"Obviously, DOJ's decision results in DOJ no longer needing the funds it would have otherwise expended defending the constitutionality of DOMA," Boehner wrote in a letter to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). "It is my intent that those funds be diverted to the House for reimbursement of any costs incurred by and associated with the House, and not DOJ, defending DOMA."
Wouldn't the people working for the Department of Justice have been full time people? The filing costs and other shit would be negligible for the most part.
Couscous on
0
Options
Magus`The fun has been DOUBLED!Registered Userregular
Reacting to the news that rating agency Standard & Poors is downgrading its outlook for the U.S. economy based on political gridlock over cutting the deficit, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) claimed vindication for the GOP. According to Cantor, the report strengthens the Republicans' argument for holding out on a debt limit increase unless they can get major cuts as part of the deal.
The White House -- and the bulk of mainstream economists -- have warned that a failure to increase the debt limit would lead to an economic catastrophe.
"Serious reforms are needed to ensure America's fiscal health, and today S&P sent a wake-up call to those in Washington asking Congress to blindly increase the debt limit," Cantor said in a statement. "Today's announcement makes clear that the debt limit increase proposed by the Obama Administration must be accompanied by meaningful fiscal reforms that immediately reduce federal spending and stop our nation from digging itself further into debt. For decades, Washington has blindly increased the debt limit while doing little to stop spending money that it doesn't have, a dangerous pattern that must end. As S&P made clear, getting spending and our deficit under control can no longer be put off for another day, which is why House Republicans will only move forward on the President's request to increase the debt limit if it is accompanied by serious reforms that immediately reduce federal spending and end the culture of debt in Washington."
Left unmentioned: the same news story Cantor sent to reporters on the S&P move notes that the last time the agency downgraded their outlook on US debt was 1996, out of fear that the GOP would block a debt ceiling vote.
He has to know that a few concessions isn't the same as an actual plan that they are willing to follow, the lack of which caused the S&P shit.
But plans require thinking and work and might touch on unpleasant things like making rich people pay their taxes and maybe looking at more efficient was to spend the money we're going to spend anyway...that's hard stuff. Better to just wipe out another round of social programs that will add up to another meaningless 1%. That'll do it.
Except at that point they can blame the Democrats. The present vote was a brilliant tactic to use on the ultracon Budget proposal, but now the Republicans have seen the move and are more prepared for it.
If the debt ceiling fails and all the Dems vote present, the narrative immediately becomes "Democrats didn't vote with world economy at stake!".
Depends who runs with the messaging better. Dems can easily run with "you had full control of the house, and you voted to trash the economy. We simply let you."
A vote TO do something horrible is more actionable than abstaining from voting to stop it. The dems just need to stay on message.
That and the House GOP will never EVER let that vote fail. They know what we're playing chicken with here. The question is entirely which side will blink. The dems are essentially saying "the day of the vote, we can totally fucking leave you out in the cold. Let's actually talk this out instead." as a response to the current GOP signal that they plan on using the importance of the debt ceiling vote to attach as much shit as they can.
The only other option for the dems is "fine, the GOP have a hostage. Let's just give them everything they ask for"
Yeah, if they're actually willing to collapse the global economy if they don't get a whole bunch of concessions, then we need to let that happen. At that point, democracy has failed us, anyway, so the economic hit will be worth it in the long-term in order to replace it with something else.
tl; dr: Shoot the hostage.
MKR on
0
Options
Magus`The fun has been DOUBLED!Registered Userregular
edited April 2011
Personally I don't get why the government doesn't just come up with a set list of charities and tell rich people either they pay x% in taxes or donate the same amount to set charities if they 'don't want the government doing stuff with their money'.
Here's the actual S&P news release. Above all they are worried about the ability of Democrats and Republicans to compromise on deficit reduction. Excerpt:
We view President Obama’s and Congressman Ryan’s proposals as the starting point of a process aimed at broader engagement, which could result in substantial and lasting U.S. government fiscal consolidation. That said, we see the path to agreement as challenging because the gap between the parties remains wide. We believe there is a significant risk that Congressional negotiations could result in no agreement on a medium-term fiscal strategy until after the fall 2012 Congressional and Presidential elections. If so, the first budget proposal that could include related measures would be Budget 2014 (for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1, 2013), and we believe a delay beyond that time is possible.
