[Aliblahba]

Adjust the dosage. Fuck man.

[speakeasy]

(10-04-2013 07:22 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(10-04-2013 06:55 PM)Easy E Wrote:  

(10-04-2013 06:47 PM)Grit Wrote:  

I could tell you my opinion, "Democrats want to be associated with Obamacare to please their voter base" which would be a logical assumption.

Now, what is a logical assumption for why Republicans want to block Obamacare? - Can my opponents even give a guess or theory without outright ad hominem personal attack?

I'll ask again, for what logical reason do Republicans want to block Obamacare?

Let me offer what I see:

The Republicans are tired of being conservative in lip service, and are taking a hardline stance to figure out a budget and a way to service federal debt instead of increasing federal debt and spending.

If the Republicans want to repeal Obamacare, then they need to start winning elections. They can't just throw a tantrum and resort to hostage taking. They deserve to lose on this issue, and they will lose on this stunt they are pulling.

Exactly. Republicans need to promise more free shit to poor people using other people's money so they can win more elections.

I guarantee you that not everybody that plans to sign up for ACA are poor people looking for handouts. I'm an independent contractor. I pay for private insurance and it cost me a pretty penny, and even then I don't have full coverage, I recently had an outpatient surgery that is going to cost me between $3000-5000 out of pocket. I have no access to group plans. I will definitely be looking into saving on costs with the health exchange. I talk to my European friends and they just shake their damn heads and think we are batshit crazy over here for just not going to single payer like the rest of the advanced world.

[JayJuanGee]

(10-04-2013 07:46 PM)Jaydublin Wrote:  

(10-03-2013 10:16 PM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  

(10-03-2013 10:00 PM)Jaydublin Wrote:  

well my friend that is all a pretty new way of thinking... trust me, we aren't suddenly geniuses. It will backfire like it always has, don't worry.

Yes, the highway system would be an investment... How can that compare to where the money is going today? Giving out cell phones is not an investment. Just an example but the money we spend today isn't an infrastructure investment so don't try to compare it to the 50s.

Spending beyond WAY your income with no return is very bad... government or family, it is bad

OK JayDublin: the theme of this thread is govt shut down, and in the end, are you suggesting it is a good idea to shut down the govt b/c you and some others feel strongly that the govt is overspending?

If that is the case, then we can have that debate about how much should be spent and whether austerity is a good thing (I personally believe that austerity is a bad thing and it hurts the economy, but reasonable people may differ about these kinds of opinions), and in the meantime, while we are debating or not debating, we are going to shut down the govt and screw the whole house of cards of the american economic dominance (and favorable credit) into the tubes.

It is a loser for everyone to close the govt for a long time in order to make such a point about USA overspending. Maybe if the stock market begins to go into a freefall, that will cause some representatives to wake the fuck up. The last two days have been down trends in the market of almost 1% per day, but not on a major level, yet. if a freefall starts, may not be able to stop it.

That's the 2nd time you have put words in my mouth then debated the opinion that your created for me. Nowhere did I say the shutdown was good and I made this clear on another page when we quoted each other.

JDub:
In no way or at any time did I mean to put words in your mouth. My attempts in this thread is to stick to the substance and maybe to suggest the ramifications when people take certain positions.

Yes, several of the members have different experiences and different views about ramifications of a shut down, yet if it seems that I was trying to put words in your mouth in any way, that was not my intention. However, I am not afraid to say that if someone takes a certain view, then I think that view may have a certain outcome.

In this above particular post, I am merely asking questions about the shutdown and it effects, and after reading it again, I do not know how my post puts words in your mouth.

Also, if you want we can share the other posts by PM to discuss, or if you want to link to publicly b/c you think that it is necessary to clarify something in this thread, then fine with me, but at this point, I am not sure about which previous posts you are referring in which I would have put words in your mouth or attempted to do so.

[worldwidetraveler]

(10-04-2013 08:29 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

(10-03-2013 11:19 PM)NY Digital Wrote:  

http://socioecohistory.files.wordpress.c...ld_msm.jpg

Six Jews own almost all of the corporate media. Around 96%. If not more.

