I am not an absolutist and recognize that even the best laid plans will have leaks. I know many of you disagree with me and that's fine, but I see programs like welfare/medicare/medicaid as a safety net for those unable, not those unwilling. There are a lot of people out there who fit in the unwilling category right now on the dole. With that said, I recognize that our system isn't working now and needs to change but the plans I am hearing don't sound feasible in the least either. We are 19 trillion dollars in debt and 5% of our annual budget goes to financing current debt levels in a budget run at almost a half of a trillion dollar deficit annually and paying artificially low interest rates on that debt. Above all else, I like to try to be a realist about these things, the reality is that we can't continue on this path for long, we certainly can't continue if we add new entitlements like universal healthcare. Something has to give.
Normally I would agree with you, most people don't care about the Supreme Court. However, my guess is that the Republicans, both running and in Congress through delay, are going to make this a front and center issue. By doing so, they may well hurt their chances of winning the White House, and potentially losing seats in Congress. The reason it will matter to voters is because Republicans will highlight all the decisions that came out of the Court over the last 8 years in an effort to scare people.
I don't think there is any way President Obama doesn't get a nomination through. The senate tends to be a lot more willing to work across party lines then congress, and many of Republicans would be included in the "establishment" base of the party. I think enough will be willing to work with the Democrats in the Senate to get a moderate nominee through, rather than risk letting Hillary or Bernie force someone very liberal on them. Who knows though, the political environment has become so toxic in the past 8 years that anything is possible.
If anyone else has been playing close attention, the Syrian Civil War is on the verge of spinning out of control. There is a real risk of a three or four way world war, or at least a major regional war. Russia continues to prop up the Assad regime to combat the rebellion and ISIS. The Rebellion, backed by the U.S. and other Arab nations, is against the Assad regime and ISIS. The third arm is Iraqi Kuristan, Kurdish rebel forces, Israel, and covert NATO support, but they don't get along with the allied Arab rebellion countries. The fourth arm is ISIS being its usual batshit crazy self. The U.S. and Israel should just pull back and let it sort itself out. The Kurds aren't worth s potential war with Russia.
A friendly wager, perhaps? I'll take the 'he won't get a nominee through Congress' side, meaning, the next President will be the one to nominate and get that nominee confirmed (Democrat or Republican). You take the 'will get a nominee through.' Call it an avatar/signature bet? Two weeks?
And sig. Both of them. I think it'll be fun, and this way, I will really be focused on it. I hate losing bets. Fortunately, unlike Cam Newton, I'm a very gracious loser (I've had lots of practice!)
I tend to agree with TVI. It seems like it will be easy to stall until after the election, and then it will seem like common sense for a lame duck not to be able to nominate. Reagan nominated Bork in July 1987, and the senate voted against him in October. Then, Kennedy was nominated in November and confirmed in February 1988. But, way, way back, wasn't Rutledge a Presidential recess appointee while the court was not in session, and then he failed to actually be confirmed or something like that? Could something like that happen again? Like, if the Senate is all "we're gonna block it to create a shitstorm," could the President be all, "well, wait until July, and I'll just name somebody and make y'all look petty to undo them."
Like this? "Over the weekend Turkey shelled the Kurdish YPG militia as it made advances in the area. Syria said the Turkish shelling was a violation of its sovereignty and called on the UN to act." http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35576458
Question scenario: Obama nominates someone. They don't get confirmed due to filibuster, meaning they are never officially rejected. A democrat gets elected president and does NOT change nominees, and said nominee of Obama is confirmed under the next President. Who wins the bet then? To summarize: Obama's nominee gets officially selected under the next president.
I thought of that too, my feeling is it goes to me. I'm taking Obama does not get any nominee confirmed during his administration.
I agree that the nominee needs to get confirmed during his administration. Sig and avatar for two weeks. Done and done.
Especially if the nominee is someone they have confirmed unanimously for a federal judge seat in the past.
