beowulf

It also have the largest economy of any nation in the world. The bigger they are the harder they fall. The size of economy won't save us. Total lack of logic there. Like saying that your income has no bearing on the size of mortgage you can afford. When the debt is $17 Trillion the size of the US economy is irrelevant. There is no way the Government will ever begin to pay down the principal. If any individual had a similar debt to income ratio they would have long since declared bankruptcy. By the way the debt passed $17 Trillion overnight. They added $320 Billion. The actual debt limit was passed awhile ago. They have been doing the emergency measure I think is what they called it. All it means is they shuffled money around accounts to keep everything running. Then once the limit was raised they borrowed the money to put every thing back to normal. $320 Billion... How can anyone say government spending isn't out of control?

It also have the largest economy of any nation in the world. The bigger they are the harder they fall. The size of economy won't save us.

You are just toeing the typical Democratic party line. It's always the other parties fault. It's nothing but propaganda. Both were at fault. The Democrats were at fault because the Senate and the President refused to accept the continuing resolution submitted by the House that didn't include funding for the ACA. They also refused to even negotiate. It was pretty pathetic of Obama to refuse to talk to the House Republicans. The Republicans were at fault because they refused to include funding in the continuing resolution. But they were willing to negotiate and they did submit bills to keep everything else but the ACA funded. Are you confused? Who do you think Congress is? It's both the Senate and the House of Representatives. All spending bills come from the House of Representatives and they decide what goes into the bills. So it is their responsibility to decide what to pay and what not to pay. They didn't have to include funding for the ACA if they didn't want to and could have held out indefinitely because that his their legal constitutional right to do so. They also didn't have to raise the debt limit. It's not much of a debt limit anymore anyway. It's more like a debt target considering the number of times it has been raised. The Tea Party was not included in the Constitution.

Yeah and neither does yours. What am I wrong about?

They tried to fund everything but the ACA. Instead they just caved in and funded everything up until a certain date. I don't remember the exact date.

Actually, our debt burden is far better than most first world nations. The pain you spoken of would have made 2009 a pleasant memory. Cutting off a limb to get your way isn't leadership, it's bordering on treason. It's also pretty suicidal for the party. It used to be that the Democrats were the muddled mass while the unified GOP delegations kicked their ass, but now the table has turned. I am not a Republican and don't care about that party at all. The US has the most amount of debt of any nation in the world. The pain that will come from this is inevitable. The only choice we have is when we deal with it. The longer we put this off the worse it will get. Treason is allowing the debt to get this far and not dealing with it.

It's pretty clear from the Constitution that the House controls the money and that they can choose what to fund and what not to fund.

That actually is part of why the ACA really wasn't constitutional. Part of it is a spending bill and it didn't originate in the House. The Supreme Court already ruled in the contrary. You may disagree, but the call has been made. They didn't rule on that. They ruled on the individual mandate. And I think they got that wrong.

I don't think the Republicans should have caved in and funded the ACA or raised the debt limit. They should have forced the country to live within it's means rather then continue to pile on more and more debt. Yes it would hurt a lot. But that is only because the US Gov has amassed an insane amount of debt. Whether we deal with the debt and spending problems now or later defines how much it's going to hurt. If we put off to the future like they have chosen to do the problem only gets bigger and harder to deal with. There will never be a good time to deal with it. So might as well do it now while we have the chance to mitigate some of the really bad consequences of this massive debt.

That actually is part of why the ACA really wasn't constitutional. Part of it is a spending bill and it didn't originate in the House.

I'll agree that the House has some discretion on budgeting. All spending bills originate in the House. But it still entails legislation that is passed by Senate and the President. What aspects of ACA actually require funding? I'm reminded of when TR sent out the Great White Fleet against the wishes of Congress, who sought to defund such an action. His response was 'I have enough money to send the fleet out - you can choose whether or not to fund its return.' Right, the House can't fund anything it want's. That wouldn't be a good idea. As for what aspects of the ACA require funding? I have no idea. I don't really care to read that much about it. But defunding the ACA is well with in the legal powers of the House. The President and the Senate basically usurped the power of the House by forcing them to fund the ACA. Just to add the one part that I can think of off hand that requires funding is the website. Which is going to require lots of money to fix/redesign, since it sucks.

