The unofficial online home for fans of the Western Michigan University Broncos. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

http://news.msn.com/us/white-house-rejec...-debt-plan

So states Senator Barbara Milkulski of Maryland.

"33 hours (now less) from being a dead beat nation!"

Wait.

Under this current administration $2.1 trillion has been added to our deficit since the last "ceiling debate" in '11.

Now over $17 trillion.

Hey Barbara, who's gonna pay that bill and when?

So the argument is: too avoid being a dead beat nation we need to be a dead beat nation. Makes sense to Barbara apparently.

So the argument is that we need to increase our sky rocketing debt (limit) which we couldnt pay off if we wanted to (with the current mindset of entitlement) therefore making us a dead beat nation by any definition so that we can avoid being a dead beat nation.

So now two leading Democrats, who are indepently wealthy and will not pay the growing debt or have to partake in Obamacare like everyone else have weighed in.

Nancy Pelosi: "We have to pass it (the Health Care Bill) to find out what's in it"!

Barbara Milkulski says we need to be a dead beat nation to avoid being a dead beat nation.

Wow. I am either impressed with their audicity or the stupidity of those who hold the same position, voted for these two and give them cover by not asking them to 'splain it Ricky.

I think we need some revenue. Keep expenses low and increase income, that will help.

We need to stop coddling the working class.

The Tea Party has us on the verge of economic catastrophe. I'm embarrased that their like has any traction at all.

(10-15-2013 05:48 PM)texasbronco1 Wrote:  The Tea Party has us on the verge of economic catastrophe. I'm embarrased that their like has any traction at all.

Pretty much. The inmates are running the asylum.

GOP can say adios to the House in 2014.

(10-15-2013 06:09 PM)Charm City Bronco Wrote:  

(10-15-2013 05:48 PM)texasbronco1 Wrote:  The Tea Party has us on the verge of economic catastrophe. I'm embarrased that their like has any traction at all.

Pretty much. The inmates are running the asylum.

GOP can say adios to the House in 2014.

Not so sure about that. Never underestimate the stupidity of voters.

Re: The Debt Ceiling

Entirely different animal than the budget. The debt ceiling would need to be raised on a regular basis even if nothing were ever added to our budget. Why? Because just like you and I experience, when prices go up the amount the government pays has to go up.

The US has a fleet of vehicles. They need fuel to run, and the cost of fuel keeps going up. The government purchases all sorts of things to do its job and they are not immune to cost increases. Of course, thanks to the Tea Bagger's shutdown / hostage tacking tactics, the government is now paying retail for supplies because they cannot purchase in bulk. In a nutshell, the "conservatives" are driving up costs to the tune of Millions per day. Once their default happens, our costs will escalate dramatically due to higher interest rates on bonds, etc.

As for GBL's rant about no budget, he is dead wrong:

The Senate, on March 23 this year, passed a $3.7 trillion budget on a 50-49 vote that maintained entitlements -- such as Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare -- and discretionary domestic programs. It differed from a $3.5 trillion House budget, passed three days earlier, that significantly cut entitlement programs and deficits over the coming decade.

Efforts to send the competing budgets to a conference committee have been unsuccessful, however. A group of Tea Party senators has blocked motions -- which need unanimous consent -- to advance the Senate’s spending plan. They have insisted on assurances that the budget negotiations would not lead to higher taxes and voiced concern that a conference committee could create momentum for procedures that thwart filibusters against increasing the nation's debt limit.

http://www.politifact.com/virginia/state...get-4-12-/

(10-15-2013 06:11 PM)chipfan Wrote:  Re: The Debt Ceiling

Entirely different animal than the budget. The debt ceiling would need to be raised on a regular basis even if nothing were ever added to our budget. Why? Because just like you and I experience, when prices go up the amount the government pays has to go up.

The US has a fleet of vehicles. They need fuel to run, and the cost of fuel keeps going up. The government purchases all sorts of things to do its job and they are not immune to cost increases. Of course, thanks to the Tea Bagger's shutdown / hostage tacking tactics, the government is now paying retail for supplies because they cannot purchase in bulk. In a nutshell, the "conservatives" are driving up costs to the tune of Millions per day. Once their default happens, our costs will escalate dramatically due to higher interest rates on bonds, etc.

As for GBL's rant about no budget, he is dead wrong:

The Senate, on March 23 this year, passed a $3.7 trillion budget on a 50-49 vote that maintained entitlements -- such as Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare -- and discretionary domestic programs. It differed from a $3.5 trillion House budget, passed three days earlier, that significantly cut entitlement programs and deficits over the coming decade.