Just putting that out there.

To point out they're smarter than you and work a lot harder than you do?

If you can compete, why don't you?

Says the guy who complains about rich people all over this board. I suggest you take your own advice.

[NY Digital]

iknowexactly, what're you even talking bout?

It's not about working hard. It's about strategic planning over hundreds of years.

You're contradicting yourself.

You claim you're against big corporate, and yet you just supported an unfair manipulation of the system
by big corporations that have their pockets lined with cash because they can control how people think.

[Wadsworth]

(10-04-2013 07:34 PM)Easy E Wrote:  

(10-04-2013 07:22 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(10-04-2013 06:55 PM)Easy E Wrote:  

(10-04-2013 06:47 PM)Grit Wrote:  

I could tell you my opinion, "Democrats want to be associated with Obamacare to please their voter base" which would be a logical assumption.

Now, what is a logical assumption for why Republicans want to block Obamacare? - Can my opponents even give a guess or theory without outright ad hominem personal attack?

I'll ask again, for what logical reason do Republicans want to block Obamacare?

Let me offer what I see:

The Republicans are tired of being conservative in lip service, and are taking a hardline stance to figure out a budget and a way to service federal debt instead of increasing federal debt and spending.

If the Republicans want to repeal Obamacare, then they need to start winning elections. They can't just throw a tantrum and resort to hostage taking. They deserve to lose on this issue, and they will lose on this stunt they are pulling.

Exactly. Republicans need to promise more free shit to poor people using other people's money so they can win more elections.

Makers and Takers???

I don't particularly like Romney, but is he wrong?

[Excelsior]

[Que enspastic]

ADAM CREIGHTON THE AUSTRALIAN OCTOBER 04, 2013 12:00AM

Quote:

THE US government shutdown provides a timely juncture to consider one of the principal maladies afflicting modern democracies: the growth of "bullshit jobs".

David Graeber, a professor of anthropology at the London School of Economics, belled the cat on the phenomenon in August, bemoaning the growing share of work that was pointless and even damaging.

"Huge swathes of people in the Western world spend their entire working lives performing tasks they secretly believe do not really need to be performed," Graeber writes, dismissing jobs in corporate law, academic and health administration, human resources and public relations as "bullshit".

"The moral and spiritual damage that comes from this situation is profound," he says.

So is the economic.

This week's partial US government shutdown illustrates just how pervasive bullshit jobs have become. That the Obama government has stood down around 800,000 public service jobs with close to zero impact on the ordinary business of life is remarkable.

The world's press has ferreted around for days trying to find in the shutdown something genuinely disruptive. It appears closure of National Parks, public monuments and cessation of a live "panda cam" at the National Zoo are the most damaging repercussions. To be sure, tourists and panda-lovers across the US are understandably miffed. But surely the deeper question here is what on earth were the other 750,000-plus, "non-essential" public servants doing?

If these jobs weren't "essential" -- government "shutdowns" in the US do not affect air traffic controllers or soldiers, for instance -- then the US government should explain why it is taxing people and businesses to pay for them. Public servants' wages are someone else's property, which should not be taken lightly. Far from damaging the US economy, the shutdown has temporarily relieved US taxpayers of the burden of paying an army of people to do things that were self-evidently unnecessary.

Concentration of bullshit jobs in the federal public service is not unique to the US. Canberra, as much as Washington DC, houses departments teeming with highly-paid people who seek to regulate health, education, agriculture and commerce, for instance, but whose staff could go on strike for a year without causing a ripple of concern among the wider populace. In the US, as in Australia, most useful services -- police, courts, teachers, hospitals and bus drivers, for example -- are employed by state governments.

This is why federal public servants, unlike their state counterparts, rarely if ever go on strike: sheer embarrassment.

Nor does the public sector have a monopoly on bullshit. As Graeber rightly points out: "While corporations may engage in ruthless downsizing, the lay-offs and speed-ups invariably fall on that class of people who are actually making, moving, fixing and maintaining things."

