Every Democrat in House votes to Shutdown Government

[Ringo84]

Start a thread if you want to discuss the Treaty of Tripoli; I'll address your concerns there. We're wandering off topic.
Ringo

 

[Viren]

How about increasing the amount of money the rich can give to political parties, cutting Pell grants, restoring bank bailouts for banks using risky derivatives....just to name a few.

Ringo

I don't see how the American people would support restoring bank bailouts for banks. Who exactly controls the government if something like this can be passed? Why continue funding a government that isn't ultimately controlled by the people?

 

[South Bound]

Start a thread if you want to discuss the Treaty of Tripoli; I'll address your concerns there. We're wandering off topic.
Ringo

You're the one who brought it up. Why run away when somebody calls your bluff?

 

[Ringo84]

I don't see how the American people would support restoring bank bailouts for banks. Who exactly controls the government if something like this can be passed? Why continue funding a government that isn't ultimately controlled by the people?

In my opinion, it's a systemic problem. Republicans in congress seem intent on acting like Bond villains, so they jeopardize the normal function of the government by filling CRs with horse manure like that, knowing that it's a win-win for them: either they give their Wall Street friends a nice reward, or the dreaded gubmint gets shut down.

Democrats, meanwhile, are afraid of their own shadows and more interested in looking like the "good guys" than playing hardball and holding the crazies responsible for their ruinous actions.
Ringo

 

[South Bound]

In my opinion, it's a systemic problem. Republicans in congress seem intent on acting like Bond villains, so they jeopardize the normal function of the government by filling CRs with horse manure like that, knowing that it's a win-win for them: either they give their Wall Street friends a nice reward, or the dreaded gubmint gets shut down.

Democrats, meanwhile, are afraid of their own shadows and more interested in looking like the "good guys" than playing hardball and holding the crazies responsible for their ruinous actions.
Ringo

What is Obama acting like when he shows contempt for the law and attempts to subvert it?

 

[Ringo84]

You're the one who brought it up. Why run away when somebody calls your bluff?

No, you brought it up - out of left field. I told you that I would address your concerns if you started a thread. I don't want to get in dutch with the mods for starting a long derail about church and state issues.

Put up or shut up.
Ringo

 

[South Bound]

No, you brought it up

No, actually, it's part of your signature. I just quoted your own signature.

Put up or shut up.

I already have. In fact, I used your own source to do so.

That places the ball in your court, son.

 

[Ringo84]

No, actually, it's part of your signature. I just quoted your own signature.

Which has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

I already have. In fact, I used your own source to do so.

And I will answer your charges.... if you create a new thread. If not, I'll just have to assume you're more interested in derailing this thread than an honest discussion about the Treaty.
Ringo

 

[South Bound]

Which has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Then why include it in your post?

And I will answer your charges.... if you create a new thread. If not, I'll just have to assume you're more interested in derailing this thread than an honest discussion about the Treaty.
Ringo

Like I said, the ball is in your court.

I've already shown you, using your own source, that the treaty does not say what you claim and was only legally biding for a short time.

If and where you choose to defend your claim is entirely up to you. It's not my responsibility to start a new thread for you. I've already done my part.

 

[JohnLocke]

1. The bill actually prevents banks from investing in risky derivatives: 15 USC 8305 as amended by the Consolidated Further Continuing Appropriation Act of 2015, pg. 616 line 15.‘‘(d) ONLY BONA FIDE HEDGING AND TRADITIONAL BANK ACTIVITIES PERMITTED.—"

See particularly:
‘‘(C) CERTAIN STRUCTURED FINANCE 5 SWAP ACTIVITIES.—Acting as a swaps entity for swaps or security-based swaps that are structured finance swaps, if—

(i) such structured finance swaps are undertaken for hedging or risk management purposes; or

(ii) each asset-backed security underlying such structured finance swap is of a credit quality and of a type or category with respect to which the prudential regulators have jointly adopted rules authorizing swap or security-based swap activity by covered depository institutions.

2. The Supreme Court's decision in Citizen's United rendered all of the donor side campaign finance restrictions constitutionally suspect, that is to say, there is a reasonable argument that such restrictions are unconstitutional and thus unenforceable anyway.

3. $24,198,210,000 is the bill's appropriation to pay Pell grants among other issues. The maximum allowable grant was changed to $4,860 per student for the 2015-2016 award year. Last years maximum was $5,620 per student for the 2014-2015 award year. However, I cannot find the 2014 appropriation, so I cannot by that alone determine whether there are more students getting less in Pell Grants, or just a reduction in Pell Grants.

