|
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. |
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama says there are no gimmicks to grow the economy — just difficult steps that require Washington’s focus.
In his weekly radio and Internet address, Obama is promoting a plan he says can break through gridlock. He’s calling it a grand bargain for the middle class.
Obama says he’s willing to work with Republicans to reform the tax code for businesses. That would mean lowering rates but ending many loopholes and deductions.
But Obama says he’ll only do it if money generated is used for infrastructure, training and job growth.
In the Republican address, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine says Obama’s health care law will cost jobs. She wants to change the law to require companies to provide insurance to employees working 40 hours a week, not 30.
Source
|
Obama says he’s willing to work with Republicans to reform the tax code for businesses. That would mean lowering rates but ending many loopholes and deductions.
Not happening. To much cooperation pressure to keep there comfy non-existent tax rates for them to allow this.
|
On August 04 2013 03:31 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 03:22 ziggurat wrote:On August 02 2013 15:37 kwizach wrote:On August 02 2013 07:45 Kiarip wrote:On August 02 2013 02:26 kwizach wrote:On August 02 2013 00:48 Kiarip wrote:On August 01 2013 15:01 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 01 2013 14:31 Kiarip wrote:On August 01 2013 14:18 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 01 2013 14:09 Kiarip wrote:
[quote]
They're not throwing a tantrum they're just refusing to fund the thing.
As for bolded, this is some strong bias.
What is really happening is one side is using its near (but not completely) overpowering majority to pass a huge piece of legislation that has huge obvious detriment to the budget, while the other side that is weaker, but not completely overpowered is fighting tooth and nail to stop this from happening because they believe that the thing as a whole is wrong for the country. Yeah... In general, with elected governments, an "overpowering majority" trying to pass one of their major campaign platforms is usually how things work.... For me, the "fighting tooth and nail" bit is a somewhat terrifying thought. If you absolutely crush the opposition during elections, that generally means the population wants what you're pitching. The fact that such a weak opposition can stone wall effectively does not make any sense to me, in terms of running an entire nation. it's not such a weak opposition. It's a majority in the house. So there is no overpowering majority overall. Also, to call it a "stone wall" is a little silly. They're threatening to not get their job done before their session expires effectively shutting down the government... What's the big deal? Our government technically should have already shut down twice due to debt ceilings in a situation where it was mostly the liberals (the ones refusing to make cuts) who were at fault, so let's not demonize republicans for threatening to "shut down" the government just because it's their turn. So...basically your bias is just really, really bad? You said it was an "overpowering majority", so if it actually isn't, please don't randomly create some fictional David vs Goliath scenario. 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. That's what they had when the bill passed, FYI. On August 02 2013 00:48 Kiarip wrote:And I consider any political system where the entire government shuts down with no recourse a bad system. Regardless of who you're trying to randomly paint as the bad guy in this situation, any situation where a minority representation can literally deadlock the entire government is just broken. 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 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. 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. 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. On August 02 2013 00:48 Kiarip wrote:On August 01 2013 21:41 DoubleReed wrote:On August 01 2013 14:09 Kiarip wrote:On August 01 2013 06:34 DoubleReed wrote:
No, shutting down the government to express disapproval is bad governance.
If they thought Obamacare is terrible, then they should be trying to mitigate the problems that it will cause through legislation and stuff like that. When Democrats don't like laws, they don't throw a tantrum, they work with what they have. In fact, we've seen this countless times where Democrats have been strongly disapproving of legislation but once it goes through, they try their damn hardest to make it work.
You can see from, for instance, the governors rejecting the medicaid provision for no practical reason whatsoever what is happening here. The idea of helping poor people is directly contrary to their politics, regardless of pragmatic benefits to the people they are actually representing.
One side is pragmatic and trying to make things work, the other side is ideological and crazy. It's sad how people just constantly equivocate and act like both sides are just as bad as each other. They're not throwing a tantrum they're just refusing to fund the thing. As for bolded, this is some strong bias. What is really happening is one side is using its near (but not completely) overpowering majority to pass a huge piece of legislation that has huge obvious detriment to the budget, while the other side that is weaker, but not completely overpowered is fighting tooth and nail to stop this from happening because they believe that the thing as a whole is wrong for the country. Oh I am very biased against crazies. Again, Republicans are not trying to make Obamacare work after it passes and mitigate damage. That's not what they're doing. Stop trying to pretend that this is how reasonable legislators act. They're trying to cripple legislation that could actually help people because they know perfectly well that Obamacare might actually work. And think about how disastrous that would be for the GOP. 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."" 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. 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." 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. http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisconover/2012/07/26/healthcare-law-will-not-reduce-the-deficit-cb/ 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. Can you give your sources for this claim? Which claim, that that Forbes article hinges on one partisan study or that the CBO projects deficit reduction alongside Obamacare's implementation? In either case, I think the source is fairly clear. Try these two links. CBO’s Estimate of the Net Budgetary Impact of the Affordable Care Act’s Health Insurance Coverage Provisions Has Not Changed Much Over Time Letter to the Honorable John Boehner providing an estimate for H.R. 6079, the Repeal of Obamacare Act
Do you even read these links before you cite them as sources? Kwizach says "more recent CBO estimates still project deficit-reduction" and then you link an article that says "CBO and JCT’s current projection of the budgetary impact of the ACA’s coverage provisions is $1,363 billion over the 2014–2023 period."
