Site Search:
 
Speak Korean Now!
Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Rotten to the core
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Ya-ta Boy



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

PostPosted: Thu Oct 24, 2013 10:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I thought I'd mention an alternative measure to his meaningless constitutional amendment gesture that has the virtue of being meaningful and has at least the possibility to pass Congress.


While it’s still fresh on everyone’s mind, it makes sense to invest some effort into preventing future crises.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) will propose legislation that would make permanent a scheme to take the decision to raise the country’s debt limit out of Congress’s hands.

By making the so-called “McConnell rule” permanent, the president would have ultimate authority to raise the debt limit and prevent the United States from defaulting.

...there’s a lot to like about the “McConnell rule.” The idea originated in 2011 with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who suggested the debt ceiling should remain in place, but the legislative burden should shift – the White House would have the authority to extend Treasury’s borrowing, and instead of going to Congress for permission, Congress would only have the power to proactively block Treasury. In other words, instead of needing a “yes” from Congress, lawmakers would only have the ability to say “no.”

That’s a policy Schumer would like to make permanent, in part to relieve economic uncertainty and offer some reassurance to the private sector about the nation’s willingness to pay our debts, and in part to ensure fewer hostage crises in Washington going forward.


It's not quite as good as getting rid of the whole debt ceiling thing altogether, but it's a decent effort, and would still keep a form of the law around for grandstanding purposes. Obama, I'm looking at you.

Keeping the debt ceiling law as it is now is as foolish as keeping a loaded gun stashed under the bed when you've got an inquisitive 4-year-old in the house.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Udo



Joined: 22 May 2011
Location: Seoul

PostPosted: Thu Oct 24, 2013 11:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

its come to the point that if you are not in favor of Obama care that you are called a "racist."
Just check out this site. I have been a victim of pro black affirmative action all of my working life.

http://stuffblackpeopledontlike.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
geldedgoat



Joined: 05 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 7:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ya-ta Boy wrote:
I thought I'd mention an alternative measure to his meaningless constitutional amendment gesture that has the virtue of being meaningful and has at least the possibility to pass Congress.


I'd prefer a meaningless amendment.

The illogic of the McConnell debt limit rule
Quote:
What should be done to avoid another flirtation with default? (Let’s leave avoiding a shutdown for another day.) Some commentators, most recently the New York Times have proposed making the so-called “McConnell rule” the law of the land. The idea, named after Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), would allow the President to raise the debt ceiling unilaterally. Congress’s role would be limited to voting its disapproval of that increase. (McConnell’s suggestion to do this this was made originally in the context of a broader discussion that linked spending cuts to debt limit increases, but now his name has been applied to this part of his overall proposal.) This is essentially how debt ceiling issues were resolved earlier this year.

But making the McConnell rule law would be a mistake. It would enshrine the irresponsibility of all of those elected officials who have said they would never raise the debt limit to continue avoiding the responsibility for their actions. And it is based on a misunderstanding of why the debt ceiling has to be raised periodically.

Congress does not raise the debt ceiling periodically because the President likes the idea. Congress must increase it in response to actions (such as spending authorizations and tax laws) it has already taken. Allowing the president to raise the debt ceiling (because Congressional actions made it necessary) so Congress can then vote its disapproval makes no more sense than having Congress require the President to order a pizza and then vote to object that it has too many calories.

Forget about the animosity and mistrust between House Republicans and Obama. Just think about the Congress and the executive branch of government. The Constitution indicates that the government can not spend money, raise revenues or borrow funds without prior congressional approval. But when Congress OKs a budget where revenues are not sufficient to pay for spending (which it has done year after year for decades—with just a few exceptions) it does not concurrently approve the debt measures needed to fill the gap.

So, for example, Congress can legislate $100 in spending and $60 in taxes, but this does not automatically enable government to borrow the $40 difference. It can only do that by raising the debt ceiling. Implementing the McConnell rule would be asymmetric in that it would let the President authorize borrowing independently of Congress, but not revenues or spending.

