Words are going out that something is in the works.
Each side is getting something they want, plus an extension on the budget and the DL.
It all depends on how crazy the Republican's demand is.
US Federal Government Shutdown | Shutdown Shutdown, Debt Ceiling Raised
- Thread starter Jarmel
- Start date
- Status
Words are going out that something is in the works.
Each side is getting something they want, plus an extension on the budget and the DL.
It all depends on how crazy the Republican's demand is.
As part of the prep for the shutdown all federal employees had to update/confirm thier personal contact info so that their office can call them back to work. If the employee does not show when ordered, the employee can be labeled AWOL and put on leave without pay. So, say the bill gets signed by the president on Wednesday, depending on the time, the agency may well notify all employees to return to work the next day. The very worst case scenario, if a deal gets done before default, would be employees return Monday, but if there is a deal, it's likely that employees will return Thursday or Friday.
I'm not worried about my property value (I live in a land locked downtown where the supply will never meet the demand), I'm worried about the company I work for. Another economic recession means slower business, which means less sales, which means less money in my pocket, or even worse, layoff. 2008 hit the company I work for quite hard and they had to layoff 20% of staff.
Also when I was talking about China's stability, I meant politically, not economically. The world's economic superpowers are all in precarious financial positions (US, EU, and China). I rather have just 1 part of the problem, not 2 (economic and political).
Angry Fork
Member
I'd say the problem is that it does, and there is no form of direct democracy. This is the result.
Fair enough about the house, but politically what do you think will happen if the Chinese government for some reason can't deliver the economic performance it had in the past?
Not break down to a government shutdown and potential default on it's debts?
If they have an 08 level crisis as the world economic leader what would be the difference? On top of that they couldn't vote their politicians out. They'd either be violently removed or the gov would crack down on their citizens.
I seen the "put down the Quran" video this morning on CNN... I'm legit worried that someone is gonna try to kill the President.
The language used by those particular Tea Partiers is offensive and worrying. If anything like that happens to Obama, I might lose whaever faith I have left in this country...
The language used by those particular Tea Partiers is offensive and worrying. If anything like that happens to Obama, I might lose whaever faith I have left in this country...
He had several attempts on his life in his first few months of office.
Takamura-San
Member
The more scarier part is that the Republican Party is not denouncing them.
Armoured Priest
Member
For what its worth, anybody with any semblance of sanity knows that they would prefer to deal with Obama rather then Joe Biden. not saying Joe's crazy, but Obama has WAAAYYY more restraint.
wsoxfan1214
Banned
Link?
The scarier part is that they control the Republican Party.
Trent Strong
Banned
Sounds like they're going to reach an agreement soon. Probably would have reached one today if that meeting hadn't been delayed. They'll probably reach one by tomorrow, but definitely before the 17th.
Nightstick11
Banned
Every time I find myself wondering whether we should implement some sort of literacy test requirement for voting or a minimum-competency level, I realize there are others who would twist such a requirement into disenfranchising citizens for racist and/or other hideous reasons.
However, I think it's clear that a bicameral legislature is too easy to hobble. What use does the House actually have? Especially if they periodically refuse to do their job? I wish an Octavian-like figure would do away with the nonsense of legislators.
However, I think it's clear that a bicameral legislature is too easy to hobble. What use does the House actually have? Especially if they periodically refuse to do their job? I wish an Octavian-like figure would do away with the nonsense of legislators.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
I never said that governments didn't conduct wars for the sake of resources or profit. But the oil industry having a vested stake in a prolonged engagement in Iraq is not the same thing as a cartel of bankers being responsible for said war. You have zero evidence for this posit, but you have the unfailing ability to create constellations out of stars that aren't visible even in the same hemisphere.
It is, of course, not impossible that something good for their profits was also in the best interest of the US. Andrew Jackson, for example, killed the Bank of the United States because he rode in on a wave of populist support, and the masses are naturally suspicious of any individual with control over large amounts of money. With historical perspective, though, it's not altogether clear that there was a tangible economic benefit to Jackson's decision, and I've read posits that it actually brought more instability to the economy. Perhaps bankers saw that their profits could be maximized by having a large central bank acting as a stabilizing force on monetary policy? This certainly seems more reasonable than the posit that there's a centuries-old conspiracy among bankers to, basically, rule the U.S.
As I say, dude - reverse vampires. I suppose it's not impossible that you're correct, but it would require significantly more proof (and more cohesive presentation of said proof) than you've provided to this point, in any of the arguments I've seen you engage in on this forum.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
I never heard this.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news...-11-17/obama-assassination-attempt/51271096/1
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_threats_against_Barack_Obama
Got the times wrong but yeah. It has happened.
I'm sure the people of Tibet would agree with you.
The more the Republicans do this, the less seats they'll have. Let them keep killing themselves and get nothing for it.
AnathemicOne
Banned
Some part of me wants to believe this but with shit like gerrymandering having no end in sight makes me doubt. What's not to say the parties (most notably the GOP) can't draw up some new bullshit lines on a map?
Why denounce the truth?!
Gerrymandering districts generally only leads to a 1 or 2 point lead. Meaningless when you're down 8+ points like Repubs are now.
You Are Viewtiful
Member
ThLunarian
Member
It might be interesting if it was required that a special college degree be earned before you can run for office. The curriculum could include courses about topics that are very important to know while governing, like economics, military science, etc.
theprodigy
Member
wouldn't do much, Ted Cruz came from Yale
You Are Viewtiful
Member
Sounds Orwellian.
