New Congress takes office today - what should they do differently

  • 70 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for whipassmt
#1 Posted by whipassmt (15375 posts) -

So today the 113th Congress begins its session, what are some things you think they should do different.

I think a good place to start would be for each house to bring up bills passed by the other house for a vote. From what I remember in the previous Congress there were a lot of complaints that the House would pass a bill and the Senate would never schedule a vote on it. What the new Congress should do is schedule a vote on a bill if it passes either house, if the bill then gets voted down or filibustered in the other house so be it, but at least it gets a vote.

Avatar image for CreasianDevaili
#2 Posted by CreasianDevaili (4371 posts) -
Work. At least try to somewhat represent the ideals of an assembly of representatives who are there to manage different priorities into something that compromises equally to ensure fairness to all. Or they can just keep on being a large public masturbation convention.
Avatar image for whipassmt
#3 Posted by whipassmt (15375 posts) -

update: John Boehner has been re-elected as Speaker of the House, defeating Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi as his main challenger.

Some Republicans voted for other Republican contenders that they felt were more fiscally conservative and would oppose making deals that involve tax increases. Four Republicans voted for Eric Cantor, though Cantor himself voted for Boehner. Two Republicans voted to nominate Allen West as Speaker, while Democrats laughed because Allen West is no longer a member of the House and thus is ineligible to be Speaker.

Avatar image for surrealnumber5
#4 Posted by surrealnumber5 (23044 posts) -

declare the US bankrupt and go through debt restructuring

Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
#5 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

declare the US bankrupt and go through debt restructuring

surrealnumber5

Dumbest thing I've heard all day

And I'm arguing with droid about sports right now so that's saying something

Avatar image for JML897
#6 Posted by JML897 (33134 posts) -

Four Republicans voted for Eric Cantor, though Cantor himself voted for Boehner. Two Republicans voted to nominate Allen West as Speaker, while Democrats laughed because Allen West is no longer a member of the House and thus is ineligible to be Speaker.

whipassmt

Everything about this quote is hilarious to me

Avatar image for dercoo
#7 Posted by dercoo (12555 posts) -

:lol:Like it will change

Avatar image for surrealnumber5
#8 Posted by surrealnumber5 (23044 posts) -

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

declare the US bankrupt and go through debt restructuring

-Sun_Tzu-

Dumbest thing I've heard all day

as you dont think debt has any meaning, i can see why you would say that.

Avatar image for Abbeten
#9 Posted by Abbeten (3140 posts) -

declare the US bankrupt and go through debt restructuring

surrealnumber5
ahahahahahahaha oh my god
Avatar image for whipassmt
#10 Posted by whipassmt (15375 posts) -

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

declare the US bankrupt and go through debt restructuring

-Sun_Tzu-

Dumbest thing I've heard all day

And I'm arguing with droid about sports right now so that's saying something

lol.

Avatar image for whipassmt
#11 Posted by whipassmt (15375 posts) -

declare the US bankrupt and go through debt restructuring

surrealnumber5

that wouldn't be fair to the people we borrowed money from.

Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
#12 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -
[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

declare the US bankrupt and go through debt restructuring

Dumbest thing I've heard all day

as you dont think debt has any mean, i can see why you would say that.

Please explain how the US is bankrupt
Avatar image for Cloud_Insurance
#13 Posted by Cloud_Insurance (3279 posts) -

Disband and start over or let the states govern themselves

Avatar image for CreasianDevaili
#14 Posted by CreasianDevaili (4371 posts) -

Disband and start over or let the states govern themselves

Cloud_Insurance
So you support Ohio finally annexing Michigan through aggressive takeover?
Avatar image for o0squishy0o
#15 Posted by o0squishy0o (2792 posts) -
[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Dumbest thing I've heard all day-Sun_Tzu-
as you dont think debt has any mean, i can see why you would say that.

Please explain how the US is bankrupt

Please explain how America plans to pay off an amount of money that if stacked ontop of each other in $50 notes would more than likely end up peaking in outer space. Please explain how America has "that money" if someone asked for it straight up. They dont. Simply put they never will have.
Avatar image for surrealnumber5
#16 Posted by surrealnumber5 (23044 posts) -
[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Dumbest thing I've heard all day-Sun_Tzu-
as you dont think debt has any mean, i can see why you would say that.

