Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Congress CXV: Nevertheless, She Persisted

1131416181939

Posts

  • TryCatcherTryCatcher Registered User regular
    Still post updates on Team Bannon's actions, now he's calling for protests against RyanCare:

    Man. Is going to be fucking weird to see liberals and Trumpians protesting against the same Congresscritter.

    DarkPrimusJohnny ChopsockyJoeUserBucketman
  • MillMill Registered User regular
    I had originally posted this in the obamacare thread, thought I had the congressional one in truth.

    I doubt the more self-aware parts of the the GOP has the stomach to nuke the filibuster at this point and without them, it just isn't happening.

    Sure they have the numbers to do away with it; however, there are several issues that will bite them in the ass for doing so. The least of their worries, are democrats telling them to get fucked and not reintroducing the filibuster when they get a majority again.

    First, they are likely to eat a fair bit of public backlash and parts of the more malleable electorate, the people that aren't set as guaranteed votes for either party, perceive as a power grab. Power grab that would be perceived during a time where we have a very unpopular Republican president, that is a fucking idiot and right after releasing a really shitty bill that could easily screw many of them over. This could easily align a sub-section of voters that could have been winnable, or convinced to stay home, in a position where they reliable vote against republicans in the future (reminder that it was a very slim majority in three states that allowed Trump to win). It could also very well erode GOP support further in, causing some reliable votes to becoming maybe votes.

    The big issue though is that it removes the last fig leaf they have to blame the democrats when they don't get shit done. Yes, a fair number of them are pretty fucking craven, but enough of them get they have to continue winning elections still and that many of their policy plans are extremely unpopular; especially, when we start looking at proposals from the far right. Now instead of relying on the democrats to filibuster the most awful shit, that is adored by the die hard tea party assholes, that they don't have the spines to vote down. Well they'll be given a choice between a shit sandwich and shit salad. If they vote yes on that those policies, they run a very good chance of setting off so much public backlash that they don't win their next round of general elections and possible a few after; especially, if it is one of the really stupid policy ideas that does a serious amount of harm. If they vote no, they run the risk of getting primaried from the right and in a number of cases, their replacement will lose the general. Hell, depending on how bad some of these policies are, they could still set off heavy public criticism, even if the bill doesn't pass because some of the shit they want, shouldn't even be getting out of committee. Finally, plenty will point out that they are incapable of getting anything done and shouldn't be the ones running the government. Sure they could try to get democratic support, but I'd argue the current GOP has gotten so extreme that there likely is little left to compromise on and any attempt at reaching across the aisle on policies that could get enough democratic support would result in the GOP civil war going nuclear.

    So the filibuster, as much as I hate it, will likely remain in place. The dog caught the car, but part of it realizes there is a good chance it's actions could result in it getting squished under one of the wheels.

    Steam ID
    battletag: Millin#1360
  • Mr KhanMr Khan Piece of cake. HyruleRegistered User regular
    Filibuster is too inside baseball for the public to care. You named one of the strategic concerns, that it lets the Senate GOP block the craziness of the House GOP and blame the Democrats for the fact that nothing is getting done.

    The other issue is that the filibuster is a great power possessed by every single Senator. Senators would be hesitant to abdicate that power for all time for one appointment or one piece of legislation, no matter how momentous. Reid had to do it for sub-SC appointments because the Republicans had pocket-gutted the courts through their inaction, it was a genuine constitutional issue. Any Senator has the power to stop the agenda dead over something they don't like right now, that's a huge power compared to the House where agenda scheduling power rests in the hands of a select few. Nuke the filibuster and the Senate just becomes a smaller version of the House and the prestige of the office itself is diminished.

    Commander ZoomGnome-Interruptus
  • JoeUserJoeUser Registered User regular
    Things are getting testy in the Senate.



    McCain: Rand Paul 'is now working for Vladimir Putin

    Sen. John McCain on Wednesday accused fellow Sen. Rand Paul of doing Russian President Vladimir Putin's bidding after Paul blocked an attempt to vote on a treaty for NATO membership for Montenegro.

