Reply With Quote
They're losing, and they're gonna lose big. Eat , tea baggers.
Good to see the Republicans at least putting up a fight against the Tyrant in Chief.
They're losing, and they're gonna lose big. Eat , tea baggers.
Shutdown puts many furloughed workers in financial distress
It might seem like a paid vacation for the 500,000 federal workers on furlough.
They've been out of work since last week and were promised back pay once a budget is passed and the government reopens.
But for many rank-and-file employees who live paycheck to paycheck, the shutdown is proving to be a massive financial headache. Some say their savings have been wiped out after a three-year pay freeze and a previous round of furloughs during the summer.
The nation's ideological battle over healthcare and spending is hitting these workers in the pocketbook. They're falling behind on rent, car payments, credit-card debt and other bills.
The pain is also spreading to the private sector as many companies with government contracts begin sending workers home.
The furloughs are costing the economy at least $160 million per workday, according to market research firm IHS Inc. If the shutdown continues beyond three or four weeks, economic growth could be cut in half in the last quarter of the year, Moody's Analytics said.
The federal government had about 2.15 million people, excluding postal workers unaffected by the shutdown, on its payroll in August, according to the government. California alone has about 243,000 federal employees.
"They are middle-class Americans," said Colleen Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union, which represents about 150,000 federal workers. "They are frightened about what this means to their families. Many are the sole supporters of their families."
Kelley's union represents workers from 31 federal agencies and departments such as the Treasury and Homeland Security. She said about 40% of the union's members take home a salary less than $50,000 a year.
"There are tens of thousands of workers who don't have backup plans or a support system," she said.
http://touch.latimes.com/#section/17.../p2p-77763508/
If I'm the tea bagger, then you're the tea baggee.
so you wanna suck my scrotum?
tea bagger(me) on top.
tea baggee(you) on the bottom.
If you are going to talk about having gay oral sex with each other, talk about that in private. Thank you.
The South is holding America hostage
When I have described the well-considered, coherent political and economic strategies of the conservative white South, as I have done here, here and here, I am sometimes been accused of being a “conspiracy theorist.” But one need not believe that white-hooded Dragons and Wizards are secretly coordinating the actions of Southern conservative politicians from a bunker underneath Stone Mountain in Georgia to believe that a number of contemporary policies — from race-to-the-bottom economic policies to voter disfranchisement and attempts to decentralize or privatize federal social insurance en lements — serve the interests of those who promote them, who tend to be white Southern conservatives.
Just as a strategy is not a conspiracy, so it is not insanity. Ironically, American progressives, centrists and some Northern conservatives are only deluding themselves, when they insist that the kind of right-wing Southerners behind the government shutdown are “crazy.” Crazy, yes — crazy like a fox.
Another mistake is the failure to recognize that the Southern elite strategy, though bound up with white supremacy throughout history, is primarily about cheap and powerless labor, not about race. If the South and the U.S. as a whole through some magical transformation became racially geneous tomorrow, there is no reason to believe that the Southern business and political class would suddenly embrace a new model of political economy based on high wages, high taxes and centralized government, rather than pursue its historical model of a low-wage, low-tax, decentralized system, even though all workers, employers and investors now shared a common skin color.
For some time, the initiative has rested with the Southern power elite, which knows what it wants and has a plan to get it. The strategy of the conservative South, as a nation-within-a nation and in the global economy, combines an economic strategy and a political strategy.
If the neo-Confederates want to wage political and economic war, their fellow Americans should choose to respond with political and economic war on all fronts, not on the terms and in the places the Southern conservatives choose.
http://www.salon.com/2013/10/13/the_south_is_holding_america_hostage/
Republicans sure as don't want this video to get out. If the GOP didn't own the shutdown already they're gonna own it lock, stock and barrel now. Can those poll numbers plummet any lower?
Boenner's probably kicking himself for that one, pretty much gave away his get out of jail free cardRepublicans sure as don't want this video to get out. If the GOP didn't own the shutdown already they're gonna own it lock, stock and barrel now. Can those poll numbers plummet any lower?
‘It’s Hard to See How Boehner Gets Out of This’: Armey on the Shutdown
And he was wrong …
I think the fundamental miscalculation of ’95 was that we did not understand Clinton. Clinton was no sissy. He was not going to cave. And the public pressure wasn’t falling on Clinton; it was falling on us. The president was advantaged by being the guy who was trying so hard and being so accommodating to get through this against the stubborn and unreasonable Republicans. Tom DeLay always argued we were winning. If we were winning, I never saw it. We were getting the tar beat out of us.
And do you see many of the same dynamics in this shutdown?