Please explain how the US is bankrupt

it spends more than it takes in and is over the 100% debt to gdp, that you told me a few years ago would not happen.
Avatar image for surrealnumber5
#17 Posted by surrealnumber5 (23044 posts) -

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

declare the US bankrupt and go through debt restructuring

whipassmt

that wouldn't be fair to the people we borrowed money from.

a penny now is better than nothing tomorrow, that does not even require a time value of money calculation

Avatar image for Vickman178
#18 Posted by Vickman178 (866 posts) -

Protect the 2nd Amendment.

Avatar image for Serraph105
#19 Posted by Serraph105 (32261 posts) -
Spend time with each other outside of work, work together, fight less, care less about politics, care more about the people.
Avatar image for Vickman178
#20 Posted by Vickman178 (866 posts) -

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Dumbest thing I've heard all day-Sun_Tzu-
as you dont think debt has any mean, i can see why you would say that.

Please explain how the US is bankrupt

16.4 trillion dollars of debt isn't bankrupt to you?

Avatar image for Cloud_Insurance
#21 Posted by Cloud_Insurance (3279 posts) -

[QUOTE="Cloud_Insurance"]

Disband and start over or let the states govern themselves

CreasianDevaili

So you support Ohio finally annexing Michigan through aggressive takeover?

Ohio already got Toledo, they have suffered enough.

Go Bucks

Avatar image for whipassmt
#22 Posted by whipassmt (15375 posts) -

Spend time with each other outside of work, work together, fight less, care less about politics, care more about the people. Serraph105
Maybe they should room together in a big Congressional hotel, run a reality show on C-SPAN and use the advertising revenue to help balance the budget.

Avatar image for Abbeten
#23 Posted by Abbeten (3140 posts) -
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] as you dont think debt has any mean, i can see why you would say that. surrealnumber5
Please explain how the US is bankrupt

it spends more than it takes in and is over the 100% debt to gdp, that you told me a few years ago would not happen.

okay. so? that's nowhere near the historical record for this country's debt to gdp ratio, not even taking into account other developed countries. you whine about bankruptcy and all i can see is the negative real interest rate on government debt.
Avatar image for deactivated-59d151f079814
#24 Posted by deactivated-59d151f079814 (47239 posts) -

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] as you dont think debt has any mean, i can see why you would say that. Vickman178

Please explain how the US is bankrupt

16.4 trillion dollars of debt isn't bankrupt to you?

People need to stop thinking a nation's debt is like a individual's debt....

Avatar image for jimkabrhel
#25 Posted by jimkabrhel (15625 posts) -

Protect the 2nd Amendment.

Vickman178

It isn't under attack. Even with the fallout after Newtown, no one, not even President Obama is calling for a complete ban of guns. Stop being so melodramatic. It's like you are opening your mouth and the NRA is speaking.

Avatar image for airshocker
#26 Posted by airshocker (31700 posts) -

It isn't under attack. Even with the fallout after Newtown, no one, not even President Obama is calling for a complete ban of guns. Stop being so melodramatic. It's like you are opening your mouth and the NRA is speaking.

jimkabrhel

That's a pretty big claim. Of course it's under attack. You need only look at the places that are trying to ban "high capacity" magazines, or take a look at Dianne Feinstein's "assault weapon" ban in the Senate. Or the bill that was just introduced in the house today.

That doesn't even take into account the fear mongering and incorrect definitions being thrown around of what an assault weapon actually is.

Second amendment rights are under attack.

Avatar image for perfect_blue
#27 Posted by Perfect_Blue (30680 posts) -

Stop acting like petty children.

Avatar image for Toxic-Seahorse
#28 Posted by Toxic-Seahorse (5015 posts) -

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] as you dont think debt has any mean, i can see why you would say that. Vickman178

Please explain how the US is bankrupt

16.4 trillion dollars of debt isn't bankrupt to you?

Do you know what bankrupt is? It's when you can no longer make payments on your debt. The U.S. is still able to make payments on their debt, hence why they are not bankrupt yet. Having a huge debt is not being bankrupt, not being able to make payments is.
Avatar image for jimkabrhel
#29 Posted by jimkabrhel (15625 posts) -

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

It isn't under attack. Even with the fallout after Newtown, no one, not even President Obama is calling for a complete ban of guns. Stop being so melodramatic. It's like you are opening your mouth and the NRA is speaking.

airshocker

That's a pretty big claim. Of course it's under attack. You need only look at the places that are trying to ban "high capacity" magazines, or take a look at Dianne Feinstein's "assault weapon" ban in the Senate. Or the bill that was just introduced in the house today.

