[quaist]

Her unofficial PAC, 'Ready For Hillary', is not far away from reaching its 1,000,000th Facebook 'like'.

So she's got a huge amount of support behind her already, should she really decide to run.

And, if I were in the US, she'd have me as a campaign volunteer for sure

[sunnykerr]

I do think she'd be a great President.

Meanwhile, there's good news for the United States:

US house prices in biggest annual rise for seven years US house prices rose 12.4% over the 12 months to the end of July, the biggest annual increase since February 2006, according to a closely-watched measure. The rise was revealed in the latest S&P/Case-Shiller Home Price Index. The index measures single-family home prices across 20 cities, with 13 cities showing a rising annual growth rate. Last week, the US Federal Reserve decided to maintain its effort to boost the economy, which involves buying $85bn worth of assets every month. That scheme, known as quantitative easing (QE), is credited with boosting the housing market last year by driving down mortgage rates to record lows. However, David Blitzer from S&P Dow Jones Indices said that effect had worn off. "Following the increase in mortgage rates beginning last May, applications for mortgages have dropped, suggesting that rising interest rates are affecting housing. "The Fed's announcement last week that QE3 bond buying will continue for the time being may have only a limited, though favourable, impact on housing," he said. Prices rose 0.6% on a seasonally adjusted basis in July compared with the month before, which was lower than analysts' forecasts and down from June's increase of 0.9%. Regaining ground Las Vegas saw the biggest annual gain of 27.5%, while San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego all saw rises of more than 20%. But the survey points out that house prices in those cities are still well below the peaks hit before the 2008 financial crisis. Of the 20 cities surveyed, New York saw the lowest annual increase of 3.5%. Detroit, which filed for bankruptcy in July, saw an annual growth rate of 16.9%. However, the report says that Detroit is the only city where house prices are still below the levels reached in January 2000.

Obviously, it'll be the same inequality as ever, but this is overall good news.

[quaist]

Around here, such news would be considered cataclysmic, but I guess it's a good thing for the US

[sunnykerr]

I honestly have no idea what any of it means, to be honest.

Apparently, it's a sign of economic recovery.

That's what they say, so that's all I know.

[sunnykerr]

Of course, here we go again:

US braces for possible government shutdown The US government is bracing for a possible shutdown, as Republicans and Democrats in Congress remain deadlocked on a budget to continue its funding. Agencies have begun making contingency plans ahead of the 1 October deadline to pass a new funding resolution. The Senate has passed a bill to fund the government until 15 November. But House Republicans have said they refuse to approve the bill without a provision to strip funding from President Barack Obama's health law. The Senate is controlled by Mr Obama's Democratic party, while the Republicans hold the majority in the House of Representatives. As a result, lawmakers are at a stalemate as the deadline approaches. Government agencies have been selecting workers considered essential should funds stop flowing. Obama exhorts conservatives The looming shutdown is one of two fiscal crises facing the US government. On 17 October, the US treasury department's authority to borrow money to fund its debt obligations expires unless Congress approves a rise in the so-called debt ceiling. On Friday afternoon, President Barack Obama urged House Republicans to pass the Senate's stopgap budget bill and to extend the debt limit, and demanded they not threaten to "burn the house down because you haven't gotten 100% of your way". Mr Obama said if the nation were to default on its debt, it would have a "profound destabilising effect" on the world economy. "Voting for the treasury to pay its bills is not a concession to me," he said. "No-one gets to hurt our economy... just because there are a couple of laws [they] don't like." He described the healthcare law as "a done deal" and said the Republican-backed repeal effort was "not going to happen". Mr Obama said the Senate had "acted responsibly" in passing the budget measure and that now it was up to Republicans in the House of Representatives "to do the same". Civilian cuts If the government does shut down on 1 October, as many as a third of its 2.1 million employees are expected to stop work - with no guarantee of back pay once the deadlock is resolved. National parks and the Smithsonian museums in the nation's capital would close, pension and veterans' benefit cheques would be delayed, and visa and passport applications would be stymied. Programmes deemed essential, such as air traffic control and food inspections, would continue. The defence department has advised employees that uniformed members of the military will continue on "normal duty status", but "large numbers" of civilian workers will be told to stay home. Last week, the US House of Representatives approved a bill that would maintain the US government's funding levels until 15 November but strip funding from Mr Obama's health law, known as Obamacare. On Friday the Senate passed a version of the bill with the defunding provision removed 54-44, largely on party lines. "The Senate has acted and we've done it with bipartisan co-operation. We've passed the only bill that can avert a government shutdown Monday night," Democratic Senate leader Harry Reid said. "This is it, time is gone."

There's much more to it on the site.

But, really, all I'm seeing is that the Republican Party is throwing a massive tantrum over the best health-care legislation the United States has seen in its history.

