Republicans want to wreck the US economy

[Brandon Rhea]

Yeah I'm not far left at all. I'm fairly centrist.

I'm on my phone right now so I can't say more atm

 

[Sovereign]

clock is still ticking.

 

[Ping]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/gop-image-takes-hit-debt-ceiling-fight-173312513.html

Thoughts?

 

[Sovereign]

Republicans want to cut food stamps for poor people and slash programs which helps feed pregnant women and malnourished children. Nice going there, assholes. Yet they aren't even willing to tax private jets. I wish I could make this stuff up. This is just unconscionable.

 

[Roven]

They're both ****ing worthless. Let's give up on the left and right and wipe our own asses.

 

[Sovereign]

They're both ****ing worthless. Let's give up on the left and right and wipe our own asses.

No.

 

[Dmitri]

No.

Quiet, Canadian. You have no say so in our country!

:CFuu

Then again, you have made some very good observations.

:CStern

And pitched in some good ideas.

:CCry2

And you boarder us, so most likely what'll happen to us, might affect you.

:CCry1

I'm so sorry. I didn't mean to anger you, Your Sinness.

 

[Sovereign]

And you boarder us, so most likely what'll happen to us, might affect you.

Our entire country is dependent on the U.S. Everything that your country does affects us directly. Your war on drugs, your ailing economy, the strength of your currency, your unemployment levels, your debt, etc etc.

Your country is my business because what's happening in Washington right now affects me almost as much as you.

 

[Dmitri]

Our entire country is dependent on the U.S. Everything that your country does affects us directly. Your war on drugs, your ailing economy, the strength of your currency, your unemployment levels, your debt, etc etc.

Your country is my business because what's happening in Washington right now affects me almost as much as you.

Then I suggest we take the advice of your avatar.

 

[Random Hero]

Our entire country is dependent on the U.S. Everything that your country does affects us directly. Your war on drugs, your ailing economy, the strength of your currency, your unemployment levels, your debt, etc etc.

Your country is my business because what's happening in Washington right now affects me almost as much as you.

And there is the problem. How to fix it is the question.

 

[Andreus Makaryk]

So now the FAA might shut down because House Republicans want to pull subsidies for small-town airline service in retaliation for new agency rules (gasp!) making it easier for airline and railroad employees to unionize.

I can't make this shit up.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap...s_y8nA?docId=9d247928cd59468e863647b80937ea97

ATCs are "essential employees" and would continue to work anyway, but there's absolutely nothing in the article about whether maintenance inspectors are considered essential or not. If they're not...something like Alaska Airlines 261 could happen all over again.

Congress needs to get its shit together...

 

[Travis]

So, it is the Republican's fault for everything while the Democrats who won't vote for a bill are completely blameless? The Republicans passed a bill in the House last April, yet it was the Democratic Senate that wouldn't vote for it. Now, they passed another bill and yet Democrats are likely not to approve it. It isn't that the Republicans are the only ones being hard nosed, it is that BOTH are.

As for the rules in contention, they are a clearly Democrat favoring set of rules passed when the Democrats were in supreme power. They aren't some championing liberties clause or anything, it is simply making it easier for Democrat controlled unions to muscle their way into previously private establishments by jamming the seats with their supporters and ramrodding the vote through. Good riddance to it.

The other issue is the subsidies which shouldn't be done in the first place. Why is it the government's job to subsidize airports and why is it (just by chance, I am sure) that the people opposing it just happen to have one of the thirteen airports Republicans want to cut in their home state? That smacks of corruption right there. This is just one of the probably thousands of little things that needs to be cut out of the budget until such a time as we have a surplus.

 

[Keanu]

The other issue is the subsidies which shouldn't be done in the first place. Why is it the government's job to subsidize airports and why is it (just by chance, I am sure) that the people opposing it just happen to have one of the thirteen airports Republicans want to cut in their home state? That smacks of corruption right there. This is just one of the probably thousands of little things that needs to be cut out of the budget until such a time as we have a surplus.

Infrastructure is an area that involves the government and I have no qualms with the government helping airports staying open and providing accessibility to vistors, tourists etc.

Its possible that the airports cant run without the subsidies

 

[Travis]

If an airport can't survive without those subsidies, then it should be the local or state government that keeps them open, not the federal government. Those airports most directly benefit those in the local area (be it by providing jobs, bringing in tourists, or allowing ease of travel for locals) so a more local government (state, county, city, etc) should pay for it.

 

[Keanu]

If an airport can't survive without those subsidies, then it should be the local or state government that keeps them open, not the federal government. Those airports most directly benefit those in the local area (be it by providing jobs, bringing in tourists, or allowing ease of travel for locals) so a more local government (state, county, city, etc) should pay for it.

