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.

(CNN)   China, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Germany and Singapore: Raise the debt ceiling NOW, a default by the United States would have a profound effect on our economies. This GOP scheme is going to tank the dollar as the world reserve currency   (money.cnn.com) divider line 521
    More: Interesting, United States, Saudi Arabia, Japan, Singapore, Americanize, action alert, Christine Lagarde, reserve currency  
•       •       •

6846 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Oct 2013 at 9:16 AM (46 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



521 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-14 12:58:44 PM

LavenderWolf: Director_Mr: If you are blaming one side any more than the other you aren't paying attention.

You are stupid. "Both sides are the same!" is stupid.

The shutdown, the threat of default, these are 100% the fault of the Republican party.



Absolutely not.
The GOP is just the Punch in this theatre.
The 1% is shaking down the US Economy(or maybe somebody else's), enjoy the show.
 
2013-10-14 12:59:18 PM
Are we really to the point where things could start to crumble? If they do, I am ever so glad to be living in "fly-over-country". It will get bad here, no doubt, but nowhere near as bad as it will in the cities.

You see, while a lot of noise is made about where money goes, not a sound is made about why it goes where it goes. Sure, the city-dwellers pay a larger amount to live in "cultural centers", but their towers are poetically constructed of glass. If the structure of society crumbles, the very first thing that will happen is that food will stop making it to the largest cities, simply because of the economics of transportation and logistics. Then, they will be staring at all that "priceless" artwork, wishing they could eat it. You will see the mother of all diasporas then. The big question: will the powers-that-be attempt to do what Stalin did to the Ukraine, and would that even work? If the cities empty, where will they go? I think the residents of "fly-over-country" are far better armed then the Ukrainians were.
 
2013-10-14 01:00:04 PM

HeadLever: jst3p: See the charts and graphs I posted in this thread and see how that this trend is reversing not getting worse.

While you are correct that the trend is in the 'better' direction, we still have the debt issue square in front of us.  The CBO has been expecting a partial lessening of the deficits as we climb out of this last recession, however, SS and Medicare costs are expected to still be major issues going into the future.

[www.taxnetwealth.com image 800x427]


By that graph we have until sometime between 2015 and 2025 to figure it out. I agree it is an issue, but congress needs fund the goddamn government and lift the debt ceiling and then get to work on it. The GoP has already stated that they want to be measured by how many laws DON'T get passed, how is that a functional approach to fixing these problems?
 
2013-10-14 01:00:34 PM

HeadLever: LavenderWolf: Stop buying fancy military hardware for like 5 years and the debt is gone.

No it is not. Debt is about 16 Trillion.  We spend about 600 Billion per year on all of the millitary.

Even if we cut out all DoD spending (and assuming no negative revenue feedback), you will not even eliminate the deficit, let alone the debt.


Okay, a few more years.

There are measures you can take that make a lot more sense than "Shut down the government! Who needs the vital services it provides?"

As someone else said, the debt situation has been worse before. The numbers are higher than ever, but the relative debt level isn't unprecedented.
 
2013-10-14 01:02:15 PM

HAMMERTOE: Are we really to the point where things could start to crumble? If they do, I am ever so glad to be living in "fly-over-country". It will get bad here, no doubt, but nowhere near as bad as it will in the cities.

You see, while a lot of noise is made about where money goes, not a sound is made about why it goes where it goes. Sure, the city-dwellers pay a larger amount to live in "cultural centers", but their towers are poetically constructed of glass. If the structure of society crumbles, the very first thing that will happen is that food will stop making it to the largest cities, simply because of the economics of transportation and logistics. Then, they will be staring at all that "priceless" artwork, wishing they could eat it. You will see the mother of all diasporas then. The big question: will the powers-that-be attempt to do what Stalin did to the Ukraine, and would that even work? If the cities empty, where will they go? I think the residents of "fly-over-country" are far better armed then the Ukrainians were.


You're a little funny in the head if you think the US is going to have entire cities empty because of a lack of food.

You understand that government debt isn't tied to the wealth of the citizenry right? Because there are billions and billions of dollars that say you're full of shiat.
 
2013-10-14 01:05:12 PM

Misconduc: Sorry after being a democrat since Clinton - I side with the GOP over Obamacare. Honestly I could give a crap about how bad Obama has been as president,  but Obamacare really is something to fight against - forcing working people to pay for medical they cannot afford or need.


Americans crack me up.
 
2013-10-14 01:09:17 PM

runescorpio: Misconduc: Sorry after being a democrat since Clinton - I side with the GOP over Obamacare. Honestly I could give a crap about how bad Obama has been as president,  but Obamacare really is something to fight against - forcing working people to pay for medical they cannot afford or need.

