Stocks spike as Republicans offer solution, Apple still ripe

“U.S. stocks are sharply higher Thursday morning as the government shutdown and debt ceiling logjam appears to have been busted,” Scott Redler reports for Forbes.

“As Republicans in Congress held a news conference in Washington, the S&P 500 was up 1.44%, celebrating the idea of a short-term debt ceiling increase to avoid a calamitous default,” Redler reports. “Yesterday the Nasdaq finished negative, but there were sevearl tech stocks that held in relatively well and staged reversals (the ‘haves’).”

“Apple (AAPL) posted a smaller loss than the Nasdaq on Tuesday, and then yesterday staged a reversal to keep in the game for higher prices. The stock met some buyers at $478 and closed 1.2% higher, erasing most of Tuesday’s losses,” Redler reports. “AAPL is up to $490 Thursday morning. The next pivot to watch would be $492.65 from Monday’s high. A break and close above this could help AAPL clear the intermediate downtrend resistance.”

Read more in the full article here.


          1. All you Republicans are a joke. You are on an apple forum. Steve Jobs the founder of Apple was a liberal, his wife is a liberal and he is close friends with Bill Clinton and Al Gore.

            Steve Jobs also said that Fox News was a joke and should be ashamed for there right wing biased coverage of the news.

            Lastly Steve Jobs offered to help Barrack Obama with his re-election campaign. He offered to help Obama and the Democrats with their advertising.

            You republicans shouldn’t support Apple anymore as they are clearly a liberal organisation. May I suggest you guys buy some Samsung Products that’s probably a better fit.

            1. 1. I was criticizing those who castigated MDN for the headline when it was Forbes’.

              2. Apple, and any business, would do well to cater to the largest possible group of customers. This would include everyone, theoretically, but if you had to cater to the largest ideological group, it would be conservatives, not moderates, and certainly not liberals.

              Gallup: Conservatives outnumber Liberals by 2-to-1
              – 40% of Americans describe their views as conservative
              – 35% as moderate
              – 21% as liberal

              “Conservatives have become the single largest group, consistently outnumbering moderates since 2009 and outnumbering liberals by 2-to-1.”

            2. Rob – you have so eloquently stated why democrats are douches and we are at odds in this crises – the problem will only be solved when we agree to your solution and start to see things your way. Cry me a river… this country should default, because like most of America, that is entitled to receive without doing anything to earn it… we are broke. The sooner that we accept it and start acting like it as a nation, the sooner REAL recovery is going to happen.

    1. Well, they’ve pretty well made their Republican loyalties known in other articles and comments, so I’m not AT ALL surprised to see them give credit to the Republicans for a “solution,” when it’s just “giving themselves more time to try to force things to go their way using terrorist methods.”

      1. U.S. citizens voted for the composition of the U.S. House of Representatives. This is the voters’ choice. This is the will of the people.

        Gridlock is not always a bad thing. In fact, it’s usually a good thing. It can usually serve to stop abominations like Obamacare from ruining the country. Taking over 1/6ths of the U.S. economy for centralized control is doomed for failure. It’s also a job killer during a prolonged recession which was prolonged, of course, by Obama’s stupid, failed, meddling Keynesian policies.

        The problems you see today are the direct result of Democrats ramming a statist mess like Obamacare through without working with Republicans to garner some consensus. Compounded by the Supreme Court making up terms and basically writing a law, which they are not empowered to do. Obamacare received ZERO Republican support.

        Imagine the shoe on the other foot. Imagine Republicans rammed through a law to end Social Security in the same way (the country would be far better off, by the way). Would the opposition fight or just sit there passively and take it?

        This fight will not end. It was caused by the Democrats’ hubris in ramming through something that the majority of voters did not and still do not want. The voters sent people to the House to slam on the brakes. These patriots are following the will of the people.

        1. Any serious student of history and government can see clearly that the Founding Fathers DESIGNED the system to be inefficient, and plagued with gridlock. Why? Well, for one, they had just fought a war to be free of an “efficient” government, which trampled on their liberties in the name of efficient pursuit of the goals of the government. The idea was that something had to be either obviously a good idea, or obviously very important, to quickly get through the gauntlet of the Congress AND be approved by the President. In addition, they made very sure that it was difficult to change the law in a way that future governments could not easily undo (that is, to amend the Constitution), to the point that the Constitution has been amended only 17 (or 18, depending on how you look at it) times.

    2. They’re like Mafiosas: they are totally done with respect for the rule of law, and now just make threats until people give them whatever they want. Fsck them, and fsck everything they stand for.

    3. FACT: It is the Republicans that have passed the bills and cr’s to fund our government. It is the Democrats in the senate that failed to hold a vote and have shutdown the government. So yes, the Republicans have, once again, offered another solution…

      1. When you pack legislation with poison pills, it cannot pass. That is a fact.

        Obamacare the law of the land. Forty-one attempts to repeal it have been unsuccessful. It has been upheld by the Supreme Court. The Republicans need to stop holding other matters hostage in an attempt to get their ideological way. Whether Obamacare is a good thing or not remains to be seen, but it is irrelevant to funding the Government or to paying the bills that Congress has already incurred, by raising the debt ceiling.

        It is demonstrated that shutting down the Government and failure to authorize payment of our national debts is destabilizing to the economy and weakens the Government. This sounds a lot like treason in my book, given that the actions are deliberate and the consequences known.

        If the Republicans want to show leadership in reducing Government spending, they should vote themselves a 10% across the board pay cut. If they want to reduce entitlement spending, they should start with the retirement benefits that Congress is entitled to receive.

        Leadership is not pushing your way to the front of the line, because you are important, it is going to the back of the line, to make sure everyone has been taken care of. Republican politicians should try that some time.

        1. Debt ceiling and paying the bills are two separate issues. The bills will be paid (no default) regardless of what happens with the debt ceiling.

          There is no “authorize payment of our national debts.” The debt will be paid since tax money continues to flow in. I believe you are referring to authorizing the raising of the debt ceiling which is a separate issue.

          If the Republicans put forth a vote right now to reduce their pay or benefits everyone would laugh at them. It would be considered a drop in the bucket and not addressing the issues already on the table. That does not sound like a very good plan but that’s just my opinion.

