 |
Show me where . Cruz's effort at defunding was in the CR debate ;NOT the debt ceiling . There are other issues in the debt ceiling that needs addressing like the long term liabilities of entitlements ,of which Obamacare is a new albatross . But that has not been a feature in the corrent debt ceiling negotiations (actually it's a stretch to call any of this "negotiations ".. you need at least 2 parties at a negotiation... not one like the emperor who says he won't negotiate )
It's all pr . He was betting on the public getting pissed off over the inconveniences his punitive actions have imposed and that the public would turn on the Repubics and demand they settled. It's been a generally successful strategery except for the downside that he didn't anticipate that the public would equally blame him.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
When there is a default it will be a default . A default will not happen unless the emperor chooses to let one happen. There is enough revenue coming in daily to pay the debt obligations of the nation. It will take some hard prioritizing.. which means the emperor will have to do more than vote present and golf.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
This is what you should know . When the US had unlimited capital to waste ,consensus was built by horse trading and buying off the opposition. What happens when you run out of horses ? Politics then becomes a zero sum game. That makes negotiations very complex... especially when one side's attitude about it is "we won..you lost ...get over it " .Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
You guys have been trying to repeal the social programs since Eisenhower. You have failed. Even King Reagan was against them, he failed. The right wing is desperate to corrupt the republicans and move them further right. You got your shutdown, and now want a default.
But purging your own will be less of you, not more. Scaring your own to keep them in line just means less rocks to throw. If you think your shutdown is unpopular, wait until we see your default.
Hello again, tom, Tea Party default denier:
Uhhhhh, no. If that were the case, we wouldn't be running a deficit. We DON'T borrow just IN CASE we don't have money on a given day. We borrow because we KNOW there are days when we DON'T have money.Quote:
There is enough revenue coming in daily to pay the debt obligations of the nation.
If the debt ceiling isn't raised, on THOSE days, we DEFAULT!
Besides that, apparently you envision that we pay our bills like YOU do.. We sit at the kitchen table and write checks. If we need to wait a day or two to make sure we have the money in the account for a particularly large bill, we CAN..
But, the government pays its bills by computer. These are BIG bills too. We can't just jump in and reprogram the whole thing... We CAN'T. We absolutely CAN'T.
Excon
Only the emperor can make a default happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Wake up Tom, the reality is the only ones buying your horses are YOU guys. Even the TParty loves Social Security, and Medicare. LOL, change the name and they will love Obama Care too!!
You only default if you don't pay the debt service. Again .there is plenty of income to handle that with revenue left over to run the operations of the gvt. although admittedly at a reduced level.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, tom:
Nahhh.. If you don't pay Social Security, you default. Do you think that BOUNCING checks on our old folks is going to make the bond holders happy, EVEN if we're paying the debt service?? They understand that if you default OVER there, they're NEXT.Quote:
you only default if you don't pay the debt service.
What's really really scary, is you guys HATE that man in the White House SOOOOOOO much, that you're WILLING to gamble the ENTIRE country on this stupid sh*t.
Cause WHEN that first brick begins to crumble, NOBODY can control where it stops...
It's time to declare WAR on the Tea Party, and put them in the FEMA camps.
What?? We should sit back and LET them destroy us?
Excon
That's what Obama Care is REALLY about, getting the loony's on meds. They have been off them far too long.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Wait a minute... we are told SS is funded for another 15 years or more . Oh yeah I forgot... the government plundered the trust fund and replaced it with IOUs . But guess what . Even then Social Security will be paid if the emperor decides to do so. The fact is that if a deal isn't reached by the self imposed deadline ,then the Treasury Department will be forced to prioritize payments on the national debt ahead of other expenses . That's all . Social Security will be paid by cashing in on those IOUs ;which are actually bonds. That's what happened in 1985... and a law passed in 1986 authorizes the Treasury to redeem SS bonds early for the purpose of “payment of benefits or administrative expenses.” In other words ,the law allows Treasury to redeem the bonds despite the maturity date . All it takes is the emperor's green light . Finally the emperor can and should pressure Reid to pass the 'Full Faith and Credit Act ' . A responsible President who really wants to limit the chance of default would push for it immediately . The emperor won't .Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
From Huffpo.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nancy-..._b_905227.html
Quote:
Social Security appears to be a key bargaining chip in the struggle over the debt limit. President Obama may have played smart politics when he threatened that, if the debt limit is not raised, Social Security checks might not go out on time. But he was needlessly scaring the program's fifty-five million beneficiaries, the vast majority of whom are highly dependent on each month's Social Security check. So was Speaker John Boehner who, in a recent interview, also spoke of the possible interruption of benefits.
The truth is that checks can go out, in their full amount, without adding a penny to the federal government's total debt. They can be paid without subtracting more than a tiny fraction of a percent -- if anything -- from the funds currently being used for other government purposes -- a reduction so small that it could be considered a rounding error.
Bonehead lied about the votes for the senate bill to open up the government, and had to change the House rules to make sure the vote couldn't be brought.