There wasn’t that big ideological component back in ’95. Clinton was fundamentally a fiscal conservative, so more than anybody was ever willing to acknowledge, the goal of a balanced budget was a goal shared by Clinton in the first place. This fight now isn’t about the budget, it’s an ideological war. Nobody can surrender in this war, and their positions are mutually exclusive. Obamacare is the 50-year dream of the national Democrat party finally achieved. Everybody knew the Democrats were not going to take a bill to defund it. Boehner knew that, but he let himself get pushed into a shutdown anyway.
Is he really so afraid of the tea party?
Tea party, shmee party. It’s the Republican Study Committee, and they’ve been around since long before there was ever a tea party. But I still wonder: How does a guy like Ted Cruz, who’s relatively new in town, who nobody knows, who hasn’t even unpacked his bags, drive this whole process? It’s hard to see how Boehner gets himself out of this. My personal belief is his best model is Tip O’Neill. Tip O’Neill would have just said, “Look, I’m in charge here, you can take it or not.” I think John’s too worried about his speakership. If you’re going to be in command, damn it, then you got to command.
So how will it end?
I will predict this: When they agree on a spending bill, it will speak not at all to Obamacare and it will be at budgetary numbers higher than the sequestration level. And so in the end, the Republican conference will lose ground on the budget, they will lose ground on health care, they will lose ground politically, and they’ll be in a worse position than where Boehner had them going into this process. And they’ll all blame Boehner, bless his heart.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/10/ -armey-remembers-the-gingrich-shutdowns.html
Spending Dispute Leaves a Senate Deal Elusive
The core of the dispute is about spending, and how long a stopgap measure that would reopen the government should last. Democrats want the across-the-board cuts known as sequestration to last only through mid-November; Republicans want them to last as long as possible.
The Democrats’ demand shows a newfound aggressiveness. Previously, they had favored a so-called clean bill that would reopen the government and lift the debt ceiling without any policy changes attached. With Republicans on the defensive, it remains unclear whether the Democrats are using a negotiating ploy to raise the likelihood that any final deal will include their priorities as well as the Republicans’.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/14/us/politics/budget-and-debt-limit-debate.html?hp
I'd keep WORSENING the Dem offer the longer the Repugs obstruct. it, put the spending bill back to $1.4T (no sequestration at all) and let the Repugs burn in electoral for 20 years.
The American people understand we can't keep raising the debt ceiling without cutting spending. The Republicans win every time on that point. They should keep hammering away. As far as defaulting on our debt, we take in 10 times what we have to pay in interest on the debt so we would be able to make those payments for a long time. Liars like 0bama and Dingy Harry want Americans to believe America will default on it's debt as soon as we reach the debt limit. Once we make our debt payment, we then prioritize spending on the most essential programs. This is an opportunity for the Republicans to stop the spending madness and put America on the path to financial stability. Those that get cold feet will have to pay.
No .
Spurstalk needs a "gay" forum so the rest of us can stay clear of such .
"The American people understand we can't keep raising the debt ceiling without cutting spending"
The SMART American people KNOW America has a revenue problem, not a spending problem, that the 1% and corporations are not paying their fair share after the VRWC policies of cutting taxes on them for the past 35 years.
In my defense, Bouton took us down the path by calling me a tea bagger. I was just turning it around on him,....not to be confused with reach around.
I would half agree with you in that the smart American know we have a revenue problem. This is because we don't have as many tax payers per capita as in the past years. More and more workers fall off the cutoff to pay taxes, and more and more are receiving benefits than before. At the same time, this is part of the reason why we have a spending problem.
The federal government is also taking on too many tasks that the 10th amendment should be acknowledged on, leaving to the states.
I understand such things. I am guilty of turning things on others too. I swear though, Spurstalk must be excessively full of gays. Ever read the threads in "The Club?"
This is exactly right. Instead of creating more taxpayers, 0bama and the Dems have created more government dependents, which is precisely what they want. More voters dependent on the government for their lives means these Dems will be continually reelected.
"This is because we don't have as many tax payers per capita as in the past years"
probably a contrbution, but not a dominant one. Although in that area, flat household real revenue for 35 years means means flat household tax revenue.
The DOMINANT factor is the 1% and MegaCorps avoiding or evading taxes (including criminal serial felony tax evader Bishop Gecko) the driver of 3rd world corrupt country inequality in the USA now. Then add in the costs of Repug unfunded, botched, spurious wars, and Repug unfunded corporate welfare of Medicare Advantage, Medicare Part D.
red-staters, macho "Rugged Individualist" cattlemen, Repug voters, whining about no Fed/USDA help with their dead cows, cleanup, etc, etc during the Repug govt shutdown, which according to the Repug LIES, is inconsequential because only 17% of govt is out of action.
