Thoughts on this video? Sad part is, I bet people go into politics with an honest heart, but when the money starts flashing, things get sour.
I like his rant about our congress, but his solution wont affect much. Sure, fixing banking would be good, but banks aren't the biggest issue, and more small businesses would mean more jobs, but jobs aren't the only thing the US needs. This health care bill is actually a pretty good idea, but it isn't a fix for the US being truly fucked.
Debt - Too much. Govt looking to increase that amount. Govt not looking to reduce spending or pay off that debt.
Govt Waste - Too much. See Wikipedia article on DC welcome center. Zero responsibility for govt waste because it is too big.
Waste isn't as big a deal as it might seem. It's not as if the government is putting money in a landfill. Everything they spend pays somebody's wages, which will in turn be spent on other things. A wasteful government isn't 'good', but it's not a direct drain on the economy either. I'd submit that it's more important/relevant for a government to be efficient in its use of manpower (people paid to do nothing other than administrate the process of spending) than in its use of money.
Bad oversight on government programs - Too many people get free rides from food stamps and unemployment/disability.
Typically those problems are overstated - certainly they are here in the UK. The undeserving poor are a popular whipping-boy for politicians, when in reality they account for only a fraction of a percent of government spending. To put it another way: there could be (and quite possibly are) more executives dodging millions in taxes than there are breadliners sneaking an extra few hundred by faking a bad back, and yet it's the latter who will get blamed for the economic ills of the country.
Waste is much larger than you think. And waste probably isn't the right term it is outright stealing of money that we do nothing about. The DC visitor center was originally supposed to cost 20 million and it wound up costing 600 million iirc. Do you think that all that extra money went into the pockets of the construction workers? I seriously doubt a penny went to them. This happens all over in our government. Something that costs a dollar to make in the private sector costs the government 20 dollars to make. It isn't a drain on the economy, but what it is is an allocation of funds that could go to many better sources such as schools.
You are right about the second part of your post. That spending is not even close to our largest waste of money, but it is cancerous. It installs this disease into our people. If mommy and daddy don't work how are they supposed to teach their children to have a good work ethic? Also completely agree that there is probably more waste on a select billionaire hiding money than we spend on the entire welfare program, but this particular issue isn't about money as much as society becoming rotten from this practice.
That list isn't even 10% of the bullshit that is going on. The list isn't just about misuse of money either it is about how the US is going down the drain to a certain extent and nobody is doing shit about it.
On October 16 2013 14:57 TheRabidDeer wrote: US is honestly in deep shit. I dont know how much the world is going to take of it.
First, we police the world and war like crazy Second, we spy on every country under the sun, even our own, in ridiculous amounts Third, our government is so screwed up they cant get anything done and are borderline saying "fuck you world, we arent paying you shit"
Are we TRYING to see how far we can push the world before they turn COMPLETELY against us? What if they just turn us into a gigantic north korea? No more trade, no more support, just "have fun there yanks".
Didn't realize the world worked like my parents.
They are tired of our shit. There are already talks of a non-US based internet in EU and China making some pushes for a non-US based global economy. Nice snide jab instead of addressing the points though.
On October 16 2013 05:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote: [quote] I don't think Reps view themselves as threatening or causing a shutdown. A shutdown happens only when both sides refuse to agree. It's a natural consequence, not one imposed by either party.
To many Americans, the shutdown came out of nowhere. But interviews with a wide array of conservatives show that the confrontation that precipitated the crisis was the outgrowth of a long-running effort to undo the law, the Affordable Care Act, since its passage in 2010 — waged by a galaxy of conservative groups with more money, organized tactics and interconnections than is commonly known.
If you are unwilling to concede that the GOP's strategy has centered around using the threat of a shut down to obtain concessions from Democrats than you and I live in different universes and I don't think continuing this conversation will be very fruitful...
If you are unwilling to see the other's viewpoint, than you shouldn't be posting what that viewpoint is.
I understand the viewpoint that the GOP has engaged in hostage taking and / or is using the shutdown as leverage. But that's not the only viewpoint that exists.
The viewpoint that the GOP never intended to use the threat of a shutdown as a negotiating tactic is not founded in reality. The article I linked cites several sources that indicate that this tactic was conceived months in advance. Can you provide any sources that support your viewpoint that the GOP didn't intend to use the threat of a shutdown in the manner I have described?
