If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Think Progress)   Remember when George Washington defeated the British by crashing the world economy?   (thinkprogress.org) divider line 213
    More: Unlikely, world economy, House GOP  
•       •       •

3639 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Oct 2013 at 7:02 PM (41 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



213 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
NFA [TotalFark]
2013-10-13 05:30:05 PM
Deliberately damaging the nation and it's economy is not treason, nope, not treasonous at all.

What a god damn traitor!

trea·son
ˈtrēzən/
noun
1.the crime of betraying one's country,
 
2013-10-13 05:45:56 PM
So he's saying he wants destroy the economy of the USA to break our will, so he can declare independence?

Hell, he doesn't have to do that. We'll help him and his idiot friends pack and give them a ride to the border.
 
2013-10-13 06:40:37 PM
On the final day before the Debt Ceiling is met and shiat is scheduled to go haywire, I hope the President holds a prime-time interruption and announces an Executive Action of some sort to end this charade. Go over Congress' heads.
 
2013-10-13 06:47:48 PM
It's amusing how consistent the Republicans are at their projection. Meaning they attribute everything that they're guilty on onto others. It's just so blatant and obvious.
 
2013-10-13 06:50:19 PM

MrBallou: So he's saying he wants destroy the economy of the USA to break our will, so he can declare independence?

Hell, he doesn't have to do that. We'll help him and his idiot friends pack and give them a ride to the border.


Not our border, please. We're too full of turkey and pumpkin pie to deal with this nonsense right now.
 
2013-10-13 06:56:34 PM

God Is My Co-Pirate: MrBallou: So he's saying he wants destroy the economy of the USA to break our will, so he can declare independence?

Hell, he doesn't have to do that. We'll help him and his idiot friends pack and give them a ride to the border.

Not our border, please. We're too full of turkey and pumpkin pie to deal with this nonsense right now.


I meant the East or West border and to drop them off a couple of miles beyond, with lots and lots of gold coins in their pockets.
 
2013-10-13 06:59:57 PM

LasersHurt: On the final day before the Debt Ceiling is met and shiat is scheduled to go haywire, I hope the President holds a prime-time interruption and announces an Executive Action of some sort to end this charade. Go over Congress' heads.


What, precisely? That's not a challenge, I honestly don't know what the Constitutin would allow.
 
2013-10-13 07:05:49 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: LasersHurt: On the final day before the Debt Ceiling is met and shiat is scheduled to go haywire, I hope the President holds a prime-time interruption and announces an Executive Action of some sort to end this charade. Go over Congress' heads.

What, precisely? That's not a challenge, I honestly don't know what the Constitutin would allow.


Uhhh so you're advocating dictatorship??
 
2013-10-13 07:06:19 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: LasersHurt: On the final day before the Debt Ceiling is met and shiat is scheduled to go haywire, I hope the President holds a prime-time interruption and announces an Executive Action of some sort to end this charade. Go over Congress' heads.

What, precisely? That's not a challenge, I honestly don't know what the Constitutin would allow.


It's Obama, silly. The Constitution allows whatever he says it allows.

/sarcasm off
 
2013-10-13 07:06:29 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: LasersHurt: On the final day before the Debt Ceiling is met and shiat is scheduled to go haywire, I hope the President holds a prime-time interruption and announces an Executive Action of some sort to end this charade. Go over Congress' heads.

What, precisely? That's not a challenge, I honestly don't know what the Constitutin would allow.


I'm honestly not 100% sure myself. I've heard lots of suggestions that the 14th amendment could factor in.
 
2013-10-13 07:08:08 PM

LasersHurt: On the final day before the Debt Ceiling is met and shiat is scheduled to go haywire, I hope the President holds a prime-time interruption and announces an Executive Action of some sort to end this charade. Go over Congress' heads.


Anyone know the legalities of this?
 
2013-10-13 07:08:22 PM
Peki:

It's Obama, silly. The Constitution allows whatever he says it allows.


Why is that sarcasm? That is what Lincoln believed and Obama swore his oath of office on Lincoln's Bible.
 
2013-10-13 07:08:40 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: LasersHurt: On the final day before the Debt Ceiling is met and shiat is scheduled to go haywire, I hope the President holds a prime-time interruption and announces an Executive Action of some sort to end this charade. Go over Congress' heads.

What, precisely? That's not a challenge, I honestly don't know what the Constitutin would allow.


No one seems to know. A lot of Constitutional scholars seem to believe that he could invoke the 14th Amendment on fairly firm ground, but whether the Supremes would agree is anyone's guess.
 
2013-10-13 07:09:12 PM
****snap*****

Ow, I think that was the last of my sanity

i really don't know why i ever bothered to keep my mental sh*t together, this guy is getting paid to be a f*ckwit

why, why did i bother
 
2013-10-13 07:10:38 PM

Gergesa: LasersHurt: On the final day before the Debt Ceiling is met and shiat is scheduled to go haywire, I hope the President holds a prime-time interruption and announces an Executive Action of some sort to end this charade. Go over Congress' heads.

Anyone know the legalities of this?


It is patently unconstitutional otherwise he's have already done it. And I don't know why any sound democrat would want him too. Obama hates the idea of the "imperial presidency" as much as I do.
 
2013-10-13 07:10:42 PM
The t-tards are such traitors.
Crash the U.S. economy just because their depends diapers are just about to run out and the government is making sure no new supplies are allowed to be shipped.

I bet we could start up a fund to send the t-tards to their homeland in Somalia.

I know where there are a few old shipping containers. With just enough holes, so those mouth breathers can make it to their homeland in... :::future prediction coming in::: all right. Who the f*ck decided to eat the weakest t-tards in the container!??'

/Oh and for the DC police force... EMP their mobility scooters. Then call for the crane to lift that 500 pound sack of shiat up for transport to Gitmo.
 
2013-10-13 07:10:53 PM

Kittypie070: ****snap*****

Ow, I think that was the last of my sanity

i really don't know why i ever bothered to keep my mental sh*t together, this guy is getting paid to be a f*ckwit

why, why did i bother


OMG, dude. I'm laughing way harder than I should at this.

/today is not a good day
 
2013-10-13 07:11:24 PM
The Founders ARE gods.

/Victory is life!
 
2013-10-13 07:11:38 PM

worlddan: Gergesa: LasersHurt: On the final day before the Debt Ceiling is met and shiat is scheduled to go haywire, I hope the President holds a prime-time interruption and announces an Executive Action of some sort to end this charade. Go over Congress' heads.

Anyone know the legalities of this?

It is patently unconstitutional otherwise he's have already done it. And I don't know why any sound democrat would want him too. Obama hates the idea of the "imperial presidency" as much as I do.


What is patently unconstitutional? What, specifically? You sound quite sure that "it" is, whatever "it" means.
 
2013-10-13 07:11:42 PM
I like to remember Washington as the president who personally led an army to put down a rebellion of people who didn't want to pay taxes.

/make it happen, BOB
 
2013-10-13 07:12:22 PM

Albino Squid: Benevolent Misanthrope: LasersHurt: On the final day before the Debt Ceiling is met and shiat is scheduled to go haywire, I hope the President holds a prime-time interruption and announces an Executive Action of some sort to end this charade. Go over Congress' heads.

What, precisely? That's not a challenge, I honestly don't know what the Constitutin would allow.

No one seems to know. A lot of Constitutional scholars seem to believe that he could invoke the 14th Amendment on fairly firm ground, but whether the Supremes would agree is anyone's guess.


I've read some articles about that but I can only guess that Obama would hesitate because the Republicans are always searching for something to impeach him on.

The fact that he is a democrat isn't something they can impeach him on.
 
2013-10-13 07:13:06 PM
Just somebody kick him in the fork.
 
2013-10-13 07:13:08 PM

Albino Squid: A lot of Constitutional scholars seem to believe that he could invoke the 14th Amendment on fairly firm ground


Some are but none of those actually work for the Administration, see, and not one of them has to make the decision, see, and those who do work for the Administration, see, and are tasked with the responsibility for making the decision, see,  think those who talking about the 14A are selling horseshiat to increase page views.
 
2013-10-13 07:13:45 PM

LasersHurt: worlddan: Gergesa: LasersHurt: On the final day before the Debt Ceiling is met and shiat is scheduled to go haywire, I hope the President holds a prime-time interruption and announces an Executive Action of some sort to end this charade. Go over Congress' heads.

Anyone know the legalities of this?

It is patently unconstitutional otherwise he's have already done it. And I don't know why any sound democrat would want him too. Obama hates the idea of the "imperial presidency" as much as I do.

What is patently unconstitutional? What, specifically? You sound quite sure that "it" is, whatever "it" means.


Also: hasn't done it because we haven't actually defaulted yet. I have no doubt he has a team of legal scholars that have 50 IQ points on the both of us that will keep his butt as clean as possible (SCOTUS shenanigans notwithstanding).
 
2013-10-13 07:14:09 PM
"We have to make a decision that's right long-term for the United States, and what may be distasteful, unpleasant and not appropriate in the short run may be something that has to be done,"

Defunding the ACA is not something that has to be done. In fact it's something that shouldn't be done.

Deliberately crashing the global economy is something that should bring you up on charges.

The rhetoric I've been hearing from the RW grapevine online is calling the shutdown a "slimdown" as if the GOP are the only adults in the room displaying some tough love and putting the country on a long overdue diet. It started when the sequester happened and it's only gotten worse.

It's less like a diet and more like someone stabbing oneself repeatedly in the belly with a fork until they start bleeding out of several small holes and thinking that by doing so they are losing weight and making themselves look svelte and healthy instead of, you know, ...suicidal and crazy.
 
2013-10-13 07:16:09 PM

Peki: LasersHurt: worlddan: Gergesa: LasersHurt: On the final day before the Debt Ceiling is met and shiat is scheduled to go haywire, I hope the President holds a prime-time interruption and announces an Executive Action of some sort to end this charade. Go over Congress' heads.

Anyone know the legalities of this?

It is patently unconstitutional otherwise he's have already done it. And I don't know why any sound democrat would want him too. Obama hates the idea of the "imperial presidency" as much as I do.

What is patently unconstitutional? What, specifically? You sound quite sure that "it" is, whatever "it" means.

Also: hasn't done it because we haven't actually defaulted yet. I have no doubt he has a team of legal scholars that have 50 IQ points on the both of us that will keep his butt as clean as possible (SCOTUS shenanigans notwithstanding).


This. I don't claim to know precisely what he might do, but I would bet my last cent he's looked into it with the brightest legal minds he can get a hold of. When it gets to the "11th hour", we'll see if anything happens.
 
2013-10-13 07:16:36 PM

Virulency: Benevolent Misanthrope: LasersHurt: On the final day before the Debt Ceiling is met and shiat is scheduled to go haywire, I hope the President holds a prime-time interruption and announces an Executive Action of some sort to end this charade. Go over Congress' heads.

What, precisely? That's not a challenge, I honestly don't know what the Constitutin would allow.

Uhhh so you're advocating dictatorship??


I hope not. That would be a terrible precedent to set. The executive branch has amassed quite a bit of power in the past 50 years, particularly the last decade. Doing this would render the legislative branch almost useless since any president could just directly finance the government at whatever level he wants. Add that to the signing statements and executive orders and you end up with a very very powerful executive branch with the door to a dictatorship wide open.
 
2013-10-13 07:17:14 PM
Gergesa:
I've read some articles about that but I can only guess that Obama would hesitate because the Republicans are always searching for something to impeach him on.

He has hesitated because it'd be a genuine constitutional crisis no matter what the eventual outcome. If we get to the last minute, the only question is whether a constitutional crisis is better than an economic one.
 
2013-10-13 07:17:56 PM
All this drama-queenery by republicans simply because the right wing just cannot STAND the thought of poor people NOT writhing in pain or dying. The level of sadism they have for the disadvantaged is staggering.
 
2013-10-13 07:18:00 PM
Seriously the part about these people that gets me is how they seem to think they're "winning" this. That somehow the democrats are going to hang for all of it. They ignore the fact that all of the moderates they sold the fiscal responsibility line of shiat 2010 to get elected are seeing what is going on and will remember next year. They may not lose control but they are going to lose seats.
 
2013-10-13 07:18:16 PM

nubzers: Doing this would render the legislative branch almost useless since any president could just directly finance the government at whatever level he wants.


In what possible way could you think this is the case? I mean, can you justify this with anything at all? Ending a shutdown would empower them to spend whatever they want?
 
2013-10-13 07:18:24 PM

Albino Squid: Gergesa:
I've read some articles about that but I can only guess that Obama would hesitate because the Republicans are always searching for something to impeach him on.

He has hesitated because it'd be a genuine constitutional crisis no matter what the eventual outcome. If we get to the last minute, the only question is whether a constitutional crisis is better than an economic one.


That too.
 
2013-10-13 07:19:36 PM

TV's Vinnie: All this drama-queenery by republicans simply because the right wing just cannot STAND the thought of poor people NOT writhing in pain or dying. The level of sadism they have for the disadvantaged is staggering.


Makes total sense in the context of the "economic Calvinism" though.
 
2013-10-13 07:19:54 PM

Mugato: It's amusing how consistent the Republicans are at their projection. Meaning they attribute everything that they're guilty on onto others. It's just so blatant and obvious.


I think Freud once called this type of mental disorder "totally B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B!"
 
2013-10-13 07:22:20 PM

NFA: Deliberately damaging the nation and it's economy is not treason, nope, not treasonous at all.

What a god damn traitor!

trea·son
ˈtrēzən/
noun
1.the crime of betraying one's country,

 
The only definition that matters in the USA can be found In the US Constitution, in section 3 of article III:

 "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. "
 
2013-10-13 07:22:46 PM

TV's Vinnie: All this drama-queenery by republicans simply because the right wing just cannot STAND the thought of poor people NOT writhing in pain or dying. The level of sadism they have for the disadvantaged is staggering.


Nah. This is about holding power. And the Tea Party is exercising it in order to claim more.
 
2013-10-13 07:23:14 PM
Here's the part where we mention:

1. The US went massively in debt to fund the American Revolution. An even higher ratio of debt:GDP than today.
2. Debt isn't necessarily a bad thing. Germany, Japan, France, and even Canada have higher debt:GDP ratios than the US does. Think of it as having a mortgage: as low as you continue your payments in a timely manner, that debt can actually help you.
3. What's important is what percentage of the budget is being taken up by interest payments. Ours is actually low right now.
4. The people doing the criticism think gold is a reasonable basis for a national economy. Despite the evidence, the opinions of every economist who is worth a damn, and the conclusions of multiple independent panels (including one by Reagan) pulled together to study the matter.

QED: not only does this person not know what the fark he's talking about, he REALLY DOESN'T KNOW WHAT THE fark HE'S TALKING ABOUT.
 
2013-10-13 07:26:37 PM

whistleridge: 1. The US went massively in debt to fund the American Revolution. An even higher ratio of debt:GDP than today.


And some citzens didn't think they should have to pay for that debt. And you know what George Washington did? He sent troops down to talk to those traitors at gun point.
 
2013-10-13 07:26:44 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: LasersHurt: On the final day before the Debt Ceiling is met and shiat is scheduled to go haywire, I hope the President holds a prime-time interruption and announces an Executive Action of some sort to end this charade. Go over Congress' heads.

What, precisely? That's not a challenge, I honestly don't know what the Constitutin would allow.


A trillion dollar coin minted with Boehner's face on it.
 
2013-10-13 07:27:32 PM

ScaryBottles: Seriously the part about these people that gets me is how they seem to think they're "winning" this. That somehow the democrats are going to hang for all of it. They ignore the fact that all of the moderates they sold the fiscal responsibility line of shiat 2010 to get elected are seeing what is going on and will remember next year. They may not lose control but they are going to lose seats.