House Republicans Changed The Rules So A Majority Vote Couldn't Stop The Government Shutdown
Bonehead speaks with forked tongue!Quote:
So House Republican leaders made sure no such vote could happen.
In the hours working up to the government shutdown on Sept. 30, Republican members of the House Rules Committee were developing a strategy to keep a clean CR off the floor, guaranteeing the government would remain shut down.
Though at least 28 House Republicans have publicly said they would support a clean CR if it were brought to the floor -- enough votes for the government to reopen when combined with Democratic support -- a House rule passed just before the shutdown essentially prevents that vote from taking place.
Now this is why the president needs to rule by decree
Emperors frequently do.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
We are finding out that the Dems really aren't interested in "clean" Cr's or debt ceilings. Yesterday we learned that they really want the sequester cuts to be eliminated . We learned today that they are willing to delay and alter Obamacare ;so long as the changes are good for their union patrons.
[QUOTE]The deal does include the more modest change of verifying the income claims of people applying for insurance subsidies. Democrats said they could agree to that change because it would merely enforce existing law.
The deal also includes a delay until 2015 of an ObamaCare reinsurance tax that is opposed by unions.
QUOTE] Senate leaders near deal to end shutdown, raise debt limit - The Hill - covering Congress, Politics, Political Campaigns and Capitol Hill | TheHill.com
The tax applies to all group health plans, but unions argued vehemently at their convention that it will raise their healthcare costs while providing them no benefit. Union plans are not eligible for subsidies for the simple reason that they are already helped by the tax code. Even the emperor recognized that when he denied them subsidies.
So in this case the goal of a clean CR is subjective. So now ,given that a clean CR is not a clean CR in the Dems eyes ,why aren't they including a repeal or delay of the medical device tax that EVERYONE recognizes as a bad idea ? Because it's expected to generate $30 billion in revenue. As carve outs and exceptions ,delays ,and subsidies have been granted there is a growing realization that there will not be anywhere's close to enough revenue to pay for the Obamacare boondoggle .
But for the Dems ,that is but a mild inconvenient fact . As long as they have carte blanc on their government credit card they can spend and spend and spend without worrying if the bills will ever get paid . That will happen in the future... They will be worm food by then .
Hello again, tom:
What? Right wingers are the only ones who can make demands? I think he ought to demand background checks for guns sales AND a repeal of Citizens United? Why not?Quote:
Yesterday we learned that they really want the sequester cuts to be eliminated .
excon
It's all part of the negotiations the emperor said he would not do.
Hey, it's politics
It's his m.o. Create a crisis so he can exploit it . If he was indeed going to negotiate Obamacare ,he could've done it before the shutdown.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
You sound like those that mentioned that about Bush and 9/11.Quote:
Create a crisis so he can exploit it .
Hello again, tom:
I don't know where you get that he IS going to negotiate Obamacare. The medical device tax is now OFF the table. You HAD that small victory at one time, but you overplayed your hand, and you walk away with NOTHING.
Excon
But if you read my comment you'd see it wasn't about the medical device tax (although clearly that is a mistake that both sides see needs fixing )... it was about the changes they are suddenly willing to negotiate to appease the union bosses. The truth is that Obamacare is not settled law as you claim. It changes frequently with every executive exemption ,delay etc. And now the Dems are again putting provision on the table after they said that it wasn't up for negotiations.
It was you guys taking futile votes to repeal ACA that kept you from negotiating the budget and the debt ceiling, so now here we are at the last minute with the government shut down and three days to avert ANOTHER credit downgrade, and the added billions that go with it.
Tell me another one about the fiscally responsible conservatives. They last negotiation cost us billions and Newt's big flop cost us billions, so what's this one going to cost?
The House has put out a budget every year while the Senate diddled around so spare us your whining.
Tparty wish lists don't qualify as legitimate budgets. Just like 43 votes to repeal Obama Care count as legitimate legislation. Its like running in a circle claiming the sky has fallen. You can vote on that too, and win in the TParty ruled house.
The only laughable items in the budget debates is the ridiculous wish lists from the White House that even the Senate laughed off, and the Senate's own refusal to pass one for years so again, spare us the whining.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Meanwhile, former Clinton official, Obama CIA director and SecDef gets it.
Well Mr. President, what about it?Quote:
Panetta rebukes Obama’s handling of shutdown
By Ruth Marcus, Published: October 14
Leon Panetta served in Washington with nine presidents, starting with Lyndon Johnson. He has been a member of Congress, Office of Management and Budget director, White House chief of staff, director of the Central Intelligence Agency and secretary of defense — the last two under President Obama. He is a man who knows Washington and knows how to choose his words. So Panetta’s implicit rebuke of the president’s hands-off approach to the budget crisis at a breakfast Monday was striking.
Indeed, implicit may be an understatement. Asked repeatedly whether he was being correctly understood as critical of President Obama, Panetta was careful to assert that “I don’t want to put it all on the president” and that there is “enough blame to go around.” But he did not spare Obama.