The threat of a shutdown is the natural threat that exists in any budget dispute. To the extent that the GOP wanted to make the ACA a budget issue, absolutely, they made tied the ACA (or whatever their current demands are) to the threat of a shutdown.
I think, though, that the GOP considers this a long over due exercise of their ordinary power of the purse. It's a bit of semantics - using the power of the purse is the same as using the threat of a shutdown - but if you emphasize the power of the purse they're just doing their job. Granted, it's not much of a substantive difference, but we're talking perspectives here.
Alternatively, if you emphasize the historic norm of largely leaving mandatory spending alone, it's an exceptional use of the treat of a shutdown.
What is this "power of the purse" in the context of washington politics? That's a bit much of mental gymnastics, no?
On October 16 2013 08:35 Doublemint wrote: Jonny is not responding to my questions... I feel neglected
Sorry, you slipped under the radar.
Nominally congress has power over all spending, with added power given to the House. Ironically, congress has eroded that power by making some spending mandatory and other spending discretionary. Currently, only discretionary spending is seriously questioned in budget / appropriation bills and mandatory spending goes through with only minor changes here and there. The spending in the ACA is mandatory so it's unusual for the Reps to include it in a budget negotiation.
Mandatory spending is, however, the long term budget issue for the US, so it's not something that congress can keep on autopilot indefinitely.
I see, so how is this going to turn out that you, as someone who tends to identify with the republican points, will be - at least partly - satisfied?
Me? I'll be happy if the government opens and the debt ceiling gets raised. I'm easy, I'm a moderate. It's the derp herding partisans in congress you need to worry about and do mental gymnastics to understand.
Edit: there used to be moderates in congress. They've been slowly dying off and recently Reps elected tea party extremists and Dems fired blue dog moderates.
Can you list some of these "blue dog moderates" who were "fired"? I am really curious to see who you think fits in that class.
Just rolling with Wikipedia:
Blue Dog Coalition membership experienced a rapid decline in the 2010s, falling from 54 seats in the 111th Congress to only 14 seats in the 113th Congress.
If you are unwilling to concede that the GOP's strategy has centered around using the threat of a shut down to obtain concessions from Democrats than you and I live in different universes and I don't think continuing this conversation will be very fruitful...
If you are unwilling to see the other's viewpoint, than you shouldn't be posting what that viewpoint is.
I understand the viewpoint that the GOP has engaged in hostage taking and / or is using the shutdown as leverage. But that's not the only viewpoint that exists.
The viewpoint that the GOP never intended to use the threat of a shutdown as a negotiating tactic is not founded in reality. The article I linked cites several sources that indicate that this tactic was conceived months in advance. Can you provide any sources that support your viewpoint that the GOP didn't intend to use the threat of a shutdown in the manner I have described?
The threat of a shutdown is the natural threat that exists in any budget dispute. To the extent that the GOP wanted to make the ACA a budget issue, absolutely, they made tied the ACA (or whatever their current demands are) to the threat of a shutdown.
I think, though, that the GOP considers this a long over due exercise of their ordinary power of the purse. It's a bit of semantics - using the power of the purse is the same as using the threat of a shutdown - but if you emphasize the power of the purse they're just doing their job. Granted, it's not much of a substantive difference, but we're talking perspectives here.
Alternatively, if you emphasize the historic norm of largely leaving mandatory spending alone, it's an exceptional use of the treat of a shutdown.
What is this "power of the purse" in the context of washington politics? That's a bit much of mental gymnastics, no?
On October 16 2013 08:35 Doublemint wrote: Jonny is not responding to my questions... I feel neglected
Sorry, you slipped under the radar.
Nominally congress has power over all spending, with added power given to the House. Ironically, congress has eroded that power by making some spending mandatory and other spending discretionary. Currently, only discretionary spending is seriously questioned in budget / appropriation bills and mandatory spending goes through with only minor changes here and there. The spending in the ACA is mandatory so it's unusual for the Reps to include it in a budget negotiation.
Mandatory spending is, however, the long term budget issue for the US, so it's not something that congress can keep on autopilot indefinitely.
I see, so how is this going to turn out that you, as someone who tends to identify with the republican points, will be - at least partly - satisfied?
Me? I'll be happy if the government opens and the debt ceiling gets raised. I'm easy, I'm a moderate. It's the derp herding partisans in congress you need to worry about and do mental gymnastics to understand.
