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
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.
0
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
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?
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.
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.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
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!
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?
Let 'em eat fucking pineapples!
0
Options
adventfallsWhy would you wish to know?Registered Userregular
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
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
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
0
Options
MelokuAsk me about my IllusionsRegistered Userregular
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.
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
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.
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:
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
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->
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.
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.
[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
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
[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.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
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.
There's no plan, there's no race to be run
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
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.
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.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
So apparently, Obama convinced the republicans he was serious. Things are at least looking not insane:
So basically Obama stared them down and they blinked.
This is a good thing.
(I still wish we could get a coin.)
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
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.
+1
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
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"
Posts
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
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
They only remember that the campaign contributions are still coming in.
Didn't this make @mcdermott really angry last thread?
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.
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!
Why didn't you see that coming?
Let 'em eat fucking pineapples!
...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.
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.
What about the guys who carry the money to the burning pit?
Are they volunteers?
They're called Congress.
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:
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.
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/
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
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
No wait:
AHAHAHAHA!
Ooooh man!
The cognitive dissonance is tickling my brain something fierce right now!
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
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.
He'll backpedal on it when he is inevitably confronted, but yes, he just advocated we murder anyone who tries to get an abortion.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
...I hate Limbaugh, but that is absolutely not what he meant there. Here's the context:
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.
Almost like he says outrageous things to draw attention to himself.
By that logic, all things with wizard are now racist. Harry Potter, Gandalf, everything!
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
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.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/01/john-cornyn-walks-back-dafault-shutdown-threat.php?ref=fpa
This is a good thing.
(I still wish we could get a coin.)
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.
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.