# You had one job congress.



## CannonFodder (Oct 1, 2013)

(Well not really, but it wouldn't have worked with this)
After a failed GOP revolt against boehner it's official.  As of 12:01 today non-essential governmental employees are furloughed and if work for the government and you want your paycheck tough shit cause congress was acting like a bunch of spoiled children.

Not much else other than, ". . . shit"


How long do you think think this is going to last and are you effected by it?


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Oct 1, 2013)

This isn't the first time its happened and it won't be the last. It's just more political dick waving, nothing really out of the ordinary really outside a small segment of the workforce getting screwed for at most like a week or so.


----------



## Inciatus (Oct 1, 2013)

Oh no, you mean the same thing that has occurred several times before, which we survived just fine, is happening again? The horror!


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 1, 2013)

PastryOfApathy said:


> This isn't the first time its happened and it won't be the last. It's just more political dick waving, nothing really out of the ordinary really outside a small segment of the workforce getting screwed for at most like a week or so.


If it's like a week or so that's no big deal, but considering boehner has the largest hate boehner against obama do you really think he's going to let his hate boehner go soft anytime soon?


----------



## Inciatus (Oct 1, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> If it's like a week or so that's no big deal, but considering boehner has the largest hate boehner against obama do you really think he's going to let his hate boehner go soft anytime soon?


You're puns would work better if his name was pronounced differently.


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Oct 1, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> If it's like a week or so that's no big deal, but considering boehner has the largest hate boehner against obama do you really think he's going to let his hate boehner go soft anytime soon?



Yes actually. Politicians surprisingly aren't idiots and aren't immune to public and internal pressure. One (or both) sides will eventually cave in and will make some kind of half-assed compromise that will ensure this same shit happens again later down the line while we all forget this ever happened because ultimately it didn't mean anything.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 1, 2013)

PastryOfApathy said:


> Yes actually. Politicians surprisingly aren't idiots and aren't immune to public and internal pressure. One (or both) sides will eventually cave in and will make some kind of half-assed compromise that will ensure this same shit happens again later down the line while we all forget this ever happened because ultimately it didn't mean anything.


It's going to happen eventually, but you're forgetting that the tea party is in control of the republican party at the moment.  The question is how long until then?


----------



## Willow (Oct 1, 2013)

I can't really see it lasting long to be honest. And as far as I know, this won't affect me job wise either since I don't work for the government. 

However, the fact that they still get paid despite all this is dumb as hell. Why was this even an issue again? I know Obamacare was part of it but there was something else too wasn't there?


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Oct 1, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> It's going to happen eventually, but you're forgetting that *the tea party is in control of the republican party at the moment.*  The question is how long until then?



Yeah, no. Maybe two years ago but most of "tea party candidates" brought into office due to the Tea Party boom are gone and it's really just the usual suspects nowadays. Even then it'll be like a week at most, mark my words.


----------



## Kitsune Cross (Oct 1, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> (Well not really, but it wouldn't have worked with this)
> After a failed GOP revolt against boehner it's official.  As of 12:01 today non-essential governmental employees are _*furloughed*_ and if work for the government and you want your paycheck tough shit cause congress was acting like a bunch of spoiled children.
> 
> Not much else other than, ". . . shit"
> ...



Sorry all I could think after that, is that bunch of furries took over the goverment, and about how much we are all doomed


----------



## Dire Newt (Oct 1, 2013)

AMERICA! \o/

Hopefully this won't last long and Congress can go back to being their normal, incompetent selves.


----------



## Lexicom (Oct 1, 2013)

I read up on this subject, and it isn't gonna affect me. 

Yay.


----------



## Aetius (Oct 1, 2013)

PastryOfApathy said:


> This isn't the first time its happened and it won't be the last. It's just more political dick waving, nothing really out of the ordinary really outside a small segment of the workforce getting screwed for at most like a week or so.




Just like how there was a government shutdown almost every year in the 80s.


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 1, 2013)

PastryOfApathy said:


> This isn't the first time its happened and it won't be the last. It's just more political dick waving, nothing really out of the ordinary really outside a small segment of the workforce getting screwed for at most like a week or so.



This is of course assuming that it only lasts a week. If it lasts longer... who can say what happens.

Well done USA, you've now got a political environment that not only regularly shoots itself in the foot, it's now fumbling for the semi-auto switch so it can do shoot itself in the foot more effectively. <slow clap>

It makes me glad that I live in a Westminster Parliamentary system of government where if the governing parties can't get enough votes to pass normal spending bills, fresh elections are automatically called... maybe the US should have something like this?


----------



## Aetius (Oct 1, 2013)

Mayfurr said:


> Well done USA, you've now got a political environment that not only regularly shoots itself in the foot, it's now fumbling for the semi-auto switch so it can do shoot itself in the foot more effectively. <slow clap>
> 
> It makes me glad that I live in a Westminster Parliamentary system of government where if the governing parties can't get enough votes to pass normal spending bills, fresh elections are automatically called... *maybe the US should have something like this?*



Please no, we already get spammed with too many election ads as is.


----------



## DarrylWolf (Oct 1, 2013)

I wonder if the government fails to provide services that we as taxpayers pay, for even one day, do we get a 365th portion of the taxes for each day this shutdown continues?


----------



## Distorted (Oct 1, 2013)

I get migraines looking at the crap that Congress pulls. Maybe they've been in their seats too long or something. What's worse is that people are losing money over this. Not them of course, but the folks that work for the government (the non-essential ones).


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 1, 2013)

Serbia Strong said:


> Please no, we already get spammed with too many election ads as is.



Good point. The US already appears to be in "election mode" most of the time anyway. You poor bastards :-(



Distorted said:


> I get migraines looking at the crap that Congress pulls. Maybe they've been in their seats too long or something. What's worse is that people are losing money over this. Not them of course, but the folks that work for the government (the non-essential ones).



I see that Congress have classed themselves as "essential", so despite not being able to organise a piss-up in a brewery, collectively playing "chicken" with the world's most influential economy, and destabilising the government of a powerful nuclear-armed state to the point where said government is getting as effective as that of _Somalia_ these fuckwits will continue to get paid while nearly a million US government workers who actually DO perform their jobs properly will lose pay through no fault of their own.


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Oct 1, 2013)

hey at least the military gets paid. Yay us. We WONT starve


----------



## Lobar (Oct 1, 2013)

Fuck, you know, I had pretty much no respect for the Republican party as it was, but I still didn't think they were insane enough to go through with it.  They're actually shutting down the government literally because Obama won't scrap his entire hallmark legislative achievement just to get Congress to do their damn jobs and keep the lights on.  There is no semblance of reason here.  The GOP is nothing more than a rabid dog now, and it needs to be put down next election.



PastryOfApathy said:


> Yeah, no. Maybe two years ago but most of "tea party candidates" brought into office due to the Tea Party boom are gone and it's really just the usual suspects nowadays. Even then it'll be like a week at most, mark my words.



Uh, who exactly do you think was responsible for this clusterfuck?  It wasn't the old guard GOP, they know they have to keep the works going to keep the money flowing to the rich.  The markets will tank tomorrow (buy while it's all on sale, folks! :V).


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 1, 2013)

Lobar said:


> Fuck, you know, I had pretty much no respect for the Republican party as it was, but I still didn't think they were insane enough to go through with it.  They're actually shutting down the government literally because Obama won't scrap his entire hallmark legislative achievement just to get Congress to do their damn jobs and keep the lights on.  There is no semblance of reason here.  The GOP is nothing more than a rabid dog now, and it needs to be put down next election.


They probably are going to be put down in the 2014 election cause they're bearing the brunt of the blame and the longer it lasts the worse it will be for them in 2014.  Say hello to 2006 democratic surge again.


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 1, 2013)

Lobar said:


> Fuck, you know, I had pretty much no respect for the Republican party as it was, but I still didn't think they were insane enough to go through with it.  They're actually shutting down the government literally because Obama won't scrap his entire hallmark legislative achievement just to get Congress to do their damn jobs and keep the lights on.  There is no semblance of reason here.  The GOP is nothing more than a rabid dog now, and it needs to be put down next election.



Would effectively holding the US government to ransom and effectively trying to overturn the last elections class the GOP (or at least the foaming-at-the-mouth Tea Party-ists) as "terrorists"?


----------



## Wither (Oct 1, 2013)

My grandmother retired from her job some 2 months ago. She would have been affected maybe possibly. Or. Yeah? 

I do believe my lovely mother dearest is being affected but I haven't talked to her in a while. I'm too lazy to call her.. and I'm typing this on a phone.

I personally will never work directly for the government. Fuck that. 
That is, if I don't fuck up royally somewhere and settle in for the military. Even then they're not affected.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 1, 2013)

Mayfurr said:


> Would effectively holding the US government to ransom and effectively trying to overturn the last elections class the GOP (or at least the foaming-at-the-mouth Tea Party-ists) as "terrorists"?



Closer to the mark than you realize.  The reason the teabaggers have managed to grab the reins of the GOP is that they've drummed up serious primary challenges to much of the old guard, making them fear for their seats if they don't toe the line with the crazies.

This is seriously the world we live in now, where Senators like McConnell and Graham have sub-50% approval ratings from within their own party and are fearing primary challenges _from people even further to the right_.


----------



## Wither (Oct 1, 2013)

Kitsune Cross said:


> Sorry all I could think after that, is that bunch of furries took over the goverment, and about how much we are all doomed



This, 
This sounds amazing. 
Sure, our country would go to shit, but everything would revolve around anthropomorphs and sex. It'd be entertaining to watch the United States burn in the hands of furfags. Cannibalism would be legal, people would blow pressurized air into their anus thinking they'd expand but only ending rupturing something. Fucking everyone would be a slut. Oh my it's so awfully great.


----------



## BRN (Oct 1, 2013)

Good morning from the UK!

Oh.

Oh, I guess this happened.  
[yt]fJrGo92Qwk0[/yt]


----------



## CaptainCool (Oct 1, 2013)

Really? Their hissy fit over "Obamacare" is really worth putting government funded medical research on hold, among other important things? >__>
Not to mention that proper healthcare in itself is incredibly important! It still baffles me how you can be against people getting proper healthcare!


----------



## Fernin (Oct 1, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> Really? Their hissy fit over "Obamacare" is really worth putting government funded medical research on hold, among other important things? >__>
> Not to mention that proper healthcare in itself is incredibly important! It still baffles me how you can be against people getting proper healthcare!



Because the horrible sub $150 a year average tax they'll suffer if they DON'T have health care will destroy their lives. Or something like that.

To be frank, Obamacare is a good idea conceptually, but there's some really ugly ass backwards things within the legislation itself that should not be allowed to pass. But that's a whole 'nother discussion.

As for the GOP, the party largely as a whole has taken up a seat next to religion in the list of things I'd like to utterly destroy. Unlike religion however there's a small chance I might get to see the shit cake portions of the GOP obliterated within my life time. Because after all this shit, there's no way a republican is going to get the presidency after Obama, and having another democrat in the office with likely send these fuckers into even more or a rage than they're in now. At which, well, how knows, but whatever happens it'll be ugly and such a disgrace the GOP will hopefully be torn apart. 

If course then after that we need to do something about the similar segment of the democratic party, but at the present they're no where near the danger the GOP poses to this nation. So one thing at a time.


----------



## CaptainCool (Oct 1, 2013)

Fernin said:


> Because the horrible sub $150 a year average tax they'll suffer if they DON'T have health care will destroy their lives. Or something like that.
> 
> To be frank, Obamacare is a good idea conceptually, but there's some really ugly ass backwards things within the legislation itself that should not be allowed to pass. But that's a whole 'nother discussion.
> 
> ...



I don't get why they don't just copy our healthcare system. You choose an insurance company that you want, they all cost roughly 15.5% of your monthly loan and in return you don't have to worry about being sick ever again. Done.
Our system is actually so effective that they had to remove the 10â‚¬ fee you had to pay when going to a doctor because the insurance companies were forking in too much money! XD

I suppose the repooblicans are opposing a system like that because it involves everyone throwing money into one big pot and if you need medical aid you get access to that money through healthcare services. BECAUSE THAT IS TOTALLY COMMUNISM AND WE CLEARLY CAN'T HAVE THAT EVEN THOUGH OTHER COUNTRIES THAT HAVE FAR LESS HEALTH PROBLEMS HAD SYSTEMS LIKE THAT FOR YEARS :V


----------



## Ozriel (Oct 1, 2013)

dinosaurdammit said:


> hey at least the military gets paid. Yay us. We WONT starve



But your husband's paycheck may be late.


----------



## CaptainCool (Oct 1, 2013)

Ozriel said:


> But your husband's paycheck may be late.



Yeah, a little late but they did agree to pay military personnel.

Experts also said that the shutdown is gonna last at least for a week. I think it's incredible (as in incredibly stupid) that they decided to risk pushing the US right back into recession again with a freaking shutdown over a freaking healthcare bill >__>


----------



## Machine (Oct 1, 2013)

I never heard about government shutdowns until the last time it happened.

Why the fuck do people go through with this shit.


----------



## CaptainCool (Oct 1, 2013)

Machine said:


> I never heard about government shutdowns until the last time it happened.
> 
> Why the fuck do people go through with this shit.



It's a really childish way to do politics. Nothing more, nothing less.
The reps are like a child in the toys aisle at Walmart that's demanding to get that one really shitty My Little Donkey toy.


----------



## Machine (Oct 1, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> It's a really childish way to do politics. Nothing more, nothing less.
> The reps are like a child in the toys aisle at Walmart that's demanding to get that one really shitty My Little Donkey toy.


Is that what happens when you're in politics for a long time? :[


----------



## Fernin (Oct 1, 2013)

Machine said:


> Is that what happens when you're in politics for a long time? :[



This is what happens when you vote for the guy with the fanciest commercials instead of the guy with the best ideas.

Incidentally this whole debacle is also a good argument to the notion that all three branches at the top need short, limited terms. The founding fathers never intended people to hold these offices for this long, or gain as much power as they have.


----------



## Aleu (Oct 1, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> Not to mention that proper healthcare in itself is incredibly important! It still baffles me how you can be against people getting proper healthcare!



I hate how Europeans believe that this means "proper" healthcare. This isn't about getting healthcare. It's literally being forced to buy insurance and being fined if we don't.

This has nothing to do with healthcare.


----------



## BRN (Oct 1, 2013)

Aleu said:


> I hate how Europeans believe that this means "proper" healthcare. This isn't about getting healthcare. It's literally being forced to buy insurance and being fined if we don't.
> 
> This has nothing to do with healthcare.



I guess our perspective is that you _do_ have privatised, competitive healthcare - you know, "proper" healthcare - and also, many of us have stories of friends in America who have avoided hospitals despite bad health, or who have been to hospitals for security and been slammed with bills. 

We pay into tax-funds that fund national healthcare; so our healthcare isn't free, per se, *but it's there with no consequences* when we need it.

Same with Canada - you pay for your healthcare, but your insurance pays you back; no consequences there.

So the idea that healthcare should be an unburdenable cost and a financial risk is just mental from most Western perspectives when you're putting your health on balance with financial security. That just simply shouldn't be a thing in a developed country.



We pay little and often, knowing that we'll get the care we need when we inevitably need it; and because we can get it when we need it, it isn't a problem to get screened, innoculated, prepared or even just to get security that nothing's wrong. Hell, I thought I fractured a leg recently; I went to the hospital; two hours later I walked out, pumped with an X-ray and after consulting with a doctor, thankfully reassured that I wouldn't damage anything if I kept on going with my life. The US misses out on that security.


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Oct 1, 2013)

Aleu said:


> I hate how Europeans believe that this means "proper" healthcare. This isn't about getting healthcare. It's literally being forced to buy insurance and being fined if we don't.
> 
> This has nothing to do with healthcare.


 How the fuck does someone get fined if they don't buy insurance? What kind of fucking country are we now? Also, I hate how Europe wants us to be like them. 


Are we all gonna let this place become a totalitarian and socially controlled nation?


----------



## Aleu (Oct 1, 2013)

SIX said:


> I guess our perspective is that you _do_ have privatised, competitive healthcare - you know, "proper" healthcare - and also, many of us have stories of friends in America who have avoided hospitals despite bad health, or who have been to hospitals for security and been slammed with bills.
> 
> We pay into tax-funds that fund national healthcare; so our healthcare isn't free, per se, *but it's there with no consequences* when we need it.
> 
> ...


I know how the European system works. I'd like us to adopt that system as it seems more efficient however we have to deal with this mess because "CAPITALISM" is apparently what people want. (And by people, i mean gubmint)
After working with insurance companies, I absolutely hate how people put so much faith in them. They don't like paying doctors and they will find any reason possible to prolong payment until it passes a certain date in which they will say "Oh, there was no settlement in x amount of days. Sorry, we can't pay now. Lol"



TheMetalVelocity said:


> How the fuck does someone get fined if they don't buy insurance? What kind of fucking country are we now? Also, I hate how europe wants us to be like them.



It's taken out of your taxes every April or whenever you decide to file them.

"Be like them" as in more efficient? Oh yes how dreadful


----------



## Lobar (Oct 1, 2013)

Just FYI on the insurance mandate, you're exempt from the penalty if the cost of insurance would still be more than 7.5% of your income.


----------



## Aleu (Oct 1, 2013)

Lobar said:


> Just FYI on the insurance mandate, you're exempt from the penalty if the cost of insurance would still be more than 7.5% of your income.



Yeah and Medicaid is there for people who are too poor to afford insurance.

Except not.

What they SAY and what they DO are two completely different things.


----------



## CaptainCool (Oct 1, 2013)

Aleu said:


> I hate how Europeans believe that this means "proper" healthcare. This isn't about getting healthcare. It's literally being forced to buy insurance and being fined if we don't.
> 
> This has nothing to do with healthcare.



Fees for not having health insurance does seem excessive to me as well. However, there are TONS of people who do need proper insurance and some of them might need a little push to accept the new system.



Aleu said:


> I know how the European system works. I'd like us to adopt that system as it seems more efficient however we have to deal with this mess because "CAPITALISM" is apparently what people want. (And by people, i mean gubmint)
> After working with insurance companies, I absolutely hate how people put so much faith in them. They don't like paying doctors and they will find any reason possible to prolong payment until it passes a certain date in which they will say "Oh, there was no settlement in x amount of days. Sorry, we can't pay now. Lol"
> 
> 
> ...



What Obama wants isn't perfect but at least it's a start.
Here in Germany these insurance companies are a pain to deal with as well some times, but usually that only true for the _private_ ones. The statutory health insurance companies have to play by the law, so there isn't really much of a hassle there.

When my family switched to a private health insurance company the problems started though. My mom needed surgery for her teeth, they got a 6000â‚¬ bill for that.
The insurance company refused to pay for it. Why? Because my parents just became members and no one told them that teeth related issues aren't covered until their second year with them. They actually told them that everything would be covered in the first year!


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Oct 1, 2013)

I hope a libertarian wins the next election.


----------



## Aleu (Oct 1, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> Fees for not having health insurance does seem excessive to me as well. However, there are TONS of people who do need proper insurance and some of them might need a little push to accept the new system.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


See that's why I hate insurance companies. They're pretty much all like that. They will take the money but not pay out and lie through their teeth about coverage. It's ridiculous.



TheMetalVelocity said:


> I hope a libertarian wins the next election.


For our country's sake, i hope NOT.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 1, 2013)

TheMetalVelocity said:


> I hope a libertarian wins the next election.



Yeah that's just what we need, _more_ guys that think we can just implode the foundations of government and the Invisible Hand will guide the pieces to fall just right so that the perfect Free Market will instantly rocket us all into prosperity instead of Bartertown.


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Oct 1, 2013)

I hope I get a job soon that I like. I don't wanna be on Obamacare.





Lobar said:


> Yeah that's just what we need, _more_ guys that think we can just implode the foundations of government and the Invisible Hand will guide the pieces to fall just right so that the perfect Free Market will instantly rocket us all into prosperity instead of Bartertown.


 Don't want the left to take away more of my freedom little by little just to fix every problem until we as people have no freedom at all, the government being the most important thing in life, and all of the citizens treated like slaves. What I am basically saying is, are we suppose to progress and become a police state and be treated like shit?


----------



## Ozriel (Oct 1, 2013)

TheMetalVelocity said:


> I hope I get a job soon that I like. I don't wanna be on Obamacare.



I received an email from work that states if you are unemployed or make under 3K a year, you  may be eligible for voucher.

Depending on who you go with, getting insurance isn't that bad but you have to be wary of companies doing the panic route like Blue Cross, Blue shield to take advantage of the obamacare "Scare" by hiking policy prices, adding things that you do not need to the plan, and doubling deductibles.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 1, 2013)

TheMetalVelocity said:


> Don't want the left to take away more of my freedoms little by little.



MUH FREEDOMS

Because corporate coercion into accepting grossly unfair labor standards isn't a greater curtailment of your freedom or anything.


----------



## Aleu (Oct 1, 2013)

I always have to laugh when someone bitches about the "left" is "stealing freedoms" when the left more often than not promotes freedom.


----------



## Fernin (Oct 1, 2013)

Aleu said:


> I always have to laugh when someone bitches about the "left" is "stealing freedoms" when the left more often than not promotes freedom.



Both sides are going after people's freedoms, though they have different target priorities. Republicans want me to be a brain washed religious zealot with no education, democrats want my guns and powerful cars, and both of them want my money. All of it.

AND THEY CAN ALL GO TO HELL! >.<


----------



## Nikolinni (Oct 1, 2013)

Fernin said:


> Both sides are going after people's freedoms, though they have different target priorities. Republicans want me to be a brain washed religious zealot with no education, democrats want my guns and powerful cars, and both of them want my money. All of it.
> 
> AND THEY CAN ALL GO TO HELL! >.<



Brainwashed religious zealots? So they're trying to turn us into the Imperium of Man then? I mean granted the Space Marines ARE badass, but that just doesn't seem like the kinda society I'd wanna live in. 

Though yeah, I agree. Both sides are kinda just going after different things. I mean speaking of guns, didn't Obama say he wanted to renew the push for more gun control? 

Great, so now I have to educate people on what the difference between an automatic assault rifle and semi auto rifle is AGAIN. And talk about how I'd just learn how to use a bolt-action/lever action AGAIN.


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Oct 1, 2013)

Fernin said:


> Both sides are going after people's freedoms, though they have different target priorities. Republicans want me to be a brain washed religious zealot with no education, democrats want my guns and powerful cars, and both of them want my money. All of it.
> 
> AND THEY CAN ALL GO TO HELL! >.<


 I hate how the democrats act like it's the republicans who only want to control people, yet they want us to be a police state. It doesn't matter if they cause another problem as long as it fixes one.


----------



## CaptainCool (Oct 1, 2013)

Aleu said:


> See that's why I hate insurance companies. They're pretty much all like that. They will take the money but not pay out and lie through their teeth about coverage. It's ridiculous.



Yeah, but since the statutory health insurance companies are tied to harsher regulations you usually don't have any problems with them at all. As long as you have something that they cover (willingly breaking your leg to get out of work for a few weeks won't get you full funding for example XD), which is almost everything, you have no problems with them at all. You don't even have to handle any paperwork, it's all done for you by the hospital or your doctor.


----------



## Fernin (Oct 1, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> Brainwashed religious zealots? So they're trying to turn us into the Imperium of Man then? I mean granted the Space Marines ARE badass, but that just doesn't seem like the kinda society I'd wanna live in.
> 
> Though yeah, I agree. Both sides are kinda just going after different things. I mean speaking of guns, didn't Obama say he wanted to renew the push for more gun control?
> 
> Great, so now I have to educate people on what the difference between an automatic assault rifle and semi auto rifle is AGAIN. And talk about how I'd just learn how to use a bolt-action/lever action AGAIN.



It's simple. There is one, singular thing that makes an 'assault' rifle and 'assault rifle. The discharge of more than one round per pull of the trigger. And that's it. No stock, sight, magazine, foregrip or any other accessory can make a semi auto an assault rifle because it will still never have that one function that makes an assault rifle what it is.

Also, as for the Imperium, there's a funny parallel there with the fact that if the man on the golden toilet saw what the Imperium had become, he'd flip his shit. Just as the founding fathers would if they saw America today since in both cases the nation/empire in question became exactly what their founders did NOT want them to become. XD


----------



## Ozriel (Oct 1, 2013)

TheMetalVelocity said:


> I hate how the democrats act like it's the republicans who only want to control people, yet they want us to be a police state. It doesn't matter if they cause another problem as long as it fixes one.



In all honesty, the Democrats are more like "For the people" and do things that are of interest for the people, both positive and negative.

Republicans want to make sure that everything is balanced with both freedoms and "Conserve" spending on things deemed unnecessary, while trying to preserve the constitution in both positive and negative aspects.


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 1, 2013)

TheMetalVelocity said:


> Are we all gonna let this place become a totalitarian and socially controlled nation?



So implementing even a half-arsed form of healthcare that is supposed to facilitate ordinary US citizens to have access to the healthcare they need without bankrupting themselves _is a step on the road to "totalitarianism"_?!?!?!?!?????

Oh dear, how terrible it is that a government actually tries to HELP its citizens. Boo hoo hoo. It's precisely that form of absolutist ideological thinking that got your utterly dysfunctional government into this mess in the first place! 

'Course, out of all the possible approaches for some sort of universal healthcare system the US has to choose the one that's most fucked up - and THAT'S because the US is so welded to big business interests even a German-style system like CC describes is rejected as _"just not capitalist enough"_ on ideological grounds. And the irony is of course that "Obamacare" is basically what _Republicans_ proposed as an alternative to the healthcare plans that _Clinton_ planned in the 1990s, but obviously Republican policies are TEH EVILZ if a Democrat implements them. :roll:


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Oct 1, 2013)

Funny thing about gun control.

Obama commissioned a study on how gun ownership effects crime rates as a whole, and the result bitch-slapped him right in the face.

Yet he's still pushing for control.


----------



## Fallowfox (Oct 1, 2013)

Gibby said:


> Funny thing about gun control.
> 
> Obama commissioned a study on how gun ownership effects crime rates as a whole, and the result bitch-slapped him right in the face.
> 
> Yet he's still pushing for control.




By law he isn't allowed to use data from any studies about guns in order to recommend gun control and there is only $10m federal funding for the issue, which is a gnat's fart. 

It's almost good enough to feature in biased-science monthly, but I'm sure complaining that the research is only legally allowed to support guns would be illegal too.


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 1, 2013)

And just to show how utterly _fucked up_ the whole US healthcare debate is, it appears that when Americans are asked to choose between "Obamacare" and the "Affordable Care Act", they choose the latter *despite both being the same thing.*



> In his latest stunt, Kimmel sent his "Lie Witness News" camera crew to Hollywood Boulevard to ask people if they were for Obamacare or the Affordable Care Act.
> 
> "As you may know, Obamacare is a nickname for the Affordable Care Act, they're the same thing," Kimmel explained to viewers. "But lo and behold we found people who didn't know that - but that didn't stop them from weighing in on it."
> 
> Responses were overwhelmingly in support of the Affordable Care Act, and against Obamacare.



/facepalm


----------



## Dire Newt (Oct 1, 2013)

Not all that surprising. People like to mindlessly hop aboard hate trains because it's easy and they don't have to learn and form opinions of their own.


----------



## Inciatus (Oct 1, 2013)

Mayfurr said:


> And just to show how utterly _fucked up_ the whole US healthcare debate is, it appears that when Americans are asked to choose between "Obamacare" and the "Affordable Care Act", they choose the latter *despite both being the same thing.*
> 
> 
> 
> /facepalm


Most of those shows also search out for people like that who don't have a single clue and people who do are usually edited out. What fun would people who weren't cabbages be?


----------



## Reaginicwolf (Oct 1, 2013)

the moment congress did this i was like...all fuck, the need to remember that their suppose to be doing whats right for the nation not themselves. i can tell its a downward spiral from here first government employees are effected then everyone else


----------



## Troj (Oct 1, 2013)

Mayfurr said:


> And the irony is of course that "Obamacare" is basically what _Republicans_ proposed as an alternative to the healthcare plans that _Clinton_ planned in the 1990s, but obviously Republican policies are TEH EVILZ if a Democrat implements them. :roll:



Bill Maher refers to this maneuver as the "Kenyan boomerang," or "blacktracking."

If that evil Muslim atheist Socialist n....n....n....ne'er-do-well is for it, it MUST BE BAD!


----------



## Ikrit (Oct 1, 2013)

that health care looks pretty good when you are dying of an illness you can't afford to cure


----------



## CaptainCool (Oct 1, 2013)

Ikrit said:


> that health care looks pretty good when you are dying of an illness you can't afford to cure



Compared to going bankrupt or dying because your teeth need proper treatment then it certainly does look pretty good, don't it? XD
BUT NOPE! The demos want it so the repooblaicans can't have it. So let's just block the entire fucking government and dump the whole country right back into recession of worse comes to worst! YUP! GOOD PLAN!

Oh fuck, can you imagine how much Romney would have fucked up the US if he had been elected and the reps would be acting like they are acting now? XD


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 1, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> BUT NOPE! The demos want it so the repooblaicans can't have it. So let's just block the entire fucking government and dump the whole country right back into recession of worse comes to worst! YUP! GOOD PLAN!



The US has basically shown itself right now to be at its core a "failed state" with no credible functioning government. A failed state with a massive military and nuclear weapons.

And THIS is the self-proclaimed "leader of the 'free world'"? Fuck that.


----------



## Reaginicwolf (Oct 1, 2013)

Mayfurr said:


> The US has basically shown itself right now to be at its core a "failed state" with no credible functioning government. A failed state with a massive military and nuclear weapons.
> 
> And THIS is the self-proclaimed "leader of the 'free world'"? Fuck that.


its sad anit it, when i was younger i was raise to believe that the U.S was the greatest, but as i grew older and my mind more open i see how messed up the government is.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Oct 1, 2013)

Reaginicwolf said:


> its sad anit it, when i was younger i was raise to believe that the U.S was the greatest, but as i grew older and my mind more open i see how messed up the government is.



I think this applies to all countries, really.


----------



## Cynicism (Oct 1, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> Oh fuck, can you imagine how much Romney would have fucked up the US if he had been elected and the reps would be acting like they are acting now? XD



Please God, no.


----------



## Fernin (Oct 1, 2013)

Gibby said:


> I think this applies to all countries, really.



Impossible! Don't you know! Every other nation is a utopian paradise compared to the evil United States, and its evil military that sends thousands of American soldiers to die for other nations, its evil world industry supporting consumer market, and its evil nuclear weapons each lovingly inscribed with the names of your friends and families babies and pet dogs! Don't you know the governments of every other nation is perfectly functional and free of hypocrisy, corruption, and manipulative ne'er do wells! Only the US could harbor such vileness wickedness! It couldn't have ANYTHING to do with people wanting to ignore their own government's doing the same things and instead spending all their time blaming the US because since falling on hard times after being such a crushingly successful nation makes it an easy target for the spiteful! Never! Such a notion would be absurd! ABSURD I SAY! *cackles and runs about in circles waving various " Nation 'X' is better than the US!" and "Hahah America sucks and I'm happy about it!" flags*


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Oct 1, 2013)

Fernin said:


> Impossible! Don't you know! Every other nation is a utopian paradise compared to the evil United States, and its evil military that sends thousands of American soldiers to die for other nations, its evil world industry supporting consumer market, and its evil nuclear weapons each lovingly inscribed with the names of your friends and families babies and pet dogs! Don't you know the governments of every other nation is perfectly functional and free of hypocrisy, corruption, and manipulative ne'er do wells! Only the US could harbor such vileness wickedness! It couldn't have ANYTHING to do with people wanting to ignore their own government's doing the same things and instead spending all their time blaming the US because since falling on hard times after being such a crushingly successful nation makes it an easy target for the spiteful! Never! Such a notion would be absurd! ABSURD I SAY! *cackles and runs about in circles waving various " Nation 'X' is better than the US!" and "Hahah America sucks and I'm happy about it!" flags*



...I'm talking about how most children are raised believing their birth country to be the best there is.


