Right now, Obama and the Democrats have a *stated policy* of not negotiating with the Republicans. You can say the Republicans aren't negotiating in good faith, and you'd be correct, but that doesn't change the fact that the democrats have ruled out negotiating at all. They may even be right to do so.
On this issue, they ARE right to do so. You have any idea how bad it would be if this sort of tactic proves EFFECTIVE?
They don't have to prove the tactic effective. It already obviously is effective. Hideously effective. 100% effective. If they don't blink, there is literally nothing that can be done other than giving in to their demands in some way. It's entirely legal so unless they change their minds due to a popular backlash, so there is no recourse until the next elections roll around. Even if they blink now, they'll be back to try this again next year at this time, and the year after that, unless the laws are changed. People saying "We can't run a country this way..." are quite right. I think it's literally impossible to NOT crack up completely with this system. History abounds with examples of the group in charge of providing the funds refusing to provide said funds until their demands are met...usually with highly deleterious results. Eventually someone is going to wind up in charge who is willing to use that power for whatever they want.
I give up on trying to glean some sort of consistency from you, Vorpal.
One minute you're parroting GOP talking points about how the Democrats won't come to the table to negotiate, and after it's pointed out to you that the Democrats have been begging to negotiate literally more than a dozen times you come back and say that you're just pointing out that this is just an effective tactic which you disapprove of.
Are you trying to say the White House has no input into the budget process and no interest in how the numbers turn out? Sounds like you should let Ezra Klein know!
And so the White House grimly accepted that they couldn't move the dial on spending.
Silly Ezra Klein! Doesn't he know that CONGRESS passes the budget?
Negotiating is fine. That's how a democracy works.
Then why are Obama and the Senate Democrats refusing to negotiate with the House Republicans?
Except they don't. Boehner just isn't allowing a vote, and is supported by a relatively small group of Tea Party Republicans. Other Republicans have indicated they're willing to actually compromise.
The numbers I have seen are that 19 republicans in the house are willing to vote for a clean CR. As I believe they have 48 more seats than the democrats, that still isn't enough to pass. if Boehner is supported by only a small number of republicans, they can always hold a vote of no confidence and chuck him.
You seriously couldn't take the 5 seconds it takes to look at the US House of Representatives and see the breakdown? The Republicans have 32 more seats, not 48. If you can't get basic facts right, why should anyone give you the time of day?
And btw, Senate Democrats came to House Republicans over and over and over again several months ago to negotiate the CR. House Republicans said no. Obama has had discussions with key Senate and House Republicans repeatedly. And the Democrats have already made a key concession, sticking with the sequester budget instead of the spending they want. What have the Republicans given up?
Any chance of controlling the Senate and White House.
Heh, true, but think about it, not only would delaying Obamacare a year be a "victory" for them now in the eyes of the Tea Party, it also makes Obamacare a big issue for the 2014 election when all the House seats are up for grabs. Does anyone think the Democrats are going to let the Republicans use that in a mid-term election again after 2010? Hell no.
3DS FC: 0817-3759-2788
0
Options
Sir Landsharkresting shark faceRegistered Userregular
edited October 2013
So my understanding is that the Senate passed a budget back in March, then the House refused to come to conference up until some point in August at which point some sort of temporary Continuing Resolution was passed to just extend funding? And now that CR is expiring and a new one is needed but the GOP is trying to use it to extort concessions from the Dems on totally unrelated stuff? Do I have the history right? Is there a good reference with the timeline of all this stuff?
Sir Landshark on
Please consider the environment before printing this post.
+1
Options
tuxkamenreally took this picture.Registered Userregular
"One agent in a marked Secret Service vehicle was injured when the car in which he was chasing the suspect was upended by one of the Capitol's electronic barricades as it rose out of the ground."
See, if the government had really been shut down those barricades wouldn't have been turned on.
I give up on trying to glean some sort of consistency from you, Vorpal.
One minute you're parroting GOP talking points about how the Democrats won't come to the table to negotiate
That wasn't GOP talking points, that was the White House own stated position as explained by Ezra Klein! It's in the last paragraph of the linked article to which I was responding.
Right now, Obama and the Democrats have a *stated policy* of not negotiating with the Republicans. You can say the Republicans aren't negotiating in good faith, and you'd be correct, but that doesn't change the fact that the democrats have ruled out negotiating at all. They may even be right to do so.
