To Republican Controlled House: Stop with the Stupid!
I stumbled upon a recent article the excerpt of it is below:
The former chair of the Republican National Committee (RNC) has a blistering response to Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene's, R-Ga., recent remarks about debt.
According to HuffPost, Michael Steele was not pleased with Greene's adamant pushback against the proposed initiative of raising the debt limit. Her remarks came as Democratic lawmakers push for what is described as a "clean" bill to increase the debt limit for financial flexibility.
The former Republican leader went on to offer hard facts with a direct statement to Marjorie Greene as he explained how legislation actually works. He also offered her a blistering word of advice.
"If you understand how this works, Marjorie, then you know that this is about bills that have already been created, not new spending. So this is not a spending question. This is just paying the damn credit card of the country for the $8 trillion your president ran up between 2016 and 2020. So stop with the stupid."
----------
So, the Jewish space lasers lady aka "The Heifer" and her Republican House associates wants to shortcircuit the requirement to pay our debts. Those debts having been accumulated during Trump's term. And it is funny that I don't recall that any of this sort of controversy raising its head during Trumps term. So, the party of so called fiscal responsibility is not so much as it is the party of showboating and irresponsibility.
They are making a "scene" here. I say that they can go to hell and I insist that not one Democrat fold over their ridiculous demands. We will not be held hostage over their insane demands.
--------------
Others think the White House needs to come at it differently for officials to have any hope at cross-aisle cooperation.
“Biden’s initial comment of zero negotiations is a non-starter,” said Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), who said he personally hasn’t heard from the White House. “[Republicans] can’t get 100 percent of what we want with only control of half of Congress, but our voters sent us to D.C. to control spending, so the Democrats have to show some movement our way, too.”
“Both sides need to negotiate in good faith,” he added.
'No negotiation’: White House calls on Congress to raise the debt limit
--------
As far as I am concerned, Biden's comment is the ONLY starter. They are holding hostage the very functions of our government so they can can wrangle cuts in Social Security and other social benefit programs? Those tax cuts that we could ill afford during Trumps term and the bloated Defense budget, I don't hear any concerns about that. I tell the President: the Republicans are to receive absolutely nothing and I will find displeasure with any Democrat who allow him or herself to be intimidated. If there are consequences to not passing the increase the blame, as during Clinton's term and more recently, Obama's, is to be placed 100 percent on the GOP. The only "movement" available to Republicans are to be of the bowel variety.
----------
SharePlay Video
Concessions over the debt ceiling were a vital part of the deal that McCarthy negotiated with his 20 conservative holdouts to finally attain the speakership. He agreed that the GOP House wouldn’t move to lift the debt ceiling unless Congress slashes at least $130 billion in federal spending next fiscal year or addresses broader fiscal reforms that tackle the ballooning debt, as many Republicans argue it threatens the nation’s economic security and future.
----------
Oh really? You will pass it as is or else...
Oh, My God, Republicans suck......
------------
Such spending cuts should be negotiated as part of the annual budget and appropriations process Congress will also have to tackle later this year, said Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.). He argued it shouldn’t occur during a high-stakes battle over the nation’s borrowing authority.
-----
Yes, we learned that in junior high civics classes.
---------
“We’ve been very clear. The President’s been very clear. It’s everybody’s duty to make sure the United States pays its bills on time,” Van Hollen said. “There will be no negotiations over the debt ceiling and paying our bills on time.”
------
Damn right, no negotiations, exceptions nor excuses....The criticism that the argument is about paying the bills on time, not future spending cuts, that they are separate issues, has a weak spot. A valid arguable 'flip-side.'
Consider the issue without any specifics. No names, no details. Just the concept of forcing a discussion on compromise. Rhetorically, Is there anyone that doesn't think our government has been over-spending for decades, that something has to be done to control it, that the issue is a political fight more than a dire emergency and national disgrace, (Continuing Resolutions haven't been a problem before)?
Those legislators explaining that the issue is about paying for money we already borrowed know that the Republican thrust is valid. They know overspending will only continue until there is some penalty for doing it.
To lecture that Republicans don't understand basic Civics stuff is hypocrisy. Green, (et al.), knows what the fight is about and that future spending cuts are directly related to the nation's debt ceiling. Her attackers know that she knows. They know that the 'pay your bills' criticism is baloney because, except for the newbies, they all created those bills.
And look at the response those criticism plant in partisan minds. Look at your responses to the link's blurbs: name-calling and denigration using many of the media-presented talking points and buzz phrases. Shooting the messenger without any discussion of the message.
This issue is just political hardball. Gird up.
*all the 'they know' claims are just an opinion.
GAAlright, GA,thanks for your reply.
