House Republican leaders announced Wednesday morning that they would take a risky double-barreled attack on President Obama’s health-care law, making it the cornerstone fight over government funding due to expire Sept. 30 and the effort to lift the Treasury’s borrowing authority.http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/house-republicans-plan-friday-vote-on-defunding-obamacare/2013/09/18/bbcc9d66-206e-11e3-b7d1-7153ad47b549_story.html?tid=pm_politics_pop (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/house-republicans-plan-friday-vote-on-defunding-obamacare/2013/09/18/bbcc9d66-206e-11e3-b7d1-7153ad47b549_story.html?tid=pm_politics_pop)
Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), flanked by his leadership team, told reporters that the stopgap government funding bill that they will advance Friday would yield to conservative demands of including a rider to block funding for the law commonly known as Obamacare.
In addition, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) laid out his party’s legislative grab bag of requests that will be attached to a bill that would lift the debt ceiling, including a delay of the health law, an overhaul of the tax code and approval of an energy pipeline running from Canada to the gulf coast.
Well, they stop funding paying the government, except for congress, naturally. Also, am I the only one struck by how the only way to keep the country running is to keep raising our debt limit with no actual stop in sight? What would actually happen if they stalemated long enough for the government to actually lose funding for a period of time.
Well, they stop funding paying the government, except for congress, naturally. Also, am I the only one struck by how the only way to keep the country running is to keep raising our debt limit with no actual stop in sight? What would actually happen if they stalemated long enough for the government to actually lose funding for a period of time.
The US economy may collapse, and drag the rest of the world with it.
So in anyones quick opinion what is the number one reason why house republicans hate the ACA so much?I'd say it's a tie between that and the fact it helps poor people, and especially poor minorities.
Is it because Obama came up with it?
Soooo...either defund the ACA, or they'll get an extra couple of nap times into their already sleep-laden schedules? Let 'em sleep. Maybe we'll get lucky and botflies will lay eggs that burrow into and eat their brains.
Did anyone else see this coming ten repeals ago?Ten? Try 40!
ACA was originally designed by repubs and a few dems. But OBAMA! He touched it and talked it up! It's TAINTED with OBAMA cooties, so kill it kill it kill it. sigh.
On the other hand, if it fails, because of its origins from conservative groups, it may discredit all their ideas.I highly doubt that. Most people don't realize the origins of the ACA.
Didn't they try this once already?Republicans have tried several times to repeal/defund ACA and haven't been successful. This is the first time they've used the debt ceiling as a bargaining chip.
Their entire scam over the last thirty years has been "Government doesn't work!!!" A government program that has a chance of actually working, of actually making things better for people who aren't rich and white, undercuts the entire message they sell to their base of knuckledragging bigots to keep them voting.
Their entire scam over the last thirty years has been "Government doesn't work!!!" A government program that has a chance of actually working, of actually making things better for people who aren't rich and white, undercuts the entire message they sell to their base of knuckledragging bigots to keep them voting.
Yup. That's why they fucked with the USPS so much over the last few years.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) on Sunday warned Senate Republicans that refusing to filibuster a bill that defunds President Barack Obama’s health care reform law “is a vote for Obamacare,” and he also advised House Republicans to “shut down the military” if they had to.
“If Harry Reid kills the bill in the Senate, the House should hold its ground, and should begin passing smaller continuing resolutions, one department at a time,” Cruz explained. “It should start with a continuing resolution focused on the military.”
“Send it over, see if Harry Reid is willing to shut down the military,” he quipped.
It looks like some House Republicans are turning against Ted Cruz for saying the obvious...the Senate is not going to let any bill that defunds ObamaCare pass. The House GOP isn't happy with Cruz now.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2013/09/22/ted-cruz-voice-of-reason/ (http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2013/09/22/ted-cruz-voice-of-reason/)
My favorite part is where someone claims that Ted Cruz is part of a secret cabal of leftists that are seeking control of the conservative movement.
It's been asked before, but it's worth asking again: If Democrats and Republicans share the blame for Congress's stupendous incompetence, which is a widespread and rather facile presumption here, then what is the Democratic Party's equivalent of the Tea Party caucus?
Is there, for example, anywhere in Barack Obama's party a bloc whose anti-gay and pro-gun views are so extreme that one of its leading members compares enacting any restrictions on gun ownership to allowing gay marriage and bestiality? (Louie Gohmert, Republican, Texas)
Or, whose members would travel to Egypt shortly after its generals arrested a democratically elected president, and then killed at least 1,000 of his protesting supporters, to declare on television that "We're here as members of Congress to say 'We're with you. And we encourage you.'" (Michele Bachmann, Republican, Minnesota).
Or, who would proclaim that 99 per cent of illegal migrants in America spend their time hauling marijuana around, that immigrants should be chosen the way you choose a good dog, and that the border fence with Mexico should be electrified, because "we do that with livestock all the time." (Steve King, Republican, Iowa).
No. Members of Congress don't receive free healthcare. Their employer being the federal government part of their health insurance is tax payer funded. But like everyone else they make individual contributions to their health insurance.
Unfortunately for one self-described "free-thinking" group, it's created nightmare-inducing commercials that aim to persuade young people to skip signing up for health-care coverage via Obamacare.http://money.msn.com/now/post--do-creepy-anti-obamacare-ads-defile-an-icon (http://money.msn.com/now/post--do-creepy-anti-obamacare-ads-defile-an-icon)
While the staff of the group, Generation Opportunity, mostly appears to be in their 20s, it's bankrolled by brothers David and Charles Koch, who are both in their 70s and known for their ultra-conservative views.
In one spot, a leering Uncle Sam pops up between the legs of a young woman seeking an gynecological exam, while in a second ad a young man is accosted by the same Uncle Sam figure, this time snapping on a latex glove to give him a rectal exam.
The tagline is "Don't let government play doctor." But the commercials are so bad that they may backfire, causing young viewers to shrug them off as the worst kind of fear-mongering.
Nope, it won't change for them, or any employees of the federal government regardless if ACA is or isn't defunded.No. Members of Congress don't receive free healthcare. Their employer being the federal government part of their health insurance is tax payer funded. But like everyone else they make individual contributions to their health insurance.
But if ACA is defunded, do they lose theirs as well?
At other times, he compared his fight to efforts by leaders who stood against the Nazis, ended the cold war or started the American Revolution.New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/26/us/politics/senate-budget-battle.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0)
“Everyone in America knows Obamacare is destroying the economy,” said Mr. Cruz, who began speaking at 2:41 p.m. on Tuesday. “Where is the urgency?
GRAH! Fucking New York Times edited an article I read earlier that had a choice quote in it that Cruz made during his filibuster. It quoted him as saying that journalistic fact checking was a "pernicious form of yellow journalism." I guess you'll have to take me on my word on that, but I wish I could make up with something as crazy as that.
Yes, how dare journalists do their jobs properly. That was almost as rich as Chuck Todd last week saying it's not a journalists' job to fact check.
Some other choice quotes.At other times, he compared his fight to efforts by leaders who stood against the Nazis, ended the cold war or started the American Revolution.New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/26/us/politics/senate-budget-battle.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0)
“Everyone in America knows Obamacare is destroying the economy,” said Mr. Cruz, who began speaking at 2:41 p.m. on Tuesday. “Where is the urgency?
“We may talk long enough that I may talk a little bit about fact checkers, because that’s a particularly pernicious bit of yellow journalism that has cropped up that lets journalists be editorial writers and pretend they’re talking about objective facts and basically conclude as a factual matter, not as a matter of opinion, that anyone who disagrees with them is objectively lying,”
I feel bad for C-Span if they had to listen to all 22 hours of that drivel. So how exactly did it end? Did the Senate vote to end it, or did he just finally run out of gas?There was a vote to end it, 100-0. At least the whole Senate can agree on one thing.