Citation needed. In the 30 seconds I took to Google welfare fraud, the high end was 2.6% of participants. We accept polls with a higher margin for error than 2.6%. In cases where fraud was detected, it was usually due to dummies at the welfare office. I am annoyed beyond measure when people treat the poor like a bunch of lazy spoiled children with their hand out. That hand isn't waiting for your money. It's waiting for someone or something to help pull them up out of the shitty situation they're in. I find it interesting when people bring up debt levels under Obama. Mostly because the main reason why they skyrocketed is because Obama started classifying war expenditures into the budget and not from the emergency funds that Bush was pulling from. The Iraq War is responsible for roughly $2 trillion of debt. A war that was waiting for Obama when he took office. By the way, deficit spending has gone down since 2010. I imagine it'll go way up as boomers retire and suck Social Security dry. Somehow, I imagine Obama will be blamed for that too. As for Scalia's replacement, it seems that Republicans can do one of two things. Fight any appointment, but risk a Democratic president taking office, or confirm a moderate that both sides can stomach and taking their chances on future Supreme Court rulings. Personally, I'd go with the second, but I'm not a short sighted dipshit Republican presidential candidate. I'm of the opinion that Sanders will win the election since he's basically running the campaign that got Obama elected in the first place. Of course, this hinges completely on voter turnout for people 40 years and younger. It would be interesting to see what would happen if Democrats took both the House and Senate in addition to a Sanders or hell, a Clinton presidency. I think a lot of people are getting sick of Republican obstructionism and would rather deal with a left leaning government if it meant stuff might actually get done.
And already you're starting to see some of the analysis I laid out above. I would not want to be a Republican strategist for either the Presidential candidates or for Senate Republicans who are up for re-election this fall, because it's going to be messy.
As I said earlier, you can't trust a word out of that guy's mouth. The only party Trump runs for is Trump. Trump threatens to sue Cruz, threatens independent run.
http://federalsafetynet.com/welfare-fraud.html They say the average business loses 5% of it's revenue to fraud of one kind or another, so for discussion purposes let's use that number. According to the attached link welfare leaks about $60B a year, which is approximately 10% of it's budget, so we will call $30B fraud, which is a charitable view. The reality is as anyone with two brain cells can understand, the Government doesn't report statistics accurately: see the unemployment rate. Also, the Government is not known for efficiency in operation, so I view all statistics provided by Government with suspicion, especially where they would be asked to self-report inefficiency or wrong-doing. So, $30 billion per year. Let's imagine an alternate universe for a moment. A universe where we didn't accept this bullshit with nothing more than a resounding "meh." What could we do with $30 billion a year? How about capital improvements to infrastructure, you know, the kind of program that gives people jobs and gets them off of welfare, injects additional money into the economy and causes companies to start hiring again? Really unsure why you feel the need to defend Obama and point a finger at Bush because I'm not blaming an individual for this problem. It's really unimportant to this conversation as to the genesis of this problem, regardless of which of the terrible Presidents (Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush or Obama) contributed what to the debt. The fact is the debt is there, the deficit continues without plans for abatement and we continue to enjoy unrealistically low debt service costs which won't continue forever. If you understand that then I don't understand how anyone could believe new entitlements and continued deficit spending in other programs will turn out well?
I am. I talked to a buddy from the compound I lived on in Khamis Mushayt, which is about 80 miles from the border with Yemen. Yemen has started firing more scuds at King Khalid Air Base in Khamis, the patriot missile battery shot two down the other night right over the compound. In addition, there are now car bombings and shooting happening pretty regularly. Apparently KSA is talking air war in Syria, followed by ground invasion in to Syria. Russian, Syrian, Saudi, Turkish, Hezbollah, ISIS all in the same battle space. Turkey is part of NATO now, if they are attacked by Russia, the US will be foreced to react. Right now it looks like a full breakout of Shia-Sunni warfare across the entire penninsula at a minimum with the possibility of full-region warfare. I wasn't alive for it obviously but this is starting to resemble 1914 and only needing a Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand moment to set off something big.
I have to point this out again because so few people understand this. No president is responsible for the debt. Congress is responsible for the debt. The president does not have the authority to spend money except for the budget allowed to operate his administration. Congress must pass spending bills in order for the government to spend money. Nobody understands this and everyone in the US government is fine with that. Congress is happy to let the president take the blame so they can maintain their positions of power, holding the purse strings. Sure, the president can have some effect on legislation, but if he faces a Congress with enough votes to override a veto, there's not a damn thing he can do about spending. People throw around terms like "Reagan deficit," "Clinton surplus," and "Obamacare," but all those are misnomers. The correct terms would be "O'Neill deficit," "Gingrich surplus," and "Pelosi-Reid Care." Again, Congress is happy to let the president take the credit or blame.
Turkey is dumb enough to provoke Russia and the Kurds on the other side. Probably the most turmoil in the region since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, and thats saying something.