Are we to shut down the government and go through all that we had in 2011 just because Republicans can't get their way? I and the nation will blame them for any hardships associated with not increasing the debt ceiling. If you can't see the hypocrisy of pursuing this at this very moment and the tendency to put this on Democrats, disregarding GOP administrations that bear responsibility for exorbitant spending, then you need to remove those amber colored glasses. I can't believe that you suck up to these guys and believe all their crap, which has been timed and totally political in nature.
So we either get what we want or we shut down the government? That is holding a pistol to Miss Liberty s head.
This is a "hardball" that is going to be a pie in the face just like it was for Gingrich back in the day.
Politics works within the standard options of the two party system, we do not threaten to derail the locomotive just because we have issues with the passengers. Neither side...
Excusing Republicans again, are we? In your world of "both sides do it" and "two wrongs don't make a right", somehow in that world, Republicans always get a free pass. I bet you thought that J-6 was just "political hardball"?
NOW, everybody is concerned about future spending cuts, what did Republicans do about it when they were in charge?
I don't want to be on the edge as we were in 2011...
I am being kind in my descriptions of Republicans and what it is they are attempting to do.
I have no respect for Green nor anything that she says....
If Republicans wanted to do what they wished in Congress, they should had made sure that their planned red wave was successful, filling the House and Senate with veto proof majorities. Such was not the case, the electorate said otherwise. Cheaters do not prosper."I and the nation will blame them for any hardships associated with not increasing the debt ceiling."
Do I and the nation get to blame liberals and Democrats for refusing to rein in spending and work towards getting off the borrowing bandwagon? After all, it means more taxes for all of us, and it is the middle class that ends up paying the lions share.
It's hard to respect people without a shred of financial sense, people that will borrow endlessly until suddenly the well is dry and then shift the blame to someone else.Do Republicans rein in spending or do they merely choose to "spend" somewhere else?
When they try to force the issue suddenly they are the bad guys, right?
Not sure what you mean by "spend", in quotes. You lost me there.You don't force the issue by burning down the entire house.
Both parties are responsible for excessive spending, the reactionaries(Republicans) with their corporate bailouts and military outlays. Their spending is just as profligate but just going in a different direction,How do you suggest government reign in it's gross spending habit?
As you say, when it comes time to spend both parties do it to at least some extent (meaning more than is reasonable or needed) - at that point the desire or will power to reign it in is nonexistent. Right now it is there - when do you think would be a better time to make an effort to stop the madness?They should control the spending habits as they are supposed to by compromise and give and take. That is their job as legislators, not to unravel our government. I don't trust Republican ideas of fiscal restraint as they do not trust the Democrats on the same accord. We have to compromise over whose ox is to be gored and to what extent. The all or nothing politics from both sides is the problem.
Well many believe that Mr. Trump built a national debt so big (Even before the pandemic) That It’ll weigh down the economy for years. He oversaw the third-biggest deficit increase of any president. Republicans had no objection to raising the doubt limit three times during his tenure. Oh but now we have a problem??
LOL The debt was so big, long before Trump, even before Obama, that it will weigh down the economy for longer than my lifetime.
And yet we complain when the party we do not affiliate with drags their heels at increasing the debt ceiling without concessions in future spending. Are politics really that big a thing to the average American? Or do they truly not understand the future result of ever increasing debt?That's why civics lessons should be given a top priority in schools.
Why is it the Democrats always get blamed for "spending" but the GOP doesn't get blamed for giving away our revenue stream through cutting taxes? Both deplete our cash reserves.
Perhaps because we should be cutting taxes, being taxed far beyond the actual needs of the country (as opposed to individuals).
You are off to a great start. Simply because I offered a supporting view of an arguably valid perspective of the concept of this issue, you say I am a closed-minded suckup that believes the Republicans' mirror image of the political crap that is being thrown out. Political crap such as the OP's presentation of the only possible, (and acceptable), view of the issue.
And you get all of that from a response that didn't include any names or specifics of the action. Hells bells, if I say anything more you'll have enough to expose me as a closet-Trumplican.
Your OP, as I read it, was a political presentation that demanded the president hold to an obstinate closed-minded inaction against any criticisms. Your response to my comment was full of character assassinations and party buzzwords and phrases, yet didn't speak to any of the substance. (if there was any?)
To take another shot at the basics of my response; could you consider the possibility that the reason for the action is valid, even if you disagree with the action's specifics?
GAOk, GA, I will take another shot...
Whatever foul adjectives I used for Republicans, present company excepted.
The only thing that I can add that there is some support for the idea that the sort of extortion is commonplace like an annual holiday, more than I would have believed.
I think that the Republicans are going to remain deliberately mum about specific desired cuts, as they do not want to reveal to the public the direction to where they are going to take their suggestive cuts and give Democrats more ammunition against them.
You are not a Trumplican, but you do have strong Republican leaning s that puts us at odds, automatically.
