|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Staring at the debt ceiling
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
Paul Krugman? He's still around. How quaint. Next thing I know someone will tell me they actually watch CNN.
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
Anyone who (like me) is frightened and angry about the prospect that the US might default next week should consider calling Speaker Boehner's office ((202) 225-6205) and telling him that the Tea Party's intransigence has given him an opportunity to be the one to do what others have failed to do -- he can be the adult in the room, be bipartisan, work with the Democrats, and lift the debt ceiling. He'd be a real American hero, and a true leader, if he did that.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
What can the President actually enforce under the US Constitution? If in the end, he doesn't need to negotiate with the legislative terrorists, if he has the power to impose and say, effectively "so impeach me if you want to try" then he can confront by Presidential order, enforce it by the power of the office and get the job done the way he believes will work. Can he do that? Never mind whether he has the will, does he have the constitutional means?
Blogger (and economist) Brad DeLong has outlined a possible Constitutional argument along those lines.
quote:
An administration that can find lawyers to say that Libya is not "hostilities" and that wanted to reassure markets and reduce economic uncertainty by solving the debt ceiling kabuki theatre debate would have no problem at all with finding lawyers to advance and justify this well-grounded and wise legal interpretation.
The structure of [Treasury Secretary] Tim Geithner's testimony to Congress defending his additional borrowing is:
- The Constitution forbids me from even thinking about default.
- You ordered me to spend.
- A previous Congress told me not to borrow, but no Congress can bind its successors, and those of you who are in this Congress here now ordered me to spend.
- I'm just doing what you told me to do -- and what the Constitution directly and explicitly tells me to do.
It's not a Constitutional slam dunk, but it's a pretty plausible argument. Congress has, by passing a budget, already authorized spending which will cause the U.S. government to exceed the debt ceiling and the Fourteenth Amendment forbids the federal government from defaulting on its Congressionally authorized debts.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Anyone who (like me) is frightened and angry about the prospect that the US might default next week should consider calling Speaker Boehner's office...
I would be quite surprised if his office would have any interest in the opinions of people out of his district. But maybe I'm wrong.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Many thanks, Croesos. I'm just glad you got my point tbh, but that constitutional argument doesn't look too bad. Might fly.
I suppose if something like that is done it has to be pretty "last resort" given the precedents. Congress's powers no doubt include the right to change its collective mind, but not to walk away from an indebtedness previously authorised by a previous Congress. That's the way things normally work i.e. against any action which can be seen to be retrospective.
You're right; it's not a slam dunk but something like it might cut across "who blinks first". An interesting card to threaten to play, and not too difficult to explain either. "In extremis" it doesn't look like a bluff. Don't know enough in detail about the 14th amendment and caselaw to be sure, but then the WH probably doesn't have to be 100% sure; just that such an action would be sufficiently plausible to justify putting on the "Big Hat".
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Anyone who (like me) is frightened and angry about the prospect that the US might default next week should consider calling Speaker Boehner's office...
I would be quite surprised if his office would have any interest in the opinions of people out of his district. But maybe I'm wrong.
--Tom Clune
If he was, it would probably signal a long-term eye toward a future run for the presidency (*shudders*)
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
You're right; it's not a slam dunk but something like it might cut across "who blinks first". An interesting card to threaten to play, and not too difficult to explain either. "In extremis" it doesn't look like a bluff. Don't know enough in detail about the 14th amendment and caselaw to be sure, but then the WH probably doesn't have to be 100% sure; just that such an action would be sufficiently plausible to justify putting on the "Big Hat".
I think the big problem in doing something like this is our jack-booted Supreme Court. Many of these clowns actually injected themselves in the political process during the Bush/Gore election, so it is very reasonable to believe that they would jump with both feet into this Executive/Legislative branch furor.