----------



## Inciatus (Oct 1, 2013)

Gibby said:


> ...I'm talking about how most children are raised believing their birth country to be the best there is.


Well even so both would seem to still apply.


----------



## Fernin (Oct 1, 2013)

Gibby said:


> ...I'm talking about how most children are raised believing their birth country to be the best there is.



I know. I'm just channeling Mayfurr a bit, trying it on for size. You know I've actually tried to imagine him spending a moment without fuming in rage about a nation he doesn't live in. I find I can't do it. X3


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Oct 1, 2013)

Fernin said:


> I know. I'm just channeling Mayfurr a bit, trying it on for size. You know I've actually tried to imagine him spending a moment without fuming in rage about a nation he doesn't live in. I find I can't do it. X3



whoopsie-daisy, muh bad.

In all honesty I can't say I'm a fan of the USA for many many reasons but I do think that the dislike for the USA is a bit... exaggerated. There's a lot of good to come out from there, and everyone's shit stinks anyway.


----------



## Fernin (Oct 1, 2013)

Gibby said:


> whoopsie-daisy, muh bad.
> 
> In all honesty I can't say I'm a fan of the USA for many many reasons but I do think that the dislike for the USA is a bit... exaggerated. There's a lot of good to come out from there, and everyone's shit stinks anyway.



Believe me, I live here so I know how it is right at the source. XD

I love my nation to death. Hell I'd die for it if there was genuinely the need. But holy fucking damn do I HATE my government right now. Alot of people like to forget the two aren't the same thing.


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 1, 2013)

Fernin said:


> I know. I'm just channeling Mayfurr a bit, trying it on for size. You know I've actually tried to imagine him spending a moment without fuming in rage about a nation he doesn't live in. I find I can't do it. X3



God, you must be sooo sensitive if you think what I've posted is "fuming with rage". It's more like "facepalming in despair". Especially given that the only other Western nations who have had government shutdowns (like Greece) have had it forced on them by external factors like being stony broke, instead of having it as a "legitimate" political bargaining process like the US does. It's not MY fault your elected representatives are turning your country into an international laughing-stock.

But hey, don't let anything get in the way of your martyrdom complex


----------



## AlexInsane (Oct 1, 2013)

I'll endure the shutdown by engaging in violent revenge-fantasies about some Duke Nukem-esque character charging into Congress and annihilating all the Republicans.

Then again, Duke probably WAS a Republican. Asshole. WHERE ARE THE DEMOCRAT SUPERHEROES?! DON'T EVEN FUCKING GET ME STARTED ON AQUAMAN, DON'T EVEN. 

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF-

Edit: I have this idea in my head for a conversation between a Democrat and a Republican:

D: But...you don't need guns. You don't. It's been proven that having guns will not make your personal safety increase. They are more a liability than a helpmate. 
R: But I do.
D: But...you DON'T.
R: But...I DOES.
D: Okay, you're gonna have to meet me halfway here. Can you see my mouth? Can you hear the fucking words coming out of it? Can you?
R: Yes.
D: Okay then, so you UNDERSTAND ME when I say that YOU DON'T NEED GUNS TO LIVE.
R: YES I DOES.
D: If you say that again I swear to God you'll REALLY have a need for a gun because I'm going to strangle you with this environmentally-friendly hemp rope. 
R: *derp*
D: ...you know what, you're so stupid it would be like drowning a puppy. I'll do the right thing here and hang myself instead. Goodbye, cruel world. I won't miss you.


----------



## Willow (Oct 1, 2013)

TheMetalVelocity said:


> Also, I hate how Europe wants us to be like them.


Well if their system seems to work better than ours then I see no reason why this is such a bad idea. Because from what I understand, not having proper insurance costs the state more money. Or something along those lines. 

Someone can correct me though if that's not really the case. 



> Are we all gonna let this place become a totalitarian and socially controlled nation?


I..don't think you know what that actually implies.


----------



## Fernin (Oct 1, 2013)

Mayfurr said:


> God, you must be sooo sensitive if you think what I've posted is "fuming with rage". It's more like "facepalming in despair". Especially given that the only other Western nations who have had government shutdowns (like Greece) have had it forced on them by external factors like being stony broke, instead of having it as a "legitimate" political bargaining process like the US does. It's not MY fault your elected representatives are turning your country into an international laughing-stock.
> 
> But hey, don't let anything get in the way of your martyrdom complex



Who said anything about martyrdom. I ain't dying for this government. XD

And on a somewhat on topic note, our problems aren't entirely internal, we had plenty of help from outside the country. Most of Asia, the Middle East and a few European interests had their hands in that pot just as much as some of the politicians and the like inside the nation.


----------



## Digitalpotato (Oct 1, 2013)

Someone should walk up to Congress, put on a Donald Trump wig, and say this


----------



## CrazyLee (Oct 1, 2013)

TheMetalVelocity said:


> I hate how the democrats act like it's the republicans who only want to control people, yet they want us to be a police state. It doesn't matter if they cause another problem as long as it fixes one.



Oh really?
It seems to me that it was both Republicans and Democrats who were supporting the NSA spy programs.
And mostly Republicans who were behind the War on Drugs, mandatory sentences, tough-on-crime legislation, and similar things that have caused the militarization of the police forces in the US.


On a related note, I googled Ted Cruz, and the first picture that popped up was this one.





It looks like he's either trying to seduce me, or undress me with his eyes. I'm scared either way.


Oh, and for those who don't get it, you can still keep your same insurance if you want after Obamacare. Plus, Obamacare is an exchange for PRIVATE insurance companies.


----------



## DarkShadow777 (Oct 1, 2013)

Fernin said:


> Believe me, I live here so I know how it is right at the source. XD
> 
> I love my nation to death. Hell I'd die for it if there was genuinely the need. But holy fucking damn do I HATE my government right now. *Alot of people like to forget the two aren't the same thing.*



You know? it's sad that this is so true, I mean, I'm not american nor live there, and I see how stupid your government can be... just as mine. But what I will never forget is that american citizens are just hostages of this birds of prey, just looking for their own interests instead of thinking on their people.

Americans (or US citizens or whatever you like to say) were just fooled by nice promotional campaigns, and then betrayed by people supposed to take care of the country and people's interests. For me, you are not evil, your government IS, actually, I got nice friends from USA, they are cool and have no fault of this government failures.

At least, Obama can say a complete speech without doing mistakes, In where I live, we got such a stupid ignorant cooze that can't saw two words without fucking up, and all his den is almost the same stupidity level... we are leaded by a bunch of fucking idiots (that, for the worse, even couldn't win an election without manipulating results)...

I really hope your isses are fixed soon, americans don't deserve a government of mentally uncapable cunts that only think on their political carreers, that and how to steal taxes from people and thinking the rest of the world (even allies) keep some sort of terrorist organization to blow up the country...


----------



## Lobar (Oct 1, 2013)

AlexInsane said:


> WHERE ARE THE DEMOCRAT SUPERHEROES?! DON'T EVEN FUCKING GET ME STARTED ON AQUAMAN, DON'T EVEN.



my hero


----------



## Aleu (Oct 1, 2013)

Ikrit said:


> that health care looks pretty good when you are dying of an illness you can't afford to cure



Ugh
Hospitals will still treat people who are dying. If you refuse to go to the hospital when you're dying just because of bills, you might as well just kill yourself because of bills.


----------



## Fernin (Oct 1, 2013)

DarkShadow777 said:


> You know? it's sad that this is so true, I mean, I'm not american nor live there, and I see how stupid your government can be... just as mine. But what I will never forget is that american citizens are just hostages of this birds of prey, just looking for their own interests instead of thinking on their people.
> 
> Americans (or US citizens or whatever you like to say) were just fooled by nice promotional campaigns, and then betrayed by people supposed to take care of the country and people's interests. For me, you are not evil, your government IS, actually, I got nice friends from USA, they are cool and have no fault of this government failures.
> 
> ...



Ladies and mentlegen, I give you DarkShadow777! The only reasonable m'fucker on this entire forum!


----------



## AlexInsane (Oct 1, 2013)

Lobar said:


> my hero



What in the actual hell.

What.

WHAT.


----------



## Attaman (Oct 1, 2013)

How people can look at this situation and say both parties are at fault - or, worst, that the predominance of blame lay upon the Democratic members of the House and Senate - is outright baffling to me. I mean, the cognitive dissonance between reality and fantasy-land to hold such an opinion is _astounding_, the sort of thing that makes Glen Beck's shock-jock persona look like a well-grounded being.

As to my knowledge there were only two Government shutdowns in the last generation, and both were not only triggered by a certain party in particular, but both times they also failed _spectacularly_ in achieving that party's objective (See: Drumming up support). And not only should we look at Government shutdowns_, _but attempted shutdowns too (such as what has been going on repeatedly since ~2011). We literally have one side that went through over _fifty bi-partisan resolutions to push through their one major policy in recent years_ (a policy that, for some reason, is often seen as a gross abuse of power without any input or concern about other political viewpoints), and on the other a side that _has repeatedly threatened a global economic collapse that would make the Great Depression look desirable in an attempt to *reduce re-election odds*_. This isn't a case of "Well yes, Bobby stole a cookie, but Jimmy stole a cookie first". It's a case of "Well yes, Bobby held an entire bank hostage with a suitcase nuke with the demand of all the world's gold, but Jimmy once picked up a wallet on the street and didn't turn it in to the Police", with - in some cases - people looking at the above and going "Holy shit, *Jimmy* you are one sick fuck."



Gibby said:


> Funny thing about gun control.
> 
> Obama commissioned a study on how gun ownership effects crime rates as a whole, and the result bitch-slapped him right in the face.
> 
> Yet he's still pushing for control.


Note: So too, apparently, are the majority of polled Americans. Similarly, while the number of privately owned guns is going up, the number of owners is going down.

You know what this means? I'll give you a hint: When you have one side which is shrinking in population and outright refuses to make any sort of concessions whatsoever (or even go to proper talking tables), it means that you're one poor voting turnout away from suddenly winding up losing _utterly_ instead of merely losing _partially_. Concerned firearm owners are, humorously, their own worst enemy and setting themselves up to be shat on from a great height merely by being _utterly terrible_ at managing public perception and the like. 

It's somewhat similar to how, assuming Obamacare doesn't wind up being a horrid grandparent-killing mistake for the entire nation, the Republican party has essentially shot itself in the foot over it as _any_ positive results are entirely non-traceable to them. By this very same token, if any sort of action is taken by the ATF, Federal / State government, or so-on and it _doesn't_ lead to the United States becoming a puppet UN Police State, the NRA and its pocketed Senators / Representatives have basically taken their biggest weapon in their firearm locker and emptied it somewhere below their belt.


----------



## Infestissumam (Oct 2, 2013)

The gun debate always humoured me as it kind of directs attention from the real reason death per capita in America probably spiked - that reason being the War on Drugs.


----------



## Willow (Oct 2, 2013)

Infestissumam said:


> The gun debate always humoured me as it kind of directs attention from the real reason death per capita in America probably spiked - that reason being the War on Drugs.


How do you figure? This is wrong btw


----------



## Fernin (Oct 2, 2013)

Infestissumam said:


> The gun debate always humoured me as it kind of directs attention from the real reason death per capita in America probably spiked - that reason being the War on Drugs.



Holy shit, somebody actually remembers! @@ Of course, thinking about it most of the people on this forum weren't even born then. Hell I wasn't born when Nixon got that shit rolling here. Although unlike most I am at least passingly familiar with political history. X3


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Oct 2, 2013)

Why couldn't they just call it a government break instead of a shutdown? I mean we're still getting services.


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 2, 2013)

TheMetalVelocity said:


> Why couldn't they just call it a government break instead of a shutdown? I mean we're still getting services.



Tell that to the 800,000 odd Federal workers who have been told to go home on unpaid indefinite leave through no fault of their own. I'm sure they appreciate their "break". 
/facepalm

Meanwhile, here's how the US government shutdown could be reported if it were happening in another country:



> WASHINGTON, United Statesâ€”The typical signs of state failure arenâ€™t evident on the streets of this sleepy capital city. Beret-wearing colonels have not yet taken to the airwaves to declare martial law. Money-changers are not yet buying stacks of useless greenbacks on the street.
> 
> But the pleasant autumn weather disguises a government teetering on the brink. Because, at midnight Monday night, the government of this intensely proud and nationalistic people will shut down, a drastic sign of political dysfunction in this moribund republic.
> 
> ...


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Oct 2, 2013)

TheMetalVelocity said:


> Why couldn't they just call it a government break instead of a shutdown? I mean we're still getting services.



Because over-reacting to a "Goverment Break" isn't nearly as dramatic.



AlexInsane said:


> What in the actual hell.
> 
> What.
> 
> WHAT.


Go read Superman: Red Son, educate yo self.


----------



## Ikrit (Oct 2, 2013)

AlexInsane said:


> What in the actual hell.
> 
> What.
> 
> WHAT.


it was a what if comic, "what if superman landed in Russia?"


----------



## Gryphoneer (Oct 2, 2013)

TheMetalVelocity said:


> Why couldn't they just call it a government break instead of a shutdown? I mean we're still getting services.


Not if you're a kid with cancer.

Or work on a Mars mission.

But who cares about saving lives and progressing science? We still got our Xbox, Botox and Fox News, so who gives a shit about 'em congress critters?


----------



## CaptainCool (Oct 2, 2013)

Gryphoneer said:


> Not if you're a kid with cancer.
> 
> Or work on a Mars mission.
> 
> But who cares about saving lives and progressing science? We still got our Xbox, Botox and Fox News, so who gives a shit about 'em congress critters?



That is the worst part about it in my opinion... Sure, some people are not getting paid on time. Big whoop, as long as it doesn't last for a whole month they are probably gonna be fine. If they are smart they probably prepared for this.
But at a larger scale this affects SO many lives! It even puts multiple lives at risk, that's why this is unacceptable in my opinion.
They don't care about their people. They only care about screwing with the other party and waving their political boner around as much as possible!


----------



## Fallowfox (Oct 2, 2013)

I made a mistake earlier; according to newscientist the amount of funds dedicated to gun violence research is not $10m; that is the funds requested by the current administration but not yet approved. The actual funds available are orders of magnitude lower.


----------



## Cassedy (Oct 2, 2013)

It's funny how USA still has the nerve to lecture other countries about "how to free market".


----------



## BRN (Oct 2, 2013)

Not only that, but between Guantanamo's failure to close, and the revelations about PRISM, they've totally lost credibility when it comes to managing state security.

With democratic standoffs, economic crises and abuse of human rights abound, this is like a spiraling Fox Network drama.


----------



## Deo (Oct 2, 2013)

When this happened in Australia in 1975 the Queen fired all of Parliament. 

Do you think somecountry will lend us a Queen for a firing spree?


----------



## AlexInsane (Oct 2, 2013)

TheMetalVelocity said:


> Why couldn't they just call it a government break instead of a shutdown? I mean we're still getting services.



A government shutdown might not mean that the whole country is thrown into a state of utter chaos, but it's not good. Lots of things that are controlled or monitored or screened by the government (applications for various things, funding, etc) simply stop in their tracks. Some of the bureaucratic gears stop turning and it puts that much more stress on the whole machine as a result.


----------



## Wither (Oct 2, 2013)

Deo said:


> When this happened in Australia in 1975 the Queen fired all of Parliament.
> 
> Do you think somecountry will lend us a Queen for a firing spree?



This sounds great. 
England, we give up our independence, fire everyone.


----------



## Fallowfox (Oct 2, 2013)

Wither said:


> This sounds great.
> England, we give up our independence, fire everyone.



And with that, England sweeps in to reclaim her original colonies, sell Alaska to China and turn the rest into tea plantations.


----------



## Wither (Oct 2, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> And with that, England sweeps in to reclaim her original colonies, sell Alaska to China and turn the rest into tea plantations.



Sounds good to me. 
I love tea. 
Plus I'm moving to Canada soon anyways!


----------



## Lobar (Oct 2, 2013)

Deo said:


> When this happened in Australia in 1975 the Queen fired all of Parliament.
> 
> Do you think somecountry will lend us a Queen for a firing spree?



Preferably with actual fire.


----------



## Red Savarin (Oct 2, 2013)

I'm directly affected by this because my dad works for the government and we're a family of six with two in college. The only money we'll be getting is from what my mom makes as a middle school teacher. The government and politicians and Republicans aren't the ones getting screwed over. _â€‹I am._


----------



## AlexInsane (Oct 2, 2013)

Lobar said:


> Preferably with actual fire.



I much prefer the idea of the Queen sailing over here and firing all of Congress out of cannons.


----------



## Machine (Oct 2, 2013)

AlexInsane said:


> I much prefer the idea of the Queen sailing over here and firing all of Congress out of cannons.


With an audience.


----------



## AlexInsane (Oct 2, 2013)

Machine said:


> With an audience.



"Oh, I say! Look at how far that fat, bald one went!"
"Reginald, darling, fetch me some more nibbles and champagne, I'm positively FAMISHED."


----------



## Machine (Oct 2, 2013)

AlexInsane said:


> "Oh, I say! Look at how far that fat, bald one went!"
> "Reginald, darling, fetch me some more nibbles and champagne, I'm positively FAMISHED."


"LOOK AT DAT BLOODY PRAT GO, SEE YA ON MARS, YA WANKER."

Best show ever.


----------



## CaptainCool (Oct 2, 2013)

SIX said:


> Not only that, but between Guantanamo's failure to close, and the revelations about PRISM, they've totally lost credibility when it comes to managing state security.
> 
> With democratic standoffs, economic crises and abuse of human rights abound, this is like a spiraling Fox Network drama.



What do you expect when you let people like this run your government.


----------



## Deo (Oct 2, 2013)

AlexInsane said:


> I much prefer the idea of the Queen sailing over here and firing all of Congress out of cannons.



I was with Lobar until I read this. I change my vote. Cannons are the perfect solution.


----------



## Ranguvar (Oct 2, 2013)

I voted for Palazzo during the last elections, now I feel really dirty....


----------



## Arshes Nei (Oct 2, 2013)

Mayfurr said:


> And just to show how utterly _fucked up_ the whole US healthcare debate is, it appears that when Americans are asked to choose between "Obamacare" and the "Affordable Care Act", they choose the latter *despite both being the same thing.*
> /facepalm



Yes there are stupid people out there, but remember there are people who actually know it's the same thing but that wouldn't make good comedy TV.

You know the same reporters who thought when Popeyes ran out of chicken, interview most of the Black people 

[yt]8pyW6w5B7Aw[/yt]


----------



## Fallowfox (Oct 2, 2013)

Wither said:


> Sounds good to me.
> I love tea.
> Plus I'm moving to Canada soon anyways!



We already own that. :3 sort of.


----------



## Nikolinni (Oct 2, 2013)

In othernews, due to the shutdown, WWII Vets were denied access to the WWII memorial, something the government knew about months in advance but still denied them access to it, due to this whole shutdown nonsene. Which, for the record, has always had unlimited access in normal times, even when there's no staff around (apparently).


----------



## Attaman (Oct 2, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> In othernews, due to the shutdown, WWII Vets were denied access to the WWII memorial, something the government knew about months in advance but still denied them access to it, due to this whole shutdown nonsene. Which, for the record, has always had unlimited access in normal times, even when there's no staff around (apparently).


Considering, without even opening the link, I'm seeing a URL involving "Obama Administration", I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's a "Fucking Democrats not giving Republicans all they want" article.

Alright, opening article now. Mississippi Republican Representative of the House, yep, already up to a good start. Says this is a low political move (implied to be by the Obama administration) in an attempt to spite Veterans. Yep, great article is great Nikolinni, 10/10 would troll with again.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Oct 2, 2013)

If you ask me, I love all the humor this unfortunate event has brought.


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 2, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> In othernews, due to the shutdown, WWII Vets were denied access to the WWII memorial, something the government knew about months in advance but still denied them access to it, due to this whole shutdown nonsene. Which, for the record, has always had unlimited access in normal times, even when there's no staff around (apparently).



Meanwhile, the primary instigator of the shutdown is now whining that the government shutdown HE eagerly helped create leaves the US potentially exposed to terrorist action. _"Let's pass a continuing resolution to fully fund defence and intelligence,"_ he pleads - conveniently forgetting that he and his allies in the House and Senate insist that any continuing resolution that fund the government past Sept. 30 would have to remove funding for the Affordable Care Act. 

In other words, the chief domestic political terrorist in the government shutdown is whining about the country being exposed to foreign terrorism due to his own act of terrorism. The hypocrisy is mind-boggling. Maybe he should have thought about that BEFORE using the nuclear option...

I remember the satirist P. J. O'Rourke back in the 1980s saying that Republicans were the party that claimed government didn't work, then got elected and proved it. Thirty years later it's got to the point where Republicans not only CAN'T make government work, they actively work to make sure it *won't* work... and not only that, they're EXCITED about it!



> â€œWeâ€™re very excited,â€ said Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.). â€œ*Itâ€™s exactly what we wanted, and we got it.*â€



/facepalm


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 2, 2013)

Mayfurr said:


> Meanwhile, the primary instigator of the shutdown is now whining that the government shutdown HE eagerly helped create leaves the US potentially exposed to terrorist action. _"Let's pass a continuing resolution to fully fund defence and intelligence,"_ he pleads - conveniently forgetting that he and his allies in the House and Senate insist that any continuing resolution that fund the government past Sept. 30 would have to remove funding for the Affordable Care Act.
> 
> In other words, the chief domestic political terrorist in the government shutdown is whining about the country being exposed to foreign terrorism due to his own act of terrorism. The hypocrisy is mind-boggling. Maybe he should have thought about that BEFORE using the nuclear option...
> 
> ...


And you wonder why our country is so fucked up?


----------



## Lobar (Oct 2, 2013)

Attaman said:


> Considering, without even opening the link, I'm seeing a URL involving "Obama Administration", I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's a "Fucking Democrats not giving Republicans all they want" article.
> 
> Alright, opening article now. Mississippi Republican Representative of the House, yep, already up to a good start. Says this is a low political move (implied to be by the Obama administration) in an attempt to spite Veterans. Yep, great article is great Nikolinni, 10/10 would troll with again.



That's Tucker Carlson's site.  I don't even need to read past the domain.


----------



## CaptainCool (Oct 2, 2013)

Mayfurr said:


> Meanwhile, the primary instigator of the shutdown is now whining that the government shutdown HE eagerly helped create leaves the US potentially exposed to terrorist action. _"Let's pass a continuing resolution to fully fund defence and intelligence,"_ he pleads - conveniently forgetting that he and his allies in the House and Senate insist that any continuing resolution that fund the government past Sept. 30 would have to remove funding for the Affordable Care Act.
> 
> In other words, the chief domestic political terrorist in the government shutdown is whining about the country being exposed to foreign terrorism due to his own act of terrorism. The hypocrisy is mind-boggling. Maybe he should have thought about that BEFORE using the nuclear option...
> 
> ...



It is incredible. If politicians would pull crap like that here in Germany all hell would break lose. And yet you guys let those loonies stay in power and vote for them every 4 years!


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 2, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> It is incredible. If politicians would pull crap like that here in Germany all hell would break lose.



Could this crap actually *be *pulled in Germany, even if someone was bonkers enough to try it? Does the German political system have a similar political circuit-breaker to Westminster Parliamentary systems where if core government spending bills can't be passed fresh elections are automatically called?


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Oct 2, 2013)

Attaman said:


> Considering, without even opening the link, I'm seeing a URL involving "Obama Administration", I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's a "Fucking Democrats not giving Republicans all they want" article.
> 
> Alright, opening article now. Mississippi Republican Representative of the House, yep, already up to a good start. Says this is a low political move (implied to be by the Obama administration) in an attempt to spite Veterans. Yep, great article is great Nikolinni, 10/10 would troll with again.



being republican destroys validity regardless


----------



## Jabberwocky (Oct 2, 2013)

Republicans have always been known to be trouble makers and creators of drama.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Oct 2, 2013)

Batsy said:


> Republicans have always been known to be trouble makers and creators of drama.



the different side says this about the other side


----------



## Nikolinni (Oct 2, 2013)

Gibby said:


> being republican destroys validity regardless



So THAT'S why no one ever listens to what I've to say! 

(I'm registered Republican. But I'll vote for whoever I think will lead the country right, regardless of party).


----------



## Jabberwocky (Oct 2, 2013)

Gibby said:


> the different side says this about the other side



gibby you live in the UK try to reclaim the colonies instead i want your health care :V


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Oct 2, 2013)

Batsy said:


> gibby you live in the UK try to reclaim the colonies instead i want your health care :V



move to canada!


----------



## Attaman (Oct 2, 2013)

Gibby said:


> being republican destroys validity regardless


In this case being a Republican Representative of the House does pose some negative implications, considering just who much of the fault for our (the United States') current situation lays with. Pretty much the only people who seem to be defending them at this time either are the chuckleheads who claimed back in 2011 that defaulting the debt would not cause any significant harm, believe that the proper state of government is "Opposing parties oppose each other" and not "Opposing parties offer differing-but-to-degrees-viable solutions on how to help the people", or people who don't want to admit that the modern iteration of the Republican Party has been hijacked by the extremist element it merely catered to a few years back.


----------



## CaptainCool (Oct 2, 2013)

Mayfurr said:


> Could this crap actually *be *pulled in Germany, even if someone was bonkers enough to try it? Does the German political system have a similar political circuit-breaker to Westminster Parliamentary systems where if core government spending bills can't be passed fresh elections are automatically called?



Here in Germany a shutdown is not possible. Our constitution has an emergency law for cases like this.
On their own our federal government is not allowed to spend a single cent.  Our representatives in parliament are the only ones who can do that. But if our parliament is unable to pass a new budget our federal government, as in chancellor Merkel and her ministers, are allowed to keep the money flowing until the parliament has decided on a new budget.


----------



## Wither (Oct 2, 2013)

Gibby said:


> move to canada!



Yeah Batsy. 
I'll (hopefully) be moving there soon. 
... ;3c


----------



## BRN (Oct 2, 2013)

Wither said:


> Yeah Batsy.
> I'll (hopefully) be moving there soon.
> ... ;3c



I'm glad we all agree it's the place to be.

See you on the west coast by April. <:


----------



## Wither (Oct 2, 2013)

SIX said:


> I'm glad we all agree it's the place to be.
> 
> See you on the west coast by April. <:



By soon I mean within 3 year's time. 
But where at exactly?


----------



## BRN (Oct 2, 2013)

Wither said:


> By soon I mean within 3 year's time.
> But where at exactly?



New Westminster/Vancouver scene, in British Columbia. West coast.

I got an Arcanine out there I've met a few times... we'd probably get a little place. Rents are crazy cheap - about 40% of what I'd have to pay out here, for 200% of the quality.

Lovely place.


----------



## DarrylWolf (Oct 2, 2013)

But if you ask who's to blame, most people would like to knock both the parties' heads together to see work done. The newest poll has 46% of Americans blaming both parties as being responsible for the shutdown.


----------



## LegitWaterfall (Oct 2, 2013)

Stupid idiots are playing politics instead of their job.
Get your personal problems out of the way and do what your fake promotion commercials say you do.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 2, 2013)

DarrylWolf said:


> But if you ask who's to blame, most people would like to knock both the parties' heads together to see work done. The newest poll has 46% of Americans blaming both parties as being responsible for the shutdown.



Shows that 46% of Americans aren't paying attention.  This is an entirely GOP-manufactured crisis.  They knew full well the kill-Obamacare amendment they tacked on to the CR gave it zero chance of passing.


----------



## Wither (Oct 2, 2013)

SIX said:


> New Westminster/Vancouver scene, in British Columbia. West coast.
> 
> I got an Arcanine out there I've met a few times... we'd probably get a little place. Rents are crazy cheap - about 40% of what I'd have to pay out here, for 200% of the quality.
> 
> Lovely place.



Sounds amazing. Gotta look into it more in depth but it's between Toronto and Vancouver for me atm.


----------



## Attaman (Oct 2, 2013)

Lobar said:


> Shows that 46% of Americans aren't paying attention.  This is an entirely GOP-manufactured crisis.  They knew full well the kill-Obamacare amendment they tacked on to the CR gave it zero chance of passing.


I'm also interested in this poll, as I could readily point to another that has ~74% pinning the blame predominantly on Republicans.

Admittedly, this doesn't necessarily contradict what you're saying, but I imagine the implication you're trying to make is "Both are being held at equal fault!" and not "There is at least a minor degree of fault to both parties in the average person's eye!"


----------



## Infestissumam (Oct 2, 2013)

Willow said:


> How do you figure? This is wrong btw


Homicide rates in the United States spiked at two points in our history: Prohibition and when the War on Drugs was declared.

On top of that, half of our current murders are gang violence-related. Gangs' business is drugs.


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 2, 2013)

On the positive side though, with 70% of the NSA shut down due to the current crisis it means that the rest of the world can at least temporarily escape the NSA's all-encompassing PRISM surveillance


----------



## Inciatus (Oct 2, 2013)

Mayfurr said:


> On the positive side though, with 70% of the NSA shut down due to the current crisis it means that the rest of the world can at least temporarily escape the NSA's all-encompassing PRISM surveillance


See there is good news from this.


----------



## Willow (Oct 2, 2013)

Infestissumam said:


> Homicide rates in the United States spiked at two points in our history: Prohibition and when the War on Drugs was declared.


But that doesn't necessarily mean that the war on drugs is the sole cause of homicide rates increasing. The same kind of holds true for Prohibition but not as much if I'm not mistaken. It's more likely these things played a role yes, but they're not really the problem.


----------



## DarkShadow777 (Oct 2, 2013)

Mayfurr said:


> On the positive side though, with 70% of the NSA shut down due to the current crisis it means that the rest of the world can at least temporarily escape the NSA's all-encompassing PRISM surveillance



While I agree that PRISM was a pretty bad move from US government and is kinda dissapointing that your allie don't trut on you, this is not a very happy side of the things, many americans (800 000) will loose their jobs, and their families will struggle to pay bills, schools, credit cards...

Yes, PRISM was the nastiest thing USA Gov made, but the real intelecttual authors behind this will likely still enjoy their fat salaries, while the rest will be put on a serious crisis season...

If we were brave enough and our own governments weren't such a robbery pussies, we could simply put a stop to PRISM (diplomacy anyone?). We all share the same cunts on governments that do whatever they like instead of thinking on their people... heck... even when they denied it several times, PRISM also spied on their own people, thinking that they had infiltrated american terrorist (Why in hell?) instead of looking carefully and realizing that they only are people wanting to success in their lives and careing for their closest ones...