    "The senator from Kentucky is now working for Vladimir Putin," McCain bluntly said of Paul on the Senate floor following the dust-up.

    I don't know why Paul would vote against NATO expansion though, and he apparently gave no reason.

    PSN: JoeUser80 Steam
    Harry DresdenMartini_PhilosopherLabelemp123MegaMekMvrckGennenalyse Rueben
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    JoeUser wrote: »
    Things are getting testy in the Senate.



    McCain: Rand Paul 'is now working for Vladimir Putin

    Sen. John McCain on Wednesday accused fellow Sen. Rand Paul of doing Russian President Vladimir Putin's bidding after Paul blocked an attempt to vote on a treaty for NATO membership for Montenegro.

    "The senator from Kentucky is now working for Vladimir Putin," McCain bluntly said of Paul on the Senate floor following the dust-up.

    I don't know why Paul would vote against NATO expansion though, and he apparently gave no reason.

    That's pretty damning, whatever his reasons.

    DisruptedCapitalistMartini_PhilosopherMan in the MistsLabelemp123MegaMekBlackDragon480Gennenalyse RuebenRozMrVyngaard
  • TryCatcherTryCatcher Registered User regular
    Isn't the reason just your usual libertarian isolationism?

    Fencingsax
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Isn't the reason just your usual libertarian isolationism?

    I don't know, if that was the case he wouldn't shut up about it.

    Kayne Red RobeDisruptedCapitalistMartini_PhilosopherMan in the MistsknitdanMegaMekMrVyngaardMvrckGennenalyse Rueben
  • TryCatcherTryCatcher Registered User regular
    Well, I don't know either, but seems like the easiest explanation.

    Anyways, a McCain spokesman gives some "clarification":
    In a statement to The Daily Beast, a McCain spokesperson clarified the senator’s words, writing: “Senator McCain believes that the person who benefits the most from Congress’s failure to ratify Montenegro’s ascension to NATO is Vladimir Putin, whose government has sought to destroy the NATO alliance, erode confidence in America’s commitments to its allies, overthrow the duly-elected government of Montenegro, and undermine democratic institutions throughout Europe.”

    His office further stated: “Senator McCain, and certainly the people of Montenegro, would appreciate an explanation from Senator Paul as to why he sought to prevent this small, brave country from joining in the defense of the free world.”
    And Paul answers:
    In response, Paul avoided the over-the-top nature of McCain’s initial attack, instead commenting on the policy issue at hand. “Currently, the United States has troops in dozens of countries and is actively fighting in Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Yemen (with the occasional drone strike in Pakistan),” he told The Daily Beast.

    “In addition, the United States is pledged to defend 28 countries in NATO. It is unwise to expand the monetary and military obligations of the United States given the burden of our $20 trillion debt.”
    So yeah, usual libertarian talking points. In short: "Any new country in NATO means US money spent on defending it, and the US is on deep debt already".

  • iTunesIsEviliTunesIsEvil Registered User regular
    JoeUser wrote: »
    Things are getting testy in the Senate.



    McCain: Rand Paul 'is now working for Vladimir Putin

    Sen. John McCain on Wednesday accused fellow Sen. Rand Paul of doing Russian President Vladimir Putin's bidding after Paul blocked an attempt to vote on a treaty for NATO membership for Montenegro.

    "The senator from Kentucky is now working for Vladimir Putin," McCain bluntly said of Paul on the Senate floor following the dust-up.

    I don't know why Paul would vote against NATO expansion though, and he apparently gave no reason.

    I mean, I know, I know, IOKIYAR, but goddamn. McCain says that on the Senate floor, but McConnell shut Warren down for reading MLK Jr's wife's letter about Sessions. These guys are such goddamned transparent clowns. "Clowns" is being generous; McConnell is on Team Evil rather than Team Stupid.

    jdarksunArdolGnome-InterruptusPhoenix-DshrykeLabelSpoitemp123OrcaMegaMekAtlas in ChainsMrVyngaardSleepTetraRayZibblsnrtGennenalyse Ruebendurandal4532RozMatev
  • DiplominatorDiplominator Brotherhood of Ḍād Registered User regular
    1. Rand Paul can, as ever, go fuck himself, the giant honking goose.

