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.

(Talking Points Memo)   Next self-inflicted crisis to hit the US in Smarch   (talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 60
    More: PSA, United States, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, debt limit, treasuries  
•       •       •

2853 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Dec 2013 at 9:33 AM (36 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-12-20 08:44:26 AM
simpsonswiki.com

Damn this Smarch weather...
 
2013-12-20 08:51:58 AM
Nay!
 
2013-12-20 09:37:10 AM
It all started on the 13th hour, of the 13th day, of the 13th month. We were there to discuss the misprinted calendars the school had purchased.
 
2013-12-20 09:37:15 AM
If we imprison the Republicans now in Montana gulags, it will prevent any unpleasantness.
 
2013-12-20 09:45:13 AM
Whenever Congress starts talking about not raising the debt ceiling (especially right after agreeing on a budget that necessarily requires it), I think of them hopping on a bike and screaming "TETSUOOOOOOOOOOO!"

...and we know how it goes from there.
 
2013-12-20 09:47:49 AM

Obama's Reptiloid Master: If we imprison the Republicans now in Montana gulags, it will prevent any unpleasantness.


But then we'd run out of money tomorrow instead of three months from now.

/RINOs!
//Promising a slightly slower death than from Democrats since 1988.
 
2013-12-20 09:48:02 AM

Dr Dreidel: Whenever Congress starts talking about not raising the debt ceiling (especially right after agreeing on a budget that necessarily requires it), I think of them hopping on a bike and screaming "TETSUOOOOOOOOOOO!"

...and we know how it goes from there.


KANEDAAAAAAAA?
 
2013-12-20 09:49:10 AM
In his letter, Lew warned against such tactics.
"The creditworthiness of the United States is an essential underpinning of our strength as a nation; it is not a bargaining chip to be used for partisan political ends," he wrote. "Moreover, as you know, increasing the debt limit does not authorize new spending commitments. It simply allows the government to pay for expenditures Congress has already approved."


Citation needed.
 
2013-12-20 09:55:09 AM
I thought, the bill past in Oct gave the President a one time chance to bump the debt limit to whatever he wanted to with congress only able to veto it.
What happened to that?
 
2013-12-20 09:55:31 AM
Oh FFS.
 
2013-12-20 09:56:12 AM
Did not the previous "debt ceiling" deal end with a measure that allows the President to raise the debt ceiling by fiat in February, unless a supermajority in Congress overrides the act?
 
2013-12-20 09:56:55 AM
Do Not Touch
- Willie
 
2013-12-20 10:09:43 AM

Jaymark108: In his letter, Lew warned against such tactics.
"The creditworthiness of the United States is an essential underpinning of our strength as a nation; it is not a bargaining chip to be used for partisan political ends," he wrote. "Moreover, as you know, increasing the debt limit does not authorize new spending commitments. It simply allows the government to pay for expenditures Congress has already approved."

Citation needed.


No, actually it's not.  That's been pretty well known for a long time, now, even if the Teatards are in denial about it.
 
2013-12-20 10:09:43 AM
"Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), who helped broker a bipartisan budget deal that passed Wednesday, floated the idea that the GOP tie   to a debt ceiling bill."

He's just not sure yet which issue liberals hate more. When that is discovered it will be tacked to the bill.
 
2013-12-20 10:14:39 AM

Dimensio: Did not the previous "debt ceiling" deal end with a measure that allows the President to raise the debt ceiling by fiat in February, unless a supermajority in Congress overrides the act?


I'm pretty sure that was how they raised the debt ceiling in October and it was a one shot deal.

So, in October, congress didnt raise the debt ceiling, Obama raised it enough that it would expire at a pre determined time.

It was an out for the GOP to say "Obama raised it, we didnt raise it"
 
2013-12-20 10:15:03 AM

cchris_39: Obama's Reptiloid Master: If we imprison the Republicans now in Montana gulags, it will prevent any unpleasantness.

But then we'd run out of money tomorrow instead of three months from now.

/RINOs!
//Promising a slightly slower death than from Democrats since 1988.


Are you having a stroke? What's your birthday?
 
2013-12-20 10:16:50 AM
To add, if you look at the bill from October, there was crap in there about striking the entirety of the debt ceiling legislation and changing the rules but only for a period of time ending in February 2014.

I got confused by the legal language and asked the same question and, if I remember correctly, people pointed out that it referred to the current raise and not some raise in the future.

People asked at the time "why doesn't Obama just raise it to 100 million trillion"
 
2013-12-20 10:18:20 AM
It will be interesting how well the GOP can hold together another shutdown threat given the pathetic civil war they're in the middle of.
 
2013-12-20 10:18:52 AM
Once again, a "limit" is not a "limit" if it is raised every time it is reached.  It's just a damned number.

Get rid of it.
 
2013-12-20 10:20:59 AM
This is so stupid.... every couple of months.... ARGGGHHHHH, for God's sake, please make a long term deal with the Republicans and end this shiat.
 
2013-12-20 10:21:04 AM
Yes, continue this fight into the midterms. Nothing would be better for the GOP than for everyone to go to the polls having just been thrown out of work due to their temper tantrum
 
2013-12-20 10:21:04 AM

somedude210: [simpsonswiki.com image 250x188]

Damn this Smarch weather

economy...
 
2013-12-20 10:22:00 AM

Descartes: This is so stupid.... every couple of months.... ARGGGHHHHH, for God's sake, please make a long term deal with the Republicans and end this shiat.


Due to previous broken promises, those are mutually exclusive options. The only way to reach a long term deal is to eliminate Republicans from the equation
 
2013-12-20 10:22:10 AM

A Cave Geek: Jaymark108: In his letter, Lew warned against such tactics.
"The creditworthiness of the United States is an essential underpinning of our strength as a nation; it is not a bargaining chip to be used for partisan political ends," he wrote. "Moreover, as you know, increasing the debt limit does not authorize new spending commitments. It simply allows the government to pay for expenditures Congress has already approved."

Citation needed.

No, actually it's not.  That's been pretty well known for a long time, now, even if the Teatards are in denial about it.


You're claiming that it's well known that the right wing already knows that increasing the debt limit does not authorize new spending commitments?  There's "denial", where you claim not to know something in order to save face and avoid punishment, and then there's true ignorance where you can't understand or refuse to consider fundamental ideas.  When "denial" is consistent enough, it can be hard to tell the difference, and I can't rule out the possibility that they are just keeping up appearances 100% of the time, but that seems like a stretch to me.  They are pretty bad at pretending to care about minorities, for instance, even though they say they do.  That's why I want to see evidence that they actually understand that Congress has already approved expenditures that they are threatening to not pay for.
 
2013-12-20 10:23:51 AM

Jaymark108: In his letter, Lew warned against such tactics.
"The creditworthiness of the United States is an essential underpinning of our strength as a nation; it is not a bargaining chip to be used for partisan political ends," he wrote. "Moreover, as you know, increasing the debt limit does not authorize new spending commitments. It simply allows the government to pay for expenditures Congress has already approved."

Citation needed.


Do you even know how the budget process works?
 
2013-12-20 10:24:59 AM

Lost Thought 00: Descartes: This is so stupid.... every couple of months.... ARGGGHHHHH, for God's sake, please make a long term deal with the Republicans and end this shiat.

Due to previous broken promises, those are mutually exclusive options. The only way to reach a long term deal is to eliminate Republicans from the equation


Gulags. Montana. I'm on this. Let's get the FEMA trucks going!
 
2013-12-20 10:27:13 AM
Technically, the next one is coming in 26 days. The bill Congress sent to the president that lifts the spending caps doesn't actually appropriate money for discretionary programs, so we are right on schedule for another lapse in funding and a government shutdown!
 
2013-12-20 10:30:17 AM

Arkanaut: Jaymark108: In his letter, Lew warned against such tactics.
"The creditworthiness of the United States is an essential underpinning of our strength as a nation; it is not a bargaining chip to be used for partisan political ends," he wrote. "Moreover, as you know, increasing the debt limit does not authorize new spending commitments. It simply allows the government to pay for expenditures Congress has already approved."

Citation needed.

Do you even know how the budget process works?


I'm pretty sure he bolded the part because the idea that all of Congress knows that requires a citation, not because the fact itself does.
 
2013-12-20 10:31:23 AM
"Moreover, as you know, increasing the debt limit does not authorize new spending commitments."

There it is, plain as day. Too bad the derp brigade refuses to read.
 
2013-12-20 10:40:38 AM

Jaymark108: A Cave Geek: Jaymark108: In his letter, Lew warned against such tactics.
"The creditworthiness of the United States is an essential underpinning of our strength as a nation; it is not a bargaining chip to be used for partisan political ends," he wrote. "Moreover, as you know, increasing the debt limit does not authorize new spending commitments. It simply allows the government to pay for expenditures Congress has already approved."

Citation needed.

No, actually it's not.  That's been pretty well known for a long time, now, even if the Teatards are in denial about it.

You're claiming that it's well known that the right wing already knows that increasing the debt limit does not authorize new spending commitments?  There's "denial", where you claim not to know something in order to save face and avoid punishment, and then there's true ignorance where you can't understand or refuse to consider fundamental ideas.  When "denial" is consistent enough, it can be hard to tell the difference, and I can't rule out the possibility that they are just keeping up appearances 100% of the time, but that seems like a stretch to me.  They are pretty bad at pretending to care about minorities, for instance, even though they say they do.  That's why I want to see evidence that they actually understand that Congress has already approved expenditures that they are threatening to not pay for.


I was referring to the 'denial' where they outright reject physics, economics, and reality of any kind, even when it's staring them in the face.
 
2013-12-20 10:45:34 AM

SlothB77: somedude210: [simpsonswiki.com image 250x188]

Damn this Smarch weather economy...


"Gross domestic product grew at a 4.1 percent annual rate in the third quarter, the fastest pace in almost two years, and higher than the 3.6 percent pace reported earlier this month. Business spending was also stronger than previously estimated. "
 
2013-12-20 10:46:53 AM

Fuggin Bizzy: "Moreover, as you know, increasing the debt limit does not authorize new spending commitments."

There it is, plain as day. Too bad the derp brigade refuses to read.


Even if they did read it, they'd just blame Obama for setting up the rules that way to trick them.
 
2013-12-20 10:50:09 AM
Raise taxes.

It's really very simple.  If this country is worth paying for in the blood of American soldiers, people and corporations can damn well pony up a couple of bucks.
 
2013-12-20 10:54:27 AM

thurstonxhowell: Arkanaut: Jaymark108: In his letter, Lew warned against such tactics.
"The creditworthiness of the United States is an essential underpinning of our strength as a nation; it is not a bargaining chip to be used for partisan political ends," he wrote. "Moreover, as you know, increasing the debt limit does not authorize new spending commitments. It simply allows the government to pay for expenditures Congress has already approved."

Citation needed.

Do you even know how the budget process works?

I'm pretty sure he bolded the part because the idea that all of Congress knows that requires a citation, not because the fact itself does.


Yeah.  It took me a couple reads, but it's a pretty funny comment.
 
2013-12-20 10:59:18 AM

ZatCSU: Do Not Touch
- Willie


Good advice.
 
2013-12-20 10:59:48 AM

Descartes: This is so stupid.... every couple of months.... ARGGGHHHHH, for God's sake, please make a long term deal with the Republicans and end this shiat.


How about, instead, Republicans make a long-term deal with the President and end this shiat? Much more of the public supports his position than theirs, so they are the ones who should bend.

These continual crises are not "self-inflicted". They are inflicted on us by Republicans in Congress. We aren't doing it to ourselves; they are doing it to us in order to promote their anti-democratic agenda (basically, they think that they should always be in charge, even after they lose elections and the support of the people). They wouldn't even have a majority in the House if it weren't for gerrymandering, because the public hates their extremist agenda and voted against it. So Republicans don't remotely have legitimacy in doing all the things they are doing, but they keep doing it over and over again. And the president keeps saying no, and the public keeps saying no. And somehow that means that this is the president's fault for not just being "reasonable" and agreeing to all of the Republicans' extortionist demands?
 
2013-12-20 11:03:28 AM

Mnemia: Descartes: This is so stupid.... every couple of months.... ARGGGHHHHH, for God's sake, please make a long term deal with the Republicans and end this shiat.

How about, instead, Republicans make a long-term deal with the President and end this shiat? Much more of the public supports his position than theirs, so they are the ones who should bend.

These continual crises are not "self-inflicted". They are inflicted on us by Republicans in Congress. We aren't doing it to ourselves; they are doing it to us in order to promote their anti-democratic agenda (basically, they think that they should always be in charge, even after they lose elections and the support of the people). They wouldn't even have a majority in the House if it weren't for gerrymandering, because the public hates their extremist agenda and voted against it. So Republicans don't remotely have legitimacy in doing all the things they are doing, but they keep doing it over and over again. And the president keeps saying no, and the public keeps saying no. And somehow that means that this is the president's fault for not just being "reasonable" and agreeing to all of the Republicans' extortionist demands?


The opinions of people who side with the president are irrelevant. At least that's what I hear from people in the far right.
 
2013-12-20 11:03:46 AM

Jaymark108: A Cave Geek: Jaymark108: In his letter, Lew warned against such tactics.
"The creditworthiness of the United States is an essential underpinning of our strength as a nation; it is not a bargaining chip to be used for partisan political ends," he wrote. "Moreover, as you know, increasing the debt limit does not authorize new spending commitments. It simply allows the government to pay for expenditures Congress has already approved."

Citation needed.

No, actually it's not.  That's been pretty well known for a long time, now, even if the Teatards are in denial about it.

You're claiming that it's well known that the right wing already knows that increasing the debt limit does not authorize new spending commitments?  There's "denial", where you claim not to know something in order to save face and avoid punishment, and then there's true ignorance where you can't understand or refuse to consider fundamental ideas.  When "denial" is consistent enough, it can be hard to tell the difference, and I can't rule out the possibility that they are just keeping up appearances 100% of the time, but that seems like a stretch to me.  They are pretty bad at pretending to care about minorities, for instance, even though they say they do.  That's why I want to see evidence that they actually understand that Congress has already approved expenditures that they are threatening to not pay for.


I am 100% positive that the GOP leadership who keep pulling this shiat, like Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan, DO understand that perfectly, yes. They just don't care, because all they view it as is a political weapon they can use against the President to get their way even after losing an election to him. What it boils down to is that the Republican leadership consistently places Party before Country. They would rather preside over the smoking ruins of the American middle class than let a Democrat tell them what to do.
 
2013-12-20 11:08:58 AM

Descartes: This is so stupid.... every couple of months.... ARGGGHHHHH, for God's sake, please make a long term deal with the Republicans and end this shiat.


It'd be funny how some people still talk about Republicans as if they are rational actors who can be negotiated with in good faith if it didn't display such gross ignorance of their actions and rhetoric since the blah guy got elected.
 
2013-12-20 11:15:30 AM

Zeno-25: Descartes: This is so stupid.... every couple of months.... ARGGGHHHHH, for God's sake, please make a long term deal with the Republicans and end this shiat.

It'd be funny how some people still talk about Republicans as if they are rational actors who can be negotiated with in good faith if it didn't display such gross ignorance of their actions and rhetoric since the blah guy got elected. the 1980s

 
2013-12-20 11:16:36 AM

thurstonxhowell: Arkanaut: Jaymark108: In his letter, Lew warned against such tactics.
"The creditworthiness of the United States is an essential underpinning of our strength as a nation; it is not a bargaining chip to be used for partisan political ends," he wrote. "Moreover, as you know, increasing the debt limit does not authorize new spending commitments. It simply allows the government to pay for expenditures Congress has already approved."

Citation needed.

Do you even know how the budget process works?

I'm pretty sure he bolded the part because the idea that all of Congress knows that requires a citation, not because the fact itself does.


Ah okay.  I always interpret that phrasing to mean "as any idiot would know... I'm talking about you, jackass."
 
2013-12-20 11:18:50 AM
I don't like the idea of Milhouse having 2 spaghetti meals in one day.
 
2013-12-20 11:38:58 AM
Wait.  I thought they gave the president power to raise it without congress for two years.

It was weird.  They could choose not to raise it in future votes, but the last debt ceiling deal said he could just raise it anyways.

It gave them political cover to vote against it, as well as ammo to say "Look at the tyrant Obama exploding the debt ceiling without us giving him permission in that bill that never passed/was vetoed"
 
2013-12-20 11:40:34 AM
Republicans have already indicated that, despite their previous concession to pass a clean debt limit hike, they are looking to tack a key issue in exchange for another raise.

*cough* *cough* repeal Obamacare *cough*

/yeah I know TFA Ryan mention Keystone, but you know they'll go for the ACA first.
 
2013-12-20 11:44:01 AM

dennysgod: Republicans have already indicated that, despite their previous concession to pass a clean debt limit hike, they are looking to tack a key issue in exchange for another raise.

*cough* *cough* repeal Obamacare *cough*

/yeah I know TFA Ryan mention Keystone, but you know they'll go for the ACA first.


Let them try. It'll be even more unpopular than the last time if they do, given that by that time there will be several million people newly insured as a result of the ACA (especially if you include the Medicaid expansion numbers). And they still won't win.
 
2013-12-20 12:02:30 PM
We must have been running low on fear and panic
 
2013-12-20 01:07:05 PM
    www.brookings.edu

images.politico.com


Best part, each of these individuals thinks they're doing a good job.
 
2013-12-20 01:33:01 PM

somedude210: [simpsonswiki.com image 250x188]

Damn this Lousy Smarch weather...


FTFY

/one of my favorite episodes
 
2013-12-20 01:56:52 PM

Zeb Hesselgresser: [www.brookings.edu image 468x206]

[images.politico.com image 605x328]


Best part, each of these individuals thinks they're doing a good job.


If the national GDP is $100 trillion, is it okay to have a national debt of $20 trillion?
 
2013-12-20 02:05:38 PM
Cut. The Farking. Military Budget.

We would see the most sudden and incredible savings.
 
Displayed 50 of 60 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report