Democrats want to shut govt down
Ben Gleck

Oriskany Falls, NY

#472 Nov 11, 2013
Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
Cruz spent nearly 22 hours trying to get his colleagues to defund the Affordable Care Act not to block all appropriations. That's Ted Cruz who graduated cum laude from Princeton and magna cum laude from Harvard Law(since you seem to think that higher education has so much to do with the validity of one's point of view). In any case, what he did was to fight for a cause that he believed in, one that he campaigned on and one that I think he believes to his core is the right way for the American people. In the end he voted in favor of the whole appropriations package. If the House versions, which divided appropriations into component parts(separate spending bills), were allowed to come up for a vote by majority leader Harry Reid(they weren't) then Cruz would have voted against the Affordable Care Act component, as would have many other Republicans and probably some of the more conservative Democrats, and for the rest. There is more to the story than he spoke for 22 hours against it and then voted for the bill.
If roles were reversed and Republicans had the presidency and the senate, would you call it obstructionism if Democrats used every legislative tool at their disposal to try to foil Republican attempts at much stricter immigration laws? How about if they had a pro-life majority and tried to turn back abortion laws? How about a strengthening of the Defense of Marriage Act? It's been my experience that people's definition of obstructionism more often than not has to do with what side of the fence they are on.
I don't blame the poor. I'm not sure where you get that idea.
History will be the judge. Given the less than successful launch of the Affordable Care Act coupled with predictions that it will collapse under its' own weight in time, I guess we'll just have to wait and see who is on the wrong side of history. If by election day next year things don't change drastically then Tea Party Republicans like Cruz are going to look like prophets and Democrats as well as old guard Republicans will be thrown out of office.
You deftly avoided any comment on the opinions of Greenspan and Bernanke, Not to mention most other economists, except of course the Tea Party stooges. The general consensus is that your Libertarian , supply side economics is a recipe for disaster. And how about a comment on the largest disparity of wealth our country has known. Do you support a raise in minimum wage? How about the recent cut in food stamps? I'm all ears.
BTW, your comparison of health care reform to gay marriage is absurd. we had just had an election where the A.C.A. was the key issue. Not to mention, that the law had been through the legislative process, and found constitutional by the Supreme court. BTW, there's nothing wrong with googling, unless of course you only click right wing sites. Like you do.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#473 Nov 12, 2013
Truth Dig wrote:
Debt service, as a percentage of GDP, is about 2%. Which it has been for the last 40 years. Reducing the federal government deficit, in the middle of a depressed economy, will have an "infinitesimal" impact on that. Our national debt is $17 billion. As a percentage of GDP, it's not even close to the all time high.
GDP as calculated now by the Obama administration differs from the past 40 years; it now includes intellectual property as productivity. Reducing wasteful government spending will add to our economy, by cutting waste, fraud and abuse. Every dollar spent by the Federal government is a dollar taken from the private economy and a net minus to productivity.

Debt interest can only increase and increased borrowing adds to our massive and unprecedented deficit. When you run out of money, stop spending.
Truth

Utica, NY

#474 Nov 12, 2013
Ben Gleck wrote:
<quoted text> You deftly avoided any comment on the opinions of Greenspan and Bernanke, Not to mention most other economists, except of course the Tea Party stooges. The general consensus is that your Libertarian , supply side economics is a recipe for disaster. And how about a comment on the largest disparity of wealth our country has known. Do you support a raise in minimum wage? How about the recent cut in food stamps? I'm all ears.
BTW, your comparison of health care reform to gay marriage is absurd. we had just had an election where the A.C.A. was the key issue. Not to mention, that the law had been through the legislative process, and found constitutional by the Supreme court. BTW, there's nothing wrong with googling, unless of course you only click right wing sites. Like you do.
I wasn't familiar with what you said about Greenspan and Bernanke so I didn't comment. I am reading all I can about that right now including excerpts from Greenspan's book where these revelations came to light. It's interesting.

