Brace yourself for the upcoming financial crisis

[Fanatic 64]

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/10/03/treasury-warns-debt-default-would-be-catastrophic/

Basically, unless the Democrats and Republicans agree on delaying or not the Affordable Healthcare Bill ("Obamacare"), or Obama does something unconstitutional, one of the worst and longest financial crisis in history will happen. So, if you lose you job in the following weeks, you already know who to blame (the Republicans).

 

[NES_player4LIFE]

http://www.cruz.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=345856
The Republicans have been funding the government but most of the Democrats have been rejecting each funding attempt.

I can't believe that I'm getting political on Emutalk, this is a sad day

 

[Malcolm]

Hi, I'm Canadian, so while the after effects from this crap will probably impact me, in the immediate it doesn't.

With that said:

1) First and foremost American politics are screwed to hell, the whole system, all of it - as is your news reporting, and that shit is bleeding into our (Canadian) news organizations and I hate you for it

2) Failure to pass the budget was the cause of the shutdown. The core issue why the budget hasn't been passed is due to the Affordable Healthcare Bill

3) The US President is not the reason that this shutdown has occurred - actually he's pretty well removed from the process entirely. He can put in requests for inclusion to the budget but he's not in control of the process, the Congress can alter and eventually passes that budget - or goes into a shutdown if they can't all agree (all being Congress, made up of the House [primarily Republican] and the Senate [primarily Democrat])

4) The Affordable Healthcare Bill has already been passed into a law: it's there, it's a law, it was passed by the US justice system in 2010 - and these Bills Generally Have A Budget Associated With Them

5) The reason the budget hasn't been approved is due to a group, primarily composed of Republicans, that have decided that they either want to delay the budget allotment for this program or want to completely de-fund it - Democrats who want funding for the Bill don't want to have the program fail due to lack of funds and are pushing for the budget to go forward


So the core issue is that the Democrats have promised and really want to deliver on the on the Bill they had passed in 2010 and the Republicans want it to go in the dumpster. Neither side is budging and have forced themselves, and most government services, into their self-imposed shutdown.


The Republicans to blame here - specifically for the shutdown. The law was passed and they had time during the law's introduction and the last 3 years to have the law stricken or amended - of which they did neither. Holding up the budget like this is ridiculous. The budget is only good for 1 year. If they really wanted to get rid of it without causing a shutdown then they could use the one year while it's active to get stats together to show why it's bad then have amendments put into place to fix it. Better yet, they could have been proactive and had the Bill changed or amended before being introduced for inclusion into the budget.

Not to say that I don't agree with some of the Republican's issues with the health plan - many of the sections of the Bill are just plain stupid and will cause major issues with businesses and currently uninsured citizens (not insured through their workplace).

-----

Note: When I say Republican or Democrat above I mean the majority of the individual politicians in their respective parties. There are members of both groups that don't conform to the general consensus of their parties.

 

[NES_player4LIFE]

1. Yes they are, and yes the press is nothing but a bunch of short storybook writers.
2. The Republicans were voted into their positions to remove ACA by any means necessary and each of them campaigned on the promise of doing so.
3. He has stated that he would veto measures to fund the Federal Government if those bills did not fund what he wants funded; so yes he is responsible. It's not the job of congress to sign him a blank bank note.
He should be but he has interjected himself into the affairs of the legislative branch.
4. It's not the job of any court to pass laws that right is reserved to the legislation. The court only upheld the illegally modified law as a tax, which was organically said to not to be a tax but a penalty. (BTW It's back to being a penalty)
5. See two.

In conclusion; it's not the job of Congress to kiss the Executive branches @$$, as they are there as a safe guard against the request of such royalties.

 

[Fanatic 64]

As far as I know, the majority of the population wants the Affordable Healthcare Act. Plus, I do not agree with removing it by any means necessary (specially via an economic crisis).

 

[NES_player4LIFE]

If there is a majority it is slim. Polls.

 

[Fanatic 64]

Honestly, I don't really care if people want it or not. What I care about is the economic crisis the Republicans threaten to cause to stop it. Some may say "The end justifies the means", but I would add "As long as the cost doesn't outweigh the benefit". I think a global economic crisis would definitely outweigh any befit that stopping the Affordable Healthcare Act could bring.

 

[Dekki64]

Honestly, I don't really care if people want it or not. What I care about is the economic crisis the Republicans threaten to cause to stop it. Some may say "The end justifies the means", but I would add "As long as the cost doesn't outweigh the benefit". I think a global economic crisis would definitely outweigh any befit that stopping the Affordable Healthcare Act could bring.

In the end, it only worsens how the public views the republican party. The public already blames the GOP for this crisis over something that's already been decided two years ago.