          Like Democrats are “show[ing] leadership” to members of their party by not compromising and not voting to fund veterans affairs and other parts of government, House Republicans are “show[ing] leadership” to members of their party by putting forth a complete budget that funds everything except ACA and other bills to fund specific federal agencies. Take your pick.

          1. No authorization has everything to do with paying the bills that congress has already spent money on. That is specifically why we face default if the debt ceiling is not raised. There isn’t enough tax income to cover government services and pay down the debt (hence the deficit). So we finance our debt with more debt. The problem is if we congress doesn’t raise the debt ceiling we can’t borrow more money to make payments on the existing debt, thereby going into default.

            Democrats aren’t passing the small stop gap budget bills because it lowers their bargaining position later on, while the republicans attempt to look compassionate by passing funding bills for whatever agency happened to get bad press the day before. It sucks but it’s politics today. You have republicans that refuse to believe they lost the elections of 2006, 2008, and 2012 and only retain the house because of gerrymandered districts despite losing the overall popular vote in most states. Then you have democrats that have caved over and over to republicans holding the faith and credit of the country hostage. Now when the republicans are trying to defund the major accomplishment (good or bad) of the last 20 years by holding the budget hostage democrats are taking a stand.

            1. Correct that there may someday not be enough tax money to cover the debt and the government, but it’s the government services that go first, not the debt. The debt is paid first (it is an unconditional requirement). The debt ceiling is what allows for all of the feel-good programs and pork to get paid after the debt and after the essential services.


            2. Joe, while that is true of FUTURE spending. The Debt limit needs to be raised in order to pay for spending that has already been done. From a sort of accounting perspective think of it as payment on both notes payable and accounts payable. There is not enough tax revenue to pay for the services that were already rendered. So in order to pay for these debts (both actual notes and their related interest expense and accounts payable)the government needs to take out more debt to cover these expenses that are already due.


            3. Correct, debt ceiling negotiations may affect government programs. I’ve already agreed on this point. This does not directly relate to a “default.” It’s important not to tie to the two together. The government cannot “default.”

            4. Two reasons:

              1. Because the party not in power standardly gains some ground in the mid-terms.

              2. And because the Republicans “enhanced” this phenomenon by rearranging electoral boundaries to favor them.

            5. The reason the republican majority remains in the house is because the republicans were able to redraw the congressional districts after 2010 when they won control of the house. Basically what they did is move the district lines so that every seat was more solidly republican or more solidly democrat and less competitive. Say for instance you had two district that historically voted close to 50/50. Many of these districts often could be broken down into areas that are either more conservative or more liberal. So what they did is redraw the district lines so that now the votes would be more consistently 75/25 (this is a very rough explanation). By doing this even if the state overall voted say 60% democrat and 40% republican they maintained closer to a 50/50 split. This is especially prevalent near cities. Cities tend to be more predominantly liberal and rural/suburb areas tend to be more predominantly conservative. So if you have a district that overlapped the two areas you could redraw the map to break the areas apart. Thereby giving a bigger weight to the rural/suburb vote than to the city voters. This was done in the majority of districts and the maps cannot be changed until the next census is conducted. A study was conducted and determined that even with 75% of the nations votes, republicans would remain in control of the house due to these gerrymandered districts.

              For info on what it is – (note this is not a partisan site, both sides have taken part in gerrymandering in the past. This just describes what it is.)

              Also remember republicans did lose house seats in the 2012 elections, but again because of the gerrymandered districts despite winning the majority of votes, they did not retake control of the house..

          2. You clearly have no understanding of the debt ceiling or the federal budgeting process.

            House Republicans have made a number of demands on which they have conditioned passage of a debt-ceiling increase beyond October 2013:
            •Long term debt ceiling increase (allowing Treasury to borrow for the rest of Obama’s term): privatize Medicare and/or social security.
            •Medium term debt ceiling increase (allowing Treasury to borrow until sometime in 2015): cut food stamps, tinker with chained CPI, tax reform, agree to enact block-grant Medicaid or a large raise in the retirement age.
            •Short term debt ceiling increase (postponing default until sometime in the first half of 2014): means testing of social security, a small raise in the retirement age or ending agricultural subsidies.

            All of these are poison pills which make the passage of any of the legislation impossible.

            You can write a lot of words, but they follow the general rule of BS. That is “no matter how high you pile it , it’s just BS.”

            FYI – People are already laughing at the Republicans, you just can’t see it for the tears being shed for the country.

            1. Your points have not made things clearer for me. They only help solidify my reply to Ryan directly above yours. Correct, debt ceiling negotiations may affect government programs. I was attempting to point out that the debt ceiling is not tied to a default. Whether or not any government programs will be hurt there will still be no default. Did the link I posted for Ryan above help?

              Yes, people are already laughing at Republicans just as others are laughing at Democrats. Wouldn’t that still be a bad plan no matter which side proposed it?

            2. Again you and the article confuses this with future spending vs what has already been spent. Government is running a deficit and as such they have SPENT more revenue than they have RECEIVED in tax revenues. So the government needs to raise more debt to pay for the services they have already rendered. This is why it is silly to have a debt limit separate from budget bills. Budgets authorize future spending, debt limits bill allow the government to raise debt in order to pay for what was spent in that budget. The debt limit gives the government authority to raise debt to cover the deficit caused by the budget. So congress authorized the spending but are now saying they are unwilling to pay for it.

            3. Your reply adds nothing. We already agree that debt ceiling negotiations can affect paying for government programs. I think everyone understands this. The issue I have been trying to correct is that there is no direct connection between the debt ceiling and a federal government “default” on the national debt which is what some are either confused about or are intentionally using for fearmongering.

            4. It absolutely is tied together though. If the government doesn’t have the ability to raise money either through revenue or debt for the bills that are already due, then they can’t pay for the amount of that deficit between bills owed and the combination of allowed revenue and debt. If they can’t pay the bills that is the definition of default. I don’t necessarily adhere to the most dire forecasts of a limited default. But it WILL have an impact on credit rating and interest for ALL Americans. Boehner himself has in referring to the talks and the debt limit has said that to not use the threat of default is to surrender.

