Shutdown ?

[moosetracker 132]

There are probably very few Democrats who are completely unwilling to compromise on ACA - are they' date=' too, "extremist ideologues"? [/quote']

Why should the Democrats compromise on a bill that was already written into law? It's a done deal. That's like the Patriots trying to negotiate the Superbowl victory after they were beaten by the Giants. Game over, move on. The majority of Americans support the ACA and want the shutdown to end. I'm sorry that a minority of people disagree but that's how democracy works.

 

Again' date=' that the ACA is the law of the land, for now, does not at all imply that it can't be debated, defunded, revoked, etc. It wasn't that long ago (1974-1995) that a 55 mph speed limit was "the law of the land."[/quote']

​41 House bills to repeal ACA have been debated, voted on and defeated. That's democracy in action. They can revisit repealing ACA in a new Congress/Senate/President in a few years but it's extremely shortsighted and foolish to think that Obama will sign a bill that would make major changes to his presidency's keystone legislation. The Republicans should stop wasting everyone's time.

Yes but it was enacted in order to see if it was beneficial or not. It was not stopped because someone whipped a group of people into a frenzy with scare-tactics.

[moosetracker 132]

When congress "passes" the most sweeping social welfare program in a generation by parliamentary maneuver and with NO bipartisan support, it should be no surprise that the peoples' house would lead a revolt.

Well weren't we lucky that this president did win the popular vote as well as the Electoral College.. Makes him more of the peoples choice. The senate has to win the election of everyone in the state.. Therefore you can not gerrymander districts so that the popular vote of those voting democrat is twice as high as those voting republican, but still the republicans get more seats.. So yes I can say that the Senate is more an example of the peoples choice.. The house is not, regardless of what you want to call it.

[walk in the woods 888]

There are some extremists who WANT the US to fall into financial ruin. It's their sick way of proving that they are right for hording guns, buying up gold, building underground bunkers and stocking up on 20-year supply of high-energy biscuits. There were a lot of preppers and tea party folk who were very upset that the end of the world didn't come in 2009-11 so they see this as their last shot at it. If the apocalypse never happens, they look like a bunch of fools and who wants to look like a fool. It's like those cults who predict the end of the world and when it doesn't happen they kill themselves.

When the debate is lost, resort to ad hominem attacks........

[walk in the woods 888]

I'm baffled how our constitution allows a minority in Congress to shut down the entire government. These minority Tea Party Republicans are holding our entire country hostage and the mainstream Republicans are going along and allowing them.

 

If mainstream Republicans are going along with them, then by definition they are not a minority, at least in the House of Representatives.

 

They are extremist ideologues who, by definition, have promised not to compromise and have vowed to dismantle, not modify or fix, the ACA.

 

There are probably very few Democrats who are completely unwilling to compromise on ACA - are they, too, "extremist ideologues"?

 

The fact is that the ACA is the law of the land, passed by the House and Senate, signed by the president and upheld by the Supreme Court: all three branches of government working as our constitution intended. And now the very constitution-obsessed Tea Party Republican folks are trying to usurp the constitution by blackmailing the country into revoking the ACA. If the Republicans get their way, then they will be handed a very powerful tool to do get whatever they want outside the legal process of making laws.

 

But it's not outside the legal process. All spending bills originate in the House. That is not merely a Congressional rule -- it is a Constitutional one.

 

Again, that the ACA is the law of the land, for now, does not at all imply that it can't be debated, defunded, revoked, etc. It wasn't that long ago (1974-1995) that a 55 mph speed limit was "the law of the land."

So Moose, you're saying that if the people of a district aren't happy with their representation they *shouldn't* threaten a primary challenge? That's not very democratic now is it...

[walk in the woods 888]

Tidbit:

 

Obama in 2006: "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure."

At that time the National Debt was a mere $9 trillion. Have you heard any Dem say by how much they want to increase the debt ceiling? One trillion dollars to get them through the 2014 election cycle (I rounded up from $988 Billion...). Are we going to let Obama double the debt before he's out of office? ($9T in 2006, $14.4T in 2013, add $1T for 2014, $1T for 2015...)

