US Senate votes to raise debt cap, reopen government

[willyumiii]

There are 1191 days until the US Presidential Inauguration Friday January 20, 2017, when all of the country's fiscal woes can be solved.

hillary clinton is going to immediately raise taxes, legalise all drugs and abolish the armed forces?

Yeah right!

And Obama is not a U.S. citizen and has a fake birth certificate!

Is this a preview of the GOP hog wash yet to come?

This is exactly the kind of childish crap that has destroyed the little credibility the GOP had left after the Chaney ( Little George ) administration.

Keep it up and there will not even be a GOP come the next Presidential election.

Yes, please keep it up kids!

Edited October 17, 2013 by willyumiii

[samran]

There are 1191 days until the US Presidential Inauguration Friday January 20, 2017, when all of the country's fiscal woes can be solved.

hillary clinton is going to immediately raise taxes, legalise all drugs and abolish the armed forces?

aye, the beauty of the republican primary process given the current active supporter base of the GOP. The only people who can win them are certifiable wing nuts...which mean they are totally unelectable nationally.

[SinglePot]

There are 1191 days until the US Presidential Inauguration Friday January 20, 2017, when all of the country's fiscal woes can be solved.

The future, Mr Gitts, the future.

Did ObamaCare fully cover the nose job?

[Scott]

Off-topic posts deleted. Please read the OP and stay on topic.

[samran]

Good morning guys.

Wow.

Can I make an observation from across the pond please?

I appreciate the concerns of seniors like chuckd who have paid into government spending programs big time long time.

I have done the same in the UK.

I also appreciate the point of view of many of the other posters who make the case for provision of basic human rights for the less well off.

My position on this: if I was an American I would support the concept of Obamacare or something very similar to it.

BUT. And this relates to the OP we are now discussing.

If government spending is wasted on inefficient systems, whether it's road building, refuse collection, healthcare or whatever, it is money down the drain.

I get the impression that some Obamacare money is not being spent in the most efficient way. I am not suggesting there is corruption but unless the actual healthcare service providers buy into the concept of high quality healthcare for all American citizens there will be profits made at the expense of hard earned government and chuckd's money.

We have seen this across the pond. NHS efficiency is on the government table every day. Adjustments and revisions, sometimes big changes are made by successive governments.

I make the case for the continuation of programs such as Obamacare for the good people of America. But the money needs to be spent wisely.

Good post.

One point to make though is that for whatever 'waste' people like to point to in terms of government provided health care, places like the UK and Australia spend approx 8%-9% of our national income (GDP) on health spending (for superior outcomes) versus the US where they spend 17% or so of GDP on health (for worse outcomes). That is nearly 1 in 5 dollars produced in the country spent on health.

Now, people like to retort "well taxes in the UK/Aus are SOOOO much higher than they US". Factually true (cause as nations, we choose to tax a little bit more to fund other initatives we as nations desire), but it misses the point.

Government intervention in healthcare brings down costs, for a variety or reasons, versus the free market, and produces superior outcomes (health outcomes, less money needed per head for the same outcomes). It is health economics 101.

Edited October 17, 2013 by samran

[Jingthing]

Yes there are fundamental problems but they are solvable rationally and radical anti-government movements like the tea party are not the answer.

[SinglePot]

Good morning guys.

Wow.

Can I make an observation from across the pond please?

I appreciate the concerns of seniors like chuckd who have paid into government spending programs big time long time.

I have done the same in the UK.

I also appreciate the point of view of many of the other posters who make the case for provision of basic human rights for the less well off.

My position on this: if I was an American I would support the concept of Obamacare or something very similar to it.

BUT. And this relates to the OP we are now discussing.

If government spending is wasted on inefficient systems, whether it's road building, refuse collection, healthcare or whatever, it is money down the drain.

I get the impression that some Obamacare money is not being spent in the most efficient way. I am not suggesting there is corruption but unless the actual healthcare service providers buy into the concept of high quality healthcare for all American citizens there will be profits made at the expense of hard earned government and chuckd's money.

We have seen this across the pond. NHS efficiency is on the government table every day. Adjustments and revisions, sometimes big changes are made by successive governments.