Maybe it would be better to let him post his own sources 
|
On August 04 2013 06:01 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 03:31 farvacola wrote:On August 04 2013 03:22 ziggurat wrote:On August 02 2013 15:37 kwizach wrote:On August 02 2013 07:45 Kiarip wrote:On August 02 2013 02:26 kwizach wrote:On August 02 2013 00:48 Kiarip wrote:On August 01 2013 15:01 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 01 2013 14:31 Kiarip wrote:On August 01 2013 14:18 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
Yeah...
In general, with elected governments, an "overpowering majority" trying to pass one of their major campaign platforms is usually how things work....
For me, the "fighting tooth and nail" bit is a somewhat terrifying thought. If you absolutely crush the opposition during elections, that generally means the population wants what you're pitching. The fact that such a weak opposition can stone wall effectively does not make any sense to me, in terms of running an entire nation. it's not such a weak opposition. It's a majority in the house. So there is no overpowering majority overall. Also, to call it a "stone wall" is a little silly. They're threatening to not get their job done before their session expires effectively shutting down the government... What's the big deal? Our government technically should have already shut down twice due to debt ceilings in a situation where it was mostly the liberals (the ones refusing to make cuts) who were at fault, so let's not demonize republicans for threatening to "shut down" the government just because it's their turn. So...basically your bias is just really, really bad? You said it was an "overpowering majority", so if it actually isn't, please don't randomly create some fictional David vs Goliath scenario. 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. That's what they had when the bill passed, FYI. On August 02 2013 00:48 Kiarip wrote:And I consider any political system where the entire government shuts down with no recourse a bad system. Regardless of who you're trying to randomly paint as the bad guy in this situation, any situation where a minority representation can literally deadlock the entire government is just broken. 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 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. 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. 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. On August 02 2013 00:48 Kiarip wrote:On August 01 2013 21:41 DoubleReed wrote:On August 01 2013 14:09 Kiarip wrote:On August 01 2013 06:34 DoubleReed wrote:
No, shutting down the government to express disapproval is bad governance.
If they thought Obamacare is terrible, then they should be trying to mitigate the problems that it will cause through legislation and stuff like that. When Democrats don't like laws, they don't throw a tantrum, they work with what they have. In fact, we've seen this countless times where Democrats have been strongly disapproving of legislation but once it goes through, they try their damn hardest to make it work.
You can see from, for instance, the governors rejecting the medicaid provision for no practical reason whatsoever what is happening here. The idea of helping poor people is directly contrary to their politics, regardless of pragmatic benefits to the people they are actually representing.
One side is pragmatic and trying to make things work, the other side is ideological and crazy. It's sad how people just constantly equivocate and act like both sides are just as bad as each other. They're not throwing a tantrum they're just refusing to fund the thing. As for bolded, this is some strong bias. What is really happening is one side is using its near (but not completely) overpowering majority to pass a huge piece of legislation that has huge obvious detriment to the budget, while the other side that is weaker, but not completely overpowered is fighting tooth and nail to stop this from happening because they believe that the thing as a whole is wrong for the country. Oh I am very biased against crazies. Again, Republicans are not trying to make Obamacare work after it passes and mitigate damage. That's not what they're doing. Stop trying to pretend that this is how reasonable legislators act. They're trying to cripple legislation that could actually help people because they know perfectly well that Obamacare might actually work. And think about how disastrous that would be for the GOP. 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."" 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. 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." 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. http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisconover/2012/07/26/healthcare-law-will-not-reduce-the-deficit-cb/ 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. Can you give your sources for this claim? Which claim, that that Forbes article hinges on one partisan study or that the CBO projects deficit reduction alongside Obamacare's implementation? In either case, I think the source is fairly clear. Try these two links. CBO’s Estimate of the Net Budgetary Impact of the Affordable Care Act’s Health Insurance Coverage Provisions Has Not Changed Much Over Time Letter to the Honorable John Boehner providing an estimate for H.R. 6079, the Repeal of Obamacare Act Do you even read these links before you cite them as sources? Kwizach says "more recent CBO estimates still project deficit-reduction" and then you link an article that says "CBO and JCT’s current projection of the budgetary impact of the ACA’s coverage provisions is $1,363 billion over the 2014–2023 period." Maybe it would be better to let him post his own sources
Maybe it would be better if you actually read the links if you are genuinely interested in source material. From the first link,
When estimates are compared on a year-by-year basis, CBO and JCT’s estimate of the net budgetary impact of the ACA’s insurance coverage provisions has changed little since February 2013 and, indeed, has changed little since the legislation was being considered in March 2010. In March 2010, CBO and JCT projected that the provisions of the ACA related to health insurance coverage would cost the federal government $759 billion during fiscal years 2014 through 2019 (which was the last year in the 10-year budget window being used at that time). The newest projections indicate that those provisions will cost $710 billion over that same period. As shown in the figure below, the intervening projections of the cost of the ACA’s coverage provisions for those years have all been close to those figures on a year-by-year basis; of course, the 10-year totals have changed as the time frame for the estimates has shifted.
