10/1/13 How bad will it be?

[Sallow]

The (D) party can try to lay this at the doorstep of the House but history will only remember who was the President when it happened.

Wrong. Truman ran against the "do-nothing Congress" and pulled the biggest upset of the twentieth century. Every political operative from Karl Rove on down believes the last government shutdown was the cause of the end of Newt's speakership. Polls today show that only 16% would blame a government shutdown on the president. It's this kind of imperviousness to what goes on in the real world that led to the debacle of Romney and his advisors believing he had won the last election. But, by all means, I hope Republicans keep drinking the koolaid and ignoring those Marxists at Forbes who are predicting that this craziness over the debt ceiling will destroy the Republican Party.

The only time they get "crazy" over the debt ceiling is when a Democrat is in the White House.

Other wise?

Spend like there's no tomorrow!

 

[MisterBeale]

R.I.P. G.O.P.-House Debt Ceiling Proposal Could Bring The Final Curtain Down On The Republican Party - Forbes

Remember that all political parties run on the same fuel—money. And while a government shutdown will prove inconvenient to a large number of Americans while brutally destructive to a few, none who would suffer are those who make significant financial contributions to the Republican Party.

This is not the case with a default.

Indeed, Wall Street has been very, very busy bending the ears of their Republican House Members and their hapless staffs, insisting that the government not be allowed to default on its obligations.

Why?

Because Wall Street fears that default could result in tragic consequences for the world economy and that will be devastating for business. Indeed, even if a default failed to result in the economic Armageddon some—but not all— predict, everyone agrees that such a move would surely result in rising interest rates (either quickly or over time) and a devaluation of the dollar—all of which would also be very bad for business.

While the Congressional lunatic fringe may have nothing to fear from a default—their districts would, no doubt, continue to send them back to Congress—the loss of the nation’s financial class to the Republican Party would mean the complete destruction of the party for years to come. Why? Because the demographics of the country, and the unwillingness of the Republicans to get out in front of these changes, now virtually assure that the GOP has ceded control of the White House for the foreseeable future. That means that their sole hope for power rests in the legislative branch.

How long does anyone imagine that the GOP will retain control of either branch of Congress if the money leaves the Republican Party and sits on the sidelines?

You're absolutely correct, all the parties are just extensions of one great big cluster ****. Americans are waking up. They put the obstructionists in there not b/c they were well funded, but b/c they were sick of our government being controlled by special interests. I have a feeling those seats will probably be the safest seats come re-election time.

If the president doesn't impose martial law, and democracy continues, the people that will have the most to worry about, assuming the ballot counting process is transparent, (which most of us who have a college education in stats don't really believe it is anymore,) then I don't think the obstructionists that are the last real representatives have anything to worry about. In fact, with their successes, I wouldn't be surprised if they are joined by a few more when representatives start to see that Americans are starting to be swayed more by how these Senators and representatives vote than the money they take from Wall Street.

I find it mildly amusing that our nation is slowly degenerating into a police state, and yours is the avatar of a jack booted Statist thug. How appropriate. Thanks for showing your true colors.

 

[Rshermr]

The (D) party can try to lay this at the doorstep of the House but history will only remember who was the President when it happened.

Wrong. Truman ran against the "do-nothing Congress" and pulled the biggest upset of the twentieth century. Every political operative from Karl Rove on down believes the last government shutdown was the cause of the end of Newt's speakership. Polls today show that only 16% would blame a government shutdown on the president. It's this kind of imperviousness to what goes on in the real world that led to the debacle of Romney and his advisors believing he had won the last election. But, by all means, I hope Republicans keep drinking the koolaid and ignoring those Marxists at Forbes who are predicting that this craziness over the debt ceiling will destroy the Republican Party.

The only time they get "crazy" over the debt ceiling is when a Democrat is in the White House.

Other wise?

Spend like there's no tomorrow!

For those aware of the evolution of the Republican Party, the fact that spending has been highest under Republican presidents has been no surprise. That would be because of the Two Santa Claus Theory which was proposed and accepted by the republican party in the 1970's. It's author was Jude Wanniski, a republican operative who was high in the republican infrastructure at that time:

The Two Santa Claus Theory
The Two Santa Claus Theory is a political theory and strategy published by Wanniski in 1976, which he promoted within the United States Republican Party.[9][10]
According to Wanniski, the theory is simple. In 1976, he wrote that the Two-Santa Claus Theory suggests that "the Republicans should concentrate on tax-rate reduction. As they succeed in expanding incentives to produce, they will move the economy back to full employment and thereby reduce social pressures for public spending. Just as an increase in Government spending inevitably means taxes must be raised, a cut in tax rates—by expanding the private sector—will diminish the relative size of the public sector."[10] Wanniski suggested this position, as Thom Hartmann has clarified, so that the Democrats would "have to be anti-Santas by raising taxes, or anti-Santas by cutting spending. Either one would lose them elections."[11]
The theory states that in democratic elections, if Democrats appeal to voters by proposing programs to help people, then the Republicans cannot gain broader appeal by proposing less spending. The first "Santa Claus" of the theory title refers to the Democratic party which promises programs to help people who are disadvantaged. The "Two Santa Claus Theory" recommends that the Republican party must assume the role of a second Santa Claus by not arguing to cut spending but rather offering the option of cutting taxes.
Jude Wanniski - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Con tools never know of the Two Santa Claus Theory because it is a dirty little secret kept closely by republican operatives.

 

[Freemason9]

R.I.P. G.O.P.-House Debt Ceiling Proposal Could Bring The Final Curtain Down On The Republican Party - Forbes

The (D) party can try to lay this at the doorstep of the House but history will only remember who was the President when it happened.

Just like I remember that Clinton was the President the last time the government shut down.
Ya know what the difference is?

Clinton had the balls and LEADERSHIP SKILLS to work with Newt and the House to solve the ******* problem.

Where's Obama?
Out campaigning, of course, and telling everybody that he will not compromise when it comes to his signature legislation.
His ego is bigger than this whole ******* country

There is no reason for him to compromise. None. John Boehner crowed about getting 98% of what he wanted last time. Obama will not be assuming the position this time. And apparently, from everything I'm reading - it's no big deal, right? So what if they crash the economy? So what if we get downgraded again. So what if Wall Street crashes and burns.

It's all a big so what, right?

There's no reason for him to back down. It's no big.

This merely illustrates the complete failure of capitalism. Without the government's presence, I guarantee you that it all turns to shit quite rapidly.

 

[william the wie]

Sorry folks I am talking about the Obamacare start up. between the marriage tax and taxpayer subsidized abortion becoming frontpage news tomorrow and the shutdown distraction simply prevents Democratic response to the real threat.

 

[Freemason9]

Sorry folks I am talking about the Obamacare start up. between the marriage tax and taxpayer subsidized abortion becoming frontpage news tomorrow and the shutdown distraction simply prevents Democratic response to the real threat.

"Obamacare" merely pools the risk of health care costs across a large population--aka, health insurance. Unless you are one of those that have been/are uninsured, this will not affect you. This reform is only intended to include more of the uninsured into the broader pool.

I have no idea why Republicans think this is a bad thing. Republicans actually proposed it in the early 1990's.

 

[Rshermr]

Sorry folks I am talking about the Obamacare start up. between the marriage tax and taxpayer subsidized abortion becoming frontpage news tomorrow and the shutdown distraction simply prevents Democratic response to the real threat.

"Obamacare" merely pools the risk of health care costs across a large population--aka, health insurance. Unless you are one of those that have been/are uninsured, this will not affect you. This reform is only intended to include more of the uninsured into the broader pool.

I have no idea why Republicans think this is a bad thing. Republicans actually proposed it in the early 1990's.

Yeah. But that was before the dems proposed it under obama. So, it was the good old flexible republican party.

 

[MisterBeale]

The (D) party can try to lay this at the doorstep of the House but history will only remember who was the President when it happened.

Just like I remember that Clinton was the President the last time the government shut down.
Ya know what the difference is?

Clinton had the balls and LEADERSHIP SKILLS to work with Newt and the House to solve the ******* problem.

Where's Obama?
Out campaigning, of course, and telling everybody that he will not compromise when it comes to his signature legislation.
His ego is bigger than this whole ******* country

There is no reason for him to compromise. None. John Boehner crowed about getting 98% of what he wanted last time. Obama will not be assuming the position this time. And apparently, from everything I'm reading - it's no big deal, right? So what if they crash the economy? So what if we get downgraded again. So what if Wall Street crashes and burns.

It's all a big so what, right?

There's no reason for him to back down. It's no big.

This merely illustrates the complete failure of capitalism. Without the government's presence, I guarantee you that it all turns to shit quite rapidly.

