Alleged Homeland Security Department Shutdown

[KingOrfeo]

BAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA look at this partisan fuckin' bitch boy..god damn I honestly can't think of anyone who is quite the GOP dick sucker vetteman is.

Of course you can.

 

[sr71plt]

I know, but vette called DHS "failed" and that is the only relevant kind of hypothetical failure I could think of.

Rather a telling admission on Vetteman's part, as the DHS was formed by a conservative Republican administration under George Bush. I agree that it has added yet more bureaucracy and more jobs (not that adding jobs anywhere is bad for an economy in recession) with little added protections, but it probably was the best that could be done at the time by a can't-do-anything-but-say-no-to-the-Democrats Republican administration that burgeoned the national debt and packed the federal government with added jobs.

 

[JackLuis]

House GOP Officially Gives Zero F*cks About National Security​

Speaker of the House John Boehner is going to have to hit the sauce and say ALL the swears so hard because he just failed to get his party to pass a bill to keep funding the Department of Homeland Security. Patriotism!

Despite all the tough talk from Boehner about how those lousy stinkin’ obstructionist Democrats had better help him save face and get his job done — hey, making sure the department in charge of securing our homeland is part of Boehner’s job description, right? — he couldn’t even get enough members of his own caucus to support the “compromise” bill that would have kept the lights on for another three weeks, so we could have another manufactured crisis all over again mid-March. Patriotism even more!

Rethuglican dysfunction?

 

[cowslinger64]

Good thing the "adults" are in charge, right Mitch Mcconnell???


These fuckin idiots should be flogged


http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/26/politics/dhs-shutdown-vote-republicans/index.html

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Rather a telling admission on Vetteman's part, as the DHS was formed by a conservative Republican administration under George Bush. I agree that it has added yet more bureaucracy and more jobs (not that adding jobs anywhere is bad for an economy in recession) with little added protections, but it probably was the best that could be done at the time by a can't-do-anything-but-say-no-to-the-Democrats Republican administration that burgeoned the national debt and packed the federal government with added jobs.

^^^^^^Stalin blaming Trotsky for everything.

 

[RobDownSouth]

All essential employees of the federal government are required by law to report to work during a shutdown. They are paid later. media BS notwithstanding

So it's now the media's fault that the Rapepublicans cannot get their act together?

Typical USMC evasive maneuver to avoid responsibility.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[sr71plt]

I wouldn't describe Bush as conservative, or his father either. Bush wouldn't know a conservative economic plan if it was laser engraved on his rods and cones.

No points for trying to avoid the point.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

No, the blame is with Obama who brought this all on with his lawless actions. The rest of the blame should go to Boehner who ballessly took impeachment off the table giving Obama a green light to go rogue, and McConnell for bringing back the filibuster so that Harry Reid can continue to runnig the Senate.

Actually, if Congress acted on immigration reform as it should have LONG ago, then the President wouldn't have had to do anything.

Bring back the filibuster? WTF are you talking about? The filibuster has been used and abused for decades, it was never gone to be "brought back".

 

[KingOrfeo]

You made a point of describing Bush as a conservative, when in fact, he is no real conservative.

What you call "real conservative" is what sane people call "reactionary." No conservative would ever shout "End the Fed!" or "Molon labe!" or "Drown it in a bathtub!" Conservatism is much more cautious than that. Conservatism is suspicious of radical changes to the status quo. Reactionism demands such. And that's the Tea Party and CPAC, reactionary.

 

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

Demanding an end to the six and a half years of Obama's "status quo" is not a call for radical change, it is simply a demand that we turn away from his totalitarian policies and get back to the limited constitutional government the founders envisioned. Slowing the destructive growth of socialism in America is a labor for individual liberty, a struggle to secure our freedom.

But, we have not had the kind of "constitutional government" you apparently are thinking of under any Republican POTUS since WWII. Never mind the ACA, you seem to want to scrap the whole of the New Deal/Great Society package, as "socialism." That is radical and that is reactionary and that is, far more importantly, a very bad idea.

 

[unregistered]

 

[RobDownSouth]

Demanding an end to the six and a half years of Obama's "status quo" is not a call for radical change, it is simply a demand that we turn away from his totalitarian policies and get back to the limited constitutional government the founders envisioned. Slowing the destructive growth of socialism in America is a labor for individual liberty, a struggle to secure our freedom.

You've had a six and a half year temper tantrum over Murica's refusal to elect a President of your liking.