Efforts to send the competing budgets to a conference committee have been unsuccessful, however. A group of Tea Party senators has blocked motions -- which need unanimous consent -- to advance the Senate’s spending plan. They have insisted on assurances that the budget negotiations would not lead to higher taxes and voiced concern that a conference committee could create momentum for procedures that thwart filibusters against increasing the nation's debt limit.

http://www.politifact.com/virginia/state...get-4-12-/

You are late to the party Chipfan.

I clearly answered the question DB posed yesterday.

What you willfully choose to ignore is the 1,200 days as of mid August '12 where the Senate under Harry Ried and backed by the President supports refused to adopt a budget. You may consider that leadership. Any lucid individual would deem reckless and self serving.

But that aside, how do you justify Pelosi's justification for not willingly knowing what was in Obama care and Milkulski's logic that to avoid being a deadbeat nation we need to be a deadbeat nation?

Waiting . . .

(10-15-2013 05:48 PM)texasbronco1 Wrote:  The Tea Party has us on the verge of economic catastrophe. I'm embarrased that their like has any traction at all.

Is the majority absolved of any fault?

(10-15-2013 05:48 PM)texasbronco1 Wrote:  The Tea Party has us on the verge of economic catastrophe. I'm embarrased that their like has any traction at all.

So 1/3 of 1/3 of the US Government is holding us hostage?

Their only demand at this point is that the House, Senate, and Executive Branch live under the same rules of Obama Care, i.e. no subsidy.

It's quite telling when the very people who enacted this piss poor law are willing to go to the mat to make sure it doesn't apply to them.

[/quote]

So 1/3 of 1/3 of the US Government is holding us hostage?

Their only demand at this point is that the House, Senate, and Executive Branch live under the same rules of Obama Care, i.e. no subsidy.

It's quite telling when the very people who enacted this piss poor law are willing to go to the mat to make sure it doesn't apply to them.
[/quote]

Dip, you couldn't be further from the truth. Just another Tea Bagger trumped up bag of bull.

The falsehood was resurrected for the umpteenth time last month when the U.S. Office of Personnel Management issued a rule to clarify part of the law that wasn’t specified in the written bill.

As mentioned, the federal government already offers health insurance to its workers. Like most employers, it covers part of workers’ health insurance costs. Because Congress and its staff are being treated differently than all other employers in order to force it to use the Obamacare marketplace, there was no language stating that the government could cover part of the premiums for Congress as it currently does.

Last month, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management issued a rule saying that, yes, this was OK to do, as long as the premium coverage wasn’t more than it is for other federal workers.

In response, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) issued a carefully phrased statement that Obama somehow had exempted Congress and its staff from “the full effect of the law.”

Does the new rule mean Congress won’t have to get health insurance through the Obamacare marketplaces? No, they still have to.

Does this mean Congress is getting special treatment? No, members and their staffs still get no benefit they don’t currently get.

The verdict

While there are legitimate concerns about President Obama’s health care law — much of which kicks into gear Oct. 1 — this isn’t one.

Critics of Obamacare want it both ways. When Congress and its staff were treated like workers for any other large employer, the president’s health care plan was deemed faulty because Congress didn’t have to use the plan. So then after a Republican amendment forced Congress to participate, critics still want to call it faulty because … well, because of a flat-out falsehood that Congress really is still exempt.

This is the type of claim that merits the lowest truthmeter rating, signifying willful or malicious disregard for the truth.

Truthmeter: 0 (out of 10)

Bam.

So 1/3 of 1/3 of the US Government is holding us hostage?

Their only demand at this point is that the House, Senate, and Executive Branch live under the same rules of Obama Care, i.e. no subsidy.

It's quite telling when the very people who enacted this piss poor law are willing to go to the mat to make sure it doesn't apply to them.
[/quote]

Dip, you couldn't be further from the truth. Just another Tea Bagger trumped up bag of bull.

The falsehood was resurrected for the umpteenth time last month when the U.S. Office of Personnel Management issued a rule to clarify part of the law that wasn’t specified in the written bill.

As mentioned, the federal government already offers health insurance to its workers. Like most employers, it covers part of workers’ health insurance costs. Because Congress and its staff are being treated differently than all other employers in order to force it to use the Obamacare marketplace, there was no language stating that the government could cover part of the premiums for Congress as it currently does.

Last month, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management issued a rule saying that, yes, this was OK to do, as long as the premium coverage wasn’t more than it is for other federal workers.