Those amounts do not reflect the total budgetary impact of the ACA. That legislation includes many other provisions that, on net, will reduce budget deficits. Taking the coverage provisions and other provisions together, CBO and JCT have estimated that the ACA will reduce deficits over the next 10 years and in the subsequent decade. (We have not updated our estimate of the total budgetary impact of the ACA since last summer; for that most recent estimate, see Letter to the Honorable John Boehner providing an estimate for H.R. 6079, the Repeal of Obamacare Act.)
As the emboldened portion suggests, the CBO stands by it's estimates that the PPACA will reduce deficits, and they recommend one check out their letter to John Boehner for the most recent estimate, which is why I provided that link. From the second link,
CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) have estimated the direct spending and revenue effects of H.R. 6079, the Repeal of Obamacare Act, as passed by the House of Representatives on July 11, 2012. H.R. 6079 would repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA), with the exception of one subsection that has no budgetary effect. This estimate reflects the spending and revenue projections in CBO’s March 2012 baseline as adjusted to take into account the effects of the recent Supreme Court decision regarding the ACA.
For various reasons discussed in the report, the estimated budgetary effects of repealing the ACA by enacting H.R. 6079 are close to, but not equivalent to, an estimate of the budgetary effects of the ACA with the signs reversed.
What Is the Impact of Repealing the ACA on the Federal Budget?
Assuming that H.R. 6079 is enacted near the beginning of fiscal year 2013, CBO and JCT estimate that, on balance, the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting that legislation would cause a net increase in federal budget deficits of $109 billion over the 2013–2022 period. Specifically, we estimate that H.R. 6079 would reduce direct spending by $890 billion and reduce revenues by $1 trillion between 2013 and 2022, thus adding $109 billion to federal budget deficits over that period.
|
On August 04 2013 04:56 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama says there are no gimmicks to grow the economy — just difficult steps that require Washington’s focus.
In his weekly radio and Internet address, Obama is promoting a plan he says can break through gridlock. He’s calling it a grand bargain for the middle class.
Obama says he’s willing to work with Republicans to reform the tax code for businesses. That would mean lowering rates but ending many loopholes and deductions.
But Obama says he’ll only do it if money generated is used for infrastructure, training and job growth.
In the Republican address, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine says Obama’s health care law will cost jobs. She wants to change the law to require companies to provide insurance to employees working 40 hours a week, not 30. Source
I don't like the push to take the requirement from 30 to 40 hours. The way it works now, employers and employees have to make hard, earnest decisions about compensation. It discourages employers from abusing the system and putting people down for 29 hours, since 29 hours at (near) minimum wage is not even CLOSE to a living wage. It's also harder to find use for a worker that only works 4-6 hours a day compared to one that works 8 hour days and gets an hour off on Fridays. It essentially shrinks the "window of abuse" by the employer. It also gives a bit of leniency to start-ups and smaller businesses (which this country desperately needs) by giving them a competitive advantage for those workers most affected.
Making it 40 hours, it's much easier for an employer to juggle the hours of the employee to keep them under that limit while still demanding full-time work requirements.
|
It may have been discussed, but is the US president indeed required to be a christian? Despite the answer, isn't it contradictory that he is a christian and supports gays at the same time? E.g. Obama.
|
On August 04 2013 13:07 darkness wrote:
It may have been discussed, but is the US president indeed required to be a christian? Despite the answer, isn't it contradictory that he is a christian and supports gays at the same time? E.g. Obama.
