• US debt crisis: Republicans abandon vote as deadline looms
    285 replies, posted
[QUOTE=ewitwins;31417960]Apparently the Republicans are under the impression that it's the President's job to tromp up and down the halls of Congress waving bills in congressmen's faces.[/QUOTE] I just imagined Obama running down a long hall screaming like a maniac while he throws papers up in the air and they flutter everywhere :v:
[QUOTE=areolop;31424998]Fellow Minnesotan here, Ironically... the state shutdown affected me minimally. Expect for the state parks and the rest stops.[/QUOTE]I got nailed moderately hard, but we lost more money over that single week than they could ever gain by bitching. Yes, a state heavily reliant on tourism gets it's tourist locations shut down. GG dumbasses.[QUOTE=Atlascore;31425042]It was shut down for a week. Pretty fucking insane that a state's government shut down.[/QUOTE]Pretty fucking embarrassing if you ask me. We're a pretty well educated state and friendly, you would expect better.
[QUOTE=The Baconator;31425080]I just imagined Obama running down a long hall screaming like a maniac while he throws papers up in the air and they flutter everywhere :v:[/QUOTE] Like in The Madness of King George, when the late Nigel Hawthorne runs through the halls of Buckingham Palace in his nightclothes laughing like a maniac.:v:
[QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;31424134]Putting it in an allegorical kind of way: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHsx1cvACkY[/media][/QUOTE]The irony is. Unlike the Titanic. The people responsible will just jump ship leaving the population with a shitstorm to grapple with. But then again, if the idiots who are responsible fuck off, it might be salvageable, much like Titanic would have been salvageable if they'd sailed the front into the Iceberg, puncturing four chambers. Then backing out and sailing on full steam for Boston on a 72 hour to sinking deadline.
Nothing else to say Glaber? You always seem to shut up when you have to actually defend something.
[QUOTE=Bomimo;31425108]The irony is. Unlike the Titanic. The people responsible will just jump ship leaving the population with a shitstorm to grapple with.[/quote] Boehner, McConnell, and the Republicans will all pull a Bruce Ismay. Obama will have to go down with the ship as captain, Reid will continue to assess the situation to the end as the designer- Andrews, and the other Democrats will be stuck as the officers and crew- trying to save everyone they can. As for us it's going to be every man for himself. Guggenheims, Astors, Gracies, and Thayers everywhere. Oh- and then there will be the Tea Party as the superdickish people in First Class.
[QUOTE=thisispain;31424039]i'm sorry america is fucking up have a wolf gang concert to make you feel better: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sB63smNtbfw[/media] slam dance those anxieties out america...[/QUOTE] Which House of Blues is that? I've been to the San Diego one.
[QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;31425198]Boehner, McConnell, and the Republicans will all pull a Bruce Ismay. Obama will have to go down with the ship as captain, Reid will continue to assess the situation to the end as the designer- Andrews, and the other Democrats will be stuck as the officers and crew- trying to save everyone they can. As for us it's going to be every man for himself. Guggenheims, Astors, Gracies, and Thayers everywhere. Oh- and then there will be the Tea Party as the superdickish people in First Class.[/QUOTE] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQkActP-isE[/media] I feel we're developing some kind of "the end of the U.S." musical with already existing music material. [editline]30th July 2011[/editline] Whoa shit they all look like Retar- republicans in those poses!
[QUOTE=Bomimo;31425265][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQkActP-isE[/media] I feel we're developing some kind of "the end of the U.S." musical with already existing music material. [editline]30th July 2011[/editline] Whoa shit they all look like Retar- republicans in those poses![/QUOTE] We need requiem music for the death.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;31424958]And the Tea Party wants even more than he's proposing. There's just no winning with those people.[/QUOTE] Actually, this is the reason why [quote]Actually, the revised Boehner plan doesn’t cut spending at all. The chart shows the discretionary spending caps in the new Boehner plan. Spending increases every year—from $1.043 trillion in 2012 to $1.234 trillion in 2021. (These figures exclude the costs of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan). The “cuts” in the Boehner plan are only cuts from the CBO baseline, which is an assumed path of constantly rising spending. If Congress wanted to, it could require CBO to increase its “baseline” spending by, say, $5 trillion over the next decade. Then Boehner could claim that he was “cutting” spending by $5.9 trillion, even though his plan hadn’t changed. You can see that discretionary “cuts” against baselines don’t mean anything.[/quote] Boehner's was never really meant to cut anything, I'm genuinely surprised the Democrats caused such a fuss over it. Maybe it's the balanced budget amendment that they dislike, but, even that wouldn't come into effect until the [i]next[/i] increase in the debt ceiling. So I really have no idea.
[QUOTE=s0beit;31425320]Actually, this is the reason why Boehner's was never really meant to cut anything, I'm genuinely surprised the Democrats caused such a fuss over it. Maybe it's the balanced budget amendment that they dislike, but, even that wouldn't come into effect until the [i]next[/i] increase in the debt ceiling. So I really have no idea.[/QUOTE] Well no matter what the bill actually entailed, they don't want to compromise, that much is obvious.
Well, we're screwed. I saw this coming a mile away when I heard the US might default. Who bets that the Republicans will try to blame this on the President and use this for the 2012 elections?
[QUOTE=ForcedDj;31425352]Well, we're screwed. I saw this coming a mile away when I heard the US might default. Who bets that the Republicans will try to blame this on the President and use this for the 2012 elections?[/QUOTE] that's the plan chap so shortsighted they don't see the gun barrel an inch from their fucking faces.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;31425357]that's the plan chap so shortsighted they don't see the gun barrel an inch from their fucking faces.[/QUOTE] Or, as we Americans call it: politics as usual. Sometimes this whole crazy world is just too frustrating...
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;31425333]Well no matter what the bill actually entailed, they don't want to compromise, that much is obvious.[/QUOTE] I'd contribute that to political games, primarily because his plan doesn't actually [i]do[/i] anything at all. Just feel-good nonsense that doesn't do what they or anybody else wants to accomplish. I think somebody will end up folding in some way before the "deadline" but it's all just political nonsense for the time being. [editline]e[/editline] Also, for the people saying we will default simply because we won't increase the ceiling, that's just bull. Do you really believe the financial security of the entire United States depends on this one vote, and no economist, politician or anyone else saw that something like this might happen? There are, off the top of my head, at least 3 or 4 different ways to avoid a default all unique in their own ways and all without raising taxes or cutting current spending levels. It's ridiculous. What the Republicans probably are trying to do, and what they would do if they are smart is actually fold and increase the debt and then blame Obama when things get worse, because in all likelihood they will. They just want to grandstand and pretend they're putting up a fight.
[QUOTE=s0beit;31425451]Also, for the people saying we will default simply because we won't increase the ceiling, that's just bull. Do you really believe the financial security of the entire United States depends on this one vote, and no economist, politician or anyone else saw that something like this might happen?[/QUOTE] Yes, actually I do think that.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;31425357]that's the plan chap so shortsighted they don't see the gun barrel an inch from their fucking faces.[/QUOTE] hang on a tick the way FP is portraying this, there's only two possible outcomes: a) accept the democratic party's plan b) default i was under the belief that there was actually a third option: c) accept the republican party's plan regardless of the respective merits of each plan, it's rather unfair to criticize only the republican party for not accepting their opposite's plan on the underlying assumption that they are therefore going for a default. the republicans are not aiming for a default - they are aiming for the passing of their plan. likewise, the democrats are not aiming for a default - they are aiming for the passing of their plan. debate the plans all you want, but don't forget that the democrats have ALSO rejected an offered plan that would stop the US from defaulting.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;31425548]Yes, actually I do think that.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure there have been plenty of warning signs from various people for the last few years for economic troubles like this... I don't know what you're smoking s0beit, but this wasn't entirely unseen.
[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;31425581]hang on a tick the way FP is portraying this, there's only two possible outcomes: a) accept the democratic party's plan b) default i was under the belief that there was actually a third option: c) accept the republican party's plan regardless of the respective merits of each plan, it's rather unfair to criticize only the republican party for not accepting their opposite's plan on the underlying assumption that they are therefore going for a default. the republicans are not aiming for a default - they are aiming for the passing of their plan. likewise, the democrats are not aiming for a default - they are aiming for the passing of their plan. debate the plans all you want, but don't forget that the democrats have ALSO rejected an offered plan that would stop the US from defaulting.[/QUOTE] I don't look at the Republican Party's plan as an option because it was designed with no compromises from their side, and its provisions don't actually do anything.
[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;31425581]hang on a tick the way FP is portraying this, there's only two possible outcomes: a) accept the democratic party's plan b) default i was under the belief that there was actually a third option: c) accept the republican party's plan regardless of the respective merits of each plan, it's rather unfair to criticize only the republican party for not accepting their opposite's plan on the underlying assumption that they are therefore going for a default. the republicans are not aiming for a default - they are aiming for the passing of their plan. likewise, the democrats are not aiming for a default - they are aiming for the passing of their plan. debate the plans all you want, but don't forget that the democrats have ALSO rejected an offered plan that would stop the US from defaulting.[/QUOTE] It would also put in a constitutional amendment, cut 0 spending, and do fuck all to help the country but saddling people with a debt ceiling debate in a year or so. This isn't helpful, this isn't what the country needs. Why are the democrats at fault for conceeding to a bunch of children on their own plans, but not just bending over and taking a cock in their asses when it's the other way? [b]why do you conservatives always let the republicans have a double standard? It's fucking senseless[/b]
[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;31425581]the republicans are not aiming for a default - they are aiming for the passing of their plan. likewise, the democrats are not aiming for a default - [B]they are aiming for the passing of their plan.[/B] debate the plans all you want, but don't forget that the democrats have ALSO rejected an offered plan that would stop the US from defaulting.[/QUOTE] No, they're aiming for negotiations, they've been trying to do it [B]the whole damn time.[/B] The plan they rejected was presented to them as more extreme than their initial proposal, and you're telling me it is THEIR FAULT FOR NOT ACCEPTING IT IMMEDIATELY?
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;31425548]Yes, actually I do think that.[/QUOTE] Well, then, you'd be wrong. [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;31425591]I'm pretty sure there have been plenty of warning signs from various people for the last few years for economic troubles like this... I don't know what you're smoking s0beit, but this wasn't entirely unseen.[/QUOTE] There's been warnings for the last few years that the republicans would not raise the debt ceiling in 2011? Who has this time machine? [editline]e[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;31425606]It would also put in a constitutional amendment, cut 0 spending, and do fuck all to help the country but saddling people with a debt ceiling debate in a year or so. This isn't helpful, this isn't what the country needs. Why are the democrats at fault for conceeding to a bunch of children on their own plans, but not just bending over and taking a cock in their asses when it's the other way? [b]why do you conservatives always let the republicans have a double standard? It's fucking senseless[/b][/QUOTE] I'm not letting them have shit, I just called them out on half of their bullshit and the debt ceiling [i]will be raised[/i], mark my words. How do I know? Because Washington is fucking predictable.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;31425606]It would also put in a constitutional amendment, cut 0 spending, and do fuck all to help the country but saddling people with a debt ceiling debate in a year or so. This isn't helpful, this isn't what the country needs. Why are the democrats at fault for conceeding to a bunch of children on their own plans, but not just bending over and taking a cock in their asses when it's the other way? [b]why do you conservatives always let the republicans have a double standard? It's fucking senseless[/b][/QUOTE] "you conservatives" lol i repeat - i'm not arguing for the merits of the republican's plan. i think it's far worse, and will hurt people much more than the democrats' would, which is what i would support. however, i'm not arguing the quality of the plan - simply that it would stop the US defaulting just as much as the democrats' would, and thus the republicans' rejecting the democratic party's plan as a solution to defaulting is no /worse/ than the democratic party's rejection of the republicans' plan as a solution to defaulting. it'll come again so i'll say it: not arguing the merits of each not arguing which one is better not saying the republicans' plan is better not not not [QUOTE=Megafanx13;31425622]No, they're aiming for negotiations, they've been trying to do it [B]the whole damn time.[/B] The plan they rejected was presented to them as more extreme than their initial proposal...[/QUOTE] "aiming for negotiations" = tailoring their plan to suit the republicans' wishes more. an admirable effort, realistically, but it's still their solution to defaulting.
[QUOTE=s0beit;31425627]Well, then, you'd be wrong. There's been warnings for the last few years that the republicans would not raise the debt ceiling in 2011? Who has this time machine?[/QUOTE] Not this specifically, but I'm sure someone has realized that bipartisanship would be a reason to drive us to economic collapse. The actual debt ceiling itself I'm SURE has been speculated on as a cause of a crash.
[QUOTE=s0beit;31425627]Well, then, you'd be wrong.[/quote] Explain.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;31425651]Not this specifically, but I'm sure someone has realized that bipartisanship would be a reason to drive us to economic collapse. The actual debt ceiling itself I'm SURE has been speculated on as a cause of a crash.[/QUOTE] Flat out not paying debts can cause serious problems, but I'm telling you right here and now that it isn't an option. Whats playing out right now is a false dichotomy, raise the debt ceiling or crash. Those are not the only two options, those saying it is are either stupid or lying but simply not raising the debt could not cause collapse on it's own. Not raising the debt ceiling, i repeat, does not mean we couldn't pay the debt.
[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;31425646]"you conservatives" lol i repeat - i'm not arguing for the merits of the republican's plan. i think it's far worse, and will hurt people much more than the democrats' would, which is what i would support. however, i'm not arguing the quality of the plan - simply that it would stop the US defaulting just as much as the democrats' would, and thus the republicans' rejecting the democratic party's plan as a solution to defaulting is no /worse/ than the democratic party's rejection of the republicans' plan as a solution to defaulting. it'll come again so i'll say it: not arguing the merits of each not arguing which one is better not saying the republicans' plan is better not not not "aiming for negotiations" = tailoring their plan to suit the republicans' wishes more. an admirable effort, realistically, but it's still their solution to defaulting.[/QUOTE] Let me simplify the chains of events here: 1. Republicans propose plan 2. Democrats disagree with plan, but make concessions 3. Republicans say their concessions aren't enough 4. Democrats make more concessions to appease them 5. Republicans make their bill more extreme to get the Tea Party Congressmen on board 6. Democrats can concede no further, and with a bipartisan vote of 59-41 vote it down in the Senate At this point, it isn't the Democrats "refusing to put their plan through", it's "they've drawn a line in the sand after countless concessions and the Republicans refuse to make any".
[QUOTE=s0beit;31425679]Flat out not paying debts can cause serious problems, but I'm telling you right here and now that it isn't an option. Whats playing out right now is a false dichotomy, raise the debt ceiling or crash. Those are not the only two options, those saying it is are either stupid or lying but simply not raising the debt could not cause collapse on it's own. Not raising the debt ceiling, i repeat, does not mean we couldn't pay the debt.[/QUOTE] Please, explain. I don't mean that sarcastically, please, I'm interested.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;31425714]Please, explain. I don't mean that sarcastically, please, I'm interested.[/QUOTE] 1) We have revenues and [b]all it would take[/b] is not spending more. 2) We could withhold from certain agencies 3) If we were really hard-up seeing as the federal government currently owns more than $1.6 trillion of liquid assets and that's the official government projections, which are low by other people's standards. [quote]As of June 3, 2011, the Treasury reported international reserve assets of $144.2 billion.2 They include gold, securities and deposits denominated in euros and yen, as well as "IMF reserve position" and "Special Drawing Rights" (SDRs). However, this figure is substantially understated, as the Treasury officially values its 261.5 million troy ounces of gold at a price of $42.2222 dollars each. If we priced the Treasury's gold holdings at the current market price of about $1,500 an ounce, then the currency reserve assets have a market value closer to $525 billion.[/quote] [quote]According to the Federal Reserve, as of the end of the first quarter in 2011, the federal government held $786 billion in "credit-market instruments" (including $138 billion in agency- and GSE-backed securities, as well as $355 billion in student loans). The government also still held $55.4 billion in corporate equities acquired under the TARP.[/quote] [quote]As of late November 2010, the SPR held 726.5 million barrels of crude.4 At this writing, the price is about $95 per barrel; thus, this reserve is worth about $69 billion. However, the oil in the SPR is not equivalent to barrels ready for shipment at the benchmark hub in Cushing, Oklahoma5, but, rather, is buried deep in salt caverns.6 Consequently, the figure should be discounted by (say) 25 percent, so that the government's crude oil stocks can be conservatively appraised at $52 billion.[/quote] [quote]According to the government's estimates, the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) contains 59 billion barrels of undiscovered, technically recoverable crude oil.7 Much of this huge cache of natural resources is currently off-limits to development, either formally or in practice, because of regulatory barriers to permitting. Although it is difficult to estimate the market value of oil that has not yet been discovered, a study of the impact of expedited offshore oil leasing estimated that the federal government could generate $14.3 billion in average annual royalty revenue from the eighth through thirty-eighth years after approving the projects.8 At a discount rate of five percent, this royalty stream has a present discounted value of $164 billion. Rather than the traditional approach of leasing the oil rights, the government could, instead, sell the bundle of rights upfront for a lump-sum payment, getting much quicker access to the money.[/quote] [quote]Peter Orszag, then the director of the Office of Management and Budget, estimating in 2010 that the federal government owned 14,000 buildings and structures that were "excess" and 55,000 that were "under- or not-utilized."9 The problem with appraising these properties is that the government doesn't even have good documentation on what they are.[/quote] [quote]The federal government currently owns and controls vast assets, including huge swaths of commercial land, especially in the West; power generation facilities; valuable portions of the electromagnetic spectrum; underutilized buildings; and financial assets. Given the federal government's huge debt, it makes sense to sell at least a portion of these assets, especially those that are currently generating revenue below market levels (in which case the sale value would be above the present value of the current income on the assets). Sales of assets would immediately reduce the government's operating deficit and debt, reducing future interest costs. The Heritage plan includes a program of asset sales totaling approximately $260 billion over 15 years. This includes partial sales of federal properties, real estate, mineral rights, the electromagnetic spectrum, and energy-generation facilities.[/quote] Obviously, the environmental people would go nuts over anything oil related. That's just the short list of things that could easily offset this problem for a very long time.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;31425120]Nothing else to say Glaber? You always seem to shut up when you have to actually defend something.[/QUOTE] Because Glaber hasn't had a valid point in two years, once he gets confronted with that he goes to his corner to shit his pants and cry.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.