing.

While on Fox Business, Palin pointed out that the federal government shut down back in 1995 while Bill Clinton was “hooking up with Monica,” and nothing catastrophic happened. Instead, we ended up getting a balanced budget and welfare reform.

Palin also said that Republicans gained two seats in the Senate and continued to hold the House majority after the ’90s government shutdown.

“That sounds pretty good to me. Let government chill for a bit,” Palin said, suggesting that we might see some similar results this time around.

The shutdown will allow us to truly see how unnecessary and irrelevant many parts of the government are, Palin argued. She pointed out that all of the “non-essential” federal employees will not be working during the shutdown; if government employees are non-essential, why are they working at all?

She then blasted the mainstream media for creating a doomsday narrative to scare and vilify Republicans. The GOP must “not blink” or “allow the media to drive this whole narrative,” Palin cautioned.

Palin continues to be a controversial figure, no doubt. However, one can’t help but admit that she brings up some interesting points.

Perhaps we shouldn’t worry about a government shutdown. After all, as Ben Swann pointed out on Tuesday, it really won’t affect us much. “The mail will continue to come. The military will continue to be paid, Social Security checks will continue to be sent out and Veterans hospitals will remain open.”

Are you worried about the government shutdown? Tell us in the comments section below.

The following two tabs change content below.
Profile photo of Kristin Tate
Kristin Tate is a multi-media reporter for Breitbart News and to fearless journalism, she regularly works on undercover stings with James O'Keefe to reveal government waste, abuse, and fraud.Tate was a Young Americans for Liberty (YAL) Chapter President and Founder. She will continue to fight tirelessly for individual liberty and free markets through new media. Visit Kristin's website at

Reality Check: Is There A Link Between Mass Shootings and Anti-Depressants?

  • DarthTrader

    Problem with this Federal Government Shutdown is they are shutting down the wrong parts and the people who are laid off will get paid for doing nothing when they get the con going again!

  • Kevin Merck

    We need to shut the government down or they will permanently shut the rest of us down. I wish that was just my opinion.

  • Blake Helgoth

    Yeah, it really is crazy what they consider essential. Plus, they didn’t cut the work load. So, now the ‘essential’ people have to do about twice as much work. That’s why no one notices the effect, at least on the military.

  • Jordan

    She brings up a good point that if they aren’t essential then why are they working at all. But on the other hand, unemployment would be even higher if the government didn’t employ so many people.

    • Gregg Braddoch

      Ron Paul warned about this – Do we really want people employed at non-essential jobs in government when they can lose them because of politics? These are not stable jobs, as they are at the whims of politicians – They are wasteful, there are numerous examples: IRS “losing track” of 65 Million dollars, FoodStamps recipients get 30 cents out of every dollar spent for the program (largely taken up by bureaucracy, and overpaid paper pushers), Government employees overspending on office supplies, etc.

      Instead of creating jobs to work for the government, they should be handing the money out to the taxpayers, who will undoubtedly do much better at creating new stable jobs than will the government.

      • Jesse Farmer

        Is the logic then have politicians fire all of these people becasue they are not stable jobs, because they can be fired from them by politicians?

        Is this the logic of Ron Paul? Does this make perfect sense to you?

        • Uncle Scratch

          I think you’re missing the point, Jesse. The logic of Ron Paul is this, if the non-essential jobs weren’t created in the first place, there would be no non-essential jobs to be lost.

          • Jesse Farmer

            That is not what Gregg said. That is not Gregg’s point. He said: “These are not stable jobs, as they are at the whims of politicians,” which is about as circular of logic as has ever been devised in the minds of men. It is to Gregg that my comment was directed.

            To address your, completely different point, Ron Paul thinks Food Stamps are not essential, even though they provide FOOD to people that would starve with out it. Define essential.

            If you’re going to base what is essential on the thinking of a psychopath like that, then you’ll have a bunch of psychopaths agreeing with you and that’s it.

          • Gregg Braddoch

            Hmm…. maybe instead of taking people’s money to pay for food stamps they could let them keep it, and buy food – it would be 70% more efficient, as only 30 cents on the dollar spent on foodstamps ends up buying food for people.

            “Is the logic then have politicians fire all of these people becasue they are not stable jobs, because they can be fired from them by politicians?”