In this case, they would at least be justified in doing so, despite the long-standing reluctance of the court to get involved in squabbles between the other two branches. And, if they do, they would almost assuredly decide on a 5-4 basis one way or the other, which would only further weaken our institutions of government.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
Okay, so I actually read Krugman's column. There was nothing surprising in it.
This is a serious situation and our politicians need to act, but act responsibly.
Might I ask my left-leaning Shipmates a few questions:
It seems to me that the underlying problem is the debt, the debt ceiling being a symptom. Indeed if I understand the ratings agencies it is the size of our debt that is causing them to consider downgrading our credit rating. So, why do the Democrats want to keep spending if that is the problem?
Why won't President Obama produce a plan to solve the problem? All he does is threaten to veto all the GOP plans.
If he won't, and it really is probably Congress' job I suppose, why won't the Democratic Senate at least debate the Cup Cap and Balance plan? If things are so dire, why won't Harry at least permit debate?
Why is no one talking about serious spending cuts? All I've read and heard is savings of a trillion dollars or so over ten years. That's not going to do us any good.
Gosh, I remember when a trillion dollars was actually a lot of money. I even remember when a billion dollars was a lot of money.
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Might I ask my left-leaning Shipmates a few questions:
It seems to me that the underlying problem is the debt, the debt ceiling being a symptom. Indeed if I understand the ratings agencies it is the size of our debt that is causing them to consider downgrading our credit rating. So, why do the Democrats want to keep spending if that is the problem?
Why won't President Obama produce a plan to solve the problem? All he does is threaten to veto all the GOP plans.
...Why is no one talking about serious spending cuts? All I've read and heard is savings of a trillion dollars or so over ten years. That's not going to do us any good.
Wow, how many strawmans can you cram into one post?
Raising the debt ceiling is not about increasing the debt. It's about paying the debts we've already incurred.
Similarly, the deficit reduction dispute between congressional dems and GOP is not about whether or not we should increase debt. Everyone agrees it should be reduced, not increased. The dispute is about whether deficit reduction should be accomplished solely thru spending cuts (requiring some incredibly draconian measures) or through a combination of spending cuts and targeted tax increases (or, rather, allowing temporary tax cuts for a small segment of Americans to expire).
Finally, the dems are presenting a detailed, specific plan. And the Congressional Budget Office confirms that the Democratic plan results in a significantly larger deficit reduction than the GOP plan:
CBO analysis of both plans
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
The real problem, to my mind, is that there is no agreement on how to proceed. I would be in favor of just raising the debt ceiling and dealing with how to balance the budget as the focus of the next election except I think my fellow citizens are too damned stupid to actually face the issue. It appears that the fools who say things like, "keep the government out of my social security" are in the majority. Folks appear to really think that we can just cut "waste" in government and pay off a 14 trillion dollar debt.
I don't know how we're going to get people to make real decisions about what they are willing to pay for and how -- we seem as a society to want to have it all and pay for none of it. Maybe I'm just getting crotchety in my old age, but I don't see how this can be resolved without the collapse of our way of life, which appears to be defined by self-centered refusal to face any facts that don't make us feel good. Perhaps it's time to let the Chinese try to run the world for a while...
--Tom Clune
[ 27. July 2011, 17:12: Message edited by: tclune ]
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Raising the debt ceiling is not about increasing the debt. It's about paying the debts we've already incurred.
Of course.
quote:
The dispute is about whether deficit reduction should be accomplished solely thru spending cuts (requiring some incredibly draconian measures) or through a combination of spending cuts and targeted tax increases (or, rather, allowing temporary tax cuts for a small segment of Americans to expire).
Of course.
quote:
Finally, the dems are presenting a detailed, specific plan. And the Congressional Budget Office confirms that the Democratic plan results in a significantly larger deficit reduction than the GOP plan:
CBO analysis of both plans
But a big chunk of Reid's plan's savings come from not fighting a future war.
