Some Teaparty Terrorists

[+Malamute]

"Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you will destroy the Government, unless you be allowed to construe and enforce the Constitution as you please, on all points in dispute between you and us.You will rule or ruin in all events."

Abraham Lincoln, addressing the Southern people in his Cooper Union Address, February 27, 1860.

 

The Republican Party still likes to fancy itself "the Party of Lincoln", so Lincoln's words in his Cooper Union Address are a particularly apt rebuke, especially since they've been talking about shutting down the government since before the 2010 mid-term elections, but now want to pin the blame on President Barack Obama and the Democrats, whom they now complain will not negotiate or compromise with them.

 

This is quite rich, since budgets passed both houses of Congress months ago(May), but Republicans repeatedly refused to appoint conference committee members so that a compromise could be struck, which is the way that budgets are normally passed in the US. Refusing to go to conference is how Republicans created the crisis in the first place, and now Republicans want to blame Democrats for not going to conference!

 

We should note that both houses have agreed to the same discretionary spending level - $986bn annually. This gives House Republicans what they want, and severely hampers the pace of economic recovery. No one's even arguing over that. Obama's 2014 budget called for spending $1.15tn, compared to $966bn in the GOP House budget.

 

He's already given away the store, yet Republicans continue to falsely accuse the president of refusing to compromise because he won't also agree to destroy - or at least undermine - his signature piece of legislation, Obamacare, just as it was about to go public. The American people are against it,the GOP says - without noting that only about one-third of the country opposes the law for being too liberal, as a May 17-18 CNN poll showed, while roughly half that many oppose the law for not being liberal enough. This is one of but many ways in which they delude themselves into thinking they represent a majority that simply does not exist, as they head down their path of destruction. Which is why you need to quote Abraham Lincoln to condemn them. Nobody else can do it quite like him.

 

That's because destroying the government has now become the GOP's main purpose - in direct opposition to everything that Lincoln stood for. They stumbled onto it under Newt Gingrich in the 1990s, but it proved so wildly unpopular that they had to bring in George W Bush and his "compassionate conservatism" to scramble back into power. But they proved so inept in governing - huge deficits, pointless wars, financial collapse, etc. - that they found themselves out of power once again, which only made them hate government all the more: If I can't have her, then no one can! The political party is the ultimate creepy stalker. That's what the Grand Old Party of Lincoln has finally fallen to these days.

[solabeirtan]

Why do we have to pay the interest? Besides creating an incentive for inflation. 

 

 

Mal you don't know anything about me.

 

I don't get disability from the VA.

 

I get GI Bill that I paid for, plus an additional kicker which I paid for. Out of my pocket.

 

They make money off of the program due to the extremely low usage of education benefits.

 

You couldn't be more wrong. I'm saying screw me first, Then everybody else.

 

I have never gotten a dollar from the government for any type of program.

 

I pay money to the government, not the other way around.

 

No food aid for me

No rent aid for me

No health care aid for me

No disability aid for me

No cheap mmj card for me

 

We cant afford everything. Thats the facts.

 

Edit

 

I have gotten a Pell grant in the past. Just for accuracy.

We all pay for the GI Bill. The reason ? It's a carrot for the poor people. A game of chance, besides National Pride, what else is worth somebody risking it all ...

 

Did you know your benefits are probably 15% of WWII benes.

You might be entitled to it, is different than actually paying for it. How is it making money ?

Curious what schools you are/have attended on the GI Bill. After WWII Harvard had more than 50% GIs in attendance.  

 

You dont even have a mmJ Card? 

You dont need health care?

You were one of the fortunate ones, to be  not  affected by your Military Service. 

Maybe you should by some lottery-tickets!

[jointedone]

Edited October 16, 2013 by jointedone

[zaphod]

 And this is just one minor problem that happens when you just shut the government down and stop funding. 

 

 Congress by law defunded this benefit due to the inability to pass a clean continuing budget resolution; a budget that even cut the deficit from last fiscal years budget. 

 

 So do we fund these programs one at a time, 1 bill at a time so incompetence can be awarded? 

 

 I mean, the bill sent back to the house agreed to the spending cuts the republicans asked for, except for the ACA.  They got the dollar amount requested, yet still won't pass it.

 

 This story is just one small example of why this is so stupid.

 

>> About 3.8 million veterans will not receive disability compensation next month if the partial government shutdown continues into late October, Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki says. Some 315,000 veterans and 202,000 surviving spouses and dependents will see pension payments stopped.