Americans crack me up.


Yeah, kinda sad that so many of us think that people getting health insurance is bad because.... mostly because talking heads tell them so on TV.
 
2013-10-14 01:10:22 PM

pxlboy: itsaidwhat: Dimensio: RickN99: SpectroBoy: The Dem's position is "Pass a clean bill to prevent the impending disaster"
The GOP position is "No funding until we get our other demands met too."

Dems: Pass a clean bill and fund the entire government.
Obama:  We won't negotiate with the GOP about government funding until the GOP funds the entire government.
GOP:  We don't want to fund the entire government; THAT'S the issue.

GOP: We've passed bills to fund some parts of the government that we don't have an issue with.  Let's negotiate about the other parts.
Dems:  Nope. Meet 100% of our funding demands or nothing gets funded.
Obama:  Gonna veto them if they get to me.  Fund the entire government; then we'll negotiate about the funding.
GOP:  We don't want to fund the entire government; THAT'S the issue.

Currently proposed government funding levels are a direct result of Speaker John Boehner receiving "98%" of what he wanted. Current funding levels, therefore, are at Republican-desired levels.

The original Republican-passed spending bill did not change government funding levels; it served only to eliminate an existing law that they did not like, despite that law having been signed into law three years ago, surviving a Constitutional challenge and effectively surviving voter referendum when the President who championed it defeated a challenger who promised to repeal it.

Your argument is a lie and you are a liar for making it.

"You (Libtard Santa Claus and your free money give-away-world policies) sit on a throne of lies!"

You do your arguments a disservice using such idiotic pejoratives like "libtard". This is why no one takes your side seriously.


Libtard. It's fictional. Feel free to suggest a label that you think describes people that think they know best how to direct the lives and resources of others. Some say that's the GOP or Christians or Muslims or Democrats or Tea Bag Party. I am totally open to use another term if you have one that I agree will work. However I suspect that you self identify with some part of Libtard but not my use. Again, I'm okay with that. Make a suggestion.
 
2013-10-14 01:11:17 PM

odinsposse: DubtodaIll: I mean you if want to throw labels on things to make you feel better about your own positions that's fine but don't assume what I'm SO concerned about.

Will do!

I don't want the U.S. to default however it may be something that happens that turns out to be a positive influence on the way the country is ran.

And this is why.The idea that defaulting does anything useful is absolutely foolish. It has nothing to do with resolving our political issues regarding the budget especially if there are groups of people who think it's a good idea.

When will the debt be so big that we have to do something about it? 20 trillion? 50 trillion?

Not for a long time. Debt is not inherently bad and big numbers don't mean anything. If our country has a GDP of 500 trillion then a debt of 50 trillion is inconsequential.


The 2012 U.S. GDP was 15.68 trillion.  Total Direct Federal Revenue was 5.12 trillion.  Total Requested Federal Budget was 2.6 trillion.  Current federal debt is 16.7 trillion with exclusions, 62 trillion without exclusions.  And this isn't something we need to fix now?
 
2013-10-14 01:12:03 PM
www.urantiansojourn.com
/That is all
 
2013-10-14 01:12:08 PM

pxlboy: I never understood why anyone would think an adjustable interest rate is a good idea. The rate goes up (and probably higher than is affordable) and you get hosed.


It would be at the peak of an inflation cycle, when interest rates are high and expected to fall.
(You know, just like zero-coupon bonds.)
 
2013-10-14 01:12:11 PM

itsaidwhat: You do your arguments a disservice using such idiotic pejoratives like "libtard". This is why no one takes your side seriously.


That, and the fact that much of what he says is demonstrably false.
 
2013-10-14 01:13:49 PM

DubtodaIll: The 2012 U.S. GDP was 15.68 trillion.  Total Direct Federal Revenue was 5.12 trillion.  Total Requested Federal Budget was 2.6 trillion.  Current federal debt is 16.7 trillion with exclusions, 62 trillion without exclusions.  And this isn't something we need to fix now?


It is trending down, it is literally "getting fixed now".
 
2013-10-14 01:14:12 PM
So, how about you just switch to single-payer?

It is the cheapest method of health care known to mankind. Also the most effective.
 
2013-10-14 01:14:49 PM

HAMMERTOE: ... I am ever so glad to be living in "fly-over-country". It will get bad here, no doubt, but nowhere near as bad as it will in the cities.
...
I think the residents of "fly-over-country" are far better armed then the Ukrainians were.


