What I don't understand is why the House completely stopped yesterday after their meeting and the press is now putting the ball in the Senate's court.
That just goes to show you how fucking retarded the general public is. Congress has not delivered a single bill to Obama for him to sign or reject. Therefore, anyone who blames Obama for this mess can be dismissed as an ignorant twat. If they knew anything about our legislative process they would know any blame aimed at Democrats should be aimed at the Senate.
The press is basically saying that the R and D of the Senate are almost at an agreement. They then go on to say that they believe Boehner will have no choice but to either burn the house down or pass that bill. Wonder how this will go...
The worst part is that even if they somehow come to an agreement they might not be able to pass the bills and get them signed in time. Although we will not default at midnight on the dot if we cross that line faith in our system will be hurt.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.
If you really want to know what is going on, this piece explains the opposition to Obamacare pretty well.Call it what you want. But anyone intelligent would know a program this vast and big should have an "Alpha/beta" period, to ensure the surprises are found and fixed. This is not the 500's, this is 2013. We are suppossed to be vastly more forward thinking, and not just do something that looks good on paper that is WAY too long (whoever wrote that damn bill to be hundreds of pages isn't helpful) that almost no one has read. And you can say surprise charges won't happen, but they already currently happen with normal insurances. It'll just be more difficult a family who needs to rely on an insurance purchased through O-care gets a surprise charge they did not realize Insurance did not cover.
But Boehner would probably have to break a Republican tradition, the Hastert Rule, to do that.
The informal tenet, named after former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, says that the House speaker does not introduce legislation unless a majority of Republicans say they will vote for it first.
It has served to keep proposals off the floor, even if they have the prospect of passing via the votes of Democrats combined with those of some moderate Republicans.
Actually, it highlights the irrational hatred for Obama ever since he won the Primary. People hate him, but they don't know why they hate him. They prefer the ACA over Obamacare because it won't destroy the country like Obamacare will.Actually it goes to show how angry the general public is with govt in it's entirety. A lot of people are beginning to realize that both parties just play games to get elected. That none of the people in power are willing to compromise regardless of whether or not it's better for the country.
The reality is nobody in power right now has the general population approval between people just giving up on voting or in general hating our govt as awhole. All of DC is a complete shit storm these days and it's laughable how both parties push their agenda. You can't fix the problems we have with the agenda either party pushes but nobody wants to give up anything right now. And that's the problem with these career politicians. They have a small rabid support base - BOTH republican and democrat - and they just vote a certain way to get elected again - doesn't matter if it's good for the country or not.
At this point I've stopped caring for the most part because neither party is willing to do what's needed to fix this country. Both parties would have to do things they don't like.
Also for everyone else in this thread, even if we miss the debt ceiling limit today it won't matter until November 1. That's the first big payment we would not be able to make. So we have two weeks before it matters.
Yes. Notice it was created by the GOP, defended by the GOP, ignored by Pelosi on many occasions, and even ignored by Republicans a few times when it suited their interests or they had no other option like the circumstance they find themselves in now. Of course, all along the way they have accused Democrats of not working on bi-partisan legisaltion.Wow I didn't know about this. They literally have rules in place to prohibit cooperation between the two parties.
Actually, it highlights the irrational hatred for Obama ever since he won the Primary. People hate him, but they don't know why they hate him. They prefer the ACA over Obamacare because it won't destroy the country like Obamacare will.
Notice I didn't claim that you hate Obama. I ignored the rest of your post like I tend to ignore most of the ignorant libertarian/third party advocate posts since it isn't productive.I love how you pick out one thing I say and ignore the rest. And I didn't want Obama in the office but I actually don't hate him. He's made a lot of good decisions in my opinion although Obamacare is not something I wanted implemented. I know I'll be footing the bill so it's partly selfish but the other piece is I know that the way our govt is setup (to be inefficent) means that it will end up full of fat and cost far more than projected. The concept of insurance for all is good (especially kids) but the way it's laid out is going to kill this country in cost just like every other program we implement. At the end of the day I also fundamentally have an issue with us giving insurance to adults - people need to get out and work harder a lot of america is just to damn lazy.
You'll see my fiscal conservative leanings here but look at what happened recently in Utah with the drug testing for welfare applicants. They spent something like $30,000 in testing but saved over half a million in benefits because many just gave up their benefits rather than be tested. Obviously a lot of waste there.
On the flip side i do believe we need safety nets such as food stamps and insurance for people in a bind. I just think they need to be safety nets rather than a way of life. But then I'm a 30 year old without a college degree and yet make more than most - so I believe in hard work. Something that culturally does not fit our country anymore (this goes for both sides of the aisle).
Notice I didn't claim that you hate Obama. I ignored the rest of your post like I tend to ignore most of the ignorant libertarian/third party advocate posts since it isn't productive.
I'd also love to see your source for the bolded. I have heard that the same policy ended up costing most states more than it saved.
I hate the War on Drugs as much as anyone, but boom $100B cut from budget means boom $100B worth of job losses. Now, I believe weed will be a special case because legalization itself would lead to a whole new sector for job growth in the US, but apply the same concept to military spending, again something I agree needs to be cut, and look at the job losses that result. Sure spending goes down but revenue does as well.