“We govern either by leadership or crisis. . . . If leadership is not there, then we govern by crisis,” Panetta said at the start of the session, sponsored by The Wall Street Journal. “Clearly, this town has been governing by crisis after crisis after crisis.”
Which raised the obvious question: What does this say about the president’s leadership?
Several observations ensued. “This town has gotten a lot meaner in the last few years.” Relationships have deteriorated. Redistricting into safe seats hasn’t helped. Neither has the explosion of money in campaigns, or the elimination of earmarks. (Negotiating one Clinton budget, Panetta recalled, “I think I sold about six bridges to get there.”)
Then, to Obama. “This president — he’s extremely bright, he’s extremely able, he’s somebody who I think certainly understands the issues, asks the right questions, and I think has the right instincts about what needs to be done for the country.”
Next came the “but” — without a name but with a clear message. “You have to engage in the process. This is a town where it’s not enough to feel you have the right answers. You’ve got to roll up your sleeves and you’ve got to really engage in the process . . . that’s what governing is all about.”
Now your mad because he told you guys to kiss his ****** A$$? 5 years of trash talk will bring that out. Even your secret slush money fund is telling you to shut the hell up.
The only ones supporting you are YOU! But of course that's all you count any way, so rant on!
Interesting, Leon Panetta says it's a failure of leadership in the White House and you go off on that indecipherable tangent? You need more fiber.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
I don't agree with Panetta, and in light of this
Fitch puts US credit rating on negative watch - Yahoo Finance
I guess you shoot the hostages, and pay the price. Heritage foundation said vote no on the new house proposal, and Bonehead delays vote. A rerun of 2011, so I guess all he has left is a vote on the senate bill.
GOP disarray: On-again, off-again House vote on shutdown plan - CNN.com
When this happened in 2011, President Clinton said he would not hesitate to raise the debt limit himself by executive order or use the 14th amendment to do so, many law professors say Obama would be in the right and public opinion would overwhelmingly be on his side so I wish he would grow a pair and do it. Why is Obama just standing by and letting this happen? It is really damaging the economy, making the U.S. Look like fools to the rest of the world and making him look like a weak, ineffective leader.
Earl it's politics. If he can make the Republicans look bad enough they might get a considerably reduce majority in the next election and electors might specifically censure tea party candidates
That's what happens when the electorate sends bomb throwers to govern with no experience in world finances. It's no secret the only purpose of the TParty is to bring down the government, and the people are just collateral damage.
What a minute! They lost the last election didn't they?
Now that Obama has won a second term, what does the tea party have to gain by giving him a hard time? They are so stupid, they don't even realize that they're stupid.
Because it would be a blatant violation of Article 1 sec 8 clause 3 which states that [The Congress shall have Power ]To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;Quote:
When this happened in 2011, President Clinton said he would not hesitate to raise the debt limit himself by executive order or use the 14th amendment to do so, many law professors say Obama would be in the right and public opinion would overwhelmingly be on his side so I wish he would grow a pair and do it. Why is Obama just standing by and letting this happen? It is really damaging the economy, making the U.S. Look like fools to the rest of the world and making him look like a weak, ineffective leader.
The 14th does not give the President the power or authority to make that call . If he attempts to do so ,the House of Reps should immediately move and vote on articles of impeachment .
Impeachment is a laugh. It would require a two thirds majority and the Reps have 46, not even half. More importantly, impeaching the president for saving the economy from a crisis that they started would be political suicide, although their approval rating can't get much lower.
Didn't hurt Clinton. Didn't get him out of office either.
Hmmm, maybe we get an Obama in office after Hillary. History may repeat itself. But 16 years of progressive female butt kicking might be to much for the loony's on the right but a fitting punishment for loony behavior.
Of course they are stupid, they are red neck stupid, and no is only used when you oppose something, no one says no to them. It is childish behaviour, I'll take my bat and ball and go home stuff, what we call a dummy spit.Quote:
Originally Posted by earl237
But you know the irony there are actually people here who think it is alright for them to behave this way because it is con-stit-u-tion-al, that's a big word they think they know the meaning of, and here is another one, dem-oc-rac-y. They don't know the meaning of that one and I wonder if they have heard of government for the people
Maybe between all your ranting you can look up some things. Like that we are a republic not a democracy. And while your at it since this president has been in office for 5 years name just 1 thing that he has supported that actually worked. Just 1 thing that didn't fail ?Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Hi dad yes it has been explained to me on more than one occasion when democracy is lacking that, after all, it is a republic, not a democracy. Why then does this republic go to such great pains to tout its form of democracy all over the world? Is it being hypocritical?Quote:
Originally Posted by cdad
The people elected this "president" twice, the second time by an increased majority, so they must have thought he had something going for him, even if it was he was just a little more acceptable than the other fellow, who by the way rejected 48% of the electorate.
His rescue of the auto industry was apparently some sort of success, maybe the ACA will work eventually, it takes time and a willingness to make it work, but all he has had in the last three years is negative politics and obstructionism so it is no wonder there isn't a lot to show, excepting an economic recovery that happened despite the job creators and the negativity
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:27 PM. |