As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options

The Fiscal Cliff and Other Instances of the Government Kicking Itself In the Economic Nuts

19495969798100»

Posts

  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    zepherin wrote: »
    Maybe they will just be super cheap about it, and print it on a cocktail napkin or make it a chocolate trillion dollar coin. That would make me laugh the most, then after accepting it the tressury eats the delicious coin.

    Some people may not know it, but it actually has to be platinum. That's the loophole in the law they're abusing, that the treasury can mint a platinum coin in any denomination. Little more to it, but that's the gist.

    The platinum part is where the confusion comes in, leading to the derpening.

    And yes, every night I beat off to the fantasy of a $1T coin with Ron Paul on it.

  • Options
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    zepherin wrote: »
    Maybe they will just be super cheap about it, and print it on a cocktail napkin or make it a chocolate trillion dollar coin. That would make me laugh the most, then after accepting it the tressury eats the delicious coin.

    Some people may not know it, but it actually has to be platinum. That's the loophole in the law they're abusing, that the treasury can mint a platinum coin in any denomination. Little more to it, but that's the gist.

    The platinum part is where the confusion comes in, leading to the derpening.

    And yes, every night I beat off to the fantasy of a $1T coin with Ron Paul on it.

    Sputter-coat a 1 nm layer of platinum onto a chocolate bust of Ron Paul.

    Then the treasury eats it.

    Oh god, why does that sound so delicious?

  • Options
    autono-wally, erotibot300autono-wally, erotibot300 love machine Registered User regular
    because it tastes of republican tears?

    kFJhXwE.jpgkFJhXwE.jpg
  • Options
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    because it tastes of republican tears?

    Just picture it. Eating a trillion dollar coin, while posting about it on a libertarian forum..

    *shakes head*

    Ok I'm back.

  • Options
    shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited January 2013
    You don't need to eat it. Just making the coin would be history's greatest troll.

    I would be browsing libertarian forums all day just soaking in the beautiful panic.


    Obama just needs to do this shit, regardless of whether he needs to. You can destroy the coin right afterwords. I just want this to happen. It's just too much fun to pass up.

    shryke on
  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    It doesn't specifically prevent it though and it makes it very easily possible since it gives Congress and Congress alone the power to take on debt without tying that to the part of government responsible for enacting the budget. It separates the spending of money from the borrowing of money with the legislative/executive split, with no explicit mechanism to square that issue. The US system allows congress to issue completely contradictory instructions and then simple keep going.

    Even if you think every single other thing about the US government is fine, your constitution creates a huge hole that is currently being used to try and destroy the world economy. That's a problem.


    Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa.

    When it was censoring speech the government considers offensive you were just fine with congress/the executive interpreting offensive however they wanted. But now that Republicans can have a negative effect on your life laws that could be worded better are the worst ever?

    That's some hypocrisy there son.

    This ... doesn't even make sense. Like, I can't even untangle wtf you even want to try and accuse me of here because the two things you are presenting have nothing in common.

    Rights are subject to reasonable restrictions. Even your own Supreme Court held this.

    I have no idea wtf you think this idea has to do with the debt ceiling or the budgetary process.

    The debt ceiling is perfectly fine so long as reasonable are in charge too.

    If you can't understand the parallels here then I'm not sure you should even be talking about politics and government.

  • Options
    shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    It doesn't specifically prevent it though and it makes it very easily possible since it gives Congress and Congress alone the power to take on debt without tying that to the part of government responsible for enacting the budget. It separates the spending of money from the borrowing of money with the legislative/executive split, with no explicit mechanism to square that issue. The US system allows congress to issue completely contradictory instructions and then simple keep going.

    Even if you think every single other thing about the US government is fine, your constitution creates a huge hole that is currently being used to try and destroy the world economy. That's a problem.


    Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa.

    When it was censoring speech the government considers offensive you were just fine with congress/the executive interpreting offensive however they wanted. But now that Republicans can have a negative effect on your life laws that could be worded better are the worst ever?

    That's some hypocrisy there son.

    This ... doesn't even make sense. Like, I can't even untangle wtf you even want to try and accuse me of here because the two things you are presenting have nothing in common.

    Rights are subject to reasonable restrictions. Even your own Supreme Court held this.

    I have no idea wtf you think this idea has to do with the debt ceiling or the budgetary process.

    The debt ceiling is perfectly fine so long as reasonable are in charge too.

    If you can't understand the parallels here then I'm not sure you should even be talking about politics and government.

    No, it's not. The very idea is dead fucking stupid. That it even exists is dumb as a bag of GOP congressman.

  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    Okay sweet heart. You have fun with that hypocrisy. Imma keep talking with the not geese.

