|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On July 26 2013 02:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2013 02:16 Klondikebar wrote:On July 26 2013 01:46 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 26 2013 01:37 Klondikebar wrote:On July 26 2013 01:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 26 2013 01:31 Klondikebar wrote:On July 26 2013 01:18 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 25 2013 10:03 cLutZ wrote:On July 25 2013 09:14 aksfjh wrote:House Speaker John Boehner signaled a clash with the White House and the Democratic-led Senate over raising the U.S. borrowing authority later this year.
Congressional Republicans are staking their ground in fiscal negotiations that once again could pose the threat of default or a government shutdown -- the recurring theme surrounding efforts to reduce the nation’s deficit since 2011.
“We’re not going to raise the debt ceiling without real cuts in spending,” Boehner, an Ohio Republican, told reporters in Washington yesterday. President Barack Obama and Senate leaders are refusing to accept anything short of a clean debt-limit increase. SourceYou have to be fucking kidding me. The House GOP is without an adult in their ranks it seems. What would be the purpose of a Republican Party that rubberstamps debt increases? I always wonder the same thing. Raising the debt ceiling isn't the same as increasing the debt. The money has already been spent in legislation that's been passed. It's just time to actually write the checks. Not raising the debt ceiling is saying "we're not gonna pay for all the shit we just bought." Which seems tragically ironic for a party that prides itself on fiscal responsibility and good business. If they wanted to oppose increases in the debt, they'd oppose the legislation that spends that money in the first place. Which they do...which is why they don't need to oppose raising the debt ceiling. At some point, when a person you're supporting continues to spend beyond their means, you have to cut them off. Fiscal responsibility demands the opposite of what you're suggesting. Right, cut them off at the legislation. You know...when the actual spending takes place? Refusing to raise the debt ceiling is just refusing to pay the vendors and business who provided the products and services for the government. How do you not understand the distinction as I JUST explained it? I understand the distinction... I said it doesn't matter. Well you're wrong. I'll try an analogy and if this doesn't work I quit. I go to gamestop and buy a game with a credit card. Then when the credit card bill comes, I have to pay that. Now, if you were pushing for fiscal responsibility, it would make sense for you to pressure me to not buy the game. But it would make zero sense for you to pressure me to not pay the credit card bill as that would ruin my credit rating, saddle me very high interest debt, and ultimately make it more difficult for me to be financially responsible in the future. Do you see why it's nonsensical for Republicans to not raise the debt ceiling? They're just trying to stop us from paying our credit card bill. When you pay your credit card bill you are reducing your debt  The credit card analogy would be increasing your credit limit or not.
No, raising the debt ceiling is transferring the debt from short term to long term (with much smaller interest rate). In terms of public debt, it reduces your debt load.
|
On July 26 2013 02:26 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2013 02:25 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 26 2013 02:24 Klondikebar wrote:On July 26 2013 02:20 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 26 2013 02:16 Klondikebar wrote:On July 26 2013 01:46 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 26 2013 01:37 Klondikebar wrote:On July 26 2013 01:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 26 2013 01:31 Klondikebar wrote:On July 26 2013 01:18 sc2superfan101 wrote:
[quote]
I always wonder the same thing. Raising the debt ceiling isn't the same as increasing the debt. The money has already been spent in legislation that's been passed. It's just time to actually write the checks. Not raising the debt ceiling is saying "we're not gonna pay for all the shit we just bought." Which seems tragically ironic for a party that prides itself on fiscal responsibility and good business. If they wanted to oppose increases in the debt, they'd oppose the legislation that spends that money in the first place. Which they do...which is why they don't need to oppose raising the debt ceiling. At some point, when a person you're supporting continues to spend beyond their means, you have to cut them off. Fiscal responsibility demands the opposite of what you're suggesting. Right, cut them off at the legislation. You know...when the actual spending takes place? Refusing to raise the debt ceiling is just refusing to pay the vendors and business who provided the products and services for the government. How do you not understand the distinction as I JUST explained it? I understand the distinction... I said it doesn't matter. Well you're wrong. I'll try an analogy and if this doesn't work I quit. I go to gamestop and buy a game with a credit card. Then when the credit card bill comes, I have to pay that. Now, if you were pushing for fiscal responsibility, it would make sense for you to pressure me to not buy the game. But it would make zero sense for you to pressure me to not pay the credit card bill as that would ruin my credit rating, saddle me very high interest debt, and ultimately make it more difficult for me to be financially responsible in the future. Do you see why it's nonsensical for Republicans to not raise the debt ceiling? They're just trying to stop us from paying our credit card bill. What if I'm paying for your credit-card bill though? And I tell you not to buy the game, but you do anyway, so I say I'm not paying the bill? Cause from my PoV, that's a more accurate analogy. Well if you wanna go that route: Republicans spend boatloads of money just like the democrats do. So we didn't just buy one game, we bought lots of games. Some were for you and some were for me. You told me not to buy mine but you insisted we buy yours. In the end we both got some games we wanted. But then when the bill came, you screamed at me for buying games and pretended like you didn't get any games yourself. And then you refused to pay the credit card bill. I am not the Republicans in Congress. I'm a private citizen who doesn't give a rats ass about almost any of the spending. So for me, it was me telling them to stop buying almost all of the games, and them ignoring me. Well now you're just confusing subjects. You were only a part of the analogy. I'm saying Republicans in Congress who oppose paying the bill are morons. Not you.