You do realize that the use of the term "fly-over-country" is attributed to New Yorkers and Los Angelians and refers to anything between the east and west coast of the U.S., right?  This includes Cleveland, Chicago, St. Louis, Denver, etc.,etc.
 
2013-10-14 01:16:31 PM

sethen320: KellyX: ajgeek: Query: Would the US defaulting start a new World War? Is it possible that the people in charge want a war because of what it did to our economy last time?

Depending on how bad the depression/recession is, some countries might see it as a means to get at resources, but realistically, my concern would be rampant unemployment, especially with young people, and some kind of violent rioting and possible revolution occurring...

A revolution? Sweet! Hopefully it will be like that show and we'll all fight with swords when the power goes out. I can't wait.


Oddly, discovered that show last week and finally watched up to the latest episode of Season 2... I like it so far.

In seriousness though, when 50% unemployment you have, and starving people there are, violent revolution you have, maybe?

/Yoda chuckle
 
2013-10-14 01:18:17 PM

jst3p: DubtodaIll: The 2012 U.S. GDP was 15.68 trillion.  Total Direct Federal Revenue was 5.12 trillion.  Total Requested Federal Budget was 2.6 trillion.  Current federal debt is 16.7 trillion with exclusions, 62 trillion without exclusions.  And this isn't something we need to fix now?

It is trending down, it is literally "getting fixed now".


And would it be trending down still if the GOP wasn't being such jackasses about it?
 
2013-10-14 01:19:13 PM

LavenderWolf: So, how about you just switch to single-payer?

It is the cheapest method of health care known to mankind. Also the most effective.


How about NO! Because I work for my stuff and if poor people get something I work for then what I have isn't as good! What is the point of working hard if I can't look down on poor people?!?!


/seriously, single payer.
 
2013-10-14 01:19:49 PM

DubtodaIll: jst3p: DubtodaIll: The 2012 U.S. GDP was 15.68 trillion.  Total Direct Federal Revenue was 5.12 trillion.  Total Requested Federal Budget was 2.6 trillion.  Current federal debt is 16.7 trillion with exclusions, 62 trillion without exclusions.  And this isn't something we need to fix now?

It is trending down, it is literally "getting fixed now".

And would it be trending down still if the GOP wasn't being such jackasses about it?


Do you have any evidence to support the idea that it wouldn't?
 
2013-10-14 01:19:49 PM

LavenderWolf: You're a little funny in the head if you think the US is going to have entire cities empty because of a lack of food.

You understand that government debt isn't tied to the wealth of the citizenry right? Because there are billions and billions of dollars that say you're full of shiat.


Of course not. They'll empty because of the riots and inflation that will result from lack of food.

Yes, I understand quite well. Are you saying that the scenario isn't nearly doom & gloom as those wishing for increased federal spending want to portray it? Because now they're basically forecasting global economic collapse if they don't get more of other peoples' money to spend, and they're not above spending money that won't be earned for generations to buy votes with.
 
2013-10-14 01:20:05 PM

DubtodaIll: jst3p: DubtodaIll: The 2012 U.S. GDP was 15.68 trillion.  Total Direct Federal Revenue was 5.12 trillion.  Total Requested Federal Budget was 2.6 trillion.  Current federal debt is 16.7 trillion with exclusions, 62 trillion without exclusions.  And this isn't something we need to fix now?

It is trending down, it is literally "getting fixed now".

And would it be trending down still if the GOP wasn't being such jackasses about it?


Yes. Their temper tantrum is completely unrelated to the lowering deficit.
 
2013-10-14 01:20:11 PM

LavenderWolf: So, how about you just switch to single-payer?

It is the cheapest method of health care known to mankind. Also the most effective.


For the same reason we might default of our debt: a politically powerful faction of idiots.
 
2013-10-14 01:20:25 PM

jst3p: DubtodaIll: jst3p: DubtodaIll: The 2012 U.S. GDP was 15.68 trillion.  Total Direct Federal Revenue was 5.12 trillion.  Total Requested Federal Budget was 2.6 trillion.  Current federal debt is 16.7 trillion with exclusions, 62 trillion without exclusions.  And this isn't something we need to fix now?

It is trending down, it is literally "getting fixed now".

And would it be trending down still if the GOP wasn't being such jackasses about it?

Do you have any evidence to support the idea that it wouldn't?


I can't prove a negative, I just asked your opinion.
 
2013-10-14 01:20:32 PM

GanjSmokr: Meh.  This debt ceiling thing is like the boy who cried wolf... we've seen this go down to the wire before.  It's political theater, just like most of the other shiat they do.

As the saying here goes, "Wake me when..." we actually default.  Then I'll pay attention and worry again.


