Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

House Websites Jammed After Obama Debt Speech

Soulskill posted about 3 years ago | from the time-to-invest-in-some-stronger-hamsters dept.

Government 1042

Hugh Pickens writes "CNN reports that House switchboards have been flooded by phone calls — nearly twice the normal average — and hit with an unusual volume of constituent e-mails as voters voice their concern over the worsening debt-ceiling crisis. At least 104 of 279 congressional websites surveyed by CNN were down or had experienced slow connections on Tuesday, after President Obama's speech Monday night. In his address to the nation, Obama called on the American people to 'make your voice heard.' House Speaker John Boehner's website responded with a 'Server Too Busy' or 'Bad Request (Invalid Hostname)' message during parts of the day. His switchboard reported as many as 150-300 callers on hold, wanting to leave their thoughts for the speaker. House Chief Administrative Officer spokesman Dan Weiser said that lawmakers' websites and phone lines began to sag with the traffic on Monday night. 'Last night we had some website problems. ... There was some websites that were hosted by outside vendors that had slowness, sluggishness, people had trouble getting in. And that was rectified early this morning.'"

cancel ×

1042 comments

Rewrite the Constitution or face default! (5, Insightful)

elucido (870205) | about 3 years ago | (#36893220)

This is extortion. This is anti-American. Rep Mike Lee Admits Extortion. [youtube.com]

In specific Tea Party Republicans are threatening to put the nation into default, holding the entire US economy and millions of lives hostage to pass their amendment to the Constitution. They want the nation to default because it will boost recruitment into their militias. They want a civil war and are apparently beyond compromise. They cannot be reasoned with apparently.

Who are these people? Before they called themselves the Tea Party they called themselves the John Birch Society. [wikipedia.org] and before they were called the John Birch society they called themselves the American Liberty League. [wikipedia.org]

This is the same American Liberty League that was behind the Business Plot. [wikipedia.org]

The Business Plot was the attempt to overthrow the US government and in specific overthrow FDR and install a fascist dictatorship. The history of that can be seen by watching this video. [youtube.com]

Read about Smedley Darlington Butler and how he single handedly saved the nation from a coup. Now that we have a black President the forces looking to have a coup have grown stronger than ever. And these groups hate the feds and the government because these are the ones investigating them. The solution? Tax cuts, smaller government, which means less FBI investigations into them. [youtube.com]

And btw I expect "them" to rate my post down into oblivion. Expect to see it rated as flamebait, overrated or something else.

 

Re:Rewrite the Constitution or face default! (0, Troll)

hsmith (818216) | about 3 years ago | (#36893270)

This is how democracy works, FYI. It isn't extortion, it is how that pesky legislative process works. Troubling, I know.

Re:Rewrite the Constitution or face default! (5, Insightful)

elucido (870205) | about 3 years ago | (#36893342)

This is how democracy works, FYI. It isn't extortion, it is how that pesky legislative process works. Troubling, I know.

So it's okay for that scumbag to threaten the lives of seniors, of poor people, of veterans, of anyone by threatening to let the nation default which means the checks wont be sent out to them? What about troops serving right now who are risking their lives so that ignorant congressman can safely speak like that? What about law enforcement who protects scumbags like him from being robbed and preyed upon?

Do you realize he's not only threatening all their jobs, but he's threatening to withhold their pay that they earned fair and square. He is doing this so that he can score political points and try to pass a Constitutional amendment which has no hope in hell of passing. So what he is doing is attempting to extort the entire nation.

If you think that is how democracy works, maybe when people like him call the police the police should decide "you know, we aren't going to keep you safe anymore unless you agree to write this bill for us.", in fact maybe the whole government could do the same thing to these congressmen. Then it would be called blackmail and extortion right? I guess it's not extortion if a Republican congressman does it?

Re:Rewrite the Constitution or face default! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36893468)

We have enough money to do all of those things. We do NOT have enough money to cover the ridiculous, no, the obscene spending that Obama has precipitated since he took office. He has DOUBLED the size of the national debt in 3 years.

If we default, it will be because Obama decided to extort from the country and chose to pay for his spending projects instead of the entitlement programs that we were ALREADY obliged to pay, when he so recklessly wasted the money on all of his pet projects. Because he can decide what we pay for and what we don't. But he knows full well that a default would be disastrous, and he knows equally well that there's absolutely no good reason for us to default, if we just waste less money on the crap that he's managed to pass in the 3 years since Bush left.

Re:Rewrite the Constitution or face default! (2, Insightful)

hsmith (818216) | about 3 years ago | (#36893470)

There is more than enough income to the federal government to pay all of social security and medicare (They have their own dedicated tax of your 7% contribution plus your employers 7% contribution). Everyones SS and Medicare will get paid, unless Obama specifically decides not to pay them, to prove his OWN point.

Debts will get paid, the US will and cannot default because there is more than enough income to pay for our interest to our creditors.

It is how it works, this is how legislation gets passed.

Re:Rewrite the Constitution or face default! (0)

elucido (870205) | about 3 years ago | (#36893566)

There is more than enough income to the federal government to pay all of social security and medicare (They have their own dedicated tax of your 7% contribution plus your employers 7% contribution). Everyones SS and Medicare will get paid, unless Obama specifically decides not to pay them, to prove his OWN point.

Debts will get paid, the US will and cannot default because there is more than enough income to pay for our interest to our creditors.

It is how it works, this is how legislation gets passed.

Okay. Precisely how much revenue was generated by taxes? I want an exact number. Then I want the exact number of money the government has to pay out. Get the numbers and then you can make a case, without the numbers you just speculate.

The troops won't be affected... (0)

MikeRT (947531) | about 3 years ago | (#36893488)

So it's okay for that scumbag to threaten the lives of seniors, of poor people, of veterans, of anyone by threatening to let the nation default which means the checks wont be sent out to them? What about troops serving right now who are risking their lives so that ignorant congressman can safely speak like that? What about law enforcement who protects scumbags like him from being robbed and preyed upon?