            Ideally, as Uncle Scratch has stated these jobs should never have been created – Why do you think that Obama was busy creating so many government jobs? To help people? How about now, when the pay from these jobs is suspended because of the president’s absolutist stance?

            There is no simple way out of this mess, because people should have listened to Ron Paul many years prior to now. The best solution we have now, since we created all these non-essential jobs is to slowly cut jobs. People like yourself of course, don’t like this idea, but it is people with the mentality that non-essential government ideas who are to blame for this – Otherwise Congress and the President wouldn’t be sending 1 Million+ people home from their jobs right now for a game of politics.

            But since this solution is unacceptable (even though we arrived here due to the mindset of people like yourself) you would like to ask misleading questions like “Is this the logic of Ron Paul?”

            Which, to answer your biased question, the answer is NO. The logic of Ron Paul was to not spend money on non-essential government to begin with.

            So instead of asking “Is this the logic of Ron Paul?” maybe we should be asking “are these the consequences of not listening to Ron Paul to begin with?”

            “If you’re going to base what is essential on the thinking of a psychopath like that, then you’ll have a bunch of psychopaths agreeing with you and that’s it.”

            Well if you are so smart, then how about you tell me what is essential and what is not. You clearly do not understand what Ron Paul was saying, as you are taking the democrat party line in saying that RP wants to cut food stamps – Yes, he does want them cut, but he also wants Americans to be able to buy food without them.

          • BambiB

            Actually, if the overhead is 70%, and they just eliminated the overhead and let them keep their money, it would be 333% more efficient. Think of it this way: If you were getting $30 before, and now you’re getting $100, that’s not a 70% increase ($30+$21=$51), but a 333% increase.

            THAT’S how bad government is.

          • Jesse Farmer

            Food is essential Gregg. Pretty simple.

            You can Ron Paul can try to justify starving people based on high-minded philosophy, but the rest of America is sick of you evil, vile people.

          • Gregg Braddoch

            Go back to the huffpost, CNN, or NBC. There at least your small-minded ideology is accepted without criticism. This is my last response to you, as you have provided no solutions, only insults, and mis-characterizations of people’s words.

            Food is essential, but it is not an essential function of government. People have been well-fed throughout America for decades or longer without having food stamps.

          • Gregg Braddoch

            And HOW you say did these people eat? They worked for their food.

          • Uncle Scratch

            How is it evil and vile to expect people to work for what they need or want?

            You have yet to come up with an valid argument supporting your argument. Only empty rhetoric and insults. Good for you! WTG! You get a gold medal in debating, because, darn it, you tried.


          • BambiB

            B.S. Food stamps came along in the early 1960s. Prior to that, there was a version for a few years during the (first) great depression. I suppose it was all the people STARVING IN THE STREETS that caused the 1960 reintroduction. Maybe you can tell us where all those people were starving. Can’t seem to find any record of it.

            Or are you just lying?

            “Essential” – what you pay for BEFORE your cell phone, XBOX, big screen TV, cable bill, jet ski and trip to Disneyland.

            “Essential” – those things that are NECESSARY to life. Water. Shelter. Food. Clothing. You find me someone who can’t pay for those things if they pay for them FIRST, and I’ll show you someone who is functionally disabled (which does NOT describe the majority of recipients) or has popped out far too many welfare babies.

          • Jesse Farmer

            Foodstamps were first issued during the Great Depression, and people definitely were starving in the streets before that.

            Yes Bambi, they were. The foodstamp program was suspended, but people got cash payments thorugh the Social Secrutiy act (Aid to Families with Dependent Mothers). This is what you call welfare, and Bill Clinton ended it in 1995.

            LBJ expanded “welfare” and reintroduced Foodstamps. In the late 40’s, the original Foodstamp program was ended BECAUSE THE NEW DEAL LET TO FULL EMPLOYMENT. They weren’t needed, both because everyone was working and because “welfare” (as cash payments) was available.

          • Jesse Farmer

            The majority of Foodstamp recipients are children.

            And you can’t buy jet skis, cigarettes, or porn or whatever with foodstamps.

            You think people are living it up on $115 a month in foodstamps. Get a clue.

