The Glade 4.0

47% of the US debt not held by the US government is held by foreign holders.

#1 foreign holder of outstanding US debt is a nation we had a de facto war with in the 50's and #2 we had a war with in the 40's.. #4 are the oil exporting nations, and #6 is part of #1. I see the deck being stacked against the US.

I believe national economies are pretty competitive with each other. With the IMF saying that a US default "would not have any major implications for the Chinese economy", I'm wondering if China's recent criticism of US economic policy is a "don't throw me into the brier-patch" move. I'm pretty sure most of the official information that comes out of China is misdirection.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

If only the other 41% of the debt that is held by the US Government didn't matter, that would be a huge paydown. You can't ignore it, unfortunately. That, combined with your figures, means that 47% of 59% of the US debt is held by foreign debt holders. That's ~28%. Just over a quarter of that 28% is held by China.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Foreign entities have never held more than 34% of total US National Debt in recent memory. Due to quantitative easing and the monetization policy of the Federal Reserve, that's down to about 26-30% of total National Debt right now.

_________________

I still don't understand what delaying the individual mandate has to do with funding the government. This is such a bullshit tactic by the Republicans. It would be one thing if they demanded more spending cuts, or had any demands related to the budget at all. But they don't. They just want to delay Obamacare. So they're holding the country hostage with what little power they have. How is this in any way acceptable?

Obama has a lot of power. He could pardon every illegal immigrant in the US tomorrow. Would it be acceptable for him to threaten to do so unless Congress passes a law legalizing gay marriage? Or raising taxes on the rich?

And that's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to his powers as the president. But I think it's pretty obvious that it would be wrong for him to make such demands, and the public wouldn't stand for it. And the public is rightly siding against the Republicans here, and the longer this goes on the worse it's going to get for them.

So, why should the Democrats negotiate here?

This is all about power, who really holds it, who can make things happen. The budget and the debt and the government operating are the pawns in the game. Obama realized that if he let them shut down the government and ignored them, they would look like pathetic fools and negotiating power would be compromised.

It seems to be working.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

Are you familiar with the history of government shutdowns, or for that matter, the internal politics of the Republican Party?

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Or with the idea of a multiple branches of government, systems of checks and balances, etc.?

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Then one must wonder how the ACA was submitted as part of a Budget Resolution, and passed under the provisions of a Budget Reconciliation, eh?

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Not really.

For the probably first time in living memory, the US Federal Government is working as intended. The House is doing it's job. Everything except Obamacare and the Individual Mandate has been funded. The appropriations bills were written. It was done by line item - one bill at a time. The petulant children in all of this are Barack Obama and Harry Reid. They are the ones who refuse to compromise. If the government does not fund Obamacare, the government does not have to raise the debt ceiling. We do not need the Individual Mandate, which is the largest tax in human history.

The House is doing the right thing and the vast majority of Americans are so deluded, they think the few people, who for whatever reasons got this right, are in the people at fault.

Well, guess what ...

The President is wrong.

Harry Reid is wrong.

And the shutdown is actually a moral victory for the American people.

Everyone opposing the shutdown and refusing to fund the government is a Democrat. I just wish anyone would report the truth.

_________________

That's just a matter of perspective. The Republicans are refusing to pass any funding bill that includes Obamacare. The Democrats are refusing to pass any funding bill that doesn't. Both sides are refusing to compromise.

The problem being that the Republicans are the ones in control of the House, and the Democrats are not. In any case, it is not unreasonable for the Republicans not to negotiate when the conditions of the Democrats to negotiate are to give up everything that would be the subject of negotiation. The President is backing the Republicans into a corner of "totally capitulate, or hit the debt ceiling" in hopes the Democrats will win big in 2014 based on the blame game. Saying "I won't negotiate" is as irresponsible as it gets.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

There's no room for negotiation with Obamacare. The bill isn't functional without the mandate and that's the entire point of contention. What could they possibly negotiate on?

As recent news tells you, Obamacare isn't functional even with the individual mandate. Yet people are going to get taxed/penalized for not having something they're not able to sign up for.

Boner [sic] isn't demanding the individual mandate go away. He's demanding it be delayed. You know, the same way the President unilaterally delayed the employer mandate without passing legislation?

Congress is, for what seems like the first time, using it's Constitutional check on an executive that isn't at all concerned with letting the Legislature handle the legislating as the Constitution intended.

_________________
The Dude abides.

A) There's the fact that they're talking about delaying the mandate for a year, just like the business mandate is delayed a year which would.. delay it from functioning, not eliminate it.

B) The debate is over the budget as well as Obamacare, so if the President doesn't want the mandate delayed, he needs to offer something else in some other area. There's all kinds of things to negotiate on.

Either way, the Democrats need to accept that they simply can't have everything they want before they even try to talk, especially when the subject is funding where the House is supposed to have the advantage.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Xequecal:

It's not a matter of perspective; it's a matter of the petty little dictator in office.

The Affordable Care Act/Obamacare will not, can not, and does not deliver the goods you were promised. And the US Healthcare System wasn't broken in the way you think it's broken.

The Republicans do control the House. The Republicans ARE listening to their constituents.

And the petty little dictatorial demagogue in the Whitehouse is taking his ball and going home.

But, really, none of that matters ...

I just need you to answer one question for me.

On what planet does it make sense to borrow money to pay bills you already can't pay because you've borrowed too much money?

_________________

Of course it's a matter of perspective. Your response doesn't address his point.

Republicans holding the budget hostage until they get the concessions they are demanding. Democrats are holding the budget hostage until they get everything they are demanding.



Yeah, and democrats control the senate and white house. They are also listening to their constituents. Perspective.



Again, the same could be said of the republicans in the House, though they are at least trying to discuss.

Listen, you can make all the arguments you want, but completely dismissing the viewpoints of the other side of the discussion is silly. I mean, honestly, that's pretty much equivalent to "taking your ball and going home". If you're only willing to listen to one side of the argument, you're too biased to be useful.

Congress is in charge of the purse.

So, there's a disagreement. That's because the people voted for who they wanted to represent them, and the people are divided.

So, X, you willing to back off the whole "Take from others and give it to me 'cause I DESERVE it! It's my RIGHT!" mentality?

Didn't think so.

I'm sure as hell not going to back off the "I'm not going to work every day so YOU can have the same quality of life I'VE earned" schtick.


SO, why the hell are you blaming congress?

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

what about all those people who've earned it, working 2-4 jobs simultaneously, or who have started their own business, but can't afford to individually negotiate for heath care? What about those with preexisting conditions who are denied coverage, even for unrelated items?

I think your definition of "earned it" is different.

We all agree there are people who abuse the system, who leech, who manipulate the laws to get by while we work hard for our money.

I'm not disputing that.

But there are those out there who were not gifted with our intellect (lets face it, the average IQ of glade members is significantly above average) who don't have our economic and or social advantages. That doesn't make those without those qualities any less deserving. I've seen men and women both work multiple jobs and work their butt off. But because of one problem or another --be it genetics or because they had to support a family member who fell ill, or any of a hundred other reasons, never could get beyond 'scraping by' They worked their butts off. I see these programs as helping those out.

And Yes, I certainly agree that such systems are open to abuse, and sometimes create dependency and/or encourage sloth/leaching.

But my compassion for those who truly need a hand through no fault of their own overrides my indignation at those who abuse the system.

In the end I see it coming down to the following questions:

Are you so certain that a person's lot in life is only due to their choices and not the opportunities?
How many are you willing to allow to fall by the wayside to make sure someone else doesn't get a ride they didn't deserve?

Nobody is "deserving" of another's money that did not establish an agreement with that other.

Let me pose to you your question in actual terms.
I am sure a person's lot in life should not legally obligate anyone else.
How many people are you willing to harm in your pursuit of Harrison Bergeron?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Nowhere have I suggested that everyone should have an equal result.

You wrote quite a moving tale.

Thing is, you never supported your argument that folks "earned it", except by stating that folks have earned ... well, what they've earned. Which is exactly the point of my post.

I'm not against social safety nets. I think they're valuable, and I think society as a whole benefits when any one member of society benefits. That doesn't change the fact that people earn whatever they've earned, and taking it from someone and giving it to another doesn't qualify as earning it. I don't think giving folks things they haven't earned is a benefit. I don't see health care as a safety net, I see it as a security blanket. Want it? Earn it!

Previously, those that hadn't earned it voted the cash out of the wallets of those that had. Pretty resoundingly, as a matter of fact - they elected liberals to majorities in both houses and they didn't work at all to get buy-in from the conservatives, and spent money like it belonged to someone else. Now the worm has turned and those who HAVE earned it have said "that's enough", and voted in folks that value their opinions. So now that the balance has swung back a bit, NOW they are upset because those whos values they previously ignored are ignoring their values. Pay-back, baby - It's a *****. "GO ahead", I say to the radical liberals - call me a tea bagger again, that's a great way to reach a compromise!

What's the answer? No freaking idea. I just know I've had it. I support a total shut down of the government 'till spending is at a reasonable level...reasonable by MY definition of reasonable, not anyone else's.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

People may, indeed, need a hand, but that does not mean that they "earned" anything, when the price of them earning it is other people who are working their butts off having to pay more so that they can have access.

There are plenty of other people out there who work hard and maybe aren't "just scraping by" but are far from rich or well off either, and who really have earned what they have (since, by definition, they're getting it in return for the work they do) and now the demand is that they pay more for it so people who haven't can have the same things.

I'm not really concerned with people "falling by the wayside" at all, nor people "getting a free ride". There are all kinds of people that fall by the wayside, and it's our responsibility as individuals to help when and where we can, not create societal programs that give massive benefits to certain forms of "falling by the wayside" and ignoring others, nor that are arranged around getting the votes of those "fallen". I also don't really care that a person's situation in life is due to their opportunities. A person's end in life is far more related to their choices in regard to what opportunities they DID have. If a person's only opportunity to start out was to dry cars at the car wash and they decided to rob liquor stores instead, then **** them. Using the opportunities you have is what creates better opportunities.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."