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 October 18 2013 03:27 Sub40APM wrote: I hope this is the legit view of Tea Party Patriots all around. 2010 taught us that 2014 doesnt matter, TRIPLE DOWN ON THAT IDEOLOGICAL PURITY! http://www.redstate.com/2013/10/16/advancing-ever-advancing/
This fight would expose conservative activists to the frauds they have funded.
Men like Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn, Eric Cantor, Kevin McCarthy, and others have preached a great sermon against Obamacare, but now conservatives who supported them see that these men have refused to actually practice what they’ve been preaching. They’ve refused to stand and fight with the rest of us.
I read the whole article while humming the refrain of this song.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) said Thursday that he would not rule out pushing the federal government to shut down again in order to defund the health care law.
"I would do anything, and I will continue to do anything I can, to stop the train wreck that is Obamacare," Cruz told ABC News when asked if he would block government funding in order to take down the Affordable Care Act.
Cruz only said that he intended to continue to fight Obamacare.
"What I intend to do is continue to stand with the American people working to stop Obamacare,” Cruz said. "Washington focuses on the politics all day long. That’s what this town does, but what we saw in the deal last night, is that the U.S. Senate is not concerned about all the people out of a job, all the people in part-time work, all the people whose health insurance premiums are skyrocketing, all the people who are losing their health insurance, and that’s happening because of Obamacare."
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) said Thursday that he would not rule out pushing the federal government to shut down again in order to defund the health care law.
"I would do anything, and I will continue to do anything I can, to stop the train wreck that is Obamacare," Cruz told ABC News when asked if he would block government funding in order to take down the Affordable Care Act.
Cruz only said that he intended to continue to fight Obamacare.
"What I intend to do is continue to stand with the American people working to stop Obamacare,” Cruz said. "Washington focuses on the politics all day long. That’s what this town does, but what we saw in the deal last night, is that the U.S. Senate is not concerned about all the people out of a job, all the people in part-time work, all the people whose health insurance premiums are skyrocketing, all the people who are losing their health insurance, and that’s happening because of Obamacare."
Correct they dont care about them. They care about all the people out of a job and working part-time because of a government shutdown. About the loss of US's position on the global market and to avoid a global economic collapse that would have made the great depression look like a golden age. How dare they think about more then there next re-election!
On October 18 2013 03:27 Sub40APM wrote: I hope this is the legit view of Tea Party Patriots all around. 2010 taught us that 2014 doesnt matter, TRIPLE DOWN ON THAT IDEOLOGICAL PURITY! http://www.redstate.com/2013/10/16/advancing-ever-advancing/
This fight would expose conservative activists to the frauds they have funded.
Men like Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn, Eric Cantor, Kevin McCarthy, and others have preached a great sermon against Obamacare, but now conservatives who supported them see that these men have refused to actually practice what they’ve been preaching. They’ve refused to stand and fight with the rest of us.
I read the whole article while humming the refrain of this song.
At this point it's kind of bittersweet feeling "Schadenfreude" here, since the US has so many problems in need of fixing...
And a functional GOP could be to the benefit of the whole country.
That article was scary. The writer cheered the GOP as they stopped the whole country and tried their hardest to ruin the credit rating of USA, in order to confirm who among their party will never compromise, who will win the country or burn it down. I really hope the american people stop voting for the madmen in the conservative right.
On October 18 2013 02:34 DoubleReed wrote: Enough with the long term problems. Unemployment is still high after five years. That should be the number one priority. And of course most of those missing jobs are public sector jobs which the private sector really can't substitute. We need to stop the sequester and put money into state governments.
So you want to sacrifice the future at the expense of a short term temporary gain? I wouldn't mind the Federal government ONLY looked at long term problems of the sort that require the full resources of the government to fix and left all the other ones alone.
Sacrifice the future? Long lasting unemployment does way more economic damage than having a 20 trillion dollar debt. That's economic growth that we are burning every year. That's livelihoods and families being destroyed and possibly never recovering.
These immediate problems must be dealt with now if we want any sensible solutions to long term problems. Trying to deal with long term budgets now can result in worsening our future outlook because we're not dealing with the severe damage going on.
Both the long and short term should be managed. Absolutely. It's worth repeating that the sequester was never a thing that was intended to happen.
