Reply With Quote
Anyone remember that moment when Rand Paul was dumb enough to think they could win this fight?
[QUOTE=Wild Cobra;6882342]We need to run out of money, and SS is flush with it until a few more years.
So what will people spend their SS checks on when no one will accept them?
Good.
Our stupid congressmen and president need to realize that interest rates fluctuate. maybe you wish to lay dead like roadkill, but i am not willing to lay down for these traitors in congress. They are spending away my children's money, and this must end!
So you wish to punish your children immediately.
I didn't see ant problems related to it at all at all until after the bailout.
Exactly, the government intervened, where were you? Do you remember not being able to make a purchase with cash?
No, you are putting your hear in your ass. Hoping this will go a few more years until finding a solution. maybe you are hoping you will die before an impending economic disaster.
Oh, so blow the whole thing up and start over as a 3rd world country, nice. Can your kids dig?
we need to address this now. Not later. the longer we wait, the worse it will be.
There won't be an economy to address later. You will create a brand new set of problems IN ADDITION to those you already worry about.
[\QUOTE]
And I have a kid. I don't want nuts like yourself playing Russian Roulette with her head. Use yours.
Last edited by pgardn; 10-16-2013 at 10:04 PM.
Anyone remember that moment when Rand Paul was dumb enough to think they could win this fight?
Gas prices gonna go up. Thanks Obama.
and with 35 pages of pork (which is mostly job-creating ECONOMIC STIMULUS! like $2B+ for dams in McConnell's KY)
http://gawker.com/house-stenographer...ium=socialflow
http://nation.time.com/2013/10/17/house-stenographer-disrupts-vote-gets-hauled-away/
stenographer loses it and starts clamouring about God and the free masons.
You think that America basically admitting that we can't pay all our debts wouldn't affect the stock market? What about the two drops we have seen during the shutdowns?
Also, I am not sure how think "words" can cause market instability, but defaulting wouldn't.
Also, if you want to fight spending, I am down for that. But don't be a pussy and try to shutdown the government. Reduce spending in the budget. That's what determines inlays/outlays.
"fight spending"
spending, and fed govt employees, are descending rapidly
the problem with spending, deficit, debt is, has been for decades, CUTS IN TAXES
boutons, I agree, unfortunately there's no way taxes occur without spending cuts. I think we could reduce the military some, as well as eliminate a few loopholes (like tax free churches... After all, according to conservatives, people will give to churches out of charity to support them...)
you mean technically or politically? there's no technical/financial reason tax hikes are impossible. Politically, the Repugs have sworn allegiance to Norquist and sworn ALWAYS to cut taxes indefinitely on the wealthy and corporations.
a contrarian take from The Nation:
http://www.thenation.com/article/176...loses-it-wins#Because the deal only includes minor concessions, the Beltway consensus is that it represents a resounding defeat for Republicans, who “surrendered” their original demands to defund or delay Obamacare. In the skirmish of opinion polls, that may be true, for now. But in the war of ideas, the Senate deal is but a stalemate, one made almost entirely on conservative terms. The GOP now goes into budget talks with sequestration as the new baseline, primed to demand longer-term cuts in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. And they still hold the gun of a US default to the nation’s head in the next debt ceiling showdown.
Surrender? Any more “victories” like this and Democrats will end up paying tribute into the GOP’s coffers.
This debate started in 2011 when the president accepted that he couldn’t get support for jobs programs and instead called for “balanced” deficit reduction that included tax increases on corporations and the wealthy and spending cuts. In response, Republicans threatened to default on America’s debts, forcing through the Budget Control Act, which cut nearly $1 trillion in spending over ten years with no tax increases and exacted another trillion in cuts either by agreement of a “supercommittee” or, failing that, automatic across-the-board cuts of $1.2 trillion over ten years. Now the Republicans’ “surrender” locks in that sequester while pushing for further reductions to basic safety net programs—all while tax increases remain off the table and the threat of default is still pointed at the country’s head. Tea Party zealots may have lost their bid to torpedo healthcare reform, but the right continues to set the terms of the debate.
---
Republicans never demanded Obamacare repeal, says Republican who demanded 'getting rid of Obamacare'
Let the rewriting of history begin!
Rep. Labrador says it's "absolutely false" that GOP sought Obamacare repeal. " We have never asked for a full repeal of Obamacare..."
— @mpoindc
And:
Labrador says any reporters saying GOP wanted full Obamacare repeal were "lying to the American people."