Most of that time has been spent whining and advocating impeachment for......reasons.

 

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

Why? All have led the country to economic ruin.

But, they haven't. They've done the opposite. The New Deal and Great Society programs pulled the country out of the Great Depression (yes, they did), they created the first mass middle class in human history, they reduced poverty (yes, they did), they protected the remaining poor from starvation (without putting them on some kind of "plantation" -- and remember, most recipients of public assistance are white and rural, and it has always been so), they improved and they widened accessibility to primary, secondary and higher education, they raised the levels of literacy, nutrition, public health and sanitation, and they provided retirees and the disabled with income security and health-care security. They created wealth. And you would sweep them all away. In fact, I suspect you would even sweep away the Wilsonian innovations, the Federal Reserve system and the income tax. The kind of minimal federal government Lincoln inherited, the kind of government you are always saying "our Founding Fathers intended," is not sufficient nor suitable to the needs of a modern industrialized state, and you know it. Look around the world, at all the countries where things in general go as well or better than in the U.S. -- one thing you won't find in any of them is minimal government.

Those policies you named have together run up unfunded liabilities . . .

Of course they are funded, by taxes and bonds, just like everything else government does, including your precious and very expensive military establishment.

As for the federal budget deficit/debt, it is not nearly so dangerous a thing as you seem to think it is.

6. America the bankrupt: National debts don't work like your personal debt. For example, people don't buy your debt to prop up your currency. Yet for some reason a lot of writers tend to think of the national debt in the same terms as a bank loan, with angry creditors and everything. When this trope is invoked expect to see a consortium of angry foreign dignitaries banging on a conference table that they want their money back. In reality, if countries actually acted like this, the global financial system would probably collapse pretty spectacularly and everyone would be screwed. This trope is not specific to America, but for some reason Americans are exceptionally paranoid about the National Debt, particularly when the Chinese are buying it up, and now not buying it anymore. Oddly enough, America's National Debt isn't even that bad by international standards. Also, the US national debt is in terms of dollars, and the government can create as many dollars as they need to pay off the debt. Everyone would be paid the amount owed, but the new dollars would lead to inflation.

◦ The key here is that governments usually owe substantial portions of their debt to 'themselves,' i.e. either the government owes money to different branches, or those branches hold their assets as bonds and treasury bills instead of money; by owing money to yourself, you usually don't charge yourself interest (beyond inflation) and you theoretically can't default on money you owe yourself. This is how Japan can have gross debt worth over 100% of their yearly economic output and have little economic effects: 70-80% of its debt is owned by the Japanese Central Bank. In the United States, around 35-40% of the government debt is owed to itself, mainly to the Social Security Administration. Also, debt owed to foreign entities makes up MUCH less of the debt than people seem to think: as an example, China owns only 6% of the total US debt.

 

[RobDownSouth]

You were fooled by and voted for an extreme leftist and have been trying to cover it up by lying about his intentions ever since.

The majority of Americans, including myself, voted for President Obama. He is not an "extreme leftist", and nobody was "fooled".

You are a pathetic little man of no consequence with no honor.

 

[KingOrfeo]

You were fooled by and voted for an extreme leftist and have been trying to cover it up by lying about his intentions ever since.

If only! When is he going to start acting like a leftist, then?! When?! When is the redistribution of wealth going to start?! When?! He's had six years already to drop his mask! The 1% are still getting their way whenever they want to, they're still the only ones getting richer off the economic recovery, the majority of Americans have been wage-stagnant since the 1970s, and all we get out of Obama is net neutrality, and health-care reform with no public option! That is not the behavior of a leftist in power.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

All totalitarian regimes have a social elite, for instance classless communism was never classless.

All human societies above a paleolithic level have a social elite, it means nothing, except in the case of Communism where it means hypocrisy, but what can you do?

It is the behavior of a dictatorial wannbe, but remember politics is still the art of the possible. Facing no election save for the future benefit of his own party, Obama is now free to be the dictator he always wanted to be. What get out of Obama is lawless immigration, international chaos, nationalization of health care, diminished military capability, towering public debt, 90 million able bodied Americans out of work, redistribution of the civil society's wealth, and Obama appointee Janet Yellen who continues to reward Obama's supporters with free money.

Immigration policy has nothing to do with leftism, and nothing under the deporter-in-chief can be characterized as "lawless immigration."

International chaos is what Obama inherited from W.