You're using "hang for it" figuratively here, but I think it'll be literal. If we crash the debt ceiling, there's an immediate reaction of a lot of really bad things that happen as a consequence. It's riots and rebellion territory the longer it goes on. They're worried that they may lose their seats. What they should be worried about is another Jared Loughner or somebody throwing a moltov into their living room.

It's not going to be pretty.
 
2013-10-13 07:28:19 PM
Is there any country that the Republicans hate more than the US?
Apparently, they hate democracy, republics, and any form of government where they can't get their minority way.

They sure are good with excuses though - quantity, rather than quality.
 
2013-10-13 07:30:05 PM
Obama:
"His values are strongly shaped by his expertise as a Constitutional law professor and civil rights attorney, and by Christianity."

He knows his shiat.....
 
2013-10-13 07:30:06 PM

God Is My Co-Pirate: MrBallou: So he's saying he wants destroy the economy of the USA to break our will, so he can declare independence?

Hell, he doesn't have to do that. We'll help him and his idiot friends pack and give them a ride to the border.

Not our border, please. We're too full of turkey and pumpkin pie to deal with this nonsense right now.


Nah, I'm thinking the coastline.  We can take them to the ocean, put them on a raft, or a rowboat, and let them be independent.
/Although some of them might be at home on a dinghy.
 
2013-10-13 07:31:12 PM

MrBallou: So he's saying he wants destroy the economy of the USA to break our will, so he can declare independence?


well...actually, the tea derpers seem to believe that if they break the will of the average worker/voter in this country, then they can carefully rebuild society in their image.  which is of course stronger, pure and powerful.  the fact that they want to achieve this utopia over the dead bodies of the rest of us is simply a price they're willing to pay.  we're supposed to lay down and die to achieve this paradise on earth.
 
2013-10-13 07:31:16 PM

LasersHurt: nubzers: Doing this would render the legislative branch almost useless since any president could just directly finance the government at whatever level he wants.

In what possible way could you think this is the case? I mean, can you justify this with anything at all? Ending a shutdown would empower them to spend whatever they want?


My thinking is that if he goes around congress and invokes the 14th, at what level of funding would he continue the government at? Sequester level or pre-sequester? There isn't a budget in place, and not a lot of guidance for this situation. And I'm thinking farther down the line with future presidents. When they wrote that amendment, they surely didn't intend it to be used in a situation like this. So if Obama did use it, even with the best of intentions, it could set a bad precedent for situations we can't foresee.

I'm just wary of short term solutions with long term implications.
 
2013-10-13 07:31:40 PM

whistleridge: 3. What's important is what percentage of the budget is being taken up by interest payments. Ours is actually low right now.


Which will change if they keep damaging the country's credit rating by not budging on the debt ceiling.
 
2013-10-13 07:31:57 PM

RedPhoenix122: God Is My Co-Pirate: MrBallou: So he's saying he wants destroy the economy of the USA to break our will, so he can declare independence?

Hell, he doesn't have to do that. We'll help him and his idiot friends pack and give them a ride to the border.

Not our border, please. We're too full of turkey and pumpkin pie to deal with this nonsense right now.

Nah, I'm thinking the coastline.  We can take them to the ocean, put them on a raft, or a rowboat, and let them be independent.
/Although some of them might be at home on a dinghy.


What do you call 12 lawyers chained together at the bottom of ocean?

/sub politicians and the joke still fits
 
2013-10-13 07:33:31 PM

RedPhoenix122: whistleridge: 3. What's important is what percentage of the budget is being taken up by interest payments. Ours is actually low right now.

Which will change if they keep damaging the country's credit rating by not budging on the debt ceiling.


Very true. So in fact, they're making the problem worse, not better. Ignorance and economies just don't mix.
 
2013-10-13 07:33:32 PM

Albino Squid: Benevolent Misanthrope: LasersHurt: On the final day before the Debt Ceiling is met and shiat is scheduled to go haywire, I hope the President holds a prime-time interruption and announces an Executive Action of some sort to end this charade. Go over Congress' heads.

What, precisely? That's not a challenge, I honestly don't know what the Constitutin would allow.

No one seems to know. A lot of Constitutional scholars seem to believe that he could invoke the 14th Amendment on fairly firm ground, but whether the Supremes would agree is anyone's guess.


I rather doubt the Supreme Court would ever rule on the matter, if it came to that. (Issues of standing aside, I just don't see the Court wanting to wade into this political clusterfark.) But, I doubt it will come to that anyway. There's just no point in exercising the constitutional option. If the only thing standing between the US and default is a legally dubious, unilateral executive action, the markets will treat US debt no differently than if it had defaulted. The debt is junk either way. Mox nix.
 
2013-10-13 07:33:57 PM

nubzers: LasersHurt: nubzers: Doing this would render the legislative branch almost useless since any president could just directly finance the government at whatever level he wants.

In what possible way could you think this is the case? I mean, can you justify this with anything at all? Ending a shutdown would empower them to spend whatever they want?

My thinking is that if he goes around congress and invokes the 14th, at what level of funding would he continue the government at? Sequester level or pre-sequester? There isn't a budget in place, and not a lot of guidance for this situation. And I'm thinking farther down the line with future presidents. When they wrote that amendment, they surely didn't intend it to be used in a situation like this. So if Obama did use it, even with the best of intentions, it could set a bad precedent for situations we can't foresee.

I'm just wary of short term solutions with long term implications.


I am more assuming he'd do it to avoid a Debt Ceiling/Default issue, not so much for the budget level - that I'd guess would be continued at current levels. I still imagine he'll hold out for congressional negotiations to get a permanent budget.
 
2013-10-13 07:35:19 PM
Just when I thought the hyperbole couldn't get any worse.
 
2013-10-13 07:35:50 PM

Peki: What do you call 12 lawyers chained together at the bottom of ocean?


A good start?
 
2013-10-13 07:36:19 PM
makeameme.org
 
2013-10-13 07:36:53 PM

LasersHurt: On the final day before the Debt Ceiling is met and shiat is scheduled to go haywire, I hope the President holds a prime-time interruption and announces an Executive Action of some sort to end this charade. Go over Congress' heads.


i could see that happening (not that it would make me happy)

and who would really shocked by it
 
2013-10-13 07:38:02 PM

LasersHurt: nubzers: LasersHurt: nubzers: Doing this would render the legislative branch almost useless since any president could just directly finance the government at whatever level he wants.

In what possible way could you think this is the case? I mean, can you justify this with anything at all? Ending a shutdown would empower them to spend whatever they want?

My thinking is that if he goes around congress and invokes the 14th, at what level of funding would he continue the government at? Sequester level or pre-sequester? There isn't a budget in place, and not a lot of guidance for this situation. And I'm thinking farther down the line with future presidents. When they wrote that amendment, they surely didn't intend it to be used in a situation like this. So if Obama did use it, even with the best of intentions, it could set a bad precedent for situations we can't foresee.

I'm just wary of short term solutions with long term implications.

I am more assuming he'd do it to avoid a Debt Ceiling/Default issue, not so much for the budget level - that I'd guess would be continued at current levels. I still imagine he'll hold out for congressional negotiations to get a permanent budget.


I'm assuming the same, but the next question after "ok, I'm raising the debt ceiling to pay for the government" is "how much to borrow". And that's what I'm worried about.
 
2013-10-13 07:39:36 PM

worlddan: Albino Squid: A lot of Constitutional scholars seem to believe that he could invoke the 14th Amendment on fairly firm ground

Some are but none of those actually work for the Administration, see, and not one of them has to make the decision, see, and those who do work for the Administration, see, and are tasked with the responsibility for making the decision, see,  think those who talking about the 14A are selling horseshiat to increase page views.


I know look at this horse shiat peddling click whores:

http://www.columbialawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Buchanan -D orf.pdf
 
2013-10-13 07:41:59 PM

Weaver95: MrBallou: So he's saying he wants destroy the economy of the USA to break our will, so he can declare independence?

well...actually, the tea derpers seem to believe that if they break the will of the average worker/voter in this country, then they can carefully rebuild society in their image.  which is of course stronger, pure and powerful.  the fact that they want to achieve this utopia over the dead bodies of the rest of us is simply a price they're willing to pay.  we're supposed to lay down and die to achieve this paradise on earth.


www.stilleasierthanchemo.com
 
2013-10-13 07:48:15 PM
sometimes I think the evangelicals read 'it can't happen here' by sinclair lewis and figured it was an awesome idea to turn the country into a corrupt war mongering theocracy.
 
2013-10-13 07:48:36 PM

sinanju: Benevolent Misanthrope: LasersHurt: On the final day before the Debt Ceiling is met and shiat is scheduled to go haywire, I hope the President holds a prime-time interruption and announces an Executive Action of some sort to end this charade. Go over Congress' heads.

What, precisely? That's not a challenge, I honestly don't know what the Constitutin would allow.

A trillion dollar coin minted with Boehner's face on it.


The tears on his cheeks, please say there would be tears.
 
2013-10-13 07:48:45 PM

Gergesa: LasersHurt: On the final day before the Debt Ceiling is met and shiat is scheduled to go haywire, I hope the President holds a prime-time interruption and announces an Executive Action of some sort to end this charade. Go over Congress' heads.

Anyone know the legalities of this?


Maybe he could "make it legal", and then declare the First American Empire....

/ oddly enough, I's support something like that over Teabagger-induced economic collapse.
// If I get to participate in any treason-trials as a juror, I'd be down with that....
 
2013-10-13 07:54:18 PM
I'd like to respectfully remind this douchnozzle that America isn't the only country thats had a revolution.

media.npr.org
 
2013-10-13 07:55:43 PM
No, but he did shut down a cherry tree. But since he took personal responsibility for that, I guess he wasn't a Republican.
 
2013-10-13 07:57:16 PM

Weaver95: sometimes I think the evangelicals read 'it can't happen here' by sinclair lewis and figured it was an awesome idea to turn the country into a corrupt war mongering theocracy.


Unlikely. That would require them to read something other than select chunks of the King James Bible, Breitbart/whatever freeper site they prefer, and all those obviously-fake-and-have-been-fake-since-they-were-first-used-with-diff erent-names-in-the-90s emails they insist on forwarding to each other.
 
2013-10-13 07:58:00 PM

whistleridge: Weaver95: sometimes I think the evangelicals read 'it can't happen here' by sinclair lewis and figured it was an awesome idea to turn the country into a corrupt war mongering theocracy.

Unlikely. That would require them to read something other than select chunks of the King James Bible, Breitbart/whatever freeper site they prefer, and all those obviously-fake-and-have-been-fake-since-they-were-first-used-with-diff erent-names-in-the-90s emails they insist on forwarding to each other.


well...in that case then Sinclair Lewis was a gotdamn fricking prophet.
 
2013-10-13 07:59:54 PM
Why the hell does the ThinkProgress site tag have the same colors as WND?  ThinkProgress has no yellow in their logo
 
2013-10-13 08:02:59 PM
AH, Griffith of VA-9th District.
That's southwest Virginia, the mouth-breather part.

Yes, we'll probably need to be arresting a passel of these people eventually for anti-government activities. Just give them some time. They'll hang themselves with their "freedoms."
 
2013-10-13 08:04:40 PM
If there is a such thing as a 'world economy', it needs to be eradicated. Such a thing could only be a feature of global communism.
 
2013-10-13 08:07:20 PM
nubzers:

I'm assuming the same, but the next question after "ok, I'm raising the debt ceiling to pay for the government" is "how much to borrow". And that's what I'm worried about.

He could very well say that the Debt Ceiling is not binding on the Executive branch and continue to pay legally required obligations (like Social Security and Medicare and interest on the debt) as they come along and punt the option of government funding to Congress.

The social programs with their own funding requirements and sources would have to continue to pay out, even though some have negative cash flow. I would be perfectly cool with the President telling Congress to fark themselves if they think the United States will default on obligated payments, but they should really pass a budget and re-open the government. He would face impeachment proceedings (which I would normally support in that situation), but it would fail. After the Senate fails to convict, President Obama is politically bulletproof. Let the craven morons in the House have hourly impeachment proceedings and rack up the high score. Hell, the President could give them a ceremonial middle finger - send the dog as the official White House counsel and let them yell at it.

The crux of the Constitutional issue is that none of amendment writers actually envisioned a scenario where Congress would blatantly refuse to do its job. It is an ugly precedent, but so was suspending Habeas Corpus during the Civil War.
 
2013-10-13 08:07:55 PM

Albino Squid: No one seems to know. A lot of Constitutional scholars seem to believe that he could invoke the 14th Amendment on fairly firm ground, but whether the Supremes would agree is anyone's guess.


My take on this is, who would have standing to sue?

SCOTUS, like any other US Court, can only take a case if they are able to provide a remedy - i.e, if they have the authority to grant the remedy requested by the person doing the suing. That person must also demonstrate that they have been injured or harmed by an act taken by another.

So who would file a theoretical lawsuit to have SCOTUS answer the question of whether the President had the authority to take steps necessary to uphold the 14th Amendment when Congress had failed to do so? Maybe someone who had shorted the American dollar?
 
2013-10-13 08:08:22 PM

Noam Chimpsky: If there is a such thing as a 'world economy', it needs to be eradicated. Such a thing could only be a feature of global communism.


Well, all-right then....?
 
2013-10-13 08:08:25 PM
"To become a thing is to know a thing. To assume its form is to begin to understand its existence."

--Thomas Jefferson
 
2013-10-13 08:09:59 PM
If Griffith, Meadows or any other House member actually carry through with their threats to destroy the US economy, they should be charged with sedition and brought up on charges. Sedition, not treason, is the crime being committed here, and every House Teabagger needs to be told that's what they're about to do.
 
2013-10-13 08:11:14 PM

TV's Vinnie: All this drama-queenery by republicans simply because the right wing just cannot STAND the thought of poor people NOT writhing in pain or dying. The level of sadism they have for the disadvantaged is staggering.


The question (in their minds) is actually far bigger than that - they see Obamacare as an expansion of the Federal Government, when they are working their asses off to shrink it down small enough to drown in a bathtub. It's not that they don't want to help sick people, it's that they see people dying as a necessary evil to enact their vision of government.

Obamacare is a diametrically opposite move to the direction they wish to take the country.
 
2013-10-13 08:12:20 PM

Bendal: If Griffith, Meadows or any other House member actually carry through with their threats to destroy the US economy, they should be charged with sedition and brought up on charges. Sedition, not treason, is the crime being committed here, and every House Teabagger needs to be told that's what they're about to do.


"His values are strongly shaped by his expertise as a Constitutional law professor and civil rights attorney, and by Christianity."
 
2013-10-13 08:12:48 PM

Noam Chimpsky: If there is a such thing as a 'world economy', it needs to be eradicated. Such a thing could only be a feature of global communism.


We probably need to step right the fark away from the NAFTA and other globalist prosperity traps on the other side of this disaster. But the globalists won't have it.
 
2013-10-13 08:12:53 PM
Have we gotten to the point where we can call Tea Party types "dead enders"? Because they are long overdue for becoming irrelevant.
 
2013-10-13 08:13:42 PM
"Ironic, isn't it? The hunted now control the destinies of hundreds of other races."

--Ben Franklin
 
2013-10-13 08:14:17 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: Noam Chimpsky: If there is a such thing as a 'world economy', it needs to be eradicated. Such a thing could only be a feature of global communism.

We probably need to step right the fark away from the NAFTA and other globalist prosperity traps on the other side of this disaster. But the globalists won't have it.


Globalism is inevitable; better to figure out how to make it work properly for everyone than pretend we can avoid it.
 