Personally I don't get why the government doesn't just come up with a set list of charities and tell rich people either they pay x% in taxes or donate the same amount to set charities if they 'don't want the government doing stuff with their money'.
Because despite the ravings of the Tea Party, "The Government" isn't a single monolithic entity.
MKR on
0
Options
Magus`The fun has been DOUBLED!Registered Userregular
edited April 2011
I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say. If they have the ability to put taxes on people, what prevents them from requiring an equal amount in 'direct payment' to stuff like social programs?
Unless you mean in the sense that certain people won't agree to it - well, duh. I was talking more in a 'Why do these people suck so much?' tone.
Personally I don't get why the government doesn't just come up with a set list of charities and tell rich people either they pay x% in taxes or donate the same amount to set charities if they 'don't want the government doing stuff with their money'.
Probably because that would most likely be unconstitutional without another amendment.
Income taxes are only allowed because of a Constitutional amendment. Other things, like capital gains taxes, are allowed I believe under Commerce Clause authority.
Here's the actual S&P news release. Above all they are worried about the ability of Democrats and Republicans to compromise on deficit reduction. Excerpt:
We view President Obama’s and Congressman Ryan’s proposals as the starting point of a process aimed at broader engagement, which could result in substantial and lasting U.S. government fiscal consolidation. That said, we see the path to agreement as challenging because the gap between the parties remains wide. We believe there is a significant risk that Congressional negotiations could result in no agreement on a medium-term fiscal strategy until after the fall 2012 Congressional and Presidential elections. If so, the first budget proposal that could include related measures would be Budget 2014 (for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1, 2013), and we believe a delay beyond that time is possible.
There is only a "significant risk" or does S&P use that to mean "they are so fucked?"
Here's the actual S&P news release. Above all they are worried about the ability of Democrats and Republicans to compromise on deficit reduction. Excerpt:
We view President Obama’s and Congressman Ryan’s proposals as the starting point of a process aimed at broader engagement, which could result in substantial and lasting U.S. government fiscal consolidation. That said, we see the path to agreement as challenging because the gap between the parties remains wide. We believe there is a significant risk that Congressional negotiations could result in no agreement on a medium-term fiscal strategy until after the fall 2012 Congressional and Presidential elections. If so, the first budget proposal that could include related measures would be Budget 2014 (for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1, 2013), and we believe a delay beyond that time is possible.
If you notice, the GOP message wasn't "see? S&P is downgrading the dem's inability to compromise!" but is actually "the debt fight is fucking the country, that gives us bargaining power: deal with us, or we'll keep fucking the economy"
The problem is that a decent number of loud crazy fuckers supporting them think this is a GOOD tactic. They're basically trying the whole "hold the economy hostage" thing, and demanding the dems capitulate on everything or they'll fuck the country worse.
The only real question is: are they really so far gone as to execute on this plan. If they are, we're screwed no matter what. I personally don't think they're that far out of rational actor territory (the crazies, yes. But not the core of the House), but the Dems need to force the core/saner parts into the open, where they can sit down and make compromise legislation and collectively ignore/marginalize the crazies.
It may be a pipe dream. More likely is probably either the Dems sighing and taking another one for team america, or the Reps doubling down on the crazy and trying to defund the ACA in the debt ceiling bill.
Depends who runs with the messaging better. Dems can easily run with "you had full control of the house, and you voted to trash the economy. We simply let you."
A vote TO do something horrible is more actionable than abstaining from voting to stop it. The dems just need to stay on message.
That and the House GOP will never EVER let that vote fail. They know what we're playing chicken with here. The question is entirely which side will blink. The dems are essentially saying "the day of the vote, we can totally fucking leave you out in the cold. Let's actually talk this out instead." as a response to the current GOP signal that they plan on using the importance of the debt ceiling vote to attach as much shit as they can.