I feel bad for C-Span if they had to listen to all 22 hours of that drivel. So how exactly did it end? Did the Senate vote to end it, or did he just finally run out of gas?There was a vote to end it, 100-0. At least the whole Senate can agree on one thing.
I feel bad for C-Span if they had to listen to all 22 hours of that drivel. So how exactly did it end? Did the Senate vote to end it, or did he just finally run out of gas?There was a vote to end it, 100-0. At least the whole Senate can agree on one thing.
Damn, dude. You got the entire senate to agree to tell you to shut the fuck up. That's pretty impressive.
I feel bad for C-Span if they had to listen to all 22 hours of that drivel. So how exactly did it end? Did the Senate vote to end it, or did he just finally run out of gas?There was a vote to end it, 100-0. At least the whole Senate can agree on one thing.
http://www.politicususa.com/2013/09/27/obama-single-house-republicans-demanding.html
Obama says no.
You're going to shut down the government if you can't prevent millions of Americans from getting affordable care.
The House has twice now voted to keep the government open. And if we have a shutdown, it will only be because when the Senate comes back, Harry Reid says, "I refuse even to talk."
The House will get back together in enough time, send another provision not to shut the government down, but to fund it, and it will have a few other options in there for the Senate to look at again.
I think there's enough people in the Republican Party who are willing to [vote for a funding bill with no ACA-related stipulations]. And I think that's what you're going to see.
I disagree with the strategy of linking Obamacare with the continuing functioning of government — a strategy that cannot possibly work.
If the Senate stalls until Monday afternoon instead of working [Sunday], it would be an act of breathtaking arrogance by the Senate Democratic leadership. They will be deliberately bringing the nation to the brink of a government shutdown.
I can't help but see this as a big pissing match.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/looming-u-s-government-shutdown-deadline-sparks-blame-game-1.1872873
Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD)QuoteYou're going to shut down the government if you can't prevent millions of Americans from getting affordable care.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)QuoteThe House has twice now voted to keep the government open. And if we have a shutdown, it will only be because when the Senate comes back, Harry Reid says, "I refuse even to talk."
Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA)QuoteThe House will get back together in enough time, send another provision not to shut the government down, but to fund it, and it will have a few other options in there for the Senate to look at again.
Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID)QuoteI think there's enough people in the Republican Party who are willing to [vote for a funding bill with no ACA-related stipulations]. And I think that's what you're going to see.
Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME)QuoteI disagree with the strategy of linking Obamacare with the continuing functioning of government — a strategy that cannot possibly work.
House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH)QuoteIf the Senate stalls until Monday afternoon instead of working [Sunday], it would be an act of breathtaking arrogance by the Senate Democratic leadership. They will be deliberately bringing the nation to the brink of a government shutdown.
I think we need to make every one of these politicians kiss and make up. Then write about 100,000 pieces of slash fiction.
Guys, gals... you GOP types? Shut the fuck up, get back to work, and stop trying to fuck over the lower and middle class just so your corporate masters can line your pockets with your ill-gotten cash! I mean, for fuck's sake, taking the government to the brink of a SHUTDOWN (that conveniently doesn't affect your pay, I might add) over a bill that could, you know, ACTUALLY HELP PEOPLE WHO NEED IT?!
Ladies and gentlemen, the people have elected a bunch of children. Children who are only interested in getting their way and fuck anyone else who disagrees. Hell, the ACA is a REPUBLICAN idea, wasn't it? And yet, as soon as the President (a Democrat) says he likes it, they immediately turn on the ACA like those sharks in Finding Nemo as soon as they smell blood.
How about you, I don't know, COOPERATE for once! Obama's not perfect. Hell, far from it. But at least, in this particular arena, he's been TRYING! And all you GOP fuckers can do is metaphorically spit in his face, just because he's not on your side and bending to your will or the will of your corporate masters.
And yes, I know the GOP isn't the ONLY types pulling this, but they're the more prominent right now. So, fuck 'em!
Dear Republicans:I remember reading a comment on LiberalViewer's last video about Obama's caving in from the last presidency made the GOP unprepared when he finally showed backbone.
President Obama has bent way over backwards to accommodate you people for the last 4.5 years. Now its time you did something for a change.
Congress has missed the deadline for averting the first partial U.S. government shutdown in 17 years.
As the clock struck midnight Monday, House Republicans were demanding that the Senate negotiate their demand for a one-year delay in making millions of people buy health insurance under President Barack Obama's 2010 health care law. Minutes before midnight, the White House ordered a shutdown.
So... now what?
Seriously, this is like a kid throwing a temper tantrum upscaled into massive proportions.
And will still bet that in the end the Rebublicans will come out of this stronger whule Obama gets the blame and history will rememner him as a weak president...
Seriously, this is like a kid throwing a temper tantrum upscaled into massive proportions.
And will still bet that in the end the Rebublicans will come out of this stronger whule Obama gets the blame and history will rememner him as a weak president...
Out of curiosity, does anyone know what the majority opinion for the healthcare reform is?
Seriously, this is like a kid throwing a temper tantrum upscaled into massive proportions.
And will still bet that in the end the Rebublicans will come out of this stronger whule Obama gets the blame and history will rememner him as a weak president...
Last time they shut down the government before an election cycle, it took Bill Clinton getting Monica Lewinksy to fuck him in the Oval Office with her mouth to get them back in power. Don't expect Obama to do that.
Seriously, this is like a kid throwing a temper tantrum upscaled into massive proportions.
And will still bet that in the end the Rebublicans will come out of this stronger whule Obama gets the blame and history will rememner him as a weak president...
Last time they shut down the government before an election cycle, it took Bill Clinton getting Monica Lewinksy to fuck him in the Oval Office with her mouth to get them back in power. Don't expect Obama to do that.
The Tea party didn't exist the last time. For many of the libertards this is their wet dream, downgrading the goverment to military (and some other essentials.) Isn't that what many libertards want? The fact that this will cause huge damage to USA might mean that some of the realize how utopistic their fantasy was but I'm not certain of that.
I suppose this might be the killing blow to the Rebublican party but they've been able to blame Obama of all the other bad stuff before so I wouldn't be suprised if the same happens now. (In fact I've seen some polls where more people were blaming Democrats/Obama than Rebublicans. It was just an internet poll on a conservative website but still...)
My point is that even if the average person knows who caused this the Conservatards might still blame it all on Obama.
Well, apparently, even some republicans, like Dent, are disagreeing with their own party's decisions. Good, maybe we can stop with this, "if you're not with us, you're against us," bullshit!
The polls I've been reading say it's harming the GOP more than the Dems. Wouldn't this be great if it split the GOP into two?
Out of curiosity, does anyone know what the majority opinion for the healthcare reform is?That's a difficult question to answer. When described what the ACA will do a majority of people like those things. However the majority doesn't like the insurance mandate. Which sadly is the most well known portion of the law. Now to make things even more complex is what happens when people are asked their opinion on the ACA. Approval rates for it currently are about 38%. Approval rates go in to the 40s if the words Obamacare aren't used.
The polls I've been reading say it's harming the GOP more than the Dems. Wouldn't this be great if it split the GOP into two?
I take it you mean a literal division of the party into two separate parties. Because the GOP has basically already become frayed and there are effectively two sides to Republicans: crazy extremists and normal conservatives.
I know you can say "Well, there's always extremists and normal people in any political party except like, the Nazis or something." But the GOP is the only one in which a definitive split is visible and affecting the party.
What's the longest the government has been shut down for before?
The polls I've been reading say it's harming the GOP more than the Dems. Wouldn't this be great if it split the GOP into two?