Again you miss my point completely. I was not comparing abortion and gay marriage with Obamacare. The point I was making is that your view that Republican's in general and Ted Cruz specifically are obstructionists is born of your political ideology. For Republicans to fight legislation they think is bad for America with every tool at their disposal seems to you obstructionism. To me it is doing what they were elected to do. In my example I tried to get you to think about what it would be like if conservative Republicans had veto-proof majority and were ramming through partisan legislation. Would Democrats in your view be obstructionists for fighting with everything they had against that kind of legislation or would you see them as doing their job and fighting for what they believe is right? The Affordable Care Act passed without even one Republican vote. In the 2010 election there were many Republican candidates who ran on what we can call a "Tea Party" based platform. Smaller government, less debt and in general less government intrusions in our lives. Many were elected. From my point of view Republicans like Ted Cruz are doing exactly what the voters elected them to do.

You are way off in thinking that I only look at right wing sites and information. I look at everything. I believe that's the only way to form a real opinion void of emotion. I watch Chris Hayes, Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz, Andrea Mitchell, Piers Morgan, Lawrence O'Donnell and a whole host of other liberal commentators on a fairly regular basis. I don't watch Reverend Al anymore because he's an obvious dunce. I also don't watch Hannity for kind of the same reason. I also watch Fox News. I read economists like Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell as well as Paul Krugman on the other side.
Truth

Utica, NY

#475 Nov 12, 2013
Ben Gleck wrote:
<quoted text> You deftly avoided any comment on the opinions of Greenspan and Bernanke, Not to mention most other economists, except of course the Tea Party stooges. The general consensus is that your Libertarian , supply side economics is a recipe for disaster. And how about a comment on the largest disparity of wealth our country has known. Do you support a raise in minimum wage? How about the recent cut in food stamps? I'm all ears.
Please excuse me if I'm wrong. I'm going to take a guess. I'm guessing that you've never run or managed a for-profit business nor have you ever been what most would probably consider wealthy. Again I apologize if I offend you with that. It's not my intent. I mention it only because it has a lot to do with my opinion regarding the disparity of wealth we see today.

I think we have a disparity of wealth for a number of reasons but one of the more important is how wealthy people have been treated and portrayed. "They are evil and greedy!" and "Tax them" are the new normal. Our government, with sanction from citizens like you, view wealthy people as an ATM to finance their social engineering experiments. Why there's no problem that money won't solve right? The problem is that the government has no money of its' own and must take it from one American and give it to another. Slowly but surely and over generations the government has inserted itself into the lives Americans using entitlements and nurturing the entitlement and dependence mentalities. This approach has a downside. Imagine yourself a wealthy person. Government has set itself up as arbiter of what is fair and right. In order to fulfill their vision they are taxing you at every turn and at higher an higher rates. At the same time they allow government agencies like the EPA to regulate without having to go through the legislative process. They tell you who you can and can't hire and how much you have to pay them......... How charitable do you think you would feel at the end of the day, especially with the people who want your money and need your money(to live a lifestyle to which they feel they are entitled)are calling you names? How about that they also fail to acknowledge that you have worked hard for what you have investing your time and treasure in making yourself to borrow a phrase, "all you can be". Do you suppose that given these things would you be apt to keep more for yourself or give what you have away in many cases for things you don't agree with? My guess is that wealthy people are keeping more rather than feeling like they want to share because of the way they are treated, portrayed and taken for granted.

I don't know whether you will know what this means or not but John Galt said: "I will stop the motor of the world" when he and those like him were treated in a very similar way to the way the wealthy are being treated now.


I am not for an increase in the minimum wage. I think the compensation for any job should be exactly the least amount that the most qualified applicant will take. I don't like that there is a minimum wage.

The Food Stamp cut wasn't really a cut. In the midst of the recession the Food Stamp benefits were bumped up. There was a sunset clause in that law making the bump temporary. The temporary bump expired. You call it a cut, I call it the expiration of a law. See? You calling it a cut is your political ideology showing.

Level 7

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#476 Nov 12, 2013
Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
As with Detroit, as with Utica, as with Orange County, California those ratings have everything to do with interest rates for bonding and borrowing so while you may be right in some ways about their effectiveness, they are the arbitors of interest rates in the eyes of wary investors. What they say matters.
Incorrect. Interest rates aren't set by the rating agencies. They are set by the free market. There was a downgrade in 2011, and as a result, interest rates.... remained at or near their lowest levels in history.