          • Uncle Scratch

            Dollars to doughnuts says that the person that get’s $115 in food stamps a month, has internet and cell service. Probably cable or satellite too. Tell me, if those services were cancelled due to financial hardship, would that make up for the $115 I help pay for?

          • Uncle Scratch

            BambiB is correct. Food stamps started as a TEMPORARY assistance program during the great depression. Farmers’ markets and grocery stores could sell their goods to customers with the guarantee of government repayment. Then in the 1960’s, it became the monstrous unsustainable money pit it is today.

            Gregg also brings up a good point, if for every dollar paid in tax, $.30 goes to the food stamp program, doesn’t it make more sense to just let the consumer keep that whole dollar? Unfortunately there is a hole in the bottom of that boat. Since only 47% of Americans pay taxes anyway that leaves 53% still left in limbo. The proverbial patch is the fair flat tax. Broaden the tax base. Every American pays a specified tax rate regardless of income. I know people like you, Jesse, will use the argument, “What about people making $10,000 a year?”. What about them? Use the lack of government assistance (tax payer assistance) as motivation to better your situation. As pointed out, charities have far outdone government help. Unfortunately, people aren’t allowed to be charitable any more without some government intervention.

      • Uncle Scratch

        I get what you’re trying to say, but I disagree with just handing out the money that would otherwise be used to pay for non-essential government employment to the taxpayers. Think of it like this. Let’s say that 5% (for simplicity’s sake) of all tax revenue is used to pay for the non-essential government positions. How about instead of redistributing that money back to the tax payer, the tax payer’s tax bill is lowered a certain percentage. That puts more more money in every pocket (of the 47% that actually pay taxes) at each pay day. That helps eliminate the unfairness of the guy paying $5,000 in taxes getting $1,500 back and the guy that pays $200 in taxes getting $1,500 back. Simply lower the tax burden on the tax payer. Does this make sense?

        • Gregg Braddoch

          Well yes, that is obviously better than the taxes going to the federal government, to be handed out where they deem it “necessary”. This is a bogus hierarchy of control that is being forced on the American public. I fully support lower taxes for EVERYONE.

          When I made my comment about giving taxpayers money, it was based on the fact that much of our country’s budget is funded through borrowing from the federal reserve, so if they are going to borrow anyway, (I wish we could stop them) using you and I as collateral, I am suggesting that the taxpayers at least get some of the money, instead of letting the politicians spend it on whatever they want.

        • BambiB

          Yes, you’re on to something. Let’s get rid of all the programs that simply take money out of one person’s pocket to put it into someone else’s pocket. Then let’s end all military operations that are unrelated to defense (including closing most of the bases around the world and getting out of the stupid wars we’ve been using to turn our military into sausage).

          Between the two, we could drop the budget by over $2 trillion a year. Pay the debt off in a decade or so, and then lower taxes by 60%.

      • BambiB

        How about just not taking the money from citizens to begin with. Once again, we overthrew the LAST government over less than THREE PERCENT in taxes. Anyone here paying less than ten times that much in income taxes? Add on the 6.2% SS tax and the matching employer 6.2% (which could be paid in salary if not for the government taking it) and even if your income tax is 30%, your federal tax burden is likely more than 40%!

        • Gregg Braddoch

          Lol, I hate to do this, but see my reply to Uncle Scratch – I was mainly talking about how the government keeps printing money, and saying that if they want to print money using me as collateral, I’d at least like some of those dollars.

          Taxation pays for very little of our budget today.

    • jbo5112

      If those resources weren’t consumed by the government and their employees, then they would be available for the private sector to use. There have been studies (or maybe just 1 study) that show that for every new government job we lose two private sector jobs, for a net loss of one job every time the government hires someone.

    • BambiB

      Would it?

      One synonym for “unemployment” is “minimum wage”. Who pushes that BS?

      And by your logic, what would really help is just handing people hundreds of billions of dollars to sit on their asses all day. Well, **newsflash** — only the government gets to spend trillions of dollars and produce NOTHING! Everyone else has to actually produce SOMETHING at the end of the day.

