Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The only way the issue's going to get dealt with is by one side of the other ramming through their agenda when they've got the critical mass to do so.

You are so right Seaward. I have to agree 110% with this. I even throw an exult on

 Seaward wrote:

We don't really have a parents' basement equivalent as a nation...

And employment isn't really comparable to national policy, yet you made the comparison.

I wonder why that is?

 Seaward wrote:

..and if we wait to start dealing with the problem until everybody agrees, we might as well just default now.

If we default now, then we forfeit all the time between now and necessary default that we might otherwise have.

 dogma wrote:

And employment isn't really comparable to national policy, yet you made the comparison.

I wonder why that is?

In order to dumb it down for folks who have trouble understanding why it might be a good idea to act on mounting debt prior to hitting the wall. Let me know if you need me to break out MS Paint, though.

If we default now, then we forfeit all the time between now and necessary default that we might otherwise have.

Which is why we should probably neither default nor continually fail to do anything about it.

 Seaward wrote:

In order to dumb it down for folks who have trouble understanding why it might be a good idea to act on mounting debt prior to hitting the wall. Let me know if you need me to break out MS Paint, though.

It isn't a lack of understanding, its a lack of desire. I would actually prefer no action on the debt because it means more money for me.

 Seaward wrote:

Which is why we should probably neither default nor continually fail to do anything about it.

I agree, but if neither option is possible or probable, then we're left with extenuating debt increases.

 dogma wrote:

I agree, but if neither option is possible or probable, then we're left with extenuating debt increases.

It's certainly possible. If the 'pubs pick up both the White House and the Senate, as is very much within the realm of possibility, there won't be much to stop them from doing their version of saving us all, save for lack of backbone.

If the Tea Party hadn't decided to become the extremist wing of the Republican Party in almost all areas, rather than just focusing on fiscal policy, we likely could have seen some movement as well. They were a rather popular movement at the start.

 Seaward wrote:

It's certainly possible. If the 'pubs pick up both the White House and the Senate, as is very much within the realm of possibility, there won't be much to stop them from doing their version of saving us all, save for lack of backbone.

What probable scenario sees the GOP pick up a filibuster proof majority in the Senate?

 dogma wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

It's certainly possible. If the 'pubs pick up both the White House and the Senate, as is very much within the realm of possibility, there won't be much to stop them from doing their version of saving us all, save for lack of backbone.

What probable scenario sees the GOP pick up a filibuster proof majority in the Senate?

None. I don't think it needs to be filibuster-proof. I think the Tea Party crazies would be fine letting the Dems try to keep a permanent filibuster going. In an odd way, it accomplishes their goal almost as well. Nothing gets passed, period.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Wolfstan wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I don't know about you.. but I prefer one party has the Presidency and the other has Congress.

I think we get in trouble when one party controls both branch...

You think?! That's 2,000 years of Western democracy out the window then. Best mark that down as a failed experiment

I don't know what you're on about, nor do I care. The US electorate, as evidenced by history, typically prefers divided government. It forces compromise.

This is the same bs that people pulled here after the co-allition government. "Well the people voted for it". People don't vote for a divided government, it's a symptom of the electoral process.

 Testify wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Wolfstan wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I don't know about you.. but I prefer one party has the Presidency and the other has Congress.

I think we get in trouble when one party controls both branch...

You think?! That's 2,000 years of Western democracy out the window then. Best mark that down as a failed experiment

I don't know what you're on about, nor do I care. The US electorate, as evidenced by history, typically prefers divided government. It forces compromise.

This is the same bs that people pulled here after the co-allition government. "Well the people voted for it". People don't vote for a divided government, it's a symptom of the electoral process.

Um...what?

Divided government typically encourages more compromise... When both Congress and WH is controled by one party... they generally have carte blanche over the government and the extreme elements of said party get's their wishlist in motion. In a divided government, the extremists are generally marginalize.

I'm not familiar how your Parliamentry system really work, but it's possible that a "divided" govt may not work well there...

For what its worth, and I know ya'll won't believe me, I totally believe that Obama will get re-elected and it's encouraging to me that the House will remain in (R)s control... and also there's a chance that the (R)s will get control of the Senate (not likely tho).

Just to tweak ya, if this is true, just swear in Romney now:
http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-obama-romney-economy-factor-20120827,0,6954874.story

 Seaward wrote:

None. I don't think it needs to be filibuster-proof. I think the Tea Party crazies would be fine letting the Dems try to keep a permanent filibuster going. In an odd way, it accomplishes their goal almost as well. Nothing gets passed, period.

That isn't their goal. The inability to pass anything means no changes to entitlements, no budget reductions (or budgets), and no motion on DADT and other social issues.

 dogma wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

None. I don't think it needs to be filibuster-proof. I think the Tea Party crazies would be fine letting the Dems try to keep a permanent filibuster going. In an odd way, it accomplishes their goal almost as well. Nothing gets passed, period.

That isn't their goal. The inability to pass anything means no changes to entitlements, no budget reductions (or budgets), and no motion on DADT and other social issues.

It also means no increases to entitlements, no budget increases (or budgets), no laws regarding stricter gun control or other social issues.

Plus, for a group of people who don't seem to be all that certain the federal government's necessary, preventing a pretty important part of it from functioning would be quite a victory. It'd show us all how our town council can handle everything just fine, or whatever.

 Seaward wrote:

It also means no increases to entitlements...

Yeah, because "Repeal Obamacare!" isn't a major rallying point.

 Seaward wrote:

...no laws regarding stricter gun control or other social issues.

I like how you decided to single out the one issue that hasn't been an issue at all.

Actually, many local democrats have gone further right, as it wer, on gun control issues. Even Obama is further right than the Democratic party was ten years ago, in terms of gun control.

 Melissia wrote:
Actually, many local democrats have gone further right, as it wer, on gun control issues. Even Obama is further right than the Democratic party was ten years ago, in terms of gun control.

Very true. Gun control has become a non-issue at the level of federal legislation.

A lot of folks still swear the UN is going to take our guns away around here

d-usa wrote:A lot of folks still swear the UN is going to take our guns away around here

I have a good rule regarding gun ownership. If you believe there is a UN conspiracy to take your gun away, you aren't sane enough to own a gun.

 LoneLictor wrote:

d-usa wrote:A lot of folks still swear the UN is going to take our guns away around here

I have a good rule regarding gun ownership. If you believe there is a UN conspiracy to take your gun away, you aren't sane enough to own a gun.

I like this rule.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 LoneLictor wrote:

d-usa wrote:A lot of folks still swear the UN is going to take our guns away around here

I have a good rule regarding gun ownership. If you believe there is a UN conspiracy to take your gun away, you aren't sane enough to own a gun.

I like this rule.

UN was going to take our gunz away?? !!

Never heard of this...

Are these the same nutters that things NAFTA is some sort of diabolic plan for Mexico to reannex the south?

I'd like to see them try it anyways!

 Testify wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Wolfstan wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I don't know about you.. but I prefer one party has the Presidency and the other has Congress.

I think we get in trouble when one party controls both branch...

You think?! That's 2,000 years of Western democracy out the window then. Best mark that down as a failed experiment

I don't know what you're on about, nor do I care. The US electorate, as evidenced by history, typically prefers divided government. It forces compromise.

This is the same bs that people pulled here after the co-allition government. "Well the people voted for it". People don't vote for a divided government, it's a symptom of the electoral process.

It's true though, historically the American people prefer split ticket voting and divided gov.

Somehting in the treaty about civilians not being allowed to have fire arms. Only the government

 Jihadin wrote:
Somehting in the treaty about civilians not being allowed to have fire arms. Only the government

???
Oh... bah... that'll never happen.

Why we couldn't sign it due to our 2nd amendment.

Or rather, we couldn't sign it because there was no political will to do so. Republicans have no desire to, and Democrats see it as, at best, a battle to be pushed off to another time, not one to be fought right now-- and in fact many Democrats think that we just need to enforce the laws we have better, rather than necessarily add new ones.

 dogma wrote:

I like how you decided to single out the one issue that hasn't been an issue at all.

It's an issue on the right, warranted or not. I can point you to plenty of conservative blogs that're paranoid as all hell about Obama's second term equating the end of gun ownership in America, though I'd prefer not to.

 Seaward wrote:

It's an issue on the right, warranted or not. I can point you to plenty of conservative blogs that're paranoid as all hell about Obama's second term equating the end of gun ownership in America, though I'd prefer not to.

What prominent right wing source is saying Obama will take your guns?

 dogma wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

It's an issue on the right, warranted or not. I can point you to plenty of conservative blogs that're paranoid as all hell about Obama's second term equating the end of gun ownership in America, though I'd prefer not to.

What prominent right wing source is saying Obama will take your guns?

I'd consider Fox a prominent right-wing source, personally. Hotair is also a fairly popular conservative site.

Are you arguing just for the sake of argument, or do you really believe right-wing conservatives are comfortable with Obama's stance on gun control?

Fox might be prominent, but it isn't actually any good.

If you want a good right-wing source, try The Economist.

And yes, I said right-wing. Not conservative. They're actually MORE right wing than Fox is. But they aren't social conservatives.

 Melissia wrote:
Fox might be prominent, but it isn't actually any good.

If you want a good right-wing source, try The Economist.

And yes, I said right-wing. Not conservative. They're actually MORE right wing than Fox is. But they aren't social conservatives.

The request wasn't for a good right-wing source, but a prominent one. Dogma chose to dispute my assertion that right-wingers are concerned about gun control under Obama, for reasons that still escape me, and requested a prominent right-wing source to back up said assertion. I provided a couple.

Random ignorants being concerned about Democrats pushing for gun control doesn't equate to the politicians themselves being concerned with it.

Is a news network really a source, though? They're not supposed to be; they're supposed to relay information which comes from sources. Not, of course, that that's most of what they do anymore.

While obviously the NRA and other pro-gun organizations have been raving about theoretically-strengthened gun control under Obama as a way to drive up donations and membership, do we know any credible sources who really believe that Obama's going to try to take away any guns? I haven't seen any real evidence of him trying so far, or even that gun control regs are even a priority on his radar.

I think Dogma may have been inviting you to reference a specific source. If you think there's a credible argument there, it might be a good time to find a good one, and not a paranoid blogger.