    2. Isn't it "accession" to NATO, not "ascension?" It's a mutual-defense treaty, not Mount Olympus.

  • JoeUserJoeUser Registered User regular
    Please keep fighting each other!

    From a Morning Joe producer:

    PSN: JoeUser80 Steam
    Emerlmaster999
  • TaminTamin Registered User regular
    accession seems to be the better word, yeah. But ascension kinda works from the senator's perspective: it doesn't just mean literally going upward. There are shades of gaining power, or position.

    Saying "this congress has blocked Montenegro from gaining position with NATO" works well enough. It's a bit clumsy. The senator may well have misspoken (or been misquoted), but it's still in the ballpark.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Pokemon Champion (retired) Ann ArborRegistered User regular
    I thought impugning another Senator was grounds for censure!

    PwH4Ipj.jpg
    HakkekageSpoitPreachernaengweniTunesIsEvilMrVyngaardDisruptedCapitalistSo It GoesZibblsnrtMvrckQuidCptKemzikGennenalyse Ruebendurandal4532MatevSnowbear
  • naengwennaengwen Registered User regular
    I thought impugning another Senator was grounds for censure!

    It turns out even breaking the eleventh commandment IOKIYAR

    GG1ovJ
    art done by pejntboks
    MegaMekZibblsnrtCptKemzik
  • MuddBuddMuddBudd Registered User regular
    edited March 16
    Do we have a thread for the proposed budget?

    -edit-

    Never mind, I found it.

    MuddBudd on
    Project G.I.F.T.B.O.M.B. is completed
    steam_sig.png
  • knitdanknitdan Pretty Spry For a Fat GuyRegistered User regular
    I thought impugning another Senator was grounds for censure!

    The difference is mitch McConnell likes and respects Jeff Sessions.

    Fallen London: Joe Cusick
    MayabirdCptKemzik
  • TryCatcherTryCatcher Registered User regular
    The full Rand Paul quote goes as such:
    Rand Paul wrote:
    You know, I think he makes a really, really strong case for term limits. I think maybe he's past his prime; I think maybe he's gotten a little bit unhinged.
    It does has some meat on it besides the soundbite, let's keep going:
    Rand Paul wrote:
    I do think that when we talk about NATO, there can be a rational discussion about the pros and cons of expanding it. We currently have troops, combat troops, in about six nations. We have troops actively just stationed in probably a couple dozen others. We have a $20 trillion debt. And one of my favorite articles of the last couple years is one that talked about the angry McCains, and if they -- if we put active troops and got involved in combat where McCain wants us to be, they put a little angry McCain on the globe, on the map. And it's virtually everywhere. So his foreign policy is something that would greatly endanger the United States, greatly overextend us. And there has to be the thought whether or not it's in our national interest to pledge to get involved with a war if Montenegro has an altercation with anyone.

    There's also another argument, is that when you ask the people of Montenegro, only about 40 percent or slightly less are actually in favor of this. They are close to Russia, they're close to being sort of, like Ukraine, in the transition from Europe to Asia. Perhaps it would be good to be like Switzerland and be more neutral and trade with both.

    So, there's a lot of considerations but to call someone somehow an enemy of the state or a traitor might be considered by most reasonable people to be a little over the top.
    It is a decent interview, if only because someone is going to do these arguments:
    GEIST: But Senator, you just called John McCain unhinged. You said he was past his prime. Why do you think so many other senators have voted in favor of this measure if it's so crazy?

    PAUL: I think that there is a bipartisan consensus that's incorrect that we should have the whole world be in NATO. For example, if we had Ukraine and Georgia in NATO -- and this is something McCain and the other neocons have advocated for -- we would be at war now because Russia has invaded both of them.

    And so I think having former satellites or former parts of the Soviet Union is NATO is very provocative. And you have to decide in advance whether you're ready go to war. If you guys are ready to send a million troops into Ukraine and fight World War III, you're going to do it without my support because I think that's a really foolish notion.