Corporations, especially among the ranks of middle and senior management, are chock full of overpaid people whose real contributions to the firm's output are negligible at best. Smaller businesses don't have the revenue to maintain bullshit jobs.

Indeed, bullshit jobs are typically well-paid, with a notably strong correlation in finance. They tend to flourish in parts of the economy where people are spending other people's money, which occurs most often in government and at large limited liability companies, where shareholders are typically powerless to restrain management from wasting money on themselves, their underlings, and services of dubious value.

But as with drawing a line between art and pornography, identifying bullshit jobs is difficult. For all his overarching perspicacity, Graeber's definition is arbitrary and even elitist. He includes pizza delivery boys and dog shampooers in the bullshit category, despite the fact individuals are willing to part with their own money to pay for these services.

Graeber rails against the growth of services in particular -- by far the largest part of advanced economies -- revealing a yearning for a simpler economy, where farming, mining and manufacturing dominate. The problem is not services but, as for all jobs, whether they matter and who pays for them. Workers wondering if theirs is a bullshit job might ask themselves two questions. First, am I being directly paid by an individual or owner-run business? If Australia's tradesmen went on strike it would be catastrophic; not so much for lobbyists. But this would rule out all government and corporate workers.

Hence the need for a second test: does it matter to others if I don't turn up to work? Government and private industry are teeming with people who could stay home for weeks without impairing the quality or volume of goods or services produced by their organisation -- and without requiring another worker to fill in for them -- as the US shutdown has amply demonstrated. Such jobs typically lack verifiable output and often relate to services, such as management consultants and corporate lawyers, bought by organisations that spend other people's money.

Alas, these are necessary but not sufficient conditions for bullshit; eminent academics would fall through the cracks, for instance. Nevertheless, as productivity wanes in advanced countries it is becoming more incumbent on governments and companies alike to identify, limit, and ideally cull, the share of the workforce engaged in bullshit.

[Hencredible Casanova]

Revealingly, the House approved a measure today for furloughed federal workers to receive back pay during the shutdown. The bill passed by a 407 to zero margin, with 25 members (Tea Partiers) abstaining/not voting. The bill is expected to pass swiftly through the Senate and will be approved by the President.

As you can imagine, the idea of "lazy, overpaid, underworked" federal workers essentially getting a free and fully funded vacation from work at the expense of YOU (the taxpayer) is infuriating to Tea Party supporters. That is why this measure can be seen as a defeat for the Tea Party caucus in Congress that created the shutdown in the first place. There will likely be momentum now to get the government open again since workers will be getting paid either way, yet the public won't receive any services if the government remains closed (quite the image).

This now looks like the beginning of the end in a sense and a victory for the Democrats.

[JayJuanGee]

(10-03-2013 12:02 PM)K Galt Wrote:  

I'd just like to point out the typical left wing style of debate has been perfectly demonstrated in this thread by JayJuanGee.

I thought that my style was just to try my best to engage in a meaningful and substantive dialogue about a topic that was initially supposed to be about the govt. shutdown but was more or less derailed into these broader questions about budget issues and AHCA, just like the nationwide conversation- then we were getting into further derailed debates about many more things revolved around the meaning and size of govt.
I, as many others, am not opposed to having such debates about the meaning and size of govt. in a correct time and place; however, there has been some success of a fairly small number of people to influence the direction of the discussion with some small successes in that and potentially large and more damaging successes in causing damage to the whole world and its economy structure based on narrow and short-sighted thinking. Many people who advocate for small govt had been acting really giddy about the achievement of such chaos and suffering of people in order to make their selfish points.
There may be some wind out of their sails, however, because of the recent clear and unambiguous decision to provide back pay to govt. workers for the period of time that they are furloughed. It was unanimously passed, and the only congressmen who abstained were those hard and insensitive asses, afraid to vote no.. so abstained.
It really is a sad day in America that such obstructionism is occurring and not a situation that politicians should be gloating over, IMHO.

