Support NeoGAF

[aronnov reborn]

That's not what he said at all.

But "equality" means that churches should not be allowed to prevent a gay couple from marrying in a church. If they do, they should lose their tax-exempt status.

but if there's a separation of church and state how would the church's be required to show equality?

Their definition of marriage is different. sorry.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

That's not what he said at all.

But "equality" means that churches should not be allowed to prevent a gay couple from marrying in a church. If they do, they should lose their tax-exempt status.

Personally I think churches would be better off without their status. Sure, they may not be able to keep their building and there may not be as many congregations but they'd be much more free to do some of the things they want and should do, and less dependent upon the government and our tax dollars. But thats just my personal belief. Christianity has become so bloated since becoming THE most prevalent religion. So many of its members especially in this country take so much for granted and are focused on so much more than truly fulfilling the social actions laid down in the NT. But alas, thats another topic for another day.

 

[reilo]

but if there's a separation of church and state how would the church's be required to show equality?

Their definition of marriage is different. sorry.

Because as citizens of this sovereign nation, and as an organization that is tax-exempt from the federal government, it has to adhere to this thing we call a constitution that prohibits the discrimination based on gender, sex, color, or sexual orientation. Those laws and unalienable rights trump the "Separation of Church and State" argument. On the same line of thought, no laws shall be created upon religious ideology. Separation of Church and State goes both directions (hey, the irony!).

It's the same reason restaurants are not allowed to prevent black people from eating at their establishment anymore. It's more egregious that a church is allowed to do so based on their tax-exempt status.

But that's all a moot point since this nation and its elected governing body is full of bigots and hypocrites.

 

[speculawyer]

So separation of church and state...but we should force churches to recognize gay marriage? I'm not sure I see your point.

Are you really this dense? C'mon.

 

[speculawyer]

That's not what he said at all.

But "equality" means that churches should not be allowed to prevent a gay couple from marrying in a church. If they do, they should lose their tax-exempt status.

Wat?

They can't prevent them from being married in *a* church but they can decline to perform gay marriages in their own church.

 

[aronnov reborn]

Because as citizens of this sovereign nation, and as an organization that is tax-exempt from the federal government, it has to adhere to this thing we call a constitution that prohibits the discrimination based on gender, sex, color, or sexual orientation. Those laws and unalienable rights trump the "Separation of Church and State" argument. On the same line of thought, no laws shall be created upon religious ideology. Separation of Church and State goes both directions (hey, the irony!).

It's the same reason restaurants are not allowed to prevent black people from eating at their establishment anymore. It's more egregious that a church is allowed to do so based on their tax-exempt status.

But that's all a moot point since this nation and its elected governing body is full of bigots and hypocrites.

So do they have to adhere to those rules when naming deacons/member positions and staff for the church as well?

more and more like no separation at all if that's the case.

 

[reilo]

Wat?

They can't prevent them from being married in *a* church but they can decline to perform gay marriages in their own church.

Yes, certainly. Just like they can't prevent black people from being in a church.

So do they have to adhere to those rules when naming deacons/member positions and staff for the church as well?

more and more like no separation at all if that's the case.

They can name whoever they want, but if found out that they kicked out a deacon/member of position because of their sexual orientation, they should lose their tax-exempt status and incur whatever other penalties under the letter of the law because that's discrimination.

Religious freedom is no excuse for bigotry.

It's the same reason we don't allow religious institutions to stage mass suicides and exorcisms.

 

[Manmademan]

That's not what he said at all.

But "equality" means that churches should not be allowed to prevent a gay couple from marrying in a church. If they do, they should lose their tax-exempt status.

I disagree here completely.

you want to get married in a church, you have to abide by the rules of that religion. If that religion says homosexuality is a sin, then you'll just have to find one that says otherwise.

And I'm saying this as an atheist. What you're saying is equivalent to "if churches don't want to marry atheists, then they should lose their tax exempt status." which is outright lunacy. No Atheist in their right mind would consider this reasonable. The price I pay for thinking as I do is that I give up the benefit of church weddings. period.