I am not supporting Biden being obstinate. But we know that Republicans are not insisting on budget cuts that would be anything but advantageous to their base. They know we are not going to gore our oxen, no more than we expect to gore theirs. So what do they expect to accomplish? There will be no touching Social Security or Medicare, so what do they hope to accomplish with this "innocent" extortion?
I did not like what happen d 2011. This is not a viable political ploy for either political party.
Did, I otherwise, miss anything?Considering that the 'action' has been a frequently used political tool, and not a single party's attack on democracy and the nation's reputation is a good piece of common ground. The sky isn't falling.
That implies that there is also common ground regarding the need for spending control. (as that is the promoted rationale by whichever party is doing it at the time)
Add a few more pieces of common ground that I think we would find, (e.g. the last 20+ years have brought us to the not-good normalization of Continuing Resolutions and budgeting by 10,000-page omnibus bills and that something must be done), and here we are: we both know that we're talking about the same dog, (the 'action' your OP condemned to hell), but just arguing about its hairs. (the names and details in the OP)
If we have made it this far it must infer the disastrous claims of damage that will result from the Republicans' effort isn't what you are condemning, it is the people doing it. I think that loops back to my starting point: There is an arguable counter to the claims of the OP because they are your opinions and opinions are the most arguable thing there is.
As for those names and details, you have me there. I seldom dig deeper than an initial media impression unless something compels me. I've gotten lazy.
I will argue about the merit and need for some sort of "action" to disrupt the status quo that we both seem to agree is not a good thing, but the personal characterizations—good or bad, will have to be a point-by-point, name-by-name thing.
GAConservatives have also said the J-6 was not the sky falling, was it? It was sheer luck and the flip of the coin that what happened would not have escalated, as there were no guardrails.
While the process appears a standard political tool of both parties, it was only in 2011 (GOP) that clear and present danger was not to be ignored. So, how can you say there was no need to be concerned? With no guardrail, I am always going to be concerned. I don't like conservatives exuding confidence about an outcome without any real basis for it. i will always prefer can't over won't.
----
On August 5, 2011, Standard & Poors issued the first ever downgrade in the federal government's credit rating, citing their April warnings, the difficulty of bridging the parties and that the resulting agreement fell well short of the hoped-for comprehensive 'grand bargain'.[32] The credit downgrade and debt ceiling debacle contributed to the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) falling nearly 2,000 points in late July and August. Following the downgrade itself, the DJIA had one of its worst days in history and fell 635 points on August 8.[33
-------
Instead of threatening the viability of the American economy here and around the world, playing "chicken", maybe, just maybe they should legislate like the high paid officials they are and stop behaving like grade school kids on a playground. Legislators have more than ample opportunity to address overspending short of holding all of the rest of us hostage.
So, yes, I don't like taking things to the brink in an unnecessary fashion, I have no assurance that the sky won't fall next time.I get the impression that half or better of the homeowners energy needs are still met by burning fossil fuels. Is that true? Gas heat, gas hot water, gas cooking - that doesn't leave much, comparatively speaking, for the energy of electricity.
True.
And what people also don't realize is most recent tax bill passed that kicks into effect this year puts major new taxes on coal, ngas, and oil.
These prices will go up. You have to love how they promise no new taxes on people, but who do you think will be paying for all these new taxes on energy, corporations, etc.
These costs will be passed on to all of us.
A little clarification: I didn't intend to infer there was no reason to be concerned. I support the action these new folks are proclaiming to be their purpose but don't trust the folks behind those claims.
When any extreme is on a roll there is always a reason to be concerned. I am saying the action they are taking isn't a Republican anomaly and it appears to be, to me, because of the need for some action to control spending, a needed action.
J6 was a serious breach, but I think it is arguable that it wasn't a serious attempt that had any chance of success.
GAAsk yourself: If every person in the Capitol had been killed that day would Trump be President? Would the US have been overthrown and now governed by a dictator for life?
No? Then it is not arguable; it is factual that it could not succeed.I don't know ?
The point is that no one really knows how far it would have gone. If Trump had been declared President deriding the democratic process, what would have been next? It should not have been contemplated from the very beginning. I considering the event to be a clarion call from a dark direction that can never be permitted to happen again.No question that the building should never have been entered. The "protest" ("riot") should not even have been in front of the building without a permit.
But Trump declared President? By whom? Those yahoos that (in theory) killed Pence and everyone else in the building? What good would that do?Agreed, but there is more to it than that. There are the fake electors, the pressure and intimidation put upon Pense to go beyond his solely ceremonial role in the proceedings involved in tallying electors as prescribed in the Constitution. Trump and his associates were applying pressure to Pense to not properly adhere to the rules of the proceedings.
If Pense had capitulated to Trumps pressure in order to remain "his friend", it could have well proven to be the catalyst for unrest across the he country, with the system as we presently know it being undone.