I can spell this one out for you. Appropriations are done by the House at their discretion. The House doesn't have to approve all appropriations listed in each and every law. This is not a glitch. This is by design. It's called separation of powers.

Guess it was too hard for you to understand. Defunding ACA was a legal way to effectively repeal it. It's been done with other laws. It has precedence.

It was upheld and successful. The link I posted specifies the legal and constitutional backing.

It's been done in the past. http://www.conservativeusa.org/issues/defunding-obamacare-legal-and-constitutional

Really not the same thing, no more than GOP proposals to prevent flag burning is an attempt to overturn the 1st amendment. Both parties propose laws that try to regulate/attack/moderate civil rights. The ACA is enacted law, signed off on by the Supreme Court. If we want to modify it, the process is clear - you pass new legislation and have it signed by the President. The process is not "refuse to do your job until the winners renegotiate the contract with you." It is well with in the House's right to pick and choose if they want to fund the ACA. Just because it's a law doesn't mean they have to fund it.

How the guy is spending the money goes back to the comparison with the US Gov. I know it's hard to understand. You are the one who brought up this Mortgage as an analogy. It really doesn't fit and is shown by the 690% over spending. A better fit would be using a credit card analogy. US income: $2400 billion US expenditure: $3200 billion Percentage of overspending: 33% The over spending was put on the Governments Credit Card. Which pushes the Credit Card balance close to $17 Trillion. Which they are never paying down the principal and are only paying the interest and having to borrow more money on the credit card to pay it's interest. Guy's income: $59,000 Guy's expenditures over the years pushes the credit card balance to: $410,000 Percentage of overspending this past year: 33% So instead of getting a loan and buying a house. This guy has a super platinum credit card that he can increase the limit when he gets to it. So to answer your question. NO, I would not lend money to someone in that situation and no bank would give them a credit card that he could raise the limit when he reached it. You are wrong. The issue is the DEBT and the OVERSPENDING. Because the overspending created the massive debt and with out stopping the overspending it will be impossible to pay down the debt. The reason the size of the debt is a problem is because it generates interest payments that need to be paid and just because interest rates are currently low doesn't mean they will always be low. Raising taxes will not solve the problem because raising taxes does not necessarily increase revenue. It can also decrease revenue. Raising taxes only works up to a point and then it becomes counter productive.

You aren't considered enrolled until you pay, and you have until Dec 15 to pay for coverage beginning in January. How many people do you think are going to pay in full 2 months before the bill is due? Moreover the stats are skewed by the number of people who had to log on several times due to the clunky start up. Also, who is really surprised that people will visit to get information so they can comparison shop before they buy, especially when the deadline is months away? If your intent was to suggest that 99.6% of visitors looked at all the plans on offer and rejected all of them, that's a pretty dumb suggestion. As I'm sure you know full well. Don That was the title of the blog entry. Try reading it before you judge it.

Only a moron would lend someone with that income $410,000 for a house. The monthly mortgage payment would be $2,669.72 Their net pay would be about $1,567.75 every two weeks. They would barely have enough left over to eat.

Wow you failed to put in how much the government is spending per year next to the total revenue. This year I think they are spending close to $800 billion more then revenue. So the adjusted US revenue is more like a negative $800 Billion and asking for more loans. Apparently it was too complicated for you.

https://blog.compete.com/2013/10/15/obamacare-enrollment-stats/ 99.6% of Healthcare.gov Visitors Did NOT Enroll in Obamacare

I guess it was too complicated for you to understand that I meant someone who had a similar debt to income ratio as the US Government and not just anyone with a mortgage. I am familiar with the Keynesian theory. As far as I know there is no evidence to support that "theory". I am not using the scientific definition of theory.

When someone tells me they have to borrow money so they can pay the bills, I would be very worried about them and would never lend them money. When the Government says that, you know disaster is just waiting in the future. Eventually the bond market is going to force the issue. Either they deal with it now and try to mitigate the pain or deal with it later when they won't have any choices.

And by increasing the debt limit it increases the size of the disaster that they don't want to deal with today.

http://stawealth.com/daily-x-change/1850-the-most-dangerous-line-uttered-during-the-debt-ceiling-debate.html That "worse outcome" wasn't exactly avoided they just pushed it off into the future instead of dealing with the problem now. Hell many don't even want to admit that the real problem is Government spending is out of control. No one won anything. All they did is agree to continue borrowing more money.