That doesn't even take into account the fear mongering and incorrect definitions being thrown around of what an assault weapon actually is.

Second amendment rights are under attack.

I guess it's semantics then. I would view an attack on the 2nd amendment to be an all out ban on most weapons including guns for hunting and handguns that are used for conceal and carry and gun clubs.

I don't think high capacity clips and powerful assault rifles are necessary in society, apart from the military and police.

Avatar image for Abbeten
#30 Posted by Abbeten (3140 posts) -

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

It isn't under attack. Even with the fallout after Newtown, no one, not even President Obama is calling for a complete ban of guns. Stop being so melodramatic. It's like you are opening your mouth and the NRA is speaking.

airshocker

That's a pretty big claim. Of course it's under attack. You need only look at the places that are trying to ban "high capacity" magazines, or take a look at Dianne Feinstein's "assault weapon" ban in the Senate. Or the bill that was just introduced in the house today.

That doesn't even take into account the fear mongering and incorrect definitions being thrown around of what an assault weapon actually is.

Second amendment rights are under attack.

i suppose this is true if your reading of the second amendment guarantees unlimited power to own any type of weapon you so desire
Avatar image for Yusuke420
#31 Posted by Yusuke420 (2770 posts) -

Please finally remove marijuana from the drug war, lets us make this cash crop our #1 export and use the profits from that to reduce the deficit by 500 billion dollars over ten years. Stop trying to fight with the president on every damn thing and actually pass some useful legislation.

Avatar image for whipassmt
#32 Posted by whipassmt (15375 posts) -

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

It isn't under attack. Even with the fallout after Newtown, no one, not even President Obama is calling for a complete ban of guns. Stop being so melodramatic. It's like you are opening your mouth and the NRA is speaking.

Abbeten

That's a pretty big claim. Of course it's under attack. You need only look at the places that are trying to ban "high capacity" magazines, or take a look at Dianne Feinstein's "assault weapon" ban in the Senate. Or the bill that was just introduced in the house today.

That doesn't even take into account the fear mongering and incorrect definitions being thrown around of what an assault weapon actually is.

Second amendment rights are under attack.

i suppose this is true if your reading of the second amendment guarantees unlimited power to own any type of weapon you so desire

or any type of firearm. My guess is that even opponents of assault weapon bans believe that certain weapons, such as IEDs, nukes, biological and chemical weapons and dirty bombs should be illegal for private citizens or militiae to possess.

Avatar image for airshocker
#33 Posted by airshocker (31700 posts) -

I guess it's semantics then. I would view an attack on the 2nd amendment to be an all out ban on most weapons including guns for hunting and handguns that are used for conceal and carry and gun clubs.

I don't think high capacity clips and powerful assault rifles are necessary in society, apart from the military and police.

jimkabrhel

Not really. So long as democrats, and even some republicans, are trying to cause outrage to drum up support for an "assault weapon" ban, that is considered an attack on the second amendment.

Banning high capacity magazines doesn't do anything. A shooter can just as easily switch to a ten round magazine as he could a thirty, and his shots won't come at any meaningful reduction in speed, as shown at the end of this video.

What is your definition of a "powerful assault rifle"? To me it's a meaningless phrase used by anti-gun nuts. A phrase used by someone who knows absolutely nothing about firearms. Assault rifles are already regulated very heavily in the United States by the NFA. What people like you are trying to ban are lookalikes. You want to ban an AR-15 because it looks like a military-issued M4, though it has none of the assault weapon capabilities.

Can you give me one good reason why I shouldn't be allowed to have a collapsable buttstock on my AR-15? Or why I shouldn't have a bayonet lug on it, as well?

Avatar image for airshocker
#34 Posted by airshocker (31700 posts) -

i suppose this is true if your reading of the second amendment guarantees unlimited power to own any type of weapon you so desireAbbeten

Yes, I should be allowed to own sporting rifles that look like M4s but have none of the capabilities that would make it an assault weapon.

Why shouldn't I?

