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 507
    More: Interesting, United States, Saudi Arabia, Japan, Singapore, Americanize, action alert, Christine Lagarde, reserve currency  
•       •       •

6847 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Oct 2013 at 9:16 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



507 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 03:18:12 PM  

HindiDiscoMonster: ReverendJynxed: Why isn't anyone pissed off at SCOTUS for allowing a clearly unconstitutional law to be put into effect? It's a forced tax to subsidize the private insurance industry. We are being forced to buy something we don't want. Like being forced to buy kale on every burger just to pull it off because it supports the farking kale farmers.

They would have been better off eliminating private insurance altogether and gone straight tax and healthcare. That would have been a bit easier to swallow over this faux social healthcare.


Checks and balances right?

Make sure you stop driving and surrender your driver's license. After all, you don't want to be forced to buy Auto Insurance, right?


No fault states are great with that.
 
2013-10-14 03:20:01 PM  

blindio: Oh, Thunderpipes has arrived.  Abandon thread.

/someone saw that a couple weeks ago... I can't unsee it.  It just makes sense.


cdn.hsmemes.com
 
2013-10-14 03:21:00 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.


Speaking of forced redistribution, it's funny how those self-reliant Middle Americans get all quiet when the subject turns to crop subsidies...
 
2013-10-14 03:24:25 PM  

Thunderpipes: jst3p: Thunderpipes: Just increase the credit card limit, again. Brilliant.

Bad analogy is bad.

Correct analogy is correct.

Not sure why libs don't understand basic finance.


Because if this was "basic finance," then the banks increasing our credit card limit would be people buying T-Bills. And they're giving us interest rates on par with inflation.

What congress is doing is saying, "fark paying people we have contractually agreed to pay, I don't even want to bother putting more money on my ultra-low interest credit card, even though the bank has absolutely no problem with it, and we have already agreed to pay these people."

And you have the farking audacity to claim it's "libs" that don't understand basic finance?
 
2013-10-14 03:25:21 PM  

jst3p: The fact that you think an economy as large as ours is "basic finance" speaks volumes about your ignorance.


Operands: "+"; "-"; "*"; "/"

Show me a different one that relates specifically to National Economies.
 
2013-10-14 03:28:12 PM  

HAMMERTOE: jst3p: The fact that you think an economy as large as ours is "basic finance" speaks volumes about your ignorance.

Operands: "+"; "-"; "*"; "/"

Show me a different one that relates specifically to National Economies.


And all computing breaks down to being able to count to 1, so it is simple right!
 
2013-10-14 03:45:15 PM  

MilesTeg: Wasteland: MilesTeg: So why even have a debt ceiling if it is not going to be observed?
BTW Senator Obama voted not to increase it in 2006 when exact same situation came up.
No hypocrisy like liberal hypocrisy.


No ignorance like both-sides-are-bad ignorance.

Yeah, that was a hell of a long shutdown and near-default we had back in '06, wasn't it?  The world economy was just all a-flutter.

Stop spinning, you are obviously dizzy. Spouting DNC talking points does not make your argument valid.

Facts are facts. You may want people to think somehow the situation is different now than it was then but it isn't.


Oh yes. There's nothing more credible than someone incoherently screaming that "facts are facts" while insisting on something that is a blatant contradiction of the facts.

You need to give your handle back. Miles Teg is a great character that doesn't deserve to be associated with this kind of low level trolling.
 
2013-10-14 03:54:57 PM  
Some congressperson from one side or the other should come out with a surprise bill, completely shocking both sides, and being popular with 70%+ of the American people, and submit a bill with a plan for a single-payer healthcare system.

Why doesn't somebody do this?
 
2013-10-14 03:58:02 PM  

PunGent: Speaking of forced redistribution, it's funny how those self-reliant Middle Americans get all quiet when the subject turns to crop subsidies...


Just who do they go to, anyway, Monsanto? Ethanol subsidies? Personally, I feel they're something we could do without.
 
2013-10-14 04:00:40 PM  

jst3p: And all computing breaks down to being able to count to 1, so it is simple right!


Of course not. But, the rules of math don't change when you're programming. nor does addition suddenly become subtraction when you're dealing with federal budgets. If the rules changed somehow, then governments wouldn't have to borrow money when they run out.
 