      • Jordan

        Non-Essential doesn’t mean they do nothing (But I’m not saying ever non-essential position requires backbreaking work). It just means the place won’t literally fall apart without them. This might include janitors, secretaries, etc. It all depends on the institution. I’m a grad student and at my school the only people that are considered essential personnel are the maintenance guys, the campus police, resident assistants, and a few others. So by your logic, my school should dump the entire faculty and staff because they are considered “non-essential personnel.” You get what I’m saying? Obviously faculty and staff are necessary to have a university but our campus won’t fall into ruin if they aren’t around as with the maintenance guys and the campus police. I say all that to say you’re painting with too broad a brush to assume everyone under the title “non-essential personnel” sits at a desk and twiddles their thumbs.

  • HCSmooth66

    If something somehow changes as a result of this charade, then good. But, it won’t. So we’ll have wasted time, cost us all money, and gained nothing.

    • BambiB

      What, you don’t think the government would waste money if it were not shut down? Seriously?

      • HCSmooth66

        Don’t believe I said anything remotely close to that. Don’t government shut downs cost more in the end than keeping it open? Of course the government will waste money if it were still open. That’s what it does. And it still is. So, what does anyone gain here?

        • BambiB

          Fair enough. If we keep it shut down long enough (and don’t give anyone “back pay”), it could save hundreds of billions of dollars. There are what? 800,000 laid off Fed employees right now? Say they were left idle for two years. At an average salary of $50K that’s $40 billion.

          Then there’s the cost of support. How much does it cost to keep an office building open? Provide all the things the federales seem to think they need (like studios to make Star Trek videos at the IRS)?

          And like the lady said, if they’re not essential, who will miss them?

          • HCSmooth66

            Sounds good in theory. I place the likelihood of any savings you hope for around the likelihood of my being assaulted by Big Foot on the way home.

          • BambiB

            You think maybe part of that is because the people who profit most by continuation of the system cannot allow us to see that the system not only doesn’t work, but benefits us most when it’s NOT working?

  • Susan Donaldson

    I think its good they shutdown, I think Obama should have agreed to 1 year extention but since he didnt I smell a rat, he want to push Obamacare through and people dont really understand it, the supporters just want something better than the staus Qo..but 15000 pages who has time to read that? has anyone even read it? I mean something is up, and I recon they want to rain down some illness on the USA populations, mandate vacinations, (why left over HINI vacinations that never got used),…. if they dont use and they expire then they can’t justify making more to sell to the dumb ass population next year need to keep the vaccination industry going brings in a lot of revenue for Big Pharma….

    • Jesse Farmer

      You think it’s a good thing for a small faction of politicians to prevent the normal operation of government (which is what they are paid and elected to do) to push some non-related, pet political agenda?

      And the problem is Obama for not negotiating with these people who have taken the US Government hostage?

      Obama is the core problem in all of that?

      This is really what you think? I have to know.

      • BambiB

        Hey dummy – this IS the normal operation of government! The government has been shut down, what? 17 times in the past? We’re actually OVERDUE for a shutdown.

        Hostage? Is your brain really that non-functional? The representatives are doing their job (for a change). This is why we have a senate and a house instead of just a king. If they don’t agree, then either one can STOP the process.

        Obama is a big part of the problem, but by no means all of it. If we could eliminate him, Boxer, Schumer, Feinstein, and about 50 other communist/socialists, we’d have a shot at recovering.

        Give me your address. I’ll send you a quarter. Maybe you can buy a clue.

        • Susan Donaldson

          lol thank u!

      • Gregg Braddoch

        No, you misunderstand, but then, that is why you’re here – to express your disgust with those who rightfully disagree with you.

        • Jesse Farmer

          I was responding to Susan with that comment Gregg. Next to the name of the poster, there is a little arrow with another name next to it. That is the person I am addressing with my comment.

          And I am here to express my disgust at people that find Sarah Palin compelling.

      • Susan Donaldson

        well no its not good Obama should be working with the congress and leading the Country not dictating…Obama is to blame and he is blaming the congress, but this is total BS, we havent read the OBAMACARE BILL have we…so we dont know whats in it we are supposed to just trust OBAMA, trust a subhuman who has passed bills that give him the power to kill US citizen on US soil without trial due process I dont trust Obama care and even though I havent read the 15000 pages, I trust the opposition has and I trust them more than Obama so I support Congress 4 objecting to Obama care…

  • Uncle Scratch

    I hope the shut down lasts a while. Like some one else in the comments section said, it lets the people know which government operation “jobs” are not needed. But it also gives the people a chance to fight back against this monstrosity of a law so lovingly called Obamacare. Keep calling your representatives telling them not to back down. The Dems want all the compromise to come from the Reps. It’s high time the left makes the compromise.

