US Politics Mega-thread - Page 366

On August 02 2013 00:48 Kiarip wrote:


Please read. I said a near (but not completely) overpowering majority.

So almost an overpowering majority.

A completely overpowering majority would be a majority in the Senate, the House and the president. Right now it's the Senate and the president.

On August 02 2013 00:48 Kiarip wrote:


That's great, we all really care what you consider a good and bad government system, but the fact of the matter is that the country literally can not afford this healthcare bill

On August 02 2013 00:48 Kiarip wrote:
and those that are opposing it are using this to their advantage. Maybe if the economy under Obama hasn't been the worse it's ever been in many years then the whole funding thing would be an non-issue and the bill would pass, too bad that's not the case.

On August 02 2013 00:48 Kiarip wrote:


They ARE trying to mitigate damage, by not funding it. "Reasonable legislators" is a very relativistic term. How about when we were at the debt ceiling, a ceiling that was also imposed by Congress (like Obamacare was voted on by Congress,) but when it came to actually make the cuts that the debt ceiling implied we were supposed to make, the democrats refused to make any cuts saying something along the lines of "no this isn't the time, we can not make cuts while our economy is in such bad "recovery.""

On August 02 2013 00:48 Kiarip wrote:
It's the same situation, just in reverse. Republicans are saying, "that's great that your bill passed but the country can't afford to fund it."

WASHINGTON -- House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) served notice Thursday that the deep cuts under the federal budget sequestration are here to stay as Senate Republicans filibustered a bipartisan bill to fund transportation, housing and urban development.

The Senate legislation, which had passed out of the Senate Appropriations Committee with six GOP votes last month, aimed to set the funding for those programs at levels agreed to under the 2011 Budget Control Act -- that is, taking into account the 2011 cuts but assuming that Congress would find some way to replace the more recent sequestration cuts. The bill would spend $51.7 billion.

But five of those Republicans changed their minds and blocked the bill in a 54-43 vote Thursday, denying the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster. McConnell had lobbied for the filibuster for days and repeated his position just before the vote, saying that Congress must abide by the spending levels of the sequester.

Just a day earlier, Boehner had pulled the House version of the legislation from consideration amid concerns from Democrats and some members of his own party that it cut too deeply. It aimed to set spending on roads, bridges, housing, community development block grants and other efforts at $44.1 billion -- $4.1 billion below this year's sequestration level -- as was envisioned in the House budget plan from Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) earlier this year.

Rep. Hal Rogers (R-Ky.), chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, complained Wednesday that the failure of Republicans to agree on the reduced spending meant the House had "declined to proceed on the implementation of the very budget it adopted three months ago." He added that the failure showed the sequester cuts are "ill-conceived" and need to be replaced.

On August 02 2013 01:11 Sermokala wrote:

Our reasoning was that the whole world was telling us that they had WMD and were threatening to retaliate against america for Afghanistan? The fact that there was a military dictator killing tons of his own citizens to keep power? The fact that he was destabilizeing the region with his insanity and the world oil market that the whole world runs on as well? I honestly can't belive you people belive that iraq wasn't a good thing for the people of iraq at the end of the day. They do get to actualy vote now but I guess people would rather them stay enslaved to a military dictator that gas's his own people for shits and giggles.

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama says his former top economic adviser and prospective nominee for Federal Reserve Chair Larry Summers has been mistreated.

Many of Summers' former colleagues and proteges, meanwhile, say he's misunderstood. Now they're trying to marshal support to counter a robust political opposition that appears to have caught both Summers and Obama by surprise.

The charges against the one-time Treasury Secretary and director of the National Economic Council are familiar. Critics say he's been on the wrong side of major financial debates and has an abrasive if not antiquated attitude toward women.

But these complaints, according to Summers enthusiasts, are bluntly political and often ignore other important, more positive aspects of his record.

"He gave a speech that he apologized for but a lot of people took a lot of offense to," Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg told The Huffington Post in an interview, referencing Summers' infamous remark that women were less capable of tackling advanced science and engineering work. "It wasn't his policy. It was a speech he gave and actually the rest of that speech was fine. A lot of that speech said things that ... all of us really agree with, that it is really hard for women in terms of work-life balance to catch up."

Sandberg, who served as Summers' chief of staff when he was Treasury Secretary under Bill Clinton, noted that he gave a speech as chief economist for the World Bank in which he argued girls' education was an economic imperative.

"That speech put girls' education on the table as an economic issue, and economic issues are always taken more seriously than development issues by countries," she said. "Before that, girls' education was something education ministers worried about, which was good. But when it became something as the linchpin of economic growth, that obviously put many more forces behind it."

Sandberg has made this argument before, including in a Huffington Post blog post in 2008. Which begs the question: Why has his perception not improved more over time? After serving in the early years of Obama's administration, Summers remains the most divisive economic figure in Democratic Party politics.

On August 02 2013 02:26 kwizach wrote:

That's what they had when the bill passed, FYI.


The healthcare bill reduces the deficit, but nice try. It also makes healthcare more available, comprehensive and affordable for many people, which is again good for the economy. Sorry, your opposition to the ACA is purely ideological and not one-bit founded on economic data.