2013-10-14 04:01:00 PM  
Failing to lift the debt ceiling does not mean we default unless the president forces us to.
 
2013-10-14 04:03:34 PM  

MugzyBrown: Failing to lift the debt ceiling does not mean we default unless the president forces us to.


So we have a budget surplus then. Because that's the only way that's mathematically possible.
 
2013-10-14 04:06:39 PM  

impaler: MugzyBrown: Failing to lift the debt ceiling does not mean we default unless the president forces us to.

So we have a budget surplus then. Because that's the only way that's mathematically possible.


We receive much more revenue every month than the money we owe our creditors every month.

that's how it's mathematically possible
 
2013-10-14 04:06:49 PM  

The Southern Dandy: Some congressperson from one side or the other should come out with a surprise bill, completely shocking both sides, and being popular with 70%+ of the American people, and submit a bill with a plan for a single-payer healthcare system.

Why doesn't somebody do this?


There is no such thing as legislation that would make 70% of the people happy. But even if there were, if someone in congress were to do this now, he/she would be seen as a distraction, an "attention whore", to use Fark terminology. It would be grandstanding at the worst possible time.
 
2013-10-14 04:09:12 PM  
LavenderWolf:
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.


Obama:  "A party should know when they are conquered."
GOP:  "Would you?  Would I?"

If our country is going to be run according to the attitude of Obama's supporters as demonstrated here, then I say burn it down--it's no longer worth saving.

Sic semper tyrannis.
 
2013-10-14 04:09:36 PM  

MugzyBrown: impaler: MugzyBrown: Failing to lift the debt ceiling does not mean we default unless the president forces us to.

So we have a budget surplus then. Because that's the only way that's mathematically possible.

We receive much more revenue every month than the money we owe our creditors every month.

that's how it's mathematically possible


Creditors that we've already lent to aren't the only bills (debt) we have to pay. If we don't pay those who we owe money to, by definition, we default on our debts.

So unless we have more money coming in than we owe, we will default.

THAT is how REAL math works, not the math you do as a Republican to make yourself feel better.
 
2013-10-14 04:10:38 PM  

Visionmn2: LavenderWolf: 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.

And social security numbers were promised and it was law that they would not be used for identification, it was law that the funds would never be touched, it was law it was law it was law.  The point is that it was law and this is a law that needs to fall into the was category along with a bunch of other laws and taxes that have happened.  No one is claiming responsibility on either side for anything and there are not any consequences when people who are elected f*ck this country and do things that are against the law.

Dems put it in place, not the GOP.  No one wanted 14 - 17 trillion in debt, the dems spent it anyway.  GOP is simply attempting to bring balance back to what has been a free for all and the free for all is why this country is in shambles and everyone is so upset.

The madmen have shot enough people in the face and somehow by the law.  Time to end it and both sides need to feel a little pain to do it.  Blaming one side or the other remains insane, they are all to blame.

T ...


I love it, blaming the entire debt on the dems.

Learn some history. Democratic presidents fix economies while Republican presidents tank them. Over and over and over we've seen this, yet it's the GOP who bills themselves as financially responsible. Under Obama, the deficit (which feeds the debt) has shrunken. Bush started two pointless wars and added something like 10T to that debt, yet it's the Dems' fault. Clinton finished his presidency with record surpluses; Bush erased that within two years. Still it's the Dem's fault.
 
2013-10-14 04:11:43 PM  

Mouser: LavenderWolf:
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.

Obama:  "A party should know when they are conquered."
GOP:  "Would you?  Would I?"

If our country is going to be run according to the attitude of Obama's supporters as demonstrated here, then I say burn it down--it's no longer worth saving.

Sic semper tyrannis.


So, it's okay to seriously attempt to destroy the US because of "Obama supporters' attitudes".

You're f*cked.
 
2013-10-14 04:13:19 PM  

Mouser: If our country is going to be run according to the attitude of Obama's supporters as demonstrated here, then I say burn it down--it's no longer worth saving.

Sic semper tyrannis.


"If we Republicans can't get what we want, this country isn't worth saving. Burn it down!"

Tyrannis of the minority-Republicans indeed.
 
2013-10-14 04:15:00 PM  

HeadLever: LavenderWolf: Through the same methods that worked the last time we had a Democratic president.