So even conceding the point on Pell Grants, you're 1 for 3. The bill doesn't do what you claim it does from the perspective of derivatives, and after Citizens United, the donor restrictions in McCain-Feingold are probably unconstitutional. Even on the Pell Grant point, the country is over 18 trillion dollars in debt and the Federal Government simply does not have the revenue to cover all of the current level of spending. A lot of different people took hits. For example, in my Marketplace insurance plan, my deductible was increased by over 800%, my premium by nearly 1,000%, among other increased costs like coinsurance, and lowered benefit maximums despite the fact that my income increased less than 15%. Some students out there are going to have to come up with another $800 in debt or revenue to pay for school. I have to come up with more than $6,000 just to stay out of jail.

My heart bleeds.

 

[variant]

I don't see how the American people would support restoring bank bailouts for banks. Who exactly controls the government if something like this can be passed? Why continue funding a government that isn't ultimately controlled by the people?

Obviously the banks...

We wouldn't be threatening the very existence of a functioning government to get them protected from bad bets otherwise.

The fact that Republicans get a pass for brazenly operating the government on behalf of their preferred special interests while expanding the debt and also hypocritically decrying those things as wrong is the real problem here.

Obviously we shouldn't continue funding such a government, but to simply not fund the part of the government that actually works on behalf of the people (Pell grants and the like) but continuing (and expanding) corporate welfare and expanding the legalized bribery of political donations is the worst of all possible worlds.

Maybe the next time the economy collapses because we are running it on behalf of some corrupt businessmen the people will wake up and not elect the people pledged do whatever corrupt businessmen want.

 

[Ringo84]

1. The bill actually prevents banks from investing in risky derivatives: 15 USC 8305 as amended by the Consolidated Further Continuing Appropriation Act of 2015, pg. 616 line 15.‘‘(d) ONLY BONA FIDE HEDGING AND TRADITIONAL BANK ACTIVITIES PERMITTED.—"

Banks will just say that risky derivatives are a part of "normal" banking.

2. The Supreme Court's decision in Citizen's United rendered all of the donor side campaign finance restrictions constitutionally suspect, that is to say, there is a reasonable argument that such restrictions are unconstitutional and thus unenforceable anyway.

Citizens United was horse manure. It replaced laws that were perhaps too restrictive on campaign donations with unlimited, unregulated donation. It's trading one extreme with another.

There's nothing unconstitutional about setting limits on donations so that the "speech" of ordinary citizens isn't completely shut out by billionaires.

Even on the Pell Grant point, the country is over 18 trillion dollars in debt and the Federal Government simply does not have the revenue to cover all of the current level of spending.

Thus, students get shafted because the idiots in Washington regularly stick it to the nation's most vulnerable, and not the richest. Excellent.
Ringo

 

[MachZer0]

More like we'll see how long Republicans are willing to sabotage the normal functioning of government with ugliness like cutting Pell grants and the like.
Ringo

Just for the record, Pell grants and the like are not part of the normal functioning of government

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

$18 trillion.

As a taxpayer, your share is already over $153,000 and climbing quickly.

Why can't Democratic politicians see that they are adding to the long term pain of future generations? Short term pain for long term gain? I guess that doesn't win elections.

 

[JohnLocke]

1. You have no idea what derivatives are, how they work, or how hedging or normal banking operates or how any of these things are defined under the operative laws and regulations, or apparently any desire to dispel this ignorance.

2. You may disagree with Citizens United, but it is the law of the land. So there's that, unless you're advocating that the Federal Government not abide by the law, which would just be weird.

3. There is something unconstitutional about setting limits on political speech, and there always has been. The fact of the matter is Citizens United only expanded/clarified the right to free speech and didn't "shut out" anyone.

Sorry but it does not seem that I will be able to change your mind by pointing out facts, so I bid you adieu.

 

[Ringo84]

1. You have no idea what derivatives are, how they work, or how hedging or normal banking operates or how any of these things are defined under the operative laws and regulations, or apparently any desire to dispel this ignorance.

And neither do you.

2. You may disagree with Citizens United, but it is the law of the land. So there's that, unless you're advocating that the Federal Government not abide by the law, which would just be weird.

I'd settle for Citizens United's repeal.

3. There is something unconstitutional about setting limits on political speech, and there always has been. The fact of the matter is Citizens United only expanded/clarified the right to free speech and didn't "shut out" anyone.

