Debt Ceiling Debacle 2013: It's the End of the World As We Know It and the GOP Feels Fine

11617192122

Posts

  • DehumanizedDehumanized Registered User regular
    Republicans are just bad at math at this point

    Offhand what's the percent of the budget that isn't military, social security, or medicare? 20%?

    2011 outlays:
    Mandatory 2,027
    Discretionary 1,346
    Net interest 230
    _____
    Total 3,603
    On-budget 3,104
    Off-budgeta 499


    Of the discretionary spending, 670B is defense spending. Making for 676B in discretionary non-defense spending, or 18.7% of the 2011 budget.

    Source:
    http://cbo.gov/publication/43543

    PantsB
  • MillMill Registered User regular
    Hey, I can hope that enough of our congress critters remember how badly some of the stupid shit the financial sector was doing fucked this nation over and push for ways to head off any attempts to revive that stupid shit. Granted best case scenario with a Congress where the dumbfuck teapers have considerable sway over the dumbfuck house republicans is probably preserving the status quo. Not unless Boehner decides to say fuck the Hastert rule and decides to rely on democratic votes to get shit done, which I think is very unlikely. But anyways, Jeffe, I man can hope, even if it is vain. :P

  • DehumanizedDehumanized Registered User regular
    Mill wrote: »
    Hey, I can hope that enough of our congress critters remember how badly some of the stupid shit the financial sector was doing fucked this nation over and push for ways to head off any attempts to revive that stupid shit. Granted best case scenario with a Congress where the dumbfuck teapers have considerable sway over the dumbfuck house republicans is probably preserving the status quo. Not unless Boehner decides to say fuck the Hastert rule and decides to rely on democratic votes to get shit done, which I think is very unlikely. But anyways, Jeffe, I man can hope, even if it is vain. :P

    They only remember that the campaign contributions are still coming in.

  • No-QuarterNo-Quarter Nothing To Fear But Fear ItselfRegistered User regular
    Republicans are just bad at everything at this point

    Harry DresdenCorehealer
  • silence1186silence1186 Character shields down! As a wingmanRegistered User regular
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    schuss wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Knight_ wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/15/tom-coburn-debt-limit_n_2482256.html
    Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) claimed Tuesday that a Republican-led refusal to raise the debt ceiling could be a "wonderful experiment" in forcing the government not to spend money on "stupid things."

    During an interview with conservative radio host Sandy Rios, Coburn downplayed warnings from economists, President Barack Obama and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle who have suggested that Congress' failure to raise the federal government’s statutory borrowing limit would prove economically disastrous for the nation. Coburn argued that because some entitlement payments would still go out amid a government shutdown or debt default, Republicans shouldn't fear a move to reject raising the debt ceiling.

    "We’re going to collect $200 billion a month if in fact the government were to not extend the debt limit,” Coburn told Rios. “Social Security would be paid, Medicare would be paid, the essentials would be paid. It’s the non-essentials that wouldn’t be paid, it’s the $250 to $300 billion a year in stupid things we do that we wouldn’t pay. It’s the programs that aren’t an absolute necessity that wouldn’t get funded, the things that would be a necessity would get funded.”

    Coburn continued, seemingly urging lawmakers consider a vote against a debt ceiling increase.

    “It might be a wonderful experiment, regardless who wins the next election or not, just to see if we could live on the money that’s coming into the Treasury and not have to borrow against the future of our children,” the Oklahoma Republican said.

    ...
    Some people are just stupid.

    What, you don't like wonderful experiments in ending the world economy?

    Also wonderful experiments in math that is wrongy wrong wrong wrong.

    Wrong.

    HEY GUYS I HAVE A WONDERFUL IDEA FOR AN EXPERIMENT

    LET'S TAKE THE OPERATING CODE FOR ONE OF OUR NUCLEAR MISSILE SILOS AND PUT A DIVIDE-BY-ZERO IN THERE.

    JUST TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS

    IT WILL BE A GLORIOUS EXPERIMENT TO SEE IF WE ALL FUCKING DIE


    First thing we should stop spending money on are congressional salaries, since they clearly aren't worth what we're paying them.

    The fact that they get to vote on their own pay and benefit increases is hilariously awful.

    "The country is in a recession and most people are without healthcare. TIME TO PAY OURSELVES MORE AND HAVE INCREASED MEDICAL COVERAGE!"

    Didn't this make @mcdermott really angry last thread?

    V wrote:
    Words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth.

  • LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    Okay, perhaps I've been talking to too many crazy people, but I've been hearing people make the claim that not raising the debt ceiling won't cause default and economic catastrophe but merely scaling back government spending across the board while still making payments on existing debt, which would be awesome because austerity forever.

    I know there are some possible technical reasons why this won't actually be the case, such as government revenues being inconsistent over the course of a year while government obligations are not, but I feel like I'm missing some glaringly obvious reason why this whole "We'll just go back to an earlier budget that matches our revenues and create no new debt" idea of not raising the debt ceiling won't actually work.

  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    Because mandatory spending cannot be decreased at whim, and we can't fit Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security/etc in there and do anything else at all.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Scenarios with no debt ceiling hike:
    Option 1: The US doesn't pay its bills, credit dies, worldwide pain and suffering.
    Option 2: No one cares the US doesn't pay its bills, massive loss of demand in the economy, new recession, 10% unemployment, massive pain and suffering
    Option 3: There is no option 3.

    Meanwhile, new unemployment claims were at 335k, which I think is the best week since I started paying attention (which is to say when Atrios started posting them). Not lifting the debt ceiling would be like being in a brand new relationship with an awesome girl and you just started having sex and then blowing your dick off with a shotgun.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
  • TheCanManTheCanMan Registered User regular
    Scenarios with no debt ceiling hike:
    Option 1: The US doesn't pay its bills, credit dies, worldwide pain and suffering.
    Option 2: No one cares the US doesn't pay its bills, massive loss of demand in the economy, new recession, 10% unemployment, massive pain and suffering
    Option 3: There is no option 3.

    Meanwhile, new unemployment claims were at 335k, which I think is the best week since I started paying attention (which is to say when Atrios started posting them). Not lifting the debt ceiling would be like being in a brand new relationship with an awesome girl and you just started having sex and then blowing your dick off with a shotgun.

    I think the proper analogy would be "shitting the bed". It works as both an analogy and an idiom!

  • VeritasVRVeritasVR Registered User regular
    Not lifting the debt ceiling would be like being in a brand new relationship with an awesome girl and you just started having sex and then blowing your dick off with a shotgun.

    Why didn't you see that coming?

    CoH_infantry.jpg
    Let 'em eat fucking pineapples!
  • adventfallsadventfalls Why would you wish to know? Registered User regular
    Not sure if this is the proper place to bitch about sequestration, but I just had a job offer rescinded because of it.

    ...This makes it the second time I've lost a job because someone thought now was a good time for deficit reduction.

    NintendoID: AdventFalls 3DS Code: 3454-0237-6080
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Not sure if this is the proper place to bitch about sequestration, but I just had a job offer rescinded because of it.

    ...This makes it the second time I've lost a job because someone thought now was a good time for deficit reduction.

    Where's your hopey changey now?

    Be sure to vote Republican.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    Lawndart wrote: »
    Okay, perhaps I've been talking to too many crazy people, but I've been hearing people make the claim that not raising the debt ceiling won't cause default and economic catastrophe but merely scaling back government spending across the board while still making payments on existing debt, which would be awesome because austerity forever.

    I know there are some possible technical reasons why this won't actually be the case, such as government revenues being inconsistent over the course of a year while government obligations are not, but I feel like I'm missing some glaringly obvious reason why this whole "We'll just go back to an earlier budget that matches our revenues and create no new debt" idea of not raising the debt ceiling won't actually work.

    Thing is daily revenues aren't always going to match daily outlays. And if they need to pay off some interest on debt to avoid default the Treasury can't issue new debt to pay it off. Even in their moronic hypothetical scenario it simply doesn't work

  • MelokuMeloku Ask me about my Illusions Registered User regular
    Lawndart wrote: »
    Okay, perhaps I've been talking to too many crazy people, but I've been hearing people make the claim that not raising the debt ceiling won't cause default and economic catastrophe but merely scaling back government spending across the board while still making payments on existing debt, which would be awesome because austerity forever.

    I know there are some possible technical reasons why this won't actually be the case, such as government revenues being inconsistent over the course of a year while government obligations are not, but I feel like I'm missing some glaringly obvious reason why this whole "We'll just go back to an earlier budget that matches our revenues and create no new debt" idea of not raising the debt ceiling won't actually work.

