US Government Shutdown

[esmith]

Have we begun the next budget debate yet? Obama's approval ratings are so low, worms have to dig deeper burrows to get under them. He needs a diversion, in which to blame the Republicans.

All you have to look at is who the Democrats in the Senate have put forth to work with Congressman Ryan in the forthcoming budget talks and you will realize that the Democrats have absoultly zero intention of compromise.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

All you have to look at is who the Democrats in the Senate have put forth to work with Congressman Ryan in the forthcoming budget talks and you will realize that the Democrats have absoultly zero intention of compromise.

Obama's Approval Rating Dipped Into Dangerously Low Territory Yesterday
Brett LoGiurato

Dec. 4, 2013, 9:17 AM 9,117 18
AP

"For the first time in his presidency on Tuesday, President Barack Obama's approval rating sunk below 40% in the Real Clear Politics average of eight prominent polls.

"It's the latest in a series of approval-ratings lows for the president over the past few weeks, as problems with the Affordable Care Act's rollout have lingered into another month. In individual polls, his approval rating has dipped below the 40% level, but the average of these polls confirms what is, for Obama, an unwelcome trend into dangerous territory..."

Read more: Obama Approval Rating Slips Below 40% In RCP Average - Business Insider

Three more years?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

All you have to look at is who the Democrats in the Senate have put forth to work with Congressman Ryan in the forthcoming budget talks and you will realize that the Democrats have absoultly zero intention of compromise.

I haven't read Ryan's new budget. But he has never proposed a sensible or even plausable budget in the past.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Obama's Approval Rating Dipped Into Dangerously Low Territory Yesterday
Brett LoGiurato

Dec. 4, 2013, 9:17 AM 9,117 18
AP

"For the first time in his presidency on Tuesday, President Barack Obama's approval rating sunk below 40% in the Real Clear Politics average of eight prominent polls.

"It's the latest in a series of approval-ratings lows for the president over the past few weeks, as problems with the Affordable Care Act's rollout have lingered into another month. In individual polls, his approval rating has dipped below the 40% level, but the average of these polls confirms what is, for Obama, an unwelcome trend into dangerous territory..."

Read more: Obama Approval Rating Slips Below 40% In RCP Average - Business Insider

Three more years?

Yet his approval is higher than the GOP and Congress on a whole.....:sad:

But what does it really matter...It didn't make a difference when 80 to 90% of the people favoured background checks on guns....or an other of the high poll numbers share by the people the GOP seem to ignore....

 

[esmith]

I haven't read Ryan's new budget. But he has never proposed a sensible or even plausable budget in the past.

Of course that is an opinion that may not be held by everyone. As some say "we do not have an revenue problem, we have a spending problem".
In addition we keep hearing from Obama supporters that the Democrats economic program is working. They tout the drop in the unemployment percentage as proof of this, when in actuality the real unemployment figures rose from 13.6% in Sept to 13.8% in Oct.

'Real' Unemployment: 13.8% | CNS News

The majority of jobs created under the Obama administration were part time or low paying or both. The data from July of this year is basically what the entire job growth under Obama is.

Part-Time Work Made Up More Than 65 Percent Of New Jobs Created In July
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/31/business/majority-of-new-jobs-pay-low-wages-study-finds.html?_r=0

 

[BlandOatmeal]

I haven't read Ryan's new budget. But he has never proposed a sensible or even plausable budget in the past.

A sensible budget is one that gets passed. Obama seems to have never known that. It's called compromise.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

Yet his approval is higher than the GOP and Congress on a whole.....:sad:

But what does it really matter...It didn't make a difference when 80 to 90% of the people favoured background checks on guns....or an other of the high poll numbers share by the people the GOP seem to ignore....

Congress is not up for re-election in the Spring; they are up for primaries; and the candidate who caters the most to his constituency wins. If Obama wants to keep on playing partisan politics, it will come around and smack him in the fanny in the Fall. The more people see of this "affordable" care act, and what it really amounts to, the more the Republicans are justified for trying to replace it with something that works.