Shutdown Hinders S.D. Post-Blizzard Cleanup
http://www.npr.org/2013/10/14/233790...under-blizzard
You tea baggers and right-wingers want SMALL GOVERNMENT?
How this taste to ya?
Skyrocketing Flood Insurance Rates Bring Financial Chaos, Heartache to Coastal Homeowners Across U.S.
When Superstorm Sandy slammed into New York and New Jersey last fall, it sent massive floods through the streets of coastal towns and cities across the Northeast, turning areas like Toms River, N.J., into something like a war zone.
But nearly a year later, residents there and in many other coastal communities across the U.S. face a potentially far more devastating menace: a nationwide revamp of flood insurance rates, forcing premiums that were once around $500 per year into the $5,000-, $10,000- and even $20,000-a-year range and higher.
"The adverse effect of [this] would be more devastating than Hurricane Katrina," Louisiana Insurance Commissioner Jim Donelon said in an interview with weather.com, noting the crippling economic damage the historic 2005 storm left behind on the Gulf coast. "Because it will render literally thousands of properties in my state worthless."
What's prompting reactions like this is the Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012, passed by Congress last summer and often called "Biggert-Waters" for its two Congressional sponsors: former Illinois Rep. Judy Biggert and Rep. Maxine Waters of California.
The act made sweeping changes to the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) – which has been the only provider of flood insurance for homes and businesses across the U.S. since its creation in 1968 – with the goal of raising rates to reflect the true actuarial risk of properties in flood zones.
Saying goodbye to subsidized flood insurance
Biggert-Waters does that by phasing out subsidies for flood insurance in the most high-risk areas. Before the act's passage, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) had sold more than a million policies at subsidized rates. After it passed, more than 430,000 policyholders had their subsidies immediately cut off; another 715,000 remained, but are expected to be gradually phased out.
Those changes were seen as urgent last summer by Congress -- which passed the bill with overwhelming bipartisan support, including a vote of 406 to 22 in the U.S. House of Representatives -- because the NFIP was reportedly more than $18 billion in debt, with about $15 billion of that coming from the damage caused by 2005's Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
But that was before anyone knew what the details of the program would look like. And since FEMA began rolling out new flood zone maps and flood insurance rates to go with them earlier this year, based on the changes called for in Biggert-Waters, reaction has been swift and intense.
http://www.weather.com/news/science/...wners-20130927
And probably the majority of those coastal homeowners are in Confederate/HATE-GOVT Repug sun-belt states, TX, LA, MS, AL, FL, GA, SC, NC, VA
and of course the "Free market" will step in an provide, as always, the optimal solution!
Last edited by boutons_deux; 10-14-2013 at 09:29 AM.
You want the taxpayer to fund people's desire to live near the beach. What kind of ing idiot are you ?You tea baggers and right-wingers want SMALL GOVERNMENT?
How this taste to ya?
Skyrocketing Flood Insurance Rates Bring Financial Chaos, Heartache to Coastal Homeowners Across U.S.
When Superstorm Sandy slammed into New York and New Jersey last fall, it sent massive floods through the streets of coastal towns and cities across the Northeast, turning areas like Toms River, N.J., into something like a war zone.
But nearly a year later, residents there and in many other coastal communities across the U.S. face a potentially far more devastating menace: a nationwide revamp of flood insurance rates, forcing premiums that were once around $500 per year into the $5,000-, $10,000- and even $20,000-a-year range and higher.
"The adverse effect of [this] would be more devastating than Hurricane Katrina," Louisiana Insurance Commissioner Jim Donelon said in an interview with weather.com, noting the crippling economic damage the historic 2005 storm left behind on the Gulf coast. "Because it will render literally thousands of properties in my state worthless."
What's prompting reactions like this is the Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012, passed by Congress last summer and often called "Biggert-Waters" for its two Congressional sponsors: former Illinois Rep. Judy Biggert and Rep. Maxine Waters of California.
The act made sweeping changes to the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) – which has been the only provider of flood insurance for homes and businesses across the U.S. since its creation in 1968 – with the goal of raising rates to reflect the true actuarial risk of properties in flood zones.
Saying goodbye to subsidized flood insurance
Biggert-Waters does that by phasing out subsidies for flood insurance in the most high-risk areas. Before the act's passage, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) had sold more than a million policies at subsidized rates. After it passed, more than 430,000 policyholders had their subsidies immediately cut off; another 715,000 remained, but are expected to be gradually phased out.