Because we had a baby boom back in the 90s and a dot com bubble to boost economic growth today, amiright?  Trying to equate today's economic situation to that of Clinton's time is a deflection at best.  Again, you have no real ideas to address our problems we currently face.  If you do, please let us know.


Because economic growth happens in a vacuum, right? It is certainly never encouraged by government direction. *cough* the entire IT industry was built on the back of US Gov't funding from the beginning *cough* And baby booms only happen at complete random, unrelated to social and economic position.

/You're an idiot.
 
2013-10-14 04:15:06 PM  

HAMMERTOE: Just who do they go to, anyway, Monsanto? Ethanol subsidies? Personally, I feel they're something we could do without.


The corporate side of that, I would tend to agree.  However, the farm subsidies are also there to keep farmers in buisness even when times are bad.  Most farmers don't have the ability to weather a few years of bad economic times.  You kick them to the curb and you could be in a world of hurt in a few years.

I gernallly don't like subsidies, but I do make an exception for many farm subsidies.  I don't belive that it is prudent to mess with this nation's abillty to feed itself.
 
2013-10-14 04:17:16 PM  

impaler: Creditors that we've already lent to aren't the only bills (debt) we have to pay. If we don't pay those who we owe money to, by definition, we default on our debts.

So unless we have more money coming in than we owe, we will default.

THAT is how REAL math works, not the math you do as a Republican to make yourself feel better.


Yes, we have more money coming in than we owe.

So Treasury would prioritize the debt payments and not be able to fund some other programs.

It's not that difficult, the only reason why it's made out to sound like some coming disaster is political grandstanding.

"" We believe the government would continue to pay interest and principal on its debt even in the event that the debt limit is not raised, leaving its creditworthiness intact," the memo says. "The debt limit restricts government expenditures to the amount of its incoming revenues; it does not prohibit the government from servicing its debt. There is no direct connection between the debt limit (actually the exhaustion of the Treasury's extraordinary measures to raise funds) and a default. " - Moody's
 
2013-10-14 04:17:21 PM  

MugzyBrown: impaler: MugzyBrown: Failing to lift the debt ceiling does not mean we default unless the president forces us to.

So we have a budget surplus then. Because that's the only way that's mathematically possible.

We receive much more revenue every month than the money we owe our creditors every month.

that's how it's mathematically possible


What a ridiculous lie. If you stiff your power company to pay off your credit card bill that doesn't mean you paid off all your debts.

Even if we accepted that lie we would also have to accept another. That the Treasury Department can just choose of their own accord what bills to pay in what order they choose. They can't. They would basically have to build an entirely new system to do things that way.
 
2013-10-14 04:20:12 PM  

odinsposse: If you stiff your power company to pay off your credit card bill that doesn't mean you paid off all your debts.


Wait... I thought any comparisons of this situation to household/personal budgets were asinine.

Or are they OK if they back a certain "side" of this situation?
 
2013-10-14 04:21:12 PM  

LavenderWolf: Because economic growth happens in a vacuum, right?


Strawman argument.  Quit deflecting and anwser the question if you can.  I am beginning to think that you have no real ideas outside of strawman agruments and ad hominem attacks.  Way to keep it at the bottom of the triangle

scientopia.org
 
2013-10-14 04:25:09 PM  

GanjSmokr: odinsposse: If you stiff your power company to pay off your credit card bill that doesn't mean you paid off all your debts.

Wait... I thought any comparisons of this situation to household/personal budgets were asinine.

Or are they OK if they back a certain "side" of this situation?


I'm trying to dumb things down. Is it working or do I need to go further?
 
2013-10-14 04:25:52 PM  

MugzyBrown: So Treasury would prioritize the debt payments and not be able to fund some other programs.

US Treasury: Prioritization of Payments

Treasury officials stated that Treasury also reviewed the idea of attempting
to prioritize the many payments made by the federal government each day.
Treasury noted that it makes more than 80 million payments per month, all
of which have been authorized and appropriated by Congress. According to a
Treasury official, the payments cover a broad spectrum of purposes deemed
important by Congress. While Congress enacted these expenditures, it did
not prioritize them, nor did it direct the President or the Treasury to pay
some expenses and not pay others. As a result, Treasury officials determined
that there is no fair or sensible way to pick and choose among the many bills
that come due every day. Furthermore, because Congress has never
provided guidance to the contrary, Treasury's systems are designed to make
each payment in the order it comes due.