I'm just saying that from my PoV, I want the Republicans to prevent any further spending. How they do it is somewhat irrelevant.
|
On July 26 2013 02:27 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2013 02:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 26 2013 02:16 Klondikebar wrote:On July 26 2013 01:46 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 26 2013 01:37 Klondikebar wrote:On July 26 2013 01:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 26 2013 01:31 Klondikebar wrote:On July 26 2013 01:18 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 25 2013 10:03 cLutZ wrote:On July 25 2013 09:14 aksfjh wrote:[quote] SourceYou have to be fucking kidding me. The House GOP is without an adult in their ranks it seems. What would be the purpose of a Republican Party that rubberstamps debt increases? I always wonder the same thing. Raising the debt ceiling isn't the same as increasing the debt. The money has already been spent in legislation that's been passed. It's just time to actually write the checks. Not raising the debt ceiling is saying "we're not gonna pay for all the shit we just bought." Which seems tragically ironic for a party that prides itself on fiscal responsibility and good business. If they wanted to oppose increases in the debt, they'd oppose the legislation that spends that money in the first place. Which they do...which is why they don't need to oppose raising the debt ceiling. At some point, when a person you're supporting continues to spend beyond their means, you have to cut them off. Fiscal responsibility demands the opposite of what you're suggesting. Right, cut them off at the legislation. You know...when the actual spending takes place? Refusing to raise the debt ceiling is just refusing to pay the vendors and business who provided the products and services for the government. How do you not understand the distinction as I JUST explained it? I understand the distinction... I said it doesn't matter. Well you're wrong. I'll try an analogy and if this doesn't work I quit. I go to gamestop and buy a game with a credit card. Then when the credit card bill comes, I have to pay that. Now, if you were pushing for fiscal responsibility, it would make sense for you to pressure me to not buy the game. But it would make zero sense for you to pressure me to not pay the credit card bill as that would ruin my credit rating, saddle me very high interest debt, and ultimately make it more difficult for me to be financially responsible in the future. Do you see why it's nonsensical for Republicans to not raise the debt ceiling? They're just trying to stop us from paying our credit card bill. When you pay your credit card bill you are reducing your debt The credit card analogy would be increasing your credit limit or not. No, raising the debt ceiling is transferring the debt from short term to long term (with much smaller interest rate). In terms of public debt, it reduces your debt load.
Sure, to an extent some liabilities are just being sloshed around. I imagine that you could still slosh them around if you really wanted to even if your debt ceiling was maxed out.
Not that I'm actually advocating maxing out the debt ceiling.
|
There's nothing like a WSJ authorless editorial to get conservatives licking their chops The article title might as well have read as, "Romney Campaign Strategy, a retelling.". Fortunately, congressional approval numbers indicate that the public at large ain't buying "House Republicans have put a check on Mr. Obama's most destructive economic policies,".
|
On July 26 2013 02:20 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2013 02:16 Klondikebar wrote:On July 26 2013 01:46 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 26 2013 01:37 Klondikebar wrote:On July 26 2013 01:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 26 2013 01:31 Klondikebar wrote:On July 26 2013 01:18 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 25 2013 10:03 cLutZ wrote:On July 25 2013 09:14 aksfjh wrote:House Speaker John Boehner signaled a clash with the White House and the Democratic-led Senate over raising the U.S. borrowing authority later this year.
Congressional Republicans are staking their ground in fiscal negotiations that once again could pose the threat of default or a government shutdown -- the recurring theme surrounding efforts to reduce the nation’s deficit since 2011.