On this issue, they ARE right to do so. You have any idea how bad it would be if this sort of tactic proves EFFECTIVE?
They don't have to prove the tactic effective. It already obviously is effective. Hideously effective. 100% effective. If they don't blink, there is literally nothing that can be done other than giving in to their demands in some way. It's entirely legal so unless they change their minds due to a popular backlash, so there is no recourse until the next elections roll around. Even if they blink now, they'll be back to try this again next year at this time, and the year after that, unless the laws are changed. People saying "We can't run a country this way..." are quite right. I think it's literally impossible to NOT crack up completely with this system. History abounds with examples of the group in charge of providing the funds refusing to provide said funds until their demands are met...usually with highly deleterious results.
@Vorpal, I don't know if you realize this, but you're advocating for anarchy. You come off as sounding like you want the government to fail because one of the political parties is acting in bad faith.
The popular backlash you're talking about happened years ago when congression approval dipped below 20%. The Republic party is acting against the very people they were elected to represent. People get elected to office to assist in running of the government. Shutting down the government is the exact opposite of running it.
History abounds with examples of the group in charge of providing the funds refusing to provide said funds until their demands are met...usually with highly deleterious results.
"One agent in a marked Secret Service vehicle was injured when the car in which he was chasing the suspect was upended by one of the Capitol's electronic barricades as it rose out of the ground."
See, if the government had really been shut down those barricades wouldn't have been turned on.
On the one hand, I hate that an agent was harmed attempting to apprehend this person.
On the other hand, electronic barricades that rise out of the ground. I just picture these giant spiky Mad Max-style walls popping up out of the ground to stop assholes who try to pull this shit.
How badass is that?
But yeah, everything about this situation sucks.
+1
Options
Magus`The fun has been DOUBLED!Registered Userregular
Saying Democrats aren't negotiating right now is like saying you didn't give your new dog a fair shake after it killed your wife, ate your child and somehow burned down your house. Or something.
Right now, Obama and the Democrats have a *stated policy* of not negotiating with the Republicans. You can say the Republicans aren't negotiating in good faith, and you'd be correct, but that doesn't change the fact that the democrats have ruled out negotiating at all. They may even be right to do so.
On this issue, they ARE right to do so. You have any idea how bad it would be if this sort of tactic proves EFFECTIVE?
They don't have to prove the tactic effective. It already obviously is effective. Hideously effective. 100% effective. If they don't blink, there is literally nothing that can be done other than giving in to their demands in some way. It's entirely legal so unless they change their minds due to a popular backlash, so there is no recourse until the next elections roll around. Even if they blink now, they'll be back to try this again next year at this time, and the year after that, unless the laws are changed. People saying "We can't run a country this way..." are quite right. I think it's literally impossible to NOT crack up completely with this system. History abounds with examples of the group in charge of providing the funds refusing to provide said funds until their demands are met...usually with highly deleterious results. Eventually someone is going to wind up in charge who is willing to use that power for whatever they want.
How is it effective if it ends up with them:
A: Not getting what they want.
B: Suffering political damage.
This is the ideal outcome to avoid the fatalism you're spouting.
I give up on trying to glean some sort of consistency from you, Vorpal.
One minute you're parroting GOP talking points about how the Democrats won't come to the table to negotiate
That wasn't GOP talking points, that was the White House own stated position as explained by Ezra Klein! It's in the last paragraph of the linked article to which I was responding.
It's incredibly disingenuous to assert that Obama and the Democrats haven't come to the table to negotiate. They have tried it numerous times already and the Republicans bit their hand off every time it was extended. So now, there is no negotiation because literally the entire fate of the country is at stake.
If the Republicans had agreed to negotiate the, oh, more than a dozen times the Democrats offered to negotiate months ago, that would have been the appropriate time to do so.
Apparently a woman tried to ram the WH gate with her car, and then ran to the Rayburn building (Senate offices), shot a cop and was shot dead (or at least is now dead)
There's a bunch of conflicting reports as to the status of the shooter. Secret Service confirms the first thing though.
Any reports on the status of Mitch McConnell or Paul Ryan?
Shell shocked and totally bummed, bro.