Legalize civil unions and everyone who doesn't want to subscribe to church rules has an alternative, and that's good enough, IMO.

 

[reilo]

I disagree here completely.

you want to get married in a church, you have to abide by the rules of that religion. If that religion says homosexuality is a sin, then you'll just have to find one that says otherwise.

And I'm saying this as an atheist. What you're saying is equivalent to "if churches don't want to marry atheists, then they should lose their tax exempt status." which is outright lunacy. No Atheist in their right mind would consider this reasonable. The price I pay for thinking as I do is that I give up the benefit of church weddings. period.

Legalize civil unions and everyone who doesn't want to subscribe to church rules has an alternative, and that's good enough, IMO.

I disagree.

I don't see "religious freedom" as a good enough reason as to why we should tolerate bigotry, and on top of that give them tax-exempt status.

 

[Suikoguy]

I disagree here completely.

you want to get married in a church, you have to abide by the rules of that religion. If that religion says homosexuality is a sin, then you'll just have to find one that says otherwise.

And I'm saying this as an atheist. What you're saying is equivalent to "if churches don't want to marry atheists, then they should lose their tax exempt status." which is outright lunacy. No Atheist in their right mind would consider this reasonable. The price I pay for thinking as I do is that I give up the benefit of church weddings. period.

Legalize civil unions and everyone who doesn't want to subscribe to church rules has an alternative, and that's good enough, IMO.

Either let everybody marry, or everybody get a civil union.

 

[Oblivion]

I disagree here completely.

you want to get married in a church, you have to abide by the rules of that religion. If that religion says homosexuality is a sin, then you'll just have to find one that says otherwise.

And I'm saying this as an atheist. What you're saying is equivalent to "if churches don't want to marry atheists, then they should lose their tax exempt status." which is outright lunacy. No Atheist in their right mind would consider this reasonable. The price I pay for thinking as I do is that I give up the benefit of church weddings. period.

Legalize civil unions and everyone who doesn't want to subscribe to church rules has an alternative, and that's good enough, IMO.

But...it's not unreasonable to think that atheists wouldn't care too much about being married in a church, but with the gays, you do have cases where they ARE Christian as well.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

I disagree.

I don't see "religious freedom" as a good enough reason as to why we should tolerate bigotry, and on top of that give them tax-exempt status.

What if a church didn't accept the tax exemption status. Would you be alright with them refusing to serve, elect, marry individuals based on race, gender, etc?

But...it's not unreasonable to think that atheists wouldn't care too much about being married in a church, but with the gays, you do have cases where they ARE Christian as well.

Those who believe that homosexuality is a sin would disagree.

 

[Dude Abides]

I disagree.

I don't see "religious freedom" as a good enough reason as to why we should tolerate bigotry, and on top of that give them tax-exempt status.

Are you suggesting that a Pentacostal church, for example, should be legally required to have one of its pastors solemnize or certify a same-sex marriage? Or just that they should lose tax-exempt status?

 

[Manmademan]

I disagree.

I don't see "religious freedom" as a good enough reason as to why we should tolerate bigotry, and on top of that give them tax-exempt status.

I disagree that churches refusing to perform gay marriages is always bigotry. If you seriously consider the bible to be the 100% infallible word of god, and the interpretation of your religion is that it says homosexuality is a sin, then that's not bigotry, that's a matter of faith.

Should catholics be forced to perform weddings for muslims, buddhists, hindus, or atheists who reject the fundamental principles the religion is based on? Of course not. That's an issue of religious freedom, and those churches should be free to practice their religion in the way they see fit, as long as it does not intrude on the rights of others.

For the same reasons, churches should not be forced to perform weddings for homosexuals, if that church determines that homosexuality violates a fundamental principle of the faith. Don't try to label everything as "bigotry" here, because it's not that simple.