“We’re not going to raise the debt ceiling without real cuts in spending,” Boehner, an Ohio Republican, told reporters in Washington yesterday. President Barack Obama and Senate leaders are refusing to accept anything short of a clean debt-limit increase. SourceYou have to be fucking kidding me. The House GOP is without an adult in their ranks it seems. What would be the purpose of a Republican Party that rubberstamps debt increases? I always wonder the same thing. Raising the debt ceiling isn't the same as increasing the debt. The money has already been spent in legislation that's been passed. It's just time to actually write the checks. Not raising the debt ceiling is saying "we're not gonna pay for all the shit we just bought." Which seems tragically ironic for a party that prides itself on fiscal responsibility and good business. If they wanted to oppose increases in the debt, they'd oppose the legislation that spends that money in the first place. Which they do...which is why they don't need to oppose raising the debt ceiling. At some point, when a person you're supporting continues to spend beyond their means, you have to cut them off. Fiscal responsibility demands the opposite of what you're suggesting. Right, cut them off at the legislation. You know...when the actual spending takes place? Refusing to raise the debt ceiling is just refusing to pay the vendors and business who provided the products and services for the government. How do you not understand the distinction as I JUST explained it? I understand the distinction... I said it doesn't matter. Well you're wrong. I'll try an analogy and if this doesn't work I quit. I go to gamestop and buy a game with a credit card. Then when the credit card bill comes, I have to pay that. Now, if you were pushing for fiscal responsibility, it would make sense for you to pressure me to not buy the game. But it would make zero sense for you to pressure me to not pay the credit card bill as that would ruin my credit rating, saddle me very high interest debt, and ultimately make it more difficult for me to be financially responsible in the future. Do you see why it's nonsensical for Republicans to not raise the debt ceiling? They're just trying to stop us from paying our credit card bill. What if I'm paying for your credit-card bill though? And I tell you not to buy the game, but you do anyway, so I say I'm not paying the bill? Cause from my PoV, that's a more accurate analogy.
Well, again, you're wrong.
Like it or not, we are the fucking United States. As in all of us, together. Republicans don't get to act like a bunch of fucking five-year-olds and, when they force us to default, claim, "It wasn't our legislation!" That shit gets put on the entire country. It is incredibly irresponsible and beyond childish to make the debt ceiling, something that was really never an issue before 2011, such a huge issue.
We accrued the debt, so act like an adult and pay for it. If you don't like the spending, how about you actually work to curb it in a responsible way (hint: this requires actual compromise, instead of refusing to budge on issues and then calling out everyone else for not giving you whatever you want as "not compromising").
I am not the Republicans in Congress. I'm a private citizen who doesn't give a rats ass about almost any of the spending.
So for me, it was me telling them to stop buying almost all of the games, and them ignoring me.
See, this is the attitude that irks so many liberal-leaning individuals. Selfish Republicans who don't give a rats ass about social responsibility.
|
That goes both ways. When the government spends too much, it affects all of us, including the millions who are screaming at them to stop spending the fucking hemorrhaging money.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/debt_deficit_brief.php
The debt ceiling has never been in an issue in part because spending has never been so fucking exorbitant.