So, let me get this straight. Suppose I make $100 per month. I am spending $120 per month. I need to cut $20 per month in spending. Okay. It's hard. But I decide not to spend $20 per month on donations to "Obama's 50th Birthday Cake Party and Speech," even though I was only thinking of spending this $20 in the future. I was not yet spending it. How is that a cut? I'm still spending $120 per month.
[code]
[ 27. July 2011, 22:49: Message edited by: John Holding ]
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
But a big chunk of Reid's plan's savings come from not fighting a future war.
You're in luck. We don't need a future war: we've already got one we can stop fighting.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanlion
editorial comment
# 10325
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
So, let me get this straight. Suppose I make $100 per month. I am spending $120 per month. I need to cut $20 per month in spending. Okay. It's hard. But I decide not to spend $20 per month on donations to "Obama's 50th Birthday Cake Party and Speech," even though I was only thinking of spending this $20 in the future. I was not yet spending it. How is that a cut? I'm still spending $120 per month.
Don't forget that you are only spending $120 a month for this year. Next year you will spend $130 a month, regardless of your circumstances at that time, and the next year it will be $140. Should you decide to only spend $125 per month next year that would constitute a $5 monthly cut and a savings of $60 for the year! Incredible!
If we were to spend no more than we did this year for the next 5 years the CBO would score that as a 4 trillion dollar cut.
--------------------
"You can't get rich in politics unless you're a crook" - Harry S. Truman
Posts: 1486 | From: White Rose City | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anyuta
Shipmate
# 14692
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
So, let me get this straight. Suppose I make $100 per month. I am spending $120 per month. I need to cut $20 per month in spending. Okay. It's hard. But I decide not to spend $20 per month on donations to "Obama's 50th Birthday Cake Party and Speech," even though I was only thinking of spending this $20 in the future. I was not yet spending it. How is that a cut? I'm still spending $120 per month.
Don't forget that you are only spending $120 a month for this year. Next year you will spend $130 a month, regardless of your circumstances at that time, and the next year it will be $140. Should you decide to only spend $125 per month next year that would constitute a $5 monthly cut and a savings of $60 for the year! Incredible!
If we were to spend no more than we did this year for the next 5 years the CBO would score that as a 4 trillion dollar cut.
right. and it works that way on BOTH sides. The Republican plan also is counting on "cutting" increases, not pure cuts. the plans are compared against a baseline, which is not "waht we spend now" but "what we are currently projected to spend in the future.
which makes sense, really, if you think about it. because our expenditures are not fixed. think of it as knowing that next monthy your HOA payment is due, plus you know that your washing machine is on it's last legs and you are scheduled to replace it next month, oh, and on top of that it's "back to school" month, so you'll be buying school supplies.. that you didn't buy this month. and the month after that it's going to be something else. If I say that this year the kids will have to wear hand me downs, and the washer will just have to last a while longer (or we do laundry by hand) you can't say "well, those aren't really cuts to the budget, because those are future expenses". that's what a budget is... anticipation of future expenses.
While I can't swear to it, I'm reasonably certain that whatever the "baseline" assumption is, the CBO is using the same one for all. Thus, if cutting this "future war" produces a saving on the Senate plan, but not the House plan, that means the House kept that future war in the budget...
Posts: 764 | From: USA | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
quote:
You're in luck. We don't need a future war: we've already got one we can stop fighting.
Tom, we agree! Hurrah!
We've been fighting the war on poverty for decades and can't win. It's time to surrender and stop fighting.
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:
You're in luck. We don't need a future war: we've already got one we can stop fighting.
Tom, we agree! Hurrah!
We've been fighting the war on poverty for decades and can't win. It's time to surrender and stop fighting.
The class warfare by the rich is not usually called a war on poverty, but I see your point...
