Debt Ceiling and the threat of The U.S. Defaulting

[HeyYou]

Check out this article. Seems corporate welfare is alive and well in the US. The republicans may or may not benefit from some of those.

 

This is why we need some serious reform in Washington......

[colourwheel]

Check out this article. Seems corporate welfare is alive and well in the US. The republicans may or may not benefit from some of those.

 

This is why we need some serious reform in Washington......

 

I can agree the NASCAR and film industry part is kinda messed up yet Wind energy is something I could get behind.

 

Wind won't damage the environment and I see this technology as an investment that will eventually be exported to other countries creating a vast amount of jobs for the future of America.

Edited January 8, 2013 by colourwheel

[HeyYou]

Check out this article. Seems corporate welfare is alive and well in the US. The republicans may or may not benefit from some of those.

 

This is why we need some serious reform in Washington......

 

I can agree the NASCAR and film industry part is kinda messed up yet Wind energy is something I could get behind.

 

Wind won't damage the environment and I see this technology as an investment that will eventually be exported to other countries creating a vast amount of jobs for the future of America.

 

Most of the wind turbines (even the 'american' ones....) are made in the netherlands, or china. At one time, there was a company that was going to start producing them here in Michigan, but, they changed their minds, and put up a factory in China instead.

 

If we want jobs here at home, we need to alter our stance on Free Trade agreements.... but, that's a topic for another thread. :)

 

They aren't exactly 'environmentally friendly" either.... Infrastructure takes a beating (roads, etc.) there are some unresolved issues about health concerns as well. Noise levels, shadow flicker, etc. Not to mention the dangers of throw ice off the blades.... (and in Michigan, that WILL be an issue....) And of course, there is always the esthetic arguments.... the 'not in my back yard' folks. (of which, I am one....)

 

There was a proposed wind farm project here where I live, and the citizens got rather up in arms about it...... (both sides) one of the primary contributors to that fight was the fact that having the project here would INCREASE our energy costs....... How does that make any sense? Most certainly does NOT make folks actually want them.....

 

I am not really a fan of wind power.... it is unreliable, so, wherever they are located, some variety of backup system needs to be in place for when they are NOT generating power. Unfortunately, that is usually diesel powered...... rather have another natural gas generation plant, or even coal..... both would be cleaner.

[colourwheel]

@HeyYou

 

Wind power needs a very good grid to work properly. Putting wind turbines in Michigan is not very smart. Obviously the grids need to be placed in areas where there is lots of land and constant wind flow. Just because a state is being powered by wind doesn't mean the actaul turbines need to be in the actual state. In all practicality a grid could be setup on the other side of the country to help power a state on the opposite side of the country. Even the energy we commonly rely on such as nuclear or coal, etc... isn't always localized to it's own state alone. Wind power and solar can be and will be improved over time becoming more effective, less costly, and safer. Environmentally friendly power sources is always something people should be help promoting.

Edited January 8, 2013 by colourwheel

[JimboUK]

There are always exceptions to the rule, we have some MPs who are actually quite decent but they are few and far between. If western politicians had the interests of their respective countries at heart we wouldn't be in this mess. You should step back and look at the whole picture, I was a member of a party for many years and was partisan as you but two years ago I left, I finally saw the bigger picture. It's not Republican vs Democrat, Labour vs Tory, CDU vs SPD, it's them vs us. When they argue the toss they're not arguing about what's best for the people or the nation, they're arguing about what's best for their backers be it big business or the unions.

 

I would have to disagree with you again. I have stepped back and looked at the whole picture... IF you look at "current" U.S. politics It's the Tea-Party conservative movement in the Republican party who fits more about what you are talking about. Democrates ussually don't have much of a problem recently trying to do the "right" thing and looking after the "vast majority of the people" of the nation. Recently unlike The Republican party, The democratic party seems to actaully listen and care about the vast majority of the people they repressent, regaurdless if it pisses off their backers, big business, or uninions, etc... The Democrates the last few years have proven this more so than the Republicans in power.

 

How is failing to reduce the deficit in any meaningful way good for the people? what's happening in the west is our children and grandchildren are being sold into debt slavery. They won't be able to enjoy the lifestyle we have because they'll be busy paying for our largess. And what for? so we don't have to face up to reality. What's happening in the west in no different to stealing childrens savings. If the political class had the interests of the country at heart they would take the difficult decisions required, they won't though, they don't want to risk their seat on the gravy train.