|
On July 26 2013 02:41 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2013 02:20 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 26 2013 02:16 Klondikebar wrote:On July 26 2013 01:46 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 26 2013 01:37 Klondikebar wrote:On July 26 2013 01:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 26 2013 01:31 Klondikebar wrote:On July 26 2013 01:18 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 25 2013 10:03 cLutZ wrote:On July 25 2013 09:14 aksfjh wrote:[quote] SourceYou have to be fucking kidding me. The House GOP is without an adult in their ranks it seems. What would be the purpose of a Republican Party that rubberstamps debt increases? I always wonder the same thing. Raising the debt ceiling isn't the same as increasing the debt. The money has already been spent in legislation that's been passed. It's just time to actually write the checks. Not raising the debt ceiling is saying "we're not gonna pay for all the shit we just bought." Which seems tragically ironic for a party that prides itself on fiscal responsibility and good business. If they wanted to oppose increases in the debt, they'd oppose the legislation that spends that money in the first place. Which they do...which is why they don't need to oppose raising the debt ceiling. At some point, when a person you're supporting continues to spend beyond their means, you have to cut them off. Fiscal responsibility demands the opposite of what you're suggesting. Right, cut them off at the legislation. You know...when the actual spending takes place? Refusing to raise the debt ceiling is just refusing to pay the vendors and business who provided the products and services for the government. How do you not understand the distinction as I JUST explained it? I understand the distinction... I said it doesn't matter. Well you're wrong. I'll try an analogy and if this doesn't work I quit. I go to gamestop and buy a game with a credit card. Then when the credit card bill comes, I have to pay that. Now, if you were pushing for fiscal responsibility, it would make sense for you to pressure me to not buy the game. But it would make zero sense for you to pressure me to not pay the credit card bill as that would ruin my credit rating, saddle me very high interest debt, and ultimately make it more difficult for me to be financially responsible in the future. Do you see why it's nonsensical for Republicans to not raise the debt ceiling? They're just trying to stop us from paying our credit card bill. What if I'm paying for your credit-card bill though? And I tell you not to buy the game, but you do anyway, so I say I'm not paying the bill? Cause from my PoV, that's a more accurate analogy. Well, again, you're wrong. Like it or not, we are the fucking United States. As in all of us, together. Republicans don't get to act like a bunch of fucking five-year-olds and, when they force us to default, claim, "It wasn't our legislation!" That shit gets put on the entire country. It is incredibly irresponsible and beyond childish to make the debt ceiling, something that was really never an issue before 2011, such a huge issue. We accrued the debt, so act like an adult and pay for it. If you don't like the spending, how about you actually work to curb it in a responsible way (hint: this requires actual compromise, instead of refusing to budge on issues and then calling out everyone else for not giving you whatever you want as "not compromising"). Show nested quote +I am not the Republicans in Congress. I'm a private citizen who doesn't give a rats ass about almost any of the spending.
So for me, it was me telling them to stop buying almost all of the games, and them ignoring me. See, this is the attitude that irks so many liberal-leaning individuals. Selfish Republicans who don't give a rats ass about social responsibility.
Hitting the debt ceiling would be messy as a bad poop, but we wouldn't default.
|
On July 26 2013 02:46 sc2superfan101 wrote:That goes both ways. When the government spends too much, it affects all of us, including the millions who are screaming at them to stop spending the fucking hemorrhaging money. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/debt_deficit_brief.phpThe debt ceiling has never been in an issue in part because spending has never been so fucking exorbitant.
Yea, and there are a large number of reasons that account for such high spending.
1) Our health care system is fucking disastrous and a complete failure.
2) The Baby Boomers are getting older and entitlements are collapsing without any plans to actually fix them.
3) Education is out-of-control expensive.
4) Our military budget is so large it's embarrassing.
5) Countless other problems that anyone could list.
I don't think that anyone in their right mind would try to argue against the fact that we are spending too much; the problem is that all Republicans want to say is "Stop spending!" (without, of course, touching the military budget) and they refuse to actually reform spending. Instead, they just want to cut spending and leave millions of Americans completely fucked.
Damn near all of these spending problems can be fixed not by just slashing big numbers out of them, but actually overhauling the system so they spend money more efficiently (and thus spend less of it). Universal healthcare, universal education, cutting the fat off of the military budget, etc. But instead, Republicans are scared of anything that is "Un-American" (whatever bullshit that means), and so anything that resembles "universal" anything is immediately DoA in Congress, so we don't actually get anything done. So no, it isn't simply the Left's fault for spending the money; if the Right actually worked to help reform government spending so it was done more efficiently without telling millions of Americans to essentially fuck off and have fun, then maybe we could get somewhere. Instead, the Right isn't any better than the Left; they want to keep their special interests funded to absurd levels while simply cutting big numbers from things they don't like without actually addressing how it would affect millions of people.
Oh, and let's not forget that the debt isn't actually a problem at this point. Our debt is perfectly fine for a developed country. Yea, we don't want to just be bleeding money inefficiently like we are, but the Apocalypse isn't about to hit us because of our debt level. It's still normal.