Defaulting on the federal debt will simply mean the federal government is limited to its revenues and whatever it can print (and that will totally screw over the poor and vulnerable). We have over $2T in revenues. All that means is that the federal government will have to prioritize.

How about we start means-testing Social Security and Medicare. If Grandma has a pension, fat 401k or private assets she gets no Social Security.

So what if she "paid into the system her whole life." I have no kids and pay thousands of dollars in property taxes, mainly to support local schools. Do you see me whining, bitching and moaning about the injustice of paying for something from which I derive no personal benefit? No. It's called civic responsibility. Part of your duty as a citizen is to put the common good before yours and frankly, I'm sick of ordinary Americans adopting the same "fuck you, I'll get mine" attitude they accuse the rich of having and then acting holier than thou toward them.

And what about contractors? (2)

elucido (870205) | about 3 years ago | (#36893550)

So it's okay for that scumbag to threaten the lives of seniors, of poor people, of veterans, of anyone by threatening to let the nation default which means the checks wont be sent out to them? What about troops serving right now who are risking their lives so that ignorant congressman can safely speak like that? What about law enforcement who protects scumbags like him from being robbed and preyed upon?

Defaulting on the federal debt will simply mean the federal government is limited to its revenues and whatever it can print (and that will totally screw over the poor and vulnerable). We have over $2T in revenues. All that means is that the federal government will have to prioritize.

How about we start means-testing Social Security and Medicare. If Grandma has a pension, fat 401k or private assets she gets no Social Security.

So what if she "paid into the system her whole life." I have no kids and pay thousands of dollars in property taxes, mainly to support local schools. Do you see me whining, bitching and moaning about the injustice of paying for something from which I derive no personal benefit? No. It's called civic responsibility. Part of your duty as a citizen is to put the common good before yours and frankly, I'm sick of ordinary Americans adopting the same "fuck you, I'll get mine" attitude they accuse the rich of having and then acting holier than thou toward them.

Say they decide to pay the troops, what about the contractors who were promised money who are risking their lives as well? You think the mercenaries are going to be happy when they find out they might not be paid and that their contract may even be canceled? So how are they going to get their money?

Also how will the troops be paid? That isn't even a guarantee. The foreigners who own the nations debt have to be paid before anyone else and that includes the troops. After the foreign debt holders are paid then the President can think to give priority to the troops, or to contractors, or to social security. And at some point, somewhere, some people aren't going to be paid. Which people can afford not to get paid for a month?

And when a budget is finally passed, will that lost month's pay be included in the budget? The point is that this will fuck the system up internally, as well as fuck up the entire economy.

Re:Rewrite the Constitution or face default! (1)

Danathar (267989) | about 3 years ago | (#36893522)

His statement is a statement of fact based on what we are observing. Yours is an emotional cathartic spew.

Re:Rewrite the Constitution or face default! (3)

igreaterthanu (1942456) | about 3 years ago | (#36893538)

So it's okay for that scumbag to threaten the lives of seniors, of poor people, of veterans, of anyone by threatening to let the nation default which means the checks wont be sent out to them?

Maybe people should have thought about that before voting for these people.

Go ahead, mod me down, I have karma to burn.

Who voted for Murdoch? (1)

elucido (870205) | about 3 years ago | (#36893578)

I didn't vote for him. But he has the power to influence elections regardless of who the people voted for.

Re:Rewrite the Constitution or face default! (2)

quenda (644621) | about 3 years ago | (#36893552)

What about troops serving right now who are risking their lives so that ignorant congressman can safely speak like that?

Sorry, but what is the connection between Afghan hill tribes, or a middle-eastern despot (1 down, ten to go) and free speech in America? That makes no sense.

Re:Rewrite the Constitution or face default! (1)

supernatendo (1523947) | about 3 years ago | (#36893588)

The Treasury Department can prioritize payments in order to avoid a default. In addition, the Treasury could sell some of its assets in order to pay the bills. There are approximately $2.6 trillion dollars in the Social Security Trust Fund; those assets can be used to pay benefits. Furthermore, there is already trillions of dollars of interagency debt that counts toward the $14.29 trillion debt limit. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner could convert that inter-agency debt into publicly-held debt, preventing not only a technical default but also preventing any delay in government payments. While the Treasury cannot use money from the Social Security Trust Fund, it can “disinvest” from other trust funds to pay for benefits. The Treasury Department could also make cash available from the trust fund by “disinvesting” some of the money used to buy government bonds. The disinvesting approach is a temporary accounting device that would help maintain the Treasury’s cash flow. In other words, the debt ceiling being reached will have little affect on seniors, poor people, veterans, military + their families. Also, if I'm not mistaken, Republicans also offered to raise the debt limit as long as the Cut, Cap, and Balance bill was passed, and it is the president who is failing to compromise with them and is waging a mostly emotional political fight that has little to no basis on facts at the expense of not coming to an agreement in time.

Re:Rewrite the Constitution or face default! (3, Insightful)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | about 3 years ago | (#36893626)

I thought the Democrats were telling us there was no need to reform Social Security because there was a Trust Fund?
Sorry, but your rhetoric doesn't fly. It wasn't this Congressman who threatened the lives of seniors, poor people or veterans, it was Obama. The fact of the matter is that if the debt ceiling is not raised, there is no reason for the federal government to default. There is, also, no reason for the federal government to not send out SS checks or pay the military.
I have a question for you, what happens if they increase the debt ceiling and no one wants to buy the new bonds? That day is going to come sooner or later. Isn't it a good idea to start reining in spending now, while people are still willing to buy U.S. government bonds rather than wait for that day?

Re:Rewrite the Constitution or face default! (3, Insightful)

iserlohn (49556) | about 3 years ago | (#36893546)

Democracy is based on debating ideas, compromising and coming to an agreement.