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
I give up on trying to glean some sort of consistency from you, Vorpal.
One minute you're parroting GOP talking points about how the Democrats won't come to the table to negotiate
That wasn't GOP talking points, that was the White House own stated position as explained by Ezra Klein! It's in the last paragraph of the linked article to which I was responding.
If noly there was an established method of trying to negotiate a House and Senate budget compromise. A conference of both Houses where they hammer out a bill that can then be voted on by both Chambers then sent to the president.
Oh yeah there totally is. It's called a Budget Conference Committee. And the GOP has voted down forming one 19 times this year. But it's Obama who doesn't want to negotiate with them.
Right now, Obama and the Democrats have a *stated policy* of not negotiating with the Republicans. You can say the Republicans aren't negotiating in good faith, and you'd be correct, but that doesn't change the fact that the democrats have ruled out negotiating at all. They may even be right to do so.
On this issue, they ARE right to do so. You have any idea how bad it would be if this sort of tactic proves EFFECTIVE?
They don't have to prove the tactic effective. It already obviously is effective. Hideously effective. 100% effective. If they don't blink, there is literally nothing that can be done other than giving in to their demands in some way. It's entirely legal so unless they change their minds due to a popular backlash, so there is no recourse until the next elections roll around. Even if they blink now, they'll be back to try this again next year at this time, and the year after that, unless the laws are changed. People saying "We can't run a country this way..." are quite right. I think it's literally impossible to NOT crack up completely with this system. History abounds with examples of the group in charge of providing the funds refusing to provide said funds until their demands are met...usually with highly deleterious results. Eventually someone is going to wind up in charge who is willing to use that power for whatever they want.
How is it effective if it ends up with them:
A: Not getting what they want.
B: Suffering political damage.
This is the ideal outcome to avoid the fatalism you're spouting.
The ideal outcome is one which makes it legally impossible to have these kind of shenanigans in the future. For instance, making it so we have to raise the debt ceiling so we can borrow the money we need *before* we commit to spending that money!
A lot of people seem to think these guys are going to suffer huge political damage for it. At the senate and presidential level, sure! But then their brand was already tanked there. If they aren't suffering massive political damage in their districts then they aren't suffering any meaningful political damage. And it's not at all clear to me that many of them will be suffering political damage in their districts - a lot of them come from very heavily republican disticts, and I think I already linked a poll showing a majority of republicans seem to approve of shutting down the government to defund Obamacare.
If you get very polarized house districts, you can wind up with a house of representatives that is actually not very representative. A relatively very small percentage of voters will be driving policy.
And they may well suffer huge political damage in their districts. Some of them you would think would have to. But that takes time. And while the process is happening damage is being done.
I'm not enthusiastic about a system like this where we have to rely on the decorum and probity of all house republicans to leave this powerful (yet dangerous) political leverage lying there on the table.
apparently I'm a token minority then, since I approve of aca and am very much against voter id laws, this is definitely the GOPs doing, its quite obvious, the only thing that makes me upset is that this probably won't be as big of a blow to the GOP as we think, because the officials behind this are doing exactly what their counties voted them in for
"One agent in a marked Secret Service vehicle was injured when the car in which he was chasing the suspect was upended by one of the Capitol's electronic barricades as it rose out of the ground."
See, if the government had really been shut down those barricades wouldn't have been turned on.
I'm going to have to remember that one when Watch_Dogs comes out.
The U.S. Capitol was placed under lockdown on Thursday following reports of a possible shooting outside the west front of the building, the Associated Press reported.
Capitol Police sent out the following notice to all Hill staff:
SHELTER IN PLACE. Gunshots have been reported on Capitol Hill requiring all occupants in all House Office Buildings to shelter in place. Close, lock and stay away from external doors and windows. Take annunciators, Go Kits and escape hoods; and move to the innermost part of the office away from external doors or windows. If you are not in your office, take shelter in the nearest office, check in with your OEC and wait for USCP to clear the incident. No one will be permitted to enter or exit the building until directed by USCP. All staff should monitor the situation. Further information will be provided as it becomes available.
I am beginning to find the choice to move here regrettable.
The ideal outcome is one which makes it legally impossible to have these kind of shenanigans in the future. For instance, making it so we have to raise the debt ceiling so we can borrow the money we need *before* we commit to spending that money!
