China: 'World should de-Americanise'

[johnsonma]

What are the qualifications to run in Congress?

There are none! That is the entire point! Everyone and anyone should be able to run and hold office because they're working in the best interest of the people and the country.

There is no degree that prepares you to go to Congress. That's the problem.. Jesse Ventura was right when he ran. He ran as a Statesmen, made the hard decisions, and got out and took up other jobs.

Keep voting for career politicians Johnny...

Eh, if I had a choice between a career politician and a completely brain dead person like Ted Cruz, I would take the career politician. You are naive to think having just anyone hold office is a recipe for success. I agree that there should be turnover but not at the cost of putting in disillusioned fanatics.

Keep voting for the imbeciles Riser...

 

[johnsonma]

@Chunky

I have no doubt that democrats do this too. It doesn't make it any less wrong though, even if you think it does. The Koch brothers are the pinnacle of whats wrong with our political system. Maybe Soros is just as bad, I don't know. I haven't researched him as much.

I find it funny that you guys think its alright that anyone can control political representatives with money. You think this is how it should work. Its the most pathetic thing in the world that we call ourselves a republican democracy when one or two very rich people can control our elected officials. Its starts with funding, then the politicians become dependent on it. Before you know it they are nothing but puppets. Probably happens on both sides of the aisle but again, this doesn't make it any less damning.

Lets look at a scenario. Mr. Politician get funding from the American Blah Blah Blah Federation because he is a conservative running on reducing the budget and small government. What happens when Syria explodes again and a vote for war against Assad goes to congress? Turns out the American federation president is also a board member of a DoD contractor that would make lots of money if they went into Syria. He then leverages American Federation to strong arm the politician into voting yes even though he and the people he represents are against it. Say he stands up and votes no? Well then, the American Federation spends millions on the next election cycle on an imbecile who will be more controllable and the good guy who stood up to them is cast aside.

This is just a scenario of what this kind of influence could produce. If you think this is fine then I guess we agree to disagree.

 

[musical marv]

The tea party is about as grass roots as the Kochs money.

David Axelrod, is that you?

In all seriousness, according to your perception mingo, how was the TEA Party formed, or how did it come about?

Let me ask you a question about the Tea party. Do you think there are bigots in this party?

 

[Reynod]

@Chunky

I have no doubt that democrats do this too. It doesn't make it any less wrong though, even if you think it does. The Koch brothers are the pinnacle of whats wrong with our political system. Maybe Soros is just as bad, I don't know. I haven't researched him as much.

I find it funny that you guys think its alright that anyone can control political representatives with money. You think this is how it should work. Its the most pathetic thing in the world that we call ourselves a republican democracy when one or two very rich people can control our elected officials. Its starts with funding, then the politicians become dependent on it. Before you know it they are nothing but puppets. Probably happens on both sides of the aisle but again, this doesn't make it any less damning.

Lets look at a scenario. Mr. Politician get funding from the American Blah Blah Blah Federation because he is a conservative running on reducing the budget and small government. What happens when Syria explodes again and a vote for war against Assad goes to congress? Turns out the American federation president is also a board member of a DoD contractor that would make lots of money if they went into Syria. He then leverages American Federation to strong arm the politician into voting yes even though he and the people he represents are against it. Say he stands up and votes no? Well then, the American Federation spends millions on the next election cycle on an imbecile who will be more controllable and the good guy who stood up to them is cast aside.

This is just a scenario of what this kind of influence could produce. If you think this is fine then I guess we agree to disagree.

I have to point out that you must divest yourself of any private holdings before taking public office. So, you really can't be in the DOD and on a board of directors for a major corporation at the same time. It's illegal. Like, a long prison sentence illegal.

Here's a question. Why can't the elected official running our lives have some morals? Because we ourselves have none these days? Because people don't care about morals any more. Anything goes because "we don't want to judge people"? Maybe we should expect more from our glorious elected leaders rather than treating them like rockstars and celebrities? Just a suggestion. It seems to be a resume enhancer for a politician to be a degenerate, self serving crony. Some people actually supported Anthony Weiner in his recent bid. Really? Yes, really they did.