The showboating that these congressmen are involved in right now is not democracy, and runs contrary to their duty to serve the nation.

Re:Rewrite the Constitution or face default! (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36893280)

I can't rate you down, nor would I but the pace and phrasing of your post makes your post seem unbelievable or as some kind of crazy rant. I will read the source material you have presented and make my own judgements. These are serious accusations.

But I do agree that the Tea Party Republicans are a problem with their impossibly rigid views and policies. Most, if not all, should be made to rethink their positions by having them voted out of their positions.

Re:Rewrite the Constitution or face default! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36893454)

Step1: Disregard all evidence which is not followed by a citation.

Step2: Disregard all evidence which is followed by a citation to Wikipedia.

Step3: Yep, Mike Lee still says, in his own words, that he is attempting to use his vote to cause the default and will only relent if we re-write the Constitution to match his desires.

Re:Rewrite the Constitution or face default! (3, Insightful)

Beyond_GoodandEvil (769135) | about 3 years ago | (#36893378)

The Business Plot was the attempt to overthrow the US government and in specific overthrow FDR and install a fascist dictatorship
I forgot which US president gathered up US citizens and placed them in camps? Which president summarily executed American citizens without benefit of trial? Oh that's right it was FDR, sounds like we already had a dictatorship. As for worrying about FBI investigations, given how well the Justice Dept is handling Operation Gunrunner no one should worry about investigations for a while.

Re:Rewrite the Constitution or face default! (0)

elucido (870205) | about 3 years ago | (#36893420)

The Business Plot was the attempt to overthrow the US government and in specific overthrow FDR and install a fascist dictatorship
I forgot which US president gathered up US citizens and placed them in camps? Which president summarily executed American citizens without benefit of trial? Oh that's right it was FDR, sounds like we already had a dictatorship. As for worrying about FBI investigations, given how well the Justice Dept is handling Operation Gunrunner no one should worry about investigations for a while.

We won World War 2 because of some of the actions of FDR. And if the business plot coup were not thwarted then the USA would have been run by a fascist establishment and Hitler would have won World War 2.

Do you not realize what was at stake? As far as the FBI Counter Intelligence operations go, even the President would not have knowledge of what is going on. That shit would be beyond top secret. For all we know the FBI could already have the Tea Party and the Koch Bro's under surveillance.

Re:Rewrite the Constitution or face default! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36893392)

You give them way too much credit. Some people once bought, stay bought. It's as simple as that. Either out of fear, blackmail, or a huge portfolio, these clowns won't budge and serve their corporate masters well.

The mistake we all make is assuming that things are any different on the other side of the aisle.

Have you seen the average tea partier? Here let me help you. [jhunderground.com]

You're telling me that those people have been plotting since FDR? Seriously now... he can't even fucking spell certificate.

He's poor, he's uneducated, and he's wondering where the fuck his money went. And like any ignorant peasant, he blames people who think or look differently from him. But a government toppling powerhouse he is not.

Re:Rewrite the Constitution or face default! (1)

vlm (69642) | about 3 years ago | (#36893510)

Business Plot.

The Business Plot was the attempt to overthrow the US government and in specific overthrow FDR and install a fascist dictatorship. The history of that can be seen by watching this video. [youtube.com]

Read about Smedley Darlington Butler and how he single handedly saved the nation from a coup.

Looks like sometime between Smedley and now, they won. So why are they still agitating?

Re:Rewrite the Constitution or face default! (0)

thynk (653762) | about 3 years ago | (#36893516)

This is extortion. This is anti-American. Rep Mike Lee Admits Extortion. [youtube.com]

In specific Tea Party Republicans are threatening to put the nation into default, holding the entire US economy and millions of lives hostage to pass their amendment to the Constitution. They want the nation to default because it will boost recruitment into their militias. They want a civil war and are apparently beyond compromise. .

So, you understand that there is enough tax revenue coming in to pay the interest on the debt, social security, medicaid/medicare, education, VA and active duty payrolls. Right? The only way those won't get paid is the government (executive branch) CHOOSES not pay them. There is no real risk to defaulting.

I'm not sure if you've ever had a discussion with a Tea Party member, most of them are fairly reasonable folks and want a return to a government who's spending and legislative powers are bound by the constitution. Sure, there are some nutters there, just like every other group in America.

Re:Rewrite the Constitution or face default! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36893528)

It could be that They modded your post down. Or it could have been modde down because you cherry picked a handful of unrelated actions (fringe groups are everywhere), glued it all together with some unsubstantiated opinion, then presented it as fact. Moreover you do it in an arrogant "I am right and everyone who disagrees with me is part of the conspiracy" manner.

You could have picked any two of those and gotten away with it, but combining all three just trips the bullshit meter. Try rewording your posts, you might be surprised at the difference it makes.

Re:Rewrite the Constitution or face default! (1)

elucido (870205) | about 3 years ago | (#36893614)

It could be that They modded your post down. Or it could have been modde down because you cherry picked a handful of unrelated actions (fringe groups are everywhere), glued it all together with some unsubstantiated opinion, then presented it as fact. Moreover you do it in an arrogant "I am right and everyone who disagrees with me is part of the conspiracy" manner.

You could have picked any two of those and gotten away with it, but combining all three just trips the bullshit meter. Try rewording your posts, you might be surprised at the difference it makes.

The Tea Party is not a fringe group anymore. They control the house.

Re:Rewrite the Constitution or face default! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36893532)

So I take it that you want more taxes?

Re:Rewrite the Constitution or face default! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36893544)

"And btw I expect "them" to rate my post down into oblivion. Expect to see it rated as flamebait, overrated or something else."

This is slashdot, unless you insult Tolkien, Apple, MS or Linux they'll read the summary and give you an unbiased opinion, uninformed maybe, but unbiased.

Yo, wassup? (1)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | about 3 years ago | (#36893242)

Time for a workers party that fights for a workers government!

