US Government shutdown

Actually the Senate HAS passed a budget this year. The House has refused to come to conference to negotiate the differences between the senate version and theirs for the last six months. Only in their failure to attach riders to the continuing resolution HAS THE HOUSE EVEN CONSIDERED going to conference as a further delay tactic.

I repeat. Causing default is TREASON.

I'm not telling you what they can or cannot fund in the budget. I'm saying that to not pay their debts and to bring the currency down is reason for prosecution.



You obviously were not paying attention when the bond rating agencies downgraded US debt in response to the Democrats raising the debt ceiling over Republican objections during Obama's first year in office.

The fact that the Senate hasn't honored it's Constitutional obligation to pass a budget since Obama became President has probably not been as alarming to bond holders as five consecutive years of Trillion dollar deficits and a national debt that now exceeds GDP.

It is not the Tea Party Republicans who have damaged the full faith and credit of the United States. It is the Democrats and the Viagra wing of the Republican party who spend as if there is either no tomorrow or they simply don't care about the burden that they are placing on future generations because they have devoted their lives to fornication rather than responsible procreation that have undermined the confidence of the financial community. The fact that an increasingly large fraction of US debt is being bought by the Federal Reserve rather than domestic investors or foreign entities confirms that the full faith and credit of the US has been severely damaged. No country that monetized it's own debt (Governor Palin can explain what this means to you along with other economic concepts such as Quantitative Easing) has long avoided a catastrophic, economic collapse.[/quote]

You can't make this up!

http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/03/need- ... l-hotline/

namelessfly wrote:You can't make this up!

http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/03/need- ... l-hotline/

Assuming my phone is the same as American ones, I get 1-800-D_TAJMW

Why do so many of your arguments go to fornication?

namelessfly wrote:You obviously were not paying attention when the bond rating agencies downgraded US debt in response to the Democrats raising the debt ceiling over Republican objections during Obama's first year in office.

The fact that the Senate hasn't honored it's Constitutional obligation to pass a budget since Obama became President has probably not been as alarming to bond holders as five consecutive years of Trillion dollar deficits and a national debt that now exceeds GDP.

It is not the Tea Party Republicans who have damaged the full faith and credit of the United States. It is the Democrats and the Viagra wing of the Republican party who spend as if there is either no tomorrow or they simply don't care about the burden that they are placing on future generations because they have devoted their lives to fornication rather than responsible procreation that have undermined the confidence of the financial community. The fact that an increasingly large fraction of US debt is being bought by the Federal Reserve rather than domestic investors or foreign entities confirms that the full faith and credit of the US has been severely damaged. No country that monetized it's own debt (Governor Palin can explain what this means to you along with other economic concepts such as Quantitative Easing) has long avoided a catastrophic, economic collapse.

Bruno Behrends wrote:I have a question concerning how congress works:

I read the following in a CNN article:

The Hastert Rule is named after former Speaker Dennis Hastert, who did not bring bills to the floor unless those bills were supported by a majority of House Republicans. It is not a formal rule, but rather a promise to uphold the will of a majority of the majority. House Republicans expected Boehner to uphold the rule and he pledged to do so.

That is a very puzzling statement for me and I wonder if it is right or someone got it wrong?
<<SNIP>>

Since no one else seems to want to take a stab at this, I guess I will. The short answer to your question is yes, the Speaker of the House decides what legislation comes before the House. After all, he is the one who sets the agenda for the day's deliberations on the floor. It is possible for someone to force a vote on a bill, but it takes action from more than one person and the cooperation of both parties. After all, if he sets Monday as the day to discuss military spending, Tuesday and Wednesday for committee meetings, Thursday for disaster relief and nothing at all for Friday, who's to say he is deliberately keeping healthcare from being debated? He is simply prioritizing the schedule.

At face value it is just mildly crude humor.

However; I am acknowledging an essential truth. People who have been financially successful as well as a Darwinian success by having children that they support with their spouse have a dramatically different perspective on political issues than people who either have. No children or have children that they support primarily through government assistance. The specter of Trillion dollar deficits becoming normal terrifies them because it will be their children and grandchildren who will have to struggle with the consequences. People who have no children don't care about the future. People who are Darwinian successes but financial failures (welfare recipients) don't care because they presume that other people's children will bear the burden.

Donnachaidh wrote:Why do so many of your arguments go to fornication?

namelessfly wrote:You obviously were not paying attention when the bond rating agencies downgraded US debt in response to the Democrats raising the debt ceiling over Republican objections during Obama's first year in office.

The fact that the Senate hasn't honored it's Constitutional obligation to pass a budget since Obama became President has probably not been as alarming to bond holders as five consecutive years of Trillion dollar deficits and a national debt that now exceeds GDP.

It is not the Tea Party Republicans who have damaged the full faith and credit of the United States. It is the Democrats and the Viagra wing of the Republican party who spend as if there is either no tomorrow or they simply don't care about the burden that they are placing on future generations because they have devoted their lives to fornication rather than responsible procreation that have undermined the confidence of the financial community. The fact that an increasingly large fraction of US debt is being bought by the Federal Reserve rather than domestic investors or foreign entities confirms that the full faith and credit of the US has been severely damaged. No country that monetized it's own debt (Governor Palin can explain what this means to you along with other economic concepts such as Quantitative Easing) has long avoided a catastrophic, economic collapse.