Plan to wake up two days from now, then.
 
2013-10-14 01:20:59 PM

DubtodaIll: The 2012 U.S. GDP was 15.68 trillion.  Total Direct Federal Revenue was 5.12 trillion.  Total Requested Federal Budget was 2.6 trillion.  Current federal debt is 16.7 trillion with exclusions, 62 trillion without exclusions.  And this isn't something we need to fix now?


Sure, as long as we're not talking about fixing it by destroying the global economy.
Since you seem to be open to suggestion, let's start with something simple, like increasing revenue by raising taxes on the   bastards who   individuals and institutions that were enriched by turning middle-class citizens into pee-ons, making sure that speech is speech and providing equal access to the courts and legislators, eliminating the debt ceiling, ensuring the population is healthy, and fixing the infrastructure. We even might have a framework and some precedent for that.
 
2013-10-14 01:21:33 PM
The situation is dire.  So of course, in the middle of TFA, should be a video about how the shutdown has affected the reality show "Deadliest Catch."  Thanks, CNN, for helping us focus on what REALLY matters.

/TFA was very good.  The cross-promotion just made made me facepalm.

DubtodaIll: I'm for default not because I think it will do any immediate good but that it will cause global reckoning.  Something needs to happen to jolt this nation out of the decades long cycle of continuing to spend more money than we have and creating a level of debt that is difficult to fathom.  Sure, things have worked fine under this system for a while, but the longer we attempt this mode of economics the worse the situation becomes.  I would rather see we work to fix our situation by normal means however I think that's far more impossible than the "impossibility" of the US defaulting on its full credit.  This Congress is so dysfunctional that it really brings in to question the validity of the system.  And maybe by some stroke of luck that dysfunction will force a situation where we're actually forced to face the consequences of the decisions that have been made in the past.
    I really don't know where I was going with any of this, but while a default would be an catastrophic situation, it may be what needs to happen now to ensure a survivable future.


That's like saying your little toe has first degree frostbite, so you'd better take your whole leg off, just to be on the safe side.

Why in the world would you think it's a good idea to create a problem that will make it MORE expensive to pay off our existing debt, in order to solve our debt problem?
 
2013-10-14 01:23:03 PM

UtileDysfunktion: You do realize that the use of the term "fly-over-country" is attributed to New Yorkers and Los Angelians and refers to anything between the east and west coast of the U.S., right? This includes Cleveland, Chicago, St. Louis, Denver, etc.,etc.


Yes, I understand. I was actually using the term to simplify the mind-set of metropolitan citizens toward the "country hicks" that actually supply them with food cheaply enough that they can spend their time hoarding works of art and "culture" that provide little more than local economic benefit.
 
2013-10-14 01:24:21 PM

itsaidwhat: blindio: screw it, so what if a couple thousand people die because of the shut down, at least we didn't have to raise taxes on millionaires to balance the budget.  I mean, do you have any idea how many millionaires die each year because they are taxed?  I mean, if some 40 year old is a deadbeat, his or her kids deserve to die, If they don't like it, maybe they shouldn't have decided to be born.  They can get jobs, I mean, there aren't any labor laws for 6 year old kids right?  I hear they make great miners.

People will die, rich or poor. What we are debating is life and specifically, comfort. And, how some people refuse to lift a finger to contribute to their own comfort, and instead, insisting that to be an obligation of the wealthy. Fark that notion.

If I didn't know so many immigrants that came to this country as penniless refugees, that worked two and three jobs for years to get through school, support a family here and in their home country and that now can drive Lexus and Mercedes YET STILL work two or three jobs, then I would have sympathy for the "working poor". Lazy people deserve their discomfort.


I'm not sure what is worse, your feigned outrage at people cheating the system that you seem to personally know about, the fact that you've done nothing to expose them (or you'd be bragging about it here given your clear tendencies for being a self aggrandizing loudmouth) or your sloppy stereotyping of everyone receiving public benefits as lazy.  I'm glad you feel as if you're successful, and I'm glad you know people who were able to get 3 jobs and hold them down.  I question the accuracy of that statement because you make a lot of assumptions and assertions that lack credibility, but that's great for you.  The fact is though, while there may be people out there who are cheating the system, it doesn't mean those who aren't deserve to be cut off.  You don't close the highway because of a few speeders, you put law enforcement on the roads with the tools to detect and catch speeders.

The fact remains that there are people who will die if they lose access to their benefits, but people like you don't don't give a shiat about them as long as you can sit in your ivory tower and throw stones at "elitist liberals"

You don't have a solution because you're the problem.
 