We, as citizens are only faulty of letting this prey birds on taking over and doing whatever they want, and I say that globally, USA has pretty terrible moments right now, but the rest are not safe, I dont know where you live, but here, we are in a serious trouble because of this last hurricanes we had (Manuel and Ingrid) and our dammed thief coozes only think of STEALING the poor help we can provite to our own brothers in distress... heck, even our TV enterprises do so...

What we need globally is to think seriously what we want of our countries. Not like showing that we are happy of the hurries other might have...

Just my two cents.


----------



## Inciatus (Oct 2, 2013)

DarkShadow777 said:


> While I agree that PRISM was a pretty bad move from US government and is kinda dissapointing that your allie don't trut on you, this is not a very happy side of the things, many americans (800 000) will loose their jobs, and their families will struggle to pay bills, schools, credit cards...
> 
> Yes, PRISM was the nastiest thing USA Gov made, but the real intelecttual authors behind this will likely still enjoy their fat salaries, while the rest will be put on a serious crisis season...
> 
> ...


The American government (and other NATO governments) have been spying on their own people for many decades. This isn't a new thing. The scale is just grander and people just know about it more.

And Mexico, please keep taking the hurricanes. We in Florida appreciate your charity of us not having to deal with them.


----------



## DarkShadow777 (Oct 2, 2013)

Inciatus said:


> The American government (and other NATO governments) have been spying on their own people for many decades. This isn't a new thing. The scale is just grander and people just know about it more.
> 
> And Mexico, please keep taking the hurricanes. We in Florida appreciate your charity of us not having to deal with them.



No problem, We keep the hurricanes while you get something bigger... tornados and stuff are not your main, but tsunamis can be...
Maybe if you loose your home and everything you have is funny, I will laugh at you if that happens... and maybe your neihborghs as well...

Maybe you are even lauging at what is happening now to 800 000 americans loosing their jobs, who cares? It's not me...


----------



## Inciatus (Oct 2, 2013)

DarkShadow777 said:


> No problem, We keep the hurricanes while you get something bigger... tornados and stuff are not your main, but tsunamis can be...
> Maybe if you loose your home and everything you have is funny, I will laugh at you if that happens... and maybe your neihborghs as well...
> 
> Maybe you are even lauging at what is happening now to 800 000 americans loosing their jobs, who cares? It's not me...


I feel like you missed something or something came out funky in what I said before.


----------



## DarkShadow777 (Oct 2, 2013)

Inciatus said:


> I feel like you missed something or something came out funky in what I said before.



Don't tell me that was a sarcasm... sorry, but if it was, is a pretty bad joke


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 3, 2013)

DarkShadow777 said:


> While I agree that PRISM was a pretty bad move from US government and is kinda dissapointing that your allie don't trut on you, this is not a very happy side of the things, many americans (800 000) will loose their jobs, and their families will struggle to pay bills, schools, credit cards...
> 
> Yes, PRISM was the nastiest thing USA Gov made, but the real intelecttual authors behind this will likely still enjoy their fat salaries, while the rest will be put on a serious crisis season...



I agree completely. Nearly a million US Federal workers having to forfeit pay for an indefinite time through no fault of their own because of political brinkmanship is utterly appalling - not forgetting everyone else who relies on now-defunded programs to get by. The Republican dickheads responsible for this are political and economic terrorists, pure and simple.


----------



## Wither (Oct 3, 2013)

DarkShadow777 said:


> Don't tell me that was a sarcasm... sorry, but if it was, is a pretty bad joke



I think the problem here is that _*you're*_ a joke. :I


----------



## DarkShadow777 (Oct 3, 2013)

Wither said:


> I think the problem here is that _*you're*_ a joke. :I



Sure thing... not making laugh of of other's disgrace automatically makes me a joke...
Whatever...


----------



## Nikolinni (Oct 3, 2013)

Meanwhile, Obama has said that he will not negotiate pretty much anything having to do with the shut down with Congress


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 3, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> Meanwhile, Obama has said that he will not negotiate pretty much anything having to do with the shut down with Congress



Fair enough. I believe standard government policy is not to negotiate with terrorists or blackmailers.


----------



## Inciatus (Oct 3, 2013)

Mayfurr said:


> Fair enough. I believe standard government policy is not to negotiate with terrorists or blackmailers.


Though that method at one point was in question regarding removing the chemical weapons held by groups other than Assad in Syria.


----------



## Neybulot (Oct 3, 2013)

Meanwhile...

This kind of stuff makes the Republicans look even dumber for trying to get rid of the ACA.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 3, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> Meanwhile, Obama has said that he will not negotiate pretty much anything having to do with the shut down with Congress



What's to negotiate?  The Republicans aren't offering a fucking thing.  You really think it's acceptable to ask Obama to "compromise" away some of his legislative accomplishments any time Congress decides to just not do their damn job?  You want to reward that?  That's no way for a democracy to function.



Neybulot said:


> Meanwhile...
> 
> This kind of stuff makes the Republicans look even dumber for trying to get rid of the ACA.



And this is exactly why the Republicans are pulling this shit now.  Before the ACA was implemented, they could lie through their teeth about death panels and throwing Grandma off a cliff to scare the hell out of their base.  But once it actually goes into effect?  They're absolutely _terrified_ that it might become popular, because then they'll never be able to kill it, just like they couldn't kill Social Security, EBT, or Medicare.


----------



## Infestissumam (Oct 3, 2013)

Willow said:


> But that doesn't necessarily mean that the war on drugs is the sole cause of homicide rates increasing. The same kind of holds true for Prohibition but not as much if I'm not mistaken. It's more likely these things played a role yes, but they're not really the problem.


Okay then, what of gang violence accounting for nearly half of the United States' violent crime? Gangs tend to kill each other for business, and gangs tend to do really well with things like alcohol in the 20's and drugs more recently.

Moreover, the War on Drugs has claimed more lives than the US-troop death toll during the wars we waged in Iraq or Afghanistan, averaging at least 1100 deaths per year between 2006-2010.


----------



## Fernin (Oct 3, 2013)

Mayfurr said:


> I agree completely. Nearly a million US Federal workers having to forfeit pay for an indefinite time through no fault of their own because of political brinkmanship is utterly appalling - not forgetting everyone else who relies on now-defunded programs to get by. The Republican dickheads responsible for this are political and economic terrorists, pure and simple.



For once we are in complete and utter agreement.


----------



## EloeElwe (Oct 3, 2013)

I haven't been too badly effected, But I had to cancel a camping trip to Bryce Canyon with a possible new love interest.
Why isn't there a complete lock down when this happens, make the bastards stay until they work things out. Hell, bring in cots for them to sleep on if they must, but get the DAMN JOB DONE!


----------



## BRN (Oct 3, 2013)

EloeElwe said:


> I haven't been too badly effected, But I had to cancel a camping trip to Bryce Canyon with a possible new love interest.
> Why isn't there a complete lock down when this happens, make the bastards stay until they work things out. Hell, bring in cots for them to sleep on if they must, but get the DAMN JOB DONE!



Because if Republican ideologies had as much effect on Republican senators lifestyles as it does on their electorate, they might actually have to start considering the concept of sanity. Couldn't have that.


----------



## Attaman (Oct 3, 2013)

Lobar said:


> What's to negotiate?  The Republicans aren't offering a fucking thing.  You really think it's acceptable to ask Obama to "compromise" away some of his legislative accomplishments any time Congress decides to just not do their damn job?  You want to reward that?  That's no way for a democracy to function.


 Considering they are perfectly willing to cheer on the people deciding not to do their job when they try to score cheap political brownie points (see their article linked a few pages back), Niko's either trolling in this thread or is of the "BOO DEMOCRATS GET THEM OUT OF THE OFFICE EVEN IF THE WORLD BURNS" mindset.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 3, 2013)

And now for a glimpse into the mindset of these petulant manchildren:



			
				Washington Examiner said:
			
		

> House Republicans are unlikely to blink in the standoff over Obamacare that precipitated a government shutdown, fearing that acceding now to Democratic demands for a â€œcleanâ€ spending bill would weaken their hand in upcoming negotiations over the the debt ceiling.
> .
> .
> .
> ...



*sigh*


----------



## Jashwa (Oct 3, 2013)

How can you even....


Also it's enraging to hear people make comparisons like "If my employer stops providing health care benefits to me, I'm going to have to pay so much more for Obamacare!" 

No shit? Without Obamacare, though, you'd have to pay even more or potentially not even be able to get health care benefits. It's comparing a full plan with one that is being paid mostly by your employer. Of course it's going to be more expensive than that. 

So many dumb comparisons. And some guy that's like "My family only makes $150,000 a year together and our premium is gonna go way up because of this." Boo, fucking, hoo. You'll survive without buying a new mercedes every year, dude. Some of the poor people that couldn't get insurance even literally wouldn't survive.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 3, 2013)

Jashwa said:


> How can you even....
> 
> 
> Also it's enraging to hear people make comparisons like "If my employer stops providing health care benefits to me, I'm going to have to pay so much more for Obamacare!"
> ...


It's cause unfortunately far too many people don't understand how people have to survive off minimum wage.  There's a ton of people who contribute to society, unfortunately I have ran into too many people born with a silver spoon up their ass who constantly petition for lower taxes on the rich, but higher taxes on the poor, who oppose any sort of care for the poor cause it will raise their taxes or such.  If anything these sorts of people are the leaches off the system and not the poor, cause wishing for more and more money at the expense of other people's well being is selfish of one's self.

If anything paying higher taxes cause you're rich is patriotic cause your contributing more towards the american government and that a lot of the money even though the government right now is extremely fucking backwards and wasteful a lot of it is still going to your kid's schools, roads, taking care of old people, paying our soldiers, while doing cool shit like sending probes to mars and uranus and such, while maintaining memorials for our veterans such as the one where because of the shutdown veterans can no longer go to.

If anything the republican party is unamerican and unpatriotic cause they think putting all that at risk just so they can kill one singular bill is worth it; that is unpatriotic cause it is putting your own interests above the rest of the nation.


----------



## Attaman (Oct 3, 2013)

Lobar said:


> And now for a glimpse into the mindset of these petulant manchildren:
> 
> *sigh*


You may also be interested in knowing that we've passed the threshhold of moderate House Republicans willing to drop the charade and actually vote in a helpful manner (17+)... but we won't ever see this come to pass because Boehner isn't going to bring anything to vote until it's a victory for defunding ACA.


----------



## Migoto Da (Oct 3, 2013)

There wouldn't be nearly as many republicans in office presently if Obama didn't really just shove us into even more dept than we already had. What's it at now, 16.5 trillion or something? That's part of the reason people are electing these moronic republicans that can't do shit other than being useless puppets.

Granted, I'm a democrat, but even I think that Obama has been a damned fool in some areas. Boehner needs to put his Boehner for getting rid of the ACA away and just fucking deal with it. It's fucking ridiculous that people's families are being withheld from because of politicians rolling around in their own filthy hubris. 

Politics is a subject that I hate, but the people we're electing just piss me off.


----------



## Kosdu (Oct 3, 2013)

What I find funny is even here in the (not deep and actually quite cosmopolitan) south, we learned that Reagan completely fucked up our economy and pushed us into debt.

Take that, fucktard politicians.



Oh yeah, and fire congress. Kthxbai.

(really angry and not myself for this post)


----------



## Migoto Da (Oct 3, 2013)

Kosdu said:


> What I find funny is even here in the (not deep and actually quite cosmopolitan) south, we learned that Reagan completely fucked up our economy and pushed us into debt.
> 
> Take that, fucktard politicians.
> 
> ...


Except for the fact that Reagan is commonly considered one of the best (If not the best next to FDR) presidents of the 20th century because of many of his policies that helped boost the failing economy after Carter; I may hate republicans, but if more were like him, we wouldn't be fucked this bad.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 3, 2013)

Migoto Da said:


> Except for the fact that Reagan is commonly considered one of the best (If not the best next to FDR) presidents of the 20th century because of many of his policies that helped boost the failing economy after Carter; I may hate republicans, but if more were like him, we wouldn't be fucked this bad.



No, fuck Reagan.  His reputation is the product of a whole foundation dedicated to maintaining the hagiography they've constructed for the purpose of legitimizing his voodoo economics.  It's built entirely on his folksy charm and the good feelings resulting from the end of the Cold War (for which he deserves no credit).  In reality, his policies were absolutely brutal to the poor and working class, and during his term he was viewed much in the same light as Dubya was.  All of today's problems with wealth disparity and labor conditions start with Reagan.


----------



## Migoto Da (Oct 3, 2013)

Lobar said:


> No, fuck Reagan.  His reputation is the product of a whole foundation dedicated to maintaining the hagiography they've constructed for the purpose of legitimizing his voodoo economics.  It's built entirely on his folksy charm and the good feelings resulting from the end of the Cold War (for which he deserves no credit).  In reality, his policies were absolutely brutal to the poor and working class, and during his term he was viewed much in the same light as Dubya was.  All of today's problems with wealth disparity and labor conditions start with Reagan.


Laziness has been around for ages; poor labour conditions have been a fact since the beginning of this country, and pinning it on him specifically is folly. Wealth disparity however, is an issue with him, yes, though it was made into more of a problem when more Republicans got elected into office. I don't particularly think Reagan is to blame, I think it's the warped mentality that politicians as a whole have. When it comes down to it, Reagan decreased the % of people below the poverty point, and basically told the homeless/unemployed (As most of them are called today, entitled welfare brats) to work for success rather than expect it to be given to them. Literally, he pretty much said that.

Whether Reagan is a figurehead, or if he was actually a decent president, nobody really knows because of the amount of time that has passed. Many things have changed, and have been warped from what was originally intended.

I sound like I'm dickriding Reagan. God damn it, who is a republican besides Bush that I can bash on?

Romney is still in the closet? I dunno.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Oct 3, 2013)

Kosdu said:


> What I find funny is even here in the (not deep and actually quite cosmopolitan) south, we learned that Reagan completely fucked up our economy and pushed us into debt.
> 
> Take that, fucktard politicians.



Yeah well he isn't even considered a Republican anymore by most extreme Republicans. Just only when it's convenient when one side has their own cherry to pick *shrugs*


----------



## Inciatus (Oct 3, 2013)

Migoto Da said:


> Laziness has been around for ages; poor labour conditions have been a fact since the beginning of this country, and pinning it on him specifically is folly. Wealth disparity however, is an issue with him, yes, though it was made into more of a problem when more Republicans got elected into office. I don't particularly think Reagan is to blame, I think it's the warped mentality that politicians as a whole have. When it comes down to it, Reagan decreased the % of people below the poverty point, and basically told the homeless/unemployed (As most of them are called today, entitled welfare brats) to work for success rather than expect it to be given to them. Literally, he pretty much said that.
> 
> Whether Reagan is a figurehead, or if he was actually a decent president, nobody really knows because of the amount of time that has passed. Many things have changed, and have been warped from what was originally intended.


For some republicans he is considered too liberal to be a republican (except when it is convenient for them).


> I sound like I'm dickriding Reagan. God damn it, who is a republican besides Bush that I can bash on?
> 
> Romney is still in the closet? I dunno.


The older Bush.


----------



## Migoto Da (Oct 3, 2013)

Inciatus said:


> The older Bush.


I completely forgot this guy existed.


----------



## Reaginicwolf (Oct 3, 2013)

Day three since government shutdown I'm betting if something isn't done soon there will be riots in a week or so. And seriously why the fuck are congress members still getting paid, its their fault this shits even happening.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 3, 2013)

Migoto Da said:


> Laziness has been around for ages; poor labour conditions have been a fact since the beginning of this country, and pinning it on him specifically is folly. Wealth disparity however, is an issue with him, yes, though it was made into more of a problem when more Republicans got elected into office. I don't particularly think Reagan is to blame, I think it's the warped mentality that politicians as a whole have. When it comes down to it, Reagan decreased the % of people below the poverty point, and basically told the homeless/unemployed (As most of them are called today, entitled welfare brats) to work for success rather than expect it to be given to them. Literally, he pretty much said that.
> 
> Whether Reagan is a figurehead, or if he was actually a decent president, nobody really knows because of the amount of time that has passed. Many things have changed, and have been warped from what was originally intended.
> 
> ...



Labor conditions _started_ out terrible in this country, but they were improving thanks to labor unions and the New Deal.  Reagan set out to destroy both and was quite successful.  Real wages for the working class declined throughout his term and have since never even rose back to Carter levels, even though productivity has doubled since then.  Poverty shot up rapidly for three years after he came into office.  Subsequent modest annual declines finally abated the poverty level in his final year in office to a single percentage point below where it was at the start of his term, but it went back up immediately the next year under GHWB.  Slashing taxes also started us down the road of massive national debt despite; in fact, this was deliberate on his part so he would have an excuse to further raze the social infrastructure.  Saying he encouraged the homeless to work for success is an interesting way of saying he annihilated all the services available to help them get back on their feet, then literally told them they were homeless "by choice".  All the tax savings went on to the top as well, the bottom two quintiles actually ended up paying more in federal taxes during his administration than they did under Carter.


----------



## ADF (Oct 3, 2013)

My question is why the problem of America's debt is always downplayed whenever I've brought it up in the past, and yet they go into crisis so easily over those debts. If the American government doesn't resolve this ideological disagreement by the debt ceiling vote, it will be a shit storm, a global shit storm. Yet it wouldn't be resolving the problem, just putting it off for another day.


----------



## Inciatus (Oct 3, 2013)

ADF said:


> My question is why the problem of America's debt is always downplayed whenever I've brought it up in the past, and yet they go into crisis so easily over those debts. If the American government doesn't resolve this ideological disagreement by the debt ceiling vote, it will be a shit storm, a global shit storm. Yet it wouldn't be resolving the problem, just putting it off for another day.


Because no-one wants to resolve the problem.


----------



## Reaginicwolf (Oct 3, 2013)

Inciatus said:


> Because no-one wants to resolve the problem.


or they think they can pay debt by borrowing more, its a flawless plan...no, its FUCKIN GENIUS!!
(obivious sarcasm)


----------



## Migoto Da (Oct 3, 2013)

This applies now more than ever.


----------



## Reaginicwolf (Oct 3, 2013)

Migoto Da said:


> This applies now more than ever.


A blank page?


----------



## AlexInsane (Oct 3, 2013)

Inciatus said:


> Because no-one wants to resolve the problem.



I don't think it's possible to resolve the problem of the national debt. 

It would require an act of God for that to happen. Spending of all kinds (even for essential spending) would have to be curtailed indefinitely. Taxes would have to go up. We would, in fact, have to turn America into a sweatshop for everyone living in it just for the purposes of paying back our debts. 

Which, ironically, will probably be what happens anyway. So we may as well just go out like we lived - pointlessly extravagant.


----------



## Inciatus (Oct 3, 2013)

AlexInsane said:


> I don't think it's possible to resolve the problem of the national debt.
> 
> It would require an act of God for that to happen. Spending of all kinds (even for essential spending) would have to be curtailed indefinitely. Taxes would have to go up. We would, in fact, have to turn America into a sweatshop for everyone living in it just for the purposes of paying back our debts.
> 
> Which, ironically, will probably be what happens anyway. So we may as well just go out like we lived - pointlessly extravagant.


Though most of the money the US owes is actually to ourselves.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 3, 2013)

Trying to completely pay off the debt is actually a bad idea, anyways.  A lot of people fall for the incredibly dumb analogy that the government budget is just like a household budget (it isn't) and thus the national debt is like a $16 trillion credit card bill or something that will eventually bankrupt the country.  Truth is, as an issuer of its own sovereign currency, the government literally can never, and I mean _never_, be unable to fulfill its debt obligations.  We will never default on any debt unless, in a moment of monumental stupidity, we actually choose to.

...Which may just happen in two weeks.  Fuck.


----------



## Reaginicwolf (Oct 3, 2013)

Can you spell fucked, cause congress fucked the American people...again


----------



## Inciatus (Oct 3, 2013)

Reaginicwolf said:


> Can you spell fucked


Nope. I can't spell.

I doubt they will push until the US actually defaults. Likely they will reach some sort of resolution that pushes it off for another month about 20 minutes before it happens.


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 3, 2013)

ADF said:


> My question is why the problem of America's debt is always downplayed whenever I've brought it up in the past, and yet they go into crisis so easily over those debts. If the American government doesn't resolve this ideological disagreement by the debt ceiling vote, it will be a shit storm, a global shit storm. Yet it wouldn't be resolving the problem, just putting it off for another day.



Because debt is "bad" if the other party runs it up, but "deficits don't matter" if your party is the one running it up. 

The other lot are always a bunch of spendthrifts who splash out money like a drunken sailor on shore leave, and you're always the responsible one trying to clean up the mess that the other lot left you. This attitude applies - irrespective of who _actually_ ran up the debt - whether you're Republican, Democrat, Conservative, Labour (UK), Liberal-Democrat, National, Labour (NZ), Liberal, or Labor (for some reason the Aussie Labour party uses the American spelling).

In other words, because of politics.


----------



## Aetius (Oct 3, 2013)

Lobar said:


> Trying to completely pay off the debt is actually a bad idea, anyways.  A lot of people fall for the incredibly dumb analogy that the government budget is just like a household budget (it isn't) and thus the national debt is like a $16 trillion credit card bill or something that will eventually bankrupt the country.  Truth is, as an issuer of its own sovereign currency, the government literally can never, and I mean _never_, be unable to fulfill its debt obligations.  We will never default on any debt unless, in a moment of monumental stupidity, we actually choose to.
> 
> ...Which may just happen in two weeks.  Fuck.



Feels pretty awesome being one of two countries in the world that puts a legislative cap on the amount of public debt that can be issued. 



Reaginicwolf said:


> Day three since government shutdownI'm betting if something isn't done soon there will be riots in a week or so.* And seriously why the fuck are congress members still getting paid*, its their fault this shits even happening.



The word of the day today is "Corruption". 

Taking away their paychecks will make the poorer members of congress more susceptible to it.


----------



## AlexInsane (Oct 3, 2013)

Inciatus said:


> Though most of the money the US owes is actually to ourselves.



Really? Didn't we borrow like, a couple trillion from China? Or is that more Fox News terror-mongering bullshit? The whole "China will come over here to settle the debts we owe them and we'll all be working the rice paddies while they're sipping martinis in NYC."?


----------



## Inciatus (Oct 3, 2013)

AlexInsane said:


> Really? Didn't we borrow like, a couple trillion from China? Or is that more Fox News terror-mongering bullshit? The whole "China will come over here to settle the debts we owe them and we'll all be working the rice paddies while they're sipping martinis in NYC."?


There are few times when Fox isn't talking out their asses. Even when they aren't things are usually blown out of proportion.


----------



## Attaman (Oct 3, 2013)

ADF said:


> My question is why the problem of America's debt is always downplayed whenever I've brought it up in the past,


Because, assuming competent leadership, the US' debt shouldn't be an issue. At this point we were practically being paid to take other nations' money, and our debt was well on the way to decreasing (compare the effect of the economic stimulus in the US - even with heavy obstructivism and low taxes - to the double-dip caused by Austerity measures in Europe). We _should_ be well on the road to recovery, especially after pulling many of our troops out and with things such as ACA (intended to cut even more money out of the budget) in progress.

However, look at the above: Assuming competent leadership. This conclusion was based off the assumption that we wouldn't watch (admittedly a minority of) our representatives literally _shut down our government and threaten to default everything_ if they didn't get things entirely their way. Let alone to do this _repeatedly_, and include in "everything their way" minor things like "Do people deserve food and healthcare?"


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 3, 2013)

Meanwhile in what is probably a good contender for "Asshole Of The Week(TM)" (motto: _So many candidates, so little time_), a Tea Party Congressman publicly harangued a Park Service Ranger over access to a WWII Memorial that was closed - the closure of course being due to the government shutdown that this Congressman voted for. 



			
				NBC Washington said:
			
		

> The Park Service has been allowing World War II vets who have traveled from all over the country to enter the memorial, even though it's closed during the government shutdown; the rangers say they are exercising their First Amendment rights as they let the veterans in.
> 
> But they are keeping the rest of the public out of the facility, which is officially closed. And that did not sit well with the congressman, reported News4's Mark Segraves, who witnessed the confrontation.
> 
> ...



Can you believe this guy? He's the fuckwit that caused this thing to happen - and he expects some front-line Park Ranger to feel ashamed for HIS actions? 

Luckily, the unlucky Park Service Ranger got some much-needed public support:



			
				NBC Washington said:
			
		

> "I'm not ashamed," replied the ranger.
> 
> At that point, a crowd of onlookers got involved. *"Ask those questions of the people who aren't passing the budget," shouted a voice from the crowd. "That's who you need to ask these questions to."*
> 
> "This woman is doing her job, just like me," shouted another. "I'm a 30-year federal veteran -- I'm out of work."


----------



## ADF (Oct 3, 2013)

Lobar said:


> Trying to completely pay off the debt is actually a bad idea, anyways.  A lot of people fall for the incredibly dumb analogy that the government budget is just like a household budget (it isn't) and thus the national debt is like a $16 trillion credit card bill or something that will eventually bankrupt the country.  Truth is, as an issuer of its own sovereign currency, the government literally can never, and I mean _never_, be unable to fulfill its debt obligations.  We will never default on any debt unless, in a moment of monumental stupidity, we actually choose to.
> 
> ...Which may just happen in two weeks.  Fuck.


 
Even if America votes up the debt ceiling indefinitely, this is not something that can be sustained forever. Greenspan also argued it was not possible for the US to not pay its debts, because it can always print money to pay them, to which the younger economist sat near him nearly fell out of his chair in reaction.

US debt is the best looking horse in the glue factory, its bought because it is the least bad looking on first impression, plus the dollars history of being a safe haven (from the gold standard days...). But when you're loaning money to pay off older loans, you're operating a ponzi scheme. When you're printing money to pay debts, you're screwing your creditors. Eventually they stop lending you money, and to keep the ponzi scheme going you monetise your debts until the currency finally collapses from abuse.

America will eventually lose all its creditors, they will eventually abandon the dollar  as the world reserve currency because of the amount it is being abused. That, or America will just blow themselves up in an epic act of stupidity like what is happening now. If they default because they fail to vote up the debt ceiling, the rest of the world holding worthless US bonds are going to be pretty pissed.


----------



## AlexInsane (Oct 3, 2013)

Why would it be such a bad thing if we balanced the budget and, furthermore, made it U.S. law to never authorize spending or spend more than our current surplus?


----------



## Inciatus (Oct 3, 2013)

AlexInsane said:


> Why would it be such a bad thing if we balanced the budget and, furthermore, made it U.S. law to never authorize spending or spend more than our current surplus?


Because while the idea sounds good no party wants to actually go through with it. Both parties have area to gain by not doing so. I know ADF has done some good explanations as to why in the past and I expect another one.


----------



## Reaginicwolf (Oct 3, 2013)

I hate when the democrats and republicans pull this "its my way or nothing will be accomplished" bullshit. They seem to have forgotten that they are not part of congress to satisfy their own needs but are there to satisfy the needs of the people. They always seem to be at there worst around this time of year when its time to decide the budget.


----------



## Attaman (Oct 3, 2013)

ADF said:


> Even if America votes up the debt ceiling indefinitely, this is not something that can be sustained forever.


 Actually, with how things are going now? It could, assuming - as mentioned in the last post - competent leadership. Increase taxes some, continue with offering more cost-effective alternatives (versus needless cutting), and the fact that other nations are paying us to hold their money, we should be golden outside any unforeseeable major disasters (such as another economic bubble-burst, a major war, etcetera). 

Issue is that we aren't getting the above. Instead we're getting people trying to whip Americans into a fervour and lynch the politicians that actually know what they're doing, major obstructivism, and forcing us into a shutdown that might very well cost us 10+ digit figures because their political rivals dared, uh, try fixing a broken Healthcare system.


----------



## Attaman (Oct 3, 2013)

Reaginicwolf said:


> I hate when the democrats and republicans pull this "its my way or nothing will be accomplished" bullshit. They seem to have forgotten that they are not part of congress to satisfy their own needs but are there to satisfy the needs of the people. They always seem to be at there worst around this time of year when its time to decide the budget.


You do realize that the Democrats actually _are_ making concessions? Hint: The Democrats pushed through Obamacare against the Republicans' wishes because - after over _fifty resolutions from the Republican party being acknowledged and added_ - they realized that the Republicans were just buying time in an attempt to gain back a big enough demographic and outright shutdown the entire thing. This is the exact same issue being faced now that Republicans won't budge on: They are trying to buy time and tear apart everything they dislike piecemeal. Don't believe me? Look at the previous threats for shutdown over the last two years: "Do what we say and we might not do this again." "Okay, fine." ~A few months later~ "Hey, it's us again. Do what we say now and we totally promise we might not have this incident a third time." "Fine, fine." ~Now~ "Yo, about that third time..."


----------



## Infestissumam (Oct 3, 2013)

Day 3 of the government shutdown

Most of my state has been thrown into anarchy. People killing each other on the streets for mere cans of beans. No power in majority of the land, some civilians gather in hunting parties to seek free-range bison. Can only find squirrels and rabbi-

Oh wait, actually, life's exactly the same. Seriously this whole shutdown thing is being made a big deal out of when it's hardly a change.


----------



## Inciatus (Oct 3, 2013)

Infestissumam said:


> Day 3 of the government shutdown
> 
> Most of my state has been thrown into anarchy. People killing each other on the streets for mere cans of beans. No power in majority of the land, some civilians gather in hunting parties to seek free-range bison. Can only find squirrels and rabbi-
> 
> Oh wait, actually, life's exactly the same. Seriously this whole shutdown thing is being made a big deal out of when it's hardly a change.


It affects government workers though some of which cannot afford a few days of unpaid leave.


----------



## ADF (Oct 3, 2013)

AlexInsane said:


> Why would it be such a bad thing if we balanced the budget and, furthermore, made it U.S. law to never authorize spending or spend more than our current surplus?



Part of the problem is the voter. Between someone who will cut government spending and someone who will increase it, they will always vote for the one promising "freebies".

Maintain that over decades and you can see where a bloated state comes from. The amount of cuts to balance America's books would cripple the country at this point, who is going to vote for that? Yet the longer it goes on, the bigger the debts and the more pain in trying to tackle them. When you're using credit cards to pay off credit cards AND debasing the currency AND keeping interest rates at historic lows. You're out of tricks.

If another banking crisis comes your way, expect a Cyprus event. The government couldn't get away with socialising private losses at that scale again. Remember when a bank goes down, its creditors are first in line. By the time it's the depositors turn to get their money back, the pot will likely be empty.

- off to bed


----------



## Infestissumam (Oct 3, 2013)

Inciatus said:


> It affects government workers though some of which cannot afford a few days of unpaid leave.


People that cannot afford it get laid off every day, except they don't get to come back to their jobs after a period of time has passed. The most this will hold said people up for is a little under a month, so I fail to emphasise.


----------



## Attaman (Oct 3, 2013)

ADF said:


> Part of the problem is the voter. Between someone who will cut government spending and someone who will increase it, they will always vote for the one promising "freebies".


 Well, let us consider what "freebies" are on the cutting block:
Food stamps? Sure, there is a tiny bit of fraud found in it, we could probably look a little deeper into things and save a few thou- wait, you're talking about cutting almost $10 for every fraudulent dime? Doesn't that seem a bit excessive?