 

Frustration:

This is like arguing with a teenager who refuses to believe that their bank account is overdrawn: "I can't be out of money! I have more checks!"

Liberal members of the media, congress, and this forum are all relying on emotion to make their argument. All emotion and personal vitriol, no ability to face facts.

"It's never been done before!" Wrong - 27 times since 1976.

"Federal workers are going without a paycheck!" Yes. I feel bad for them. But many of them really need to start looking at the private sector and adjusting their long range plans. Hopefully they're smart enough to realize that, mathematically, the Fed cannot keep spending money at the current pace. There are not enough rich people to punish to pay the bills.

 

To my fellow conservatives: I'm pretty sure that we're not going to change any minds in here. They're not thinking.

Yeah, it's been almost 5 years. Time for the Dems to stop blaming the previous administration.

[moosetracker 132]

Tidbit:

 

Obama in 2006: "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure."

At that time the National Debt was a mere $9 trillion. Have you heard any Dem say by how much they want to increase the debt ceiling? One trillion dollars to get them through the 2014 election cycle (I rounded up from $988 Billion...). Are we going to let Obama double the debt before he's out of office? ($9T in 2006, $14.4T in 2013, add $1T for 2014, $1T for 2015...)

 

Frustration:

This is like arguing with a teenager who refuses to believe that their bank account is overdrawn: "I can't be out of money! I have more checks!"

Liberal members of the media, congress, and this forum are all relying on emotion to make their argument. All emotion and personal vitriol, no ability to face facts.

"It's never been done before!" Wrong - 27 times since 1976.

"Federal workers are going without a paycheck!" Yes. I feel bad for them. But many of them really need to start looking at the private sector and adjusting their long range plans. Hopefully they're smart enough to realize that, mathematically, the Fed cannot keep spending money at the current pace. There are not enough rich people to punish to pay the bills.

 

To my fellow conservatives: I'm pretty sure that we're not going to change any minds in here. They're not thinking.

Why?? They caused the problem by lowering taxes.. Conning us into getting into wars that we couldn't afford and there was no reason to start them except for doctored "evidence" from the Bush administration.. Then ever since they have slowed, stopped and sabotage any efforts to fix the republican made problems, because they just couldn't stomach Democrats being successful when they utterly failed.

 

So.. yeah.. Still can blame Republicans.. Can continue to blame them until they stop being obstructionists.

[Brewmeister 132]

Tidbit:

 

Obama in 2006: "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure."

At that time the National Debt was a mere $9 trillion. Have you heard any Dem say by how much they want to increase the debt ceiling? One trillion dollars to get them through the 2014 election cycle (I rounded up from $988 Billion...). Are we going to let Obama double the debt before he's out of office? ($9T in 2006, $14.4T in 2013, add $1T for 2014, $1T for 2015...)

 

Frustration:

This is like arguing with a teenager who refuses to believe that their bank account is overdrawn: "I can't be out of money! I have more checks!"

Liberal members of the media, congress, and this forum are all relying on emotion to make their argument. All emotion and personal vitriol, no ability to face facts.

"It's never been done before!" Wrong - 27 times since 1976.

"Federal workers are going without a paycheck!" Yes. I feel bad for them. But many of them really need to start looking at the private sector and adjusting their long range plans. Hopefully they're smart enough to realize that, mathematically, the Fed cannot keep spending money at the current pace. There are not enough rich people to punish to pay the bills.

 

To my fellow conservatives: I'm pretty sure that we're not going to change any minds in here. They're not thinking.

Haven't you figured out that they will never stop blaming the previous administration (or, for that matter, anyone and everyone else) for the problems they create or perpetuate?

[Brewmeister 132]

When congress "passes" the most sweeping social welfare program in a generation by parliamentary maneuver and with NO bipartisan support, it should be no surprise that the peoples' house would lead a revolt.

Well, let me try this again. I'll speak slower this time so you can hopefully understand.

 

The house is historically called "The people's house." Not by me, but as a matter of history and tradition.