--Tom Clune
[ 27. July 2011, 17:57: Message edited by: tclune ]
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
[QUOTE]
So, let me get this straight. Suppose I make $100 per month. I am spending $120 per month. I need to cut $20 per month in spending. Okay. It's hard. But I decide not to spend $20 per month on donations to "Obama's 50th Birthday Cake Party and Speech," even though I was only thinking of spending this $20 in the future. I was not yet spending it. How is that a cut? I'm still spending $120 per month.
But that's not what the plan is doing. Not even close.
A better comparison would be: one plan says, I need to decrease spending $20 a month, so I'll stop paying that pricey nursing home where grandma is staying and just let her fend for herself.
The other plan says: We need to keep our commitment to take care of grandma in her old age. We can save $10 a month by cutting back on some discretionary spending. We can also increase revenue $10 a month by renting out the spare bedroom.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
We've been fighting the war on poverty for decades and can't win. It's time to surrender and stop fighting.
New Yorker, there's a man named Lazarus out on the sidewalk in front of your house. Abraham would like to have a word with you about him.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
We've been fighting the war on poverty for decades and can't win. It's time to surrender and stop fighting.
New Yorker, there's a man named Lazarus out on the sidewalk in front of your house. Abraham would like to have a word with you about him.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Josephine, that was very well done. Your post, together with LutheranChik's on the Happy Marriage thread, have made this Host's day. Thank you.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
We've been fighting the war on poverty for decades and can't win. It's time to surrender and stop fighting.
New Yorker, there's a man named Lazarus out on the sidewalk in front of your house. Abraham would like to have a word with you about him.
This is what is so insidious and malevolent about the whole right-wing argument. And I speak as a UK-ite aware of how our political debate is in serious danger of becoming increasing American.
As soon as someone says something like "We'll tax the rich a little more..." it becomes that great big bogey-man socialism.
And Socialism is unrighteous, unfair, unacceptable, unAmerican and unChristian because it is taking from the rich to give to the poor. It is taking MY hard earned money which I deserve and giving it to someone else. Whether they deserve it or not that's wrong because it's mine.
There are so many problems with this thinking, but let's start with three;
1. The predominant process (and there are plenty of statistics to demonstrate the truth of this) of the past 30 years in the west (and especially in the US) has been to shift wealth from the poor to rich. Increasingly, hard work and enterprise is often not rewarded. Never mind the whole issue of equal opportunity and abilities and basic human dignity. Even those with talent, drive and opportunity often still end up poor.
2. It ignores the plain fact that the wealthy need government far more than they realise. A fair society would make those that benefit most from its existence, structures and systems, pay the most of its cost, but no...
3. The entreaties to look after the poor and powerless run right through the bible. I am so so so SICK of people hiding behind "Well, that's God's command to me, to give generously and take responsibility, you want to take the money in my taxes and decide for me and that's not biblical that's theft" bollocks. You may have a point, but for the inconvenient fact that you are trying to defend a system that systematically disadvantages the poor. How about some love of justice and walking humbly with your God? Just a thought.
Traditional conservatism or even Conservatism is something I can respect. Neo-liberalism or Neo-conservatism whichever is your preferred terminology is a systematic structure that demonstrates the truth of Jesus' words;
quote:
The love of money is the root of all kinds of evil.
God Bless the United States of American...
I'm not sure there was ever a time when they needed God's blessing more.
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
But, Josephine, do you not know that Jesus will judge us all on how we used the resources we had? If we are taxing citizens and then using that money on failed programs, then surely that is not moral or right?
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are failures?
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Imagine the scream heard across the United States if one of those programs misses a payment.
Since I live on the other side of the lake to New York State, I imagine I should reinforce my windows just to be sure.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Why won't President Obama produce a plan to solve the problem? All he does is threaten to veto all the GOP plans.
Um, no, he placed a $4b plan on the table that Bonehead walked away from. You're not paying attention to the news.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
Just to be clear about the nature of the problem:
Government fiscal management in the US and Canada is divided into two documents: The Estimates and the Budget. The Estimates detail what government departments can spend. Those have been passed. The Budget details what money will be raised and by what means.