2013-10-14 01:24:44 PM

HAMMERTOE: LavenderWolf: You're a little funny in the head if you think the US is going to have entire cities empty because of a lack of food.

You understand that government debt isn't tied to the wealth of the citizenry right? Because there are billions and billions of dollars that say you're full of shiat.

Of course not. They'll empty because of the riots and inflation that will result from lack of food.

Yes, I understand quite well. Are you saying that the scenario isn't nearly doom & gloom as those wishing for increased federal spending want to portray it? Because now they're basically forecasting global economic collapse if they don't get more of other peoples' money to spend, and they're not above spending money that won't be earned for generations to buy votes with.


First of all, you're just being obtuse on purpose. You have to be.

Secondly, you're confused. Seriously. The "Doom and gloom" over the shutdown came from a 24 hour news media. Democrats (Who you are clearly implying are the cause of this, which is stupid) did not tell you the sky was going to fall. The media did. The default, however, is different. It has far more serious consequences than a temporary government shutdown. A government shutdown is like putting locks on a building. A default is like burning it down.
 
2013-10-14 01:25:16 PM
I watched the Hot Coffee documentary on Netflix a few weeks ago. At the end of it the narrator said something like, "the only way to change this is to get congress to act on this issue."

My thought was, "oh, that's never going to get fixed then."

I find myself thinking this at the end of a lot of articles and documentaries.
 
2013-10-14 01:26:25 PM

jst3p: By that graph we have until sometime between 2015 and 2025 to figure it out. I agree it is an issue, but congress needs fund the goddamn government and lift the debt ceiling and then get to work on it.


That I very much agree with.  It is a long term problem that is very much worth us paying attention to.  However, once we get the short-term problems fixed.
 
2013-10-14 01:26:36 PM

HAMMERTOE: UtileDysfunktion: You do realize that the use of the term "fly-over-country" is attributed to New Yorkers and Los Angelians and refers to anything between the east and west coast of the U.S., right? This includes Cleveland, Chicago, St. Louis, Denver, etc.,etc.

Yes, I understand. I was actually using the term to simplify the mind-set of metropolitan citizens toward the "country hicks" that actually supply them with food cheaply enough that they can spend their time hoarding works of art and "culture" that provide little more than local economic benefit.


You do realize the "rural vs urban" hatred that you think exists really does not. People in cities know full well where their food comes from. Why you think they hate farmers is beyond me, but they don't. Politically different? Maybe, in terms of demographics, yeah. But you act like city-dwellers are more akin to cave-dwellers. Come on, man, think about it.
 
2013-10-14 01:26:42 PM

DubtodaIll: jst3p: DubtodaIll: The 2012 U.S. GDP was 15.68 trillion.  Total Direct Federal Revenue was 5.12 trillion.  Total Requested Federal Budget was 2.6 trillion.  Current federal debt is 16.7 trillion with exclusions, 62 trillion without exclusions.  And this isn't something we need to fix now?

It is trending down, it is literally "getting fixed now".

And would it be trending down still if the GOP wasn't being such jackasses about it?


I don't know where you get your "trending down", but where I get mine, it is provided by the same chits that manipulate everything all the time.
 
2013-10-14 01:26:46 PM

DubtodaIll: jst3p: DubtodaIll: jst3p: DubtodaIll: The 2012 U.S. GDP was 15.68 trillion.  Total Direct Federal Revenue was 5.12 trillion.  Total Requested Federal Budget was 2.6 trillion.  Current federal debt is 16.7 trillion with exclusions, 62 trillion without exclusions.  And this isn't something we need to fix now?

It is trending down, it is literally "getting fixed now".

And would it be trending down still if the GOP wasn't being such jackasses about it?

Do you have any evidence to support the idea that it wouldn't?

I can't prove a negative, I just asked your opinion.


My opinion? I don't know for sure. I am not an economist, but my GED in economics tells me that without the sequester we would have seen greater economic growth which would have been better for most working people and would have led to higher revenues which would have caused similar trends in reducing both the deficit and debt (as a percentage of GDP). I do know that the shutdown isn't helping either metric because the money (almost certainly)  will still be paid retroactively making it a pointless gesture.

I do know that the GoP is scaremongering about "unlimited spending" because simple people will buy it (I am not calling you simple) and we aren't in nearly as bad a position as they want the people to believe, as I stated before we have been in much greater (relative) debt than we are today.
 
2013-10-14 01:27:47 PM

quizzical: The situation is dire.  So of course, in the middle of TFA, should be a video about how the shutdown has affected the reality show "Deadliest Catch."  Thanks, CNN, for helping us focus on what REALLY matters.