Wrong. You have to set your budget first so you know how much, if anything, you need to borrow. How do you borrow if you don't know how big of a loan to ask for? Further, the ideal situation would be to decouple the debt ceiling from a yearly vote entirely; pass a law that states that every year, it will be automatically raised to whatever level is necessary to support that year's budget.
Any word on why she tried to break through to the White House?
Also Blugh, accidentally bro-ing posts as I try to phone read
Given that plowing in to the White House with a car is a singularly stupid thing to do already I'm guessing she blamed whoever was in the big white building.
No, I'm saying elections do matter. All of them, in all three branches. Particularly if you are having to go congress and ask them to authorize you to borrow more money. If your political opponents control even a single branch, you are pretty much at their mercy.
Too late - you already invoked The Polling. Once you invoke The Polling, especially on a 3 year old law and less than a year after a decisive election result, to justify these Republicans' shenanigans, you're stating flatly that elections don't matter. Or maybe you're saying that the only elections that matter are the ones that Republicans win. Either way, you clearly don't believe that Democrats have a mandate if you think it's reasonable for representatives in the most gerrymandered districts to shut down the government because they can find a few confused people to say they don't like Obamacare. If you were to tell me that you believe in the American system of government, I wouldn't believe you.
The ideal outcome is one which makes it legally impossible to have these kind of shenanigans in the future. For instance, making it so we have to raise the debt ceiling so we can borrow the money we need *before* we commit to spending that money!
Again, you have shown what a silly goose you are by not knowing what you are talking about and representing it as God's own truth.
The debt ceiling is not allowing the United States to borrow more money because the U.S. has committed to spend it. The debt ceiling refers to the U.S. government's permission to pay back the money it owes. That is why it's so catastrophic if the debt ceiling isn't raised. It's not that we can't borrow any more money, it's that we won't pay it back.
Any word on why she tried to break through to the White House?
Also Blugh, accidentally bro-ing posts as I try to phone read
Given that plowing in to the White House with a car is a singularly stupid thing to do already I'm guessing she blamed whoever was in the big white building.
Clarification on this: Local news is reporting that whereever this started, it wasn't at an actual gate. The checkpoint where this started has multiple levels of pillars in the roadway blocking through traffic.
Also, they showed a picture of the car that got launched. Barricade got game.
The details of the shooting are real vague right now. Times is making it sound like the whole thing might have stemmed from a driving fuck up that the driver refused to pull over for.
Just putting it out there since things are so chaotic. Might not have been anything more than a seriously fucked up hit and run at the worst possible place at the worst possible time.
+1
Options
Sir Landsharkresting shark faceRegistered Userregular
The ideal outcome is one which makes it legally impossible to have these kind of shenanigans in the future. For instance, making it so we have to raise the debt ceiling so we can borrow the money we need *before* we commit to spending that money!
Again, you have shown what a silly goose you are by not knowing what you are talking about and representing it as God's own truth.
The debt ceiling is not allowing the United States to borrow more money because the U.S. has committed to spend it. The debt ceiling refers to the U.S. government's permission to pay back the money it owes. That is why it's so catastrophic if the debt ceiling isn't raised. It's not that we can't borrow any more money, it's that we won't pay it back.
And also why the very existence of a debt ceiling is so stupid in the first place. Don't want to borrow more money? Figure that shit out when you pass the budget.
Please consider the environment before printing this post.
Heh, true, but think about it, not only would delaying Obamacare a year be a "victory" for them now in the eyes of the Tea Party, it also makes Obamacare a big issue for the 2014 election when all the House seats are up for grabs. Does anyone think the Democrats are going to let the Republicans use that in a mid-term election again after 2010? Hell no.
I think this is really what all of this boils down too. The GOP will not reliqunish this fight until they feel that whatever victory they claim can fuel them into 2014 into a complete party dominance. They have no problems wrecking the government and our nations debt status - they're mere casualties in a larger war.
In the meantime, a lot of good folks will continue to suffer.
The ideal outcome is one which makes it legally impossible to have these kind of shenanigans in the future. For instance, making it so we have to raise the debt ceiling so we can borrow the money we need *before* we commit to spending that money!