The US goes one step further and has this nonsense debt ceiling. It should be clear once you pass a budget and estimates what money will be spent and where the money will come from. If there is no compromise then the US will have to renege on some authorized spending in the Estimates. That is a form of default and will impair the creditworthiness of the United States.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Since I live on the other side of the lake to New York State, I imagine I should reinforce my windows just to be sure.
If the Hamas wing of the Republicans (AKA teabaggers) get their way and destroy Social Security and Medicaid just to spite the President maybe you can employ US refugees as cheap domestic help.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
But, Josephine, do you not know that Jesus will judge us all on how we used the resources we had?
Hmm. IN my Bible, it says that Jesus will judge us all on whether we fed the hungry, gave drink to the thirsty, welcomed strangers, clothed those in need, visited prisoners, and cared for the sick. So, yeah, you're right. We need to be making sure our resources are doing those things.
But I don't see how supporting programs that ensure that the rich get ever richer and gutting programs that serve the poor will accomplish those things.
Now, it's possible that I'm missing something important. But a lot of people who are smarter than I am, and better Christians than I am, have weighed in on the subject. Do you think they're all wrong?
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Since I live on the other side of the lake to New York State, I imagine I should reinforce my windows just to be sure.
If the Hamas wing of the Republicans (AKA teabaggers) get their way and destroy Social Security and Medicaid just to spite the President maybe you can employ US refugees as cheap domestic help.
I'm holding out for the annexation option. May the Province of Massachusetts live again!
Besides, if we annex a few states we get the physical plant and resources too. Why settle for domestic work when you can do what you were trained to do?
No, no, just stay right where you are and things will be all better soon. There will be a new flag in front of City Hall, the cops will start wearing red bands on their caps and lawyers will start to wear gowns, but there's no need to uproot yourselves.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
fwiw, though I am neither smarter nor better than Josephine, I am one of those who signed the circle of protection.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Since I live on the other side of the lake to New York State, I imagine I should reinforce my windows just to be sure.
If the Hamas wing of the Republicans (AKA teabaggers) get their way and destroy Social Security and Medicaid just to spite the President maybe you can employ US refugees as cheap domestic help.
I'm holding out for the annexation option. May the Province of Massachusetts live again!
Besides, if we annex a few states we get the physical plant and resources too. Why settle for domestic work when you can do what you were trained to do?
No, no, just stay right where you are and things will be all better soon. There will be a new flag in front of City Hall, the cops will start wearing red bands on their caps and lawyers will start to wear gowns, but there's no need to uproot yourselves.
One could only hope!
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
My state borders Canada, but also (alas) contains a strident contingent of TeaBurglars in its legislature.
How do you recommend we offload these prior to annexation?
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
Give out free tickets to a Firearms Sale in another state. Make sure the buses are one-way only.
Easy and voluntary. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Why settle for domestic work when you can do what you were trained to do?
Shouldn't there be an "eh" at the end of that?
quote:
... lawyers will start to wear gowns ...
Do I have to wear a wig, too?
And, you Canadians, why don't you have those wonderful two-tone sirens like the Europeans?
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
First, I was asking a rhetorical question. Second, Canadian lawyers to not wear wigs. Third, no, we have wailing cows like you do.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Josephine:
Another re Abraham & Lazarus remark. And I've just now signed up for the Circle of Protection. I thought of doing it when I discovered it, a couple of days ago, but there were a couple of things in the Sojourners' article that I didn't quite agree with--mostly, IIRC, that it was so very Christian and didn't include other faiths. But I'm signed up, now.
New Yorker, re your spending example:
If you're in financial trouble, you can ALSO try to bring in more money.
Re Speaker Boehner only listening to people in his district:
In his role as a member of the House, he has a district in his home state. But in his role as Speaker of the House, all Americans are in his district. It's a dual-role job that he has, right now.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:
You're in luck. We don't need a future war: we've already got one we can stop fighting.
