SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic

Joined: Dec 06 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 11244

Optimist With Doubts wrote:

I don't think obama directly can be blamed for this. The house republicans might not like his initial plans but it seems like it would be favorable to swallow the budget for now for the sake of the people. And later renegotiate when the government isn;t at stake.

Now with the clock running out, he has no direct power that can fix it. If he had taken action a month ago, he could have used political influence to make this right before it came to this.

My issue with Obama over his term isn't the choices he makes, it is the lack of them.

The presidency should not be a wishy washing position that juggles the desires of two political parties to remain in control of Congress. He should be leading and directing. The nation, including businesses and politicians really would follow his lead... if he were half the man he presented during his election campaign. And that is my problem with Obama, and why he is to blame for this. His lack of and or weak presence in this country.

Why is everyone so worried about lawyering him out based on his birth location? Even if that was a viable option, the real solution is to try and get him to be a good president for then next 2 years, not to further fuck up the country and insight our armed forces to disband or rebel.

Posted: Apr 07 2011 08:18 am

GPFontaine wrote:

Optimist With Doubts wrote:

I don't think obama directly can be blamed for this. The house republicans might not like his initial plans but it seems like it would be favorable to swallow the budget for now for the sake of the people. And later renegotiate when the government isn;t at stake.

Now with the clock running out, he has no direct power that can fix it. If he had taken action a month ago, he could have used political influence to make this right before it came to this.

My issue with Obama over his term isn't the choices he makes, it is the lack of them.

The presidency should not be a wishy washing position that juggles the desires of two political parties to remain in control of Congress. He should be leading and directing. The nation, including businesses and politicians really would follow his lead... if he were half the man he presented during his election campaign. And that is my problem with Obama, and why he is to blame for this. His lack of and or weak presence in this country.

Why is everyone so worried about lawyering him out based on his birth location? Even if that was a viable option, the real solution is to try and get him to be a good president for then next 2 years, not to further fuck up the country and insight our armed forces to disband or rebel.

I concur heartily. At this point, he really needs to start sac'ing up if he's going to win another term (unless they run a crackpot as his 'opposition' in the next presidential election). I also think we need to hugely overhaul the abilities of any government official to recieve funding from corporations or lobbyists. If they weren't getting comped dinners, taxpayer-paid luxury cars and weekends living high on the hog and subsidized by corporate interests, maybe they'd start caring more about actual people again. I know it's a stretch, but still. As voters and taxpayers, we need to take a very long look in the mirror, get more involved with our country instead of allowing geegaws like smartphones and the Intarwubs to soak up all our time, and use our ability to vote to send a very clear message to government that they work for us and not big business. We also really need to start acting in a fiscally responsible fashion, both on a micro and macro level. No country or person can sustain themselves on credit, because the well is only so deep no matter how much the digger lies.

Posted: Apr 07 2011 03:55 pm

Related event:

Madison, WI (April 6, 2011) - On April 5, voters in South Central Wisconsin approved two historic referenda by overwhelming margins. These referenda asked whether voters support amending the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations are not people and money is not speech. The City of Madison referendum passed with 84% of the vote, and the similar Dane County referendum passed with 78%.

These referenda are the first anywhere in the country to call for a constitutional amendment in response to the Supreme Court's Citizens United vs. FEC decision. Members of South Central Wisconsin Move to Amend (SCWMTA), the local group that pushed for the referenda, believe they will not be the last. "Amending the Constitution will not be easy, and to succeed people across the country will need to stand up and demand it," says Kaja Rebane, SCWMTA Co-Chair. "We hope our success will inspire others to organize their own efforts."

The 2010 Citizens United case declared that limiting the amount corporations can spend to influence elections would violate the "free speech rights" of corporate "people" under the First Amendment. National polls have shown broad opposition to the Citizens United decision (85% of Democrats, 81% of Independents, 76% of Republicans), and widespread support for a constitutional amendment to undo it (87% of Democrats, 82% of Independents, 68% of Republicans).

"This really is common sense. Even a small child can tell the difference between a corporation and a living, breathing human being. How can this be so hard for the Supreme Court to understand?" asks Madison resident Kevin Gundlach.

The idea that money is protected "speech" is also a major issue. "Have you ever been at a meeting where one loudmouth talks over everyone else? Then you understand the problem," adds Kaja Rebane. "In a democracy, citizens need to be able to hear different viewpoints in order to make informed decisions. But when the loudest are permitted to yell as much as they want, the rest of our voices cannot be heard."

These two referenda represent an important first step towards undoing the Citizens United decision and reclaiming American democracy, so that it once again serves "We the People" instead of "We the Corporations."