I make the case for the continuation of programs such as Obamacare for the good people of America. But the money needs to be spent wisely.

Good post.

One point to make though is that for whatever 'waste' people like to point to in terms of government provided health care, places like the UK and Australia spend approx 8%-9% of our national income (GDP) on health spending (for superior outcomes) versus the US where they spend 17% or so of GDP on health. That is nearly 1 in 5 dollars produced in the country spent on health.

Now, people like to retort "well taxes in the UK/Aus are SOOOO much higher than they US". Factually true (cause as nations, we choose to tax a little bit more to fund other initatives we as nations desire), but it misses the point.

Government intervention in healthcare brings down costs, for a variety or reasons, versus the free market, and produces superior outcomes (health outcomes, less money needed per head for the same outcomes). It is health economics 101.

17% of GDP on health in the US sounds like a helluva fcking lot.

In the UK go to a specialist he charges NHS rate. (To the health authority).

Go to the same specialist privately, he charges private rate. (To the insurance company or the patient if he is loaded).

[samran]

Good morning guys.

Wow.

Can I make an observation from across the pond please?

I appreciate the concerns of seniors like chuckd who have paid into government spending programs big time long time.

I have done the same in the UK.

I also appreciate the point of view of many of the other posters who make the case for provision of basic human rights for the less well off.

My position on this: if I was an American I would support the concept of Obamacare or something very similar to it.

BUT. And this relates to the OP we are now discussing.

If government spending is wasted on inefficient systems, whether it's road building, refuse collection, healthcare or whatever, it is money down the drain.

I get the impression that some Obamacare money is not being spent in the most efficient way. I am not suggesting there is corruption but unless the actual healthcare service providers buy into the concept of high quality healthcare for all American citizens there will be profits made at the expense of hard earned government and chuckd's money.

We have seen this across the pond. NHS efficiency is on the government table every day. Adjustments and revisions, sometimes big changes are made by successive governments.

I make the case for the continuation of programs such as Obamacare for the good people of America. But the money needs to be spent wisely.

Good post.

One point to make though is that for whatever 'waste' people like to point to in terms of government provided health care, places like the UK and Australia spend approx 8%-9% of our national income (GDP) on health spending (for superior outcomes) versus the US where they spend 17% or so of GDP on health. That is nearly 1 in 5 dollars produced in the country spent on health.

Now, people like to retort "well taxes in the UK/Aus are SOOOO much higher than they US". Factually true (cause as nations, we choose to tax a little bit more to fund other initatives we as nations desire), but it misses the point.

Government intervention in healthcare brings down costs, for a variety or reasons, versus the free market, and produces superior outcomes (health outcomes, less money needed per head for the same outcomes). It is health economics 101.

17% of GDP on health in the US sounds like a helluva fcking lot.

In the UK go to a specialist he charges NHS rate. (To the health authority).

Go to the same specialist privately, he charges private rate. (To the insurance company or the patient if he is loaded).

Unfortunately it isn't a made up number.

I trained as an economist, though I don't work in that sector. One of the things that economics teaches you is that you want two things for the market to be 'efficient'. For simplicity this means:

- the lowest price

- a product distributed to as many people who can possibly get it.

For the most part, the free market does this well and wins hands down over every other mechanism. But it relies on a couple of truisms, people can chose who they buy from, there are lots of sellers, and people can essentially choose based on free will (consumer choice). And the benefit derived from the consumption of that good is 100% private.

Health care is different:

- On the supply side, there are limited number of sellers (doctors, pharmecuticals: All highly specialised. You can't go to too many shops looking for a heart surgeon, or a brain suregon. By definition, they are limited, and can charge a lot for their services).

- On the demand side: most of us don't choose the timing of when we 'consume' health care. WE don't chose the timing of when we get sick. It isn't like you are chosing to buy a new car, or get a new piece of furniture. Often, cause of the speciality of it, what we need is expensive.

Leaving it to the 'market' and letting people self insuring is difficult. Private insurers, driven by profit, want the lowest risk patients (the young and healthy). Ironically, the young and health figure that cause they are indeed young and healthy, they don't need much, or any insurance, so they don't insure in a private market. The result? Insurance is more expensive as the people who need it more (the sick and the old) are the main users of it. Given the high cost, the young and healthy want it even less. An extremely vicious cycle.