|
On July 26 2013 03:05 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2013 02:46 sc2superfan101 wrote:That goes both ways. When the government spends too much, it affects all of us, including the millions who are screaming at them to stop spending the fucking hemorrhaging money. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/debt_deficit_brief.phpThe debt ceiling has never been in an issue in part because spending has never been so fucking exorbitant. Yea, and there are a large number of reasons that account for such high spending. 1) Our health care system is fucking disastrous and a complete failure. 2) The Baby Boomers are getting older and entitlements are collapsing without any plans to actually fix them. 3) Education is out-of-control expensive. 4) Our military budget is so large it's embarrassing. 5) Countless other problems that anyone could list. I don't think that anyone in their right mind would try to argue against the fact that we are spending too much; the problem is that all Republicans want to say is "Stop spending!" (without, of course, touching the military budget) and they refuse to actually reform spending. Instead, they just want to cut spending and leave millions of Americans completely fucked. Damn near all of these spending problems can be fixed not by just slashing big numbers out of them, but actually overhauling the system so they spend money more efficiently (and thus spend less of it). Universal healthcare, universal education, cutting the fat off of the military budget, etc. But instead, Republicans are scared of anything that is "Un-American" (whatever bullshit that means), and so anything that resembles "universal" anything is immediately DoA in Congress, so we don't actually get anything done. Oh, and let's not forget that the debt isn't actually a problem at this point. Our debt is perfectly fine for a developed country. Yea, we don't want to just be bleeding money inefficiently like we are, but the Apocalypse isn't about to hit us because of our debt level. It's still normal.
You've got that wrong dude. They do want to reform spending, they just want to do so in a manner that places an inordinate burden on those least able to weather it.
|
On July 26 2013 03:07 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2013 03:05 Stratos_speAr wrote:On July 26 2013 02:46 sc2superfan101 wrote:That goes both ways. When the government spends too much, it affects all of us, including the millions who are screaming at them to stop spending the fucking hemorrhaging money. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/debt_deficit_brief.phpThe debt ceiling has never been in an issue in part because spending has never been so fucking exorbitant. Yea, and there are a large number of reasons that account for such high spending. 1) Our health care system is fucking disastrous and a complete failure. 2) The Baby Boomers are getting older and entitlements are collapsing without any plans to actually fix them. 3) Education is out-of-control expensive. 4) Our military budget is so large it's embarrassing. 5) Countless other problems that anyone could list. I don't think that anyone in their right mind would try to argue against the fact that we are spending too much; the problem is that all Republicans want to say is "Stop spending!" (without, of course, touching the military budget) and they refuse to actually reform spending. Instead, they just want to cut spending and leave millions of Americans completely fucked. Damn near all of these spending problems can be fixed not by just slashing big numbers out of them, but actually overhauling the system so they spend money more efficiently (and thus spend less of it). Universal healthcare, universal education, cutting the fat off of the military budget, etc. But instead, Republicans are scared of anything that is "Un-American" (whatever bullshit that means), and so anything that resembles "universal" anything is immediately DoA in Congress, so we don't actually get anything done. Oh, and let's not forget that the debt isn't actually a problem at this point. Our debt is perfectly fine for a developed country. Yea, we don't want to just be bleeding money inefficiently like we are, but the Apocalypse isn't about to hit us because of our debt level. It's still normal. You've got that wrong dude. They do want to reform spending, they just want to do so in a manner that places an inordinate burden on those least able to weather it.
So where are the serious counter-proposals to address the issues of horribly inefficient healthcare spending while still actually helping Americans? Of skyrocketing education costs? Of a military so unnecessarily large that it accounts for almost half of the entire world's military expenditures? Because all I see are Republicans that want to repeal Obamacare just to repeal it, don't offer anything meaningful on education, offer no real reason that we need to keep making excessive amounts of tanks, additional aircraft carriers, or having military bases around the world, and then spout of crap about "economic freedom" and "national security" just to scare people into voting their way.
Healthcare is the ultimate example. News flash: OUR SYSTEM IS FAILING US. We have an incredible amount of medical debt in this country with medical costs that should be driving any sane person to get healthcare OUTSIDE of the U.S. and yet Republicans offer no real counter-proposals to Obamacare. Anyone who has actually done their homework knows that Obamacare is just a Frankenstein-esque piece of crap that only got votes from the far Left because it's basically the best we could get. I don't think anyone actually likes Obamacare simply for the policy itself. And yet we see something like 40 different attempts to repeal Obamacare and yet no honest attempt at fixing our healthcare system. The Right just trusts in "the market" so much that they don't realize that our system is completely fucked right now and the only reason that any of us support this God-awful piece of legislation is because we don't want to go back to what we had before because that is worse, and yet that's what the Right would send us back to.