Back to my original point. This IS democracy in action johnson. A good amount of people are feeling like they are being screwed, and not in the good way. There is a backlash occurring. I am not surprised at all. I am surprised that you are surprised there would be such a vehement backlash against this usurpation of control and authority over our daily lives.

BTW, how did your sign up at the Obamacare website go johnson. I know you were trying to be first in line so was just curious. Is that "virtual waiting room" working well for you?

ninja edit:

Yeah, reading the description below, Ted Cruz totally sounds "brain dead" as you stated. You are far more brain dead than Ted Cruz johnson.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

During high school, Cruz participated in a Houston-based group called the Free Market Education Foundation where Cruz learned about free-market economic philosophers such as Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, Frédéric Bastiat and Ludwig von Mises.[20] The program was run by Rolland Storey and Cruz entered the program at the age of 13.[18]

Cruz graduated cum laude from Princeton University with a Bachelor of Arts from the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs in 1992.[1][4] While at Princeton, he competed for the American Whig-Cliosophic Society's Debate Panel and won the top speaker award at both the 1992 U.S. National Debating Championship and the 1992 North American Debating Championship.[27] In 1992, he was named U.S. National Speaker of the Year and Team of the Year (with his debate partner, David Panton).[27] Cruz was also a semi-finalist at the 1995 World Universities Debating Championship.[28]

Cruz's senior thesis on the separation of powers, titled "Clipping the Wings of Angels," draws its inspiration from a passage attributed to President James Madison: "If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." Cruz argued that the drafters of the Constitution intended to protect the rights of their constituents, and the last two items in the Bill of Rights offered an explicit stop against an all-powerful state. Cruz wrote: "They simply do so from different directions. The Tenth stops new powers, and the Ninth fortifies all other rights, or non-powers."[24][29]

After graduating from Princeton, Cruz attended Harvard Law School, graduating magna cum laude in 1995 with a Juris Doctor.[1][30] While at Harvard Law, Cruz was a primary editor of the Harvard Law Review, and executive editor of the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, and a founding editor of the Harvard Latino Law Review.[4] Referring to Cruz's time as a student at Harvard Law, Professor Alan Dershowitz said, "Cruz was off-the-charts brilliant." At Harvard Law, Cruz was a John M. Olin Fellow in Law and Economics.[36]

Cruz currently serves on the Board of Advisors of the Texas Review of Law and Politics.[36][37]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Cruz

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yup, just as johnson said. Totally brain dead Cruz. Whatever pal. johnson von shilling keeps on shilling.

OMG please cease the personal attacks on others.

 

[chunkymonster]

@Chunky

I have no doubt that democrats do this too. It doesn't make it any less wrong though, even if you think it does. The Koch brothers are the pinnacle of whats wrong with our political system. Maybe Soros is just as bad, I don't know. I haven't researched him as much.

Then research Soros before jumping on the progressive talking point band wagon of demonizing the Koch brothers.

I find it funny that you guys think its alright that anyone can control political representatives with money. You think this is how it should work. Its the most pathetic thing in the world that we call ourselves a republican democracy when one or two very rich people can control our elected officials. Its starts with funding, then the politicians become dependent on it. Before you know it they are nothing but puppets. Probably happens on both sides of the aisle but again, this doesn't make it any less damning.

Using the phrase "you guys" sounds elitist, might as well as say "you people" in a room full of black folks. I do not (and I doubt OMG_73 or Riser do) condone large money donors swinging a politicians votes against the will of the people and I do not think that is the way it should work. The majority of republicans and democrat incumbent politicans (recent prime example being Mitch McConnell agreeing to ending the shutdown only because he got $2+ Million in pork for a years old damn project) are beholden to lobbysists and special interest groups. The sad reality is that is the way of modern politics and it definitely happens on both sides of the aisle!