A better solution would be to stipulate that when Congress authorizes spending, it is also authorizing the borrowing needed to finance that spending should tax revenues be insufficient. Like the McConnell rule, this would avoid showdowns over the debt limit. Unlike the McConnell rule, it would be consistent with the constitutional authority given to the Congress and it would require members of Congress to actually take responsibility for their actions and acknowledge that whatever spending they authorize does in fact have to be financed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ya-ta Boy



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

PostPosted: Tue Oct 29, 2013 5:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

geldedgoat wrote:
Ya-ta Boy wrote:
I thought I'd mention an alternative measure to his meaningless constitutional amendment gesture that has the virtue of being meaningful and has at least the possibility to pass Congress.


I'd prefer a meaningless amendment.

The illogic of the McConnell debt limit rule
Quote:
What should be done to avoid another flirtation with default? (Let’s leave avoiding a shutdown for another day.) Some commentators, most recently the New York Times have proposed making the so-called “McConnell rule” the law of the land. The idea, named after Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), would allow the President to raise the debt ceiling unilaterally. Congress’s role would be limited to voting its disapproval of that increase. (McConnell’s suggestion to do this this was made originally in the context of a broader discussion that linked spending cuts to debt limit increases, but now his name has been applied to this part of his overall proposal.) This is essentially how debt ceiling issues were resolved earlier this year.

But making the McConnell rule law would be a mistake. It would enshrine the irresponsibility of all of those elected officials who have said they would never raise the debt limit to continue avoiding the responsibility for their actions. And it is based on a misunderstanding of why the debt ceiling has to be raised periodically.

Congress does not raise the debt ceiling periodically because the President likes the idea. Congress must increase it in response to actions (such as spending authorizations and tax laws) it has already taken. Allowing the president to raise the debt ceiling (because Congressional actions made it necessary) so Congress can then vote its disapproval makes no more sense than having Congress require the President to order a pizza and then vote to object that it has too many calories.

Forget about the animosity and mistrust between House Republicans and Obama. Just think about the Congress and the executive branch of government. The Constitution indicates that the government can not spend money, raise revenues or borrow funds without prior congressional approval. But when Congress OKs a budget where revenues are not sufficient to pay for spending (which it has done year after year for decades—with just a few exceptions) it does not concurrently approve the debt measures needed to fill the gap.

So, for example, Congress can legislate $100 in spending and $60 in taxes, but this does not automatically enable government to borrow the $40 difference. It can only do that by raising the debt ceiling. Implementing the McConnell rule would be asymmetric in that it would let the President authorize borrowing independently of Congress, but not revenues or spending.

A better solution would be to stipulate that when Congress authorizes spending, it is also authorizing the borrowing needed to finance that spending should tax revenues be insufficient. Like the McConnell rule, this would avoid showdowns over the debt limit. Unlike the McConnell rule, it would be consistent with the constitutional authority given to the Congress and it would require members of Congress to actually take responsibility for their actions and acknowledge that whatever spending they authorize does in fact have to be financed.


I would prefer the bolded part, too, but I haven't seen it in Congress yet.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ya-ta Boy



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

PostPosted: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

On Tuesday the Senate voted on (but it failed) a Resolution to Disapprove of raising the debt ceiling. The 27 senators who voted in favor of raising the debt ceiling all voted to disapprove of the vote they cast 2 weeks ago.

Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes

I don't know when the House votes on this.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
lithium



Joined: 18 Jun 2008

PostPosted: Fri Nov 01, 2013 8:34 am    Post subject: Re: Rotten to the core Reply with quote

young_clinton wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/for-a-cancer-patient--the-government-shutdown-is-a-matter-of-life-or-death-211105936.html

Let's hope the Republican party is a dying party. It will be good for the country to be rid of the party and for the party to be replaced with another conservative institution.


Now that it is known that Obama dilibertly lied to the American people about his stupid socialist healthcare debacle and millions are losing their coverage plus are going to pay hundreds more per month with drastic premium increases, do you now understand the reason for the Republican stand? Sadly, I presume the answer is no judging by your user name.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ya-ta Boy



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

PostPosted: Sat Nov 02, 2013 9:01 am    Post subject: Re: Rotten to the core Reply with quote

young_clinton wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/for-a-cancer-patient--the-government-shutdown-is-a-matter-of-life-or-death-211105936.html

Let's hope the Republican party is a dying party. It will be good for the country to be rid of the party and for the party to be replaced with another conservative institution.


A lot of the donor class is fed up with the Tea Party. There are deep divisions in the GOP. Public sentiment favoring a new party is higher now than I've ever seen it. The times seem right for it.