The economy would have been in a way worse shape without the measures you and the Republicans oppose, including stimulus bills, some of the bailouts, low interest rates and the rounds of QE. The problem is that we did not go far enough in the direction that was initially chosen, not that the direction was wrong.


A debt ceiling has nothing to do with "implied cuts". If you're talking about the sequester, the entire reason behind the sequester was that the cuts were so bad they would motivate both parties to avoid them. They weren't supposed to actually end up being implemented.


That's what they're saying, and it's called lying. Not only is the ACA good for the economy and the budget, repealing it would actually increase the deficit by hundreds of billions.

On August 02 2013 01:11 Sermokala wrote:

Our reasoning was that the whole world was telling us that they had WMD and were threatening to retaliate against america for Afghanistan? The fact that there was a military dictator killing tons of his own citizens to keep power? The fact that he was destabilizeing the region with his insanity and the world oil market that the whole world runs on as well? I honestly can't belive you people belive that iraq wasn't a good thing for the people of iraq at the end of the day. They do get to actualy vote now but I guess people would rather them stay enslaved to a military dictator that gas's his own people for shits and giggles.

Republicans aren't any more extreme then democrats. Just look at the insane race baiters that caused the whole trayvon martin farce and all the feminists that are going to come out of the woodwork in 2016 to tell you that you're a sexist if you don't vote for Hillary.

I don't know where you're getting this shit about ron paul being a neo confederate or somehow being a raceist but I've never seen him do anything but promote everything OWS wanted for decades before it became a thing.

Edit: Lol at useing the SPLC as a credible source when clearly the top of the screen says "keeping an eye on the radical right"

CNN has uncovered exclusive new information about what is allegedly happening at the CIA, in the wake of the deadly Benghazi terror attack.

Four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens, were killed in the assault by armed militants last September 11 in eastern Libya.

Sources now tell CNN dozens of people working for the CIA were on the ground that night, and that the agency is going to great lengths to make sure whatever it was doing, remains a secret.

CNN has learned the CIA is involved in what one source calls an unprecedented attempt to keep the spy agency's Benghazi secrets from ever leaking out.

WASHINGTON -- Moderate Democrats working to gather support from Republicans for comprehensive immigration reform sent an ultimatum Friday to Speaker John Boehner: introduce a bill by Sept. 30 or they'll introduce their own.

"[W]e are frustrated that there was not a bipartisan immigration reform bill introduced prior to the August recess," reads the letter from 39 members of the New Democrat Coalition, a 53-member group, including co-chairmen Reps. Joaquín Castro (D-Texas) and Jared Polis (D-Colo.).

"Therefore, we write to inform you that if a bipartisan immigration reform package is not introduced in the House of Representatives -- one that includes a pathway to citizenship, helps grow American jobs, and fixes our immigration system once and for all -- by September 30th, we as New Democrats will consider introducing a comprehensive immigration reform bill," the letter continues. Read the letter here.

Boehner, an Ohio Republican, has said he will not bring up any immigration bill -- particularly the one that passed the Senate in June -- unless a majority of House Republicans support it. Democrats and pro-reform activists think they could get the 218 votes needed for passage of comprehensive immigration reform, if Boehner would allow for a vote, by keeping most Democrats and winning over some Republicans.

Members of Congress leave town Friday for the August recess, a month-long break during which they will hear from constituents. Meanwhile, the clock is ticking closer to primaries and the 2014 election year.

Republican Nancy Mace announced she is running for the United States Senate, posing a primary challenge to Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).

Mace is the first female graduate of The Citadel and a tea party favorite. She also runs a small public relations firm, according to the AP.

Mace announced her candidacy at a Saturday breakfast hosted by the Berkeley County Republican Party.

GOOSE CREEK, S.C. — The first woman to graduate from The Citadel has announced her plans to challenge U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham in the Republican primary in 2014.

Nancy Mace announced her candidacy Saturday at a GOP breakfast in Goose Creek.

Mace told the audience that she thinks government is out of touch, and that while it has worked its way into every corner of American lives, the country isn't better off for it.

Mace runs a small public relations firm and graduated from The Citadel in 1999. She has sharply criticized Graham in the past several months for not being conservative enough.

State Sen. Lee Bright from Spartanburg says he also will enter the Republican primary soon. The only announced candidate to take on Graham is Anderson businessman Richard Cash.

On August 02 2013 15:37 kwizach wrote:

The only source this article provides for its claim that the ACA will increase the deficit is a 2010 five-pages "study", written notably by the president of a conservative think tank. And even then, its argument is that the ACA would actually reduce deficits, but that Congress will fail to implement & go with some of its deficit-reduction measures. I therefore suppose you have now changed your stance to support the ACA and criticize Congress?

edit: and by the way, more recent CBO estimates still project deficit-reduction, and the way the law's been implemented for the years that followed the publication of the 2010 article did not change that.

On August 04 2013 03:11 farvacola wrote:

Interesting rhetoric, can't say I've heard that before.

On August 02 2013 01:29 aksfjh wrote:

I would would look negatively on Obama's platform if some of his closest appointed aides were active gang members...