2013-10-13 08:15:17 PM

ox45tallboy: TV's Vinnie: All this drama-queenery by republicans simply because the right wing just cannot STAND the thought of poor people NOT writhing in pain or dying. The level of sadism they have for the disadvantaged is staggering.

The question (in their minds) is actually far bigger than that - they see Obamacare as an expansion of the Federal Government, when they are working their asses off to shrink it down small enough to drown in a bathtub. It's not that they don't want to help sick people, it's that they see people dying as a necessary evil to enact their vision of government.

Obamacare is a diametrically opposite move to the direction they wish to take the country.


And the really weird part is that the Republicans claim to worship Jesus Christ, a god who commanded his followers to heal the sick and help the poor.  so a group that claims to make this religion a huge part of their political goals is willing to shut down the entire US government and severely damage the world economy to avoid having to help the sick and the poor.  just roll that idea around in your head for a moment, see where it takes you.
 
2013-10-13 08:15:43 PM
I remember the Revolution as being caused by Parliament enacting laws to benefit the British East India Company that we Colonials objected to -- you know, taxing the People to benefit the Corporation.
 
2013-10-13 08:18:15 PM

nubzers: I'm assuming the same, but the next question after "ok, I'm raising the debt ceiling to pay for the government" is "how much to borrow". And that's what I'm worried about.


Then I'm not sure if you understand how the debt ceiling works.

If the debt ceiling were raised by, say, $5 billion tomorrow, that does not mean that the country is suddenly $5 billion more in debt., Treasury notes such as bonds are issued only to pay for expenses as they occur - and only expenses which have been authorized by Congress.

In other words, Congress authorized all of the spending. The creditors are going to run our credit card next week, and if we haven't raised our credit limit, they'll get a decline. Just because we raise our credit limit does not mean that we're that much in debt, just that we can become that much more in debt by continuing to authorize spending.

Congress needs to lift the credit limit now, since THIS CONGRESS authorized all of this spending. Then they can work towards a budget which does not increase our debt.
 
2013-10-13 08:20:02 PM

Britney Spear's Speculum: Why the hell does the ThinkProgress site tag have the same colors as WND?  ThinkProgress has no yellow in their logo


It does on their Economy tab, which is where the article is from. Every tab on ThinkProgress has 'Think' in a different color.
 
2013-10-13 08:20:10 PM

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: The crux of the Constitutional issue is that none of amendment writers actually envisioned a scenario where Congress would blatantly refuse to do its job.


I guess they figured things like citizenship requirements and the Oath of Office would be enough.
 
2013-10-13 08:20:24 PM

ox45tallboy: Albino Squid: No one seems to know. A lot of Constitutional scholars seem to believe that he could invoke the 14th Amendment on fairly firm ground, but whether the Supremes would agree is anyone's guess.

My take on this is, who would have standing to sue?

SCOTUS, like any other US Court, can only take a case if they are able to provide a remedy - i.e, if they have the authority to grant the remedy requested by the person doing the suing. That person must also demonstrate that they have been injured or harmed by an act taken by another.

So who would file a theoretical lawsuit to have SCOTUS answer the question of whether the President had the authority to take steps necessary to uphold the 14th Amendment when Congress had failed to do so? Maybe someone who had shorted the American dollar?


Not a clue, but it's still scary stuff...ifsomeone was determined to have standing, and  ifthe Supreme Court Anthony Kennedy and John Roberts ruled against Obama, shiat gets bad in a hurry. And while I'd like to believe that they wouldn't go that route, the bond markets would undoubtedly be scared while it hung in the balance, and I've kinda lost faith in the notion that members of the USSC have much understanding of how their rulings impact the real world.
 
2013-10-13 08:22:26 PM

ox45tallboy: nubzers: I'm assuming the same, but the next question after "ok, I'm raising the debt ceiling to pay for the government" is "how much to borrow". And that's what I'm worried about.

Then I'm not sure if you understand how the debt ceiling works.

If the debt ceiling were raised by, say, $5 billion tomorrow, that does not mean that the country is suddenly $5 billion more in debt., Treasury notes such as bonds are issued only to pay for expenses as they occur - and only expenses which have been authorized by Congress.

In other words, Congress authorized all of the spending. The creditors are going to run our credit card next week, and if we haven't raised our credit limit, they'll get a decline. Just because we raise our credit limit does not mean that we're that much in debt, just that we can become that much more in debt by continuing to authorize spending.

Congress needs to lift the credit limit now, since THIS CONGRESS authorized all of this spending. Then they can work towards a budget which does not increase our debt.


^ THIS.
 
2013-10-13 08:24:25 PM

Weaver95: And the really weird part is that the Republicans claim to worship Jesus Christ, a god who commanded his followers to heal the sick and help the poor.  so a group that claims to make this religion a huge part of their political goals is willing to shut down the entire US government and severely damage the world economy to avoid having to help the sick and the poor.  just roll that idea around in your head for a moment, see where it takes you.


Didn't Jesus also tell his followers to "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" at a time in which the Roman government distributed food aid to the poor?

Modern Christianity is a sad shell of the teachings of Jesus.
 
2013-10-13 08:24:38 PM

JAYoung: I remember the Revolution as being caused by Parliament enacting laws to benefit the British East India Company that we Colonials objected to -- you know, taxing the People to benefit the Corporation.


The Tea Act actually made the East India Company's tea cost less, even with the tax. The objections to the taxes without representation were real, but that fire was stoked by monied interests in the tea smuggling trade and other colonial profiteering businesses. So I guess things don't ever really change.
 
2013-10-13 08:25:43 PM
You hippie liebral scum are ruining America and all of my freedoms! A pox on your house!
 
2013-10-13 08:25:44 PM

ox45tallboy: nubzers: I'm assuming the same, but the next question after "ok, I'm raising the debt ceiling to pay for the government" is "how much to borrow". And that's what I'm worried about.

Then I'm not sure if you understand how the debt ceiling works.

If the debt ceiling were raised by, say, $5 billion tomorrow, that does not mean that the country is suddenly $5 billion more in debt., Treasury notes such as bonds are issued only to pay for expenses as they occur - and only expenses which have been authorized by Congress.

In other words, Congress authorized all of the spending. The creditors are going to run our credit card next week, and if we haven't raised our credit limit, they'll get a decline. Just because we raise our credit limit does not mean that we're that much in debt, just that we can become that much more in debt by continuing to authorize spending.

Congress needs to lift the credit limit now, since THIS CONGRESS authorized all of this spending. Then they can work towards a budget which does not increase our debt.


I knew about the debt ceiling being just the max we could borrow, not what we have borrowed. But I was unsure about what exactly will get paid for and at either sequester or pre-sequester levels due to the lack of an actual budget.
 
2013-10-13 08:28:43 PM

ox45tallboy: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: The crux of the Constitutional issue is that none of amendment writers actually envisioned a scenario where Congress would blatantly refuse to do its job.

I guess they figured things like citizenship requirements and the Oath of Office would be enough.


And technically speaking, the Teatards are following the Constitution. Because there is no explicit order that says they CAN'T act like slobbering morons with issues of global importance.
 
2013-10-13 08:28:49 PM

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: nubzers:

I'm assuming the same, but the next question after "ok, I'm raising the debt ceiling to pay for the government" is "how much to borrow". And that's what I'm worried about.

He could very well say that the Debt Ceiling is not binding on the Executive branch and continue to pay legally required obligations (like Social Security and Medicare and interest on the debt) as they come along and punt the option of government funding to Congress.

The social programs with their own funding requirements and sources would have to continue to pay out, even though some have negative cash flow. I would be perfectly cool with the President telling Congress to fark themselves if they think the United States will default on obligated payments, but they should really pass a budget and re-open the government. He would face impeachment proceedings (which I would normally support in that situation), but it would fail. After the Senate fails to convict, President Obama is politically bulletproof. Let the craven morons in the House have hourly impeachment proceedings and rack up the high score. Hell, the President could give them a ceremonial middle finger - send the dog as the official White House counsel and let them yell at it.

The crux of the Constitutional issue is that none of amendment writers actually envisioned a scenario where Congress would blatantly refuse to do its job. It is an ugly precedent, but so was suspending Habeas Corpus during the Civil War.


Yeah it is a very ugly situation and it's the sole fault of the tea party for causing this and forcing this choice between either a increase in executive power that could be abused, or crashing the world's economy.
 
2013-10-13 08:28:52 PM

Albino Squid: Not a clue, but it's still scary stuff...ifsomeone was determined to have standing, and  ifthe Supreme Court Anthony Kennedy and John Roberts ruled against Obama, shiat gets bad in a hurry. And while I'd like to believe that they wouldn't go that route, the bond markets would undoubtedly be scared while it hung in the balance, and I've kinda lost faith in the notion that members of the USSC have much understanding of how their rulings impact the real world.


I agree that the very idea they would consider hearing the case, as if there existed in some theoretical fashion some circumstance in which the President might have overstepped his authority and that SCOTUS would have the authority to force the country into default if the President could not prove his case, would be scary as all hell.

It's not that they would likely rule in favor of the President's actions, it's that merely by hearing it, they would have to believe they could provide the remedy of reversing his actions and sending the country into default.
 
2013-10-13 08:29:01 PM
So, if the 11th hour arrives ( and it sure as Hell seems like it will ) we can either:

-Give in to the extremists of the GOP, and set a horrible precedent.

-Get creative with a 14th amendment/other workaround, perhaps creating a different horrible precedent.

-Default...oh boy.

Personally, if 11th hour arrives I vote we purge the TP'ers from the face of the Earth: all TP representatives, staff, supporters, families, utilize every picture and database of protests, etc. I want a TP remembrance pool in Washington filled with their blood.

But I'm also bitter and spiteful, and best left far away from positions of authority.
 
2013-10-13 08:32:19 PM
"Use the Force." - John Penn
 
2013-10-13 08:34:00 PM

nubzers: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: nubzers:

I'm assuming the same, but the next question after "ok, I'm raising the debt ceiling to pay for the government" is "how much to borrow". And that's what I'm worried about.

He could very well say that the Debt Ceiling is not binding on the Executive branch and continue to pay legally required obligations (like Social Security and Medicare and interest on the debt) as they come along and punt the option of government funding to Congress.

The social programs with their own funding requirements and sources would have to continue to pay out, even though some have negative cash flow. I would be perfectly cool with the President telling Congress to fark themselves if they think the United States will default on obligated payments, but they should really pass a budget and re-open the government. He would face impeachment proceedings (which I would normally support in that situation), but it would fail. After the Senate fails to convict, President Obama is politically bulletproof. Let the craven morons in the House have hourly impeachment proceedings and rack up the high score. Hell, the President could give them a ceremonial middle finger - send the dog as the official White House counsel and let them yell at it.

The crux of the Constitutional issue is that none of amendment writers actually envisioned a scenario where Congress would blatantly refuse to do its job. It is an ugly precedent, but so was suspending Habeas Corpus during the Civil War.

Yeah it is a very ugly situation and it's the sole fault of the tea party for causing this and forcing this choice between either a increase in executive power that could be abused, or crashing the world's economy.


I mean, if they REALLY want to yield part of the power of the purse, I suppose that is their prerogative. Much like pushing for a direct population vote for Presidential elections would shift the power to the northeastern United States. If we as a country want to let that part of the nation to be the dominant electoral authority, then I guess I hope that they'll do a good job.
 
2013-10-13 08:34:35 PM

ox45tallboy: TV's Vinnie: All this drama-queenery by republicans simply because the right wing just cannot STAND the thought of poor people NOT writhing in pain or dying. The level of sadism they have for the disadvantaged is staggering.

The question (in their minds) is actually far bigger than that - they see Obamacare as an expansion of the Federal Government, when they are working their asses off to shrink it down small enough to drown in a bathtub. It's not that they don't want to help sick people, it's that they see people dying as a necessary evil to enact their vision of government.

Obamacare is a diametrically opposite move to the direction they wish to take the country.


In other words, the right wing ultimately wants this:

images.wikia.com
 
2013-10-13 08:36:20 PM

nubzers: ox45tallboy: nubzers: I'm assuming the same, but the next question after "ok, I'm raising the debt ceiling to pay for the government" is "how much to borrow". And that's what I'm worried about.

Then I'm not sure if you understand how the debt ceiling works.

If the debt ceiling were raised by, say, $5 billion tomorrow, that does not mean that the country is suddenly $5 billion more in debt., Treasury notes such as bonds are issued only to pay for expenses as they occur - and only expenses which have been authorized by Congress.

In other words, Congress authorized all of the spending. The creditors are going to run our credit card next week, and if we haven't raised our credit limit, they'll get a decline. Just because we raise our credit limit does not mean that we're that much in debt, just that we can become that much more in debt by continuing to authorize spending.

Congress needs to lift the credit limit now, since THIS CONGRESS authorized all of this spending. Then they can work towards a budget which does not increase our debt.

I knew about the debt ceiling being just the max we could borrow, not what we have borrowed. But I was unsure about what exactly will get paid for and at either sequester or pre-sequester levels due to the lack of an actual budget.


The things that require funding. Not all functions of government are dictated by the "budget". Other functions are funded seperately such as the military, Social Security, Medicare, pork spending (like funding for a bridge attached to a commodities trading law) and "Obamacare".

If Obama invokes the 14th, the treasury will issue bonds only to cover current obligations as the Executive can only spend money as dictated by laws passed by congress. Invoking the 14th does not do an end run around congress to spend money willy nilly. It only ignores the constitutionally dubious "debt ceiling" to pay for things Congress has made laws saying they have to be paid.
 
2013-10-13 08:36:59 PM

nubzers: I knew about the debt ceiling being just the max we could borrow, not what we have borrowed. But I was unsure about what exactly will get paid for and at either sequester or pre-sequester levels due to the lack of an actual budget.


Currently, the government is working off of "continuing resolution" bills, which are basically agreements to keep existing levels of funding with only minor changes, without going through the whole budget process. The House passed a "Continuing Resolution", authorizing funding at the sequester levels (meaning the reduced rates of funding of many government services which occurred over the summer), as well as defunding Obamacare. The Senate passed a "clean CR bill", which was EXACTLY the same CR bill as the House passed, but with the "defund Obamacare" stipulation stripped out. The Speaker of the House refuses to allow the "clean CR" bill to be brought up for a vote, because it will likely pass. So the government has shut down because there is no authorization for additional spending.

There's more to it than this, such as the fact that the CR only funds "discretionary" spending, as opposed to "mandatory" spending, the difference between the two being whatever Congress says it is. But in a nutshell, anyone who says this is a budgetary matter regarding spending has no idea what they are talking about.
 
2013-10-13 08:38:16 PM
This notion seems to be fairly popular on Facebook.
 
2013-10-13 08:38:49 PM

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: nubzers: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: nubzers:

I'm assuming the same, but the next question after "ok, I'm raising the debt ceiling to pay for the government" is "how much to borrow". And that's what I'm worried about.

He could very well say that the Debt Ceiling is not binding on the Executive branch and continue to pay legally required obligations (like Social Security and Medicare and interest on the debt) as they come along and punt the option of government funding to Congress.

The social programs with their own funding requirements and sources would have to continue to pay out, even though some have negative cash flow. I would be perfectly cool with the President telling Congress to fark themselves if they think the United States will default on obligated payments, but they should really pass a budget and re-open the government. He would face impeachment proceedings (which I would normally support in that situation), but it would fail. After the Senate fails to convict, President Obama is politically bulletproof. Let the craven morons in the House have hourly impeachment proceedings and rack up the high score. Hell, the President could give them a ceremonial middle finger - send the dog as the official White House counsel and let them yell at it.