But...it's not unreasonable to think that atheists wouldn't care too much about being married in a church, but with the gays, you do have cases where they ARE Christian as well.

of course there are. and those gays have a decision to make. Is defining oneself as a homosexual the most important thing for them? or is it following the church's interpretation of the word of god? If the church's official teachings are that what you are is sinful and something to be ashamed of and you choose not to leave and find a faith that says otherwise, then you have only yourself to blame.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

I disagree that churches refusing to perform gay marriages is always bigotry. If you seriously consider the bible to be the 100% infallible word of god, and the interpretation of your religion is that it says homosexuality is a sin, then that's not bigotry, that's a matter of faith.

Should catholics be forced to perform weddings for muslims, buddhists, hindus, or atheists who reject the fundamental principles the religion is based on? Of course not. That's an issue of religious freedom, and those churches should be free to practice their religion in the way they see fit, as long as it does not intrude on the rights of others.

For the same reasons, churches should not be forced to perform weddings for homosexuals, if that church determines that homosexuality violates a fundamental principle of the faith. Don't try to label everything as "bigotry" here, because it's not that simple.

Just because something is a matter of faith doesn't mean it isn't bigoted.

My wife doesn't believe in gay marriage but her best friend is gay. I wouldn't consider her a bigot. There are others who are bigots and whose justification for disliking a gay person is their religion.

 

[reilo]

What if a church didn't accept the tax exemption status. Would you be alright with them refusing to serve, elect, marry individuals based on race, gender, etc?

Sure, just like any private establishment is allowed to do so. But if they do, they should face the repercussions, just like any organized group of individuals would.

Those who believe that homosexuality is a sin would disagree.

Those who believe that will use anything to justify their bigotry. Their "religion" just happens to be (as of now) a socially acceptable norm.

I disagree that churches refusing to perform gay marriages is always bigotry. If you seriously consider the bible to be the 100% infallible word of god, and the interpretation of your religion is that it says homosexuality is a sin, then that's not bigotry, that's a matter of faith.

Should catholics be forced to perform weddings for muslims, buddhists, hindus, or atheists who reject the fundamental principles the religion is based on? Of course not. That's an issue of religious freedom, and those churches should be free to practice their religion in the way they see fit, as long as it does not intrude on the rights of others.

For the same reasons, churches should not be forced to perform weddings for homosexuals, if that church determines that homosexuality violates a fundamental principle of the faith. Don't try to label everything as "bigotry" here, because it's not that simple.

Those who believe that will use anything to justify their bigotry.

It's bigotry. Bigotry is not a gray-area definition.

 

[speculawyer]

Yes, certainly. Just like they can't prevent black people from being in a church.

Actually . . . I'm pretty sure you can. (Again, not "a" church but your private church.)

 

[bodyofanamerican]

Whats this talk of Obama agreeing to a short term debt ceiling deal?

He'll agree ONLY if it means giving enough time to pass the Go6 through both houses, but not for any other reason.

 

[Manmademan]

Just because something is a matter of faith doesn't mean it isn't bigoted.

And it doesn't mean that it IS, either. the previous poster is attempting to paint all examples where the church refuses to marry gays as "bigotry", when it isn't that simple.

for some, when it comes to the word of god versus someone they love or respect, God will win out every time- because their love and/or fear of God and his word is greater.

"THEY MUST BE BIGOTS THEN!" is extremely close minded thinking.

My wife doesn't believe in gay marriage but her best friend is gay. I wouldn't consider her a bigot. There are others who are bigots and whose justification for disliking a gay person is their religion.

exactly. and I know plenty of people in the same boat. I even know Gay clergy. For some It's a very complex issue when it comes to what your faith says, and what you feel personally.

 

[reilo]

I'm going to quote a specific portion of Manmademan to highlight something:

churches should be free to practice their religion in the way they see fit, as long as it does not intrude on the rights of others.

Okay. Understood. Agreed.

For the same reasons, churches should not be forced to perform weddings for homosexuals, if that church determines that homosexuality violates a fundamental principle of the faith. Don't try to label everything as "bigotry" here, because it's not that simple.

Wait, what the fuck? No, not the same reasons.

