Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tx) Is Fillibustering On Cspan2.

[chipwhich]

Isn't complaining about your employees' sense of entitlement the same as calling them greedy? Or are you going to stick with the "I didn't say this specific word at this specific moment" defense? Not trying to be a dick, but c'mon.

 

The reference I was making had to do with taking away benefits because of rising costs.  When I remove a benefit from my employees they become angry, as they feel they are entitled to that benefit because they had it when they came on board.

That isn't greed.

[RedskinsFan44]

http://thefederalist.com/2013/09/26/the-bogus-case-for-compromise/

 

 

 

...

Chris Hayes is not a high ranking member of Congress.

 

The Democrats did not use this tactic to end the Iraq war.  They did spew some rhetoric about defunding it but never threatened to shut down the government, or FAR worse, default on the debt. 

[Tulane Skins Fan]

http://thefederalist.com/2013/09/26/the-bogus-case-for-compromise/

 

 

 

...

 

FWIW, I have a problem with the tactic, not the substance.  I have a bigger problem with the debt limit being held hostage, and with asking for anything in return for raising the debt limit.

[Jumbo]

The mess we have had has been a paperwork maze of horrendously excessive greed and disgusting levels of abuse from the personal (patients) and private (medical and insurance providers) sector as well as government/bureaucratic incompetence. Irresponsibility of the patient includes "theft" (or fraudulent use) of services (not even planning to pay and misusing emergency rooms like a doctor's office) and the endless murderous overcharging by all sides of the machine that gets to charge fees. All of this has brought us to a long-overdue revamp. But who has stepped up to do so? How long were we supposed to wait? A majority of voters thought they made that decision (for better or worse) TWICE, but hey, "democracy" is full of fine print and "patriots." 

 

It's comical to suggest that where we're at with private or government institutions and individuals in our health care system shows anything but all having become inexorably engulfed and crippled by widespread greed and lack of ethical behaviors, as well as simple incompetence (private or gov). It is made an even bigger mess thanks to BOTH main parties (libertarians are of minute value) with elected officials dedicated mainly to jockeying for their personal ego/materialistic interests via lobbyists, and feeding their amygdala-driven partisans the kind of nutritionally deprived cognitive gruel they wolf down like a reality tv family with a platter of triple-patty bacon-cheeseburgers soaked in sausage gravy and served on a bed of mac-n-cheese (I need more red sugar please) in front of them.

 

 

But I'm more about fun.

 

There have been more than a few articles I've seen in this last week that I thought might, but haven't, made it here yet. This was kid of fun...

 

http://news.yahoo.com/obama--obamacare-critics-are--desperate--fat-cat-fox-news-watchers-224720869.html

 

 

(one excerpt)

 

“Medicare and Social Security faced the same kind of criticism. Before Medicare came into law, one Republican warned that ‘one of these days, you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it once was like in America when men were free,” Obama said. “That was Ronald Reagan. And eventually, Ronald Reagan came around to Medicare and thought it was pretty good, and actually helped make it better.”

 

 

 

 

mainly cuz it lead to this one little nugget below from a link with this little throw-away factoid I enjoyed for a dark laugh at the pathetic and fundamentally deformed cognition so commonly found in all things "braindead partisan douchebag"

 

 

http://www.concordmonitor.com/home/8686640-95/obama-mocks-obriens-fugitive-slave-act-comparison-in-healthcare-speech

 

 

 

 

President Obama took a potshot today at New Hampshire state Rep. Bill O’Brien over his comparison of Obamacare to the 19th century Fugitive Slave Act.

 

At an Aug. 1 rally in Concord, O’Brien, a Mont Vernon Republican and former House speaker who at the time was considering a run for Congress, criticized Obama’s 2010 healthcare reform law.

 

“What is Obamacare? It is a law as destructive to personal and individual liberty as the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, that allowed slaveowners to come to New Hampshire and seize African-Americans and use the federal courts to take them back to ... slave states,” O’Brien said.

Obama referenced O’Brien, though not by name, in a speech today at Prince George’s Community College in Maryland, while speaking about Republican opposition to implementation of the healthcare law.

 

“The closer we get, the more desperate they get. I mean, over the last few weeks, the rhetoric has just been cranked up to a place I’ve never seen before,” Obama said.

 

He added, “You had a state representative somewhere say that it’s ‘as destructive to personal and individual liberty as the Fugitive Slave Act.’ Think about that: Affordable healthcare is worse than a law that lets slaveowners get their runaway slaves back. I mean, these are quotes. I’m not making this stuff up.”

 

O’Brien told The Wall Street Journal he had made a “fair comparison.”

 

 

 

I need to go watch Dr. Srangelove again. Been a long time.

