Government Shut Down
Do you think there will be a government shut down? I'm very worried. All of my income is based upon the Feds. Currently, I draw:
VA Disability
Post 9/11 GI Bill
Nation Guard pay while awaiting my med board
I'm worried. I don't want to go back to being homeless
Nothing is certain with the fight for and against Obama Care and raising the debt ceiling, both causing a lot of disagreement.
Put some $$$ aside, just in case. Even if the current crisis is solved, there will be another one in a few months, as Obama strives to outspend every person who has ever lived on the planet.
This is what CNN is saying (in part, and in sort of a jocular tone)'
CNN
September 24, 2013
10 ways a government shutdown would affect your daily life
The good news (for you) is that the men and women
in uniform would continue to keep you safe.
The bad news (for them) is that they'd be paid in IOUs until the shutdown ended.
In January, Sens. Mark Udall, D-Colorado, and Jerry Moran, R-Kansas,
introduced legislation that would have protected pay for the troops
during a shutdown, but it didn't get anywhere.
Rep. C.W. Young, chairman of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee,
told the Air Force Times, "All military personnel will continue to serve and accrue pay
but will not actually be paid until appropriations are available."
Their mid-October paycheck would be the first affected.
In addition, the congressman told the paper, changes of station would be delayed,
medical offerings would be scaled back, facility and weapons maintenance
would be suspended and most civilian employees would be furloughed
until appropriations are available.
You know that whole "Neither snow, nor rain, nor heat, nor gloom of night" thing?
Apparently, the U.S. Postal Service works through shutdowns as well.
Sorry, you won't catch a break from the junk mail.
But hey, you may already be a winner!
[COLOR="DarkRed"]The Republicans want to defund Obamacare in exchange for funding the government.
But the health care act at the center of this storm would continue
its implementation process during a shutdown.
That's because its funds aren't dependent on the congressional budget process.[/COLOR]
But this is a more serious list in
Forbes
Government-shutdown-101-what-happens-when-the-lights-go-offJust worried because how much money I make affects how much time I am able to see my kids. I give half my income to pay Bryanna's private school bill. Her mother is still unemployed. As for Addie, I pay child support, health care insurance (I am only supposed to pay for secondary insurance, but her mother and live in boyfriend won't pay because they are buying a house together) and her cheerleading classes.
Sigh, no money means no kids and I might have to live at deer camp again. I realize I obsess but that's the way I am.
Sarge, vote Democrat.
There's a difference in the type of expenditures. I think yours come under the "mandatory spending" type of spending and won't be affected.
They could save about $1 billion annually by simply eliminating the paper one dollar bill. Using dollar coins (that are now doing what a dime once did). Then save more money by eliminating the penny. But these extremists are not really concerned about government spending. This threatened shutdown is an example of their agenda: we want America to fail.
If they really wanted to cut costs (save money), eliminating the one and five dollar bill is an easy solution. They don't want to save money. They only want their extremist agenda imposed on all other Americans. And do not care how much damage it creates - even to their own party. No wonder they tried to put a witch in the Senate.
I read that VA services will stop if a shutdown happens ... which makes my blood boil!!! And even though apparently the government will send out paychecks, they may not be sent out until after everything starts up again. That doesn't help those who live paycheck to paycheck.
I hope very much that a shutdown doesn't happen. This is the last nail in the coffin of any respect I ever had for the Republicans. For every day the government is shut down, I suggest that Republican politicians lose five years' worth of pension. Then we'd see some political will to get things done without the grandstanding.
Who does not yet realize that 'government shutdown' can be equated with 'grumble, I'm gonna take my ball and go home'?
so it might actually be happening? Ha! I've heard thar before.
But if it were to happen we just look like a bunch of civil war reeactors, though only based on 'why i oughta...' as opposed to the actual Fort Sumpter. Like some sort of actual cause rather than personal ego.
We look like a bunch of losers. How 'bout some dignity?
I'd like to see our veterans keep their dignity.
i would too. How far did Cruz get in actually paving the way for this sort of action?
Not much farther than a bastardization of the classic Green Eggs and Ham story (totally forgetting the moral of the story.)
Oh yeah gosh was he clever yet still helpful? Um, no. How many tax dollars did he burn up? Good job, way to go, yeah.
What'd I miss?
Big Sarge's concerns have me thinkin' about my current situation; mainly if I will still get my much needed monthly RSDI checks, and what about Medicare? They're suppossed to do the approval for my new custom manual wheelchair. How will a government shutdown affect that? And what about my my Aunt? She depends on her monthly SSI checks? And then there's everybody else in my family. Will they get paid?
I don't think the big boys are thinkin' about us commoners.
I don't think the big boys are thinkin' about us commoners.
Why would they? They know most moderates don't vote. Wacko extremists vote religiously. Anyone who does not vote automatically votes these wackos into power.
Anyone who does not vote automatically votes these wackos into power.
So, voters are more important to government thank non-voters. Is than what you're saying?
BTW, not that anyone here cares, but Medicare has approved my new wheelchair (I called Mobility Medical this morning).
Thanks, Love. Meryl at Mobility Medical just put in the order. I'm guessing it'll take a few weeks to build and ship.
So, voters are more important to government thank non-voters.
Excellent news John!
What? That's not excellent, or news!
BTW, not that anyone here cares, but Medicare has approved my new wheelchair (I called Mobility Medical this morning).
Never mind...
No, HM, that IS excellent news and we should all mind. A wheelchair that restores a degree of mobility is life-changing.
John S, I'm also glad that Medicare has approved your new wheelchair and I hope it'll ship soon.
I was doing an Emily Litella, thinking that Dana was reacting to the first sentence, and then realizing that she was reacting to the last.
The wheelchair is actually excellent news!
You do a great Emily, except she was rocket powered... zooooom. :haha:
Sigh ... once again I'm a pop culture fail. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that I have familial sensorineural deafness and don't watch much TV for that reason ....
Never mind.
I was doing an Emily Litella.,..
Classic Gilda. :cool:
Don't feel bad Ortho, it was a looong time ago and at a time you really had your hands full.
We degenerates and deadbeats soaked that shit up. :haha:
Don't worry Ortho. It is all part of getting old (just teasing with you since I think you look so, so young).
John - I'm proud for you man. You need to put some bling on it and post a photo when it comes in.
John - I'm proud for you man. You need to put some bling on it and post a photo when it comes in.
Death Metal the fuck out of that hog.
Poor John Boehner, :sniff:
The GOP hasn't been mean-spirited enough yet for his "followers".
CNN
By Deirdre Walsh
9/26/13
Republican divisions force delay in Boehner's debt strategy
Washington (CNN) -- House Republican leaders were forced
on Thursday to delay rolling out their bill to raise the nation's debt limit,
after [COLOR="DarkRed"]conservatives complained the package failed to include deep enough
budget cuts and significant changes to entitlement programs[/COLOR].
The setback comes as Speaker John Boehner prepares to wrestle with
his conference over how to ultimately handle short term spending
and the prospect of a government shutdown beginning on Tuesday,
if Congress does not act to refill federal coffers.
2 Timothy 4:3-4
Here's a sticker for that new ride man. I find it hilarious but then I'm a degenerate and a deadbeat.
http://www.cafepress.com/mf/34791728/they-see-me-rollin-rectangle_stickerHere's a sticker for that new ride man. I find it hilarious but then I'm a degenerate and a deadbeat.
http://www.cafepress.com/mf/34791728/they-see-me-rollin-rectangle_sticker
It's part of your charm, UT. ;)
Note: [SIZE="1"]I lol'd. I am a degenerate and a deadbeat, too. Woot.[/SIZE]
Here's a sticker for that new ride man. I find it hilarious but then I'm a degenerate and a deadbeat.
I knew you were a soaker. :yesnod:
Harry Reid rejects GOP plan
In an unsurprising move, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) rejected the latest House GOP proposal to delay Obamacare in exchange for keeping federal agencies open for business.
Reid issued a statement calling Boehner a hostage of “tea party anarchists” who are forcing his hand to take the impossibly strong line of attack against the president’s health law. It’s unclear when the Senate will return to take up the House legislation if it is approved later Saturday – some aides have suggested Sunday or Monday, while others said no decision would be made until after the House acts.
Reid left no doubt that the timing didn’t really matter, making clear that the Senate will reject the House bill. Here’s the full statement:
[QUOTE]“Today’s vote by House Republicans is pointless. As I have said repeatedly, the Senate will reject any Republican attempt to force changes to the Affordable Care Act through a mandatory government funding bill or the debt ceiling. Furthermore, President Obama has stated that he would veto such measures if they ever reached his desk.
[COLOR="DarkRed"]“To be absolutely clear, the Senate will reject both the one-year delay of the Affordable Care Act and the repeal of the medical device tax. After weeks of futile political games from Republicans, we are still at square one: Republicans must decide whether to pass the Senate’s clean CR, or force a Republican government shutdown.[/COLOR]
[/QUOTE]
There are 233 members in the house. About 80 of them are in safe districts. The other 150 odd members at this point are asking themselves if it's more dangerous to piss off the Tea Party and risk a primary challenge on the right, or follow them off the cliff and have their Democratic opponent in the general make the point that this wouldn't have happened with a Democratic majority.
Democrats took the house after a 12 year Republican rule in 2006. Republicans took it back in 2010. Even with a huge amount of gerrymandering at the state level, any large enough event that tarnishes the Republican brand can lose them their 33 seat advantage. Driving the government over the cliff would do it. While Fox News and the right wing media machine can preach to the choir and blame Obama, most of the independents will blame the Republicans.
Boehner is out in the weeds and is vainly hoping the Senate Democrats and Obama will both blink. His party is about to go into uncharted territory in delivering the first US default in our nations history. This will impact everyone, including billionaires. It is an unprecedented man-made disaster that would have global implications.
The President has very limited powers regarding the military in domestic situations under the Posse Comitatus Act with some exceptions to deal with any physical fallout. What powers he might claim with the Treasury and Justice Departments are much less limited. The point would need to be made with the rabid right that by inflicting damage to the government they actually give more power to the President to restore order.
It would be very easy to turn a conspiracy theory into a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Wrong - again!
We have had 27 gov't shutdowns, and so far, survived every one of them.
Which is why the democrats won't compromise on their spending. As both Pelosi and Reed have stated "there is nothing that can be cut".
The Democrats know that they don't have to compromise, because the Republicans are split, and don't control the Senate or the Executive house of the gov't. They don't give a damn if you're reduced to poverty over the shut down, because if you are, well - you'll need welfare and food stamps, and housing help, and all the other gov't hand out programs they favor.
The Democrats LOVE the poor - they must, because they make so many of 'em.
Wrong - again!
We have had 27 gov't shutdowns, and so far, survived every one of them.
I'm not talking about a shutdown, I'm talking about a default. We came
close a few years ago and as a result slipped our credit rating. This costs us real money in terms of borrowing costs. Actually defaulting, even for a second, would have consequences. I heard Rand Paul poopoo this, but his arguments were based on the idea that the money would still be there. Anyone paying a credit card could tell him that the money being there does not prevent the rate from getting jacked up if the check is even a day late.
In the financial markets the mantra for the US is 'full faith and credit'. This is the invisible shield that allows us good credit despite our debt - why we are not being treated like Greece. The Republicans, the so-called part of finance, are threatening that.
There will be no default, according to the Conservatives. (who are in favor of a shutdown).
I love how this is all blamed on the Republicans. You'd think we just had ONE political party that was being hard to deal with.
The fact is, this is the only card that the Republicans can play right now, because the Democrats are in power elsewhere, and have ABSOLUTELY NO intentions of cutting the gov't spending, in any meaningful way. They have refused to do so, ever since Obama came into office, and the Democrats got control of the Senate.
If the Republicans are being obstinate, it's because the Democrats showed them that was what would be required, as they continue to run our national debt to the moon.
It isn't all about debt ya know. There are people involved. people whose children will go without food, and whose parents will go without care, and who may, just may, need some kind of help whilst out of work.
Cutting government spending, by cutting 'entitlements' may take something off the headline debt figure, but it is a false economy. If people aren't able to afford even the basics for survival then they don't spend. By cutting entitlements you remove a swathe of people from active involvement in the marketplace.
Better to give those benefits and have those people spending that money back in the shops. And better to have those with some financial wriggleroom confident enough that they are not fearful of losing their jobs and starving on the streets, else they also will spend less.
Cutting benefits is a quick fix that ultimately damages the country in real terms.
The fact is, this is the only card that the Republicans can play right now, because the Democrats are in power elsewhere,
There are 3 branches of government. The executive, the legislative, and the judicial.
The Democrats currently control the White House.
The Republicans control the Supreme Court.
The Congress is split 50/50 between the Democrats and Republicans. One party has the House, and one party has the Senate.
You couldn't get more evenly balanced if you tried.
I love how this is all blamed on the Republicans. You'd think we just had ONE political party that was being hard to deal with.
Did you every read your own posts? Just ask'in.
I'm starting to get the emails at work about what's going to happen during the looming shutdown.
Looks like many of the government entities we work with will remain open for business for a couple weeks. They have financial reserves from fees collected in the previous year and will continue to function. Courts, and the PTO mostly.
Looks like it's really going to happen though.
We have our instructions for tomorrow morning. Since workplace safety isn't considered essential, we'll be furloughed. I have a Plan B, though, since I'm not a federal employee and can continue some things on my own.
It'll be strange going in tomorrow morning, tidying up/cancelling meetings etc., and getting back on the metro.
Although - just got an email saying demonstrations are planned at the entrances to our building and we may be prevented from leaving this afternoon. :(
Your son is at the PTO, right? I understand they can stay open for 4 weeks.
Metro is going to lose a lot of money with many federal workers not riding.
I wonder if they will go to a weekend schedule if ridership is down significantly. I hope not. That would suck, having to wait half an hour for a crowded train.
Yes, my oldest son is at the PTO. He's hoping like mad that this is resolved quickly. He's been told they have about ten days of reserves, but if it's 4 weeks, fantastic.
A weekend schedule for the metro would be awful. We attempted to get downtown this past weekend to see museums and monuments and ended up walking an extra mile or two because the trains were just standing. Good exercise, but we already had a major hike planned. Doing that on workdays would ... well, I guess we'd get used to it.
I'll be furloughed but I can grab an extra desk at another non-government (but occ med/environmental med) office, apparently, so I'll still be going into the city each morning.
Interesting Poll
here
79% of the country thinks a shutdown is a bad thing. 46% blame the GOP Congress if it occurs. 69% believe the Reps in Congress are behaving like spoiled children. 58% say the Dems in Congress are. 38% are in favor of Obamacare. 57% oppose it. 60% however think its more important to prevent a government shutdown than stopping ACA. 68% say it would be bad to shutdown the government for a few days. 79% think it would be bad to shut it down for a few weeks.
Bottom line, the people are not convinced that Obamacare is a good thing, however, shutting down the government is seen as an extreme response. The GOP appears to have an extremist problem at least as far as these poll responders are concerned, but the Democrats need to stop pretending Obamacare currently has widespread support. We'll see what happens to those numbers as people get more familiar and implementation continues. One :dunce: reading of it anyway.
Of course people are against it, they've been bombarded with half-truths, and flat out lies for the last six years. Look at ADAK, for Christ sake. Most of the people I meet who are against it have no idea what it is or how it works, no less how it will affect them. Fear of the unknown is one of man's worst.
There are 3 branches of government. The executive, the legislative, and the judicial.
The Democrats currently control the White House.
The Republicans control the Supreme Court.
The Congress is split 50/50 between the Democrats and Republicans. One party has the House, and one party has the Senate.
You couldn't get more evenly balanced if you tried.
The Supreme Court is more liberal than conservative, and has already given the legal green light to ObamaCare. So right now, the Court is out of the picture.
That leaves us with the two houses of Congress: Senate and House of Representative. There we have a split between the parties, currently.
What I'm saying is that the two parties need to come to a good compromise on their concerns here - instead of just snarling at each other like a pair of mean dogs. Compromise makes great politics. Being obstinate - and by God the Democrats have been absolutely obstinate about cutting anything substantial from the budget - will only get more of the same from the other party.
That's just human nature. You push people, and they'll start to push back. Duh!
In my opinion, the Republicans would leave ObamaCare alone, IF the Democrats would agree to cut the exemptions, and cut some substantial spending NOW (not in the future, we've seen how that plays out haven't we?).
Since the Republicans in the Senate failed to support further action against ObamaCare, I thought the House Republicans would follow suit. But NO, they have not! So it appears VERY LIKELY we will have a shutdown. Some parts of it will start at Midnight, Eastern Daylight Time, unless the parties can reach some kind of a compromise.
Which is totally unlikely, because Reed has already put his foot in his mouth saying he will not compromise. Well, that cuts the chances of a last minute compromise, right down to about nothing, doesn't it?
It isn't all about debt ya know. There are people involved. people whose children will go without food, and whose parents will go without care, and who may, just may, need some kind of help whilst out of work.
Cutting government spending, by cutting 'entitlements' may take something off the headline debt figure, but it is a false economy. If people aren't able to afford even the basics for survival then they don't spend. By cutting entitlements you remove a swathe of people from active involvement in the marketplace.
Better to give those benefits and have those people spending that money back in the shops. And better to have those with some financial wriggleroom confident enough that they are not fearful of losing their jobs and starving on the streets, else they also will spend less.
Cutting benefits is a quick fix that ultimately damages the country in real terms.
No, it isn't better! The number one priority for any country's economic health, is to maintain a good private sector.
That's the people like you and me, that pay the gov't our money. If the private sector businesses go bust, the gov't will be TOTALLY OUT OF $$$, and unable to pay it's debt. You will be bankrupt pretty soon, and unable to buy ANYTHING. Our money won't be worth the paper it's printed on. That's a financial collapse, and THAT is something you and I, NEVER want to see happen.
That is what we're headed for - and everybody knows it if they're into economics at all - it's like the Soviets, when they overspent during the Cold War years. They kept it up for about 30 years, but inevitably it wiped them out.
We could cut a lot of fat out of the federal gov't - no doubt about it. But the Democrats know that the more people they have getting some kind of $$$$ from the gov't, the more Democratic voters they are likely to get on the next election day.
So they spend, and spend, and spend, and of course, grow the federal gov't bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and ...
38% are in favor of Obamacare. 57% oppose it.
Of those that oppose it, quite a few do so because they don't feel it goes far enough!! Additionally, conservatives oppose "Obamacare" far more vehemently than they do the "Affordable Care Act". :rolleyes:
Of those that oppose it, quite a few do so because they don't feel it goes far enough!! Additionally, conservatives oppose "Obamacare" far more vehemently than they do the "Affordable Care Act". :rolleyes:
Would that be BEFORE he called the Tea Party "Teabaggers" in a public speech, or AFTER?
I heard that in an audio file today, and I was quite shocked that the President of the United States, would make such an offensive remark as that, in a public speech. It's not like he doesn't have speech writers, and notes, etc.
If you can't stay civil, you don't belong in politics.
If you can't stay civil, you don't belong in politics.
This from the 2/27/09 protest of the American Tea Party at the White House...
[ATTACH]45540[/ATTACH]
This from the 9/10/09 pre-March on Washington...
[ATTACH]45539[/ATTACH]
Jonathan Alter's book, The Promise: President Obama, Year One,
revealed that Obama used the term in November 2009.
Adak, please note the dates above...
If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and calls itself a duck,
is it unusual for someone else to call it a duck ?
Would that be BEFORE he called the Tea Party "Teabaggers" in a public speech, or AFTER?
Only because stupid fucking traitors was already taken by FOX.
Only because stupid fucking traitors was already taken by FOX.
Exactly. Obama campaigned that his would be the most transparent presidency ever, and bring us together.
Instead, the court today dismissed his refusal to release documents relative to the fast and furious gun running deal, brushing aside his request for executive privilege.
Every class of American has been distanced from the next, by his campaign to "redistribute wealth".
I expect demonstrators to use the simple connection of tea bag with teabaggers, but I don't expect my Congress man, let alone the President to act that way.
Being good at calling others names isn't a legacy fit for any President.
It's really scary you actually believe the shit you spew.
Looking at what shuts down and what doesn't gives me a sense of how skewed our priorities have become. Let's see, Vet call centers close, WIC shuts down, small number of Head Start programs close, NIH research disrupted, CDC outbreak tracking hampered, but at least Homeland Security keeps chugging along.
Is there a bit of irony showing on Google today ?
Google Search page honors today's 123rd Anniversary of Yosemite Park
[ATTACH]45542[/ATTACH]
Google News link to ...
[ATTACH]45541[/ATTACH]
Take some time today to read Dr Seuess to your girls. Oooops.... your boys.
Errrrr.... whatever
Exactly. Obama campaigned that his would be the most transparent presidency ever, and bring us together.
Instead, the court today dismissed his refusal to release documents relative to the fast and furious gun running deal, brushing aside his request for executive privilege.
Every class of American has been distanced from the next, by his campaign to "redistribute wealth".
I expect demonstrators to use the simple connection of tea bag with teabaggers, but I don't expect my Congress man, let alone the President to act that way.
Being good at calling others names isn't a legacy fit for any President.
Look it up Bruce. It's in Obama's speeches. Of course, when Bush raised the debt ceiling, Senator Obama called it "a failure of leadership", etc.
When he continues to raise the debt ceiling, it's perfectly fine. When he can't get his way on any matter, he blames it on Republican leaders, the Tea Party, the House, ultra conservatives, hard line conservatives, etc. Everybody but him.
What's he doing? Running guns into Mexico - saying he had nothing to do with it, but claims executive privilege when data on the program is subpoenaed. Huh?
Our consulate in Benghazi is attacked with explosives, mortars, squad level machine guns, and fire bombs. He goes to bed, knowing that the military can't approve any rescue, without his direct approval.
Then he has his flunky Susan Rice on FOUR major news shows, telling how it was a video demonstration. That's not what the CIA reported to him.
Time after time, speech after speech, he has slurred the character of those who have money. He doesn't call them bastards or anything, but he slurs them, nonetheless, repeatedly. That justifies his efforts to steal from them, and give it to someone else.
He tells us on the Tonight Show, that the feds don't spy on us. A few days later, the next leak comes out, proving that yes, the Feds are spying on us, and they're spying on us both overseas (which we knew), but also inside the US., and on a massive scale never seen before.