Medicare and Medicaid? But, uh, don't a lot of people rely on these to not die? And you're looking to cut it _how much_?

Food and Drug Administration? The people who make sure our food and drugs aren't likely to kill us? _Really?_

This is why most people have been speaking about _increasing taxes_, as well as requesting an increase in minimum wage. Between the increased spending power and the greater funding available to vital programs, we could very readily decrease our debt and give a healthy boost to our economy. Y'know, more money circulating and everything. But then this cuts into profit margins, and we simply can't have that.


----------



## AlexInsane (Oct 3, 2013)

And what would happen if there was a major run on the banks of this country before a banking crisis? Would it be worse or better?


----------



## Lobar (Oct 3, 2013)

ADF said:


> Even if America votes up the debt ceiling indefinitely, this is not something that can be sustained forever. Greenspan also argued it was not possible for the US to not pay its debts, because it can always print money to pay them, to which the younger economist sat near him nearly fell out of his chair in reaction.
> 
> US debt is the best looking horse in the glue factory, its bought because it is the least bad looking on first impression, plus the dollars history of being a safe haven (from the gold standard days...). But when you're loaning money to pay off older loans, you're operating a ponzi scheme. When you're printing money to pay debts, you're screwing your creditors. Eventually they stop lending you money, and to keep the ponzi scheme going you monetise your debts until the currency finally collapses from abuse.
> 
> America will eventually lose all its creditors, they will eventually abandon the dollar  as the world reserve currency because of the amount it is being abused. That, or America will just blow themselves up in an epic act of stupidity like what is happening now. If they default because they fail to vote up the debt ceiling, the rest of the world holding worthless US bonds are going to be pretty pissed.



Uh, all the money we pay our debts with is money we printed (well, electronically, anyways), because _we own the currency_ those debts are denominated in.

We've also managed to survive pretty much the _entire history of our country_ with some amount of national debt.  If keeping a rolling balance of debt is truly unsustainable, surely we would have succumbed by now.  As noted by the thing I linked, throughout the entire history of the United States, we completely paid off our debt only once, in 1835.  We went into a depression immediately after.  At five other points in our history, we reduced our debt substantially.  Each time, we also went into a depression.


----------



## Reaginicwolf (Oct 3, 2013)

Government programs designed to help people actually end up hindering them, I recall my summer job at McDonald's how I was barely making 150 each paycheck because of taxes for said programs. I understand that there suppose to help people but jeez its not helping me so fuck raising taxes


----------



## Aleu (Oct 3, 2013)

Reaginicwolf said:


> Government programs designed to help people actually end up hindering them, I recall my summer job at McDonald's how I was barely making 150 each paycheck because of taxes for said programs. I understand that there suppose to help people but jeez its not helping me so fuck raising taxes



Aren't you the one against raising minimum wage anyway?


----------



## Inciatus (Oct 3, 2013)

Aleu said:


> Aren't you the one against raising minimum wage anyway?


S/He is.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 3, 2013)

Reaginicwolf said:


> I hate when the democrats and republicans pull this "its my way or nothing will be accomplished" bullshit. They seem to have forgotten that they are not part of congress to satisfy their own needs but are there to satisfy the needs of the people. They always seem to be at there worst around this time of year when its time to decide the budget.



This can't be stressed enough: *The proposed CR bill was already a compromise bill* when the House tacked that ridiculous kill-Obamacare amendment onto it.  The problem is that the current crop of Republicans can't be satisfied with a compromise, they demand total capitulation, election results be damned.  Every single time a compromise is offered by the left, they redefine it as the base offer and demand more, because they figure they can point fingers just as hard and fool you into buying this both sides crap.  Throughout Obama's administration, Democrats have actually compromised away a lot of things for far too little in return.  They shouldn't have to constantly buy off the minority party just to fulfill the basic duties of the offices they hold.


----------



## Reaginicwolf (Oct 3, 2013)

Aleu said:


> Aren't you the one against raising minimum wage anyway?


yep, if taxes werent so high you would not need to do such a thing, even if they did raise minimum wage I bet they would raise taxes to so you would end up in the same boat you were in before


----------



## Attaman (Oct 3, 2013)

Reaginicwolf said:


> Government programs designed to help people actually end up hindering them, I recall my summer job at McDonald's how I was barely making 150 each paycheck because of taxes for said programs. I understand that there suppose to help people but jeez its not helping me so fuck raising taxes


You do realize if you were making only $150 each paycheck, you would be applicable for Food Stamps yes? And, furthermore under the new system, able to get free Healthcare too via Medicaid?

There is a correlation between benefits and minimum wage, but you're misunderstanding. You aren't getting only $150 because those evil government taxes are taking your money to give people food and healthcare, but you're getting only $150 because those businesses decide that's all you deserve / need when the government can foot the bill for food and healthcare. Which, even then, is nowhere near enough unless you're living with another person making the same amount, and only then if you're both content to live in a lower-middle class fashion at _best_ and never get sick or have an accident or the like.


----------



## Aleu (Oct 3, 2013)

Reaginicwolf said:


> yep, if taxes werent so high you would not need to do such a thing, even if they did raise minimum wage I bet they would raise taxes to so you would end up in the same boat you were in before



I imagine you're just beginning to get your feet wet in the workforce because wages are supposed to be increased when taxes are increased to offset it. Not the other way around.


----------



## Reaginicwolf (Oct 3, 2013)

Attaman said:


> You do realize if you were making only $150 each paycheck, you would be applicable for Food Stamps yes? And, furthermore under the new system, able to get free Healthcare too via Medicaid?
> 
> There is a correlation between benefits and minimum wage, but you're misunderstanding. You aren't getting only $150 because those evil government taxes are taking your money to give people food and healthcare, but you're getting only $150 because those businesses decide that's all you deserve / need when the government can foot the bill for food and healthcare. Which, even then, is nowhere near enough unless you're living with another person making the same amount, and only then if you're both content to live in a lower-middle class fashion at _best_ and never get sick or have an accident or the like.


okay if correct me if I'm misreading this, so your saying businessness think I deserve to be on some government program,hmm thats some strange logic that I don't understand. the only reason I was being paid 150 was because of high taxes, my paycheck would of been around the 300 range but since I live in such a urban area the taxes get to the point of outrageous but you still make enough to get by months end assuming you don't buy unnecessary things like a new car


----------



## Ozriel (Oct 3, 2013)

Aleu said:


> Aren't you the one against raising minimum wage anyway?



Happy slaves are good slaves, amirite? Or should I use the "pimp and ho" analogy?




Reaginicwolf said:


> okay if correct me if I'm misreading this, so your saying businessness think I deserve to be on some government program,hmm thats some strange logic that I don't understand. the only reason I was being paid 150 was because of high taxes, my paycheck would of been around the 300 range but since I live in such a urban area the taxes get to the point of outrageous but you still make enough to get by months end assuming you don't buy unnecessary things like a new car




Sorty, but I have to call bullshit on that. It sounds to me you are mismanaging your money.


----------



## Aleu (Oct 3, 2013)

Reaginicwolf said:


> okay if correct me if I'm misreading this, so your saying businessness think I deserve to be on some government program,hmm *thats some strange logic that I don't understand*. the only reason I was being paid 150 was because of high taxes, my paycheck would of been around the 300 range but since I live in such a urban area the taxes get to the point of outrageous but you still make enough to get by months end assuming you don't buy unnecessary things like a new car


Welcome to life



Ozriel said:


> Happy slaves are good slaves, amirite? Or should I use the "pimp and ho" analogy?


I thought hos at least got paid.


----------



## Reaginicwolf (Oct 3, 2013)

Aleu said:


> I imagine you're just beginning to get your feet wet in the workforce because wages are supposed to be increased when taxes are increased to offset it. Not the other way around.


nope I work construction for a small business, i was working part time at mickey d's just because I thought hey some extra cash would be nice


----------



## Ozriel (Oct 3, 2013)

Aleu said:


> I thought hos at least got paid.



They do, but not much. :V


----------



## Lobar (Oct 3, 2013)

Reaginicwolf said:


> okay if correct me if I'm misreading this, so your saying businessness think I deserve to be on some government program,hmm thats some strange logic that I don't understand. the only reason I was being paid 150 was because of high taxes, my paycheck would of been around the 300 range but since I live in such a urban area the taxes get to the point of outrageous but you still make enough to get by months end assuming you don't buy unnecessary things like a new car



Calling bullshit.  Even in California with no withholding allowances, you wouldn't take home less than 80% of a 300 dollar paycheck.  Pay stubs or GTFO.


----------



## Attaman (Oct 3, 2013)

Reaginicwolf said:


> okay if correct me if I'm misreading this, so your saying businessness think I deserve to be on some government program,hmm thats some strange logic that I don't understand.


 Look at it this way: They can pay you $7.25 an hour and let the government pay for your food and healthcare, or they can pay you $10+ so that you can properly buy your own food and healthcare (and by "properly" I mean "again assuming you live with another, but now it's at least functionally tolerable"). Now, let's assume an average of 25 hours a week. That $2.75 / hour raise is $82.50 more they have to pay you per week. There's 52 weeks in the year, so that's $4,290 a year. As a business, they probably have at least 2-3 others in your same store getting paid the same, so that's ~$8.5-$13 thousand a year. They probably own multiple stores...

You see where I'm going with this? By paying you and others less, they start saving 5-6+ digits a year.


----------



## Aleu (Oct 3, 2013)

Lobar said:


> Calling bullshit.  Even in California with no withholding allowances, you wouldn't take home less than 80% of a 300 dollar paycheck.  Pay stubs or GTFO.



Guy says he's a writer; can't type worth shit
Claims he's 18; profile on FA says 21

I'd hazard a guess that he's just full of shit two ways to Sunday.


----------



## Reaginicwolf (Oct 3, 2013)

Lobar said:


> Calling bullshit.  Even in California with no withholding allowances, you wouldn't take home less than 80% of a 300 dollar paycheck.  Pay stubs or GTFO.


okay would you like me to upload my social security number to? I said 300 range not meaning I make more then 300 but around that number, my average paychecks were around 200-250 I count this as around the 300 range. yes my logic is broken when explained to others sometimes but it makes sense to me. You got to round up understand?


----------



## Aleu (Oct 3, 2013)

Reaginicwolf said:


> okay would you like me to upload my social security number to? I said 300 range not meaning I make more then 300 but around that number, my average paychecks were around 200-250 I count this as around the 300 range. yes my logic is broken when explained to others sometimes but it makes sense to me. You got to round up understand?


$200 = ~$300?
Bro, do you even math?

God that reminds me of this idiot lady bitching when I told her the due date of her order. 
10/15/13
"What?? That's a month away!"
"Ma'am, it's 10/1/13..."


----------



## Lobar (Oct 3, 2013)

Reaginicwolf said:


> okay would you like me to upload my social security number to? I said 300 range not meaning I make more then 300 but around that number, my average paychecks were around 200-250 I count this as around the 300 range. yes my logic is broken when explained to others sometimes but it makes sense to me. You got to round up understand?



Clearly you don't have to round up because you must be rounding down your net pay figure of $150 in a similarly generous fashion.  Even if I take the worst case and suppose that you were paid exactly $200 and decided you could call it $300, you should take home more than $150, even in California without claiming an allowance.

Actually, given that you said this was enough to get by in an urban area, I'm having my doubts that you're really the one supporting yourself at all.


e: vvvv He specifically said due to high taxes.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Oct 3, 2013)

Lobar said:


> Calling bullshit.  Even in California with no withholding allowances, you wouldn't take home less than 80% of a 300 dollar paycheck.  Pay stubs or GTFO.



Maybe he's a baby daddy? Or getting garnished for other reasons.


----------



## Ozriel (Oct 3, 2013)

Arshes Nei said:


> Maybe he's a baby daddy? Or getting garnished for other reasons.



Such as medical expenses, loans, late bills, etc.


----------



## Reaginicwolf (Oct 3, 2013)

hmm...are you guys getting mad at the high levels of bullshit?


----------



## Ozriel (Oct 3, 2013)

Reaginicwolf said:


> hmm...are you guys getting mad at the high levels of bullshit?



OMG, you are in my state. Get out.


----------



## Reaginicwolf (Oct 3, 2013)

jeez seems no one understands what a opinion is, "if it goes against my idea of what is right then it is wrong."That basically sums up everyone with there lynch mob habits. Sorry guys for I no give a fuck if you disagree


----------



## Aleu (Oct 3, 2013)

Reaginicwolf said:


> jeez seems no one understands what a opinion is, "if it goes against my idea of what is right then it is wrong."That basically sums up everyone with there lynch mob habits. Sorry guys for I no give a fuck if you disagree



I don't think you understand what the difference is between an "opinion" and "fact".

God why do people always use this cop-out?


----------



## Reaginicwolf (Oct 3, 2013)

Does anyone bother to read my signature. What does it say, can you say it for me. my opinions often piss others off thats why I made the damn thing.


----------



## Ozriel (Oct 3, 2013)

Aleu said:


> I don't think you understand what the difference is between an "opinion" and "fact".
> 
> God why do people always use this cop-out?



Martyr complex.




Reaginicwolf said:


> Does anyone bother to read my signature. What does it say, can you say it for me. my opinions often piss others off thats why I made the damn thing.



You were being refuted because of your arguments. If anyone is madder than a march hare is you using cop-out and martyr techniques. The best way to not give a shit would be to leave with no further replies...and not give a shit.

But I know how hard it is to not give up a fight when the chips are out of reach and you want to go down in a blaze of glory. You keep coming back because you cannot resist the temptation of making yourself look like a hero.


----------



## Aleu (Oct 3, 2013)

Reaginicwolf said:


> Does anyone bother to read my signature.  What does it say, can you say it for me. my opinions often piss others  off thats why I made the damn thing.





Aleu said:


> I don't think you understand what the difference is between an "opinion" and "fact".




God it's like you don't know how to read


----------



## Reaginicwolf (Oct 3, 2013)

Aleu said:


> I don't think you understand what the difference is between an "opinion" and "fact".
> 
> God why do people always use this cop-out?


tell me then what is a opinion then? do you take everything for fact because it seems you do, your taking this too seriously.


----------



## Reaginicwolf (Oct 3, 2013)

Ozriel said:


> Martyr complex.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


no actually its because its fun to debate to me just over anything. don't care if i look like a fool no one here knows me in the real world, its the intermanet man, ya understand.


----------



## Machine (Oct 3, 2013)

Reaginicwolf said:


> no actually its because its fun to debate to me just over anything. don't care if i look like a fool no one here knows me in the real world, its the intermanet man, ya understand.


Everyone can already infer that you're no less a fool in real life than you are on the Internet.

Picture that if you will.


----------



## Reaginicwolf (Oct 3, 2013)

yes i know what for i shall be do, i will makel a theard in whichiv the peoples shall come and debate with me for i know u no not to restistil the temptation to debate with me. HAHA! its fool proof. no....FUCKIN GENIUS! its like Enisten busted a nut on my brain thats how smart it is


----------



## Reaginicwolf (Oct 3, 2013)

this is fun right the theards been derailed because you all had to make some point to me, so who is the fool? me of course but also you for being sucked up by some urge to prove my point wrong. no you couldn't ignore it you had to stomp it out like a bag of dog shit, which i admit was...or do i. but back to the subject at hand, congress.


----------



## Fernin (Oct 3, 2013)

Monthly Bills

Rent: $900
Food: $120 (and that's eating crap, triple that if you want to eat healthy)
Power: $90
Phone: $70 (for cheap phone no less)
Water: $40
Sewer/Trash: $45
Gas: $30
Gasoline: $130
Total: $1425 (this is bare minimum with no video-games, cable,internet, or anything else at all)

Cali Minimum Wage: $8.00
Monthly Pay w/40 Hour week full time job: $1280
Total Average Cumulative Tax: 22% (for me at least)
Net Income: $998.40
Deficit with Monthly Bills: $426.60

As you can see, just surviving right now is impossible on minimum wage. The wage needs to go up, and I don't care how rude a thing it is to say but anyone who doesn't think said wage needs to be raised is a damn moron. And all the things above I listed is in disregard for the cost of have kids, school, or indeed anything you need to do anything other than just exist.

EDIT: I forgot car insurance, so add around $80 minimum to the above numbers.


----------



## Machine (Oct 3, 2013)

Reaginicwolf said:


> this is fun right the theards been derailed because you all had to make some point to me, so who is the fool? me of course but also you for being sucked up by some urge to prove *my point wrong.* no you couldn't ignore it you had to stomp it out like a bag of dog shit, which i admit was...or do i. but back to the subject at hand, congress.


No point besides the face that you're a blithering moron.

Case in point:



Reaginicwolf said:


> yes i know what for i shall be do, i will makel a theard in whichiv the peoples shall come and debate with me for i know u no not to restistil the temptation to debate with me. HAHA! its fool proof. no....FUCKIN GENIUS! its like Enisten busted a nut on my brain thats how smart it is



Lol.


----------



## Ozriel (Oct 3, 2013)

Bye.

The rest of you know the drill.


----------



## Inciatus (Oct 3, 2013)

Fernin said:


> Monthly Bills
> 
> Rent: $900
> Food: $120 (and that's eating crap, triple that if you want to eat healthy)
> ...


Obviously you are simply living to extravagantly for your income. If you want to be able to live that life pull yourself up by your bootstraps and get a better job. :V


----------



## CrazyLee (Oct 3, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> In othernews, due to the shutdown, WWII Vets were denied access to the WWII memorial, something the government knew about months in advance but still denied them access to it, due to this whole shutdown nonsene. Which, for the record, has always had unlimited access in normal times, even when there's no staff around (apparently).


OH HAY LOOK IT'S DAILY CALLER FROM ONE OF OUR RESIDENT LIBERTARIANS. :V

I'm really getting sick of people blaming Obama for not letting the vets in. 
The government is shut down, and because of that, that means national parks/monuments are shut down too. While I think it's silly to put fences around national monuments it doesn't surprise me.
It might interest you to know that both GOP and Dem congressmen were outside there with the Vets, screaming and blaming each other, and they both let the vets in, and the vets walked in while the parks police watched and didn't stop them. No one had a problem with letting the vets in to their monument, on either side.
But this is just one more opportunity for conservatives to score political points. "HEY LOOK OBAMA HATES VETS!!!"


If you want to get pissy, get pissy about the fact that Congress is still getting paid during this shit, as well as most of their staff.


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Oct 3, 2013)

Ozriel said:


> Bye.
> 
> The rest of you know the drill.



I read the title as 'hand job congress.'


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 3, 2013)

Infestissumam said:


> People that cannot afford it get laid off every day, except they don't get to come back to their jobs after a period of time has passed. The most this will hold said people up for is a little under a month, so I fail to emphasise.



Except:

a) this is nearly 1 _million_ people effectively "laid off" all at once as opposed to a few dozen or a few hundred, 

b) there's no guarantee that this in fact be over in "little under a month" and 

c) the longer this does go on, the more unexpected impacts to those not immediately affected will accumulate and be more visible. 
I remember being in the United Kingdom in 2001/2002 when there was a national fuel tanker's strike - and for the first few days it seemed nothing was terribly much affected. Then, not only did fuel supplies start rapidly drying up fro the average motorist, the darndest consequences of a fuel-shortage in a fuel-dependent society started to stack up, like UK ATMs running out of cash because the security vans for restocking them were running out of fuel, and surgical operations being cancelled due to a lack of blood supplies - because the mobile blood donor vehicles were off the road due to lack of fuel.

The same sort of unexpected things will start happening the longer the US Federal government is shut down. Already accidents involving public transport are not being investigated by the NTSB due to lack of funds, and anyone right now wanting to travel overseas and needing their US passport renewed will be shit out of luck. What will happen to all the private businesses working on government contracts who won't be getting paid, either due to no cash available or there simply being no-one there to process the invoices? What about business who serve primarily government workers who will be conserving their last pay cheque to cover essentials and won't be looking to spend what they usually do at said businesses? Will _private_ company workers be put on unpaid leave because their companies are dependent on government business or payments for work and can't pay their own workers?

Saying at "shutdown +2 days" that "_well, it doesn't appear to really be a problem - what's the fuss about_" is rather like someone who has fallen from the top of the Empire State Building and calls out to those halfway down "Hey, I'm uninjured so far - what's the problem!"


----------



## Attaman (Oct 3, 2013)

To further drive home the point that Mayfurr is making, you must remember that we have a tropical storm right about to violently penetrate the United States at the Gulf. Even the weaker tropical storms tend to be problematic, so if this thing turns out stronger than expected or comes into a Sandy-esque "Perfect Storm" situation we're looking at what may be a fairly big bill for the damages... during the middle of a government shutdown.


----------



## Inciatus (Oct 3, 2013)

Attaman said:


> To further drive home the point that Mayfurr is making, you must remember that we have a tropical storm right about to violently penetrate the United States at the Gulf. Even the weaker tropical storms tend to be problematic, so if this thing turns out stronger than expected or comes into a Sandy-esque "Perfect Storm" situation we're looking at what may be a fairly big bill for the damages... during the middle of a government shutdown.


Though if nothing else it will likely cause one of the sides to cave.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 3, 2013)

Inciatus said:


> Though if nothing else it will likely cause one of the sides to cave.


That sad moment when you realize the only thing that will make the government actually work is a natural disaster.


----------



## Inciatus (Oct 4, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> That sad moment when you realize the only thing that will make the government actually work is a natural disaster.


'Murica fuck yeah!


----------



## AlexInsane (Oct 4, 2013)

Inciatus said:


> Though if nothing else it will likely cause one of the sides to cave.



It'll be the Democrats if anything - being a doormat for the GOP is all they seem to be doing of late. 

Wish they had as much balls and cussed stubborness as the Republicans did.


----------



## Kosdu (Oct 4, 2013)

AlexInsane said:


> It'll be the Democrats if anything - being a doormat for the GOP is all they seem to be doing of late.
> 
> Wish they had as much balls and cussed stubborness as the Republicans did.



I do hope you are trolling.


----------



## Ryu Deacon (Oct 4, 2013)

Lobar said:


> Uh, all the money we pay our debts with is money we printed (well, electronically, anyways), because _we own the currency_ those debts are denominated in.
> 
> We've also managed to survive pretty much the _entire history of our country_ with some amount of national debt.  If keeping a rolling balance of debt is truly unsustainable, surely we would have succumbed by now.  As noted by the thing I linked, throughout the entire history of the United States, we completely paid off our debt only once, in 1835.  We went into a depression immediately after.  At five other points in our history, we reduced our debt substantially.  Each time, we also went into a depression.


Not secumbing so far does not mean you wont ever.
Im guessing you forgot the dangerous fundemental trap thats attached to "Paper Money" of which almost all Currencies around the world are including ours. Value in money these days is not determained by its actual matural value but rather a fragile ilusion of trust that once broken cannot easly be rebuilt, All that the Value of the Dollar as a currency is hanging on is the trust of foreign creditors and them buying/ investing in Dollars, the minute foreign Countries stop trusting in the Dollar is the minute the whole Bubble the US Economics have been building on for Years now bursts and we dont even have to wait for the 17th or any other specific Date, Credit Agencies will bring down the US just as well on their own if they should stop being bias towards the US and downgrade the US a step closer to Junk Status, thats not something that should be downplayed. And to compare this with previous crisis  in History is a false move, this crisis that the US has been suffering from for over 6 Years now is a situation that has never come to be before in US History and to say that it will be resolved like all others crisis have is stupid, and some of the most recent ones in Obamas Presidency have not been resolved but rather kicked down the road to all go bursting in a single powerful blast...


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 4, 2013)

Some interesting commentary from the far side of the Pacific:

*Republicans stuck in reality they created*


			
				Sydney Morning Herald said:
			
		

> It doesn't get much more radical than trying to bring the government down. And that's the real concern here: what if this isn't really about Obamacare at all? What if the government shutdown itself is the goal? Truth be told, Republican candidates have been talking about doing this since 2010. Then it wasn't necessarily about Obamacare.
> 
> It was just as likely about budget cuts - "a down payment on fiscal sanity" in that well-worn Republican phrase sometimes shouted before rallying crowds chanting "cut it or shut it". *Either way the subtext has always been the same: that shutting down the government would be a good thing rather than the kind of dysfunction that, say, in a country like ours happens once in a hundred years and causes a government to be dismissed.*
> 
> ...



*Tea Party's democracy ransom*


			
				The Dominion Post said:
			
		

> The Tea Party's animosity towards Mr Obama's healthcare reforms is no secret. However, the fact is the measures were passed in 2010, two years before the president's re-election in a campaign in which "Obamacare" was front and centre and they have been upheld by the US Supreme Court.
> 
> *The Tea Party's attempt to blackmail Mr Obama into scrapping the reforms, or at least delaying or winding back critical elements, is therefore not just an affront to democracy, but an affront to the ultimate legal arbiters of the US Constitution.*
> 
> ...


----------



## Lobar (Oct 4, 2013)

Kosdu said:


> I do hope you are trolling.



As far as the history of this administration has gone, he's not wrong (surprisingly for AlexInsane).  Democrats have far too frequently given in on policy to try to engender some spirit of cooperation across the aisle.  It's mostly gone unnoticed, because Republicans have seen no reason to reciprocate when they can simply demand more.  For all Obama's center-left talk, his economic policy has ended up center-right by the time it clears his desk.

They won't cave this time, though (oh god I hope).  A compromise was already hammered out and built into the CR before it was introduced to Congress, because this is a routine, mandatory bill for the government to pass and everyone who's not a zealot wants it to go smoothly.  And then some shitlord goes and tacks a poison pill onto it?  And not just any poison pill, but a demand to completely scuttle the President's biggest and most politically expensive achievement?  Democrats are _beyond_ pissed off about it.  Even Harry Reid seems to have managed to find his spine.



Ryu Deacon said:


> Not secumbing so far does not mean you wont ever.
> Im guessing you forgot the dangerous fundemental trap thats attached to "Paper Money" of which almost all Currencies around the world are including ours. Value in money these days is not determained by its actual matural value but rather a fragile ilusion of trust that once broken cannot easly be rebuilt, All that the Value of the Dollar as a currency is hanging on is the trust of foreign creditors and them buying/ investing in Dollars, the minute foreign Countries stop trusting in the Dollar is the minute the whole Bubble the US Economics have been building on for Years now bursts and we dont even have to wait for the 17th or any other specific Date, Credit Agencies will bring down the US just as well on their own if they should stop being bias towards the US and downgrade the US a step closer to Junk Status, thats not something that should be downplayed. And to compare this with previous crisis  in History is a false move, this crisis that the US has been suffering from for over 6 Years now is a situation that has never come to be before in US History and to say that it will be resolved like all others crisis have is stupid, and some of the most recent ones in Obamas Presidency have not been resolved but rather kicked down the road to all go bursting in a single powerful blast...



I forget nothing.  Guess what, when the dollar was still pegged to gold, it didn't have much material value either.  Demand for gold is just a matter of trust too.  It has _some_ industrial use, but what gives it its value is that it's shiny, relatively hard to find, and has a history as a means of exchange.  Just like the dollar (okay, the dollar isn't shiny).  Gold is every bit as prone to a loss of faith as "paper" money.

And actually, the dollar does have more things going for it than mere trust.  In the United States, you are _required_ to accept USD as payment for any debt or transaction, due to legal tender laws.  There will also always be some minimum amount of demand for USD, as the citizens of this country must make a mandatory payment in USD to the government each year in the form of taxes.  This also means the government is a guaranteed final acceptor of the dollar.  No "hot potato" scenario truly exists.

Bond ratings are a measure of default risk, and as I already said once, the United States can never default unless it chooses to.  I mean, it's literally impossible, because we cannot run out of money to pay our debts with _when we issue the money_.  That's why we get to stay AAA.  There are other problems associated with generating a bunch new currency if other actions aren't taken to counteract it, like inflation, but default risk is not one of them.  The only thing that would trigger a credit downgrade is if it looks like Congress would actually be so pigheadedly stupid as to choose to default on our debts, as in the case of the debt ceiling fight that caused the downgrade back in 2011.


----------



## ADF (Oct 4, 2013)

Attaman said:


> Well, let us consider what "freebies" are on the cutting block:
> Food stamps? Sure, there is a tiny bit of fraud found in it, we could probably look a little deeper into things and save a few thou- wait, you're talking about cutting almost $10 for every fraudulent dime? Doesn't that seem a bit excessive?
> 
> Medicare and Medicaid? But, uh, don't a lot of people rely on these to not die? And you're looking to cut it _how much_?
> ...



Your list not mine. I was simply pointing to the problem that the politician with the biggest bribes tends to win, and they can easily offer bribes because they can always pile repaying them onto future generations. The last Labour government was popular because they ran a quarter deficit, they went on a spending splurge during what was believed to be a economic boom period. Then when it turned out to be a bubble and the money dried up, they left the next government with a massive debt and an infamous note.

Not that I'm defending the present bastards in government, implementing the austerity wholly on the poor and vulnerable; while splurging on the rich. Which again ties into the problem you mentioned that the people most able to pay, don't. Globalism empowered them to hide their wealth from society, placing an ever growing burden on everyone else.



Lobar said:


> Uh, all the money we pay our debts with is money we printed (well, electronically, anyways), because _we own the currency_ those debts are denominated in.
> 
> We've also managed to survive pretty much the _entire history of our country_ with some amount of national debt.  If keeping a rolling balance of debt is truly unsustainable, surely we would have succumbed by now.  As noted by the thing I linked, throughout the entire history of the United States, we completely paid off our debt only once, in 1835.  We went into a depression immediately after.  At five other points in our history, we reduced our debt substantially.  Each time, we also went into a depression.



America has only been off the gold standard since 1971, it didn't have an unlimited capability to invent money until after the link was severed. 

I'm not saying they have to pay the whole thing off. There is a difference between having a manageable debt load and where America is today, which is paying off debt with more debt and using every trick in the book to minimise the burden of those debts. From keeping interest rates at historical lows so it can effectivly give itself free money, to debasing the currency supply so the debt is reduced. These are all crisis measures, last resort crisis measures. The only reason it hasn't already destroyed the US currency is because as stated, everyone is in the shitter right now. The Dollar is the least bad looking currency, at least, on first impression. Antics like this shut down can result in the global community thinking otherwise...


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 4, 2013)

Mayfurr said:


> Some interesting commentary from the far side of the Pacific:
> 
> *Republicans stuck in reality they created*
> 
> ...


I have to agree here.  If Obama caves in any way the tea party and republicans will demand more next time.  In the long run it's better for them to realize they can't hold people's paychecks ransom than to have them hold people's paychecks ransom every few months.  It sucks for everyone that is getting their paychecks delayed, but would you rather have it delayed one month or every couple months?


----------



## Arshes Nei (Oct 4, 2013)

Not to mention the erosion of what the branches do. If they have a fucking problem with a law they helped create take it with the Judicial branch, not the executive one.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 4, 2013)

Arshes Nei said:


> Not to mention the erosion of what the branches do. If they have a fucking problem with a law they helped create take it with the Judicial branch, not the executive one.


They did already, the ACA was deemed legal.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Oct 4, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> They did already, the ACA was deemed legal.



I know, but what I'm saying if Obama caved it erodes what the branches do.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 4, 2013)

Arshes Nei said:


> I know, but what I'm saying if Obama caved it erodes what the branches do.