So who do we believe? MugzyBrown, or the US Treasury?
 
2013-10-14 04:27:51 PM  

odinsposse: MugzyBrown: impaler: MugzyBrown: Failing to lift the debt ceiling does not mean we default unless the president forces us to.

So we have a budget surplus then. Because that's the only way that's mathematically possible.

We receive much more revenue every month than the money we owe our creditors every month.

that's how it's mathematically possible

What a ridiculous lie. If you stiff your power company to pay off your credit card bill that doesn't mean you paid off all your debts.

Even if we accepted that lie we would also have to accept another. That the Treasury Department can just choose of their own accord what bills to pay in what order they choose. They can't. They would basically have to build an entirely new system to do things that way.


I find it interesting that going into the sequester, when it became increasingly clear that the people would blame the GoP the talking point became "actually it is a good thing" even though it was later shown that sequester put a drag on our economy, slowing GDP growth.

Now that it is becoming clear the the people will blame the GoP if we default the line is "It won't be a real default, it wont be so bad."
 
2013-10-14 04:28:15 PM  

GanjSmokr: odinsposse: If you stiff your power company to pay off your credit card bill that doesn't mean you paid off all your debts.

Wait... I thought any comparisons of this situation to household/personal budgets were asinine.

Or are they OK if they back a certain "side" of this situation?


If he was making an argument that the macro-economic effects of the later where the same as the former, you would have a point.

He wasn't.
 
2013-10-14 04:28:44 PM  

odinsposse: GanjSmokr: odinsposse: If you stiff your power company to pay off your credit card bill that doesn't mean you paid off all your debts.

Wait... I thought any comparisons of this situation to household/personal budgets were asinine.

Or are they OK if they back a certain "side" of this situation?

I'm trying to dumb things down. Is it working or do I need to go further?


Just to be clear: It's OK to use the household budget comparison if you're trying to "dumb things down" but that comparison is not apt otherwise?

Gotcha.
 
2013-10-14 04:29:05 PM  

HeadLever: LavenderWolf: Because economic growth happens in a vacuum, right?

Strawman argument.  Quit deflecting and anwser the question if you can.  I am beginning to think that you have no real ideas outside of strawman agruments and ad hominem attacks.  Way to keep it at the bottom of the triangle

[scientopia.org image 500x380]


You're literally asking me to provide a specific, simple solution for a complex problem.

What would you like, an admission that I simplified the situation in a discussion. Here you go: I admit it.

That said, the complex problem can be solved exactly as it has been solved in the past. Economic growth (stimulated however possible), higher taxation where such taxation doesn't create an undue burden, and being careful about government spending. This is of course a simplification.
 
2013-10-14 04:29:10 PM  

impaler: MugzyBrown: So Treasury would prioritize the debt payments and not be able to fund some other programs.

US Treasury: Prioritization of Payments

Treasury officials stated that Treasury also reviewed the idea of attempting
to prioritize the many payments made by the federal government each day.
Treasury noted that it makes more than 80 million payments per month, all
of which have been authorized and appropriated by Congress. According to a
Treasury official, the payments cover a broad spectrum of purposes deemed
important by Congress. While Congress enacted these expenditures, it did
not prioritize them, nor did it direct the President or the Treasury to pay
some expenses and not pay others. As a result, Treasury officials determined
that there is no fair or sensible way to pick and choose among the many bills
that come due every day. Furthermore, because Congress has never
provided guidance to the contrary, Treasury's systems are designed to make
each payment in the order it comes due.

So who do we believe? MugzyBrown, or the US Treasury?


You make a compelling argument, but I am sure MugzyBrown has studied it out. Have you studied it out?
 
2013-10-14 04:30:16 PM  

impaler: GanjSmokr: odinsposse: If you stiff your power company to pay off your credit card bill that doesn't mean you paid off all your debts.

Wait... I thought any comparisons of this situation to household/personal budgets were asinine.

Or are they OK if they back a certain "side" of this situation?

If he was making an argument that the macro-economic effects of the later where the same as the former, you would have a point.

He wasn't.