No it isn't required and by that logic it would be contradictory to use mixed fabrics and be a Christian at the same time.
|
WASHINGTON — There were more drone strikes in Pakistan last month than any month since January. Three missile strikes were carried out in Yemen in the last week alone. And after Secretary of State John Kerry told Pakistanis on Thursday that the United States was winding down the drone wars there, officials back in Washington quickly contradicted him.
More than two months after President Obama signaled a sharp shift in America’s targeted-killing operations, there is little public evidence of change in a strategy that has come to define the administration’s approach to combating terrorism.
Most elements of the drone program remain in place, including a base in the southern desert of Saudi Arabia that the Central Intelligence Agency continues to use to carry out drone strikes in Yemen. In late May, administration officials said that the bulk of drone operations would shift to the Pentagon from the C.I.A.
But the C.I.A. continues to run America’s secret air war in Pakistan, where Mr. Kerry’s comments underscored the administration’s haphazard approach to discussing these issues publicly. During a television interview in Pakistan on Thursday, Mr. Kerry said the United States had a “timeline” to end drone strikes in that country’s western mountains, adding, “We hope it’s going to be very, very soon.”
But the Obama administration is expected to carry out drone strikes in Pakistan well into the future. Hours after Mr. Kerry’s interview, the State Department issued a statement saying there was no definite timetable to end the targeted killing program in Pakistan, and a department spokeswoman, Marie Harf, said, “In no way would we ever deprive ourselves of a tool to fight a threat if it arises.”
Source
|
On August 04 2013 13:07 darkness wrote:
It may have been discussed, but is the US president indeed required to be a christian? Despite the answer, isn't it contradictory that he is a christian and supports gays at the same time? E.g. Obama.
There is certainly no legal requirement, but the common understanding is that it would be very unlikely for a non-Christian to gain enough support among the population to be elected president.
|
On August 04 2013 13:07 darkness wrote:
It may have been discussed, but is the US president indeed required to be a christian? Despite the answer, isn't it contradictory that he is a christian and supports gays at the same time? E.g. Obama.
Plenty of Christians, like my parents, are christian and support gays. You have a preconceived notion that an American Christian is anti-gay, which is simply not the case. And the president doesn't have to be a practicing christian, but I feel like a politician that would identify as a Muslim, Hindu, atheist, agnostic, etc. would never get elected president (but could get elected as a senator/ congressman/ governor).
|
On August 04 2013 13:31 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +WASHINGTON — There were more drone strikes in Pakistan last month than any month since January. Three missile strikes were carried out in Yemen in the last week alone. And after Secretary of State John Kerry told Pakistanis on Thursday that the United States was winding down the drone wars there, officials back in Washington quickly contradicted him.
More than two months after President Obama signaled a sharp shift in America’s targeted-killing operations, there is little public evidence of change in a strategy that has come to define the administration’s approach to combating terrorism.
Most elements of the drone program remain in place, including a base in the southern desert of Saudi Arabia that the Central Intelligence Agency continues to use to carry out drone strikes in Yemen. In late May, administration officials said that the bulk of drone operations would shift to the Pentagon from the C.I.A.
But the C.I.A. continues to run America’s secret air war in Pakistan, where Mr. Kerry’s comments underscored the administration’s haphazard approach to discussing these issues publicly. During a television interview in Pakistan on Thursday, Mr. Kerry said the United States had a “timeline” to end drone strikes in that country’s western mountains, adding, “We hope it’s going to be very, very soon.”
But the Obama administration is expected to carry out drone strikes in Pakistan well into the future. Hours after Mr. Kerry’s interview, the State Department issued a statement saying there was no definite timetable to end the targeted killing program in Pakistan, and a department spokeswoman, Marie Harf, said, “In no way would we ever deprive ourselves of a tool to fight a threat if it arises.” Source
Have there ever been any agreements or declarations concerning the drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen? I've only read some vague things like "understandings" that never had official sanction.
|
On August 04 2013 06:15 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 06:01 ziggurat wrote:On August 04 2013 03:31 farvacola wrote:On August 04 2013 03:22 ziggurat wrote:On August 02 2013 15:37 kwizach wrote:On August 02 2013 07:45 Kiarip wrote:On August 02 2013 02:26 kwizach wrote:On August 02 2013 00:48 Kiarip wrote:On August 01 2013 15:01 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 01 2013 14:31 Kiarip wrote:
[quote]
it's not such a weak opposition. It's a majority in the house. So there is no overpowering majority overall.
Also, to call it a "stone wall" is a little silly. They're threatening to not get their job done before their session expires effectively shutting down the government... What's the big deal? Our government technically should have already shut down twice due to debt ceilings in a situation where it was mostly the liberals (the ones refusing to make cuts) who were at fault, so let's not demonize republicans for threatening to "shut down" the government just because it's their turn.