In response, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) issued a carefully phrased statement that Obama somehow had exempted Congress and its staff from “the full effect of the law.”

Does the new rule mean Congress won’t have to get health insurance through the Obamacare marketplaces? No, they still have to.

Does this mean Congress is getting special treatment? No, members and their staffs still get no benefit they don’t currently get.

The verdict

While there are legitimate concerns about President Obama’s health care law — much of which kicks into gear Oct. 1 — this isn’t one.

Critics of Obamacare want it both ways. When Congress and its staff were treated like workers for any other large employer, the president’s health care plan was deemed faulty because Congress didn’t have to use the plan. So then after a Republican amendment forced Congress to participate, critics still want to call it faulty because … well, because of a flat-out falsehood that Congress really is still exempt.

This is the type of claim that merits the lowest truthmeter rating, signifying willful or malicious disregard for the truth.

Truthmeter: 0 (out of 10)[/quote]




http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/201...obamacare/

Last 3 paragraphs.

Per CNN, still a debateable topic the COURTS will have to sort it out.

Why?

Because we passed the bill first, so we could find out what was in the Health Care bill!

Stupid does as stupid is.

So X number of years since the passage of this bill simple scenarios such as whether Congress is in or out of this fiasco are JUST being discovered.

And the courts will look to make the final call. Hmm.

So what other shoes are going to drop? How are you going to be disappointed suddenly and unexpectedly as a judge will be making final decisions on whether you and yours receive or dont receive care?

What do you expect when you follow Nancy Pelosi's logic?

But I hear/read from some that for such an enormous undertaking that "glitches" and the like have always occured. And I agree. The glitches don't mean the program won't work. Based on the fact that glitches exist the program could very well work as all the other large entitlements have had glitches.

But then if you accept that you have to also accept the fact that Social Security and Medicare are grossly inefficient and more costly then ever projected and are not sustainable without massive shifts in the economy.

There are more people drawing down then kicking in. The debt has grown by 2.1 trillion in less than 2 years. Adding this additional government entitlement means additional inefficencies, cost over runs, etc. and not savings and improved services (that is the biz model for these government run programs).

So in time we all will receive fewer services costing each of us more $, exacerbating the sky rocketing debt that will weigh down on the governments ability to reduce debt. And we know the "progressive solution" is to raise revenues. Your fees and taxes.

When are we ever going to learn there isnt a free lunch?

If pre-existing conditions is the issue isnt there better ways then this boat anchor? Seriously.

But then Barbara Milkulski said and believes we need to be a deadbeat nation so we can avoid being a deadbeat nation.

Hey Senator, would you please explain how that works again?

Maybe, just maybe, if the Repubs hadn't fought this for the last 50 years, and instead offered up solutions, we may have had a much better product. Our health care in this country is by all measures the worst in the developed countries. Costs are too high and outcomes are too low.

Repubs chose to ignore the problem, Dems attempted to fix it at their own peril. We now have a system that keeps children on their parents plans until age 26, pre-existing conditons no longer exclude you from coverage (and as a cancer survivor I appreciate that immensely), and insurance companies have to refund a portion of your premium if they pay out less than 80% in claims. What have the Repubs done other than whine and complain?

As for glitches, hell yes, there are some and will be some more. NASA has had some glitches as well. The Tea Baggers are having a big glitch of their own the last few weeks. Ronnie Reagan in 1978 said that "socialized medicine would end American freedom as we know it." He was referring to Medicare, one of the most popular programs we have. I think the Repubs are scared as hell that "Obamacare" will have a similar impact.

I really wish people understood the truth about all this.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...t-ceiling/

Quote:1. So, what is this "debt ceiling"?

The debt ceiling constrains how much debt the federal government can carry at a given time in order to pay for its operations. The debt limit is not new. In the 19th century, Congress approved every individual sale of bonds to the public. But beginning in 1917, Congress started to distance itself from the nuts and bolts of issuing debt, letting the Treasury Department decide when and how to auction bonds, but retaining the right to set an overall debt limit. Whenever the amount of debt approached this limit, Congress would need to vote to raise it.

That’s where we are today — the amount of federal debt is once again approaching its legal limit, meaning that if Congress fails to raise it, the nation won’t be able to borrow any more money to finance the existing financial commitments Congress and the president have agreed to. For months, the Treasury has used "extraordinary measures" — essentially, shifting around accounts in order to keep more cash available for payments — but these measures are expected to run out in mid-October.