The irony here is the rampant corporatism and corrupt politics is part and parcel of what the Tea Party is against. The Tea Party and donors like the Koch brothers threatens the status quo of incumbent republican and democrat representatives, and are the anti-thesis of progressive big government ideology. As a result, the Tea Party and Koch brothers are raked over the coals and demonized by the liberal media, their talking heads, and un-informed foot soldiers. But what's truly sad about the rhetoric against the Tea Party and donors like the Koch brothers is when you compare the mission statements of organizations supported by the Koch brothers like Freedom Works or the Cato Institute to organizations supported by Soros like the Center for American Progress and MoveOn.org is those supported by the Koch brothers are in favor of America's Constitutional Republic, restoring republicanism at the State level, and reducing the power and scope of the federal government. Compare that to the stated goals of organizations supported by Soros that promote reducing American sovereignty in favor of globalization, removing the american dollar as the world backing currency, legislating social justice, and growing the size, power, and scope of the federal government. When you actually research what these two people are donating their money to support, it becomes apparent that one supports and promotes American sovereignty and the Constitution while other works to grow the size, scope, and power of a central socialized democracy in America.

Lets look at a scenario. Mr. Politician get funding from the American Blah Blah Blah Federation because he is a conservative running on reducing the budget and small government. What happens when Syria explodes again and a vote for war against Assad goes to congress? Turns out the American federation president is also a board member of a DoD contractor that would make lots of money if they went into Syria. He then leverages American Federation to strong arm the politician into voting yes even though he and the people he represents are against it. Say he stands up and votes no? Well then, the American Federation spends millions on the next election cycle on an imbecile who will be more controllable and the good guy who stood up to them is cast aside.

This is just a scenario of what this kind of influence could produce. If you think this is fine then I guess we agree to disagree.

Hypotheticals? I think I've made myself clear that I do not support large money donors swinging (republican or democrat) votes that go against the will of the people. Both republicans and democrats are guilty of being influenced, i.e.; oil companies, defense contractors, General Motors, General Electric, etc.

In reality, I think we agree on the same things but are seeing different paths to the same conclusion. Where we would need to agree to disagree is if you are choosing the path that believes a large centralized government is the solution to societal and cultural problems, believe that social justice should replace personal responsibility, believe the Constitution is an out-dated compact unable to live up to modern day problems, and believe the America people are better served through a social democracy than republicanism.

 

[chunkymonster]

I think there are bigots everywhere, in every party. Most people just hide it. I really have a hard time accepting hugely obese people.

Call be bigoted, I don't care. I'm not shedding a tear over your 37,666 calorie per day intake for the last how ever many years.

So yes Marv, bigots are everywhere. You hate republicans and I hate hugely out of control obese people.

I'm right there with you OMG_73. I also have a hard time accepting grossly obese people. I have no sympathy for their diabetic sores and incessant labored breathing.

 

[riser]

Hey Rey and AMDgirl, I have a question for you.

If you were rich and had $400 million in the bank.. What job would you have, how much would it likely pay, and finally, what would your tax bracket be?

Me, if had $400m in the bank, I wouldn't have job and my tax bracket would be 0%. I would be paying my 20% capital gains.. if I took money out that is. Otherwise, I'm not paying a dime towards income tax.

And there you have it. Our millionaires in Congress aren't even in the highest tax bracket... I'm in the same tax bracket as them! And they're millionaires.

 

[riser]

@Chunky

I have no doubt that democrats do this too. It doesn't make it any less wrong though, even if you think it does. The Koch brothers are the pinnacle of whats wrong with our political system. Maybe Soros is just as bad, I don't know. I haven't researched him as much.

I find it funny that you guys think its alright that anyone can control political representatives with money. You think this is how it should work. Its the most pathetic thing in the world that we call ourselves a republican democracy when one or two very rich people can control our elected officials. Its starts with funding, then the politicians become dependent on it. Before you know it they are nothing but puppets. Probably happens on both sides of the aisle but again, this doesn't make it any less damning.

