• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

White House Blaming the Shutdown on....

For both of them it was cancer (uterine and lymphoma). Fun fact, while hospitals have to give emergency care without checking for insurance or payment up front, cancer's not considered emergency services. One friend lost her job (and her insurance) as soon as her work found out she was sick, and before ACA you had to be in remission for 10+ years before a health insurance company would touch you. For both of them, ACA forcing health insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions allowed them to pay for treatment, recover, and get back to work.
 
Tough to go through something like that when just starting out as a very young adult in the work place.
 
tsst said:
I don't care what letter is next to the name. Whomever is ready to take the very unpopular stand of cutting spending I am for them. If dems tomorrow started seriously cutting entitlements across the board I would wear a donkey lapel pin everyday. I know your statement was meant sarcastic but in reality it is true. Adding $7trillion to our debt in just 5 years is absolutely destruction for anyone not wearing rose colored Obama glasses. You seem like a smart guy, I can't understand how you don't see this utterly out of control spending of money we don't have cannot continue. :shrugs:
Click to expand...

My statement is a link. I've never been quite sure why this forum doesn't change the color of hyperlinks.

Anyway, as far as cutting the budget goes, there's a problem. The cuts that come through always end up being cut from programs that assist the poor. If anyone mentions cutting defense spending people freak out. 1/3 of the total defense spending in the world is spent in the US. Politicians trot out the underequipped soldiers whenever someone mentions defense cuts and any politician that takes cutting defense spending seriously is effectively ending their career. But the money from defense is going to contractors, the military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned the people about.

As long as that's the case, I can't accept any notion that Americans are ready to balance the budget.

Anyway, I have to say one thing: A lot of people that support the Democrats are happy that their party finally grew a spine. Just as there's been a lot of support for the Republican stance, there's been a lot for the Democrats as well. It is disingenuous to say that 'the people' don't want the ACA. Lots do. So we'll see where this goes, I guess.

I'm still convinced the Republicans are going to be wearing this for a while.
 
On the immediate issue of the budget impasse that has shuttered much of the government, Mr. Boehner acknowledged that in July he had gone to the Senate majority leader, Senator Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, and offered to have the House pass a “clean” spending measure. That proposal would have set spending levels $70 billion below what Democrats wanted but would have had no controversial add-ons related to the health care law.

Democrats accepted, but now they say Mr. Boehner reneged when a faction of conservative House Republicans rejected the strategy as capitulation on the health insurance program.

The speaker explained, “I and my members decided the threat of Obamacare and what was happening was so important that it was time for us to take a stand. And we took a stand.”

“I thought the fight would be over the debt ceiling,” Mr. Boehner said. “But you know, working with my members, they decided, well, let’s do it now. And the fact is, this fight was going to come, one way or the other. We’re in the fight.”
Click to expand...

When Boehner himself says that the fight is not about the debt ceiling, but about the ACA, how can that be argued?

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/07/us/politics/obama-aide-urges-lawmakers-to-raise-debt-ceiling.html
 
Yeah, several times the Dems and Pubs negotiated reductions to the ACA. It kept getting smaller and smaller.

They say this is about the expense, but it's not. The CR that the House originally submitted fully funded the ACA, but required the government to delay the individual mandate. When the senate said 'no', that the budget should be about the budget and not include changes to established law, they sent back a version that was the same budget, but without the delay to the individual mandate.

Boehner has not had the House vote on that yet.

So, really, who knows what the House wants. They're not getting to vote.
 
Well, they have already delayed the mandate on businesses, why not delay the individual mandate? Give the people the chance to actually learn what is in the bill, instead of shoving it down our throats before we have a chance to understand what is going on....
 
It's been nearly four years since it passed, but okay.

The thing is, this already passed Congress and was signed into law. You guys talk about the three parts of government being checks against the others' power, but this is clearly not the case. You want whoever you support to dictate policy to everyone who doesn't agree with you.

The ACA passed and was signed into law. It passed the House, the Senate and was signed. You're now telling me that the House should get to change it's mine to the extent that all other branches of government must capitulate. The bill that Boehner is refusing to call a vote on is a budget. Not an amendment to existing law.

Honestly, supporting this action means none of you care one lick about the constitution of the United States.

Which colours all our previous debates in interesting ways, let me tell you.

PS. Would you react the same way if a Democratic controlled House demanded a Republican administration alter gun laws to increase the waiting period or they would shut down the government?
 
My question is, why have it mandated for individuals, when it is put there to cause employers from screwing their employee's over in the health care department... Except now in order to escape from the mandates of the ACA, employers are starting to reduce the hours of their employees, so that they do not have to provide the health care. This causes the employee, who was not able to afford it to begin with, really not able to afford it now, therefore leading to them not being able to meet the requirements of the ACA, and being fined (oh, sorry they changed that to being a tax, in order to make the law constitutional, without sending it back through the system like it was supposed to be, in order to actually be a constitutional law)... But yeah, go ahead and keep thinking what you want about those of us who are actually affected by this law. The reason it passed the House was that it was shoved through with no real debate, due to the fact that the Dem's knew their days were numbered as far as having the majority, and therefore being able to send it through without much resistance. Even though a few did their hardest to bring the craziness to light.