Reminds me of the phenomenon of leading creationists specifically seeking legit science degrees in an attempt to give credence to their bullshit.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
The people that are politicians are already rich and "educated". All this would do would limit who could apply based on arbitrary requirements and limit it to only those with a degree.
It'd be like a voter ID law. Meant to exclude to prevent something that doesn't need to be prevented
ThLunarian
Member
Is it that different from requiring doctors to get a medical degree, or for requiring lawyers to get a law degree? I could see it actually being even more important in the case of holding national office.
Edit:
It would make it a lot harder for the rich and privileged who have no business actually holding public office to get the job, though. And even then, the curriculum would be full of useful information that would actually help people govern.
The requirements wouldn't have to be arbitrary. It's probably a very good idea for politicians to be specifically educated about economics, law, military science, finance, civics, and US history.
Punchy4486
Banned
Yes.
This kind of talk is terrible. Fighting crazy paranoia with crazy paranoia just lowers the level of discourse even further. Saying shit like this makes our side as bad as the Tea Party.
You Are Viewtiful
Member
1) How are you going to ensure that this program is going to be completely unbiased? What if it encourages would-be-politicians to be pro-establishment or pro-corporate? What then?
2) What about the people who can't afford a degree or were in a life situation that would make it difficult?
I think people have to realize is that, even with rules like this, politicians will more or less stay the same. Politicians in the 60s were not university educated. Are politicians today, who are mostly university educated, all that much better? Were politicians who were elected during Jim Crow era better than the ones we have today?
You have to make the process more democratic, not less. That starts with getting rid of gerrymandering and probably introducing some proportional system. As it is, Republicans have to be full-on stupid to not get primary'd, that's the danger of safe Republican seats.
ThLunarian
Member
How is it different? Maybe I just haven't thought it through; I don't know. Educate me.
I'm not paranoid about anything; it was just an idea I had. What would be so bad about this idea?
First point: I don't know. Maybe this would ultimately be what makes this a bad idea.
Second point: Can't you also apply this logic to get rid all college degree requirements for all jobs?
SteveWinwood
Member
how do we know our doctors arent all pro life
It's a fundamental American right to vote whom ever they please into office, even idiots/extremists. The problem isn't the politicians, it's the electorate. Or more precisely, the uninformed electorate.
Punchy4486
Banned
You want to throw up limitations on who can or can't run for President specifically to prevent people you don't approve of becoming President.
Now let's say you had to pass a "Patriot Test". Still a good idea?
Good intentions or ideals can be abused, just like how the Voter Id laws being introduced in southern states are not so subtly designed to prevent minorities and college students from voting.
It's also counter to the ideal that any American citizen can become the President if elected by the people, and actively seeks to limit the public's options. Don't blame assholes for becoming politicians. Blame assholes for voting for assholes.
Beaniedude
Member
So how goes America then? Is the government back up and running yet?
I'm actually surprised there haven't been any riots yet.
I'm actually surprised there haven't been any riots yet.
ThLunarian
Member
Running for office and voting are two very different things. People who run for office have a real job to perform, and it would be useful for them to actually know about the topics they'll have to deal with every day.
You're damn right I don't approve of a person becoming president if he's Joe Blow from down the street and doesn't know the first thing about basic civics, or economics, or whatever else.
I'm not talking about an indoctrination program here. Just one that teaches facts about how things work.
Riots could happen if we hit the debt limit.
Another Great Depression could happen if we don't raise the debt limit. So yeah, Check on us in a few days.
I don't think it will be that bad but it will be bad.
Punchy4486
Banned
And the point of an election is for the people to determine who is or isn't suited to that position. And for all our bluster, liberals tend to be much less passionate voters. The problem is with voters, not candidates. The system works if everyone takes part.
And a college degree rule is meaningless. Almost all, if not all, of the Republican and Democratic candidates in the past 20 years have been college-educated. So where do you set this limit? George Bush went to Yale and Harvard. Ted Cruz went to Princeton and Harvard. These are already our best schools. How do you determine someone has been "suitably educated"? If they believe what you believe?
If we don't up the debt limit he'll know and have bigger issues.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
One of the fundamental principles of democracy, though, is the ability for anyone, regardless of background, to (theoretically) win the support of the people and lead them. Now, of course, there are very real constraints on who actually can achieve such things - not many ex-convicts running for President, for example - but the underlying principle is that the people should be left to their own devices in terms of governing themselves.
I was referring to the composition of the Senate, where the few hundred thousand people in North Dakota get the same representation as the tens of millions in California. And how Democrats in the House received more votes in the 2012 election than the GOP, yet they are pretty deep in the minority; partly due to Dem voter concentration, but largely due to gerrymandering. Sure, we get to vote on them but the composition of either body does not represent the electorate of the US.
This may be what you meant by "no form of direct democracy", but I figured I'd clarify my meaning anyways.
Nobody really knows because the US has never defaulted before.
I guess we shall see when and if it happens, and i'm leaning towards when.
Slightly on topic, but I laughed way too long and hard at this:
http://imgur.com/gallery/OSmOOBY
It's better with the caption and I don't think that displays if I do a direct link to the picture.
http://imgur.com/gallery/OSmOOBY
It's better with the caption and I don't think that displays if I do a direct link to the picture.
The onion tells me we defaulted back in the 1870's because the president ordered 900,000 pizzas when he installed the white house's first phone.
- Status