Sent from my HTC One.

 

[Malcolm]

1) Glad we're in agreement on that one

2) The position is the same for both parties - Republicans promised it would be out, Democrats promised it would be in; the difference here is that the law is in effect and the Republicans have shut down your government in attempts to make the Democrats cave.

3) He said he'd veto any of the bullshit funding cherry-picking that the Republican party is trying to push as a PR move. What stops them from sending out a bill to fund all the government services, except for the Affordable Healthcare Bill, one-by-one? It undermines the whole process in attempt to score PR points when the Democrats don't play ball with their cherry-picking.

4) The US judicial system has done a lot of wacky stuff in the past that's been upheld - I don't see how this drops outside the sandbox

5) I believe this issue to be different from what 2 covers. It's one thing to promise your constituents you'll overturn something, it's another to holdup your countries budget and stop all governmental services in a last ditch attempt to do so. Regardless of how you view the validity of how this law came into effect, it's been passed. You didn't address my point that this has been in effect since 2010, and that the Republican's in the interim were not able to stricken or amended the law.

 

[NES_player4LIFE]

Honestly, I don't really care if people want it or not. What I care about is the economic crisis the Republicans threaten to cause to stop it. Some may say "The end justifies the means", but I would add "As long as the cost doesn't outweigh the benefit". I think a global economic crisis would definitely outweigh any befit that stopping the Affordable Healthcare Act could bring.

But we are already in an economic crisis and ACA only adds more US debt.


@Malcolm

1) Consider that an olive-branch of sorts. :icecream:
The Press is not what it ought to be.

2) Agreed, however the Republicans have passed bills that would reopen the government. The Democrats have rejected these bills.

3) Then he alone is responsible for the withholding of funds. They have tried to pass a full-funding bill that funds every thing except ACA, and that was rejected so now they are trying to reopen the government one bill at a time.
But the Democrats rather not negotiate. So now every bill that is shot down is at the hands of the democrats.

4) Yes they have, but just because a law's mandate was upheld as a tax; and deemed constitutional as such, does not and should not suggest that the law it's self is constitutional.

5) The problem is that the Senate democrats only have the power to approve or dis-approve funding, they can't control the amount of funding that the bill receives if any. That is the responsibility of the House.
Not all governmental services have been stopped, only non-essential services.
Validity is everything, if a law is not correct the outcome of that law will be error.
Do to the Democratically controlled House and Senate in 10, 11, and 12. This is the first time the Republicans have been able to put forth any substantial opposition.
As it wasn't until this year that the republicans had control of the House.

 

[Fanatic 64]

But we are already in an economic crisis and ACA only adds more US debt.

And dragging the rest of the world into the same situation is better how?

I mean, do you really want a global economic crisis worse than that of 2008 to happen?

 

[Malcolm]

@NES_player4LIFE

I think we're both pretty much on the same page, but we pass the blame in different directions.

2 and 3) Neither side want to budge. As the law has passed and it hasn't been over turned or amended there's no standing for denying funding.

4) That would be for the courts to decide I believe. I won't pretend that I know the complexity of the US legal system (or even the Canadian system), but unless a law is stricken or amended it's still in play.

5) From 2010 to 2012 couldn't they go to the courts to fight it, or put in some kind of opposing bill? I wasn't aware that the House sets funding levels, just read up on wikipedia about the complete process - that another thing to add to the list of really screwie US processes.

 

[NES_player4LIFE]

@Fanatic 64
No, but in the long run if the USA racks up more and more debt sooner or later someone has to pay the fiddler.
Again no, but if we have to borrow even more funds to finance something that may or may not work
then we are better off not funding that item and spend that credit on something that will make money.

@malcolm
Ah, yes; the blame game.
Just because a law is passed; and is on the books so to say, does not mean that a law will be backed.
Look at it this way.
A sail boat has the capability to sail the greatest of seas, right?
However without one main force the sail boat goes nowhere. This sail boat, if put in a bottle or boat house goes nowhere, as it has no wind to fill the sails.
The same is true with unfunded laws, if a bill has no funding the bill is as a sail boat without wind.

Sure, it's still in play but without any backing it becomes just as useful as a boat in a bottle. It looks really good setting on the fireplace and that is were it will stay.

From 2010 to 2012 the democratic party had the majority and with that said the republicans had no way to pass an opposing bill.
On the court side of things the highest court only takes cases after a certain amount time to allow for preparation of argument.

The House is given "The power of purse" as a balance of power so that the Senate can't just tax and tax and tax the country.
However the House also needs the bills approval of the Senate to pass so that the bill may on to the President for his approval and signature.

Without the House the Senate would just be able pass taxes without any hindrance.