    • Jesse Farmer

      Let’s hope it lasts long enough to stop WIC at least. Poor kids don’t deserve protein or a brain stem. That will teach those “Dems”!

      • Uncle Scratch

        God forbid you might have to shut off your cable, internet or cell phone(s) in order to feed your own kid(s).

        That’s part of what’s wrong with this country. Entitlement syndrome. Your kids = your responsibility.

        And just an FYI, I will gladly turn off internet, cable, cell phones and any other amenities to feed my children. But hey, we all can’t be as selfless these days, can we?

        • BambiB

          Oh Jeez! Someone who thinks that people popping out welfare entitlements should actually PAY for what they do? I mean, it’s for the chill-l-l-l-l-l-ldren! (Cue Sally Struthers.)


          Maybe we should start hanging people who breed indiscriminately and expect others to pick up the tab. I know I’m sick to death of paying to subsidize other people’s kids. Given a choice, I’d say, LET THEM STARVE. Better yet, roast their parents and feed them long pig! And while you’re at it, why the HELL am I paying for their schooling? My house would be PAID OFF if not for all the years of buying new schools so these human rats can breed.

          Get rid of welfare in ALL its forms. Social security (yeah, pay what’s due, then kill it), WIC, food stamps. All of it. Churches and philanthropists did a good job of helping the poor for 150 years until the government took over. Now we have people who sit back on their fat asses and suck the blood out of WORKING families.

          We’re way past, “enough”. The Founding Fathers fought the world’s major super-power for independence over taxes that amounted to 3%. Today, we’re being screwed 10 to 15 times as much – and have a hell of a lot less freedom.

          • Gregg Braddoch

            A little extreme, but you do have some good points:

            “Churches and philanthropists did a good job of helping the poor for 150 years until the government took over.”

            I don’t know 100% that this is true, however it stands to reason that the government providing for the poor creates a lazy “let the government do it” mentality that was not present before then. I’ve had relatives tell me to turn to the government when things were rough.

            “Get rid of welfare in ALL its forms. Social security (yeah, pay what’s due, then kill it), WIC, food stamps.”

            Agreed, but it has to be in conjunction of eliminating the IRS and transitioning to a better system of taxation. The economy today is so bad, that even hard workers are forced into getting food stamps. (Ironically, they are forced into doing so because of the runaway spending and taxation by the government, which I think is by design).

            The worst part about food stamps vs charity is that recipients are given a labyrinth of paper work to prove that they are “poor” and are treated like crap by lousy facilitators of this terrible system. The reason given for the paperwork, and proving you’re actually poor? To cut down on fraud – LMFAO – Anyone else here think it is quite logical, that if we didn’t have foodstamps and other welfare that we wouldn’t have to pay for all the mountains of paperwork necessary to “prevent fraud”?

            Charity is far superior to government welfare, as it encourages helping attitudes in people, as opposed to having to feel cheated by the government. Charity also requires no paperwork to prevent fraud – It is voluntary, so if someone is found to be scamming a charity, it is easier to cut them off.

          • BambiB

            Oh, I absolutely agree. I think the “Fair Tax” is at best a tiny first step. I would support eliminating the IRS. The Federal Government operated just fine before 1913 – without an income tax and without the Federal Reserve.

            I’d kill them both, and replace them with… NOTHING.

        • Gregg Braddoch

          I have shut off internet, cable, and cell phones to feed my kids. I also don’t blame the government for not “doing it’s job” and feeding me and my family.

          The governments job is simple, if they’d stick to it – It’s job is to settle disputes between the states (which there are very few) and protect us from foreign invaders (which it fails to do) and then get out of the way, and let the citizens live life as they please.

          • BambiB

            Gregg – precisely on target. Unfortunately, the farce of the “Commerce Clause” scope in Wickard v. Filburn creates a phony license for the government to screw up everything.

  • rcon1

    The shadow government will not shut down, only the few good programs people actually see will.

  • Jesse Farmer

    Palin is a controversial figure? Really? There are people that take this moron seriously?