(10-03-2013 12:02 PM)K Galt Wrote:  

Really Jay? Here's what you responded with when I made a similar comparison:

K Galt: I have no problem with you going back through various posts of what each of us said regarding a topic in order to clarify various points that were made and dropped in our dialogue. Going back over issues is all fair in discussing substantive issues.. at least when we get into addressing substantive issues. I get a sense though, appearing to “call me out” on various things that I may or may have not said are merely tailored as side detractors that do not get us anywhere in our discussion. In that regard, in several areas I did not get into discussions of the details of the points being made because we are really getting off into the weeds rather than the forest and rather than the issue at hand. Nonetheless, I will see if I can respond to some of your concerns with a bit more detail, if that will help to satisfy some of your concerns about my responsiveness – which I doubt because it appears that you maybe trying to make this some kind of argument about me rather than addressing general substantive themes in a meaningful way.

(10-03-2013 12:02 PM)K Galt Wrote:  

Um, no I did not make your points at all. I completely refuted your points.

I don’t really see the point of getting into some drug out battle about what I said this and then what you said that and then what I said… I question what purpose does that serve in terms of the substance of our discussion.. because I doubt any of this is really about what you and I think… who cares about that? In the end, I would hope that the discussion would remain somewhat civil and addressing overall substance.

(10-03-2013 12:02 PM)K Galt Wrote:  

Instead, you avoided directly addressing my counter points that 1) whether it's Obamacare or War in the Afghan hinterlands, we are borrowing and spending more than we are collecting in taxes, and that 2) this borrowing to pay for all these things is driving up the national debt at an exponential rate, and that 3) the Feds creation of more money drives inflation - which in turn raises the costs of goods and services for everyone. Oh we're going to be paying for this "free healthcare" alright.

1)yes. The more we, as a society, spend the more we have to raise revenue for such spending. You are correct.
2)We seem to disagree about the degree to which borrowing is a problem.. sure it is a lot and surely it seems to be growing faster than the economy. Ok. fine.. Nonetheless, I tend to think that debt is not as big of a problem as some make it out to be, especially, if the revenue is coming in and various sabotage maneuvers are NOT being made in order to create the doomsday scenarios that are being predicted. Shutting down the govt has considerable potential to cause chaos, but then those who shut it down will say that health care benefits or social spending had caused the chaos and not the shutting down. Much fuzzy logic and selective descriptions of causation.
3)We do not disagree that the creation of money by the fed reserve is problematic…… but I don’t give it the same dire consequences as you do.. Nonetheless, I find it to be a problematic behavior.. so we largely agree that govt does this.. and the US govt can get away with it and an individual or even smaller govts cannot get away with such creation of money. IN that regard, the US govt is exceptional.

(10-03-2013 12:02 PM)K Galt Wrote:  

None of those points I raised "makes yours."

Really, KGalt, we are NOT so far apart regarding the facts that the US govt is different from households in how it goes about dealing with financial situations.. Surely, you and I have some differences in opinions about the ramifications of some of that, but if you and I went out for some beers and batted around some of these ideas, likely we would find that we agree about a whole hell of a lot more than it may appear to be on the surface. I have some of these similar discussions with members of my family, yet we still get passionate and side tracked and even engage in some personal attacks, when we engage in discussions, we find various aspect about which we agree. In this regard, there seem to be several areas that we do NOT disagree about some of the facts or even the effects that some govt and/or corporate actions have, and maybe we disagree about some of the ramifications or the importance of certain facts. Your point is that you see govt too big, and I don't agree with that point; however, I do not necessarily disagree that fed making money has the potential to cause inflation and other problems… ,but.. o.k. so what?

(10-03-2013 12:02 PM)K Galt Wrote:  

Instead, you resorted to an analogy that is far more irrelevant and baseless ("...or a large govt like the US to live within what it takes in, and to require us to live within taxes will be like putting us in a boxing ring with one or maybe even two hands tied behind our back") than the one used comparing a debt laden household budget to a debt laden Government budget.