Thank you for the reply.

I must say: Someone should take a real hard look at the rule that allows the speaker this amount of power. This seems to be the root cause of the current disgrace.

Depriving the elected members of parliament of their right to bring in bill proposols - and having them discussed and voted on - is - well, outrageous.

In Germany we have a constitutional court which members of Parliament (or political factions in parliament) could turn to if their constitutional rights were impeded on this way.

Of course I don't know enough about the US Constitution to know whether your elected representatives and their factions have the right to propose bills and have them voted on. It would seem very strange if they hadn't though.

KNick wrote:

Bruno Behrends wrote:I have a question concerning how congress works:

I read the following in a CNN article:

The Hastert Rule is named after former Speaker Dennis Hastert, who did not bring bills to the floor unless those bills were supported by a majority of House Republicans. It is not a formal rule, but rather a promise to uphold the will of a majority of the majority. House Republicans expected Boehner to uphold the rule and he pledged to do so.

That is a very puzzling statement for me and I wonder if it is right or someone got it wrong?
<<SNIP>>

Since no one else seems to want to take a stab at this, I guess I will. The short answer to your question is yes, the Speaker of the House decides what legislation comes before the House. After all, he is the one who sets the agenda for the day's deliberations on the floor. It is possible for someone to force a vote on a bill, but it takes action from more than one person and the cooperation of both parties. After all, if he sets Monday as the day to discuss military spending, Tuesday and Wednesday for committee meetings, Thursday for disaster relief and nothing at all for Friday, who's to say he is deliberately keeping healthcare from being debated? He is simply prioritizing the schedule.

Bruno Behrends wrote:Thank you for the reply.

I must say: Someone should take a real hard look at the rule that allows the speaker this amount of power. This seems to be the root cause of the current disgrace.

Depriving the elected members of parliament of their right to bring in bill proposols - and having them discussed and voted on - is - well, outrageous.

In Germany we have a constitutional court which members of Parliament (or political factions in parliament) could turn to if their constitutional rights were impeded on this way.

Of course I don't know enough about the US Constitution to know whether your elected representatives and their factions have the right to propose bills and have them voted on. It would seem very strange if they hadn't though.
<<SNIP>>

They don't have to take it to court to get it voted on. All they have to do is get enough votes to pass a motion to debate the bill. The Speaker can not delay a vote on such a motion. However, it requires someone to move the motion, a second to the motion and a majority vote to allow debate. Due to the nature of the Speaker's power, if he tells the members of his party to vote no, they had better vote no. All the repercussions are political. Such things as the national committee not getting behind a re-election campaign, backing an opponent in the next election or not getting help with drafting and proposing legislation. It used to be that people who didn't completely agree with what their party was doing could vote for bills that they believed in. Those days have pretty much been blasted into oblivion.

In Australia a Parliamentarian can submit a private member's bill which must be debated. Usually it is done by an independent member, but occasionally a member of a large party will put one up if they feel strongly enough about the topic and their leadership won't cooperate. May or may not crimp their career, as sometimes the leadership wants such put up but can't because of election promises or baksheesh.
I was watching the TV news last night and saw a number of the key players (whom I don't know), and my uninformed opinion was that they were expensively dressed posers who hadn't managed or perhaps even tried to do their job. As we say, a mile wide and an inch deep.

Daryl wrote:Ditto for Australia with a couple of minor amendments.
Pensioners and such are charged $5.90 per month's individual medicine prescription. Being an old fart my GP (of my choice) bulk bills my visits so they cost me nothing, but otherwise would cost $30-$50 a time.
As in NZ any emergency treatment for anyone is free but elective surgery can cost.
Being in a reasonable financial position I pay $220 a month for additional medical insurance which provides my wife and I with whatever medical treatment we want for free. Last week I went in to get my annual pair of free reading glasses (don't need long distance ones as my fund paid for laser eye surgery 12/12 [12 font at standard distance better than 20/20]).
Friends in the UK and Europe report similar experiences. Please don't trot out the "dead hand of socialism" argument, as the OECD, IMF, UNESCO and a number of similar organisations rate our countries at the top of both the economic and liveability scales. Australians have the largest new build domestic houses, highest personal wealth, highest aggregate (including country's resources) individual wealth, in top 5 life expectancy (NZ as well), and much such. Goes to show that universal health care, basic wage above $15 an hour, full welfare net, and so on does not necessarily lead to a moribund economy (not Haven).

Sorry Daryl, I'm going to have to disagree a with part of that. While I agree for the most part about the health care, the full welfare net IS hurting the economy. One of my partners friends at work, with three kids, would like to work and earn more. However, if she does so, the amount she earns gets cancelled out by the amount she gets from centrelink. I can think of another half dozen examples off hand.