So what do you get when you leave it to the 'free market' to take care of health outcomes?

- the highest possible price for it (benefiting the doctors, pharma companies and to a lesser extent the insurers who cover the higher risk customers)

- less people 'consuming' health services than would otherwise be the case. In the US, 50 million odd uninsured. Almost the population of the UK.

So the worst of both worlds in this case. And we haven't even talked yet about the public benefit you and i get from having a healthy society who can work, pay taxes.

So like other areas where there is 'market failure' (defense, pensions, major infrastructure) the rest of the world, even little old Thailand, have government step in to make sure costs are kept reasonable and people who need medical care can have it. It does require compulsion however, forcing the young and healthy into the system to cross subsidise the costs borne by the sick and old. This is an athema for the US right, who view it as some sort of government jackboot on their throat. Which is silly given that most of us who do have access to excellent public health care never see a government bureaucrat, and can and do boot out our elected leaders of a fairly regular basis. We just get to see a doctor when we need one.

It saves everyone money, and makes a country more efficient. You'd think the home of capitalism would welcome saving money and making people more productive members of society. Apparently not.

Edited October 17, 2013 by samran

[Berkshire]

America as the undisputed superpower is on its way out.

People have been saying this for years. And years. And years. Maybe if your grandkids' grandkids keep repeating it over and over again, it will finally happen.

[bkk_mike]

There are 1191 days until the US Presidential Inauguration Friday January 20, 2017, when all of the country's fiscal woes can be solved.

hillary clinton is going to immediately raise taxes, legalise all drugs and abolish the armed forces?

Yeah right!

And Obama is not a U.S. citizen and has a fake birth certificate!

Is this a preview of the GOP hog wash yet to come?

This is exactly the kind of childish crap that has destroyed the little credibility the GOP had left after the Chaney ( Little George ) administration.

Keep it up and there will not even be a GOP come the next Presidential election.

Yes, please keep it up kids!

I'm pretty sure the Hillary comment was a joke as the original poster obviously believes in a Republican victory in 2016.

(Although legalising certain drugs, and then taxing them, would probably work out quite well for reducing the fiscal deficit).

America's government, quite ridiculously, spends more per head on healthcare than the UK does, so the real question is why don't they already have free healthcare?

Personally, I don't like Obamacare, because it's not a proper solution. A proper solution is a minimum level of healthcare provided free of charge, paid for by the state (i.e. emergency services and catastrophic coverage), where only non-required treatments (viagra, cosmetic surgery (exc. burn victims), cosmetic dental work, etc.) would be self-paid.

The simple fact of the insurance system America uses is that it, simply in the way it works, generates additional costs. There's the profit margin for the insurance companies, and the administrative overhead for the doctors in dealing with lots of different insurance companies, with lots of different coverage, co-pays, etc. That's all just added expense (and it's not small amounts). Doctors spend 3 times as much on administration in the US compared with Canada, and if you add that over a tenth of all money spent on health insurance in the US is the profit margin for the insurance company, there's an awful lot of savings to be made by stripping out the insurance companies.

As others have said - the best run health provider in the US is actually medicare. If they extended medicare coverage, that would have been a better solution than Obamacare. What's more they could do it gradually. i.e. initially move the starting age for medicare down to something like 55, then start covering kids and pregnant mothers and people with diabetes and other chronic illnesses, and eventually the rest of the population.

[natalilaej]

The outrageous spending - all across the board for Fed (and States) would be ludicrous, were it not so grave. There is so much gross waste and cheating in the system, it's hard to know where to start to comment on it. If some people who thought like me were in charge, Fed spending would come down by 30%.

I find it funny for someone in Thailand (or most of SE Asia for that matter) to make comments on corruption.

And for all of the concern we constantly hear from Fox (and friends) about the US economy not being strong because of uncertainty....

I heard a quote from CNN International about an hour ago from a HK investment firm declaring that the threat of not raising the debt ceiling and the fact that it will be back in the beginning of next year creates uncertainty that makes investment in the US unpredictable. The end of the quote said that in shutting down the government the US Republicans haven't just shot themselves in the foot, they were using a bazooka.

