beowulf

Members
  • Content

    5,060
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Everything posted by beowulf

  1. Fillibuster has been around a long time. It's nothing new. A real filibuster has been around long time. These blocking, obstructionist procedural moves are not filibusters and are fairly recent phenomena. They should be done away with, regardless of which party is in control. This is just a simple power grab for the Democrats. They don't like the rules so they change them when it suits them. When the shoe was on the other foot they objected.
  2. Fillibuster has been around a long time. It's nothing new.
  3. What Obama meant to say is you can keep your policy if he likes it. Otherwise you have to buy an Obama approved policy.
  4. It was established Dec 23 1913. We are coming up to the 100 year anniversary. How did they do compared to the previous 100 years?
  5. Yeah I think $17 Trillion is too big to deal with. But it's not just that. It's that there is no political will to even try to reduce spending or really begin to deal with the problem. All the politicians want to do is continue borrowing and printing endless amounts of money. Why? Because it's easy and so far it hasn't bitten them in the ass yet. Or at least they can't see how it's biting them in the ass. Politicians are only concerned with short term issues regarding political positioning and keeping their party in power and paying off their supporters. the will was there in the 90s. It involved both cuts and taxes. And we had a committee formed just a few years ago to do the same thing- unfortunately neither party (nor even the members of the committee) were willing to actually do it. Not really, spending never decreased to the point of zero deficit. I don't think increasing taxes is a good idea or would be successful. What they really need is drastic cuts in Federal spending. Whole departments need to be cut. Military spending needs to be cut significantly. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid need to be drastically restructured. All subsidies need to be cut along with Foreign aid. None of this is anything any politician in office would even consider doing, but for the long term fiscal health of the country it needs to be done.
  6. Yeah I think $17 Trillion is too big to deal with. But it's not just that. It's that there is no political will to even try to reduce spending or really begin to deal with the problem. All the politicians want to do is continue borrowing and printing endless amounts of money. Why? Because it's easy and so far it hasn't bitten them in the ass yet. Or at least they can't see how it's biting them in the ass. Politicians are only concerned with short term issues regarding political positioning and keeping their party in power and paying off their supporters.
  7. I already told you that most first world nations have a higher debt to income ratio - your reply was that ratios didn't matter, that 17T is just too big. I don't think you understood what I said. Just because other countries have a higher debt to income ratio doesn't mean the US is in the clear or that there is no consequence for this debt. There is no one to bail out the US. The smaller countries have the US/ECB to bail them out. Japan has a far worse debt to income ratio and it will be very interesting to see the outcome there. It's going to be very ugly considering their demographics. I think we will see Japan suffer the consequences of their fiscal policies before the US.
  8. We already are the worlds bully. One big dumb bully. That is my opinion. But any nation that thinks they have a right to kill or bomb people in foreign nations which is an act of war is a bully. How poor? I don't know. All I can see is the path we are following, not the end results.
  9. Here some food for thought. China has been slowly positioning itself to capitalize on the US's irresponsible fiscal profligacy. If we don't change our path we will likely become a very poor nation. Unfortunately I don't see any politician having the balls or the backing to make the hard decisions that need to be made. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-10-18/9-signs-china-making-move-against-us-dollar
  10. 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?
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. Yeah and neither does yours. What am I wrong about?
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. It was upheld and successful. The link I posted specifies the legal and constitutional backing.
  24. It's been done in the past. http://www.conservativeusa.org/issues/defunding-obamacare-legal-and-constitutional
  25. 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.