It's not going to happen.  The republicans are overestimating their chances.  They always do this and talk about rhetoric about "taking back the guvurnment from thems obamas" and such.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 4, 2013)

ADF said:


> America has only been off the gold standard since 1971, it didn't have an unlimited capability to invent money until after the link was severed.
> 
> I'm not saying they have to pay the whole thing off. There is a difference between having a manageable debt load and where America is today, which is paying off debt with more debt and using every trick in the book to minimise the burden of those debts. From keeping interest rates at historical lows so it can effectivly give itself free money, to debasing the currency supply so the debt is reduced. These are all crisis measures, last resort crisis measures. The only reason it hasn't already destroyed the US currency is because as stated, everyone is in the shitter right now. The Dollar is the least bad looking currency, at least, on first impression. Antics like this shut down can result in the global community thinking otherwise...



If the purpose of QE really was to be the last-ditch measure propping up our debt obligations, why is the Fed planning on tapering it back now?  Economic seppuku? 

Oh, and all our debt ever has been paid off with more debt.  Before there was a United States, there were no U.S. dollars (obviously).  Simple accounting dictates that for every dollar that has come into existence, there is a matching debit somewhere in the government's books.  All currency is inherently an I.O.U. from the government issuing it.


----------



## ADF (Oct 4, 2013)

Lobar said:


> If the purpose of QE really was to be the last-ditch measure propping up our debt obligations, why is the Fed planning on tapering it back now?  Economic seppuku?



They're not, because they cannot. The Fed has to maintain a delicate balance; between pumping up the US government and the US economy with enough stimulus to maintain the illusion of a fake recovery, to debase the dollar and the value of America's debts. All while keeping enough faith with their creditors and investors to not cause a global dollar dump. It's a bluff, in other words. If they do taper it will be insignificantly minute, they're far more likely to increase the stimulus to maintain this false paradigm. They bluffed they would taper and when that bluff was believed, when the markets and everyone were discussing to what extent they would taper, their previous positive outlook on the US economy suddenly dwindled and the markets were shocked by a none taper.

It's a confidence game they'll eventually lose, but they have a shitty global economy on their side right now. If all governments are debasing, the US doing it doesn't look so immediately bad.

And just to note, one theory going around is if they do taper it won't be until after the Christmas splurge. As it would be shooting themselves in the foot to hit confidence during the biggest spending period.



Lobar said:


> Oh, and all our debt ever has been paid off with more debt.



Actually no, you couldn't simply invent money to pay down debts when you were on the gold standard. Every denomination of currency had to be backed by the correct amount of gold, in America's case one ounce of gold on deposit at the fed for every $35 in circulation. Thinking otherwise is what got America kicked off the gold standard, as they had no choice but to close the gold window and default on their obligations because of the consequences of abusing their currency. Of course after defaulting on their gold obligations, there was now no physical commodity restricting the supply of dollars in circulation. So this situation could only be created post 1971.



Lobar said:


> Before there was a United States, there were no U.S. dollars (obviously).  Simple accounting dictates that for every dollar that has come into existence, there is a matching debit somewhere in the government's books.  All currency is inherently an I.O.U. from the government issuing it.



The first currency of the US was the Continental, which was established after the revolutionary war began. This was an unbacked fiat currency, an IOU of value dependant on trust much like the dollar today. It only took six years for them to destroy it through abuse. Seems they were just printing money in order to fund their war, which debased the currency to worthlessness. Too bad they didn't have America's present world reserve currency status, perhaps they could have gotten away with it longer.

Are all currencies ultimately trust? Are they all ultimately debt? No. A gold coin isn't an IOU, it doesn't require trust, it is what it is. A commodity in demand that was widely accepted as payment of goods. If someone is trading you a CD player for something else, there is no need for trust because the item being offered is seen as having intrinsic value. Currency only became debts when they got paper representation, when a dollar was "in silver payable to the bearer on demand". A piece of paper was an IOU, the trust that it could be exchanged for the valued commodity in which it was backed by.

Of course today's currency is entirely faith based. There is a difference between the faith of "This can be exchanged for something widely considered valuable" and "this is totally worthless, but I trust it can be used to purchase things". America destroyed the initial trust when it closed the gold window, when the dollar could no longer be exchanged for gold or silver coins. The latter trust is eroded over time, but the lack of choice globally means they can get away with it longer. If any country tried to adopt a gold standard right now, they'd be promptly invaded by all the other countries. Governments globally can only get away with this much currency abuse while there is nowhere to escape it.


----------



## Inciatus (Oct 4, 2013)

ADF said:


> If any country tried to adopt a gold standard right now, they'd be promptly invaded by all the other countries.


What?


----------



## Kosdu (Oct 4, 2013)

Inciatus said:


> What?



I believe he is saying it would simply be to the displeasure of other soveriengties to have a currency far more secure than theirs.


----------



## ADF (Oct 4, 2013)

Inciatus said:


> What?



Like taxes, to stop money bleeding into tax havens; there has to be an international agreement so there is nowhere for them to hide. To stop people fleeing currency abuse, all countries have to jump (debase) together. The country that doesn't jump becomes a threat to all the others, having the strongest currency is what earned the Dollar its reserve status after all. If just one country decides to back its currency with gold in order to protect its buying power against global debasement pressures, then that makes all the others look like a liability. They're already a liability, but there are no better alternatives; that's the point. You're going to get screwed wherever you go. Suddenly having a currency that isn't debasing with the others creates somewhere for people to run to for safety, and if this global debasement is to work that cannot happen.

There are some who speculate this was part of the motivation for ousting Gaddafi, as he was a strong campaigner for an African currency union under a gold standard, which would have severely undermined the dollar.

Technically you could do it without a gold standard, just don't debase the value of your currency. Simply by remaining static the currency would seemingly appreciate against the others that are falling. This creates a significant pressure for the state to debase however as imports are favoured over local goods, especially if they're an export economy reliant on their cheapness like China. America jumps, China has to jump also. If it doesn't then eventually its currency will appreciate and their goods will lose their competitive advantage. It's funny that America accuses China of being a currency manipulator when they simply respond to what the Dollar does.


----------



## CrazyLee (Oct 4, 2013)

I'm just going to leave this here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/01/us/politics/conservatives-with-a-cause-were-right.html?_r=0



> what gives House Republicans the idea that  they can triumph in their push to repeal, or at least delay, the  Affordable Care Act when so many veteran voices in their party see it as  an unwinnable fight?         *â€œBecause weâ€™re right, simply because weâ€™re right,â€* said Representative  Steve King, Republican of Iowa, one of the most conservative of House  lawmakers. â€œWe can recover from a political squabble, *but we can never  recover from Obamacare.â€        *
> 
> Representative RaÃºl Labrador, Republican of Idaho and one of the  original proponents of the so-called Defund Obamacare movement, was  similarly sanguine. *â€œWe can always win,â€* he said Monday afternoon, as he  jogged up the stairs to a closed-door conference meeting, where House  Republicans gathered to plot their next move.



If you wonder why the government is so dysfunctional, ask why such arrogant self-centered pricks are elected to office. Guys who think they're always right and never wrong.
And I don't think it was this article but I was reading one where one Republican was saying that he knew that ALL Americans were against Obamacare because he went back home and talked to his constituents. Well of COURSE all your voters are going to agree with you after gerrymandering your district into an area filled with YesMen who tell you want you want to hear. Try talking to people who disagree with you sometime.


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 4, 2013)

CrazyLee said:


> And I don't think it was this article but I was reading one where one Republican was saying that he knew that ALL Americans were against Obamacare because he went back home and talked to his constituents. *Well of COURSE all your voters are going to agree with you after gerrymandering your district into an area filled with YesMen who tell you want you want to hear.* Try talking to people who disagree with you sometime.



The Sydney Morning Herald" article I linked to previously pinned the roots of this fiasco on the fact that Republicans managed to gerrymander themselves into a situation where although they were guaranteed to win more seats with less votes than Democrats (e.g. apparently in Pennsylvania, Democrats won nearly 51 per cent of the vote, but Republicans won 13 seats to five), there was a big unintended consequence that has now come to bite the Republicans in the arse:



			
				Sydney Morning Herald said:
			
		

> It [the Republican State Leadership Committee] ran a $30 million project called Redmap, aimed at winning key seats at the state level which would give it the power to draw electoral boundaries. What's more, it planned to do this in a census year so it could draw with precision - 2010 was exactly such a year.
> 
> So the plan worked. *The Republicans played the system. But now the system is playing them. *Sure, Republicans look set to control the house well into the future. But in the American system, the political contest doesn't simply vanish. It shifts to the primaries. *Now if you're a Republican house member, your greatest threat comes not from Democrats, but from other Republican challengers hungry for your seat. The result is that Republicans are talking more to their own base, and less to everyone else.
> *
> ...



All because the US system allows politicians to redraw electoral boundaries instead of an independent non-political body like in other countries. Hell, even the _term_ "gerrymander" came to the English language courtesy of good ol' Uncle Sam's political antics. :roll:


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 5, 2013)

If you have a friend that doesn't understand what this whole government shutdown is, here's a funny image that summarizes it in one image.

Also I'm going to be laughing so hard when the midterms come around and the republican "we're taking back the government and going to take control both the house and senate" rhetoric comes back.


----------



## Attaman (Oct 5, 2013)

I can't help but feel the similarities between Yoho and Yolo are more than coincidental. Just wanted to get that humorous musing out of the way before crushing your spirits with the actual content of the article.


----------



## Aleu (Oct 5, 2013)

How does one go from a veterinarian to a seat in politics? 
Fuck it's like they just let anyone in. No wonder we're so fucked.


----------



## Phyllostachys (Oct 5, 2013)

I didn't thought I would be directly affected by this shut down.
But now I need to look up for something in the USDA taxonomy database.... and website is unavailable due to lapse in government funding. Oh.


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Oct 5, 2013)

Aleu said:


> How does one go from a veterinarian to a seat in politics?
> Fuck it's like they just let anyone in. No wonder we're so fucked.



The same way one goes from being a movie star or a peanut farmer to President of the United States. Luck, charisma, and knowing the right people.


----------



## Inciatus (Oct 6, 2013)

Phyllostachys said:


> I didn't thought I would be directly affected by this shut down.
> But now I need to look up for something in the USDA taxonomy database.... and website is unavailable due to lapse in government funding. Oh.


I had a similar problem trying to figure out what the heck I was doing wrong in my math calculating the exit velocity of gasses through a de Laval Nozzle. I was getting stupidly low numbers where 7MPa internal, .1MPa external, and 3500K were yielding exit velocities of roughly 17m/s instead of the 2800 it should have been. Turns out I screwed up the gas constant.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 7, 2013)

Well fuck you too boehner.  Apparently he's not going to raise to allow the debt ceiling to be raised.  Which means there's ten days until the usa government defaults.  Bye bye republican party, wish it was fun knowing you.  Boehner's a huge-


----------



## Fernin (Oct 7, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> Well fuck you too boehner.  Apparently he's not going to raise to allow the debt ceiling to be raised.  Which means there's ten days until the usa government defaults.  Bye bye republican party, wish it was fun knowing you.  Boehner's a huge-



Amusingly, a friend of mine whom I argue politics with swears up and down this whole thing is nothing but a democrat conspiracy to destroy the republican party and spirit the whole nation away to communism. Because "The GOP (remember it's called the GRAND Old Party for a reason...) would never be so stupid as to allow something like this to happen. The whole thing is obviously a socialist engineered scheme to destroy the one political party they can't control so they can swoop in and 'save' the nation and take it over at the same time." - And yes, that's a quote. XD


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 7, 2013)

Fernin said:


> Amusingly, a friend of mine whom I argue politics with swears up and down this whole thing is nothing but a democrat conspiracy to destroy the republican party and spirit the whole nation away to communism. Because "The GOP (remember it's called the GRAND Old Party for a reason...) would never be so stupid as to allow something like this to happen. The whole thing is obviously a socialist engineered scheme to destroy the one political party they can't control so they can swoop in and 'save' the nation and take it over at the same time." - And yes, that's a quote. XD


They don't need any helping destroying themselves.  Also the latest approval rating poll by cnn has the republican party taking the world's biggest crap.


----------



## Attaman (Oct 7, 2013)

So what you're saying Fernin is that this is a plot to destroy the one party Democrats can't control... by taking control of some of the most secure Republican seats as well as controlling their speaker? Doesn't this, uh, entail control?


----------



## Lobar (Oct 7, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> Well fuck you too boehner.  Apparently he's not going to raise to allow the debt ceiling to be raised.  Which means there's ten days until the usa government defaults.  Bye bye republican party, wish it was fun knowing you.  Boehner's a huge-



Source?  Last I heard Boehner said he wouldn't risk a default, but I have a day or two's news to catch up on still.


----------



## Fernin (Oct 7, 2013)

Attaman said:


> So what you're saying Fernin is that this is a plot to destroy the one party Democrats can't control... by taking control of some of the most secure Republican seats as well as controlling their speaker? Doesn't this, uh, entail control?



I think you need to reread my post. XD


----------



## AlexInsane (Oct 7, 2013)

Lobar said:


> Source?  Last I heard Boehner said he wouldn't risk a default, but I have a day or two's news to catch up on still.



He brought the United States government to a screeching halt, you really think he's not insane enough to bring the whole economy crashing to the ground? These people need to be stopped, unlawfully if necessary. If I were Obama I'd be calling every contact and secret agent I could get my hands on to spirit these people away to cells far removed from D.C., where they could be contained until the situation could be salvaged and stabilized.


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Oct 7, 2013)

Wait, so that boner dude shut the government down?


----------



## AlexInsane (Oct 7, 2013)

It's the GOP - they're all interchangeable twatwaffles, but Boehner is one of the loudest voices in the party right now. And he wanted this to happen, him and every other member of the GOP. WE HAVE EVIDENCE OF THEM BEING FUCKING HAPPY THAT THEY DID THIS, THAT THEY CAUSED THIS. And now they're trying to put it on the President. My God, I'm so angry right now I think I'm going to need a lie-down. 

And what upsets me most of all is how everyone is like "Oh, well, mmm." If this had happened in the 1700s, the American people would have risen up, throttled every member of the GOP with their bare hands, and restored order. But there'll never be another revolution in this country, unless it's by those gunwielding fanatics that seem convinced we're out to steal their precious arms. The government wins, no matter who runs the show, and we all continue to lose, day by day. What a sad, sick state of affairs. 

If I ever get the chance, I'm becoming an expatriate. This country can't save itself because its people don't want to save themselves. I don't want to be a part of it any longer.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 7, 2013)

AlexInsane said:


> He brought the United States government to a screeching halt, you really think he's not insane enough to bring the whole economy crashing to the ground? These people need to be stopped, unlawfully if necessary. If I were Obama I'd be calling every contact and secret agent I could get my hands on to spirit these people away to cells far removed from D.C., where they could be contained until the situation could be salvaged and stabilized.



Boehner cares about one thing above all else: he wants to stay Speaker.  His actions are the product of trying to play a very tight (probably unwinnable) game between the different factions.  He was very publicly against this whole shutdown stunt until he had a rather sudden change of heart and is now the primary reason it continues.

I would think he realizes that being the man that kept us from avoiding economic Armageddon (which is basically what we will be facing if we actually default) would have very bad prospects for his continued Spearkership.


----------



## Aetius (Oct 7, 2013)

Jesus Christ Congress, raise the fucking debt ceiling already.


----------



## AlexInsane (Oct 7, 2013)

Lobar said:


> Boehner cares about one thing above all else: he wants to stay Speaker.  His actions are the product of trying to play a very tight (probably unwinnable) game between the different factions.  He was very publicly against this whole shutdown stunt until he had a rather sudden change of heart and is now the primary reason it continues.
> 
> I would think he realizes that being the man that kept us from avoiding economic Armageddon (which is basically what we will be facing if we actually default) would have very bad prospects for his continued Spearkership.



I think you overestimate the foresight of Boehner. He can take the Speakership or he can leave it - after all, even if he's ousted he'll get an impossible amount of money to retire on. What does he care about being the Speaker of the House when there's a thousand other blowhard dickheads all jostling position below him waiting for the opening? Anyone could do his job, and probably could do it worse than he has. 

The phrase "Nero fiddled while Rome burned" has never been more apt right now.


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Oct 7, 2013)

AlexInsane said:


> It's the GOP - they're all interchangeable twatwaffles, but Boehner is one of the loudest voices in the party right now. And he wanted this to happen, him and every other member of the GOP. WE HAVE EVIDENCE OF THEM BEING FUCKING HAPPY THAT THEY DID THIS, THAT THEY CAUSED THIS. And now they're trying to put it on the President. My God, I'm so angry right now I think I'm going to need a lie-down.
> 
> And what upsets me most of all is how everyone is like "Oh, well, mmm." If this had happened in the 1700s, the American people would have risen up, throttled every member of the GOP with their bare hands, and restored order. But there'll never be another revolution in this country, unless it's by those gunwielding fanatics that seem convinced we're out to steal their precious arms. The government wins, no matter who runs the show, and we all continue to lose, day by day. What a sad, sick state of affairs.
> 
> If I ever get the chance, I'm becoming an expatriate. This country can't save itself because its people don't want to save themselves. I don't want to be a part of it any longer.


 My family identify as Republicans and they aren't happy about this. They think both the democrats and republicans are part of some bad system in congress. You can't really say every republican is happy about this or supports this. I am not that gullible to believe "this party is fully responsible, and this party is innocent", that's classic man. 


I guess you can call me a Republican, since that's what I usually side with during presidential elections, but not that I support everything they stand for obviously, since I am not religious for that matter.


I don't trust the government BTW, whether republican or democrat. And I think people in the media twist the stories around to make both democrats and republicans fight each other, since it's pretty obvious.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 7, 2013)

Lobar said:


> Source?  Last I heard Boehner said he wouldn't risk a default, but I have a day or two's news to catch up on still.


He will only raise the debt ceiling if entitlements are cut.


----------



## AlexInsane (Oct 7, 2013)

It really does scares me that the entire country is being held up by this asshole. Obama looks like a pussy compared to Boehner right now - not even he could do something like this. 

Although it makes me wonder how this actually came to pass. How and when did the Speaker of the House gain the legal right to bring the country to its knees?


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 7, 2013)

AlexInsane said:


> It really does scares me that the entire country is being held up by this asshole. Obama looks like a pussy compared to Boehner right now - not even he could do something like this.
> 
> Although it makes me wonder how this actually came to pass. How and when did the Speaker of the House gain the legal right to bring the country to its knees?


I wonder if it would be legal to call a special election for speaker of the house?


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Oct 7, 2013)

AlexInsane said:


> Obama looks like a pussy


 Implying that he already isn't? He's just like bush. They're like puppets in congress.


----------



## AlexInsane (Oct 7, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> I wonder if it would be legal to call a special election for speaker of the house?



While that would be a great thing to see, right now we don't have the resources to mount one of those. If we endure this, perhaps we'll see it happen afterwards.


----------



## thoughtmaster (Oct 7, 2013)

Look at it this way, 87% of the government is unaffected by the shutdown. I would have personally liked it if it was lower an amount.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 7, 2013)

AlexInsane said:


> I think you overestimate the foresight of Boehner. He can take the Speakership or he can leave it - after all, even if he's ousted he'll get an impossible amount of money to retire on. What does he care about being the Speaker of the House when there's a thousand other blowhard dickheads all jostling position below him waiting for the opening? Anyone could do his job, and probably could do it worse than he has.
> 
> The phrase "Nero fiddled while Rome burned" has never been more apt right now.



As you say, he has money either way.  He's in it for the prestige now.  All signs point to him liking his job and wanting to keep it.

If he's putting the debt ceiling on the table now, it must be because he thinks he'll be replaced more easily if he refuses, which says some pretty scary things about the state of mind within the GOP right now.


----------



## thoughtmaster (Oct 7, 2013)

Lobar said:


> As you say, he has money either way.  He's in it for the prestige now.  All signs point to him liking his job and wanting to keep it.
> 
> If he's putting the debt ceiling on the table now, it must be because he thinks he'll be replaced more easily if he refuses, which says some pretty scary things about the state of mind within the GOP right now.


You do know the house has submitted 9 long term budget deals, but the senate has been adiment in wanting merely a stop-gap measure.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 7, 2013)

thoughtmaster said:


> You do know the house has submitted 9 long term budget deals, but the senate has been adiment in wanting merely a stop-gap measure.



You do know that the Senate is actually waiting for a _clean_ bill with no further poison pills attached.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Oct 7, 2013)

TheMetalVelocity said:


> Implying that he already isn't? He's just like bush. They're like puppets in congress.



 Well at least Obama makes sense about the shit he says.


----------



## thoughtmaster (Oct 7, 2013)

Lobar said:


> You do know that the Senate is actually waiting for a _clean_ bill with no further poison pills attached.


Hey, we need to deal with the government size one time or another, best to give someone their pink slip when they are already furlowed. The thing I do have a problem with is that the government is still paying the furlowed employees at the same amount as before they were removed and they are not working.


----------



## Fay V (Oct 7, 2013)

thoughtmaster said:


> Hey, we need to deal with the government size one time or another, best to give someone their pink slip when they are already furlowed. The thing I do have a problem with is that the government is still paying the furlowed employees at the same amount as before they were removed and they are not working.



furloughed means you're not being paid. There's no promise they will be paid when they return, the last time this happened a vote was enacted to get the money back, but if you are furloughed it means you don't get paid, don't get to work, and you can't really quit either depending on the way the contract is set up.


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Oct 7, 2013)

Aleu said:


> How does one go from a veterinarian to a seat in politics?
> Fuck it's like they just let anyone in. No wonder we're so fucked.



It's not that a veterinarian got a seat in politics, frankly government needs to be more representative of the population than lawyers and Harvard graduates. What's wrong is that it's the most idiotic veternarian that gets a seat in government.

I've said many times to my friends: the Republican primary is the biggest 'thing' undermining our functioning government. Why? Because this man is a representative of the people:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/...ontinues-to-be-America-s-Dumbest-Congressman#

Yes, it's from the Daily Kos but I can't find a more scathing commentary on the man.


----------



## Inciatus (Oct 7, 2013)

ShÃ nwÃ ng said:


> It's not that a veterinarian got a seat in politics, frankly government needs to be more representative of the population than lawyers and Harvard graduates. What's wrong is that it's the most idiotic veternarian that gets a seat in government.


Well if my little pony is any value as a source of reference, if you suck at everything else become a bureaucrat.


----------



## thoughtmaster (Oct 7, 2013)

ShÃ nwÃ ng said:


> It's not that a veterinarian got a seat in politics, frankly government needs to be more representative of the population than lawyers and Harvard graduates. What's wrong is that it's the most idiotic veternarian that gets a seat in government.
> 
> I've said many times to my friends: the Republican primary is the biggest 'thing' undermining our functioning government. Why? Because this man is a representative of the people:
> 
> ...


If you are determining which evidence you choose baced on which report bashes on a person the most, well, Ithink that means you are too biased to comment.


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Oct 7, 2013)

thoughtmaster said:


> If you are determining which evidence you choose baced on which report bashes on a person the most, well, Ithink that means you are too biased to comment.



Blah, blah, blah, bias. Consistently from Fox News to whatever local publication comes up, all comments coming from this man have been some of the most profoundly idiotic. I imagine him as the 'Confucius of Say Something Stupid' and voting in a way that reflects that. I wasn't looking for an 'unbiased' overview of the man, I'm sharing something that I feel 'calls it like it is.'


----------



## Inciatus (Oct 7, 2013)

ShÃ nwÃ ng said:


> Blah, blah, blah, bias. Consistently from Fox News to whatever local publication comes up, all comments coming from this man have been some of the most profoundly idiotic. I imagine him as the 'Confucius of Say Something Stupid' and voting in a way that reflects that. I wasn't looking for an 'unbiased' overview of the man, I'm sharing something that calls it like it is.


Calling it like it is would imply that it should be an unbiased source otherwise it isn't calling it like it is.


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Oct 7, 2013)

Inciatus said:


> Calling it like it is would imply that it should be an unbiased source otherwise it isn't calling it like it is.



Yeah, I edited my comment to reflect that. 

I suppose I should show more restraint, but years of reading his thoughts on various issues and national events from national news media to local news media have only left me with a hatred that this man is in a 'safe' district. A district that's hopelessly red without any sign that a capable/reasonable conservative will rid of him.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 7, 2013)

Funny snippet from a couple days ago-
[YT]tHYDMyRGFYw[/YT]


----------



## Attaman (Oct 8, 2013)

TheMetalVelocity said:


> I am not that gullible to believe "this party is fully responsible, and this party is innocent", that's classic man.


 This is true, one cannot say this. We even know that a number of the Republican moderates are willing to buck the trend and actually support the ACA, but they cannot do so since Boehner will not let it come to vote.

However, if you honestly think "The Democrats are at equal fault for this situation", _kindly sit down and learn some basic political facts_. The reasoning for the shutdown? To forcibly implement austerity measures, outright dissolve the ACA, and generally go on as though Romney had one the Presidential Election and Republicans sweeped the House and Senate. Who has been planning this? The Tea Partiers in the House, who had _outright campaigned _on the promise that they would either_ defund the government _or _shut it down_. The argument that Democrats forced ACA through and it's against the will of the people / didn't have any Republican input? Outright _bullshit_ as the truth is the ACA went through over _50 amendments_ (and this is just what was actually changed for them, not what was proposed and acknowledged) for Republicans during its drafting, and the reason it wasn't more was because it eventually became blatantly obvious that these amendments were being done so as to buy time to switch House & Senate demographics to a point that Republicans could outright shut down the entire thing (which is also the reason why the poison bills are so dangerous: The House Republicans have basically stated that if they win they'll do _the exact same thing in another six weeks_).

This situation can be thrown quite fairly and in a non-biased fashion into someone's lap, and I'll tell you now it's _not_ the Democrats (or even moderate House Republicans, who - as again stated above - had been firmly against going so far as to trigger a shut-down). It's solidly the Tea Party Republicans in the House, who have learned after two years that they can do pretty much whatever the hell they want because they have had their seats delightfully Gerrymander'd in their favor until the next district redrawing (I don't mean as in "They probably won't lose their seat for a few years" security in their seats, I mean "These are people who are getting flooded by their constituents with letters of praise for triggering the shutdown" security in their seat).


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 8, 2013)

And meanwhile, because Obama is basically tied to Washington due to the government shutdown crisis, China is taking advantage of this at the APEC conference in Bali.



			
				Stuff.co.nz said:
			
		

> It could also be argued that Mr Obama has done the region a favour if he stays and resolves the double impasse.
> 
> A debt default by the US would have far greater ramifications for the Asia Pacific region than any good Mr Obama could have done by attending the summits.
> 
> ...


----------



## thoughtmaster (Oct 8, 2013)

Here is something interesting, the Federal government is actually paying money to create blockades to prevent people from going to the national governments. They tried blocking the roads leading into Mount Rushmore, but guess what, those were state roads and the state forced them to take the blockades down. Who is the person who determined to pay money for security guards and blockades that most likely cost more than the maintainence of the monuments?


----------



## Attaman (Oct 8, 2013)

thoughtmaster said:


> Here is something interesting, the Federal government is actually paying money to create blockades to prevent people from going to the national governments. They tried blocking the roads leading into Mount Rushmore, but guess what, those were state roads and the state forced them to take the blockades down. Who is the person who determined to pay money for security guards and blockades that most likely cost more than the maintainence of the monuments?


Considering most of the sites I'm finding spouting this are the likes of "Freepatriot" or "Free Republic" or the like, and this reeks strongly of the exact same articles (from the same sites) about how Obama totally closed down the Washington monument out of the blue to spite military members for laughs, I'm going to ask you offer a non-biased news source on this as well as some numbers on just how this is more expensive to do than maintain the park (especially since park maintenance includes having persons around to make sure nobody's injured, having emergency responders available in case something occurs, a casual search turns up something like 144 only-partially-repaired cracks in Rushmore, etcetera).

Or is this just some more handwringing about that evil Obama?


----------



## cobalt-blue (Oct 8, 2013)

I guess Siouxfalls Business Journal is a crack pot outfit too.

http://siouxfallsbusinessjournal.ar...rom-highway-viewing-areas-near-Mount-Rushmore


----------



## Kosdu (Oct 8, 2013)

thoughtmaster said:


> stuff




I really don't feel like most of your opinions are of master thought, sorry for bashing but I'm kinda pissed you are the only furry nearby my current place >.<


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 9, 2013)

Attaman said:


> Considering most of the sites I'm finding spouting this are the likes of "Freepatriot" or "Free Republic" or the like, and this reeks strongly of the exact same articles (from the same sites) about how Obama totally closed down the Washington monument out of the blue to spite military members for laughs, I'm going to ask you offer a non-biased news source on this as well as some numbers on just how this is more expensive to do than maintain the park (especially since park maintenance includes having persons around to make sure nobody's injured, having emergency responders available in case something occurs, a casual search turns up something like 144 only-partially-repaired cracks in Rushmore, etcetera).
> 
> Or is this just some more handwringing about that evil Obama?



It's because continuing access to public monuments is apparently FAR more important than, say, families of killed US soldiers not getting "death gratuities" to cover funeral expenses, impending layoffs at government contractors and companies dependent upon government inspections, closing Antarctic research stations and of course nearly a million federal workers not knowing when the fuck they're going to be paid next because their bills don't stop coming just because some political fuckwits decide to play chicken with the US economy...

I can't help thinking of an Onion-esque headline for these Republican deadshits wailing about closure of national monuments: *"Architects of government shutdown shocked at government actually being shut down"* (exclusive to all newspapers)


----------



## Lobar (Oct 9, 2013)

National parks are closed to prevent deterioration of the parks due to littering or vandalism while the employees that wouuld maintain them are furloughed.

It's not like Obama personally made this call, either.  It's a direct consequence of the shutdown, no cartoonishly villainous schemes required.


----------



## Vaelarsa (Oct 9, 2013)

So, apparently, my dad is going to stop being paid now as well, because of this shit.

Which really fucking sucks for them and the numerous bill payments they have to keep up with.
Not to mention taking care of my sister.

I really wish I'd have known this sooner, so I would have enough to send him $100 or so.
Not much, but it should help.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 9, 2013)

Shit. . shit. . ssshhhiiiittttt. . The republicans are actually going to go through with it.  For those of you that haven't been keeping a close eye on what they're doing it's no longer, "defund obamacare" now that the latest cnn poll has their approval rating at negative 57 points it's now, "If I'm going down I'm taking you with me".  The republican party now wants the default to happen just so they can drag down obama's and democrat's approval rating.


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Oct 9, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> Shit. . shit. . ssshhhiiiittttt. . The republicans are actually going to go through with it.  For those of you that haven't been keeping a close eye on what they're doing it's no longer, "defund obamacare" now that the latest cnn poll has their approval rating at negative 57 points it's now, "If I'm going down I'm taking you with me".  The republican party now wants the default to happen just so they can drag down obama's and democrat's approval rating.



If I was one to guess, I'd say it is Republican strategy to cause another serious recession:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/n...wn-Small-hit-to-economy.-Long-one-A-recession



> Government shutdown: The economic impact of a shutdown of the federal government depends on how long it lasts. "It's not a disaster provided it doesn't go on a long time," says Nariman Behravesh, chief economist at IHS/Global Insight in Lexington, Mass. "For every one week that the government is closed, GDP growth in the fourth quarter will be reduced 0.2 percentage points." But if it goes on for three or four weeks, the effect on GDP (gross domestic product, which measures the nation's output of goods and services) would be big, Mark Zandi, Moody's Analytics chief economist, told a Senate committee last week. And if it lasts longer than two months, it would probably tip the economy into recession, he added.



