[ExI] put this crazy system out of our misery: was RE: Euthanasia

[spike]

>. On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes
Subject: Re: [ExI] Euthanasia


On Oct 10, 2013 7:55 AM, "John Clark" <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:
>>. Speaking of stupid, that same political party has also come to think
that not paying your bills will calm down your creditors. now I am ashamed
to belong to the party of Lincoln.

I don't understand why US creditors are as calm as they are.  We are saying
we must be allowed to borrow more money at a faster pace in order to pay our
bills for things we have already bought.  But a crazy faction is saying no,
if we pay bills with borrowed money, we haven't really paid our bills at
all, but rather merely rearranged credit ratings as we rack up ever higher
bills.  We have a president who says things like:

"Now, this debt ceiling -- I just want to remind people in case you haven't
been keeping up -- raising the debt ceiling, which has been done over a
hundred times, does not increase our debt; it does not somehow promote
profligacy.  All it does is it says you got to pay the bills that you've
already racked up, Congress.  It's a basic function of making sure that the
full faith and credit of the United States is preserved."

By what line of reasoning does raising the debt ceiling not result in
increased debt?  Is he claiming that if we raise this debt limit we will not
borrow the money?  If he thinks we will not borrow more money, why do we
need to authorize it?  We have hit this debt limit over 100 times and
increased it.  Every single time the US government borrowed all it was
allowed to borrow and has come back for more, as it is doing now.  I
consider that pretty good evidence that it will happen again.  In that sense
raising the debt limit is equivalent to borrowing that amount of money.

Remind me again John why it is you are ashamed to belong to the party of
Lincoln?

The same president who is now telling us raising the debt ceiling does not
increase our debt seven years ago uttered this:

'The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a
sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay
its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial
assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless
fiscal policies. Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and
internationally. Leadership means that "the buck stops here." Instead,
Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our
children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of
leadership. Americans deserve better.' 



Which sounds right to you?  John, which of these comments sounds more right?
I'll take the second one from 2006.  Show me even one reckless fiscal policy
which has ended since 2006, and I can show you a dozen new reckless policies
that have replaced it.

 

Remind me again please that bit about we need to borrow more money to
preserve the full faith and credit of the US?

 

This government healthcare scheme DEFINITELY does shift the burden onto the
backs of our children and grandchildren.  That in itself is bad enough, but
consider what happens when it becomes obvious that our children and
grandchildren cannot afford even their own health insurance, never mind
ours.

 

In specifically disowning his 2006 commentary, the president suggested he
was engaging in political gamesmanship back then.  Well OK, how do we know
he isn't doing that now?  US creditors are asked to rely on the full faith
and credit of the US, if we demonstrate not only that we cannot live on what
we make, but our accounting system absolutely demands we waste money, tall
piles of it:

 

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/10/07/new-air-force-cargo-planes-fly-straight
-into-mothballs/

 

That O-care website Healthcare.gov which doesn't work right and looks like a
phishing scam cost the US government over 600 million dollars.  And it isn't
a minor glitch.  I checked it this morning and it still isn't working.

 

I used BillK's site this morning to see numbers so shocking it gave me a
clear view of how this will all play out in the near term future.  The ones
who manage to penetrate this healthcare.gov system will find they
misunderstood what this new law does if you are poor: very little.  They
will get quoted numbers far higher than you can afford, then they will be
reminded that they must buy something or face a fine, and the people who
will levy the fine know everything they need to know because of the info you
just entered, thank you.

 

Anders can you see why this whole thing has generated distrust and bilious
political sniping everywhere in the US?  One party gained a supermajority in
2008.  A filibuster-proof supermajority means they did not need to debate
anything in public, for any actual debate on the content of the proposed law
could just be mislabeled filibuster and ended by supermajority vote, which
it was.  Then the whole thing could be designed off the record, possibly
including the use of threats, bribes or any other available means, which it
likely was.  This whole mess was designed in secret and passed by brute
force without a single minority party vote in either house, not one.  And
even after it was brought up for vote, the majority party leader admitted
they passed this mess without knowing what was actually in the bill.  They
couldn't have known: they were making changes right up to the last minute,
there wasn't time to even read the thing, never mind have legitimate debate
on it.  I am not kidding:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoE1R-xH5To

 

So they own this damn thing.  If it fails spectacularly, it will likely
destroy the existing healthcare system and along with it that party which
designed the failed fix, which merely took a broken system and broke it even
more.  That will fundamentally alter the face of politics in the country for
a generation if not longer.

 

John why is it you are ashamed of being a Republican?

>.Technically both parties are Lincoln's: the Democrats split off from the
Democratic-Republican party.

Ja, the Republicans were the party of abolition.  The Democrats were the
party of slavery.  It sure looks to me like that party is trying to force us
back into slavery.  John, remind me why it is you are ashamed to be
registered with the party of abolition please?

>.That said, "brain damage" is an apt way to describe the TEA Party's
takeover of the Republicans over the past decade or so.

Ja those crazy fools believe the government should live within its means.
It is the rise of a party of Friedrich Hayek.  Insane, dangerous people are
these.  Not. 

spike

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20131010/55032109/attachment.html>