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    The full Rand Paul quote goes as such:
    Rand Paul wrote:
    You know, I think he makes a really, really strong case for term limits. I think maybe he's past his prime; I think maybe he's gotten a little bit unhinged.
    It does has some meat on it besides the soundbite, let's keep going:
    Rand Paul wrote:
    I do think that when we talk about NATO, there can be a rational discussion about the pros and cons of expanding it. We currently have troops, combat troops, in about six nations. We have troops actively just stationed in probably a couple dozen others. We have a $20 trillion debt. And one of my favorite articles of the last couple years is one that talked about the angry McCains, and if they -- if we put active troops and got involved in combat where McCain wants us to be, they put a little angry McCain on the globe, on the map. And it's virtually everywhere. So his foreign policy is something that would greatly endanger the United States, greatly overextend us. And there has to be the thought whether or not it's in our national interest to pledge to get involved with a war if Montenegro has an altercation with anyone.

    There's also another argument, is that when you ask the people of Montenegro, only about 40 percent or slightly less are actually in favor of this. They are close to Russia, they're close to being sort of, like Ukraine, in the transition from Europe to Asia. Perhaps it would be good to be like Switzerland and be more neutral and trade with both.

    So, there's a lot of considerations but to call someone somehow an enemy of the state or a traitor might be considered by most reasonable people to be a little over the top.
    It is a decent interview, if only because someone is going to do these arguments:
    GEIST: But Senator, you just called John McCain unhinged. You said he was past his prime. Why do you think so many other senators have voted in favor of this measure if it's so crazy?

    PAUL: I think that there is a bipartisan consensus that's incorrect that we should have the whole world be in NATO. For example, if we had Ukraine and Georgia in NATO -- and this is something McCain and the other neocons have advocated for -- we would be at war now because Russia has invaded both of them.

    And so I think having former satellites or former parts of the Soviet Union is NATO is very provocative. And you have to decide in advance whether you're ready go to war. If you guys are ready to send a million troops into Ukraine and fight World War III, you're going to do it without my support because I think that's a really foolish notion.

    Two words: Donald Trump. Rand truly is out of his depth on this.

    durandal4532
  • MayabirdMayabird Pecking at the keyboardRegistered User regular
    I don't give a damn about any GOP senator's words. Their words are hollow, empty, and meaningless without action to back them. Like Joni Ernst, actually having a town hall in a city and saying there that Trump should release his tax returns - but she won't do anything about it. They are lip service only, just like their principles - pretty words that they say because society says they should, but nothing to actually live and act by.

    Again, Trump could demand they make a blood sacrifice of their firstborn children to him, and I would expect them to loudly scream about how much they condemn it while murdering their kids.

    Aistanemp123Phoenix-DXaquinLabeldurandal4532Emerlmaster999Edith UpwardsMartini_PhilosopherlonelyahavaUnluckyMegaMek
  • knitdanknitdan Pretty Spry For a Fat GuyRegistered User regular
    I think he's missing the point of NATO there. He says if Ukraine and Georgia were in NATO we'd be at war with Russia now, but I think it's more likely they wouldn't have invaded in the first place.

    Fallen London: Joe Cusick
    mrondeau38thDoeJoeUserDarkPrimusZomroemp123GundiArdolQuidGennenalyse RuebenGnome-InterruptusEinzelHakkekageAstaerethshrykeN1tSt4lkerdurandal4532Emerlmaster999Edith UpwardsMatevBlackDragon480lonelyahavaCrimson KingMegaMeknaengwenAridhol
  • TryCatcherTryCatcher Registered User regular
    knitdan wrote: »
    I think he's missing the point of NATO there. He says if Ukraine and Georgia were in NATO we'd be at war with Russia now, but I think it's more likely they wouldn't have invaded in the first place.

    Because there's no possibility that Putin calls that bluff, right? Or that we have another Syria?

    Look, right now it doesn't matter since Trump is in charge, but NATO countries are going to have to decide whatever they are willing to get into blows with Russia or not.