Level 7

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#477 Nov 12, 2013
Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
I never said "world record". I did say unsustainable. And again you use history to bolster your opinion about debt and deficits. In a previous post I cited a recent warning from the Congressional Budget Office regarding the current debt and the trajectory we are on. You obviously didn't read it or just choose to ignore it. In part CBO director Douglas Elmendorf said this:
"The federal budget is on a course that cannot be sustained indefinitely,”
and his agency's report said this:
“Because federal debt is already unusually high relative to GDP, further increases in debt could be especially harmful,” the CBO report said. It said lawmakers would have to make “significant changes” to tax and spending policies to put the U.S. budget on a sustainable path for the long term."
Since you are hung up on history please allow me to to the same using that same CBO report:
"The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said that the U.S. national debt is now 73% of gross domestic product, the highest in history except for a period around World War II. The figure is twice the percentage it was at the end of 2007."
and also from the previously cited article:
"It(the CBO report) warned that under current law, growing future deficits will push the debt to 100% of GDP 25 years from now. And under another scenario that envisions changes being made to some laws — including removing the so-called automatic budget cuts known as the sequester — the debt would be even higher, at nearly 190%, by 2038."
Sorry about the cut and paste but but you have continually criticized me, my opinion and by default the sources I rely on for the basis of my opinion. I want you to realize that I haven't just spun a tale here based on emotion and my political leanings. I use those facts compiled by people much closer to the problem and more familiar with the facts. While I do take historic data into account in forming my opinion I don't rely on it exclusively like you seem to.
For some reason, my previous response to this didn't post. So here goes again....

I've read the CBO report. It says that our long term debt outlook is unsustainable, but that troubling projection is based almost exclusively on long term HEALTH CARE COSTS, as I've repeatedly stated here. Cutting unemployment benefits today will have no impact on what we pay for Medicare in 30 years.

Debt as a percentage of GDP is at its second highest level in history. But so what? Would it make you feel better if it were at the 3rd highest levels in history? Historical ranking is irrelevant. The US reached its highest debt levels right after WWII at around 140% of GDP. Today, it's less than 80% of GDP. Or not even close to its all time high. And interest rates are zero. Both our recent debt levels and those right after WW II were driven by historic events: a world war and the second worst economic crisis in history. They have virtually no relation to what will drive our debt decades from now.

And my previous point, that being defaulting on the national debt, is no more sane because the CBO projects "unsustainable" deficits in 30 years. It's like committing suicide today because you're afraid of getting sick decades from now.

Level 7

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#478 Nov 12, 2013
Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
I wasn't familiar with what you said about Greenspan and Bernanke so I didn't comment. I am reading all I can about that right now including excerpts from Greenspan's book where these revelations came to light. It's interesting.
Again you miss my point completely. I was not comparing abortion and gay marriage with Obamacare. The point I was making is that your view that Republican's in general and Ted Cruz specifically are obstructionists is born of your political ideology. For Republicans to fight legislation they think is bad for America with every tool at their disposal seems to you obstructionism. To me it is doing what they were elected to do. In my example I tried to get you to think about what it would be like if conservative Republicans had veto-proof majority and were ramming through partisan legislation. Would Democrats in your view be obstructionists for fighting with everything they had against that kind of legislation or would you see them as doing their job and fighting for what they believe is right? The Affordable Care Act passed without even one Republican vote. In the 2010 election there were many Republican candidates who ran on what we can call a "Tea Party" based platform. Smaller government, less debt and in general less government intrusions in our lives. Many were elected. From my point of view Republicans like Ted Cruz are doing exactly what the voters elected them to do.
You are way off in thinking that I only look at right wing sites and information. I look at everything. I believe that's the only way to form a real opinion void of emotion. I watch Chris Hayes, Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz, Andrea Mitchell, Piers Morgan, Lawrence O'Donnell and a whole host of other liberal commentators on a fairly regular basis. I don't watch Reverend Al anymore because he's an obvious dunce. I also don't watch Hannity for kind of the same reason. I also watch Fox News. I read economists like Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell as well as Paul Krugman on the other side.
This isn't directed at me, but I'll respond anyway. If Republicans ever secured majorities of both houses of Congress and the Presidency, I for one would have to conclude that elections have consequences. I wouldn't think it legitimate to threaten to destroy the world economy through default, for instance, because Democrats didn't have the votes to pass laws or otherwise govern through established Constitutional processes.