            5. I appreciate that you have your own definition of “default” as I’m sure a lot of people do but it’s not the one that anyone truly fears, the one worth really talking about, the national debt. That is the one that affects credit rating. You have (intentionally?) conflagulated two “default” definitions (Boehner’s “limited default” and the one that affects credit rating).


              I’m not interested in debating “limited default.”

  1. I wouldn’t say they offered a solution, it’s more like the Republicans started to look bad and let the government do what it was already going to do anyways before they got in the way.

    1. The negotiations happened when the ACA was being written, that’s why there is no single-payer option.

      So no, there’s no need for debate on a law that already passed, was enacted and that was upheld by the Supreme Court. The fact that even after 40+ attempts they don’t have the votes to overturn it doesn’t mean they get to demand “negotiation”, it means they lost.

      1. The law, as written, was not upheld by the Supreme Court.
        They stated the Federal government has the authority to tax people to pay for entitlements.

        ACA was not written as a tax.
        ACA was not originated in the House.

        Also, “there’s no need for debate on a law that already passed”
        Where would we be if that were true?

        1. Tower, it appears you have some reading on legislative and judicial procedure to do. Then when you have educated yourself, you can extricate your head from the sand. ACA is here to stay. Everyone agrees that future reforms are desirable, but stop whining and propose your reforms instead of claiming that what is done and constitutionally valid is not “right” in your incorrect view. Turn the page, man.

            1. Slavery was ended by Lincoln — a Republican!

              Let’s write some more entitlements. After all, it’s not our money being spent in Washington (but unfortunately it is our children’s money.)

            1. One can lead a horse to water…

              FACT: ACA was drafted in legislature and all parties were invited to committee meetings.
              FACT: ACA was specifically designed on past Republican-led reform proposals to make it more palatable than HillaryCare
              FACT: The Supreme Court has upheld the ACA against all legal challenges
              FACT: the ACA is funded, and over 40 attempts to defund it have failed
              FACT: the current executive is doing his duty by implementing the law of the land — a law that he advocated but DID NOT draft and DOES NOT legally have the right to alter
              FACT: In this constitutional republic, the minority does not rule, nor do public opinion polls conducted in gerrymandered districts.

              Get on with your life and stop whining.

              I am not a democrat, nor in any way defending the lobbyist-written ACA. I am defending the republic and its constitutional procedures that you seem to misunderstand and misrepresent.

            2. FACT: you are a Democrat.

              FACT: the Constitutional procedures were not followed to ‘draft’ this new tax.

              FACT: In our Constitutional Republic, ‘minorities’ ARE allowed to check legislation. They are also given added voting power through the Electoral College.

              FACT: you are STILL a Democrat.

            3. FACT: The Constitution, lays it out clearly that the House of Representatives has the right to provide funding – or not – for any law. That is legal and their prerogative.

              In the same manner, for the past 7 years (when Nancy Pelosi lead the House), they choose to defund fence building along the boarder. The law is there, but it has been defunded.

              I guess the Democrats are still keeping that law held hostage, by not fully implementing it, eh?

              Please people, understand how the system works, learn more and understand both sides play these strategic games for either their constituents back home, for political gain, or some might even ideologically be voting and standing for what they believe is right.

              Going off and being illogical and emoting is petty 3rd grade recess-like…

            4. “boarder” ?

              Clearly you are misinformed. The DHS froze funding because the “virtual fence” pushed by the Bush administration turned out to be much more technically challenging than originally thought.


              The military contractor, Boeing, screwed the pooch on the border fence, running way over budget and delivering a complicated product that did not work as promised. Essentially on the sections they did complete we have an alarm system that had so many false alarms that it is useless … and as we all know, any physical fence can be breached, even the Great Wall of China.

              The best thing to do was to cancel the contract and rely on LEO enforcement of the border. It saved taxpayer money. But by all means, go ahead and rewrite history to suit your partisan views, it only demonstrates how easily misled you are…

              oh, and if you’re all worried about people crossing the border, then you should be happy to know that deportation rates are near an all-time high.

          1. No. Everyone does not agree that “future reforms are desirable.”

            It’s interesting how nothing is ever over until they get their way. You can pass laws that they don’t like, and they’ll bring lawsuit after lawsuit and vow to fight on. They’ll continue to whine and harp and “revisit the issue” every chance they get. And then, once they finally get their way, they declare the issue to be settled.

            Well guess what. The issue is not settled. Obamacare is nothing more than redistribution of wealth. It is an infringement of liberty. And it will ruin the best healthcare system in the world.

            The House has the purse strings. That, too, is part of the democratic process. Choke on it.

            1. So, you don’t want any future reforms of the system? Hate to tell you, but healthcare has never been an efficient free market, and never will be.

              You think our prior healthcare system where taxpayers fund emergency room care for millions of non-paying freeloaders is a better system? It is absolutely better that they pay something for the services taxpayers are currently funding.

              Will there be winners and losers in the transition? Of course. Will any current taxpayer be significantly worse off financially than if the ACA hadn’t been implemented? All studies indicate NO. The FUD slung at the bill has been completely without data to support it, and on the contrary, “socialized medicine” schemes have proven overall better results at better value all around the world for decades.

              You claim to hate “socialism”, but what you’re really saying is you hate insurance. You don’t want to participate and think (almost certainly wrongly) that you will just save up enough money for whenever that healthcare emergency strikes you. That is classic self-delusion. The #1 reason for personal bankruptcy is health care expenses.

              Hate to break it to you, but redistribution of wealth has always happened. Now freeloaders will have to pay into the system, and you’ll have all the freedom you like in selecting the care you want, just as before. For the vast majority of people who wisely invest in health insurance, ACA forces no change. Of course, it won’t change a thing in the overall trend in healthcare costs, which will always increase since people always demand Cadillac care, dramatic life-extending procedures, and over-medicate themselves with the latest brand-name pharmaceuticals for their every little issue. Consumer behavior couldn’t possibly be the bigger problem, could it?

              You play Chicken Little so well…

        2. The USSC ruled that the ACA charges are a tax, and therefor, within the authority of Congress to impose. It’s that simple, and in plain english.

          The ACA is already a compromise advocated by the Republicans. So it appears that if you meet them half way they will simply stay where they are and ask you to meet them half way from your new position to their original one.