[lannarebirth]

Good morning guys.

Wow.

Can I make an observation from across the pond please?

I appreciate the concerns of seniors like chuckd who have paid into government spending programs big time long time.

I have done the same in the UK.

I also appreciate the point of view of many of the other posters who make the case for provision of basic human rights for the less well off.

My position on this: if I was an American I would support the concept of Obamacare or something very similar to it.

BUT. And this relates to the OP we are now discussing.

If government spending is wasted on inefficient systems, whether it's road building, refuse collection, healthcare or whatever, it is money down the drain.

I get the impression that some Obamacare money is not being spent in the most efficient way. I am not suggesting there is corruption but unless the actual healthcare service providers buy into the concept of high quality healthcare for all American citizens there will be profits made at the expense of hard earned government and chuckd's money.

We have seen this across the pond. NHS efficiency is on the government table every day. Adjustments and revisions, sometimes big changes are made by successive governments.

I make the case for the continuation of programs such as Obamacare for the good people of America. But the money needs to be spent wisely.

By the governments own admission, Obamacare is only for 15% of the population. Many of that 15% don't want it and many others will pay much more for their healthcare insurance than they would have if not for the implementation of Obamacare. The 85% already insured will pay much more (as an example my family of four's rates are up 42% in 2 years to $23k in after tax dollars). There is only one single demographic that benefits from Obamacare and that is people who were previously unable to secure health insurance due to pre-existing conditions. Lawmakers could have, years ago made insurance companies serve these people but they chose not to.

Here's an interview with the government administrator of Obamacare. It is chock full of lies which the host doesn't press her on. The host is quite right that it is only single payer Universal Care that would have served all Americans well. Obamacare makes that possibility more distant, not closer, by cementing private insurance companies into the future of American healthcare. It will have far reaching unintended consequences across the economy and almost everyone is going to hate it.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-october-7-2013/exclusive---kathleen-sebelius-extended-interview-pt--1

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-october-7-2013/exclusive---kathleen-sebelius-extended-interview-pt--2

[SinglePot]

@ samran

I wish you had been around when Margaret Thatcher tried to turn General Practice health clinics in the UK into grocers shops!

Cheers and good health.

SP

Edited October 17, 2013 by SinglePot

[SinglePot]

Good morning guys.

Wow.

Can I make an observation from across the pond please?

I appreciate the concerns of seniors like chuckd who have paid into government spending programs big time long time.

I have done the same in the UK.

I also appreciate the point of view of many of the other posters who make the case for provision of basic human rights for the less well off.

My position on this: if I was an American I would support the concept of Obamacare or something very similar to it.

BUT. And this relates to the OP we are now discussing.

If government spending is wasted on inefficient systems, whether it's road building, refuse collection, healthcare or whatever, it is money down the drain.

I get the impression that some Obamacare money is not being spent in the most efficient way. I am not suggesting there is corruption but unless the actual healthcare service providers buy into the concept of high quality healthcare for all American citizens there will be profits made at the expense of hard earned government and chuckd's money.

We have seen this across the pond. NHS efficiency is on the government table every day. Adjustments and revisions, sometimes big changes are made by successive governments.

I make the case for the continuation of programs such as Obamacare for the good people of America. But the money needs to be spent wisely.

By the governments own admission, Obamacare is only for 15% of the population. Many of that 15% don't want it and many others will pay much more for their healthcare insurance than they would have if not for the implementation of Obamacare. The 85% already insured will pay much more (as an example my family of four's rates are up 42% in 2 years to $23k in after tax dollars). There is only one single demographic that benefits from Obamacare and that is people who were previously unable to secure health insurance due to pre-existing conditions. Lawmakers could have, years ago made insurance companies serve these people but they chose not to.

Here's an interview with the government administrator of Obamacare. It is chock full of lies which the host doesn't press her on. The host is quite right that it is only single payer Universal Care that would have served all Americans well. Obamacare makes that possibility more distant, not closer, by cementing private insurance companies into the future of American healthcare. It will have far reaching unintended consequences across the economy and almost everyone is going to hate it.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-october-7-2013/exclusive---kathleen-sebelius-extended-interview-pt--1

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-october-7-2013/exclusive---kathleen-sebelius-extended-interview-pt--2

Your cynicism and negative attitude towards anything Obama, on this and many other threads, is beginning to irritate me.