This is Democracy in action (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36893254)

This is Democracy in action

Re:This is Democracy in action (4, Funny)

melikamp (631205) | about 3 years ago | (#36893290)

This is Democracy inaction

There, fixed it for you.

Re:This is Democracy in action (0)

EraserMouseMan (847479) | about 3 years ago | (#36893410)

This "Inaction" must be referring to 0bama declaring a dozen times now that he'll veto every bill that's been conceptualized so far on the debt ceiling. 0bama says "veto" almost before the speakers of either house of congress barely open their mouth to share a new idea. Yesterday he declared "veto" on a plan brought to him by both the House and the Senate. If this deal doesn't happen in time it will be only 0bama's fault.

Re:This is Democracy in action (1)

gatkinso (15975) | about 3 years ago | (#36893594)

It beats the hell out of fighting in the streets.

Will it make a difference? (4, Insightful)

Nimey (114278) | about 3 years ago | (#36893266)

It seems like the more extreme Republicans that are running things in the House don't have a political philosophy so much as they have a religion. It's hard to convince a zealot of anything.

Pay attention, kids: we're experiencing history! This is another stage in the long decline of the United States.

Re:Will it make a difference? (0)

elucido (870205) | about 3 years ago | (#36893288)

It seems like the more extreme Republicans that are running things in the House don't have a political philosophy so much as they have a religion. It's hard to convince a zealot of anything.

Pay attention, kids: we're experiencing history! This is another stage in the long decline of the United States.

They don't have a religion either. They have a plan to overthrow the US government and Obama. They don't even recognize Obama as a US citizen. They listen to Alex Jones and think the UN is run by the jewish mafia elite. They also are the ones who hate multi-culturalism in Europe.

They don't want to pay taxes because they know the government are the ones who will be arresting them for their corruption and that if they stop paying taxes the government will shrink and become ineffective. Is it a surprise that Murdoch or someone like that would want lower taxes?

Re:Will it make a difference? (2)

Opportunist (166417) | about 3 years ago | (#36893344)

It's more a surprise that a lot of people who will actually lose out with lower taxes are crying for it. In a nutshell, the less you earn, the higher the tax rate you want. At least if you're smart.

Sadly, earning little and being smart are not exactly directly proportional, most of the time.

Re:Will it make a difference? (1)

gorfie (700458) | about 3 years ago | (#36893434)

the less you earn, the higher the tax rate you want

This isn't snarky / sarcasm - I am not familiar with this concept. Can you explain how a person might benefit from paying 30% taxes instead of 25%?

Re:Will it make a difference? (1)

Nimey (114278) | about 3 years ago | (#36893478)

An extra 5% of not much isn't much, but there's a lot of people paying their not much, and that's enough to keep social programs solvent.

Re:Will it make a difference? (1)

maxume (22995) | about 3 years ago | (#36893498)

If you take the current system of progressive taxation as a given, it doesn't require much explanation.

Re:Will it make a difference? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36893556)

the less you earn, the higher the tax rate you want

This isn't snarky / sarcasm - I am not familiar with this concept. Can you explain how a person might benefit from paying 30% taxes instead of 25%?

Because you will not be paying 30% if you income doesn't meet certain treshold. It is called progressive tax rate - the more money you make the higher tax rate you pay. People with low incomes are taxed at a lower rate or don't pay taxes at all. This is approximtely how the US tax system is sopposed to work, if it wasn't for the bunch of loopholes (like the low tax rate on dividents and investment income) that skew it in the wrong direction.

Re:Will it make a difference? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36893596)

Can you explain how a person might benefit from paying 30% taxes instead of 25%?

Redistribution of wealth. You're forgetting that the poor get money back from the government.

If the government takes 30% from everyone, that's a lot more money than if they only take 25%. It goes without saying that they want the extra money to go back to the poor, in the form of social programs. So the poor benefit from higher taxes.

Re:Will it make a difference? (1)

skegg (666571) | about 3 years ago | (#36893624)

See a previous post [slashdot.org] of mine.

Re:Will it make a difference? (1)

maxume (22995) | about 3 years ago | (#36893394)

Wow.

Re:Will it make a difference? (4, Insightful)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | about 3 years ago | (#36893302)

This is another stage in the long decline of the United States.

If we keep spending at the rate we are, it'll be a much faster decline.

Re:Will it make a difference? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36893324)

Bingo.

Re:Will it make a difference? (5, Insightful)

Nimey (114278) | about 3 years ago | (#36893352)

Yes. On the other hand, people seem to want things like Social Security and Medicare, so a rational decision would be to raise taxes to pay for those things people want, and to reduce spending on things people don't want, such as unfunded wars to build friendly nations.

Re:Will it make a difference? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36893406)

...to reduce spending on things people don't want, such as unfunded wars to build friendly nations.

I think you meant "unfounded" wars because the wars the US are waging certainly aren't lacking funds... ;)

Re:Will it make a difference? (5, Insightful)

hypergreatthing (254983) | about 3 years ago | (#36893428)

People seem to want social security because they've paid into it their entire lives without having an alternative of opting out. It was supposed to be self sustainable.
Look at the taxes over the past 50 years. Back in 1981 the top 5% of wealthy americans paid a 70% tax rate. How come now in 2011 they pay less taxes than people making 1/10th their yearly earnings? Something is wrong with that. Look at all the tax breaks for the wealthy, lets start there. Then lets look at our out of control spending.

Re:Will it make a difference? (5, Insightful)

Nimey (114278) | about 3 years ago | (#36893452)

It /was/ more-or-less self-sustaining, it's just that the Feds stole money from the trust fund to pay for other things. Because that was easier than raising taxes directly.

Re:Will it make a difference? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36893502)

Maybe you'd care to donate 70% of your income to the cause?

Re:Will it make a difference? (2)

darkstar949 (697933) | about 3 years ago | (#36893584)

If you are going to pay me $10,000,000 a year gross? Sure, I'll pay taxes up to a 70% bracket on that. Even with a top bracket of 70% you would still likely be clearing around $3,000,000 a year. Most people would consider that enough to retire on assuming they are paying the current 15% on long term capital gains.