Aren't you weary of all his lies? I sure am. I expected a lot better than this, out of Obama. I expect politicians to lie - it goes with the job, from time to time, but he's really carried it far beyond what I was hoping for.
Would that be BEFORE he called the Tea Party "Teabaggers" in a public speech, or AFTER?
I heard that in an audio file today, and I was quite shocked that the President of the United States, would make such an offensive remark as that, in a public speech. It's not like he doesn't have speech writers, and notes, etc.
If you can't stay civil, you don't belong in politics.
Do you feel it is hypocritical to hold the President to a higher standard than the rest of our political "leaders"? I mean, they're free to spew some of the most vile, hatred filled, violence inducing statements I've ever had the misfortune to experience, all while hiding behind Christianity, but the President is expected to not only accept such filth, but stay absolutely neutral and dispassionate??
Conservative Hostility Liberal Hostility
You'll note that I included both liberals and conservative examples in my links. Personally, I am appalled and disgusted that people have the disrespect to speak about our President (any President) the way they do. You may not like or agree with him, but he is still our leader and representative to the world. If you actually care, then vote. But show some fucking respect.
As for the government shut down, Congress needs to forfeit their paychecks while this occurs. They barely work as it is and they have a hell of a lot of nerve making people work for free or go without a paycheck while they sit on Capital Hill and drink. I hope the American people vote every single ignoramus who allowed this to happen out of office next year.
Look it up Bruce. It's in Obama's speeches. Of course, when Bush raised the debt ceiling, Senator Obama called it "a failure of leadership", etc.
I know that, and I'm not happy that he's followed the same path as previous presidents, but the half-truths and flat out bullshit you repeat from talk radio has no bearing on anything that's going on in congress.
Do you feel it is hypocritical to hold the President to a higher standard than the rest of our political "leaders"?
No! He is the President! He needs to act accordingly, not like what you might expect from a Congressman, etc.
I mean, they're free to spew some of the most vile, hatred filled, violence inducing statements I've ever had the misfortune to experience, all while hiding behind Christianity, but the President is expected to not only accept such filth, but stay absolutely neutral and dispassionate??
Conservative Hostility Liberal Hostility
You'll note that I included both liberals and conservative examples in my links. Personally, I am appalled and disgusted that people have the disrespect to speak about our President (any President) the way they do. You may not like or agree with him, but he is still our leader and representative to the world. If you actually care, then vote. But show some fucking respect.
He had it. Then he lost it. Why? Because he's lied repeatedly, about damn near everything. He kept his word though about his intentions to make electric rates soar, and make even clean coal fired plants, too expensive to operate anymore.
And of course, to "redistribute wealth", which is the socialist agenda where they steal from the wealthy, and give it to someone else that they like more than you. They get a lot of voters that way, and can stay in power.
As for the government shut down, Congress needs to forfeit their paychecks while this occurs. They barely work as it is and they have a hell of a lot of nerve making people work for free or go without a paycheck while they sit on Capital Hill and drink. I hope the American people vote every single ignoramus who allowed this to happen out of office next year.
That won't happen. As our past years have shown, NOTHING is Obama's fault, and this will be no different. He can cut into our right to free speech, our right to carry firearms, our right to privacy, and anything else he can wants, almost. AND NOBODY IN THE MEDIA (hardly) reports on any of it, in a negative or critical way. He can lie like a rug, and it's just fine, fine. Surely you've noticed this?
The shutdown will all be blamed on the Tea Party/Republicans, and with all the expansion of the federal gov't, the Democrats are a shoe in for several elections, as long as they don't really screw up something. If you work for the gov't, you won't vote for a party that might stop that department you work in. It's a quite cushy, symbiotic relationship. Never mind that it's all coming out of the taxpayer's wallet - not the gov't.
Obama's latest speech has him saying "I won't negotiate under threat...".
Well, that's bullshit - because that's what politicians DO all the time. They negotiate - they compromise. THAT IS THEIR BUSINESS!! He's negotiated with the President of Iran, who supports terrorism around the globe - even tried to negotiate with the Taliban, recently. But he won't negotiate with his fellow Americans.
Because Obama knows he doesn't have to compromise this time, so he'll have NONE of it. Eventually, the Republicans will have to give up. At least, that's the ending I see.
What do you see? How will it end?
Somehow there is a similarity between this toy
and Adak's mouse-like postings and the Cellar cats ...
[YOUTUBE]crnn3iKb6_A[/YOUTUBE]
Rather classic Obama moment:
The WWII monument (along with several others - MLKing, ALincoln, etc., are open air - they have no walls or fencing around them. You walk right up to them.
Well since the shut down, Obama has the Feds erect a barricade around them - all the popular one's at least. So you can't get near them, with a sign telling you it's shut down due to the gov't shut down.
Of course, NOW they have to have park rangers or guards there, to be sure these barricades are not torn down.
Well.....
From the Midwest, an "honor" flight of WWII vets were here today, to remember their buddies who died, at the WWII memorial.
But it's "closed" and barricaded.
So the 80 and 90 year old vets, tell the park rangers, etc. "Get outta my way sonny!", and they go right past those barricades!
And Obama can take his nuisance shut down, and stick it where the sun never shines.
Erecting barricades ("Barrycades", now), around OPEN AIR memorials, just to vex us, when WE are the one's who paid for the memorials, not the gov't, (which pays for nothing by itself), just shows the poor character of Obama.
I was hoping that cooler heads would prevail, and a compromise would be reached on the issues surrounding the shutdown.
Now, I'm also hoping the Republicans "stick it" to Obama, and make him pay for his contemptible behavior. Locking us out of our own open air memorials -- :(:(:(
17 Republicans have come forward willing to fund the Government.
80,000 vets and friends have volunteered to come forward and shove those "Barrycades" up Obama's arse. ;)
Have they also volunteered to provide security and clean up the mess the visitors leave behind? How about clean and stock the toilets?
Have they also volunteered to provide security and clean up the mess the visitors leave behind? How about clean and stock the toilets?
These are open-air memorial sites. There are no restrooms at these sites, because there ARE NO ROOMS, at all.
It's just being mean spirited.
I get it. It's more of the political game they play in Washington. What I don't get, and I never will, is why they play it with Honor Flight vets.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_Flight
It's their last time (and sometimes their only time), for these vets of WWII and Korea, etc., to visit these memorials.
Erect barricades around them? Wow! That will win your party no friends, and no votes, I can assure you. :(
Well, clearly those things are more important than children being able to eat eh?
These are open-air memorial sites. There are no restrooms at these sites, because there ARE NO ROOMS, at all.
Once again you have proven yourself to be ignorant of the facts, running around yelling the sky is falling because FOX said so, and generally full of shit.
By the way, the WW II Memorial... I'm a card carrying, Lifetime Charter Member. You know, one of the people that actually put up money to build those toilets.
Well, clearly those things are more important than children being able to eat eh?
You're not from around here are you?
I'd be curious to know the arrangement for
Franklin Square park. It's really just a one block city park with meandering foot paths and an occasional
dirt shortcut. But it's technically part of the National Park system, and it hasn't been barricaded. No bathrooms, but somebody has been emptying the trash cans. Maybe it's a private trash company and the account has been paid in advance for the next month or something.
I seriously doubt the president ordered the barricades specifically. It's probably SOP when the Parks service closes certain things indefinitely.
I'd be curious to know the arrangement for Franklin Square park. It's really just a one block city park with meandering foot paths and an occasional dirt shortcut. But it's technically part of the National Park system, and it hasn't been barricaded. No bathrooms, but somebody has been emptying the trash cans. Maybe it's a private trash company and the account has been paid in advance for the next month or something.
I have this fantasy that if the trash started overflowing and there was no pickup service in sight then the community would step up and clean up. I know that's not likely.
I thought about that too, Perry. Then I thought of all the people who leave used tissues in the shopping carts and don't push the carts together in the cart corrals. It's always someone else's job. (this is a known pet peeve of mine...you can fit 8 carts in the corral if you just push them in there, and even less when the more likely action is to shove them in there and let them go all sideways. I estimate you can fit 20 or 30 carts in there when they're all mated up and even like they should be. I think these folks think they are doing the good societal thing. NOT helpful, folks. Whew. Glad I got that off my chest. ;) )
Is Adak seriously saying that President Obama ordered the barricades, and did so to SPITE?
Good lawd in heaven. I think he thinks that posting such rot here, it will get picked up by folks who are googling and therefore his agenda will get to more of the masses. Maybe he's on Faux News' payroll?
It's very interesting to me how this veterans turned away at the WW2 memorial site has resounded with Republicans. It's not just Adak, it's all over Facebook too.
At first I was like WTF? This is trivial. But then it struck me. Republicans (and conservatives) are all about symbolism. This is a perfect confluence of symbols. You have the veterans. You have a memorial, which is just some bricks and stones and fountains and stuff, but is the ultimate symbol, and you have the jackbooted thugs trying to stop the brave vets from paying their respects. It's a perfect confluence of symbolism for conservatives.
You might think that they would be upset over new cancer patients not getting into NIH studies, or social security payments being put in jeopardy in a couple weeks, or any of the thousands of other concrete things. But it's the symbolic stuff that speaks to them.
A handful of people were disappointed when their plans got messed up, so they made a fuss and got their plans straightened out. It's a non story. But the symbolism, man. The symbolism!
Do you think there will be a government shut down? I'm very worried. All of my income is based upon the Feds. Currently, I draw:
VA Disability
Post 9/11 GI Bill
Nation Guard pay while awaiting my med board
I'm worried. I don't want to go back to being homeless
I don't know if all 'at falls under social securiy benefits, but if so, your checks should arrive on time. My RSDI check was auto-deposited into my bank account today.
It's very interesting to me how this veterans turned away at the WW2 memorial site has resounded with Republicans.
I wonder why this large group of WW II vets happen to pick that day to visit?
Smells like teaparty to me.
I wonder why this large group of WW II vets happen to pick that day to visit?
Smells like teaparty to me.
I don't think it's (all) due to the TeaParty... My wife has been taking
physical therapy for knee surgery, and several weeks ago she told me
that a elderly man in her PT group had been offered an "honor flight" to
DC (i.e., $ free) to visit the Memorial.
Besides, the TP'ers don't strike me as being that public spirited.
I think they are just taking advantage of a coincidental situation.
The government shut down is causing safety inspections to be omitted.
Washington braced for a prolonged shutdown, the first in 17 years,
this week after members of Congress failed to pass a budget.
The closure has affected the workforce of many climate and energy programs.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), for one, lost more than
90 percent of its employees, disrupting monitoring of air and water quality
as well as potentially setting back efforts to advance the president’s climate plan.
Soon we will see industries burning off their wastes that otherwise
they would have to pay to process in hazardous waste disposal sites.
On top of that, brazen criminals are breaking federal laws by
tearing off the tags from their mattresses.
Oh, the humanity... think of the children
Campground and hotel reservations inside Yosemite were no longer being honored; visitors were issued refunds and told that they could no longer enter the park.
Authorities walked through the cluster of campgrounds in Yosemite Valley and told everyone remaining that they needed to leave the park by 3 p.m. Thursday. Hotels will serve breakfast to remaining guests Thursday, then begin shutting down.
Wednesday afternoon, Curry Village on the valley floor was almost deserted. It was silent, except for the sound of squirrels, birds and wind rustling through the trees.
Small rescue teams will still be available; this is a popular time of year for climbers to scale the park's famous "big walls," such as the monolith known as El Capitan. There will still be hikers in the backcountry for days to come; most were warned before leaving that a government shutdown was possible. And basic services — a market, a post office — will still be available to park employees who live there. "But the park will be closed," Gediman said.
linkMy dad was complaining about telemarketers calling his new home phone number.
"No problem," says I, "give me a second and I'll put the new number on the Do Not Call list."
Er... nevermind.
National Do Not Call Registry
Due to the Government shutdown, we are unable to offer this website service at this time. We will resume normal operations when the government is funded.
Debido al cierre del gobierno no podemos ofrecer este servicio telefónico en este momento. Nosotros reanudaremos el funcionamiento normal cuando el gobierno este fianciado.
My dad was complaining about telemarketers calling his new home phone number.
"No problem," says I, "give me a second and I'll put the new number on the Do Not Call list."
Er... nevermind.
Some people like to say that government can't do anything right.
But the "Do Not Call" Registry is one of the most successful laws ever passed.
Our dinner-times are so much more peaceful now.
John - I'm proud for you man.
For what?
Death Metal the fuck out of that hog.
If I could afford it, the entire thing (except the seat cushion) would have a Tri-Helical Plasteel 1000 Molecular Bonded Shell plating similar to that of the original K.I.T.T., and it would transform into an exo-skeleton much like the Robotech bikes:
[YOUTUBE]yKCSf_y_FtI[/YOUTUBE]
You might think that they would be upset over new cancer patients not getting into NIH studies, or social security payments being put in jeopardy in a couple weeks, or any of the thousands of other concrete things. But it's the symbolic stuff that speaks to them.
I'M SO GLAD you brought up the problem of new cancer patients getting into NIH studies.
It's their last hope - a new drug trial, when standard drugs have failed.
So Harry Reid was asked this VERY question about it by CNN's reporter. Here's what the bastard had to say:
Read this through and you'll understand EXACTLY why I hate the idea of the Feds running our health care, etc.
Because so many are like this Democratic leader:
From CNN and Canada Free Press:
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/58331
Yesterday, during a press conference, CNN’s Dana Bash had a simple question for Harry Reid. Republicans in the House were promising to pass a CR funding the National Institutes of Health - thus allowing NIH research into childhood cancer to continue despite the shutdown - and Bash wanted to know if Reid and his cronies would allow it to pass the Senate.
After all, it would take a cruel, hubristic, thug to deny funding that could potentially save the life of an 8-year-old with leukemia, right?
“You all talked about children with cancer unable to go to clinical trials,” Bash pointed out. “The House is presumably going to pass a bill funds at least the NIH. Given what you’ve said, will you at least pass that? And if not, aren’t you playing the same political games that Republicans are?
Reid was indignant.
“Listen,” he barked. “Sen. Durbin explained that very well. And he did it here. He did it on the floor earlier - as did Sen. Schumer. What right did they have to pick and choose what part of government is going to be funded? It’s obvious what’s going on here. You talk about reckless and irresponsible. Wow! What this is all about is Obamacare. They are obsessed. I don’t know what other word I can use. I don’t know what other word I can use. They are obsessed with this Obamacare. It’s working. It’s working now and it will continue to work and people will love it more than they do now by far. “
“But,” Bash countered “If you can help one child who has cancer, why wouldn’t you do it?”
At this point, Reid still had a chance. There was still the possibility that he could turn it around, and not make himself look like the unfeeling big-government vermin we all know him to be. Reid failed to save his bacon.
“Why would we want to do that?” Reid said angrily. “I have 1,100 people at Nellis Air Force base that are sitting home. They have a few problems of their own. To have someone of your intelligence suggest such a thing maybe means you’re irresponsible and reckless.”
Here, we finally have some truth from the left. To a man like Harry Reid, who sees the world only in terms of political gamesmanship, kids are either pawns or burdens. Why would he want to save one child? Children can’t vote, they don’t donate to campaigns, and they have no power in the national news media.
Remember earlier this year when an 11-year-old Pennsylvania girl needed a lung transplant? Dems like HHS director Kathleen Sebilius said, hey “Some people live. Some people die.” In her mind, rules and politics trumped children. That’s what Sebilius believed then, and it’s what Harry Reid thinks today.
The fact that Reid is advancing an equivocation between children fighting cancer and non-essential civilian Air Force personnel being forced to take a few days off is stunning in its inhumanity.
So, to answer Harry’s point: YES. Conservatives are furious about Obamacare. Why would anyone want a gang of heartless bureaucrats involved with their health care, when they have such a monstrous track record?
And that's why I don't like Obamacare, or any gov't intrusion into any more area's of our lives.
We have them in too much of it, already.
I agree that Reid "lost it" in this exchange, and it will be quoted again and again by the GOP.
But..., and there is a always a "but" with these kinds of "gotcha" scenes.
Just as the Reid lost this bout, the GOP face is losing in the long run because
that "just one child" was already waiting there in line all along ... well before
the GOP forced this shut down.
The GOP knew - or should have known - that NIH research would be affected,
and children would be dying because of their rigidity that caused the shut down.
It makes for juicy TV for both sides, but "just one child" is being overwhelmed
in public opinion by what caused it:
Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-Ind.:
“We’re not going to be disrespected.
We have to get something out of this.
And I don’t know what that even is.”
No one would have predicted that the NIH would have been shut down, AND that the Senate would not approve (or possibly even vote on), a resolution from the House, to keep it working.
Marlin Stutzman sounds like he's been asleep for the last 5 days or so.
Another shut down victim:
Mt. Vernon museum - yes, George Washington's Home. The feds don't own it, so they couldn't shut it down - but they do own the land that the Mr. Vernon parking lot uses.
So they erected their Barrycades. The museum is still open, but you can't park your car as is normal.
It's all about making us uncomfortable. We the People don't own the parking lot - the gov't owns the parking lot, and they'll decide we We the People, can use it.
No one would have predicted that the NIH would have been shut down,
AND that the Senate would not approve (or possibly even vote on),
a resolution from the House, to keep it working.
:bs:
First, the position of the Senate was well-known before even
the first vote by the GOP demanding de-funding Obamacare.
Next, NIH did not shut down... they continued
all patient support,
and interrupted only their non-essential management activities.
Further, the "just one child" is faux drama by the GOP.
NIH does not take on patient treatment for the sake of the person who is suffering.
Each individual is enrolled in NIH research only if they meet the given research criteria.
In fact, the person
may be given "non-therapeutic treatment" as part of,
for example, a classic double-blind control study.
I agreed with you that the "gotcha" question sent Reid off in a tizzy,
but to suggest the GOP didn't know what they were doing or
could not foresee the ramifications is not tenable.
Bit then, if you want to argue the GOP does not know what it is doing,...
it says a something about (your opinion of) the GOP.
This is the Google News on "Republicans" today (10/4/13), yet the GOP says they are winning.
Yeah, but that's just the liberal main stream media Obama owns. ;)
:bs:
First, the position of the Senate was well-known before even
the first vote by the GOP demanding de-funding Obamacare.
So, because the Sen. Majority Leader Reid announces that he will let no compassionate bill be passed, during the shutdown...
Somehow, that makes him a good guy?? No! That just makes him a predetermined SonOfABitch.
Next, NIH did not shut down... they continued all patient support,
and interrupted only their non-essential management activities.
That wasn't argued. READ THE DAMN ARTICLE! NEW patients (including children), will NOT be accepted into NEW trials, because they "couldn't be registered", into them.
Somehow, due to the media coverage, the registration is now going forward. Problem solved. No thanks to Reid or the Democrats.
Further, the "just one child" is faux drama by the GOP.
NIH does not take on patient treatment for the sake of the person who is suffering.
Each individual is enrolled in NIH research only if they meet the given research criteria.
In fact, the person may be given "non-therapeutic treatment" as part of,
for example, a classic double-blind control study.
Quit the quibbling. It was not FAUX drama, and all the rest of the above is well known.
The point was, EVEN IF the patient met the study criteria, NO ONE was being admitted to them, because they "couldn't be registered", for it.
You can't fail to see the hand of the gov't bureaucrat in this.
I agreed with you that the "gotcha" question sent Reid off in a tizzy,
but to suggest the GOP didn't know what they were doing or
could not foresee the ramifications is not tenable.
Bit then, if you want to argue the GOP does not know what it is doing,...
it says a something about (your opinion of) the GOP.
The GOP knew what they were doing however, no one knows how the President will respond. He has fairly broad discretion in deciding what will, and what will not, be shut down.
But we can be sure that Obama will do everything he can to make us as uncomfortable as possible, during the shutdown. Then he will continue to make us paupers, at his leisure. I can hardly wait. :(
To be fair, Obama wasn't the first President to use this strategy. I'm hearing that Nixon came up with it, but never used it. I don't remember Ford using it during his shut down, but Ford was a nice guy. Same with Carter. Inept President, but undoubtedly one of the most civil Presidents we've ever had, despite some very trying times. (bad economy and hostages in Iran)
Clinton used it during the shutdown quarrel with Gingrich, closing the Washington Monument, I remember. He didn't close the open air memorials, I don't believe. Hard to remember it all.
Mainstream Republicans are VERY uncomfortable with the shutdown. This may be a harbinger of the future of politics. If the Democrats elect socialists, the conservatives will simply shut down the gov't, in order to be represented in a liberal government that, like Reid and Pelosi, want their way or the highway, for everybody else.
How can you negotiate something - anything - with a Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi. They're absolutists, and will make it clear even before any "negotiations", that they won't negotiate.
Isn't that EXACTLY what Harry Reid did here? He finally got called into the White House to negotiate, but he wouldn't do it.
OK, you SonsOfBitches, enjoy your shut down. :)
Mainstream Republicans are VERY uncomfortable with the shutdown. This may be a harbinger of the future of politics. If the Democrats elect socialists, the conservatives will simply shut down the gov't, in order to be represented in a liberal government that, like Reid and Pelosi, want their way or the highway, for everybody else.
OR, the republicans could build their base by taking care of their constituents so they have enough votes to hold their own in congress, instead of whoring themselves to the 1%.
Quit the quibbling. It was not FAUX drama, and all the rest of the above is well known.
The point was, EVEN IF the patient met the study criteria, NO ONE was being admitted to them,
because they "couldn't be registered", for it.
You can't fail to see the hand of the gov't bureaucrat in this.
It
is FAUX drama and as you say... all the rest above is well known.
Why is the government shutdown happening in the first place ...
Is it because the GOP is fighting in every way it can to kill Obamacare ?
I think the answer for most people is a simple, Yes.
If the so, how do you balance
your "just one child" against the GOP goal
of killing a program of health care benefits for several millions.
Among those millions, would there be "just one child" to die for lack of medical care ?
I think the answer for most people is a simple, Yes.
It's the difference between the GOP's concern over $,
and the Democrat's concern for the people's welfare,
by advancing government programs to do the most
good possible for those that need it most.
When it comes down to it, naming-calling and "gotcha moments" are, indeed, faux drama.
It is FAUX drama and as you say... all the rest above is well known.
Why is the government shutdown happening in the first place ...
Is it because the GOP is fighting in every way it can to kill Obamacare ?