I take it you mean a literal division of the party into two separate parties. Because the GOP has basically already become frayed and there are effectively two sides to Republicans: crazy extremists and normal conservatives.
I know you can say "Well, there's always extremists and normal people in any political party except like, the Nazis or something." But the GOP is the only one in which a definitive split is visible and affecting the party.
Actually you can't really even say that for the Nazis. Or for this example, the neo-nazis.
Even though the idealogy is inherently extremist, there are extremists and "normals" in it, too.
...Basically, a normal neo-Nazi vs. Joy of Satan Ministries.
Wow, booker. What I meant is that we are not going to see rioting in the streets and people starving from it. Look at the wiki history, and by far these shut downs last a few days for the most part. I am not a callous person.
If they deny lost pay, it will break precedent. So far, all furloughed government workers have been reimbursed for wages/salary lost during all the previous shutdowns. And yeah, I would not put that past this particular Congress, but it would put a rotten cherry on top of this pile of debacle they have mounded up lately.
Not to mention it'd even further fuck their reputations, meaning their chances of getting elected will be diminished. Those who have power typically want to keep it for as long as they can without violating their personal principles and/or the law of the land; I highly doubt they'd do something that would harm their chances for reelection. After all, if they don't get reelected, they don't get near as much money. What reason could there possibly be to buy out a politician if they haven't got any power?
Not to mention it'd even further fuck their reputations, meaning their chances of getting elected will be diminished. Those who have power typically want to keep it for as long as they can without violating their personal principles and/or the law of the land; I highly doubt they'd do something that would harm their chances for reelection. After all, if they don't get reelected, they don't get near as much money. What reason could there possibly be to buy out a politician if they haven't got any power?
It amuses me that you think elected officials have personal principles. ;D
Well, we all here already know this, but it is still appalling but funny to see why the GOP and teahadis keep their screaming and whining up. Voters are fucking idiots here.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/539715 (http://www.hulu.com/watch/539715)
(Jimmy Kimmel man-in-the-street interview asking people which they prefer; Obama Care, or The Affordable Care Act)
Those poor people. Don't they know that the Affordable Care Act and "Obamacare" are the same exact thing?
So I claimed that more people would be more upset at the GOP than the Dems for the shut down, but I finally got a more neutral source for that claim.Is that really surprising, given what's said about the ACA in the first place? I don't think half the country even knows what it does.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/30/us-usa-fiscal-poll-idUSBRE98T0J720130930
But it says more people blame the Dems rather than Obama, so yeah. But at least they know where the blame is and it isn't with POTUS. On the other hand, given that people apparently don't know that ACA and Obama are the same thing. . .
Crap, um. It's suppose to read that more people blame the GOP. Shitty proof reading on my part.So I claimed that more people would be more upset at the GOP than the Dems for the shut down, but I finally got a more neutral source for that claim.Is that really surprising, given what's said about the ACA in the first place? I don't think half the country even knows what it does.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/30/us-usa-fiscal-poll-idUSBRE98T0J720130930
But it says more people blame the Dems rather than Obama, so yeah. But at least they know where the blame is and it isn't with POTUS. On the other hand, given that people apparently don't know that ACA and Obama are the same thing. . .
Washington (CNN) -- While up to 800,000 federal workers faced life without a paycheck as Day One of the government shutdown kicked in, Democrats and Republicans persisted in talking past each other without actually talking to each other to end the nation's latest fiscal crisis.
The Republican-led House offered its latest gambit on Tuesday night but failed in separate votes to approve piecemeal funding for three specific programs -- the District of Columbia, veterans affairs and national parks.
The votes required a two-thirds majority for passage, which would have required hefty Democratic support. That did not materialize, though House leadership aides say the plan is to bring up the same measures again Wednesday in a way that would require only a simple majority to pass.
Aside from conservative political calculations that calling these votes would put their ideological foes in a tough spot, it appears they'll have little practical impact since the Democratic-led Senate wasn't about to acquiesce and the White House promised a veto.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid derided the strategy as "just another wacky idea by tea party Republicans," a clear example of the rhetorical firefights that have marked the latest pitched battle over spending. This one has been fueled by GOP efforts to condition any continued funding of the government with the elimination -- or at least the delay -- of Obamacare.
President Barack Obama weighed in Tuesday, the start of the fiscal year, by lambasting the Republicans for being "reckless" in their apparent willingness to take down the government in order to take down the law overhauling major aspects of health care coverage. He championed the law, signed it in 2010, then saw it upheld by the Supreme Court last year.
Saying the shutdown's goal is to hinder government efforts to provide health insurance to 15% of the U.S. population that doesn't have coverage, the president said it was "strange that one party would make keeping people uninsured the centerpiece of their agenda."
"Republicans in the House of Representatives refused to fund the government unless we defunded or dismantled the Affordable Care Act," he said, flanked by people who the White House said had benefited from the health care reform.
Reid, for one, indicated he's open to working with the House on budgetary matters -- "but not with the government closed" and not by making it all about the legislation widely known as Obamacare.
Until then, he and other Democrats pushed for the House to pass a "clean" spending plan to fund the government for a few months before negotiating over parts of the health care law.
Obamacare isn't directly tied to funding the government. But it's so unpopular among the Republican tea party conservatives that they want it undercut, if not outright repealed. For instance, this week Republican Rep. Todd Rokita of Indiana called it "the most insidious law known to man."
I don't understand how they can just shut down the government. Isn't it their job to keep it running?If I may, the Rebublican justification goes something like...
I don't understand how they can just shut down the government. Isn't it their job to keep it running?
I don't understand how they can just shut down the government. Isn't it their job to keep it running?
Of course if the dems were to introduce a rider forbidding that reason for hour cuts then the republicans would block it
The problem is many companies claim to be affected and use it as an excuse to cut worker pay. Walmart is doing it of course, though they almost never hire full time workers anyway.
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (WMT) is hiring 55,000 seasonal workers and adding another 70,000 part-time and full-time workers as it gears up for the holiday season and reverses workforce reductions that have made it hard to keep store shelves stocked.
The company is moving 35,000 part-time workers to full-time status and is elevating another 35,000 to part-time from temporary, the Bentonville, Arkansas-based retailer said today in a statement. The 70,000 workers will be elevated in the next few months and will keep their new posts after the holiday season ends, said Kory Lundberg, a Wal-Mart spokesman.
Wal-Mart usually hires temporary workers to get ready for the holiday shopping season. The company is adding more permanent people to improve customer service after failing to keep shelves stocked and handle other store-level operations, said David Galper, head of retail and apparel investment banking for KeyBanc Capital Markets Inc.
“They’re competing more and more for consumers’ dollars,” he said in a telephone interview. “They want to have sufficient employees to get the right product to the right shelf at the right time.”
While the move will add “an incremental cost” on labor, it could help the company “capture additional sales,” he said.
Wal-Mart rose 0.8 percent to $76.42 at the close in New York. The shares have advanced 12 percent this year, compared with a 19 percent gain for the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index.
Well, the Nazi party starts at the extremist end. It struggles to get farther; even the craziest are basically just the same thing with more depravity, rather than starting somewhat sensible and reasonable and going all the way to nutbag.Which Nazi party are you familiar with exactly?
Well, the Nazi party starts at the extremist end. It struggles to get farther; even the craziest are basically just the same thing with more depravity, rather than starting somewhat sensible and reasonable and going all the way to nutbag.Which Nazi party are you familiar with exactly?
Papa Johns, SeaWorld, and UPS are just some of the few companies, among others, that have cut worker’s hours to avoid Obamacare requirements that part-time employees are provided health insurance by their employer. Rather than comply with Obamacare, these businesses hurt employees out of sheer greed or hatred of President Obama’s signature law. But not Disney World.