  • Options
    DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    It doesn't specifically prevent it though and it makes it very easily possible since it gives Congress and Congress alone the power to take on debt without tying that to the part of government responsible for enacting the budget. It separates the spending of money from the borrowing of money with the legislative/executive split, with no explicit mechanism to square that issue. The US system allows congress to issue completely contradictory instructions and then simple keep going.

    Even if you think every single other thing about the US government is fine, your constitution creates a huge hole that is currently being used to try and destroy the world economy. That's a problem.


    Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa.

    When it was censoring speech the government considers offensive you were just fine with congress/the executive interpreting offensive however they wanted. But now that Republicans can have a negative effect on your life laws that could be worded better are the worst ever?

    That's some hypocrisy there son.

    This ... doesn't even make sense. Like, I can't even untangle wtf you even want to try and accuse me of here because the two things you are presenting have nothing in common.

    Rights are subject to reasonable restrictions. Even your own Supreme Court held this.

    I have no idea wtf you think this idea has to do with the debt ceiling or the budgetary process.

    The debt ceiling is perfectly fine so long as reasonable are in charge too.

    If you can't understand the parallels here then I'm not sure you should even be talking about politics and government.

    No, it's not. The very idea is dead fucking stupid. That it even exists is dumb as a bag of GOP congressman.

    Eh.

    I don't begrudge it's existence because it dates to a time where that kind of thing made sense. We didn't have the instant communication we have now and all that jazz.

    The debt ceiling has no reason to exist outside the use as a political football at this point though. If we were sensible we'd get rid of it.

    We are not sensible.

    Nod. Get treat. PSN: Quippish
  • Options
    RozRoz Boss of InternetRegistered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    It doesn't specifically prevent it though and it makes it very easily possible since it gives Congress and Congress alone the power to take on debt without tying that to the part of government responsible for enacting the budget. It separates the spending of money from the borrowing of money with the legislative/executive split, with no explicit mechanism to square that issue. The US system allows congress to issue completely contradictory instructions and then simple keep going.

    Even if you think every single other thing about the US government is fine, your constitution creates a huge hole that is currently being used to try and destroy the world economy. That's a problem.


    Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa.

    When it was censoring speech the government considers offensive you were just fine with congress/the executive interpreting offensive however they wanted. But now that Republicans can have a negative effect on your life laws that could be worded better are the worst ever?

    That's some hypocrisy there son.

    This ... doesn't even make sense. Like, I can't even untangle wtf you even want to try and accuse me of here because the two things you are presenting have nothing in common.

    Rights are subject to reasonable restrictions. Even your own Supreme Court held this.

    I have no idea wtf you think this idea has to do with the debt ceiling or the budgetary process.

    The debt ceiling is perfectly fine so long as reasonable are in charge too.

    If you can't understand the parallels here then I'm not sure you should even be talking about politics and government.

    No, it's not. The very idea is dead fucking stupid. That it even exists is dumb as a bag of GOP congressman.

    But it only exists because of those Congressmen so...

  • Options
    shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited January 2013
    Quid wrote: »
    Okay sweet heart. You have fun with that hypocrisy. Imma keep talking with the not geese.

    Sorry Quid, pretty words don't make you any less wrong. The debt ceiling was always a terrible, terrible thing. It's just previously we could count on people understanding just how horrible it was that nobody would touch it.

    Please, look up hypocrisy. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    Roz wrote: »
    But it only exists because of those Congressmen so...

    No, it's existed for a long time now.

    shryke on
  • Options
    nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    zepherin wrote: »
    Maybe they will just be super cheap about it, and print it on a cocktail napkin or make it a chocolate trillion dollar coin. That would make me laugh the most, then after accepting it the tressury eats the delicious coin.

    Legally it has to be platinum. the law intended for it to make commerative coins in platinum. Other collectible coins in gold and such actually do have o reflect their value in the base metal.

  • Options
    RozRoz Boss of InternetRegistered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Okay sweet heart. You have fun with that hypocrisy. Imma keep talking with the not geese.

    Sorry Quid, pretty words don't make you any less wrong. The debt ceiling was always a terrible, terrible thing. It's just previously we could count on people understanding just how horrible it was that nobody would touch it.

    Please, look up hypocrisy. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    Roz wrote: »
    But it only exists because of those Congressmen so...

    No, it's existed for a long time now.

    As a law passed by Congress.

  • Options
    TheCanManTheCanMan GT: Gasman122009 JerseyRegistered User regular
    edited January 2013
    I'm being rhetorical here, but how is this not a huge talking point pretty much everywhere?!? How much more deficit reduction do we need? CBPP says $1.4 trillion.

    imagesizerfilestevebene.jpg

    TheCanMan on
  • Options
    AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    It doesn't specifically prevent it though and it makes it very easily possible since it gives Congress and Congress alone the power to take on debt without tying that to the part of government responsible for enacting the budget. It separates the spending of money from the borrowing of money with the legislative/executive split, with no explicit mechanism to square that issue. The US system allows congress to issue completely contradictory instructions and then simple keep going.