/TFA was very good.  The cross-promotion just made made me facepalm.DubtodaIll: I'm for default not because I think it will do any immediate good but that it will cause global reckoning.  Something needs to happen to jolt this nation out of the decades long cycle of continuing to spend more money than we have and creating a level of debt that is difficult to fathom.  Sure, things have worked fine under this system for a while, but the longer we attempt this mode of economics the worse the situation becomes.  I would rather see we work to fix our situation by normal means however I think that's far more impossible than the "impossibility" of the US defaulting on its full credit.  This Congress is so dysfunctional that it really brings in to question the validity of the system.  And maybe by some stroke of luck that dysfunction will force a situation where we're actually forced to face the consequences of the decisions that have been made in the past.
    I really don't know where I was going with any of this, but while a default would be an catastrophic situation, it may be what needs to happen now to ensure a survivable future.

That's like saying your little toe has first degree frostbite, so you'd better take your whole leg off, just to be on the safe side.

Why in the world would you think it's a good idea to create a problem that will make it MORE expensive to pay off our existing debt, in order to solve our debt problem?


I don't think it's a good idea, I think it's a horrible idea; however often times throughout history catastrophes can lead to a much better existence.  If something like default doesn't jolt our society into thinking "hey, maybe we should take better care of stuff and do a better job and work together instead of kick each other in the nuts over stupid stuff" well then we're already farked.
 
2013-10-14 01:28:18 PM

LavenderWolf: Okay, a few more years.


Again, no.  If you cannot even zero out the deficit, you are never going to pay down the debt, let alone pay it off.  Do you even have a basic understanding of what the debt and defict even is?
 
2013-10-14 01:28:22 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: DubtodaIll: The 2012 U.S. GDP was 15.68 trillion.  Total Direct Federal Revenue was 5.12 trillion.  Total Requested Federal Budget was 2.6 trillion.  Current federal debt is 16.7 trillion with exclusions, 62 trillion without exclusions.  And this isn't something we need to fix now?

Sure, as long as we're not talking about fixing it by destroying the global economy.
Since you seem to be open to suggestion, let's start with something simple, like increasing revenue by raising taxes on the   bastards who   individuals and institutions that were enriched by turning middle-class citizens into pee-ons, making sure that speech is speech and providing equal access to the courts and legislators, eliminating the debt ceiling, ensuring the population is healthy, and fixing the infrastructure. We even might have a framework and some precedent for that.


With this Congress, nothing is possible.
 
2013-10-14 01:30:45 PM

jst3p: DubtodaIll: jst3p: DubtodaIll: jst3p: DubtodaIll: The 2012 U.S. GDP was 15.68 trillion.  Total Direct Federal Revenue was 5.12 trillion.  Total Requested Federal Budget was 2.6 trillion.  Current federal debt is 16.7 trillion with exclusions, 62 trillion without exclusions.  And this isn't something we need to fix now?

It is trending down, it is literally "getting fixed now".

And would it be trending down still if the GOP wasn't being such jackasses about it?

Do you have any evidence to support the idea that it wouldn't?

I can't prove a negative, I just asked your opinion.

My opinion? I don't know for sure. I am not an economist, but my GED in economics tells me that without the sequester we would have seen greater economic growth which would have been better for most working people and would have led to higher revenues which would have caused similar trends in reducing both the deficit and debt (as a percentage of GDP). I do know that the shutdown isn't helping either metric because the money (almost certainly)  will still be paid retroactively making it a pointless gesture.

I do know that the GoP is scaremongering about "unlimited spending" because simple people will buy it (I am not calling you simple) and we aren't in nearly as bad a position as they want the people to believe, as I stated before we have been in much greater (relative) debt than we are today.


That cuts two ways as the Dems are more of the line that we can have everything we want and we can have it now and all we need is public opinion in our favor, no need to actually have the resources in place to make it happen.
 
2013-10-14 01:33:45 PM

LavenderWolf: Why you think they hate farmers is beyond me, but they don't. Politically different? Maybe, in terms of demographics, yeah. But you act like city-dwellers are more akin to cave-dwellers. Come on, man, think about it.


I never implied outright hatred. But this very thread is replete with examples of the condescending attitude liberals take toward people who would rather keep the money they've earned, rather than have it taken from them by force and redistributed to suit the political goals of the politicians the city-dwellers tend to empower. "Fly-over-country" is just a very apt example of this attitude. Cave-dwellers? Hardly. They're a lot more erudite and educated than that. Educated well enough to understand what's in their benefit, as are most. I used to be one of them.
 