Disney World is taking a different approach to employee care.
Instead of being cruel to their part-time workers by cutting their hours, the Florida theme park has been inspired by Obamacare to offer them full-time employment so that they can get full health care coverage.
Maybe he missed the context of comparing the Nazis - extreme, to unspeakably extremist nutbags - to the GOP starting at conservative to unspeakably teahadi? By itself, your sentence could be misconstrued to state that there was a "somewhat sensible and reasonable" faction within the Nazi party (when you meant that for GOP).
Go go Disney World.
Well, at least some companies aren't cutting people off: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/10/02/disney-world-part-timers-obamacare/QuotePapa Johns, SeaWorld, and UPS are just some of the few companies, among others, that have cut worker’s hours to avoid Obamacare requirements that part-time employees are provided health insurance by their employer. Rather than comply with Obamacare, these businesses hurt employees out of sheer greed or hatred of President Obama’s signature law. But not Disney World.
Disney World is taking a different approach to employee care.
Instead of being cruel to their part-time workers by cutting their hours, the Florida theme park has been inspired by Obamacare to offer them full-time employment so that they can get full health care coverage.
Go go Disney World.
Even Bill O'Reilly isn't happy with the shutdown. His main section of the program was basically summarizing the situation and going over the poll data - you know, the polls showing that most Americans blame the GOP for this. Then he got into a shouting match with Ted Cruz.
Now, more hourly workers will see that chunk of their gross earnings evaporate from their monthly budget income.
What is our present condition? We have just carried an election on principles fairly stated to the people. Now we are told in advance, the government shall be broken up, unless we surrender to those we have beaten, before we take the offices. In this they are either attempting to play upon us, or they are in dead earnest. Either way, if we surrender, it is the end of us, and of the government. They will repeat the experiment upon us ad libitum
And so, they have shut down the government and have told the President and the American people that it will not reopen again unless they get to repeal the Affordable Care Act, unless they get to personally deny health care and health insurance to over 40 million of Americans. And if we don't surrender, in Lincoln's words, then they will allow the U.S. to default, which will break apart this country, and lead us eventually, after financial ruin and renewed economic collapse, to a new Civil War.
To put it plainly, this Republican Party must be destroyed. Completely. And not figuratively. And no, I do not mean the blood of Republicans must run in the streets. I am not calling for a rounding up and shooting of Republicans. No, I want their party as it currently exists destroyed as a functioning entity. How does that happen?
...
One way or the other, the current Republican Party as we know it is about to be destroyed. If Boehner continues to allow Ted Cruz and his Teabaggers in the House to control the decision making and not back down, then what will happen is continued government shutdown going on months and a default on our debt, which will lead to Depression and collapse, all of which they will be directly and solely responsible for. The other path is the one Booman describes, where Boehner gives up, and either he or some other sane Republican newly elected as speaker by a national coalition of sane Republicans and all the Democrats passes a clean CR and raises the debt ceiling, and then resolves a host of other issues.
QuoteNow, more hourly workers will see that chunk of their gross earnings evaporate from their monthly budget income.
Does this mean those of us already with health care plans will get more or less $ taken from our checks each week? I'm asking because I just got my health care packet, and I see my deductions only increasing.
I wonder if I shall see USA go into another civil war in my time. Depending on who blinks first it just might happen. (And don't try to tell me there aren't people looking forward to it.)
I'm calling it now, this whole gov't shutdown will probably be over in a week.
Is it bad that all I can think of right now is "it'll be over by Christmas"? Probably...I'm calling it now, this whole gov't shutdown will probably be over in a week.
I hope you're right.
I was too young to notice or understand the importance of the collapse of Soviet union, I wonder if I shall see USA go into another civil war in my time. Depending on who blinks first it just might happen. (And don't try to tell me there aren't people looking forward to it.)
I meant whether you were talking about the original NSDAP, or the modern NPD, or the ANP, or what.Well, the Nazi party starts at the extremist end. It struggles to get farther; even the craziest are basically just the same thing with more depravity, rather than starting somewhat sensible and reasonable and going all the way to nutbag.Which Nazi party are you familiar with exactly?
.....the Nazi kind?
This seems like a rather odd question.
QuoteI wonder if I shall see USA go into another civil war in my time. Depending on who blinks first it just might happen. (And don't try to tell me there aren't people looking forward to it.)
It's doubtful. The states in the 19th century were much more fiercely independent, and the majority of the population rarely traveled out of state (a lot of them, unless they were specifically emigrating, stuck to a single region of their state) thanks to travel being slow and anything long-distance being expensive unless you just decided to walk it (and even then, you would need enough money for months worth of food). Nowadays, people regularly travel all over the world, to say nothing of easily and relatively cheaply driving across the country. The country is much more of a cohesive whole, and many states are dependent on one another's industries, as well as our ability as a nation to import and export.
Secession is pretty much unthinkable to everyone outside of a small minority, and the desire to see a civil war is even smaller. Even a limited understanding of economics and politics tells you that a lot of states couldn't easily survive independently. The National Guard is part of the United States military and still answers to the federal government, so if Texas were to break off they wouldn't exactly maintain "their" military, at least not in its current state. Even if everyone in the Texas National Guard were to stand by the government's theoretical decision to break away into the Republic of Stupidity, the United States Army alone (not including National Guard or Reserve) is over 28 times as large; they'd never be able to defend themselves in any kind of conflict without the rest of the nation.
Also, I should emphasize that I'm not suggesting that Mexico is going to invade and conquer Texas should they become independent. Reconquista is a fringe element anyway, and they're not exactly in any state to go around conquering anybody (even though they ARE stronger than this theoretical Texan Army).
More on point, while this may be a dangerous way of thinking, it may be in our best interests to not give the Republicans what they want. Everyone knows the psychology of people like this: you give them an inch, let them know that this tactic works, and they'll go and do it again. If the crazies who control the Republican party see that all they need to do to get any policy reversed is to do the equivalent of throwing a temper tantrum and threatening to break shit until they get what they want, they'll do it as much as they can.
QuoteI wonder if I shall see USA go into another civil war in my time. Depending on who blinks first it just might happen. (And don't try to tell me there aren't people looking forward to it.)
It's doubtful. The states in the 19th century were much more fiercely independent, and the majority of the population rarely traveled out of state (a lot of them, unless they were specifically emigrating, stuck to a single region of their state) thanks to travel being slow and anything long-distance being expensive unless you just decided to walk it (and even then, you would need enough money for months worth of food). Nowadays, people regularly travel all over the world, to say nothing of easily and relatively cheaply driving across the country. The country is much more of a cohesive whole, and many states are dependent on one another's industries, as well as our ability as a nation to import and export.
Secession is pretty much unthinkable to everyone outside of a small minority, and the desire to see a civil war is even smaller. Even a limited understanding of economics and politics tells you that a lot of states couldn't easily survive independently. The National Guard is part of the United States military and still answers to the federal government, so if Texas were to break off they wouldn't exactly maintain "their" military, at least not in its current state. Even if everyone in the Texas National Guard were to stand by the government's theoretical decision to break away into the Republic of Stupidity, the United States Army alone (not including National Guard or Reserve) is over 28 times as large; they'd never be able to defend themselves in any kind of conflict without the rest of the nation.
Also, I should emphasize that I'm not suggesting that Mexico is going to invade and conquer Texas should they become independent. Reconquista is a fringe element anyway, and they're not exactly in any state to go around conquering anybody (even though they ARE stronger than this theoretical Texan Army).