 

Shinseki is spelling out some of the dire consequences of a longer-term shutdown in testimony Wednesday before the House Committee on Veterans Affairs."<<

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57606627/shutdown-threatens-$6b-in-vets-disability-pension-pay/

 

Just wait 'til we get to the "hard shutdown"  that we are heading for after failure to raise the "debt ceiling"

[zaphod]

Boehner: "No boundaries" in government shutdown, debt limit talks

>>

Meanwhile, the Social Security Administration confirmed to CBS News that it's received calls from citizens concerned about the impact the current budget stalemate will have on their Social Security checks. While the shutdown shouldn't impact Social Security checks, benefits could be at risk if Congress fails to raise the debt limit by Oct. 17.

 

The Social Security Administration crafted a response with the Treasury Department, and field offices are now advising the public that they cannot guarantee full benefit payments if the debt ceiling isn't increased.

<<

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57606504/boehner-no-boundaries-in-government-shutdown-debt-limit-talks/

[Highlander]

Well then,Malamute,you must be very proud that YOUR party supports killing unborn children,started a Civil War so they could keep their slaves and organized the KKK. And make sure most of those babies are black. Oh and I am not a "Christian" that you so obviously hate ,I am a JEW. Now you have another reason to hate me you anti semitic creep. Bring it on,he -man woman hater. Now go squeal to your mods to have me kicked off this site. Coward. Typical libturd behavior. You wanna fight? Make it public. Of course you won't. Forget this site. Lets go to a REAL political site and see how brilliant you are there.

 

Are you one of those folks who thinks it is ok to "kill an unborn baby" who is the result of rape?

[OG Fire Beaster]

A lot to respond to here.

 

First off for the purpose of having a constructive debate lets go over a couple points.

 

1. I entered this conversation with the premise that the Senate and Reid are not innocent in this situation.

 

2. No one is saying that bad things are not happening or will not happen due to a shutdown or a future default.

 

3. The issue is larger than just the ACA and the current partial shutdown.

 

Now...

 

Solabeirtan

 

I don't have a cheap(discounted) MMJ card. I pay full price every time.

I pay for my health insurance out of my pocket. I never said I don't need it.

I have and am going to a MAC school.

Higher education is far different now than it was after WW2. The amount of people that serve is far less now and the amount that use their GI Bill is even less than that.

 

Zaphod

 

How the bond market works does not require the government to fund every existing program at current levels forever. The Constitution requires us to pay our debt not fund new debt. In the event of a catastrophic shutdown the minimum that is required are interest payments and bonds that are due. You know that in a shutdown the debt limit would not have to be raised to meet our sovereign debt obligations.

 

Will we suffer and lose benefits? Yes.

 

Mal and Zaphod

 

I have never said that people will not be hurt in a shutdown and are not hurting from it now.

 

I have said that the Senate(Reid) and Democrats are just as responsible as the House(Boehner) and republicans.

 

The problem is we are creating more debt than what our economy is creating and can handle.

Are you denying this?

In the past 10 years our debt has increased 5 fold. Our economy has not followed suit.

What solution do you have? Neither party is willing to cut spending at a rate that will lower the deficit meaningfully. Lower spending levels is not the same as lowering the deficit. Lowering the rate of growth of our deficit is like putting a band aid on an amputated limb.

 

Should we just keep printing money until the ink on the paper is worth more than the note? Quantitative easing is destroying us. We cant just keep printing money. We have to stop spending. No one is willing to do that. I say experince the pain now instead of in 5 years(if we make it that long).

 

All I see in your examples is selfish people that want theirs. I want my money from the government. More, more, more. Me, me, me. I want money, I deserve money. But you promised, I voted for you and you promised me more money. We are broke. It has to stop. We cant afford the promises we made when times were good due to bubble inflated economies of the 90's.

 

Both sides are playing games. Both sides are trying to score points and blame the other.

 

It doesn't change that we are broke and can not sustain our current path. Ya that means checks might not go out. I am good with that because I take care of myself. I don't need a babysitter.

 

Edit: Spelling

Edited October 9, 2013 by OG Fire Beaster

[SlowJustice]

The thing I don't understand is that when the MMA was put into place by the will of the majority of the people and the Republicans has tried to kill it thats bad

But when same thing happens with the health care its good

 

 

I have good health insurance already so its not going to affect me, but double standards always makes me wonder.............