I’m trying to make relevant points the best that I can, so long as we can follow the flow of the thread and its topics. I do not want to make my postings into a PhD dissertation, if possible to avoid.
Ultimately, I am trying to remain in some kind of meaningful dialogue, and probably, this would be easier if we stick to the subject of the thread.. or possibly stick with one area at a time… Your suggestions that I am or attempting to be disingenuous is misplaced because there are only so many hours in a day that we can delve into the weeds of these various topics. Maybe you and I can go to communicate via PM, if we are getting specifically into so many topics that seem to be beyond the subject of the thread? I’m o.k. either way, but if our discussion is getting into anything that seems personal, then PM may serve a little better in those regards.

(10-03-2013 12:02 PM)K Galt Wrote:  

But hey, I can roll with your analogy anyways...

You see, borrowing even more money to pay for Obama care will in effect be like putting a boxer in the ring with both hands tied behind his back, but also tying his shoelaces together, too.

I appreciate the extent to which you attempted to “roll with my analogy,” because IMHO, we make better progress when we have some back and forth discussion, to the extent manageable. Nonetheless, you and I come to a different conclusion regarding the analogy, and you and I use the analogy to make different points. I have no problem with you reaching a different conclusion by using my analogy; however, I don’t agree with your projections about how Obamacare will supposedly make things worse for America, but I do not have any problem with your asserting it. Additionally, I am not going to call you names because I disagree with your point.

(10-03-2013 12:02 PM)K Galt Wrote:  

Oh, and by the way...I haven't watched FOXNews in well over a decade.

Accusing someone of regurgitating FOXNews talking points IS a talking point used by those who watch CNN/MSNBC, listen to NPR, and read Huffington Post, the NYT, Slate, Salon, Jezebel, Feministe.com, and forum regulars over at the Democratic Underground.

I thought that I mentioned this already about the media’s affects on individuals. Yes, maybe you do not watch FoxNews, but you still may be carrying some of their talking points as your own. Additionally, I do not read or watch any of the sources that you mentioned, but nonetheless, I may be spewing some of their talking points based on some of my information points that may be similar to theirs.
I do have some specific dislikes of FoxNews and the extent to which I believe that that media source is extremely misinformitive and deceptive and disingenuous and often hateful and xenophobic. Frequently, I have some problems with the other main stream news sources as well, including some of the ones that you listed because some of them are afraid to speak up the truth or the facts or even to perform investigative reporting. Nonetheless, I believe that most news sources tend to be more accurate than foxnews.
I don’t want to raise to many attack points for you; however, I must say that I find various Pacifica news resources to be pretty good and reliable for getting out facts from the viewpoint of regular people rather than entities that have a stake in misleading people because the pacifica network does not take govt or corporate sponsors, yet no matter what my source of information, I take my sources with a grain of salt because sometimes, the sources are just getting things wrong - including pacifica. Additionally, sometimes there will be sources of information that does not play very well into a gaming guy’s view of the world, so in that regard, sometimes I will have my own internal tension with some pacifica progams, hosts, or guests.

Hopefully, I have clarified areas where there may have been need for such clarification. If you want to continue by PM, let me know.

[Easy E]

House Speaker John Boehner demands cuts for debt limit increase:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/06/politics/c...?hpt=hp_t1

[svenski7]

Can I still cash my savings bonds??

[Belize King]

My Dad is a Federal worker and is going to work today. I am a contractor and still have the day off. Enjoying it while it last.

[Easy E]

(10-07-2013 02:40 AM)TexasMade Wrote:  

My Dad is a Federal worker and is going to work today. I am a contractor and still have the day off. Enjoying it while it last.

Are federal workers that are not furloughed getting paid? Does anyone know? I read online that only the military will get paid during the shutdown, and that everyone else will have to wait until the shutdown is over to get paid. That sucks. What if this shutdown lasts a month or longer? You will have to work and not receive pay for a long time.