And let's look back at some simple facts. Obama has never been seen as legitimate in the eyes of the Tea Party or even a majority of the Republican Party. If I'm not mistaken, a majority of Republicans are STILL convinced Obama was born in Kenya and thus ineligible to even BE President (I can't wait to see how they justify supporting Canadian born Ted Cruz for the office, but then again, they aren't exactly known to be bound by consistency). I saw one poll which found 35% of Republicans support Obama's impeachment, for what, they really don't care. Before Obama took office, before he proposed one single piece of legislation, Republican leaders agreed to a strategy to block EVERYTHING Obama would attempt to implement, even as we faced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. They vowed to themselves to make Obama a one term President without even hearing a single legislative proposal.

The ACA passed with no Republican support. That's because no matter what he proposed, Republicans had sworn opposition to it. As is a matter of recorded fact, the ACA basic principal, the individual mandate, was a Republican idea; the law was an almost exact replica of Romneycare; the ACA was almost the mirror image of the Republican Party health care plan of the 1990s which they drafted in response to Hilary Clinton's proposed health care reform. Pointing to the passage of the ACA without Republican support is completely disingenuous. There was nothing Obama could have done do get their support.
Hows yer pork

Little Falls, NY

#479 Nov 13, 2013
Truth Dig wrote:
<quoted text>
This isn't directed at me, but I'll respond anyway. If Republicans ever secured majorities of both houses of Congress and the Presidency, I for one would have to conclude that elections have consequences. I wouldn't think it legitimate to threaten to destroy the world economy through default, for instance, because Democrats didn't have the votes to pass laws or otherwise govern through established Constitutional processes.
And let's look back at some simple facts. Obama has never been seen as legitimate in the eyes of the Tea Party or even a majority of the Republican Party. If I'm not mistaken, a majority of Republicans are STILL convinced Obama was born in Kenya and thus ineligible to even BE President (I can't wait to see how they justify supporting Canadian born Ted Cruz for the office, but then again, they aren't exactly known to be bound by consistency). I saw one poll which found 35% of Republicans support Obama's impeachment, for what, they really don't care. Before Obama took office, before he proposed one single piece of legislation, Republican leaders agreed to a strategy to block EVERYTHING Obama would attempt to implement, even as we faced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. They vowed to themselves to make Obama a one term President without even hearing a single legislative proposal.
The ACA passed with no Republican support. That's because no matter what he proposed, Republicans had sworn opposition to it. As is a matter of recorded fact, the ACA basic principal, the individual mandate, was a Republican idea; the law was an almost exact replica of Romneycare; the ACA was almost the mirror image of the Republican Party health care plan of the 1990s which they drafted in response to Hilary Clinton's proposed health care reform. Pointing to the passage of the ACA without Republican support is completely disingenuous. There was nothing Obama could have done do get their support.
Repubs were right obamacare will help some citizens get much needed access to healthcare but punish the middle class in the process. Democrates will reach out to republicans to bail them out of this quagmire.
Da Law

Carthage, NY

#480 Nov 13, 2013
Truth Dig wrote:
<quoted text>
The ACA passed with no Republican support.
This can't be emphasized enough. The blame for the current debacle lies solely with one party.
Truth

Utica, NY

#481 Nov 13, 2013
Truth Dig wrote:
<quoted text>
This isn't directed at me, but I'll respond anyway. If Republicans ever secured majorities of both houses of Congress and the Presidency, I for one would have to conclude that elections have consequences. I wouldn't think it legitimate to threaten to destroy the world economy through default, for instance, because Democrats didn't have the votes to pass laws or otherwise govern through established Constitutional processes.
And let's look back at some simple facts. Obama has never been seen as legitimate in the eyes of the Tea Party or even a majority of the Republican Party. If I'm not mistaken, a majority of Republicans are STILL convinced Obama was born in Kenya and thus ineligible to even BE President (I can't wait to see how they justify supporting Canadian born Ted Cruz for the office, but then again, they aren't exactly known to be bound by consistency). I saw one poll which found 35% of Republicans support Obama's impeachment, for what, they really don't care. Before Obama took office, before he proposed one single piece of legislation, Republican leaders agreed to a strategy to block EVERYTHING Obama would attempt to implement, even as we faced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. They vowed to themselves to make Obama a one term President without even hearing a single legislative proposal.
The ACA passed with no Republican support. That's because no matter what he proposed, Republicans had sworn opposition to it. As is a matter of recorded fact, the ACA basic principal, the individual mandate, was a Republican idea; the law was an almost exact replica of Romneycare; the ACA was almost the mirror image of the Republican Party health care plan of the 1990s which they drafted in response to Hilary Clinton's proposed health care reform. Pointing to the passage of the ACA without Republican support is completely disingenuous. There was nothing Obama could have done do get their support.
My point is that obstructionism is in the eye of the beholder. You call what Ted Cruz did obstructionism. The people who elected him and those who believe in what he stands for call it doing what he was elected to do. The House of Representatives presented the Senate with individual spending bills that would have funded the entire government with the exceptions of the Affordable Care Act. Democrat Majority Leader Senator Reid did not allow those bills to come to the floor for a vote. Was he an obstructionist or was he doing whet he believed in and what he believed his constituents elected him to do?