    Even if you think every single other thing about the US government is fine, your constitution creates a huge hole that is currently being used to try and destroy the world economy. That's a problem.


    Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa.

    When it was censoring speech the government considers offensive you were just fine with congress/the executive interpreting offensive however they wanted. But now that Republicans can have a negative effect on your life laws that could be worded better are the worst ever?

    That's some hypocrisy there son.

    This ... doesn't even make sense. Like, I can't even untangle wtf you even want to try and accuse me of here because the two things you are presenting have nothing in common.

    Rights are subject to reasonable restrictions. Even your own Supreme Court held this.

    I have no idea wtf you think this idea has to do with the debt ceiling or the budgetary process.

    The debt ceiling is perfectly fine so long as reasonable are in charge too.

    If you can't understand the parallels here then I'm not sure you should even be talking about politics and government.

    No, it's not. The very idea is dead fucking stupid. That it even exists is dumb as a bag of GOP congressman.

    Eh.

    I don't begrudge it's existence because it dates to a time where that kind of thing made sense. We didn't have the instant communication we have now and all that jazz.

    The debt ceiling has no reason to exist outside the use as a political football at this point though. If we were sensible we'd get rid of it.

    We are not sensible.

    Er, the debt ceiling was put in place between the wars.

    It has nothing to do with communication times, it has everything to do with the ever present debt scolds and debtophobes throughout American history.

    It's just back then they weren't using it as a cover to dismantle social programs.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • Options
    AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Okay sweet heart. You have fun with that hypocrisy. Imma keep talking with the not geese.

    Sorry Quid, pretty words don't make you any less wrong. The debt ceiling was always a terrible, terrible thing. It's just previously we could count on people understanding just how horrible it was that nobody would touch it.

    Please, look up hypocrisy. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    Roz wrote: »
    But it only exists because of those Congressmen so...

    No, it's existed for a long time now.

    For almost a hundred years or so.

    Via a law enacted by Congress.

    Which means it just takes an act of Congress to get rid of it and replace it with something not stupid.

    I really don't think you get how our government works, man.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • Options
    shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited January 2013
    shryke wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    It doesn't specifically prevent it though and it makes it very easily possible since it gives Congress and Congress alone the power to take on debt without tying that to the part of government responsible for enacting the budget. It separates the spending of money from the borrowing of money with the legislative/executive split, with no explicit mechanism to square that issue. The US system allows congress to issue completely contradictory instructions and then simple keep going.

    Even if you think every single other thing about the US government is fine, your constitution creates a huge hole that is currently being used to try and destroy the world economy. That's a problem.


    Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa.

    When it was censoring speech the government considers offensive you were just fine with congress/the executive interpreting offensive however they wanted. But now that Republicans can have a negative effect on your life laws that could be worded better are the worst ever?

    That's some hypocrisy there son.

    This ... doesn't even make sense. Like, I can't even untangle wtf you even want to try and accuse me of here because the two things you are presenting have nothing in common.

    Rights are subject to reasonable restrictions. Even your own Supreme Court held this.

    I have no idea wtf you think this idea has to do with the debt ceiling or the budgetary process.

    The debt ceiling is perfectly fine so long as reasonable are in charge too.

    If you can't understand the parallels here then I'm not sure you should even be talking about politics and government.

    No, it's not. The very idea is dead fucking stupid. That it even exists is dumb as a bag of GOP congressman.

    Eh.

    I don't begrudge it's existence because it dates to a time where that kind of thing made sense. We didn't have the instant communication we have now and all that jazz.

    The debt ceiling has no reason to exist outside the use as a political football at this point though. If we were sensible we'd get rid of it.

    We are not sensible.

    Er, the debt ceiling was put in place between the wars.

    It has nothing to do with communication times, it has everything to do with the ever present debt scolds and debtophobes throughout American history.

    It's just back then they weren't using it as a cover to dismantle social programs.

    Technically it was implemented because the previous method of authorizing debt was even slower and sillier and more onerous.

    It previously existed as it did because, well, congress is the one with the power to authorize debt.

    shryke on
  • Options
    AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    It doesn't specifically prevent it though and it makes it very easily possible since it gives Congress and Congress alone the power to take on debt without tying that to the part of government responsible for enacting the budget. It separates the spending of money from the borrowing of money with the legislative/executive split, with no explicit mechanism to square that issue. The US system allows congress to issue completely contradictory instructions and then simple keep going.