[iknowexactly]

(10-05-2013 11:39 AM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

This now looks like the beginning of the end in a sense and a victory for the Democrats.

I'm a biased pinko, but it seemed like a triumph for Dems when the Rethugs refused to fund the exact programs they previously voted in favor of ( Affordable Care Act, all the other good stuff like missiles and food stamps) .

[Pacesetter20]

(10-07-2013 03:08 AM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

I'm a biased pinko, but it seemed like a triumph for Dems when the Rethugs refused to fund the exact programs they previously voted in favor of ( Affordable Care Act, all the other good stuff like missiles and food stamps) .

ACA was passed under a Democratic controlled House, Senate & President.

But even, is it impossible to have a change of heart when you realize a mistake and are trying to fix/prevent it from getting worse?

[JayJuanGee]

(10-07-2013 02:55 AM)Easy E Wrote:  

(10-07-2013 02:40 AM)TexasMade Wrote:  

My Dad is a Federal worker and is going to work today. I am a contractor and still have the day off. Enjoying it while it last.

Are federal workers that are not furloughed getting paid? Does anyone know? I read online that only the military will get paid during the shutdown, and that everyone else will have to wait until the shutdown is over to get paid. That sucks. What if this shutdown lasts a month or longer? You will have to work and not receive pay for a long time.

EasyE:

The article link below that Hencredible Casanova posted in post # 209 indicates that Federal workers will not be paid until the govt is reopened, but the resolution clearly says that the federal ees who are not working are going to be paid. At this time, it is unclear when the pay will be; however, as is hypothesized by other members, it seems that the passage of the resolution to provide backpay for furloughed federal workers for the period that they are off is going to take a lot of steam out of the tea party republicans and their desire to continue with the shut down - b/c likely the public impression will be that if there has been a vote to pay federal ees while they are off work, then they should be working and the govt should be open (however the only way that a large number of these furloughed ees can work is if a continuing resolution gets passed to open up the govt b/c at this time, the furloughed govt workers are prohibited - i believe by executive order - from working during the shut down).

Accordingly, I predict that the govt will reopen on or before Wednesday of this coming week - but what do i know?, I would have predicted that the govt would have never closed in the first place (not this time around), and i would have been wrong about that - as we all have witnessed.

(10-05-2013 11:39 AM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

Revealingly, the House approved a measure today for furloughed federal workers to receive back pay during the shutdown. The bill passed by a 407 to zero margin, with 25 members (Tea Partiers) abstaining/not voting. The bill is expected to pass swiftly through the Senate and will be approved by the President.

[Pacesetter20]

(10-06-2013 05:06 PM)Easy E Wrote:  

House Speaker John Boehner demands cuts for debt limit increase:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/06/politics/c...?hpt=hp_t1

If Boehner really wanted cuts, he would do nothing and let the Nation Debt hit the ceiling. Contrary to popular belief this would NOT result in a default.

Why would this not lead to a default? It is simple, the U.S. collects about 10x as much money as it has interest on debt (on a monthly basis), so all the Treasury needs to do to prevent a default is make sure that the interest on the debt is paid first (Here is a breakdown from the WSJ from 2011 that expands on this point)

However, not raising the "Debt Ceiling" would force significant cuts in the Government. Considering that roughly 80% of the government is still operating during the shutdown and the world hasn't ended and we haven't been invaded by terrorists or China or Russia. Shows that a lot of the government really isn't that necessary.

For the record I think everything should be on the table for cuts (Defense, Entitlements, Regulatory).

[JayMillz]

(10-05-2013 11:39 AM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

Revealingly, the House approved a measure today for furloughed federal workers to receive back pay during the shutdown. The bill passed by a 407 to zero margin, with 25 members (Tea Partiers) abstaining/not voting. The bill is expected to pass swiftly through the Senate and will be approved by the President.