Edit: there used to be moderates in congress. They've been slowly dying off and recently Reps elected tea party extremists and Dems fired blue dog moderates.
Can you list some of these "blue dog moderates" who were "fired"? I am really curious to see who you think fits in that class.
Blue Dog Coalition membership experienced a rapid decline in the 2010s, falling from 54 seats in the 111th Congress to only 14 seats in the 113th Congress.
I think we have seen a remarkable thing happen. Months ago... official Washington scoffed. We saw millions and millions of people rise up... We saw the House of Representatives take a courageous stand... [and] engage in a profile of courage. ... Unfortunately we did not see Republicans in the Senate" do the same.
Ted Cruz.. the biggest joke out of the whole fiasco. When his skin is on the line, he crawls back to his hole to hide and yell.
If he were serious, he would actually attempt a filibuster on this deal. Then again, if he did, everyone would see how big of a troll he actually is since there won't be the House to act as a distraction.
On October 16 2013 06:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote: [quote] If you are unwilling to see the other's viewpoint, than you shouldn't be posting what that viewpoint is.
I understand the viewpoint that the GOP has engaged in hostage taking and / or is using the shutdown as leverage. But that's not the only viewpoint that exists.
The viewpoint that the GOP never intended to use the threat of a shutdown as a negotiating tactic is not founded in reality. The article I linked cites several sources that indicate that this tactic was conceived months in advance. Can you provide any sources that support your viewpoint that the GOP didn't intend to use the threat of a shutdown in the manner I have described?
The threat of a shutdown is the natural threat that exists in any budget dispute. To the extent that the GOP wanted to make the ACA a budget issue, absolutely, they made tied the ACA (or whatever their current demands are) to the threat of a shutdown.
I think, though, that the GOP considers this a long over due exercise of their ordinary power of the purse. It's a bit of semantics - using the power of the purse is the same as using the threat of a shutdown - but if you emphasize the power of the purse they're just doing their job. Granted, it's not much of a substantive difference, but we're talking perspectives here.
Alternatively, if you emphasize the historic norm of largely leaving mandatory spending alone, it's an exceptional use of the treat of a shutdown.
What is this "power of the purse" in the context of washington politics? That's a bit much of mental gymnastics, no?
On October 16 2013 08:35 Doublemint wrote: Jonny is not responding to my questions... I feel neglected
Sorry, you slipped under the radar.
Nominally congress has power over all spending, with added power given to the House. Ironically, congress has eroded that power by making some spending mandatory and other spending discretionary. Currently, only discretionary spending is seriously questioned in budget / appropriation bills and mandatory spending goes through with only minor changes here and there. The spending in the ACA is mandatory so it's unusual for the Reps to include it in a budget negotiation.
Mandatory spending is, however, the long term budget issue for the US, so it's not something that congress can keep on autopilot indefinitely.
I see, so how is this going to turn out that you, as someone who tends to identify with the republican points, will be - at least partly - satisfied?
Me? I'll be happy if the government opens and the debt ceiling gets raised. I'm easy, I'm a moderate. It's the derp herding partisans in congress you need to worry about and do mental gymnastics to understand.
Edit: there used to be moderates in congress. They've been slowly dying off and recently Reps elected tea party extremists and Dems fired blue dog moderates.
Can you list some of these "blue dog moderates" who were "fired"? I am really curious to see who you think fits in that class.
Just rolling with Wikipedia:
Blue Dog Coalition membership experienced a rapid decline in the 2010s, falling from 54 seats in the 111th Congress to only 14 seats in the 113th Congress.
I think we have seen a remarkable thing happen. Months ago... official Washington scoffed. We saw millions and millions of people rise up... We saw the House of Representatives take a courageous stand... [and] engage in a profile of courage. ... Unfortunately we did not see Republicans in the Senate" do the same.
I think the disappearance of the moderate middle ground is just as important:
The viewpoint that the GOP never intended to use the threat of a shutdown as a negotiating tactic is not founded in reality. The article I linked cites several sources that indicate that this tactic was conceived months in advance. Can you provide any sources that support your viewpoint that the GOP didn't intend to use the threat of a shutdown in the manner I have described?