Those changes were seen as urgent last summer by Congress -- which passed the bill with overwhelming bipartisan support, including a vote of 406 to 22 in the U.S. House of Representatives -- because the NFIP was reportedly more than $18 billion in debt, with about $15 billion of that coming from the damage caused by 2005's Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
But that was before anyone knew what the details of the program would look like. And since FEMA began rolling out new flood zone maps and flood insurance rates to go with them earlier this year, based on the changes called for in Biggert-Waters, reaction has been swift and intense.
http://www.weather.com/news/science/...wners-20130927
And probably the majority of those coastal homeowners are in Confederate/HATE-GOVT Repug sun-belt states, TX, LA, MS, AL, FL, GA, SC, NC, VA
and of course the "Free market" will step in an provide, as always, the optimal solution!
Obama Can’t Waste This Moment
The key in politics is to snatch victory from the jaws of victory.
The senseless government shutdown has led to a rout of the Tea Party, right-wing extremism and a Republican leadership that was cowed into a march toward oblivion. But a great deal hangs on what happens next. Will this be a watershed moment? Or do we return to the same dreary politics we were having before this sorry episode?
What needs to happen is a sharp course correction — from an agenda championed by the forces that were beaten in the last election to an engagement with the problems our nation must solve.
It would be an utter waste to revisit the obsessions of 2011 and the presumption that budget cutting and deficit reduction should be the sole priorities of the political class. Recall that Rep. Paul Ryan was the other member of the Republican ticket that lost last year. Ryan’s proposal to slash spending played an central role in Mitt Romney’s defeat.
http://www.nationalmemo.com/obama-ca...e-this-moment/
Forcing the Repugs to total defeat on the budget and then going 14th Amendment on the debt ceiling would totally destroy the Repugs, winning the 2014 and 2016 elections for the Dems.
Over reach here again Boutons.You tea baggers and right-wingers want SMALL GOVERNMENT?
How this taste to ya?
Skyrocketing Flood Insurance Rates Bring Financial Chaos, Heartache to Coastal Homeowners Across U.S.
When Superstorm Sandy slammed into New York and New Jersey last fall, it sent massive floods through the streets of coastal towns and cities across the Northeast, turning areas like Toms River, N.J., into something like a war zone.
But nearly a year later, residents there and in many other coastal communities across the U.S. face a potentially far more devastating menace: a nationwide revamp of flood insurance rates, forcing premiums that were once around $500 per year into the $5,000-, $10,000- and even $20,000-a-year range and higher.
"The adverse effect of [this] would be more devastating than Hurricane Katrina," Louisiana Insurance Commissioner Jim Donelon said in an interview with weather.com, noting the crippling economic damage the historic 2005 storm left behind on the Gulf coast. "Because it will render literally thousands of properties in my state worthless."
What's prompting reactions like this is the Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012, passed by Congress last summer and often called "Biggert-Waters" for its two Congressional sponsors: former Illinois Rep. Judy Biggert and Rep. Maxine Waters of California.
The act made sweeping changes to the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) – which has been the only provider of flood insurance for homes and businesses across the U.S. since its creation in 1968 – with the goal of raising rates to reflect the true actuarial risk of properties in flood zones.
Saying goodbye to subsidized flood insurance
Biggert-Waters does that by phasing out subsidies for flood insurance in the most high-risk areas. Before the act's passage, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) had sold more than a million policies at subsidized rates. After it passed, more than 430,000 policyholders had their subsidies immediately cut off; another 715,000 remained, but are expected to be gradually phased out.
Those changes were seen as urgent last summer by Congress -- which passed the bill with overwhelming bipartisan support, including a vote of 406 to 22 in the U.S. House of Representatives -- because the NFIP was reportedly more than $18 billion in debt, with about $15 billion of that coming from the damage caused by 2005's Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
But that was before anyone knew what the details of the program would look like. And since FEMA began rolling out new flood zone maps and flood insurance rates to go with them earlier this year, based on the changes called for in Biggert-Waters, reaction has been swift and intense.
http://www.weather.com/news/science/...wners-20130927
And probably the majority of those coastal homeowners are in Confederate/HATE-GOVT Repug sun-belt states, TX, LA, MS, AL, FL, GA, SC, NC, VA
and of course the "Free market" will step in an provide, as always, the optimal solution!
This could be looked at stop funding rich peoples 2nd home on the coastline, Or a save the wetlands from being built on.
The cost of living close to water where hurricanes hit is already very high even with federal funding. Poor people could not afford it anyway. It is risky to live in places like New Orleans. If you do, be prepared to rebuild on your own, it's common sense. We have allowed people to live 14 feet below sea level in flood prone areas because... that's where they live? It's just plain stupid. I have relatives in NO, they accept the risk of financial ruin. They will rebuild again on their own, it's their choice. Fine, I helped them put up a new frame knowing it could vanish next fall. Ants, I call them ants.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