          After the Democratic gun control debacle I thought the REpublicans would be a shoo-in for controlling Congress, if not the White House after the 2016 elections. All they had to do was keep their mouths shut. I would have voted a straight Republican ticket myself. Now that they’ve demonstrated to one and all just how short they are on ethics and common sense they seem to have blown whatever advantage they might have had. I can’t vote for a Democrat, but I now can’t vote for a Republican either. I think I’ll just stay home next time.

      1. The GOP won the house as a result of the Obamacare being forced through the house. The current situation is the result. The house should ask Obama to submit an “actual” budget as part of the negotiations. They should also ask Obama to remove all of the “freebies” that he added after passage of Obamacare. Freebies like Unions get a pass on the “Cadillac” insurance tax of 40% over $10,000/year until 2018. Meanwhile the average middle class person such as myself had their insurance reduced 3 years ago as a result of obamacare.

        1. And the tea party kicked ass in 2012 by losing seats in the House, not taking over the Senate ( with the great candidate in Missouri ). Oh and by the way getting smoked in the Presidential election. Real mandate there!

    2. This isn’t a negotiation so much as a hostage situation. One side says “we don’t like this, and if you don’t do what we want we’ll burn down the house” then they proceed to be intractable over ESTABLISHED LAW.
      There were three elections to have the chance to derail the ACA, and they lost each one on the national scale.
      And then 41 separate attempts to defund the ACA whig all failed, a Supreme Court challenger which failed, so the last attempt is to stamp their feet and behave like children.
      Once the law is in place and running, then negotiating over tweaks and changes makes perfect sense, but by trying to never allow the law into practice simply because they don’t like it out of irrational reasoning or cognitive dissonance is nuts.
      Allow the law to take effect, as the democracy decided it should. The people voted for this, and they got it.
      If you go back to the Medicare debate in 1964 they were doing the same thing… The only real difference is the insane people, I.e. The Barry Goldwater wing of the party didn’t really have much if a voice, they were considered crazy. Even by Dwight Eisenhower and Nixon, which is saying something.
      Now you have a weak speaker in John Boehner who bows down to these idiots instead of keeping them in line all because he’s afraid of losing his job. Asshole.

      I’ve never revealed my political leanings at all, but I am a republican. And these ultra right wing crazy people are a detriment to my party. And an embarrassment to the GOP. They make us all look bad.
      Where did my party go? The place where I could he socially liberal and fiscally conservative without anyone giving a shit? Why can’t the sane people just make these idiots go back to the back bench where they belong.

      1. And screwing with out economy is beyond crazy. The debt limit isn’t even an increase in money allocation, it’s to repay the money we’ve ALREADY borrowed. Honestly they have no concept of basic economics or the harm they are causing. What the hell is wrong with these people.

            1. Cleaning up for the Bush / Cheney shit is probably harder than you think. Letting the sacrifice of our brave soldiers be wasted by not establishing a stable government would be the ultimate travesty.

          1. …seriously, you’re going with that? No matter what your political affiliation, the Washington times is not a reliable newspaper.


            Read this, and then you will see the entire history of the debt and how it relates to political parties and %of GDP. You learn this is Econ 101 freshman year… Did you take that class?

            Look, the debt went down from the end of WW2 until 1981 wen it rose again under the end of Carter and into Regan. Then it rose under Bush 1, and was reduced by Clinton, then it doubled (52.4%) under Bush, and by the current fiscal year has increased by 38.4% since the 2008 financial meltdown, which isn’t double. Currently the debt is at 63% GDP. Which pales in comparison to WW2 levels.

            Seriously, politics aside. Learn economics.

            1. Once again… Those have nothing to do with our discussion and I prescribe the same litmus test to the huffington post as the Washington times.

              Secondly, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are unecessary, expensive, and wrong. I don’t care thei the president is. We neve should have been there as long as we have, but the DOD does whatever they want.


              Third, your specific comment was related to the debt, and nothing to do with economic recovery. But since you mention it, FDR had to deal with the Great Depression, and it wasn’t until the spending of WW2 that the country really turned around. The debt decreased as a relation to GDP on the 50’s-60’s due to the economic growth of the period. Slow growth in this period can be traced to the 1999 .com bubble and repeal of the glass stegel act which was in place for the previous 70 years. Allowing commercial banks and investment banal to be separate instead of commingled. Too much austerity during economic strife exacerbates the problem instead of remedying it. It has to be a combination of tax relief, protectionist policies for manufacturing and free flow of wages for the middle class to spur the economy.
              Keynesian theory breaks down, but can be supplemented by free market solutions in order to create a hybrid approach that can sustain the economy for the long term.

              Also, policymic is a social network for opinion not news.

            2. re “fuck you, you’re a shill”


              That’s what you get for trying to discuss with botvijerk in a calm and reasoned manner. Don’t you know he’s ALWAYS right about EVERYTHING? And if you contradict him, or just say, anything he doesn’t like, he will rapidly degenerate to swearing and name-calling.

            3. And the daily caller is run by Tucker Carlson for profit and is in no way an unbiased source of information. Just like everything else you’ve posted. Be it right or left leaning.

              I give you encyclopedia articles and you respond with factually challenged slanted material.

              But, as you say I’m the “schill”

              Not really, certainly seems like you’re the one incapable of rational thought and arguments.

            4. Yes and your links are all from places which have an agenda, unlike an encyclopedia…

              go read some more. or at least learn a little history before you argue with someone, so you can use a cohesive thread instead of calling people names

            5. So I’m guessing you are incapable of ratio all arguments.

              There are there things in this world;
              Damned lies,
              And statistics.

              Anyone can make any set of numbers say anything. They want at anytime by simply manipulating the data points and questions.

              Once again, if you would actually read what I gave you, like I read yours, then maybe you can have a ratios l argument.

              But, you seem incapable of that and it’s impossible to reason with an uncritical mind that is already convinced and will not learn new information.