— @mikememoli
And just in case you doubt the technical accuracy of Labrador's words, check out this press release on his website:
Rep. Raúl Labrador (R-ID) announced today that he is a cosponsor of a resolution introduced by Rep. Tom Graves (R-GA) to fund the government for Fiscal Year 2014 while fully delaying and defunding ObamaCare until 2015. The Graves resolution – which has 59 cosponsors – would prevent a government shutdown from taking place after September 30, 2013, when current funding for the government expires."If there’s any single issue that can unite House Republicans and has the strong support of the American people, it’s getting rid of ObamaCare," said Rep. Labrador.
So if you said Labrador and his fellow Republicans were demanding Obamacare repeal in this government shutdown, you're totally lying, because they weren't demanding Obamacare repeal, they were merely demanding the Obamacare be defunded until 2015 because they were united in support of "getting rid of Obamacare."
And, as everybody knows, there's an enormous difference between "repealing Obamacare" and "getting rid of Obamacare." So if you're one of the lying liars who is accusing Republicans of trying to use the government shutdown and threat of default as leverage to repeal Obamacare, you need to start telling the truth: They were simply trying to get rid of it.
9:30 AM PT: Or, as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell put it:
McConnell on HC law: "Republicans remained determined to repeal this terrible law." But adds for today, Senate GOP wants to reopen gvt
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/1...e?detail=email
Ted Cruz Isn’t Ruling Out Another Shutdown to Fight Obamacare
Despite Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s vow that another government shutdown won’t be an option to try to derail President Barack Obama’s health care law, Cruz and his supporters are saying not so fast.
A senior Republican aide told TheBlaze that the Texas senator is keeping all options on the table — including the possibility of another shutdown — to stop the Affordable Healthcare Act.
“Yes, he is keeping all options on the table,” the aide told TheBlaze. “That said, he never wanted a shutdown. He fully supported, advocated and encouraged Congress to fund vital government services through the shutdown in order to focus completely on Obamacare.”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...ght-obamacare/
I say: "Cruzaders, Bring It On!" More shutdowns will shut down the Repug party and tea baggers electorally.
http://www.theamericanconservative.c...g-ever-failingErick Erickson is eager for more primary challenges against Senate Republicans:
Two Republicans in the Senate caused this fight that their colleagues would have surrendered on more quickly but for them. Imagine a Senate filled with more.The fixation on punishing the Senate Republicans that “surrendered” is revealing. It shows that Erickson still doesn’t grasp that lack of control of the Senate doomed any effort to force significant concessions from the administration, and it shows how oblivious he remains to the greater political dangers that the GOP just escaped. Having a larger number of uncompromising Republicans in the Senate probably wouldn’t have prevented yesterday’s deal, since nearly two-thirds of the Senate GOP voted for it anyway. That’s a lot of “charlatans” to defeat. Nonetheless, if a deal had been prevented thanks to Senate Republican opposition, Republicans would just as surely have “owned” the consequences of breaching the debt ceiling as they “owned” the shutdown. Those consequences would have been significantly worse for the country, and Republicans would have to start worrying about a net loss of seats in the Senate and the House. In case Erickson missed it, this would be the opposite of advancing. In other words, he wants to punish the Republicans that averted even greater disaster for the party than the failed strategy he urged them to follow.
As things stand now, diverting energy and resources into additional primary challenges isn’t going to make it more likely that Republicans will control the Senate in 2015 and could potentially cost the party a seat here or there it shouldn’t have lost. That all but guarantees that the party will be in the same place two years from now that it is today. Once again, Erickson is urging conservatives to do things that won’t actually advance their cause, and might end up hurting it. Perhaps conservatives should reassess who it is that has been conning and fleecing them.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...r-bush/280659/The Tea Party is composed largely of Republicans who supported George W. Bush when he was the GOP standard-bearer, voting for him twice and criticizing him far less frequently than they defended him, only to rebel against his record at the end of his second term. At that point, partisan loyalty and shared hatred of liberals finally gave way to the realization that the GOP's time in power was a disaster for conservatives...
...Many in the Tea Party seem to have conflated compromising one's principles, a bad thing, with negotiating to reach agreements that make both sides better off. The latter kind of compromise is the only way American government can function when power is divided. There is no logical reason that it should be regarded by conservatives as a dirty word—the Bush years weren't bad for conservatives because of negotiated deals that gave both sides some of what they wanted.