Posted: Apr 07 2011 03:59 pm

That's fantastic, and good for them. Now we all have to try and follow suit. I also think that we severely need to tighten up 'perks' given to Senators, Representatives, etc, by corporate concerns. Here in AZ, there's a furor already starting over the whole Fiesta Bowl debacle, and it's about damn time.

Posted: Apr 07 2011 04:06 pm

Couldn't agree more.

I think the American people are all starting to get pretty fed the fuck up over all of this.

Joined: Aug 04 2009 Posts: 2515

Posted: Apr 07 2011 04:55 pm

I love that. Their should be no monetary advantages between candidates. No if they could just change the election process to be based on the Popular vote. I wonder what excuses people would come up with if the Big Oil companies are no longer allowed to contribute.

Posted: Apr 07 2011 04:59 pm

Mostly because I've been busy with my senior thesis and everything, I have ignored this, but could someone nail down a couple key points as to what would happen with a shutdown?

Posted: Apr 07 2011 05:55 pm

Slayer1 wrote:

Mostly because I've been busy with my senior thesis and everything, I have ignored this, but could someone nail down a couple key points as to what would happen with a shutdown?

Off the top of my head.

Military stops getting paid. BUT will be back paid for all time missed.
Government Contractors Deemed "Non-Essential" Will not be paid or back paid.
All Government funded Museums and Parks will close down.
Medical Clinical Testing will stop (if Federally Funded)

I'm sure others can add.

Posted: Apr 07 2011 06:20 pm

Basically, Atma covered the most salient points. Unemployment will still be paid and yes, government non-essentials will qualify for it if it's protracted. The mail will still go out on time (it's only a quasi-federal company). The IRS won't be sending out income tax checks (but still expects payments to be submitted, because heaven forbid they don't get their fucking slice out of you).

Of course, you can count on your local, state and federal officials to keep clearing their fucking checks. They wouldn't hurt each other by doing their jobs, now would they?

Posted: Apr 07 2011 07:00 pm

I really hope Military retirement isnt put on hold because that would seriously suck for my family

Posted: Apr 07 2011 07:10 pm

SnesGuy wrote:

I really hope Military retirement isnt put on hold because that would seriously suck for my family

They Specifically mentioned that Military Retirement pay would NOT stop.

Posted: Apr 07 2011 08:28 pm

This question goes out to my fellow military people: are you being affected by the government shutdown?

I was supposed to have Guard drill this weekend, but it was canceled due to the budget not passing. (Which is great, I'll miss the paycheck, but the extra time to write will be well worth it. And originally there was talk of making us drill *without pay.*) On the ROTC side of things, there are (so far) unconfirmed rumors that we won't be getting our mid-April or first of May paychecks.

Anyone else dealing with this?

Posted: Apr 07 2011 08:56 pm

Atma wrote:

SnesGuy wrote:

I really hope Military retirement isnt put on hold because that would seriously suck for my family

They Specifically mentioned that Military Retirement pay would NOT stop.

YAY!

I'm sorry for everyone else Confused

Posted: Apr 08 2011 12:08 pm

Great News for me, and anyone else who has their Pay Direct Deposited into Navy Federal Credit Union.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20110407/pl_usnw/DC79691

Quote:

One major initiative is to cover the April 15 payroll for those active duty members who have their direct deposit of pay at Navy Federal. "By covering the mid-month pay, come April 15 our active duty members will not see a difference in their direct deposit amount, as if there were no shutdown," added Dawson.

Other steps Navy Federal is taking include expedited approvals for lines of credit, overdraft programs and credit card limits. Credit union officials reported that many members were already taking advantage of its recently announced 0%, no fee balance transfer credit card offer.

Wow, that's really all I can say. I never expected my Bank to front me basically a 0% loan on my pay, Automatically.

Posted: Apr 08 2011 12:17 pm

Atma wrote:

Great News for me, and anyone else who has their Pay Direct Deposited into Navy Federal Credit Union.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20110407/pl_usnw/DC79691

Quote:

One major initiative is to cover the April 15 payroll for those active duty members who have their direct deposit of pay at Navy Federal. "By covering the mid-month pay, come April 15 our active duty members will not see a difference in their direct deposit amount, as if there were no shutdown," added Dawson.

Other steps Navy Federal is taking include expedited approvals for lines of credit, overdraft programs and credit card limits. Credit union officials reported that many members were already taking advantage of its recently announced 0%, no fee balance transfer credit card offer.

Wow, that's really all I can say. I never expected my Bank to front me basically a 0% loan on my pay, Automatically.

I'd actually thought that'd be a really great idea for some bank or credit union to do. I"m glad to see that you'll be getting full pay. Hopefully the other banks, especially ones that service the armed forces, adopt similar solutions.