As you can imagine, the idea of "lazy, overpaid, underworked" federal workers essentially getting a free and fully funded vacation from work at the expense of YOU (the taxpayer) is infuriating to Tea Party supporters. That is why this measure can be seen as a defeat for the Tea Party caucus in Congress that created the shutdown in the first place. There will likely be momentum now to get the government open again since workers will be getting paid either way, yet the public won't receive any services if the government remains closed (quite the image).

This now looks like the beginning of the end in a sense and a victory for the Democrats.

If this happens, it will not only be Tea Party members that will be pissed off.

[JayJuanGee]

(10-07-2013 05:56 AM)JayMillz Wrote:  

(10-05-2013 11:39 AM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

Revealingly, the House approved a measure today for furloughed federal workers to receive back pay during the shutdown. The bill passed by a 407 to zero margin, with 25 members (Tea Partiers) abstaining/not voting. The bill is expected to pass swiftly through the Senate and will be approved by the President.

As you can imagine, the idea of "lazy, overpaid, underworked" federal workers essentially getting a free and fully funded vacation from work at the expense of YOU (the taxpayer) is infuriating to Tea Party supporters. That is why this measure can be seen as a defeat for the Tea Party caucus in Congress that created the shutdown in the first place. There will likely be momentum now to get the government open again since workers will be getting paid either way, yet the public won't receive any services if the government remains closed (quite the image).

This now looks like the beginning of the end in a sense and a victory for the Democrats.

If this happens, it will not only be Tea Party members that will be pissed off.

What do you mean by "this"? "This" already happened on Saturday, which was the unanimous vote of the house to retro-backpay all furloughed federal employees.

Reopening the govt seems like the next logical likely conclusion.

[JayMillz]

(10-07-2013 06:00 AM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  

What do you mean by "this"?

If taxpayers have to pay for non productivity, that would be an unfavorable situation for those taxpayers. It is one thing to make the assertion that people don't work and receive pay, but it is another thing for it to be the case by definition.

[Easy E]

(10-07-2013 05:29 AM)Pacesetter20 Wrote:  

(10-06-2013 05:06 PM)Easy E Wrote:  

House Speaker John Boehner demands cuts for debt limit increase:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/06/politics/c...?hpt=hp_t1

If Boehner really wanted cuts, he would do nothing and let the Nation Debt hit the ceiling. Contrary to popular belief this would NOT result in a default.

Why would this not lead to a default? It is simple, the U.S. collects about 10x as much money as it has interest on debt (on a monthly basis), so all the Treasury needs to do to prevent a default is make sure that the interest on the debt is paid first (Here is a breakdown from the WSJ from 2011 that expands on this point)

However, not raising the "Debt Ceiling" would force significant cuts in the Government. Considering that roughly 80% of the government is still operating during the shutdown and the world hasn't ended and we haven't been invaded by terrorists or China or Russia. Shows that a lot of the government really isn't that necessary.

For the record I think everything should be on the table for cuts (Defense, Entitlements, Regulatory).

This argument is a little disingenuous. First, we didn't have a real government shutdown (only "non-essential workers" were furloughed, about 40% of total fed workers). Second, tax receipts cover about 68% of government spending, so if there was no raise of the debt ceiling, then yeah we could pay the bond holders...but we would immediately have to enact a 32% cut in government spending. That is about a third. That is a huge cut. No, let me rephrase that: That is a fucking HUUUUUUGE cut in government spending. The stock market would tank on this news because it would mean an instant, massive decrease in spending.

Thus, the debt ceiling is getting raised...it is just a matter of whether it is raised prior to Oct. 17 or a few days after when the stock market crashes. Either way, it is getting raised.

[It_is_my_time]

(10-07-2013 03:50 AM)Pacesetter20 Wrote:  

(10-07-2013 03:08 AM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

I'm a biased pinko, but it seemed like a triumph for Dems when the Rethugs refused to fund the exact programs they previously voted in favor of ( Affordable Care Act, all the other good stuff like missiles and food stamps) .

ACA was passed under a Democratic controlled House, Senate & President.