Avatar image for whipassmt
#35 Posted by whipassmt (15375 posts) -

Please finally remove marijuana from the drug war, lets us make this cash crop our #1 export and use the profits from that to reduce the deficit by 500 billion dollars over ten years. Stop trying to fight with the president on every damn thing and actually pass some useful legislation.

Yusuke420

They don't fight with the president on everything and they have passed useful legislation (or in some cases the House has passed legislation but the Senate never scheduled a vote on their legislation), it's just that these things don't attract as much attention as the fights.

As regards the drug war, I don't think the feds concentrate much on Marijuana anyway and when they do they go after traffickers not individual potheads.

Avatar image for whipassmt
#36 Posted by whipassmt (15375 posts) -

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

It isn't under attack. Even with the fallout after Newtown, no one, not even President Obama is calling for a complete ban of guns. Stop being so melodramatic. It's like you are opening your mouth and the NRA is speaking.

jimkabrhel

That's a pretty big claim. Of course it's under attack. You need only look at the places that are trying to ban "high capacity" magazines, or take a look at Dianne Feinstein's "assault weapon" ban in the Senate. Or the bill that was just introduced in the house today.

That doesn't even take into account the fear mongering and incorrect definitions being thrown around of what an assault weapon actually is.

Second amendment rights are under attack.

I guess it's semantics then. I would view an attack on the 2nd amendment to be an all out ban on most weapons including guns for hunting and handguns that are used for conceal and carry and gun clubs.

I don't think high capacity clips and powerful assault rifles are necessary in society, apart from the military and police.

while we're discussing assault weapon bans, I wonder: if a weapon had certain capabilities of an assault rifle (i.e. rate of fire, rounds of a certain caliber), but was mounted in a fixed position (i.e. attached to a wall or something), would that legally be considered an assault rifle. Let's say an m4 was mounted into a wall fixture, it is an m4 but it can't be used for an assault since it is not mobile enough to use it to take territory, it is only a defensive turret?

Avatar image for Yusuke420
#37 Posted by Yusuke420 (2770 posts) -

Please don't turn this into another gun control debate, we get it you love your weapons. I will vote against any politician that tries to ban them because it's futile to deal with individuals who love these objects to the point of trying to start a civil uprising. I'm going to be taking gun classes in the future and I'll buy a few, just in case I have to deal with these crazy gun folks having a freak out. Honestly though in your heart of hearts you know these things should have never been invented.

Avatar image for airshocker
#38 Posted by airshocker (31700 posts) -

Please don't turn this into another gun control debate, we get it you love your weapons. I will vote against any politician that tries to ban them because it's futile to deal with individuals who love these objects to the point of trying to start a civil uprising. I'm going to be taking gun classes in the future and I'll buy a few, just in case I have to deal with these crazy gun folks having a freak out. Honestly though in your heart of hearts you know these things should have never been invented.

Yusuke420

Don't worry your pretty little head. I'll make sure my company avoids where you're living. So long as you give us the proper tribute, of course.

Avatar image for Abbeten
#39 Posted by Abbeten (3140 posts) -

[QUOTE="Abbeten"]i suppose this is true if your reading of the second amendment guarantees unlimited power to own any type of weapon you so desireairshocker

Yes, I should be allowed to own sporting rifles that look like M4s but have none of the capabilities that would make it an assault weapon.

Why shouldn't I?

no reason you shouldn't, but that is essentially a political question since regardless of any law pertaining to such weapons, you would still retain the right to bear arms. just not those arms.
Avatar image for Yusuke420
#40 Posted by Yusuke420 (2770 posts) -

[QUOTE="Yusuke420"]

Please don't turn this into another gun control debate, we get it you love your weapons. I will vote against any politician that tries to ban them because it's futile to deal with individuals who love these objects to the point of trying to start a civil uprising. I'm going to be taking gun classes in the future and I'll buy a few, just in case I have to deal with these crazy gun folks having a freak out. Honestly though in your heart of hearts you know these things should have never been invented.

airshocker

Don't worry your pretty little head. I'll make sure my company avoids where you're living. So long as you give us the proper tribute, of course.

Why are all gun advocates such jerks? I have changed my stance because I can see that the passion for these things is greater then trying to get rid of them (at least in this country), but nope you continue to be condesending and callious to the very real danger that firearms pose to people. It makes me sick to my stomach...