I guess that is a matter of opinion. Thing is many state and local governments can barely pay what they spend at the moment.

 

[Random Hero]

If an airport can't survive without those subsidies, then it should be the local or state government that keeps them open, not the federal government. Those airports most directly benefit those in the local area (be it by providing jobs, bringing in tourists, or allowing ease of travel for locals) so a more local government (state, county, city, etc) should pay for it.

In an ideal world, this should apply to most everything except defense.

 

[Travis]

I guess that is a matter of opinion. Thing is many state and local governments can barely pay what they spend at the moment.

Yet the federal government CAN?
That is why we then need to cut such programs. When the government (state, local, or federal) can't afford what it is spending, we must cut that spending.

In an ideal world, this should apply to most everything except defense.

Ehhh, I would disagree. There are a few things that I would prefer the federal government operating and spending on just because there has to be some nationwide standards for consistencies sake. Yes, most of what it spends now I would cut (along with federal tax rates) and send down to the state and local level (which could raise tax rates to balance for the lowered federal rates).

 

[Andreus Makaryk]

Newsflash Travis: Aviation is a federal matter, not the states' responsibility.

Unless you really think it's a good idea to have fifty versions of the Federal Aviation Regulations floating around!? Hmm, so if I want to become a commercial pilot, I have to learn FIFTY different sets of regulations (and international on top of that)?

There ARE some things that better left up to the federal government. If you think the federal bureaucracy is bad, just wait until fifty different states grab hold of it. That's a recipe for such bureaucracy to multiply.

Travis, the Republicans only control one half of one branch of government (not counting the Supreme Court, which while important, is fairly irrelevant to this discussion until someone sues over it). The Republican tactics of late have been to hold EVERYTHING hostage so nothing ever gets done, ever, until all their demands are met like a gaggle of freshman representatives own the place. Normal political processes of giving a little and getting a little simply aren't enough for them--they want to slash and burn everything they can lay their hands on. The president literally offered trillions in cuts including Medicare and Social Security, and the Republicans rejected it as not enough simply because the president had proposed it and they didn't want him to accomplish ANYTHING!

That kind of behavior is incredibly childish on the Republicans' part and, quite frankly, detrimental to the country.

 

[Random Hero]

http://news.yahoo.com/presidents-debt-offer-risky-could-win-win-211537107.html

Take the deal Republicans, please take the deal.

 

[Travis]

Newsflash Travis: Aviation is a federal matter, not the states' responsibility.

Newsflash: What the hell does general regulation have to do with paying subsidies? As I said, there are things the federal government should do and a general regulation of flying is one of them. However, paying subsidies for an airport that would otherwise not survive should not be one of those things.

Travis, the Republicans only control one half of one branch of government.

Newsflash: The "one half of one branch of government" that the Republicans hold just happens to be the branch responsible for spending. You know, it kinda makes sense that such a branch would hold a little more weight when it comes to budgets (which are spending).

The Republican tactics of late have been to hold EVERYTHING hostage so nothing ever gets done, ever, until all their demands are met like a gaggle of freshman representatives own the place. Normal political processes of giving a little and getting a little simply aren't enough for them--they want to slash and burn everything they can lay their hands on.

Considering that the Democrats had complete control (on paper, at least) of the government for two years and a majority of the control for a further two years and ran the spending up like crazy, is it any wonder the Republicans are taking a firm stance on things? The American people voted them into power with overwhelming numbers on all levels of government in 2010 precisely so that they can get this budget spending under control, not to compromise on the matter.

The president literally offered trillions in cuts including Medicare and Social Security, and the Republicans rejected it as not enough simply because the president had proposed it and they didn't want him to accomplish ANYTHING!

Newsflash: One of the main reasons why they are doing this is because they are actually trying to stick with their word and campaign pledges of not raising taxes. I know most Democrats don't bother with silly things like campaign pledges once they are in office, but these men and women are.

Look at the details on this "deal" that Obama is offering. This isn't a major cut TODAY, this is set to go over ten years with some provisions taking effect only in the 2030's. So in short, what Obama is offering is to cut roughly the same amount of deficit he and the Democrats have added in the last two years all in a ten year span. That $4 trillion he has proposed is $400 billion a year. That will leave over a trillion dollars of deficit this year alone assuming that $400 billion is applied. That just isn't going to cut it.

Further, one more problem with this is that it is too long term. Just because things are set up now for savings doesn't mean that the next time Democrats get control of the House that they won't go bonkers again and override whatever was decided today. That is Obama's plan: to "compromise" and get a long term deal he hopes can be overturned in the future. That and to raise taxes and provide a way to spin this to his advantage.