Pretending that compromise is what went wrong during the Bush years helps conservatives evade responsibility for supporting an agenda many parts of which they find indefensible in hindsight. It permits them to blame Democrats and establishment Republicans for events they themselves only rebelled against after the fact, and to delude themselves into thinking that everything will get better if only they vehemently insist on getting their way, sans compromise, all of the time.
Who wouldn't want to believe that's all success takes? It's a pretty lie that talk-radio hosts find it easy to tell over and over again, despite contrary evidence, because conservatives want to believe that it's true. Reality is much harder to face. In order to mount a comeback and wield influence in American politics, conservatives need to face their own flaws, negotiate savvy compromises with President Obama and Democrats, build credibility and momentum with small gains in the short term, persuade people of their ideas and governing vision in the medium term, and implement their agenda by winning elections rather than brinkmanship. But hard truths don't attract a large enough audience to sustain a radio show.
Shutdown Will Continue To Damage Economy Through The Holiday Season, Economists Predict
economists are warning that Republicans’ crisis-to-crisis brinkmanship over the past few years is causing lasting damage to the economy.
The shutdown deal, which funds the government through January 15 and postpones the debt ceiling until February 7, all but mandates another down-to-the-wire budget battle,
the inability of businesses and consumers to plan for more than a couple months at a time is “corrosive” to the economy.
“To move the economy forward, we need a strong consumer. If a consumer can’t rely on his or her job…they aren’t going to spend. It’s going to be a pretty weak holiday season.”
“I had expected the economy to pick up pace by the end of the year going into the next but now I think that’s very unlikely,” Zandi told Schieffer. “I think we’re stuck in this very slow growth, lackluster kind of environment.”
Sequestration, which will be re-negotiated in the budget talks over the next couple months, has also had lasting damage on the economic recovery. Mass furloughs that kicked in earlier this year have slowed consumer spending, particularly on home sales and durable goods.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/201...onomic-damage/
Cruz’s willingness to threaten another crisis is insanity to many leaders of the Republican Party. The shutdown took the bulletproof vest of their House majority and has already made 15 seats more likely to swing to the Democrats, according to the venerable Cook Political Report.
But you know the truth: While the shutdown was an obvious disaster for the Republican Party, it was a bonanza for Cruz and his wealthy anti-goverment allies.
It was a bonanza when it comes to fundraising and making him the leader of the far right of the Republican Party. Why would he give up now, with the 2016 GOP primary getting closer every day? Do you think Ted Cruz is worried about hurting the Republican Party’s “brand?”
“There’s an old saying that, ‘Politics, it ain’t beanbag.’” the junior senator from Texas told ABC News’ Jon Karl in an interview that aired Sunday. “And, you know, I’m not serving in office because I desperately needed 99 new friends in the U.S. Senate.”
http://www.nationalmemo.com/ted-cruz...-gop-has-done/
The government shutdown cost the US 120,000 jobs
http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Do...S-120-000-jobs
I meant politically Boutons.
Government Shutdown a Multibillion Bonanza for Wall Street
The October 2013 “shutdown” of the US government, and the financial climax associated with the deadline for a possible “debt default” by the federal government, was profitable for Wall Street. As Michael Chossudovsky reports, powerful corporate lobby groups acting directly or indirectly on behalf of Wall Street influenced the key actors in the US Congress involved in the shutdown debate. Major interests on Wall Street were not only in a position to influence Congress; they also had inside information regarding the government shutdown impasse. As a result, Chossudovsky writes, Wall Street was “slated to make billions of dollars in windfall profits in speculative activities which are “secure” assuming that they are in a position to exert their influence on relevant policy outcomes.”
The manipulation of markets is carried out on the orders of major bank executives including the CEOs of JP Morgan Chase, Deutsche Bank and BNP Paribas. The “too big to fail banks” are portrayed, in the words of JP Morgan Chase’s CEO Jamie Dimon’s, as the “victims” of the debt default crisis, when in fact they are the architects of economic chaos as well as the unspoken recipients of billions of dollars of stolen taxpayers’ money. “These corrupt mega banks,” Chossudovsky writes, “are responsible for creating the ‘gaping wound’ referred to by Deutsche Bank’s Anshu Jain in relation to the US public debt crisis.”
Four major Wall Street financial ins utions account for more than 90 percent of the so-called derivative exposure: J.P. Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Bank America, and Goldman Sachs.
These major banks exert a pervasive influence on the conduct of monetary policy, including the debate within the US Congress on the debt ceiling. They are also among the World’s largest speculators.
http://www.projectcensored.org/gover...a-wall-street/
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