            6. The doubling of debt was an incorrect statistic in the article you posted which I read, your other post about a 500% increase in casualties cites no DoD information which can be referenced,
              and the article you posted form the daily caller is simply a statement from John Thune about the numbers. What he included in his numbers were the total jobs created from 2008-2013, without taking into account that from 2006-2008 the rate of job loss far exceeded the rate of addition.
              by doing this, he is able to say the participation in the program “increased ten fold” because the the total jobs created statistic does not begin under the current presidents term. the rate of creation without factoring in 2006-2008 is significantly higher


              Once again, I read yours… read mine

            7. No, my mouth doesn’t suck at anything.

              I’ve given you favs and you’ve only responded with vitriolic statements and documents which only support your assertions. I have given you completely neutral articles which describe the history of the ebony of the US, which if you would take the time to read you would understand the complexities of the problem.

              The main issue is, that being a socially liberal conservative seems to not be kosher anymore. Even economically, if I don’t hate our current president I must be a “schill” as you put it.

              Well I am no schill, but George W was not a republican in my estimation either. His father was, and I liked him as president.
              I also liked Bill Clinton, regardless of his issues with his Johnson.
              I thought Nixon did a decent job of running the county also, and that jimmy carter was bad. But, my clear divergence with my own party is that I did not agree with Ronald Regan, I thought he wasnt a good president.
              My personal feelings aside of our current president, he’s still the president.
              Secondly, my party has no viable candidates to run. Before John McCain went crazy he could’ve done a good job, but it was the bullshit smear job busy dd on him in SC in 1999 that ruined his chances. I would’ve loved a McCain presidency from 2000-2008. I sincerely think he wouldn’t have been as bad.
              But ultimately you seem completely incapable of rational discussion

            1. So I’m guessing you are incapable of ratio all arguments.

              There are there things in this world;
              Damned lies,
              And statistics.

              Anyone can make any set of numbers say anything. They want at anytime by simply manipulating the data points and questions.

              Once again, if you would actually read what I gave you, like I read yours, then maybe you can have a ratios l argument.

              But, you seem incapable of that and it’s impossible to reason with an uncritical mind that is already convinced and will not learn new information.

              and the washington times will skew anything to suit their own agenda, as will fox, msnbc, Huff po, ny post, wsj, etc…

      2. You forget, slavery and segregation were also deemed legal by the Supreme Court.

        What Roberts did by *changing* the aca to be considered a tax… By LAW it would have to be passed by the house first. Remember it wasn’t…

        O’s 37% approval is not even mentioned by pretty much any media.. 5 years in and he is at 37% by the same poll that gave Bush a 37% 6 years in…. And the media was estatic.

        Also came out that the military death benefits being cut was known long before it happened, all it would have taken was a signature by O. But he refused to do so… Until the benefits were cut.

        Also the ONLY way we could default on the debt, is if O refuses to pay it. The spending limit has nothing to do with it.

        But I’m posting this on a liberal biased tech blog. (Not MDN, but the majority of the posters here) so 95% of you will not even dare to do any research on your own… Msnbc didn’t give you the ok to do so.

        1. Dude, there is no bias here.
          Yes sergegation and slavery were deemed legal until they were challenged by the people and the law was shanked for the better… But in each case, the laws were allowed to into effect and their effects realized.
          Slavery required a constitutional amendment in addition to the emancipation proclamation. And the civil rights act was able to over turn the segregation issue. And in both cases the Supreme Court over turned their decisions based on the social wants of the democracy at the time.
          Just like now, the people vote for what they want. That’s how it works…
          We may disagree and we fight for what we believe in.
          I, for example believe in market solutions and limited government and complete social freedom. But my party no longer exists. And that is why I’m sad.

          1. And again, you show you don’t actually know the law.

            Tower tone has it right.
            Tax, must be started in house.
            The aca has not been properly passed, therefore it is not law.
            you just want to let the left win

            1. I never said he was wrong about the originaton of the law…

              My point is that it was voted on, and passed, challenged, and up help. Therefore, it is allowed by the rules of our democratic process to go forward into law.

              If it has issues, then the people will demand changes. That’s how the system works.

              So, regardless of the origination of the law that is the facts of the case at hand. There have been many laws that did not originate in the house which are written as taxes, such as Medicare part D and similar legislative achievements like the FDA, EPA, and Nixons original healthcare act which created HMO’s… So that is simply not the proper argument to attempt to defeat the measure.
              The measure has been passed into law, therefore it goes into effect without opposition until the people clamor for a change in the next election cycle. That’s how it works.

              Whether I like it or not, I will defend our system or democratic rule over this minority bullshit which seems to he happening. That is not the Republican Party I grew up with, not is it the one to which I belong.
              It is obstructionist bullshit, and has no basis in how this country should be run.

              If we disagree, we disagree. That’s what makes this country great. But in the end, the MAJORITY rules whether we like it or not. And the people got what they said they wanted. Therefore, for now we accept it, see where it goes, and makes changes AFTER the law is in effect. Period.
              That’s how we’ve done thjngs for 237 years since the continental congress voted for war 7-6 of the 13 colonies. Let’s just let our system work itself out.

            2. Perhaps you should contact the press and tell them you’ve everything figured out now. It was all so clear it’s a wonder we’re still arguing about it.

        2. Not to pick nits, but majority of MDN’s audience here (those that post coments, that is) is conservative (in relation to American politics, to be precise).

          Some time ago, I wasn’t quite sure of this, since both sides claimed of bias towards the other, so i did some research. I picked five recent stories with the highest number of comments (literally ALL of them were highly political, not much if anything to do with Apple). I counted the posts based on the political take (conservative, liberal, neutral). For the most part, the ratio was 70-30 in favour of conservative posters.

          So much for the myth that most Mac users are liberals. They may be, but only outside of America.

        1. He can’t. The executive branch only has the authority to change allocation of funds and implementation by HHS who runs the program.
          Similar to how the VA works and Medicare. HHS runs it every day and can make implimenation changes but not chanes in the law it self. All changes to laws require passage by both houses of congress and signature by the president.
          The president can issue executive orders but when challenged by congress they need to have full sport by both houses.
          Do you understand how our republic works?

            1. As were several of the offers the Republicans made to postpone ALL payers and not just the cherry-picked ones, or for ALL citizens to be added to the system, including Congress.

              Why did the Democrats not go for these offers?
              Wouldn’t either be more fair to all?

              (also, nice dodge on the ‘implementation’. That WAS part of the law. Why not just postpone it’s entirety indefinitely?)