The crux of the Constitutional issue is that none of amendment writers actually envisioned a scenario where Congress would blatantly refuse to do its job. It is an ugly precedent, but so was suspending Habeas Corpus during the Civil War.

Yeah it is a very ugly situation and it's the sole fault of the tea party for causing this and forcing this choice between either a increase in executive power that could be abused, or crashing the world's economy.

I mean, if they REALLY want to yield part of the power of the purse, I suppose that is their prerogative. Much like pushing for a direct population vote for Presidential elections would shift the power to the northeastern United States. If we as a country want to let that part of the nation to be the dominant electoral authority, then I guess I hope that they'll do a good job.


I suppose, but making that kind of decision to basically rewrite the constitution in a fabricated crisis is dangerous. Especially considering its only a small minority forcing this issue.
 
2013-10-13 08:41:07 PM
Although it seems the only verification I can find on this particular quote are other left-leaning echo chambers.  Anyone have an objective account of this?  Or is this another "It's just a goddamned piece of paper" work of fiction?
 
2013-10-13 08:42:38 PM
Well, he is right if you think the world economy equals the british purse during the colonial period.  We like to think that the revolution was about us.  In fact it was part of a longer conflict between Britain and France around each others colonial expansions.  We just happened to be one of the colonies.  Some historians believe we didn't win the revolution because of guile or grit, but more because it was too damned expensive for the Brits to fight.
 
2013-10-13 08:42:45 PM
My cousin had Obama as a law professor at u of c. No doubt, he was the smartest m-fer in the room no matter where he went. The u of c staff didn't like him, specifically the old (white) Friedman school of economics types couldn't stand him. Ironically, I bet the derpers would've got so much more traction if they attacked him as an egg headed college elite. But they couldn't get past the black, let alone admit it was possible that it was possible for a black dude to have a high iq. So now they're in this laughable corner. Smoked by an ivory tower elite that they couldn't even admit WAS an ivory tower elite.

That is why I voted for Obama. The opportunity to watch racist half wits contort themselves in circles trying to bully someone who sees them the way a pediatrician views a three year old. Enjoy The prison of your own Minds. The rest of the world will happily carry on without you.
 
2013-10-13 08:44:11 PM

RyansPrivates: Well, he is right if you think the world economy equals the british purse during the colonial period.  We like to think that the revolution was about us.  In fact it was part of a longer conflict between Britain and France around each others colonial expansions.  We just happened to be one of the colonies.  Some historians believe we didn't win the revolution because of guile or grit, but more because it was too damned expensive for the Brits to fight.


Just to be clear, I think this guys is off his rocker, I was merely making a point about the American Revolution stretching the economy/purse of the British Crown.
 
2013-10-13 08:46:45 PM
He told The Hill on Saturday that he is not concerned with the economic consequences so long as he and his party get their way.

Someone needs to give these guys the biatch-slapping they deserve. Or the cock-punching. I don't much care which.
 
2013-10-13 08:46:53 PM

max_pooper: nubzers: ox45tallboy: nubzers: I'm assuming the same, but the next question after "ok, I'm raising the debt ceiling to pay for the government" is "how much to borrow". And that's what I'm worried about.

Then I'm not sure if you understand how the debt ceiling works.

If the debt ceiling were raised by, say, $5 billion tomorrow, that does not mean that the country is suddenly $5 billion more in debt., Treasury notes such as bonds are issued only to pay for expenses as they occur - and only expenses which have been authorized by Congress.

In other words, Congress authorized all of the spending. The creditors are going to run our credit card next week, and if we haven't raised our credit limit, they'll get a decline. Just because we raise our credit limit does not mean that we're that much in debt, just that we can become that much more in debt by continuing to authorize spending.

Congress needs to lift the credit limit now, since THIS CONGRESS authorized all of this spending. Then they can work towards a budget which does not increase our debt.

I knew about the debt ceiling being just the max we could borrow, not what we have borrowed. But I was unsure about what exactly will get paid for and at either sequester or pre-sequester levels due to the lack of an actual budget.

The things that require funding. Not all functions of government are dictated by the "budget". Other functions are funded seperately such as the military, Social Security, Medicare, pork spending (like funding for a bridge attached to a commodities trading law) and "Obamacare".

If Obama invokes the 14th, the treasury will issue bonds only to cover current obligations as the Executive can only spend money as dictated by laws passed by congress. Invoking the 14th does not do an end run around congress to spend money willy nilly. It only ignores the constitutionally dubious "debt ceiling" to pay for things Congress has made laws saying they have to be paid.


Ok, so would that mean only essential programs continue to function, or would that include discretionary spending?
 
2013-10-13 08:48:55 PM

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: And technically speaking, the Teatards are following the Constitution. Because there is no explicit order that says they CAN'T act like slobbering morons with issues of global importance.


Actually, the writers of the Constitution were not in favor of the uneducated having a voice in government. If you'll recall, only white male landowners were given the vote back then, or allowed to hold office, as this was an easy and efficient way of determining if one were educated. Women, non-landowners, and non-whites were very unlikely to have attended school, and so were unlikely to be able to understand the complex issues of government - see nearly any interview of random attendees of any kind of political rally even today.

As public education became standard, the landowning requirement was dropped, then the "whites only", and finally women were given the vote. Eventually the voting age was dropped to eighteen, mainly because this was the age at which many people were considered intelligent enough to die for their country, not because eighteen year olds were seen as being as intelligent as twenty-one, or in some cases twenty-five year old individuals.

The whole purpose of the electoral college was to serve as a check on the idiocy of the masses - the idea was that the electors would choose to not vote for the person who had won the popular vote if he or she were a complete buffoon, and instead vote for someone who was qualified.

So yes, I agree that the Constitution doesn't say that people can't act like slobbering morons, but the Constitution was designed with marginalizing such people in mind. Our tinkering with it through expanding the franchise (not that I disagree with expanding the franchise at all - we're all created equal) has had some unforeseen consequences in limiting our ability to keep idiots from doing idiotic things.
 
2013-10-13 08:50:08 PM

Girl Sailor: My cousin had Obama as a law professor at u of c. No doubt, he was the smartest m-fer in the room no matter where he went. The u of c staff didn't like him, specifically the old (white) Friedman school of economics types couldn't stand him. Ironically, I bet the derpers would've got so much more traction if they attacked him as an egg headed college elite. But they couldn't get past the black, let alone admit it was possible that it was possible for a black dude to have a high iq. So now they're in this laughable corner. Smoked by an ivory tower elite that they couldn't even admit WAS an ivory tower elite.

That is why I voted for Obama. The opportunity to watch racist half wits contort themselves in circles trying to bully someone who sees them the way a pediatrician views a three year old. Enjoy The prison of your own Minds. The rest of the world will happily carry on without you.


Ebony Tower Elite?
 
2013-10-13 08:53:12 PM

nubzers: max_pooper: nubzers: ox45tallboy: nubzers: I'm assuming the same, but the next question after "ok, I'm raising the debt ceiling to pay for the government" is "how much to borrow". And that's what I'm worried about.

Then I'm not sure if you understand how the debt ceiling works.

If the debt ceiling were raised by, say, $5 billion tomorrow, that does not mean that the country is suddenly $5 billion more in debt., Treasury notes such as bonds are issued only to pay for expenses as they occur - and only expenses which have been authorized by Congress.

In other words, Congress authorized all of the spending. The creditors are going to run our credit card next week, and if we haven't raised our credit limit, they'll get a decline. Just because we raise our credit limit does not mean that we're that much in debt, just that we can become that much more in debt by continuing to authorize spending.

Congress needs to lift the credit limit now, since THIS CONGRESS authorized all of this spending. Then they can work towards a budget which does not increase our debt.

I knew about the debt ceiling being just the max we could borrow, not what we have borrowed. But I was unsure about what exactly will get paid for and at either sequester or pre-sequester levels due to the lack of an actual budget.

The things that require funding. Not all functions of government are dictated by the "budget". Other functions are funded seperately such as the military, Social Security, Medicare, pork spending (like funding for a bridge attached to a commodities trading law) and "Obamacare".

If Obama invokes the 14th, the treasury will issue bonds only to cover current obligations as the Executive can only spend money as dictated by laws passed by congress. Invoking the 14th does not do an end run around congress to spend money willy nilly. It only ignores the constitutionally dubious "debt ceiling" to pay for things Congress has made laws saying they have to be paid.

Ok, so would that mean only essential programs continue to function, or would that include discretionary spending?


The Executive can only spend money that has been authorized by congress.
 
2013-10-13 08:54:00 PM
Remember when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?
 
2013-10-13 08:54:43 PM
If your economic system requires government spending to survive your country is already failed it is just a matter of time.
 
2013-10-13 08:55:23 PM

bigsteve3OOO: If your economic system requires government spending to survive your country is already failed it is just a matter of time.


So, literally every country? Neat.
 
2013-10-13 08:56:50 PM

bigsteve3OOO: If your economic system requires government spending to survive your country is already failed it is just a matter of time.


Spending by th government is essential to have a government. A stable society in which an economy can flourish requires a government.
 
2013-10-13 08:57:44 PM

sirrerun: Remember when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?


Remember what Mr. Washington did to the Whiskey Rebellion?
 
2013-10-13 08:58:11 PM

LasersHurt: bigsteve3OOO: If your economic system requires government spending to survive your country is already failed it is just a matter of time.

So, literally every country? Neat.


Um no, just the ones that lean socialistic or totalitarian.  And they will fail when they run out of other peoples money to spend.  Look at modern day France for an example.  Everyone with money is renouncing their citizenship.
 
2013-10-13 08:58:14 PM

Gyrfalcon: He told The Hill on Saturday that he is not concerned with the economic consequences so long as he and his party get their way.

Someone needs to give these guys the biatch-slapping they deserve. Or the cock-punching. I don't much care which.


assets.diylol.com
 
2013-10-13 08:58:32 PM
This is the result of 78 representatives from 30 states going full retard, about 18 percent of the nation's reps. Mostly older, white, less educated, fearful, religious folks who were raised to believe that deficits were bad and to fight for the flag, God and country were noble and all systems in which you don't pay for everything with cash were COMMUNISM.

Meanwhile, they reaped the benefits of public infrastructures and served in a military that gave them free medical care, food, travel, and pensions, and into their old age, VA health care benefits.

They don't even realize that they'll be the ones suffering the most, eventually.
 
2013-10-13 08:58:51 PM

bigsteve3OOO: LasersHurt: bigsteve3OOO: If your economic system requires government spending to survive your country is already failed it is just a matter of time.

So, literally every country? Neat.

Um no, just the ones that lean socialistic or totalitarian.  And they will fail when they run out of other peoples money to spend.  Look at modern day France for an example.  Everyone with money is renouncing their citizenship.


Poe's Law in full effect
 
2013-10-13 08:59:00 PM

bigsteve3OOO: LasersHurt: bigsteve3OOO: If your economic system requires government spending to survive your country is already failed it is just a matter of time.

So, literally every country? Neat.

Um no, just the ones that lean socialistic or totalitarian.  And they will fail when they run out of other peoples money to spend.  Look at modern day France for an example.  Everyone with money is renouncing their citizenship.


Examples please?  Countries with more than 80 million.
 
2013-10-13 08:59:09 PM

max_pooper: nubzers: max_pooper: nubzers: ox45tallboy: nubzers: I'm assuming the same, but the next question after "ok, I'm raising the debt ceiling to pay for the government" is "how much to borrow". And that's what I'm worried about.

Then I'm not sure if you understand how the debt ceiling works.

If the debt ceiling were raised by, say, $5 billion tomorrow, that does not mean that the country is suddenly $5 billion more in debt., Treasury notes such as bonds are issued only to pay for expenses as they occur - and only expenses which have been authorized by Congress.

In other words, Congress authorized all of the spending. The creditors are going to run our credit card next week, and if we haven't raised our credit limit, they'll get a decline. Just because we raise our credit limit does not mean that we're that much in debt, just that we can become that much more in debt by continuing to authorize spending.

Congress needs to lift the credit limit now, since THIS CONGRESS authorized all of this spending. Then they can work towards a budget which does not increase our debt.

I knew about the debt ceiling being just the max we could borrow, not what we have borrowed. But I was unsure about what exactly will get paid for and at either sequester or pre-sequester levels due to the lack of an actual budget.

The things that require funding. Not all functions of government are dictated by the "budget". Other functions are funded seperately such as the military, Social Security, Medicare, pork spending (like funding for a bridge attached to a commodities trading law) and "Obamacare".

If Obama invokes the 14th, the treasury will issue bonds only to cover current obligations as the Executive can only spend money as dictated by laws passed by congress. Invoking the 14th does not do an end run around congress to spend money willy nilly. It only ignores the constitutionally dubious "debt ceiling" to pay for things Congress has made laws saying they have to be paid.

Ok, so would that mean only essential programs continue to function, or would that include discretionary spending?

The Executive can only spend money that has been authorized by congress.


Ok. Sorry if I seem pretty ignorant, I'm in the middle of a double shift and kinda hungover.

/terrible idea to drink last night
 
2013-10-13 08:59:47 PM

Pharque-it: Noam Chimpsky: If there is a such thing as a 'world economy', it needs to be eradicated. Such a thing could only be a feature of global communism.

Well, all-right then....?


So Chimpsky thinks that no nation should trade with any other nation, and instead should rely EXCLUSIVELY on its own resources?
 
2013-10-13 09:02:22 PM

LordJiro: Pharque-it: Noam Chimpsky: If there is a such thing as a 'world economy', it needs to be eradicated. Such a thing could only be a feature of global communism.

Well, all-right then....?

So Chimpsky thinks that no nation should trade with any other nation, and instead should rely EXCLUSIVELY on its own resources?


I agree with that.  Value that is given to mankind should be rewarded.  Add no value get no reward.
 
2013-10-13 09:02:56 PM

LasersHurt: HotIgneous Intruder: Noam Chimpsky: If there is a such thing as a 'world economy', it needs to be eradicated. Such a thing could only be a feature of global communism.

We probably need to step right the fark away from the NAFTA and other globalist prosperity traps on the other side of this disaster. But the globalists won't have it.

Globalism is inevitable; better to figure out how to make it work properly for everyone than pretend we can avoid it.


Fallacy. You would want your economy to thrive at the expense of someone else's economy. It certainly has worked for China.

Where you do have many economies somewhat intertwined, and you have all these economies linked to the same anchor, you'd probably find that the economy who rises above and thrives is the one who didn't play the game. I think there is a precedent for that. The nation that thrived during the Great Depression wasn't participating in the 'world economy'. They were a self dependent economy.
 
2013-10-13 09:04:03 PM

Noam Chimpsky: LasersHurt: HotIgneous Intruder: Noam Chimpsky: If there is a such thing as a 'world economy', it needs to be eradicated. Such a thing could only be a feature of global communism.

We probably need to step right the fark away from the NAFTA and other globalist prosperity traps on the other side of this disaster. But the globalists won't have it.

Globalism is inevitable; better to figure out how to make it work properly for everyone than pretend we can avoid it.

Fallacy. You would want your economy to thrive at the expense of someone else's economy. It certainly has worked for China.

Where you do have many economies somewhat intertwined, and you have all these economies linked to the same anchor, you'd probably find that the economy who rises above and thrives is the one who didn't play the game. I think there is a precedent for that. The nation that thrived during the Great Depression wasn't participating in the 'world economy'. They were a self dependent economy.


I have no idea why you think anything you said refutes the inevitable global future.
 
2013-10-13 09:04:30 PM

bigsteve3OOO: Um no, just the ones that lean socialistic or totalitarian.  And they will fail when they run out of other peoples money to spend.  Look at modern day France for an example.  Everyone with money is renouncing their citizenship.