  • GundiGundi Serious Bismuth Registered User regular
    edited March 18
    No Putin is not going to call out NATO. Because it's not a bluff. The US and other major NATO players literally have moved their own troops into nations bordering Russia. Just the process of invading a NATO members means you're going to be immediately fighting a multinational coalition the second you cross the border.

    Notice how nations in NATO who have a far weaker capacity to defend themselves than Ukraine, magically haven't been touched by Russian military action.

    Is a Montonegran military alliance super important? Not really. But it honestly doesn't hurt anything.

    Gundi on
    mrondeauknitdanCptKemzikGnome-Interruptusdurandal4532MatevlonelyahavaMegaMek
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Gundi wrote: »
    No Putin is not going to call out NATO. Because it's not a bluff. The US and other major NATO players literally have moved their own troops into nations bordering Russia. Just the process of invading a NATO members means you're going to be immediately fighting a multinational coalition the second you cross the border.

    Notice how nations in NATO who have a far weaker capacity to defend themselves than Ukraine, magically haven't been touched by Russian military action.

    Is a Montonegran military alliance super important? Not really. But it honestly doesn't hurt anything.

    It helps better integrate the Balkans into Europe and hopefully help prevent the 90's from happening again. Which, European integration was part of the peace process.

    tea-1.jpg
    shrykeJoeUserFencingsaxGnome-InterruptusBlackDragon480lonelyahavaGennenalyse Rueben
  • JoeUserJoeUser Registered User regular
    So we've hit the debt ceiling again, and Congress needs to allow an increase.

    It's uncertain whether Republicans have enough votes by themselves for a "clean" bill, since some hardliners would want to cut spending.

    In that case, Republicans would be in the embarrassing situation of having to rely on Democratic votes.

    PSN: JoeUser80 Steam
  • Emerlmaster999Emerlmaster999 Shark of Positivity Zora's DomainRegistered User regular
    knitdan wrote: »
    I think he's missing the point of NATO there. He says if Ukraine and Georgia were in NATO we'd be at war with Russia now, but I think it's more likely they wouldn't have invaded in the first place.

    Yeah, isn't the point of trying to reach out and make amends with former enemies to ensure relations improve so we DON'T become enemies again?

    But in 'Pub Worldview, enemies are always enemies and no one should ever apologize for past transgressions.

    Switch FC: SW-6532-3196-7612, MisterBeeb
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    knitdan wrote: »
    I think he's missing the point of NATO there. He says if Ukraine and Georgia were in NATO we'd be at war with Russia now, but I think it's more likely they wouldn't have invaded in the first place.

    Yeah, isn't the point of trying to reach out and make amends with former enemies to ensure relations improve so we DON'T become enemies again?

    But in 'Pub Worldview, enemies are always enemies and no one should ever apologize for past transgressions.

    Except in this case being friends with Russia gives them Europe, because they don't want to be friends with Europe they want to conquer the place.

  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    JoeUser wrote: »
    So we've hit the debt ceiling again, and Congress needs to allow an increase.

    It's uncertain whether Republicans have enough votes by themselves for a "clean" bill, since some hardliners would want to cut spending.

    In that case, Republicans would be in the embarrassing situation of having to rely on Democratic votes.

    fuck it let em blow it up

    PreachermrondeauEdith UpwardsHounBigJoeMKayne Red RobeShadowfireAistanKnight_RozLoisLanenaengwenKetBra
  • Emerlmaster999Emerlmaster999 Shark of Positivity Zora's DomainRegistered User regular
    edited March 20
    knitdan wrote: »
    I think he's missing the point of NATO there. He says if Ukraine and Georgia were in NATO we'd be at war with Russia now, but I think it's more likely they wouldn't have invaded in the first place.

    Yeah, isn't the point of trying to reach out and make amends with former enemies to ensure relations improve so we DON'T become enemies again?

    But in 'Pub Worldview, enemies are always enemies and no one should ever apologize for past transgressions.

    Except in this case being friends with Russia gives them Europe, because they don't want to be friends with Europe they want to conquer the place.

    Well in a normal, sane world, global leaders would condemn such actions after the olive branch was shoved up their arses.