I'm going to expand my thoughts on this subject back to the original point of this discussion (civil unions versus marriage under the letter of the law), and summarize it in as succinct way as I possibly can:

Denying the legal right for gay people to marry under the guise of "religious freedom" is a violation of "Separation of Church and State" and directly intrudes upon that group's rights. The problem here is, that we have a pool of elected officials that are using the argument that their "religious beliefs" do not allow them to vote for ratifying same-sex marriage under the letter of the law.

That, in no simpler terms, is directly infringing upon that group's inalienable rights. It is discrimination and bigotry. I don't care if your religion tells you otherwise, the moment you actively try to prevent another person from pursuing their right to happiness, you are discriminating against them. The caveat being, as always, that the pursuit of happiness of that person is not harming anybody else in the process.

"THEY MUST BE BIGOTS THEN!" is extremely close minded thinking.

No, "my God tells me it is a sin and it is wrong" is close-minded thinking.

 

[RustyNails]

He'll agree ONLY if it means giving enough time to pass the Go6 through both houses, but not for any other reason.

But that's like striking a deal with the devil. What if GOP reneges on it's offer to pass g06 bill in exchange for short term increase?

 

[Manmademan]

I'm going to quote a specific portion of Manmademan to highlight something:


Denying the legal right for gay people to marry under the guise of "religious freedom" is a violation of "Separation of Church and State" and directly intrudes upon that group's rights. The problem here is, that we have a pool of elected officials that are using the argument that their "religious beliefs" do not allow them to vote for ratifying same-sex marriage under the letter of the law.

here, I agree with you. but the LEGAL RIGHT to marry is an issue of the state, not something the church has any say over. It doesn't matter what religion you belong to- if the state does not recognize your right to marry and issue you a marriage license then you aren't, and you can't. What the church does is little more than window dressing on top of that.

Example: It doesn't matter if my church permits polygamy- the state won't permit it, and it's illegal, and I can't legally marry more than one woman at once or I go to jail.

That, in no simpler terms, is directly infringing upon that group's inalienable rights. It is discrimination and bigotry. I don't care if your religion tells you otherwise, the moment you actively try to prevent another person from pursuing their right to happiness, you are discriminating against them. The caveat being, as always, that the pursuit of happiness of that person is not harming anybody else in the process.

no, it isn't, since again that's an issue of civil union, not marriage.
If the state permits civil unions for everyone (and as an atheist, this is my only option unless I convert, which I won't) then everyone has equal rights under the law. The CHURCH has no say in anyone's inalienable rights.

so to be brief= my position (and the reality) is that all RIGHTS regarding marriage are an issue of the state, not the church. permit civil unions for everyone, this is a non issue.

If you want the window dressing of a church ceremony (which has nothing to do with rights or legality) on TOP of that, then you need to play ball by the rules of that religion, or do without.

 

[Kosmo]

I'm going to quote a specific portion of Manmademan to highlight something:


Okay. Understood. Agreed.

Wait, what the fuck? No, not the same reasons.

I'm going to expand my thoughts on this subject back to the original point of this discussion (civil unions versus marriage under the letter of the law), and summarize it in as succinct way as I possibly can:

Denying the legal right for gay people to marry under the guise of "religious freedom" is a violation of "Separation of Church and State" and directly intrudes upon that group's rights. The problem here is, that we have a pool of elected officials that are using the argument that their "religious beliefs" do not allow them to vote for ratifying same-sex marriage under the letter of the law.

That, in no simpler terms, is directly infringing upon that group's inalienable rights. It is discrimination and bigotry. I don't care if your religion tells you otherwise, the moment you actively try to prevent another person from pursuing their right to happiness, you are discriminating against them. The caveat being, as always, that the pursuit of happiness of that person is not harming anybody else in the process.


No, "my God tells me it is a sin and it is wrong" is close-minded thinking.