By the way, most Democrats may be interested in protecting the new morality and their pet entitlement programs; but others are actually concerned about other things -- like Obama's utter destruction of American foreign policy, an unprecedented Big Brother intrusiveness, an abysmal failure to allow MEANINGFUL improvement in jobs and income, and a social agenda that is bogged down in bureaucracy. Obama promised his people the moon, then bent over, pulled down his pants and gave it to them. Meanwhile, the Chinese are going to the REAL moon while our national defense is being mothballed for lack of funds. If Obama wants to put a monkeywrench in the machinery of government again this Spring, as seems likely, he will pull many Dem candidates down with it.

By the way, I don't think it's any coincidence, that Obama's troubles coincide with his betrayal of Israel.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Congress is not up for re-election in the Spring; they are up for primaries; and the candidate who caters the most to his constituency wins.

They're not up for re-election in the spring but they are up for re-election nonetheless. Yes, Republicans, as usual, will out do each other to see how far they can run to the far right....It's already started. So congress is up for re-election but the President ain't...

If Obama wants to keep on playing partisan politics, it will come around and smack him in the fanny in the Fall.

The fact of the matter is...he is a partisan. He is a Democrat but is President of the whole US. Pick an agenda that he's been promoting that isn't back by a majority of the American people...In many instances he has the backing of a majority of conservatives....then again..he's not running for anything next year.

The more people see of this "affordable" care act, and what it really amounts to, the more the Republicans are justified for trying to replace it with something that works.

The fact of the matter is...it IS and WAS a Republican idea. Ask Mitt Romney....he knows even though he did what he could to run from his accomplishment in the election. Ask his running mate Paul Ryan. He knows the ideas will work. He's promoting it right now at his website as to what he wants to do with Medicare....

Medicare | U.S. Congressman Paul Ryan

The Medicare Exchange would provide all seniors with a competitive marketplace where they could chose a plan the same way members of Congress do. All plans, including the traditional fee-for-service option, would participate in an annual competitive bidding process to determine the dollar amount of the federal contribution seniors would use to purchase the coverage that best serves their medical needs. Health care plans would compete for the right to serve Medicare beneficiaries.



The second-least expensive approved plan or fee-for-service Medicare, whichever is least expensive, would establish the benchmark that determines the premium-support amount for the plan chosen by the senior. If a senior chose a costlier plan than the benchmark plan, he or she would be responsible for paying the difference between the premium subsidy and the monthly premium. Conversely, if that senior chose a plan that cost less than the benchmark, he or she would be given a rebate for the difference. Private health plans would be required to cover at least the actuarial equivalent of the benefit package provided by fee-for-service Medicare.



Program growth would be determined by the competitive bidding process – with choice and competition forcing providers to reduce costs and improve quality for seniors. The competitive market for Medicare choices would foster innovation and quality while ensuring that the program is financially stable. As opposed to pegging the growth rate to a predetermined formula, competitive bidding offers the ideal means of harnessing the power of choice and competition to control costs, while also securing guaranteed affordability for patients. As a backup, the per capita cost once the program has begun could not exceed not exceed nominal GDP growth plus 0.5 percent. The President has repeatedly proposed empowering IPAB to hold Medicare growth to the same rate; the difference is that this budget proposes to use competition to control costs.



All health plans that participate in the Medicare Exchange, including the traditional Medicare option, would be required to offer insurance to all seniors – regardless of age and health status – thereby preventing insurers from cherry picking only the healthiest seniors for coverage under their plan. Additionally, the federal contribution to seniors’ health plans would be increased to account for a senior’s health status and age.



These reforms also ensure affordability by fixing the currently broken subsidy system and letting market competition work as a real check on widespread waste and skyrocketing health-care costs. Putting patients in charge of how their health care dollars are spent will force providers to compete against each other on price and quality. That’s how markets work: The customer is the ultimate guarantor of value.

Not a heck of a lot different than ObamaCare or RomneyCare....because both of those plans had help being designed by the same people and as you can clearly see from the Ryan Medicare plan......his is modelled the same way. So is it only doable because a Republican backs the plan....?