Avatar image for airshocker
#41 Posted by airshocker (31700 posts) -

no reason you shouldn't, but that is essentially a political question since regardless of any law pertaining to such weapons, you would still retain the right to bear arms. just not those arms. Abbeten

We're all reasonable people, for the most part. There's no reason those kinds of firearms should be singled out. I'm fine with assault weapons being banned, and they already pretty much are. It's a mischaracterization to call an AR-15 an assault weapon.

Avatar image for airshocker
#42 Posted by airshocker (31700 posts) -

Why are all gun advocates such jerks? I have changed my stance because I can see that the passion for these things is greater then trying to get rid of them (at least in this country), but nope you continue to be condesending and callious to the very real danger that firearms pose to people. It makes me sick to my stomach...

Yusuke420

You said I was trying to cause a civil uprising. Why wouldn't I be a jerk to you after you said that?

Avatar image for Abbeten
#43 Posted by Abbeten (3140 posts) -

[QUOTE="Abbeten"]no reason you shouldn't, but that is essentially a political question since regardless of any law pertaining to such weapons, you would still retain the right to bear arms. just not those arms. airshocker

We're all reasonable people, for the most part. There's no reason those kinds of firearms should be singled out. I'm fine with assault weapons being banned, and they already pretty much are. It's a mischaracterization to call an AR-15 an assault weapon.

no doubt, and i'm not saying that they SHOULD be banned. I'm just saying that their ban wouldn't really constitute an assault on second amendment rights
Avatar image for airshocker
#44 Posted by airshocker (31700 posts) -

no doubt, and i'm not saying that they SHOULD be banned. I'm just saying that their ban wouldn't really constitute an assault on second amendment rightsAbbeten

Sure it would. If we allow the government to take reasonable actions towards banning assault weapons, which they have. Then an unreasonable action(banning certain weapons by designating them as assault weapons when they actuallt aren't) should be considered an attack on the second amendment.

Avatar image for jimkabrhel
#45 Posted by jimkabrhel (15625 posts) -

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

I guess it's semantics then. I would view an attack on the 2nd amendment to be an all out ban on most weapons including guns for hunting and handguns that are used for conceal and carry and gun clubs.

I don't think high capacity clips and powerful assault rifles are necessary in society, apart from the military and police.

airshocker

Not really. So long as democrats, and even some republicans, are trying to cause outrage to drum up support for an "assault weapon" ban, that is considered an attack on the second amendment.

Banning high capacity magazines doesn't do anything. A shooter can just as easily switch to a ten round magazine as he could a thirty, and his shots won't come at any meaningful reduction in speed, as shown at the end of this video.

What is your definition of a "powerful assault rifle"? To me it's a meaningless phrase used by anti-gun nuts. A phrase used by someone who knows absolutely nothing about firearms. Assault rifles are already regulated very heavily in the United States by the NFA. What people like you are trying to ban are lookalikes. You want to ban an AR-15 because it looks like a military-issued M4, though it has none of the assault weapon capabilities.

Can you give me one good reason why I shouldn't be allowed to have a collapsable buttstock on my AR-15? Or why I shouldn't have a bayonet lug on it, as well?

No, I can't give you a good reason, and I will admit that I don't have an indepth knowledge of assault rifles. My question to gun owners is always: why do you need the weapon you have, or higher capacity clips, or weapons that fire and a rapid rate?

Honest question.

Avatar image for Yusuke420
#46 Posted by Yusuke420 (2770 posts) -

[QUOTE="Yusuke420"]

Why are all gun advocates such jerks? I have changed my stance because I can see that the passion for these things is greater then trying to get rid of them (at least in this country), but nope you continue to be condesending and callious to the very real danger that firearms pose to people. It makes me sick to my stomach...

airshocker

You said I was trying to cause a civil uprising. Why wouldn't I be a jerk to you after you said that?

I never said you, I said people! I live in Texas and guns have been flying off the shelves like hotcakes and I used to hear threats to the lives of the president and others on a daiy basis. I know if given the proper start, they'd attempt an armed revolution.