 

peace

[OG Fire Beaster]

What is your end Game?

 

Reach a point where the government controls every aspect of our lives and everyone gets paid by the government? They collect all income and revenues and distribute them back to us as they see fit?

 

Even during this shut down look at some of the expenditures that are being paid. They are ridiculous.

 

Yes. I was lucky during my military career to come out in one piece.I could have easily went to the VA and received my 30% disability and got a check for life though. I don't want to. My pride does not allow me to be taken care of like I am a child.

 

I drive a 25 year old car because that is what I can afford. I buy clothes once every 2-3 years because that is what I can afford. I don't have credit cards because I don't spend money I don't have. I work multiple jobs. I go to school. I make sacrifices. Many are not willing to do these things and that is why we are in the trouble we are in.

 

I see the examples of SS checks not going out. Fraud is rampant in that system. I know many that I served with that get disability checks from the VA for practically nothing. We have people that don't contribute to the system yet benefit from it. Many deserve and need the help, many do not. Either way the money train is over. It has to stop. I say shut it all down because no one is willing to find a real meaningful fix.

[OG Fire Beaster]

Slow

 

The double standards on both sides are ridiculous. You are absolutely right. Our players on both sides of the political system are the most hypocritical people on the planet. That is why I will not shed a tear when it fails.

[zaphod]

^{How the bond market works does not require the government to fund every existing program at current levels forever. Not forever, but we're talking about paying the cost of what is already in place. The Constitution requires us to pay our debt not fund new debt. In the event of a catastrophic shutdown the minimum that is required are interest payments and bonds that are due. You know that in a shutdown the debt limit would not have to be raised to meet our sovereign debt obligations No it's ALL our obligations.}

 

^{From Perry v United States}

^{"The Fourteenth Amendment, in its fourth section, explicitly declares: "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, . . . shall not be questioned." While this provision was undoubtedly inspired by the desire to put beyond question the obligations of the government issued during the Civil War, its language indicates a broader connotation. We regard it as confirmatory of a fundamental principle which applies as well to the government bonds in question, and to others duly authorized by the Congress, as to those issued before the Amendment was adopted. Nor can we perceive any reason for not considering the expression "the validity of the public debt" as embracing whatever concerns the integrity of the public obligations."}

 

^{http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/294/330/case.html#350}

[OG Fire Beaster]

Slow

 

The MMMA program funds itself. The ACA does not. Federal Government programs need Congress to authorize their funding. They are broke. Michigan is not broke. That is part of the difference. But yes MI republicans are extremely hypocritical on states rights issues.

[OG Fire Beaster]

Zaphod

 

I will have to look into that case a little bit more. Thanks for showing it to me. I am not convinced that we have to raise the debt limit to meet our obligations though. Only if we keep spending at current levels. Which I am not a proponent of.

[zaphod]

Zaphod

 

I will have to look into that case a little bit more. Thanks for showing it to me. I am not convinced that we have to raise the debt limit to meet our obligations though. Only if we keep spending at current levels. Which I am not a proponent of.

It might interest you to know that this was handed down by SCOTUS to slap down FDR and a "Librul" congress.

[solabeirtan]

As we speak the President is appointing a new Chairman of the FED. Bernanke is checking out? After overseeing the biggest wealth transfer in the history of the planet. It should be apparent now who is running the show. Its not the Dems or the Publicans its the Paper running the show. Even in rock, scissors, paper, papers not good for much of anything anymore.  Except maybe starting a fire!

 

 

OG_FB you have a very limited view of economics. imho...  Take heart your not in the minority, at least!

Edited October 9, 2013 by solabeirtan

[+Malamute]

OG,

 

 I believe you are begging for a false equivalency which I will not grant you on the issue at hand.  It is silly to even think that.

 

And pray tell, tell me how income rising to the federal government and lowered spending(25% under Obama since 2010) does not lower the deficit?  Must be new math....

[+Malamute]

Slow

 

The MMMA program funds itself. The ACA does not. Federal Government programs need Congress to authorize their funding. They are broke. Michigan is not broke. That is part of the difference. But yes MI republicans are extremely hypocritical on states rights issues.

 

 

 Next question,... do you even know how the ACA is funded?

[outsideinthecold]

I believe the current level of interest on Federal Government bond debt is $35 billion/month.