Can you clarify what you mean here? Is "everyone with money" referring to French citizens, or citizens of other countries, or what? And what citizenship are they renouncing?

Also, could you clarify "socialist" or "totalitarian"? Looks to me like totalitarian regimes such as China are doing pretty well (as a country, although not as individual citizens), and more "socialist" countries like Sweden and Finland are doing quite well as a country, AND as individual citizens. The real trouble here seems to be the more purely capitalist countries, or those trying to move away from Post WW-II socialist policies, specifically France and the US.
 
2013-10-13 09:06:32 PM

bigsteve3OOO: I agree with that.   Value that is given to mankind should be rewarded.  Add no value get no reward.


What in the Holy and Blessed name of L. Ron Hubbard are you talking about?
 
2013-10-13 09:06:58 PM
No worries. Obama can simply pay off the national debt with a platinum Krugman coin.
 
2013-10-13 09:07:17 PM
The Republican Party is "in the last throes," .......
 
2013-10-13 09:08:52 PM

bigsteve3OOO: If your economic system requires government spending to survive your country is already failed it is just a matter of time.



i42.tinypic.com
 
2013-10-13 09:10:47 PM

ox45tallboy: bigsteve3OOO: I agree with that.   Value that is given to mankind should be rewarded.  Add no value get no reward.

What in the Holy and Blessed name of L. Ron Hubbard are you talking about?


Never mind. With the "no value, no reward" part, ol' bigsteve will be dead of starvation in a week.
 
2013-10-13 09:10:49 PM

Schroedinger's Glory Hole: Girl Sailor: My cousin had Obama as a law professor at u of c. No doubt, he was the smartest m-fer in the room no matter where he went. The u of c staff didn't like him, specifically the old (white) Friedman school of economics types couldn't stand him. Ironically, I bet the derpers would've got so much more traction if they attacked him as an egg headed college elite. But they couldn't get past the black, let alone admit it was possible that it was possible for a black dude to have a high iq. So now they're in this laughable corner. Smoked by an ivory tower elite that they couldn't even admit WAS an ivory tower elite.

That is why I voted for Obama. The opportunity to watch racist half wits contort themselves in circles trying to bully someone who sees them the way a pediatrician views a three year old. Enjoy The prison of your own Minds. The rest of the world will happily carry on without you.

Ebony Tower Elite?


Nice. Let's make that happen.

Btw - how do you know what's on the other side of schroedinger's glory hole?
 
2013-10-13 09:11:54 PM
scontent-b-mia.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2013-10-13 09:13:50 PM

KellyX: [scontent-b-mia.xx.fbcdn.net image 720x225]


That needs a "KEEP CALM and" above it.
 
2013-10-13 09:13:57 PM

bigsteve3OOO: LordJiro: Pharque-it: Noam Chimpsky: If there is a such thing as a 'world economy', it needs to be eradicated. Such a thing could only be a feature of global communism.

Well, all-right then....?

So Chimpsky thinks that no nation should trade with any other nation, and instead should rely EXCLUSIVELY on its own resources?

I agree with that.  Value that is given to mankind should be rewarded.  Add no value get no reward.


Fark off.

Or are you still under the impression that we make all the things we use?
 
2013-10-13 09:15:06 PM

nubzers: I suppose, but making that kind of decision to basically rewrite the constitution in a fabricated crisis is dangerous. Especially considering its only a small minority forcing this issue.


I completely agree. It is unilateral and extremely disturbing as a precedent for a stable republic. But, I also believe that the Constitution was given an amendment process for a reason, and sometimes one must be revolutionary to avoid being revolution-y. Would I prefer that this option never needed exploring? Very much so. Do I think that since the nutters are forcing our hand that it needs to be dealt with? Absolutely. Needs of the many and all that.

ox45tallboy: So yes, I agree that the Constitution doesn't say that people can't act like slobbering morons, but the Constitution was designed with marginalizing such people in mind. Our tinkering with it through expanding the franchise (not that I disagree with expanding the franchise at all - we're all created equal) has had some unforeseen consequences in limiting our ability to keep idiots from doing idiotic things.


The biggest irony of the classical Constitutionalists is that they'd be absolutely disenfranchised if we went back to the original system. If you don't have a clear title to your land (or even to your home), you don't vote. Most of these folks are poor and either rent or are still making payments to the bank. The landed folk are wealthy or farmers.

One amusing side effect would be the parceling of miniscule segments of land (like 1 square inch) to sell so that voting can be re-enabled. It would fit all the criteria of landowning and absolutely make property tax assessment a monster of a bureaucracy.
 
2013-10-13 09:19:12 PM

grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: LordJiro: Pharque-it: Noam Chimpsky: If there is a such thing as a 'world economy', it needs to be eradicated. Such a thing could only be a feature of global communism.

Well, all-right then....?

So Chimpsky thinks that no nation should trade with any other nation, and instead should rely EXCLUSIVELY on its own resources?

I agree with that.  Value that is given to mankind should be rewarded.  Add no value get no reward.

Fark off.

Or are you still under the impression that we make all the things we use?


No and that is the problem.  Rent like people are sucking the value from producers.  Like a parasite on the economy.  Bankers, Government officials, land owners, stock brokers etc.  They add no value yet take value from the producers.
 
2013-10-13 09:19:37 PM

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: If you don't have a clear title to your land (or even to your home), you don't vote.


So, Fred Thompson is killing the voting base with reverse mortgages? That's awesome!
 
2013-10-13 09:26:11 PM

bigsteve3OOO: grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: LordJiro: Pharque-it: Noam Chimpsky: If there is a such thing as a 'world economy', it needs to be eradicated. Such a thing could only be a feature of global communism.

Well, all-right then....?

So Chimpsky thinks that no nation should trade with any other nation, and instead should rely EXCLUSIVELY on its own resources?

I agree with that.  Value that is given to mankind should be rewarded.  Add no value get no reward.

Fark off.

Or are you still under the impression that we make all the things we use?

No and that is the problem.  Rent like people are sucking the value from producers.  Like a parasite on the economy.  Bankers, Government officials, land owners, stock brokers etc.  They add no value yet take value from the producers.


I rent my apartment from my landlord. She lives elsewhere, so I am not taking value from her actual home. I pay her rent, so she is making a return investment on her purchase(the property I rent). I also maintain the apartment, doing things like raking and sweeping, and do not charge her for it, saving her on upkeep costs.

How exactly am I parasite to my landlord?

Or is this one of those "Factory workers should be paid eighty bajillion dollars an hour and teachers should work for free" type arguments?

/agrees bankers and stock brokers are parasites
 
2013-10-13 09:26:36 PM

bigsteve3OOO: Like a parasite on the economy. Bankers, Government officials, land owners, stock brokers


Health insurance companies.  No value added.
 
2013-10-13 09:28:45 PM

2wolves: bigsteve3OOO: Like a parasite on the economy. Bankers, Government officials, land owners, stock brokers

Health insurance companies.  No value added.


Agreed.  If you want government health care, have the government build hospitals and aide centers.  Then have the government pay for doctors and nurses to be educated in exchange for the service they provide.  Dont give it to a middle man who adds no value.
 
2013-10-13 09:29:18 PM

bigsteve3OOO: grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: LordJiro: Pharque-it: Noam Chimpsky: If there is a such thing as a 'world economy', it needs to be eradicated. Such a thing could only be a feature of global communism.

Well, all-right then....?

So Chimpsky thinks that no nation should trade with any other nation, and instead should rely EXCLUSIVELY on its own resources?

I agree with that.  Value that is given to mankind should be rewarded.  Add no value get no reward.

Fark off.

Or are you still under the impression that we make all the things we use?

No and that is the problem.  Rent like people are sucking the value from producers.  Like a parasite on the economy.  Bankers, Government officials, land owners, stock brokers etc.  They add no value yet take value from the producers.


With those views you must be a communist or anarchist. Which?
 
2013-10-13 09:30:41 PM

grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: LordJiro: Pharque-it: Noam Chimpsky: If there is a such thing as a 'world economy', it needs to be eradicated. Such a thing could only be a feature of global communism.

Well, all-right then....?

So Chimpsky thinks that no nation should trade with any other nation, and instead should rely EXCLUSIVELY on its own resources?

I agree with that.  Value that is given to mankind should be rewarded.  Add no value get no reward.

Fark off.

Or are you still under the impression that we make all the things we use?

No and that is the problem.  Rent like people are sucking the value from producers.  Like a parasite on the economy.  Bankers, Government officials, land owners, stock brokers etc.  They add no value yet take value from the producers.

I rent my apartment from my landlord. She lives elsewhere, so I am not taking value from her actual home. I pay her rent, so she is making a return investment on her purchase(the property I rent). I also maintain the apartment, doing things like raking and sweeping, and do not charge her for it, saving her on upkeep costs.

How exactly am I parasite to my landlord?

Or is this one of those "Factory workers should be paid eighty bajillion dollars an hour and teachers should work for free" type arguments?

/agrees bankers and stock brokers are parasites


Your landlord is the one acting in a rent like manner.  Read Adam Smith.  He had it right over 200 years ago.  the game has new players and different rules but the same problems.
 
2013-10-13 09:30:54 PM
Washington was really big on destroying the fledgling economy of the colonies because he didn't like healthcare.  Wait what?
 
2013-10-13 09:34:13 PM

Pharque-it: bigsteve3OOO: grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: LordJiro: Pharque-it: Noam Chimpsky: If there is a such thing as a 'world economy', it needs to be eradicated. Such a thing could only be a feature of global communism.

Well, all-right then....?

So Chimpsky thinks that no nation should trade with any other nation, and instead should rely EXCLUSIVELY on its own resources?

I agree with that.  Value that is given to mankind should be rewarded.  Add no value get no reward.

Fark off.

Or are you still under the impression that we make all the things we use?

No and that is the problem.  Rent like people are sucking the value from producers.  Like a parasite on the economy.  Bankers, Government officials, land owners, stock brokers etc.  They add no value yet take value from the producers.

With those views you must be a communist or anarchist. Which?


A capitalist.  Not a corporatist like we have today.  crony capitalism is killing us all.  except the .01%  R or D your team is for them (0.01%)against you( all of us).
 
2013-10-13 09:34:28 PM

bigsteve3OOO: grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: LordJiro: Pharque-it: Noam Chimpsky: If there is a such thing as a 'world economy', it needs to be eradicated. Such a thing could only be a feature of global communism.

Well, all-right then....?

So Chimpsky thinks that no nation should trade with any other nation, and instead should rely EXCLUSIVELY on its own resources?

I agree with that.  Value that is given to mankind should be rewarded.  Add no value get no reward.

Fark off.

Or are you still under the impression that we make all the things we use?

No and that is the problem.  Rent like people are sucking the value from producers.  Like a parasite on the economy.  Bankers, Government officials, land owners, stock brokers etc.  They add no value yet take value from the producers.

I rent my apartment from my landlord. She lives elsewhere, so I am not taking value from her actual home. I pay her rent, so she is making a return investment on her purchase(the property I rent). I also maintain the apartment, doing things like raking and sweeping, and do not charge her for it, saving her on upkeep costs.

How exactly am I parasite to my landlord?

Or is this one of those "Factory workers should be paid eighty bajillion dollars an hour and teachers should work for free" type arguments?

/agrees bankers and stock brokers are parasites

Your landlord is the one acting in a rent like manner.  Read Adam Smith.  He had it right over 200 years ago.  the game has new players and different rules but the same problems.


The landlord is providing value. They are providing a person with a place to live without the expense and long term commitment of property ownership. The freedom of the renter to move after the lease has expired is a value that many renters treasure.
 
2013-10-13 09:34:50 PM

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: One amusing side effect would be the parceling of miniscule segments of land (like 1 square inch) to sell so that voting can be re-enabled. It would fit all the criteria of landowning and absolutely make property tax assessment a monster of a bureaucracy.


That's actually unlikely, as division of lots usually requires zoning variances and the like. Officials are unliely to subdivide a lot that does not have a usable purpose or access from public right-of-way.
 
2013-10-13 09:36:26 PM

bigsteve3OOO: 2wolves: bigsteve3OOO: Like a parasite on the economy. Bankers, Government officials, land owners, stock brokers

Health insurance companies.  No value added.

Agreed.  If you want government health care, have the government build hospitals and aide centers.  Then have the government pay for doctors and nurses to be educated in exchange for the service they provide.  Dont give it to a middle man who adds no value.


Why not let private entities remain private, and hire private doctors, but simply be reimbursed by a Single Payer system instead of this weird system we have now?
 
2013-10-13 09:37:17 PM

ox45tallboy: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: One amusing side effect would be the parceling of miniscule segments of land (like 1 square inch) to sell so that voting can be re-enabled. It would fit all the criteria of landowning and absolutely make property tax assessment a monster of a bureaucracy.

That's actually unlikely, as division of lots usually requires zoning variances and the like. Officials are unliely to subdivide a lot that does not have a usable purpose or access from public right-of-way.


But one could sell shares of cooperative: one 5,000 square foot lot with 720,000 owners.
 
2013-10-13 09:38:59 PM

ox45tallboy: That's actually unlikely, as division of lots usually requires zoning variances and the like. Officials are unliely to subdivide a lot that does not have a usable purpose or access from public right-of-way.


I hadn't thought of that, so I will concede the point. But I will be damned if anyone thinks I'll halt the construction of my 100 story 1 square inch skyscraper.

I don't need FAA permits.
 
2013-10-13 09:39:27 PM

bigsteve3OOO: If you want government health care, have the government build hospitals and aide centers. Then have the government pay for doctors and nurses to be educated in exchange for the service they provide.


i43.tinypic.com
 
2013-10-13 09:39:48 PM
The don't care if they wreck the national economy because they don't want any of the 33 million people without health insurance to buy it.
 
2013-10-13 09:40:49 PM

max_pooper: bigsteve3OOO: grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: LordJiro: Pharque-it: Noam Chimpsky: If there is a such thing as a 'world economy', it needs to be eradicated. Such a thing could only be a feature of global communism.

Well, all-right then....?

So Chimpsky thinks that no nation should trade with any other nation, and instead should rely EXCLUSIVELY on its own resources?

I agree with that.  Value that is given to mankind should be rewarded.  Add no value get no reward.

Fark off.

Or are you still under the impression that we make all the things we use?

No and that is the problem.  Rent like people are sucking the value from producers.  Like a parasite on the economy.  Bankers, Government officials, land owners, stock brokers etc.  They add no value yet take value from the producers.

I rent my apartment from my landlord. She lives elsewhere, so I am not taking value from her actual home. I pay her rent, so she is making a return investment on her purchase(the property I rent). I also maintain the apartment, doing things like raking and sweeping, and do not charge her for it, saving her on upkeep costs.

How exactly am I parasite to my landlord?

Or is this one of those "Factory workers should be paid eighty bajillion dollars an hour and teachers should work for free" type arguments?

/agrees bankers and stock brokers are parasites

Your landlord is the one acting in a rent like manner.  Read Adam Smith.  He had it right over 200 years ago.  the game has new players and different rules but the same problems.

The landlord is providing value. They are providing a person with a place to live without the expense and long term commitment of property ownership. The freedom of the renter to move after the lease has expired is a value that many renters treasure.


Nope.  The value was added by the workers who cleared the land and built the structure.  The value is maintained by the workers who keep the structure up to its original value.  The act of renting it in no way changes the value of the property.  It has the same value whether it is empty or full.  Full by the person whop owns it or full by a person who rents it.  The difference is that the renter who adds no value whatsoever gets a reward(money that is a voucher of value) without actually doing anything to add value.
 
