Gov. Shutdown?

[mrs.b]

The Big Bang Theory is just that, a theory. It would not be called a theory if it were proven as fact. I asked my ultra-religious friend once how God came into existence. He said that God always was because He exists outside of time and space. In other words, there is no explanation for how a supernatural being of no mass came into existence and how He created matter. I don't see how this is any easier to believe than the Big Bang Theory.

This one statement sums up why religious debate of any kind, save with individuals who are inclined to agree with one's already-assumed belief system, is flawed. Belief in a religion requires faith, because none of us can categorically prove our chosen diety exists. Belief that no diety(ies) exist requires faith, because none of us can categorically prove that statement true, either. We have all made a leap of faith to believe in what we do. Since it becomes so fundamental to us, our logic system is driven by it, and anything outside it sounds illogical. This, in my opinon, is why all religious debates end up with participants insisting their opponents' points are illogical. Are they, or are they just outside our own individual realm of experiences to frame an understanding?

Every single one of us has personal life experiences that set up the belief system that stands as the basis for our attitudes and decisions. Unless others have lived and experienced similar, chances are our belief systems will differ anywhere from slightly to significantly. We can all probably accept the Universal Truth that all humans are mortal, but not a single human on this planet can say with absolute certainty what happens after our mortal flames wink out. We all have faith about that point, whatever that faith might be. I have my faith, you have yours (even if it is to think you have no faith), and somehow the world keeps on spinning despite these differences.

[sanantone]

This one statement sums up why religious debate of any kind, save with individuals who are inclined to agree with one's already-assumed belief system, is flawed. Belief in a religion requires faith, because none of us can categorically prove our chosen diety exists. Belief that no diety(ies) exist requires faith, because none of us can categorically prove that statement true, either. We have all made a leap of faith to believe in what we do. Since it becomes so fundamental to us, our logic system is driven by it, and anything outside it sounds illogical. This, in my opinon, is why all religious debates end up with participants insisting their opponents' points are illogical. Are they, or are they just outside our own individual realm of experiences to frame an understanding?

Every single one of us has personal life experiences that set up the belief system that stands as the basis for our attitudes and decisions. Unless others have lived and experienced similar, chances are our belief systems will differ anywhere from slightly to significantly. We can all probably accept the Universal Truth that all humans are mortal, but not a single human on this planet can say with absolute certainty what happens after our mortal flames wink out. We all have faith about that point, whatever that faith might be. I have my faith, you have yours (even if it is to think you have no faith), and somehow the world keeps on spinning despite these differences.

I'm actually spiritual, but I'm not religious. Since no atheists have spoken up in this thread, I'm left debating people who feel like they know for sure there is a deity(ies). I understand where both sides are coming from, but I also believe that agnostics and atheists have the stronger argument. As I said before, anyone can make up anything that's never been observed and tell people they can't prove its nonexistence.

[Jonathan Whatley]

Midland Texas

Midland Texas, Sean [Hannity] said (if I remember correctly), is the only town in Texas or possibly in the U.S. that has a ZERO unemployment rate!!!!
Why is that?

That is because it is an oil town! They drill for oil and are very successful.

Let's see what the mayor and residents of Midland have to share.

MIDLAND — In a faded West Texas town dotted with vacant buildings and potholed streets is a sparkling storefront window and a curious display: rows of diamond-studded Rolex watches, awaiting buyers whose pockets are packed with oil money.

The surge in oil drilling has drawn money and men like a magnet to run-down communities that haven't seen a boom since the 1980s.

But leaders and residents here are increasingly mindful that the runaway riches tapped by hydraulic fracturing will eventually run out. And they are determined to live by a fondly remembered bumper sticker from the last bust: Please, God, give me another oil boom and I promise not to blow it. So some towns are taking steps to ensure they land softly rather than crash into economic ruin.

"Don't go overboard. It's not going to last," Midland Mayor Wes Perry wants to shout, as a reminder to his own neighbors and a warning to communities in Pennsylvania and elsewhere that have never boomed like this, let alone endured a bust on par with the one Texas experienced a generation ago.

For now, Midland is the picture of prosperity. Since 2008, sales tax revenue has shot up from $24 million a year to more than $38 million in 2013. The unemployment rate is the lowest in Texas, hovering just above 3 percent. The town has hundreds of unfilled jobs.

