It's unconstitutional to not recognize our foreign debt. In order to recognize it, we need to pay about 250 billion a year to service it. Easily affordable as long as people keep paying taxes.
On the other hand, it's also unconstitutional for the government to spy on it's citizens without probable cause. Scratch what I said above.
That's hilarious. It's time for democrats to start passing legislation in the Senate. There are many areas of agreement on funding. In fact there is agreement on everything except for the ACA, So stop holding the country hostage, pass the laws we agree on to match the House, and end the shutdown, then we'll work on the areas where we need to negotiate and compromise.
You mean the tax cut that Barack Obama just made permanent? That one? I got some news. The tax cut happened in 2001. The tax rates have been in effect since then, or 12 years. More than a decade. Newt Gingrich was speaker of the house when we balanced the budget. Spending and taxes originate in the House, and no matter how much Barack Obama wants it to be true, they will never originate in the White House.
So you're basically saying if we can't borrow money from ourselves, to pay ourselves, we default. Hmmm. I think default happens when we can't pay interest on the debt owed to foreign creditors. Which is about 250 billion a year, currently.
I'm sorry for this hardship - I hope you come out on the other side O.K.
I don't. He's a federal employee that posts under the name "frosty piss", and uses slurs and disrespectful language to describe people who disagree. If he thinks for a second that private-employees aren't feeling pain he better think twice. I'd love to have only lost $2500 in savings, and a whole lot of other people would as well. I'm sooooo sooooorry you couldn't get your unemployemnt.. He can go to hell and take his whiny, tiny, woe is me attitude with him.
Tell, me then, what is the compromise the Senate is willing to make? The Administration?
The house has passed bills funding the entire government minus the ACA. They have also passed a bill funding the entire government and the ACA with a 1-year delay (which is looking more reasonable by the minute, as problems are being exposed).
If the house had it's way, it would pass a balanced budget with no funding for the ACA, both of the above bills are already compromises.
Most Americans are wrong. Common sense and logic expose that. Look at the CR's the house has passed. Look at the history of CR's and see if a clean all-encompassing CR is the norm. The information is there. The Senate and the Administration has decided that an all or nothing funding approach is the only option. The house has offered to pass, and has passed, funding for everything at current funding levels except for the ACA, of which they have offered a 1-year delay. You are wrong, and an objective look at the facts would show this.
You are correct. I commend this. Clearly letting CR's stand on their own merit where there is common ground is not the end of the world. Lets pass funding for National Parks, Veterans, and the NIH next.
If the senate had passed bills passed by the house, there would have been no need for a shutdown. The senate's unwillingness to compromise and pass cr's where there is common ground, led to the shutdown. The president has used his executive power to maximize the pain. Screw you.
So basically, it's ok to hold the american people and federal workers hostage, until a clean resolution funding everything is passed by the house. Thanks for clearing that up. I now know that Reid and Obama's definition of compromise, is actually no compromise at all.
Actually, they all get unemployment compensation. If a law is signed by the president authorizing back pay, they are required to pay the unemployment back.
Congress is about to pass a bill authorizing back pay. The Senate promises to reject it. The all or nothing approach from the Senate and the White house is responsible for the shutdown.
Your whole statement is a fallacy. If the Gov doesn't have the authorization to spend money on a normally unsecured park, how does it now have money to spend on patrols to enforce the shutdown? A government that serves the people does everything in it's power to minimize the effects and pain of a shutdown. A government that is served by the people does the opposite.
What if someone were to pay a monthly fee to rent all the space and use it as storage space. Guaranteed income for a non-profit, but doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose?
Granted, I don't know Mark, and have no knowledge of this space's rules or arrangements. But this is a pattern I see repeated in every hackerspace I have visited.
Slashdot Mirror
It's unconstitutional to not recognize our foreign debt. In order to recognize it, we need to pay about 250 billion a year to service it. Easily affordable as long as people keep paying taxes.
On the other hand, it's also unconstitutional for the government to spy on it's citizens without probable cause. Scratch what I said above.
Are you willing to lose your job, over the Affordable (*snicker*) Care Act?