[LadySkinsFan]

Spin is fun

 

 

More people support the Tea Party than consider themselves liberal, and almost 3/4 of the electorate does not oppose the Tea Party.

 

 

 

That’s not the headline you will see, of course.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/09/opposition-to-tea-party-drops-to-near-record-low/

 

try not to get dizzy 

 

 

Right, and that's why Obama was elected twice (not selected BTW as was Bush 43 in 2000), and why the Senate is Democrat majority.

[Predicto]

http://thefederalist.com/2013/09/26/the-bogus-case-for-compromise/

 

 

 

...

 

It would be difficult for me to disagree more with this nonsense.

 

Screwing around with the debt ceiling and hence the credit rating of the United States is something that the Democrats have never, ever done, because it is an insanely stupid and irresponsible tactic to take.    To their credit, the Rebublicans never did it either, until these tea party fanatics showed up.   

[The Evil Genius]

[Larry]

It would be difficult for me to disagree more with this nonsense.

Screwing around with the debt ceiling and hence the credit rating of the United States is something that the Democrats have never, ever done, because it is an insanely stupid and irresponsible tactic to take. To their credit, the Rebublicans never did it either, until these tea party fanatics showed up.

Yeah, there's been conflict, and negotiation, with minority parties in the past.

But in the past it was more like "I'll vote for that pork in your district, if there's some in my district, too".

I think it's gotten a lot meaner, lately. To me, things ratcheted up when the GOP took over Congress, and announced that their legislative objective was to make sure that when Bill Clinton ran for reelection, that he did not have one single accomplishment that he could point to. Their first legislative action was to repeal a just-passed anti-crime bill, which the voters overwhelmingly approved of, specifically because they didn't want him to have any accomplishments.

I think they ratcheted it up, again, when they took full control if the government. And then again when they lost control.

[twa]

It would be difficult for me to disagree more with this nonsense.

 

Screwing around with the debt ceiling and hence the credit rating of the United States is something that the Democrats have never, ever done, because it is an insanely stupid and irresponsible tactic to take.    To their credit, the Rebublicans never did it either, until these tea party fanatics showed up.   

 

not doing something has led to that debt exploding....among many other things

 

why not just remove the debt limit and the requirement for a budget since both are overlooked and avoided.

[Predicto]

not doing something has led to that debt exploding....among many other things

 

why not just remove the debt limit and the requirement for a budget since both are overlooked and avoided.

 

I agree with removing the debt limit.  It makes no sense to say that we need to have a vote every once in a while to reaffirm that we actually will pay for the debts that we already have incurred. 

 

Screwing with the debt limit doesn't cut spending or balance the books.  It just scares credit agencies and bond markets and could lead to a worldwide economic depression.  

[twa]

I agree with removing the debt limit.  It makes no sense to say that we need to have a vote every once in a while to reaffirm that we actually will pay for the debts that we already have incurred. 

 

Screwing with the debt limit doesn't cut spending or balance the books.  It just scares credit agencies and bond markets and could lead to a worldwide economic depression.  

 

There is the option of cutting spending and raising govt revenue.

 

I ain't scared and neither are they....fire up the printing presses

[Predicto]

There is the option of cutting spending and raising govt revenue.

 

 

 

Yes, we should do that.  I wish we could get our act together on that.

 

Has nothing to do with threatening the debt limit - that is money aready spent.   

[NoCalMike]

Identity politics are slowly going by the wayside.

Conservative media has done a great job over the last 30 years making "liberal" a dirty word, something people don't want to be labled as, yet when you go down the list of a lot of the highest priority issues, people tend to side on the "liberal" plans/ideas to tackle them.

 

In other words more people are either liberal or just left of center then they realize according to their own stances on the actual issues. Whether they choose to call themselves a "liberal" or not is merely semantics.

[DC9]

Here's my favorite factoid about Ted Cruz, the man of the people.

 

 

 

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/me-ted

 

 

That is a tasty nugget and my kind of dude.

[sacase]

I agree with removing the debt limit.  It makes no sense to say that we need to have a vote every once in a while to reaffirm that we actually will pay for the debts that we already have incurred. 

 

Screwing with the debt limit doesn't cut spending or balance the books.  It just scares credit agencies and bond markets and could lead to a worldwide economic depression.  

This is one of the few times I agree with you. These guys need to start governing and stop with the politics. Run the federal government like you are supposed to and save the politics for later. The idea of holding the budget hostage is the dumbest thing ever, it screams partisan politics and abdication of duty. I am just sick and tired of it. I hate the idea of Obamacare, but guess what....it was voted for and passed. I will live with it. They just need to let it happen and deal with the consequences good or bad. The tea party is the worst thing to happen in American politics in a long time. Its the equivalent of a petulant child plugging their ears and saying nah nah nah nah nah.  They bring no realistic value to government.