Politicians make decisions for all kinds of reasons - religion, a certain life experience, whatever. Separation of Church and State does not mean that politicians can not use their personal religious views, it simply means that Congress can not publicly endorse a religion or prohibit people from practicing their religion within the confines of the law (e.g. you aren't exempt from murder if your "religion" tells you to go around killing people.)

 

[reilo]

here, I agree with you. but the LEGAL RIGHT to marry is an issue of the state, not something the church has any say over. It doesn't matter what religion you belong to- if the state does not recognize your right to marry and issue you a marriage license then you aren't, and you can't. What the church does is little more than window dressing on top of that.

Example: It doesn't matter if my church permits polygamy- the state won't permit it, and it's illegal, and I can't legally marry more than one woman at once or I go to jail.



no, it isn't, since again that's an issue of civil union, not marriage.
If the state permits civil unions for everyone (and as an atheist, this is my only option unless I convert, which I won't) then everyone has equal rights under the law. The CHURCH has no say in anyone's inalienable rights.

so to be brief= my position (and the reality) is that all RIGHTS regarding marriage are an issue of the state, not the church. permit civil unions for everyone, this is a non issue.

If you want the window dressing of a church ceremony (which has nothing to do with rights or legality) on TOP of that, then you need to play ball by the rules of that religion, or do without.

Again, at that point the church should lose their tax-exempt status and do it in private and face any repercussions in a civil court -- where those matters would go to anyway unless there was criminal activity involved punishable under the law.

Politicians make decisions for all kinds of reasons - religion, a certain life experience, whatever. Separation of Church and State does not mean that politicians can not use their personal religious views, it simply means that Congress can not publicly endorse a religion or prohibit people from practicing their religion within the confines of the law (e.g. you aren't exempt from murder if your "religion" tells you to go around killing people.)

That hasn't stopped them now, has it?

 

[Oblivion]

Cantor's donors tell him to raise taxes:

Adding an unusual twist to the political maneuvering, GOP aides say that wealthy donors have approached Cantor to push tax increases. […]

A few wealthy donors have called Cantor to tell him they wouldn’t mind if their taxes are raised. During two closed meetings this week — one with vote-counting lawmakers, and another with the entire conference — Cantor told colleagues that some well-heeled givers have told them they’re willing to pay more taxes. Cantor, according to an aide, has responded that House Republicans aren’t standing up for the wealthy, but rather for the middle class, who want to see their taxes stay low.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/59422.html

BigSicily found crying in his apartment, while watching Hannity and eating Häagen-Dazs ice cream.

 

[GhaleonEB]

My very successful employer is going to slow down hiring for the rest of the year due to economic uncertainty created by the debt ceiling standoff.

Thanks for the laser-like focus on jobs, Republicans.

 

[Manmademan]

Again, at that point the church should lose their tax-exempt status and do it in private and face any repercussions in a civil court -- where those matters would go to anyway unless there was criminal activity involved punishable under the law.

Why should the church lose their tax exempt status? If the church treats everyone who follows their rules equally, there's no grounds for this.

Choose not to follow their rules? that's fine, but you lose the benefit of membership. This is true for nearly all private organizations, not just churches.

 

[Veezy]

Cantor's donors tell him to raise taxes:



http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/59422.html

BigSicily found crying in his apartment, while watching Hannity and eating Häagen-Dazs ice cream.

But I thought the tax increases Obama is proposing are for the top earners, right?

So, if I'm correct, he's full of shit, right?

 

[reilo]

Why should the church lose their tax exempt status? If the church treats everyone who follows their rules equally, there's no grounds for this.

Choose not to follow their rules? that's fine, but you lose the benefit of membership. This is true for nearly all private organizations, not just churches.

Because a churches "rules" do not supersede the Bill of Rights.

 

[Manmademan]

Because a churches "rules" do not supersede the Bill of Rights.

I'm not sure you understand.

Church rules have nothing to do with legal rights. Churches cannot grant, nor take away any rights by marriage or any other process. getting married in a church grants zero legal rights for straight couples. That comes with the marriage license that the state issues.

Any and all discussion of "rights" is limited to the state and federal government, and civil unions.