The only other option for the dems is "fine, the GOP have a hostage. Let's just give them everything they ask for"
Yeah, if they're actually willing to collapse the global economy if they don't get a whole bunch of concessions, then we need to let that happen. At that point, democracy has failed us, anyway, so the economic hit will be worth it in the long-term in order to replace it with something else.
tl; dr: Shoot the hostage.
Yup.
If you have a terrorist group demanding a dozen nuclear weapons in exchange for a hostage, you're better off letting the hostage die.
Depends who runs with the messaging better. Dems can easily run with "you had full control of the house, and you voted to trash the economy. We simply let you."
A vote TO do something horrible is more actionable than abstaining from voting to stop it. The dems just need to stay on message.
That and the House GOP will never EVER let that vote fail. They know what we're playing chicken with here. The question is entirely which side will blink. The dems are essentially saying "the day of the vote, we can totally fucking leave you out in the cold. Let's actually talk this out instead." as a response to the current GOP signal that they plan on using the importance of the debt ceiling vote to attach as much shit as they can.
The only other option for the dems is "fine, the GOP have a hostage. Let's just give them everything they ask for"
Yeah, if they're actually willing to collapse the global economy if they don't get a whole bunch of concessions, then we need to let that happen. At that point, democracy has failed us, anyway, so the economic hit will be worth it in the long-term in order to replace it with something else.
tl; dr: Shoot the hostage.
Yup.
If you have a terrorist group demanding a dozen nuclear weapons in exchange for a hostage, you're better off letting the hostage die.
In this case giving them what they want and letting the hostage die are the same thing in the end.
Personally I don't get why the government doesn't just come up with a set list of charities and tell rich people either they pay x% in taxes or donate the same amount to set charities if they 'don't want the government doing stuff with their money'.
Probably because that would most likely be unconstitutional without another amendment.
Income taxes are only allowed because of a Constitutional amendment. Other things, like capital gains taxes, are allowed I believe under Commerce Clause authority.
First of all, why sould rich people get a 'you don't get to choose what my tax dollars do!' exemption and everyone else get screwed? I'd love to cut my taxes going to defense; where do I sign up for this program?
Which is why this would never, ever work even if it was constitutionally allowed; it's essentially allowing a tax credit for charity giving instead of a deduction. You'd be allowing every single tax payer to say "Fuck that, I'm not paying for X thing I don't like!" and directly allocating 100% of their tax money themselves if they chose to do so, with a grand total of none of it actually going to the government. And since the government funds lots and lots of things, everyone can find things funded with their tax money that they loathe and would probably backdoor out like this if given the option.
JihadJesus on
0
Options
Magus`The fun has been DOUBLED!Registered Userregular
edited April 2011
Well, it would be open to anyone. And they could only donate to certain programs. And if said program has reached an acceptable amount of money, then they can longer donate to it.
I wouldn't actually include the defense budget in this until the money it 'required' was on a more reasonable level. I don't really care if people don't get to make their fancy jet planes.
Depends who runs with the messaging better. Dems can easily run with "you had full control of the house, and you voted to trash the economy. We simply let you."
A vote TO do something horrible is more actionable than abstaining from voting to stop it. The dems just need to stay on message.
That and the House GOP will never EVER let that vote fail. They know what we're playing chicken with here. The question is entirely which side will blink. The dems are essentially saying "the day of the vote, we can totally fucking leave you out in the cold. Let's actually talk this out instead." as a response to the current GOP signal that they plan on using the importance of the debt ceiling vote to attach as much shit as they can.
The only other option for the dems is "fine, the GOP have a hostage. Let's just give them everything they ask for"
Yeah, if they're actually willing to collapse the global economy if they don't get a whole bunch of concessions, then we need to let that happen. At that point, democracy has failed us, anyway, so the economic hit will be worth it in the long-term in order to replace it with something else.
tl; dr: Shoot the hostage.
Yup.