2013-10-13 09:40:52 PM
How to fix the budget issue in less then 24 hours

1. Kick starter to build a guillotine on the capital lawn can only donate 1.00 at a time
2. All money for the kick starter after it's built goes to the national debt
3. for ever 50,000,000 in total donations the person that hits the magic number gets to pick one of the top 10,000 individual campaign donators from the last election to have his head cut off
4. For every 1,000,000,000 the luckey doner gets to pick a member of the house
5. For every 100,000,000,000 the winner gets to drag up a cnn, Fox News, or talk radio host to drag up strip naked castrate then cover in honey and dump a hive of fire ants on while slowly lowering into a vat of battery acid
 
2013-10-13 09:41:56 PM

bigsteve3OOO: With those views you must be a communist or anarchist. Which?

A capitalist. Not a corporatist like we have today. crony capitalism is killing us all. except the .01% R or D your team is for them (0.01%)against you( all of us).


Sounds to me like you would love either one above, but I agree with your corporatist point.
 
2013-10-13 09:42:01 PM

whistleridge: Here's the part where we mention:

1. The US went massively in debt to fund the American Revolution. An even higher ratio of debt:GDP than today.
2. Debt isn't necessarily a bad thing. Germany, Japan, France, and even Canada have higher debt:GDP ratios than the US does. Think of it as having a mortgage: as low as you continue your payments in a timely manner, that debt can actually help you.
3. What's important is what percentage of the budget is being taken up by interest payments. Ours is actually low right now.
4. The people doing the criticism think gold is a reasonable basis for a national economy. Despite the evidence, the opinions of every economist who is worth a damn, and the conclusions of multiple independent panels (including one by Reagan) pulled together to study the matter.

QED: not only does this person not know what the fark he's talking about, he REALLY DOESN'T KNOW WHAT THE fark HE'S TALKING ABOUT.


And we're done here.
Last one out to shut off the lights.
 
2013-10-13 09:43:05 PM

bigsteve3OOO: max_pooper: bigsteve3OOO: grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: LordJiro: Pharque-it: Noam Chimpsky: If there is a such thing as a 'world economy', it needs to be eradicated. Such a thing could only be a feature of global communism.

Well, all-right then....?

So Chimpsky thinks that no nation should trade with any other nation, and instead should rely EXCLUSIVELY on its own resources?

I agree with that.  Value that is given to mankind should be rewarded.  Add no value get no reward.

Fark off.

Or are you still under the impression that we make all the things we use?

No and that is the problem.  Rent like people are sucking the value from producers.  Like a parasite on the economy.  Bankers, Government officials, land owners, stock brokers etc.  They add no value yet take value from the producers.

I rent my apartment from my landlord. She lives elsewhere, so I am not taking value from her actual home. I pay her rent, so she is making a return investment on her purchase(the property I rent). I also maintain the apartment, doing things like raking and sweeping, and do not charge her for it, saving her on upkeep costs.

How exactly am I parasite to my landlord?

Or is this one of those "Factory workers should be paid eighty bajillion dollars an hour and teachers should work for free" type arguments?

/agrees bankers and stock brokers are parasites

Your landlord is the one acting in a rent like manner.  Read Adam Smith.  He had it right over 200 years ago.  the game has new players and different rules but the same problems.

The landlord is providing value. They are providing a person with a place to live without the expense and long term commitment of property ownership. The freedom of the renter to move after the lease has expired is a value that many renters treasure.

Nope.  The value was added by the workers who cleared the land and built the structure.  The value is maintained by the workers who keep the structure up to its original value.  The act of renting it in no way changes the value of the property.  It has the same value whether it is empty or full.  Full by the person whop owns it or full by a person who rents it.  The difference is that the renter who adds no value whatsoever gets a reward(money that is a voucher of value) without actually doing anything to add value.


How does the renter get money?
 
2013-10-13 09:45:04 PM

NFA: Deliberately damaging the nation and it's economy is not treason, nope, not treasonous at all.

What a god damn traitor!

trea·son
ˈtrēzən/
noun
1.the crime of betraying one's country,


done in one.  try the traitors and be done with it
 
2013-10-13 09:46:29 PM

max_pooper: bigsteve3OOO: max_pooper: bigsteve3OOO: grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: LordJiro: Pharque-it: Noam Chimpsky: If there is a such thing as a 'world economy', it needs to be eradicated. Such a thing could only be a feature of global communism.

Well, all-right then....?

So Chimpsky thinks that no nation should trade with any other nation, and instead should rely EXCLUSIVELY on its own resources?

I agree with that.  Value that is given to mankind should be rewarded.  Add no value get no reward.

Fark off.

Or are you still under the impression that we make all the things we use?

No and that is the problem.  Rent like people are sucking the value from producers.  Like a parasite on the economy.  Bankers, Government officials, land owners, stock brokers etc.  They add no value yet take value from the producers.

I rent my apartment from my landlord. She lives elsewhere, so I am not taking value from her actual home. I pay her rent, so she is making a return investment on her purchase(the property I rent). I also maintain the apartment, doing things like raking and sweeping, and do not charge her for it, saving her on upkeep costs.

How exactly am I parasite to my landlord?

Or is this one of those "Factory workers should be paid eighty bajillion dollars an hour and teachers should work for free" type arguments?

/agrees bankers and stock brokers are parasites

Your landlord is the one acting in a rent like manner.  Read Adam Smith.  He had it right over 200 years ago.  the game has new players and different rules but the same problems.

The landlord is providing value. They are providing a person with a place to live without the expense and long term commitment of property ownership. The freedom of the renter to move after the lease has expired is a value that many renters treasure.

Nope.  The value was added by the workers who cleared the land and built the structure.  The value is maintained by the workers who keep the structure up to its original ...


The person who rents the property pays the renter.
 
2013-10-13 09:49:06 PM

ox45tallboy: KellyX: [scontent-b-mia.xx.fbcdn.net image 720x225]

That needs a "KEEP CALM and" above it.


scontent-a-mia.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2013-10-13 09:49:19 PM

bigsteve3OOO: max_pooper: bigsteve3OOO: max_pooper: bigsteve3OOO: grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: LordJiro: Pharque-it: Noam Chimpsky: If there is a such thing as a 'world economy', it needs to be eradicated. Such a thing could only be a feature of global communism.

Well, all-right then....?

So Chimpsky thinks that no nation should trade with any other nation, and instead should rely EXCLUSIVELY on its own resources?

I agree with that.  Value that is given to mankind should be rewarded.  Add no value get no reward.

Fark off.

Or are you still under the impression that we make all the things we use?

No and that is the problem.  Rent like people are sucking the value from producers.  Like a parasite on the economy.  Bankers, Government officials, land owners, stock brokers etc.  They add no value yet take value from the producers.

I rent my apartment from my landlord. She lives elsewhere, so I am not taking value from her actual home. I pay her rent, so she is making a return investment on her purchase(the property I rent). I also maintain the apartment, doing things like raking and sweeping, and do not charge her for it, saving her on upkeep costs.

How exactly am I parasite to my landlord?

Or is this one of those "Factory workers should be paid eighty bajillion dollars an hour and teachers should work for free" type arguments?

/agrees bankers and stock brokers are parasites

Your landlord is the one acting in a rent like manner.  Read Adam Smith.  He had it right over 200 years ago.  the game has new players and different rules but the same problems.

The landlord is providing value. They are providing a person with a place to live without the expense and long term commitment of property ownership. The freedom of the renter to move after the lease has expired is a value that many renters treasure.

Nope.  The value was added by the workers who cleared the land and built the structure.  The value is maintained by the workers who keep the structure up to its original ...

The person who rents the property pays the renter.


I was a renter for years before I bought a house, I was never paid once.
 
2013-10-13 09:51:21 PM

max_pooper: But one could sell shares of cooperative: one 5,000 square foot lot with 720,000 owners.


Corporations don't get the vote now. Some real estate developer tried to add that in to their deal with the local zoning board (IIRC, it was a Denver suburb) and were crucified in the media for daring to suggest it.

Even if they did, they would get one (1) vote.
 
2013-10-13 09:52:21 PM

Leader O'Cola: NFA: Deliberately damaging the nation and it's economy is not treason, nope, not treasonous at all.

What a god damn traitor!

trea·son
ˈtrēzən/
noun
1.the crime of betraying one's country,

done in one.  try the traitors and be done with it


Been calling for it for over a week now... At this point I think Obama should cite the 14th Amendment, then issue warrants for everyone that actively was pushing to destroy the economy
 
2013-10-13 09:53:54 PM
KellyX - at the very least, the hundreds of thousands of folks out of work should file a class-action suit against Speaker Boehner and the Republican Party for lost wages...

Does the President have any power to ORDER a vote?  What I'm hearing is that Boehner will not call for a vote and so the whole process is stopped.

Is there any means to relieve Boehner of his duties?  If his reluctance to call for a vote is causing severe damage to the U.S. it seems to me that he is in dereliction of his duties, and someone with more responsibility should be put in place.
 
2013-10-13 09:57:53 PM

bigsteve3OOO: No and that is the problem.  Rent like people are sucking the value from producers.  Like a parasite on the economy.  Bankers, Government officials, land owners, stock brokers etc.  They add no value yet take value from the producers.


I've got a problem with the "add no value" thing.

How much would you pay for drugs manufactured in a country with no type of oversight?

How likely would you be to invest your money in a market with no regulations against insider trading, or requirements that brokers act in their clients' best interests?

How much more does it add to the value of a property you are considering purchasing to know that it meets or exceeds certain standards of construction, and don't have to pay for an independent inspection?

It is when positions of power are abused that this becomes an issue. When the health care provider becomes interested in finding ways to avoid paying for treatment in order to enrich himself, instead of finding ways to provide health care. When the inspector takes bribes to ignore deficiencies in construction, or in pollution, or in production of medicines, this is a Bad Thing. Having regulations actually adds value to producers by providing standardization of fitness for an intended purpose.
 
2013-10-13 09:59:04 PM

max_pooper: bigsteve3OOO: grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: LordJiro: Pharque-it: Noam Chimpsky: If there is a such thing as a 'world economy', it needs to be eradicated. Such a thing could only be a feature of global communism.

Well, all-right then....?

So Chimpsky thinks that no nation should trade with any other nation, and instead should rely EXCLUSIVELY on its own resources?

I agree with that.  Value that is given to mankind should be rewarded.  Add no value get no reward.

Fark off.

Or are you still under the impression that we make all the things we use?

No and that is the problem.  Rent like people are sucking the value from producers.  Like a parasite on the economy.  Bankers, Government officials, land owners, stock brokers etc.  They add no value yet take value from the producers.

I rent my apartment from my landlord. She lives elsewhere, so I am not taking value from her actual home. I pay her rent, so she is making a return investment on her purchase(the property I rent). I also maintain the apartment, doing things like raking and sweeping, and do not charge her for it, saving her on upkeep costs.

How exactly am I parasite to my landlord?

Or is this one of those "Factory workers should be paid eighty bajillion dollars an hour and teachers should work for free" type arguments?

/agrees bankers and stock brokers are parasites

Your landlord is the one acting in a rent like manner.  Read Adam Smith.  He had it right over 200 years ago.  the game has new players and different rules but the same problems.

The landlord is providing value. They are providing a person with a place to live without the expense and long term commitment of property ownership. The freedom of the renter to move after the lease has expired is a value that many renters treasure.


That's...basically exactly what my response was. Thanks for that.

Here's what you're missing steve. Just because YOU don't see the value in something, doesn't mean it has no value.
 
2013-10-13 09:59:40 PM

KellyX: ox45tallboy: KellyX: [scontent-b-mia.xx.fbcdn.net image 720x225]

That needs a "KEEP CALM and" above it.

[scontent-a-mia.xx.fbcdn.net image 720x499]


PERFECT!

That'll get you a month.
 
2013-10-13 10:00:02 PM
 max_pooper: bigsteve3OOO: max_pooper: bigsteve3OOO: grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: LordJiro: Pharque-it: Noam Chimpsky: If there is a such thing as a 'world economy', it needs to be eradicated. Such a thing could only be a feature of global communism.

Well, all-right then....?......................................................

The person who rents the property pays the renter.


I was a renter for years before I bought a house, I was never paid once.

No you rented from the renter.  rent like behavior was one of the things that the founding fathers were trying to stop.  They came from countries were if you had land you were a member of the aristocracy.  Commoners could not own land because it was all owned by the royals.  Quite a few of the rules that they set down was to avoid what is happening today.  Few have the many by the short and curlies.
 
2013-10-13 10:01:32 PM

brandied: KellyX - at the very least, the hundreds of thousands of folks out of work should file a class-action suit against Speaker Boehner and the Republican Party for lost wages...

Does the President have any power to ORDER a vote?  What I'm hearing is that Boehner will not call for a vote and so the whole process is stopped.

Is there any means to relieve Boehner of his duties?  If his reluctance to call for a vote is causing severe damage to the U.S. it seems to me that he is in dereliction of his duties, and someone with more responsibility should be put in place.


Force a vote? No, the only thing the President can do is call congress to session. They can just sit there twiddling thier thumbs if they want.

Remove Boenher? Congress has the power to expel members but that requires 2/3 majority.
 
2013-10-13 10:02:01 PM

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: I hadn't thought of that, so I will concede the point. But I will be damned if anyone thinks I'll halt the construction of my 100 story 1 square inch skyscraper.

I don't need FAA permits.


Sure. Good luck on demanding easement for construction, much less occupation, as it seems you'll likely be hanging over all sides no matter which floor you occupy.
 
2013-10-13 10:05:45 PM

bigsteve3OOO: Nope. The value was added by the workers who cleared the land and built the structure. The value is maintained by the workers who keep the structure up to its original value. The act of renting it in no way changes the value of the property. It has the same value whether it is empty or full. Full by the person whop owns it or full by a person who rents it. The difference is that the renter who adds no value whatsoever gets a reward(money that is a voucher of value) without actually doing anything to add value.


By the way, I should mention that the guy who does any major repairs (we take care of the little stuff) is the landlord's son, so by your definition the owner's family maintains the property's value. Furthermore, before we moved in, several renovations were done to the property(increasing it's value according to you) which were paid for by the owner.

Furthermore, the house was originally constructed by people and that gives its initial value, yes, but you're forgetting something important. Someone PAID those people to build the house. They didn't just show up and decide to build something for shiats and giggles.
 
2013-10-13 10:07:23 PM

grumpfuff: max_pooper: bigsteve3OOO: grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: LordJiro: Pharque-it: Noam Chimpsky: If there is a such thing as a 'world economy', it needs to be eradicated. Such a thing could only be a feature of global communism.

Well, all-right then....?

So Chimpsky thinks that no nation should trade with any other nation, and instead should rely EXCLUSIVELY on its own resources?

I agree with that.  Value that is given to mankind should be rewarded.  Add no value get no reward.

Fark off.

Or are you still under the impression that we make all the things we use?

No and that is the problem.  Rent like people are sucking the value from producers.  Like a parasite on the economy.  Bankers, Government officials, land owners, stock brokers etc.  They add no value yet take value from the producers.

I rent my apartment from my landlord. She lives elsewhere, so I am not taking value from her actual home. I pay her rent, so she is making a return investment on her purchase(the property I rent). I also maintain the apartment, doing things like raking and sweeping, and do not charge her for it, saving her on upkeep costs.

How exactly am I parasite to my landlord?

Or is this one of those "Factory workers should be paid eighty bajillion dollars an hour and teachers should work for free" type arguments?

/agrees bankers and stock brokers are parasites

Your landlord is the one acting in a rent like manner.  Read Adam Smith.  He had it right over 200 years ago.  the game has new players and different rules but the same problems.