    Thing is daily revenues aren't always going to match daily outlays. And if they need to pay off some interest on debt to avoid default the Treasury can't issue new debt to pay it off. Even in their moronic hypothetical scenario it simply doesn't work

    Additionally, the systems that service our debt obligations aren't set up to handle "honor this specific debt" restrictions - they can only (to the best of my knowledge) handle invoices in the order received - and it is unlikely to be possible to change it to be able to classify these things, so basically we have no way of controlling which obligations are serviced if we can't play any of our accounting tricks.

  • DeebaserDeebaser on my way to work in a suit and a tie Ahhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered User regular
    The government can't create jobs.

  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    Deebaser wrote: »
    The government can't create jobs.

    What about the guys who carry the money to the burning pit?

    Are they volunteers?

  • CogCog Registered User regular
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Deebaser wrote: »
    The government can't create jobs.

    What about the guys who carry the money to the burning pit?

    Are they volunteers?

    They're called Congress.

  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    Meloku wrote: »
    Lawndart wrote: »
    Okay, perhaps I've been talking to too many crazy people, but I've been hearing people make the claim that not raising the debt ceiling won't cause default and economic catastrophe but merely scaling back government spending across the board while still making payments on existing debt, which would be awesome because austerity forever.

    I know there are some possible technical reasons why this won't actually be the case, such as government revenues being inconsistent over the course of a year while government obligations are not, but I feel like I'm missing some glaringly obvious reason why this whole "We'll just go back to an earlier budget that matches our revenues and create no new debt" idea of not raising the debt ceiling won't actually work.

    Thing is daily revenues aren't always going to match daily outlays. And if they need to pay off some interest on debt to avoid default the Treasury can't issue new debt to pay it off. Even in their moronic hypothetical scenario it simply doesn't work

    Additionally, the systems that service our debt obligations aren't set up to handle "honor this specific debt" restrictions - they can only (to the best of my knowledge) handle invoices in the order received - and it is unlikely to be possible to change it to be able to classify these things, so basically we have no way of controlling which obligations are serviced if we can't play any of our accounting tricks.

    It's funny because their suggestion basically makes Obama a king and congress nothing more than people who make some suggestions.

  • TheCanManTheCanMan Registered User regular
    Meloku wrote: »
    Lawndart wrote: »
    Okay, perhaps I've been talking to too many crazy people, but I've been hearing people make the claim that not raising the debt ceiling won't cause default and economic catastrophe but merely scaling back government spending across the board while still making payments on existing debt, which would be awesome because austerity forever.

    I know there are some possible technical reasons why this won't actually be the case, such as government revenues being inconsistent over the course of a year while government obligations are not, but I feel like I'm missing some glaringly obvious reason why this whole "We'll just go back to an earlier budget that matches our revenues and create no new debt" idea of not raising the debt ceiling won't actually work.

    Thing is daily revenues aren't always going to match daily outlays. And if they need to pay off some interest on debt to avoid default the Treasury can't issue new debt to pay it off. Even in their moronic hypothetical scenario it simply doesn't work

    Additionally, the systems that service our debt obligations aren't set up to handle "honor this specific debt" restrictions - they can only (to the best of my knowledge) handle invoices in the order received - and it is unlikely to be possible to change it to be able to classify these things, so basically we have no way of controlling which obligations are serviced if we can't play any of our accounting tricks.

    It's funny because their suggestion basically makes Obama a king and congress nothing more than people who make some suggestions.

    While the same exact people simultaneously throw a shit fit over the outrageous power grab of Obama's gun control executive orders. :rotate:

  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    Well the whole thing goes back to the GOP wanting "cuts" but not wanting to actually take an political flack for them. So they suggest these things but you know the second one SS check went out late there'd be a line of Republicans waiting to complain around the block at the National Press Corp

  • TheCanManTheCanMan Registered User regular
    If it really was physically possible and legally in his powers (both of which are dubious at best), I wonder what the outrage would be like if Obama selectively withheld spending for anything in a district of the congress critters who voted against raising the ceiling? 8->

  • emp123emp123 Registered User regular
    edited January 2013
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    If it really was physically possible and legally in his powers (both of which are dubious at best), I wonder what the outrage would be like if Obama selectively withheld spending for anything in a district of the congress critters who voted against raising the ceiling? 8->

    A man can dream.

    Also, Id like to see this applied to states/districts that dont like taxes but get more federal money than they send in.

    But, you know, theres a human cost to all this and the dream is short lived.

    emp123 on
    camo_sig2.png
  • chrisnlchrisnl Registered User regular
    Can we give Coburn an award, something like "Least Intelligent Comment by a Politician This Year (So Far)"?

    steam_sig.png
  • MuddBuddMuddBudd Registered User regular
    chrisnl wrote: »
    Can we give Coburn an award, something like "Least Intelligent Comment by a Politician This Year (So Far)"?