    Course, we aren't dealing with a normal, sane leader anymore.

    Emerlmaster999 on
    Switch FC: SW-6532-3196-7612, MisterBeeb
    Harry DresdenJoeUserCommander Zoom
  • ViskodViskod Registered User regular
    I expect the debt ceiling to be raised without issue. Just like it was every year Obama wasn't President.

    Artereis wrote: »
    It's not your fault, Viskod. 1 out of every 10 people just happens to be a monster.
    ShortyMatevkimelonelyahavaKraintMegaMekLoisLaneSealRhesus Positivedurandal4532N1tSt4lkerShadowhope
  • mrondeaumrondeau Montréal, CanadaRegistered User regular
    Viskod wrote: »
    I expect the debt ceiling to be raised without issue. Just like it was every year Obama wasn't President.

    A significant portion of the majority thinks that not raising it would just force the government to cut spending and would therefore be awesome, so I would not be so sure.

    JoeUserGnome-InterruptusshrykeMillLoisLane
  • Atlas in ChainsAtlas in Chains Registered User regular
    The real crime is that when it gets raised, the Dems won't scream it from the mountaintops. Everybody on Earth should know that Republicans raised the debt ceiling after throwing a fit over it under Obama. That shit needs to get pinned to them so it can't be done again.

    Emerlmaster999SleepmrondeauFencingsaxMvrckOrcajdarksunMan in the Mistsemp123SpoitMillNo-QuarterBlackDragon480lonelyahavaCommander ZoomLabelMegaMekLoisLaneminirhyderRhesus PositiveQuid
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    Yea, with the fall of the GOPe they've got way more True Believers who bought the lies that the previous folks knew were only demagoguery.

    This schadenfreude would be ever so much more satisfying if the misfortune wasn't exploding our country.

    mrondeauGnome-InterruptusOrcaMan in the Mistsemp123MilllonelyahavaCommander ZoomGennenalyse RuebenLoisLaneminirhyderN1tSt4lker
  • Mr KhanMr Khan Piece of cake. HyruleRegistered User regular
    JoeUser wrote: »
    So we've hit the debt ceiling again, and Congress needs to allow an increase.

    It's uncertain whether Republicans have enough votes by themselves for a "clean" bill, since some hardliners would want to cut spending.

    In that case, Republicans would be in the embarrassing situation of having to rely on Democratic votes.

    fuck it let em blow it up

    American default would be The End of the World as far as modern economics goes, like "liquidate your retirement and put it in gold" end of the world.

    The key would be for the Dems to demand certain concessions on stuff like Medicaid or SNAP.

    FencingsaxTomantaShadowhope
  • FoefallerFoefaller Registered User regular
    Mr Khan wrote: »
    JoeUser wrote: »
    So we've hit the debt ceiling again, and Congress needs to allow an increase.

    It's uncertain whether Republicans have enough votes by themselves for a "clean" bill, since some hardliners would want to cut spending.

    In that case, Republicans would be in the embarrassing situation of having to rely on Democratic votes.

    fuck it let em blow it up

    American default would be The End of the World as far as modern economics goes, like "liquidate your retirement and put it in gold" end of the world.

    The key would be for the Dems to demand certain concessions on stuff like Medicaid or SNAP.

    As I like to put it to people who respond with "what's the worse that could happen?" when it comes to the US defaulting on its debt. The economy of today depends on four things:

    People wanting what they don't have
    That there is scarcity (i.e. a finite amount of stuff to buy/sell/share)
    The Sun rises in the East every morning
    ...and the United States of America pays its debts in full and on time.

    ...and I'm not entirely certain if the Sun is actually needed for it all to work.

    steam_sig.png
    Kayne Red RobePolaritieFencingsaxshrykeMatevBlackDragon480Commander ZoomGennenalyse RuebenLoisLaneMild ConfusionShadowhope
  • ShortyShorty JUDGE BROSEF Registered User regular
    Viskod wrote: »
    I expect the debt ceiling to be raised without issue. Just like it was every year Obama wasn't President.

    there's gonna be a fair amount of noise from the true believers on the far right (like that guy who didn't know that complaining about Obamacare was a political maneuver), but it's going to happen without much fuss

    chillaxton.jpg
    we gonna be alright
  • Mr KhanMr Khan Piece of cake. HyruleRegistered User regular
    Foefaller wrote: »
    Mr Khan wrote: »
    JoeUser wrote: »
    So we've hit the debt ceiling again, and Congress needs to allow an increase.

