john5746

There will doubtless be a painful initial period, but this default business, apparently resulting the current lending and borrowing spree being brought to a halt, can only bode well for the future.

 

Wasn't it in one of W Shakespeare's plays about lending and borrowing, and how it all ends?

If you have a mortgage or credit card debt or rent, why don't you stop paying those and see how things turn out for you. Let us know when the initial period of pain is over.

From where I am sitting, in the Netherlands, this whole situation sounds like the US political system has some inherent design flaws. Our government negotiates over changes in the budget. If my government fails to reach a compromise, nothing changes (and nothing will be shut down). And this failure to reach a compromise would nearly always result in new elections for parliament, and therefore in a new government. Why can't democracy do its job in the USA? Allow the people to vote for new members of the house of representatives and the senate, and see if they can reach a conclusion in whatever new composition they will be in after elections.

Back to the OP, I think elections would be a waste of time and money, maybe replace the leaders of each house?

I like the idea of having a default budget, maybe just carryover from previous(no increases or possible 1% reduction) and also add a 1% tax surcharge to income over $250,000 towards paying the debt. The details could be ironed out, but basically the idea is that the default would be to lower spending slowly and bring in some revenue as a default position.

need to have a water tower like this nearby.

n

Wish you guys would quit playing the game. Bush only had a surplus because Clinton stripped Social Security while he was in office. Man you ideologues are atrocious. I am glad I am not part of this circle jerk party. And as usual, if the gov hits default. The poor and elderly will suffer.

??? Regardless how, Bush had a surplus - did he pay down the debt that a few morons now want to destroy the economy over? No. Can't spin that.

I don't want the government to go anywhere near default. I don't want it to shutdown either. I don't want any President to be held hostage by Congress, even during the Iraq crap, I wouldn't want that. If Bush had decided to invade England, then maybe shutdown and default would be in order. Maybe

Looks like there will probably be a short term band-aid. I hope the dems don't cave and just agree to only talk about cuts. Everything needs to be on the table. They should come with extra tax brackets and eliminate the arcane rules that allow the wealthy to avoid taxes and complicate the system. Surcharge on the wealthy, especially any monies in offshore accounts. Give the crazies something to really whine about, you know some reality show drama. They think compromise means getting 99% so, need to start out over the top.

We have been living beyond our means, but guess who has the means to pay it back? Yes, the wealthy. Getting towards a balanced budget is one thing, but the long term debt started with Reagan and accelerated by Bush needs to be payed back as well. When Bush gave the surplus back(crumbs to most, shitloads to wealthy) should have gone towards paying the debt down. Of course that pales in comparison to his proceeding to be the worst President of all time.

So soak the rich and cut some fat. And then I can come on here everyday and say, "no effect on me"

I think you came up with something that EVERY congressman would vote against.

In part my comment on Democrats and the civil war is a joke. I only say in part because people keep compairing Republicans to pre Civil War confederates. Those pre Civil War Confederates were Democrats. I don't think we should ever forget the Democrats caused the death of 2% of the US population.

It's obvious to me that your main purpose is trolling, but never thought you actually believed you were making a serious point with this. Do you really need to be taught how stupid this is or are you just having fun? I think the latter, but I thought I would ask.

Republicans may not know, but they seem to be willing to find out.

This is why shielding yourself with children works

Considering Mr.Obama wants the shutdown as well. I do not see how its relevant. Both sides are doing it. Not just one. Democrats and Obama blame the Republicans. Republicans blame Democrats and Obama. Media is a one sided affair. More like CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC are just projecting the democrat agenda. Fox of course doing the GOP's bidding. I think both sides of government are horrible!

 

Also Black men are usually very good dancers!

Tide goes in, Tide goes out. I just don't know. How can we know anything. Let's all pray. Yeehaw.

Also, Tea Party congressmen are usually cowardly, racist aholes, who probably can't dance.

I never said I did not like liberals. They just do not seem to like me!

I think your wrong, but I don't dislike you.

This is not just moving the goalpost, that is flying out to India, have craftsman hand-carve a new goalpost, continue travel to Japan to have it painted and then to Russia to have it fired into the stratosphere.

This type of argument would make a silly biscuit proud. Well done!

This is the same way I see the wingnuts arguing on TV. Just keep moving around and raising voices and being as hypocritical as possible. And they know they have an audience that will believe them.

I think there is a strong correlation between opinion that democrats are at fault or share the blame and ignorance/delusion. I'm pretty sure the anti-science crowd and those that still think Obama is a kenyan muslim are positive that this is all his fault. Its hate, pure and simple. Not saying that is the majority of those opposing the AHA, but its the majority of those that wanted the shutdown. They want to make the black man dance, give him a hard time. Well he has money and is not up for election assholes.