Re:Will it make a difference? (0)

Nimey (114278) | about 3 years ago | (#36893586)

Herp-a-derp. One person making an average income doing that will amount to throwing money down a black hole. I'm sure you're aware of that, and said that to try to score political points.

Re:Will it make a difference? (0)

gorfie (700458) | about 3 years ago | (#36893562)

I'd be all for the government taxing the top 5% in that manner. The problem is that I don't trust any of our current politicians to enact such taxes. Republicans are obvious - not so much liars as they are pathetic in their justification for tax breaks for the wealthy. Democrats appear to be more subtle in that they advertise it one way (i.e. increase taxes for people making more than $250,000 per year) yet implement it in another way (i.e. people making millions can afford to exploit loop holes, people making $100,000 per year have an increase because they own a small business or have assets exceeding a certain amount or something like that).

Just consider Reid's debt plan. On the surface, it appears to be a legitimate compromise. Yet in the details, it is obviously a clever ploy to give the appearance of making cuts without actually making cuts (i.e. the cuts were already assumed to be made).

I would just like to see someone step up and announce a clear and concise plan that is truly a compromise. Raise taxes on the top 5% of individual incomes. Publicly ensure that the other 95% will not be impacted. Fix the entitlement programs to prevent/discourage abuse (and simultaneously cut costs). Stop throwing money at unnecessary wars.

Re:Will it make a difference? (4, Insightful)

dpilot (134227) | about 3 years ago | (#36893400)

If the spending problems were a general problem, and generally flagged, I'd have less problem. But it's not. The Republicans tend to show up as deficit hawks during every Democratic administration, but during Republican administrations such things go completely silent. Vice President Dick Cheney is on record as saying something to the tune that the deficit is irrelevant. During the GWB years the deficit spiked, due to tax cuts, 2 wars run "off the books", and the unfunded Medicare prescription drug coverage program.

For the moment, I'm not commenting about deficit budgeting itself, or about any of the things done during the Bush/Cheney years. I'm simply commenting about the change-of-tune. This pattern of deficit-hawk behavior goes back before those 2 administrations, as well.

Re:Will it make a difference? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36893424)

If the patient is having a heart attack, you do not treat the leg infection first.

Re:Will it make a difference? (1)

trum4n (982031) | about 3 years ago | (#36893630)

You're right. The Republicans would cut off the leg.

Re:Will it make a difference? (5, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | about 3 years ago | (#36893440)

If we keep spending at the rate we are, it'll be a much faster decline.

Only if we don't tax enough to cover the cost of the spending. Plenty of countries have governments that spend far more than the US, but they make up for it by taxing more. And I'm not talking about Third World countries, I'm talking about places like Canada, Germany, and the UK.

Another thing that I've noticed regularly in discussions of federal government budgets is that it's much easier to rail against "spending" than it is to pick out what would actually be cut. So what spending would you get rid of? Social Security and Medicare (which you probably have a family member collecting on right now)? The military? Food stamps? Unemployment insurance? Section 8 housing? Public schools for your kids? Environmental protection that keeps nearby businesses from making your home unlivable? OSHA or MSHA, which reduce dramatically your chance of death or injury on the job? Highways?

Re:Will it make a difference? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36893458)

If we keep spending at the rate we are, it'll be a much faster decline.

Oh, the Obama-bots dont care.

This is just an issue for them to take a side on and rant about the "evil" GOP.

As far as they are concerned, money grows on trees and comes out of ATMs.

They are so partisan that they are actually cheerleading for the US debt to GO UP because that's the side Obama (their lord and supreme god) is on.

Have you seen any of them make a great case for the US to keep on borrowing and going under? Nope! In fact, if you just ask people separate of Obama being tied to a position, they will tell you more often than not NOT to raise the debt ceiling and to CUT SPENDING.

It's what people in the real world have to do, but to have government do the same? Not good, because Obama said so, and thinking by supposed "geeks" goes out the window.

Instead you just see them ranting off about the GOP and Murdock or whomever the hell they can quick think up.

Re:Will it make a difference? (2)

EraserMouseMan (847479) | about 3 years ago | (#36893484)

And increasing the debt ceiling only gives the addict a little more dope. It doesn't prevent the inevitable reckoning that we are on the verge of. The government has maxed out every credit card they have. The Federal government is broke and they want another credit card.

Re:Will it make a difference? (5, Insightful)

vlm (69642) | about 3 years ago | (#36893608)

And increasing the debt ceiling only gives the addict a little more dope. It doesn't prevent the inevitable reckoning that we are on the verge of. The government has maxed out every credit card they have. The Federal government is broke and they want another credit card.

The only point of this D vs R debate is who is going to get the blame. It has nothing to do with changing the inevitable outcome. Thats what I find profoundly uninteresting about the whole topic... not really interested in who gets the blame, and its way too long until the next elections for it to have any effect. So, its all basically a bunch of noise.

The titanic is headed full speed ahead into the iceberg. One side wants to increase speed to flank, so the coal men earn a little more money. The other side want to decrease speed to 3/4 to save coal, and to embarass the helmsman. Everyone is eventually gonna drown anyway.

Re:Will it make a difference? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36893312)

And the more extreme Democrats don't? Please. After all, we can't know what's in it until we pass it as law. That doesn't sound like heavy handed dogma to you?

Re:Will it make a difference? (5, Insightful)

Nimey (114278) | about 3 years ago | (#36893340)

Oh, please. The Dems, as usual, are bending over backwards to negotiate.

The now-standard Republican "negotiating" tactic is to throw a tantrum until they get everything they want. Compromise is when the Dems agree with the Republicans.

Re:Will it make a difference? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36893354)

Epic lulz. Reaches for popcorn.

Re:Will it make a difference? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36893374)

So living within in your means is a religion? Hmmm ......