I don't think you meant to say the failure of "capitalism." Capitalism works just fine with out government's presence. I think what you meant to say is this proves that corporatism, otherwise known as "fascism," is ultimately doomed. Though anyone who has ever read the insightful works of Marx already knows that.

cor·po·rat·ism
noun \ˈkȯr-p(ə-)rə-ˌti-zəm\
Definition of CORPORATISM
: the organization of a society into industrial and professional corporations serving as organs of political representation and exercising control over persons and activities within their jurisdiction


"Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power." -Benito Mussolini

cap·i·tal·ism
noun \ˈka-pə-tə-ˌliz-əm, ˈkap-tə-, British also kə-ˈpi-tə-\

: a way of organizing an economy so that the things that are used to make and transport products (such as land, oil, factories, ships, etc.) are owned by individual people and companies rather than by the government

Capitalism Isn't Corporatism or Cronyism
http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardsalsman/2011/12/07/capitalism-is-decidedly-not-corporatism-or-cronyism/

In fact, capitalism is the system of rights, liberty, civility, peace and non-sacrificial prosperity; it’s not the system of government that unjustly favors capitalists at others’ expense. It provides a level legal playing field plus officials who serve us as low-profile referees (not arbitrary rule-makers or score-changers). To be sure, capitalism also entails inequality – of ambition, talent, income, or wealth – because that’s how individuals (and firms) really are; they’re unique, not clones or inter-changeable parts, as the egalitarians claim. Capitalism is the political system which ensures that innocent “economic power” (i.e., the power to produce) isn’t mixed with force to become invalid political power (i.e., the power to loot); it’s the system that separates business and state, for the same good reason that it also makes sure to separate church and state. Neither of the two recent political movements – “Occupy Wall Street” or the “Tea Party” – seem to fully grasp this.

Yes, there’s an alternative system that does entail the government unjustly ruling business and government, in turn, improperly controlled by business for business’s exclusive benefit (whether by subsidies, special favors, monopolies and franchises, tax breaks, or bailouts), even as it nominally still permits private property holdings: it’s called “corporatism” (sometimes, synonymously, “cronyism” or “fascism”). Corporatism was the system originated almost a century ago by the American “Progressives,” and later by Mussolini in Italy, Hitler in Germany, and Roosevelt in the U.S. (see his 1933 National Recovery Act, struck down by the Supreme Court in 1935 as unconstitutional because it was so corporatist). Corporatism goes hand-in-hand with statism, with abandonment of the fully free economy and adoption of the welfare-warfare state. Yet while many oppose cronyism, corporate welfare, and bailouts, they also endorse handouts to almost everyone else, including to the politically-valuable cronies so easily found among today’s labor union leaders, “green” companies, under-water homeowners, over-indebted college students, and war-happy munitions makers.

 

[william the wie]

Sorry folks I am talking about the Obamacare start up. between the marriage tax and taxpayer subsidized abortion becoming frontpage news tomorrow and the shutdown distraction simply prevents Democratic response to the real threat.

"Obamacare" merely pools the risk of health care costs across a large population--aka, health insurance. Unless you are one of those that have been/are uninsured, this will not affect you. This reform is only intended to include more of the uninsured into the broader pool.

I have no idea why Republicans think this is a bad thing. Republicans actually proposed it in the early 1990's.

Yeah the GOP is also a pack of corporate fascists but they know it and are fairly competent at it. The Ds on the other hand are so arrogantly incompetent they turn down get out of jail free cards:

Since an estimated 50% of the US population was legally Indian under the 3/5s compromise in 2008, the GOP's Brownback slipped an apology for every anti-Indian atrocity committed by anyone his staff could uncover into the 2009 defense appropriations bill. Obama signed the bill in Dec. 2009.

So, even though the Democrats did in fact sign off on an apology for the trail of tears in 2009 and the GOP cited the fact that they wanted to be on record for apologizing Obama kept the fact so quiet that Democratic apology for the trail of tears usually comes up as 2012 or 2013 when Googled.

With DNA testing declining by more than 90% in less than a decade this is perhaps the dumbest politician trick yet. This was a slow pitch gimme and the ball was dropped by the head of the Democratic party. So, check Bloomberg and CNBC on the various blowbacks on Obamacare that are currently known and more will be discovered in the next six months. This bill is errant arrogance made flesh.

 

[hortysir]

R.I.P. G.O.P.-House Debt Ceiling Proposal Could Bring The Final Curtain Down On The Republican Party - Forbes

The (D) party can try to lay this at the doorstep of the House but history will only remember who was the President when it happened.

Just like I remember that Clinton was the President the last time the government shut down.
Ya know what the difference is?

Clinton had the balls and LEADERSHIP SKILLS to work with Newt and the House to solve the ******* problem.

Where's Obama?
Out campaigning, of course, and telling everybody that he will not compromise when it comes to his signature legislation.
His ego is bigger than this whole ******* country

There is no reason for him to compromise. None. John Boehner crowed about getting 98% of what he wanted last time. Obama will not be assuming the position this time. And apparently, from everything I'm reading - it's no big deal, right? So what if they crash the economy? So what if we get downgraded again. So what if Wall Street crashes and burns.