            2. I wasn’t dodging, I was making my point.

              I don’t disagree with you on principle that there are a lot of changes that should be made. However it is still the law and we can make those adjustments after it goes into effect.

              That’s where the executive orders come in, and can be utilized.
              Honestly, the fact that congress is still drawing a salary during this shut down is criminal. and the exepmtions for congressional staffers I believe is something to be included.

              I can’t honestly tell you why some of these people don’t do the right thing, or vote in their constituents best interest. It boggles my mind, but bc it all comes down to whoever wrote the biggest check it won’t change unless there is a fundamental rethinking of the process as a whole which generally eliminates soft money and pacs.

              The main issue is, that the opponents of the law have no interest in doing the right thing, they simply want to delay the law from going into effect so it can carry them into the next election cycle and they can keep their jobs. Thats the cynical and I believe correct reason.

              If the law were written for the benefit of everyone, we would allow our private insurers to compete openly, and have the true cost of the care provided be accessible to the public which it is not. What i’ve found the most interesting is that this approach has worked on the state level in massachusetts, whether it will work nationally, we do not know yet.

              which is why we must allow the law to go into effect and see how the system develops, then we make changes after the fact to improve the program.

              and if it doesn’t work, then we get rid of it.

            3. Sorry, VOR. Once entitlements are established, they don’t go away, hence the ‘backed in a corner’ reality we Conservatives are facing.

              If this were just about making healthcare affordable and helping those less fortunate, we would not be having this discussion. I know of no one against those goals.

              However, if you actually do have the ‘reason’ you profess in your eponym, then you know this bill is much, much more than making healthcare affordable (which it won’t).

            4. Like I said, I don’t disagree with you on principle. And you’re right, if the fight were just about making it affordable for everyone I think reason may prevail, however That just doesn’t seem like thats what anyone wants.

              My biggest problem is that anytime there is something of this importance to be discussed, the reasonable people are never listened too. And I do not like the direction my party is headed, I just don’t understand the neo-conservative wing of the party, I don’t feel welcome anymore.

              But i’m not a democrat, so I’m stuck. Now with this law, on the exchanges there are good things. no pre existing conditions, things like that. In all reality the simplest solution would be to subject the health insurance companies to the same anti-trust laws that everyone else is subjected to. I think that would be the biggest way to fix the system… then there would have to be open competition.

              what do you think?

      3. Although I am would like to reduce the amount of political content on this forum, I have to applaud your post, VoR. I, too, consider myself to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

        I believe in appropriately-sized government and personal responsibility. I also believe strongly in protecting the environment – water, air, forests, oceans. Most people who go on vacation choose a place that offers natural beauty. Why abuse the environment just to make a buck?

        My point is that it is possible to hold a variety of positions on government, money, religion, environment, etc. without cleaving to a political party or platform. I vote for the best candidate (as I see it), whether Republican, Democrat, Independent, Libertarian, etc. Far too often in recent years I have had to choose the lesser of evils rather than the better of good options.

        This two-party system has to go. It is broken and only represents a subset of the American public. George Washington was right.

        1. Yes he was. Honestly at this point no parties would make a lot more sense than two.
          Thank you, independent and frustrated, for articulating that.
          Honestly, where do we go? Just being in the center doesn’t seem to be enough anymore.
          And you’re right, the lesser of two evils has been my approach for a long time. It is getting very frustrating.

    3. I’m truly curious, what would have happened if the other side offered their own version: pass comprehensive gun control law and marriage equality law, if you want to reopen the government.

      What’s interesting is that the most ideological conservatives seem to believe that the government shutdown is actually even good, saving some money that would otherwise be wasted. Perhaps in a way blood-letting used to be a cure for a lot of ailments several centuries ago…. until the patient dies.

      And the awkward situation is that the most powerful business lobbies (Chamber of Commerce, etc) are now distancing themselves from most of those ultra-conservative republicans and trying to force them to re-open the damn government, or there will be no campaign money next time.

      The American political system is amazingly dysfunctional, and it is only getting worse and worse!

      1. You make great point. And I completely agree with you, I honestly can’t understand the irrational nature of their actions. It literally makes no sense.
        And it’s harmful. It sucks to admit when your party is wrong, but they are wrong. And I sincerely hope that the big money interests don’t give any more cash to these people.
        Out system is a mess. It’s organized bribery.

  2. The GOP is full of it. This is the second time on the debt ceiling and the 3rd or 4th time on a shut down. Why just put a band aid in which it can be fixed the first time around? This is all the tea party’s falt for splintering the GOP. Bainer needs to take control if they ever want to be in the White House again.

    1. Six months ago both the House and the Senate passed budgets. The normal procedure is to name a conference committee which hashes out the differences then sends the compromise bill back to both chambers for approval. The GOP in both chambers has for six months blocked the naming of a conference committee this here we are taking hostages over a continuing resolution.

      1. indeed.

        In fact, the Republicans are disingenuous when they claim that a budget hasn’t been passed in years. Both parties have begun to exercise extreme brinksmanship, which has been broken only when market harm has been inflicted and logjams are broken only by short-term “continuing resolutions” which merely extend current spending levels. Furthermore, both corrupt parties continually insert pork and ideologically-charged legislation into financial bills, ensuring that long-term government funding will never occur — at least not until an awake public votes the partisans out and demands citizen representation to replace the spreading partisanship.

        It makes one wish that the founding fathers would have had enough foresight to ban political parties altogether.

        1. well, Mike, if you weren’t a total fucking idiot, you would already know that there wasn’t a two-party system during the founding fathers’ era…it was created in middle 1860’s during Andrew Jackson’s period.

          “The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissention, which in different ages & countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders & miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security & repose in the absolute power of an Individual: and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.” — George Washington, September 19, 1796

          1. “well, Mike, if you weren’t a total fucking idiot”

            hannahjs, are you there? Do you really still want to defend this “cancer on this forum” (KingMel)?

            I think it’s pretty much like defending a wife batterer or member of the Klan because you think he sometimes says a funny, clever or political insightful thing. I don’t agree that he does — but even if he did so, it would not excuse his pathetically immature and poisonous behavior.

            1. hypocrisy
              — noun, plural hy·poc·ri·sies.

              a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
              a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.
              an act or instance of hypocrisy.