2013-10-14 01:34:01 PM

jst3p: The GoP pushed for the former (Medicare Part D and two unfunded wars while cutting taxes) and now want the latter (while we are still in recovery, not in recession). It is really bizarre that they think either are a good idea. Either they are ignorant of the effects of these policies, or they really do want to crash the economy.


It's pretty easy to make bad analogies about the federal budget that most people probably won't have the background to shoot down, especially if you're representing the party that considers "intellectual" to be an insult.  I think their only real interest is in getting elected because that's a guarantee of money and power and they don't really care much if their ideas are good for the country in the long run.
 
2013-10-14 01:34:15 PM

DubtodaIll: That cuts two ways as the Dems are more of the line that we can have everything we want and we can have it now and all we need is public opinion in our favor, no need to actually have the resources in place to make it happen.


As opposed to the GoP, who expanded Medicare (unfunded) to get Bush re-elected and launched two unfunded wars while cutting taxes.

The dems are "tax and spend" today's GoP is "don't tax but spend anyway!" I agree the Dems are spend happy but the GoP's plan is even scarier. It is telling that deficits and spending are only an issue when they aren't in the White House. I am not saying they aren't problems that need to be addressed, but their concern seems a little disingenuous and convenient to me,
 
2013-10-14 01:34:49 PM

HeadLever: LavenderWolf: Okay, a few more years.

Again, no.  If you cannot even zero out the deficit, you are never going to pay down the debt, let alone pay it off.  Do you even have a basic understanding of what the debt and defict even is?


Yes, yes I do. Do you?

16 trillion is not as much money as you think. Eventually, the US (Even the GOP) will realize that you can't pay down debt without money, raise taxes wherever doing so won't cause major economic problems, and cut spending to non-essential programs. The deficit is already shrinking; once you've got a surplus in the budget every year (i.e. no deficit), you can ease the conditions which fix things.

You can't fix a debt problem by shutting things down and defaulting on your loans. That doesn't fix anything, that just makes your creditors unlikely to lend to you again. People are acting like a default means the US debt is gone. It won't be; there is nothing the GOP can do to get out of that. Maybe they shouldn't have run with and backed a financial wrecking ball for 8 years. Now, the adults are in charge, and fixing things, and the children are throwing a tantrum.

A government default is not a solution. Further, this isn't why the GOP is doing this. They're doing this specifically "because Obamacare."
 
2013-10-14 01:35:14 PM

AeAe: Nabb1: This is just insane.

The farking GOP, man.  Bunch of assholes.


Yeah, because the liberals have no responsibility in this and the GOP voted 15 trillion dollars in debt. Wake up fool. Sure if the dems said "ok, Obamacare is gone and we will cut our bs programs" this too would be over.
 
2013-10-14 01:36:17 PM

HAMMERTOE: LavenderWolf: Why you think they hate farmers is beyond me, but they don't. Politically different? Maybe, in terms of demographics, yeah. But you act like city-dwellers are more akin to cave-dwellers. Come on, man, think about it.

I never implied outright hatred. But this very thread is replete with examples of the condescending attitude liberals take toward people who would rather keep the money they've earned, rather than have it taken from them by force and redistributed to suit the political goals of the politicians the city-dwellers tend to empower. "Fly-over-country" is just a very apt example of this attitude. Cave-dwellers? Hardly. They're a lot more erudite and educated than that. Educated well enough to understand what's in their benefit, as are most. I used to be one of them.


Wow, you're stupid. Okay, I'm gonna spell it out.

City dwellers don't hate rural dwellers. Period. When people talk about "Fly-Over Country" they mean that because there's nothing f*cking there, it's not a personal insult.

/Jesus christ
//What the hell
 
2013-10-14 01:37:07 PM

Drake Maijstral: GanjSmokr: Meh.  This debt ceiling thing is like the boy who cried wolf... we've seen this go down to the wire before.  It's political theater, just like most of the other shiat they do.

As the saying here goes, "Wake me when..." we actually default.  Then I'll pay attention and worry again.

Plan to wake up two days from now, then.


Just MHO, but if you really think this is going to happen without them finding a zero-hour "compromise", you haven't been paying attention.

If I'm wrong and they actually let it go past that point, I'll be happy to publicly admit I was wrong.  I'm pretty confident it won't come to that.
 
2013-10-14 01:39:07 PM

jst3p: It is telling that deficits and spending are only an issue when they aren't in the White House.


Not necesssarily.  Deficits are managable if kept small.  Bush's average defict over his term (even including 2009) is about 350 to 400 billion.  Deficits during 2008 and past are a far cry from anything that small, though as you pointed out, we are finally headed in the correct dirction (at least for a while).