It's all a big so what, right?

There's no reason for him to back down. It's no big.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4s0nzsU1Wg]A Country Boy Can Survive - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Mr. H.]

In today's mail... the big envelope from my health insurance provider.

I'm scared to open it.

 

[jon_berzerk]

In today's mail... the big envelope from my health insurance provider.

I'm scared to open it.

go ahead and open it

obama promised that your rate would be lower

and you can keep your doctor

so it must be good news

 

[Mr. H.]

In today's mail... the big envelope from my health insurance provider.

I'm scared to open it.

go ahead and open it

obama promised that your rate would be lower

and you can keep your doctor

so it must be good news

Think I'll get good and drunk first.

 

[william the wie]

In today's mail... the big envelope from my health insurance provider.

I'm scared to open it.

go ahead and open it

obama promised that your rate would be lower

and you can keep your doctor

so it must be good news

Think I'll get good and drunk first.

It might make you think Obama is more than just a machine politician from Chicago.

 

[Mr. H.]

go ahead and open it

obama promised that your rate would be lower

and you can keep your doctor

so it must be good news

Think I'll get good and drunk first.

It might make you think Obama is more than just a machine politician from Chicago.

No amount of alcohol can erase that ****** from my mind.

He even outshines my ex wife.

 

[Rshermr]

How bad will today, 10/1, be??? Hard to answer. For the economy, probably very. And over a long period of time.
For tea party republicans: Good and bad. They will hurt the economy of Obama, which is a win for them (and their handlers). But based on all polls at this point, it will cost some republican politicians their jobs.

 

[Mr. H.]

Here's my take- the ACA will initiate a multitude of unintended and deleterious consequences upon the insured as well as the economy as a whole, leaving voters up in arms.

In order to satiate those voters still more amendments, provisions, alterations, and exemptions will be enacted. As a result this country will be driven yet further into government run and government controlled healthcare, taxation will skyrocket, jobs will be lost, and still more of the voting public and their families will ultimately be enrolled in the welfare system.

This is Obama's penultimate coop the grass.

The board is set. The pieces are moving...

 

[TheOldSchool]

09/29/2013
I've just returned from Home Depot with plywood, duct tape and bisquine.
The wife has yet to return from WalMart with the bottled water and canned goods. I hope an airplane hasn't fallen, unguided by the FAA, and damaged the truck.
Cellphone coverage is starting to get spotty.

Will update regularly

Oh God! Only 23 more minutes!!!

2444

[MENTION=23333]hortysir[/MENTION]

My only excuse is that because of that evil thing called Football... I was wasted

 

[Rshermr]

Here's my take- the ACA will initiate a multitude of unintended and deleterious consequences upon the insured as well as the economy as a whole, leaving voters up in arms.

In order to satiate those voters still more amendments, provisions, alterations, and exemptions will be enacted. As a result this country will be driven yet further into government run and government controlled healthcare, taxation will skyrocket, jobs will be lost, and still more of the voting public and their families will ultimately be enrolled in the welfare system.

This is Obama's penultimate coop the grass.

The board is set. The pieces are moving...

Really. Any specifics or do you just have fears.

Maybe we should look at the other 33 countries in the OECD. That includes pretty much all of the developed nations of the world:

The U.S. spent $8,233 on health per person in 2010. Norway, the Netherlands and Switzerland are the next highest spenders, but in the same year, they all spent at least $3,000 less per person. The average spending on health care among the other 33 developed OECD countries was $3,268 per person.

OK, but if you are wondering if perhaps it is just because we are the richest per person (which is not true, by the way. If you believe that you are about 40 years in the past) country in the world, lets look at the numbers as a percent of GDP:
The U.S. is a very rich country, but even so, it devotes far more of its economy -- 17.6 percent

of GDP in 2010 -- to health than any other country. The Netherlands is the next highest, at 12 percent of GDP, and the average among OECD countries was almost half that of the U.S., at 9.5 percent of GDP.

Health Costs: How the U.S. Compares With Other Countries | PBS NewsHour

So, below average results, but we have been paying the highest costs in the world. On average, twice what other countries have been paying. And the advertising being paid for by hundreds of thousands of dollars from the very companies who have been feeding at the trough has you worried??? For years before obamacare even was a concept, thinking people have been saying we need to change our health care payment system. Unless, of course, you just want to pay more for less than average results.

 

[hortysir]

In today's mail... the big envelope from my health insurance provider.

I'm scared to open it.

[MENTION=20545]Mr. H.[/MENTION]

Well?
Does your coverage meet the government's "certain standards" of coverage or are you delegated to the 'marketplace'?