I'm guessing that the theory goes that since presidents are often blamed for recession and economic downturn then President Obama will be blamed for a recession in the economy. If President Obama can be blamed for a recession in the 2014 elections, then Republican re-election chances in 2014 go up. However, this would assume that Republicans can control the narrative on the actual reason for the shut down and there is little indication in the polls indicates that either their image has improved OR that blame is being taken from them. The fact the Republicans have jumped the narrative from being 'about Obamacare' to 'the president won't negotiate' seems to indicate they have yet to strike a narrative that will turn their current image any time soon. Then again, I'm just sounding like the 'left' version of my paranoid grand parents.

All I can say is that I'm sad that our congress is willing to inflict more damage on the American people in a very short amount of time than Obamacare would have eventually..probably...I guess.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 9, 2013)

ShÃ nwÃ ng said:


> If I was one to guess, I'd say it is Republican strategy to cause another serious recession:
> 
> http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/n...wn-Small-hit-to-economy.-Long-one-A-recession
> 
> ...


Considering that the republican party is getting most of the blame the silver lining is that if the government does default that the republican party's approval rating is going to be so down the shitter that there's no way that the party isn't going to lose a massive amount of seats in congress.  In a single month their approval rating has dropped 10% according to gallup.  If the government defaults then obviously it's going to go down even further.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 9, 2013)

If our political discourse is seriously progressing beyond obstructionism into deliberate economic sabotage, we can pretty much call it Game Over for America as we know it.


----------



## Digitalpotato (Oct 9, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> Considering that the republican party is getting most of the blame the silver lining is that if the government does default that the republican party's approval rating is going to be so down the shitter that there's no way that the party isn't going to lose a massive amount of seats in congress.  In a single month their approval rating has dropped 10% according to gallup.  If the government defaults then obviously it's going to go down even further.



Too bad that come 2014, the voters will have probably forgotten all about it and will continue to vote those bozos into congress just because "omfg teh leebrals wana take mah money!!!11"


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 9, 2013)

Digitalpotato said:


> Too bad that come 2014, the voters will have probably forgotten all about it and will continue to vote those bozos into congress just because "omfg teh leebrals wana take mah money!!!11"


Then how do you explain how democrats took both houses in 2006?  The average voter isn't _that_ stupid.


----------



## Aleu (Oct 9, 2013)

Digitalpotato said:


> Too bad that come 2014, the voters will have probably forgotten all about it and will continue to vote those bozos into congress just because "omfg teh leebrals wana take mah money!!!11"



Pretty much this. Or people will believe Faux Noise and think it's all Obama's fault and blah blah blah


----------



## Attaman (Oct 9, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> Then how do you explain how democrats took both houses in 2006?  The average voter isn't _that_ stupid.


About 50% of my family and extended family believes it's either predominantly the Democrats' fault or both parties' fault equally. Recall as well the tears from when Romney lost the 2012 election.

Do not underestimate how much of a mess Moderates have got themselves into thanks to the short-sighted catering to Tea Partiers and Lolbertarians.


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Oct 9, 2013)

Attaman said:


> About 50% of my family and extended family believes it's either predominantly the Democrats' fault or both parties' fault equally. Recall as well the tears from when Romney lost the 2012 election.
> 
> Do not underestimate how much of a mess Moderates have got themselves into thanks to the short-sighted catering to Tea Partiers and Lolbertarians.



You can't win Republican primaries these days unless you're strictly of the conservative faith and in Republican safe districts; even more so. 'Moderates' almost have no choice but to go along. But I don't think moderates should go along to simply win a primary and they should run in the general election even if they lose their primary.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 9, 2013)

Attaman said:


> About 50% of my family and extended family believes it's either predominantly the Democrats' fault or both parties' fault equally. Recall as well the tears from when Romney lost the 2012 election.
> 
> Do not underestimate how much of a mess Moderates have got themselves into thanks to the short-sighted catering to Tea Partiers and Lolbertarians.


I said the average voter isn't that stupid.  Tea partiers and libertarians aren't your average voter.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 9, 2013)

http://business.time.com/2013/10/09/fidelity-sells-off-short-term-u-s-government-debt/

It begins.  Fidelity has short-sold their short-term U.S. securities in fear of a default.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 9, 2013)

Lobar said:


> http://business.time.com/2013/10/09/fidelity-sells-off-short-term-u-s-government-debt/
> 
> It begins.  Fidelity has short-sold their short-term U.S. securities in fear of a default.


If companies began selling their all their us government debt it would probably be the smart thing for them to do financially, but chances are it would fuck up the government even worse.  The question is if the default is inevitable at this point should everyone that holds a share of the us debt all sold it what would happen?

We know that a default could very well happen and probably will happen so IF I was in fidelity's place why should I as a business owner have to deal with it?  Sure you won't get as much money for it, but it's better to sell it off for a fraction of what it's worth than keep it and sell it off for pennies.  It's the smart thing for fidelity to do, cause who wants to be left holding the governments debt when they default?

Tl:dr; Call me a dick, but I hope everyone does that beforehand so that banks and that aren't left holding the bill.  Last thing we need is a repeat of the chain reaction from the recession.  At this point it's a game of hot potato, you don't want to be left holding the potato cause it go boom in your hand.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 9, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> If companies began selling their all their us government debt it would probably be the smart thing for them to do financially, but chances are it would fuck up the government even worse.  The question is if the default is inevitable at this point should everyone that holds a share of the us debt all sold it what would happen?



Not mathematically possible, they have to have someone to sell the debt to.  It all just changes hands.



CannonFodder said:


> Tl:dr; Call me a dick, but I hope everyone does that beforehand so that banks and that aren't left holding the bill.  Last thing we need is a repeat of the chain reaction from the recession.



You don't want to know where most of the FDIC's assets are. >_>


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 9, 2013)

Lobar said:


> Not mathematically possible, they have to have someone to sell the debt to.  It all just changes hands.
> 
> You don't want to know where most of the FDIC's assets are. >_>


I know, but if someone is stupid enough to buy the debts right now then they deserve a darwin award.  What is most likely going to happen is that banks are going to start selling it like fucking crazy and devalue it, then some brilliant fucker is going to buy up a ton of it when it's trash and make a ton of money off it.  . . . Oh my god.  I just had a good long term plan to make money off the financial suffering of other people.

HOWEVER whoever is the idiot willing to buy the debts right now for full price is all kinds of stupid.

I know where it's assets where they are.  I just hope they're not THAT stupid to be holding the bill knowing before hand of the impending default.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 9, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> I know, but if someone is stupid enough to buy the debts right now then they deserve a darwin award.



I checked the ask prices because I was considering it... >_>.  Still pretty much at face value for the moment, though.  The streets won't run red with blood for another week.

I still think it's very unlikely we'll actually default.  Wall Street knows exactly how apocalyptic that would be, and they will put all the pressure they can muster on Congress to cave.  And even if Congress does completely fuck this up, there are still a few bullshit executive power moves of questionable legality that could possibly save our asses.

The fact that Fidelity is shorting their U.S. securities though shows that they see the default risk as credible enough to act on.  That's already a lot closer to the brink than I thought we'd get.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 9, 2013)

Lobar said:


> I checked the ask prices because I was considering it... >_>.  Still pretty much at face value for the moment, though.  The streets won't run red with blood for another week.
> 
> I still think it's very unlikely we'll actually default.  Wall Street knows exactly how apocalyptic that would be, and they will put all the pressure they can muster on Congress to cave.  And even if Congress does completely fuck this up, there are still a few bullshit executive power moves of questionable legality that could possibly save our asses.
> 
> The fact that Fidelity is shorting their U.S. securities though shows that they see the default risk as credible enough to act on.  That's already a lot closer to the brink than I thought we'd get.


My money is on either default or like you said obama does use executive power to save us.  The funny thing is that when you think about it is that is one thing republicans don't realize could happen.  They're so focused on trying to tank the economy and the government to just take obama with them that they forgot about executive power.  If Obama does this then not only will his approval rating not go down the idea of a republican ever in the next forty years holding the presidency would be so looney that merely mentioning it would have you thrown in a insane asylum for being so batshit crazy.

At this point I give it 50-50.

Either way the republican party just fucked itself hard, and I'm a dick for saying it, but I'm glad they just destroyed their own party.

I kind of want obama to use executive power just to see the republican party further bury itself into oblivion.

Tl:dr; Either way I'm going to be laughing all the to the 2014 midterm election booths.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 9, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> They're so focused on trying to tank the economy and the government to just take obama with them that they forgot about executive power.  If Obama does this then not only will his approval rating not go down the idea of a republican ever in the next forty years holding the presidency would be so looney that merely mentioning it would have you thrown in a insane asylum for being so batshit crazy.



Erf.  Not hardly.  When I say bullshit power moves of questionable legality, I mean it.

Option A is to issue an executive order declaring the debt ceiling as unconstitutional and ordering the Treasury to ignore it, citing the 14th amendment.  Option B is to use a loophole in the law regarding minting platinum bullion coins to order the U.S. Mint to create a $1 trillion platinum coin, and then deposit it at the Fed's Treasury account for them to lend against.

Both of these are a huge end-run around Congress's authority and would permanently disrupt the system of checks and balances if successful.  Either of them would almost certainly end up in the Supreme Court, and the economy would continue to suffer while the decision was in limbo.

Option C is to get the Federal Reserve to agree to proactively forgive some of the Treasury's debt they hold, so it can be re-issued.  That also isn't without economic consequences, and requires cooperation from the Fed.  Bernanke's a lame duck though, and _might_ be willing to jump on the grenade if it comes to that.  It also isn't a permanent solution to the hostage-taking by Congress, it only delays it until we approach the debt ceiling again.

They're all really bad options, just not as bad as actually defaulting.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 9, 2013)

Lobar said:


> Erf.  Not hardly.  When I say bullshit power moves of questionable legality, I mean it.
> 
> Option A is to issue an executive order declaring the debt ceiling as unconstitutional and ordering the Treasury to ignore it, citing the 14th amendment.  Option B is to use a loophole in the law regarding minting platinum bullion coins to order the U.S. Mint to create a $1 trillion platinum coin, and then deposit it at the Fed's Treasury account for them to lend against.
> 
> ...


Probably going to be option A.  Which is going to piss off republicans, which is going to piss off voters that the republicans are pissed off at him saving the government from defaulting.  Also that knowing the supreme court they would probably try to sidestep it as long as possible and when they finally make a decision it would try to be a middle ground opinion of saying there's no more debt ceiling which would further piss off republicans.  OR the supreme court just refuses to hear the case which would piss off republicans anyhow.  Both of which would be political suicide for the republicans to try and argue against it the removal of the debt ceiling.

When I mean they just committed political suicide I REALLY mean they just committed political suicide.

Again either way I'm going to be laughing all the way to the 2014 elections.


----------



## Jashwa (Oct 9, 2013)

You're so optimistic that it scares me. Personally, I don't think much is going to change because of the government shutdown. Sure, maybe a few more seats in the House and Senate for Dems, but it's not going to be the death of the republican party or anything and by the next presidential race probably 90% of people will have forgotten about it all (unless it gets terribly bad). Either that or the people blame the Democrats for whatever reason for the shut down like the GOP wants them to.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 9, 2013)

Jashwa said:


> You're so optimistic that it scares me. Personally, I don't think much is going to change because of the government shutdown. Sure, maybe a few more seats in the House and Senate for Dems, but it's not going to be the death of the republican party or anything and by the next presidential race probably 90% of people will have forgotten about it all (unless it gets terribly bad). Either that or the people blame the Democrats for whatever reason for the shut down like the GOP wants them to.


Why I'm so optimistic?  Cause of this:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/165317/republican-party-favorability-sinks-record-low.aspx
The republican party's approval rating is taking a huge shit right now whereas democrats and Obama are barely feeling the heat.  They metaphorically tried to push obama and the democrats off a cliff, but they were the only ones to actually go over the edge of the cliff.  Imagine someone that screamed at their top of their lungs, "I'm taking you with me" trying to tackle two people off a cliff face and completely misses them and instead throws only themselves off.  That's what they just did to themselves.

Also cnn's latest approval poll shows the republican party at -57 points.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 9, 2013)

If Congress fails to raise the debt ceiling it's very probable that it'll trigger a recession even assuming Obama pulls something out of his ass to prevent an actual default.  Executive overreach also isn't something that plays well in the media either even when it's done for the best of reasons, and it will only fan the flames of the current state of discourse.  The right-wing base will be enraged, galvanizing their will to turn out for the election in a non-Presidential election year (which historically favors the opposition party to begin with) while everyone else is likely mostly disgusted by the whole ordeal.

And then there's always the possibility that Obama tries something and it _doesn't work_, or that he doesn't even try because he doesn't think it will work.  If we actually default, we'll be extremely lucky if things get no worse than another 2008 crash.

It's absolutely going to reflect like shit on the Republican Party too, but you're very much looking at the situation through rose-colored glasses.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 9, 2013)

Lobar said:


> If Congress fails to raise the debt ceiling it's very probable that it'll trigger a recession even assuming Obama pulls something out of his ass to prevent an actual default.  Executive overreach also isn't something that plays well in the media either even when it's done for the best of reasons, and it will only fan the flames of the current state of discourse.  The right-wing base will be enraged, galvanizing their will to turn out for the election in a non-Presidential election year (which historically favors the opposition party to begin with) while everyone else is likely mostly disgusted by the whole ordeal.
> 
> And then there's always the possibility that Obama tries something and it _doesn't work_, or that he doesn't even try because he doesn't think it will work.  If we actually default, we'll be extremely lucky if things get no worse than another 2008 crash.
> 
> It's absolutely going to reflect like shit on the Republican Party too, but you're very much looking at the situation through rose-colored glasses.


The thing to keep in mind about the republican party is that they're full of hot air.
2006 elections: "We're gon make them democrats lurn thars place"
2008 elections: "We not gon let no mooslim becom presdunt"
2010  elections: "We're gon take supar majorty of congrus and impeach them  obamas"(While they took control of the house it was no where near what  they said they were going to do)
2012 elections: "We gon vote for a good chrustian man for presdent and vote out thems obamas"

For nearly seven years they've been talking shit and for seven years they've been proven time and time again to be full of it.

They came into this fight believing their own rhetoric that obama and the democrats were going to get most of the blame.  They've been drumming up their chants of, "we not gon let them obama have his way" or "we gon drag them obama down and impeach him" for five years now and it has not once worked.  They've been trying stupid shit for five years to try and get obama out of office and have been trying to for five years to "retake the guvernment" and not once since then have they controlled both houses AND the president.

Keep in mind they've been trying to retake both houses for five years after losing in 2006.  Do you really think they're going to take back both houses like they're saying they're going to do?  They've been talking shit for years and not once have they taken control of *both *houses.

The democrats took control of both houses in 2006 after how badly bush fucked up, and obama won in 2008 cause of how bad bush fucked up.  The thing to keep in mind in order for a political party to gain a super majority in both houses by a landslide the opposing party has to extremely badly fuck up which democrats have not.  If anything republicans are the ones that fucking up extremely badly.

Tl:dr; In order for a party to gain a super majority in both houses(in the usa at least) your opposing party has to massively fuck up, which the democrats haven't, but the republicans are the ones fucking up so I call bullshit on their rhetoric that they say they're going to win 2014.


----------



## AlexInsane (Oct 9, 2013)

The Republican Party needs to be castrated, permanently. Of course, when it comes to writing the history books, this entire thing will be left out, or blame will be apportioned evenly. 

It's evil, what they're doing. Completely, irredeemably, and totally evil. They won't suffer, with their contacts and their wealth and their tickets to the Caymans, but we will. And there's nothing we can do to stop them. Disgusting.


----------



## Inciatus (Oct 9, 2013)

Lobar said:


> Erf.  Not hardly.  When I say bullshit power moves of questionable legality, I mean it.
> 
> Option A is to issue an executive order declaring the debt ceiling as unconstitutional and ordering the Treasury to ignore it, citing the 14th amendment.  Option B is to use a loophole in the law regarding minting platinum bullion coins to order the U.S. Mint to create a $1 trillion platinum coin, and then deposit it at the Fed's Treasury account for them to lend against.
> 
> ...


Honestly I think Boehner will cave. What he is doing now is to try to keep his job from being ousted from the party. If he doesn't cave he will be more likely to lose his job.


----------



## AlexInsane (Oct 10, 2013)

How many more days before the default?

Also, you all have much more faith than I do in Boehner's rationality. If he were a rational person he wouldn't have encouraged any of this.


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 10, 2013)

Lobar said:


> Option A is to issue an executive order declaring the debt ceiling as unconstitutional and ordering the Treasury to ignore it, citing the 14th amendment.  Option B is to use a loophole in the law regarding minting platinum bullion coins to order the U.S. Mint to create a $1 trillion platinum coin, and then deposit it at the Fed's Treasury account for them to lend against.
> 
> Both of these are a huge end-run around Congress's authority *and would permanently disrupt the system of checks and balances if successful.*



Given that the so-called "checks and balances" due to the separation of the legislative and executive branches in the US political system are a key component of how the US got _into_ this mess... would such disruption be such a *bad *thing?

From what I've read, a key "defect" in today's US political system is that the major political parties are behaving like they're in an adversarial Westminster Parliamentary-style system - when the system they're _actually_ operating in assumes a degree of co-operation and doesn't handle full-on adversarial politics very well.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 10, 2013)

Mayfurr said:


> Given that the so-called "checks and balances" due to the separation of the legislative and executive branches in the US political system are a key component of how the US got _into_ this mess... would such disruption be such a *bad *thing?
> 
> From what I've read, a key "defect" in today's US political system is that the major political parties are behaving like they're in an adversarial Westminster Parliamentary-style system - when the system they're _actually_ operating in assumes a degree of co-operation and doesn't handle full-on adversarial politics very well.



It solves the bigger problem in the short-term, sure, but once we establish a precedent that Congress's supposed power of the purse can be neutered by minting ridiculously denominated coins or is simply flat-out unconstitutional, there's no going back in the future, and we can't even hope to predict who will be in power a decade from now.

That said, if we do actually mint trillion dollar coins with Boehner's face on them then at least I can die laughing.


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 10, 2013)

Lobar said:


> It solves the bigger problem in the short-term, sure, but once we establish a precedent that Congress's supposed power of the purse can be neutered by minting ridiculously denominated coins or is simply flat-out unconstitutional, there's no going back in the future, and we can't even hope to predict who will be in power a decade from now.



Fair enough. 

I guess what is _really_ needed is a damn good overhaul of the US system along the lines of introducing some form of proportional representation so that the number of representatives for a particular party actually correspond to the votes they got...

... which to accomplish through political means in the current system would be like asking turkeys to vote for an early Christmas / Thanksgiving.


----------



## Fernin (Oct 10, 2013)

Mayfurr said:


> From what I've read, a key "defect" in today's US political system is that the major political parties are behaving like they're in an adversarial Westminster Parliamentary-style system - when the system they're _actually_ operating in assumes a degree of co-operation and doesn't handle full-on adversarial politics very well.



The thing is our system was conceived WITH cooperation for the better good of the nation in mind. Sadly, one can clearly see the Founding Fathers put far to much faith in future politicians. -_-


----------



## BRN (Oct 10, 2013)

Y'all should boycott your country in protest. :3


----------



## Fernin (Oct 10, 2013)

BRN said:


> Y'all should boycott your country in protest. :3



We tried, that's part of how the republicans got control in the first place. XD


----------



## thoughtmaster (Oct 10, 2013)

There is a silver lining because of the government shutdown, with the belief that the economy is going to slow down, gas prices are plumitting and are expected to be under three dollars a gallon in 33 states. Also, how is the government refusing to spend any more money going to cause us to be in a state where we are unable to pay our debts?


----------



## Digitalpotato (Oct 10, 2013)

BRN said:


> Y'all should boycott your country in protest. :3



That's what caused this mess in the first place.


----------



## AlexInsane (Oct 10, 2013)

The price of gas has nothing to do with the economy going in the shitter - all the oil we get is foreign anyway, and they set the price per barrel, which determines the cost of rendered gasoline per gallon.


----------



## thoughtmaster (Oct 10, 2013)

AlexInsane said:


> The price of gas has nothing to do with the economy going in the shitter - all the oil we get is foreign anyway, and they set the price per barrel, which determines the cost of rendered gasoline per gallon.


Actually, a majority of oil we get is from our neighbors, Canada and Mexico. The companies who drill and extract that oil is from, guess what, the US. Also, gas prices are determined, not only by supply, but by demand. If the economy goes down, demand goes down and the price falls. You believe that Oil and Gas are the same thing, but they aren't. Gas is a product made by refining oil, so the gas prices are determined by a ballence between oil prices, and the prices for he other products of oil like tar and plastic. Also, the US is, as we all know, a major consumer of oil, so they play a huge role in global demand of oil. Once the US either finds a way to produce enough oil internally or completely stop it's use, oil will become what it was origionally, a undesirable material that's only use was to seal seems to make them watertight.


----------



## ADF (Oct 10, 2013)

thoughtmaster said:


> Also, how is the government refusing to spend any more money going to cause us to be in a state where we are unable to pay our debts?



America is effectivly operating a ponzi scheme with their national debt, using one credit card to pay off another. If this matter cannot be resolved by the debt ceiling vote, then they won't be able to take on new debt to finance the repayment of their old debts.


----------



## Attaman (Oct 10, 2013)

ADF said:


> America is effectivly operating a ponzi scheme with their national debt, using one credit card to pay off another. If this matter cannot be resolved by the debt ceiling vote, then they won't be able to take on new debt to finance the repayment of their old debts.


To sum it up even shorter: We're borrowing at an interest rate lower than inflation. It's relatively minor right now, something like 3%, but by spending and borrowing money and the like we're _slightly_ making some. 

This is one of the reasons our debt has been ever-so-slowly increasing over the last few years. Issue being that whereas the current politicians are interested in playing the long game (even if publicly claiming otherwise), a small fringe has basically whipped up their supporters into a frenzy and has convinced them that we need to pay _all_ of it _ASAP_. Hence the reason so many of the Conservative think-tanks are jumping ship over the Tea Party's behavior in the House.


----------



## thoughtmaster (Oct 10, 2013)

Attaman said:


> To sum it up even shorter: We're borrowing at an interest rate lower than inflation. It's relatively minor right now, something like 3%, but by spending and borrowing money and the like we're _slightly_ making some.
> 
> This is one of the reasons our debt has been ever-so-slowly increasing over the last few years. Issue being that whereas the current politicians are interested in playing the long game (even if publicly claiming otherwise), a small fringe has basically whipped up their supporters into a frenzy and has convinced them that we need to pay _all_ of it _ASAP_. Hence the reason so many of the Conservative think-tanks are jumping ship over the Tea Party's behavior in the House.


You do know where the tea party got their name, correct? From the Boston Tea Party. They are complaining about taxes, especially different treatment for people of different incomes, with people with a small income pays little to nothing in taxes AND receives a check from the government more than they pay into it, while the upper-middle class ends up paying half of every dollar they earn to the federal government and don't have the benefit of a check from the Fed. That is the reason they came into being, just like Occupy Wall Street was a reaction to the Tea Party's actions involving budget cuts.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 10, 2013)

thoughtmaster said:


> You do know where the tea party got their name, correct? From the Boston Tea Party. They are complaining about taxes, especially different treatment for people of different incomes, with people with a small income pays little to nothing in taxes AND receives a check from the government more than they pay into it, while the upper-middle class ends up paying half of every dollar they earn to the federal government and don't have the benefit of a check from the Fed. That is the reason they came into being, just like Occupy Wall Street was a reaction to the Tea Party's actions involving budget cuts.



They came into being because of a massive astro-turfing campaign by the rich to dupe them into believing that the rich's interests were the same as their own interests.  Essentially, it was a deliberate effort to promote false class consciousness.

Perhaps if the rich hadn't squeezed the bottom half on the country completely dry, they'd actually have something to tax.

Also, the top _marginal_ income tax rate is less than 40%.  You don't even have an effective rate of 25% until you're in the six-figure income range, and the increases get very gradual from that point on.


----------



## Attaman (Oct 10, 2013)

thoughtmaster said:


> You do know where the tea party got their name, correct? From the Boston Tea Party.


 Actually, it's T.E.A. Party if one wants to get anal. Or, more precisely, "Taxed Enough Already". Recall that it traces much of its origins and the like towards the likes of the Koch Brothers.

Issue being that the Tea Party of 2013 is not the Tea Party of 2009. The Tea Party of 2009 was, generally, a bunch of people being drummed up to support pro-business / libertarian dogma. They existed so as to ensure taxes stayed low, that special interests were protected, etcetera. The Tea Party of 2013, however, is a different beast entirely. The Tea Party of 2013 is essentially a gathering of Lolbertarians and Dixiecrats who were literally elected under the election campaign of "Cut all the programs I dislike or we'll shut down everything", and believe that compromise (by their party, anyways) is to be avoided even in the face of armageddon. Several of the original founders of the Tea Party? They've been _ousted_ after the group moved away from their ideologies and either slipped from their grasp, or outright forced them away. Their business backers? Are in an uproar right now to the point of Heritage Action and Chamber of Congress outright vowing to support and fund non-Tea Party Republicans first and foremost.



thoughtmaster said:


> They are complaining about taxes, especially different treatment for people of different incomes, with people with a small income pays little to nothing in taxes AND receives a check from the government more than they pay into it, while the upper-middle class ends up paying half of every dollar they earn to the federal government and don't have the benefit of a check from the Fed.


 Now, thoughtmaster, this might come as a shock to you, but whereas someone making $350,000 a year could get by with "only" $175,000 a year, someone making $15,000 a year couldn't get by with only... $15,000 a year.

Furthermore, successful / healthy economies rely on a flow of money. In the above scenario wherein one person makes $260,000 a year and another $11,250, the former is going to wind up sitting on a bunch of that money (which will also lead to even more being sat on in the following year), while the latter literally can't spend more than $11,250 a year (and of which all of that is going to go into basic day-to-day living expenses, meaning that businesses not directly related to things such as providing affordable food, power, housing, or so-on are getting nil money that year). 



thoughtmaster said:


> That is the reason they came into being, *just like Occupy Wall Street was a reaction to the Tea Party's actions involving budget cuts.*


 For a master of thoughts you don't use your grey matter much, do you?


----------



## thoughtmaster (Oct 10, 2013)

Lobar said:


> They came into being because of a massive astro-turfing campaign by the rich to dupe them into believing that the rich's interests were the same as their own interests.  Essentially, it was a deliberate effort to promote false class consciousness.
> 
> Perhaps if the rich hadn't squeezed the bottom half on the country completely dry, they'd actually have something to tax.
> 
> Also, the top _marginal_ income tax rate is less than 40%.  You don't even have an effective rate of 25% until you're in the six-figure income range, and the increases get very gradual from that point on.


Here is something for you to think about, you don't get all your tax dollars back from government spending. The employment of bureaucrats takes out a large amount of tax dollars from the spending to people. Which would be more efficient, the government spending the money to the programs and individuals, and deal with the bureaucratic sinkhole of funds, or cut the same amount as would be distributed, in taxes? I, personally would prefer the second, because of the fact that we keep the whole dollar instead of getting the same amount back from the fed, minus the employment costs.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 10, 2013)

thoughtmaster said:


> Here is something for you to think about, you don't get all your tax dollars back from government spending. The employment of bureaucrats takes out a large amount of tax dollars from the spending to people. Which would be more efficient, the government spending the money to the programs and individuals, and deal with the bureaucratic sinkhole of funds, or cut the same amount as would be distributed, in taxes? I, personally would prefer the second, because of the fact that we keep the whole dollar instead of getting the same amount back from the fed, minus the employment costs.



Wrong again.  You fail to note that if those tax dollars remain in the private sector, they are not spent on those programs at all, which have a positive multiplying effect for the economy.


----------



## Attaman (Oct 10, 2013)

thoughtmaster said:


> Here is something for you to think about, you don't get all your tax dollars back from government spending. The employment of bureaucrats takes out a large amount of tax dollars from the spending to people.


 Protip: Bureaucrats are people too. When they spend the money they get for their work, it's just as economically helpful (if not, sometimes, moreso depending on wherein that funding goes) as when Joe Plumber spends it.



thoughtmaster said:


> minus the employment costs.


_The employment costs matter you uneducated fuck as people who don't have money don't spend it_. And it's not like "government workers" is a small demographic of a few hundred tightly knit persons: It includes _over eight hundred thousand persons, _or _roughly the population of some of our smaller states_. And this is excluding the employment costs for people who are government paid but _aren't_ government employees (like those being contracted to work for the government).


----------



## Judge Spear (Oct 10, 2013)

I think we should take Window's recommendation.


----------



## AlexInsane (Oct 10, 2013)

XoPachi said:


> I think we should take Window's recommendation.



Windows wouldn't give you an error message like that. If it did, it would be a box that contained the text "ALKDNF;ALKEN;LANDLFNAKJERN;AKJERIOUh;lkrnqkejna?D<nfkjzsnrleJIO3R66329.4WZZL".


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 10, 2013)

Well the gop is willing to short term raise the debt ceiling.  The downside is that in a couple weeks we'll just be in this mess again.

On the plus side this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/10/us/business-groups-see-loss-of-sway-over-house-gop.html?hp&_r=0
Tl:dr; of the article: Lobbyists are pissed at the tea party for being willing to potentially cause another recession and threaten their money making so they're jumping the tea party ship.


----------



## AlexInsane (Oct 10, 2013)

If they've given us a couple of weeks, then it's up to everyone else to see to it that they don't get a chance to do any more damage in that time frame and, more importantly, to see that they are not in a position to play God with the fate of the country.


----------



## thoughtmaster (Oct 10, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> Well the gop is willing to short term raise the debt ceiling.  The downside is that in a couple weeks we'll just be in this mess again.
> 
> On the plus side this:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/10/us/business-groups-see-loss-of-sway-over-house-gop.html?hp&_r=0
> Tl:dr; of the article: Lobbyists are pissed at the tea party for being willing to potentially cause another recession and threaten their money making so they're jumping the tea party ship.


And the problem of lobbyists running off is what? I think that is more likely to attract voters than run them off.


----------



## BRN (Oct 10, 2013)

thoughtmaster said:


> And the problem of lobbyists running off is what? I think that is more likely to attract voters than run them off.



I think you failed to understand what Cannon meant.

Your political process is privatised; political parties such as the Tea Party are funded by investment. 

That investment comes from entities, and those entities will continue to invest in whichever party helps them the most.

So when the GOP flip a finger to the economy, all the investors flip a finger back at the GOP, capiche savvy ya'know blud?


----------



## AlexInsane (Oct 10, 2013)

If the whole upshot of it is that investors are scared away from the Republican Party, then I'd say it's one of the only bits of good news to come out of this mess. They'll never invest in the Democrats, they're far too demanding when it comes to business reform, but if they keep away from the Republicans then that's just as well. Maybe they'll just start sinking their money into things that don't require a political party to make happen - I know it's a long shot but maybe more privately funded social aid programs or useful charity donations?