  • Jesse Farmer

    “Are you worried about the government shutdown?

    Well, maybe you shouldn’t be.

    According to Sarah Palin, a shutdown is not to fear. In fact, she argues that it might be a good thing.”

    Oh, Sarah Palin said so. Ok. That’s makes me feel way better.

    Kirsten Tate is someone whom Sarah Palin is a fountainhead of political information and insight. I’m not sure if anything has to be said about Kristen Tate ever again.

    • BambiB

      Sarah Palin isn’t a genius, but she’s right about this. If someone you hold in such low regard can be right on target, why can’t the rest of the marching morons get it right?

      You know how stupid the American voters are? A lot of them believed O-Bomb-Ya when he said, “If you like your coverage, you can keep it. You won’t have to change doctors. Your premiums won’t go up.” All lies. Not the biggest lies he’s told – just some of the more recent lies.

      • Jesse Farmer

        So it’s Obama’s fault that some Republican nut jobs have shut down the government? Because some business jacked up their rates and blamed Obamacare?

        See, it’s this crazy convoluted mental gymnastics you Libertarians have to do.

        No. The so called Suicide Caucus has shut down the government based on their pet ideology (and surely orders from Ted Cruz’s wife from Goldmen Sacs), and Obamacare has not changed premiums. Your problem is with the companies that have actually jacked up their rates. THE PEOPLE WHO ARE ACTUALLY DOING THESE THINGS.

        The ability of the modern Libertarian to shift the blame for everything to this one figurehead, Obama, is amazing. It’s Pavlovian, almost.

        There is so much to blame Obama for, but you can’t blame him for the conscience actions of others. Why do I even have to say that?

        And I don’t know how old you are honey, but the last guy lied all the time too.

        • Gregg Braddoch

          So it’s Obama’s fault that some Republican nut jobs have shut down the government?

          No, it is his fault he threatened a veto if a bill gets passed by congress.

          “he so called Suicide Caucus has shut down the government based on their pet ideology (and surely orders from Ted Cruz’s wife from Goldmen Sacs)”

          LMFAO – You want to talk about ties to Goldman Sachs (which is the correct spelling, BTW, use it), then go read up on the Pres. He’s got buddies there, buddies in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and also Bank of America – He’s pulled strings for them in the government – You are totally deluded.

          “There is so much to blame Obama for, but you can’t blame him for the conscience actions of others. Why do I even have to say that?”

          This would be a great statement if we were blaming him for the actions of others, but we are blaming him for his OWN actions, not those of others.

          • Jesse Farmer

            No kidding Obama is operated by GS. You’re laughing your as s off, but this is common knowledge. This is basic stuff. You’re on to something though.

            Ya, the problem is Wall Street. Why are you idiots following the next deployment from Wall Street?

            I’m no going to bother with the Obama made me do it. There are proper ways to deal with reforming legislation, and turning out Federal workers isn’t it. Show me that in the Constitution.

          • Gregg Braddoch

            Lol, so then why are you criticizing people who are saying “NO” to a man who is backed by big money?

          • Gregg Braddoch

            And more to the point, why are you defending the man who signed into law what allowed for insurance companies to jack up their rates? Why didn’t they just do this before? Why are rates going up to begin with? Maybe the policy of devaluing our currency (which Obama has the power to stop) by printing more money? The debt ceiling debate is coming around, and surprise surprise the president says we aren’t spending enough. So, in order to satiate him, congress will have to borrow more money, which will further raise the prices of healthcare.

        • Gregg Braddoch

          “And I don’t know how old you are honey, but the last guy lied all the time too.”

          And the guy before that, and the guy before that, and the guy before that, and the… well what’s your point?

          You criticize libertarians alot, yet they are at least smart enough to know politicians from the major parties are going to lie. You admit that they lie to you, and support them anyway – tell me how this is logical?

          • Jesse Farmer

            Support them? Wtf are you talking about? I’m against cutting off WIC over personal ideology. I think little babies need protein. I know you think that expectant mothers are trading those WIC coupons in for flights to Tahiti, but I’m not insane.

            You are right that these politicians lie. You know what stays the same? Wall Street. Always behind the power. Always there.

            Your Pied Piper is probably getting tunneled by an executive therefrom with a strap-on right now.