Trying to predict future budgets while we have high unemployment is a bad idea. If you deal with the unemployment issue, the long term issues become massively less severe.
The reason they want deal with entitlement reform now is that they can leverage the worse economic outlooks to destroy the social safety net (which is their goal). It's a shell game. You fix the short term problems first, so that you can see what you're really dealing with long term.
That's one way to go about it. Alternatively you can fix the long term issues first and then have a freer hand to deal with current issues.
But whatever, in reality it doesn't matter that much where you put the emphasis, so long as you execute well.
On October 18 2013 02:34 DoubleReed wrote: Enough with the long term problems. Unemployment is still high after five years. That should be the number one priority. And of course most of those missing jobs are public sector jobs which the private sector really can't substitute. We need to stop the sequester and put money into state governments.
So you want to sacrifice the future at the expense of a short term temporary gain? I wouldn't mind the Federal government ONLY looked at long term problems of the sort that require the full resources of the government to fix and left all the other ones alone.
Sacrifice the future? Long lasting unemployment does way more economic damage than having a 20 trillion dollar debt. That's economic growth that we are burning every year. That's livelihoods and families being destroyed and possibly never recovering.
These immediate problems must be dealt with now if we want any sensible solutions to long term problems. Trying to deal with long term budgets now can result in worsening our future outlook because we're not dealing with the severe damage going on.
Both the long and short term should be managed. Absolutely. It's worth repeating that the sequester was never a thing that was intended to happen.
Trying to predict future budgets while we have high unemployment is a bad idea. If you deal with the unemployment issue, the long term issues become massively less severe.
The reason they want deal with entitlement reform now is that they can leverage the worse economic outlooks to destroy the social safety net (which is their goal). It's a shell game. You fix the short term problems first, so that you can see what you're really dealing with long term.
That's one way to go about it. Alternatively you can fix the long term issues first and then have a freer hand to deal with current issues.
But whatever, in reality it doesn't matter that much where you put the emphasis, so long as you execute well.
This is one of those Jonny-likes-to-deny-political-reality instances. People fear-mongering about the debt are saying this is a problem we must fix now at all costs. Raising the debt ceiling is a constant fight because of this, as it is presented as the number one issue. And much of what people propose to fix the debt are things that will have an adverse effect on the more serious problem of unemployment. Cutting government spending, unemployment insurance, medicare, or food stamps are some of the worst things you can do. These will have immediate effects on our economy, and only make economic growth harder, worsening our future outlook.
Putting the emphasis on the debt when we have high unemployment is a complete misunderstanding of priorities.
Yes, sure, you can "execute well," or whatever, but the reality is that with our political system the way it is right now, putting emphasis on the debt muddies the waters of what is seriously important right now.
The Cook Political Report changed its ratings of 15 House seats Friday, moving 14 of them in the direction of Democrats following the government shutdown.
"Mostly as a result of the damage House Republicans sustained during the 16-day government shutdown, we are making changes to our ratings in 15 House seats, all but one in Democrats' direction," Cook Political Report said in a statement.
House Republican seats Cook deemed more in danger include Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI), Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI), Rep. Tom Reed (R-NY) and Rep. Mark Takano (R-CA).
The Cook statement warned that while Democrats have acheived fundraising success recently, they still have a while before the 2014 elections.
"Democrats still have a very uphill climb to a majority, and it's doubtful they can sustain this month's momentum for another year," the Cook statement says. "But Republicans' actions have energized Democratic fundraising and recruiting efforts and handed Democrats a potentially effective message."
On October 18 2013 02:34 DoubleReed wrote: Enough with the long term problems. Unemployment is still high after five years. That should be the number one priority. And of course most of those missing jobs are public sector jobs which the private sector really can't substitute. We need to stop the sequester and put money into state governments.
So you want to sacrifice the future at the expense of a short term temporary gain? I wouldn't mind the Federal government ONLY looked at long term problems of the sort that require the full resources of the government to fix and left all the other ones alone.
Sacrifice the future? Long lasting unemployment does way more economic damage than having a 20 trillion dollar debt. That's economic growth that we are burning every year. That's livelihoods and families being destroyed and possibly never recovering.
These immediate problems must be dealt with now if we want any sensible solutions to long term problems. Trying to deal with long term budgets now can result in worsening our future outlook because we're not dealing with the severe damage going on.