No, what it did was open up the possibility of democracy for sale to the highest bidder, which only intensifies the pillaging of our country that is happening under the Republicans.

Sorry but it does not seem that I will be able to change your mind by pointing out facts, so I bid you adieu.

I'm not buying your propaganda is more like it. But I can respect someone for knowing when to stop and not dragging out a pointless argument to infinity.
Ringo

 

[Viren]

Obviously the banks...

We wouldn't be threatening the very existence of a functioning government to get them protected from bad bets otherwise.

The fact that Republicans get a pass for brazenly operating the government on behalf of their preferred special interests while expanding the debt and also hypocritically decrying those things as wrong is the real problem here.

Obviously we shouldn't continue funding such a government, but to simply not fund the part of the government that actually works on behalf of the people (Pell grants and the like) but continuing (and expanding) corporate welfare and expanding the legalized bribery of political donations is the worst of all possible worlds.

Maybe the next time the economy collapses because we are running it on behalf of some corrupt businessmen the people will wake up and not elect the people pledged do whatever corrupt businessmen want.

Yeah, people from Citigroup wrote the legislation. It makes sense why they would want bank bailouts since they received half a trillion dollars during the financial collapse.

 

[Protocol11]

i vote we shut down the electronic sign that shows the debt. thats a lot of electricity showing that many numbers. its gonna over load the power plant.

oh wait, nvm. we shut it down when it ran out of room for all the numbers in a -8 font.

well thank goodness thats taken care of

 

[variant]

1. You have no idea what derivatives are, how they work, or how hedging or normal banking operates or how any of these things are defined under the operative laws and regulations, or apparently any desire to dispel this ignorance.

I know I don't want derivatives trading to be conducted from within federally insured banking operations.

To do so is INSANE considering that these instruments forced the government had to cover bank losses with taxpayer dollars not more than a few years back, and basically caused many trillions of dollars of damage to the US economy mainly felt by the less fortunate.

Yeah, people from Citigroup wrote the legislation. It makes sense why they would want bank bailouts since they received half a trillion dollars during the financial collapse.

All in all it was a great deal for them, we get to cover their losses and they get to keep all the profits.

 

[Avid]

Actually, they voted against legislation filled with poison pill riders that Republicans jammed in there at the last minute.
Ringo

This Bill is FULL of pork, poison pills, unconstitutional spending, etc. It is filled by BOTH parties to feed an insatiable appetite for MORE GOVERNMENT when we already have too much. Boehner lied to get it passed, and Obama stepped up to "whip" votes for the monstrosity. They both love that we would accuse each other, and leave them alone!

The establishment wings of BOTH parties want a bigger, more powerful, machine, and want to be the ones standing there with the Check Book in their hands. Comments made to taunt each other, and accuse each other of wrongdoing are partially accurate on BOTH sides.

They both (Boehner & Obama) want this $1-PLUS TRILLION Bill passed, in spite of objections from their base of voters - ON BOTH SIDES. This is reflected in comments on this thread from both viewpoints. Each thinks the other is ruining the nation. Both have part of the puzzle! Conservatives don't want Boehner's idea of compromise with the left. Liberals find the Democrat allowances of Boehner's input to be distasteful. They are happy enough to let us blame each other while they wrestle away control from the people.

It was like that with all of the administrations in remembrance. Some worse than others, and some were better at hiding their motives than others. As the Constitution is subverted, control is taken from the people, and we are less a nation of laws. At the end of each administration, the outgoing pres. must take the blame so puppet-masters are not targeted. No matter how popular, the outgoing takes blame for abuses, so the incoming can take credit for straightening out the mess. Notice the Past Pres.'s are all FRIENDS now!

All this drama is from the tried and true methods to steal from EVERYONE. We all suffer, and blame each other, not the ones causing it. The politicians are mostly pawns and puppets. The media is currently on the side of the effort to spend us into oblivion! They will protect that effort at what ever cost necessary. This was stated clearly over 60 years ago.

John Swinden, head of the New York Times, said in 1953, when asked by his peers to toast the independent press at the National Press Club, said:

"There is no such thing at this date of the world's history in America as an independent press. You know it, and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinion, and if you did, you know beforehand it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the street looking for another job. If I allow my honest opinion to appear in one issue of my paper, before 24 hours, my occupation would be gone. The business of the journalist is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it, and I know it, and what folly is this, toasting an independent press? We are the tools and the vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the Jumping Jacks. They pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes."
​

Newspapers are on their way out. Magazines seem to be losing readership as well. Now it is TV and Cable outlets, but the principle remains.
.