By the way, most Democrats may be interested in protecting the new morality and their pet entitlement programs; but others are actually concerned about other things -- like Obama's utter destruction of American foreign policy

What are you going on about. He hasn't lied us into a war like Bush/Cheney did. He went to Congress and the American people over Syria and as soon as Syria made move to have their chemical weapons independently destroyed and they agreed to regular inspections he let the process take it's course. We're no longer fighting Bush's Iraq War and actually have a plan and a date to get the heck out of the senseless Afghan war. Remember...these were two unfunded wars we actually have to pay for along with an unfunded Medicare Part D Republicans spearheaded.

He want's a chance at peace talks with Iran..but people like Republican Dunkan Hunter opened his mouth in a CSPAN interview talking about air bombing Iran with "tactical nukes"....in an attempt to prevent Iran from developing nukes...How STUPID is this man for even suggesting such a thing....I guess the irony was lost on him....

http://www.salon.com/2013/12/04/gop_rep_duncan_hunter_nuke_iran/

”I think if you have to hit Iran, you don’t put boots on the ground,” Hunter said. “You do it with tactical nuclear devices, and you set them back a decade or two or three.”

Michelle Bachmann wasn't too far behind him advocating the same thing. This is all these people know. They barely know how to govern and are ready for the next war.

http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/11/2...iggest-cudgel-to-prevent-israel-self-defense/

House Intelligence Committee member Michelle Bachmann said that Iran’s nuclear facilities “must be bombed.”


In a speech at a Zionist Organization of America gala on Sunday night, Bachmann said that the Geneva deal reached between Iran and world powers at the weekend will severely limit Israel’s ability to operate freely in the interests of its self defense.


Bachmann said, “It may be incumbent upon the Prime Minister to make a decision he has no desire to make, and that would be to bomb facilities, that must be bombed, in Iran.”

And you have the nerve to call out the President on foreign policy initiatives....Come on man!!!!

an unprecedented Big Brother intrusiveness

Correct. He shares a lot of blame for carrying on the previous administration's surveillance programs.

an abysmal failure to allow MEANINGFUL improvement in jobs and income,

He had a Veterans jobs bill that Republicans in the House shot down. He had an American Jobs Bill that they shot down as well as various other initiatives to get people back to work.....He's been talking about the income inequality gap since he became president. Just this week he was talking about this. Where have you been. He's been an advocate for raising the minimum wage....and the majority of Americans including conservatives are with him on this....again...where have you been?

 

[Reverend Rick]

He's been an advocate for raising the minimum wage....just like the majority of Americans including conservatives....again...where have you been?

Thats it? The solution for income inequality is kiddie jobs paying 10 or 15 an hour?

I actually feel your pain DP. You are clinging to an unpopular President just like I did with GWB.

Speaking of Bush, he and Laura will be flying together with Michelle and Barack in AF1 to South Africa next week for the funeral.

You never know, perhaps the left and the right might see something familiar in each other during the flight.

At the very least the Obama's might pick up that all Republicans are not racist.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Thats it? The solution for income inequality is kiddie jobs paying 10 or 15 an hour?

No...Actually there's more. I can provide you with a list if you're interested......:sad:

 

[esmith]

No...Actually there's more. I can provide you with a list if you're interested......:sad:

Well I don't want to speak for the Rev but fell free to expound your ideas on economic growth policies here in the United States.

 

[Jeremy Mason]

Thats it? The solution for income inequality is kiddie jobs paying 10 or 15 an hour?

Funny you should say that...

The Average Age of a Fast Food Worker in the United States Is..

 

[esmith]

Funny you should say that...

The Average Age of a Fast Food Worker in the United States Is..

and you wonder why the unemployment numbers for students are so low. Maybe if the Obama administration focused on why the real unemployment numbers are so bad vice harping on wealth redistribution those that are in entry level jobs would be able to find something other than those entry level jobs.

 

[Jeremy Mason]

and you wonder why the unemployment numbers for students are so low. Maybe if the Obama administration focused on why the real unemployment numbers are so bad vice harping on wealth redistribution those that are in entry level jobs would be able to find something other than those entry level jobs.

There's that price of college thing that forces younger people to delay secondary education.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I'm sorry guys, if your serious about economic equality we should have more skilled trade opportunities that pay 40 - 60 dollars an hour if you want families to buy a house, drive a nice car, have health insurance and other middle class stuff.

Lets leave the kiddie jobs with a wage that lets young folks get their foot in the door and open up opportunities for the older work force, (25 to 45) that consists of a real living wage.