The landlord is providing value. They are providing a person with a place to live without the expense and long term commitment of property ownership. The freedom of the renter to move after the lease has expired is a value that many renters treasure.

That's...basically exactly what my response was. Thanks for that.

Here's what you're missing steve. Just because YOU don't see the value in something, doesn't mean it has no value.


WRONG.  I do not define value.  value is what it is.  Take a ton of iron ore that is still in the ground.  Until someone digs it up it has 0 value.  The digger adds value.  Ore itself is not valuable.  The smelter adds value during the refining process to make steel.  Steel itself has little value until shaped by machinists into say....a automobile.  The machinist added value.  No one else added the value to the ore.  The banker for the purchase of the car nor the retirement fund manager of the machinist added value.  They did however suck the vouchers of value(money) from both the purchaser and the machinist without adding one iota of value to the car.
 
2013-10-13 10:10:27 PM

grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: Nope. The value was added by the workers who cleared the land and built the structure. The value is maintained by the workers who keep the structure up to its original value. The act of renting it in no way changes the value of the property. It has the same value whether it is empty or full. Full by the person whop owns it or full by a person who rents it. The difference is that the renter who adds no value whatsoever gets a reward(money that is a voucher of value) without actually doing anything to add value.

By the way, I should mention that the guy who does any major repairs (we take care of the little stuff) is the landlord's son, so by your definition the owner's family maintains the property's value. Furthermore, before we moved in, several renovations were done to the property(increasing it's value according to you) which were paid for by the owner.

Furthermore, the house was originally constructed by people and that gives its initial value, yes, but you're forgetting something important. Someone PAID those people to build the house. They didn't just show up and decide to build something for shiats and giggles.


When you maintain the property you do add value.  All other financial transactions that you get are parasitic as they are non value added.
 
2013-10-13 10:14:38 PM

bigsteve3OOO:  max_pooper: bigsteve3OOO: max_pooper: bigsteve3OOO: grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: LordJiro: Pharque-it: Noam Chimpsky: If there is a such thing as a 'world economy', it needs to be eradicated. Such a thing could only be a feature of global communism.

Well, all-right then....?......................................................

The person who rents the property pays the renter.

I was a renter for years before I bought a house, I was never paid once.
No you rented from the renter.  rent like behavior was one of the things that the founding fathers were trying to stop.  They came from countries were if you had land you were a member of the aristocracy.  Commoners could not own land because it was all owned by the royals.  Quite a few of the rules that they set down was to avoid what is happening today.  Few have the many by the short and curlies.


No, I was the renter. I rented from the property owner.

We don't have an aristocracy where only the protected gentry can own land. We live in a society where anyone with the means is legally allowed to own property. When people are barred from ownership the only choice is to rent. We do not have that system. People are free to rent or purchase property as they choose.

I don't live under the oppression of an aristocratic rent seeker because I had the freedom to purchase my own property, something the Founding Fathers would greatly appreciate. I had the means to purchase a property because I chose to live in a low cost rental unit giving me the freedom to save money for the property purchase.

The "rent seeking" landowners of 18th century aristocratic Birtian are very different from modern apartment owners.
 
2013-10-13 10:16:31 PM

bigsteve3OOO: The banker for the purchase of the car nor the retirement fund manager of the machinist added value.


The banker provided the loan that allowed the person to purchase the car, thus allowing the maker of the car and everyone down the chain to be paid.


bigsteve3OOO: grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: Nope. The value was added by the workers who cleared the land and built the structure. The value is maintained by the workers who keep the structure up to its original value. The act of renting it in no way changes the value of the property. It has the same value whether it is empty or full. Full by the person whop owns it or full by a person who rents it. The difference is that the renter who adds no value whatsoever gets a reward(money that is a voucher of value) without actually doing anything to add value.

By the way, I should mention that the guy who does any major repairs (we take care of the little stuff) is the landlord's son, so by your definition the owner's family maintains the property's value. Furthermore, before we moved in, several renovations were done to the property(increasing it's value according to you) which were paid for by the owner.

Furthermore, the house was originally constructed by people and that gives its initial value, yes, but you're forgetting something important. Someone PAID those people to build the house. They didn't just show up and decide to build something for shiats and giggles.

When you maintain the property you do add value.  All other financial transactions that you get are parasitic as they are non value added.


I notice you completely ignore the bolded part.
 
2013-10-13 10:18:16 PM

bigsteve3OOO: When you maintain the property you do add value.  All other financial transactions that you get are parasitic as they are non value added


An electrical inspection, plumbing inspection, certification of clear title, easement guarantees, 911 service, municipal water and sewage hookups, not to mention the quality of neighborhood schools, all of these add ZERO value to a home?

Please tell me you're not in the real estate business.
 
2013-10-13 10:22:06 PM

bigsteve3OOO: grumpfuff: max_pooper: bigsteve3OOO: grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: LordJiro: Pharque-it: Noam Chimpsky: If there is a such thing as a 'world economy', it needs to be eradicated. Such a thing could only be a feature of global communism.

Well, all-right then....?

So Chimpsky thinks that no nation should trade with any other nation, and instead should rely EXCLUSIVELY on its own resources?

I agree with that.  Value that is given to mankind should be rewarded.  Add no value get no reward.

Fark off.

Or are you still under the impression that we make all the things we use?

No and that is the problem.  Rent like people are sucking the value from producers.  Like a parasite on the economy.  Bankers, Government officials, land owners, stock brokers etc.  They add no value yet take value from the producers.

I rent my apartment from my landlord. She lives elsewhere, so I am not taking value from her actual home. I pay her rent, so she is making a return investment on her purchase(the property I rent). I also maintain the apartment, doing things like raking and sweeping, and do not charge her for it, saving her on upkeep costs.

How exactly am I parasite to my landlord?

Or is this one of those "Factory workers should be paid eighty bajillion dollars an hour and teachers should work for free" type arguments?

/agrees bankers and stock brokers are parasites

Your landlord is the one acting in a rent like manner.  Read Adam Smith.  He had it right over 200 years ago.  the game has new players and different rules but the same problems.

The landlord is providing value. They are providing a person with a place to live without the expense and long term commitment of property ownership. The freedom of the renter to move after the lease has expired is a value that many renters treasure.

That's...basically exactly what my response was. Thanks for that.

Here's what you're missing steve. Just because YOU don't see the value in something, doesn't mean it has no value.

WRONG.  I do not define value.  value is what it is.  Take a ton of iron ore that is still in the ground.  Until someone digs it up it has 0 value.  The digger adds value.  Ore itself is not valuable.  The smelter adds value during the refining process to make steel.  Steel itself has little value until shaped by machinists into say....a automobile.  The machinist added value.  No one else added the value to the ore.  The banker for the purchase of the car nor the retirement fund manager of the machinist added value.  They did however suck the vouchers of value(money) from both the purchaser and the machinist without adding one iota of value to the car.


The ore in the ground does have value. The value of land rich in iron ore is more valuable than a patch in the desert 100 miles from the nearest town.

The different between in value is the value of the iron ore in the ground.

There is value in potential. Whether that potential is iron ore, dense old growth trees, an apartment in downtown Manhatten.
 
2013-10-13 10:22:38 PM

grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: The banker for the purchase of the car nor the retirement fund manager of the machinist added value.

The banker provided the loan that allowed the person to purchase the car, thus allowing the maker of the car and everyone down the chain to be paid.


bigsteve3OOO: grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: Nope. The value was added by the workers who cleared the land and built the structure. The value is maintained by the workers who keep the structure up to its original value. The act of renting it in no way changes the value of the property. It has the same value whether it is empty or full. Full by the person whop owns it or full by a person who rents it. The difference is that the renter who adds no value whatsoever gets a reward(money that is a voucher of value) without actually doing anything to add value.

By the way, I should mention that the guy who does any major repairs (we take care of the little stuff) is the landlord's son, so by your definition the owner's family maintains the property's value. Furthermore, before we moved in, several renovations were done to the property(increasing it's value according to you) which were paid for by the owner.

Furthermore, the house was originally constructed by people and that gives its initial value, yes, but you're forgetting something important. Someone PAID those people to build the house. They didn't just show up and decide to build something for shiats and giggles.

When you maintain the property you do add value.  All other financial transactions that you get are parasitic as they are non value added.

I notice you completely ignore the bolded part.


Saw the bolded part.  No value added.  Paying for something does not add value.  sorry.  Also giving money to someone to pay for something does not add value.  sorry again.  Unless you take something, anything, and work it to be something more valuable.  You did not add value.  Brittney Spears adds value.  She takes an idea and turns it into entertainment.  You renting a house or other property = NO VALUE ADDED.  Justin Beiber is more value added than you.
 
2013-10-13 10:25:54 PM

bigsteve3OOO: grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: The banker for the purchase of the car nor the retirement fund manager of the machinist added value.

The banker provided the loan that allowed the person to purchase the car, thus allowing the maker of the car and everyone down the chain to be paid.


bigsteve3OOO: grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: Nope. The value was added by the workers who cleared the land and built the structure. The value is maintained by the workers who keep the structure up to its original value. The act of renting it in no way changes the value of the property. It has the same value whether it is empty or full. Full by the person whop owns it or full by a person who rents it. The difference is that the renter who adds no value whatsoever gets a reward(money that is a voucher of value) without actually doing anything to add value.

By the way, I should mention that the guy who does any major repairs (we take care of the little stuff) is the landlord's son, so by your definition the owner's family maintains the property's value. Furthermore, before we moved in, several renovations were done to the property(increasing it's value according to you) which were paid for by the owner.

Furthermore, the house was originally constructed by people and that gives its initial value, yes, but you're forgetting something important. Someone PAID those people to build the house. They didn't just show up and decide to build something for shiats and giggles.

When you maintain the property you do add value.  All other financial transactions that you get are parasitic as they are non value added.

I notice you completely ignore the bolded part.

Saw the bolded part.  No value added.  Paying for something does not add value.  sorry.  Also giving money to someone to pay for something does not add value.  sorry again.  Unless you take something, anything, and work it to be something more valuable.  You did not add value.  Brittney Spears adds value.  She takes an idea and turns it into entertainment.  You renting a house or other property = NO VALUE ADDED.  Justin Beiber is more value added than you.


Entertainment? Are are now talking about a service instead of a good.

A landlord provided a valuable service to the leasee: a safe place to live.
 
2013-10-13 10:25:55 PM
The economy was gutted decades ago, and we've been kicking the can down the road, using debt, money creation and accounting fraud, ever since. Blaming the mess on anybody or anything recent is ridiculous.
 
2013-10-13 10:26:46 PM

max_pooper: bigsteve3OOO: grumpfuff: max_pooper: bigsteve3OOO: grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: LordJiro: Pharque-it: Noam Chimpsky: If there is a such thing as a 'world economy', it needs to be eradicated. Such a thing could only be a feature of global communism.

Well, all-right ......................................

The ore in the ground does have value. The value of land rich in iron ore is more valuable than a patch in the desert 100 miles from the nearest town.

The different between in value is the value of the iron ore in the ground.

There is value in potential. Whether that potential is iron ore, dense old growth trees, an apartment in downtown Manhatten.
  ..

OK I agree.  You are right I am wrong.  I misspoke due to excessive quantities of Milwaukees best light a value added commodity.
 
2013-10-13 10:30:34 PM

max_pooper: bigsteve3OOO: grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: The banker for the purchase of the car nor the retirement fund manager of the machinist added value.

The banker provided the loan that allowed the person to purchase the car, thus allowing the maker of the car and everyone down the chain to be paid.


bigsteve3OOO: grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: Nope. The value was added by the workers who cleared the land and built the structure. The value is maintained by the workers who keep the structure up to its original value. The act of renting it in no way changes the value of the property. It has the same value whether it is empty or full. Full by the person whop owns it or full by a person who rents it. The difference is that the renter who adds no value whatsoever gets a reward(money that is a voucher of value) without actually doing anything to add value.

B...................
 notice you completely ignore the bolded part.

Saw the bolded part.  No value added.  Paying for something does not add value.  sorry.  Also giving money to someone to pay for something does not add value.  sorry again.  Unless you take something, anything, and work it to be something more valuable.  You did not add value.  Brittney Spears adds value.  She takes an idea and turns it into entertainment.  You renting a house or other property = NO VALUE ADDED.  Justin Beiber is more value added than you.


Entertainment? Are are now talking about a service instead of a good.

A landlord provided a valuable service to the leasee: a safe place to live.


Nope you are wrong.  entertainment is value added rent is not.  If you take anything and add value then you are a producer.  If not you are a parasite.
 
2013-10-13 10:33:08 PM

bigsteve3OOO: Saw the bolded part. No value added. Paying for something does not add value. sorry. Also giving money to someone to pay for something does not add value. sorry again. Unless you take something, anything, and work it to be something more valuable. You did not add value. Brittney Spears adds value. She takes an idea and turns it into entertainment. You renting a house or other property = NO VALUE ADDED. Justin Beiber is more value added than you.


Ok. So if that person doesn't pay the builders to build the house, they don't build the house, and it stays an empty lot with little to no value. Why exactly is the initial investment not important?

And I never claimed to be adding value to the property(I did claim I *maintain* value because I *maintain* the property), so congrats on winning that strawman.

Seriously, do you have any concept of economics? You sound like the type of guy who is all "COAL MINER GOOD! TEACHER BAD!"
 
2013-10-13 10:35:27 PM

bigsteve3OOO: max_pooper: bigsteve3OOO: grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: The banker for the purchase of the car nor the retirement fund manager of the machinist added value.

The banker provided the loan that allowed the person to purchase the car, thus allowing the maker of the car and everyone down the chain to be paid.


bigsteve3OOO: grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: Nope. The value was added by the workers who cleared the land and built the structure. The value is maintained by the workers who keep the structure up to its original value. The act of renting it in no way changes the value of the property. It has the same value whether it is empty or full. Full by the person whop owns it or full by a person who rents it. The difference is that the renter who adds no value whatsoever gets a reward(money that is a voucher of value) without actually doing anything to add value.

B...................
 notice you completely ignore the bolded part.

Saw the bolded part.  No value added.  Paying for something does not add value.  sorry.  Also giving money to someone to pay for something does not add value.  sorry again.  Unless you take something, anything, and work it to be something more valuable.  You did not add value.  Brittney Spears adds value.  She takes an idea and turns it into entertainment.  You renting a house or other property = NO VALUE ADDED.  Justin Beiber is more value added than you.

Entertainment? Are are now talking about a service instead of a good.

A landlord provided a valuable service to the leasee: a safe place to live.


Nope you are wrong.  entertainment is value added rent is not.  If you take anything and add value then you are a producer.  If not you are a parasite.


So a place to live does not add value to a person's life? Why does anyone waste money renting if it does not provide them with value?
 
2013-10-13 10:35:38 PM

bigsteve3OOO: If your economic system requires government spending to survive your country is already failed it is just a matter of time.


The economy doesn't actually care where the money comes from.  A billion dollars to improve infrastructure is a billion whether it comes from the government or a private company.
 
2013-10-13 10:35:45 PM

Gergesa: LasersHurt: On the final day before the Debt Ceiling is met and shiat is scheduled to go haywire, I hope the President holds a prime-time interruption and announces an Executive Action of some sort to end this charade. Go over Congress' heads.

Anyone know the legalities of this?


If you follow the legal opinions of Bush Administration counsel John Yoo, if the country faced with an emergency the chief executive could do anything up to and including having Congress indefinitely detained and tortured.

Somehow I imagine all of those Bush supporters wouldn't agree with the legal arguments they proposed prior to a Democrat being president.
 