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 10, 2013)

AlexInsane said:


> If the whole upshot of it is that investors are scared away from the Republican Party, then I'd say it's one of the only bits of good news to come out of this mess. They'll never invest in the Democrats, they're far too demanding when it comes to business reform, but if they keep away from the Republicans then that's just as well. Maybe they'll just start sinking their money into things that don't require a political party to make happen - I know it's a long shot but maybe more privately funded social aid programs or useful charity donations?


The most likely outcome is they just invest in other republican politicians to oust the tea party.  The tea party has proven themselves to be bad for business and like you said they'll never invest in democrats, so the most likely outcome is they'll invest in other republicans running against the current republicans.  That is going to be fun to see if it does happen.  Imagine it:  Tea party vs those who got them into office in the first place.


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 11, 2013)

XoPachi said:


> I think we should take Window's recommendation.



No, that's the wrong error message. The correct error message is:

_"America was not shut down properly. Would you like to restart America in safe mode, with free healthcare and no guns? (Recommended)"_



CannonFodder said:


> On the plus side this:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/10/us/business-groups-see-loss-of-sway-over-house-gop.html?hp&_r=0
> Tl:dr; of the article: Lobbyists are pissed at the tea party for being willing to potentially cause another recession and threaten their money making so they're jumping the tea party ship.



... the exact _same_ lobbyists that helped _cause_ this frickin' mess by wholeheartedly facilitating blatant Republican gerrymandering and putting these deadshits into office.



> To some extent, the Chamber itself, along with other lobbying groups, helped create the conditions for Washingtonâ€™s impasse.
> 
> *After the 2010 elections, the Chamber and other business interests funneled millions of dollars into Republican redistricting efforts around the country, helping draw overwhelmingly safe Republican districts whose occupants â€” many among the most conservative House members â€” are now far less vulnerable to challenges from more moderate Republicans.
> 
> ...



This has got to the the best case of "buyer's remorse" yet. They asked for and helped create this situation, now they've got it - and oh dear, it has bit them in the arse big time.



CannonFodder said:


> The most likely outcome is they just invest in other republican politicians to oust the tea party.  The tea party has proven themselves to be bad for business and like you said they'll never invest in democrats, so the most likely outcome is they'll invest in other republicans running against the current republicans.



It's true then - the US really has *"The best democracy money can buy."* Where votes don't matter because politicians are bought and paid for lock, stock, and pork barrel.

/facepalm


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 11, 2013)

Mayfurr said:


> ... the exact _same_ lobbyists that helped _cause_ this frickin' mess by wholeheartedly facilitating blatant Republican gerrymandering and putting these deadshits into office.
> 
> This has got to the the best case of "buyer's remorse" yet. They asked for and helped create this situation, now they've got it - and oh dear, it has bit them in the arse big time.
> 
> ...


Is it wrong that I'm laughing my ass off at the lobbyists who thought it was a good idea to monetarily back a party whose platform revolves around economically disastrous ideas?


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 11, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> Is it wrong that I'm laughing my ass off at the lobbyists who thought it was a good idea to monetarily back a party whose platform revolves around economically disastrous ideas?



Nope


----------



## thoughtmaster (Oct 11, 2013)

Well, at least currently, the GOP is focused on stopping what one of the people here called it, "ponzie scheme". It is best that the debt is dealt with. Did you know that at one time the US didn't have any debt under Andrew Jackson? That is something that needs to be repeated. Most likely, obamacare and the social securities are going to increase the debt massively. Also, with the current size and spending of the federal government, it could stand for some trimming of the fat. Border security and the ban of drugs are major items that we could do without. I see no reason for us to want to prevent unskilled workers to enter the country, we did it before with Ellis Island. On the same measure, social security and health care can go. Social security because the payout often is greater than the pay in, and people should save for retirement themselves, and medical care because with this belief that no matter what it costs, people will pay has contributed to skyrocketing medical costs.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 11, 2013)

thoughtmaster said:


> Did you know that at one time the US didn't have any debt under Andrew Jackson?



Did you know that eliminating the debt sent the country into a depression?  Did you know that _every_ significant reduction in the debt in America's history has resulted in a depression?



thoughtmaster said:


> On the same measure, social security and health care can go.



_You_ can go.


----------



## huckersfoxxy (Oct 11, 2013)

i dont know if this deal might go though but here is a link to the huffington post from today http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/11/gop-debt-limit-offer_n_4085291.html?1381506081 i wont hold my breathe


----------



## Lobar (Oct 11, 2013)

huckersfoxxy said:


> i dont know if this deal might go though but here is a link to the huffington post from today http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/11/gop-debt-limit-offer_n_4085291.html?1381506081 i wont hold my breathe



The terms have been clear from the outset: Congress needs to do its fucking job and approve the CR and ceiling increase _without_ attaching any further demands.  Obama and Reid won't stand for legitimizing taking the economy hostage as a negotiation tactic, because as soon as they do, it will only encourage the suicide caucus to be even bolder next time.  This "deal" won't go anywhere.


----------



## ADF (Oct 11, 2013)

Lobar said:


> Did you know that eliminating the debt sent the country into a depression?  Did you know that _every_ significant reduction in the debt in America's history has resulted in a depression?



If injecting money into an economy creates growth, it's only logical that taking money out will have the reverse effect. The big problem today is money 'is' debt, it's brought into existence when a bank issues a loan. So repaying all debts would effectivly wipe out the entire money supply and then some for the none existent interest.


----------



## thoughtmaster (Oct 11, 2013)

Lobar said:


> Did you know that eliminating the debt sent the country into a depression?  Did you know that _every_ significant reduction in the debt in America's history has resulted in a depression?
> 
> 
> 
> _You_ can go.


Then why is it that when private citizens are debt free, they end up being wealthier after when they recoup than they would if they still had the debt? For individuals, debt is something to fear, but from what you said, it should be something that is strived for. Obviously, it isn't strived for but is actively avoided by citizens, so why should it be actively seeked by the government? Why do they have different spending models?

That statement is unnessisary and only serves to show you don't have counters to what I say.


----------



## thoughtmaster (Oct 11, 2013)

As for the congress needing to just approve without anything else isn't compromise, it is one side caving in. Government is suppost to meet in the middle, not kneel to their opponent with their heads bowed.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 11, 2013)

thoughtmaster said:


> Then why is it that when private citizens are debt free, they end up being wealthier after when they recoup than they would if they still had the debt? For individuals, debt is something to fear, but from what you said, it should be something that is strived for. Obviously, it isn't strived for but is actively avoided by citizens, so why should it be actively seeked by the government? Why do they have different spending models?



Yes, the federal government is just like your average citizen that owns half the military in the world, issues his own currency, can borrow at negligible rates and is assumed to be immortal.

No, really, why would you think they _wouldn't_ be completely different?



thoughtmaster said:


> That statement is unnessisary and only serves to show you don't have counters to what I say.







thoughtmaster said:


> As for the congress needing to just approve without anything else isn't compromise, it is one side caving in. Government is suppost to meet in the middle, not kneel to their opponent with their heads bowed.



The CR bill was _already_ a compromise when it first arrived in the House.  The Democrats wanted to raise the spending in the CR, but agreed to keep it at sequester levels in exchange for the Republicans not attaching any sort of bullshit to it like defunding the Affordable Care Act.

Look who fucked that one up.

Now that the debate is literally a hostage scenario, if the Democrats capitulate to _any_ of the teabaggers' demands, it guarantees that this will happen every time the debt ceiling bill needs to be renewed.  The right will have absolute power, despite only holding slightly more than one half of one half of one third of the federal government (and only thanks to gerrymandering), and the demands will be steeper every time until they can't be met anymore.  It guarantees that we will default at some point in the future.

also learn to edit your damn posts like this instead of double-posting


----------



## Willow (Oct 11, 2013)

thoughtmaster said:


> Did you know that at one time the US didn't have any debt under Andrew Jackson? That is something that needs to be repeated.


I think you should read this.



> Most likely, obamacare and the social securities are going to increase the debt massively. Also, with the current size and spending of the federal government, it could stand for some trimming of the fat.


Or we could cut military spending seeing as how even if we _did_ cut their spending by about half I believe, they'd still have more than enough to function properly and we'd still be one of the most powerful. I think education needs more money honestly.



> Border security and the ban of drugs are major items that we could do without. I see no reason for us to want to prevent unskilled workers to enter the country, we did it before with Ellis Island.


There are several things wrong with this statement. 



> On the same measure, social security and health care can go. Social security because the payout often is greater than the pay in, and people should save for retirement themselves, and medical care because with this belief that no matter what it costs, people will pay has contributed to skyrocketing medical costs.


I...



thoughtmaster said:


> Then why is it that when private citizens are debt free, they end up being wealthier after when they recoup than they would if they still had the debt?


Because they don't owe any money to anyone? 



> For individuals, debt is something to fear, but from what you said, it should be something that is strived for. Obviously, it isn't strived for but is actively avoided by citizens, so why should it be actively seeked by the government? Why do they have different spending models?


Because national debt isn't comparable to personal debt really.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 11, 2013)

Well fucking finally the gop is agreeing to temporarily increase the debt ceiling.  The thing they're demanding is a repeal of taxes on medical devices.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/11/politics/shutdown-showdown/index.html?hpt=hp_t1


----------



## Lobar (Oct 11, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> Well fucking finally the gop is agreeing to temporarily increase the debt ceiling.  The thing they're demanding is a repeal of taxes on medical devices.
> http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/11/politics/shutdown-showdown/index.html?hpt=hp_t1



...which was part of the funding for the ACA, so again this is a no-go.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 11, 2013)

Lobar said:


> ...which was part of the funding for the ACA, so again this is a no-go.


I know, but at least they're not demanding a full repeal.  That's a sad thing when you think about it that this is considered productive.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 11, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> I know, but at least they're not demanding a full repeal.  That's a sad thing when you think about it that this is considered productive.



I'm not counting anything as productive until they get out of the mindset that they have to get something out of this, even if they don't know what that is.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 11, 2013)

Lobar said:


> I'm not counting anything as productive until they get out of the mindset that they have to get something out of this, even if they don't know what that is.


I said that this is sad that this is considered productive considering that they're no longer out to destroy the government.


----------



## AlexInsane (Oct 11, 2013)

Would it be possible to make it so that if the government DOES decide to tear itself into little bitty pieces in future, it doesn't take every person in the country down with it? Obviously this would be an enormous undertaking, so I wouldn't hold my breath on it, but what about individuals? What can we citizens do to limit the damage government meltdowns might have on our lives?


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 11, 2013)

thoughtmaster said:


> On the same measure, social security and health care can go. Social security because the payout often is greater than the pay in, and people should save for retirement themselves, and medical care because with this belief that no matter what it costs, people will pay has contributed to skyrocketing medical costs.



In other words: fuck the poor, the elderly, the sick, and the infirm.



Lobar said:


> The CR bill was _already_ a compromise when it first arrived in the House.  The Democrats wanted to raise the spending in the CR, but agreed to keep it at sequester levels in exchange for the Republicans not attaching any sort of bullshit to it like defunding the Affordable Care Act.
> 
> Look who fucked that one up.
> 
> Now that the debate is literally a hostage scenario, if the Democrats capitulate to _any_ of the teabaggers' demands, it guarantees that this will happen every time the debt ceiling bill needs to be renewed.  The right will have absolute power, despite only holding slightly more than one half of one half of one third of the federal government (and only thanks to gerrymandering), and the demands will be steeper every time until they can't be met anymore.  It guarantees that we will default at some point in the future.



Exactly. As the poet Rudyard Kipling put it:


			
				Rudyard Kipling said:
			
		

> It is always a temptation for a rich and lazy nation,
> To puff and look important and to say: --
> "Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
> We will therefore pay you cash to go away."
> ...


----------



## Lobar (Oct 13, 2013)

drunkdialcongress.org

This is the best thing to come out of this mess.


----------



## skylarrayn (Oct 13, 2013)

intersting facts ill just leave here:

most if the governmental debt is to the federal reserve

the interest we pay on the debt is almost the same as our current tax intake

If you are military it pays right now to be located in foreign soil where they haven't closed all of the gyms commisaries and PX/BX/MCXs (military shops) however all have had their hours cut.

Our military right now would have issues with defending anything due to lack of fuel because of the government shutdown troop movements may continue but thats all the fuel they can use of have depending on the unit.

on top of this the military is trying to cut as many members as possible some handing out pink slips or just creating such a bad environment that troops do not want to stay in and will do anything to get out. Especially the lower ranks that are required to live in the barracks.

it has all went to hell in a hand basket now the best job you can have is any job not with the government. 

the whole idea of shutting down to save money is a good idea but it hurts everybody in the long run really congress just needs to get drunk and get this fixed or get kicked out so new people can fix it. As it has been stated before beer will fix all.


----------



## skylarrayn (Oct 13, 2013)

Also as far as social security goes it was supposed to be you pay in what you get back but the got screwed up

and for military spending I can't speak for any of the other branches but for mine which gets the left overs of the navy budget we do not have enough money even for simple things like getting working washers in the barracks not to mention most of us get paid less or the same as a minimum wage worker. We still have to pay for uniforms that are more than 100 USD per set and pay for our chow hall privileges that most of us can barely use and we pay extra if we are not near a chow hall and have to eat MREs. I'm sorry its just a hot button topic for someone who joined because he wanted to serve and have a stable job. However at this point most training has been canceled even normal training such as driving training for truck operators to make sure they can drive in dangerous situations and not crash and typical maintenance of such vehicles. Weapons training for those that would be on the front lines has been called off. Even some of the harder physical training we considered normal has been stopped because of lack of fuel for safety trucks.

If you would like to cut somewhere lets start with the people who got us where we are they do not need 100k a year i don't even get a 4th of that as it is. That seems like it should be a good place to start.


----------



## ADF (Oct 14, 2013)

China is on a shopping spree here in the UK, buying up businesses, and the news has been making a fuss about it. As well as helping Chinese investors get into the UK.

It may not seem initially relevant, but you have to remember China parks a lot of their surplus in US bonds because they've got nowhere better to stick it. China going on a global business shopping spree could be an indication that they're looking for other areas to park their money than just US bonds. The frequent dramas over in the US could have perhaps sparked a reluctance to just buy US debt?


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 14, 2013)

Well fuck you too GOP:
[YT]0Jd-iaYLO1A[/YT]


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 15, 2013)

Good grief. Arbitrarily changing the rules to suit the party currently in power is the mark of a friggin' *tin-pot banana republic*, not the so-called "leader of the free world".

And how the fuck is it possible that the US Senate can't actually vote to do something if despite having a clear majority there still aren't enough votes (60)? In our government we've had legislation pass into law with a majority of _one vote_ and it's just as legitimate as other laws...

But what gets me is that it appears that these Republican dipshits, in their calculated manoeuvring into pulling the pin on the nuclear grenade of government shutdown and debt default, including Cannonfodder's linked video shenanigans, appear to have forgotten that _the questionable nuclear-weapon grade tactics they are following and "normalising" can equally be used against Republicans administrations in the future._ I'm sure that the Republicans that put in that rule Cannonfodder linked to will rue the day they did it when a _Democrat_ uses their own weapon against them.

Way to go America.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 15, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> Well fuck you too GOP:
> [YT]0Jd-iaYLO1A[/YT]



Plan Herp has failed.  Executing Plan Derp.


----------



## BRN (Oct 15, 2013)

DAWN of *THE FIRST DAY*
*72* Hours Remain


----------



## Reaginicwolf (Oct 15, 2013)

Day 15 today. I say by day 20 a angry mob should drag congress into the street then beat them with phonebooks until they make a decision.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Oct 15, 2013)

BRN said:


> DAWN of *THE FIRST DAY*
> *72* Hours Remain



w8 wot what are we counting for


----------



## Fay V (Oct 15, 2013)

Gibby said:


> w8 wot what are we counting for



debt ceiling I believe


----------



## thoughtmaster (Oct 15, 2013)

Look at it this way, if the US sinks, all other nations will no longer have to pander to the US and do what they wish. Bye bye capitalism, hello socialism.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 15, 2013)

BRN said:


> DAWN of *THE FIRST DAY*
> *72* Hours Remain


God damnit, I wanted to make that joke.


----------



## Nikolinni (Oct 15, 2013)

thoughtmaster said:


> Look at it this way, if the US sinks, all other nations will no longer have to pander to the US and do what they wish. Bye bye capitalism, hello socialism.



Going to the other extreme doesn't really seem like it'll solve all the problems. 

That's like saying "Well, Christianity didn't work out. I know! Let's all worship Father Enki now!!"

Edit:

Also insert mandatory "The US isn't really completely capitalist, more like a mixed economy" comment here. If it was really capitalist, we wouldn't have all of the ridiculous red tape that we do now. 

Seriously? Lemonade stands shut down in neighborhoods for not having PERMITS!? These were stands ran by kids!

Seriously, honest socialism would actually probably be _more _â€‹capitalist than what the US practices.


----------



## ADF (Oct 15, 2013)

My fear of a US bankruptcy (whether now or in the future) is it will create a crisis of suitable scale that the world will vote for a new global monetary system, given the dollar would have proven itself unsuitable. As bad as the present one is, such changes in global systems are usually exploited to fuck over everyone.

A global restructure creates an opportunity for whoever is privileged to be designing the next system, to design it in their favour. Allowing for new global powers to emerge from positions of privilege, which the US is enjoying now. However it plays out, it's always designed against average people.



Nikolinni said:


> Seriously? Lemonade stands shut down in neighborhoods for not having PERMITS!? These were stands ran by kids!



People think businesses hate red tape. But if you're a big corporation and in bed with government, regulation serves your interests to an extent. The big guys can afford to implement the red tape, while the little competition is regulated out of the market.


----------



## Aleu (Oct 15, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> Going to the other extreme doesn't really seem like it'll solve all the problems.
> 
> That's like saying "Well, Christianity didn't work out. I know! Let's all worship Father Enki now!!"
> 
> ...


I don't think you understand what actual capitalism is...


----------



## Nikolinni (Oct 15, 2013)

Aleu said:


> I don't think you understand what actual capitalism is...



Well, in simplest terms it's decentralized resource management.

Addition: 
Socialism implies a big government, yes, but what the US has is an even bigger government which chooses winners and losers through the lobbying game. Honest socialism will use tax revenue to provide certain goods to its citizens to ensure a basic quality of life is perfectly met, and none of the croniest bullshit the US does.Thus, Honest Socialism is closer to "decentralized resource management" than the US's system.


----------



## ADF (Oct 15, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> Honest socialism



The problem with any on paper system, even if it could work, is there is always forces on all sides trying to corrupt it. There will never be a "pure" socialism or capitalism, there will always be external pressures on any authority to tweak thinks in the favour of interest groups, and human nature will eventually give in to the temptation on offer. No matter how theoretically perfect the system is designed, it's run by imperfect beings at the end of the day who will always deviate from the plan.


----------



## thoughtmaster (Oct 15, 2013)

If one side isn't willing to listen to what the other side proposes, I think it is safe to say that compromise is impossible. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...bt-ceiling-government-funding-in-response-to/


----------



## Arshes Nei (Oct 15, 2013)

thoughtmaster said:


> If one side isn't willing to listen to what the other side proposes, I think it is safe to say that compromise is impossible. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...bt-ceiling-government-funding-in-response-to/



What compromise? It's basically a few people (Tea Party) holding the rest of congress hostage over Obamacare. Other than the organizational team fucking up the rollout there's nothing else that needs to be fixed when it was already voted into law.


----------



## thoughtmaster (Oct 15, 2013)

Arshes Nei said:


> What compromise? It's basically a few people (Tea Party) holding the rest of congress hostage over Obamacare. Other than the organizational team fucking up the rollout there's nothing else that needs to be fixed when it was already voted into law.


Not really. The arguement about defunding it has long passed. Now, people are arguing about if repealing a tax on medical devices included in obamacare. Something many democrats actually opposed, origionally.


----------



## Infestissumam (Oct 15, 2013)

I have a feeling we're just gonna default.


----------



## Attaman (Oct 15, 2013)

thoughtmaster said:


> Not really. The arguement about defunding it has long passed. Now, people are arguing about if repealing a tax on medical devices included in obamacare. Something many democrats actually opposed, origionally.


"Hey, you know that one bit of law you were only barely able to eek through in the last five years? The one you campaigned on twice and won, both times, the American majority vote? The one that helped you win the Senate, and the one that even the majority of House Representatives (including Republicans) are willing to vote on? We want you to defund it via proxy. Oh, and this is only our choice after you refused to delay it for another two years. If you don't we'll collapse the world into complete economic ruin that makes the Great Depression look good."

And the sad thing is, this is only the _most recent_ instance of "Dumbfuck Tea Partiers can't negotiate". You want the full joy go back to late 2009 and watch everything up until the present. Highlights include the 2011 Debt Crisis.

If you honestly think the _Democrats_ are the ones who are being sticks in the mud and refuse to compromise, you may or may not have your head lodged firmly within Rupert Murdoch's ass.


----------



## ADF (Oct 15, 2013)

Infestissumam said:


> I have a feeling we're just gonna default.



The political class are selfish, arrogant, egotistical and at least on the surface dumb (when decisions don't make sense without the context of who they serve)... but they're not insane.

This is theatre and they'll come to a decision at the last minute so they can claim to have saved the day. They're not about to throw away their own wealth, power and influence over this.

-edit

That said, all these antics are incredibly damaging for America. It may not even take a default for America to be stripped of its reserve status, just causing problems globally with these antics may be enough. Hell, a few days ago China was calling for the world to be de-Americanised.


----------



## AlexInsane (Oct 15, 2013)

If they weren't insane, they wouldn't be doing this, theatrics be damned. 

They're crazy because they know it's not THEM that'll get kicked in the balls if everything blows up. They have nothing to lose so they make the laws to suit themselves and nobody else - they twist reality into knots that no Eagle Scout could possibly undo. 

They just make it up as they go along. That's all politics is in this country now.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 15, 2013)

thoughtmaster said:


> If one side isn't willing to listen to what the other side proposes, I think it is safe to say that compromise is impossible. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...bt-ceiling-government-funding-in-response-to/



Can I burn down your house?

How about burning down half of your house?

The garage?  Can I burn that down?

What can I burn down?  You're so unwilling to compromise!


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Oct 15, 2013)

Lobar said:


> Can I burn down your house?
> 
> How about burning down half of your house?
> 
> ...



We can at least settle on stealing his car, in exchange we will threaten to burn his house down five months from now.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 15, 2013)

Man, I honestly can't fucking believe this is going to happen.


----------



## ADF (Oct 15, 2013)

AlexInsane said:


> If they weren't insane, they wouldn't be doing this, theatrics be damned.
> 
> They're crazy because they know it's not THEM that'll get kicked in the balls if everything blows up. They have nothing to lose so they make the laws to suit themselves and nobody else - they twist reality into knots that no Eagle Scout could possibly undo.
> 
> They just make it up as they go along. That's all politics is in this country now.



They'd be blowing up more than just America. 

Countries world wide are living credit card to credit card and because of the dollars reserve currency status; it is regarded as the safest to lend to. If the US defaulted, which currency would the world turn to? Who is perceived safer than the dollar? All the sudden global interest rates on government debt would jump up, as if America can default anyone can. The hike in rates would push some countries over the edge, causing them to default. Creating more risk, causing rates to go higher and... you've got an economic death spiral that would sweep the globe. This scenario was considered with Europe, which is why they talk about contagion. If the US blew up there is no one who could bail it out, it would infect the entire globe. 

So they're playing with a lot more than simply the US here, if they're stubborn enough to let America default the entire globe would go into meltdown. Government debt would be dumped everywhere, confidence in currencies would be lost, all banks would go bankrupt because they are massive holders of government debt which would now be worthless.

Something like this basically.

Do you really think they're 'that' crazy?


----------



## CaptainCool (Oct 15, 2013)

Awww man, I really hoped we wouldn't have a complete worldwide economic armageddon during my lifetime >__>
How can you be so fucking stupid? How can people like that come into power?
"In god we trust", eh? YEAH WELL MAYBE A LITTLE TOO MUCH YOU DIPSHITS!


----------



## Inciatus (Oct 15, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> Awww man, I really hoped we wouldn't have a complete worldwide economic armageddon during my lifetime >__>
> How can you be so fucking stupid? How can people like that come into power?
> "In god we trust", eh? YEAH WELL MAYBE A LITTLE TOO MUCH YOU DIPSHITS!


Gerrymandering


----------



## ADF (Oct 15, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> Awww man, I really hoped we wouldn't have a complete worldwide economic armageddon during my lifetime >__>



I have to wonder what my generation did to deserve this, everything seems to have turned to shit right before we entered the job market. We really don't need the global monetary system collapsing to add to the list of an already shit situation.


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Oct 15, 2013)

I, for one, welcome our Chinese masters in the accelerated eventual take over of the global currency reserve.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-shutdown-china-20131015,0,260996.story


----------



## thoughtmaster (Oct 15, 2013)

Eventually one side will fold. I personally am of the opinion that it doesn't matter who does, in the long run. Now, the question is, who has the most faith in their cause?


----------



## BRN (Oct 15, 2013)

The neutral position is unethical, here.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 15, 2013)

ShÃ nwÃ ng said:


> I, for one, welcome our Chinese masters' the accelerated eventual take over of the global currency reserve.
> 
> http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-shutdown-china-20131015,0,260996.story



This is realistic if taking the economy hostage becomes a recurring event in our government (or god forbid they actually shoot the hostage).


----------



## AlexInsane (Oct 15, 2013)

ADF said:


> They'd be blowing up more than just America.
> 
> Countries world wide are living credit card to credit card and because of the dollars reserve currency status; it is regarded as the safest to lend to. If the US defaulted, which currency would the world turn to? Who is perceived safer than the dollar? All the sudden global interest rates on government debt would jump up, as if America can default anyone can. The hike in rates would push some countries over the edge, causing them to default. Creating more risk, causing rates to go higher and... you've got an economic death spiral that would sweep the globe. This scenario was considered with Europe, which is why they talk about contagion. If the US blew up there is no one who could bail it out, it would infect the entire globe.
> 
> ...



I repeat, if they weren't that insane, they would never have let this happen in the first place. Since they HAVE let it happen, not once but MULTIPLE TIMES, I can only assume they are in fact in earnest about bringing about a Apocalypse in miniature. 

What do they care about a total bloody collapse of law, order, the economy, and the safety of the very people that put them in office and are keeping their fat, pampered asses in suits? They don't care - they're just a bunch of retards running around.


----------



## Attaman (Oct 15, 2013)

thoughtmaster said:


> Eventually one side will fold. I personally am of the opinion that it doesn't matter who does, in the long run. Now, the question is, who has the most faith in their cause?


Translation: "Come on Democrats, please. Give in to the Republicans one more time. "


----------



## Willow (Oct 15, 2013)

AlexInsane said:


> I repeat, if they weren't that *self-centered*, they would never have let this happen in the first place.


Fixed. 

I wouldn't say they're insane (well I mean they're insane but for different reasons) because they know what they're doing. But they had the least amount to lose and they're not the ones who have to clean up the mess and therefore are only worried about pushing their own personal agendas than even trying to compromise.


----------



## Aleu (Oct 15, 2013)

ShÃ nwÃ ng said:


> I, for one, welcome our Chinese masters in the accelerated eventual take over of the global currency reserve.
> 
> http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-shutdown-china-20131015,0,260996.story


Well at least i love Chinese food :v


----------



## Willow (Oct 15, 2013)

Aleu said:


> Well at least i love Chinese food :v


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWLhrHVySgA


----------



## AlexInsane (Oct 15, 2013)

Willow said:


> Fixed.
> 
> I wouldn't say they're insane (well I mean they're insane but for different reasons) because they know what they're doing. But they had the least amount to lose and they're not the ones who have to clean up the mess and therefore are only worried about pushing their own personal agendas than even trying to compromise.




Again, you're giving them way too much credit by saying they know what they're doing. They don't - it's pretty plain to see that they not only don't know what they're doing, but they're PROUD of not knowing what the fuck it is they're doing. They think that sufficient stupidity and pigheadedness is interchangeable for intelligence - 'I reject your reality and submit my own'.

This is just insane. The whole thing is insane. If this were any other country in the world, they would have assassinated the parties responsible and resumed life as normal. And the people would cheer and wave their flags before going back to their shitty jobs.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 16, 2013)

AlexInsane said:


> Again, you're giving them way too much credit by saying they know what they're doing. They don't - it's pretty plain to see that they not only don't know what they're doing, but they're PROUD of not knowing what the fuck it is they're doing. They think that sufficient stupidity and pigheadedness is interchangeable for intelligence - 'I reject your reality and submit my own'.
> 
> This is just insane. The whole thing is insane. If this were any other country in the world, they would have assassinated the parties responsible and resumed life as normal. And the people would cheer and wave their flags before going back to their shitty jobs.


I like how republicans voters in my state(louisiana) aren't even allowed you to talk about this anymore and anyone with a dissenting opinion they're just telling people to shut up.

"This is going to cause a economic depression"
"shut up"
"It's going to cause the republican party to lose a ton of seats"
"shut up"
"This is a bad idea"
"shut up"
"It's not going to work and will just vilify the republican party"
"shut up"

Like they're not even trying to argue with people anymore.  That's kind of scary in a way.


----------



## Nikolinni (Oct 16, 2013)

I honestly feel like doing a meme where the republicans have demonic features while the democrats all have halos. 

That's pretty much how people feel right? Democrats haven't done anything wrong, nope, it's all the republicans' faults. 

Don't mind me. I'm just a poor damn muse who sometimes bothers to try to see things from the other perspective.


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 16, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> I honestly feel like doing a meme where the republicans have demonic features while the democrats all have halos.
> 
> That's pretty much how people feel right? Democrats haven't done anything wrong, nope, it's all the republicans' faults.
> 
> Don't mind me. I'm just a poor damn muse who sometimes bothers to try to see things from the other perspective.



Well EXCUSE ME, but when you've got *one* party acting like *political terrorists* by going friggin' NUCLEAR with holding the entire US government to RANSOM over unpicking a law that has legitimately passed into effect _as per the oh-so-holy US Constitution_, and the party that _caused_ this clusterfuck has not only demonstrated that it can't be trusted but it *deliberately engineered* this psychopathic act...

... I think it's pretty damn clear who the villains of this piece are. And it ain't the Democrats. Who by the way are doing the _right thing_ by *not negotiating with blackmailers* who are so feckin' insatiable that there's no guarantee that they won't try the whole default thing *again *the next time it comes up for renewal. These Republican deadshits have already caused the US credit rating to drop through their partisan actions, and the US is now staring into the abyss of _another_ one.

This is about more than just Obamacare - which, by the way, not only originated in a conservative think-tank, but was initially implemented at the state level by a Republican governor (Romney) who later decided that it was the most evil thing in the US when the _Democrats_ wanted to implement his scheme nationally. It's about Tea Party Republicans who _refuse to accept the results of the last US elections_, who believe that they are entitled to rule no matter what the wishes of the people are, and who want to negate the outcome of the last US elections by trying to force through policies that the US electorate _rejected._ 

If this kind of political fucked-up-ness was happening in any other country (particularly a Third World one), the US would be leading the charge at the UN for an invasion force to restore proper democratic rule. But what can the rest of the world do when around twenty US politicians seem intent on tearing the United States and a good chunk of the world economy to shreds out of spiteful pride?