Avatar image for whipassmt
#47 Posted by whipassmt (15375 posts) -

I came across this quote while reading one of my unread e-mails and I find it to be a bit apropos to this topic:

"Majority rule is tolerable only if the majority is not entitled to act exclusively at its own discretion, since both majority and minority must be united in mutual respect for a system of justice that is binding on both. Consequently, there are fundamental elements prior to the existence of the State that are not subject to bargaining between majority and minority and that must be inviolable for all.The question is: Who defines these fundamental elements? And who protects them? As Tocqueville was to remark, this issue did not arise as a constitutional problem in the first American democracy, that of the United States, because there was a certain basic Christian consensusProtestantthat no one questioned and everyone considered obvious. This principle was nourished by the common conviction of the citizens, a conviction that was beyond debate. But what happens when such convictions no longer exist? Will it be possible to declare, by majority decision, that something considered unjust until yesterday is now right, and vice versa? In the third century, Origen declared in this regard: If injustice should become law in the land of the Scythians, then the Christians living there would be acting in violation of the law. This is easily translated to the twentieth century: When the national-socialist government declared injustice to be the law, for the duration of that state of affairs a Christian was forced to violate the law. Obey God, rather than men. But how do we incorporate this factor into the concept of democracy?"

Avatar image for surrealnumber5
#48 Posted by surrealnumber5 (23044 posts) -
[QUOTE="Toxic-Seahorse"][QUOTE="Vickman178"]

Please explain how the US is bankrupt -Sun_Tzu-

16.4 trillion dollars of debt isn't bankrupt to you?

Do you know what bankrupt is? It's when you can no longer make payments on your debt. The U.S. is still able to make payments on their debt, hence why they are not bankrupt yet. Having a huge debt is not being bankrupt, not being able to make payments is.

that is not bankruptcy, forced or voulentary bank·rupt [bangk-ruhpt, -ruhpt] Show IPA noun 1. Law. a person who upon his or her own petition or that of his or her creditors is adjudged insolvent by a court and whose property is administered for and divided among his or her creditors under a bankruptcy law. 2. any insolvent debtor; a person unable to satisfy any just claims made upon him or her. 3. a person who is lacking in a particular thing or quality: a moral bankrupt. adjective 4. Law. subject to or under legal process because of insolvency; insolvent. 5. at the end of one's resources; lacking (usually followed by of or in ): bankrupt of compassion; bankrupt in good manners. 6. pertaining to bankrupts or bankruptcy. Definition of INSOLVENT 1 a (1) : unable to pay debts as they fall due in the usual course of business (2) : having liabilities in excess of a reasonable market value of assets held b : insufficient to pay all debts c : not up to a normal standard or complement :
Avatar image for Toxic-Seahorse
#49 Posted by Toxic-Seahorse (5015 posts) -

[QUOTE="Toxic-Seahorse"][QUOTE="Vickman178"]

16.4 trillion dollars of debt isn't bankrupt to you?

surrealnumber5

Do you know what bankrupt is? It's when you can no longer make payments on your debt. The U.S. is still able to make payments on their debt, hence why they are not bankrupt yet. Having a huge debt is not being bankrupt, not being able to make payments is.

that is not bankruptcy, forced or voulentary bank·rupt [bangk-ruhpt, -ruhpt] Show IPA noun 1. Law. a person who upon his or her own petition or that of his or her creditors is adjudged insolvent by a court and whose property is administered for and divided among his or her creditors under a bankruptcy law. 2. any insolvent debtor; a person unable to satisfy any just claims made upon him or her. 3. a person who is lacking in a particular thing or quality: a moral bankrupt. adjective 4. Law. subject to or under legal process because of insolvency; insolvent. 5. at the end of one's resources; lacking (usually followed by of or in ): bankrupt of compassion; bankrupt in good manners. 6. pertaining to bankrupts or bankruptcy. Definition of INSOLVENT 1 a (1) : unable to pay debts as they fall due in the usual course of business (2) : having liabilities in excess of a reasonable market value of assets held b : insufficient to pay all debts c : not up to a normal standard or complement :

I fail to see how any of that shows how I am wrong. "unable to pay debts as they fall due in the usual course of business " Is that not what I said? They're unable to make payments on their debt....

Avatar image for Yusuke420
#50 Posted by Yusuke420 (2770 posts) -

Isn't most of the nation debt owed to the american people? I read that only one trillion of the debt is actually owed to foreign creditors. So in reality we are in debt to ourselves:o