Lets look at a scenario. Mr. Politician get funding from the American Blah Blah Blah Federation because he is a conservative running on reducing the budget and small government. What happens when Syria explodes again and a vote for war against Assad goes to congress? Turns out the American federation president is also a board member of a DoD contractor that would make lots of money if they went into Syria. He then leverages American Federation to strong arm the politician into voting yes even though he and the people he represents are against it. Say he stands up and votes no? Well then, the American Federation spends millions on the next election cycle on an imbecile who will be more controllable and the good guy who stood up to them is cast aside.

This is just a scenario of what this kind of influence could produce. If you think this is fine then I guess we agree to disagree.

I found this really funny coming from you.

Obama is the one who wanted big money out of elections.. when he wasn't bringing it in. And then he wanted to limit companies and PACs from donating money.. because he wasn't getting as much. But on the other side he set up taking donations online which turns out to be impossible to trace. And then he wanted to limit how much one could spend on the presidential election against Mitt Romney.... but he decided to use his own money, not money from others for his run. And thus Obama used his donation machine to do the same thing.

It happens to all Politicians. Obama is by far the most swayed president because he's raised more than any other president ever. But it makes your point.

He also said he wouldn't have any lobbyists with him. Yet, his cabinet is now full of them. He's been corrupted by the money himself.

I like what Arnold had said.. you can't corrupt me with money, I'm already rich. Mitt was already rich as well. Obama only made his money after becoming a national political figure from his book and now his terms as president. I hope you can see how clearly the money has influenced Obama.

I fully agree there should be spending limits, no online donations, and everything must be traced back (but does not need to be public!). I say it doesn't need to be public because if I donated to one party and my coworker to another, we don't need politics being an issue between us. I believe in oversight of the money, but who gave what and how much to who doesn't need to be public - only verified to be lawful.

 

[Reynod]

@Chunky

I have no doubt that democrats do this too. It doesn't make it any less wrong though, even if you think it does. The Koch brothers are the pinnacle of whats wrong with our political system. Maybe Soros is just as bad, I don't know. I haven't researched him as much.

I find it funny that you guys think its alright that anyone can control political representatives with money. You think this is how it should work. Its the most pathetic thing in the world that we call ourselves a republican democracy when one or two very rich people can control our elected officials. Its starts with funding, then the politicians become dependent on it. Before you know it they are nothing but puppets. Probably happens on both sides of the aisle but again, this doesn't make it any less damning.

Lets look at a scenario. Mr. Politician get funding from the American Blah Blah Blah Federation because he is a conservative running on reducing the budget and small government. What happens when Syria explodes again and a vote for war against Assad goes to congress? Turns out the American federation president is also a board member of a DoD contractor that would make lots of money if they went into Syria. He then leverages American Federation to strong arm the politician into voting yes even though he and the people he represents are against it. Say he stands up and votes no? Well then, the American Federation spends millions on the next election cycle on an imbecile who will be more controllable and the good guy who stood up to them is cast aside.

This is just a scenario of what this kind of influence could produce. If you think this is fine then I guess we agree to disagree.

I have to point out that you must divest yourself of any private holdings before taking public office. So, you really can't be in the DOD and on a board of directors for a major corporation at the same time. It's illegal. Like, a long prison sentence illegal.

Here's a question. Why can't the elected official running our lives have some morals? Because we ourselves have none these days? Because people don't care about morals any more. Anything goes because "we don't want to judge people"? Maybe we should expect more from our glorious elected leaders rather than treating them like rockstars and celebrities? Just a suggestion. It seems to be a resume enhancer for a politician to be a degenerate, self serving crony. Some people actually supported Anthony Weiner in his recent bid. Really? Yes, really they did.

Back to my original point. This IS democracy in action johnson. A good amount of people are feeling like they are being screwed, and not in the good way. There is a backlash occurring. I am not surprised at all. I am surprised that you are surprised there would be such a vehement backlash against this usurpation of control and authority over our daily lives.