You are mistaken and the truth never did a majority of Republicans believe in the "birther" line. I would say that some of the blame for that nonsense can be put on President Obama for not addressing that issue early on and in a decisive matter. He made the political calculation that if he did nothing that this fringe element of the Republican Party, including Trump would make fools of themselves. He was successful in that. President Obama is and has been since day one, the duly elected President of the United States.

You're wrong again. We'll never know if some compromise agreement could have been reached on healthcare. Don't you remember Speaker Pelosi's famous comment?“But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy.” That controversy being Republicans questioning the content and timing of the be bill. The Democrats weren't willing to talk about it. It was the "my way or the highway" and "elections have consequences" line from the President and congressional Democrats. As far as the similarity to the Massachusetts healthcare plan, Romney says he believes that these type programs are better left to the states. Given the less than stellar kickoff of Obamacare, who's to say he's wrong?
Truth

Utica, NY

#482 Nov 13, 2013
Truth Dig wrote:
<quoted text>
For some reason, my previous response to this didn't post. So here goes again....
I've read the CBO report. It says that our long term debt outlook is unsustainable, but that troubling projection is based almost exclusively on long term HEALTH CARE COSTS, as I've repeatedly stated here. Cutting unemployment benefits today will have no impact on what we pay for Medicare in 30 years.
Debt as a percentage of GDP is at its second highest level in history. But so what? Would it make you feel better if it were at the 3rd highest levels in history? Historical ranking is irrelevant. The US reached its highest debt levels right after WWII at around 140% of GDP. Today, it's less than 80% of GDP. Or not even close to its all time high. And interest rates are zero. Both our recent debt levels and those right after WW II were driven by historic events: a world war and the second worst economic crisis in history. They have virtually no relation to what will drive our debt decades from now.
And my previous point, that being defaulting on the national debt, is no more sane because the CBO projects "unsustainable" deficits in 30 years. It's like committing suicide today because you're afraid of getting sick decades from now.
Wrong again. The long term debt outlook goes well beyond just healthcare and includes the problem with Social Security. Paying off the Treasury Bonds owed to the Social Security Trust Fund is becoming more and more of a burden on the budget every year. With baby boomers retiring in record numbers and a flat economy, the problem is only getting worse. Your claim that debt service is only 2% is ridiculous. Paying what's owed to Social Security is part of the debt service. That coupled with Medicare, other lesser entitlements and actual interest on the debt puts the current amount at 62% of the federal budget and rising. The CBO projections warn that on the current trajectory we will exceed historic levels in a relatively short period of time. Are we supposed to just ignore that, continue to run up the national debt and let the chips fall where they may?

What is it you see in the near term or long term that will led to an economic resurgence like what happened after WW II? We need that in order to keep spending like we are. We used to be the envy of the world. Now we rely on our traditional enemies to produce our goods and buy our debt. They're destroying us without ever having to fire a shot.

Cutting anything from the federal budget and reducing the size and scope of government reduces the amount of money that needs to be borrowed in the short term to cover deficits. Money that will have to eventually be paid back with interest in the long term.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#483 Nov 13, 2013
Americans’ Participation in Labor Force Hits 35-Year Low
November 12, 2013 - 11:33 AM
By Ali Meyer
( CNSNews.com ) The percentage of American civilians 16 or older who have a job or are actively seeking one dropped to a 35-year low in October, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

In September, the labor force participation rate was 63.2 percent, but in October it dropped to 62.8 percent—the lowest it has been since February 1978, when Jimmy Carter was president.