Because, later, both sides of the isle passed legislation making clear that the VP role during such a tally is ceremonial, only. They would not have done that if the possibility of misinterpretation were not real and present danger.LOL They need legislation to say that the Constitution shall be the final word? I don't think so.
Politicians are forever grandstanding and proposing junk that is never intended to pass OR that means nothing. That tidbit was one of them. It is quite plainly laid out in the Constitution how a new President is elected - their legislation made no changes to that document and therefore it stands.
No, Credence, there was exactly zero chance that Trump could have been made President again against the valid electoral vote.It really does rather flabbergast me that you think a tiny group of unarmed idiots (most of whom would oppose any such action) could overthrow the American government and force a dictatorship. You really don't have any faith at all in American people, do you?
I am flabbergasted that it got as far as it did which include the mob, Republican Congressmen and the President to the United States.
Faith? Not in certain kinds of people, No...
Overthrow the Government and enforce a dictatorship? It did not need to go that far to pose a threat. I am flabbergasted that you are so confident that a plot with so many angles of attack could have ended with the status quo intact.You were surprised that idiots managed to get into the Capitol?
I wasn't and you should not have been. We already had rioters all over the country - some took over blocks of Seattle, some took over police precincts, some tried to take over (or destroy) federal buildings. Riots have become acceptable in our country, have actually been approved of by VIP politicians participating in them.
That those yahoos managed to break a glass door and enter should surprise no one. Especially when Pelosi (and others) refused additional protection and were left with only the security force on the job.
What threat do you see in a handful of fools rioting in the Capitol? But you misunderstand my confidence; it was not that nothing would happen; it was that Donald Trump would not be made dictator (that IS what is claimed they wanted). Or President or any other terminology that amounts to Supreme Leader of the Country. You might have missed my comment that he would still not be even if the rioters had murdered every soul in the building that day.--------------
The rioters in Seattle and Portland did not plan to overturn the government as neither city represented even the capitals of their respective states. While rightwing media is busy trying to draw an equivalence about the two "riots", there is none. Republicans say democrats were inactive during the riots, I say Republicans were accessories in the riots and the attempted subversion of the actual election results. And that the riots was just one leg of a three legged stool, the other legs being the POTUS, and Republican Congressmen.
You tend to ignore the significance of Trumps and his henchmen's involvement in this plot which goes far beyond a ragtag mob storming the Capitol. It is not just a coincidence that the mob was there on the very day Trump tried to subvert the election with his fake electors that he and his associates were well aware of. Do we want this to have reached the point that all congressmen were seriously injured or killed by this mob? Could they have taken over the country? Probably not, but had it gone further it would have been the groundwork of more than your everyday national crisis. And, who can say that it wouldn't have?Almost 140 Republicans Congressmen (leaders at the very top of our Government) participated in a antidemocratic move without any proof nor justification. If you conservatives were so sure that this theft on the democratic process could not possibly succeed, why did so many Republicans vote in its behalf?
All of this is just a bit more daunting than your usual riot rabble that was involved in the Northwest.
Article excerpt
--------
What are electors, again?
The Electoral College is composed of 538 individual electors – people from all 50 states and the District of Columbia, who represent the popular vote in each state. When a candidate wins a state, their designated slate of electors gets to participate in the Electoral College process.
This group of electors meets in the statehouse at a designated date in December. They sign certificates, officially casting their vote for president. This is a ceremonial process, and the outcome is essentially a foregone conclusion. (In very rare cases, an elector goes “faithless,” by voting for someone other than the candidate who won the popular vote in their state.)
Trump allies tried to supplant President Joe Biden’s authentic electors with fake Republican electors in seven key states, who could’ve theoretically thrown the entire election to Trump.
Who organized this scheme?
CNN reported last week that the scheme was overseen by Trump campaign officials, led by Giuliani. This wasn’t something organic that just happened out of nowhere on the state level.
According to CNN’s reporting, there were multiple planning calls between Trump campaign officials and GOP state operatives, and Giuliani participated in at least one call. The Trump campaign lined up supporters to fill elector slots, secured meeting rooms for the fake electors to meet on December 14, 2020, and circulated drafts of fake certificates that they later signed.
What did the fake ‘electors’ do?
The pro-Trump group essentially pretended to do all the things that the real electors are required to do, as spelled out in the Constitution. But it was for show. It was a PR stunt. CNN previously reported that Trump allies hoped to gin up coverage on the right-wing OAN network.
The Trump backers met at statehouses, or nearby, and signed certificates that used similar language as the real certificates, proclaiming their votes for President and Vice President.
But these fake certificates served no legal purpose. Anyone can type out whatever they want in Microsoft Word, and make it look official with a signing ceremony. But that doesn’t make it real.
Why did Team Trump do this?
The fake electors in these states were pawns in a bigger plan – which Trump supported in public and private – to overturn the results of the 2020 election and steal a second term.