More on point, while this may be a dangerous way of thinking, it may be in our best interests to not give the Republicans what they want. Everyone knows the psychology of people like this: you give them an inch, let them know that this tactic works, and they'll go and do it again. If the crazies who control the Republican party see that all they need to do to get any policy reversed is to do the equivalent of throwing a temper tantrum and threatening to break shit until they get what they want, they'll do it as much as they can.
If the US collapsed like the Soviet Union did, I suspect that it would evolve along similar lines except instead of one major player surrounded by smaller satellite states there would be a few regional congregations of power and influence surrounded by the smaller players. Out of necessity it would be peaceful in the beginning because everybody would be too busy and expending too many resources trying to get their new country off the ground to go start even a minor war with their neighbour. After the dust settled, power coalesced, and international legitimacy was gained, then you might see some fighting, but given the differences in the histories of US vs. USSR I find it unlikely. If the US split into two a north vs. south rematch would be too big and costly for no real gain by either side. If the US split into several smaller countries (much more likely I think) the existing state boundaries are very well established and accepted so there is very little reason for conflict. Ideology, while also a reason for going to war, really isn't far enough apart in the US to convince people to fight since the "Yay, we're finally free of them!" mentality is going to rule for years.
Sure, but how are the individual bits and pieces supposed to survive without each other's support?
I heard a good analogy about this.
The office wants to install a soda machine. So they take a poll and find that the majority of the employees want to have one installed. They purchase the machine and drinks to stock it.
But Bill in Accounting doesn't want the machine, as he's against carbonated beverages. So after he raises a fuss, they hold more discussions and polls where they bring up his argument against having a soda machine. Bill is the minority, and the machine is going to get installed.
In retaliation, Bill decides that he's going to stop working. Not only is he not going to work, but because he's in Accounting, he's going to withhold every single payment. He got the passwords for everyone's accounts and is going to keep them from getting into their computers to do any work. He's going to hold the entire office hostage until they do things his way. Does he care about people not getting paid? Nope. He just wants his way.
lol "manage" especially pertaining to Africa.Sure, but how are the individual bits and pieces supposed to survive without each other's support?
How does Europe or Africa manage it?
There are more ways to survive than grouping together and being a country, you just have to be smart about it. Some states would have a decided advantage over others due to size and natural resources but that is not the be-all and end-all of the equation.Fucking interstate matters and national infrastructure, how do they work?
If a place like Belgium can survive for centuries in Europe tucked in between the powerhouses of France, Germany, and Great Britain then pretty well any state can survive on its own.Really? You failed to recognize the textbook example of a Buffer State?
“Just yesterday one House Republican said ‘We’re not going to be disrespected, we have to get something out of this", and I don’t even know what that is. That was a quote! (…) You have already gotten the opportunity to serve the American people. There’s no higher honor than that. (…) So the American people aren’t in the mood to give you a goodie bag to go with it. What you get is our intelligence professionals being back on the job. What you get is our medical researchers back on the job. What you get are little kids back in Headstart. What you get are our national parks and monuments open again. What you get is the economy not stalling but continuing to grow. What you get are workers continuing to be hired. That’s what you get. That’s what you should be asking for. Take a vote, stop this farce, and end this shut down right now. If you’re being disrespected, it’s because of that attitude you got! That you deserve to get something for doing your job!”
-Barack Obama http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6_0wPGFGFU
lol "manage" especially pertaining to Africa.Sure, but how are the individual bits and pieces supposed to survive without each other's support?
How does Europe or Africa manage it?
There are more ways to survive than grouping together and being a country, you just have to be smart about it. Some states would have a decided advantage over others due to size and natural resources but that is not the be-all and end-all of the equation.Fucking interstate matters and national infrastructure, how do they work?
If a place like Belgium can survive for centuries in Europe tucked in between the powerhouses of France, Germany, and Great Britain then pretty well any state can survive on its own.Really? You failed to recognize the textbook example of a Buffer State?
About the burning analogy ... (http://gawker.com/man-reportedly-sets-self-on-fire-at-d-c-s-national-mal-1441326299)
Sure, but how are the individual bits and pieces supposed to survive without each other's support?
How does Europe or Africa manage it?
There are more ways to survive than grouping together and being a country, you just have to be smart about it. Some states would have a decided advantage over others due to size and natural resources but that is not the be-all and end-all of the equation. If a place like Belgium can survive for centuries in Europe tucked in between the powerhouses of France, Germany, and Great Britain then pretty well any state can survive on its own.
The catch of course is that you have to be smart about it and intelligence is not something I see too much of in a lot of the Republican/Tea Party strongholds. Those states have failure or radical re-evaluation of their priorities written all over them. The more liberal minded states which tend to function in reality and compromise rather than ideology and pigheadedness would come out of the mess just fine mostly because they know how to adapt and are willing to invest in the community.
My friend and his sister both got told by their insurance company that once ACA becomes effective, both of their plans go WAY up (He's going to lose his because he'd be required to pay $200 a month). Both work part time and support themselves (their mother passed away years ago and their father is in a home) paycheck to paycheck. My friend tried to get Medicaid, but they denied him for some reason, and he said he doesn't qualify for anything within his price range.Of course insurance rates are going to go up. They almost always go up regardless, what did people expect?
I hope this is not going on throughout the nation or people Will have a reason to hate Obamacare.
My friend and his sister both got told by their insurance company that once ACA becomes effective, both of their plans go WAY up (He's going to lose his because he'd be required to pay $200 a month). Both work part time and support themselves (their mother passed away years ago and their father is in a home) paycheck to paycheck. My friend tried to get Medicaid, but they denied him for some reason, and he said he doesn't qualify for anything within his price range.
I hope this is not going on throughout the nation or people Will have a reason to hate Obamacare.
Insurance Fraud
A Basic Overview
The insurance industry consists of more than 7,000 companies that collect over $1 trillion in premiums each year. The massive size of the industry contributes significantly to the cost of insurance fraud by providing more opportunities and bigger incentives for committing illegal activities.
Costs of Fraud
The total cost of insurance fraud (non-health insurance) is estimated to be more than $40 billion per year. That means Insurance Fraud costs the average U.S. family between $400 and $700 per year in the form of increased premiums.
Common Schemes
Premium Diversion
◾ Premium diversion is the embezzlement of insurance premiums.{Partial diversion is more common. Sudden premium price increases are suspect.}
◾It is the most common type of insurance fraud.
◾Generally, an insurance agent fails to send premiums to the underwriter and instead keeps the money for personal use.
◾Another common premium diversion scheme involves selling insurance without a license, collecting premiums and then not paying claims.
Fee Churning
◾ In fee churning, a series of intermediaries take commissions through reinsurance agreements.
◾ The initial premium is reduced by repeated commissions until there is no longer money to pay claims.
◾The company left to pay the claims is often a business the conspirators have set up to fail.
◾When viewed alone, each transaction appears to be legitimate—only after the cumulative effect is considered does fraud emerge.
Asset Diversion
◾Asset diversion is the theft of insurance company assets.
◾It occurs almost exclusively in the context of an acquisition or merger of an existing insurance company.
◾Asset diversion often involves acquiring control of an insurance company with borrowed funds. After making the purchase, the subject uses the assets of the acquired company to pay off the debt. The remaining assets can then be diverted to the subject.
I could of sworn we had a discussion not long ago about Florida legally requiring insurance companies to lie about this.
We did, Madcat, we did. I recall the topic being there (don't recall being part of that convo). And I'm pretty sure Florida is breaking some sort of federal law in doing that.
Normally, what Vyper told about would warrant a serious call to the state Insurance Commissioner. Think about it. Insurance companies are so notorious for their bullshit over the years, that every state in the union have a state insurance law and anti fraud division headed by an elected Insurance Commissioner - a state level "Sherriff" to police these corporate fuckers, not just to enforce the law against insurance claimant fraudsters.