The biggest argument against it happening is lack of leadership. Who would lead the thing? It would require an amount of courage from the non-Tea Party wing that we haven't seen.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Sun Nov 03, 2013 8:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rand Paul in response to people accurately pointing out the characteristics of certain of his speeches: “I take it as an insult, and I will not lie down and say people can call me dishonest, misleading or misrepresenting — I have never intentionally done so and like I say, ‘If dueling were legal in Kentucky, if they keep it up, you know it’d be a duel challenge.’”

Saying you'd like to challenge a woman to a duel, if only the law allowed it. I don't even care about where he gets his speech content from, but this is just pathetic.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
geldedgoat



Joined: 05 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Mon Nov 04, 2013 7:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fox wrote:
Saying you'd like to challenge a woman to a duel, if only the law allowed it. I don't even care about where he gets his speech content from, but this is just pathetic.


The contrived bloodlust is pathetic, yes, but Rachel Maddow qualifies as a woman only in the most technical of senses, and even there barely.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Leon



Joined: 31 May 2010

PostPosted: Mon Nov 04, 2013 11:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

geldedgoat wrote:
Fox wrote:
Saying you'd like to challenge a woman to a duel, if only the law allowed it. I don't even care about where he gets his speech content from, but this is just pathetic.


The contrived bloodlust is pathetic, yes, but Rachel Maddow qualifies as a woman only in the most technical of senses, and even there barely.


Because you do disagree with her, she doesn't know her place, she doesn't look/act feminine enough in your opinion?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ya-ta Boy



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

PostPosted: Wed Nov 06, 2013 7:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

First Rubio almost certainly disqualified himself (as far as the Tea Party is concerned) with his work on immigration reform. That left 2.

Next, Paul's filibuster on the drone thing helped him gain national recognition, but the Southern Avenger fiasco certainly hurt him outside the South. Now, playing the victim in this plagiarism debacle has made him look silly and immature. A simple, "Oops. My speech-writing staff needs to be more careful. I'm sure they'll do better in the future" would have been enough. Now he's said he's been too busy being a senator to pay close enough attention. And he expects to be able to explain that away when running for the top job? Um, I don't think so. That leaves only one.

Cruz. Cruz played a leading role in the shutdown, which helped with conservatives but damaged 'the brand' according to all the polls. At this point it's just Cruz...and Christie.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Thu Nov 07, 2013 5:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ya-ta Boy wrote:
A simple, "Oops. My speech-writing staff needs to be more careful. I'm sure they'll do better in the future" would have been enough.


Yes, I agree. That would have been the best response.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
geldedgoat



Joined: 05 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Thu Nov 07, 2013 9:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Leon wrote:
Because you do disagree with her, she doesn't know her place, she doesn't look/act feminine enough in your opinion?


"Rachel Maddow qualifies as a woman only in the most technical of senses": She celebrates her rejection of womanhood, though she does still possess a double set of X chromosomes.
"even there barely": The expression of the normal secondary sex characteristics of such a chromosomal pairing, however, has obviously been compromised at some point during her development.

Happy?

Kuros wrote:
I agree.


"Are you insured through Medicaid or other public plan? All good here, too." Distract from one lie by pushing another. Cute.

==========

They shut down the government to defend a service that they knew was riddled with potential security threats that could easily lead to a compromise of private medical information (not to mention the "navigators") and placed themselves in a position for an obvious and disastrous lie to be exposed. This has moved the public further away from single-payer, back into the firm grasp of health insurers. Kuros, your sadism is now meaningless.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Titus



Joined: 19 May 2012

PostPosted: Thu Nov 07, 2013 1:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The focus on the 'keep your plan' quote is in itself a win for D's.

The ACA is a corporate handout that is screwing tens of millions. That should be the focus. Who cares what he said. The scheme is complete crap.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Thu Nov 07, 2013 7:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

geldedgoat wrote:

They shut down the government to defend a service that they knew was riddled with potential security threats that could easily lead to a compromise of private medical information (not to mention the "navigators") and placed themselves in a position for an obvious and disastrous lie to be exposed. This has moved the public further away from single-payer, back into the firm grasp of health insurers. Kuros, your sadism is now meaningless.


Wha . . . ? I don't even . . .
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 6 of 7

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International