Politics - Quarantine Thread

[FluxCap]

Sometimes passion guides our words but I think using words like terrorism and genocide in everyday arguments lessens the meaning of those words and can be offensive to some who have lived through true episodes or who have lost loved ones. I do like your Martin Luther quote and suspect we do not use that one often enough

I didn't use the word genocide nor would I, and my best friend is a Marine who just got home from his fourth tour in Afghanistan, but I do think the word terrorism is appropriate here. I am terrified of a debt default and the devastation it could unleash on good, innocent people all over the world, I really am. And I think a lot of people are. Using and manipulating people's fear to get what you want is kind of what terrorists do.

Love is the answer, I hope.

 

[mitch672]

If they suceed in blowing up the economy of the United States, and even the world, then the citizens might be better off in the long run. We'll throw them ALL out of office, and be forced to start over, which in the end, might be the best thing. Think about it, long and hard, and you might come to the same conclusion. We are no longer, and haven't been "The greatest nation" for a long long time. Time to blow it up and write a new constitution, define new currency, and have a clean start. We can use the lessons from this disaster to draft a new constitution, one where politicians have 1 year term limits, and they are not allowed to vote and change them, one where lobbyists are considered leppers, and shunned. One where the welfare state is eliminated, and only hard work is rewarded... Yup, it will soon be time to start over... Many will die in the process, but that's what happens in a revolution.

 

[SwedishAdvocate]

…] Many will die /…

I’m trying to find a way to combine what you just wrote with words like “Charitable”, “Compassionate” and “Fellow American”, but I just can’t find a way. Maybe someone else can?

 

[Chickenlittle]

If they suceed in blowing up the economy of the United States, and even the world, then the citizens might be better off in the long run. We'll throw them ALL out of office, and be forced to start over, which in the end, might be the best thing. Think about it, long and hard, and you might come to the same conclusion. We are no longer, and haven't been "The greatest nation" for a long long time. Time to blow it up and write a new constitution, define new currency, and have a clean start. We can use the lessons from this disaster to draft a new constitution, one where politicians have 1 year term limits, and they are not allowed to vote and change them, one where lobbyists are considered leppers, and shunned. One where the welfare state is eliminated, and only hard work is rewarded... Yup, it will soon be time to start over... Many will die in the process, but that's what happens in a revolution.

Is there something in the water supply of Boston that foments revolution?

 

[Citizen-T]

You know, I spend an awful lot of time complaining that the government is too quick to put off short term pain thereby accumulating really serious long term problems. Climate change could be one of these types of situations if/when it manifests itself. Years of not cutting back on carbon because taxes would hurt the economy will come back to bite us.

Our debt load is another one of those issues. We need to deal with this trend before it gets to the point that it is too big and we can't do anything about it anymore. While this process is extremely painful, and many would rather we just kick the can down the road a little further, I have to give them credit for finally having this fight. I agree that it is a manufactured crisis. I agree that it is terrifying that the Republicans are using financial Armageddon as a bargaining chip. But, I really do believe that the Democrats are so averse to cutting spending that it actually will take something of this magnitude to get them to sit down and work on the problem.

The President says that if the threat of default is taken off the table then he would be happy to work on the country's debt problems. I call BS. If he gets what he wants then the status quo will persist until the debt ceiling comes around again. Just look at what happened last time. We need to have this fight, better now than when there is no option other than financial Armageddon.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure that there is a "debt ceiling" equivalent that will force the Republicans to finally get to work on climate change, but that is a whole other issue.

 

[FluxCap]

You know, I spend an awful lot of time complaining that the government is too quick to put off short term pain thereby accumulating really serious long term problems. Climate change could be one of these types of situations if/when it manifests itself. Years of not cutting back on carbon because taxes would hurt the economy will come back to bite us.

Our debt load is another one of those issues. We need to deal with this trend before it gets to the point that it is too big and we can't do anything about it anymore. While this process is extremely painful, and many would rather we just kick the can down the road a little further, I have to give them credit for finally having this fight. I agree that it is a manufactured crisis. I agree that it is terrifying that the Republicans are using financial Armageddon as a bargaining chip. But, I really do believe that the Democrats are so averse to cutting spending that it actually will take something of this magnitude to get them to sit down and work on the problem.

The President says that if the threat of default is taken off the table then he would be happy to work on the country's debt problems. I call BS. If he gets what he wants then the status quo will persist until the debt ceiling comes around again. Just look at what happened last time. We need to have this fight, better now than when there is no option other than financial Armageddon.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure that there is a "debt ceiling" equivalent that will force the Republicans to finally get to work on climate change, but that is a whole other issue.

Federal Spending has been declining under Obama, FYI. He's more than willing to keep doing it. He's not willing to destroy all requisite fiscal stimulus in a severe unemployment situation, as well as decimate critical government functions to do so.

 

[NoMoGas]

The President says that if the threat of default is taken off the table then he would be happy to work on the country's debt problems. I call BS. If he gets what he wants then the status quo will persist until the debt ceiling comes around again. Just look at what happened last time. We need to have this fight, better now than when there is no option other than financial Armageddon.

Here is what is wrong with that statement: In July Speaker Boehner approached Harry Ried and negotiated (had several "conversations") that the Senate would pass a funding bill $70 Billion less then Dems wanted... GOP got 100% of what they wanted. In exchange Boehner would put the bill on the floor WITH NO AMENDMENTS. During the August recess the radical right decided to try and repeal Obamacare and effectively renig on their deal. Now they have the nerve to say Dems won't negotiate.