The Right isn't working to actually help Americans (as in DO THEIR FUCKING JOBS), but to just be anti-Obama, get back into power, and then repeal everything that they don't like. What kind of fucking system is that? Our two major political parties are acting like sworn enemies instead of fellow Americans and are setting up an incredibly unstable and unreliable economic/social future for our generation that drives people to consider moving away from this country simply because it's the safest move. Our politics are more polarized than ever and all we can see in the future is one where we simply get vows to dismantle previous work on (for instance) our healthcare system instead of continuously improve it. Why the fuck would I, as a young adult, want to actually raise children in a culture like this if I wasn't already rooted here so firmly by my circumstances? What does America actually offer anyone at this point that isn't done far better by other countries? If I didn't love Minnesota and my friends/family so much, then it is pretty much indisputable that I would have a better social and economic life (both in terms of freedom as well as chances to do well) if I moved Canada, Germany, Scandinavia, or any of several other countries. And yet people don't see this. We are not the best country in the world. There is very little reason to live here when compared to several other countries aside from pure convenience. And this isn't about competition; we don't need to be the best. We just want to be comparable. We want to be a place where our citizens can live well and not have to constantly worry about their economic future. That currently isn't the case. The terrifying part is that we don't realize this and we don't talk about it. We simply push the status quo (huge healthcare/education costs, giant military, incredibly corrupt and questionable political process) forward without talking about it.
Education is an example of what terrifies me about this country. In the thread about student loan rates doubling, FabledIntegral kept talking from the PoV that the costs of education in this country are actually OK, and it's the culture of spending and lack of responsibility that gives us so many problems. This is absolutely ridiculous. When every other developed country in the world can have universal healthcare/education and still spend comparatively less on those systems than us, it is simply not OK to act like the obnoxious costs in these industries are necessary. Actually, it's incredibly insulting. And yet it seems like this is the kind of framework that most politicians are working from. I am $60,000 in debt after college. That is a LOT of fucking money. I went to a private institution. Guess what? They still gave me more money that I would have gotten going to the public state university where I live. This is not uncommon. Our spending is fucking ridiculous, but what's worse is the fact that so many people look at the absurd price tags on our colleges and think that it's ok, and that students just have to work harder or spend more wisely. No. When I can go to Germany, as an American and not even a European resident, and spend less than $1000 a year on school, then there's a problem with our education policies here. And yet our discussion when education comes up is rarely about why these costs are so massive and how to bring them down. It's about how students should manage the costs more wisely and if we should put the burden of more financial aid on the government (and thus the public).
So no. It's complete bullshit for Superfan to act like Republicans are trying to be fiscally responsible; they aren't. They're being just as irresponsible as the Left is with their half-assed attempts at decent healthcare and complete lack of a spine to actually act on some of the most pressing political issues we have (including excessive and inefficient spending). No one in this country is acting responsibly, and this problem is far deeper than simply, "The Left is spending irresponsibly!" or "The Right is obstructionist!" It's both sides, and it's a cultural outlook that has essentially left our quality of life decades behind the rest of the world.
Yea, this turned into an unnecessary rant, but I'm pretty tired of people just looking at the surface and saying, "It's the Left's/Right's fault!". It's much deeper than that.
|
On July 26 2013 02:37 farvacola wrote:There's nothing like a WSJ authorless editorial to get conservatives licking their chops The article title might as well have read as, "Romney Campaign Strategy, a retelling.". Fortunately, congressional approval numbers indicate that the public at large ain't buying "House Republicans have put a check on Mr. Obama's most destructive economic policies,".
If your point is that Obama has been a fairly successful politician, it's hard to disagree. But you can't deny that his presidency has been pretty grim for middle class families.
|
On July 26 2013 03:26 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2013 02:37 farvacola wrote:There's nothing like a WSJ authorless editorial to get conservatives licking their chops The article title might as well have read as, "Romney Campaign Strategy, a retelling.". Fortunately, congressional approval numbers indicate that the public at large ain't buying "House Republicans have put a check on Mr. Obama's most destructive economic policies,". If your point is that Obama has been a fairly successful politician, it's hard to disagree. But you can't deny that his presidency has been pretty grim for middle class families.
But the real question is whether or not things are less grim than the alternative.
|
On July 26 2013 03:26 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2013 02:37 farvacola wrote:There's nothing like a WSJ authorless editorial to get conservatives licking their chops The article title might as well have read as, "Romney Campaign Strategy, a retelling.". Fortunately, congressional approval numbers indicate that the public at large ain't buying "House Republicans have put a check on Mr. Obama's most destructive economic policies,". If your point is that Obama has been a fairly successful politician, it's hard to disagree. But you can't deny that his presidency has been pretty grim for middle class families.