I think the answer for most people is a simple, Yes.
No. Obamacare is just ONE problem. The bigger problems are:
1) Obama wants to "redistribute wealth", which never goes over well with conservatives. They have that odd idea that their money should stay with them.
I know, what a concept. ;)
2) Obama has relentlessly expanded gov't. Number of employee's - way up, expenses - WAY UP, debt ceiling - WAY UP! Obamacare simply moves the feds into your entire medical treatments, etc. Conservatives definitely don't WANT the federal gov't, running their lives, or running their medical care! Once your medial records are all digitized, how long before your personal ID information is hacked into and stolen?
You say "Oh, that could never happen!". That's what you thought about Operation Prism when the Patriot Bill was passed, remember?
Gov't computers are hacked - even the Pentagon's.
As gov't continues to grow, YOU become smaller, and have far less control over your life.
3) Obama refuses to take obvious steps that would endear him to business: keystone pipeline project, remove the medical devices tax he just added, simplify the tax code a bit, and surprise, lower the medical costs, by simply enacting some parts of the legislation in Obamacare, without the rest of it.
4) Obama has given very little respect to the Republicans in general, and conservatives in particular, throughout his term. Every serious error he's made, has been glossed over by the media so incredibly, it's ridiculous.
And then there's sonOfABitch in the Senate, and Reid is just someone who's hard to get any negotiating done with. Same with Pelosi, when she was House leader.
I did get a hell of a laugh out of Pelosi's statement: "food stamps are a great way to stimulate the economy". That one had me rolling in the aisle.:D :D
Now Obama wants to negotiate, as will Reid and the Senate, ONLY after the shutdown is ended, and the debt ceiling is raised.
Sure! "I'll be glad to negotiate with you, right after I've gotten everything I wanted!"
That's not negotiating, is it? That's what the democrats are calling it, but that's not negotiating.
If the so, how do you balance your "just one child" against the GOP goal
of killing a program of health care benefits for several millions.
Among those millions, would there be "just one child" to die for lack of medical care ?
I think the answer for most people is a simple, Yes.
It's the difference between the GOP's concern over $,
and the Democrat's concern for the people's welfare,
by advancing government programs to do the most
good possible for those that need it most.
When it comes down to it, naming-calling and "gotcha moments" are, indeed, faux drama.
Since every person will be treated in any emergency room, with or without money, your argument is mostly false. Clearly, lots of people don't get the kind of regular medical exams, etc., that would benefit them, however. I agree that we need a better health care plan in the country. But I don't want the feds running it.
Strangely enough, I'd like doctors, hospital managers, and medical insurance experts running our health plan.
Adak, do you re-write your posts each time like this,
or do you copy/paste from some where ?
If you wish, you could just insert a link. Here it is it for your post above.
http://www.cellar.org/showpost.php?p=878784&postcount=91
Likewise, I'll just insert a link for my response,
like this.
----
OK, now back for the reason the GOP caused this government shutdown... Obamacare.
<snip>Since every person will be treated in any emergency room,
with or without money, your argument is mostly false.
Clearly, lots of people don't get the kind of regular medical exams, etc.,
that would benefit them, however.
I agree that we need a better health care plan in the country.
[COLOR="DarkRed"]But I don't want the feds running it.
[/COLOR]
Strangely enough, I'd like doctors, hospital managers,
and medical insurance experts running our health plan.
Lets quibble a bit....
As examples:
NIH is a federal facility that is treating (some) patients as part of health research projects.
VA hospitals are federal facilities around the country that are treating veterans.
Who do you feel should run these... for-profit corporations ?
As alternative examples:
With Obamacare,
anyone can sign up for A.C.A. plans of health care coverage.
All of their care will come via existing hospitals and doctors,
managed by hospital managers in health care plans created
by medical insurance experts ... not as part of the federal facilities system.
Then reimbursement $ comes [COLOR="DarkRed"]from that plan's health insurance provider.[/COLOR]
In some situations, patients who qualify for Medicare and/or Medicaid
(and/or perhaps some other federal programs) will also be treated
in these same non-federal system hospitals, but [COLOR="DarkRed"]reimbursement $
comes from the federal government.[/COLOR]
How does Obamacare NOT fit you "likes" ?
I write up every reply, individually. A link isn't well received and won't be used, unless it's corroborating the posted text of your reply.
to fit my likes:
1) my medical history stays OUTSIDE any federal databases.
2) the national plan is for everyone. No exemptions, no tax credits, refunds, etc.No unions or corporations get a pass to stay outside the system, etc. If they want more medical coverage than the national plan offers, they can buy it, of course, but EVERYONE is in the national plan if they are a citizen.
Non-citizens are not in the plan, and can't join the plan. They don't get free medical care on our dime, as is currently the case.
Without a broad base of healthy people, any medical insurance system will go broke, or have to charge exorbitant prices, before long.
3) no "send Grandma home with a pain pill instead of a treatment". "Grandma" gets the same good treatment as the rest of us, if she's in the plan.
4) we pay the same prices as Canada, and the rest of the world, for our drugs. Having us forced to pay 2 to 5 x as much, is a travesty.
5) no changes can be made to the national plan, without a 45 day period of consideration, AFTER the bill is proposed, IN FULL.
No more of this "we'll find out what's in the bill, after we pass it".
I'm quite familiar with the VA hospitals. Their policies nearly killed my dad.
If the shills for the 1% hadn't been screaming bad, socialist, redistribution of wealth, and actually worked for it, then everything thing you've listed could have been in this act.
But because of that obstructive action Obama had to weaken the plan by making deals with the drug companies, AMA, Insurance companies, medical equipment manufacturers, et al.
And don't tell me they should have debated it longer before voting, that's bullshit. The same people would have voted the same way, like they were told to.
Those corporations are powerful because they've got money out the wazoo to buy politicians and hire enough lobbyists to keep a tight rein on them.
But the fact remains, no matter how big a war chest the politicians are given, it's stupid voters,(hey that's my party right or wrong) and apathetic voters, (why bother my vote don't count) that allow them to keep screwing us.
Despite my " liberal tendencies "... I do try to read the occasional conservative news source. :eek:
I came across this article from Bloomberg News that I find interesting and believable.
But be warned, the article is about a report from a highly Democratic political strategist.
Bloomberg - The Ticker
Francis Wilkinson
Oct 4, 2013
Why Republicans Shut Down the Government
If you want to understand why the government is shut down
or why elected Republicans would even consider doing something as reckless
as using a debt default to extract policy concessions from the White House
-- without necessarily even knowing which policy concessions they want --
Stan Greenberg has a memo for you.
Democracy Corps issued a report this week on six focus groups conducted
with Republican subgroups -- two each with Tea Partiers, Evangelicals and moderate Republicans.
The results somehow manage to be unsurprising and shocking at the same time
-- largely due to the bracing effects of [COLOR="DarkRed"]reading the real words[/COLOR] of (almost) average Americans.
<snip>
http://www.democracycorps.com/attachments/article/954/dcor rpp fg 1000313 final.pdf
This link (above) will download a pdf file of the "memo" entitled:
Inside the GOP: Report on focus groups with Evangelical,
Tea Party, and moderate Republicans
<snip>
The Republican moderates were staunch fiscal conservatives, but most readily embraced
new gender relations and minority empowerment, including gay rights.
The Tea Partiers and evangelicals spoke as if they were in the midst of War of the Worlds.
As the report characterizes the Tea-Party worldview:
"Obama's America is an unmitigated evil based on big government, regulations and dependency."
The Bloomberg article continues...
It's a tough situation to rectify.
A lot of Americans were not ready for a mixed-race president.
They weren't ready for gay marriage.
They weren't ready for the wave of legal and illegal immigration
that redefined American demographics over the past two or three
decades, bringing in lots of nonwhites.
They weren't ready -- who was? -- for the brutal effects of globalization
on working- and middle-class Americans or the devastating fallout from the financial crisis.
Their representatives didn't stop Obamacare.
And their side didn't "take back America" in 2012 as Fox News
and conservative radio personalities led them to believe they would.
They feel the culture is running away from them (and they're mostly right).
They lack the power to control their own government.
But they still have just enough to shut it down.
I downloaded the pdf memo and I do recommend it those interested in straight and raw politics .
As the Forbes article says, it is both unsurprising and shocking.
These focus groups definitely are NOT always using politically correct language ! :rolleyes:
[COLOR="White"]Through early morning fog I see [/COLOR]
Through never ending debates I see
[COLOR="white"]Visions of the things to be[/COLOR]
Visions of lost security
[COLOR="white"]The pains that are withheld for me [/COLOR]
The culture running away from me
[COLOR="white"]I realize and I can see... [/COLOR]
I realize and I can see...
[COLOR="white"]That suicide is painless [/COLOR]
That govm't shutdown is painless
[COLOR="white"]It brings on many changes [/COLOR]
It brings on many changes
[COLOR="white"]And I can take or leave it if I please [/COLOR]
And I can take or leave it if I please
[COLOR="white"]I try to find a way to make[/COLOR]
I try to find a way to make
[COLOR="white"]All our little joys relate[/COLOR]
All our political views relate
[COLOR="white"]Without that ever-present hate [/COLOR]
Without that ever-present hate
[COLOR="white"]But now I know that it's too late, and... [/COLOR]
But now I know that it's too late, and...
[COLOR="white"]Suicide is painless [/COLOR]
Govm't shutdown is painless
[COLOR="white"]It brings on many changes [/COLOR]
It brings on many changes
[COLOR="white"]And I can take or leave it if I please [/COLOR]
And I can take or leave it if I please
[COLOR="white"]The game of life is hard to play [/COLOR]
The game of politics isn't hard to play
[COLOR="white"]I'm gonna lose it anyway [/COLOR]
We're gonna nay it anyway
[COLOR="white"]The losing card I'll someday lay[/COLOR]
The loser's price I'll someday pay
[COLOR="white"]So this is all I have to say [/COLOR]
So this is all I have to say
[COLOR="white"]That suicide is painless [/COLOR]
That govm't shutdown is painless
[COLOR="white"]It brings on many changes [/COLOR]
It brings on many changes
[COLOR="white"]And I can take or leave it if I please [/COLOR]
And I can take or leave it if I please
[COLOR="white"]The only way to win is cheat[/COLOR]
The only way to win is cheat
[COLOR="white"]And lay it down before I'm beat[/COLOR]
And vote it down into defeat
[COLOR="white"]And to another give my seat [/COLOR]
And on another put some heat
[COLOR="white"]For that's the only painless feat[/COLOR]
For that's the only priceless feat
[COLOR="white"]And suicide is painless [/COLOR]
And govm't shutdown is painless
[COLOR="white"]It brings on many changes [/COLOR]
It brings on many changes
[COLOR="white"]And I can take or leave it if I please [/COLOR]
And I can take or leave it if I please
[COLOR="white"]The sword of time will pierce our skins[/COLOR]
The budget cuts will pierce our skins
[COLOR="white"]It doesn't hurt when it begins[/COLOR]
It doesn't hurt when they begin
[COLOR="white"]But as it works its way on in [/COLOR]
But as they work their way on in
[COLOR="white"]The pain grows stronger...watch it grin, but... [/COLOR]
The pain grows stronger...watch them grin, but...
[COLOR="white"]Suicide is painless [/COLOR]
Govm't shutdown is painless
[COLOR="white"]It brings on many changes [/COLOR]
It brings on many changes
[COLOR="white"]And I can take or leave it if I please [/COLOR]
And I can take or leave it if I please
[COLOR="white"]A brave man once requested me[/COLOR]
A President once requested me
[COLOR="white"]To answer questions that are key[/COLOR]
To gather votes that are key
[COLOR="white"]'Is it to be or not to be'[/COLOR]
To pass through Congress by majority
[COLOR="white"]And I replied 'Oh why ask me?'[/COLOR]
And I replied 'Oh that's not me?'
[COLOR="white"]'Cause suicide is painless [/COLOR]
'Cause govm't shutdown is painless
[COLOR="white"]It brings on many changes [/COLOR]
It brings on many changes
[COLOR="white"]And I can take or leave it if I please [/COLOR]
And I can take or leave it if I please
[COLOR="white"]...and you can do the same thing if you choose[/COLOR]
...and you can do the same thing if you're a fool
The timing of the next election for Representatives, is critical. The Republicans that were elected in 2012, will be up for re-election next year, and they BETTER be able to show their districts/precincts that they have taken conservative actions during their term.
Or they won't have another one.
I'd like to believe that Obamacare can be fixed, and put back into the national health care plan I noted, in my last post. I'm afraid however, that it will wind up with an arcane set of regulations, rivaling that of the IRS - with umpteen winners and losers, and tiers in between, all wrapped up in a Gordian Knot.
The shut down is just the answer to the question "What can a conservative do, to slow down the fast-running liberal train, in American politics?
Right now, that "thing you can do" is to help slow or stop Obamacare, and maybe through negotiations, win some other concessions. Maybe a cut in actual spending NOW, maybe the keystone pipeline, but throw them a bone, a win of some kind, here.
Not Obamacare, of course, but SOMETHING tangible.
Because nothing else the conservatives have done in the past 2 years, has amounted to a hill of beans. The conservatives know it. The conservative Representatives know that their voters know it, and neither their voters at home, nor the Reps in Congress, are happy about it.
For his part, Boehner knows he has been way too quiet, and way too compromising, for way too long. If he kept it up, he'd have been replaced (again!) as the Republican leader in the House.
So the Democrat egged on enough Republicans to get something racist, something anti-gay, something goofy or dumb, and he has it published as "REAL".
Why am I not surprised? I can do the same leading questions to a bunch of Democrats, and wind up with the same stupid replies, to justify my position that Democrats are racists, intellectually dishonest, and baby-killers.
Proving absolutely nothing. No consensus has been reached, no negotiations have made progress. It's just name calling, the other side.
Sure, that's what we need right now - more name calling - that writer must be a political genius! :rolleyes:
The longer the shut down, the more closely the repercussions of it will remain as part of Obama's legacy.
In the short run, they (Obama and the media) can pin this on the conservatives, but those lousy historians will keep it tied right in with Obama's term.
I'm curious how far each party wants to go with this, as the deadline for a debt crisis, draws every closer.
I thought Obama did the right thing by calling the parties together to negotiate, and I'm not surprised that no actual negotiations took place. It's too early for that.
Time and tide, time and tide.
In the short run, they (Obama and the media) can pin this on the conservatives, but those lousy historians will keep it tied right in with Obama's term.
And that's what this is all about for ADAK & Co, do everything possible to make that uppity Muslim Kenyan look bad, regardless of the damage to the country and the people.
And that's what this is all about for ADAK & Co, do everything possible to make that uppity Muslim Kenyan look bad, regardless of the damage to the country and the people.
I don't care if the President is purple - if he has good policies that succeed in running the country, and abides by the Constitution and our laws - then I'm for him/her/whatever.
Let's remember, just for a moment, what party was formed, to fight the slavery issue.
What party was that?
What party did Abraham Lincoln belong to?
What party did Martin Luther King Jr. belong to?
When Little Rock revolted against racial integration, and the President had to order in the 101st Airborne Regiment, to restore order, what party did that President belong to?
For ALL the above, that would be the Republican Party!
What party did all the Southern Jim Crow lawmakers belong to, for decades?
What party did the governors who rallied the townspeople against racial integration in the schools, causing riots, belong to?
In Arkansas, where the 101st Airborne Regiment was brought in to restore civil order and enforce integration, what party did that governor belong to?
And in Alabama, when the governor not only rallied his city against racial integration, but himself tried to physically block it, what party did he belong to?
All the KKK lynchers were all card carrying members of what party?
(can't prove this, but everyone knew)
For all the second part, the answer would be the Democratic Party.
In truth both parties have their racists, but historically, the Democrats have FAR outweighed the Republicans in racists.
That's true in Federal, as well as state governments. So your racist slur is a bit off the mark, Bruce.
And living in the rural South, I have a long memory of the separate drinking fountains, separate entrances, separate businesses, etc. If you want to get a feel for what it was like, read the book "Black Like Me". It's not a horrific account of an adventure being a black man, but you get an accurate depiction of it, imo.
It was a movie as well.
Side Note: The guy who dyed his skin black (with the help of a doctor), did eventually die of cancer caused by the treatments to make his skin black, iirc.
In truth both parties have their racists, but historically, the Democrats have FAR outweighed the Republicans in racists.
I've always found this to be curious. Why did the racists jump from the embrace of the Democrats to the Republicans over the course of 50 years?
Of course, the racism of today isn't usually as blatant as it was 50 years ago. Much more subtle.
Pres Johnson predicted the jump when he signed the Civil Rights Bill
It's now the difference is between racism de jure vs de facto, particularly
in those areas of the country affected by the Civil Rights Law.
After Kennedy was assassinated, there was a huge outpouring of sympathy and sense of loss. President Johnson used that (he was a power broker politician, I can tell you!), to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Truly landmark law, that Kennedy wanted, but couldn't get enough support for. President Johnson did, and no one wanted to be on record voting against it - except the racists, of course.
Other civil rights legislation followed, with Democrats in charge. Racists bailed. Some old and politically strong Republicans were racists, and they coddled them for further support.
Democrats were sick of them, by then anyway.
Read up on Nixon's Southern Strategy as well.
For ALL the above, that would be the Republican Party!
For all the second part, the answer would be the Democratic Party.
It's not the party, the party is what the party does, and that changes regularly. The hard core conservative racists migrate occasionally, the last time to the tea party hoping the tea party would save America, but ended up getting owned and becoming shills for the fat cats.
And living in the rural South, I have a long memory of the separate drinking fountains, separate entrances, separate businesses, etc.
I spent enough time in the south during the 50's to know Jim Crow.
That's true in Federal, as well as state governments. So your racist slur is a bit off the mark, Bruce.
Unfortunately it's dead on when mimicking the conservative wing that's taken over talk radio and a huge chunk of the internet, spewing hate and lies with great abandon.
I get emails forwarded to me that are making their way through the conservative network. Mostly outrageous claims and twisted truths, but the email will contain links proving they're telling the truth. But if you go to the links they say the exact opposite, which means these morons in the header history, read it, believed it, forwarded it, but never checked it.
After Kennedy was assassinated, there was a huge outpouring of sympathy and sense of loss. President Johnson used that (he was a power broker politician, I can tell you!), to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Yes, JFK's murder brought the country together, and Johnson used it to do good.
9-11 brought the country together and we know what Bush did with it.:rolleyes:
According to the
National Journal (whoever the hell they are) Senate Democrats attempted to start negotiations 19 times only to be blocked by teabags.
1. 4/23 Senator Reid requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator Toomey blocked.
2. 5/6 Senator Reid requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator Cruz blocked.
3. 5/7 Senator Murray requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator McConnell blocked.
4. 5/8 Senator Warner asked unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator McConnell blocked.
5. 5/9 Senator Murray asked unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator McConnell blocked.
6. 5/14 Senator Warner asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator McConnell blocked.
7. 5/15 Senator Wyden asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator McConnell blocked.
8. 5/16 Senator Murray asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator Lee blocked.
9. 5/21 Senator Murray asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator Paul blocked.
10. 5/22 Senator Kaine asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator Rubio blocked.
11. 5/23 Senator McCaskill asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator Lee blocked.
12. 6/4 Senator Murray asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator Rubio blocked.
13. 6/12 Senator Kaine asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator Lee blocked.
14. 6/19 Senator Murray asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator Toomey blocked.
15. 6/26 Senator Murray requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator Cruz blocked.
16. 7/11 Senator Murray requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator Marco Rubio blocked.
17. 7/17 Senator Murray requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator Mike Lee blocked.
18. 8/1 Senator Durbin requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator Marco Rubio blocked.
19. 10/2 Senator Murray requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator Toomey blocked.
Well, we all agree that Bush had to go to war with Al-Qaeda and their supporters, the Taliban, in Afghanistan. That was mandated by the oath of his office.
Iraq was a poor decision, but I have little doubt that we'd have been at war with them, before long. Saddam was someone looking to start a war.
Too bad that it took the military years to figure out how to win the Iraqi people, over to our side.
Bush wasn't a conservative, especially in his fiscal policies, but at times he was close to it, in social policies.
I wonder just WHO is the source of these "Conservative" messages you receive. Because I've never received one, but messages that are blatantly wrong, sound more like disinformation messages. Sent out by radical liberals, the source could hide under the guise of Conservatism, to discredit the right. I don't know if that's the case, but it sounds suspiciously like it.
I used to believe "that would never happen", but now I absolutely know differently. The radicals are out there, and wow! are they radical!
I don't listen to enough talk radio to have caught any racist baloney, but I'm sure it's out there, just as it is in every walk of life, if you look closely enough, long enough. The people I listen to are pragmatic, and color is not an issue. If you can do the job well, you're hired. If you can't do the job, then you're not hired. Simple as that. If you have a problem working with a person of color, you need to get over it, because that is your problem.
@Griff:
Yes, the Democrats are anxious to negotiate. The only pre-condition to the negotiation, is that the Republicans give them EVERY SINGLE THING THEY WANT, FIRST.
*A large increase in the debt ceiling - because the Dem's don't want to have this debate again in just 3 months.
*No changes for introducing Obamacare.
Does that sound, even faintly, like negotiations? Oh Hell No! :( Harry Reid has already stated that no House Bill amending the shut down, or causing any delay to Obamacare, will even be voted on, by the Senate. A few he did let through, because they were politically, too hot to turn down, but the rest - absolutely not!
This is Harry Reid we're talking about here.
You know, there ARE problems with Obamacare. Primarily all the exemptions. If the Republicans fixed Obamacare to get rid of those exemptions the Democrats would have no choice but to go along.
But delaying or scrapping it won't ever get through. Fixing it will.
Well, we all agree that Bush had to go to war ...
Iraq was a poor decision...
Bush wasn't a conservative, especially ...
I wonder just WHO is the source of these "Conservative" messages ...
I don't listen to enough talk radio ...
<snip>
There's that
mouse again...
Agreed. It's a very imperfect start, but a start. Far better than anything conservatives have come up with. It can be modified, adjusted, refined ... but not in the context of holding the country hostage. Pass the bloody budget and then get down to tinkering.
At this point I say, make it a single-payer public system. Leave private insurance intact alongside. That's what has worked in Europe.