If your issue is that some politicians are using religion as an excuse not to permit the state to authorize civil unions for same sex couples, then that's a completely separate issue and unrelated to "getting married in a church."

 

[Kosmo]

Because a churches "rules" do not supersede the Bill of Rights.

They are also prevented from endorsing political candidates either financially or from the pulpit.

 

[reilo]

I'm not sure you understand.

Church rules have nothing to do with legal rights. Churches cannot grant, nor take away any rights by marriage or any other process. getting married in a church grants zero legal rights for straight couples. That comes with the marriage license that the state issues.

Any and all discussion of "rights" is limited to the state and federal government, and civil unions.

If your issue is that some politicians are using religion as an excuse not to permit the state to authorize civil unions for same sex couples, then that's a completely separate issue and unrelated to "getting married in a church."

Yes, but the moment you receive tax-exempt status, you should adhere to the letter of the law as well, and that includes being prohibited from preaching anti-discriminatory practices. In the same vein, churches are not allowed to endorse any politician because of that tax-exempt status.

 

[Manmademan]

Yes, but the moment you receive tax-exempt status, you should adhere to the letter of the law as well, and that includes being prohibited from preaching anti-discriminatory practices. In the same vein, churches are not allowed to endorse any politician because of that tax-exempt status.

Those are two completely separate issues. They can't endorse political candidates, but they CAN refuse membership to those that don't follow their rules or meet their criteria.

Should the girl scouts lose their tax exempt status for not admitting males? serious question.

 

[reilo]

Those are two completely separate issues. They can't endorse political candidates, but they CAN refuse membership to those that don't follow their rules or meet their criteria.

Again, then they should lose their tax-exempt status if they want to practice that behavior.

Should the girl scouts lose their tax exempt status for not admitting males? serious question.

They should if they teach the girls that men are evil and being in contact and acting like them will send you to hell.

 

[Plinko]

Poll: Americans want compromise on debt

while almost 70 percent of independents want Republican leaders to do the same.

And herein lies the problem for the Republicans in the next election.

 

[Manmademan]

Again, then they should lose their tax-exempt status if they want to practice that behavior.

since the law doesn't say that, there's no grounds for removing it.

They should if they teach the girls that men are evil and being in contact and acting like them will send you to hell.

what they choose to teach is an issue of free speech. Ever hear of "I disagree with what you say, but defend to the death your right to say it?" Just because you find their message objectionable, doesn't mean they're not within their legal rights to say it.

 

[polyh3dron]

Just because something is a matter of faith doesn't mean it isn't bigoted.

My wife doesn't believe in gay marriage but her best friend is gay. I wouldn't consider her a bigot. There are others who are bigots and whose justification for disliking a gay person is their religion.

What does your wife's best friend think about her thinking that said friend shouldn't be able to be married?

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Either let everybody marry, or everybody get a civil union.

but but that means people will want to marry animals!

What does your wife's best friend think about her thinking that said friend shouldn't be able to be married?

Yeah, I know this girl who wouldn't date a black guy, but is friends with black people. She also doesn't believe in gay marriage, yet has a really good friend who is gay. Seems a bit of backwards logic.

 

[reilo]

since the law doesn't say that, there's no grounds for removing it.



what they choose to teach is an issue of free speech. Ever hear of "I disagree with what you say, but defend to the death your right to say it?" Just because you find their message objectionable, doesn't mean they're not within their legal rights to say it.

It's not an issue of free speech if you're goddman tax-exempt. They can't have their cake and eat it, too. It's hypocritical and downright discriminatory.

 

[bodyofanamerican]

But that's like striking a deal with the devil. What if GOP reneges on it's offer to pass g06 bill in exchange for short term increase?

I...honestly do not have a good answer for that. Just what I read. Sorry! :-/

 

[Tamanon]

Realistically, churches shouldn't be tax-exempt to begin with.

 

[Chichikov]

Cantor's donors tell him to raise taxes:



http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/59422.html

BigSicily found crying in his apartment, while watching Hannity and eating Häagen-Dazs ice cream.