So...basically your bias is just really, really bad? You said it was an "overpowering majority", so if it actually isn't, please don't randomly create some fictional David vs Goliath scenario. 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. That's what they had when the bill passed, FYI. On August 02 2013 00:48 Kiarip wrote:And I consider any political system where the entire government shuts down with no recourse a bad system. Regardless of who you're trying to randomly paint as the bad guy in this situation, any situation where a minority representation can literally deadlock the entire government is just broken. 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 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. 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. 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. On August 02 2013 00:48 Kiarip wrote:On August 01 2013 21:41 DoubleReed wrote:On August 01 2013 14:09 Kiarip wrote:
[quote]
They're not throwing a tantrum they're just refusing to fund the thing.
As for bolded, this is some strong bias.
What is really happening is one side is using its near (but not completely) overpowering majority to pass a huge piece of legislation that has huge obvious detriment to the budget, while the other side that is weaker, but not completely overpowered is fighting tooth and nail to stop this from happening because they believe that the thing as a whole is wrong for the country. Oh I am very biased against crazies. Again, Republicans are not trying to make Obamacare work after it passes and mitigate damage. That's not what they're doing. Stop trying to pretend that this is how reasonable legislators act. They're trying to cripple legislation that could actually help people because they know perfectly well that Obamacare might actually work. And think about how disastrous that would be for the GOP. 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."" 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. 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." 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. http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisconover/2012/07/26/healthcare-law-will-not-reduce-the-deficit-cb/ 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. Can you give your sources for this claim? Which claim, that that Forbes article hinges on one partisan study or that the CBO projects deficit reduction alongside Obamacare's implementation? In either case, I think the source is fairly clear. Try these two links. CBO’s Estimate of the Net Budgetary Impact of the Affordable Care Act’s Health Insurance Coverage Provisions Has Not Changed Much Over Time Letter to the Honorable John Boehner providing an estimate for H.R. 6079, the Repeal of Obamacare Act Do you even read these links before you cite them as sources? Kwizach says "more recent CBO estimates still project deficit-reduction" and then you link an article that says "CBO and JCT’s current projection of the budgetary impact of the ACA’s coverage provisions is $1,363 billion over the 2014–2023 period." Maybe it would be better to let him post his own sources Maybe it would be better if you actually read the links if you are genuinely interested in source material. From the first link, Show nested quote +When estimates are compared on a year-by-year basis, CBO and JCT’s estimate of the net budgetary impact of the ACA’s insurance coverage provisions has changed little since February 2013 and, indeed, has changed little since the legislation was being considered in March 2010. In March 2010, CBO and JCT projected that the provisions of the ACA related to health insurance coverage would cost the federal government $759 billion during fiscal years 2014 through 2019 (which was the last year in the 10-year budget window being used at that time). The newest projections indicate that those provisions will cost $710 billion over that same period. As shown in the figure below, the intervening projections of the cost of the ACA’s coverage provisions for those years have all been close to those figures on a year-by-year basis; of course, the 10-year totals have changed as the time frame for the estimates has shifted.
Those amounts do not reflect the total budgetary impact of the ACA. That legislation includes many other provisions that, on net, will reduce budget deficits. Taking the coverage provisions and other provisions together, CBO and JCT have estimated that the ACA will reduce deficits over the next 10 years and in the subsequent decade. (We have not updated our estimate of the total budgetary impact of the ACA since last summer; for that most recent estimate, see Letter to the Honorable John Boehner providing an estimate for H.R. 6079, the Repeal of Obamacare Act.) As the emboldened portion suggests, the CBO stands by it's estimates that the PPACA will reduce deficits, and they recommend one check out their letter to John Boehner for the most recent estimate, which is why I provided that link. From the second link, Show nested quote +CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) have estimated the direct spending and revenue effects of H.R. 6079, the Repeal of Obamacare Act, as passed by the House of Representatives on July 11, 2012. H.R. 6079 would repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA), with the exception of one subsection that has no budgetary effect. This estimate reflects the spending and revenue projections in CBO’s March 2012 baseline as adjusted to take into account the effects of the recent Supreme Court decision regarding the ACA.
For various reasons discussed in the report, the estimated budgetary effects of repealing the ACA by enacting H.R. 6079 are close to, but not equivalent to, an estimate of the budgetary effects of the ACA with the signs reversed.
What Is the Impact of Repealing the ACA on the Federal Budget?