Tom, we agree! Hurrah!
We've been fighting the war on poverty for decades and can't win. It's time to surrender and stop fighting.
As always, conservatism boils down to "I'm all right, Jack--fuck you."
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I'm making $100 a month and spending $120. I know. I'll ask them to cut my hours at work so I'm only making $80. That'll solve it. Somehow. Maybe.
Okay maybe not.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
We've been fighting the war on poverty for decades and can't win. It's time to surrender and stop fighting.
So you're volunteering to join the ranks of the poor, then?
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I'm making $100 a month and spending $120. I know. I'll ask them to cut my hours at work so I'm only making $80. That'll solve it. Somehow. Maybe.
Okay maybe not.
No, no, MT. You KNOW that will put the Poor Company out of business and lead to fewer jobs.
What you have to do is request a cut in pay, but with an increase in hours, so that your company's BoD is justified in rewarding the CEO with a handsome bonus which he can invest in the stockmarket through some nice tax-deferral plan.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
In his role as a member of the House, he has a district in his home state. But in his role as Speaker of the House, all Americans are in his district.
No, in his role as Speaker of the House, all Republican members of Congress have been added to his constituency. There are two groups that vote him in or out to one of his offices -- his district voters and the members of his caucus in Congress.
--Tom Clune
[ 28. July 2011, 12:13: Message edited by: tclune ]
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
So now all 53 Senate Democrats have sent Boehner a letter saying they will not vote for his bill.
Solution: amend the bill to include a repeal of Obamacare. Have the House pass the bill then take a three week vacation.
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
Here's a fun interactive graphic:
Raising the roof: The uphill climb of the U.S. debt limit
Seems to me the worst thing one could say about Obama's financial management is that he's right in the pack with Republican Presidents from Reagan onwards. What's the opposite of a RINO? DINO? OliviaG
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
So now all 53 Senate Democrats have sent Boehner a letter saying they will not vote for his bill.
Solution: amend the bill to include a repeal of Obamacare. Have the House pass the bill then take a three week vacation.
Suppose New York repealed its legislation requiring everyone who drives to have auto insurance? It's the exact same idea.
Good luck if you crash your car.
Second, I am astounded that you overlooked Article I, Section 5, Clause 3 of the US Constitution which status thus (and has done so since 1787): "Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting."
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Suppose New York repealed its legislation requiring everyone who drives to have auto insurance? It's the exact same idea.
Good luck if you crash your car.
Huh? Not the same at all. If the debt ceiling isn't raised, the world doesn't come to an end. Obama will have to figure out what to pay, but life will go on.
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
If the debt ceiling isn't raised, the world doesn't come to an end. Obama will have to figure out what to pay, but life will go on.
But that is the most powerful argument for why Obama should just tell the Treasury to ignore the debt limit -- the executive branch will have to ignore some legislation passed by Congress no matter what it does. Congress is the one and only branch that can pass spending bills, and all the debt that they are now threatening to refuse to pay was run up by their legislation.
Given the need to ignore something that Congress has legislated, the most direct and clean thing is to ignore the debt ceiling. It has the further advantages of avoiding an economic meltdown and upholding the Constitution's mandate to ensure the full faith and credit of the United States.
I still expect that Obama will give such a directive if Congress continues to try to weasel out of taking responsibility for the debt it has incurred.
--Tom Clune
[ 28. July 2011, 23:06: Message edited by: tclune ]
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
I still expect that Obama will give such a directive if Congress continues to try to weasel out of taking responsibility for the debt it has incurred.
Oh, I hope so. But I don't think he will. One of his spokespersons was on NPR earlier this week, talking about how Obama would in no wise usurp Congress's powers and responsibilities.
Of course, if Congress abdicates, maybe it's not usurpation. But saying he would not be a usurper seemed to me to be pretty strong language, if he was even thinking about a 14th Amendment power play.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