Title: Titlating Joined: Dec 17 2007 Posts: 5042

Appearently the big issue around the lack of movement from the gop is the issue of funding planned parenthood.

Posted: Apr 08 2011 01:00 pm

Optimist With Doubts wrote:

Appearently the big issue around the lack of movement from the gop is the issue of funding planned parenthood.

The big issue is that this was supposed to have been resolved October 2010. If you didn't do the most important element of your job in six months, would you be fired?

Posted: Apr 08 2011 02:11 pm

SoldierHawk wrote:

there are (so far) unconfirmed rumors that we won't be getting our mid-April or first of May paychecks.

Not in the Military (God knows I tried), but I have a question for you:

Is it really wise of a government to not pay the people who have control of all the government weapons?

Posted: Apr 08 2011 03:05 pm

http://www.sydlexia.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=15207&start=0

tl;dr
Yes it did, and now no it's not, for the time being.

I was going to only get paid up to the 8th, but my Bank is fucking awesome, and they covering all Active Duty Military Checks if your pay is direct deposited to them.

Posted: Apr 08 2011 03:21 pm

Crap, sorry Atma. Somehow I completely missed your thread. I'll merge 'em now.

Also: yay for your bank! Who do you use? (Educated guess: Navy Federal? I've considered switching to them; I've heard good things.)

Posted: Apr 08 2011 03:27 pm

SoldierHawk wrote:

Crap, sorry Atma. Somehow I completely missed your thread. I'll merge 'em now.

Also: yay for your bank! Who do you use? (Educated guess: Navy Federal? I've considered switching to them; I've heard good things.)

My wife's brother and father have both had very solid experiences with Navy Federal during the latter's last tour and before the former got booted for being an ultimate retard.

Posted: Apr 08 2011 03:38 pm

CALGARY - President Barrack Obama has waded into the murky oilsands debate, suggesting the resource is potentially "destructive."

As the U.S. government ponders approving Calgary-based TransCanada Corporation's Keystone pipeline, the U.S. president took aim at Alberta's oilsands Wednesday, saying there are many environmental questions that still need to be answered.

Referring to the oilsands as "tarsands," Obama acknowledged Canada as a friendly exporter to the U.S. but questioned how environmentally friendly the resource is.

"These tar sands, there are some environmental questions about how destructive they are, potentially, what are the dangers there, and we've got to examine all those questions," Obama

The proposed US $13 billion Keystone pipeline will extend 2,673 km from Hardisty, Alta., through Saskatchewan, Montana, South Dakota and Nebraska.

Obama's remarks came days after Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff came out swinging against the oilsands in the midst of the federal election, proposing a a national cap-and-trade scheme to reduce carbon emissions, the issue of Alberta's crude came under the spotlight again during a town hall meeting on energy in Pennsylvania.

Calgary oil and gas analyst Peter Linder said Obama has no choice but to accept Alberta's oil via the pricey pipeline.

"The bottom line is that the U.S. really has no choice but to take this oil," he said, adding the president has stated his objective is to reduce importing oil from the Middle East.

"So there is no way he can achieve that objective without reliance on oil from Canada, which means the oilsands -- we are the only friendly supply of oil to the U.S."

He said Obama is walking a tightrope.

"On the one hand, he has to appease the environmentalists, on the other hand he has to be reasonable and logical," Linder said.

Alberta Energy spokesman Jay O'Neill said he doesn't forsee Obama's words as being harmful to the relationship between the two nations and that the president just isn't educated about the environmental measures taken in developing the oilsands.

"I think our message has always been that we do have a safe and secure supply and we develop the resource responsibly," he said.

"Those are key areas to people who want to know where their resource comes from.

"We do have a safe resource -- maybe we just need to tell him it's oilsands, not tarsands."

O'Neill added that about 20% of the U.S.'s crude comes from Alberta and the Keystone pipeline would carry an economical benefit, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs.

food for thought...

More Jobs vs. The Environment, what would you guys rather see your President do?

Posted: Apr 08 2011 03:56 pm

Make it illegal to have Wall Street speculate on oil and bring back stricter fiscal legistlation (the deregulation of which helped precipitate our economic crash of the late naughties)? Make strident moves to allow more access to American oil and wean us off of dependence of OPEC, or, at the very least start charging a much more commensurate amount for food/water traded for oil? Stop giving billions in federal funding to countries that hate our guts and would actively try to kill us if they could? Ditch the IMF and nationalize the Fed? You do realize that, despite the governmental freeze, the US government will be putting billions of dollars more for the IMF's bailout of Portugal, right?

In short: take the power out of the 1% of the population with money, bring it back to the rest of us

Posted: Apr 08 2011 03:59 pm

I like the cut of your jib aeonic