          • Gregg Braddoch

            “Wtf are you talking about? I’m against cutting off WIC over personal ideology.”

            Good, then tell the president and the senate to make a compromise.

            “Your Pied Piper is probably getting tunneled by an executive therefrom with a strap-on right now.”

            Yep, that’s about how I’d picture the pres about now.

    • Gregg Braddoch

      Do you not remember the government shutdown in 1995 and 1996? The world did not end, congress and the president reached a compromise, and life went on as it should.

      I usually disagree with Palin, but this time she is absolutely right.

      • Jesse Farmer

        I remember it quite well. It had a very negative impact on the economy here, which is, in part, a get-away community bordering a National Park.

        Thousands of other communities were affected similarly.

        And it accomplished nothing. Pure nothing.

        • Gregg Braddoch

          Yet it was caused by Bill Clinton vetoing a budget passed by congress.

          Do you still think Bill Clinton was a good president?

  • PatrickHenry1789

    I have absolutely no fear of the government shutting down. I fear it starting back up!

    • Baja Artists


  • Sagebrush

    How about not shutdown but completely terminated and reset to what the founding fathers intended instead of the mess that greed, corruption, criminal activity and the lust for power has produced.

    Evolution of the Oligarchical Government of the United States

    1776-1913 More or less what the founders intended – A Constitution-based federal republic with strong democratic traditions

    1913-1950 Authoritarian Oligarchy – a government in which control is exercised by a small group of individuals whose authority is based on the power of wealth to impose state authority onto many aspects of citizens’ lives.

    1950-2007 Totalitarian Oligarchy – a government based on wealth and power that seeks to subordinate the individual to the state by controlling not only all political and economic matters, but also the attitudes, values, and beliefs of its population.

    2007-20?? Oligarchic Dictatorship – a form of government based on the power of wealth in which a small clique wield absolute power (not restricted by a constitution or laws).

    The wealthy elite rulers of this country and their government employees are herding the sheeple middle class and poor into George Orwell’s 1984 shearing shed.

    • Discernment Now

      Reading your post I am having fantasies of a Department of Accountability, apart from U.S Government ran by U.S. Citizens and completely untouchable by special interest.

      • Sagebrush

        Never happen as long as the present political system exists. The elite own the Federal Government. They are accountable to no one and Nothing happens unless they approve it.

  • Mark Robert

    Please call your Congressman and Senators and tell them to stand with, Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, Justin Amash and Rand Paul, in stopping the Individual Health Care Mandate.

    If OBAMACARE is so great why are they attempting to shove it down our throats?

    If we stop the implementation of the mandate, we can topple ObamaCare.

    Please call your Congressman and Senators immediately and tell them to oppose any Continuing Resolution that does not stop the Individual Health Care Mandate.

    • guest

      Actually, Rand, Cruz and Lee SUPPORT ANTI-American, COMPULSORY-collectivist “healthcare” – they SUPPORTED Romneycare Romney.

  • BambiB

    I’m not worried in the slightest about the government shutdown. I just wish MORE was being turned off. For example, I wouldn’t miss:

    1) Being groped or nudie-scanned at airports,
    2) Having the IRS punish me for my political beliefs,
    3) The government shipping assault weapons to Mexican Drugs Cartels,
    4) Invading/Bombing innocent people in other countries,
    5) Hearing about terminal patients suffering because they’re denied #$%$,
    6) Keeping nearly a million people locked up whose only crime was to possess drugs,
    7) SWAT raids on innocent (completely innocent) people,
    8) Taxes,
    9) Gun control laws (that every study ever done says do – not – work).
    10) Hearing about the latest Washington scandal… wieners or otherwise.
    11) Having the government tell me what kind of health care I must have,
    12) Reading the latest Federal plan for (ruining) education.
    13) Watching the government rack up more than a trillion dollars in new debt every year.

    I say shut down MORE of the government. A LOT more!

    Bottom line: Government needs US more than we need IT.

    • Gregg Braddoch

      Most unfortunately, the majority of the DHS, NSA, IRS, DOJ, and ATF will not be shutdown. Shows where the presidents priorities are.

  • Justin Myrick

    Not at all worried. And Kristin is STILL hot.