Again, you have shown what a silly goose you are by not knowing what you are talking about and representing it as God's own truth.
The debt ceiling is not allowing the United States to borrow more money because the U.S. has committed to spend it. The debt ceiling refers to the U.S. government's permission to pay back the money it owes. That is why it's so catastrophic if the debt ceiling isn't raised. It's not that we can't borrow any more money, it's that we won't pay it back.
Kinda yes kinda no. The debt ceiling prevents the US from borrowing more money. A result of that is that we will necessarily default on our debts. The reason we will default is that we have committed to spending which necessitates an increase in the limit. If the limit is not increased*, some of that spending which we committed to cannot happen. That may be debt, but it might also be what some people do not consider to be "debt". The reason why its so bad is that it doesn't really matter what the USG fails to pay, in the eyes of someone owed money all the ways in which they can be owed money are roughly equivalent. Which is to say that even if we keep paying the debt and instead just like don't pay Lockheed for the jets they sent us we're still functionally defaulting. And that is super bad.
*barring ignoring the debt limit via the various workarounds.
The details of the shooting are real vague right now. Times is making it sound like the whole thing might have stemmed from a driving fuck up that the driver refused to pull over for.
Just putting it out there since things are so chaotic. Might not have been anything more than a seriously fucked up hit and run at the worst possible place at the worst possible time.
Considering that there are hundreds of journalists focused on the very buildings that this occurred in, its pretty pathetic they can't get basic facts straight.
The ideal outcome is one which makes it legally impossible to have these kind of shenanigans in the future. For instance, making it so we have to raise the debt ceiling so we can borrow the money we need *before* we commit to spending that money!
Again, you have shown what a silly goose you are by not knowing what you are talking about and representing it as God's own truth.
The debt ceiling is not allowing the United States to borrow more money because the U.S. has committed to spend it. The debt ceiling refers to the U.S. government's permission to pay back the money it owes. That is why it's so catastrophic if the debt ceiling isn't raised. It's not that we can't borrow any more money, it's that we won't pay it back.
Not to play devil's advocate or anything, but I don't get your point. Doesn't seem to be any functional difference. The treasury would never issue bonds that it couldn't buy back. So the debt ceiling is essentially a limit on the amount of debt the US can incur.
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
Or you could not have a debt ceiling.
I'm not totally aware, but I'm fairly sure most countries don't have one. I know we don't. Our government just borrows more when it needs more.
The ideal outcome is one which makes it legally impossible to have these kind of shenanigans in the future. For instance, making it so we have to raise the debt ceiling so we can borrow the money we need *before* we commit to spending that money!
Again, you have shown what a silly goose you are by not knowing what you are talking about and representing it as God's own truth.
The debt ceiling is not allowing the United States to borrow more money because the U.S. has committed to spend it. The debt ceiling refers to the U.S. government's permission to pay back the money it owes. That is why it's so catastrophic if the debt ceiling isn't raised. It's not that we can't borrow any more money, it's that we won't pay it back.
Not to play devil's advocate or anything, but I don't get your point. Doesn't seem to be any functional difference. The treasury would never issue bonds that it couldn't buy back. So the debt ceiling is essentially a limit on the amount of debt the US can incur.
No the debt has already been incurred. Its whether we pay people/companies/investors. Its not selling new bonds, its paying for existing bond yields.
The ideal outcome is one which makes it legally impossible to have these kind of shenanigans in the future. For instance, making it so we have to raise the debt ceiling so we can borrow the money we need *before* we commit to spending that money!
You can't make laws against being an asshole, which is basically the extent of the problem here - the Republican Party is comprised exclusively of assholes. One of the country's two political parties is unwilling to abide by the customs and spirit of public service, yet they still take the public service jobs. It's like a fireman that doesn't want to fight fires, or a doctor that doesn't want to help sick people. They are taking these positions that other people would be much better at and deliberately doing a terrible job at them. You can't make that illegal, but you can identify whose doing it and try to stop them.