 

So do you see how that works, then? I am using a historical fact to illustrate a point I am making. Whether you agree with what the House is called or not is not the issue here. Totally irrelevant. My point is that this "Big f-ing deal," in the words of our vice president, was rammed through with no bipartisan support.

 

Just to explain that for you even more, "no bipartisan support" means that NOBODY from the right side of the aisle supported the legislation. As a matter of fact, there was bipartisan OPPOSITION to the bill in the House, with 34 Democrat representatives voting against it. In other words, unlike the "New Deal," the "Big F-ing Deal" is the first sweeping social program to be enacted unilaterally.

 

Heck, even the Civil Rights Act, which was opposed by so many Democrats, at least got a little support from them in the end.

 

So the fact that people are still unhappy about and fighting this should be no surprise to anyone.

[Stosh 3452]

Vindictive Alert: Not only is Mt. Rushmore shut down, they are closing the shoulders along public highways with traffic cones to make sure no one can pull over and take pictures. One has to wonder how far such political hatred can go.

 

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/10/now-govt-trying-to-block-people-from-looking-at-mt-rushmore-seriously/

 

Stosh

[DigitalScout 75]

Tidbit:

 

Obama in 2006: "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure."

At that time the National Debt was a mere $9 trillion. Have you heard any Dem say by how much they want to increase the debt ceiling? One trillion dollars to get them through the 2014 election cycle (I rounded up from $988 Billion...). Are we going to let Obama double the debt before he's out of office? ($9T in 2006, $14.4T in 2013, add $1T for 2014, $1T for 2015...)

 

Frustration:

This is like arguing with a teenager who refuses to believe that their bank account is overdrawn: "I can't be out of money! I have more checks!"

Liberal members of the media, congress, and this forum are all relying on emotion to make their argument. All emotion and personal vitriol, no ability to face facts.

"It's never been done before!" Wrong - 27 times since 1976.

"Federal workers are going without a paycheck!" Yes. I feel bad for them. But many of them really need to start looking at the private sector and adjusting their long range plans. Hopefully they're smart enough to realize that, mathematically, the Fed cannot keep spending money at the current pace. There are not enough rich people to punish to pay the bills.

 

To my fellow conservatives: I'm pretty sure that we're not going to change any minds in here. They're not thinking.

I agree with JoeBob that deficit spending in general is bad if you are a consumer. But nearly all businesses take on debt if they can borrow money to make more money. Same with the government: if you can increase per capita GDP by $1.25 by borrowing $1, that's a wise investment. Investing in healthcare and renewable energy will eventually increase the per capita GDP so those are a good investments.

 

A bad practice is borrowing money for a negative return like the Iraq war which did nothing to protect our security, or allies or our overseas investments (i.e., oil) and added $2.2 trillion to the debt.

 

By the way, I'm not saying that government should be run like a business per se because it is unique in that they own the printing presses. The US government can carry debt and not worry about paying their obligations as long as you have low inflation (currently less than 2%) and low 30-yr T-bill rates (3.7%).

[Brewmeister 132]

Vindictive Alert: Not only is Mt. Rushmore shut down, they are closing the shoulders along public highways with traffic cones to make sure no one can pull over and take pictures. One has to wonder how far such political hatred can go.

 

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/10/now-govt-trying-to-block-people-from-looking-at-mt-rushmore-seriously/

 

Stosh

This petulant behavior is not surprising from a regime that's closed access not only to open-air monuments that require no staff, but also to the Grand Canyon and the Atlantic Ocean... Maybe they'll buy a big tarp to put over Mt. Rushmore too?

[Horizon 97]

To try to make this a bit more Scouting again (a few of you seem to forgetting the Oath and Law in your interactions)...

 

If we want to balance the books, then you have to either increase revenue or cut spending. If you want to play with spending, CATO has put some information on a site:

 

http://www.downsizinggovernment.org

 

This could be a good exercise for Scouts in Cit Nation - what would you cut? Make them approach each cut from an Oath and Law perspective along with the Constitution.

 

A flip side is to ask them what things could the government do? For this debate, do they agree that there is a problem with people who have no access to affordable healthcare? How would they solve that? What is the obligation of the nation? Help educate the discussion. Show them the historical levels of deficit and debt (and PLEASE make sure that they know the difference).