Assuming that H.R. 6079 is enacted near the beginning of fiscal year 2013, CBO and JCT estimate that, on balance, the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting that legislation would cause a net increase in federal budget deficits of $109 billion over the 2013–2022 period. Specifically, we estimate that H.R. 6079 would reduce direct spending by $890 billion and reduce revenues by $1 trillion between 2013 and 2022, thus adding $109 billion to federal budget deficits over that period.
So, if I may summarize, the ACA does 3 things:
1. Expands insurance coverage (which will cost almost $1.2 trillion)
2. Cuts funds for medicare (saving about $700 billion)
3. Raises taxes (for a net of about $550 billion)
So you Kwizach are saying that the net of these three sets of changes is a reduction in the deficit, which is fair enough. But the people who disagree with this are saying that points number 2 and 3 are likely not to happen.
Can you explain why you think that the cuts to medicare and the tax increases will actually go through? Because I have to admit, I can easily see congress overriding these provisions. And if that happens then the US is looking at an extra trillion dollars of debt.
|
On August 04 2013 13:07 darkness wrote:
It may have been discussed, but is the US president indeed required to be a christian? Despite the answer, isn't it contradictory that he is a christian and supports gays at the same time? E.g. Obama.
You know the Pope says it's okay for gay men to be priests. I think you're a bit behind the times on this one.
|
U.S. investigators uncovered evidence that banks reaped millions of dollars in trading profits at the expense of companies and pension funds by manipulating a benchmark for interest-rate derivatives.
Recorded telephone calls and e-mails reviewed by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission show that traders at Wall Street banks instructed ICAP Plc brokers in Jersey City, New Jersey, to buy or sell as many interest-rate swaps as necessary to move the benchmark rate, known as ISDAfix, to a predetermined level, according to a person with knowledge of the matter.
By rigging the measure, the banks stood to profit on separate derivatives trades they had with clients who were seeking to hedge against moves in interest rates. Banks sought to change the value of the swaps because the ISDAfix rate sets prices for the other derivatives, which are used by firms from the California Public Employees’ Retirement System to Pacific Investment Management Co., said the person, who asked not to be identified because the details aren’t public.
That may run afoul of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act, which bars traders from intentionally interfering with the “orderly execution” of transactions that determine settlement prices.
The phone calls and e-mails emerging since Bloomberg News first reported in April on the rigging of ISDAfix add to growing evidence that banks have gained financially by distorting key financial gauges in world markets on everything from interest rates to currencies to commodities.
Source
|
On August 04 2013 14:27 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 13:07 darkness wrote:
It may have been discussed, but is the US president indeed required to be a christian? Despite the answer, isn't it contradictory that he is a christian and supports gays at the same time? E.g. Obama. You know the Pope says it's okay for gay men to be priests. I think you're a bit behind the times on this one.
That's actually hilarious. "I accept priests being gay. It's not like they're allowed to have sex, or be in a relationship, or harbour any carnal thoughts."
Edit: I know that the papacy has become more accepting of homosexuality in general. It's just when you specify priests, it's sorta like "I'm okay with gays as long as they don't do gay things."
|
On August 04 2013 14:25 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 06:15 farvacola wrote:On August 04 2013 06:01 ziggurat wrote:On August 04 2013 03:31 farvacola wrote:On August 04 2013 03:22 ziggurat wrote:On August 02 2013 15:37 kwizach wrote:On August 02 2013 07:45 Kiarip wrote:On August 02 2013 02:26 kwizach wrote:On August 02 2013 00:48 Kiarip wrote:On August 01 2013 15:01 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
So...basically your bias is just really, really bad?
You said it was an "overpowering majority", so if it actually isn't, please don't randomly create some fictional David vs Goliath scenario. 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. That's what they had when the bill passed, FYI. On August 02 2013 00:48 Kiarip wrote:And I consider any political system where the entire government shuts down with no recourse a bad system. Regardless of who you're trying to randomly paint as the bad guy in this situation, any situation where a minority representation can literally deadlock the entire government is just broken. 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 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. 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. 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. On August 02 2013 00:48 Kiarip wrote:On August 01 2013 21:41 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
Oh I am very biased against crazies.