I do not think he will understand the difference.
 
2013-10-14 04:30:56 PM  

impaler: So who do we believe? MugzyBrown, or the US Treasury?


Look, all we have to do is build a new system that handles all of the transactions of the American government with a new sub-routine that categorizes and prioritizes debt payments and stuff Republicans like over stuff flagged as "commie stuff" that won't get paid. By Thursday.

This is a great plan. Only Obama's stubbornness is holding it back.
 
2013-10-14 04:34:49 PM  

odinsposse: impaler: So who do we believe? MugzyBrown, or the US Treasury?

Look, all we have to do is build a new system that handles all of the transactions of the American government with a new sub-routine that categorizes and prioritizes debt payments and stuff Republicans like over stuff flagged as "commie stuff" that won't get paid. By Thursday.

This is a great plan. Only Obama's stubbornness is holding it back.


Yeah, why doesn't he just use his time machine and get started on that 2 years ago?
 
2013-10-14 04:39:33 PM  

blindio: itsaidwhat: Maybe you misunderstood. I'm praising those that come here with nothing but hope and determination and work their asses off (with two and three jobs) to get it all and also demonizing those that are born into the US and can only take from others.

That is in part because I mistakenly attributed something someone else said in this thread to you.  So yeah, I missed that one.  Still, even a willingness to work does not mean work can be found.  I'm really glad you know people working three jobs, though you'll forgive me if I question the credibility of the anecdote.  Are there people gaming the system?  I'm certain of it.  Does that mean that everyone receiving some kind of assistance is lazy or unwilling to work?  Absolutely not.

itsaidwhat: People are dying with and without benefits. Next argument, please.

The point is that if those benefits are the difference between people living and dying than to target those as a cost cutting measure rather than doing something like raising taxes on millionaires means you are making a conscious choice to let people die so rich people can compile more money.  Your callous disregard for the lives of poor people does not invalidate my argument.

Your inability to make a credible argument beyond "Screw them, I got mine" does not make you right, it just makes you selfish.  We've already played out the "I build this" garbage after the last presidential election, and the assertion was proven demonstrably false.  If you have success in this country, it is in part because of the things the government has provided you to facilitate that success, including a social safety net that is in place just in case you fell to the bottom of the ladder again.


I think the government is an overfed, over-reaching, wasteful agglomeration of bottom feeding bureaucrats with people like you working double duty to discredit anyone with a dissenting opinion. Sorry, but I'm just not drinking your "government is great" Kool Aide.

I also reject your notion of climbing any sort of ladder - or being at the top or falling to the bottom. That is precisely the kind of sales pitch I would expect to hear from some social-engineering charlatan selling get-rich schemes to the desperate and uneducated amongst us.

There is no "ladder" to success. There is only ever one next step. And each next step made IS the success. Bureacracy and government only widens the steps (or rungs in your example) making them harder for individuals and easier for big corporations.

As for my credibility, who cares? I'm not selling anything. I think it's interesting that you feel the need to say that I'm not credible which definitely suggests that you are selling something.
 
2013-10-14 04:43:13 PM  

LavenderWolf: That said, the complex problem can be solved exactly as it has been solved in the past.


Maybe by enacting more free trade and globalist-centered agreements to put the middle class out of buisness for good?  Maybe if we enacted more policies like the one that got  rid of Glass-Steagall would help us to get back on our feet?

What I find funny is that you have the partisan blinders on so tightly that you cannot see that many of the issues we are currently facing is a direct result of policies that were enacted by Clinton's administration.  You want to go back to that, feel free.  Just don't be suprised when many of us will want to go in another direction entirely.
 
2013-10-14 04:48:17 PM  

LavenderWolf: 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.


Wait. This is still fark, right? You're supposed to blame the gun.
 
2013-10-14 04:52:16 PM  

GORDON: I remember when Bush was evil and the President was expected to work with a Congress of the other political party, not the other way around.  But, then, that was like 8 years ago.  Times are different now.


Bush wasn't given an ultimatum along the lines of 'do it our way or we'll rupture the economy'.
 
2013-10-14 04:54:36 PM  

blindio: itsaidwhat: Maybe you misunderstood. I'm praising those that come here with nothing but hope and determination and work their asses off (with two and three jobs) to get it all and also demonizing those that are born into the US and can only take from others.