But even, is it impossible to have a change of heart when you realize a mistake and are trying to fix/prevent it from getting worse?

If I remember correctly, only a couple of Republicans voted for it, and all them were in their last term (planning retirement) and they had to be bought off by the Democrats (huge kickbacks to their districts).

One was from Maine (Snow I believe was her name) and another was from Nebraska.

Not only is Obamacare VERY bad for men and VERY bad for our economy, it was passed under some of the most partisan politics imaginable.

[klosck]

Being a federal worker stationed in Europe, I was happy when we shutdown.

From the news , I had expected that the shutdown would continue well up until the debt ceiling deadline (Oct. 17). Having this huge chunk off work would have been like a dream come true. I was planning to take a trip around Europe using the most cost effective means possible: hitchhiking/ride shares/couchsurfing/Airbnb. It was going to be glorious. Instead, yesterday, on the eve before my departure, my boss calls and tells me to get into work the next day. Apparently they passed the “Pay Our Military Act” which somehow also covers most DoD civilians…which also doesn’t make any sense…

Anyway on a serious note, (and selfish reasons aside) I am not happy about how things look from here on out. Personally I think this shutdown has nothing to do with Obamacare, Republicans or Democrats. This is all just a sideshow. It is as an excuse as to why a budget can’t be passed. The truth of the matter is, (and the much larger issue) is that it can’t be passed because we are broke, broke, broke….

The politicians don’t want a budget passed because it puts constraints on what can be spent (Note: We haven’t passed a budget for four years). Instead of making painful cuts now, they would rather push this issue out, raise the debt ceiling and continue the spending. I’m not sure how long this can continue. We are slowly being driven off a fucking cliff…

[Pacesetter20]

(10-07-2013 07:58 AM)Easy E Wrote:  

This argument is a little disingenuous. First, we didn't have a real government shutdown (only "non-essential workers" were furloughed, about 40% of total fed workers). Second, tax receipts cover about 68% of government spending, so if there was no raise of the debt ceiling, then yeah we could pay the bond holders...but we would immediately have to enact a 32% cut in government spending. That is about a third. That is a huge cut. No, let me rephrase that: That is a fucking HUUUUUUGE cut in government spending. The stock market would tank on this news because it would mean an instant, massive decrease in spending.
Thus, the debt ceiling is getting raised...it is just a matter of whether it is raised prior to Oct. 17 or a few days after when the stock market crashes. Either way, it is getting raised.

We need a huge cut.

The stock market is going to crash? Just like it crashed when the government shut down on 1 Oct, oh wait it didn't.

But wait, why do you care if the stock market crashes? I thought the Democrats were against corporate welfare, so again why do you care if the rich and corporations lose a bunch of money?

Let's face it businesses are relieved that the government is shut down.

The U.S. existed and prospered before so much government and we can do so again. Your statement is typical fear mongering that the world is going to end if we don't have a bloated, corrupt, wasteful government operating at 100%.

(10-07-2013 08:18 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

(10-07-2013 03:50 AM)Pacesetter20 Wrote:  

(10-07-2013 03:08 AM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

I'm a biased pinko, but it seemed like a triumph for Dems when the Rethugs refused to fund the exact programs they previously voted in favor of ( Affordable Care Act, all the other good stuff like missiles and food stamps) .

ACA was passed under a Democratic controlled House, Senate & President.

But even, is it impossible to have a change of heart when you realize a mistake and are trying to fix/prevent it from getting worse?

If I remember correctly, only a couple of Republicans voted for it, and all them were in their last term (planning retirement) and they had to be bought off by the Democrats (huge kickbacks to their districts).

One was from Maine (Snow I believe was her name) and another was from Nebraska.

Not only is Obamacare VERY bad for men and VERY bad for our economy, it was passed under some of the most partisan politics imaginable.

http://heartland.org/policy-documents/vo...-obamacare

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/ro...vote=00396

No Republican voted for Obamacare in the House.

One Republican abstained from Obamacare in the Senate and none voted for it (Both Independents voted for it in the Senate).