If you have a terrorist group demanding a dozen nuclear weapons in exchange for a hostage, you're better off letting the hostage die.
In this case giving them what they want and letting the hostage die are the same thing in the end.
Sometimes you've gotta let the kid eat all that Halloween candy, even though you know you'll be cleaning up after they vomit it all back up. Otherwise they'll never learn to not do it, and people will never learn to not give them all that goddamn candy.
Well, it would be open to anyone. And they could only donate to certain programs. And if said program has reached an acceptable amount of money, then they can longer donate to it.
I wouldn't actually include the defense budget in this until the money it 'required' was on a more reasonable level. I don't really care if people don't get to make their fancy jet planes.
This is a bad idea. When you let people designate where their money goes, you only get money in the "sexy" things. I see this in non-profits with specifically designated donations. They can be good, but they can also be really unworkable. You end up with a million dollars to purchase instruments (and only instruments) for inner city music education, but no money for the building or transportation or outreach or whatever. Then you end up with $980,000 worth of gear in a warehouse and 5 kids playing really nice trumpets in an alley.
I'm not sure a "lesson" that involves tanking the world economy is one worth teaching.
The Chamber of Commerce will never, ever, let it happen. Nor will Wall Street.
Yeah, they really don't have the power here. If news fed anti-government crazies really are in control in large enough numbers, no amount of pressure in the world will stop them.
That is probably not the case at the moment, at least I hope it isn't.
Void Slayer on
He's a shy overambitious dog-catcher on the wrong side of the law. She's an orphaned psychic mercenary with the power to bend men's minds. They fight crime!
I'm not sure a "lesson" that involves tanking the world economy is one worth teaching.
The Chamber of Commerce will never, ever, let it happen. Nor will Wall Street.
Yeah, they really don't have the power here. If news fed anti-government crazies really are in control in large enough numbers, no amount of pressure in the world will stop them.
That is probably not the case at the moment, at least I hope it isn't.
Um, when the entire "populist" movement is funded by big business they have the power.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Geithner reiterated warnings that such a vote would force the government to halt benefits payments to seniors and veterans and would risk the government defaulting on its interest.
Hit this. Then hit it again. And again. Keep going to that well until everyone is sick of hearing it, because it needs to be said.
Sorry, what I mean is that if you have true believers it does not really matter what their backers, or anyone else says, they know what is right and will to stick to their values. It is possible to create an ideological beast you can't yourself control.
It seems like the republican party is going through a lot of group think right now, but that the leadership is only using the tea party mentality to prop up public support for themselves, so it is unlikely they would actually do this. Business and banking interests no doubt know who they can lobby to effect a change to compromise within the party.
Void Slayer on
He's a shy overambitious dog-catcher on the wrong side of the law. She's an orphaned psychic mercenary with the power to bend men's minds. They fight crime!
So is that S&P rating change becasue they think we might not raise the debt limit?
Partially. That release appears to me as though the sovereign outlook rating was lowered because of the multiple games of chicken the chucklefucks in DC are playing.
Geithner reiterated warnings that such a vote would force the government to halt benefits payments to seniors and veterans and would risk the government defaulting on its interest.
Hit this. Then hit it again. And again. Keep going to that well until everyone is sick of hearing it, because it needs to be said.
I wonder if they could get enough people to vote to expel him.
Posts
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
But plans require thinking and work and might touch on unpleasant things like making rich people pay their taxes and maybe looking at more efficient was to spend the money we're going to spend anyway...that's hard stuff. Better to just wipe out another round of social programs that will add up to another meaningless 1%. That'll do it.
tl; dr: Shoot the hostage.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
Because despite the ravings of the Tea Party, "The Government" isn't a single monolithic entity.
Unless you mean in the sense that certain people won't agree to it - well, duh. I was talking more in a 'Why do these people suck so much?' tone.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
Probably because that would most likely be unconstitutional without another amendment.
Income taxes are only allowed because of a Constitutional amendment. Other things, like capital gains taxes, are allowed I believe under Commerce Clause authority.
There is only a "significant risk" or does S&P use that to mean "they are so fucked?"