            2. Simply calling me a hypocrite, botvijerk, does nothing to negate that fact that you are a nasty, poisonous little shit.

              One would think a Great One, possessed of your omniscience and infallibility would have more compassion for the rest of creation — y’ know, like Christ or a bodhisattva or Santa Claus — or something.

            3. So how does that work? Other people should do that but not you?

              Just on this page, botvijerk
              – if you weren’t a total fucking idiot
              – idiot
              – fuck you, you’re a shill.

              I’m merely giving you a little of the kind of language you SO often give others…. you poisonous little shit.

            4. If I’m cranky, how do you describe your language:
              – if you weren’t a total fucking idiot
              – idiot
              – fuck you, you’re a shill.

          2. Well, obstinate bot twit, if you knew your history, you would know that partisanship reared its ugly head from the very first Continental Congress. It took many years before these groups took on the formality they do today and hijacked the electoral system.

            … and no, i will not do your research. You can find proof of this in the biographies and autobiographies of most any patriot of the era.

            1. Oh, all right, I’ll do your research for you, argumentative bot, since you seem to get so many things wrong.

              Andrew Jackson was president from 1829-1837, after more than one generation of political parties had come and gone.

              The primary split in political leanings following the revolution was between “Federalists” (George Washington, John Adams, Alex Hamilton, etc) and “Democratic-Republicans” (Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, etc).

              Today’s entrenched political parties represent little in common with those parties — or even the SAME party — of just a few generations ago. It is disingenuous to judge historical figures in today’s poisonous partisan atmosphere. Eisenhower, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and even Hoover would be far too liberal to win the Republican nomination today — probably because a large portion of the Republican party self-identified themselves as Progressives back then. Likewise, few people today understand how conservative most Democrats really are on most issues. For example, an objective assessment of F.D. Roosevelt’s New Deal shows that most of them were continuations and modest expansions of Hoover’s belated initiatives. Few of the “New Deal” programs were actually initiated by FDR himself, and he intended them to be temporary measures to cure the desperate times. When the economy swung back in the late ’30’s, FDR prematurely attempted to balance the budget in 1938, only to send the economy back into a lull until the 1942 entry into WW2. FDR was no bleeding liberal, he merely acted to avert national crisis with what tools he had.

              Current parties are both corrupt and self-serving, and even less cooperative than when fist fights used to break out in the House of Representatives between abolitionists and slaveholders.

    1. Apparently no one thinks that debt is a problem. Did anyone notice that the article leads with a statement about the debt ceiling? Not ObamaCare! In 2007 no one thought mortgage debt was a problem. Turns out it was a HUGE problem. Are you staking your cred that the national debt is not a problem?? Seriously??

  3. Whoa, where am I? Isn’t this the forum for Rush worshippers? Isn’t this the FOX Apple forum. I have never seen so much reason and intelligence on any MDN form. Where are the TeaBagger nut cases today?
    Isn’t this the hate everything government forum? I am confused.

  4. The republicans are repulsive morons who don’t know wtf they’re doing and pay severely in the next election. They don’t give a damn about anything but their own twisted agenda. I fear them more than Putin, more than bin Laden. Enough about that. I still believe that MDN should keep politics out of here. If they won’t, I won’t, meanwhile losing respect for far too many people I’d rather hear from about tech and Apple.

  5. What a bunch of immature twats! The extortionist party in the House, which claims to care about business, the economy, and fiscal health of the union, has spent the entire congressional session avoiding any fiscal or tax reform. Now they roil markets by offering a 6 week extension of funds so they can roil the markets again in December.

    This is no way to operate a nation. Congress holds the purse strings, but it’s continual efforts to make partisan gestures instead of wise governance is getting old. Businesses, like individuals, claim to like stability. It is entirely on Boehner’s shoulders to bring funding and reform bills to the floor that benefit ALL the nation, not just the whiny idiots in the minority that have no goals but to sabotage all government functions.

    The districts that voted in these partisan A-holes should be un-gerrymandered immediately, and every single congressman should be docked in pay for the entire time that they refused to fund the rest of the federal government.

    … and Apple should have put its Mac Pro manufacturing facility in the growing Rust Belt instead of into Texas. Sorry, but there is no need to “mess with Texas”, it’s already completely screwed up with hyper-partisan idealogues.

    1. “Sorry, but there is no need to “mess with Texas”, it’s already completely screwed up with hyper-partisan idealogues.”

      Got to disagree with you there, Mike. Texas is building a fine future for America on the world stage by teaching in schools that dinosaurs were on the Ark. This generation of students will do really well in technology and science, which, to say the least, are “somewhat” important in the modern world.

  6. Getting really tired of the one-sided headlines and other pro-Republican rhetoric on your website. The Republicans have held a gun to the heads of the entire nation over a law that they had five bites of the apple to dismantle or stop (and which they lost every time). Their actions are a disgrace and their solution is for but six weeks and doesn’t even reopen the government. Please stop kissing their butts and stick to the tech. Thank you.

  7. I hate taking sides but the Republicans are really being ridiculous. The Repubs want to take away healthcare for Americans or at least have corporations provide expensive shoddy healthcare and don’t want government managing healthcare at any level but they themselves get free healthcare.

    I’m fine with Ryan’s plan because it makes the most sense and doesn’t hijack the country just because the Republicans hate everything Obama does. So childish!

    1. LOL. No, they do not want to take away healthcare for Americans. Does anyone honestly believe that? Healthcare under ACA isn’t getting any cheaper and if you think it’s “shoddy” now, just wait…

        1. Regarding the first article you kindly linked:

          Since we cannot read minds, we cannot say who — if anybody — “wants to shut down the government.”

          We don’t have to read minds. The Tea Party has been entirely specific that they DID and DO want to ‘shut down the government. That too is a matter of record. It is treasonous behavior, no matter what Constitutional duties are quoted. Go read the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. As I said: Treasonous behavior.

          So what we have are TWO ‘rival’ parties insistent upon treasonous behavior regarding their own special pet peeves. Dump the BOTH.

