Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
his speech is pretty useful for understanding whats going on actually
a million people who have rent and mortgages to pay, not being paid.
i thought the disagreement came more than the general budget proposed, and Obama wanting to raise the debt ceiling yet again(mainly to fund Obamacare)?
The raising of the debt ceiling is usually a formality, and the funding of Obamacare is not dependent on it at all, but once again the Republicans have decided that they'd rather the government was shut down to make a partisan point than people not die because they're poor.
how much is the expected cost?
Without knowing exact details of the situation i'm not sure its as clear cut as you're suggesting.
If it's a right-wing idea it's clearly evil, stupid, ill-thought-out and lacking any supporting evidence whatsoever.
The debt ceiling these days is essentially an annual raising that has taken place every year since Bush came to power.
There's genuinely no argument about this one - it's Republicans, or the nutty Tea-Party wing of the Republicans, disrupting government and the US economy to make a political point.
Raising the debt limit isn't anything whatsoever to do with authorising more borrowing - it's simply a motion to allow the Treasury to pay debts already incurred. Since only the congress (i.e. not the president) can authorise spending, it's congress essentially saying it isn't going to pay for bills it has already racked up.
refusing to approve budgets that have been approved by the House of Representatives.
jordan was asking about the debt limit though
the problem really is the "Christmas Tree bill" processes that's become so common in the US. It's just unusual that either the House or Senate would introduce such a controversial rider onto such an important bill unless their intention was to kill it.
But is not the same thing and would have to be raised anyway but isn't really important but we all know how neo-liberals like to scare the masses by talking about gov't debt as if it were similar to personal debt
its definitely not a neo-liberal thing.
his pragmatism/one nation/responsible capitalism isn't exactly 'neoliberal' in the way that labour has been for 20 years.
like suggesting a political parties philosophy is different to what it actually is would make you laugh out loud?
is almost heartbreaking
what about labour's economic policy is neoliberal?
backing the government on the retroactive changes to the workfare scheme, assuming that the private sector can build enough houses to meet the shortfall in supply, refusing to cut VAT in lieu of increasing the top rate of income tax etc. etc etc?
(they've opposed NHS, Royal Mail, East Coast privatisation etc), but their economic policies are still to the right of Thatcher.
'You mean apart from not apposing many of the coalition's punitive welfare reforms'
- that's just incorrect.
' but their economic policies are still to the right of Thatcher.' :'D
Come back when Labour are talking about re-nationalising the Post Office.
because they haven't said they would renationalise royal mail*? that's quite silly especially since labour's shadow business secretary pretty strongly criticised the govt plan. not gonna do a run-through of labour's policies (cap on energy bills? childcare? repealing the health and social care provisions?) but honestly labour to the right of thatcher...eh?
*i can only assume you mean royal mail because the post office is a different entity which vince cable has indicated he wants to see mutualised.
I'm not saying it's Labour's fault the goalposts have been moved quite a distance since Mag's day (it is). My blithe point about the Post Office is that were Red Ed to talk about policies that put him to the left of Thatcher, he'd get laughed out of town. She never envisioned a Labour that was so pro private business it would force the Tories into becoming the intensely destructive monetarist free-for-alls they are now.
your thinking would imply that it is indeed a neo-liberal thing...(not that i agree though; labour's position on national debt isn't that).
That's where a lot of the strangeness occurs.
people in the lower income brackets voting for governments that have pledged, or have policies that make their situation worse.
A lot of it is driven my the media and rhetoric - it depends on identifying scapegoats, the illusion of rewarding success and by increasing suspicion of science, research, intellectualism and expertise, but it's something that's not a recent development.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/jun/05/why-working-class-people-vote-conservative (this one is slightly discredited as being over-simplistic)
The situation in the US is very different to that in the UK, where the split between Labour/Conservative is stereotyped as being synonymous with the north/south or poor/wealthy divide. In the US it's different, the Democrat/Republican split is more typically urban/rural or wealthy/poor.
although isn't it indicative of a uber-libertarian behaviour/mindset which was entrenched long before Reagan rocked up? I mean even during the Great Depression I'd wager the dominant logic amongst the economically ruined would've been `the government SHOULDN'T be doing anything about this?`. Such is the US belief in a) personal freedom and b) the free market.
I suppose it depends on how long you go back. I mean state intervention in poverty the UK is only a relatively recent phenomenon (just over 100 years old in essence).
are of such a libertarian bent that they are opposed to the state `forcing` them to have free healthcare (as they see it) even though they and their families would benefit from it.
The line between state interference vs. personal liberty in America is one which is very starkly drawn for many. And, yes, even when it comes to policies which very much can be a difference between life and death.
Definitely saw some interviews a few years ago with poor Americans against Obama's healthcare plans saying they'd rather get sick than have the government help them. Chilling viewing for a left-leaning Brit, for sure.
which will hurt them and their children for little practical reason, so let's not start throwing stones.
It comes from a different political mindset, mind (deserving poor vs. undeserving poor etc. etc.)