But, since Vyper and his friends and I live in Florida, know that our illustrious billionaire white collar crime lord Governor, Rick Scott, has of course gutted that office and made sure the Insurance Commissioner does jack shit, just like he does, when it comes to protecting consumers. So, frankly, it would save time by just filing complaints with HHS and FBI that the insurance company or agent actually cited and blamed the ACA in an attempt to jack up the insureds' premium payments on an extant group health policy.
<snip - picture of puke inducing douchebag>
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) wanted to dig up Fast and Furious again. The government shutdown caused by the Republican Party immobilized federal courts. (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/10/05/federal-judge-slaps-down-darrell-issa-over-request-for-shutdown-exception/) Why it’s almost as if the shutdown was a bad idea! And remember folk, the legislators are essential the courts are not because DERP.
Fun fact, to handle this case furloughed DOJ lawyers would have to work without pay. Now for U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson response:
“There are no exigent circumstances in this case that would justify an order of the Court forcing furloughed attorneys to return to their desks. Moreover, while the vast majority of litigants who now must endure a delay in the progress of their matters do so due to circumstances beyond their control, that cannot be said of the House of Representatives, which has played a role in the shutdown that prompted the stay motion.”
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) wanted to dig up Fast and Furious again. The government shutdown caused by the Republican Party immobilized federal courts. (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/10/05/federal-judge-slaps-down-darrell-issa-over-request-for-shutdown-exception/) Why it’s almost as if the shutdown was a bad idea! And remember folk, the legislators are essential the courts are not because DERP.
It kind of did in Belgium. The issue with America is our services are linked to the budget etc. In any other country even if they can't form a government this would not happen
Fred, is that a serious suggestion?
I can't tell.
Fred, is that a serious suggestion?
I can't tell.
Flippant.
Obama to Boehner: 'Hold a vote. Call a vote right now. Let's see what happens'
Tractor-trailer drivers will intentionally clog the inner loop of the Washington, D.C., beltway beginning on the morning of Oct. 11, according to a coordinator of the upcoming "Truckers Ride for the Constitution" rally.
Organizers of the three-day ride want to call attention to a litany of trucker frustrations and express their disapproval of national political leaders.
Earl Conlon, a Georgia trucker who is handling logistics for the protest, told U.S. News tractor-trailer drivers will circle the beltway "three lanes deep" as he rides with other participants to Congress to seek the arrest of congressmen for allegedly disregarding the Constitution.
The truckers circling I-495 will keep the left lane open for emergency vehicles, Conlon said, but "everybody that doesn't have a supporter sticker on their window, good luck: Nobody in, nobody out." The trucks will be going the 55 mile-per-hour speed limit.
D.C. commuters who wish to be allowed past the convoy must have "T2SDA" – an acronym for the event's original name, "Truckers to Shut Down America" – written on their vehicle, he said.
"It's going to be real fun for anyone who is not a supporter," Conlon said, "[and] if cops decide to give us a hard time, we're going to lock the brakes up, we're going to stop right there, we're going to be a three lane roadblock."
Zeeda Andrews, a former country music singer helping promote the protest, said last week participants would present demands to congressmen – including the impeachment of President Barack Obama – and give the congressmen an opportunity to agree to the demands in exchange for canceling the ride.
But Conlon says that's not quite right.
"We are not going to ask for impeachment," Conlon said. "We are coming whether they like it or not. We're not asking for impeachment, we're asking for the arrest of everyone in government who has violated their oath of office."
Because that's totally not making things worse for the common person. oh wait.
In other news, the news agencies of foreign countries are having a hard time even explaining the US shutdown, because the concept is so insane to them.Meet the new face of American execptionalism, were crazier than the rest! The Republicans have taken a page from Nixon’s playbook and decided to repeat history. “Madman”, an effective description for their behavior. (http://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/reviews_in_american_history/v027/27.4matusow.html)
As noted, the only other country to ever have a government shutdown? Australia. And I wouldn't be surprised if they had another with their current descent in to becoming 'Stralia.
To our international members, Is it really that bad? Is this situation so insane to outsiders?As seen above, yes. Because parliamentary democracies (aka the majority of stable democracies in the world) often choose their prime minister from the Lower House/Commons, and the Senate/Upper House is unelected and/or has little budgetary power, the PM is often in agreement with his parliament and the budget is rubberstamped. Where a disagreement can happen, most parliaments are allowed to be dissolved anytime within a maximum time frame, normally 5 years (as opposed to the US which mandates the day of election, no exceptions). Even in cases like Australia in 1977, there are triggers which can be used to mitigate gridlock (usually by dissolving the government or implementing a caretaker government).
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/10/08/catholic-bishops-letter-birth-control/50 years ago this revelation would have killed the party. Politicians in USA taking orders from CATHOLICS?! WHO IS RUNNING THIS COUNTRY 'MURRICANS OR THE POPE!?
You got it! A bishop ask congress for this shutdown to stop birth control!
"Explain to me how in a dozen questions the second biggest story of the week, the healthcare.gov debacle, doesn’t even come up" -Brendan Buck, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), asked Politico. (http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/10/no-healthcare-questions-at-obama-presser-174562.html)
Has anyone ever noticed how every single TIM post has the exact same format?Ironbite does the same thing and nobody seems to mind.
Has anyone ever noticed how every single TIM post has the exact same format?Pictures breakup a wall of text.
Now reality is more optional than ever before for some politicians.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uodouQuKLZY
Hasn't spending been going down for 2 years now. Most of the spending surge was in 2009 as part of Obama's Stimulus Package and anti-recession measures. Since the sequester we've had a fast shrinking deficit. And most of the people railing against spending have no problem with spending on the military and have no real plans on reforming health care or social security. And they also don't want to raise taxes to boost federal revenue, in fact they want even more tax cuts...
Jeez, it's almost like they have no idea how the budget or the government works.
Was about to say...
Ironbite-we all have our ways of posting.
HeY gUyS iS tHiS oKaY?
*pulls up a tanker truck of Mountain Dew and drinks from the hose* Dude, ANY love story is better than Twilight.
... Falls under the umbrella term "Twilight" because it's Twilight fanfic. Unless "Twilight" refers exclusively to the first book, but why would you limit your snarkbait like that?*pulls up a tanker truck of Mountain Dew and drinks from the hose* Dude, ANY love story is better than Twilight.
50 Shades of Gray
It seems the Republican party is finally starting to realize how badly this is hurting their poll numbers. A lot of them are turning against the shut-down, and it's causing a lot of dissention in their ranks.
Agreed, man. The whole damn series is snarkbait. Even the actors didn't like the parts.It's especially funny/sad with the leads: Kristen Stewart can act (she's the only watchable part of Zathura, IMHO) but decided not to when she realized that Bella is a sad sack of emptiness for the reader to wear like a pair of pants. Robert Pattinson once ignored a mob of screaming Twitards to sign a fan's copy of Goblet of Fire, and has admitted to playing Edward like a manic-depressive virgin who hates himself because that's who he saw the character. Almost everyone hates Twilight, but nobody hates Twilight as much as the cast hates Twilight.
I heard a story on NPR this week about that. The president specifically said he would not do that.
"...Or invoke the Fourteenth Amendment, he said, because those two options would leave the Treasury shrouded in legal questions.