The threat of a shutdown is the natural threat that exists in any budget dispute. To the extent that the GOP wanted to make the ACA a budget issue, absolutely, they made tied the ACA (or whatever their current demands are) to the threat of a shutdown.
I think, though, that the GOP considers this a long over due exercise of their ordinary power of the purse. It's a bit of semantics - using the power of the purse is the same as using the threat of a shutdown - but if you emphasize the power of the purse they're just doing their job. Granted, it's not much of a substantive difference, but we're talking perspectives here.
Alternatively, if you emphasize the historic norm of largely leaving mandatory spending alone, it's an exceptional use of the treat of a shutdown.
What is this "power of the purse" in the context of washington politics? That's a bit much of mental gymnastics, no?
On October 16 2013 08:35 Doublemint wrote: Jonny is not responding to my questions... I feel neglected
Sorry, you slipped under the radar.
Nominally congress has power over all spending, with added power given to the House. Ironically, congress has eroded that power by making some spending mandatory and other spending discretionary. Currently, only discretionary spending is seriously questioned in budget / appropriation bills and mandatory spending goes through with only minor changes here and there. The spending in the ACA is mandatory so it's unusual for the Reps to include it in a budget negotiation.
Mandatory spending is, however, the long term budget issue for the US, so it's not something that congress can keep on autopilot indefinitely.
I see, so how is this going to turn out that you, as someone who tends to identify with the republican points, will be - at least partly - satisfied?
Me? I'll be happy if the government opens and the debt ceiling gets raised. I'm easy, I'm a moderate. It's the derp herding partisans in congress you need to worry about and do mental gymnastics to understand.
Edit: there used to be moderates in congress. They've been slowly dying off and recently Reps elected tea party extremists and Dems fired blue dog moderates.
Can you list some of these "blue dog moderates" who were "fired"? I am really curious to see who you think fits in that class.
Just rolling with Wikipedia:
Blue Dog Coalition membership experienced a rapid decline in the 2010s, falling from 54 seats in the 111th Congress to only 14 seats in the 113th Congress.
I think we have seen a remarkable thing happen. Months ago... official Washington scoffed. We saw millions and millions of people rise up... We saw the House of Representatives take a courageous stand... [and] engage in a profile of courage. ... Unfortunately we did not see Republicans in the Senate" do the same.
I think the disappearance of the moderate middle ground is just as important:
Don't even need to point how they vote now to figure out where the separation comes from, you see it literally in where they eat and sit party lines are purposely drawn and kept in place by party leaders and whips.
On October 17 2013 04:05 Roe wrote: Would this kind of thing have happened if there were a third party in power? Say Democrats, Republicans, Libertarian/Tea Party were the parties.
The system would be completely different. It's kind of hard to predict in that case
On October 17 2013 04:05 Roe wrote: Would this kind of thing have happened if there were a third party in power? Say Democrats, Republicans, Libertarian/Tea Party were the parties.
It's actually usually harder to gain the support to pass legislation in multi-party parliaments.
Especially if that third party is libertarian, the only federal budget they would agree to is a lack of one.
On October 17 2013 04:05 Roe wrote: Would this kind of thing have happened if there were a third party in power? Say Democrats, Republicans, Libertarian/Tea Party were the parties.
Would depend wouldn't it? If that 3rd party aligned with the republicans on this particular issue then yes if they didn't no. It would also depends on numbers as well. Either way a 3rd party no matter how much people want it won't make a bit of difference. It won't change the core problems in our congress.
On October 17 2013 04:05 Roe wrote: Would this kind of thing have happened if there were a third party in power? Say Democrats, Republicans, Libertarian/Tea Party were the parties.
No because the gerrymandered districts would still force the exact same type of congress. Plus having 3 conservative factions of congress would just make it that much harder to pass anything
On October 17 2013 04:05 Roe wrote: Would this kind of thing have happened if there were a third party in power? Say Democrats, Republicans, Libertarian/Tea Party were the parties.
The american political system doesn't really allow for viable 3rd parties. They just take the place of a party that came before them that disentegrated due to infighting or other factors. Third party or independent candidates can do well on a congressional level but they still caucus with a party (Bernie Sanders and democrats for instance) but it would take basically a perfect storm for a 3rd party candidate to win the presidency (Ross Perot, Theodore Roosevelt came the closest to meeting the circumstances). I mean, take a look at what happened to our Whig party (the party before the Republicans).