    That depends. Does Limbaugh count as a politician? He acts like one sometimes.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/01/rush-limbaugh-you-know-how-to-stop-abortion-require-that-each-one-occur-with-a-gun/267279/

    steam_sig.png
  • VeeveeVeevee WisconsinRegistered User regular
    MuddBudd wrote: »
    chrisnl wrote: »
    Can we give Coburn an award, something like "Least Intelligent Comment by a Politician This Year (So Far)"?

    That depends. Does Limbaugh count as a politician? He acts like one sometimes.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/01/rush-limbaugh-you-know-how-to-stop-abortion-require-that-each-one-occur-with-a-gun/267279/

    I saw the headline, clicked the link, then closed the tab before it loaded.

    I now have to reprimand my brain with some whiskey for being so stupid

  • LilnoobsLilnoobs Alpha Queue Registered User regular
    Pretend it's published in The Onion and it's pretty funny.

  • SquigieSquigie Registered User regular
    I'm not reading that, but I am contemplating the mechanics of his proposal. How do you shoot a woman up the cooch and only hit the fetus? Is it even possible? Where is science when we need it?


    Must. Not. Click. Damn you, morbid curiosity!

    Warning: the preceding post may be more sarcastic than it appears. Proceed at own risk. Individual results may vary. Offers not valid in Canada or where prohibited by fraud statutes.
  • Mild ConfusionMild Confusion Smash All Things Registered User regular
    edited January 2013
    :(

    No wait:
    [D.C.'s NBA team] used to be the Washington Bullets, and the term "bullets" was deemed ... I don't know that it was offensive. I'm not aware that anybody in the Washington area said they were offended by it. Somebody said, "You know what? Bullets? We don't need kids wanting to be bullets. Kids emulate athletes. We don't want kids cheering bullets. We don't want bullets to become the ammo."

    So they changed it to Wizards. Doesn't the Ku Klux Klan have wizards? I know they've got grand cyclopses and they have kleagles. Sheets Byrd, the late senator from West Virginia was a kleagle I think. Or maybe he was a grand cyclops. Maybe you have to be a kleagle before you were a cyclops or vice-versa, who knows? But I know that they got wizards and grand wizards at the KKK. I wonder if they thought of that when they changed the name from the Bullets to the Wizards.

    AHAHAHAHA!

    Ooooh man!

    The cognitive dissonance is tickling my brain something fierce right now!

    Mild Confusion on
    steam_sig.png

    Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
  • XandarthXandarth Registered User regular
    Deebaser wrote: »
    The government can't create jobs.
    Of course! All public servants are actually unemployed.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    :(

    No wait:
    [D.C.'s NBA team] used to be the Washington Bullets, and the term "bullets" was deemed ... I don't know that it was offensive. I'm not aware that anybody in the Washington area said they were offended by it. Somebody said, "You know what? Bullets? We don't need kids wanting to be bullets. Kids emulate athletes. We don't want kids cheering bullets. We don't want bullets to become the ammo."

    So they changed it to Wizards. Doesn't the Ku Klux Klan have wizards? I know they've got grand cyclopses and they have kleagles. Sheets Byrd, the late senator from West Virginia was a kleagle I think. Or maybe he was a grand cyclops. Maybe you have to be a kleagle before you were a cyclops or vice-versa, who knows? But I know that they got wizards and grand wizards at the KKK. I wonder if they thought of that when they changed the name from the Bullets to the Wizards.

    AHAHAHAHA!

    Ooooh man!

    The cognitive dissonance is tickling my brain something fierce right now!

    Let's be honest, if you're going to change the name of a Washington sports team, there is a much more offensive one than "Bullets" available. Really don't understand how the Redskins are still a thing.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
  • MuddBuddMuddBudd Registered User regular
    Squigie wrote: »
    I'm not reading that, but I am contemplating the mechanics of his proposal. How do you shoot a woman up the cooch and only hit the fetus? Is it even possible? Where is science when we need it?


    Must. Not. Click. Damn you, morbid curiosity!

    He'll backpedal on it when he is inevitably confronted, but yes, he just advocated we murder anyone who tries to get an abortion.

    steam_sig.png
  • AstaerethAstaereth In the belly of the beastRegistered User regular
    MuddBudd wrote: »
    Squigie wrote: »
    I'm not reading that, but I am contemplating the mechanics of his proposal. How do you shoot a woman up the cooch and only hit the fetus? Is it even possible? Where is science when we need it?