    It's uncertain whether Republicans have enough votes by themselves for a "clean" bill, since some hardliners would want to cut spending.

    In that case, Republicans would be in the embarrassing situation of having to rely on Democratic votes.

    fuck it let em blow it up

    American default would be The End of the World as far as modern economics goes, like "liquidate your retirement and put it in gold" end of the world.

    The key would be for the Dems to demand certain concessions on stuff like Medicaid or SNAP.

    As I like to put it to people who respond with "what's the worse that could happen?" when it comes to the US defaulting on its debt. The economy of today depends on four things:

    People wanting what they don't have
    That there is scarcity (i.e. a finite amount of stuff to buy/sell/share)
    The Sun rises in the East every morning
    ...and the United States of America pays its debts in full and on time.

    ...and I'm not entirely certain if the Sun is actually needed for it all to work.

    Sun introduces energy for free. It hinders market function.

    But yeah, treasuries underpinning the economy are one line that scorched earth politics shouldn't cross. To successfully drive America into default as part of a bid for political power would be a real "king of the cinders and ashes" sort of thing.

  • DoodmannDoodmann Registered User regular
    Foefaller wrote: »
    Mr Khan wrote: »
    JoeUser wrote: »
    So we've hit the debt ceiling again, and Congress needs to allow an increase.

    It's uncertain whether Republicans have enough votes by themselves for a "clean" bill, since some hardliners would want to cut spending.

    In that case, Republicans would be in the embarrassing situation of having to rely on Democratic votes.

    fuck it let em blow it up

    American default would be The End of the World as far as modern economics goes, like "liquidate your retirement and put it in gold" end of the world.

    The key would be for the Dems to demand certain concessions on stuff like Medicaid or SNAP.

    As I like to put it to people who respond with "what's the worse that could happen?" when it comes to the US defaulting on its debt. The economy of today depends on four things:

    People wanting what they don't have
    That there is scarcity (i.e. a finite amount of stuff to buy/sell/share)
    The Sun rises in the East every morning
    ...and the United States of America pays its debts in full and on time.

    ...and I'm not entirely certain if the Sun is actually needed for it all to work.

    The US Navy and nuclear arsenal are probably also somewhere on that list, but economists don't want to admit it.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    mrondeau wrote: »
    Viskod wrote: »
    I expect the debt ceiling to be raised without issue. Just like it was every year Obama wasn't President.

    A significant portion of the majority thinks that not raising it would just force the government to cut spending and would therefore be awesome, so I would not be so sure.

    Yeah, remember that the GOP itself is too full of crazies to get anything done. I wouldn't bet on them easily being able to get this done with Democratic aid.

    mrondeauGennenalyse RuebenLoisLaneEdith Upwards
  • TastyfishTastyfish Registered User regular
    edited March 20
    shryke wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    Viskod wrote: »
    I expect the debt ceiling to be raised without issue. Just like it was every year Obama wasn't President.

    A significant portion of the majority thinks that not raising it would just force the government to cut spending and would therefore be awesome, so I would not be so sure.

    Yeah, remember that the GOP itself is too full of crazies to get anything done. I wouldn't bet on them easily being able to get this done with Democratic aid.

    Trillion dollar Trump coin? Or do you mean the crazies couldn't hold back the debt ceiling without the Dem's support?

    Tastyfish on
  • LabelLabel Registered User regular
    edited March 22
    So what I'm hearing is the Democrats in Congress should be getting ready to play the hardest hardball they can about the debt ceiling...

    Because, as Mitch McConnell pointed out, it's the current President and their party that catch the fallout for it.

    Label on
    Edith Upwards
Sign In or Register to comment.