Their plan was to have then-Vice President Mike Pence throw out Biden’s authentic electors and replace them with the GOP electors on January 6, while he presided over the joint session of Congress to count the electoral votes. Pence refused to go along with the plan, saying that it violated the Constitution. A bipartisan array of legal scholars agreed with Pence’s reasoning.
Trump allies involved in the scheme have denied wrongdoing. Some have said they did this to preserve all potential legal options for their candidate, no matter how unlikely they were to win.
--------------"The rioters in Seattle and Portland did not plan to overturn the government as neither city represented even the capitals of their respective states."
What nonsense! CHAZ, in Seattle, DID overturn the government in the area they occupied. Portlanders rioted over keeping the feds out of Portland, as well as ending the cop infiltration of the city. Again, keep government out. If government cannot be present and it's edicts ignored at will then it is effectively "overthrown".
"But these fake certificates served no legal purpose."
And there you have it. Those fake electors were of no value and could not elect a President.
But I will congratulate you on using the "Trump campaign" rather than Trump himself; as always it has not been possible to link Donald Trump to any wrongdoing 1-6 or any of the other black accusations by Democrats.Why do you continue to exaggerate and distort the fact taking over 6 city blocks is not taking over the city? Seattle is just a little bit bigger. It is ridiculous to say that Seattle was overthrown.
It does not matter if the certificates served no legal purpose, why were they created in the first place by the plumbers if they knew they were useless?
Trump was behind all the fake electors and the threat to subvert the democratic process on that day, that cannot be discredited regardless of how fast you want to "spin it".
So, as I say before, we disagree. I considered the activities of that day as a serious threat while you relegate to just "GOP style politics".The riot at the Capitol has been given a confusing colour. Surely, who will ever know what actually happened? Ex-President Trump has not claim involvment. But it was on record that he request the rioters to turn away. Surely, who should say that that was a voice mail? This is how the riot got more confused than ever! Many unimaginable things is being said into it. Shouldn't Trump's name be left out of all this? Has he be indict yet?
You would have to be blind to believe all the false contrary information that Trump was unaware nor had no involvement in the fake electors nor telling Pense he could hold up the proceedings of that day over specious information.
His not being aware is highly unlikely...All it takes is imagination...and a desire to convict him of something. To date there is zero evidence that Trump had anything to do with breaking into the building. Personally I will believe he took part (from knowing the plans to planning it all) when proven; until then it is but imagination.
I am not talking about breaking into the building but something far more sinister, attempting to undermine the vote via manipulation of Electoral College electors. And he is guilty of that, unless you want to tell me that is a figment of my imagination as well?
Has he been convicted by a jury of his peers?
Then by the laws and intent of our justice system he is innocent. It doesn't matter what you think, it doesn't matter what I think - he is innocent. The Trump haters never appear to understand that very simple fact - that it takes a conviction in court to be considered guilty.The attempt is still the attempt, yes, he remains unprosecuted for now.
I would hate anyone that would consider upturning the election system as he is "accused" of doing...Then by all the rules of our society, by all the rules of ethical behavior and morality as defined by our society and culture, you cannot declare him guilty of anything.
Still, you do exactly that ("...attempting to undermine the vote via manipulation of Electoral College electors. And he is guilty of that...") - do you consider yourself unethical or immoral? How do you justify ignoring our laws and the very base of our entire justice system?What did you do when OJ was accused of murder? Did you take this extreme can't do no wrong attitude? I think that it not so much the laws and the base of our justice system more than it is personalities you support as opposed to those that you don't....
I am going to condemn anyone that thwarts the rules regarding how our election system operates.
Are you telling me that Trump did not attempt persuade Pense to make ruling against the prevailing electors that January 6th? Funny, that is not what Pense said.... how much material do I have to gather that is readily available anywhere that can make my point clear?Okay let's have the materia or a link on what Mike Pence really said? Forgive me...don't you think Pelosi, was also on Mike to undermine Trump?
I don't know if you have newspapers in Nigeria, but here is the evidence that you ask me for.....
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/r … oral-votes
Trump undermines himself, he does not need any help from Nancy Pelosi.We have newspapers in Nigeria.
Back then Nigerian newspapers are busy covering the the outcome outcome of the Presidential Elections, Governorships, and others.
If they have carried the story, I would have know for I was regularly in my public library.
I don't know much about the Associated Press. I never have read it. But it now gives me food for thought.
One thing I know was that Pelosi, was also at hand against Trump at this time.
The "arguable" was whether the event was what the definitions it fits say it was. Technically it checks enough boxes. Realistically it's baloney.
GAAgreed, both ways. Technically, if one ignores the reality and impossibility of success it was an "insurrection". Realistically and practically it was not, was never intended to be, and stood zero chance (and very few things have a zero probability) of being successful. Not even the participants could have possibly thought they could force a dictator by attacking the Capitol bare handed.