Both the long and short term should be managed. Absolutely. It's worth repeating that the sequester was never a thing that was intended to happen.
Trying to predict future budgets while we have high unemployment is a bad idea. If you deal with the unemployment issue, the long term issues become massively less severe.
The reason they want deal with entitlement reform now is that they can leverage the worse economic outlooks to destroy the social safety net (which is their goal). It's a shell game. You fix the short term problems first, so that you can see what you're really dealing with long term.
That's one way to go about it. Alternatively you can fix the long term issues first and then have a freer hand to deal with current issues.
But whatever, in reality it doesn't matter that much where you put the emphasis, so long as you execute well.
This is one of those Jonny-likes-to-deny-political-reality instances. People fear-mongering about the debt are saying this is a problem we must fix now at all costs. Raising the debt ceiling is a constant fight because of this, as it is presented as the number one issue. And much of what people propose to fix the debt are things that will have an adverse effect on the more serious problem of unemployment. Cutting government spending, unemployment insurance, medicare, or food stamps are some of the worst things you can do. These will have immediate effects on our economy, and only make economic growth harder, worsening our future outlook.
Putting the emphasis on the debt when we have high unemployment is a complete misunderstanding of priorities.
Yes, sure, you can "execute well," or whatever, but the reality is that with our political system the way it is right now, putting emphasis on the debt muddies the waters of what is seriously important right now.
I don't think I'm really disagreeing with you. The sequester wasn't supposed to happen and if we had long term reform instead of it (the original intention), current year spending and the deficit would be higher.
On October 18 2013 02:34 DoubleReed wrote: Enough with the long term problems. Unemployment is still high after five years. That should be the number one priority. And of course most of those missing jobs are public sector jobs which the private sector really can't substitute. We need to stop the sequester and put money into state governments.
So you want to sacrifice the future at the expense of a short term temporary gain? I wouldn't mind the Federal government ONLY looked at long term problems of the sort that require the full resources of the government to fix and left all the other ones alone.
Sacrifice the future? Long lasting unemployment does way more economic damage than having a 20 trillion dollar debt. That's economic growth that we are burning every year. That's livelihoods and families being destroyed and possibly never recovering.
These immediate problems must be dealt with now if we want any sensible solutions to long term problems. Trying to deal with long term budgets now can result in worsening our future outlook because we're not dealing with the severe damage going on.
Both the long and short term should be managed. Absolutely. It's worth repeating that the sequester was never a thing that was intended to happen.
Trying to predict future budgets while we have high unemployment is a bad idea. If you deal with the unemployment issue, the long term issues become massively less severe.
The reason they want deal with entitlement reform now is that they can leverage the worse economic outlooks to destroy the social safety net (which is their goal). It's a shell game. You fix the short term problems first, so that you can see what you're really dealing with long term.
That's one way to go about it. Alternatively you can fix the long term issues first and then have a freer hand to deal with current issues.
But whatever, in reality it doesn't matter that much where you put the emphasis, so long as you execute well.
This is one of those Jonny-likes-to-deny-political-reality instances. People fear-mongering about the debt are saying this is a problem we must fix now at all costs. Raising the debt ceiling is a constant fight because of this, as it is presented as the number one issue. And much of what people propose to fix the debt are things that will have an adverse effect on the more serious problem of unemployment. Cutting government spending, unemployment insurance, medicare, or food stamps are some of the worst things you can do. These will have immediate effects on our economy, and only make economic growth harder, worsening our future outlook.
Putting the emphasis on the debt when we have high unemployment is a complete misunderstanding of priorities.
Yes, sure, you can "execute well," or whatever, but the reality is that with our political system the way it is right now, putting emphasis on the debt muddies the waters of what is seriously important right now.
I don't think I'm really disagreeing with you. The sequester wasn't supposed to happen and if we had long term reform instead of it (the original intention), current year spending and the deficit would be higher.
Because what this Congress aims for is reform minded policies.
On October 18 2013 02:34 DoubleReed wrote: Enough with the long term problems. Unemployment is still high after five years. That should be the number one priority. And of course most of those missing jobs are public sector jobs which the private sector really can't substitute. We need to stop the sequester and put money into state governments.