 

Current Federal Government revenues are running $250 billion/month.

 

The Congressional gym and Camp David golf courses are open.

 

The national parks are closed. The national parks are self-funded and make a profit.

 

Isn't this simply grandstanding?

 

As for Christians I can't say. I do say if someone had a child they have at least a moral obligation to support them.

 

Instead there is a new billboard in downtown Benton Harbor showing a very pregnant and bewildered teenage girl with a caption "You are not alone".

 

Is that a solution to teen pregnancy? Or is it simply reinforcing behavior that should be discouraged?

 

Yep, I believe if someone has a child the have a responsibility to care for them, not the government. Is that somehow wrong? Can anyone really argue the government should encourage single teens to have fatherless children? If so, please explain how the greater society can benefit from doing so?

 

I qualify for food stamps. My AGI last year was $30,000. My taxable income was $11,000. I'm 67. I got Social Security and $10,000 for my 401k. Sadly I was only an hourly worker my entire career so I don't have a pension. I do have retiree health care benefits. I pay 50% of the premium because my wife isn't only 61 and won't qualify for Medicare for another four years.

 

I qualify for food stamps. I don't need them so I don't take them. Should I? Am I dumb for not wanting anything from the same government that drafted me and sent me to Viet Nam?

 

Whatever happened to the John Kennedy Democrats who asked not what your country could do for you? Looks to me somehow it is now ask not what is best for the future of your country, get as much as you can now and stick those who come later with the bill.

[+Malamute]

The Affordable Care Act includes a number of coverage and other provisions that will require more government spending, but these costs are offset by other ACA provisions that will either bring new revenue into the government, or decrease current spending. In total, the ACA is expected to reduce budget deficits by $210 billion over 2012-2021, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimates in February 2011. This includes $1,390 billion in gross costs related to the ACA’s insurance coverage provisions, offset by $349 billion in coverage-related revenues and savings (including minimum coverage provision penalty payments), and $1,252 billion in other revenues and savings.

The Supreme Court decision may impact the cost and coverage impacts of the ACA. As of July 2012, the CBO estimates that the ACA’s coverage provisions will cost $1,168 billion over 2012-22. This is $84 billion lower than CBO estimated in March 2012, and the lower cost is due to the Supreme Court’s June 2012 decision that limited the federal government’s ability to enforce the Medicaid expansion. CBO estimates that due to the Court’s decision, there will be less government spending on Medicaid, and even though there will be more government spending on exchange subsidies for people who would otherwise be eligible for Medicaid, there will be an overall decrease in spending. It’s important to remember that this decrease in spending is because more people will lack coverage; and these numbers don’t account for the costs of uncompensated care. 

Although in its July 2012 numbers, the CBO did not update its projection of the ACA’s overall reduction of the budget deficit, it did update a previous estimate of the potential cost of repealing the ACA. CBO now estimates that repealing the ACA would increase federal budget deficits by $109 billion over the 2013–2022 period. Repealing the coverage provisions would save $1,171 billion over that period, but repealing the rest of the act would increase direct spending and reduce revenues by a total of $1,280 billion.

[zaphod]

I believe the current level of interest on Federal Government bond debt is $35 billion/month.

 

Current Federal Government revenues are running $250 billion/month.

 

The Congressional gym and Camp David golf courses are open.

 

The national parks are closed. The national parks are self-funded and make a profit.

 

Isn't this simply grandstanding?

 

As for Christians I can't say. I do say if someone had a child they have at least a moral obligation to support them.

 

Instead there is a new billboard in downtown Benton Harbor showing a very pregnant and bewildered teenage girl with a caption "You are not alone".

 

Is that a solution to teen pregnancy? Or is it simply reinforcing behavior that should be discouraged?

 

Yep, I believe if someone has a child the have a responsibility to care for them, not the government. Is that somehow wrong? Can anyone really argue the government should encourage single teens to have fatherless children? If so, please explain how the greater society can benefit from doing so?

 

I qualify for food stamps. My AGI last year was $30,000. My taxable income was $11,000. I'm 67. I got Social Security and $10,000 for my 401k. Sadly I was only an hourly worker my entire career so I don't have a pension. I do have retiree health care benefits. I pay 50% of the premium because my wife isn't only 61 and won't qualify for Medicare for another four years.

 

I qualify for food stamps. I don't need them so I don't take them. Should I? Am I dumb for not wanting anything from the same government that drafted me and sent me to Viet Nam?