Posts
They don't have to prove the tactic effective. It already obviously is effective. Hideously effective. 100% effective. If they don't blink, there is literally nothing that can be done other than giving in to their demands in some way. It's entirely legal so unless they change their minds due to a popular backlash, so there is no recourse until the next elections roll around. Even if they blink now, they'll be back to try this again next year at this time, and the year after that, unless the laws are changed. People saying "We can't run a country this way..." are quite right. I think it's literally impossible to NOT crack up completely with this system. History abounds with examples of the group in charge of providing the funds refusing to provide said funds until their demands are met...usually with highly deleterious results. Eventually someone is going to wind up in charge who is willing to use that power for whatever they want.
PSN: Vorpallion Twitch: Vorpallion
One minute you're parroting GOP talking points about how the Democrats won't come to the table to negotiate, and after it's pointed out to you that the Democrats have been begging to negotiate literally more than a dozen times you come back and say that you're just pointing out that this is just an effective tactic which you disapprove of.
Heh, true, but think about it, not only would delaying Obamacare a year be a "victory" for them now in the eyes of the Tea Party, it also makes Obamacare a big issue for the 2014 election when all the House seats are up for grabs. Does anyone think the Democrats are going to let the Republicans use that in a mid-term election again after 2010? Hell no.
3DS FC: 0817-3759-2788
See, if the government had really been shut down those barricades wouldn't have been turned on.
Games: Ad Astra Per Phalla | Choose Your Own Phalla
FTFY, just to reflect the current situation.
That wasn't GOP talking points, that was the White House own stated position as explained by Ezra Klein! It's in the last paragraph of the linked article to which I was responding.
PSN: Vorpallion Twitch: Vorpallion
@Vorpal, I don't know if you realize this, but you're advocating for anarchy. You come off as sounding like you want the government to fail because one of the political parties is acting in bad faith.
The popular backlash you're talking about happened years ago when congression approval dipped below 20%. The Republic party is acting against the very people they were elected to represent. People get elected to office to assist in running of the government. Shutting down the government is the exact opposite of running it.
This sounds like any job I've ever held.
I hope the agent is fine.
That also sounds like an action movie
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
On the other hand, electronic barricades that rise out of the ground. I just picture these giant spiky Mad Max-style walls popping up out of the ground to stop assholes who try to pull this shit.
How badass is that?
But yeah, everything about this situation sucks.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
How is it effective if it ends up with them:
A: Not getting what they want.
B: Suffering political damage.
This is the ideal outcome to avoid the fatalism you're spouting.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
It's incredibly disingenuous to assert that Obama and the Democrats haven't come to the table to negotiate. They have tried it numerous times already and the Republicans bit their hand off every time it was extended. So now, there is no negotiation because literally the entire fate of the country is at stake.
If the Republicans had agreed to negotiate the, oh, more than a dozen times the Democrats offered to negotiate months ago, that would have been the appropriate time to do so.
Shell shocked and totally bummed, bro.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
If noly there was an established method of trying to negotiate a House and Senate budget compromise. A conference of both Houses where they hammer out a bill that can then be voted on by both Chambers then sent to the president.
Oh yeah there totally is. It's called a Budget Conference Committee. And the GOP has voted down forming one 19 times this year. But it's Obama who doesn't want to negotiate with them.
The ideal outcome is one which makes it legally impossible to have these kind of shenanigans in the future. For instance, making it so we have to raise the debt ceiling so we can borrow the money we need *before* we commit to spending that money!
A lot of people seem to think these guys are going to suffer huge political damage for it. At the senate and presidential level, sure! But then their brand was already tanked there. If they aren't suffering massive political damage in their districts then they aren't suffering any meaningful political damage. And it's not at all clear to me that many of them will be suffering political damage in their districts - a lot of them come from very heavily republican disticts, and I think I already linked a poll showing a majority of republicans seem to approve of shutting down the government to defund Obamacare.
If you get very polarized house districts, you can wind up with a house of representatives that is actually not very representative. A relatively very small percentage of voters will be driving policy.
And they may well suffer huge political damage in their districts. Some of them you would think would have to. But that takes time. And while the process is happening damage is being done.
I'm not enthusiastic about a system like this where we have to rely on the decorum and probity of all house republicans to leave this powerful (yet dangerous) political leverage lying there on the table.
PSN: Vorpallion Twitch: Vorpallion
I'm going to have to remember that one when Watch_Dogs comes out.
I am beginning to find the choice to move here regrettable.
Congress gets all the cool toys.