And it's a legislation that passed, so really, their holding the nation hostage because it passed is so juvenile that it makes me see red a little.

We have to live with the gun laws being this stupid, why can't they nut up about decent health care being a reality for once?

Of course, they don't care. They already have the best health care money can buy, and they don't have to pay a red cent for it since they get it by virtue of being government employees.

[Jerry D]

This looming government shutdown really disenchants me because it’s all due to political grandstanding on both sides. I especially hate that Ted Cruz is a Senator from the state that I live in, because he’s a self-serving opportunist trying to push his own agenda to further his Presidential ambitions. He doesn't care about the American people or the effect a Government shutdown might have, and neither do all the other people involved in pushing us, once again, to the brink of another fiscal crisis that will have at least a short term negative impact on many Americans, like our Senior Citizens who depend on their Social Security checks to survive.

[quaist]

I can only echo what you two have already pointed out so well. It is absolutely beyond me what the GOP is expecting of recurringly pushing the budget funding to the edge like that.

Voters are able to put two and two together and will hopefully punish such ridiculous behavior in 2014 and 2016.

[ds44]

this argument about healthcare is bothersom. The use of the term of "obamacare" is also really disrespectful. I can't with this argument that the single payer system doesn't work and the fact that they are insinuating that poor americans with no healthcare get better care than poor Canadians who are covered. Yes, there are long wait times but that's due to the conservative cuts of the 90s because they aren't buying as much equipment and our doctors are running to work int he us (where they can make close 1-2 million a year as opposed to the 350,000 pay cap they get here). My mother got better care for her cancer treatment in Canada than she did in New York State.

[sunnykerr]

The only thing I can hope is that the U.S. voters do put two and two together.

Because, I'll echo Shu's sentiment here.

The Canadian health-care system, as a matter of example, is far from perfect.

But it's miles better than leaving it up to corporations.



And the manipulation at play here?

It's mind-boggling to me.

[ds44]

Originally Posted by sunnykerr (View Post) The only thing I can hope is that the U.S. voters do put two and two together. Because, I'll echo Shu's sentiment here. The Canadian health-care system, as a matter of example, is far from perfect. But it's miles better than leaving it up to corporations. And the manipulation at play here? It's mind-boggling to me.

exactly it has its problem but the manipulation and blatant lies boggle my mind.

[Joce Paradox]

Originally Posted by quaist (View Post) I can only echo what you two have already pointed out so well. It is absolutely beyond me what the GOP is expecting of recurringly pushing the budget funding to the edge like that. Voters are able to put two and two together and will hopefully punish such ridiculous behavior in 2014 and 2016.

I think the majority of them aren't out for helping Americans, they just want to look good to the more extreme sides of their party that will help them get elected in 2014 or the primaries for the 2016 Presidential race. Just look at Ted Cruz, it's pretty obvious he's just trying to get everyone's attention.

[quaist]

Originally Posted by Joce Paradox (View Post) I think the majority of them aren't out for helping Americans, they just want to look good to the more extreme sides of their party that will help them get elected in 2014 or the primaries for the 2016 Presidential race. Just look at Ted Cruz, it's pretty obvious he's just trying to get everyone's attention.

Of course that makes perfect sense from the individual politician's point of view, but I still fail to see how a party advocating against affordable health care for everyone still has such a wide base amongst the electorate.

Don't people grasp how the GOP is basically only making politics for corporate America and the rich as it is now?

[sunnykerr]

I don't know.

From where I'm sitting, it seems obvious that the Democrats can't get their act together and the Republicans are there to support corporate rights and not much else.

Makes it hard to trust that there will be an outcome to this that will be favourable to the people of the United States.

And, meanwhile, Senate has refused a new version of the bill that the House sent to them.

The House Republicans have three hours to put on their big boy and big girl pants here.

But they don't want to, do they?

[ds44]

Originally Posted by sunnykerr (View Post) I don't know. From where I'm sitting, it seems obvious that the Democrats can't get their act together and the Republicans are there to support corporate rights and not much else. Makes it hard to trust that there will be an outcome to this that will be favourable to the people of the United States. And, meanwhile, Senate has refused a new version of the bill that the House sent to them. The House Republicans have three hours to put on their big boy and big girl pants here. But they don't want to, do they?

the truth of the matter is that the democrats are as much pro-corporation as the republicans. They just aren't as blatant about it. This is why there needs to party and campaign finance reform.

[sunnykerr]

That is certainly true.

Professional politicians in the United States have a vested interest in corporations.

(And I dare say, the United States isn't the only place where that's true. But, this being the U.S. political discussion thread, I won't venture into that.)

At present, though, the Democrats aren't the one holding government hostage.