The attempt is dire enough in of itself, that in itself is serious as it has never occurred in over 2 centuries, and then by a foreign power.
If we are serious about reining in spending rather than resort to one party using a truncheon on the other, this should be top billing every day the legislators are in session, rather than just to make political points with their respective supporters. In this environment, one side will not be allowed to prevail over the other.Sadly, you are correct. The children fighting in the sandbox will never prevail over the other for more than short periods.
While we may be on opposite political poles, I think that we both know that there is plenty of fraud, waste and abuse incorporated within the budget to go around and to be ferreted out. There can be no excuse for our legislators to not be addressing this Every Day they are in session.
I agree. Realistically, we live in the real world, not a fantasy one, and there WILL be some fraud, some waste and abuse. Politicians themselves are responsible for most of the abuse.
But that does not mean it should not be addressed; it should ALWAYS be addressed, and it is...with more pork barrel spending. Our politicians, having nothing to offer us but spending our money, will do so with a flourish unless we the people make it plain that it will cost them their job if they refuse to control that spending.
But we don't and they don't. Again, a fact of the real world.
'Yes, we learned that in junior high civics classes'. When will thes politicians ever apply civic lessons to solve issues? It's such politicians that ar after money period.
When will thes politicians ever apply civic lessons to solve issues? It's such politicians that ar after money period.
That just the problem, they don't...When will they start? The sooner the better.
Credence,
You really need to find another "hobby", your blood pressure must be sky high.
Following politics in our country is no longer a worthwhile endeavor my friend.
The battles have been fought, they have been won, or lost, as it may be.
The State of the Nation is this, we are so far down the road we are on there is no turning back for America.
The 30+ Trillion dollars in deficit is the profound statement that our economy, the value of the dollar, has reached its end. Whether that be weeks, or a couple more years, its collapse is imminent.
There are other signs as well, such as Saudi Arabia openly announcing to the world they are willing to trade their oil in other currencies, but the world outside of the US sees the deterioration of America, economically and otherwise, and they are readying to disconnect from the Dollar as the world's Reserve...soon.
America as is thought of by most Americans over the age of 40 is over.
Economically, Culturally, Social Norms... completely flipped, finished, its just a matter of time before the Baby Boomers and Gen Xers have died off, and then the country will be incapable of maintaining its position as a global leader, of anything of relevance.
Much in the way that the EU is currently being gutted, overrun, and surpassed by all things "Made in China". From vehicles or solar panels, nothing not kept running by the State will be able to compete with the cheaper, better made products coming from China (or India).
As for the Social Deconstruction:
I was reading the other day how a Hockey Player refused to wear a Gay Pride uniform that all NHL players were told to wear.
Of course, he was not American... Americans have been ground into submission to accept anything, no matter how offensive to their beliefs, which is why we are no more than a year or two from pedophilia becoming the next "bigoted norm" our society will break through.
He was an Orthodox Christian from Russia.
But here is the key... just ten years ago, if a player wanted to wear a Gay Pride uniform in the NHL he would have been ostracized, or at least have gotten major pushback for attempting to do so.
Today you get ostracized, major pushback, and perhaps even 'cancelled' if you say 'No, I will not wear a Gay Pride uniform'.
Its not OK for you to have your own beliefs, you must conform to the Group Think, or lose you job, and be cancelled by society.
Today it is the LGTBQ group, soon to become the LGTBQP group, if you don't think a man who feels he is a woman should be treated as a woman, be allowed to compete as a woman, there is something wrong with YOU not them. Next are the children, and they are being programmed now by the very same people and politics that have made LGTBQ so pronounced in our society today.
The Past:
Your Generation and mine were taught that a Man's job is to provide, protect, produce, and lead his family.
A Woman's job was to support and build up her man, care for the children, be the homemaker.
Standard Nuclear Family stuff.
Western society has abandoned this, especially in the past two decades.
Women are expected to be the men, to not need men, not be dependent on men, put careers first. Those women who want to have a "traditional" role as homemaker and child raiser are frowned upon.
Women may have been reprogrammed in Western Society, but what men want out of women hasn't changed in the majority of men.
In Summary:
Enjoy your time doing other things than fighting over politics.
Life is short, the Dice Rolled, the road already too far travelled, we are heading well past what you, or any other sane American, was ever 'fighting' for. Well past... until we have completely collapsed and are built anew... into something you nor I will have any control over.I found this too hard for the likes of Credence2. But let it be.
Hello, Ken, nice to hear from you again, as always.