The point is, no matter how hard you wish, reducing spending isn't as easy as libertarians make it out to be.
They're probably scared it will turn into another pyramid scheme like social security.If you really want to know what is going on, this piece explains the opposition to Obamacare pretty well.
Pyramid scheme? What's a pyramid? Is this a pyramid?The possibility of a negative return was never contemplated when Social Security started making regular payments in 1940. Then, payroll taxes were low and benefits were robust, and people didn't live so long in retirement. With 42 workers per retiree, there was plenty of cash flowing into the program. So it was that the first Social Security recipient, Ida May Fuller, was able to collect $22,888.92 in lifetime benefits after paying a mere $24.75 into the system during her working years.
By 1960, there were still 4.9 workers paying into the system for every beneficiary collecting—and the typical family could expect to collect seven times what they paid into the system. But as the number of retirees began to grow and life spans expanded the strain became apparent. Still, as recently as 1985 workers across the board could expect a positive return on the tax.
But today there are just 2.8 workers per Social Security recipient and that number will fall to 1.9 by 2035, according to the Congressional Budget Office. People no longer routinely die at 65 but live well into their 80s. To compensate, payroll taxes that were just 2% in the 1940s have risen to 12.4% today (half paid by your employer), which is another reason that you stand to collect less than you paid
I only classified it as libertarian because those are generally the majority of people who push for third party solutions. As for my lack of willingness to compromise, that is rooted in the fact that most of the ills that plague our country today come from Democrats compromising with GOP which always results in GOP getting the policies they want even though they don't hold the Whitehouse and/or majorities in Congress.Lol I'm not sure i ever said I was a libertarian but ok. BTW the rest of the post was talking about keeping more safety nets in place then most republicans want but ok whatever. Good example of a lack of williness to compromise which is the point. No single policy/values is going to work period.
EDIT- Also I realize you understand this from your other post yesterday:
I agree with a lot of what your saying I just have differing views on what side of the slice I want to fall on. BTW while unwinding the military slowly I also think a portion has to be done in wellfare. So I ask what's the difference?
I'll see about pulling the source for that as it was an interesting read. Drug testing is cheap so it's hardly going to be expensive to implement. Benefits on the other hand are not. Unless we really think a sizeable % of the population does not do drugs and that's true for people not on wellfare.
Tough shit you have to support the elderly in our society like has been done in every society since the beginning of time. You know what we call people that have a problem with this? Pieces of shit.They're probably scared it will turn into another pyramid scheme like social security.
http://business.time.com/2012/08/07/social-security-now-takes-more-than-it-gives/
Pyramid scheme? What's a pyramid? Is this a pyramid?
How about this?
They're probably scared it will turn into another pyramid scheme like social security.
http://business.time.com/2012/08/07/social-security-now-takes-more-than-it-gives/
Pyramid scheme? What's a pyramid? Is this a pyramid?
How about this?
If you really want to know what is going on, this piece explains the opposition to Obamacare pretty well.
Tough shit you have to support the elderly in our society like has been done in every society since the beginning of time. You know what we call people that have a problem with this? Pieces of shit.
By the way, your "pyramid scheme" will never fail.
I only classified it as libertarian because those are generally the majority of people who push for third party solutions. As for my lack of willingness to compromise, that is rooted in the fact that most of the ills that plague our country today come from Democrats compromising with GOP which always results in GOP getting the policies they want even though they don't hold the Whitehouse and/or majorities in Congress.
Repeal of Glass-Steagall - Result of compromise with GOP
NAFTA - Result of compromise with GOP
Permanent Bush tax cuts - Result of compromise with GOP
As has already been explained, many many times, the "good idea" would have completely fucked the budget for the ACA which depends on the individual mandate to keep costs down. In other words, your "good idea" would have added even more to the deficit. It would have also coincided with the next debt ceiling crisis and what do you think would have happened then? The Republicans just demanding one more year again.Just a liberal Biased piece. Doesn't show me anything. Before the shutdown republicans were willing to fund it, just give it a year delay. That is all I was saying, it was a good idea. For everyone. Now that is off the table. (And this was the one straw the democrats wouldn't agree to, thus causing the shutdown).
Regardless if the republicans hate it because of what that link says is true or not, the 1 year "probation/practice/alpha/beta" period is a good idea. And the democrats wouldn't accept it. So it was both sides causing this issue. not just the 1 you are pointing to.
Detroit died because the auto industry was too slow to catch up to the reality of their marketplace. By the time they started building good cars it was too late.
No. Basically every single fiscal policy that the Dems and GOP disagree on is because the GOP policy is bad for the country. Please point to a single Democrat fiscal policy that Republicans didn't like that has been bad for the nation. Not "will be" bad, demonstrably "has been" bad.Reasonable and yet not at the same time. If you think either party implementing all their own policies non stop doesn't run any country, state or city into the ground then you are nuts. Look at Detroit completely democratic owned and run for decades. And before you say it Republicans would make a similiar mess if they were allowed to implement their policies without any balance.
Too much of anything without balance is just plain bad.
GOP Senate aide says there will be an announcement about a deal on shutdown and debt at noon on Senate floor, CNN's Dana Bash reports.
Sources: Senate reaches deal to end shutdown, avoid default