What happens next is Obama walking from the White House to the Capitol, being applauded by buses of old people who admire his resolve.
and drinking scotch.
about most Americans being happy to eat rats under bridges, as long as no-one was getting free ketchup with theirs?
surely something more apt would be along the lines of...
most Americans being happy to eat rats under bridges, even if a good chunk of people are eating caviar off silver platters, as long as they think there's even a 0.001% chance that /they'll/ be able to eat caviar off a silver platter one day.
not as catchy, granted, but you catch my drift.
I would've designed a system a govt that *couldn't* be easily shut down by a group of ridiculous dickheads. But I guess they knew best.
A dictatorship? One requiring a public referendum for every federal budget?
Or one that restricts the boneheaded elements of the former from, essentially trolling the country until people die.
The House of Lords don't have the power to amend the annual Finance Act or any other "Money Bills". The only situation where this kind of horse trading could go on would be one where a government doesn't have a majority in the House of Commons and even then supply and demand would be likely to see any reasonable budget through.
to stop the Senate refusing to approve the budgets approved by the House of Representatives.
Labour tried to scupper a Holyrood budget in 2008, when there was a minority government. But Swinney called their bluff by negotiating like a grown up. In the end Labour three a wobbly and abstained from voting for a budget that /they'd/ pushed for. But it went through anyway, cos the revised budget was deemed palatable by a broad majority consensus whilst Labour had backed itself into a corner. pLOLitics.
The Right to Not Be Ruled By A Group of Ridiculous Dickheads in the constitution or something like that
plenty of employers are actually slashing workers hours to avoid paying into ACA.
Not to say this means ACA should be scrapped, just that callousness of US private employers is really being exposed here.
or Obamacare as it's more commonly called.
Sounds like a Brazilian footballer.
but surely they should have thought of that when deciding the law? And there was another thing about the fines for not paying for the insurance being less than paying for the insurance...
given how many people would have been at risk of incurring huge costs from not having a insurance at all figuring out alternatives is tricky.
Not to mention, there has to be a point at which slashing hours hurts companies bottom line, as surely slashing staff and payrolls actually hurts the amount of money the company are actually able to earn.
which as we've seen in the UK is perfectly doable when unemployment is high.
straight from the job centre.
except that I wouldnt be allowed to, so I couldnt fix it
You don't know whether the US Congress would let a random British pagan fix their government until you ask
Gordon Brown also did not seem to heed any of the advice I tried to give him.
bullet points please x
Were they to refuse to increase the debt ceiling without Obamacare in the equation, would cause an amount of panic and destabilisation of world markets and more things will wobble and threaten to topple (unless more is done to intervene to make capitalism appear to be able to work)
That might still happen in a few weeks, but this is just over the budget impasse for now
all of the national parks have shut their massive gates. Where are they going to play national football? :(
: "American voters are divided on Obamacare, with 45% in favor and 47% opposed, but they are opposed 58% to 34% to Congress cutting off funding for the health care law to stop its implementation."
and it seems there's a huge democrat lead for 2014 congressionals. encouraging that people can see what a bunch of dicks the gop are being.
means Democrats have to win the vote by 7%-8% just to win a bare majority in the House. That'll be pretty hard
newspieces make it seem like everyone wants it.
but that particular margin's statistically insignificant. You need at least a 5 point lead on any given question to draw any conclusions from that one.
the more relevant polling is how many people understand it, which is generally around the low 30 percent mark. There's so much misinformation out there that - don't take this the wrong way, because it's not meant as an insult - but sound like you in this thread.
A lot of people don't even know it's currently the law and has already been passed as opposed to a bill that is still being debated, due to the fact it keeps being brought up on unrelated occasions such as this.
Also, when people are asked whether they are in favour of the Affordable Care Act the results are 10-15% higher than when the same question is asked but with the word Obamacare swapped for the ACA.
The actual exchanges open for enrollment for the first time today - a betting man would say its unpopularity will never be as high again as it is this morning. As people start to see how it affects them it'll likely gradually gain in popularity.
But it's relevant here too
It's about how the kind of people who win elections and promotions based on confidence and charisma often have precisely the wrong characteristics for competent leadership
`Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job`
but yeah thats a good quote
The 'blog' is an article on Harvard Business Review
The quote isn't from the article ...but it wouldn't be out of place in it
even when it was the bears i knew it was the germans!
rock, flag & eagle
trying to stop the affordable care act from passing congress?
Republicans control one half of one third of the branches of government, and ran on repeal at the last election - they lost the presidential election, and lost several seats in both the house and the senate.
So what this amounts to is an attempt to hold the entire functioning of government to ransom to achieve an objective that they can't achieve through normal legislative processes. That is to say, it's undemocratic.
and overpaid, comfortable, corrupt politicians making decisions for people they give zero fucks about. funny/sad enough, approval for 'Affordable Healthcare Act' is significantly higher than approval for 'Obamacare.' The fact that the bill is commonly called Obamacare is sign enough that most people want it to fail simply due to the name behind it. It might not be a perfect plan, but the fact that grown ass adults in charge of this country are acting like petulant children at the cost of the people doing actual work just to prove a point...fuck.