On October 17 2013 04:05 Roe wrote: Would this kind of thing have happened if there were a third party in power? Say Democrats, Republicans, Libertarian/Tea Party were the parties.
For the record, libertarians and tea party would never get along with one another.
On October 17 2013 04:53 wei2coolman wrote: Ted Cruz pretty much sacked republican party just so he can become famous.
Thought that was obvious when he forced the House to pass a bill he said he could get through but lied about forcing him to filibuster his own bill. The guy is a showman and little more.
On October 17 2013 04:53 wei2coolman wrote: Ted Cruz pretty much sacked republican party just so he can become famous.
Thought that was obvious when he forced to house to pass a bill he said he could get through but lied about forcing him to filibuster his own bill. The guy is a showman and little more.
Thoughts on this video? Sad part is, I bet people go into politics with an honest heart, but when the money starts flashing, things get sour.
I like his rant about our congress, but his solution wont affect much. Sure, fixing banking would be good, but banks aren't the biggest issue, and more small businesses would mean more jobs, but jobs aren't the only thing the US needs. This health care bill is actually a pretty good idea, but it isn't a fix for the US being truly fucked.
Debt - Too much. Govt looking to increase that amount. Govt not looking to reduce spending or pay off that debt.
Govt Waste - Too much. See Wikipedia article on DC welcome center. Zero responsibility for govt waste because it is too big.
Waste isn't as big a deal as it might seem. It's not as if the government is putting money in a landfill. Everything they spend pays somebody's wages, which will in turn be spent on other things. A wasteful government isn't 'good', but it's not a direct drain on the economy either. I'd submit that it's more important/relevant for a government to be efficient in its use of manpower (people paid to do nothing other than administrate the process of spending) than in its use of money.
Bad oversight on government programs - Too many people get free rides from food stamps and unemployment/disability.
Typically those problems are overstated - certainly they are here in the UK. The undeserving poor are a popular whipping-boy for politicians, when in reality they account for only a fraction of a percent of government spending. To put it another way: there could be (and quite possibly are) more executives dodging millions in taxes than there are breadliners sneaking an extra few hundred by faking a bad back, and yet it's the latter who will get blamed for the economic ills of the country.
Waste is much larger than you think. And waste probably isn't the right term it is outright stealing of money that we do nothing about. The DC visitor center was originally supposed to cost 20 million and it wound up costing 600 million iirc. Do you think that all that extra money went into the pockets of the construction workers? I seriously doubt a penny went to them. This happens all over in our government. Something that costs a dollar to make in the private sector costs the government 20 dollars to make. It isn't a drain on the economy, but what it is is an allocation of funds that could go to many better sources such as schools.
You are right about the second part of your post. That spending is not even close to our largest waste of money, but it is cancerous. It installs this disease into our people. If mommy and daddy don't work how are they supposed to teach their children to have a good work ethic? Also completely agree that there is probably more waste on a select billionaire hiding money than we spend on the entire welfare program, but this particular issue isn't about money as much as society becoming rotten from this practice.
That list isn't even 10% of the bullshit that is going on. The list isn't just about misuse of money either it is about how the US is going down the drain to a certain extent and nobody is doing shit about it.
Social problems grow when people don't buy-in to society. People don't buy-in to society if they don't think it's working for them.
People also point at welfare and say "Where's the incentive to work?" and the problem is always the welfare system, not the fact that 40+% of the wealth and 50+% of the stocks/shares belong to 1% of the country, with the working and middle classes fighting over the scraps. The lure of huge wealth is dangled in front of everyone, but the reality for most people is a lifetime of backbreaking work for precious little gain.
On October 17 2013 04:05 Roe wrote: Would this kind of thing have happened if there were a third party in power? Say Democrats, Republicans, Libertarian/Tea Party were the parties.
It's actually usually harder to gain the support to pass legislation in multi-party parliaments.
Especially if that third party is libertarian, the only federal budget they would agree to is a lack of one.
Its not really. Finland has six party government ruling at the moment (vs two opposition parties) aka six-pack. There were some isues what each party gets and don't get when coalition talks started but everything has been running well. Still only 118 MPs (of 200 total) forms majority.
At least every legislation work will be checked by 6 parties before being passed on.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/XOLmHeQ.png)
![[image loading]](https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/72070179/BWUy0xcCUAAroln%20%28640x466%29.jpg)