Agreed. It's a very imperfect start, but a start. Far better than anything conservatives have come up with. It can be modified, adjusted, refined ... but not in the context of holding the country hostage. Pass the bloody budget and then get down to tinkering.
At this point I say, make it a single-payer public system. Leave private insurance intact alongside. That's what has worked in Europe.
So you're really saying, since both Reid and the President have already stated that they will NOT negotiate, that first, the Republicans should give the Democrats everything they want.
THAT IS THE ONLY OPTION THEY WILL LISTEN TO, THEY HAVE REPEATEDLY STATED, both in public, and in private.
And THEN, the Democrats will negotiate. Is that R-E-A-L-L-Y your plan?
You don't think that's just a bit naive and well - S-T-U-P-I-D - do you?
Because it sure sounds like it is. WHY would the Democrats negotiate with you AFTER they have everything they want?
WHY?
@Lamplighter:
So you have an increasing obsession with toys for cats?
Failing to accept reality will cause inner conflicts in one's psyche. The immediate problem is believing what your own eyes see, or believing the lies of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, et. al.
Is there ANYONE in the US, who believes that Obama, Reid and Pelosi are willing to ACTUALLY NEGOTIATE, with the Republicans, to end the shutdown?
Anyone?
I'd be surprised if there was.
@Bruce:
Found out today that the WWII Memorial was paid for by private funds, AND is maintained by private funds, as well. There is NO expense to the Feds.
The reason it was barricaded off, was because the politicians all know that WWII vets are brought in on "Honor Flights"; free of charge, from all over the country, to see it the memorial one time, before they die.
So Obama knew he could hurt them quite badly, when it was barricaded off. End of story.
I'm sure some people are still thrilled with Obama. I'm appalled with his actions, here. (It has since been opened up after all the bad press for the Democrats).
I was referring to the ACA, not the current standoff. Are you a little bit S-T-U-P-I-D, or are you just incapable of following arguments?
I'm saying that, since the Republicans have lost the Congressional vote, the Supreme Court decision (2012), and the electoral vote/mandate (2012), they should stop holding the country hostage as a means to their ends in the 2014 elections and address their differences within the context of a functioning Congress.
I truly wish the US had a Queen (like the Queen of Canada) who could fire all the self-serving assholes currently in Congress and give the populace a real-time chance to choose again. Your Repubtards wouldn't do well in a snap election. I say this as a former Republican-turned-Independent.
<snip>Is there ANYONE in the US, who believes that Obama,
Reid and Pelosi are willing to ACTUALLY NEGOTIATE, with the Republicans, to end the shutdown?
Adak, Did you even read
Griff's posting above, and did you get the significance of it ?
I think most people are aware of the history of the GOP in dealing with Obama.
Their sudden "we demand that Obama negotiate with us" doesn't hold water.
Do you remember the story of the boy that cried "wolf" ?
It has much to do with the futility of attempts to demonize now.
@Bruce:
Found out today that the WWII Memorial was paid for by private funds, AND is maintained by private funds, as well.
That's correct.
By the way, the WW II Memorial... I'm a card carrying, Lifetime Charter Member. You know, one of the people that actually put up money to build those toilets.
There is NO expense to the Feds.
That is incorrect. The memorial is on federal land and operated by the National Park Service. Learn the difference between maintenance and operating expenses.
See this is one of those misleading half truths you keep coming up with, the bullshit oozing out of the religious rights bunkers. 'But, but', you say, 'I'm not one of them'. No, you're just one of the dupes they use to funnel this crap to the public. You hear it, and it matches what your preconceived notions, what you want to be the truth, so you accept and repeat it.
Iraq was a poor decision, but I have little doubt that we'd have been at war with them, before long. Saddam was someone looking to start a war.
That is the extremist propaganda. In reality, Saddam was desperately trying to restore his position as an American ally. After all, he only invaded Kuwait because he was told by the American ambassador that it was OK. Meanwhile, the ambassador was not saying that. Exact same words with two meanings. Saddam thought he had permission from the US to invade Kuwait.
Saddam desperately needed protection as a US ally. He obviously had no interest in starting a war with the US since he was all but toothless. And was using WMD myths to hide that fact. Only extremists who know from a head between their legs (not the one on their shoulder) still do not see that fact.
Another example of why extremist rhetoric is based in 'rewritten' history and other factual distortions. And why tea party extremists will not admit their real objective. As Limbaugh said, "We want America to fail." Failures empower extremists. Lies such as about Saddam is just another example of how and why so many are easily manipulated by extremist rhetoric.
Saddam desperately wanted to restore his place as an American ally. That is only disputed in rhetoric based in hearsay - that ignores facts.
That is the extremist propaganda. In reality, Saddam was desperately trying to restore his position as an American ally. After all, he only invaded Kuwait because he was told by the American ambassador that it was OK. Meanwhile, the ambassador was not saying that. Exact same words with two meanings. Saddam thought he had permission from the US to invade Kuwait.
Saddam desperately needed protection as a US ally. He obviously had no interest in starting a war with the US since he was all but toothless. And was using WMD myths to hide that fact. Only extremists who know from a head between their legs (not the one on their shoulder) still do not see that fact.
Another example of why extremist rhetoric is based in 'rewritten' history and other factual distortions. And why tea party extremists will not admit their real objective. As Limbaugh said, "We want America to fail." Failures empower extremists. Lies such as about Saddam is just another example of how and why so many are easily manipulated by extremist rhetoric.
Saddam desperately wanted to restore his place as an American ally. That is only disputed in rhetoric based in hearsay - that ignores facts.
NO! Saddam was looking to get a quick conquest on a rich little country like Kuwait, because his own economy in Iraq, was in utter shambles. Yes, he thought we wouldn't mind, but our Ambassador NEVER told Saddam it would be OK.
Saddam wanted to be a big shot in the Middle East, and throughout the Muslim countries of North Africa. There was a power vacuum after Egypt's failure in the last war with Israel (and their subsequent move to peace), and Gaddafi's step back from supporting WMD and terrorism.
He never wanted to be a US ally. Quite the contrary. If he could get our oil companies to spend a lot of money re-building his oil facilities, he would be glad to do it, but he wanted to be big in the Middle East, not a sincere ally of the US.
You know Limbaugh makes a lot of sarcastic comments, and you're taking one of them, entirely out of context in your quote.
If you ever went to a Tea Party meeting, you'd change your mind about them. They're not extremists. They're moms and dads, and nephews and niece's and people who want America to flourish and be free.
And note: They also are the only large collection of people, who actually pick up their own trash, after an event!
What you are describing is Occupy! They are paid extremists.
That's correct.
That is incorrect. The memorial is on federal land and operated by the National Park Service. Learn the difference between maintenance and operating expenses.
See this is one of those misleading half truths you keep coming up with, the bullshit oozing out of the religious rights bunkers. 'But, but', you say, 'I'm not one of them'. No, you're just one of the dupes they use to funnel this crap to the public. You hear it, and it matches what your preconceived notions, what you want to be the truth, so you accept and repeat it.
The land it's on is Federal, so of course, it's operated by the National Park Service. The cost of operating the open air memorial, is such a pittance, it boggles the mind.
No. It was shut down and barricaded, expressly to hurt the WWII vets being flown in on the "Honor Flights", along with anyone whose visit to the Mall would have included it.
Similarly:
Thousands of Americans flock to Normandy each year to see the beaches and sharp cliff-faces where Allied soldiers made their first entry into Nazi-occupied France during a massive invasion on June 6, 1944, known as D-Day.
A year from the invasion's 70th anniversary, many came especially to visit the Normandy American Cemetery and Memorial, known for its pristine rows of white crosses, only to discover that its gates were chained shut.
"Due to the U.S. Government shut-down this site is closed to the public," read a sign on the gate. Dozens of roses had been strewn underneath by visitors.
http://www.nbcnews.com/travel/tourists-dismayed-shutdown-u-s-d-day-cemetery-france-8C11336423
Somehow, does this strike you as "Obama wants to negotiate an end to this shutdown", or does this strike you as "Obama is being a vindictive A-hole and like he has stated, won't negotiate ANYTHING, until he has everything he has asked for".
To me, it's the latter. This is something that he will regret later on, I'm sure. History will stick this to him, with Guerrilla Glue, as a reflection of the man's character.
If you ever went to a Tea Party meeting, you'd change your mind about them. They're not extremists. They're moms and dads, and nephews and niece's and people who want America to flourish and be free.
Being a mom or dad, nephew or niece and wanting the country to flourish does not mean someone isn't an extremist
What you are describing is Occupy! They are paid extremists.
So having attempted to humanise the tea party you're now trying to dehumanise Occupy.
Are they not also moms, dads, nephews or nieces? Just because you disagree with their views doesn't mean they don't want America to flourish. They just want it to flourish according to their definition, not yours.
They also don't currently have a stranglehold on American politics despite their minority status, along with the power, seemingly, to wreck constitutionally arrived at decisions because they lost the vote and don't feel like they are represented.
Adak, Did you even read Griff's posting above, and did you get the significance of it ?
I think most people are aware of the history of the GOP in dealing with Obama.
Their sudden "we demand that Obama negotiate with us" doesn't hold water.
Do you remember the story of the boy that cried "wolf" ?
It has much to do with the futility of attempts to demonize now.
Yes, I read and commented on it. Obama and Harry Reid would be glad to negotiate with the Republicans,
If and ONLY if they first are given everything they want:
*full funding for Obamacare/ACA
*a debt ceiling high enough to last for the next several months.
[COLOR="Red"]That's not negotiating.[/COLOR] You don't get everything you want, before you agree to negotiate.Yes, I read and commented on it. Obama and Harry Reid would be glad to negotiate with the Republicans,
If and ONLY if they first are given everything they want:
*full funding for Obamacare/ACA
*a debt ceiling high enough to last for the next several months.
That's not negotiating. You don't get everything you want, before you agree to negotiate.
Your words, not theirs...
The GOP House of Representatives voted to pass the funding Bill for Obamacare.
The GOP House of Representatives voted to pass the funding Bills for all of the budget in the Debt Ceiling
The Senate passed and the President signed those Bills
The total of all these Bills passed by the GOP House exceeds the current debt ceiling.
Now the GOP House is attempting to renege on it's agreements.
Reid is opposed to rewarding their recurring bad behavior. :rolleyes:
If and ONLY if they first are given everything they want:
*full funding for Obamacare/ACA
*a debt ceiling high enough to last for the next several months.
That's not negotiating. You don't get everything you want, before you agree to negotiate.
Those aren't even demands, let alone "everything they want". Those are the status quo.
The Democrats haven't attached
anything, let alone
everything they want, to either bill.
In a theoretical "negotiation", what are the Republicans offering to give, in a give and take? All I'm seeing is take or take slightly less. Republicans are acting as if a functional government or paying our debts is a concession to Democrats.
Being a mom or dad, nephew or niece and wanting the country to flourish does not mean someone isn't an extremist
So having attempted to humanise the tea party you're now trying to dehumanise Occupy.
A little balance to reality is always a good thing. Several reporters have interviewed the Occupiers, and they admitted they were paid anywhere from $15 to $40 per day, to be there and demonstrate with them.
Are they not also moms, dads, nephews or nieces? Just because you disagree with their views doesn't mean they don't want America to flourish. They just want it to flourish according to their definition, not yours.
They also don't currently have a stranglehold on American politics despite their minority status, along with the power, seemingly, to wreck constitutionally arrived at decisions because they lost the vote and don't feel like they are represented.
I quite agree with Occupy, on some points. For instance, clearly Wall St. was coddled in the recession, despite the fact that they magnified the intensity of it, considerably.
But look at an Occupy demonstration after they're done, and it's utterly trashed, to say nothing of laws being broken, riot police being needed, and property being damaged.
Contrast that with the Tea Party demonstration. It's left clean, property rights are respected, and no laws are broken. There's no riot police needed, no tear gas, no molotov cocktails thrown - none of that. (and no rapes!)
I'll reluctantly admit that Anarchists are people, but since I have NO desire to live as the Cavemen did, I just can't follow their beliefs very far.
Those aren't even demands, let alone "everything they want". Those are the status quo.
The Democrats haven't attached anything, let alone everything they want, to either bill.
In a theoretical "negotiation", what are the Republicans offering to give, in a give and take? All I'm seeing is take or take slightly less. Republicans are acting as if a functional government or paying our debts is a concession to Democrats.
If that is "the status quo", then why is the gov't shut down? Why is the shutdown being blamed on the Republicans?
Ah! :cool:
Because the gov't has branches, and the branch of gov't that controls the purse strings for ALL gov't spending (as a whole), is the House - not the President, and not the Senate.
So in your status quo, the President and Senate can spend only as much as has been agreed upon BY THE HOUSE.
And that's the problem with Obama and the Democrats. They have not been listening to what the House majority party has been saying.
Obama and the Democrats have gotten a LOT of bills passed and made into law, that they wanted. Now the Republicans want to get some things done from their own bucket list.
If Obama doesn't want to negotiate, then Obama better be ready to run the gov't with the debt ceiling of the status quo. Of course, Obama can't do that, because his budgets have been a dismal failure. Time to start listening perhaps.
Your words, not theirs...
The GOP House of Representatives voted to pass the funding Bill for Obamacare.
The GOP House of Representatives voted to pass the funding Bills for all of the budget in the Debt Ceiling
The Senate passed and the President signed those Bills
The total of all these Bills passed by the GOP House exceeds the current debt ceiling.
Now the GOP House is attempting to renege on it's agreements.
Reid is opposed to rewarding their recurring bad behavior. :rolleyes:
That's the problem with passing bills into law, when they haven't been studied, FIRST.
Now that Obamacare has started to roll out further, and a lot of exemptions have been made, and a lot of our biggest health care insurers have backed out of Obamacare, the people are not so happy with it. And that is what the House Republicans are reacting to. Remember, they had to vote on ACA before it's contents were even fully written up - "We'll vote on it first, and find out what's in it later", they were told.
So they did just that. And now the people they represent are not happy with what's in it.
House members, unlike the Senate, MUST respond quicker to the feedback they're getting from their district. They are up for election every 2 years, and it's coming up FAST. They have to respond, or they're out, as early as next year.
Don't you just love the way politicians talk out of both sides of their mouth, at the same time?
Latest example is Obama: "raising the debt ceiling does not increase the amount we owe".
That's a glorious double talk beauty! It's true, yet we all know that raising the debt ceiling is made necessary BECAUSE WE'RE SPENDING MORE MONEY THAN WE TAKE IN!
That doesn't top Clinton's prize winner however:
"It depends what you definition of "is" is."
THAT is a double talk masterpiece, right there! ;)
If that is "the status quo", then why is the gov't shut down? Why is the shutdown being blamed on the Republicans?
Because they are the ones who are making demands.
That's a glorious double talk beauty! It's true, yet we all know that raising the debt ceiling is made necessary BECAUSE WE'RE SPENDING MORE MONEY THAN WE TAKE IN!
A problem that was solved. And then extremist Republicans did what they love to do - spend money we do not have on wars without purpose. And did so while joyfully massacring 5000 American servicemen. So now we have maybe $2 or $3trillion dollars of debt that was financed by the Chinese - because some wacko president was so dumb - another word for extremist.
Those debts remain with or without the debt ceiling lifted. However if the debt ceiling is not lifted, then wacko Republicans get what they love. Those outstanding debts increase even more.
Bills created in early 2000s created these debts. Debts that now require the ceiling be lifted. If not paid, then all outstanding debts increase. You should have thought about those debts when wackos were using lies to created them back in 2003. I did - vigorously. Where were you when it was time to avert those debts? Too late now.
So you want to increase those debts by not raising a debt ceiling. Apparently wacko extremist rhetoric forgets to mention that part - to increase debts to make America fail.
If that is "the status quo", then why is the gov't shut down?
Why is the shutdown being blamed on the Republicans?
The GOP has tried several faux drama issues to avoid responsibility for the government shutdown,
such as "just one child", "WWII vets barricaded from memorial", "1-yr ACA business deferral unfair", etc.
Now that the "debt ceiling" is another imminent issue,
Ron Paul Cantor and Eric Cantor are looking for a "grand strategy".
But Ted Cruz and the GOP are rebelling, saying "wait a minute, where is the "Repeal Obamacare" ?
Today, a former head of the Republican National Committee conceded...
The House GOP is "Leader-less, Rudder-less, and Clue-less" :smack:
The GOP has tried several faux drama issues to avoid responsibility for the government shutdown,
such as "just one child", "WWII vets barricaded from memorial", "1-yr ACA business deferral unfair", etc.
Now that the "debt ceiling" is another imminent issue,
Ron Paul Cantor and Eric Cantor are looking for a "grand strategy".
But Ted Cruz and the GOP are rebelling, saying "wait a minute, where is the "Repeal Obamacare" ?
Today, a former head of the Republican National Committee conceded...
The House GOP is "Leader-less, Rudder-less, and Clue-less" :smack:
Oh, there are a LOT of Republican RINO's who think the whole Conservative branch of the Republican party, should take a long walk, off a short pier! :p: The Bush family (both) were not conservatives. All the RINO's tried their best to block Reagan when he was trying to win the nomination of the Party. They just KNEW he couldn't win, and didn't see the need for his policies!
You can hear the RINO's on the news shows every weekend, it seems. They're like a doughnut that looks good, but when you get to the inside of it, instead of a jelly filling, it's a load of horseshit. :(
Obamacare won't be repealed - nobody expected that. My guess is there will be some ACTUAL < SHOCKING! I know >, negotiating as we get near the debt ceiling limit. Obamacare itself will NOT be on the table, even. Probably the exemptions - stuff like that.
The good news today is that both the Treasury and Moody's have stated that the US will be be able to fully pay for it's debt, even if the debt ceiling is not raised.
THAT is very good news!
Programs may be curtailed, of course, as they run outside of their current budget amounts that are within the debt ceiling, but there will be no default on our obligations, to anyone.
Whew! :cool: :cool:
More to Obama's shame, the open air war memorials are closed again. What a commander in chief! Hard to really stomach a man who would deny us the right to honor our war dead. :mad:
I'm surprised that the media hasn't roasted Obama to the bone, over this - but he's their guy. If he were pictured bashing in the heads of baby seals with an axe, I'm sure the media would say he was a hero, saving the entire seal species, from over population.
The deficit is falling rapidly these days
The deficit can fall quite rapidly. That's not the same as the federal debt, of course, which is far larger, and harder to rein in.
As we get out of Afghanistan, and get more gas and oil developed (quite against Obama's wishes, but he takes credit for it anyway), the deficit will fall very rapidly.
The federal debt? No. That's like trying to herd cats.
The debt? Has the federal debt ever gone down (in modern times?)
The debt only goes down if there's a surplus. So,
by one measure, it happened under Clinton. But, apparently, by another measure, it didn't. And if it didn't happen under Clinton, then it probably hasn't.
The good news today is that both the Treasury and Moody's
have stated that the US will be be able to fully pay for it's debt, even if the debt ceiling is not raised.
THAT is very good news!
Hooray Adak.
But someone forgot to tell the WSJ and the Treasury Dept yesterday
that the debt ceiling hasn't even been voted on yet, and the US has
not yet defaulted on anything. It's still "Full Faith and Credit of the USA"
Wall Street Journal
10/8/13
Default Worry Hammers Short-Term U.S. Debt
...T-bill Yields Climb to Highest Since October 2008
[COLOR="DarkRed"]Short-term U.S. debt prices tumbled again Tuesday amid rising investor concern
about the prospect of a government-debt default, sending the yield
on one-month U.S. Treasury bills to its highest level since the financial crisis.[/COLOR]
With little sign that Republicans and Democrats will hammer out
a compromise on the partial government shutdown, many in the
financial markets are starting to worry about the prospect of a default.
Treasury bills maturing on Oct. 31
—a date many market participants predict for the Treasury to run out of cash to pay its bills—
sold off sharply Tuesday, driving their [COLOR="DarkRed"]yields up to 0.35%[/COLOR], the highest level since October 2008.
One-Month Treasury Bill Yield
[ATTACH]45639[/ATTACH]
Concern about the stalemate in Washington was also evident in Tuesday's auction of new bills.
The Treasury Department sold $30 billion worth of four-week bills maturing on Nov. 7
at a rate of 0.350%, [COLOR="DarkRed"]the highest rate the government paid on such short-dated debt in five years.[/COLOR]
Money-market funds and banks are typically the biggest buyers of Treasury bills,
where they park their idle cash for a short time. But they shied away from the auction Tuesday.
The bid-to-cover ratio, a gauge of investor demand, was 2.76,
the lowest since July 2009 for four-week bills, according to Nomura Securities.
That's very GOOD news [COLOR="White"]for investors[/COLOR] ... Right, Adak ?
Of course, if you have a loan pegged to the T-Bill rate, not so much. :eyebrow:
But someone forgot to tell the WSJ and the Treasury Dept yesterday that the debt ceiling hasn't even been voted on yet, and the US has not yet defaulted on anything.
Government is down to its last $30billion. Once that goes, then government must decide which creditors to not pay. Once payments are not made, then a vicious circle of liquidity freezing takes hold. Similar to what happened in 2007 and in 1998. In those previous events, Fed funds averted a crisis. No such solution exists if extremists get a "We want American to fail" that they want.
They want to increase current debts by quashing the debt ceiling. That will only make existing debts increase for various reasons including those cited by Lamplighter.
According to Gallup, favorability ratings for both parties are down. The GOP is down to 28% and the Dems are down to 43%. It kind of reminds me of the "purity" drive under the last Pope. Those 28% will always vote and give $ so the real question is will the 43% vote because Dem support is always softer in the polls. Neither party is winning friends right now so which will keep enough base and can either get an independent voter?
The best headline about the shutdown, so far...
CNBC
10/10/13
Baah! Gov't goats laid off in shutdown, no kidding
The federal government shutdown is really getting Larry Cihanek's goats—about 65 of them.<snip>
Because of the shutdown, only three of Cihanek's goats are working,
grazing at a locally run park in Easton, Pa., not for the Feds.
The rest have been furloughed because national parks are closed during the impasse in Washington.
They're now munching in the fields at Cihanek's farm in Rhinebeck, N.Y.