Oh, no, Ken, l love to follow politics. I would be bored to death if I did not have you guys around to "mix it up over". My blood pressure is actually lower than in years past. I don't have to work for anyone anymore, while the check is still in the mail. My wife is my only "boss". So, I can be a crotchety as I please these days. I have unlimited chess games and partners and virtually unlimited entertainment and education from what could be called a compendium of all human knowledge. What is there to want? These are the best years of my life.
So, now, on with the show.
Yes, I read the stories over Saudi Arabia possibly abandoning the dollar as the foundation currency. I never believed that we could stay at the top of the "food chain" forever. We have had our century, perhaps the time has come for other nations to have theirs. People associate cultural change with the perception of decline. We all know that nothing is static.
Greed of American capitalists and workers would have eventually led to this outcome. Once the technology was available, the captains of industry would much rather move manufacturing to countries where there were lower wages and no labor nor environmental regulations, what would be more natural, just as one would expect water to run downhill? There goes the American jobs....
As for the gay stuff, no one should be compelled to wear such a political statement on any such item on their clothing. The bend of the knee at sport games was voluntary, no one was required to participate. That's the difference. In light of that difference, how does "group think" fit in?
In the midst of an ever present American decline, do we have to be in such a hurry to break all of the rules of law and civility that may have played a small role in keeping the country together?
As for the past, it is true the man was to be the breadwinner. That reality was reinforced openly and subliminally in all the media of the 1960s while I growing up. But, the reality is that life is short and each and every human being, be it man or woman, has an obligation to him or herself to pursue their desires in life to the greatest extent consistent with aptitude and diligence. That is the new paradyme. And that is far superior to the old one. Now, women can either choose to be June Cleaver or Sally Ride.
It is not about expectations but the right to choose. Women want what we all want, a choice.
If some think that the new paradyme correlates with a declining America, that is unfortunate. No one is willing to just "stay in their place" as they did 100 years ago.
Again, nice to hear from you.Good reply Cred, but one that doesn't directly counter the heart of those statements.
It just says you like the political drama and are OK with where things are going.
When your pension(s) disappear because our well led government has sunk the nation's economy, let me know if you still feel that way.When my pension disappears the sun will burn out. I am not at the point were I am going to say that the sky is falling.....
I will let you know if my opinion has changed.Coming out of the woodwork . . . they are threatening to play with cutting Soc Sec and Medicare to control spending. Hands off!!!. As far as that goes there is a rumor our benefits will be delayed if the debt ceiling is not resolved soon.
Credence, I like this post. It has a lot going for it...but unfortunately it glosses over the negatives, very large ones, that we are also seeing today.
You may disagree (certainly your privilege) but I think our country is also seeing a decided decline in responsibility, in self reliance, in production whether from a garden or an assembly line. We are seeing a marked descent into lawlessness, whether from rioters or shoplifters. Our culture has become, far too much, dependent on the nanny state for their every need and every want. We have decided that ALL the wealth of the nation actually belongs to everyone, regardless of who produced or earned it.
So yes, few are willing to stay in their place...but moving out of that place is the responsibility of someone else rather than the person wanting to move. Whether it be taking the wealth of those with more or simply demanding that a different "tribe" give us what we want, we aren't concerned with doing it ourselves.Thanks for the kudos,
Yes, I do disagree partially
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/young-adul … arch-2022/
The difference between the number and percentage of young adults living with their parents today as compared to say, 1971, is quite stark.
I, for one, do not buy the fact that so many are lazy as an explanation for the difference. I just think being "self reliant" is just a little harder to come by today then it was in times past. This trend has been taking place long before Biden and "his inflation" so that won't do as an explanation.
We have less social mobility today than ever before, that means that it will be less likely that children can rise in status above parents. Entrenched wealth, the advantages and privileges of that will make this society ever more caste like in the years to come. That is my opinion, anyway. That is my greatest fear.Kids living with parents; coincidentally, my son's family has aged, with now 2 children over 20. They are both out on their own...mostly because their parents refused to support them. If other parents followed suit instead of continuing to support kids that refuse to support themselves we wouldn't see the numbers we are.
"I just think being "self reliant" is just a little harder to come by today then it was in times past."
It may, or may not, be. Either way, we as the parent generation is partially at fault here, for we have made it difficult to impossible for most early teens (meaning 14-16 years) to find work. We have utterly failed to instill a work ethic in those same kids; if they DO find work they are unlikely to keep it.
So we share the problem with those "lazy" kids, but share is all, for they really are lazy. As I said, we have failed to instill any kind of work ethic; what else should we expect?
I disagree about the social mobility, though. My personal experience, through 3 and soon 4 generations, is that it is quite possible and I see it happening around me.
But whether I am right or you are is irrelevant to the matter of a caste system, for it will grown even in the boundaries can still be crossed. That is to say that the poor will still be poor, the middle still be middle and the rich will remain rich...and the dislike between the three will grow. Particularly the dislike of poor and middle for the rich, for we are teaching our children that it is almost criminal to be wealthy (whether earned or not, for we are also teaching that if it WAS earned it was done so unethically and illegally) and that the wealth actually belongs to them.