Again, Republicans are not trying to make Obamacare work after it passes and mitigate damage. That's not what they're doing. Stop trying to pretend that this is how reasonable legislators act. They're trying to cripple legislation that could actually help people because they know perfectly well that Obamacare might actually work. And think about how disastrous that would be for the GOP. 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."" 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. 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." 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. http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisconover/2012/07/26/healthcare-law-will-not-reduce-the-deficit-cb/ 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. Can you give your sources for this claim? Which claim, that that Forbes article hinges on one partisan study or that the CBO projects deficit reduction alongside Obamacare's implementation? In either case, I think the source is fairly clear. Try these two links. CBO’s Estimate of the Net Budgetary Impact of the Affordable Care Act’s Health Insurance Coverage Provisions Has Not Changed Much Over Time Letter to the Honorable John Boehner providing an estimate for H.R. 6079, the Repeal of Obamacare Act Do you even read these links before you cite them as sources? Kwizach says "more recent CBO estimates still project deficit-reduction" and then you link an article that says "CBO and JCT’s current projection of the budgetary impact of the ACA’s coverage provisions is $1,363 billion over the 2014–2023 period." Maybe it would be better to let him post his own sources Maybe it would be better if you actually read the links if you are genuinely interested in source material. From the first link, When estimates are compared on a year-by-year basis, CBO and JCT’s estimate of the net budgetary impact of the ACA’s insurance coverage provisions has changed little since February 2013 and, indeed, has changed little since the legislation was being considered in March 2010. In March 2010, CBO and JCT projected that the provisions of the ACA related to health insurance coverage would cost the federal government $759 billion during fiscal years 2014 through 2019 (which was the last year in the 10-year budget window being used at that time). The newest projections indicate that those provisions will cost $710 billion over that same period. As shown in the figure below, the intervening projections of the cost of the ACA’s coverage provisions for those years have all been close to those figures on a year-by-year basis; of course, the 10-year totals have changed as the time frame for the estimates has shifted.
Those amounts do not reflect the total budgetary impact of the ACA. That legislation includes many other provisions that, on net, will reduce budget deficits. Taking the coverage provisions and other provisions together, CBO and JCT have estimated that the ACA will reduce deficits over the next 10 years and in the subsequent decade. (We have not updated our estimate of the total budgetary impact of the ACA since last summer; for that most recent estimate, see Letter to the Honorable John Boehner providing an estimate for H.R. 6079, the Repeal of Obamacare Act.) As the emboldened portion suggests, the CBO stands by it's estimates that the PPACA will reduce deficits, and they recommend one check out their letter to John Boehner for the most recent estimate, which is why I provided that link. From the second link, CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) have estimated the direct spending and revenue effects of H.R. 6079, the Repeal of Obamacare Act, as passed by the House of Representatives on July 11, 2012. H.R. 6079 would repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA), with the exception of one subsection that has no budgetary effect. This estimate reflects the spending and revenue projections in CBO’s March 2012 baseline as adjusted to take into account the effects of the recent Supreme Court decision regarding the ACA.
For various reasons discussed in the report, the estimated budgetary effects of repealing the ACA by enacting H.R. 6079 are close to, but not equivalent to, an estimate of the budgetary effects of the ACA with the signs reversed.
What Is the Impact of Repealing the ACA on the Federal Budget?
Assuming that H.R. 6079 is enacted near the beginning of fiscal year 2013, CBO and JCT estimate that, on balance, the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting that legislation would cause a net increase in federal budget deficits of $109 billion over the 2013–2022 period. Specifically, we estimate that H.R. 6079 would reduce direct spending by $890 billion and reduce revenues by $1 trillion between 2013 and 2022, thus adding $109 billion to federal budget deficits over that period. So, if I may summarize, the ACA does 3 things: 1. Expands insurance coverage (which will cost almost $1.2 trillion) 2. Cuts funds for medicare (saving about $700 billion) 3. Raises taxes (for a net of about $550 billion) So you Kwizach are saying that the net of these three sets of changes is a reduction in the deficit, which is fair enough. But the people who disagree with this are saying that points number 2 and 3 are likely not to happen. Can you explain why you think that the cuts to medicare and the tax increases will actually go through? Because I have to admit, I can easily see congress overriding these provisions. And if that happens then the US is looking at an extra trillion dollars of debt.
Well that's the beauty of the ACA; most of the cuts to Medicare are structural rather than legislative. In short, the CBO estimates that Medicare will literally cost less as the ACA goes through it's increasing stages of implementation. As we can see in states like California and New York, premiums for those who take part in the ACA health insurance exchanges are projected to be cheaper than what many already pay. Similarly, some of the inefficiencies of Medicare can be reduced as the health insurance exchanges take over some of the low income insurance market, effectively letting the government trim the program without having to do so with further legislation.
|
United States43212 Posts
On August 04 2013 14:13 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 13:31 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON — There were more drone strikes in Pakistan last month than any month since January. Three missile strikes were carried out in Yemen in the last week alone. And after Secretary of State John Kerry told Pakistanis on Thursday that the United States was winding down the drone wars there, officials back in Washington quickly contradicted him.
More than two months after President Obama signaled a sharp shift in America’s targeted-killing operations, there is little public evidence of change in a strategy that has come to define the administration’s approach to combating terrorism.