I am being polite.

[lannarebirth]

Good morning guys.

Wow.

Can I make an observation from across the pond please?

I appreciate the concerns of seniors like chuckd who have paid into government spending programs big time long time.

I have done the same in the UK.

I also appreciate the point of view of many of the other posters who make the case for provision of basic human rights for the less well off.

My position on this: if I was an American I would support the concept of Obamacare or something very similar to it.

BUT. And this relates to the OP we are now discussing.

If government spending is wasted on inefficient systems, whether it's road building, refuse collection, healthcare or whatever, it is money down the drain.

I get the impression that some Obamacare money is not being spent in the most efficient way. I am not suggesting there is corruption but unless the actual healthcare service providers buy into the concept of high quality healthcare for all American citizens there will be profits made at the expense of hard earned government and chuckd's money.

We have seen this across the pond. NHS efficiency is on the government table every day. Adjustments and revisions, sometimes big changes are made by successive governments.

I make the case for the continuation of programs such as Obamacare for the good people of America. But the money needs to be spent wisely.

By the governments own admission, Obamacare is only for 15% of the population. Many of that 15% don't want it and many others will pay much more for their healthcare insurance than they would have if not for the implementation of Obamacare. The 85% already insured will pay much more (as an example my family of four's rates are up 42% in 2 years to $23k in after tax dollars). There is only one single demographic that benefits from Obamacare and that is people who were previously unable to secure health insurance due to pre-existing conditions. Lawmakers could have, years ago made insurance companies serve these people but they chose not to.

Here's an interview with the government administrator of Obamacare. It is chock full of lies which the host doesn't press her on. The host is quite right that it is only single payer Universal Care that would have served all Americans well. Obamacare makes that possibility more distant, not closer, by cementing private insurance companies into the future of American healthcare. It will have far reaching unintended consequences across the economy and almost everyone is going to hate it.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-october-7-2013/exclusive---kathleen-sebelius-extended-interview-pt--1

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-october-7-2013/exclusive---kathleen-sebelius-extended-interview-pt--2

Your cynicism and negative attitude towards anything Obama, on this and many other threads, is beginning to irritate me.

I am being polite.

Thank you for your courtesy. I shall try to soldier on carrying the burden of your contempt. Wish me strength, won't you?

Anyhow, as someone who voted for Obama once I think I have a right to say whatever I want to. I hope that's all right with you, there, "across the pond". I'm being extremely polite.

[Credo]

Health care costs have been rising, so naturally insurance rates will go up.

[Scott]

This thread is not about Obamacare. It's about the debt cap. Further off-topic posts will be removed.

[Publicus]

Good morning guys.

Wow.

Can I make an observation from across the pond please?

I appreciate the concerns of seniors like chuckd who have paid into government spending programs big time long time.

I have done the same in the UK.

I also appreciate the point of view of many of the other posters who make the case for provision of basic human rights for the less well off.

My position on this: if I was an American I would support the concept of Obamacare or something very similar to it.

BUT. And this relates to the OP we are now discussing.

If government spending is wasted on inefficient systems, whether it's road building, refuse collection, healthcare or whatever, it is money down the drain.

I get the impression that some Obamacare money is not being spent in the most efficient way. I am not suggesting there is corruption but unless the actual healthcare service providers buy into the concept of high quality healthcare for all American citizens there will be profits made at the expense of hard earned government and chuckd's money.

We have seen this across the pond. NHS efficiency is on the government table every day. Adjustments and revisions, sometimes big changes are made by successive governments.

I make the case for the continuation of programs such as Obamacare for the good people of America. But the money needs to be spent wisely.

By the governments own admission, Obamacare is only for 15% of the population. Many of that 15% don't want it and many others will pay much more for their healthcare insurance than they would have if not for the implementation of Obamacare. The 85% already insured will pay much more (as an example my family of four's rates are up 42% in 2 years to $23k in after tax dollars). There is only one single demographic that benefits from Obamacare and that is people who were previously unable to secure health insurance due to pre-existing conditions. Lawmakers could have, years ago made insurance companies serve these people but they chose not to.