A local Subway pays $15 an hour with a $1,000 starting bonus. Housing is so scarce that modest hotel rooms go for $300 a night.

This, longtime residents know, is what an oil boom looks like. And it's always been followed by a steep, painful decline.

Booming oil towns prepare for inevitable bust (The Associated Press, via MyWestTexas.com / Midland Reporter-Telegram, October 15, 2013)

[quasarvs]

I didn't mean to cast any doubt or aspersion on Hannity or Beck because they're conservative. I'm very ready to listen to conservatives, present company included. I do question Hannity and Beck's crying wolf about coming economic apocalypse because that's exactly what paid spokesmen for a gold company would cry. As for the Mother Jones article, on page 1:





The criticism here is that Hannity is biased about economic alarm not as a conservative, but as a paid spokesman for a gold company. I think the criticism stands independent of Hannity's politics and Mother Jones'.

There's nothing wrong with questioning motivations, but in this particular case on this issue I think Hannity is right.

fwiw, I'm not a Bill Maher fan at all. I don't share his anti-religiousness, his vaccine denialism is wrong and dangerous, and he's personally nasty. Granted, he's an adult comedian, but not my thing.


We agree here.


Congress passed the ACA (Obamacare) and Congress sets taxes. A clean vote in both houses of Congress today clearly wouldn't repeal the ACA, repeal it in large part or delay it in large part. Supporters of the ACA, Democrats and two Independents, hold a clear majority in the Senate. Seems to me a grown-up way to deal with this would be for conservative opponents of the ACA to campaign against the law and hope to win over enough Senators – or Senate seats – not to stomp their feet and refuse to fund the government today.

What the Republicans did was a legitimate government action.
Trying to win each other over is what Senators do all day when they discuss and debate with each other over issues. In this case it was not working.

• Sticking to debt ceilings: The debt ceiling is based on commitments by Congress to pay for obligations Congress has already assumed. United States debt ceiling (Wikipedia).

Granted. However, it is unwise to avoid capping the debt ceiling where it stands, as Congress has determined it, in order to begin eliminating debt versus creating more.

• Drilling here and now for energy: President Obama in his 2013 State of the Union Address: "[T]he natural gas boom has led to cleaner power and greater energy independence. We need to encourage that. And that’s why my administration will keep cutting red tape and speeding up new oil and gas permits. (Applause.) That’s got to be part of an all-of-the-above plan. But I also want to work with this Congress to encourage the research and technology that helps natural gas burn even cleaner and protects our air and our water."

No. He did not do what he said he was going to.
President Obama Finances Offshore Drilling in Brazil - WSJ.com
Obama Signals Cracks In The Proposed Keystone Pipeline - Forbes

In the State of the Union, he speaks to this at length within the first few minutes. "Our work must begin by making some basic decisions about our budget -- decisions that will have a huge impact on the strength of our recovery. Over the last few years, both parties have worked together to reduce the deficit by more than $2.5 trillion -- mostly through spending cuts, but also by raising tax rates on the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans. As a result, we are more than halfway towards the goal of $4 trillion in deficit reduction that economists say we need to stabilize our finances. Now we need to finish the job." He goes on to discuss tax reform and entitlement reform including containing health care spending.

I think ACA is a good enough example of Obama's "attempts" to reform and reduce spending.
Included in that would be the ACA website debacle.

[quasarvs]

Let's see what the mayor and residents of Midland have to share.



Booming oil towns prepare for inevitable bust (The Associated Press, via MyWestTexas.com / Midland Reporter-Telegram, October 15, 2013)

Now there's a piece of nifty news.
So it won't last...?
What's the matter with trying to use it while we can to reduce our national debt?

[sanantone]

Granted. However, it is unwise to avoid capping the debt ceiling where it stands, as Congress has determined it, in order to begin eliminating debt versus creating more.

