Do you have adblock enabled?
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 70
    More: Unlikely, world economy, House GOP  
•       •       •

3645 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Oct 2013 at 7:02 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-10-13 07:14:09 PM  
9 votes:
"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 07:23:14 PM  
8 votes:
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 06:47:48 PM  
8 votes:
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 08:18:15 PM  
5 votes:

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 07:17:56 PM  
5 votes:
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 07:11:42 PM  
5 votes:
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 07:31:12 PM  
4 votes:

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 06:56:34 PM  
4 votes:

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 07:48:15 PM  
3 votes:
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 07:28:19 PM  
3 votes:
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 05:45:56 PM  
3 votes:
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.
NFA
2013-10-13 05:30:05 PM  
3 votes:
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 11:13:32 PM  
2 votes:

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 09:57:53 PM  
2 votes:

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 08:58:32 PM  
2 votes:
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 08:36:59 PM  
2 votes:

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 08:24:25 PM  
2 votes:

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 08:15:43 PM  
2 votes:
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 07:54:18 PM  
2 votes:
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 07:31:16 PM  
2 votes:

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 07:30:06 PM  
2 votes:

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 07:27:32 PM  
2 votes:

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 07:26:37 PM  
2 votes:

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 07:18:00 PM  
2 votes:
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 07:16:09 PM  
2 votes:

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 07:12:22 PM  
2 votes:

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 07:11:38 PM  
2 votes:

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 06:50:19 PM  
2 votes:

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 06:40:37 PM  
2 votes:
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 10:46:13 PM  
1 votes:

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 10:18:16 PM  
1 votes:

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 10:00:02 PM  
1 votes:
 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 09:49:06 PM  
1 votes:

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 09:39:27 PM  
1 votes:

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 09:29:18 PM  
1 votes:

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 09:26:36 PM  
1 votes:

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


Health insurance companies.  No value added.
2013-10-13 09:13:57 PM  
1 votes:

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 09:11:54 PM  
1 votes:
scontent-b-mia.xx.fbcdn.net
2013-10-13 09:10:47 PM  
1 votes:

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 09:08:52 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:59:47 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:50:08 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:46:45 PM  
1 votes:
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 08:42:45 PM  
1 votes:
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 08:38:49 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:34:35 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:29:01 PM  
1 votes:
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 08:24:38 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:15:17 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:14:17 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:11:14 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:07:55 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:07:20 PM  
1 votes:
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 07:57:16 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:55:43 PM  
1 votes:
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 07:41:59 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:39:36 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:35:50 PM  
1 votes:

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


A good start?
2013-10-13 07:33:32 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:31:40 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:26:44 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:22:46 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:22:20 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:17:14 PM  
1 votes:
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 07:13:45 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:10:42 PM  
1 votes:
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 07:10:38 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:09:12 PM  
1 votes:
****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 07:08:40 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:08:08 PM  
1 votes:

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?
 
Displayed 70 of 70 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report