BTW, how did your sign up at the Obamacare website go johnson. I know you were trying to be first in line so was just curious. Is that "virtual waiting room" working well for you?

ninja edit:

Yeah, reading the description below, Ted Cruz totally sounds "brain dead" as you stated. You are far more brain dead than Ted Cruz johnson.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

During high school, Cruz participated in a Houston-based group called the Free Market Education Foundation where Cruz learned about free-market economic philosophers such as Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, Frédéric Bastiat and Ludwig von Mises.[20] The program was run by Rolland Storey and Cruz entered the program at the age of 13.[18]

Cruz graduated cum laude from Princeton University with a Bachelor of Arts from the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs in 1992.[1][4] While at Princeton, he competed for the American Whig-Cliosophic Society's Debate Panel and won the top speaker award at both the 1992 U.S. National Debating Championship and the 1992 North American Debating Championship.[27] In 1992, he was named U.S. National Speaker of the Year and Team of the Year (with his debate partner, David Panton).[27] Cruz was also a semi-finalist at the 1995 World Universities Debating Championship.[28]

Cruz's senior thesis on the separation of powers, titled "Clipping the Wings of Angels," draws its inspiration from a passage attributed to President James Madison: "If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." Cruz argued that the drafters of the Constitution intended to protect the rights of their constituents, and the last two items in the Bill of Rights offered an explicit stop against an all-powerful state. Cruz wrote: "They simply do so from different directions. The Tenth stops new powers, and the Ninth fortifies all other rights, or non-powers."[24][29]

After graduating from Princeton, Cruz attended Harvard Law School, graduating magna cum laude in 1995 with a Juris Doctor.[1][30] While at Harvard Law, Cruz was a primary editor of the Harvard Law Review, and executive editor of the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, and a founding editor of the Harvard Latino Law Review.[4] Referring to Cruz's time as a student at Harvard Law, Professor Alan Dershowitz said, "Cruz was off-the-charts brilliant." At Harvard Law, Cruz was a John M. Olin Fellow in Law and Economics.[36]

Cruz currently serves on the Board of Advisors of the Texas Review of Law and Politics.[36][37]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Cruz

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yup, just as johnson said. Totally brain dead Cruz. Whatever pal. johnson von shilling keeps on shilling.

OMG please cease the personal attacks on others.

How is pointing out the truth a personal attack? Now, if I had said "your momma shaves her legs with a weed whacker", then yeah, that's a personal attack.

This bit is a personal attack:

Yeah, reading the description below, Ted Cruz totally sounds "brain dead" as you stated. You are far more brain dead than Ted Cruz johnson.

I'll give you another example:

OMG your a complete tosser!!

Though I don't actually subscribe to that view you need to argue the point ... not resort to direct attacks.

Have a bit of humility ... like chunky.

 

[wanamingo]

Just to interject, and maybe Johnson would agree with me maybe not.

The democrats and Obama are idiots and have failed on a lot of their promises. But with this nice two party system we have if it comes down to who has the least worse ideas its the more liberal party almost every single time.

 

[chunkymonster]

Just to interject, and maybe Johnson would agree with me maybe not.

The democrats and Obama are idiots and have failed on a lot of their promises. But with this nice two party system we have if it comes down to who has the least worse ideas its the more liberal party almost every single time.

If johnsonma doesn't, I will...

 

[riser]

Just to interject, and maybe Johnson would agree with me maybe not.

The democrats and Obama are idiots and have failed on a lot of their promises. But with this nice two party system we have if it comes down to who has the least worse ideas its the more liberal party almost every single time.

I wouldn't argue that. While we're also dreaming up perfect situations for an imperfect would, I would like a unicorn.

Maybe that's the issue. Dems are running with "good" ideas with poor execution.. or rather, impossible execution.

"Judge a bill not by it's intent, but by it's results."

I'm a realist. I know not everyone can have healthcare without some negative impact affecting everyone. Helping the minority at the detriment of the majority is not ideal every time. If you believe that, look up Machiavelli and see where that mentality got him (hint, he's the far right extremist conservative).