This is an observation that speaks to the combined decline I am speaking of.
When the economy falters, and it will, because it has more than run it's course, and the dollar can no longer be maintained, because it will no longer be backed by Saudi/OPEC oil, which has kept it valued since getting off the gold standard.
The monumental significance of the Saudis making a declaration that they are willing to trade oil in other currencies has been glossed over by our MSM, as all important truths are...
But just like the social and moral collapse you see in our country today, rest assured the economic collapse occuring is even more profound and will be more crushing to those 'have nots'.
I am not not attempting to be hyperbolic when I say you can kiss your pensions and SS goodbye, when an economy falters... History tells of what happens to all such social supports, they disappear."you can kiss your pensions and SS goodbye, when an economy falters."
I'm considering giving a discount to a wilderness survival course me and some friends provide. We'll teach you how to build a shelter, find water and food in the wild. Build a fire with nothing but what you find in the wilderness. No more SS or pension, no problem. Who needs such things when you can easily live off mother nature?
Back to basics. All you really need to survive from one day to the next is food, water and shelter. The rest is gravy.
I know I could survive this, but too many people are too dependent on the government to realize there is way to survive without it.Most Americans couldn't handle such a life, especially those that have existed on government support to get by.
I'm more than capable of living like that if required, I have dealt with worse than most ever experience, but I know I am the exception in America today.We all would do what is necessary to survive, but is that what you prefer to do?
You all seem to exude this sense of independence and such. Without government anarchy rules, would you prefer that?You are absolutely right.
You should see the faces of people when they discover there are no toilets in the wilderness. People who have lived all their life in a city are traumatized by it. The world looks like a different place to them once they've done their business in the woods.
I will say once people take the time and make the effort to learn outdoor survival skills, they are very happy they know them.
You can have the Grizzly Adams lifestyle, I will just keep my creature comforts close to the vest. Your post apocalyptic, Mad Max sort of world and embrace of it amounts to a step backward.
I choose to live over just survive.
Let it hang together, somehow, for another couple of decades. Beyond that it won't matter to me.
What is the monumental significance? I have information sources to determine if your concerns are deserving to be given such magnitude.
The economic collapse would just introduce a post apocalyptic America and no one is going to come out of it whole and in one piece.
I wait for the economy to faulted, the same admonition s I have been hearing over many years
How Republican or Democrate spend public money can never affect an outsider.
An acuse is not yet guilty in the eyes of the law and society, until the crime is proven beyond any reasonable doubt. I've been asking again and again in the forums has Trump been convict yet? Even if he had to stand trial for the Capitolgate Revoluion Trump will surely be found innocent. Those digging big well for him should rather fall into their pit and rest there.
Related Discussions
- 76
GOP's Dangerous Debt Ceiling Charade
by Susan Reid 13 years ago
From that bastion of lamestream liberalism, TIME. Mr. Klein puts it so darned well I couldn't resist posting the whole article. It's not very long. Enjoy!Oh, and as we all know, there WAS no vote today (Thursday). ViewpointRepublicans’ Debt Ceiling Charade Is Downright DangerousBy Joe Klein...
- 30
Chip Roy Wants To Chip Away Cash From Joe's Inflation Reduction Act
by Sharlee 17 months ago
Chip Roy says he wants 'Green New Deal-type subsidies' stripped as part of a budget deal.Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, says he'll be pushing House Republicans to "unwind" parts of the "My main point is there's hardly anything radical about what we're suggesting by returning to what we were...
- 55
Should the debt ceiling be raised?
by mio cid 13 years ago
The republican position is that under no circumstance will they allow any tax raise as part of the negotiations to raise the debt ceiling.They also want spending cuts, right now,significant in quantity,and across the board except on defense , when asked if the only way an agreement could be reached...
- 32
Why do the liberals insist on more deficit spending when the nation is BROKE?
by SheriSapp 8 years ago
Why do the liberals insist on more deficit spending when the nation is BROKE?Why do the liberals REFUSE to understand that the deficit spending MUST be stopped or the nation will become premanently bankrupt?
- 26
The GOP is Blocking the Ability to Pay for Their Own Debts
by J Conn 3 years ago
Democrats have the votes to raise the debt ceiling with a straight up and down vote. The GOP chose to filibuster the ability to raise it. This is not about future spending, this is about paying for the debts already incurred, including the $7.8 trillion added while they had control of...
- 8
The GOP House of Representatives, Shutting Down the Government
by Mike Russo 20 months ago
The new House of Representatives is ready to shut down the government because they don’t want to pay for the countries bills that were accrued in the last fiscal year. So they want to hold the country hostage until they get what they want, which is to lower spending for the next fiscal year. ...