According to Gallup, favorability ratings for both parties are down. The GOP is down to 28% and the Dems are down to 43%. It kind of reminds me of the "purity" drive under the last Pope. Those 28% will always vote and give $ so the real question is will the 43% vote because Dem support is always softer in the polls. Neither party is winning friends right now so which will keep enough base and can either get an independent voter?
Our parties need to do what's RIGHT for our country, and find agreement. Find ways to come to a compromise with each other. Both parties get something, and both give up something. This "my way or the highway", "glad to negotiate AFTER I get everything I want" stuff, is old, tired, and just plain dumb, before it even starts.
Likewise, the over the top rhetoric where one party bashes the other. I suppose some of that is necessary to appease the base of their constituents, but over the top name calling and closing the open air war memorials and cemeteries, does not reflect well on any political party, or any political leader.
Government is down to its last $30billion. Once that goes, then government must decide which creditors to not pay. Once payments are not made, then a vicious circle of liquidity freezing takes hold. Similar to what happened in 2007 and in 1998. In those previous events, Fed funds averted a crisis. No such solution exists if extremists get a "We want American to fail" that they want.
They want to increase current debts by quashing the debt ceiling. That will only make existing debts increase for various reasons including those cited by Lamplighter.
Wrong. Both the Treasury dept and Moody's have stated that there will be NO default of any US debt.
Some programs will be cut back, but NOBODY will be defaulted on.
Both parties get something, and both give up something. This "my way or the highway", "glad to negotiate AFTER I get everything I want" stuff, is old, tired, and just plain dumb, before it even starts.
No. Congress needs to do its job, which is passing bills to fund the allocations it's already made. Doing your basic job is not negotiable.
Negotiating about legislation you don't like has to be done in the proper setting, not through holding the country hostage.
'Everything
I want' is for these people, who work for WE, THE PEOPLE, to DO THEIR JOBS and fund the government. No other issues should be addressed until they stop holding a gun to everyone's head.
Our parties need to do what's RIGHT for our country, and find agreement. Find ways to come to a compromise with each other. Both parties get something, and both give up something. This "my way or the highway", "glad to negotiate AFTER I get everything I want" stuff, is old, tired, and just plain dumb, before it even starts.
Only the Republicans are doing that.
The Democrats are making no demands. Republicans are adding all sorts of crap they want, and claiming that they will "negotiate" only getting some of their demands, as long as they can repeat the process and get everything else next time round.
Our parties need to do what's RIGHT for our country, and find agreement.[COLOR="DarkRed"]
Find ways to come to a compromise with each other.
Both parties get something, and both give up something.[/COLOR]
This "my way or the highway", "glad to negotiate AFTER I get everything I want" stuff,
is old, tired, and just plain dumb, before it even starts.
Both parties... long ago... negotiated, compromised, and signed off on legislative agreements.
Both parties got something and both gave up something.
In this time of the government's calendar of proceedings,
your proposal to "negotiate" and/or "compromise" is just another way of echoing the GOP antecedent: "my way or the highway".
It's probably moot now because the GOP is desperately looking
for a face-saving way out of the mess they created at the end of September.
I suspect that Obama will be gracious enough to give it to them. :rolleyes:
Yes, you have to excuse the Republicans. They are getting desperate. I don't have the links to it yet, but it's being reported that if Obama and the Democrats get their projected debt ceiling increase and funding, Obama's 8 years in office, will have increased our national debt:
drum roll please.....
More than all the other Presidents in our nations history, put together. :mad:
Don't worry about a compromise however. Harry Reid is in charge of the Obama negotiating team, and he told the Republicans meeting with Obama, before they came in, that there would be no negotiating until they had their debt ceiling lifted and all their funding.
I'm not sure WHY they even bothered to meet with the Republicans, if that was their rigid position. Trying to get good media coverage, I guess.
Try to make Reid and Obama look like sane men. :p: A full time job, right there, I'm sure.
I'm not saying the Republicans have had a coherent strategy. It's been odd, to put it mildly. But at least they are trying to keep those green bills in your wallet, worth something.
Having another 50,000 people working for the feds, and another 100,000 Americans on food stamps and welfare - doesn't sound good to me.
One good plan, supported by many Conservatives, is the One Cent Solution. Where every program or department's budget is cut by 1% until the budget is balanced. (Projected to be 5 or 6 years).
All new programs would need to be fully funded upon their start, for this to work, of course.
All the details here:
http://www.onecentsolution.org/the-one-cent-solution/
To me, this is far more important than railing against Obamacare.
Obama's 8 years in office, will have increased our national debt:
drum roll please.....
More than all the other Presidents in our nations history, put together. :mad:
Adjusted for inflation?
Wow, that would really be dishonest if this number was not adjusted for inflation.
Uh oh guess what. Oh you'll never guess.
I remember when Reagan was in office and Time magazine ran a whole issue on the debt, and in his first term, he had increased the debt more than all the previous presidents combined. I don't remember if those dollars were adjusted for inflation. I think they were. Reagan really increased military spending and also cut taxes, which resulted in a huge increase in the deficit and ultimately the debt. It only got worse in his second term. (Or better, if you credit his deficit spending with winning the cold war.)
I'd expect FDR to be the all-time winner on this one
This is in percent of GDP, not in real dollars, but it's something.
[ATTACH]45654[/ATTACH]
This is in percent of GDP, not in real dollars, but it's something.
[ATTACH]45654[/ATTACH]
Deficit and debt are not the same thing
This is in percent of GDP, not in real dollars, but it's something.
Cheney said (and wacko extremists therefore believed) that Reagan proved deficits don't matter. We now suffer pain from that Cheney lie.
It did not matter to him because he prospered by spending money then. We are now stuck with the resulting bills.
Notice what happened when Reagan/Bush ran the debt up big time. In the Cellar, so many in 1990/2 were complaining about how bad things had become. Then Clinton addressed the problem. As a result, the economy prospered and deficit dropped to zero. What did Clinton do? He raised taxes. That (in part) caused the economy to prosper.
Extremist do not want to admit something. Obama is successfully curing the destruction of the American economy created (in part) by tax cuts, welfare to the rich, and other fiscal mismanagement - including Mission Accomplished.
Deficit and debt are not the same thing
Yeah, well, the debt graph is boring. It just keeps going up exponentially. The deficit graph is where the real data is, because you can see how government policy and economic factors work together to increase the debt slightly or rapidly.
One interesting thing is that the debt was much worse in the 80s because interest rates were higher then, so a bigger slice of the federal budget pie had to be spent paying interest back then than it does now. So we have a much bigger debt now, but it doesn't matter as much as it did during the Reagan years.
The real risk from government debt is the burden of interest payments. Experts say that when interest payments reach about 12% of GDP then a government will likely default on its debt. Chart 4.05 shows that the US is a long way from that risk. The peak period for government interest payments, including federal, state, and local governments, was in the 1980s, when interest rates were still high after the inflationary 1970s. Of course, the numbers don’t show the burden of interest payments from Government Sponsored Enterprises like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Look at the green in this chart. That's what the federal government has to pay in interest.
[ATTACH]45655[/ATTACH]
edit: Actually, I misspoke. That's the interest the federal government has to pay, expressed as a percentage of GDP.
snip--
Don't worry about a compromise however. Harry Reid is in charge of the Obama negotiating team, and he told the Republicans meeting with Obama, before they came in, that there would be no negotiating until they had their debt ceiling lifted and all their funding.
--snip
this is a complete lie, you should retract it. I don't mean just ignore it and run away, like you do for your other empty headed repetitions of misstatements endlessly drilled into you by indoctrination radio. You spray these around desperately, fired off like harmless but startling chaff, distracting the attention of those in the conversation from the substance of what we should be talking about.
Harry Reid, doing his job as the Senate Majority Leader, offered compromise. He accepted the bill from the House, using the regular rules of our government stripped from it the portion that delayed the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, and returned the rest of the bill *INTACT* to the House for their consideration. The rest of the bill had "all their funding", but the "their" in this case was the funding suggested by the Republicans in the House. How is that Harry Reid's fault? How is it Harry Reid's numbers?
Well, as a compromise, it could very easily be seen as his "fault", his "funding". He's said "yes, ok, that funding is acceptable to me. let's do this." It was an attempt to compromise. One that was rejected, no, ignored by the House. So, no, it wasn't Reid's funding, and ultimately it wasn't Boehner's either, since it's been cast aside.
But no crying about not getting "your way". Well, I expect you'll cry anyway, but I've no sympathy for your crocodile tears.
That's the interest the federal government has to pay, expressed as a percentage of GDP.
I like that graph. It really cuts to the bones of the spending vs revenue problem. It shows that we maybe were dead wrong in the eighties and should check out some pie charts from that time vs now for comparison. Big defense is big government...
Amen Griff.
To hear today's GOP, Reagan was the master of an astute economic theory.
Wiki:
The four pillars of Reagan's economic policy were to reduce
the growth of government spending, reduce the federal income tax
and capital gains tax, reduce government regulation, and control
the money supply in order to reduce inflation
But... after a long association with GE, Reagan was the darling of the defense industry.
We are still living with his "star wars" (Strategic Defense Initiative), and to some extent
his 600-ship Navy, with their resulting and ever-increasing (supply-side) deficits -> debt.
My only gripe about it is that I don't have a good understanding of what percent of GDP really means. I would more easily understand percent of annual budget, or dollars adjusted for inflation. I'm not sure percent of GDP is a good measure.
Glatt, "deficit" is for a particular period of time, whereas "debt" is the cumulated deficits
So I look on GDP as the total output of energy and resources ($) of the country.
So, looking at a given year's deficit as a %GDP is a measure of what
the country would have to expend to reduce that deficit (to zero).
OTOH, higher inflation has the effect in future years of
reducing the subsequent debt-to-%GDP ratios
... i.e., older debts can be paid off with "cheaper" dollars
BUT, I'm open to being educated out of the error of my ways.
.
Glatt, "deficit" is for a particular period of time, whereas "debt" is the cumulated deficits
So I look on GDP as the total output of energy and resources ($) of the country.
So, looking at a given year's deficit as a %GDP is a measure of what
the country would have to expend to reduce that deficit (to zero).
OTOH, higher inflation has the effect in future years of
reducing the subsequent debt-to-%GDP ratios
... i.e., older debts can be paid off with "cheaper" dollars
BUT, I'm open to being educated out of the error of my ways.
.
My issue with % of GDP is that the government doesn't have access to the entire GDP to spend it. I think a more useful statistic might be to see a % of the total revenue.
But I'm no economist.
Such as this ... From
hereTruckers are trying to organize a strike and occupy DC this weekend.
The first come-on is to protest the government shutdown.
But then if you drill down one step, it is to protest "government corruption"
And then if you drill down further, it becomes a far right-wing jumble.
Some trucker groups are backing away, some large outfits are too.
So if you plan to be in DC this weekend, don't be surprised by some big-rig traffic jams.
They're supposed to be 'occupying' the Beltway. Fortunately I was on said highway very very early this morning and didn't encounter them. However - if they're opposing the government shutdown and government corruption, why inconvenience people who are already severely inconvenienced by the stupid Republican shutdown?
I'd think they would want to occupy the National Mall from end to end and blow their air horns continuously, to send a message to the House to get their asses back to work and do their f***ing jobs.
My issue with % of GDP is that the government doesn't have access to the entire GDP to spend it. I think a more useful statistic might be to see a % of the total revenue.
But I'm no economist.
It isn't that the number is literally relevant. The point is that neither the deficit as an absolute number, nor the GDP as an absolute number, is terribly meaningful -- they both need to be contextualized. To do this, you can compare them to one another, and look at relative changes.
A crude example: spending $100 a month on a cell phone with a good data plan is a big deal if you're 16 and work part-time at McDonalds; if you're an investment banker pulling in 6 figures a year, it's a fairly minor expense. You can represent this in general by looking at an expenditure as a percentage of annual income.
Wrong. Both the Treasury dept and Moody's have stated that there will be NO default of any US debt.
Some programs will be cut back, but NOBODY will be defaulted on.
From Jack Lew's testimony, if the funds cannot cover it, someone doesn't get paid. There is no 'cut back' on existing debt. This would be akin to telling the electric company that you will be paying them 90 cents on the dollar because you refuse to take out a loan. In reality, even that is not an option since there is no precedent. The Treasury would just pay all of the bills in no particular order until the money ran out.
It's really that simple. The Treasury has no authority to cut back funding on any programs. Their entire job is to pay all authorized bills, manage money, and secure funding where authorized. What part of 'full faith and credit' do you not understand?
From
Jack Lew's (Treasury Secretary) testimony on default.(Washington Post).
In addition to the economic costs of the shutdown, the uncertainty around raising the debt limit is beginning to stress financial markets. At our auction of four-week Treasury bills on Tuesday, the interest rate nearly tripled relative to the prior week’s auction, and it reached the highest level since October 2008.
Treasury continues to project that the extraordinary measures will be exhausted no later than October 17, 2013, at which point the federal government will have run out of borrowing authority. At that point, we will be left to meet our country’s commitments with only the cash on hand and any incoming revenues, placing our economy in a dangerous position.
If we have insufficient cash on hand, it would be impossible for the United States of America to meet all of its obligations, including Social Security and Medicare benefits, payments to our military and veterans and contracts with private suppliers for the first time in our history.
[SIZE=4]Full Faith and Credit[/SIZE]
Article IV, Section 1:
Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.[5]
The short answer is that anywhere you go in the US, bills incurred by any state, or the US government, will be paid.
The only things there that the uber Right (as opposed to sensible conservatives) give a toss about are the veteran benefits. I daresay they'd count it a minor victory if social security and medicare goes unpaid.
The only things there that the uber Right (as opposed to sensible conservatives) give a toss about are the veteran benefits. I daresay they'd count it a minor victory if social security and medicare goes unpaid.
It's the only thing they posture about. I doubt they genuinely care though. As long as they can wrap themselves in the flag. The uber right, for a long, long time, were actually blocking a bill a couple of years ago, to provide healthcare to the first responders of 9/11.
There has been no greater horse that has been flogged by the right, than that. Yet they weren't interested in helping the people that put their lives on the line.
That was the report from the media. I wasn't there to witness it. It IS however, what Harry Reid has stated himself, to the mainstream media, on more than one occasion.
You know he used the arcane rules of the Senate, to strip off the defunding amendment from the House bill. That is how the liberal media CBS news, reported it: "arcane".
Think about it. ONE person, can remove an amendment from a bill passed by the ENTIRE HOUSE? Are you kidding me? Does that even LOOK like a democratic government at work?
No, it does not, and I can't remember a time in the past, when it was used for this purpose, either.
Jack Lew is a political puppet appointee. There is no danger of us not being able to pay our federal debts, in full, and on time.
The firefighters have excellent health care plans, and they must have known it was dangerous to be working around the site of the fallen towers, shortly after 9/11/01. Burning plastics, fabric, heavy and fine dust (concrete, drywall, etc.), etc. These are not new dangers to a fireman. They deal with them frequently.
I'm not familiar with the saga of the 9/11 responders. Why is this still an issue, after all these years?
I have to say the "lets pay every victim's family a lot of money" idea, was a bad decision by Washington. Did we pay the families of those men who died from the terrorist attack on the U.S.S. Cole? What about those who died from the first bomb attack on the Towers?
Of course not - likewise, any family member of a soldier who has died in Iraq or Afghanistan, or anywhere else. Also, these 9/11 families had a LOT more money and income, than our soldiers. Their average payout (which 97% of them took), was $1.8 Million dollars, for heaven's sake!
I'm sure the responders felt like ignored red-headed step kids, looking at what the families received.
Think about it. ONE person, can remove an amendment from a bill passed by the ENTIRE HOUSE? Are you kidding me? Does that even LOOK like a democratic government at work?
Neither is it when the leader of the entire House of Representatives holds up passage of legislation until a minority of one party in the House is satisfied when he knows that a majority of the entire house will pass it.
Neither was it when individual Republicans blocked multiple calls for a budget conference earlier this year that might have avoided the brinksmanship.
If you don't like Congresses rules, tell your friends to stop abusing them.
I have to say the "lets pay every victim's family a lot of money" idea, was a bad decision by Washington. Did we pay the families of those men who died from the terrorist attack on the U.S.S. Cole? What about those who died from the first bomb attack on the Towers?
Of course not - likewise, any family member of a soldier who has died in Iraq or Afghanistan, or anywhere else.
President Barack Obama signed legislation to resume paying death benefits to the families of U.S. military personnel that Congress passed after the aid had lapsed because of the government shutdown.
Lawmakers approved the measure even as there was disagreement about the need for it. The Defense Department earlier this week had contracted with the Fisher House Foundation, which supports military families, to make the $100,000 payments for the duration of the government shutdown.
So, $100K to be paid to the families of those killed by enemies of this country. I would argue the 9/11 responders were in that category. Was the response too great and the results unbalanced? Maybe. I did not realize, Adak, that you would let your inner Communist out and insist on complete parity amongst payments to the proletariat.:redcard: How does one spell RINO?
The $100K is the default amount for a subsidized term life insurance policy (
SGLI) that military personnel have the option of buying. First responders would get what they bargained for in their civilian contracts. Victims would get what they purchased privately. Life insurance policies without war exclusions have been available for as long as I can remember and I've known military personnel who went the commercial route because they didn't trust the government to come through on the policy it offered.
The problem arises when the government subsidizes higher death benefits to some segments of the population than others such as the families of civilian victims receiving substantially more than the families of military service members. Politics then makes for second class citizens.
OTOH, I don't have any problem with the government subsidizing the death benefits and health care costs of first responders and civilian casualties, in such paramilitary situations, and bringing their incident connected death and injury benefits up to what military personnel get.
Neither is it when the leader of the entire House of Representatives holds up passage of legislation until a minority of one party in the House is satisfied when he knows that a majority of the entire house will pass it.
That is done frequently in both the House and Senate, by both parties. Nothing arcane about it.
Neither was it when individual Republicans blocked multiple calls for a budget conference earlier this year that might have avoided the brinksmanship.
If you don't like Congresses rules, tell your friends to stop abusing them.
We were headed for the brink anyway. The Democrats under Reid and Pelosi are very uncompromising. That causes the Republicans to adopt a similarly uncompromising point of view. The clash of the two was bound to happen.
Right after you tell Obama to quit breaking the law, by making appointments directly, without the required Congressional approval, when the Congress is still technically in session.
Any Republican President would have done that, they'd have faced a Special Investigator, at least.
For Obama -- crickets, of course.
Truckers are trying to organize a strike and occupy DC this weekend.
The first come-on is to protest the government shutdown.
But then if you drill down one step, it is to protest "government corruption"
And then if you drill down further, it becomes a far right-wing jumble.<snip>
More recent articles are pretty much just copying the following...
Fox News
10/11/13
Dozens, not thousands, show up for DC trucker protest
Virginia state police say they stopped four tractor-trailer drivers on the Beltway,
pulling them over after they began driving side-by side across
all four northbound lanes of the Beltway in Fairfax County.
Their actions slowed traffic to about 15 mph.
Officers warned the drivers not to impede traffic and did not write any tickets.
Police say a convoy of about 30 trucks began traveling north on Interstate 95
from Doswell, Va., on Friday morning. The truckers are circling the Beltway.
However, the presence was not quite the thousands of truckers that organizers had predicted.
On Friday morning, just a handful of people had showed up at a key staging area.
On its website, the group lists several demands, including
that President Obama resign immediately,
that the debt ceiling not be raised and that
National Security Agency surveillance of communications be ceased.
The group is also complaining about low wages and rising fuel costs.
That is done frequently in both the House and Senate, by both parties. Nothing arcane about it.
It is never done in Congress when the results are to intentionally make America fail.
European markets open in 8 hours. What's going to happen to US ratings then? There was a lot of pressure to resolve this clusterfuck before markets opened this week because this was the last weekend before the default. It's not looking like they are going to resolve this in the next 8 hours. I shouldn't be surprised, but I am disappointed. I thought they might do their jobs this weekend.
It's not looking like they are going to resolve this in the next 8 hours. I shouldn't be surprised, but I am disappointed. I thought they might do their jobs this weekend.
Wackos are why money can be made. Markets will fall big time. If you saw wacko extremists as I have, then you were collecting cash. That may be an ideal buying opportunity.
Video of Pete Sessions taking a bite out of democracy.
Some local chick wrote in a local paper last week about how she was reporting on something and Boehner was so nice to her (this i believe, he can be personable in real life) and she took the opportunity to tell him (he is our district's congressman) how hard it is to raise her beh-bey on a reporter's salary therefore she didn't want obamacare and he LISTENED to her and she felt democracy in action. Stupid twit.
You don't need to concerned if you will
not be affected by
default of the U.S. Treasury on this coming Thursday.
If you
might be affected, you should hope/pray that Eric Cantor
retains his health, and is not delayed in traffic or otherwise fails
to attend all coming sessions of the House of Representative.
He is the only member allowed by a current House Rule to bring
a Bill" related to the debt ceiling" to the Floor for a vote.
The Hill
Mike Lillis
10/14/13
<snip>
Under long-standing House rules, any member of the chamber
can bring a measure to the floor. But Republicans altered the rule
governing legislation to fund the government so that only
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) holds the power to make such a motion.
<snip>
Keep it shut down (shut down MORE of it, and let it stay down).
And: YAY FOR DEFAULT!
The Taliban says women are not allowed to learn go to school
The Pope says women are not allowed to be priests
The John Boehner says women are not allowed to negotiate the government shutdown.
The Telegraph
Alex Spillius
15 Oct 2013
Women US senators lead compromise efforts on shutdown
Women have led reconciliation shutdown efforts in Congress,
showing their male colleagues a thing or two about compromise
As the men who lead the United States Congress have continued to test the world’s patience,
it is female members of the Senate who have led efforts at compromise, leaving some in Washington
to ask what would have happened if women had been in charge all along.
The initiative was seized by Susan Collins, a Maine senator,
a well-known moderate, who found willing partners on the Democrat side
of the partisan divide. Together they prodded their male colleagues into action.
<snip>
Maria Cantwell, a Democratic Senator, was adamant that if the
dispute over government spending and borrowing had been left to women,
then bitter divisions would have been breached and the government,
which has been shutdown partially since Oct 1, would have reopened.
Senator Claire McCaskill, a moderate Democrat from Missouri, commented:
“We are trying to find that place where we can get something done.
We’re not as interested in fighting as we are in moving the substance of the issue.”