 

[wanamingo]

Other countries have healthcare models that are working, quite well in some cases. I personally think Obamacare is better than the status quo but single payer would be the real solution.

This is where at the base level we disagree, I have no problem helping others.

 

[johnsonma]

Just to interject, and maybe Johnson would agree with me maybe not.

The democrats and Obama are idiots and have failed on a lot of their promises. But with this nice two party system we have if it comes down to who has the least worse ideas its the more liberal party almost every single time.

They have definitely failed at multiple things they promised during the campaign. The reason I called Cruz an idiot is because he shutdown the government for nothing just to try and get his way on healthcare and get his name out there. A persons' intellect is not judged by how much schooling they have but how they apply it to the decisions they make. Cruz made a decision I would expect a 10 year old to make.

 

[riser]

Other countries have healthcare models that are working, quite well in some cases. I personally think Obamacare is better than the status quo but single payer would be the real solution.

This is where at the base level we disagree, I have no problem helping others.

Are you sure they're working well, or just assume? Because if you look at them, all but Japan are running in the red.

Japan, doesn't maintain much of a military because of their WWII situation. Plus, the average family has to pay over $500 a month, on top of their taxes and healthcare cost.

Additionally, all those countries are relatively small, the size of one or two states in the US. On a small scale, individual states, Healthcare could work. At a blanket national level, at this size, it just doesn't.

Just saw a report that more people are on government assistance than full time workers in the US.

 

[wanamingo]

Cruz is definitely an idiot, what with all his Ivy league edukatin. I just find myself, especially here, defending arguments simply because the only other option is a conservative nightmare.

 

[riser]

Just to interject, and maybe Johnson would agree with me maybe not.

The democrats and Obama are idiots and have failed on a lot of their promises. But with this nice two party system we have if it comes down to who has the least worse ideas its the more liberal party almost every single time.

They have definitely failed at multiple things they promised during the campaign. The reason I called Cruz an idiot is because he shutdown the government for nothing just to try and get his way on healthcare and get his name out there. A persons' intellect is not judged by how much schooling they have but how they apply it to the decisions they make. Cruz made a decision I would expect a 10 year old to make.

Ted Cruz played a part in shutting down the government, but the Senate shut the government down if you want the truth.

The house passed the bills. The senate didn't pass them. The house originates the revenue, not the senate. In the public arena, sure, Ted shut the government down, but in the political system, the Senate shut the government down. That's the disconnect with our government and the people.. few really know how the government actually works. Less know that the senate represents the government and the house represents the people.

You have to admit John, the people who voted the ACA, a lot of them were voted out of office after approving it.. somewhere around 55 democratic seats were lost in the House after passing the ACA. The House did what they were voted in to do, the Senate on the other hand didn't have such a significant shift either way... because the House is where the decisions are made, not in the Senate. The senate is supposed to follow the House's lead, not the other way around which is why we saw the gov't shutdown.

 

[riser]

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/census-bureau-means-tested-govt-benefit-recipients-outnumber-full

What blows me away is that John and Mingo both seem to agree on cutting spending.. the argument starts with "cut military" but even eliminating the military doesn't balance the budget.

Yet, on the flip side of that coin and talking about fixing our economy, they're both very happy to push forward with healthcare that is already known to be a failure, extremely expensive and relies solely on borrowed money to fund it. ACA was put at about $1 trillion a year in cost, minus revenue generated. It isn't far off.. sometime in the next decade the sh*t will be hitting the fan.

 

[wanamingo]

Riser with all due respect you keep saying that but never offer any solution...

Its going to be a combination of cutting costs and raising taxes.....Gasp!

 

[johnsonma]

If you had a republican like Charles Krauthammer explaining budget cuts to entitlements you might have more success. He uses logic instead of emotional rhetoric.

@ Riser The bill was passed. It was then reviewed by the supreme court and found constitutional. It is the law now until a majority of congress votes to repeal it and Cruz and his followers are not the majority. Its time to get over it and move on.