See, I saw that and thought, "What the hell is an escape hood? Is it like an invisibility cloak?"
Not so much. Though I'm sure they get nicer models.
Games: Ad Astra Per Phalla | Choose Your Own Phalla
Also Blugh, accidentally bro-ing posts as I try to phone read
Wrong. You have to set your budget first so you know how much, if anything, you need to borrow. How do you borrow if you don't know how big of a loan to ask for? Further, the ideal situation would be to decouple the debt ceiling from a yearly vote entirely; pass a law that states that every year, it will be automatically raised to whatever level is necessary to support that year's budget.
Given that plowing in to the White House with a car is a singularly stupid thing to do already I'm guessing she blamed whoever was in the big white building.
Too late - you already invoked The Polling. Once you invoke The Polling, especially on a 3 year old law and less than a year after a decisive election result, to justify these Republicans' shenanigans, you're stating flatly that elections don't matter. Or maybe you're saying that the only elections that matter are the ones that Republicans win. Either way, you clearly don't believe that Democrats have a mandate if you think it's reasonable for representatives in the most gerrymandered districts to shut down the government because they can find a few confused people to say they don't like Obamacare. If you were to tell me that you believe in the American system of government, I wouldn't believe you.
Again, you have shown what a silly goose you are by not knowing what you are talking about and representing it as God's own truth.
The debt ceiling is not allowing the United States to borrow more money because the U.S. has committed to spend it. The debt ceiling refers to the U.S. government's permission to pay back the money it owes. That is why it's so catastrophic if the debt ceiling isn't raised. It's not that we can't borrow any more money, it's that we won't pay it back.
If I were to design a Congressional escape hood right now, it would be distinctly lacking the mouth filter
Clarification on this: Local news is reporting that whereever this started, it wasn't at an actual gate. The checkpoint where this started has multiple levels of pillars in the roadway blocking through traffic.
Also, they showed a picture of the car that got launched. Barricade got game.
Games: Ad Astra Per Phalla | Choose Your Own Phalla
Just putting it out there since things are so chaotic. Might not have been anything more than a seriously fucked up hit and run at the worst possible place at the worst possible time.
And also why the very existence of a debt ceiling is so stupid in the first place. Don't want to borrow more money? Figure that shit out when you pass the budget.
I think this is really what all of this boils down too. The GOP will not reliqunish this fight until they feel that whatever victory they claim can fuel them into 2014 into a complete party dominance. They have no problems wrecking the government and our nations debt status - they're mere casualties in a larger war.
In the meantime, a lot of good folks will continue to suffer.
Kinda yes kinda no. The debt ceiling prevents the US from borrowing more money. A result of that is that we will necessarily default on our debts. The reason we will default is that we have committed to spending which necessitates an increase in the limit. If the limit is not increased*, some of that spending which we committed to cannot happen. That may be debt, but it might also be what some people do not consider to be "debt". The reason why its so bad is that it doesn't really matter what the USG fails to pay, in the eyes of someone owed money all the ways in which they can be owed money are roughly equivalent. Which is to say that even if we keep paying the debt and instead just like don't pay Lockheed for the jets they sent us we're still functionally defaulting. And that is super bad.
*barring ignoring the debt limit via the various workarounds.
Considering that there are hundreds of journalists focused on the very buildings that this occurred in, its pretty pathetic they can't get basic facts straight.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Not to play devil's advocate or anything, but I don't get your point. Doesn't seem to be any functional difference. The treasury would never issue bonds that it couldn't buy back. So the debt ceiling is essentially a limit on the amount of debt the US can incur.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
I'm not totally aware, but I'm fairly sure most countries don't have one. I know we don't. Our government just borrows more when it needs more.
No the debt has already been incurred. Its whether we pay people/companies/investors. Its not selling new bonds, its paying for existing bond yields.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
You can't make laws against being an asshole, which is basically the extent of the problem here - the Republican Party is comprised exclusively of assholes. One of the country's two political parties is unwilling to abide by the customs and spirit of public service, yet they still take the public service jobs. It's like a fireman that doesn't want to fight fires, or a doctor that doesn't want to help sick people. They are taking these positions that other people would be much better at and deliberately doing a terrible job at them. You can't make that illegal, but you can identify whose doing it and try to stop them.