The labor force, according to BLS, is that part of the civilian noninstitutional population that either has a job or has actively sought one in the last four weeks. The civilian noninstitutional population consists of people 16 or older, who are not on active-duty in the military or in an institution....

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ali-meyer/ame...

Andrew Huszar: Confessions of a Quantitative Easer
We went on a bond-buying spree that was supposed to help Main Street. Instead, it was a feast for Wall Street.

By ANDREW HUSZAR
Nov. 11, 2013 7:00 p.m. ET
I can only say: I'm sorry, America. As a former Federal Reserve official, I was responsible for executing the centerpiece program of the Fed's first plunge into the bond-buying experiment known as quantitative easing. The central bank continues to spin QE as a tool for helping Main Street. But I've come to recognize the program for what it really is: the greatest backdoor Wall Street bailout of all time....
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142...
Truth

Utica, NY

#484 Nov 13, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Americans’ Participation in Labor Force Hits 35-Year Low
November 12, 2013 - 11:33 AM
By Ali Meyer
( CNSNews.com ) The percentage of American civilians 16 or older who have a job or are actively seeking one dropped to a 35-year low in October, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
In September, the labor force participation rate was 63.2 percent, but in October it dropped to 62.8 percent—the lowest it has been since February 1978, when Jimmy Carter was president.
The labor force, according to BLS, is that part of the civilian noninstitutional population that either has a job or has actively sought one in the last four weeks. The civilian noninstitutional population consists of people 16 or older, who are not on active-duty in the military or in an institution....
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ali-meyer/ame...
Andrew Huszar: Confessions of a Quantitative Easer
We went on a bond-buying spree that was supposed to help Main Street. Instead, it was a feast for Wall Street.
By ANDREW HUSZAR
Nov. 11, 2013 7:00 p.m. ET
I can only say: I'm sorry, America. As a former Federal Reserve official, I was responsible for executing the centerpiece program of the Fed's first plunge into the bond-buying experiment known as quantitative easing. The central bank continues to spin QE as a tool for helping Main Street. But I've come to recognize the program for what it really is: the greatest backdoor Wall Street bailout of all time....
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142...
Less workers means less money flowing to Social Security. Less money flowing to Social Security means more money has to flow from taxpayers to the system to cover the cost of the entitlement.

So what do you suppose happens when the Fed backs off the quantitative easing? It can't go on forever. In the past any hint of backing off sent the stock market into a tailspin.
Truth

Utica, NY

#485 Nov 13, 2013
Truth Dig wrote:
<quoted text>
Incorrect. Interest rates aren't set by the rating agencies. They are set by the free market. There was a downgrade in 2011, and as a result, interest rates.... remained at or near their lowest levels in history.
The free market does set interest rates but what is it based on? It's based on the ratings agency's ratings and how they arrived at those ratings. It's called due diligence. Like Prego - "It's in there".
Truth

Utica, NY

#486 Nov 13, 2013
Truth Dig wrote:
<quoted text>
Incorrect. Interest rates aren't set by the rating agencies. They are set by the free market. There was a downgrade in 2011, and as a result, interest rates.... remained at or near their lowest levels in history.
If you read the post I said this:
"As with Detroit, as with Utica, as with Orange County, California those ratings have everything to do with interest rates for bonding and borrowing..."

I didn't say they set the interest rates but you can bet your last dollar that those ratings do have everything to do what the rate ends up being. Just ask the Utica mayor and comptroller.