If you notice, the GOP message wasn't "see? S&P is downgrading the dem's inability to compromise!" but is actually "the debt fight is fucking the country, that gives us bargaining power: deal with us, or we'll keep fucking the economy"
The problem is that a decent number of loud crazy fuckers supporting them think this is a GOOD tactic. They're basically trying the whole "hold the economy hostage" thing, and demanding the dems capitulate on everything or they'll fuck the country worse.
The only real question is: are they really so far gone as to execute on this plan. If they are, we're screwed no matter what. I personally don't think they're that far out of rational actor territory (the crazies, yes. But not the core of the House), but the Dems need to force the core/saner parts into the open, where they can sit down and make compromise legislation and collectively ignore/marginalize the crazies.
It may be a pipe dream. More likely is probably either the Dems sighing and taking another one for team america, or the Reps doubling down on the crazy and trying to defund the ACA in the debt ceiling bill.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
If you have a terrorist group demanding a dozen nuclear weapons in exchange for a hostage, you're better off letting the hostage die.
In this case giving them what they want and letting the hostage die are the same thing in the end.
First of all, why sould rich people get a 'you don't get to choose what my tax dollars do!' exemption and everyone else get screwed? I'd love to cut my taxes going to defense; where do I sign up for this program?
Which is why this would never, ever work even if it was constitutionally allowed; it's essentially allowing a tax credit for charity giving instead of a deduction. You'd be allowing every single tax payer to say "Fuck that, I'm not paying for X thing I don't like!" and directly allocating 100% of their tax money themselves if they chose to do so, with a grand total of none of it actually going to the government. And since the government funds lots and lots of things, everyone can find things funded with their tax money that they loathe and would probably backdoor out like this if given the option.
I wouldn't actually include the defense budget in this until the money it 'required' was on a more reasonable level. I don't really care if people don't get to make their fancy jet planes.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
Sometimes you've gotta let the kid eat all that Halloween candy, even though you know you'll be cleaning up after they vomit it all back up. Otherwise they'll never learn to not do it, and people will never learn to not give them all that goddamn candy.
Again, that's why it's a bluff. It's asking "Are you willing to risk destroying the global economy just so you can stop women from getting abortions?"
If someone honestly answers "yes" to that question, then perhaps there's a chance they're a little too extremist for rational discourse.
so, "Democrats didn't vote with world economy at stake!".
The Chamber of Commerce will never, ever, let it happen. Nor will Wall Street.
Yeah I'm not particularly worried either. Then again I don't buy into the "gop is the most evil people to ever evil" stuff either.
This is a bad idea. When you let people designate where their money goes, you only get money in the "sexy" things. I see this in non-profits with specifically designated donations. They can be good, but they can also be really unworkable. You end up with a million dollars to purchase instruments (and only instruments) for inner city music education, but no money for the building or transportation or outreach or whatever. Then you end up with $980,000 worth of gear in a warehouse and 5 kids playing really nice trumpets in an alley.
Yeah, they really don't have the power here. If news fed anti-government crazies really are in control in large enough numbers, no amount of pressure in the world will stop them.
That is probably not the case at the moment, at least I hope it isn't.
Me neither, I think they're doing their best to act evil because they think that's what will win the votes.
Well not the whole GOP, the tea partiers are the real deal
Um, when the entire "populist" movement is funded by big business they have the power.
Also: Sun Rises.
Hit this. Then hit it again. And again. Keep going to that well until everyone is sick of hearing it, because it needs to be said.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
It seems like the republican party is going through a lot of group think right now, but that the leadership is only using the tea party mentality to prop up public support for themselves, so it is unlikely they would actually do this. Business and banking interests no doubt know who they can lobby to effect a change to compromise within the party.
No according to Eric Cantor its because they know that republicans are right.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Partially. That release appears to me as though the sovereign outlook rating was lowered because of the multiple games of chicken the chucklefucks in DC are playing.
There's no fucking accountability in our ruling class.
I wonder if they could get enough people to vote to expel him.