Not only do female Democrats and Republicans manage to talk to each other,
they share dinners too. On Monday, the New Hampshire delegation of Kelly Ayotte, a Republican,
and Jeanne Shaheen, a Democrat, chaired informal talks over pizza in the latter’s Senate office.
Such informal gatherings hark back to a time when the Senate was
regarded as epitome of civilised debate and political accommodation.
When Gingrich, et al were playing this game, they were not driven by a political agenda that said, "We want America to fail." This is the first one that concerns me. Because it is driven by people with near zero intelligence levels and a philosophy that says, "We will ignore facts to just know a default will not be harmful."
Gingriich and his "Contract with America" supporters understood how things really work. Therefore backed down in humiliation in order to not make America fail. View henry quirk's post to see how dangerous today's wacko extremists have become.
A government default is to me an ideal buying opportunity. It should be profitable. However, it will mean all American debts (current and future) will automatically increase. Nobody with intelligence would advocate that. And that is the problem. These wackos have no idea that they want American to become a second class nation. Intelligence in American politics has dropped to Joseph McCarthy and Nixon plumbers levels.
A default will happen if moderates in the Republican party do not stand up and attack the wackos. Even Boehmer no longer displays any backbone.
This is the NY Times News today...Oct 15, 2013
[ATTACH]45691[/ATTACH]
Probably not many of you remember the Friday night when the US went to bed
expecting a nuclear war the next day - the Cuban Missile Crisis.
But it's not since then that I have gone to bed with such feelings.
Who knows what will happen today ... maybe not nuclear war,
but one way or the other, it will certainly be a high-magnitude event.
What bothers me in my own mind is that I have actually come to believe
the GOP is no longer controlled or made up of men-of-good-will.
It's no longer "politics" or a "game".
When the entire House of Representatives is jerked about by the $
of two men, the Koch brothers...
When elected officials are manipulated into fear of not being re-elected...
When the good of the country is no longer the issue...
I have lost all sense of humor with the Republicans.
After a round of golf, Boehner said to Obama that he thought they could work out a grand deal. So the two men sat down multiple times in secret to work out the government budget. Then Cantor discovered the talks through VP Biden. And put threats to Boehner's back. Either back out of the deal or be overthrown in a coup. The threats worked.
Now new threats from these tea party extremists have further saddled Boehner with another dilemma. From the Economist, "how to satisfy their members Quixotic longing to kill Obamacare without shutting down the government or causing a default."
Well this forces a question that can no longer be avoided. Is Boehner that incompetent as Speaker of the House as to not properly exercise the power he has. Or has the party so radically changed that no Speaker could rally, muster, and corral his members? The Washington Post is asking that question today in
"Boehner sees his control of House Republicans slip away" on 15 October 2013.
But as evening fell over the Capitol, it was increasingly clear who had control over the House GOP: no one. ...
And despite what most see as a debacle for Republicans, a core group of conservatives insisted Tuesday that they are winning their battle to force concessions from Democrats on fiscal issues.
Even the numbers (polls) say something completely different. Why would they stick to what is obviously a lie?
It goes right back to a question of whether Boehner is an incompetent speaker. Or did the Supreme Court make corruption of Congress now easy by creating unrestricted financing of campaign funding by even calling corporations people?
“We didn’t get anything. This has been a total waste of time,” said Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.), one of the most consistent critics of his party’s most conservative members.
“I think they think they won somehow,” he said. “Whatever echo chamber they live in, they’re only hearing good things.”
Added Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), “The only reason the Democrats don’t look terrible is because we look worse.”
Maybe. Or maybe Boehner has surrendered power to Eric Cantor and the extremist in exchange for no coup.
It's hard to follow all this. I don't want to invest the time.
Didn't the Republicans change the rules so Cantor is the only one who can bring a bill? They know that the majority of the House has gone on record that they would support the Senate bill to fund the government and debt, and so to keep moderate Republicans from submitting that bill, they changed the rules so that only Cantor can do it. They want him to be in charge.
I honestly don't know what power Boehner has left. What is his power?
I understood that the maneuver was to prevent any House members (Dem or GOP)
from calling up or introducing a "clean Bill" for the shut down or debt limit.
Boehner just may have given the bullet for Cantor's gun to replace him as Speaker
For the Adak's and others who think a default would have no effect...
NY times
MARK LANDLER
October 15, 2013
Seeing Its Own Money at Risk, China Rails at U.S.
WASHINGTON — China has become shrill in its criticism of the fiscal train wreck in the United States,
arguing that the answer to a potential government default is to begin creating a “de-Americanized world.”
Beijing’s alarm is understandable, given that it is the world’s largest investor in American public debt,
with at least $1.3 trillion in holdings.
<snip>
It called for the replacement of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency
“so that the international community could permanently stay away from the spillover
of the intensifying domestic political turmoil in the United States.”
“As U.S. politicians of both political parties are still shuffling back and forth ...
“it is perhaps a good time for the befuddled world to start considering building a de-Americanized world.”
<snip>
Edwin M. Truman, an economist and former Treasury Department official, said:
“This is political blather. It is a politically defensive response to the choices China has made.”
That does not mean a brush with default will not have long-term damaging consequences
for the United States. [COLOR="DarkRed"]Even if China continues to buy Treasury bonds, economists said,
it may opt for those with shorter maturities, which would drive up long-term interest rates
in the United States, hurting home buyers and owners of small businesses.[/COLOR]
Japan is also starting to rumble publicly along these lines.
It's hard to follow all this. I don't want to invest the time.
Didn't the Republicans change the rules so Cantor is the only one who can bring a bill? They know that the majority of the House has gone on record that they would support the Senate bill to fund the government and debt, and so to keep moderate Republicans from submitting that bill, they changed the rules so that only Cantor can do it. They want him to be in charge.
I honestly don't know what power Boehner has left. What is his power?
Cantor is the only one who can file a discharge petition which would start a process that, with enough support among the rest of Congress, could bring a bill to the floor without Boehner's support.
Boehner can bring any bill he likes to the floor whenever he wants.
The discharge petition was supposed to be a way to break the type of logjam that the tea party caused. It's convenient and efficient to have a Speaker who runs things, but the discharge petition was supposed to be a way for a majority of congresspeople regardless of party, to overrule the Speaker in special circumstances. The House GOP leadership changed the rule to prevent that.
It is also being reported:
"Canadians are blaming themselves for Ted Cruz's behavior"
"...others who think a default would have no effect..."
Assuming it gets that far: of course it'll have an effect.
That's what I'm countin' on.
Assuming it gets that far: of course it'll have an effect.
That's what I'm countin' on.
So you love it that extremists are playing right into China's hand. China has long wanted the US dollar removed as a world standard. They make a compelling argument to the world. The US is so full of extremists that cannot see beyond their nose, then that dollar should be replaced by a basket of currencies.
Of course extremist will say that is not a problem. These are the same people who created that massive recession in 2007 - almost created another 1929 and 40% unemployment. People forget how close we came to falling off the cliff because wackos said, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter" and even tried to put Social Security into the stock market.
Apparently extremist routinely forget the lesson of history – especially their own mistakes.
Ironically, I make money if the wacko extremists do make America fail. Says how much faith I have in Cantor and the boys.
I guess my sense of humor towards the GOP is returning... slowly.
How about this headline...
Forbes
Rick Ungar
10/16/2013
The Houston Chronicle Un-Endorses Ted Cruz
<snip>
Who would have guessed that, just one week later, the conservative Houston Chronicle
—the newspaper that handed Cruz a critical and key endorsement in his campaign
to become the next senator from the Lone Star State—would agree with me by way
of publishing something you just don’t see every day—[COLOR="DarkRed"]an un-endorsement of Senator Cruz?[/COLOR]
Under the title, “Why we miss Kay Bailey Hutchison”, the editorial board
of the newspaper published on op-ed Tuesday evening wherein they write*—
[QUOTE]
“One reason we particularly believe that Hutchison would make a difference
in these hectic days is that if she had kept her seat, Cruz would not be in the Senate.
When we endorsed Ted Cruz in last November’s general election,
we did so with many reservations and at least one specific recommendation
– that he follow Hutchison’s example in his conduct as a senator.
Obviously, he has not done so.
Cruz has been part of the problem in specific situations where Hutchison would have been part of the solution.”
UPDATE: October 16, 2013 4:48pm:
I’ve just had a phone conversation with Veronica Flores-Paniagua,
the Outlook Editor for The Houston Chronicle, who states that the paper
did not un-endorse Senator Cruz but were merely being critical of him.
It should be noted that when I asked Ms. Flores-Paniagua if the paper
would endorse Senator Cruz if the election were being held today,
she chose not to respond to the question.[/QUOTE]
The Senate has passed:
[LIST]
[*]A continuing resolution funding government through Jan. 15;
[*]An increase in the debt ceiling until Feb. 7, but it also continues the ability of the Treasury to use extraordinary measures to extend that period, so that's not a drop dead date. It also includes language allowing President Obama to waive the debt ceiling, which could be overridden by a vote of disapproval by Congress that could then be vetoed by the president;
[*]New rules for income verification for Obamacare subsidies, requiring the government to "certify to the Congress that the Exchanges verify such eligibility." It does not interfere with or prevent Obamacare enrollments;
[*]Reimbursement of lost pay to federal workers furloughed during the shutdown;
[*]Reimbursement to states for any money they spent to replace lost federal funding during the shutdown;
[*]Up to $450 million to the Department of Transportation to rebuild infrastructure destroyed in last month's Colorado floods;
[*]$3.1 million to the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (yeah, that one's a head-scratcher); and
[*]$174,000 to the widow of Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), who died in June (another head-scratcher).
[/LIST]
On to the House.
The "Obama can waive the debt ceiling" thing is interesting. I'm sure if he does it, he'll be screamed at, but if he waits to the last second he can appear all "Daddy disciplining the squabbling children", and Boehner can then be all "I would have fought to my last breath, but Obama stopped me". Win-win.
And it's over (for a few months). With 87 Republicans voting aye.
Would have been nice if they'd done it a couple of weeks ago.
Crap. I was expecting fireworks and stuff at midnight. This was the most boring government shutdown EVER!
And it's over (for a few months). With 87 Republicans voting aye.
Would have been nice if they'd done it a couple of weeks ago.
What did the Republicans / Conservatives get out of this whole shut down?
Pro's:
1) They mobilized their base - they hadn't done that in a long time.
2) They let Obama show himself as the scumbag he is.
Con's:
1) They lacked a coherent strategy. This is a government, at some point you have to reach a compromise with the other party.
They had no way of forcing a compromise. Naturally, Obama and Reid will not easily compromise.
2) They got blamed for most of the problems of the shut down, imo. Obama was an ass-hole about the War Memorials and Cemeteries, but overall, the Conservatives took most of the blame for it.
3) Any hint of working together, party to party, evaporated immediately.
Overall, it was an unwise move by the Conservatives. You don't start walking until you have decided where you're going, and how you're going to get there.
The whole exercise reminded me of the WWII FIRST amphibious landing in the north of France, at Dieppe.
It was a complete disaster.
A total of 3,623 of the 6,086 men (almost 60%) who made it ashore were either killed, wounded, or captured.[4] The Royal Air Force failed to lure the Luftwaffe into open battle, and lost 96 aircraft (at least 32 to flak or accidents), compared to 48 lost by the Luftwaffe.[5] The Royal Navy lost 33 landing craft and one destroyer.
OK, it wasn't THAT bad, but it certainly wasn't a well thought out political move.
I don't see how this has exposed Obama as anything but an embattled president being held to ransom by unreasonable opposition.
Ordinary, mainstream conservatives must be so sick of this stuff. How can they fly the flag of fiscal competency with this sort of shit coming from their ranks?
The damage the Tea Party Republicans have done to America's standing in the world is profound. No matter what else, America's status as an economic powerhouse has never been more under threat. Having heard the same people rail against Obama for making America 'look weak' to her enemies by, for example, talking to Iran, it is surreal to me that they would voluntarily make their country look like it's a borderline failed state.
The time for arguments and compromises was during the debates leading up to the passing of the budget and the passing of the Affordable Care Act. democrats compromised heavily. They all but compromised away most of the useful features of that act and pretty much gave the republicans the budget they asked for.
For the Republicans to then balk at paying the bills or enacting that compromise was absurd.
I don't see how this has exposed Obama as anything but an embattled president being held to ransom by unreasonable opposition.
The mark of a great President is acknowledging the concerns of both parties, and helping to bring the people and parties, together. Compromises are the keystone needed to make a great government, work.
Not stick it to the people he's supposed to be serving! Going to extra expense to close the open air memorials in Washington (WWII, Lincoln, MLKing, and Vietnam), and the memorial cemeteries in France (most notably around Normandy Beaches).
That cemented Obama as an ass-wipe forever. Obama had ALL the cards here:
1) Dominant party in the Senate, and a strong minority even in the House. The Democrats are all united, as well, whereas the Republicans are split moderates and very conservative.
2) ACA/Obamacare was already law. There is no way the funding can not go through, regardless of what the Conservatives in the House or Senate, do. It's too late for that.
All Obama had to do was have a conference with the Conservatives, and make some slight compromises. Not to cut Obamacare, of course, that was never possible, just find something to give up as a symbol of the give and take politicians make to each other, all the time. I'm not saying it was his duty to do it, but it would have been a great sign of working together, to keep the gov't running, and our two parties being civil to one another. The substance could be quite small. It's all about saving face, showing a bit of respect for the opposition party, and everyone goes home a winner.
Instead, Obama saw a chance to win win win, playing political gamesmanship. I'm not saying that the Republicans didn't start the game, but clearly it was an error, and it SCREAMED for a victor to be magnanimous in his triumph. But Obama would rather barricade off the WWII Memorial, so the 80 year old "Honor Flight" vets from the Midwest, can't get in to see it before they die. These are all WWII vets, for Christ's sake! And that memorial belongs to the PEOPLE, the gov't just has custodial care.
Ordinary, mainstream conservatives must be so sick of this stuff. How can they fly the flag of fiscal competency with this sort of shit coming from their ranks?
The damage the Tea Party Republicans have done to America's standing in the world is profound. No matter what else, America's status as an economic powerhouse has never been more under threat. Having heard the same people rail against Obama for making America 'look weak' to her enemies by, for example, talking to Iran, it is surreal to me that they would voluntarily make their country look like it's a borderline failed state.
The time for arguments and compromises was during the debates leading up to the passing of the budget and the passing of the Affordable Care Act. democrats compromised heavily. They all but compromised away most of the useful features of that act and pretty much gave the republicans the budget they asked for.
For the Republicans to then balk at paying the bills or enacting that compromise was absurd.
The damage wasn't from the Tea Party Republicans! The damage was from the Conservatives starting a stupid political maneuver, that was not thought out. Worse still, they weren't even united on what they were going to do; what they were going to support, and what they were NOT going to support.
The focus was on Obamacare - which is already law, and they can't get enough votes to repeal it. So what's the sense in fighting against it?
Not much! Not that I can see.
That's why Obama had them where he couldn't lose. Just no way. That's where a really good president would have gone into conference with the Conservatives, and worked out a quick compromise to keep the gov't running normally. Instead, he has the NIH drug trials refuse to register new (terminal) cancer victims, into it's trials.They can't register (put a name and data into the computer), to save lives?? The doctors are there working, the nurses are there working, the trials are still on-going and new ones being started, but they can't REGISTER a new patient now?
That's SOO scummy. I feel dirty just entering this into a reply. :(
But this was the dumbest political maneuver I've seen in a long time, for sure.
You've also motivated this independent voter to rearrange who he'd vote for and that harms the GOP unless I see the moderates push back. I don't like Obama even a little after the NSA revelations, continued CIA nonsense in the Middle-East, and ongoing drone attacks but no way does he share fault on this one. Congress had already passed compromise legislation and one unhappy little group of douche-bags tried an end run around the system because they didn't like the compromises that earned the votes.
OK, enough about the politics. What about me? What about glatt?
My metro train was very crowded today. I didn't get a seat. Welcome back, federal workers.
Does anyone actually read adak's shillshit anymore? You do know he posts that stuff so the odd googler will come along and half believe him, don't you? He's on somebody's payroll, for sure.
Does anyone actually read adak's shillshit anymore? You do know he posts that stuff so the odd googler will come along and half believe him, don't you? He's on somebody's payroll, for sure.
Hey Adak, have a modicum of respect for the office, will you, you anti-american fuck?
(cue adak talking about his fake service and other feats of magic he's performed.)
Sorry you lost! Better luck next time!
The paper today was talking about winners and losers.
I think the only winners here are China. And we in the USA are all losers.
Oh, and if tw really moved his money around to profit on a default, maybe he's a loser more than others. How did that go tw? Did you take a big hit?
Ironically, I make money if the wacko extremists do make America fail. Says how much faith I have in Cantor and the boys.
That isn't new: China has been working towards owning us for years and years.
I, for one, won't welcome our creepy sneaky overlords.
Yeah, well, the debt graph is boring. It just keeps going up exponentially. The deficit graph is where the real data is, because you can see how government policy and economic factors work together to increase the debt slightly or rapidly.
The reason I point it out is because the Afghanistan and Iraq wars never showed up in the budget. They paid for through
Emergency Spending Measures, not that they were emergent or unforeseen.
I think the only winners here are China. And we in the USA are all losers.
Yep.
Question: Who Owns the U.S. National Debt?
Answer: The U.S. debt is more than $16.7 trillion. Most news headlines focus on how much the U.S. owes China. And, in fact, China is the largest foreign owner of U.S. debt. However, the biggest single owner of national debt is the Social Security Trust Fund, aka your retirement money. How does that work, and what does it mean?
That isn't new: China has been working towards owning us for years and years.
I, for one, won't welcome our creepy sneaky overlords.
Don't worry, our super massive over the top excessive superfluous defense contractor piggy bank military will keep them from owning us.
Except all our machinery uses chips and ICs they manufacture, and they have a secret backdoor kill switch built in to each one.
:tinfoil:
"So you love it that extremists are playing right into China's hand. "
Nope. What I loved what the possibility folks might see for themselves they don't need as much 'governing' as they're told they do.
What I loved was the possibility folks might see the politicians need them a helluva lot more than they need the politicians.
What I loved was the possibility that ludicrous amounts of scrip might stop being spent on horseshit.
China: fuck 'em...what they gonna do? Without the U.S., China goes back to being just a Third World hole.
All moot anyway...*shrug*
"This was the most boring government shutdown EVER!"
"you anti-american fuck"
HA!
"So you love it that extremists are playing right into China's hand. "
Nope. What I loved what the possibility folks might see for themselves they don't need as much 'governing' as they're told they do.
What I loved was the possibility folks might see the politicians need them a helluva lot more than they need the politicians.
What I loved was the possibility that ludicrous amounts of scrip might stop being spent on horseshit.
China: fuck 'em...what they gonna do? Without the U.S., China goes back to being just a Third World hole.
All moot anyway...*shrug*
Great. Right up until the part where a bunch of children actually starve for lack of food aid programmes; old people actually freeze in the coming winter because they cannot heat their homes, and a rash of small businesses are crippled by the soaring cost of borrowing.
You may not need that much government, but there are a fuck of a lot of people who do in fact need government.
Government didn't expand because it is some hulking beast wanting more and more. It expanded because the alternative to doing so would leave some people for dead. It expanded to fill the gaps left by libertarian and free market ideologies. It expanded to facilitate the broadening out of society's benefits to all Americans and not just those who successfully rode the financial surf.
Now, I daresay you'd be quite comfortable with all that. Survival of the fittest, no passengers, no such thing as fairness idyll.
I honestly don't know what it is you expect to happen if the government were to suddenly shrink to the bone.
Good news everybody!
“But that will get us into Round 2. See, we’re going to start this all over again.”
"Great. Right up until the part where a bunch of children actually starve for lack of food aid programmes; old people actually freeze in the coming winter because they cannot heat their homes, and a rash of small businesses are crippled by the soaring cost of borrowing."
I get it: I (and folks like 'me') are supposed to carry 'them' because they can't carry themselves.
Make me.
#
"You may not need that much government, but there are a fuck of a lot of people who do in fact need government."
And that’s 'their' damned problem.
#
"Government didn't expand because it is some hulking beast wanting more and more."
'It' expanded 'cause the mercenary wanted more (more power, more control). To that end: generations were taught (are being taught) that bigger government is better government, that governance of the minutia of living is a necessity, and that no individual can do without the 'guidance' of 'authority.
Utter horseshit.
#
"...the alternative to doing so would leave some people for dead"
An unsavory truth (fact): some folks need to die.
If X can't fend for him- or her-self, and X has no one who WANTS to help him or her, then X needs to go.
To demand I care for X is theft (of my time, resources, and self...fuck that noise).
That folks like you have to force folks like me is theft, Dana.
No other assessment makes sense.
#
"I honestly don't know what it is you expect to happen if the government were to suddenly shrink to the bone.”
First, it'll never "suddenly shrink to the bone". Like smack in the vein: it's 'needed'.
Second, if it did "suddenly shrink to the bone" I expect lots of folks to suffer...some die; some make it through (and are better for it).
#
"Survival of the fittest"
HA!
You write it as though it were a bad phrase.
It's not bad or good...just what 'is'.
Folks like you wanna insulate themselves from it...good luck with that.
#
Tell you what, Dana: if children starving and old people freezing bother you so much, devote your time, resources, and 'self' to saving them.
Why do 'I' have to participate?
Now that the world has seen that Henry Quirk was right all along,
we can look foreward to February 7th, 2014.
Yesterday, when the Senate passed it's Bill to end this shutdown and debt ceiling fiasco,
Harry Reid made gave a short speech trending towards conciliation and optimism.
Not so for the Senate Minority Leader...
Senator Mitch McConnell's "conciliation" speech drew a bright new red line on the floor.
The GOP will begin it's "conversation" in the super-committee at
last March's $986 billion sequester (aka the Budget Control Act (BCA).
It will be the new Pavlovian war cry of the GOP.
In other words, Obamacare (ACA) becomes just one ribbon on the GOP's BCA battle flag.
[ATTACH]45699[/ATTACH]
Here is a link to the current effect of sequestration by state...
The Texas Tribune
Ryan Murphy
2/26/13
Interactive: Sequester Cuts by State
<snip>
Using the data made available for every state plus the District of Columbia
(yes, we opened and collected numbers from all 51 PDFs),
we have prepared an interactive that makes it easy to compare the White House's numbers for each state. Select a sequester cut from the drop-down to view a different chart.