2013-10-13 10:37:41 PM

grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: Saw the bolded part. No value added. Paying for something does not add value. sorry. Also giving money to someone to pay for something does not add value. sorry again. Unless you take something, anything, and work it to be something more valuable. You did not add value. Brittney Spears adds value. She takes an idea and turns it into entertainment. You renting a house or other property = NO VALUE ADDED. Justin Beiber is more value added than you.

Ok. So if that person doesn't pay the builders to build the house, they don't build the house, and it stays an empty lot with little to no value. Why exactly is the initial investment not important?

And I never claimed to be adding value to the property(I did claim I *maintain* value because I *maintain* the property), so congrats on winning that strawman.

Seriously, do you have any concept of economics? You sound like the type of guy who is all "COAL MINER GOOD! TEACHER BAD!"


Money is a voucher of value.  It should only be given to people who add value.  Rent like behavior adds no value yet collects vouchers of value. I find that abhorrent.  That is all I have to say on this topic.
 
2013-10-13 10:46:13 PM

bigsteve3OOO: Rent like behavior adds no value yet collects vouchers of value.


You seem to have an unorthodox definition of "value".

Please repeat that sentence to hotel owners during a large convention or event such as the Olympics. You will find that rent-like behavior (i.e., occupancy) adds tremendous value to property.
 
2013-10-13 10:46:15 PM

bigsteve3OOO: grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: Saw the bolded part. No value added. Paying for something does not add value. sorry. Also giving money to someone to pay for something does not add value. sorry again. Unless you take something, anything, and work it to be something more valuable. You did not add value. Brittney Spears adds value. She takes an idea and turns it into entertainment. You renting a house or other property = NO VALUE ADDED. Justin Beiber is more value added than you.

Ok. So if that person doesn't pay the builders to build the house, they don't build the house, and it stays an empty lot with little to no value. Why exactly is the initial investment not important?

And I never claimed to be adding value to the property(I did claim I *maintain* value because I *maintain* the property), so congrats on winning that strawman.

Seriously, do you have any concept of economics? You sound like the type of guy who is all "COAL MINER GOOD! TEACHER BAD!"

Money is a voucher of value.  It should only be given to people who add value.  Rent like behavior adds no value yet collects vouchers of value. I find that abhorrent.  That is all I have to say on this topic.


A landlord does provide value. He provides a safe place to live and keep belongings in exchange for an agreed upon amount of money determined by the free market. If the apartment does not adequately provide a safe place to live and keep belongings then nobody will rent it.

Remember this is not 18th century aristocratic Britian where commoners were forced into renting because they were barred from landownership. In the US anyone with the means can purchase property, even regular schmos like myself.
 
2013-10-13 10:54:30 PM

ox45tallboy: bigsteve3OOO: Rent like behavior adds no value yet collects vouchers of value.

You seem to have an unorthodox definition of "value".

Please repeat that sentence to hotel owners during a large convention or event such as the Olympics. You will find that rent-like behavior (i.e., occupancy) adds tremendous value to property.


Steve is conflating money payments made to landlord and Adam Smith definition of rent. He defined it as money made outside of a mutually beneficial transaction.

In a modern real estate rental agreement, both sides benefit. The landlord benefits through money paid by the renter and the renter benefits through having a safe place to live.
 
2013-10-13 11:06:47 PM

bigsteve3OOO: due to excessive quantities of Milwaukees best light


Did that get the best of him?
 
2013-10-13 11:08:37 PM
Hey, guys, nice job letting the thread get jacked by BIG!! STEVE!! +9000.
/WINNING
 
2013-10-13 11:09:13 PM
Washington never did it, but Jefferson tried to.

Embargo of 1807

In the Napoleonic Era, the US was constantly stymied in their efforts to remain neutral to the conflict between France and Britain.  They were especially angered over the ongoing violation of American sovereignty by the British, via acts such as the impressment of US citizens into the British Navy.  In response, Jefferson attempted to force the major powers into heeding the whims of this brash upstart nation by enforcing an embargo on French and English goods.  His gambit succeeded in driving the US into a deep recession, and in not at all accomplishing any of his goals.

Do you see Tea Party?  When you talk about learning from history or being doomed to repeat it, this is the shiat you should be learning.
 
2013-10-13 11:13:32 PM

bigsteve3OOO: grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: Nope. The value was added by the workers who cleared the land and built the structure. The value is maintained by the workers who keep the structure up to its original value. The act of renting it in no way changes the value of the property. It has the same value whether it is empty or full. Full by the person whop owns it or full by a person who rents it. The difference is that the renter who adds no value whatsoever gets a reward(money that is a voucher of value) without actually doing anything to add value.

By the way, I should mention that the guy who does any major repairs (we take care of the little stuff) is the landlord's son, so by your definition the owner's family maintains the property's value. Furthermore, before we moved in, several renovations were done to the property(increasing it's value according to you) which were paid for by the owner.

Furthermore, the house was originally constructed by people and that gives its initial value, yes, but you're forgetting something important. Someone PAID those people to build the house. They didn't just show up and decide to build something for shiats and giggles.

When you maintain the property you do add value.  All other financial transactions that you get are parasitic as they are non value added.


You're certainly not adding anything to the value of this thread.
 
2013-10-13 11:20:23 PM

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: JAYoung: I remember the Revolution as being caused by Parliament enacting laws to benefit the British East India Company that we Colonials objected to -- you know, taxing the People to benefit the Corporation.

The Tea Act actually made the East India Company's tea cost less, even with the tax. The objections to the taxes without representation were real, but that fire was stoked by monied interests in the tea smuggling trade and other colonial profiteering businesses. So I guess things don't ever really change.


Correct. In fact the EIC tea was cheaper and tasted better than the smuggled shiat the colonists were getting.

But that didn't stop the outrage. Lol.
 
2013-10-13 11:33:27 PM

ox45tallboy: KellyX: ox45tallboy: KellyX: [scontent-b-mia.xx.fbcdn.net image 720x225]

That needs a "KEEP CALM and" above it.

[scontent-a-mia.xx.fbcdn.net image 720x499]

PERFECT!

That'll get you a month.


*BOW*

Thanks, now can we put them up against the wall ;)
 
2013-10-13 11:35:19 PM

Kittypie070: Hey, guys, nice job letting the thread get jacked by BIG!! STEVE!! +9000.
/WINNING


Don't look at me, I have that troll account on ignore.
 
2013-10-13 11:46:58 PM

Satanic_Hamster: Kittypie070: Hey, guys, nice job letting the thread get jacked by BIG!! STEVE!! +9000.
/WINNING

Don't look at me, I have that troll account on ignore.


Yea, I figured that out now after he showed his brilliant stupid understanding of economic theory.
 
2013-10-14 12:27:44 AM

Satanic_Hamster: Kittypie070: Hey, guys, nice job letting the thread get jacked by BIG!! STEVE!! +9000.
/WINNING


Don't look at me, I have that troll account on ignore.


So do I but it sure doesn't help.
 
2013-10-14 12:29:08 AM

Kittypie070: Satanic_Hamster: Kittypie070: Hey, guys, nice job letting the thread get jacked by BIG!! STEVE!! +9000.
/WINNING

Don't look at me, I have that troll account on ignore.

So do I but it sure doesn't help.


I'm working on being insulting without getting the banhammer.
 
2013-10-14 12:45:41 AM

LasersHurt: Peki: LasersHurt: worlddan: Gergesa: LasersHurt: On the final day before the Debt Ceiling is met and shiat is scheduled to go haywire, I hope the President holds a prime-time interruption and announces an Executive Action of some sort to end this charade. Go over Congress' heads.

Anyone know the legalities of this?

It is patently unconstitutional otherwise he's have already done it. And I don't know why any sound democrat would want him too. Obama hates the idea of the "imperial presidency" as much as I do.

What is patently unconstitutional? What, specifically? You sound quite sure that "it" is, whatever "it" means.

Also: hasn't done it because we haven't actually defaulted yet. I have no doubt he has a team of legal scholars that have 50 IQ points on the both of us that will keep his butt as clean as possible (SCOTUS shenanigans notwithstanding).

This. I don't claim to know precisely what he might do, but I would bet my last cent he's looked into it with the brightest legal minds he can get a hold of. When it gets to the "11th hour", we'll see if anything happens.


Keep in mind that whatever precedent he establishes will be available to the next Republican President. That's the fear that's kept the 'nuclear option' on the filibuster from being triggered in the Senate by both the Democrats and Republicans.
 
2013-10-14 12:51:32 AM
All meaningful political decisions hurt certain interests or people.  What interests and groups it is acceptable to hurt, and the goals for which it is acceptable to do so is part of the decisions politicians make.

Criminal prosecution for how politicians make those decisions is wrong in a way similar to how the GOP's legislative hostage taking is wrong...not because any specific decision is right or wrong, but because it would harm our system of government, which is dependent on politicians being able to make the decisions they feel are right, even if they hurt people, without fear of criminal charges.

TLDR: The GOP makes harmful and stupid decisions all the time, but arresting them for it would be worse.
 
2013-10-14 01:03:08 AM

Gyrfalcon: Kittypie070: Satanic_Hamster: Kittypie070: Hey, guys, nice job letting the thread get jacked by BIG!! STEVE!! +9000.
/WINNING

Don't look at me, I have that troll account on ignore.

So do I but it sure doesn't help.


I'm working on being insulting without getting the banhammer.


Yup.

I'm feeling very gun-shy because of 'exterior circumstances' so I'm just gonna stay in the grass for a while.
 
2013-10-14 01:31:02 AM

Kittypie070: Gyrfalcon: Kittypie070: Satanic_Hamster: Kittypie070: Hey, guys, nice job letting the thread get jacked by BIG!! STEVE!! +9000.
/WINNING

Don't look at me, I have that troll account on ignore.

So do I but it sure doesn't help.

I'm working on being insulting without getting the banhammer.

Yup.

I'm feeling very gun-shy because of 'exterior circumstances' so I'm just gonna stay in the grass for a while.


Don't eat any, it makes teh kitteh sickies.
 
2013-10-14 01:35:37 AM

Gyrfalcon: Don't eat any, it makes teh kitteh sickies.


*hearts*
 
2013-10-14 04:23:30 AM

nubzers: Virulency: Benevolent Misanthrope: LasersHurt: On the final day before the Debt Ceiling is met and shiat is scheduled to go haywire, I hope the President holds a prime-time interruption and announces an Executive Action of some sort to end this charade. Go over Congress' heads.

What, precisely? That's not a challenge, I honestly don't know what the Constitutin would allow.

Uhhh so you're advocating dictatorship??

I hope not. That would be a terrible precedent to set. The executive branch has amassed quite a bit of power in the past 50 years, particularly the last decade. Doing this would render the legislative branch almost useless since any president could just directly finance the government at whatever level he wants. Add that to the signing statements and executive orders and you end up with a very very powerful executive branch with the door to a dictatorship wide open.


Err, what? The Senate and House set the budget, and the debt ceiling. The President has control over neither, so him ignoring the latter rule from Congress (the ceiling) rather than ignoring the former (spending that Congress has previously ordered) is hardly empowering the executive branch, it is just removing a stupid contradiction Congress has made for itself.
 
2013-10-14 06:47:34 AM

Gyrfalcon: I'm working on being insulting without getting the banhammer.


The troll accounts/mods get off on you being insulting.  It's calm pointing out that they're a troll account or ignoring that they hate.
 
2013-10-14 06:57:10 AM

Emposter: TLDR: The GOP makes harmful and stupid decisions all the time, but arresting them for it would be worse.


There's a difference between making a legitimately stupid and ignorant decision and actively trying to harm the economy and undermine the Constitution because you're pissed America arrested a black guy again.
 
2013-10-14 07:44:40 AM

Satanic_Hamster: Emposter: TLDR: The GOP makes harmful and stupid decisions all the time, but arresting them for it would be worse.

There's a difference between making a legitimately stupid and ignorant decision and actively trying to harm the economy and undermine the Constitution because you're pissed America arrested a black guy again.


I assume you mean elected? They'd be thrilled if he was arrested.
 
2013-10-14 08:31:17 AM

Girl Sailor: Schroedinger's Glory Hole: Girl Sailor: My cousin had Obama as a law professor at u of c. No doubt, he was the smartest m-fer in the room no matter where he went. The u of c staff didn't like him, specifically the old (white) Friedman school of economics types couldn't stand him. Ironically, I bet the derpers would've got so much more traction if they attacked him as an egg headed college elite. But they couldn't get past the black, let alone admit it was possible that it was possible for a black dude to have a high iq. So now they're in this laughable corner. Smoked by an ivory tower elite that they couldn't even admit WAS an ivory tower elite.

That is why I voted for Obama. The opportunity to watch racist half wits contort themselves in circles trying to bully someone who sees them the way a pediatrician views a three year old. Enjoy The prison of your own Minds. The rest of the world will happily carry on without you.

Ebony Tower Elite?

Nice. Let's make that happen.

Btw - how do you know what's on the other side of schroedinger's glory hole?


You don't, so it makes you both gay and straight at the same time.
 
2013-10-14 08:43:09 AM

apoptotic: I assume you mean elected? They'd be thrilled if he was arrested.


I have no idea where that came from .  :0

Apparently I wasn't as awake as I thought I was when I typed that.
 
2013-10-14 08:59:29 AM

Mugato: It's amusing how consistent the Republicans are at their projection. Meaning they attribute everything that they're guilty on onto others. It's just so blatant and obvious.



I was a Republican party member once...
farking children.
 
2013-10-14 10:02:00 AM

bigsteve3OOO: max_pooper: bigsteve3OOO: grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: LordJiro: Pharque-it: Noam Chimpsky: If there is a such thing as a 'world economy', it needs to be eradicated. Such a thing could only be a feature of global communism.

Well, all-right then....?

So Chimpsky thinks that no nation should trade with any other nation, and instead should rely EXCLUSIVELY on its own resources?

I agree with that.  Value that is given to mankind should be rewarded.  Add no value get no reward.

Fark off.

Or are you still under the impression that we make all the things we use?

No and that is the problem.  Rent like people are sucking the value from producers.  Like a parasite on the economy.  Bankers, Government officials, land owners, stock brokers etc.  They add no value yet take value from the producers.

I rent my apartment from my landlord. She lives elsewhere, so I am not taking value from her actual home. I pay her rent, so she is making a return investment on her purchase(the property I rent). I also maintain the apartment, doing things like raking and sweeping, and do not charge her for it, saving her on upkeep costs.

How exactly am I parasite to my landlord?

Or is this one of those "Factory workers should be paid eighty bajillion dollars an hour and teachers should work for free" type arguments?

/agrees bankers and stock brokers are parasites

Your landlord is the one acting in a rent like manner.  Read Adam Smith.  He had it right over 200 years ago.  the game has new players and different rules but the same problems.

The landlord is providing value. They are providing a person with a place to live without the expense and long term commitment of property ownership. The freedom of the renter to move after the lease has expired is a value that many renters treasure.

Nope.  The value was added by the workers who cleared the land and built the structure.  The value is maintained by the workers who keep the structure up to its original value.  The act of renting it in no way changes the value of the property.  It has the same value whether it is empty or full.  Full by the person whop owns it or full by a person who rents it.  The difference is that the renter who adds no value whatsoever gets a reward(money that is a voucher of value) without actually doing anything to add value.


You know how I know you have borderline intellectual functioning? You cannot grasp basic abstract concepts. In other words, you demonstrate concrete thinking. Please proceed with your trollin'
 
2013-10-14 10:13:23 AM
well, republicans are terrorists. and i suppose, at least to the british, the colonial revolutionaries were terrorists too.
 
Displayed 213 of 213 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report