Level 7

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#487 Nov 18, 2013
Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
My point is that obstructionism is in the eye of the beholder. You call what Ted Cruz did obstructionism. The people who elected him and those who believe in what he stands for call it doing what he was elected to do. The House of Representatives presented the Senate with individual spending bills that would have funded the entire government with the exceptions of the Affordable Care Act. Democrat Majority Leader Senator Reid did not allow those bills to come to the floor for a vote. Was he an obstructionist or was he doing whet he believed in and what he believed his constituents elected him to do?
You are mistaken and the truth never did a majority of Republicans believe in the "birther" line. I would say that some of the blame for that nonsense can be put on President Obama for not addressing that issue early on and in a decisive matter. He made the political calculation that if he did nothing that this fringe element of the Republican Party, including Trump would make fools of themselves. He was successful in that. President Obama is and has been since day one, the duly elected President of the United States.
You're wrong again. We'll never know if some compromise agreement could have been reached on healthcare. Don't you remember Speaker Pelosi's famous comment?“But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy.” That controversy being Republicans questioning the content and timing of the be bill. The Democrats weren't willing to talk about it. It was the "my way or the highway" and "elections have consequences" line from the President and congressional Democrats. As far as the similarity to the Massachusetts healthcare plan, Romney says he believes that these type programs are better left to the states. Given the less than stellar kickoff of Obamacare, who's to say he's wrong?
This is almost entirely complete nonsense. Although it is true that some view Cruz's obstructionism as him just representing his constituents, most people view an individual purposefully blocking the democratic will of the Senate as extreme destructive obstinance.

And of course Harry Reid's refusal to bring Republican piecemeal spending bills to the floor for a vote was not obstructionism. Those bills had no chance of passing the Senate or being signed into law.

Finally, Obama spent 18 months attempting to compromise with Republicans on the ACA. It was a waste of time as anyone should have easily seen. Obamacare was and is a Republican law. It's a matter of historical fact.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#488 Nov 19, 2013
Truth Dig wrote:
This is almost entirely complete nonsense. Although it is true that some view Cruz's obstructionism as him just representing his constituents, most people view an individual purposefully blocking the democratic will of the Senate as extreme destructive obstinance.
And of course Harry Reid's refusal to bring Republican piecemeal spending bills to the floor for a vote was not obstructionism. Those bills had no chance of passing the Senate or being signed into law.
Finally, Obama spent 18 months attempting to compromise with Republicans on the ACA. It was a waste of time as anyone should have easily seen. Obamacare was and is a Republican law. It's a matter of historical fact.
Senator Cruz warned us to delay Obamacare and 39 Democrats in the House just voted to pass the ‘‘Keep Your Health Plan Act of 2013’’. A month ago they called Cruz a terrorist and today they voted to stop Obamacare from cancelling your plan if you like it.
Truth

Utica, NY

#489 Nov 19, 2013
Truth Dig wrote:
<quoted text>
This is almost entirely complete nonsense. Although it is true that some view Cruz's obstructionism as him just representing his constituents, most people view an individual purposefully blocking the democratic will of the Senate as extreme destructive obstinance.
And of course Harry Reid's refusal to bring Republican piecemeal spending bills to the floor for a vote was not obstructionism. Those bills had no chance of passing the Senate or being signed into law.
Finally, Obama spent 18 months attempting to compromise with Republicans on the ACA. It was a waste of time as anyone should have easily seen. Obamacare was and is a Republican law. It's a matter of historical fact.
It's only nonsense to you because you don't agree with Cruz's views and do agree with Reid.

How do we know that those appropriations bills wouldn't have passed? Majority Leader Reid's refusal to let them come to the floor for a vote certainly was obstructionism. In this particular case look at the politics. Republicans were being portrayed by Democrats and the much of the media as the lunkheads who wanted to shut down the government. It was never true.

They passed individual appropriation bills in the House of Representatives that would fund every part of the government except the Affordable Care Act. Harry Reid had a dilemma. He could either shelve the bills (which he did) or let them come to the floor for a vote. The problem is that letting them come to the floor for a vote would have exposed the Democrat lie for what it was. Democrats would either have to vote for the appropriations that would keep the government open or, vote against the appropriations and shut the government down. Either way the lie would be exposed and Democrats would have to go on the record with their votes. Reid made a political calculation and aided by the wildly successful public relations campaign the Democrats have run in recent years against Republicans, he won. Most people I think actually believe that Republicans wanted to shut down the government. Harry Reid's actions were not only obstructionism, they were deceitful.

As far as President Obama trying to compromise, that's nonsense. One after the other Republican plans were scrapped by Democrats. I seem to remember shortly after his second inauguration the president telling Republicans something like "I will listen to Republican ideas but elections have consequences and I won". To me that is not the spirit of compromise. That's the historical fact.