That is in part because I mistakenly attributed something someone else said in this thread to you.  So yeah, I missed that one.  Still, even a willingness to work does not mean work can be found.  I'm really glad you know people working three jobs, though you'll forgive me if I question the credibility of the anecdote.  Are there people gaming the system?  I'm certain of it.  Does that mean that everyone receiving some kind of assistance is lazy or unwilling to work?  Absolutely not.

itsaidwhat: People are dying with and without benefits. Next argument, please.

The point is that if those benefits are the difference between people living and dying than to target those as a cost cutting measure rather than doing something like raising taxes on millionaires means you are making a conscious choice to let people die so rich people can compile more money.  Your callous disregard for the lives of poor people does not invalidate my argument.

Your inability to make a credible argument beyond "Screw them, I got mine" does not make you right, it just makes you selfish.  We've already played out the "I build this" garbage after the last presidential election, and the assertion was proven demonstrably false.  If you have success in this country, it is in part because of the things the government has provided you to facilitate that success, including a social safety net that is in place just in case you fell to the bottom of the ladder again.


I am successful despite what the government has taken from me and has given to others. I your view, that just means the government should take more. That's a great position if you are in charge at the politburo.

Where exactly does the government taking end? My property? My rights? My beliefs? My religion? My freedom of expression (which you CLEARLY have a problem with).

Brother, this administration is not the Hope & Change sold to the masses As-Seen-On-TV. Its' predilection to obfuscate, discredit, prevaricate and dissemble are setting new standards for how to wreck a democracy.
 
2013-10-14 04:54:42 PM  

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


If Obama gives in a precedent is set that will forever diminish the role of President. The Tea Party are trying to use blackmail to pervert the course of democracy and are therefore 100% to blame.
 
2013-10-14 05:00:22 PM  

MemeSlave: How can you have a paper currency as a reserve currency?


Right now, the US dollar is backed by petroleum.  So long as OPEC sets the price of petroleum in dollars, the dollar has a set value worldwide.  I agree that this is a bizarre situation, to have the currency issued by one nation backed by another, and it could go away at any time if OPEC decides that another currency would be better.  In fact, it could happen this month.
 
2013-10-14 05:02:36 PM  

Bit'O'Gristle: I'm no economist, but isn't our dollar value based and backed up by the gold in fort knox? Or am i mistaken.  Anyone?


I don't know the answer to that but I do know that the value of the dollar had been falling for the last decade or so while the value of gold has hit record highs.
 
2013-10-14 05:05:44 PM  

Speaker2Animals: Paying off loans early gives the money back to the back to lend to someone else. We did this when we re-fi'd on our last house and since we were never late with a payment, the same bank was waiting with open arms when we wanted to do the same deal on our new house.


Some banks don't see it that way, for some reason.

If you think about it, it's really no different than getting a mortgage paid off early because of selling the house.

I've always wondered how the banks that don't let you pay off the mortgage early deal with people who sell their houses before the mortgage is paid up.
 
2013-10-14 05:06:33 PM  

HeadLever: LavenderWolf: Because economic growth happens in a vacuum, right?

Strawman argument.  Quit deflecting and anwser the question if you can.  I am beginning to think that you have no real ideas outside of strawman agruments and ad hominem attacks.  Way to keep it at the bottom of the triangle


I see right thru your "triangle" angle... That triangle is really just a lazy man's pyramid. Did you go with "triangle" instead of "pyramid" to avoid possibly offending Egyptians or Jews? I think they would be okay with the pyramid reference. They sure put a lot of work into those pyramids to have them reduced to a 2 dimensional reference.

/totally farking with you
// and hominy might be higher on the food pyramid, er uh, food triangle.
 
2013-10-14 05:07:53 PM  

HeadLever: LavenderWolf: That said, the complex problem can be solved exactly as it has been solved in the past.

Maybe by enacting more free trade and globalist-centered agreements to put the middle class out of buisness for good?  Maybe if we enacted more policies like the one that got  rid of Glass-Steagall would help us to get back on our feet?

What I find funny is that you have the partisan blinders on so tightly that you cannot see that many of the issues we are currently facing is a direct result of policies that were enacted by Clinton's administration.  You want to go back to that, feel free.  Just don't be suprised when many of us will want to go in another direction entirely.