It doesn't work that way. Not raising the debt ceiling does not make our debt disappear or allow us to borrow more. The easiest way to put it is that the debt ceiling is a credit card that is used to pay our debts; it does not create debt. The debt is created by the appropriations bills that are passed. If we do not raise the credit limit (debt ceiling), we will not have enough money to make payments on the debts we already have. This means we will default, our credit rating will take a hit, and the government and everyone in the country will pay higher interest rates on everything. The value of the dollar would also drop. Since the U.S. dollar is the world's standard currency and people and governments hold so much of our debt, us defaulting could cause a global depression.

[Jonathan Whatley]

No. He did not do what he said he was going to.
President Obama Finances Offshore Drilling in Brazil - WSJ.com
Obama Signals Cracks In The Proposed Keystone Pipeline - Forbes

Neither of these links really speak to the claim that Obama is standing in the way of U.S. drilling activity at all. The first link is about the administration supporting offshore drilling by U.S. ally Brazil, not opposing drilling domestically. It attacks Obama for standing in the way of U.S. drilling in a quick aside with no evidence. The second link is about environmental review of proposals from a Canadian company, TransCanada Corp., to build extensions to their pipeline very largely to import Canadian oil into the U.S. The Keystone extensions would also pick up some U.S. oil, but I haven't seen any claim or evidence that any U.S. drilling activity depends on TransCanada's building extensions to Keystone.

[quasarvs]

Sanantone: I understand all that.
My point is that increasing the debt ceiling is not the right way to deal prevent default. The debt ceiling limit should remain the same, and the government should cut out all unnecessary programs and extra spending to remedy the debt crisis.

Jonathan: This link supports my point.
http://naturalresources.house.gov/news/d...tID=267985

[sanantone]

Not raising the debt ceiling will not resolve the debt crisis or worsen it; all it will do is cause us to default on our debt and make future debt more expensive. The way to resolve the debt crisis is to pass budgets that are lower than the revenues that are coming in eventually making it so that we don't have to raise the debt ceiling in the future. We could also make the revenues higher than the budgets. Taxes are at a historic low. Again, the debt ceiling does not prevent debt; it pays for the debt we already have. The debt ceiling remaining the same does not increase or even stop our debt from growing. The appropriations bills create debt. In order to prevent debt, you deal with the root of the problem. The root is revenue vs. spending, not using our credit card (the debt ceiling) to pay the debt we've already created.

Imagine using your debit card to buy groceries. You overdraw your account leaving you $500 in the hole. Since you don't have enough money to put your account back into positive territory, you take out a cash advance from your credit card to put in your bank account. However, you have a limit of $250 to take out of your credit card. How are you going to cover the rest of the deficit in your bank account? You would have to increase the amount of money you can take out of the credit card. Not raising the limit on your credit card is not going to make the deficit go away. If you don't pay it, the bank is going to close your account, and you're going to have a really hard time opening another one. The way you prevent this from happening next time is to not spend more money at the grocery store than you have in the bank. It has nothing to do with your credit card; it has everything to do with how much you're spending vs. how much you put in the bank. If you insist on keeping your spending levels the same, then you're going to have to make more money to stay out of debt.

[quasarvs]

Not raising the debt ceiling will not resolve the debt crisis or worsen it; all it will do is cause us to default on our debt and make future debt more expensive. 1. The way to resolve the debt crisis is to pass budgets that are lower than the revenues that are coming in eventually making it so that we don't have to raise the debt ceiling in the future. We could also make the revenues higher than the budgets. Taxes are at a historic low. Again, the debt ceiling does not prevent debt; it pays for the debt we already have. The debt ceiling remaining the same does not increase or even stop our debt from growing. 2.The appropriations bills create debt. In order to prevent debt, you deal with the root of the problem. The root is revenue vs. spending, not using our credit card (the debt ceiling) to pay the debt we've already created.

Well I would appreciate seeing your evidence that taxes are at a historic low; especially when including Obamacare.

Again as I said before I understand debt ceiling credit card example.
But we have two different opinions on solving the debt issue.
Apparently your opinion is basically the historic democrat position of raising taxes to continue to fund the existing & extra unnecessary and unconstitutional government programs.

1. Exactly, and the only way we do that is by not implementing programs that are too expensive and that rob from some people to give to other people. People should be responsible for & to themselves for their general well being including their healthcare.

2. So why not get rid of laws such as ACA that increase spending in order to keep spending under our government's incoming revenue?