"Ultimately, what matters is what do the people who are buying Treasury bills think," Obama said. Those two options, said Obama, would just leave uncertainty."NPR (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/10/08/230467922/live-blog-president-obamas-press-conference)
Department of Agriculture[edit]
Meat, poultry, and grain inspectors will keep working.[78] However, the U.S. Department of Agriculture will not issue any statistical or economic reports, including those on the prices and supply levels of agricultural goods. These reports are especially important to commodities markets.[79] Campgrounds and other recreational sites will be closed. The Agricultural Research Service and the Foreign Agricultural Service will shut down.[78]
The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, or WIC, may be greatly curtailed. The government will not contribute any new money into the program, which gives food for low-income pregnant women, mothers, and young children. Some states may be able to keep running the program with current money for about a week.[80] The larger Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also called food stamps or EBT cards, is funded by the Recovery Act and will last through 2014.[81]
Reading the 14th I don't see were the President would have the power to raise or ignore the debt ceiling. More so when you take Section 5 into account which states, "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
Reading the 14th I don't see were the President would have the power to raise or ignore the debt ceiling. More so when you take Section 5 into account which states, "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
But which power is Congress given the power to enforce? The power to ensure that: "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." Congress is not given the power to question the validity of the public debt, or to refuse to pay it back. Therefore, the President can just declare this and it shall be so.
Reading the 14th I don't see were the President would have the power to raise or ignore the debt ceiling. More so when you take Section 5 into account which states, "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
But which power is Congress given the power to enforce? The power to ensure that: "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." Congress is not given the power to question the validity of the public debt, or to refuse to pay it back. Therefore, the President can just declare this and it shall be so.
To me "the validity of public debts shall not be questioned" means that the congress can't simply legislate debt away. It may not mean that congress has to pay the debt on time.
Erwin Chemerinsky has stated that there is simply no way to read this section and come to the conclusion that it gives the president the power to barrow money.
http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2011/07/erwin-chemerinsky-on-why-obama-cant-raise-the-debt-ceiling.html (http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2011/07/erwin-chemerinsky-on-why-obama-cant-raise-the-debt-ceiling.html)
Obama himself has said he does not have this power. Not to mention that fact that any bonds issues under a presidential order would be questionable. That in is self could send there interest rates soaring and cause havoc.
Here’s Why the Constitution Won’t Allow Default
Oct. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Sean Wilentz, professor at Princeton University, puts the debt ceiling limit battle in historical context, explaining why it is unconstitutional for the government to not raise the debt ceiling and how it is President Barack Obama’s duty to take steps to avoid default. He speaks on Bloomberg Television’s “Bloomberg Surveillance.”
Reading the 14th I don't see were the President would have the power to raise or ignore the debt ceiling. More so when you take Section 5 into account which states, "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
But which power is Congress given the power to enforce? The power to ensure that: "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." Congress is not given the power to question the validity of the public debt, or to refuse to pay it back. Therefore, the President can just declare this and it shall be so.
To me "the validity of public debts shall not be questioned" means that the congress can't simply legislate debt away. It may not mean that congress has to pay the debt on time.
Erwin Chemerinsky has stated that there is simply no way to read this section and come to the conclusion that it gives the president the power to barrow money.
http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2011/07/erwin-chemerinsky-on-why-obama-cant-raise-the-debt-ceiling.html (http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2011/07/erwin-chemerinsky-on-why-obama-cant-raise-the-debt-ceiling.html)
Obama himself has said he does not have this power. Not to mention that fact that any bonds issues under a presidential order would be questionable. That in is self could send there interest rates soaring and cause havoc.
Certainly that's a reasonable case (and there's no way to know without the Supreme Court weighing in).
However, note that the debt ceiling does not borrow money. The Budget borrows money. The debt ceiling just instructs the president not to follow the budget. Is that unconstitutional?
Oct. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Sean Wilentz, professor at Princeton University, puts the debt ceiling limit battle in historical context, explaining why it is unconstitutional for the government to not raise the debt ceiling and how it is President Barack Obama’s duty to take steps to avoid default. He speaks on Bloomberg Television’s “Bloomberg Surveillance.”
Reading the 14th I don't see were the President would have the power to raise or ignore the debt ceiling. More so when you take Section 5 into account which states, "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
But which power is Congress given the power to enforce? The power to ensure that: "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." Congress is not given the power to question the validity of the public debt, or to refuse to pay it back. Therefore, the President can just declare this and it shall be so.
To me "the validity of public debts shall not be questioned" means that the congress can't simply legislate debt away. It may not mean that congress has to pay the debt on time.
Erwin Chemerinsky has stated that there is simply no way to read this section and come to the conclusion that it gives the president the power to barrow money.
http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2011/07/erwin-chemerinsky-on-why-obama-cant-raise-the-debt-ceiling.html (http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2011/07/erwin-chemerinsky-on-why-obama-cant-raise-the-debt-ceiling.html)
Obama himself has said he does not have this power. Not to mention that fact that any bonds issues under a presidential order would be questionable. That in is self could send there interest rates soaring and cause havoc.
Certainly that's a reasonable case (and there's no way to know without the Supreme Court weighing in).
However, note that the debt ceiling does not borrow money. The Budget borrows money. The debt ceiling just instructs the president not to follow the budget. Is that unconstitutional?
The debt ceiling limits the amount of money the treasury can barrow to pay debts. The treasury barrows the money, not the budget. It is possible, however stupid, for congress the pass a budget but leave the treasury no way to pay for it.
Palin and Cruz organized a rally today at the White House, with confederate flags!
Oh and Fox News used a crap poll (http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/10/13/campus-reform-fox-shutdown/) conducted by exactly one student in a heavily edited survey to prove people think Obama is at fault.
Imagine a budget of $1, with a tax revenue of $0.
The budget says borrow $1.
The debt ceiling says do not borrow $1.
That's exactly the point. It is not possible to do this, because it is not legal to do this. Arguably.
Something I found my friend posted on Facebook (https://www.youtube.com//watch?v=0Jd-iaYLO1A)
Imagine a budget of $1, with a tax revenue of $0.
The budget says borrow $1.
The debt ceiling says do not borrow $1.
That's exactly the point. It is not possible to do this, because it is not legal to do this. Arguably.
US budgets do not specify to barrow money, they simply authorize the treasure to spend money on those items in the budget. The debt ceiling law allows the treasury to barrow money up to a certain point. Before the debt ceiling law congress had to approve each borrowing measure separately.
Yes, it is possible for congress to pass a spending bill, but give the treasury no way to pay for it. The sick part is that is not illegal. The founding fathers left the government enough rope to hang itself.
The EBT system failure today caused outages in 17 states, I think. Heads need to roll for that.
The EBT system failure today caused outages in 17 states, I think. Heads need to roll for that.
You... really hope somebody got fired for that blunder?
Imagine a budget of $1, with a tax revenue of $0.
The budget says borrow $1.
The debt ceiling says do not borrow $1.
That's exactly the point. It is not possible to do this, because it is not legal to do this. Arguably.
US budgets do not specify to barrow money, they simply authorize the treasure to spend money on those items in the budget. The debt ceiling law allows the treasury to barrow money up to a certain point. Before the debt ceiling law congress had to approve each borrowing measure separately.
Yes, it is possible for congress to pass a spending bill, but give the treasury no way to pay for it. The sick part is that is not illegal. The founding fathers left the government enough rope to hang itself.
I'm pretty much of the opinion that if your idiocy results in a shut down, you and everyone else who is responsible (even if they're doing it for the right reason) deserves to have their paycheck yanked.Make sure they cannot receive money or gifts from 3rd parties either, otherwise they will just replace their paycheck with lobbyist money.
That includes the president.
I'm pretty much of the opinion that if your idiocy results in a shut down, you and everyone else who is responsible (even if they're doing it for the right reason) deserves to have their paycheck yanked.Make sure they cannot receive money or gifts from 3rd parties either, otherwise they will just replace their paycheck with lobbyist money.
That includes the president.
I'm pretty much of the opinion that if your idiocy results in a shut down, you and everyone else who is responsible (even if they're doing it for the right reason) deserves to have their paycheck yanked.Make sure they cannot receive money or gifts from 3rd parties either, otherwise they will just replace their paycheck with lobbyist money.