The ACA is not "nationalization of health care." Neither is Canadian single-payer. For nationalized health care, look to Britain.

America's military capability remains bloated far, far beyond our needs.

National debt as a percentage of GDP has been rising since 2000, you can't put all that on Obama.

No policy of Obama's has thrown "able-bodied Americans out of work." He inherited a high unemployment rate along with a recession and it is now finally starting to drop.

"Redistribution of the civil society's wealth" -- man, when is that going to start?! Bring it on!

How does the Federal Reserve reward anybody with "free money"?

 

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

Actually, in that context, it means that leftists are liars when they promoted Communism as a classless society.

But, after WWII, few leftists outside the Communist Bloc ever did. Even the French "Communists" were never pro-Soviet during the Cold War.

It does under Obama, as his leftist politics are guiding his lawless actions in choosing not to enforce the existing "law" on the border, as he attempts to write his own law and policy.

He does enforce the existing law on the border; border security is very highly funded and vigorous under his Admin, we've been over this before. All Obama is trying to do now is not deport certain categories of immigrants immediately. That is not a "leftist" thing, though leftists certainly approve, it is simply a humanitarian thing.

Self serving Obama lie, the present chaos is totally a product of Obama bugging out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and his lack of action to do any substantial about the ensuing chaos except help it along with that inaction.

Meh. Obama gets out of Iraq on W's timetable and RWs call him a weak-kneed pacifist. He minimally intervenes in Libya, talks about intervening in Syria, and RWs call him a warmonger. ISIS pops up, he limits his actions to bombing and now he's a pacifist again. Nothing a Dem POTUS does will ever satisfy you.

For all practical purposes this is a false statement, the government, if Obamcare survives, will be run by the government, period.

Of course it will, but you meant to say health care will be run by the government. That's not happening now. The only freedom you have lost is the freedom to go uninsured. Otherwise, everything is as it was before -- you go see the doctor, you present your insurance card, you get treated, and no bureaucracy apart from the state licensing agency is telling the doctor how to do his job.

This is a statement of the totally uninformed and naive. I have posted the facts to the contrary.

Look, exactly what action does the military now lack the resources to take, that it did not so lack under W?

Obamacare put people out of work . . .

How?

. . . and changed many from full time workers to part time workers.

Yes, but only if they wanted to be part-time workers. They now have the freedom to go part-time without losing health insurance. That's a good thing.

His refusal to read let alone sign Republican jobs bills that went right into Reid's circular file contributes to present unemployment.

What particular bills?

And, if Reid dropped them, they never reached Obama's desk anyway. You don't have to worry about that any more, but I don't see any jobs bills coming out of the new Congress. (And, no, Keystone is not one.)

Speaker Boehner outlines Obama's job killing policies here:

http://www.speaker.gov/general/seve...s-policies-are-hurting-american-manufacturers

Not an impressive list. E.g., he tries to pin the shutdown on Obama. I trust not even you are that brazen a liar.

Obamacare is a redistribution scheme.

UHC is never a redistribution scheme, not even in Britain. It is a public welfare program, which is not the same thing. The EITC is a redistribution scheme -- not much of one -- and I hope not even you would suggest ending it, that would be political suicide to anyone who tried; and you can't blame Obama for it anyway, it dates back to 1975.

Taking down work requirements for welfare is a redistribution scheme.

See above. Also, when did that happen? Not seeing it here.

Making food stamps easier to get is a redistribution scheme.

See above. Also, while that did happen, it was a temporary measure to deal with the recession.

Cutting the defense budget is a favored Democrat redistribution scheme.

. . . WTF are you talking about?! How is cutting part of the federal budget redistributive?!

I could go on and on.

And you will, I know.

The last time I looked the Federal Reserve Discount Rate is .075%, that tells me that the price of money is damn near free for the big banks cashing in on Wall Street.

And how are the big banks "Obama's supporters"? They're not Obama's victims, more's the pity, but it seems to me they're more likely to direct their campaign contributions to GOP candidates. (Though big donors do, I've heard, sometimes give to both sides in an election, just so the winner is sure to owe them.)

In any case, I very much doubt the Fed's policies are in any way motivated by politics in the electoral sense (sometimes they are motivated by politics in the ideological sense, as under Greenspan). The Fed was set up to be politically independent of the POTUS and of Congress and to be immune from political pressure, like the judiciary -- the president appoints the judges, but he has no leverage over them after that, and cannot get rid of predecessors' appointees.