So you want to sacrifice the future at the expense of a short term temporary gain? I wouldn't mind the Federal government ONLY looked at long term problems of the sort that require the full resources of the government to fix and left all the other ones alone.
Sacrifice the future? Long lasting unemployment does way more economic damage than having a 20 trillion dollar debt. That's economic growth that we are burning every year. That's livelihoods and families being destroyed and possibly never recovering.
These immediate problems must be dealt with now if we want any sensible solutions to long term problems. Trying to deal with long term budgets now can result in worsening our future outlook because we're not dealing with the severe damage going on.
Both the long and short term should be managed. Absolutely. It's worth repeating that the sequester was never a thing that was intended to happen.
Trying to predict future budgets while we have high unemployment is a bad idea. If you deal with the unemployment issue, the long term issues become massively less severe.
The reason they want deal with entitlement reform now is that they can leverage the worse economic outlooks to destroy the social safety net (which is their goal). It's a shell game. You fix the short term problems first, so that you can see what you're really dealing with long term.
That's one way to go about it. Alternatively you can fix the long term issues first and then have a freer hand to deal with current issues.
But whatever, in reality it doesn't matter that much where you put the emphasis, so long as you execute well.
This is one of those Jonny-likes-to-deny-political-reality instances. People fear-mongering about the debt are saying this is a problem we must fix now at all costs. Raising the debt ceiling is a constant fight because of this, as it is presented as the number one issue. And much of what people propose to fix the debt are things that will have an adverse effect on the more serious problem of unemployment. Cutting government spending, unemployment insurance, medicare, or food stamps are some of the worst things you can do. These will have immediate effects on our economy, and only make economic growth harder, worsening our future outlook.
Putting the emphasis on the debt when we have high unemployment is a complete misunderstanding of priorities.
Yes, sure, you can "execute well," or whatever, but the reality is that with our political system the way it is right now, putting emphasis on the debt muddies the waters of what is seriously important right now.
I don't think I'm really disagreeing with you. The sequester wasn't supposed to happen and if we had long term reform instead of it (the original intention), current year spending and the deficit would be higher.
Because what this Congress aims for is reform minded policies.
Of course not. If this Congress was awesome we'd have had reform a few years ago instead of "hey kids it's sequester time unless you get your shit together."
To me the most telling thing about what is going on in Congress is that the major victory out of all of this for the Democrats was that Republicans agreed to finally sit down and essentially go to committee to work on a budget, something they've refused to do almost two dozen times this year.
Think about it, the Republicans mess up THIS badly, and the big hit they take (besides in polls and 2014) is they actually have to do their job.
On October 18 2013 07:01 Sub40APM wrote: Poor Ted Cruz, he really thought he'd be president for a minute there back in October.
He's leading in the straw polls so far for the Republican nomination. If he manages to get it he'll get the worst drubbing he's got since junior high.
Cruz/Bachman? Cruz/Palin? Cruz/Ryan?
My friend and I were talking about how the Republicans will need to hire an artist to draw some creative gerrymandering outlines in order to stay in power 'cause of how much hate they're getting from the middle. I dont know if there are enough people in the heartland of America who still like 'em.
On October 18 2013 07:01 Sub40APM wrote: Poor Ted Cruz, he really thought he'd be president for a minute there back in October.
He's leading in the straw polls so far for the Republican nomination. If he manages to get it he'll get the worst drubbing he's got since junior high.
Cruz/Bachman? Cruz/Palin? Cruz/Ryan?
My friend and I were talking about how the Republicans will need to hire an artist to draw some creative gerrymandering outlines in order to stay in power 'cause of how much hate they're getting from the middle. I dont know if there are enough people in the heartland of America who still like 'em.
You underestimate how other people viewed the situation. There are a lot of people that viewed the Republicans in the right because they also don't approve of ACA. This probably changed votes by a little, but not as much as you would hope.
He can become president. The basic citizenship laws come from two sources: Jus Soli (law of the soil, people born on your land are citizens of it) and Jus Sanguinus (law of the blood, people born to citizens are themselves citizen, it can qualify from either parent though is easier to get through the mother iirc); USA accepts both. Ted Cruz's mother was an American, which means he is eligible to be an American citizen by birth, which is enough to qualify.
EPT