 

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/debt_deficit_history

 

Then you can talk about historical taxation levels, and you can teach them about the EFFECTIVE tax rate (which is vastly different from initial rate). Lots of information there:

 

http://strata.oreilly.com/2013/01/us-tax-rates-visualization.html

 

If you want to get deeper, you can overlay these numbers with party control of the House, Senate and Presidency and try to find a pattern, anywhere.

 

 

[moosetracker 132]

When congress "passes" the most sweeping social welfare program in a generation by parliamentary maneuver and with NO bipartisan support, it should be no surprise that the peoples' house would lead a revolt.

I - know - what - you - are - saying -. -- I - am - just - saying - it - is - inappropriately - named..

[Stosh 3452]

Tidbit:

 

Obama in 2006: "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure."

At that time the National Debt was a mere $9 trillion. Have you heard any Dem say by how much they want to increase the debt ceiling? One trillion dollars to get them through the 2014 election cycle (I rounded up from $988 Billion...). Are we going to let Obama double the debt before he's out of office? ($9T in 2006, $14.4T in 2013, add $1T for 2014, $1T for 2015...)

 

Frustration:

This is like arguing with a teenager who refuses to believe that their bank account is overdrawn: "I can't be out of money! I have more checks!"

Liberal members of the media, congress, and this forum are all relying on emotion to make their argument. All emotion and personal vitriol, no ability to face facts.

"It's never been done before!" Wrong - 27 times since 1976.

"Federal workers are going without a paycheck!" Yes. I feel bad for them. But many of them really need to start looking at the private sector and adjusting their long range plans. Hopefully they're smart enough to realize that, mathematically, the Fed cannot keep spending money at the current pace. There are not enough rich people to punish to pay the bills.

 

To my fellow conservatives: I'm pretty sure that we're not going to change any minds in here. They're not thinking.

I have no idea what school of economics one goes to in order to think deficit spending and the subsequent interest expense is a good thing. If the government hadn't borrowed in the first place, all that interest expense would be going to helping people and not the lenders. With $16 trillion in debt, I'm thinking the interest portion of the budget could be funding a lot of food stamps, insurance and other direct assistance to the citizens instead of lining the pockets of rich lenders.

 

People today are in debt to big business/investment/banking companies and don't have money for food, clothing and shelter. The interest they pay could be buying things like, say, food, clothing and shelter. I own two homes, four cars and don't owe a penny to anyone. ALL my paycheck is available to buy whatever I can afford. I learned a long time ago, the government doesn't lead by example. If I owed $16 trillion in debt, I'd be in jail. There might just be a lesson in all of that.

 

Stosh

[Stosh 3452]

To try to make this a bit more Scouting again (a few of you seem to forgetting the Oath and Law in your interactions)...

 

If we want to balance the books, then you have to either increase revenue or cut spending. If you want to play with spending, CATO has put some information on a site:

 

http://www.downsizinggovernment.org

 

This could be a good exercise for Scouts in Cit Nation - what would you cut? Make them approach each cut from an Oath and Law perspective along with the Constitution.

 

A flip side is to ask them what things could the government do? For this debate, do they agree that there is a problem with people who have no access to affordable healthcare? How would they solve that? What is the obligation of the nation? Help educate the discussion. Show them the historical levels of deficit and debt (and PLEASE make sure that they know the difference).

 

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/debt_deficit_history

 

Then you can talk about historical taxation levels, and you can teach them about the EFFECTIVE tax rate (which is vastly different from initial rate). Lots of information there:

 

http://strata.oreilly.com/2013/01/us-tax-rates-visualization.html

 

If you want to get deeper, you can overlay these numbers with party control of the House, Senate and Presidency and try to find a pattern, anywhere.

 

The largest war ever fought by the US was paid for without a federal income tax.

 

If the federal government were to get out of all the programs that are not mandated by the Constitution and let the states take care of it, the debt would disappear VERY quickly. It's just that the government has become addicted to having their hands in everyone's pockets, it's going to be difficult to pull off.

 

Stosh