 

[Jeremy Mason]

I'm sorry guys, if your serious about economic equality we should have more skilled trade opportunities that pay 40 - 60 dollars an hour if you want families to buy a house, drive a nice car, have health insurance and other middle class stuff.

But there isn't.

Lets leave the kiddie jobs with a wage that lets young folks get their foot in the door and open up opportunities for the older work force, (25 to 45) that consists of a real living wage.

Exploit the youth... That's your answer.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Of course that is an opinion that may not be held by everyone. As some say "we do not have an revenue problem, we have a spending problem".
In addition we keep hearing from Obama supporters that the Democrats economic program is working. They tout the drop in the unemployment percentage as proof of this, when in actuality the real unemployment figures rose from 13.6% in Sept to 13.8% in Oct.

'Real' Unemployment: 13.8% | CNS News

The majority of jobs created under the Obama administration were part time or low paying or both. The data from July of this year is basically what the entire job growth under Obama is.

Part-Time Work Made Up More Than 65 Percent Of New Jobs Created In July
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/31/business/majority-of-new-jobs-pay-low-wages-study-finds.html?_r=0

I am not referring to unemployment though I can get into a very heated debate about it if you'd like to make the thread.

My comments are about how he has never proposed a plan that doesn't gut programs to those in the highest need. None of his plans even begin to address the income inequality or fixing our economy. Its a short term fix to give a few people at the top more money for the future. Thats it. Nothing more and nothing less.

Tax cuts creating jobs is an unsupported myth.

A sensible budget is one that gets passed. Obama seems to have never known that. It's called compromise.

Weird how I didn't even mention Obama, Democrats or anything of the sort and you somehow managed to pull this into the debate. Are you per chance projecting onto me? I think you are.

Either way lets actually address your claim.

Please explain to me in an organized and coherent fashion exactly the points in Ryan's past or current plans that provide "compromise" of any kind.

 

[metis]

Raising the minimum wage does not cause jobs to be lost overall as study after study has confirmed, because most companies don't hire extra workers for the hell of it, but only what they need to depend on. Also, raising minimum wage helps to remove people from depending on government programs, and it has the effect of stimulating the economy at the local level, which is where you want it if pushing for overall growth.

To me, it's entirely hypocritical for so many on the right to argue against raising minimum wage and then turn around and complain about government spending.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, you know that we owe our tremendous diplomatic success to the millions we spend on
toney art & crystal champagne flutes.
(It certainly can't be that civil servants are addicted to the luxury & power of their stations.)

Gov weighs in to defend spending a fortune on art....
State Dept on back foot over $1 mln sculpture

"This piece was purchased under the market price after considerable negotiation with both the artist and the gallery. This is an important part of our diplomatic presence overseas," deputy State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said.
Abstract artist Scully, who became an American citizen in 1983, lives in New York and has twice been nominated for the prestigious Turner Prize.
The Art in Embassies program had "played a leading role in US public diplomacy" for the past 50 years, Harf said.
"Where we can promote cross-cultural understanding... we think that's a good use of our limited resources," Harf told journalists.
The State Department requested some $2.5 million for the 2013 program which is a public-private partnership involving 20,000 participants including artists, galleries and museums.

Does anyone else smell lame rationalization for justifying one's cushy government job of art collecting.
I recommend a change to save money & enhance diplomacy:
Decorate embassies with photos of tax money being put to peaceful purposes.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

I am not referring to unemployment though I can get into a very heated debate about it if you'd like to make the thread.

My comments are about how he has never proposed a plan that doesn't gut programs to those in the highest need. None of his plans even begin to address the income inequality or fixing our economy. Its a short term fix to give a few people at the top more money for the future. Thats it. Nothing more and nothing less.

Tax cuts creating jobs is an unsupported myth.

Weird how I didn't even mention Obama, Democrats or anything of the sort and you somehow managed to pull this into the debate. Are you per chance projecting onto me? I think you are.

Either way lets actually address your claim.

Please explain to me in an organized and coherent fashion exactly the points in Ryan's past or current plans that provide "compromise" of any kind.

I didn't mention Ryan; and what I said was completely coherent. Bye bye. :sleep: