Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[Xantalos]

Bachmann is in the running for Speaker?!

Oh my god, I thought the worst case scenario was Cruz, but Bachmann? That's some ASB horror show-level shit.

Bachmann? Speaker?
*fetches gun*

[Darvi]

Xant you're a Canadian you don't have a gun.

[Xantalos]

Xant you're a Canadian you don't have a gun.

I have 12.

[Darvi]

Mouths aren't guns.

[wierd]

I really cant see this as a tactical move. It smacks of an ideological position held in defiance of objectivity, and empirical observation.

Do I particularly like ACA? No. Not really. I would much rather have seen regulations forbidding scalping of the american people at the nickel and dime level in healthcare. (Reduce the costs of all the parts, total price drops to affordability.) EG, "If you are going to recoup R&D costs, you cant pick a single market to do that in. It has to be distributed across all of your target markets, worldwide, as a percentage of sales volume, not sales price."  or some similar mandate. Such a thing would have raised prices worldwide by a small amount, but would have radically dropped the costs of US healthcare. (Let other parliaments and govts deal with the fallout in their nations. Expecting some other nation to subsidize them is obscene.) Overall, prices should remain affordable, and overall, more people would be able to afford it.

On the other hand, ACA can essentially be ignored by most people who already have insurance. It isnt like the Obaminator has demanded the abolishment of private insurance, though premiums will probably rise because ACA treats the symptoms and not the cause* (see above). Most people will be just fine with ACA in effect.

Shutting down the government, taking the risk of missing the debt ceiling deadline, and of possibly plunging the world economy into chaos-- over an election pissing match-- is not what I consider a tactical decision. Either their view of reality is bent like corkscrew, or they have simply abandoned reason. At this point, the numbers show 70% across the board, both affiliations, that the US public does not consider this move appropriate. Those numbers rise a little more each day this has been going on. 

In slightly happier news, The news is reporting that Boehner has now publicly stated that he will not allow the nation to default. I am leery of trusting any politician, but in this case, that worm is squirming on his hook what good. He may well be trying to be honest.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

That's all well and good so long as Boehner remains the Speaker.

[Scoops Novel]

If it looks like they're trying to lose the election, perhaps we should humor the possibility.

[Mephansteras]

I just can't see them letting the US default. That'd have a huge negative impact on Wall Street and every other big business, as well as being political suicide. The average voters aren't going to let something so obvious slide, and you can be certain that the special interest groups aren't going to throw more money at someone who so blatantly screwed them over.

So the Tea Party might be willing to throw the lever, but the rest of the Republicans are going to have to bite the bullet and compromise before that point. If your options are maybe lose the next election and definitely lose the next election and have all your major funders pull out, you're going to go with the first option. And the Tea Party just doesn't have the numbers to actually force their will if the rest of the GOP goes against them on this.

[shadenight123]

So...I have to ask.
(I don't know how to write this without sounding accusing, so don't take it as a personal insult...I'm genuinely curious/surprise/perplexed/slightly incensed)

Are kids really going to starve to death on the streets if you don't get the budget fixed?

Really?

Americans...really?

I hope it's the newscasters spouting its usual 'extremism sensational' newscast, (Italian news transmitted to show how Italy is going strong out of the crisis? Check)
because...
No, really.

IS the American Government going to let children starve if the budget isn't fixed?

[wierd]

In some cases, children starve on the streets even when the budget is fully funded.

As much as everyone would wish it were not the case, poverty is a real phenomenon in *ALL* industrial nations.

The question should not be "Will children starve?", the question should be "How will this impact the poverty statistic?" Because the latter tells you how many more kids are going to starve this year.

[Iceblaster]

I'm sure if that happens, Fallout 'Verse has begun

In all seriousness though, I'm sure if that happens shit has hit the fan hard.

Aaand Wierd ninja'd me

[LordSlowpoke]

but will the american government be capable of supplying its citizens with essential rations of molten snow?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

So...I have to ask.
(I don't know how to write this without sounding accusing, so don't take it as a personal insult...I'm genuinely curious/surprise/perplexed/slightly incensed)

Are kids really going to starve to death on the streets if you don't get the budget fixed?

Really?

Americans...really?

I hope it's the newscasters spouting its usual 'extremism sensational' newscast, (Italian news transmitted to show how Italy is going strong out of the crisis? Check)
because...
No, really.

IS the American Government going to let children starve if the budget isn't fixed?

Starvation is kind of hard to do in America. We have one of the highest food outputs compared to population.

That said, there will likely be an international famine if the US defaults, because it will strangulate our massive food exports to other countries.

As for letting American children starve, I don't think the US government has any domestic food programs of that nature to begin with. The closest thing is food stamps, which are essentially currency that can only be redeemed for food.

but will the american government be capable of supplying its citizens with essential rations of molten snow?

DPRK plz go

[mainiac]

He's a stodgy old coward...but I can't help but feel pity for him.

Don't, he painted himself into this corner willingly.

I'm not so sure. Remember...was it this spring, when he almost got voted out of the Speakery?

Yeah and it's not just like that happened out of nowhere.  He got burned by a fire that he's been fanning for a long time.

[wierd]

So...I have to ask.
(I don't know how to write this without sounding accusing, so don't take it as a personal insult...I'm genuinely curious/surprise/perplexed/slightly incensed)

Are kids really going to starve to death on the streets if you don't get the budget fixed?

Really?

Americans...really?

I hope it's the newscasters spouting its usual 'extremism sensational' newscast, (Italian news transmitted to show how Italy is going strong out of the crisis? Check)
because...
No, really.

IS the American Government going to let children starve if the budget isn't fixed?

Starvation is kind of hard to do in America. We have one of the highest food outputs compared to population.

That said, there will likely be an international famine if the US defaults, because it will strangulate our massive food exports to other countries.

As for letting American children starve, I don't think the US government has any domestic food programs of that nature to begin with. The closest thing is food stamps, which are essentially currency that can only be redeemed for food.

There are also local foodbank programs for people who are unable to qualify for foodstamps (for a wide variety of reasons) run by local charities.  A major financial upheaval will upset the charitable donations of more fortunate citizens, reducing the charity, and when coupled with the faltering of foodstamps, will most certainly result in bad times for tiny tim.