          …Now I’m going to go read the second article. 😀

        2. Regarding the Moody’s memo. How nice of them to be kinder in opinion regarding the current debt limit crisis. You can still bet they’ll ding down the US credit rating ANYWAY. AND, they have no concept of the Constitutional obligations of the US government to pay for its debt under any and ALL circumstances. There are no exceptions except as designated in the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. Let me quote the applicable paragraph:

          Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

          Considering this Constitutional law, any action can be taken, no doubt it will be the executive branch to take it, to make certain that our debts are paid. That means yet another precedent for further ‘special powers’ of the executive branch, like we need any more of them.

          Again I find myself back at the conclusion that our entire current US legislature requires being thrown out and replaced with actual, factual patriots who will actually, factually defend the US Constitution. The current legislature is, by definition, treasonous. And considering that this crisis was INVENTED by the current corrupted version of the Republicans, I’d suggest putting them on the scaffold first.

          1. Correct, it will get paid. Tax collection is still alive and well so there is no need for any new powers.

            Therefore, there should be no fear that there will be a “default” and the debt ceiling is not tied to it.

            1. The ‘new powers’ will be whatever President Obama decides will be done to fulfill the requirements of the 14th Amendment. This is an entirely unprecedented situation that will result in an entirely unprecedented response, specifically by the executive branch.

              IMHO this will be yet another concentration of power over the government by the executive branch, never a good thing.

            2. It hasn’t, not in the USA. Meanwhile, in Germany they have such fiasco’s prepared for and have a legal procedure for over-riding such insanity with a continuing government and continued debt payments. Or so I am told by one of my brother-friends.

            3. Sorry if I wasn’t clear. There have been many battles over years over debt ceilings and funding the government. This is not new. There has not been and will not be a default.

            1. There are two set up like dominoes:

              1) No budget, therefore the current government shutdown. That is an invention specific to the current… Republicans. AKA an invented ‘crisis’ akin to the ‘Pearl Harbor Moment’ the Neo-Cons have used before and love using again in order to damage the USA to their benefit. And damage they have.

              2) Next week we get to experience going past the debt ceiling, the event that cannot occur as per the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. That too will be an invented crisis specific to the current… Republicans.

              Note that I hold sorting out the actual budget and debt problems as entirely separate and real, as opposed to the current baloney/treasonous inventions of the Republicans.

              I’m taking a break from this horror for today as I have my limits of stress tolerance. It’s time for something good in my day. So long until another day.

            2. They are not dominoes. Whether the debt ceiling is raised or not, the debt will still be paid. There will be no default regardless of what happens with the debt ceiling.

            3. Joe,

              You are full of too many facts for a lot of the regulars here.
              I congratulate your effort, though. And patience.

              “It’s like Y2K, TARP and the Sequester all over again….”
              Fear and ignorance trumps facts and reality in modern American politics.

  8. What ‘solution’?

    All the current, corrupted rendition of the Republicans are offering is to delay PAYING RANSOM for the government functionality they kidnapped. To hell with that shit. No doubt they’ll turn this into another opportunity to puke forth further deceitful rhetoric to fool people into believing this ENTIRE crisis isn’t their specific INVENTION for the sake of catapulting forth their usual ‘Starve The Beast’ horror.

    This is a treasonous, worthless, POS party. The Republicans didn’t used to be that way. The Neo-Cons and their puppets the ‘Tea Party’ MADE it this way. To hell with them.

    Oh and to hell with you too Democrats. Welcome to the ramifications of ramming an unfinished, incompetent health bill through Congress. For that, you get your own deserved Karma.


  9. Apple is A Company that values everything against the shit that the fucks like Icahnn and other BS,,Tea Fuckers and other Tea Wankers can short Apple asses long they want. I have several words for you and it is STFU!

  10. I will post a few thoughts from widely respected journalist James Fallows regarding the tantrum being thrown by the Teabaggers in Washington.

    1) Just last year, a presidential election was fought over this exact issue, along with economic policy more broadly. When the votes came in, Barack Obama scored a runaway Electoral College win — and became the first person since Dwight Eisenhower to get more than 51% of the popular vote TWICE.
    2) In that year’s elections for the Senate, the Democrats increased their majority by two seats and overall received 10 MILLION+ more votes than ALL Republican candidates.
    3) And last year even in the elections for the House, Democrats — who for better or worse were forced to run on Obamacare and the president’s economic policies — gained 8 seats and received 1.7 million more votes than did ALL Republican candidates COMBINED.”

    My note- if it were not for gerrymandering, Speaker Pelosi would be in charge and we would not be going through this exercise in insanity.

    Fallows Quote:

    1. By ‘gerrymandering’, do you mean how ACA was rammed down our throats like a drunken Barney Frank date?

      If this is so ‘popular’, and the Republicans so ‘evil and stupid’ why these numbers?

      (Maybe you haven’t seen this. I wouldn’t doubt it. I’ve heard nothing in the mainstream media, so I can’t hold it against you)

      Now, maybe you don’t hear both sides of the argument, hence you have no clue what is happening in the ‘hinterland’, so again, can’t hold that against you, being in that media bubble and a all.

    2. I think Fallows is a columnist, which might put him over on the Hannity side of journalism as compared to the Cronkite side. (Note: That’s a wide chasm. I’m not saying he’s just like Hannity.)

      I don’t think anyone could really make a solid case the 2012 election was precisely about Obamacare. I don’t even think it was marginally about Obamacare. I think the Obama campaign worked to position both as backers of Obamacare by pointing out Romneycare in MA and wanting people to somehow believe they were the same thing, which our naive populace was all too happy to do.

      As far as the House and Senate, the elections that were the most effective read on the public’s view of Obamacare were the ones in 2010 right after the bill’s passing. Trying to somehow suggest it was the 2012 elections that served as the judgment is disingenuous as best.

  11. All you Republicans are a joke. You are on an apple forum. Steve Jobs the founder of Apple was a liberal, his wife is a liberal and he is close friends with Bill Clinton and Al Gore.

    Steve Jobs also said that Fox News was a joke and should be ashamed for there right wing biased coverage of the news.

    Lastly Steve Jobs offered to help Barrack Obama with his re-election campaign. He offered to help Obama and the Democrats with their advertising.

    You republicans shouldn’t support Apple anymore as they are clearly a liberal organisation. May I suggest you guys buy some Samsung Products that’s probably a better fit.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.