Line Item Veto This Sucker

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Tuesday October 15, 2013 · 12:35 PM PDT

2013/10/15 · 12:35

House Republiconfederates are currently threatening to pass a continuing resolution to avoid default, restore the government, at the expense of the ACA, and then leave town leaving it up to the Senate to pass the bill or risk default.

The Senate should pass this bill exactly as it is, with all the cuts to the ACA.

It will then rest on the president's desk. It is at this point that the President will issue a Line Item Veto, taking out all parts except for the extensions of the debt ceiling, and the restoration of government.

The bill will then return to the Senate and House, where it will be required to be voted on (nothing Boehner or Cantor can do about it this time) and it will only require a simple majority in the Senate and House. This will essentially force a vote on a Clean CR.

This will show us then, whether Boehner really did or did not have the votes, and whether or not this entire debacle of government shut down and debt ceilings was even necessary, or whether Boehner will be wearing egg on his face for all of history.

Poll

17 votes Show Results

Could this work?

17 votes Vote Now!

Could this work?

It would work, the votes are there in the house

3 votes

It would not work, Boehner really does not have the votes

1 vote

It may be our only hope

4 votes

You missed something there constitutionally, and I shall take to the comments

8 votes

Jesus Christ, I better get pie out of all this

1 vote

DEBT FOR DUMMIES - Send this to anyone arguing about the national debt.

SilasEmile

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday October 10, 2013 · 12:08 PM PDT

2013/10/10 · 12:08

A Lesson in Debt

There are two very important things to consider when taking on debt. The first is, what is my income, and the second is, what are my payments.

Now for an individual, income is both limited and unlimited. An individual earns a certain wage from their employer, and said employer is only willing to compensate the individual for the amount of time they spend doing their job, so this wage is limited. However, the individual is free to pursue other methods of making money, whether this be a second job, starting a business, or even winning the lottery (as fool hardy as that sounds).

So when an individual decides to take on debt, they must first look at how much money they make, and what the total monthly (or in the case of government) yearly payment will be. Debt payments consist of two parts, the first part is the principle, or the defined payment (monthly, yearly) in order to satisfy and pay back the loan over a period of time. For individuals taking out a mortgage, these are usually in terms of 30 years, auto-loans in terms of 4 years, and so forth. For government, these range anywhere between 2 year, 5 year, 10 year, and 20 year terms (or notes as they are called). Now just like a home owner has a mortgage, government can extend or "refinance" these notes at any point to take advantage of lower interest rates, and just as many people do during financial slumps, the government does as well.

Now when a company needs capital to expand and grow their business, they take out loans, invest this money into their company, and when managed properly, and investors have confidence in this management, the company grows exponentially, and is able to pay back their investors (loans), earn a profit, and will able to borrow money in the future at lower rates due to their great debt rating, just like we as individuals who pay our bills on time, are able to improve our credit scores and can therefor in the future take out new loans at lower rates.

This is the basic premise of debt.

Which brings me to our current situation between the government shutdown, the debt ceiling, the national debt, the interest on this debt, and the showdown between republicans and democrats. Follow me after the delicious orange squiggle.

Poll

72 votes Show Results

I know this was long, but has this helped/changed your mind at all on national debt?

72 votes Vote Now!

I know this was long, but has this helped/changed your mind at all on national debt?

I all ready knew this, and was not worried about national debt

27 votes

I never understood it, but now I do, thank you

20 votes

I was actually on the side of the Republicans because I didn't understand it

0 votes

I still think national debt is a problem and would like to see higher taxes/reduced spending

14 votes

So what you're telling me, is there is no pie here huh?

11 votes

Democrats, Let's Be Honest Here

SilasEmile

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Wednesday October 09, 2013 · 7:26 PM PDT

2013/10/09 · 19:26

We need to begin calling the Tea Party Republicans what they truly are. They are the resurrection of the Confederate Party. While we were all busy fighting against the NEO-CONservatives of the last decade, there was an uprising of NEO-CONfederates bubbling below them. They are every bit a danger to the Democratic Party as they are to the Republican Party.

The Republican party, while being different in ideology, used to be a civil party and one that could work with Democrats from time to time. And if we can all remember to last week when there was a candid discussion between Rand Paul and McConnel, Rand mentioned "I just did CNN and I just go over and over again 'We're willing to compromise, we're willing to negotiate.' I think -- I don't think THEY poll tested 'we won't negotiate.' I think it's awful for them to say that over and over again", I honestly think the THEY he was referring too were the Confederates, not the Obama administration, Democrats, or the Press. Rand and McConnel are opportunists, but they are not as crazy as the rest of them.

The Confederate Party has no interest in working with the Republican Party leadership, let alone the Democrats across the isle. They have one goal in mind and one goal only, to overthrow the Republican Party, and to take over the government, dismantling it and deaming it so broken that there is no choice but to rebel and create a new form of government.

To call yourself a patriot, wrap yourself in a flag, and cheer the destruction of your country's financial and physical well-being is no patriotic act. It is treasonous and needs to be called what it is. To take the name of the Boston Tea Party, an act against a tyranical king, and claim it as your own to go against a representational republic is irresponsible.

So let's just be honest here. They are not Republicans. They are not the Tea Party. They are the New Confederate Party of the Ununited States.

Classical Liberalism - The Schism Between Libertarianism and Progressive Liberalism

SilasEmile

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday October 03, 2013 · 8:56 AM PDT

2013/10/03 · 08:56

Many people on this site identify themselves as Progressive Liberals, where as many people over at DailyPaul (where I'm also posting this) identify themselves as Libertarian. But the truth is both of these modern philosophies stem from the 18th century political philosophy of Classical Liberalism.

It is my intent here to display the original intent of Classical Liberalism in respect to our current governing by Federal, Local, and state Governments. I, for the purpose of this diary take no side. My attempt is simply to show what Classical Liberalism would consider of our current government.

I invite anyone, Progressive Liberal, Libertarian, Democrat, Republican, Totalitarian, or Anarchist to read, form their own opinions, and determine where you lie in regards to Classical Liberalism, and where you differ. I accept all critique, but kindly do so in knowing that I have done my best to attempt to use logical conclusions of Classical Liberalism philosophy and to put this 18th century philosophy into the current world we live in, and to compare and contrast original intent, to modern programs. I invite you to comment and critique, but I ask anyone who does so to take the time and read this in its entirety. An area of discussion should include: How are Progressive Liberalism, or Libertarianism, different from Classical Liberalism, and how are Progressive Liberalism and Libertarianism still similar to the original philosophy?

RSS