Most elements of the drone program remain in place, including a base in the southern desert of Saudi Arabia that the Central Intelligence Agency continues to use to carry out drone strikes in Yemen. In late May, administration officials said that the bulk of drone operations would shift to the Pentagon from the C.I.A.
But the C.I.A. continues to run America’s secret air war in Pakistan, where Mr. Kerry’s comments underscored the administration’s haphazard approach to discussing these issues publicly. During a television interview in Pakistan on Thursday, Mr. Kerry said the United States had a “timeline” to end drone strikes in that country’s western mountains, adding, “We hope it’s going to be very, very soon.”
But the Obama administration is expected to carry out drone strikes in Pakistan well into the future. Hours after Mr. Kerry’s interview, the State Department issued a statement saying there was no definite timetable to end the targeted killing program in Pakistan, and a department spokeswoman, Marie Harf, said, “In no way would we ever deprive ourselves of a tool to fight a threat if it arises.” Source Have there ever been any agreements or declarations concerning the drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen? I've only read some vague things like "understandings" that never had official sanction.
My understanding was Musharraf agreed to it, subsequent governments have branded it illegal but the Americans have kept doing it anyway and what are Pakistan gonna do, shoot them down?
|
On August 04 2013 13:07 darkness wrote:
It may have been discussed, but is the US president indeed required to be a christian? Despite the answer, isn't it contradictory that he is a christian and supports gays at the same time? E.g. Obama.
Actually it's specifically the opposite. We have a No Religious Test clause in our Constitution that says non-Christians (and Catholics and Mormons and w/e) cannot be barred from office. But really the word "Christian" wasn't a word in American politics for a while, because there are so many brands and sects of Christianity. They aren't a unanimous block by any means and to make generalizations about them like that is to make incorrect statements.
And I wouldn't be surprised if most Christians support gays at this point. It's kind of like saying Christians must have men as the strict head of household. I'd say most American marriages are more collaborative than that.
Christianity doesn't mean you have to be a dick.
You want to know a real contradiction? Christians who are for the death penalty. That just blows my mind.
|
On August 04 2013 21:06 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 13:07 darkness wrote:
It may have been discussed, but is the US president indeed required to be a christian? Despite the answer, isn't it contradictory that he is a christian and supports gays at the same time? E.g. Obama. Actually it's specifically the opposite. We have a No Religious Test clause in our Constitution that says non-Christians (and Catholics and Mormons and w/e) cannot be barred from office. But really the word "Christian" wasn't a word in American politics for a while, because there are so many brands and sects of Christianity. They aren't a unanimous block by any means and to make generalizations about them like that is to make incorrect statements. And I wouldn't be surprised if most Christians support gays at this point. It's kind of like saying Christians must have men as the strict head of household. I'd say most American marriages are more collaborative than that. Christianity doesn't mean you have to be a dick. You want to know a real contradiction? Christians who are for the death penalty. That just blows my mind.
Any person who is for death penalty blows my mind. Well, kinda. I might have gotten used to this disgrace.
|
On August 04 2013 06:21 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 04:56 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama says there are no gimmicks to grow the economy — just difficult steps that require Washington’s focus.
In his weekly radio and Internet address, Obama is promoting a plan he says can break through gridlock. He’s calling it a grand bargain for the middle class.
Obama says he’s willing to work with Republicans to reform the tax code for businesses. That would mean lowering rates but ending many loopholes and deductions.
But Obama says he’ll only do it if money generated is used for infrastructure, training and job growth.
In the Republican address, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine says Obama’s health care law will cost jobs. She wants to change the law to require companies to provide insurance to employees working 40 hours a week, not 30. Source I don't like the push to take the requirement from 30 to 40 hours. The way it works now, employers and employees have to make hard, earnest decisions about compensation. It discourages employers from abusing the system and putting people down for 29 hours, since 29 hours at (near) minimum wage is not even CLOSE to a living wage. It's also harder to find use for a worker that only works 4-6 hours a day compared to one that works 8 hour days and gets an hour off on Fridays. It essentially shrinks the "window of abuse" by the employer. It also gives a bit of leniency to start-ups and smaller businesses (which this country desperately needs) by giving them a competitive advantage for those workers most affected. Making it 40 hours, it's much easier for an employer to juggle the hours of the employee to keep them under that limit while still demanding full-time work requirements.
I'd rather work 39 hours a week and not have health insurance than be forced to work 29 hours a week, not have health insurance, and have to pick up another job.
With so many of the jobs in my area reducing hours of employees to a maximum of 20-29 hours, I've seen nothing other than suffering generated from this rule. You say it discourages employers from abusing the system, but I haven't seen any evidence of that in my area. They are just as happy to cut hours as they ever have been.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