[ATTACH]45698[/ATTACH]
Here's why...
Because it is manifestly 'unfair' I can fend for myself when so many cannot.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
How sad, then (for the incapable), that I just have to say 'NO'.
How strange that you would use English to communicate that. Shouldn't you be making up a new language, rather than participate in something that the entire culture has developed over a period of many centuries of deep cooperation, a tie that binds us together so strongly?
HA!
I thought you might fall for that... so predictable
Here's why...
Because it is manifestly 'unfair' I can fend for myself when so many cannot.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
How sad, then (for the incapable), that I just have to say 'NO'.
Don't want to participate? Move to the wilderness. Don't participate in any economic activity. Don't rely on emergency services, state-funded roads, or any of a number of things. You can so no, but you're just not willing to do so effectively.
Society has a cost and that cost is cooperation and mutual support. A lot of the monetary support is misapplied and a lot of our representatives and employees don't behave as I'd like, but the benefits are greater to me than the cost of cutting myself off from all of it.
Same horseshit as always...a little originality would be nice.
*sigh*
In reverse order...
"Don't participate in any economic activity."
Conflating voluntary transactions (I buy 'this' over 'here' instead of 'that' over 'there', or choose to do without) with theft (gimme that or I'll jail you) is dumb.
#
"Don't rely on emergency services"
I don't.
#
"state-funded roads"
That I pay for by way of state sales taxes...why would I not use what I've paid for?
#
"Society has a cost and that cost is cooperation and mutual support."
Society is nuthin' but a word for a buncha folks living in close proximity to one another and not killing each other.
It becomes 'jail' when communitarians (Left and Right) decide that the one owes the many sumthin' more than not stealing and not killing.
#
"...the benefits are greater to me than the cost of cutting myself off from all of it."
Then mire yourself up to your neck in it.
##
"so predictable"
What's predictable is that you'd try to make a lame joke at my expense.
I laugh at your lack of novelty, not the joke.
##
"How strange that you would use English to communicate that. Shouldn't you be making up a new language, rather than participate in something that the entire culture has developed over a period of many centuries of deep cooperation, a tie that binds us together so strongly?"
The day some motherfucker with the big stick tries to tax me for using English is the day I might just do that.
##
So stupid (all of you, for missing [or, being incapable of comprehending] the point of anything I've written in this thread [and others]).
No wonder the lot of you crave being governed.
Who's next?
So stupid (all of you, for missing [or, being incapable of comprehending]
the point of anything I've written in this thread [and others]).
HQ, you're kidding yourself. People here do comprehend what you are writing.
Maybe you are the one missing it ... that some/I see your postings
as naive or simplistic or implausible or callow or silly, or maybe just sort of "stupid".
Next.
Same horseshit as always...a little originality would be nice.
It's only horseshit because your brain simplifies everything to fit your biases.
You do a pretty good job parroting the Libertarian handbook, but that doesn't make you any smarter than a bible thumper.
I'm done trying to engage with fuckwits. To say you are TMR would be optimistic, but I'll leave it there.
HQ, you're kidding yourself. People here do comprehend what you are writing.
Maybe you are the one missing it ... that some/I see your postings
as naive or simplistic or implausible or callow or silly, or maybe just sort of "stupid".
Next.
His user picture is of a caveman. Fits pretty good. I'd like to see him actually try to survive in the individualistic world he espouses.
"I'd like to see him actually try to survive in the individualistic world he espouses."
I think I'd do pretty well.
How do I 'know'?
Been there and done that.
I could regale you with details but -- pffftt! -- you wouldn't believe me, I can't (in a tangible fashion, by way of the net) prove anything, and you aren't worth the trouble anyway.
I'd actually be interested to hear what you have to say. I love hearing people's experiences.
"People here do comprehend what you are writing"
No, 'they' don't.
*shrug*
#
"...that some/I see your posting as naive or simplistic or implausible or callow or silly, or maybe just sort of "stupid"."
Your opinion (which I get): you're welcome to it.
"the Libertarian handbook"
Not a libertarian: too many rules.
So stupid (all of you, for missing [or, being incapable of comprehending] the point of anything I've written in this thread [and others]).
Oh, everyone understands "fuck you, I got mine". Anyone giving original responses to such a cliche stance is being charitable.
There are plenty of places with less government than the US. I don't envy their inhabitants.
"I'd like to see him actually try to survive in the individualistic world he espouses."
I think I'd do pretty well.
How do I 'know'?
Been there and done that.
I could regale you with details but -- pffftt! -- you wouldn't believe me, I can't (in a tangible fashion, by way of the net) prove anything, and you aren't worth the trouble anyway.
You don't need to prove anything to me. I've already written you off as delusional and paranoid.
Still, I'd enjoy hearing tales of your time living as a member of a tribe in Papua New Guinea. And about how you trekked 100 miles in a day through the mountains of Nepal.
Look in the mirror.
Insults only hurt when they have some degree of truth. Looks like I might have touched a nerve. And here I thought you were a steely individualist, surrounded in the impenetrable armor of his narcissism.
Just love when a thread goes belly up.
Glad I could help.
"Society has a cost and that cost is cooperation and mutual support."
Society is nuthin' but a word for a buncha folks living in close proximity to one another and not killing each other.
It becomes 'jail' when communitarians (Left and Right) decide that the one owes the many sumthin' more than not stealing and not killing.
Again with the English! You're really one of us aren't you?
"You're really one of us aren't you?"
I never claimed to be sumthin' other than a human man living in America (like a whole whack of other human men).
As I say: missin' my point (BIG time).
"individualist"
No. An individual...one who owes you nada.
"fuck you, I got mine"
Trite, but true.
Especially the 'fuck you' part.
So don't delude yourself into thinking that people don't understand.
Missin' mine, bro! From where I sit you responded with some kinda horseshit line that sounded interesting but didn't answer my statement at all.
"You're really one of us aren't you?"
*sigh*
Yes, I'm a man living in America who uses English (just like a whole whack of other men).
Still missin' my point in this thread (just like happy monkey).
Tell you what: if we're gonna tussle, then let's tussle.
But: I'm not gonna waste my time dancing 'round and 'round.
Go back and READ what I've posted in this thread...get the meaning of what I posted (not what you THINK I mean), then refute me.
Till any of you do this: *shrug*
Here’s your cheat sheet of relevant posts…
Keep it shut down (shut down MORE of it, and let it stay down).
And: YAY FOR DEFAULT!
"...others who think a default would have no effect..."
Assuming it gets that far: of course it'll have an effect.
That's what I'm countin' on.
"So you love it that extremists are playing right into China's hand. "
Nope. What I loved was the possibility folks might see for themselves they don't need as much 'governing' as they're told they do.
What I loved was the possibility folks might see the politicians need them a helluva lot more than they need the politicians.
What I loved was the possibility that ludicrous amounts of scrip might stop being spent on horseshit.
China: fuck 'em...what they gonna do? Without the U.S., China goes back to being just a Third World hole.
All moot anyway...*shrug*
"Great. Right up until the part where a bunch of children actually starve for lack of food aid programmes; old people actually freeze in the coming winter because they cannot heat their homes, and a rash of small businesses are crippled by the soaring cost of borrowing."
I get it: I (and folks like 'me') are supposed to carry 'them' because they can't carry themselves.
Make me.
#
"You may not need that much government, but there are a fuck of a lot of people who do in fact need government."
And that’s 'their' damned problem.
#
"Government didn't expand because it is some hulking beast wanting more and more."
'It' expanded 'cause the mercenary wanted more (more power, more control). To that end: generations were taught (are being taught) that bigger government is better government, that governance of the minutia of living is a necessity, and that no individual can do without the 'guidance' of 'authority.
Utter horseshit.
#
"...the alternative to doing so would leave some people for dead"
An unsavory truth (fact): some folks need to die.
If X can't fend for him- or her-self, and X has no one who WANTS to help him or her, then X needs to go.
To demand I care for X is theft (of my time, resources, and self...fuck that noise).
That folks like you have to force folks like me is theft, Dana.
No other assessment makes sense.
#
"I honestly don't know what it is you expect to happen if the government were to suddenly shrink to the bone.”
First, it'll never "suddenly shrink to the bone". Like smack in the vein: it's 'needed'.
Second, if it did "suddenly shrink to the bone" I expect lots of folks to suffer...some die; some make it through (and are better for it).
#
"Survival of the fittest"
HA!
You write it as though it were a bad phrase.
It's not bad or good...just what 'is'.
Folks like you wanna insulate themselves from it...good luck with that.
#
Tell you what, Dana: if children starving and old people freezing bother you so much, devote your time, resources, and 'self' to saving them.
Why do 'I' have to participate?
So to boil your statements down it's all about you. You have everything you need independent of the rest of humanity, so you really don't care what happens to anyone else. You feel you are unjustly taken advantage of because you subscribe the nonsense argument that taxes are equivalent to extortion.
Is that pretty close to the mark?
Honestly, it is really hard to figure out what the heck HQ is saying in between all of the regurgitated sound bites.
Can anyone in the US honestly say they benefit in no way from services provided by some form of government? (Remember, you're posting this over the internet. A government funded research experiment.)
He's saying "fuck you, I got mine", and pretending that there's something more profound in there that nobody is seeing.
"Is that pretty close to the mark?"
Nope.
#
"Can anyone in the US honestly say they benefit in no way from services provided by some form of government?"
Certainly: I never said such a thing.
#
"...pretending that there's something more profound..."
Your opinion: you're welcome to it.
Does anyone actually read adak's shillshit anymore? You do know he posts that stuff so the odd googler will come along and half believe him, don't you? He's on somebody's payroll, for sure.
Hey Adak, have a modicum of respect for the office, will you, you anti-american fuck?
(cue adak talking about his fake service and other feats of magic he's performed.)
Sorry you lost! Better luck next time!
There was only an American loss this time, because it was a stupid political maneuver. I'm not saying they were wrong in their goal, but the way they worked toward that goal, was unwise.
Infinite Monkey - did you see the layout of the dead (painted silhouettes), from D-Day, laid out on the beaches at Normandy earlier this year?
There were over 9,000 men - you could barely get two feet, between one dead "GI", and the next one.
Any Commander-In-Chief, who refuses to give the veterans of foreign wars respect, is VERY questionable!
Any Commander-In-Chief, who refuses to allow veterans of foreign wars, access to their OWN war memorial for political gamesmanship, is an utter ass-wipe!
If Obama was a REAL Commander-In-Chief, he would apologize to those vets, and personally lead them around the memorial, in a return visit.
But he won't of course.
He's saying "fuck you, I got mine", and pretending that there's something more profound in there that nobody is seeing.
I was just trying to be generous and help unpack that idea a bit, hoping to find some interesting philosophical nugget. I should probably just get back to work.
"the Libertarian handbook"
Not a libertarian: too many rules.
Refreshing to hear your point of view, in any case. I'd put you a to the right of the Libertarian, for sure.
What do you call your political orientation?
Just 'Henry Quirk': I got no politics.
Of course we benefit from having our federal gov't. Think of all the natural resources we have: coal, gas, oil, timber, prime farmland, big cities with expensive infrastructure. Then there are the human resources!
If we had no military, etc., we'd be conquered by some country in a heartbeat.
@Henry
Apolitical then. Well, that's rare, but your point of view is within the total political spectrum. The Anarchists are the only group I know of that falls outside it - just because of their affinity to violently destroy all gov'ts and order.
Henry Quirk is just a narcissist who obviously does not understand how a 21st century (or 20th for that matter) society and economy works. His worldview is only realistically applicable to pre-agricultural society.
*yawn*
Just love when a thread goes belly up.
Glad I could help.
Of course. That's the goal of a troll.
If you happen to be curious about how any given Senator or Representative
voted on the shut-down Bill (HR 2775) here is a link...
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/113-2013/h550There was only an American loss this time, because it was a stupid political maneuver. I'm not saying they were wrong in their goal, but the way they worked toward that goal, was unwise.
Infinite Monkey - did you see the layout of the dead (painted silhouettes), from D-Day, laid out on the beaches at Normandy earlier this year?
There were over 9,000 men - you could barely get two feet, between one dead "GI", and the next one.
Any Commander-In-Chief, who refuses to give the veterans of foreign wars respect, is VERY questionable!
Any Commander-In-Chief, who refuses to allow veterans of foreign wars, access to their OWN war memorial for political gamesmanship, is an utter ass-wipe!
If Obama was a REAL Commander-In-Chief, he would apologize to those vets, and personally lead them around the memorial, in a return visit.
But he won't of course.
Good idea, he could apologize for the Republicans. It'd be a nice sound bite for the next election cycle... Wait, maybe the baggies are Democratic operatives?
Any Commander-In-Chief, who refuses to allow veterans of foreign wars, access to their OWN war memorial for political gamesmanship, is an utter ass-wipe!
If Obama was a REAL Commander-In-Chief, he would apologize to those vets, and personally lead them around the memorial, in a return visit.
I was informed today by people who lived and worked here during the government shutdowns in the 1990s that ALL of the memorials - yes, the memorials for veterans of foreign wars - were closed during those shutdowns. Since the longer one took place during January, nobody, including the veterans of foreign wars, cared whether the memorials were shut down! No veterans jetted in to demonstrate and climb over barriers! The weather was lousy so the memorials didn't mean as much, I guess.
Or maybe there was a specific effort to fly vets in this time so that people like you, Adak, could whine on and on about the memorials being closed. Or maybe it wasn't a real issue then and isn't one now.
I vote for the latter.
Any Commander-In-Chief, who refuses to allow veterans of foreign wars, access to their OWN war memorial for political gamesmanship, is an utter ass-wipe!
But again the facts get ignored. Wacko extremists caused those closures because they 'knew' closed memorials do not matter. They also knew (and openly say) that a default would not hurt the country. They feel; therefore it must be true. They even reasoned they were winning. Sounds much like Charlie Sheen and his victory.
What did they accomplish? Nothing. Why do they associate Obamacare with closed memorials? Adults acting like children. Such emotional reasoning is common among extremists. Another example of why only moderates are informed, educated, adult, and therefore patriotic.
To keep their disciples misinformed, they blamed Obama for closed memorials. Not the 30 wacko extremists who did nothing useful - to hype their political agenda. Eventually enough moderate Republicans had the balls to vote down their wacko peers. Then the memorials opened.
"troll"
Eye of the beholder.
*shrug*
##
"a narcissist"
Possibly.
#
"who obviously does not understand how a 21st century (or 20th for that matter) society and economy works. His worldview is only realistically applicable to pre-agricultural society."
Your evidences to support the assertion(s), please.
##
"your point of view is within the total political spectrum"
Mebbe so...haven't had an interest in finding sympathetic souls.
#
"Of course we benefit from having our federal gov't."
Sure. I think, however, there might be better ways to get the same benefits.
As I wrote about elsewhere in this forum: proxyhood is preferable to governance.
#
"Think of all the natural resources we have: coal, gas, oil, timber, prime farmland, big cities with expensive infrastructure."
All had by way of private concerns and private concerns in conjunction with local government. Pretty much all those things could be had by way of proxies.
#
"If we had no military, etc., we'd be conquered by some country in a heartbeat."
Certainly you need peace keepers and defenders. Question is: can you get the same or better service by way of proxies? That is: must defense and peace keeping come from an overarching 'governor', or, can the same be had by way of local proxies coordinating with other proxies?
#
"fuck you, I got mine"
Not what I'm saying at all, but it does raise a question.
What exactly is wrong with 'fuck you, I got mine'?
Example: Joe and Henry are in the wilderness. There is exactly enough water to get one of the men into town. Joe has possession of that water. Henry, understandably, wants some. Joe says 'no, sir...if I share, we both die...that's senseless'.
Joe is sayin' 'fuck you, I got mine'.
Within the context of my example: why is Joe wrong?
##
"A government funded research experiment"
What you mean to say: a taxpayer funded research experiment. Government is merely the collector, conduit, and director of monies, it ponies up not a dime of its own ('cause it has nuthin' of its own to call its own).
And: who did the research?
Who currently maintains the net infrastructure (both tangible and intangible)?
Henry it's really hard to follow your posts. I can't easily tell what you're quoting and what's new. It's all jumbled together.
If there were powerful proxies for all that shit it would be the FIRST THING you'd be railing against.
By human nature, they would be taking advantage of that power harder than any government ever would, and you would rightfully be screaming bloody murder and *demanding* that such things be put to direct democracy or some sort of representative voting, where at least there can be two blocs of political power instead of one.
If you want to see a system where the extremely powerful military is not controlled by the government, look at all the shitty countries of the world that can't govern themselves via the vote. Taking over the military is the first step of all dictators and power brokers everywhere. If you have the military you automatically win and can install any set of rules you like.
But it sure is nice to dream, huh?
glatt,
I'm sorry...just read it through again...quotes are 'them'...without quotes is me.
#
Toad,
What prevents the American military (any branch you care to name) from staging a coup?
Any branch you care to name has ALL the big guns and you and Mr. Obama got squat.
So: why don't the soldiers just take over?
"two blocs of political power instead of one"
With proxies: you'd have HUNDREDS of powers not one or two or three.
Hell, toad, without governance (with proxies) even 'you' might end up a 'something' or 'someone'... ;)
Why don't the soldiers just take over? Because they can't; more power in the US and in modern democratic republics, lies Constitutionally in the hands of the people who vote and they wouldn't stand for it. Voting is how they retain and demonstrate that power. A system of checks and balances ensures that the power is never too concentrated in one place. A violation of that system is obvious, and intolerable. As long as the government is representative there is no interest in challenging it. Although it is hard to see, society routinely beats government in actual power, and government changes to meet society's demands.
I submit as proof, the last 224 years. Quod erat fuckin demonstrandum.
So, what would prevent that from happening in your system?
As I wrote about elsewhere in this forum: proxyhood is preferable to governance.
One of biggest changes in mindset I've had over the past 6 years is my switch of preference from a highly idealistic socio-economic setup to a more pragmatic robust society. This is due to the simple fact that social and economic interactions are HIGHLY complex and there is no socio-economic theory that can take all the uncertainties and unknowns into account.
This is reason why the highly idealistic communist system failed and will always fail. It makes an assumption that everyone will readily embrace the values of the system. However, this has always turned out to be untrue and some bastardized form of "communism" was always the result. Leftists keep on saying that the theory needed to be refined but I'm convinced that it just too fragile of an idea to realistically be implemented. The same goes for libertarianism in my opinion.
Your "proxy" idea is entirely dependent on the notion that these proxies are willing to cooperate and work within a decentralized "state" model. However, history almost always shows - except for nomadic societies - that the decentralized city-state model tends to centralize through war due to human ambition. Beyond that, our current technology would force these "proxies" to cooperate at levels unheard of throughout human history. The best guide to how your "proxy society" would work is to observe how our current decentralized state model works on a global level, aka the UN.
"who obviously does not understand how a 21st century (or 20th for that matter) society and economy works. His worldview is only realistically applicable to pre-agricultural society."
Your evidences to support the assertion(s), please.
See above. The decentralized model has historically only worked for nomadic or pre-agricultural societies. Our current technology requires a high level of planning and cooperation and experience shows us that only a centralized state is really capable of doing this (and they are not even that good at it). When you get multiple actors, each with their own interests, all cooperation goes to shit.
"Why don't the soldiers just take over? Because they can't..."
Of course they can...they choose not to.
The 'will of the people' ("the hands of the people who vote and they wouldn't stand for it") is irrelevant in the face of deliverable atomics and BIG guns.
The real question is why do they 'choose' to 'not' stage coups?
The answer to that question is the answer to "what would prevent that from happening in (my) *system?"
*and: I don't have a system...the word you're looking for is 'transaction'...A and Z transact, each gettin' what each needs from the other...there's gonna be an exchange one way or another, by way of violence or by way of trade...civillization is about 'trade'...it gets ruined when folks unable or unwilling to transact get all huffy and begin goin' on and on about inequities and whatnot...it's friggin' envy, pure and simple (you have more than me...I can't get what you have on my own, so me and my tribe are gonna take what you have)
"Your "proxy" idea is entirely dependent on the notion that these proxies are willing to cooperate and work within a decentralized "state" model."
The current system is based on a similar assumption: that folks will willingly live and work within a centrally planned economy and nation. For those that won't (will not readily embrace the values of the system) there is jail and/or death.
Make no mistake: I got no illusions that americans will ever take the route of self-sufficiency...the population is far too domesticated for that...but, as toad says up thread, "it sure is nice to dream".
No I expect things to tick along in the U.S. (and globally) as they have for a long time now.
#
So, PH, I do get how it all works...your mistake, then, is thinkin' of my posts as advocacy instead of just musings.
Really, where (in this thread or in this forum) have you seen me advocate any changes? Sure, I play the gadfly now and again, but mostly, you'll find, I just say no, I ain't doin' 'that' when some bleedin' heart gets all righteous and says I really need to give a flip about starving old folks or freezing kids or beached whales or corporate greed or whatever the issue du jour happens to be.
#
"there is no socio-economic theory that can take all the uncertainties and unknowns into account"
Sure there is: the unrestrained market (not capitalism).
It isn't just too 'domesticated' it's too big. And too dense. For a transactional society of the kind you describe to work it would need to be smaller, and less complex.
"It isn't just too 'domesticated' it's too big"
Yeah, a big coral full to overflowing with animals ready for butcherin'.
#
"For a transactional society of the kind you describe to work it would need to be smaller, and less complex."
Mostly, I think, folks would have to self-suffice, reorganize priorities, re-assert the difference between 'need' and 'want', and mebbe get back to mindin' their own gardens instead of lusting after what the neighbor has in his or hers.
As I say: it’ll never happen.
If people did attempt that, they'd spend a hell of a lot of time having to defend those self-sufficient gardens from people who don't have a garden to mind.
"they'd spend a hell of a lot of time having to defend those self-sufficient gardens from people who don't have a garden to mind"
Why is it bad that one should spend time in self-defense?
Yeah, self-defense might take one away from the smart phone apps, 'Dancing with the Stars', and vat o' Haagen Daz, but some things are worth workin' for... ;)
As I say: folks would have to reorganize priorities, re-assert the difference between 'need' and 'want'.
As I say: it'll never happen.