Re:Will it make a difference? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36893450)

Well, if it was, then maybe the Republican administration and the Republican-led Congress in 2002 would _not_ have reversed the trend of paying down the deficit. (To fund a bogus war against a country that had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 terrorist attack on the false premise of the existence of WoMDs.)

Re:Will it make a difference? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36893376)

And the extreme Democrat that is running the White House doesn't have a political philosophy so much as he has a religion?

Or are you so far up Obama's ass that you just see him as some innocent little man just trying to DO THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT HE SAID IN 2006!

"From Sen. Obama’s Floor Speech, March 20, 2006:

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."

Re:Will it make a difference? (1)

Nimey (114278) | about 3 years ago | (#36893500)

Oh, horseshit. Obama's a moderate Republican from back when such things existed.

I'd ask if you've noticed that he tries to govern from the center (or near-right, given how far over the GOP is just to spite him), but somehow I doubt you'd try.

Re:Will it make a difference? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36893414)

Fiscal sanity is now a religion? Boehner already agreed to raise taxes by $800 Billion. The President's response? Demand 1.2 Trillion. And then bash Republicans on national TV. Spending is up from historical averages by 7% of GDP. Tax revenue is down from historical averages by 1% of GDP. Low taxes are not the problem. The problem is spending. Taxes are a distraction. S&P has been saying for the past week that without significant cuts, there will be a ratings downgrade even if the ceiling is raised. Meanwhile, the President takes to the airwaves three times a week to bash Republicans. That's not leadership. I'm still waiting for the President's plan. A leader would have proposed one months ago. The top 1% of income earners in the US pay a higher percentage of total tax revenue than the top 1% of earners in Europe. How much more should they pay? If we raise their taxes now, will liberals just want to raise their taxes again in two years? Obama already agreed to the Bush tax structure less than a year ago. How can he expect to negotiate in good faith with Republicans while simultaneously back tracking on the last deal he made with them?

Boehner's biggest mistake was trying to negotiate with Obama in the first place. Obama is not interesting in negotiating. This is the guy who invited Paul Ryan to sit in the front row when he made his debt speech, and then called Ryan's plan "unAmerican." You can't negotiate with Obama. If you cave on anything, he will demand more, and then he will bash you on national TV for not caving again.

You've just revealed yourself as an extremist (0)

MikeRT (947531) | about 3 years ago | (#36893426)

It seems like the more extreme Republicans that are running things in the House don't have a political philosophy so much as they have a religion. It's hard to convince a zealot of anything.

The Republican plan would allow Obama to increase the debt ceiling by $2.4T and raise taxes provided both houses can agree to a balanced budget amendment to the US Constitution.

If you think that's extreme, you're a kool aid drinking liberal. The Republican base is demanding no compromise on the debt ceiling, no new taxes AND a balanced budget amendment. The Republican house very well might get flushed in 2012 in favor of even more Tea Party candidates unless they succeed in actually ratifying an enforceable balanced budget amendment.

The federal budget has gone from not even $2T under Clinton to $3.5T under Obama. This trend cannot continue. It has nothing to do with taxes or tax rates. The GDP is about $13T. That means the federal government alone now consumes about 27% of our GDP. Even if your support big, active government that leaves a lot less money for those governments that are closer and more accountable to the people.

Re:You've just revealed yourself as an extremist (4, Interesting)

Nimey (114278) | about 3 years ago | (#36893540)

HA HA HA HA.

Do you even know what the amending process entails? Hint: you have to get a supermajority of the state legislatures to approve the amendment. Do you have any fucking idea how long that would take? /Years/. We don't have time for that kind of political theater bullshit. If Republicans want that, they should put it out as a separate measure. If the people and their representatives in the states want it, it'll pass on its own merits.

Re:You've just revealed yourself as an extremist (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36893564)

Sarah Palin 2012

Just sayin'....

Re:Will it make a difference? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36893442)

It seems like the more extreme Republicans that are running things in the House don't have a political philosophy so much as they have a religion. It's hard to convince a zealot of anything.

Pay attention, kids: we're experiencing history! This is another stage in the long decline of the United States.

It seems like the more extreme Democrats that are running things in the Senate don't have a political philosophy so much as they have a religion. It's hard to convince a zealot of anything.

and so forth...

Re:Will it make a difference? (1)

Pieroxy (222434) | about 3 years ago | (#36893568)

This is another stage in the long decline of the United States.

If they let the US default, let me tell you that the decline will be a heck of a lot faster. Instantaneous actually. Even the US will never be able to recover from a default in less than a hundred years. Pooof, noone to help you there folks.

Re:Will it make a difference? (1)

gatkinso (15975) | about 3 years ago | (#36893612)

Clearly you are not versed in your U.S. history.

This is nothing new.

too big to fail? (5, Interesting)

C0R1D4N (970153) | about 3 years ago | (#36893304)

Our system of government was not setup for this large of a population. When the countru was founded there were many who thought the constittuent:representative ratio was too high and it is faaaar worse now. It is time to dissolve the union and form 50 new nations.

Re:too big to fail? (4, Insightful)

Nimey (114278) | about 3 years ago | (#36893388)

Or, just maybe, we could not be extremists and try to rejigger the system to bring it back into balance.

Nah, destroy it all. What could possibly go wrong?

Re:too big to fail? (2)

C0R1D4N (970153) | about 3 years ago | (#36893486)

Only way to fix it would require thousands not hundreds of represntatives as well as congressional term limits. Neither of which will ever happen. You may think my opionion to be more extreme but sadly it is the more realistic solution.

Re:too big to fail? (2, Interesting)

Danathar (267989) | about 3 years ago | (#36893474)

Actually, you are almost right. Our system of government where most of the power has been transferred to a central authority away from the states is what does not scale.

Originally the system was designed with Federalism that distributed power. That is almost entirely gone now with nearly all power residing in D.C.