Nothing worse than elitists thinking they know whats better than anyone else!

You don't like liberals? Why don't you go cry to waitforufo, he feels your pain.

 

Michael Grimm (R-NY) told the Examiner, “This isn’t just about Obamacare anymore.”

Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-IN) - “We’re not going to be disrespected, We have to get something out of this. And I don’t know what that even is.”

Yep, they run shutdowns like they run wars. "OK, we kicked ass....why are we here? Where are we? Ah well, we can't leave, that would be embaressing"

 

Renee Ellmers (R-NC) “I understand that there may be some other members who are deferring their paychecks, and I think that’s admirable. I’m not in that position.”

Talking Points Memo reports, “According to Ellmers’s official website, she was a registered nurse for 21 years before being elected to Congress. Her husband Brent, the website says, is a general surgeon.

Yep, going without pay for a few weeks would be really hard on a surgeon's pay, but not a big deal for clerks. Must have been a great nurse.

well, I have been going to healthcare.gov this morning and hitting the apply button for the nation plan just gives this:

We have a lot of visitors on the site right now.

Please stay on this page.

We're working to make the experience better, and we don’t want you to lose your place in line. We’ll send you to the login page as soon as we can. Thanks for your patience!

The states that have their own sites at least come up.

If they can't improve this soon, maybe should take the 1 year delay and ask Amazon to run this thing! Ugh.

So, if God's word says God lies, then how can we trust anything else it says? The Bible itself seems to undermine the inerrantist position.

They can't. But, you might as well show someone why their music sucks mathematically. They still want to listen and moreover, if the alternative appears to be silence, even shitty music is appealing.

I watched a "debate" between Krauss and Craig. Craig offers a psychopathic morality, its unbelievable that anyone could take it seriously. It shows me they see no alternative. Science wins logically, but not emotionally. Most people don't get out of bed for another day of loving logic. I think Atheism has expanded enough so that certain sects, such as humanists or buddhists, etc. can make their appeal.

And the democrats will vote for a "clean" continuing resolution and raising of the debt ceiling, not tied to any additional conditions. By adding concessions, the GOP indicates that a shutdown is something thy wanted, and that they want the government to default on its debt. That's the only scenario where this is an issue of compromise.

The GOP does want to repeal the ACA, but I don't think the GOP wanted a shutdown. The Tea Party wants that and they will go over the cliff on the debt ceiling as well. They are not bluffing. They are ready to take it down. They really are that stupid/evil.

I hope Obama will try to lift the debt ceiling himself. Its a threat to national security as real as a natural disaster or attack.

From where I am sitting, in the Netherlands, this whole situation sounds like the US political system has some inherent design flaws. Our government negotiates over changes in the budget. If my government fails to reach a compromise, nothing changes (and nothing will be shut down). And this failure to reach a compromise would nearly always result in new elections for parliament, and therefore in a new government. Why can't democracy do its job in the USA? Allow the people to vote for new members of the house of representatives and the senate, and see if they can reach a conclusion in whatever new composition they will be in after elections.

The flaw is the assumption that government officials(and their voters) would actually be interested in making government work, not giggle in glee as it is shutdown.

The congress made a budget and the senate made a budget. The dems in the house and senate tried to get the repubs to meet in conference to resolve the differences since April, but the answer was NO. Since no budget was negotiated, we need these temporary continuing resolutions. Many, possibly a majority of the Republicans in Congress, along with democrats would approve it.

Boehner won't allow democracy to work - the majority of congress would vote for the senate bill. But it would probably mean his job. So to me, its Boehner's shutdown. One man's job is causing all this and will flow over into the debt ceiling.

The Republican party is really fractured - even you can't ignore that reality. In truth, I think there are some in the "established" wing that probably think the heart of the ACA isn't such a bad idea, it was a Heritage idea after all. Then there are those that know that any change like this will have issues. Then you have the radicals that think its better to be contrary.

I think politically, the establishment has it right - that's why they are the establishment. Obamacare will have issues. For the majority of people who already have insurance, they will see increase in costs and reduction of benefits(as always). Even if this is slower than in the past, it won't matter. It will be blamed on Obama. Sure, many will be able to get insurance, but only those that actually have to use it in a serious way will rejoice in the short term.

So it really would be smart politically to complain about it, wait for the issues to arise and either suggest replacement(if its really bad) or improvements(if smaller issues). Either way, you look OK to most people who would have any chance of supporting you. I see this at work all the time - much easier to be on the sidelines complaining then to get dirty and work.

Never forget that we are just pawns of the political class. This is all just a game to them. Neither party cares how it impacts the people. They are just playing a game.