Here's an interview with the government administrator of Obamacare. It is chock full of lies which the host doesn't press her on. The host is quite right that it is only single payer Universal Care that would have served all Americans well. Obamacare makes that possibility more distant, not closer, by cementing private insurance companies into the future of American healthcare. It will have far reaching unintended consequences across the economy and almost everyone is going to hate it.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-october-7-2013/exclusive---kathleen-sebelius-extended-interview-pt--1

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-october-7-2013/exclusive---kathleen-sebelius-extended-interview-pt--2

Your cynicism and negative attitude towards anything Obama, on this and many other threads, is beginning to irritate me.

I am being polite.

Thank you for your courtesy. I shall try to soldier on carrying the burden of your contempt. Wish me strength, won't you?

Anyhow, as someone who voted for Obama once I think I have a right to say whatever I want to. I hope that's all right with you, there, "across the pond". I'm being extremely polite.

Your post above states that the interview with the government administrator of ObamaCare is "chock full of lies" made by the administrator.

If someone called me a "liar," I'd consider that to be impolite, to say the least.

[lannarebirth]

By the governments own admission, Obamacare is only for 15% of the population. Many of that 15% don't want it and many others will pay much more for their healthcare insurance than they would have if not for the implementation of Obamacare. The 85% already insured will pay much more (as an example my family of four's rates are up 42% in 2 years to $23k in after tax dollars). There is only one single demographic that benefits from Obamacare and that is people who were previously unable to secure health insurance due to pre-existing conditions. Lawmakers could have, years ago made insurance companies serve these people but they chose not to.

Here's an interview with the government administrator of Obamacare. It is chock full of lies which the host doesn't press her on. The host is quite right that it is only single payer Universal Care that would have served all Americans well. Obamacare makes that possibility more distant, not closer, by cementing private insurance companies into the future of American healthcare. It will have far reaching unintended consequences across the economy and almost everyone is going to hate it.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-october-7-2013/exclusive---kathleen-sebelius-extended-interview-pt--1

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-october-7-2013/exclusive---kathleen-sebelius-extended-interview-pt--2

Your cynicism and negative attitude towards anything Obama, on this and many other threads, is beginning to irritate me.

I am being polite.

Thank you for your courtesy. I shall try to soldier on carrying the burden of your contempt. Wish me strength, won't you?

Anyhow, as someone who voted for Obama once I think I have a right to say whatever I want to. I hope that's all right with you, there, "across the pond". I'm being extremely polite.

Your post above states that the interview with the government administrator of ObamaCare is "chock full of lies" made by the administrator.

If someone called me a "liar," I'd consider that to be impolite, to say the least.

Impolite if untrue, certainly. Revisions to employment data show that just over 3 out of 5 new jobs created in the US in 2013 are part time. That number is revised from 4 out of 5. The administrator states information to the contrary. It is a lie, at least disingenuous, to be charitable.

She said she didn't know how many people had signed up in that first week. Data at the time of her interview indicates 51,000 people have enrolled the first week. 2-3 million per week are necessary for a successful roll out of the program.

[lannarebirth]

Your cynicism and negative attitude towards anything Obama, on this and many other threads, is beginning to irritate me.

I am being polite.

Thank you for your courtesy. I shall try to soldier on carrying the burden of your contempt. Wish me strength, won't you?

Anyhow, as someone who voted for Obama once I think I have a right to say whatever I want to. I hope that's all right with you, there, "across the pond". I'm being extremely polite.

Your post above states that the interview with the government administrator of ObamaCare is "chock full of lies" made by the administrator.

If someone called me a "liar," I'd consider that to be impolite, to say the least.

I don't think one needs to call pundits liars. That is implicit.

[samran]

The host is quite right that it is only single payer Universal Care that would have served all Americans well.

All well and good. But people would be screaming 'socialism' to high heaven if it was ever proposed.

[samran]

The host is quite right that it is only single payer Universal Care that would have served all Americans well.

All well and good. But people would be screaming 'socialism' to high heaven if it was ever proposed.