If only he hadn't vetoed all that legislation that came to his desk that would have helped us...
|
On July 26 2013 03:30 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2013 03:26 ziggurat wrote:On July 26 2013 02:37 farvacola wrote:There's nothing like a WSJ authorless editorial to get conservatives licking their chops The article title might as well have read as, "Romney Campaign Strategy, a retelling.". Fortunately, congressional approval numbers indicate that the public at large ain't buying "House Republicans have put a check on Mr. Obama's most destructive economic policies,". If your point is that Obama has been a fairly successful politician, it's hard to disagree. But you can't deny that his presidency has been pretty grim for middle class families. If only he hadn't vetoed all that legislation that came to his desk that would have helped us...
Its funny, because he could have helped by just vetoing almost everything that came to his desk...
|
On July 26 2013 03:41 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2013 03:30 aksfjh wrote:On July 26 2013 03:26 ziggurat wrote:On July 26 2013 02:37 farvacola wrote:There's nothing like a WSJ authorless editorial to get conservatives licking their chops The article title might as well have read as, "Romney Campaign Strategy, a retelling.". Fortunately, congressional approval numbers indicate that the public at large ain't buying "House Republicans have put a check on Mr. Obama's most destructive economic policies,". If your point is that Obama has been a fairly successful politician, it's hard to disagree. But you can't deny that his presidency has been pretty grim for middle class families. If only he hadn't vetoed all that legislation that came to his desk that would have helped us... Its funny, because he could have helped by just vetoing almost everything that came to his desk...
The Nation's most "do-nothing" Congresses ever simply should have had the stuff they did pass vetoed. That would have solved everything. You're so smart.
|
On July 26 2013 03:49 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2013 03:41 cLutZ wrote:On July 26 2013 03:30 aksfjh wrote:On July 26 2013 03:26 ziggurat wrote:On July 26 2013 02:37 farvacola wrote:There's nothing like a WSJ authorless editorial to get conservatives licking their chops The article title might as well have read as, "Romney Campaign Strategy, a retelling.". Fortunately, congressional approval numbers indicate that the public at large ain't buying "House Republicans have put a check on Mr. Obama's most destructive economic policies,". If your point is that Obama has been a fairly successful politician, it's hard to disagree. But you can't deny that his presidency has been pretty grim for middle class families. If only he hadn't vetoed all that legislation that came to his desk that would have helped us... Its funny, because he could have helped by just vetoing almost everything that came to his desk... The Nation's most "do-nothing" Congresses ever simply should have had the stuff they did pass vetoed. That would have solved everything. You're so smart.
You seem to think that all the problems of the world could be solved by just passing a whole bunch of legislation. But we already have a hyperactive government that intrudes in almost every area of its citizens' lives, most often for the worse. A government that passed no new legislation, and actually started repealing all the current, bad laws, would be a very good thing.
|
On July 26 2013 04:10 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2013 03:49 aksfjh wrote:On July 26 2013 03:41 cLutZ wrote:On July 26 2013 03:30 aksfjh wrote:On July 26 2013 03:26 ziggurat wrote:On July 26 2013 02:37 farvacola wrote:There's nothing like a WSJ authorless editorial to get conservatives licking their chops The article title might as well have read as, "Romney Campaign Strategy, a retelling.". Fortunately, congressional approval numbers indicate that the public at large ain't buying "House Republicans have put a check on Mr. Obama's most destructive economic policies,". If your point is that Obama has been a fairly successful politician, it's hard to disagree. But you can't deny that his presidency has been pretty grim for middle class families. If only he hadn't vetoed all that legislation that came to his desk that would have helped us... Its funny, because he could have helped by just vetoing almost everything that came to his desk... The Nation's most "do-nothing" Congresses ever simply should have had the stuff they did pass vetoed. That would have solved everything. You're so smart. You seem to think that all the problems of the world could be solved by just passing a whole bunch of legislation. But we already have a hyperactive government that intrudes in almost every area of its citizens' lives, most often for the worse. A government that passed no new legislation, and actually started repealing all the current, bad laws, would be a very good thing.
Some laws are dated or obsolete, some laws are just bad. That does not mean that laws are inherently bad and don't need to be made. I'm not sure what makes our government "hyperactive", compared to most modern developed-country's governments, or our own government over most of the past century. Just because our politics is hyperactive, doesn't mean our government is hyperactive. Every full-term presidency oversees some drastic changes. Obama's two-term presidency hasn't been any bit hyperactive by comparison. So if there are problems, inaction isn't likely the cause. We have plenty of it.
|
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration said Thursday it will open a new front in the battle for voter protections, a response to last month's Supreme Court ruling that dealt a major setback to the Voting Rights Act.