2. Wait, so this affects debts we already owe?

Yes, we would need to raise the debt ceiling to borrow funds for the obligations the federal government has already incurred. "If the U.S. reaches the debt cap and Congress does not approve further borrowing, then the government will not be able to fulfill all of their obligations as agreed to in the most recent budget," said Tara Sinclair, a George Washington University economist. "Some law will be broken — either the debt ceiling will be breached or the budget will not be honored."

But it goes beyond that: If the debt ceiling isn’t raised, it could also affect our ability to pay future obligations. Officially, Congress and the president are the ones who must sign off on any new federal commitments. But if the debt ceiling isn’t raised, and if not enough progress is made on paying down the existing debt, Congress and the president would find their hands tied if they want to make any new financial commitments.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...-our-debt/

Quote:Does raising the debt ceiling "increase our debt"?

Experts we spoke to agreed that Obama is on safe ground when he says that raising the debt ceiling "does not increase our debt. It does not grow our deficits."

Obama is correct that the debt ceiling addresses debt, not spending -- at least not directly. Raising the debt ceiling allows the United States government to borrow funds that cover the obligations the government has already incurred. It doesn’t by itself prompt any new spending: Congress and the president must separately sign off on any new federal spending commitments. Put simply, the United States has chosen to divorce spending and financing decisions.

The part where Obama is somewhat misleading is when he says that raising the debt ceiling "does not allow for a single dime of increased spending." (We asked the White House for comment but didn't hear back.)

In fact, raising the debt ceiling is a necessary condition for eventually raising spending without a default. Spending can only be raised in the future if the debt ceiling is raised (or if progress is made on paying down the existing debt, something that’s rarely happened in recent decades). Without a debt ceiling hike, Congress and the president would find their hands tied if they ever wanted to make any new financial commitments.

So, contrary to what Obama said, if the the debt ceiling is raised high enough, it does, in fact, "allow" for additional spending. It just doesn’t demand it.

Here's the thing. The law was passed by the House and Senate. The President signed it. It was deemed Constitutional by a right leaning Supreme Court. It's law. Stop your ******* whining and wasting our time with you weekly efforts to repeal it and try being adults for a change.

It was the reconciliation used in the Senate that sticks in their craw. I tend to agree with that, it was heavy handed, but as chipfan said, for fifty years the GOP fought any attempt to correct the mess in healthcare we have, and the DEMS proposed theirs in a siloh with no input from the Repubs.

That's not governing. It was broken, we needed it fixed.

(10-16-2013 12:34 PM)bronconick Wrote:  Here's the thing. The law was passed by the House and Senate. The President signed it. It was deemed Constitutional by a right leaning Supreme Court. It's law. Stop your ******* whining and wasting our time with you weekly efforts to repeal it and try being adults for a change.

Agreed. I'm conservative, and recognize that there are huge problems with PelosiCare (a more appropriate name IMO), but save the fixing of the law for when there is a GOP majority in both sides of congress and a GOP POTUS.

I'm sorry, but IMO, this isn't a Republican vs Democrat problem anymore. This is a problem with our political system. We have 2 parties that aren't willing to compromise with the other to do what is right and best for the American people.

Regardless of what side you lean towards. There is equal fault to go around.

Rather than working together to figure out how to get us out of the mess we are in, its all about political posturing and figuring out how to push an agenda and get reelected. NONE of these people give a damn about us and what is best for the American people. Its all about grandstanding for their party line.

(10-16-2013 01:23 PM)WheresWaldo42 Wrote:  I'm sorry, but IMO, this isn't a Republican vs Democrat problem anymore. This is a problem with our political system. We have 2 parties that aren't willing to compromise with the other to do what is right and best for the American people.

Regardless of what side you lean towards. There is equal fault to go around.

Rather than working together to figure out how to get us out of the mess we are in, its all about political posturing and figuring out how to push an agenda and get reelected. NONE of these people give a damn about us and what is best for the American people. Its all about grandstanding for their party line.

Like Nero fiddling while Rome burned.

(10-15-2013 06:25 PM)gobaseline Wrote:  

(10-15-2013 05:48 PM)texasbronco1 Wrote:  The Tea Party has us on the verge of economic catastrophe. I'm embarrased that their like has any traction at all.

Is the majority absolved of any fault?

No there is plenty of blame to go around. But no single group has put our country in more peril than the Tea Party. Again I say that I am embarrassed that anyone actually supports this group. They remind me of the McCarthists, or similarly, the KKK. It seems if you go far enough from reality and fact, you will find out there on the remote fringe a group of similarly deluded folks to join you and support you.