PS. I would react the same way, because I am ticked off that they cannot work together to come to a compromise, not only on a budget, but on a law. Honestly, I think if they would go ahead and fund the law, and make it absolutely the only thing that anyone could have, including the government and all of the people that they have already given waivers to, which if this law is in fact constitutional, then the waivers themselves would be unconstitutional. I digress, I think that the ACA would tank by the next presidency, or during the next presidency. Because as the U.S. government has proven in the past, they are great at making programs that end up failing, or doing such a horrible job, that civilian groups come in to do the same job, and do it better. IE Postal Service.
 
http://www.komonews.com/news/nation...nters-2nd-week-no-end-in-sight-226742721.html

My only concern is the budget and debt ceiling, and it still seems to be the concern here. As of right now, the House doesn't want to increase the borrowing cap due to overspending (and we are). The problem is becoming worse; not better.
A default will be an economic disaster, but so will raising the debt ceiling.

SarahP said:
When Boehner himself says that the fight is not about the debt ceiling, but about the ACA, how can that be argued?

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/07/us/politics/obama-aide-urges-lawmakers-to-raise-debt-ceiling.html
Click to expand...

What?! LOL

“I thought the fight would be over the debt ceiling,” Mr. Boehner said. “But you know, working with my members, they decided, well, let’s do it now. And the fact is, this fight was going to come, one way or the other. We’re in the fight.”

No where in that article does it say this? Why would you make this up?
Well, whatever.
The ACA IS one of the many things they want to alter or remove funding for, I agree with that but the fact remains that debt and spending is the overlaying issue. It's affecting all of us even now, in one way or another.
We have been so tight with funding over the last two years here, where I work that we cannot even get our work done on time.
 
Last edited:
Since it appears that Congress tends to vote along party lines anyway, they could save a boatload of money just by only having one representative per party in. Is there really any difference between having all democrats and all republicans voting the same way, or simply having ONE democrat and ONE republican voting on bills?

Fire all the rest of them and lease out the building space they used to occupy.
 
Perhaps we should listen to Obama and be more patriotic.



We are now nearing $17trillion. So if $4trillion was irresponsible and un-patriotic what is $8trillion?
 
tsst said:
Perhaps we should listen to Obama and be more patriotic.

We are now nearing $17trillion. So if $4trillion was irresponsible and un-patriotic what is $8trillion?
Click to expand...

Yeah, right...... Different tune when the responsibility is on his desk.....

Everyone is dancing around the fact that the USA will likely NEVER be able to pay off the debt and China will demand assets in payment. Actually you have to wonder what sort of collateral was put up to secure the loans. Besides control over the Panama canal, that is....
 
The pre-existing clause of ACA does not kick in till 2014. There are many laws restricting pre-existing conditions by state law and also in the HIPAA act, which was wrote by a Dem and a Rep--and signed in by Clinton.
 
downgraded

Dagong said:
"The fundamental situation that the debt growth rate significantly outpaces that of fiscal income and gross domestic product remains unchanged," Dagong said in the statement, adding Washington's solvency was vulnerable as old debts were still repaid through raising new debts.
"Hence the government is still approaching the verge of default crisis, a situation that cannot be substantially alleviated in the foreseeable future," it said.
Click to expand...

http://www.france24.com/en/20131017-chinese-agency-downgrades-us-credit-rating
 
I'm sure everyone realizes by now that the only way they will be able to get out of this hole is by cranking up the printing presses to print up more "money". And expect the OFFICIAL figures for the inflation rate to be completely bogus to try to hide what is going on for as long as possible. The real indicator of inflation is what YOU are paying at the grocery store or the gas pumps. That is, the actual cost of living expenses.

Is the USA borrowing money to pay off past debt? Sort of the equivalence of using one credit card to pay off another credit card balance due?

And tell me how much sense it makes to be borrowing money with one hand, then giving it away to other countries with the other. :crazy02:
 
Rich Z said:
... And tell me how much sense it makes to be borrowing money with one hand, then giving it away to other countries with the other. :crazy02:
Click to expand...
Makes absolutely NO sense to anyone who knows 1st grade math. One of the problems is that the 47% that get other people's money from the .gov will turn a blind eye up until the point the freebees stop. At that point we have left the edge of the cliff.

As far as other countries, they are laughing at us all the way to the bank. Hell most of those we give to hate us and probably use the money against us.

The things that NEED to happen, cut spending, stop policing the world, drastically reduce .gov size, uphold the Constitution, term limits, changing the entitlement mentality to an earning mentality, etc, etc will probably not happen in my lifetime.
 
We have a satellite dish at the shop. Not sure what we are going to do with it when the shop is gone, but I digress.....
Anyway, my husband like to watch RT, which is Russian television.
While I am sure that their media only tells the russian people the russian news it wants them to know, they pull no punches when talking about the US and their feelings for our "leadership". You want an eye opener, try watching that for a week.

I know american media is pretty much all we have, but there is so much they aren't telling us. I think the media plays a huge part in the destruction of this country. I really don't need to know the evenings television lineup, and I believe that sports news needs it's own show, because that's not news.

We are so screwed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top