    Must. Not. Click. Damn you, morbid curiosity!

    He'll backpedal on it when he is inevitably confronted, but yes, he just advocated we murder anyone who tries to get an abortion.

    ...I hate Limbaugh, but that is absolutely not what he meant there. Here's the context:
    CALLER: I think it does. It's just terrible that 26 people died in Sandy Hook and 20 of them were children. Terrible. Very sad, coming up to Christmas. Hopes and dreams the young children had, their parents and weddings and congratulations that will never occur. However, on any given day in America, more than 3,000 children are killed from abortion, and we have no problems with that. We're okay with that; it's not an issue.

    You can't spend 40 years telling people and telling children that if I make a mistake -- if something comes up and this child that I don't want is in the way of my future and the way of me graduating high school, is in the way of me going to college, is the way of me being happy, is in the way of whatever I want out of life -- then it's okay for me to kill the baby. But later on when I become a disgruntled employee, when I become an unhappy student at school because children are bullying me, then I want to eliminate them to get them out of the way? It's the same concept.

    RUSH: Well, it's a good point. You know how to stop abortion? Require that each one occur with a gun.

    He's not advocating abortion-by-gun; he's saying that when children are killed with guns, liberals start passing laws, but when children are killed via abortion, everybody's fine with it. The joke is that if we used guns to perform abortions, liberals would suddenly be against abortions.

    It's not a funny joke, and it's still pretty stupid, but he isn't actually making a serious suggestion.

    ACsTqqK.jpg
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    In context it is pretty clearly hyperbole for rhetorical effect.

    Almost like he says outrageous things to draw attention to himself.

  • Mild ConfusionMild Confusion Smash All Things Registered User regular
    Yeah, that's why I think the comparison of an NBA team to the KKK because they both have the name 'wizard' in it is much funnier.

    By that logic, all things with wizard are now racist. Harry Potter, Gandalf, everything!

    steam_sig.png

    Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
  • LanlaornLanlaorn Registered User regular
    Yeah, that's why I think the comparison of an NBA team to the KKK because they both have the name 'wizard' in it is much funnier.

    By that logic, all things with wizard are now racist. Harry Potter, Gandalf, everything!

    I really disapprove of politics having these kind of entertainer-commentators so I can't believe I'm defending Limbaugh here, but again you guys are misrepresenting him.

    Just from reading that article of copy-and-paste nonsense, it's clear he was saying the name Redskins isn't racist today because it was at one point a common slur and then made a comparison to other terms with more sinister connotations in the past. It's a weak argument (maybe it has more impact for people who can remember the Klan and their Grand Imperial Wizards marching around and giving speeches?) but it's completely logical and not at all what you implied he meant.

    The "Limbaugh wants to kill all women" nonsense that Astaereth took apart is even more egregious (seriously, that "article" is terrible, terrible "journalism").

    And speaking of cognitive dissonance, you guys realize that what you're doing to Limbaugh here must be exactly what he does to Obama? You can't just take quotes and find a way to become offended by them. I'm sure he's got plenty of 100% context correct, literal statements for you to disagree with.

  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    So apparently, Obama convinced the republicans he was serious. Things are at least looking not insane:

    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/01/john-cornyn-walks-back-dafault-shutdown-threat.php?ref=fpa

    torchlight-sig-80.jpg
    TheCanManwazillaemp123spacekungfuman
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited January 2013
    So basically Obama stared them down and they blinked.

    This is a good thing.

    (I still wish we could get a coin.)

    ElJeffe on
    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • iTunesIsEviliTunesIsEvil Registered User regular
    I do not understand this new "OK, we'll kick the can down the road for another 3 months," thing the House is trying to run with.

    For the party that bitches about how business can't do anything because of "uncertainty" they certainly don't want to make anything work in a consistent manner*.

    * Short of their fuckmuppetry, but that's neither here nor there.

    Lovely
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    So basically Obama stared them down and they blinked.

    This is a good thing.

    (I still wish we could get a coin.)

    I'm going to wait to see the bill before I relax.

    Gonna be too easy to offset the raise with cuts for these fucks.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    obama should just keep ignoring them on the debt ceiling and the white house press core flat out say "it's not the president's call he has no part of this its all on congress"

Sign In or Register to comment.