That's true for many, but this would be an argument to trust the President over congress, since he is only looking at legacy now, not office.

If this is a game, well its the only game in town for those that can't get or afford insurance.

Peacefully dissarm Syria's chemical weapons, talking with Iran to end their nuke program. I wish Obama could handle domestic issues without congress, imagine the progress...

good point, ring. I take his comment as it is worse for your insulin "spike", or islets of Langerham "shock" to produce insulin. So, if like you say, fructose IS absorbed quicker, would make sense, right? Im kinda disappointed, as I was always a fan of more 'natural source sugar vs cane sugar refined at a factory assembly line.......

I wouldn't be too dissapointed in nature, if you eat fruit, its better for you than sucking on a piece of cane, since you get the fiber. So yeah, concentrated fructose would be worse than concentrated sucrose, but nature doesn't create either.

Please don't keep using "common sense" as some kind of objective measurement. It used to be common sense to throw spilled salt over your shoulder to ward off the devil.

That's so stupid. If you do that, it might get in the eyes of your invisible dragon and make him angry. That's what causes headaches - angry dragons.

The Democratic party should be proud of the atonement that they have made so far, but they have a long way to go.

Oh, I see - you want people to support the Democratic party, since they are helping(actually they consist of many) minorities, due to their past. I guess the Republican party's anti-minority agenda is due to "payback" for all the good Lincoln did? Interesting.

Anyway, in regards to Syria, I'm glad they took their time. We didn't rush in to bomb the place and this may end up being the best course.

Didymus: Deflect as much as you like. Whoever gave you the ideas you have was not qualified to teach you that subject and did a poor job.

Your anti-Obama, anti-democrat trolling is almost entertaining.

So, since the democrat party began as a party for weak federal government, strict constitutionalism, uphold state's rights and the party for the farmer, then that is how we should view it today, as opposed to what the politicians say or do?

I think I'm asking more of the how than the why. I can accept that symmetry is favoured by natural selection etc and I can accept that external symmetry is favoured by attraction (though not symmetry of internal organs) but I just wondered how it happens, i.e. the mechanism that gives you two almost identical organs in symmetry. In my mind I can't help thinking of something splitting, either in the enbryo or in the DNA. I suspect the actual answer might be too technical for a simple post though?

Interesting question and one I never really thought about.

Here is a link to an article I found referenced in a wiki, hopefully you are able to download the pdf. In the beginning, they mention that basically the cell splits into two daughter cells with identical states, but in mirror orientation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kFvhx3ZOXs

Yep, something is wrong, but it definetly has nothing to do with guns. Nope. Such a tradgedy, but one bright spot in all this is that despite the past troubles that the this shooter had with guns, his rights were NOT infringed. Yay! Oh, another one is that our army doctors don't have to travel to get experience with war zone casualties.

One difference is the specificity of the dragon vs God. This is a theistic thread, so we can assume we are not talking about the abstract, deist God. If we compare the Christian god to the dragon, then the comparision starts to look promising. If we then make the corndogs spiritual in nature and the dragon invisible, then I think the comparison is a good one.

The deist god comes from our intuition, I think, but to build mythology on top of that and then claim foul when compared to other stories is missing the point.

Also, I'm really irritated at iNow, because living in a world without dragons shitting corn dogs and pissing syrup is very depressing. Could you imagine a morning jog with the dragon? No pooper scooper needed! I wish I hadn't run across this idea.

Obama set down the red line not believing that Syria would have the audacity to cross it. But Syria did. Kerry proposed eliminating chemical weapons expecting that Syria would reject the idea. But Syria accepted eliminating the weapons knowing the elimination could not be enforced. I didn't know Hans Blix was looking for work. I doubt Kerry even checked with Obama about this elimination offer. So now we have foreign policy by public blunder. I have to admit that it is entertaining. I'm sure some form of victory will be declared soon. What an embarrassment for the US.

I agree, so embarrassing. I wish we could declare Assad public enemy #1, claim that he would give wmd's to terroists and begin a war in Syria. Then claim ties to Iran and invade them, get bogged down in that mess and then claim we aren't that concerned with Assad. Yeah, I miss those days, when we had a President that was hell bent on war.

Russia was the bad guy in Afghanistan when Bin Laden was fighting them. Saddam was the "good" guy when fighting Iran, then he was the bad guy. After we got rid of him, we had mission accomplished and imagined ticker tape parades.

This isn't black and white. Get rid of the dictator, what do you get?

I think we need some American humility, I hope the Russian proposal to destroy the chem weapons can happen. This seems like a very reasonable compromise. We can still consider Assad a war criminal, we just don't necessarily need to start bombing.

The US WILL have less influence in the world, it will happen. If others don't pick up the slack, then we have to live with things like this.