That's hilarious. It's time for democrats to start passing legislation in the Senate. There are many areas of agreement on funding. In fact there is agreement on everything except for the ACA, So stop holding the country hostage, pass the laws we agree on to match the House, and end the shutdown, then we'll work on the areas where we need to negotiate and compromise.
You mean the tax cut that Barack Obama just made permanent? That one? I got some news. The tax cut happened in 2001. The tax rates have been in effect since then, or 12 years. More than a decade. Newt Gingrich was speaker of the house when we balanced the budget. Spending and taxes originate in the House, and no matter how much Barack Obama wants it to be true, they will never originate in the White House.
So you're basically saying if we can't borrow money from ourselves, to pay ourselves, we default. Hmmm. I think default happens when we can't pay interest on the debt owed to foreign creditors. Which is about 250 billion a year, currently.
You're right. The Marxists did. Which is about as far from liberal as you can get.
Than, what?
Corporate welfare like the 45 million new customers forced onto the insurance companies at gunpoint? Fuck you.
I'm sorry for this hardship - I hope you come out on the other side O.K.
I don't. He's a federal employee that posts under the name "frosty piss", and uses slurs and disrespectful language to describe people who disagree. If he thinks for a second that private-employees aren't feeling pain he better think twice. I'd love to have only lost $2500 in savings, and a whole lot of other people would as well. I'm sooooo sooooorry you couldn't get your unemployemnt.. He can go to hell and take his whiny, tiny, woe is me attitude with him.
Sense, that is not sensical, are commonly referred to as nonsense.
Tell, me then, what is the compromise the Senate is willing to make? The Administration?
The house has passed bills funding the entire government minus the ACA. They have also passed a bill funding the entire government and the ACA with a 1-year delay (which is looking more reasonable by the minute, as problems are being exposed).
If the house had it's way, it would pass a balanced budget with no funding for the ACA, both of the above bills are already compromises.
The senate still has not passed it. The house passed it yesterday.
Actually, absent a budget, piecemeal funding is the historical norm for CR funding of the government. Your invective holds no weight.
And in other news, the senate still has not passed funding for back pay for federal workers. I thought that was important
Most Americans are wrong. Common sense and logic expose that. Look at the CR's the house has passed. Look at the history of CR's and see if a clean all-encompassing CR is the norm. The information is there. The Senate and the Administration has decided that an all or nothing funding approach is the only option. The house has offered to pass, and has passed, funding for everything at current funding levels except for the ACA, of which they have offered a 1-year delay. You are wrong, and an objective look at the facts would show this.
No, you are incorrect. The house bills are common ground minus the things that the senate has issued as a requirement.
You are correct. I commend this. Clearly letting CR's stand on their own merit where there is common ground is not the end of the world. Lets pass funding for National Parks, Veterans, and the NIH next.
If the senate had passed bills passed by the house, there would have been no need for a shutdown. The senate's unwillingness to compromise and pass cr's where there is common ground, led to the shutdown. The president has used his executive power to maximize the pain. Screw you.
Congress has passed multiple budgets every year since 2010. The senate has repeatedly failed to live up to its statutory mandate.
So basically, it's ok to hold the american people and federal workers hostage, until a clean resolution funding everything is passed by the house. Thanks for clearing that up. I now know that Reid and Obama's definition of compromise, is actually no compromise at all.
Actually, they all get unemployment compensation. If a law is signed by the president authorizing back pay, they are required to pay the unemployment back.
Congress is about to pass a bill authorizing back pay. The Senate promises to reject it. The all or nothing approach from the Senate and the White house is responsible for the shutdown.
Congress has passed a law that would keep the parks open you nitwit. It's the Senate that refuses.
Your whole statement is a fallacy. If the Gov doesn't have the authorization to spend money on a normally unsecured park, how does it now have money to spend on patrols to enforce the shutdown? A government that serves the people does everything in it's power to minimize the effects and pain of a shutdown. A government that is served by the people does the opposite.
What if someone were to pay a monthly fee to rent all the space and use it as storage space. Guaranteed income for a non-profit, but doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose?
Granted, I don't know Mark, and have no knowledge of this space's rules or arrangements. But this is a pattern I see repeated in every hackerspace I have visited.