Repeal the 17th Amendment (let states decide for themselves if they want to elect Senators by popular vote in their states, many will do so on their own and some will not)

Get rid of the Federal Reserve system. Competitive banking instead of a monopoly cartel where the same commercial banks who in many circumstances have their CEO's running Federal Reserve regional banks that control the money.

I have no problem with some states being progressive and others being conservative so long as basic negative natural rights are respected and protected by a Federal Authority who's power is primarily that of protecting those rights and common defense.

I'm not insane for wanting what Jefferson and Madison wanted and designed instead of what Alexander Hamilton and John Adams thought would be cool (American Empire)

Hamilton wasn't interested in empire (1)

brokeninside (34168) | about 3 years ago | (#36893600)

The way you say that you want what the Federalists wanted and then put Jefferson and Madison in the camp of the Federalists cracks me up. While Madison was a Federalist early on (and helped Hamilton write the Federalists Papers), by the time the Constiitution was ratified, he was was agreeing with Jefferson on almost every issue and staunchly opposed the Federalists. The root of this dispute was largely over the centralization of the government. The Federalists favored a strong federal government. The anti-Federalist groups (like the Republicans that later formed into the Demoratic-Republican clubs which are not to be confused with the party of Lincoln) thought that a strong central government was doomed to end in tyrrany. The anti-Federalists lost that battle with the ratification of the US Constitution. They lost it again during Washington's presidency. By the time Jefferson was elected president, Federalist doctrine was so par for the course, that you'd be hard pressed to show the difference between his term and what the Federalists supported.

The Anti-federalists lost again in the US Civil War. The so-called states' rights movement was really just a replay of the same old debate, except with guns and bayonets instead of broadsides and pamphlets. Lincon's Republican Party put a strong union headed by a powerful centralized government at the center of their platform.

Re:too big to fail? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36893496)

I totally disagree. Because of the way districts are set up, most districts are either quite liberal or very conservative. In any given election, there are usually about 10% of districts that are actually contested. Sure, there may be a candidate from parties on the ballot, but one in most instances the demographics of the district preclude one of the two major parties from having much of a chance of winning. The result tends to keep close to equal amounts of Democrats and Republicans in Congress at any given time. However, because the districts are drawn up to be so one-sided, there's a lot of far right or far left representatives and senators who get elected. Instead of leading to a balance, it's resulted in a very polarized Congress. The polarity and the inability to compromise without angering too many constituents is a large reason why the debt ceiling debate is going down to the wire. If districts are made smaller, it will do nothing to reduce the polarity. Congresspeople will represent a smaller number of constituents, probably even more like-minded than in present districts, and the polarity will grow stronger. We don't need more representatives. It will make the problem worse than it is now.

Physical devices have finite limits. News at 11 (2)

OzPeter (195038) | about 3 years ago | (#36893314)

And those limits can be overwhelmed by a large response.

Or is the real news story that Americans are expressing something about their political parties for once?

games (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36893318)

Last I looked both parties got us into this mess. Opps this site doesn't want to admit that. Ohhhh Democrat good Republican evil, it's that easy. Keep fooling yourselves.

Re:games (4, Insightful)

History's Coming To (1059484) | about 3 years ago | (#36893360)

Pity you can't vote for another party and leave the Dems and Reps out of it. Mind you, you'd need some kind of system in place that allows anyone to stand for a seat and be voted in, regardless of how much money they put in to one of the two parties in the democracy.

Re:games (5, Insightful)

Nimey (114278) | about 3 years ago | (#36893430)

Hi, you seem to be using the FALSE EQUIVALENCE fallacy!

Let me bring you up to speed: two long and incompetently-waged wars kept of the budget books for political reasons, at the same time we had a tax cut. Nobody's ever cut taxes during a war, let alone two, because that's a really fucking stupid thing to do.

In the latest episode of the Washington Follies, the Republicans demanded big cuts in spending. Fine, say the Dems, here's $3 trillion in spending cuts But we want $1 trilliion in eliminated tax subsidies and raised taxes on the rich. NONONONONO, scream the Republicans, TAXES BAD TAXES BAD.

That's not "durr, they're equally bad".

Game of Chicken (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36893362)

And the rating agencies are only going to change the rating once there's absolutely no chance that the game doesn't end with serious injuries...

Focus on the Tea Party Caucus (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36893366)

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_Caucus [wikipedia.org]

Sandy Adams, Florida
Robert Aderholt, Alabama
Todd Akin, Missouri
Rodney Alexander, Louisiana
Michele Bachmann, Minnesota, Chairman
Roscoe Bartlett, Maryland
Joe Barton, Texas
Gus Bilirakis, Florida
Rob Bishop, Utah
Diane Black, Tennessee
Michael C. Burgess, Texas
Paul Broun, Georgia
Dan Burton, Indiana
John Carter, Texas
Bill Cassidy, Louisiana
Howard Coble, North Carolina
Mike Coffman, Colorado
Ander Crenshaw, Florida
John Culberson, Texas
Jeff Duncan, South Carolina
Blake Farenthold, Texas
Stephen Fincher, Tennessee
John Fleming, Louisiana
Trent Franks, Arizona
Phil Gingrey, Georgia
Louie Gohmert, Texas
Vicky Hartzler, Missouri
Wally Herger, California
Tim Huelskamp, Kansas
Lynn Jenkins, Kansas
Steve King, Iowa
Doug Lamborn, Colorado
Jeff Landry, Louisiana
Blaine Luetkemeyer, Missouri
Kenny Marchant, Texas
Tom McClintock, California
David McKinley, West Virginia
Gary Miller, California
Mick Mulvaney, South Carolina
Randy Neugebauer, Texas
Rich Nugent, Florida
Steve Pearce, New Mexico
Mike Pence, Indiana
Ted Poe, Texas
Tom Price, Georgia
Denny Rehberg, Montana
Phil Roe, Tennessee
Dennis Ross, Florida
Ed Royce, California
Steve Scalise, Louisiana
Tim Scott, South Carolina
Pete Sessions, Texas
Adrian Smith, Nebraska
Lamar Smith, Texas
Cliff Stearns, Florida
Tim Walberg, Michigan
Joe Walsh, Illinois
Allen West, Florida
Lynn Westmoreland, Georgia
Joe Wilson, South Carolina

low digit chosen ones in for big surprise? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36893372)

single digit? less valuable than a goat. below 30? quite expendable 'for the cause' which is death to most of us.