*Deleted post edited out*

Agree 3000%

But those who oppose it and cry havoc, despite (as you've clearly outlined) elements of universality in these organisation, they are perfectly happy with a little bit of uncle Lenin and Marx in their other government institutions, especially when it is them receiving it. To my mind, it is stinking hypocrisy, but they'll bleat about non-existent government yokes and feet on their throats, and complain about a false loss of individual liberty, and protest that they are really paying for everything they get from it...

Perhaps this makes the debate too hard to have? Or has no-one come along yet who is savvy enough to make the case?

Edited October 17, 2013 by Scott

[Scott]

Inflammatory post removed.

[SinglePot]

Scientifically proven fact:

Positive mental attitude leads to longer healthier life.*

Reduces healthcare costs, insurance premiums, and government debt.

Same in Squaw Lake, Minnesota. Same in Chiang Mai.

*references available on request

[hellodolly]

Just out of interest... How many times did Bush v2 raise the debt ceiling and by how much? A dozen times and by 4T or was it more?

Not wishing to see another of your posts go to waste, let me see if I can provide the answer.

1. The debt ceiling under GWB was raised a total of 7 times, for an increase of $5.365 Trillion (From $5.95 Trillion to $11.315 Trillion)

2. The debt ceiling under Obama has now been raised a total of 6 times for an increase of $5.385 Trillion (From $11.315 Trillion to $16.7 Trillion)

3. This latest debt ceiling increase is the 7th time for the Obama administration to secure an increase but I have been unable to determine exactly what the new debt ceiling amount is now pegged at. Senator Reid initially wanted $1 Trillion, which if approved would raise the new debt ceiling to $17.7 Trillion.

Uhhhh, just for the record.

Bush was in office over an 8 year period. Obama has been in office for only four years and nine months.

Thirty nine more months to look forward to on this little problem.

Quoting myself to add forgotten link:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/

I don't doubt your facts. But you left out reality. George Bush was handed a thriving economy he started two unwinable wars Now if that wasn't the start of turning the national dept up what was pouring $1,000,000,000 a day down the drain with no way out. He was given information of a possible recession if he didn't do some thing. He made a choice to do nothing. It started and he started the government bail out.

In short George Bush was handed a bouquet of roses and turned it into a bucket of sh-t to pass on. Then along comes some clown with look how much better Bush did than Obama is doing. Not only costing Billions and Billions of dollars how many Americans did Bush get killed with his trumped up charges against Iraq. How is Iraq doing now as a direct result of Bush with the help of a VP and secretary of defense? We may not like it but the alternative would be worse if Obama had not taken the actions he did. In a sense it is still Bush in the White House.

[hellodolly]

No, this is only through the 7th of February when it will be back. It wasn't Boehner, but rather the Senate who caved, and brokered the deal after Senate majority leader Reid swore he wouldn't negotiate.

"The bill was the result of a deal brokered by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell earlier Wednesday. It funds the government through Jan. 1 and suspends the nation's debt limit through Feb. 7." Link

Reid said he would NEVER negotiate defunding ObamaCare under threat of a government shutdown.

Sen Reid said he would NEVER negotiate defunding ObamaCare under threat of a debt ceiling default.

Republicans in Washington 100% FAILED to defund ObamaCare. Republicans in Washington 100% failed to cause a government debt default.

Sen Reid stood firmly on each of these points, and Sen Reid prevailed over the Republicans in Congress - he won.

Sen Reid started negotiating only after the Republicans in the Congress abandoned their "Plan 9 From Outer Space" attempt to defund ObamaCare and only after Republicans failed trying to cause a "Plan 9" government debt default.

In other words, Sen Reid prevailed in his absolute refusal to negotiate until after Republicans quit their efforts to defund ObamaCare and to have a government debt default..

If I were strictly partisan, which I'm not, I should hope that after the new year when funding the government and increasing the national debt come up again, the Republicans close the government again and start their preschooler rants and rages again, because it will virtually guarantee the Republicans lose majority control of the House in the Congressional elections November next year.

Any Republican in Washington who says Reid caved is still following the completely failed Plan 9 From Outer Space.

I think you are wasting your time. I swear that if the Republican party says the sun is going to rise in the west and set in the east on odd numbered years there are a lot of Republicans who would stake their life savings on it. It is hard to not be partisan when you look at the Republicans. Not much there to like. The best they could do for a presidential candidate was get a guy who refused to show his income tax returns.

[hellodolly]

No, this is only through the 7th of February when it will be back. It wasn't Boehner, but rather the Senate who caved, and brokered the deal after Senate majority leader Reid swore he wouldn't negotiate.

"The bill was the result of a deal brokered by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell earlier Wednesday. It funds the government through Jan. 1 and suspends the nation's debt limit through Feb. 7." Link

Eh, you're sure about that? "We fought the good fight; we just didn't win," Boehner told a radio station in his home state of Ohio.

I watched CNN this morning and pretty much every Republican was demoralized, admitting defeat. Not only did they lose this battle, their brand took a huge hit. Nevermind trying to win back the Senate, the Republicans will most likely lose majority in the House this coming primary. Time to turn out the lights at GOP headquarters.

Then America can move ahead.

Is Rush Limbaugh still the voice of the republicans?

It has taken the Democrats a long time to stop the slide and it will take a long time to start it back but at least they have stopped it and with out any help from the Republicans. In fact they have had to waste a lot of time on them. How much did it cost this time when they turned the government off? To what purpose. They knew that they couldn't keep it shut down indefinitely but they went ahead and did it any how. If some body got hurt by it there attitude was who cares.

Maybe if they would start to care for people they might win some support. There almighty dollar is the only thing that counts attitude will not win them any friends. People count and it is time they learn that lesson. A time out is just what they need.

[SinglePot]

Scientifically proven fact:

Positive mental attitude leads to longer healthier life.*

Reduces healthcare costs, insurance premiums, and government debt.

Same in Squaw Lake, Minnesota. Same in Chiang Mai.

*references available on request

It is also said that "ignorance is bliss". You, my friend, must surely have reached nirvana by now.

Lanna? Who are you trying to kid.

[lannarebirth]

Scientifically proven fact:

Positive mental attitude leads to longer healthier life.*

Reduces healthcare costs, insurance premiums, and government debt.

Same in Squaw Lake, Minnesota. Same in Chiang Mai.

*references available on request

It is also said that "ignorance is bliss". You, my friend, must surely have reached nirvana by now.

Lanna? Who are you trying to kid.

You're not my 4th grade teacher, Sister Mary Augustine are you? Because she asked me that very same thing once.

[Baloo22]

Another thread which will show that Republicans don't know the difference between deficit and debt. Obama is trying to reduce the deficit so as to be able to pay off the debt. If outgoings are higher than income then the is no money to pay off the debt. Is nothing is spent then there is no chance of income, you need to speculate to accumulate. Basic 101 math and nothing more. This is why the whole world except for the Republicans living in their bizarre bubble were quite simply laughing at the US as a whole. So 'we' need to stop extremists in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran when all the while US extremists shut down the US for two weeks. Unless the US gets rid of these backwards f***s they will do it themselves, on themselves.

You say;

Is nothing is spent then there is no chance of income, you need to speculate to accumulate. Basic 101 math and nothing more.

So now our Federal government need to "speculate" it's way out of our massive federal debt?? And it's "Basic 101" math??

You should start your own political party. Call it the "Speculators Party" ! And hire Ivan Boesky as your top strategist!

.....all the while US extremists shut down the US for two weeks. Unless the US gets rid of these backwards f***s they will do it themselves, on themselves.

Yes, extremists did "shutdown" the federal government. The extremists responsible were zero-integrity Obama and the democrat party. Unless the US gets rid of these backwards f***s, we will keep on the spend-charge it, spend-charge it, spend-charge it merry go round.

And the federal debt will continue to grow without control. Placing the burden and consequences on our future generations. That is why we need Congress to stop continually raising the debt ceiling and demand fiscal sanity from Obama and the democrats.

We need to get off that merry go round and stop the federal government's out-of-control debt-fueled spending. We need the adults in Congress to cut up the federal credit card. If we can't do that, we will eventually end up resembling an economic basket-case like Greece.