In a speech to the National Urban League in Philadelphia, Attorney General Holder said that as its first move, the Justice Department is asking a federal court in San Antonio to require the state of Texas to obtain advance approval before putting in place future political redistricting or other voting changes.
Holder called the Voting Rights Act "the cornerstone of modern civil rights law" and said that "we cannot allow the slow unraveling of the progress that so many, throughout history, have sacrificed so much to achieve."
The Supreme Court, on a 5-4 vote, threw out the most powerful part of the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965, the law that became a major turning point in black Americans' struggle for equal rights and political power.
The move in Texas is the department's first action to further safeguard voting rights following the Supreme Court June 25 decision, said Holder, "but it will not be our last."
"Even as Congress considers updates to the Voting Rights Act in light of the court's ruling, we plan, in the meantime, to fully utilize the law's remaining sections to ensure that the voting rights of all American citizens are protected," Holder said.
Source
|
Stratos_speAr you have a fair point that the right is quick to cut rather than find meaningful cost savings. But the left is quick to spend more without finding real cost savings. Both sides have their faults in that regard.
Other than healthcare the status quo is pretty good. Education is a bit expensive, but still a fantastic deal overall. Military spending is set to fall too, even more so with the sequester cuts.
Edit: I appreciate a nice rant from time to time
|
On July 26 2013 04:32 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2013 04:10 ziggurat wrote:On July 26 2013 03:49 aksfjh wrote:On July 26 2013 03:41 cLutZ wrote:On July 26 2013 03:30 aksfjh wrote:On July 26 2013 03:26 ziggurat wrote:On July 26 2013 02:37 farvacola wrote:There's nothing like a WSJ authorless editorial to get conservatives licking their chops The article title might as well have read as, "Romney Campaign Strategy, a retelling.". Fortunately, congressional approval numbers indicate that the public at large ain't buying "House Republicans have put a check on Mr. Obama's most destructive economic policies,". If your point is that Obama has been a fairly successful politician, it's hard to disagree. But you can't deny that his presidency has been pretty grim for middle class families. If only he hadn't vetoed all that legislation that came to his desk that would have helped us... Its funny, because he could have helped by just vetoing almost everything that came to his desk... The Nation's most "do-nothing" Congresses ever simply should have had the stuff they did pass vetoed. That would have solved everything. You're so smart. You seem to think that all the problems of the world could be solved by just passing a whole bunch of legislation. But we already have a hyperactive government that intrudes in almost every area of its citizens' lives, most often for the worse. A government that passed no new legislation, and actually started repealing all the current, bad laws, would be a very good thing. Some laws are dated or obsolete, some laws are just bad. That does not mean that laws are inherently bad and don't need to be made. I'm not sure what makes our government "hyperactive", compared to most modern developed-country's governments, or our own government over most of the past century. Just because our politics is hyperactive, doesn't mean our government is hyperactive. Every full-term presidency oversees some drastic changes. Obama's two-term presidency hasn't been any bit hyperactive by comparison. So if there are problems, inaction isn't likely the cause. We have plenty of it.
Well, of course when I say I want smaller government that's just my opinion. Lots of countries have even more intrusive governments than the US. But haven't the last few months given even the most determined big-government liberal a few reasons to rethink their world-view? Let me make a list off the top of my head:
1. Obamacare - implementation of a major part of the law is delayed (even though there appears to be no lawful authority to delay it) because the people who are supposed to oversee it don't have their act together. Just a typical example of government overreach right? Govt says they'll take control of 1/6 of the US economy and then they're suprised when it turns out to be really complicated.
2. Major revelations that the NSA has been spying on US citizens. Whistleblower flees to Russia. But don't worry, Obama apologists say, you can trust the government. It's spying on us to keep us safe. Dick Cheney agrees.
3. Incidentally, the US govt under Obamacare will introduce an enormous database of info about its citizens, but don't worry. The info will be private. LOL
4. Congressional investigation into the IRS targeting the president's political opponents. IRS says it was some rogue employees in the Cincinnati office. Does anybody believe that?
All these things to me argue in favour of reducing government powers. Even if you trust Obama to be able to do all these things, and you think it's fine for his people to have all these powers -- how do you know you'll like the next guy?
Besides, look at how dysfunctional the govt in Washington is? How can any sensible person be happy that the people in Washington are about to take over his or her health care?'
Anyway, it's a big debate and I don't expect to convince anybody to change their mind. But I hope you'll at least thing about it a bit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
