The Glade 4.0

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... 7529.story



Hey! Lets threaten seniors and veterans to get what we want! That'll end well!

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

ALMFAO

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

holy fsck...

Except that doesn't have to happen. Daily revenue will still be coming in and should be able to cover daily payouts in debt maintenance social security and VA benefit. It's just a matter of the President decided to do that or not.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

He knows that Rori, he's just posturing, trying to make it look like the GOP is denying SS and Vet benefits...

It's a huge gamble for him, and I sincerely hope it backfires...

I think(hope) that enough people are more informed these days that the ploy won't work this time.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

This. If he actually does this, he's writing his resignation. You don't **** with seniors.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

And what about the roughly $500 billion in debt maturing in August? If the debt ceiling isn't raised, do you really think all those debt holders are going to be willing to just roll their debt over? What percentage do you think will prefer to just take their chips off the table until the political crisis is done? 5%? 10%? There's an extra $25-50 billion we have to pay in August alone. Even if most/all of that debt does get rolled over successfully, it'll be at a significantly higher interest rate, which would also eat up a good chunk of the revenue stream.

And besides, it's just back-of-the-napkin budgeting to say the government could theoretically cover x, y, and z programs alone. Are we just going to stop paying every other bill in the meantime? Shut down the FBI, empty the federal prisons, open up the borders, stop paying active duty soldiers, ground the Air Force? I don't think so. And even if that kind of total prioritization of a handful of programs was feasible, where does the President get the power to decide which bills to pay and which ones to ignore? Congress appropriated funds for all those programs and directed the Executive Branch to spend the funds accordingly. From a "checks and balances" perspective, I'd say the most Constitutionally sound approach would be an across-the-board cut to all programs. In practice, we'll probably get a mix of across-the-board cuts and Constitutionally-dubious program prioritization with cuts ranging from 30% to 60% depending on the program.

In short, Obama's comment wasn't fear-mongering; it was just fact. Failing to raise the debt ceiling will create an immediate cluster-f*ck of ginormous proportions, and everyone, including SS beneficiaries, will get nailed.

(Btw, I love that the spell-check recognizes "ginormous" as a word. )

How about we stop paying for the wars he promised to end, and go from there?

Yeah. It is fear mongering. He could fix it with a stroke of his pen, and he won't because he'd rather throw a hissy fit about what the repubs aren't giving him.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Gotta play those scare tactics. Re-election is coming up.

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

This.

Yeah, ok, but some of this is not thought out real well.

For example:



Do you realize how much it would cost to close bases in 2012? It would be a cost savings in the long run, but it would be extremely expensive in 2012.

Really? How would he do that?

Then let's start by cutting the Dept of Education. Bet would could cover things then.

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

Regardless, the debt limit should be increased. We shouldn't use that amount, but it should be available if needed.

Like... my credit card.

And what do you think your card issuer's response would be if you requested another consecutive 20% increase to your max'd out CC limit after a salary cut?

They are like spoiled children, demanding money from their parents, and throwing a tantrum until they get what they want.

Honest question, Mus: If the roles were reversed, would you still be laying the blame at the President's feet?

Imagine we had a Republican President and Senate, but a Democratic House, and the Dems declared that they would block any increase in the debt ceiling (with all the consequences that implies) unless the Republicans agreed to raise taxes and increase spending on things like health care, education, social security, etc. (i.e., increase all the the stuff that the Republicans want to cut now). The Republican President offers to strike a deal that splits the difference between the Dem position and the Republican position, but the Dems refuse. He then offers a 2-1 split in favor of the Dems, but they refuse. With the deadline approaching, he offers a 4-1 split in favor of their position, but the Dems still refuse, saying it's all or nothing - the only deal on the table is everything they want in exchange for raising the debt limit. In response, the President does an interview and argues that the Dems are being unreasonable and that if they do fail to raise the debt limit, it will result in serious consequences such as SS recipients not getting their checks.

In that scenario, would you really still say the President is just fear-mongering? That he's throwing a hissy fit and could (should?) fix it with a stroke of his pen (i.e. by giving the Dems their tax-and-spend wish list)?

* By the way, I feel like my posts are coming across as snarky and rude in this thread, so let me just say that's not the intent. My intended tone is actually more along the lines of "flabbergasted". I'm just can't believe anyone would look at the current situation and think it's Obama that's being unreasonable.

I'll answer that (from my perspective)..

HELL YES!

You haven't seen the tantrum yet. There is part of me that hopes the Reps continue to stonewall and force a default, and then watch the **** fly when things really start to collapse. All because they are unreasonable.

Be careful what you wish for...

The Dems had a chance to raise the debt ceiling not too long ago but they didn't. Now they have someone to blame if it doesn't get done and can use it in re-election efforts.

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."