still showing up here there & everywhere

should it not be considered that the domestic threats to all of us/our
freedoms be intervened on/removed, so we wouldn't be compelled to hide our
sentiments, &/or the truth, about ANYTHING, including the origins of the
hymenology council, & their sacred mission? with nothing left to hide,
there'd be room for so much more genuine quantifiable progress?

you call this 'weather'? much of our land masses/planet are going under
water, or burning up, as we fail to consider anything at all that really
matters, as we've been instructed that we must maintain our silence (our
last valid right?), to continue our 'safety' from... mounting terror.

meanwhile, back at the raunch; there are exceptions? the unmentionable
sociopath weapons peddlers are thriving in these times of worldwide
sufferance? the royals? our self appointed murderous neogod rulers? all
better than ok, thank..... us. their stipends/egos/disguises are secure,
so we'll all be ok/not killed by mistaken changes in the MANufactured
'weather', or being one of the unchosen 'too many' of us, etc...?

truth telling & disarming are the only mathematically & spiritually
correct options. read the teepeeleaks etchings. see you there?

diaperleaks group worldwide.

Oh Great (3, Insightful)

Xacid (560407) | about 3 years ago | (#36893380)

Now we're going to Slashdot them too!

Re:Oh Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36893560)

We are all Anonymous!

Obama got it right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36893404)

Obama told people to tell Congress they want an agreement rather than a default. I'm glad to see that the people responded and let Congress know it's time to quit playing partisan politics. The American people are uneasy about the lack of an agreement and I hope that's what they told Congress. I sent an e-mail to my representative (Clay) and senators (Blunt and McCaskill) and told them it's time to reach a balanced deal to protect the credit rating and avoid dipping into a deeper recession. I'll be writing again in a few days if an agreement isn't reached.

John Boehner is a piece of shit liar. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36893408)

The fucker lied about the President's plan right after the president explained he was for cuts and tax increases. Fucking John Boehner right after says, Obama wants to increase taxes and SPEND MORE.

What a fucking lying piece of shit. He should be removed from office. Fuck him, the Tea Party, and any other lying piece of shit that is out to bleed our country to death.

DDoS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36893438)

Sounds like a DDoS attack [xkcd.com] to me. These troublemakers are disrupting [zdnet.com] the daily business activities of critical public [talkingphilosophy.com] infrastructure and/or private business [lmgtfy.com] .

Scare Tactics (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36893444)

Funny how people can easily be manipulated with scare tactics and fear! The Government is very good at this.

Penquins Rescue Sinking House Speaker (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36893472)

Linux and Akamai to the rescue -- From Netcraft
site=johnboehner.house.gov

Linux Microsoft-IIS/6.0 27-Jul-2011 88.221.94.216 Akamai
Windows Server 2003 Microsoft-IIS/6.0 22-Oct-2009 143.228.239.199 Information Systems, U.S. House of Representatives
Windows Server 2003 Microsoft-IIS/6.0 3-Jan-2009 143.231.169.175 Information Systems, U.S. House of Representatives

Same happened with the stimulus (1)

hsmith (818216) | about 3 years ago | (#36893514)

They didn't give a fuck then, why would they give a fuck now?

Same happened when Obama rammed through his "Health Care Reforms" and - they didn't give a fuck then.

So now this is important because it is something Obama cares about?

They will not listen.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36893524)

Unless you have a credit card number ready....

Donations of $25,000 will get heard.
Donations higher than that will sway the vote slightly.

Honestly, Boner is incredibly out of touch and the Extremist Tea Party people that demand no new taxes are completely out of touch with reality.

There is TWO ways of fixing this.

More taxes and cuts.
Completely end all wars and all foreign aid by cutting the Defense budget by 60%. This means ending Homeland security funding so this will have terrorists flooding the airplanes so much that 80% of all people on airlines will be bomb carrying terrorists.

Also ending the wars on drugs, guns, mexicans, etc... This will result in the entire population of south america to suddenly stream into the United states with at least 50 tons of Cocaine and Pot on their backs each... That is 3X the weight of the earth in drugs in our streets!

Honestly people, Taxes needs to be raised. I'll be happy with ending the ENTIRE Bush tax cut package and raise everyone's taxes.

That coupled with deep cuts will fix the problem.

Great filters (3, Informative)

overshoot (39700) | about 3 years ago | (#36893548)

It won't make a damn bit of difference.

The Congressional filtering system is extremely efficient. No matter what you say, somehow you're always supporting the position that the Congresscritter has already taken.

I've been writing to "my" Congressional "representatives" for almost forty years, and even when I've bluntly said that Senator Bozo has a severe case of craniorectal insertion, I get a letter back thanking me for supporting him.

March on Washington! "We demand more debt!" (4, Funny)

Danathar (267989) | about 3 years ago | (#36893576)

So we should march on D.C. this week? What should I put on my sign? "More Debt NOW!"?

511? (1)

spottedkangaroo (451692) | about 3 years ago | (#36893616)

New status code needed:

HTTP ERROR 511: Website is Jammed.

Slashdotted (1)

alex67500 (1609333) | about 3 years ago | (#36893620)

Obama slashdotted his own communication services. Some people never learn hey?!

good one, Dan (1)

PJ6 (1151747) | about 3 years ago | (#36893632)

"and that was rectified early this morning"

Great doublespeak insinuating someone actively did something to fix the websites, when in reality the problem went away because people went to bed.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...