  • Pacifics Edge

    Wud Seks Kristin Hard

  • Mamawp

    Oh, all Washington needs is a few sports moms to get in their and get this country straight…the losers that are their now are looking out for themselves.. We can d t ourselves and not have all the schoolyard bullying!! Oh by the way Harry Reid is a very useless man… He’s obamas voice….

  • guest

    Yeah TINO (Tea In Name Only) Sarah… Oh, how I wanted YOUR huge, illegal government to “chill!” YOUR TARP… YOUR Bailouts, YOUR Stimulus, YOUR UNCONSTITUTIONAL (undeclared) nation-building, YOUR Patriot Act, YOUR amnesty (that you’ll FALSELY claim is only a “pathway”).

    TINO Sarah Palin wanting government to “chill” AFTER SHE’S PROMOTED HUGE-GOVERNMENT FOR 5 YEARS… is as RIDICULOUS as her suggestion to “let Allah sort it out” AFTER SUPPORTING YEARS OF ILLEGAL NATION BUILDING IN THE MIDDLE EAST!!!!!!!!!

    People, I LOATH being a Negative Nancy, but JEEEEEZ, TELL ME WE SEE THIS CO-OPTING TWIT FOR WHAT SHE IS!!!!!!!!

  • guest

    Tate… who’s resume is filled with “liberty” this and “liberty” that… posting about ANTI-LIBERTY, Tea Party CO-OPTER, REPUBLICAN PUPPET Sarah Palin? With quotes that PROMOTE the LEFTIST republican party… and bash the LEFTIST democrat party?

    • guest

      ***spoiler alert***
      The LEFTIST republican party “gaining seats” DOES NOTHING TO RESTORE CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTY. Sure, it’s a GREAT victory for REPUBLICANS… but does NOTHING… ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to restore liberty.

      The LEFTIST republican party just had their “game-changing” “Tsunami” of 2010, REMEMBER? Again, GREAT REPUBLICAN victory… USA! USA! USA! USA!… BUT DID NOTHING FOR LIBERTY nor the Tea Party! The Result? West and Pigford fraud. Bachmann and the “Patriot” Act. Rubio and amnesty. Scott and Scottcare. Scott Brown. Christie. Perry. Ryan. NDAA. Debt ceiling hikes. MORE “war.” MORE spending. MORE borrowing. MORE debt. MORE, MORE, MORE, MORE!

  • Zee Chen

    Until Obama scaremongers with threatening old people that they will not get their social security checks. Like he did today! I thought he would hold out a little longer before he went to that one.

  • Alex

    I have a friend who is on permanent disability. She has 3
    teenagers and is also using food stamps. She got double whammed. So is government
    shutdown a good thing? Even if she can handle it, what about those that can’t?
    Starving women and children sound more like a monstrous act teetering on pure

    • Tom223

      The true evil is the government that allowed the Federal reserve and the income tax to be brought about and for the government to print money at will without caring about the poor who are hurt most by it. The government causes the price of food and heating energy to go up by devaluing the dollar. These poor people should not be living in this world where they are dependent on the government to survive. We should have a free economy that will allow her to make enough money to provide for her kids. Instead we get a government that makes sure that the big banks make billions and the rest of us pay the bill. The government is the problem. Obama would have all of us dependent on the Government and at that point we are all slaves.

    • teddp

      Can you name one child or woman who died from starvation in the US before LBJ’s Great Society, the programs that essentially created our present welfare state? It used to be that the truly needy were supported by charity. Charity is voluntary and taxes are coercive, so to me that’s the real choice: do Americans value freedom or government-imposed requirements? And a question for those who value the latter: should people who disagree with you be forced to live according to your values?

  • Bill Goode

    As far as shutting down the government, Sarah is right. Let it shut down & we will see how well we can get along without it. It’s been almost a week and we’re doing fine.

    This is one step in weening ourselves from the government teat.

  • Christine Cuneo

    Finley someone who will speak the truth.

    Honestly, when you think about it, Obummer, Holder, Johnson,
    and Gutierrez have made Homeland Security an ineffective, impotent enforcement
    agency so why should we as taxpayers fund an agency that has no active role in
    enforcing our laws?

    They’re basically getting paid to do nothing. And the
    essential services will not shut down; they just won’t get paid FOR A WHILE which
    they don’t deserve payment for anyway.