[twa]

Yes, we should do that.  I wish we could get our act together on that.

 

Has nothing to do with threatening the debt limit - that is money aready spent.   

Is it really already spent?.....I think not, budgeted in a a budget that is not passed perhaps

 

kinda amazing

[@DCGoldPants]

on top of that, has it ever worked? If the gov't shuts down is anybody going to say "It was those Senate Dems and the White House that did it!". I take that back. Will swing voters and independents say that? Not likely.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Is it really already spent?.....I think not, budgeted in a a budget that is not passed perhaps

 

kinda amazing

 

Here's what I don't get about the debt limit idea.

 

The GOP is offering to raise the debt limit "in exchange" for some things they want.  Tell me, what are the democrats actually getting in this deal.  The democrats are "getting" the "raised debt limit"?  The GOP doesn't want that either.  The GOP wants the government to default, so in exchange for not getting the default they want, they want to defund Obamacare?

 

Does this make any sense?  I don't see why the democrats should give the GOP anything "in exchange" for nothing.  

[twa]

on top of that, has it ever worked? If the gov't shuts down is anybody going to say "It was those Senate Dems and the White House that did it!". I take that back. Will swing voters and independents say that? Not likely.

 

Ya'll should be celebrating then

 

 

TLS....why do we have a debt limit?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Ya'll should be celebrating then

 

 

TLS....why do we have a debt limit?

 

TLS?  Is that me?  I am assuming it is...

 

I don't recall the exact history, but I think about 150 years after the Constitution, someone in Congress wanted a little more power over the executive branch.  

 

I'm not even blaming the idea of having a debt limit (which I opine is unconstitutional) because that is how the branches always work: they are always trying to gain more power, and check the other's power.  That constant battle is a good thing in the long run.

 

But, what does that have to do with my question?  What are the democrats getting in raising the debt limit?  Are they the ones that want to allow the government to pay its bills, and the GOP doesn't?

[Larry]

Ya'll should be celebrating then

TLS....why do we have a debt limit?

To attempt to put a spending limit ON CONGRESS.

Unfortunately, Congress has decided that it's really fun, politically, to mandate the President spend money, and then act like it's the President's fault when he does what he is legally required to do.

[@DCGoldPants]

Ya'll should be celebrating then

 

 

 

Celebrating what? That they can't stop the drunk driver from plowing into a group of kids and it's cool because the Dems wouldn't get blamed for it? That's nothing to cheer for. Its just plain sad to see.

 

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/09/27/house-gop-has-no-plan-to-avoid-shutdown/

 

Washington (CNN) – After the Senate passed a short-term bill to keep federal agencies funded through mid-November, it sent the measure to the House of Representatives, just three days before a possible government shutdown.

But the House was done for the day. And House Speaker John Boehner and his leadership team appear to have no plan to avoid the shutdown.

"I think our members still want to fight. What that means, I don't know. I don't know that they know," one senior House GOP leadership aide told CNN.

 

[twa]

To attempt to put a spending limit ON CONGRESS.

Unfortunately, Congress has decided that it's really fun, politically, to mandate the President spend money, and then act like it's the President's fault when he does what he is legally required to do.

 

 

Celebrating what? That they can't stop the drunk driver from plowing into a group of kids and it's cool because the Dems wouldn't get blamed for it? That's nothing to cheer for. Its just plain sad to see.

 

 

It is not mandated to be spent unless it is in the budget...correct?

The CR is about the budget.

 

SGP .........Is telling the drunk to accelerate better?

[@DCGoldPants]

It is not mandated to be spent unless it is in the budget...correct?

The CR is about the budget.

 

SGP .........Is telling the drunk to accelerate better?

 

Not the case at all and you know it. They even partially admit it. They'll approve raising the ceiling if they get what they want. Must feel really strong about that ceiling then. Boehner doesn't even know what they are fighting for now. Nobody does.

 

Just change the ACA to ReaganCare and lets move on.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

It is not mandated to be spent unless it is in the budget...correct?

The CR is about the budget.

 

SGP .........Is telling the drunk to accelerate better?

 

No that's wrong.  The money is already spent.  The interest is racking up.  The CR is not the final bill that's going to put us over our debt limit.  Its not that if we don't pass the CR then we won't go over the debt ceiling.

 

That is patently and totally wrong, and is probably a misleading talking point from some jackhole like Hannity.

 

Still, do I get an answer to my question:

 

What do the dems get in this "exchange" of debt ceiling increase for republican goodies?