You also sacrifice art and science and other forms of specialization. Want the return of a short, brutal existence? Move to Afghanistan or the Congo or something.
"You also sacrifice art and science and other forms of specialization."
Only if you assume yourself under attack 24/7.
That's never been the case, even in the worst of times.
Certainly: romance novels wouldn't get written, but War and Peace would.
#
"Want the return of a short, brutal existence?"
Hmmm, let's see short, brutal (and probably immensely satisfying) versus long, boring, and FAT (slow death for the mind and body).
*shrug*
#
"Afghanistan...the Congo"
Pretty sure, even in those places, there's a dollop of joy to be had.
Your mistake: thinkin' you are 'dependent' (on another for the stability and structure of your living).
Hell, maybe you 'are'.
My condolences, if that's the case.
Only if you assume yourself under attack 24/7.
That's never been the case, even in the worst of times.
Certainly: romance novels wouldn't get written, but War and Peace would.
Hmmm, let's see short, brutal (and probably immensely satisfying) versus long, boring, and FAT (slow death for the mind and body).
It's a continuum. The more security you have the more you can raise the bar of human expression and achievement. Sure a lot of dross gets created, but that's the case with anything.
Leo Tolstoy was born into nobility. He had the stability of an accidental heritage that secured him the means (time, safety, food, shelter, education) to write. You don't see tribal societies generating sophisticated art. That's not to say it can't be technically impressive, meaningful or intricate.
I'm genuinely curious. Do you masturbate when you watch apocalyptic movies? It really seems like you have a brutality fetish. Why do you get off on the idea of masses of people dying in stark raving terror and of preventable diseases? It seems like you somehow think that you won't be such a victim.
The 'will of the people' ("the hands of the people who vote and they wouldn't stand for it") is irrelevant in the face of deliverable atomics and BIG guns.
I don't think that would work like you think it would. Maybe instead of will of the people, it's consent of the governed. In any case, 224 years, QED, mate.
The real question is why do they 'choose' to 'not' stage coups?
No need for the scare quotes, under rule of law that General would be considered a traitor, and due to consent of the governed, the military would not go along with the plan.
"Do you masturbate when you watch apocalyptic movies?"
I've never asked any one in this forum such a crude, ugly, question, but I’m the jackass?
You: get bent.
##
"I don't think that would work like you think it would..."
I disagree. You've given no reason to change my mind.
#
"In any case, 224 years"
Which only means: for a great length of time military folks have 'chosen' not to over throw the government.
*shrug*
*in America, who, today, has the biggest stick?
Easy: the one with the soldiers' wages.
But again the facts get ignored. Wacko extremists caused those closures because they 'knew' closed memorials do not matter. They also knew (and openly say) that a default would not hurt the country. They feel; therefore it must be true. They even reasoned they were winning. Sounds much like Charlie Sheen and his victory.
That "wacko" was Obama, and no one else. Before he leaves office, he will have increased our national debt TWICE the amount of ALL THE PREVIOUS PRESIDENTS COMBINED.
[CENTER]Think about that. [/CENTER]
What did they accomplish? Nothing. Why do they associate Obamacare with closed memorials? Adults acting like children. Such emotional reasoning is common among extremists. Another example of why only moderates are informed, educated, adult, and therefore patriotic.
In a recent study (by somebody at Yale, I was driving when I heard it) 45 out of 50 states will have HIGHER medical insurance costs, under Obamacare. 166% for women, and 194% for men, on average.
Does that sound like the cheaper health care insurance we were told we'd have with Obamacare, or does that sound like his BLATANT LIES, again?
To keep their disciples misinformed, they blamed Obama for closed memorials.
We tried to blame it on the Republicans like everything else, but it just wasn't believable! :rolleyes:
Not the 30 wacko extremists who did nothing useful - to hype their political agenda. Eventually enough moderate Republicans had the balls to vote down their wacko peers. Then the memorials opened.
I remember the Washington Monument and other closed memorials being closed. I believe Lincoln's was barricaded by Clinton. But the WWII memorial - no, I never heard that one was closed. That's the only one that has the "honor flights" of old vets, coming in to pay respects, for the last time.
I get it - if Obama took a blowtorch to your dog, you'd find a way to blame the Conservatives for it - I get it.
The truth is, the whole shut down strategy was poorly thought out, by some Conservatives, who had promised their constituents they'd do everything they could to stop Obamacare. It was a brash thing to promise, but they felt that once it was promised, they HAD to do what they said they would.
There is a strong movement among the Conservatives, to put up strong Conservative challengers into the primaries, to challenge every neo, every RINO, every John McCain type Republican, currently in office - and get rid of them.
They have split the party with a lot of their votes, and in some cases, just plainly were bought out like street hoe's - Nebraska, Florida, Kentucky, etc. You can say that their votes weren't bought and paid for -- except that they were.
The days of the "Go along to get along", Republicans, are coming to an end, in response to the wholesale socialist agenda of the current Democratic party.
Since Obama can't manage to spend within the national income of the federal gov't, you have to wonder "where's the Treasury Dept getting the money to pay our bills?
Simple, from the large Trust Funds. And what Trust fund has been raided the most, because it has the most?
Social Security.
Oh, we got a big fat IOU in there, for whatever it's worth.
Have you heard anything about that in the major media?
Nope. When it's Obama, it's all good. ANY other President would have been BBQ'd long ago, to a cinder, for that kind of irresponsibility with our finances, and our future.
In a recent study (by somebody at Yale, I was driving when I heard it) 45 out of 50 states will have HIGHER medical insurance costs, under Obamacare. 166% for women, and 194% for men, on average.
So Rush Limbaugh once visited Yale. That proves it must be true. A perfect example of motivated reasoning.
So Rush Limbaugh once visited Yale. That proves it must be true. A perfect example of motivated reasoning.
My problem with listening to Limbaugh, is that he continually attacks the Democrats - not just their policies, but them, unnecessarily.
I admit some Democrats seem to be so far removed from reality that they become icons for inanity: Nancy Pelosi is one of them.
Or they're terrible hypocrites like Dianne Feinstein, who keeps pushing gun control bill after gun control bill - all the while having a concealed gun permit, and a handgun she keeps with her. Dianne has been around several violent crimes (Milk assassination, Jones' cult in Guyanna when she went to investigate it, her home was burglarized, etc.). But she acts like she's the ONLY person who was ever the victim of a violent crime! When she was in S.F. politics, you couldn't get a CCW permit in S.F., because of her.
But we need to try to stay focused on the issues and policies, not the human failings of our politicians (as people).
Why do you think there's been a backlash against Obamacare? HINT: It's not because the rates are too cheap!
No, I didn't catch the researchers name, but that kind of info is coming out more, as people try to sign up at the ACA exchanges in their state.
So far, less than 1% of those who go to the websites, actually enroll in Obamacare, at any level, according to the British papers.
Washington Post (Not a Conservative paper), had this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/marc-thiessen-the-obamacare-implosion-is-worse-than-you-think/2013/10/14/7efa4e74-34d7-11e3-be86-6aeaa439845b_story.html
Read this balanced article, with analysis by Actuaries, and you'll know the good, and the bad news about rates under Obamacare. Some groups will do well - older, poorer, sicker, but healthier, younger, or those with a larger family, will do much worse.
http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2013/10/in_wake_of_obamacare_why_are_s.html
ACA doesn't allow a family to be insured as a group anymore. They have to rate each individual, and then add them all up to get the family's premium rate.
<snip>
I remember the Washington Monument and other closed memorials being closed. I believe Lincoln's was barricaded by Clinton. But the WWII memorial - no, I never heard that one was closed. <snip>
Well Aaka, it's OK that you don't remember the WWII Memorial being closed during a government shut down...
Wikipedia:
It opened to the public on April 29, [COLOR="DarkRed"]2004[/COLOR], and was dedicated by President George W. Bush on May 29, 2004, two days before Memorial Day.[1] The memorial is administered by the National Park Service under its National Mall and Memorial Parks group.[2\<snip>
Washington Post (Not a Conservative paper), had this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/marc-thiessen-the-obamacare-implosion-is-worse-than-you-think/2013/10/14/7efa4e74-34d7-11e3-be86-6aeaa439845b_story.html
The Post is a pretty conservative paper, but gets a liberal reputation because of Watergate, and because their competition is the Washington Times. But more importantly, the author of that opinion piece is
definitely a
conservative.
ACA doesn't allow a family to be insured as a group anymore. They have to rate each individual, and then add them all up to get the family's premium rate.
Not true in general, but
partially true, and should be fixed as soon as we have a congress that can pass fixes.
That "wacko" was Obama, and no one else. Before he leaves office, he will have increased our national debt TWICE the amount of ALL THE PREVIOUS PRESIDENTS COMBINED.
[B][CENTER]Think about that. [/CENTER]
[size=5]We did think about that the last time you posted it, and we found that it was not adjusted for inflation. That makes it extremely dishonest.[/size]
Think about THAT! (snaps finger and does head wag and turns abruptly and walks away.)
Adak always comes off as a petulant bitch child. :lol:
(cue Adak screaming "think of the children or the veterans or the mangy dogs or the feral cats or the plight of the bumblebee" in his ongoing effort to try to shame those of us who know he's full of shit up to HERE!)
Why do you think there's been a backlash against Obamacare? HINT: It's not because the rates are too cheap!
The backlash from Obamacare comes from the same reasoning and propaganda that called blacks 'niggers'. The same reasoning and propaganda that convinced so many that smoking cigarettes increases health. Ruch Limbaugh simply does what Hitler also advocated in his book. And that so successfully gets so many to smoke cigarettes.
Meanwhile, Obamacare was defined by conservatives think tanks, advocated first by Nixon, implemented successfully by Romney, and not attacked only for reasons based in emotion.
In the first Tea Party convention, straw polls asked who was most popular. The top three did not include any Republican politicians. The top three most popular were those who invent facts and inspire emotion to manipulate: Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck. That is where so many lies about Affordable Health Care come from. Tea Party types not only believe what they are told. They even tried to elect a witch to the Senate.
"Do you masturbate when you watch apocalyptic movies?"
I've never asked any one in this forum such a crude, ugly, question, but I’m the jackass?
You: get bent.
I grant that's a pretty crude question on the surface. The reality of the question is that it's a metaphorical way of expressing disbelief of the way you get off contemplating widespread suffering. The lack of empathy you display is astounding. The delusion that you think brutality is an improvement and that you'd fare well is disgusting.
I keep telling myself to stop reading the rhetorical nonsense you post. But it's hard to look away from your peacock-like displays of incoherent babble.
You want me bent? Well, come bend me. That's what your world view is all about right?
[size=3]We did think about that the last time you posted it, and we found that it was not adjusted for inflation. That makes it extremely dishonest.[/size]
Now that is a very good observation, now ask yourself "WHO is causing the inflation? What is causing the inflation?
Overspending, and printing more and more money, when we don't have the actual increase in our economy's wealth, to cover it.:(
And WHO is spending more money, and using the treasury dept to print out more money, so we can afford to buy back our own debt with devalued money?
Just because he uses the treasury dept to help him steal from your bank account and wallet, doesn't mean that Obama is a nice guy. He is in fact, a huge thief. Perhaps the worlds largest thief, because of his policies.
The backlash from Obamacare comes from the same reasoning and propaganda that called blacks 'niggers'. The same reasoning and propaganda that convinced so many that smoking cigarettes increases health. Ruch Limbaugh simply does what Hitler also advocated in his book. And that so successfully gets so many to smoke cigarettes.
Meanwhile, Obamacare was defined by conservatives think tanks, advocated first by Nixon, implemented successfully by Romney, and not attacked only for reasons based in emotion.
In the first Tea Party convention, straw polls asked who was most popular. The top three did not include any Republican politicians. The top three most popular were those who invent facts and inspire emotion to manipulate: Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck. That is where so many lies about Affordable Health Care come from. Tea Party types not only believe what they are told. They even tried to elect a witch to the Senate.
I'm not defending Limbaugh, nor espousing his positions. Leave Limbaugh (and the Nazi's and Hitler, and racist comments, etc.) out of it. They have no place in this narrative.
Of course the media types are the most popular in any new party's poll. They're the only one's who are on the air, hours at a time, all across the country.
Most voters (or either party), could not name ten federal politicians, from their party.
Leave Limbaugh out of it. They have no place in this narrative..
They are a major if not #1 reason why so many in extremist districts hate Obamacare while knowing nothing about it and reciting myths such as 'death boards'. Obamacare has not even started. And already these Limbaugh, Beck, and Hannity followers are saying how Obamacare has harmed the economy. When it comes to knowledge from emotions and myths, then listeners to Limbaugh, et al are easy to identify. They recite fables and parables that only exist in talk show fiction. Including 'death boards'.
How did Obamacare already destroy the economy? Even Congressional extremists were preaching that lie. With gerrymandering, then they were elected by margins such as 75%. Where must one usually go to find a 75% voting margin? Cuba? No consequences exist when your district will automatically believe what Limbaugh, Tea Party, et al tell them to believe. Lying has no consequences when a district is so one sided, easily misinformed, and will not vote for moderates.
Americans are looking forward to health insurance available to all - at reduced costs. As proven successful by Romney in MA. That reality is routinely forgotten by extremist talk show hosts and their listener.
These same extremists will not even apologize for their lie about Mission Accomplished - and a multi-trillion dollar debt that it created. We cannot even eliminate the penny and paper dollar bill - to save $billions. Same extremists who stifle progress also believe harming the American economy to attack Obamacare is good.
Overspending, and printing more and more money, when we don't have the actual increase in our economy's wealth, to cover it.
If true, then we would have stagflation all over again. You have defined what Nixon did to create great harm to the American economy. We do not have stagflation because we are not making that mistake.
We are, however, still trying to fix a larger mistake that previously created another massive recession in 1929. Back then we also foolishly enriched the rich. At that time, our forefathers did not understand this problem as it was being created. Today we know enriching the rich even destroys jobs. And again we made that mistake. Some still do not appreciate how much damage was created. And why we were so close to a 40% unemployment.
Perry,
"contemplating widespread suffering"
Contemplation is not advocacy.
##
Dana,
'in America, who, today, has the biggest stick?'
"Easy: the one with the soldiers' wages."
So: name the wage-holders, the wage controllers.
Now that is a very good observation, now ask yourself "WHO is causing the inflation? What is causing the inflation?
Overspending, and printing more and more money, when we don't have the actual increase in our economy's wealth, to cover it.
Guess what. Oh you'll never guess. Not only is this criticism not true if you adjust for inflation, it's not true if you DON'T!
Not adjusting for inflation is the second answer on
this stackexchange discussion. The first answer is looking at the question without even adjusting for inflation.
See there's criticism, which I'm very open to, and then there's shit-flinging monkeys. Most criticism on both sides comes from shit-flinging monkeys. Don't be a shit-flinging monkey. We already have way too many of those.
<snip>
Any Commander-In-Chief, who refuses to give the veterans of foreign wars respect, is VERY questionable!
Any Commander-In-Chief, who refuses to allow veterans of foreign wars, access to their OWN war memorial for political gamesmanship, is an utter ass-wipe!
If Obama was a REAL Commander-In-Chief, he would apologize to those vets, and personally lead them around the memorial, in a return visit.
But he won't of course.
I had heard about the vets at the WWII Memorial, but had not followed the news.
So, when I came across this Washington Post pic, I thought of Adak.
[ATTACH]45761[/ATTACH]
But then, don't these "vets" look sort of young to be WWII vets ?
Adak, must be so proud... and their parents must be too !
Guess what. Oh you'll never guess. Not only is this criticism not true if you adjust for inflation, it's not true if you DON'T!
Not adjusting for inflation is the second answer on this stackexchange discussion. The first answer is looking at the question without even adjusting for inflation.
See there's criticism, which I'm very open to, and then there's shit-flinging monkeys. Most criticism on both sides comes from shit-flinging monkeys. Don't be a shit-flinging monkey. We already have way too many of those.
So in your opinion, inflation is not caused by government and treasury dept. policies, including the Fed. Res. Bank?
You are a national treasure! :rolleyes:
Too bad every single economist, politician in either party, and the people who work in the above departments of gov't / institution, disagree with you.
I had heard about the vets at the WWII Memorial, but had not followed the news.
So, when I came across this Washington Post pic, I thought of Adak.
[ATTACH]45761[/ATTACH]
But then, don't these "vets" look sort of young to be WWII vets ?
Adak, must be so proud... and their parents must be too !
I am proud of these guys! Do you REALLY believe 80 year old vets can man-handle steel barricades?
Many of them can barely walk, or use a cane or a wheel chairs, furrkristSakes!
This was the ass-wipe Obama, operating WAY outside his purview, and we have every right to dissent and protest that action.
What? Did you think dissent and protest should be limited to 80 year olds? Maybe we should sit around and wring our hands out and shake our heads?
So in your opinion, inflation is not caused by government and treasury dept. policies, including the Fed. Res. Bank?
You are a national treasure! :rolleyes:
Too bad every single economist, politician in either party, and the people who work in the above departments of gov't / institution, disagree with you.
You may not be intelligent or intellectually honest enough for us to have this discussion. It is not about inflation. It is about adjusting for inflation.
Do you know what adjusting for inflation is, and why it's important when comparing dollars from 1970 against dollars from today?
By the way, I favor the Milton Friedman school of thought which says that inflation is mostly caused by money supply.
You may not be intelligent or intellectually honest enough for us to have this discussion. It is not about inflation. It is about adjusting for inflation.
Do you know what adjusting for inflation is, and why it's important when comparing dollars from 1970 against dollars from today?
You're too insulting to have an intelligent conversation with, it appears.
You're too insulting to have an intelligent conversation with, it appears.
Please overlook the insult if you can, Adak. Can you, will you please, answer his question about adjusting for inflation and how it applies to your original point?
I'm a national treasure.
word.
Undertoad - I agree, you are a "National Treasure". I know you are our benevolent overlord and would make the ultimate supreme leader of planet earth.
Adak - The government shut down sucked big time and there is a lot of blame to go around. I am not a fan of the current administration, but calling the President of the United States an ass wipe is wrong in so many ways. You may not like the man, but for God's sake you need to respect the office he holds and what he represents.
I'm a national treasure.
:)
NY Times
JONATHAN WEISMAN
December 10, 2013
Capitol Leaders Agree to a Deal on the Budget
<snip><snip><snip>
The agreement, which would finance the government through Sept. 30, 2015,
would eliminate about $63 billion in across-the-board domestic and military cuts.
But it would provide $23 billion in deficit reduction by extending a 2 percent cut
to Medicare providers through 2023, two years beyond the cuts set by the Budget Control Act of 2011.
<snip>
While the agreement had the backing of senior House Republicans, Heritage Action,
the political arm of the Heritage Foundation and a group influential with rank-and-file
House Republicans, [COLOR="DarkRed"]came out against the deal even before it was announced,[/COLOR]
as did Americans for Prosperity, the advocacy group backed by the billionaire brothers
Charles and David Koch, and Koch Industries, the conservative brothers’ energy and paper conglomerate.<snip>
Sometimes I think this sort of GOP theatrics is just a ploy to make
the Democrats think they are getting a good deal. :rolleyes:
.
By coincidence or design, tomorrow is the anniversary of ( my / the ) last post in this thread.
And even though next year the GOP will control the House and Senate,
they can't wait till then to play their games, and their game has not changed.
The GOP leadership again says they do not want to shut down the government...
but it looks like they do want to return to the glorious days of the G.W.Bush era.
Back then, big banks could engage in all sorts of risky dealings,
and there was all that $ in the checking and savings accounts of J.Q. Public.
Talk about temptations !
Well, we know what came of that.
The banks lost $ and the FDIC was there to insure losses.
But then came the Dodd-Frank Bill that stopped the banks
from using those public accounts $ for their risky (gambling ?) forays.
Now, on this anniversary, the House GOP has funded all of the government thru Sept, 2015,
except for Homeland Security. Guess what ! Hidden in this giga-bill is a secret little amendment
to the Dodd-Frank Bill. It again allows big banks to use the $ in those public accounts,
and again has the FDIC on the hook for any losses the bank incurs in those accounts.
…All will be right in this forthcoming glorious GOP world of high finance.
I'm torn.
Do I care about what Congress has put in this spending bill that will surely pass today? If I do, I'll get really pissed off and it will aggravate me. But I'm powerless to do anything about it. So do I just ignore it? Put the newspaper away and think about how my daughter has a holiday band concert next week and it will be awesome?
The fuckers are supposed to fund the government. That's just the most basic part of their job. But they can't even do that without loading the thing down with tons of pure excrement. All of which will be dumped directly on our heads.
- weakening campaign finance laws so they can get about ten times more in donations from wealthy donors. The whores have to give themselves a raise.
-loosing bank regulations to reward those that pulled us into this horrible recession
- allowing private retirement pension benefits, which have always been untouchable, to be cut so that mismanaged funds can be brought back into the black on the backs of the retired. They are actually allowing current retirees to lose some of their pension payments.
-cutting $300M in funding from Pell grants so fewer low income students can go to college
-slashing $350M from the IRS so they can't be as effective at making sure rich people pay their fair share of taxes. I bet this one will actually cost the gov't more than $350M in uncollected tax revenue.
-slashing another $60M from the EPA, on top of the 20% already slashed in the last 4 years. Gotta let those corps pollute. Good for the bottom line.
-blocking the legalization of pot in DC, voted for by a huge majority of voters. Government overreach is a bad thing, unless you are the one who gets to do it. Hypocritical scum.
- and stupid little things like blocking new regulations in trucking that would have required drivers to get some more sleep and shrink their typical work week from 80 hours down to 72. I love sharing the road with sleepy truckers. Thanks Congress!
there's some good:
A 1% pay raise for military and government workers. They are almost keeping up with inflation now.
$5.4B to fight Ebola.
That's about it.
I guess I let it aggravate me. Sorry. I'll try to go stick my head in the sand again. It's nice down there.
I'm torn.
Do I care about what Congress has put in this spending bill that will surely pass today? If I do, I'll get really pissed off and it will aggravate me. But I'm powerless to do anything about it. So do I just ignore it? Put the newspaper away and think about how my daughter has a holiday band concert next week and it will be awesome?
USA! USA! You're free to do what you want... because they don't give a shit.
We're back in the good ol' times ....
[ATTACH]49822[/ATTACH]
The Democrats caved in, and set precedent for the next 2 years