Anyone with a basic understanding of what these deficts can do are rightly concerned.  Of course you have the trolls on the right that will use this as a club on the current administration, but the issue is more than that.
 
2013-10-14 01:39:28 PM

GanjSmokr: Drake Maijstral: GanjSmokr: Meh.  This debt ceiling thing is like the boy who cried wolf... we've seen this go down to the wire before.  It's political theater, just like most of the other shiat they do.

As the saying here goes, "Wake me when..." we actually default.  Then I'll pay attention and worry again.

Plan to wake up two days from now, then.

Just MHO, but if you really think this is going to happen without them finding a zero-hour "compromise", you haven't been paying attention.

If I'm wrong and they actually let it go past that point, I'll be happy to publicly admit I was wrong.  I'm pretty confident it won't come to that.


I don't think they will let us default, but if our credit rating gets lowered... well that will hurt a bit.
 
2013-10-14 01:39:59 PM

Visionmn2: AeAe: Nabb1: This is just insane.

The farking GOP, man.  Bunch of assholes.

Yeah, because the liberals have no responsibility in this and the GOP voted 15 trillion dollars in debt. Wake up fool. Sure if the dems said "ok, Obamacare is gone and we will cut our bs programs" this too would be over.


Yeah, no.

That's not how two equal sides work. The debate on Obamacare is OVER. The GOP LOST. It is the law of the land. You know how you can't shoot someone in the face for no reason, because there are laws against that? Because that's what Obamacare is now. The f*cking law. The supreme court - the ultimate arbiters, as defined IN the constitution, of what the constitution means - have ruled it constitutional. All challenges against it have failed.

What the GOP is doing right now is taking a hostage to get what it couldn't get through any legal channels.

You don't blame the victim for pissing off the madman with a gun. The blame goes to the madman with a gun.
 
2013-10-14 01:40:51 PM

jst3p: My opinion? I don't know for sure. I am not an economist, but my GED in economics tells me that without the sequester we would have seen greater economic growth which would have been better for most working people and would have led to higher revenues which would have caused similar trends in reducing both the deficit and debt (as a percentage of GDP). I do know that the shutdown isn't helping either metric because the money (almost certainly)  will still be paid retroactively making it a pointless gestur


Prior to the sequester, my company was having the best 2-3 years since the economy crashed... after the sequester, we're on the verge of bankruptcy. And it's not just my company in this industry I'm in, a lot of them are suffering too, even huge names are ready to go under.
 
2013-10-14 01:41:24 PM

jst3p: DubtodaIll: jst3p: DubtodaIll: jst3p: DubtodaIll: The 2012 U.S. GDP was 15.68 trillion.  Total Direct Federal Revenue was 5.12 trillion.  Total Requested Federal Budget was 2.6 trillion.  Current federal debt is 16.7 trillion with exclusions, 62 trillion without exclusions.  And this isn't something we need to fix now?

It is trending down, it is literally "getting fixed now".

And would it be trending down still if the GOP wasn't being such jackasses about it?

Do you have any evidence to support the idea that it wouldn't?

I can't prove a negative, I just asked your opinion.

My opinion? I don't know for sure. I am not an economist, but my GED in economics tells me that without the sequester we would have seen greater economic growth which would have been better for most working people and would have led to higher revenues which would have caused similar trends in reducing both the deficit and debt (as a percentage of GDP). I do know that the shutdown isn't helping either metric because the money (almost certainly)  will still be paid retroactively making it a pointless gesture.

I do know that the GoP is scaremongering about "unlimited spending" because simple people will buy it (I am not calling you simple) and we aren't in nearly as bad a position as they want the people to believe, as I stated before we have been in much greater (relative) debt than we are today.


Not to worry:

U.S. refineries are expanding their diesel-production capacity, not so much for truckers in the U.S., but for drivers in places such as Mexico City and Santiago, Chile.
Already running at their highest levels in six years, U.S. refineries are finding strong demand for diesel fuel, used widely in cars outside of the United States, and other distillates, like jet fuel.
"All these companies are expanding their export terminals-Valero, Shell, Marathon Petroleum, all of them," said Fadel Gheit, senior energy analyst at Oppenheimer. "Any companies with refining assets on the Gulf Coast are expanding their export terminals. ...The profitability is not that clear, but the trend is very clear."
The U.S. became a net exporter of petroleum products just two years ago and is now the largest exporter in the world.

Somehow, I have the feeling that we will do OKY DOKEY.
Actually the world oil price/production is tied to The Dollar.
Since oil is kinda important, one should wonder,,,
 
Displayed 50 of 521 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report