[colourwheel]

There are always exceptions to the rule, we have some MPs who are actually quite decent but they are few and far between. If western politicians had the interests of their respective countries at heart we wouldn't be in this mess. You should step back and look at the whole picture, I was a member of a party for many years and was partisan as you but two years ago I left, I finally saw the bigger picture. It's not Republican vs Democrat, Labour vs Tory, CDU vs SPD, it's them vs us. When they argue the toss they're not arguing about what's best for the people or the nation, they're arguing about what's best for their backers be it big business or the unions.

 

I would have to disagree with you again. I have stepped back and looked at the whole picture... IF you look at "current" U.S. politics It's the Tea-Party conservative movement in the Republican party who fits more about what you are talking about. Democrates ussually don't have much of a problem recently trying to do the "right" thing and looking after the "vast majority of the people" of the nation. Recently unlike The Republican party, The democratic party seems to actaully listen and care about the vast majority of the people they repressent, regaurdless if it pisses off their backers, big business, or uninions, etc... The Democrates the last few years have proven this more so than the Republicans in power.

 

How is failing to reduce the deficit in any meaningful way good for the people? what's happening in the west is our children and grandchildren are being sold into debt slavery. They won't be able to enjoy the lifestyle we have because they'll be busy paying for our largess. And what for? so we don't have to face up to reality. What's happening in the west in no different to stealing childrens savings. If the political class had the interests of the country at heart they would take the difficult decisions required, they won't though, they don't want to risk their seat on the gravy train.

 

Going back to how divided America's government is it's because of the obstruction going on in government from the right-wing tea-party movement. They are not actaully in office to try help government, they don't even believe in government let alone want to help it and could care less if the country will fall apart if they don't get what they want.... this is why our government is failing to reduce the deficit in any meaningful way. Republicans can't compromise. If you can remember, the republicans the last few years have been trying to block any and every economic legislation to try throw out Obama hoping to make him look bad and in the process damaging our economy and making the people suffer. Even though Obama has been re-elected the republicans are still just as hard headed as before threatening to throw the country into a complete shutdown.

 

The question you should be asking is "why the Republicans do this kind of thing to America and the people to begin with?"...

Edited January 8, 2013 by colourwheel

[Syco21]

If it were Romney in office, the shoe would be on the other foot. Neither democrats nor republicans are innocent in the matter.

 

Both parties are trying to further their own agendas and if you think that either one of them is trying to help the American public, then you're sadly mistaken.

[colourwheel]

If it were Romney in office, the shoe would be on the other foot. Neither democrats nor republicans are innocent in the matter.

 

Both parties are trying to further their own agendas and if you think that either one of them is trying to help the American public, then you're sadly mistaken.

 

If Romney was in office the country could be in worst debt then ever concidering Romney's purposed policies were almost exactly the same as Bush's and look how well Bush has handled America's economy... Bush sure made America strong economically when he was in office... :rolleyes:

 

How have the democrates even remotely tried to damage the economy or threaten to shut it down? Have the Democrates ever threatened to default on the nations bills or block every economic legislation when Republicans control the white house?

 

It could be argued both parties are to blame yet the blame is very "disproportionate" for them to be even remotely equally to be blame the same. Political agendas or not Democrates can actually comprimise reguardless who is in the white house.

Edited January 8, 2013 by colourwheel

[Syco21]

Last I checked, the democrats controlled the house during Bush's term and the house sets the budget. Ergo whatever policies Bush had, had to have been approved by the democrats.

[colourwheel]

Last I checked, the democrats controlled the house during Bush's term and the house sets the budget. Ergo whatever policies Bush had, had to have been approved by the democrats.

 

Sure some democrates might have voted for them if any at all but hardly enough to account for the entire Democratic party or yet even a 3rd of the Democrates holding seats on capital hill. Where this kind of arguement fails is they were "not Democratic policies" too... It only proves Democrates can actaully compromise with Republicans given the chance even when they control the house and the senate.

 

Also this was before the rise of the right-wing tea-party movement (The party of "Hell No" even if they are policies that were originally conservative).

 

Also The Republican Party kept control of both the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate until 2007. Bush administartion had pretty much 6 years to swiftly pass damaging legislation to the economy... :rolleyes: You didn't see Democrates threaten to shut down the government or purposely put the economy into a recession or try to default on the debt just to get their way....

Edited January 8, 2013 by colourwheel