Partisan blinders, wow.

Here, let me explain my entire political life. I was born in '86, and first started paying attention when Clinton was being ousted. Yes, some of today's problems can be traced back to decisions made then. The vast majority of political problems, for my entire life, have come from Republicans. I'm not even a big democrat fan, it's just that they're clearly the lesser of two evils. They've shut down the government over partisan bullshiat twice in my paying-political-attention life. They started two wars, hid them both from the budget, and gave away free money under the guise of economic stimulation; yet they're the fiscally responsible ones?

Anyone born between 5 and 50 years from now has no business thinking the Republicans know finances. They don't. They have consistently farked things up, even when they're not in a position of power.

I don't like Democrats. I hate Republicans. Republicans work their base into a froth over abortion, then disavow responsibility when a Republican voter blows up a clinic or shoots a doctor. They work their base into a froth over weapons of mass destruction, then don't give a flying fark if there ever were any. Republicans are the greatest threat to Western society ever. And I mean that. Democrats might fark up, but at least their farkups aren't intentional.
 
2013-10-14 05:08:16 PM  

NewportBarGuy: theorellior: NewportBarGuy: There is no other reserve currency.

Said the British seventy years ago.

They lost their entire f*cing empire. We have not. We will not. We'll just have a damaged reputation, the second largest economy, and the world's largest military. None of that will change with a breach of the debt ceiling because it is not permanent. Even if they breach it trying to get a deal, it will be reset and we will carry on.

It will just cause extremely negative reactions through the entire world financial system. But, we already did that with MBS in 2008. Different animal this, but we will retain the reserve status through it.


Largest economy, not second largest. China will not immediately overtake the US in the aftermath of a default because their econony will also be ruptured. If their biggest customer is unable to buy any more then they are just as farked.
 
2013-10-14 05:09:38 PM  

dittybopper: Speaker2Animals: what_now: I came in here to joke about how some people are probably stupid enough to think this would be a good thing, because they don't understand how economics work and just want to stick it to the furriners, and then I saw this:

dittybopper: 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.

So, you're saying that there would be some positive effects, then.

One can hope he's joking, but with the jokers ascendant in the House these days, you can't be sure.

It is largely a joke.  Largely.  If there were a way to screw China, Saudi Arabia, Germany, and to a lesser extent the others without damaging the American economy, I'd be more for it.


You think inflicting hardship and misery on others is a joke?
 
2013-10-14 05:12:33 PM  

LavenderWolf: Visionmn2: LavenderWolf: 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.

And social security numbers were promised and it was law that they would not be used for identification, it was law that the funds would never be touched, it was law it was law it was law.  The point is that it was law and this is a law that needs to fall into the was category along with a bunch of other laws and taxes that have happened.  No one is claiming responsibility on either side for anything and there are not any consequences when people who are elected f*ck this country and do things that are against the law.

Dems put it in place, not the GOP.  No one wanted 14 - 17 trillion in debt, the dems spent it anyway.  GOP is simply attempting to bring balance back to what has been a free for all and the free for all is why this country is in shambles and everyone is so upset.

The madmen have shot enough people in the face and somehow by the law.  Time to end it and both sides need to feel a little pain to do it.  Blaming one side or the other remains insane, they are all to blame.

T ...

I love it, blaming the entire debt on the dems.

Learn some history. Democratic presidents fix economies while Republican presidents tank them. Over and over and over we've seen this, yet it's the GOP who bills themselves as financially responsible. Under Obama, the deficit (which feeds the debt) has shrunken. Bush started two pointless wars and added something like 10T to that debt, yet it's the Dems' fault. Clinton finished his presidency with record surpluses; Bush erased that within two years. Still it's the Dem's fault.


Curious. What's your opinion of President Woodrow Wilson?
 
2013-10-14 05:13:02 PM  

Bit'O'Gristle: I'm no economist, but isn't our dollar value based and backed up by the gold in fort knox? Or am i mistaken.  Anyone?


Not since the 1930's.  For a while, Americans could not redeem their federal reserve notes for gold, but foreign governments could.  Then, sometime in the seventies, the US stopped redeeming federal reserve notes entirely.
 
Displayed 50 of 507 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