Its entirely Cruz's fault btw, the bills sent were pathetic excuses for solutions to a problem that was self inflicted.

 

[riser]

If you had a republican like Charles Krauthammer explaining budget cuts to entitlements you might have more success. He uses logic instead of emotional rhetoric.

@ Riser The bill was passed. It was then reviewed by the supreme court and found constitutional. It is the law now until a majority of congress votes to repeal it and Cruz and his followers are not the majority. Its time to get over it and move on.

Its entirely Cruz's fault btw, the bills sent were pathetic excuses for solutions to a problem that was self inflicted.

Just because it is law, doesn't mean to has to be enforced or funded. The key is that funding is separate intentionally, so if something out there is bad, they can defund it and put a stop it.

Funny how the Dems are now considering the 1 year delay that the Republicans were pushing for, eh?

 

[chunkymonster]

The reason I called Cruz an idiot is because he shutdown the government for nothing just to try and get his way on healthcare and get his name out there.

Oh geezus christmas! The House passed the funding bills and sent them to the Senate for a vote. Harry Reid did not bring them up for a vote. The House did it's job, the Seante did not. If you want to point the finger at anyone for shutting down government, point it Harry Reid.

Besides, the government wasn't really shut down. The only thing stopped was 17% of discretionary wealth redistribution controlled by the Executive Branch.

Its entirely Cruz's fault btw, the bills sent were pathetic excuses for solutions to a problem that was self inflicted.

Be careful johnson, your partisanship is showing!

 

[riser]

Riser with all due respect you keep saying that but never offer any solution...

Its going to be a combination of cutting costs and raising taxes.....Gasp!

I've offered many solutions. Reform on spending, tax reform, removing the ACA to name a couple significant ones.

The social program needs drastic reform. Military spending needs drastic reform. We're already spending over a trillion more than we bring in and the ACA is set it up that by another trillion.

Taxes have been steadily increased under Obama. Bush tax cuts expired, taxes are back up to Clinton Era times.
Obama pushed for change on the Capital Gains tax from 15% t 20% (negotiated down from 25-30%).
Medical device taxes and other increased taxes from the ACA.

Taxes have gone up. Spending has gone up faster though. The Republican mantra is that we can't keep raising taxes and putting off spending cuts.

Cut the spending before raising taxes. Give us something before we give them more in taxes.

Also, recall Obama saying he would not sign a bill that would add a single dime to the US deficit? Yeah. It's illegal to provide false information to the media to for the benefit of misinforming the public.

I think all politicians who lie or say something to the media and in a public venue for their benefit, but do otherwise should be prosecuted.

 

[Reynod]

I think we need a group hug.

Look I simply advocate social welfare reform because I like to think that we all deserve free medical ... I pay increased tax to my medicare system here to pay for that as my income is good.

I liketo think that a good society is one that has a safety net for those less fortunate.

I also agree that you need to balance you budget and Australia has yet to do that as well ... your not the only ones.

 

[johnsonma]

Oh geezus christmas! The House passed the funding bills and sent them to the Senate for a vote. Harry Reid did not bring them up for a vote. The House did it's job, the Seante did not. If you want to point the finger at anyone for shutting down government, point it Harry Reid.

Besides, the government wasn't really shut down. The only thing stopped was 17% of discretionary wealth redistribution controlled by the Executive Branch.

Be careful johnson, your partisanship is showing!

Blaming the Senate is a cop out. The government should of never shutdown in the first place. Cruz talked the house republicans into holding the government hostage to get there way on ACA because there was no other way they could get leverage. Look online at what people had to go through because of the shutdown, then you tell me how 17% mean nothing.

To put it in perspective, lets say we had a business that I owned 66% of and you owned 33%. I decided to implement a new strategy, you voted no but I had the majority. Now the ratio may be different but you still do not have a total majority in the business, you decide that you will just stop doing your job and force the business to slowdown until you get your way. Sound like a responsible, respectful person to you? Nope, I would probably take them to court if I could.