Here is the other problem: Constitutionally, the President CAN'T BUY A CHEESEBURGER without congressional approval. Understand that? ALL spending begins in CONGRESS... the very congress that now is toying with not paying our bills.

There is a false equivalency here. This is a Tea Party group (funded by a few Billionaires) that doesn't believe in government and have no problem burning the house down.

 

[brianman]

I guess I just don't understand the concept of negotiate in the realm of politics.

"We refuse to negotiate until you have zero leverage and we have no reason to offer anything. Until that time we will call you terrorists, arsonists, anarachists, satanists, child molesters, treasonous, and whatever else we can come up with since apparently the normal meanings of such terms is irrelevant."


Also, I don't understand this:

"We won't raise the debt, but we need to raise the debt limit."

 

[Mario Kadastik]

I guess I just don't understand the concept of negotiate in the realm of politics.

"We refuse to negotiate until you have zero leverage and we have no reason to offer anything. Until that time we will call you terrorists, arsonists, anarachists, satanists, child molesters, treasonous, and whatever else we can come up with since apparently the normal meanings of such terms is irrelevant."

I think the point here is obvious. One doesn't negotiate under the threat of terror. They've made their point, Dems have made a promise to negotiate on anything, but not with an axe over the countries neck. So reopening the government and raising the debt ceiling so that the axe is lifted is a pre-condition for reasonable negotiation. The axe might be lifted for only a month or two, but at least the negotiations wouldn't be happening under terror threat. So that part of it I do get and find it's proper attitude to set a future precedent one way or the other. If dems cave the US is effectively negotiating with terrorists and this will be used often as a final resort negotiation tactic.

 

[PeterW]

No, as a matter of fact I think (my opinion only from the outside looking in - I am not American) that the result of this nonsense is the certainty of a dem re-election in 2016 and therefore political stability around the advance of EVs.

Will that translate to the first female President?

 

[Jack6591]

I am ashamed, disappointed, disgusted................voting all of them out of office. I promise.

 

[kenliles]

I am ashamed, disappointed, disgusted................voting all of them out of office. I promise.

that's the problem- they have no threat of losing their seat from the home district. and they are doing exactly what those voters want them to do.

 

[Julian Cox]

Will that translate to the first female President?

I hope not if you are referring to who I think you are referring to, but this personal opinion is admittedly off topic. Just from an analytic perspective, GOP @ 5% approval thanks to Tea Party radicalism is a + IMO, whether that results in a less profoundly insane GOP or another 4~8 years of Dems.

 

[kenliles]

Actually neither statement is correct. The budget will continue to be the same unbalanced one we currently have, and the deficit will switch from being financed by bond holders to being financed by other creditors (contractors, doctors, hospitals, state and local governments, the military, veterans, Social Security benificiaries, etc).

And it is at the very least amusing that the leading theory for why going past the limit wont be so bad is that we'll continue to pay the bondholders, when the only possible method for doing so appears to require shutting down the same payment systems that generate the paychecks of the IT guys who we will rely on to implement this.

+1 -- FUBAR

 

[stopcrazypp]

that's the problem- they have no threat of losing their seat from the home district. and they are doing exactly what those voters want them to do.

Yep. That's the main problem. In fact, there's a greater threat of getting kicked out if you opt for compromise. And there's a new phrase for this: "getting primaried". I'm kind of worried about the direction this will bring our country (I certainly hope we won't see the same game being played in 2014).

 

[kenliles]

Yep. That's the main problem. In fact, there's a greater threat of getting kicked out if you opt for compromise. And there's a new phrase for this: "getting primaried". I'm kind of worried about the direction this will bring our country (I certainly hope we won't see the same game being played in 2014).

+1 on that

 

[blakegallagher]

Yep. That's the main problem. In fact, there's a greater threat of getting kicked out if you opt for compromise. And there's a new phrase for this: "getting primaried". I'm kind of worried about the direction this will bring our country (I certainly hope we won't see the same game being played in 2014).

+1 ... crazy how we have allowed our government to come to this...

 

[ckessel]

I'm kind of worried about the direction this will bring our country...

Bring? It's already been brought.

When the GOP completely solidified the congress with a historic level of gerrymandering after 2010's census, that already ailing governmental body was stabbed, stuffed, preserved, and now only exists as a propped a Weekend at Bernie's farce. The elected balance in the house doesn't remotely resemble the ratio in the population at large.

 

[Zythryn]

+1 ... crazy how we have allowed our government to come to this...

We allow the government to select the voters in each voting district.
You should see how convoluted the 6th district in MN became in order to secure that district for Bachman.

It would help a lot if we had public financing only for elections and all voting districts had to be square in shape;-)

 

[Palpatine]

I agree. People are pissed this happen every other year. Noone wants it back in 6 weeks.

I disagree. There are a lot of people who want real entitlement cuts in this country so we can stop the out of control debt situation. The only way to force the issue is to create deadlines. In the absence of a deadline, nothing happens in Washington. We can either deal with it now or face the real pain when the bond markets stop funding our $700 Billion per year deficits. Think Greece style (2011-2012) cuts in one year. That is what will be happening in the USA in about 5-7 years on our current path. Then we might have our own version of Golden Dawn taking over.