Level 7

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#490 Nov 19, 2013
Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
It's only nonsense to you because you don't agree with Cruz's views and do agree with Reid.
How do we know that those appropriations bills wouldn't have passed? Majority Leader Reid's refusal to let them come to the floor for a vote certainly was obstructionism. In this particular case look at the politics. Republicans were being portrayed by Democrats and the much of the media as the lunkheads who wanted to shut down the government. It was never true.
They passed individual appropriation bills in the House of Representatives that would fund every part of the government except the Affordable Care Act. Harry Reid had a dilemma. He could either shelve the bills (which he did) or let them come to the floor for a vote. The problem is that letting them come to the floor for a vote would have exposed the Democrat lie for what it was. Democrats would either have to vote for the appropriations that would keep the government open or, vote against the appropriations and shut the government down. Either way the lie would be exposed and Democrats would have to go on the record with their votes. Reid made a political calculation and aided by the wildly successful public relations campaign the Democrats have run in recent years against Republicans, he won. Most people I think actually believe that Republicans wanted to shut down the government. Harry Reid's actions were not only obstructionism, they were deceitful.
As far as President Obama trying to compromise, that's nonsense. One after the other Republican plans were scrapped by Democrats. I seem to remember shortly after his second inauguration the president telling Republicans something like "I will listen to Republican ideas but elections have consequences and I won". To me that is not the spirit of compromise. That's the historical fact.
This is a waste of time. It's pure fantasy. First, you don't understand the funding mechanism of the ACA. Most of the ACA has specific sources of funding which lie outside the appropriations process. They were written into the law itself. That's why it continued to be funded despite the shut down. And beside the point, Reid knows his caucus. There was no support for the piecemeal spending bills which would have gutted the ACA and continued to shut down part of the government. Especially when the President would have vetoed any such measures anyway. However, there was broad support for keeping the government open and raising the debt ceiling. How do I know? Because as soon as Cruz and his loony ilk stopped filibustering those very measures, and as soon as Boehner allowed a vote in the House, they passed rather easily.

And as for Republicans not wanting to shut down the government, this is complete nonsense. Any number of these Tea Party loons were on record advocating that very thing (as well as default). It wasn't until the politics blew up in their faces did they then claim it was a "media" conspiracy. Some conspiracy. Simply reporting exactly what they said and did. And at least have the courage to stand behind what it is you did and advocated. Quit trying to blame others for your misguided actions.

Finally, what were all of those great Republican alternatives to the ACA? Allowing insurance companies to sell useless policies out of Guam? It's nothing more than a talking point. The ACA WAS a Republican law. The fact that they rejected their own law is a testament to their extremism, not Obama's failure to compromise.

Level 7

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#491 Nov 19, 2013
This is a waste of time. It's pure fantasy. First, you don't understand the funding mechanism of the ACA. Most of the ACA has specific sources of funding which lie outside the appropriations process. They were written into the law itself. That's why it continued to be funded despite the shut down. And beside the point, Reid knows his caucus. There was no support for the piecemeal spending bills which would have gutted the ACA and continued to shut down part of the government. Especially when the President would have vetoed any such measures anyway. However, there was broad support for keeping the government open and raising the debt ceiling. How do I know? Because as soon as Cruz and his loony ilk stopped filibustering those very measures, and as soon as Boehner allowed a vote in the House, they passed rather easily.

And as for Republicans not wanting to shut down the government, this is complete nonsense. Any number of these Tea Party loons were on record advocating that very thing (as well as default). It wasn't until the politics blew up in their faces did they then claim it was a "media" conspiracy. Some conspiracy. Simply reporting exactly what they said and did. And at least have the courage to stand behind what it is you did and advocated. Quit trying to blame others for your misguided actions.

Finally, what were all of those great Republican alternatives to the ACA? Allowing insurance companies to sell useless policies out of Guam? It's nothing more than a talking point. The ACA WAS a Republican law. The fact that they rejected their own law is a testament to their extremism, not Obama's failure to compromise.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Utica Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
matt sullivan 9 min Guardian 7
WHICH Assistant DA RESIGNIED over Utica Court W... 56 min KingAndrewCuomo 31
Utica: AG Lynch Isn't Concerned 1 hr SlobSmith 3
Why was Louis Brindisi charged with harassment ... 1 hr SlobSmith 12
Most over and under rated restaurants...a poll 1 hr SlobSmith 49
Why is DA McNamara's office investigated for co... 1 hr SlobSmith 57
All lives matter March this Saturday July 30th 2 hr Responsible white... 11

Utica Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Utica Mortgages