    Even if you think every single other thing about the US government is fine, your constitution creates a huge hole that is currently being used to try and destroy the world economy. That's a problem.


    Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa.

    When it was censoring speech the government considers offensive you were just fine with congress/the executive interpreting offensive however they wanted. But now that Republicans can have a negative effect on your life laws that could be worded better are the worst ever?

    That's some hypocrisy there son.

    This ... doesn't even make sense. Like, I can't even untangle wtf you even want to try and accuse me of here because the two things you are presenting have nothing in common.

    Rights are subject to reasonable restrictions. Even your own Supreme Court held this.

    I have no idea wtf you think this idea has to do with the debt ceiling or the budgetary process.

    The debt ceiling is perfectly fine so long as reasonable are in charge too.

    If you can't understand the parallels here then I'm not sure you should even be talking about politics and government.

    No, it's not. The very idea is dead fucking stupid. That it even exists is dumb as a bag of GOP congressman.

    Eh.

    I don't begrudge it's existence because it dates to a time where that kind of thing made sense. We didn't have the instant communication we have now and all that jazz.

    The debt ceiling has no reason to exist outside the use as a political football at this point though. If we were sensible we'd get rid of it.

    We are not sensible.

    Er, the debt ceiling was put in place between the wars.

    It has nothing to do with communication times, it has everything to do with the ever present debt scolds and debtophobes throughout American history.

    It's just back then they weren't using it as a cover to dismantle social programs.

    Technically it was because the previous method of authorizing debt was even slower and sillier and more onerous.

    True, but the reason it wasn't just a "debt will raise commensurate with spending plans" was because of the debtophobes.

    It was a simpler time, before the country voted out of fear of Rooskies and instead voted out of fear of black people and chinese.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • Options
    spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2013
    @Shryke - The debt ceiling is not a structural problem any more than any other procedural requirement is. Would you call it a structural problem that the judiciary interprets the law, but only the executive can enforce those judgements? It works out just fine, but if the president was a real ass we could see him gut the court entirely by refusing to enforce any of their judgements.

    Systems can be flexible or idiot proof, not both. The fact that our system is flexible is not a structural flaw. The problem is the American people have chosen to elect idiots.

    spacekungfuman on
  • Options
    AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    It doesn't specifically prevent it though and it makes it very easily possible since it gives Congress and Congress alone the power to take on debt without tying that to the part of government responsible for enacting the budget. It separates the spending of money from the borrowing of money with the legislative/executive split, with no explicit mechanism to square that issue. The US system allows congress to issue completely contradictory instructions and then simple keep going.

    Even if you think every single other thing about the US government is fine, your constitution creates a huge hole that is currently being used to try and destroy the world economy. That's a problem.


    Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa.

    When it was censoring speech the government considers offensive you were just fine with congress/the executive interpreting offensive however they wanted. But now that Republicans can have a negative effect on your life laws that could be worded better are the worst ever?

    That's some hypocrisy there son.

    This ... doesn't even make sense. Like, I can't even untangle wtf you even want to try and accuse me of here because the two things you are presenting have nothing in common.

    Rights are subject to reasonable restrictions. Even your own Supreme Court held this.

    I have no idea wtf you think this idea has to do with the debt ceiling or the budgetary process.

    The debt ceiling is perfectly fine so long as reasonable are in charge too.

    If you can't understand the parallels here then I'm not sure you should even be talking about politics and government.

    No, it's not. The very idea is dead fucking stupid. That it even exists is dumb as a bag of GOP congressman.

    Eh.

    I don't begrudge it's existence because it dates to a time where that kind of thing made sense. We didn't have the instant communication we have now and all that jazz.

    The debt ceiling has no reason to exist outside the use as a political football at this point though. If we were sensible we'd get rid of it.

    We are not sensible.

    Er, the debt ceiling was put in place between the wars.

    It has nothing to do with communication times, it has everything to do with the ever present debt scolds and debtophobes throughout American history.

    It's just back then they weren't using it as a cover to dismantle social programs.

    Technically it was implemented because the previous method of authorizing debt was even slower and sillier and more onerous.

    It previously existed as it did because, well, congress is the one with the power to authorize debt.

    Yes, because the previous government we tried couldn't and that was really fucking stupid and we didn't have budgets that ballooned past revenue unless war were declared.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • Options
    JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Moderator mod
    Someone can make a new thread if the OP has some content besides "Debt Thread Part II" and encourages a focused discussion.

    Geth, close the thread.

  • Options
    GethGeth Legion Perseus VeilRegistered User, Moderator, Penny Arcade Staff, Vanilla Staff vanilla
    Affirmative Jacobkosh. Closing thread...

This discussion has been closed.