That includes the president.
Agreed.
...Wait
Did I just concisely agree with TIM on something?
I'm pretty much of the opinion that if your idiocy results in a shut down, you and everyone else who is responsible (even if they're doing it for the right reason) deserves to have their paycheck yanked.Make sure they cannot receive money or gifts from 3rd parties either, otherwise they will just replace their paycheck with lobbyist money.
That includes the president.
Agreed.
...Wait
Did I just concisely agree with TIM on something?
I think you were thrown off by the lack of large pictures of politicians making silly faces and thought it was someone else.
It's worth noting that 248(out of 535) members of Congress are refusing or donating their paychecks while the shutdowns is ongoing. So only a little more than half of them suck. Yay?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/10/01/which-lawmakers-will-refuse-their-pay-during-the-shutdown/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/10/01/which-lawmakers-will-refuse-their-pay-during-the-shutdown/)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24557469
So... Is it over now? The story says they have reached a deal but it still needs to pass the house. Is the congress going to start to repair the damage they've done or are the Republicans going to waste this final chance and ruin themselves in a final mad attempt to... Whatever it is they believe they can achieve?
Find out in our next episode U.S. POLITICS THE TRAINWRECK OF THE AGES! (Brought to you by the Koch brothers and Biebermania)
Rep. Labrador says it's "absolutely false" that GOP sought Obamacare repeal. " We have never asked for a full repeal of Obamacare..."
Labrador says any reporters saying GOP wanted full Obamacare repeal were "lying to the American people."
The sound you hear is me cracking the earth in twain with my face.
What success? They've been defeated in 4 of the past 5 elections. I think you're overthinking this.
Ironbite-in today's age, trying to control the message that the other guy fucked up is impossible when you're a google search away from being exposed.
The sound you hear is me cracking the earth in twain with my face.
Seriously, what do you think the voters in USA will remember during the next election?
During Obama's/Democrats' term the goverment was shutdown for a record long time and the credit rating of USA dropped (and in few days we shall see if it dropped on two separate occasions.) Obama is going to go down in history as a pretty bad president and the Republicans will rise up in the next elections to take back the country and undo all the advancements he did.
(http://www.banklawyersblog.com/.a/6a00d8341c652b53ef01348787ad7b970c-800wi)
And now I made myself sad. Still, the continued success of the Republican party does support my horrible, horrible theory.
...Who wants to vote for me in 2016? I'll be several years too young, but if I'm popular enough, might could have a Demolition Man scenario come in; I'd be a damn sight better than President Schwarzenegger.You'd have my vote if you were to explain what those three goddamn seashells are for.
...Who wants to vote for me in 2016? I'll be several years too young, but if I'm popular enough, might could have a Demolition Man scenario come in; I'd be a damn sight better than President Schwarzenegger.You'd have my vote if you were to explain what those three goddamn seashells are for.
The sound you hear is me cracking the earth in twain with my face.
Seriously, what do you think the voters in USA will remember during the next election?
During Obama's/Democrats' term the goverment was shutdown for a record long time and the credit rating of USA dropped (and in few days we shall see if it dropped on two separate occasions.) Obama is going to go down in history as a pretty bad president and the Republicans will rise up in the next elections to take back the country and undo all the advancements he did.
(http://www.banklawyersblog.com/.a/6a00d8341c652b53ef01348787ad7b970c-800wi)
And now I made myself sad. Still, the continued success of the Republican party does support my horrible, horrible theory.
Yeah, I don't give the Republicans much chance of posing any kind of united front before the 2016 convention. There will be a lot of nasty infighting during next year's Congressional elections, and as the candidates for 2016 emerge.
They are planning (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/will-the-gop-learn-its-failures) to do it again.
Actually Penguin looks like he'd be a Republican now that I think about it...They are planning (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/will-the-gop-learn-its-failures) to do it again.
(http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lzb9uyfa4o1qj4vs2o1_500.gif)
They are planning (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/will-the-gop-learn-its-failures) to do it again. Which is great. Because the next time they decide to do it again we will be at the midterm election. Let's see how that goes for them.
Thousands of experiments were put on ice during the shutdown, an innumerable amount of data was not collected as scheduled and millions of dollars were wasted, CBC science columnist Torah Kachur reports.
The monitoring of disease outbreaks by the Centers for Disease Control, climate indicators by U.S. Antarctic research stations and asteroids by NASA are among the projects that were suspended during the shutdown, Kachur said.
Where else but modern America could someone like Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, the Tea Party champion from Texas, accomplish what he just did?
This is a man who, having led a spectacularly pointless rebellion against his own party's leadership, declared a "remarkable victory" when the government shutdown clanked and wheezed to its inglorious end Wednesday afternoon.
Not a Pyrrhic victory, mind you. That would imply actually winning something while losing the larger war.
No, Cruz declared victory on behalf of the Tea Party insurgency after winning absolutely nothing.
...
And when it was all over, and the courtly Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell rose in the chamber to concede utter defeat on live television, Cruz marched up to the cameras in the hallway outside, effectively interrupting McConnell's speech to denounce him and the entire party establishment as gutless sellouts.
"Unfortunately," declared Cruz, just in case anyone might still be thinking of voting Republican, "once again it appears the Washington establishment is refusing to listen to the American people."
Quote"Unfortunately," declared Cruz, just in case anyone might still be thinking of voting Republican, "once again it appears the Washington establishment is refusing to listen to the American people."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/permanent-science-gap-left-by-u-s-government-shutdown-1.2101514(http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs7/i/2005/252/f/4/asshat_by_thundercake.jpg)
So scientific research may well be irreparably harmed by the shutdown:QuoteThousands of experiments were put on ice during the shutdown, an innumerable amount of data was not collected as scheduled and millions of dollars were wasted, CBC science columnist Torah Kachur reports.
The monitoring of disease outbreaks by the Centers for Disease Control, climate indicators by U.S. Antarctic research stations and asteroids by NASA are among the projects that were suspended during the shutdown, Kachur said.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/u-s-shutdown-climbdown-the-triumph-of-the-republican-surrender-monkeys-1.2101877
Meanwhile, Ted Cruz and his ilk are declaring victory:QuoteWhere else but modern America could someone like Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, the Tea Party champion from Texas, accomplish what he just did?
This is a man who, having led a spectacularly pointless rebellion against his own party's leadership, declared a "remarkable victory" when the government shutdown clanked and wheezed to its inglorious end Wednesday afternoon.
Not a Pyrrhic victory, mind you. That would imply actually winning something while losing the larger war.
No, Cruz declared victory on behalf of the Tea Party insurgency after winning absolutely nothing.
...
And when it was all over, and the courtly Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell rose in the chamber to concede utter defeat on live television, Cruz marched up to the cameras in the hallway outside, effectively interrupting McConnell's speech to denounce him and the entire party establishment as gutless sellouts.
"Unfortunately," declared Cruz, just in case anyone might still be thinking of voting Republican, "once again it appears the Washington establishment is refusing to listen to the American people."
"Unfortunately," declared Cruz, just in case anyone might still be thinking of voting Republican, "once again it appears the Washington establishment is refusing to listen to the American people."
His mom is American.Where's the birth certificate?!
Ironbite-so he's just like Obama.
Yes but you have to be born on US soil I think
Yes but you have to be born on US soil I think
It think Ted Cruz and his ilk are just delusional. They can't fathom they lost. They can't fathom that people don't have the same opinion. It's almost a year since both the electorate and the popular vote gave Obama his second term and they still can't get over it. They're too goddamn sure of themselves, and too good damn confidence in their (lack of) abilities.