I think you're reading that story wrong.
The GOP doesn't tend to have these types of leaks unless they want them (and if they do get leaked, they have no problem denying or crying that they were taken out of context).
I think this is the GOP trying to distance themselves from image of the party that only care about the rich, probably on the heels of polls like that.

 

[Kosmo]

It's not an issue of free speech if you're goddman tax-exempt. They can't have their cake and eat it, too. It's hypocritical and downright discriminatory.

Should we tax charities as well?

 

[Wall]

My very successful employer is going to slow down hiring for the rest of the year due to economic uncertainty created by the debt ceiling standoff.

Thanks for the laser-like focus on jobs, Republicans.

I was afraid of this. Before the whole debt ceiling debate got going, everyone was blaming the slowing labor market and economy on world events like the Japanese tsunami and the oil crises. Now that the debt ceiling debate is in the news, everyone is blaming, and will blame, the slowing economy and lackluster employment numbers on a loss of confidence caused by the deadlock over raising the debt ceiling. Even assuming we raise the debt ceiling (I agree not raising it would be catastrophic and would cause unemployment), I anticipate people will continue to blame the poor economic performance on either a lingering "lack of confidence" or a failure to reach a budget deal that satisfies some desired level of cuts to the deficit.

In reality, although I'm sure the debacle over raising the debt ceiling does not help - it certaining doesn't fill me with confidence - the slowing economy and rising unemployment rate is entirely consistent with expectations based on the idea that the ending of the stimulus and continued cuts to governement services and layoffs of government employees are creating a drag on economic growth and employment, especially considering the fact that the anticipated "handoff" to private sector job market growth is not occuring. I don't see any reason for this to change considering there does not appear to me to be something that is the equivalent to the internet or the broader tech revolution to ignite an economic boom. Even in the best case we would only be looking at "normal" private sector job growth, but I don't see any way that we could possibly reach that as long as people don't have the money to buy the neccessary goods and services to sustain that growth either because the do not have a job, are underemployed, or are spending their money repaying debts such as mortages that they cannot really afford or student loans.

It almost makes me buy the President's argument that progressives should accept a "grand bargain" on the debt, even on Republican terms, if only to remove it as a topic of discussion and as a possible excuse for continued lackluster employment and economic growth. I would feel better, though, if the deal didn't include cuts to the benefits of social programs that hurt people and imperile the relection prospects of Democrats, the changes to the tax code didn't look like a simple tax cut for high earners even beyond the Bush tax cuts, caps that constrain the government from further stimulating the economy weren't included, and I felt some sort of assurance from the President that he would enact further stimulus and other elements of his original agenda if given the political opportunity.

 

[Chichikov]

My very successful employer is going to slow down hiring for the rest of the year due to economic uncertainty created by the debt ceiling standoff.

Thanks for the laser-like focus on jobs, Republicans.

All according to plan.

 

[speculawyer]

My very successful employer is going to slow down hiring for the rest of the year due to economic uncertainty created by the debt ceiling standoff.

Thanks for the laser-like focus on jobs, Republicans.

Yeah, and they are the ones who were endlessly whining about 'uncertainty' stopping businesses from the investing. They hypocrisy never ends.

 

[Kosmo]

My very successful employer is going to slow down hiring for the rest of the year due to economic uncertainty created by the debt ceiling standoff.

Thanks for the laser-like focus on jobs, Republicans.

Who passed those budgets the last 2 years that put us right up to the debt ceiling?

 

[gcubed]

Who passed those budgets the last 2 years that put us right up to the debt ceiling?

Please no

 

[Oblivion]

Who passed those budgets the last 2 years that put us right up to the debt ceiling?

Which clearly gives the Reps the right to take the world economy hostage, of course.

 

[Clevinger]

Who passed those budgets the last 2 years that put us right up to the debt ceiling?

The debt ceiling was raised 7 times under Bush, 17 times under Reagan. Every president and party has brought us right up to the debt ceiling many times.