 

Whatever happened to the John Kennedy Democrats who asked not what your country could do for you? Looks to me somehow it is now ask not what is best for the future of your country, get as much as you can now and stick those who come later with the bill.

All I want is the government to fulfill their obligations  to Social Security.  Not to do so is unconstitutional (for real) not to mention immoral. Watch as the corporatists slowly take that away.

[solabeirtan]

Whatever happened to the John Kennedy Democrats who asked not what your country could do for you? Looks to me somehow it is now ask not what is best for the future of your country, get as much as you can now and stick those who come later with the bill. but What you can do for your Country

 

Look what the Country did to him ...

The War is over { Vietnam }. We lost. [right?] ...

They got US  a good one there, too...  

You're not saving anything by not using your food stamps.  

Not using available resources is costly.

[+Malamute]

The ACA was a bill involving "entitlement reform".  The holy grail of conservatives. It saves money by deprivatizing the medicare plus program which costs more to the government due to the cherry picking of healthy seniors into their programs and not accepting the sickest of those.  Also, the degree of fraud within the medicare advantage program(privatized HMO and PPO's) is much higher than through the medicare part A and B programs.  The average cost of a medicare advantage policy compared to traditional medicare is 12% higher. This money goes directly into the pockets of private insurers instead of simply costing the government 12% less on a total of 25% of medicare beneficiaries.

 

So Obama did entitlement reform and reduced the cost of medicare.  He also started a new division to combat fraud withint he medicare system which will reap a savings to the government.

 

That is merely one way with which the ACA is funded.  Remember republicans freaking out and saying Obama was destroying medicare? Heh. (hypocrites).  He merely said to private insurers of the advantage program, "The gravy train is over",... and republicans squealed as their HMO's and PPo's which they are heavily making money from(refer to Bill Frist® ) have been called out for their less than tasteful ways of operating.

 

 

I mean, if people would just read the ACA, you would understand this thoroughly. Is it 2000ish pages? Yes. But once ya start reading you realize it is more like 1200 pages once ya learn how to skip the mumbo jumbo stuff within the law(legal terms of ease). 

 

 I really really wish that America the dumb(not directed specifically at anyone in this discussion, just general) would take the time to read things for themselves instead of relying on people with an agenda to grinds interpretation and misinformation.

[solabeirtan]

I mean, if people would just read the ACA, you would understand this thoroughly. Is it 2000ish pages? Yes. But once ya start reading you realize it is more like 1200 pages once ya learn how to skip the mumbo jumbo stuff within the law(legal terms of ease). 

 

 I really really wish that America the dumb(not directed specifically at anyone in this discussion, just general) would take the time to read things for themselves instead of relying on people with an agenda to grinds interpretation and misinformation.

 

That's still about 2.5 inches v 4 inches thick, curious if you've finished it yet?  hheeee hee heeee... about a 10lb book. Wonder if you can get it in the talking version? probably be like 72 hrs long ehh?

[OG Fire Beaster]

Mal

 

It must be new math. Lowering the rate at which the deficit rises is not the same as eliminating debt. Its just slowing the growth of debt. Raising the Debt Ceiling would not even be an issue if the debt was going down. Nothing has been done to address the problem.

 

The ACA needs the members from businesses to work. They got a delay, the 10-15% on individual bought plans did not. So how is it going to work if the pool is a fraction of what it needs to be to reduce costs? 90% of the "people" the ACA is going to help will be insurance companies. It will help them make more money.

 

Sol

 

Some economists state that debt is good. Not at the level of debt that we are carrying IMO.

 

Ya helicopter Ben is gone, and Yellen has given all indications that she will be committed to continuing QE. We are still going to be printing non stop.

[OG Fire Beaster]

Apparently Moody's agrees with the sentiment that failing to raise the debt limit would not impact us servicing our debt.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics-live/liveblog/live-updates-the-shutdown-4/?hpid=z2#c1e3ada3-dc00-41d8-92cb-327c5c814d82

 

” We believe the government would continue to pay interest and principal on its debt even in the event that the debt limit is not raised, leaving its creditworthiness intact,” the memo says. “The debt limit restricts government expenditures to the amount of its incoming revenues; it does not prohibit the government from servicing its debt. There is no direct connection between the debt limit (actually the exhaustion of the Treasury’s extraordinary measures to raise funds) and a default.