----------



## BRN (Oct 16, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> I honestly feel like doing a meme where the republicans have demonic features while the democrats all have halos.
> 
> That's pretty much how people feel right? Democrats haven't done anything wrong, nope, it's all the republicans' faults.
> 
> Don't mind me. I'm just a poor damn muse who sometimes bothers to try to see things from the other perspective.



Saying you're seeing things from 'another perspective' does not magically make it okay to reject the reality of the situation, *for fuck's sake*.


----------



## CaptainCool (Oct 16, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> I honestly feel like doing a meme where the republicans have demonic features while the democrats all have halos.
> 
> That's pretty much how people feel right? Democrats haven't done anything wrong, nope, it's all the republicans' faults.
> 
> Don't mind me. I'm just a poor damn muse who sometimes bothers to try to see things from the other perspective.



The reps are holding the economy hostage. They are throwing a hissy fit over a law that would enable people in need of medical care to get proper healthcare. They changed the house rules so that only they can stop the shutdown.
People are already neck deep in trouble because of the shutdown because they don't get paid. And now they are risking to ruin the _global_ economy because on the tantrum that they are throwing. And now you say that they aren't the only ones to blame?
I'm sorry, but that is beyond stupid. Sure, the democrats and Obama's way of doing politics is not perfect. Show me one politician who is perfect. But what the republicans are doing there has nothing to do with politics. It's treason, simple as that.


----------



## BRN (Oct 16, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> I honestly feel like doing a meme where the republicans have demonic features while the democrats all have halos.
> 
> That's pretty much how people feel right? Democrats haven't done anything wrong, nope, it's all the republicans' faults.
> 
> Don't mind me. I'm just a poor damn muse who sometimes bothers to try to see things from the other perspective.



I'm pissed off enough about your post to reply to it twice.


Yes: This is real life, and not school. We're all adults here, and we understand that most altercations between other mature people are complex, multi-sided affairs with different motivations.

No: The situation we're in is not like that. At all. It sucks, it's patently unbelievable, and it's barbaric, but *the republican party is entirely to blame*. Mayfurr expressed it better then I can, but:

 * the American public voted for Democrats based on the policies they offered during the elections
 * the policies the Democrats put forward during the elections were deemed constitutional
 * the Democrats allowed the Republicans to go through over 50 amendments to the bill despite the two above points 

Let's summarise the three: the bill is a) wanted by the public, b) constitutional, c) the republicans have had a BIG say in its formation.

Now:

 * the G.O.P shoot through House Amendment 368, which removes the privilege of Congress to bypass the G.O.P in the event of a Government shut down...

 * and then the G.O.P refuse to pass a budget, and thus shut down government, on the caveat that the bill must be rejected despite the above a), b) and c) [constitutional, wanted by the electorate, 50 republican amendments]

Do you see ANY problems here? Any violations of democratic principles? Any sort of, say, political coup going on here?
You think democracy should pander to the G.O.P designs? You think this is an effective, ethical, democractic political process? What in the fuck is wrong with your understanding of the situation here?

Either you're simply unwilling to deal with the facts of the situation, or you're unwilling to drop some hero worship for these guys, *but it fucking doesn't matter, because they have fucked you, and they have fucked your country, and no matter what your broken understanding of the situation is, you're gonna have to deal with the consequences if the shit drops.*


 Whether or not you whimperingly think the Democrats have some equal hand in causing this doesn't fucking matter. Not only are you wrong, but whether or not you accept that will have no effect on *how hard you are being fucked in the face by the G O fucking P* and if your broken miscomprehension allows you, and you as a country, to see this shit as 'okay n_n'* then they will fuck your retarded mouth again and again* because they can get away with it, and *you are the arbiter of that injustice*, you _twit_.


----------



## CaptainCool (Oct 16, 2013)

BRN said:


> _le snip_



Wow, you mad! :V

But on a more serious note, you are absolutely correct.
This is a gross undermining of the democratic process and as I said in my post above the way they changed rules and policies to willingly cause this government shutdown should be seen as treason.


----------



## ADF (Oct 16, 2013)

Looks like the can was kicked.


----------



## Inciatus (Oct 16, 2013)

ADF said:


> Looks like the can was kicked.


Well it is better than nothing.


----------



## AlexInsane (Oct 16, 2013)

So the Dems blinked after all. One one hand, it's good that they chickened out like they always do, but on the other hand, it just destroys what little integrity they had. And we're STILL not done with this.


----------



## Nikolinni (Oct 16, 2013)

You all realize that you proved my point right?


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Oct 16, 2013)

i dont know about you guys but I bet the jews did this


----------



## AlexInsane (Oct 16, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> You all realize that you proved my point right?



You? Have a point? In your dreams, maybe.


----------



## Aleu (Oct 16, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> You all realize that you proved my point right?



Did you even bother reading or do you have that big of a hard on for Republicans?


----------



## Nikolinni (Oct 16, 2013)

Aleu said:


> Did you even bother reading or do you have that big of a hard on for Republicans?



To answer you and Alex, 

The point was that everyone just takes one side of the arugment without even considering what the other side has to say, and why. Oh sure, we've got this attitude about the republicans being evil and wanting to kill off the poor or middle class or 'MURICA KILL OFF COMMUNISM, but, not once have I actually seen any one say the real reasons why reps are against this aside from reasons that make them out to be villainous baby eaters. 

And of course, there's people who are going to say "Well there's no real good reason to oppose what the Dems are doing!", but you might as well tell me "There's no secular reason to be against gay marriage/gay couples" (Read: Yes, there is actually _some _rationale behind it out there, if you bother to look for it). 

That's essentially what the whole "Draw The Dems with angel features and reps with demon features" and the whole "Dems being sinless" was poking at. This whole notion that's dominated every poltical thread about this shut down that the poor democrats are being beset by those evil repubicans. 

Well, call me the person going "Well hey, maybe Satan isn't such a bad fellow after all. Maybe there's some reason why he did what he did". 

And do I have a hard on for the reps? No, I'm just kinda bothering to LISTEN to them, rather than just HEAR them and go "Damn redneck silly red far right 'murica god worshipping irrational commusinist killing assholes!"


----------



## Aleu (Oct 16, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> To answer you and Alex,
> 
> The point was that everyone just takes one side of the arugment without even considering what the other side has to say, and why. Oh sure, we've got this attitude about the republicans being evil and wanting to kill off the poor or middle class or 'MURICA KILL OFF COMMUNISM, but, not once have I actually seen any one say the real reasons why reps are against this aside from reasons that make them out to be villainous baby eaters.
> 
> ...



So basically you're ignoring everything the Republicans are saying and doing and saying "oh they're not SO bad".


----------



## BRN (Oct 16, 2013)

The arbiter of his own injustice, ladies and gentlemen.

Niko, just above your post (with four 'this's) I've laid out the situation in five easy bulletpoints to help show you that the republican party is entirely to blame.

It is not an opinion. If you want to take the time to read it, that'll be great. If you don't want to, I guess that's cool, but it demonstrates a total lack of intellectual faculty.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Oct 16, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> To answer you and Alex,
> 
> The point was that everyone just takes one side of the arugment without even considering what the other side has to say, and why. Oh sure, we've got this attitude about the republicans being evil and wanting to kill off the poor or middle class or 'MURICA KILL OFF COMMUNISM, but, not once have I actually seen any one say the real reasons why reps are against this aside from reasons that make them out to be villainous baby eaters.
> 
> ...



why do you try so hard like
even someone as oblivious as I can tell you are putting way too much thought to it.
who are you trying to impress the people here or your own ego?


----------



## Ozriel (Oct 16, 2013)

Aleu said:


> So basically you're ignoring everything the Republicans are saying and doing and saying *"oh they're not SO bad".*



That will be the general consensus come November elections.


----------



## Attaman (Oct 16, 2013)

Ozriel said:


> That will be the general consensus come November elections.


I would say "People are smart enough to remember who threatened the world with economic ruin if they don't get their way, no questions", but the fact that this is something like the 3rd or 4th time the Tea Party members of the House have done this (and many of them received piles of fanmail during the shutdown) goes to show just how depressing the state of affairs in the US really is.


----------



## BRN (Oct 16, 2013)

England breathes a sigh of relief, and congratulates the Republicans on their victory..


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Oct 16, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> And do I have a hard on for the reps? No, I'm just kinda bothering to LISTEN to them, rather than just HEAR them and go "Damn redneck silly red far right 'murica god worshipping irrational commusinist killing assholes!"



So what is your take on their position then?


----------



## Lobar (Oct 16, 2013)

*What has happened:* The Senate has announced that they have a bill that both ends the shutdown and raises the debt ceiling.  The new CR will last through January 15th, and the debt ceiling rise will fund the government through February 7th.

*What still needs to happen:* The Senate still needs to vote on this bill, which should pass because it's the Senate that met to draft and agree to this bill (presumably Ted Cruz will be shoved into a broom closet while the bill is actually brought to the floor).  After that, it also has to be voted on by the House.

*What is in the agreement:* The sequester level of spending is still baked into the CR, so the sequester cannot end until after the next CR (this is the compromise that was already in the original CR bill prior to the shutdown).  No significant changes to the Affordable Care Act.  An income verification auditing process will be added to determining who qualifies for health insurance subsidies, but not in a way that should impact the end users (you).  Bipartisan budget conferees have been appointed to try to find long-term solutions, and are to report back by December 13th, but no preconditions have been attached to this.

*What could still go wrong:* Ted Cruz or some other shitlord could still blindside the Senate vote with a filibuster.  The House vote could fail if support is softer than expected or the clout of the suicide caucus has been underestimated.  I don't think either of these is particularly likely, but they are within the realm of possibility.



ADF said:


> Looks like the can was kicked.



It's always been a can-kicking situation, passing continuing resolutions and debt ceiling increases is a recurring task that Congress does regularly to keep the gears turning.  What's important is that the deal isn't for a duration as ridiculously short-term as a month or so.


----------



## Inciatus (Oct 16, 2013)

Gibby said:


> i dont know about you guys but I bet the jews did this


Dammit you discovered the truth!
Sorry for shutting down the government y'all.


Attaman said:


> I would say "People are smart enough to remember who threatened the world with economic ruin if they don't get their way, no questions", but the fact that this is something like the 3rd or 4th time the Tea Party members of the House have done this (and many of them received piles of fanmail during the shutdown) goes to show just how depressing the state of affairs in the US really is.


I think it is pretty unlikely the republicans who were doing this would be removed as they are in extremely safe districts. The only ones who might get removed are the more moderate ones, in which case you aren't really changing anything.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 16, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> To answer you and Alex,
> 
> The point was that everyone just takes one side of the arugment without even considering what the other side has to say, and why. Oh sure, we've got this attitude about the republicans being evil and wanting to kill off the poor or middle class or 'MURICA KILL OFF COMMUNISM, but, not once have I actually seen any one say the real reasons why reps are against this aside from reasons that make them out to be villainous baby eaters.
> 
> ...



There is *NOTHING* that could have been worth inflicting this sort of crisis.  What has happened over these past two weeks is the legislative equivalent of walking onto the floor with ten pounds of TNT around your chest and your thumb on a dead-man switch, threatening to blow everyone up if they don't meet your demands.  This is not a sane way for a government to function, period.


----------



## Nikolinni (Oct 16, 2013)

Lobar said:


> There is *NOTHING* that could have been worth inflicting this sort of crisis.  What has happened over these past two weeks is the legislative equivalent of walking onto the floor with ten pounds of TNT around your chest and your thumb on a dead-man switch, threatening to blow everyone up if they don't meet your demands.  This is not a sane way for a government to function, period.



Because it's not like the democrats have said they won't budge unless they get their way, or Obama won't let anything pass that doesn't go his way. 

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/...edical-device-tax/?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-09-28-18-19-43
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ve-some-demands-too/?wprss=rss_national&clsrd

....oh, wait.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 16, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> Because it's not like the democrats have said they won't budge unless they get their way, or Obama won't let anything pass that doesn't go his way.
> 
> http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/...edical-device-tax/?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories
> http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-09-28-18-19-43
> ...



You don't negotiate with terrorists.  Rewarding the GOP's behavior by giving them anything they were demanding could only encourage it in the future, ensuring that it _will_ all blow up at some point.


----------



## ADF (Oct 16, 2013)

The very idea of a debt ceiling is absurd under our present money system. A money from debt system relies on perpetual growth, otherwise it goes into a deflationary collapse. So having an artificial limit on government debt is inherently incompatible with the global monetary system. It would be like having a giant bomb you can never disable, but you can keep extending the fuse when it nears detonation. Then saying we'll only extent the fuse this far and no further.


----------



## Toboe Moonclaw (Oct 16, 2013)

Lobar said:


> *What has happened:* The Senate has announced that they have a bill that both ends the shutdown and raises the debt ceiling.  The new CR will last through January 15th, and the debt ceiling rise will fund the government through February 7th.
> 
> *What still needs to happen:* The Senate still needs to vote on this bill, which should pass because it's the Senate that met to draft and agree to this bill (presumably Ted Cruz will be shoved into a broom closet while the bill is actually brought to the floor).  After that, it also has to be voted on by the House.
> 
> ...


So, the shit goes on?


----------



## Lobar (Oct 16, 2013)

Toboe Moonclaw said:


> So, the shit goes on?



Hopefully the GOP having gotten nothing of significant value out of this whole debacle means this process can return to normal.

By the way, the House vote is scheduled for 11:00 PM.  Literally averting destruction at the eleventh hour.


----------



## Ozriel (Oct 16, 2013)

Lobar said:


> You don't negotiate with terrorists.  Rewarding the GOP's behavior by giving them anything they were demanding could only encourage it in the future, ensuring that it _will_ all blow up at some point.



Basically, you don't reward a dog for shitting on your carpet when you try to take him to the vet.


----------



## thoughtmaster (Oct 16, 2013)

Look at it this way, this is a precedent, staredown, GOP folds every time. Now, we just have to exploit this fact.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 16, 2013)

thoughtmaster said:


> Look at it this way, this is a precedent, staredown, *GOP folds every time*. Now, we just have to exploit this fact.



ahahahahaha *what*


----------



## CaptainCool (Oct 16, 2013)

Lobar said:


> There is *NOTHING* that could have been worth inflicting this sort of crisis.  What has happened over these past two weeks is the legislative equivalent of walking onto the floor with ten pounds of TNT around your chest and your thumb on a dead-man switch, threatening to blow everyone up if they don't meet your demands.  This is not a sane way for a government to function, period.



I like to see them more like a kid in a toystore throwing a tantrum because mommy isn't buying that one new toy for them.



Nikolinni said:


> Because it's not like the democrats have said they won't budge unless they get their way, or Obama won't let anything pass that doesn't go his way.
> 
> http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/...edical-device-tax/?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories
> http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-09-28-18-19-43
> ...



Oh course the dems are saying that. You know why? BECAUSE OBAMACARE HAS ALREADY BEEN APPROVED AS CONSTITUTIONAL AND IS BENEFICIAL FOR ALL AMERICANS. They are in the right, they are the party that has been elected. Of course they won't budge when dealing with treacherous terrorists!


----------



## Attaman (Oct 16, 2013)

thoughtmaster said:


> Look at it this way, this is a precedent, staredown, GOP folds every time. Now, we just have to exploit this fact.


The GOP has been exploiting this. It's why ACA had so many Republican resolutions (because Democrats expected them to be offering suggestions in good faith instead of buying time in an attempt to shut it down entirely), the GOP has been able to use the Debt Ceiling crisis at least _four_ times within the last two years (twice in 2011 alone) to pass what they want, why there's been practically nil passage of any Bills / Resolutions not put forward by the GOP since Democrats lost their two-month "majority" (which never really was one since herding Democratic Senators and Representatives is like herding cats), etcetera. It's the reason why Democrats voting "Abstain" on one of their budget proposals in 2011 completely _blindsided_ them: It was one of the few times they were willing to play hardball and not either roll over in agreement or offer a resistance that drummed up supporters to go "See? See? We're trying but they're resisting!"

I kinda miss the days that the GOP merely created and tried to pass toxic bills in a PR attempt, versus the modern day wherein they'll threaten the global economy because they didn't get all the candy plus their favorite ice cream.

EDIT: Also, a note Nikolinni: Democrats won the 2008 election. They won the 2012 election. They would, if Boehner was willing to put it to vote, have won the House vote to end the shutdown while being favorable to the ACA. What you're doing right now is showing that winning elections and having the majority support (either population or representative) means _jack _and _shit_ in this nation because apparently if you don't get everything you want your party is allowed to _utterly shut down everything and threaten global ruin until compromise is made in their favor_.


----------



## CrazyLee (Oct 16, 2013)

And to think they planned this all along:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/us/a-federal-budget-crisis-months-in-the-planning.html?_r=0



> WASHINGTON â€” Shortly after President Obama started his second term, a  loose-knit coalition of conservative activists led by former Attorney  General Edwin Meese III gathered in the capital to plot strategy. Their  push to repeal Mr. Obamaâ€™s health care law was going nowhere, and they desperately needed a new plan.            Out of that session, held one morning in a location the members insist on keeping secret, came a little-noticed â€œblueprint to defunding Obamacare,â€ signed by Mr. Meese and leaders of more than three dozen conservative groups.
> It articulated a take-no-prisoners legislative strategy that had long  percolated in conservative circles: that Republicans could derail the  health care overhaul if conservative lawmakers were willing to push  fellow Republicans â€” including their cautious leaders â€” into cutting off  financing for the entire federal government.
> â€œWe felt very strongly at the start of this year that the House needed  to use the power of the purse,â€ said one coalition member, Michael A.  Needham, who runs Heritage Action for America, the political arm of the  Heritage Foundation. â€œAt least at Heritage Action, we felt very strongly  from the start that this was a fight that we were going to pick.â€
> Last week the country witnessed the fallout from that strategy: a  standoff that has shuttered much of the federal bureaucracy and  unsettled the nation.
> To many Americans, the shutdown came out of nowhere. But interviews with  a wide array of conservatives show that the confrontation that  precipitated the crisis was the outgrowth of a long-running effort to  undo the law, the Affordable Care Act, since its passage in 2010 â€” waged  by a galaxy of conservative groups with more money, organized tactics  and interconnections than is commonly known.


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 17, 2013)

Lobar said:


> There is *NOTHING* that could have been worth inflicting this sort of crisis.  What has happened over these past two weeks is the legislative equivalent of walking onto the floor with ten pounds of TNT around your chest and your thumb on a dead-man switch, threatening to blow everyone up if they don't meet your demands.  This is not a sane way for a government to function, period.



I think it's more like walking in with a 5kT backpack nuke instead of ten pounds of TNT, but otherwise you're correct.

Sooooo... anyone want to bet that we don't go through this whole damn thing again in another few months? Or will the few sane Republicans like John McCain by then have taken Ted Cruz and his Taliban-esque Tea Party mates out the back of the Capitol Building for a closed conference involving electric cattle-prods and lengths of rubber hose to convince the "Tea-laban" not to use that nuclear option ever again?

Frankly, this whole affair has turned out to be as one commentator is quoted as saying, "_...the turning point at which American democracy was shown to be dysfunctional - an example to be avoided rather than emulated._"


----------



## Fernin (Oct 17, 2013)

You know Mayfurr, you must be more fixated on nukes in all manner than everyone in the US combined. Nuclear this, nuclear that, nuclear you, nuclear me, nuclear peas and fruit too. Seriously. XD


----------



## CaptainCool (Oct 17, 2013)

CrazyLee said:


> And to think they planned this all along:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/us/a-federal-budget-crisis-months-in-the-planning.html?_r=0



Of course they planned this. They are actively trying to break the US just because they didn't get their will in 2010. Which is exactly why I am calling this treason. They are actively conspiring against the democratic process.


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 17, 2013)

Well Fernin, given that the effective political and economic blast radius of what these Tea Party Republican dipshits were doing would have extended far beyond the boundaries of Washington DC (and the US for that matter), I think an atomic weapon-based description for their behaviour was entirely appropriate.

And such tactics are also the same sort of genie you really really REALLY want to keep in the bottle, because regular use of such things is pretty hideous to contemplate. Well... outside of the US, anyway.


----------



## CaptainCool (Oct 17, 2013)

AHAHA!
[yt]s65bVm7lXG4[/yt]

LOOK AT HER! Look at her go! Holy shit what a fucking loonie! XD


----------



## Fernin (Oct 17, 2013)

Mayfurr said:


> Well Fernin, given that the effective political and economic blast radius of what these Tea Party Republican dipshits were doing would have extended far beyond the boundaries of Washington DC (and the US for that matter), I think an atomic weapon-based description for their behaviour was entirely appropriate.
> 
> And such tactics are also the same sort of genie you really really REALLY want to keep in the bottle, because regular use of such things is pretty hideous to contemplate. Well... outside of the US, anyway.



I'm not talking about just this thread, more in general. I literally can't think of more of more than a handful of your posts were you haven't tried to elevate things with nuclear this and that. You're like those people who run around flinging out genocide, or atrocity, or some other severe word to the point that it has no weight anymore. It gets cheapened to the point of being face palm worthy.


----------



## Aleu (Oct 17, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> AHAHA!
> [yt][/yt]
> 
> LOOK AT HER! Look at her go! Holy shit what a fucking loonie! XD


She is right though. We never were a nation "under God"

inb4hurdur there is no God so duh


----------



## Nikolinni (Oct 17, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> AHAHA!
> [yt]s65bVm7lXG4[/yt]
> 
> LOOK AT HER! Look at her go! Holy shit what a fucking loonie! XD



Not sure if serious...or just trying to do it for show. 

At any rate, thanks girlie. Now I want to assume the label of "Spiritual" even more.


----------



## thoughtmaster (Oct 17, 2013)

Well, at least the new budget didn't get rid of the sequester. How long till that is attacked?


----------



## CaptainCool (Oct 17, 2013)

Aleu said:


> She is right though. We never were a nation "under God"
> 
> inb4hurdur there is no God so duh



No country should _ever_ be a "nation under god" because supersticious personal beliefs should never be a part of politics.



Nikolinni said:


> Not sure if serious...or just trying to do it for show.
> 
> At any rate, thanks girlie. Now I want to assume the label of "Spiritual" even more.



Could be a mix of both. An insane nutjon who is also an attention whore? Could be. Definitely a loonie though.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 17, 2013)

Well I just got my internet back, and found out about this.  Anyone else think we're just going to be in this same shit three months from now?


----------



## CaptainCool (Oct 17, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> Well I just got my internet back, and found out about this.  Anyone else think we're just going to be in this same shit three months from now?



The whole thing made it crystal clear that they don't care about their people, so I am pretty sure they are gonna try it all over again.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 17, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> The whole thing made it crystal clear that they don't care about their people, so I am pretty sure they are gonna try it all over again.


Considering it will be ~10 months away from a election their political strategists will have to handcuff themselves to their chairs to resist the urge to slap the shit out of them.


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Oct 17, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> Well I just got my internet back, and found out about this.  Anyone else think we're just going to be in this same shit three months from now?



Not as much. That time be primary season.  Or maybe worse. idk


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 17, 2013)

ShÃ nwÃ ng said:


> Not as much. That time be primary season.  Or maybe worse. idk


You're talking about a political party that goes out and creates their own "studies" to create gallup polls that favor them instead of actually listening to political strategists about what they should do to get elected/re-elected.  Of course it's going to make it worse.  It's a sucker's bet.  In all probability they're going to use their own "studies" that solely poll conservative republican voters and then use that as a basis for their political strategy to get elected.

The fundamental problem with how the republican party tries to win is that their studies go, "Are you a conservative tea party republican voter that has not once in your life voted democrat?  If yes then please take this study.  If no then sorry you're a 'biased' survey taker".


----------



## MethidMan (Oct 18, 2013)

This whole mess has pretty much proved to me that the Tea Party doesn't give a shit about America, they just want Obama to fail even at the expense of other people and the economy. Like a bunch of kids throwing a tantrum over not getting their way. Anyone who can't understand that they're to blame for this is either an Obama-hater or just plain delusional.


----------



## Reaginicwolf (Oct 18, 2013)

well I can tell now that the tea party will be losing a lot of support, thats a good thing. What I find disturbing is this might happen again real soon in january when congress meet again to decide on what to do about the debt.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 18, 2013)

The good thing about this though when you think about it is that the affordable care act drama is pretty much deader than a doorknob now.  There's no way they'll ever be able to defund it now.


----------



## MethidMan (Oct 18, 2013)

I dunno... Considering how aggressively immature they are, I have a feeling they're still not gonna give up even after all the damage they've already done themselves... After Obama's re-election last year, I had thought they would've finally put the issue to rest, but as we've seen just now, they seem to be willing to do anything they can to get rid of it.

Edit: On the other hand, the more they damage themselves with stunts like these, the closer they get to self-destructing and the better it'll be for the country. Survival of the fittest.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 18, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> AHAHA!
> [yt]s65bVm7lXG4[/yt]
> 
> LOOK AT HER! Look at her go! Holy shit what a fucking loonie! XD



At least she had the right audience.  If there's one group of people that fucking needs a sermon on how ye cannot serve both God and Mammon, it's Republicans.


----------



## Toboe Moonclaw (Oct 19, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> Well I just got my internet back, and found out about this.  Anyone else think we're just going to be in this same shit three months from now?


Yup, USA belly flopping would have been faster and overall less painfull, same shit is gonna come again, and again and again and so on until it DOES end badly. (IMHO)


----------



## Lobar (Oct 19, 2013)

Toboe Moonclaw said:


> Yup, USA belly flopping would have been faster and overall less painfull, same shit is gonna come again, and again and again and so on until it DOES end badly. (IMHO)



Faster yes, less painful, no.  A U.S. default is a doomsday scenario.


----------



## thoughtmaster (Oct 19, 2013)

Lobar said:


> Faster yes, less painful, no.  A U.S. default is a doomsday scenario.


But if the debt keeps growing, the default will become inevitable. The only way to prevent it isn't to keep growing the amount of debt you are in, but to shrink it to a manageable level, and a trillion dollar debt isn't manageable.


----------



## Attaman (Oct 19, 2013)

thoughtmaster said:


> But if the debt keeps growing, the default will become inevitable.


 No, it won't. The only way a default is inevitable is if you have a political presence that purposefully and maliciously does everything in its power to grind the government and economy to a halt for prolonged periods of time while both damaging the United States' international image and reducing the security of the value of the US dollar.

In other words, vote out your Tea Party representatives ASAP as they're willing to fiddle as Rome burns over ideas such as "affordable healthcare" and "The President doesn't lean further right than Reagan".



thoughtmaster said:


> The only way to prevent it isn't to keep growing the amount of debt you are in, but to shrink it to a manageable level, and a trillion dollar debt isn't manageable.


 Our debt was oddly manageable during the middle of a wartime, was manageable when we had either Democratic or Republican presidents beforehand, during the middle of one of the greatest economic upturns in recent history (one that was well on the way to being worse than the Great Depression), etcetera. The only way it isn't manageable is, again, if you basically have a group doing everything in their power to amplify its dangerousness and impact.


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 19, 2013)

Attaman said:


> Our debt was oddly manageable during the middle of a wartime, was manageable when we had either Democratic or Republican presidents beforehand, during the middle of one of the greatest economic upturns in recent history (one that was well on the way to being worse than the Great Depression), etcetera.



In fact, was it not a _Republican_ - a certain D. Cheney - that said _"Reagan proved that deficits don't matter_"? Which was good for Reagan, considering he _tripled_ the US national debt while he was in office.

Funny how debt levels only get to be a worry when a Democrat is in the White House,eh?


----------



## Lobar (Oct 19, 2013)

thoughtmaster said:


> But if the debt keeps growing, the default will become inevitable. The only way to prevent it isn't to keep growing the amount of debt you are in, but to shrink it to a manageable level, and a trillion dollar debt isn't manageable.



FFS, how many times am I going to have to say this?

*The U.S. is the sovereign issuer of the currency our debt is denominated in.  We cannot run out of it.*


----------



## thoughtmaster (Oct 19, 2013)

Just because it issues the currency doesn't mean they can just print enough to pay off the debt. That would cause massive inflation causing what occured to Germany during the interwar period. Unfortunately, the reason for said rapid inflation was demands for the Allied nation's debts to the US for loans during WWI, which caused the nations of Britian and France to demand the war reparations â€¦ How much does the US own in foreign debt?


----------



## cobalt-blue (Oct 19, 2013)

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising Americaâ€™s debt limit  is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government  canâ€™t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing  financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Governmentâ€™s  reckless fiscal policies. â€¦ Increasing Americaâ€™s debt weakens us  domestically and internationally. Leadership means that â€œthe buck stops  here.â€ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today  onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt  problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."

http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...vote-against-raising-debt-limit-andrew-c-mcca

Guess in 2006 and 9 trillion it was a problem but its ok in 2013 and +17 trillion now!!!!


----------



## Lobar (Oct 19, 2013)

thoughtmaster said:


> Just because it issues the currency doesn't mean they can just print enough to pay off the debt. That would cause massive inflation causing what occured to Germany during the interwar period. Unfortunately, the reason for said rapid inflation was demands for the Allied nation's debts to the US for loans during WWI, which caused the nations of Britian and France to demand the war reparations â€¦ How much does the US own in foreign debt?



You said it would make a default inevitable, though, which is flat-out wrong.  Inflation is a concern, but there are other steps that can be taken in our monetary policy to curb inflation.

Also, what happened to Germany is that Black Friday crashed markets across the globe, and France balked at giving Germany a temporary moratorium on repayment of their substantial reparations, which caused a panic and a bank run.


----------



## MethidMan (Oct 19, 2013)

I remember when a certain acquaintance said something about this:



			
				Fighter McWarrior of SydLexia.com said:
			
		

> If we default on our debt, I'm going to lose my shit. You can argue  about the national debt and its importance, and I understand that, but  raising the debt ceiling isn't raising the debt. It just pays the debt  we already have. If we default on our loans, we'll tank both our economy  and much of the rest of the world's. When Argentina defaulted on its  debt in the 1990s, they ended up with a 5,000% inflation rate and over  20% unemployment.
> 
> Whatever you think about spending/taxation, that's not worth whatever  point you have to prove. I say that to both sides, but the reality is  that the Republicans are a lot more likely to hold this process up, and  even playing games with it could get us downgraded.


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 19, 2013)

cobalt-blue said:


> "The fact that we are here today to debate raising Americaâ€™s debt limit  is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government  canâ€™t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing  financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Governmentâ€™s  reckless fiscal policies. â€¦ Increasing Americaâ€™s debt weakens us  domestically and internationally. Leadership means that â€œthe buck stops  here.â€ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today  onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt  problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."
> 
> http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...vote-against-raising-debt-limit-andrew-c-mcca
> 
> Guess in 2006 and 9 trillion it was a problem but its ok in 2013 and +17 trillion now!!!!



Given that the Republicans today who are whining about debt and deficits were perfectly OK with such when Republican Presidents like Reagan and Dubya Bush were in the White House, one can only conclude that politically speaking, debts and deficits are a Bad Thing when you're not in government but a Good Thing (or at least, a Not So Bad Thing) when you _are _in government.


----------



## Inciatus (Oct 19, 2013)

Mayfurr said:


> In fact, was it not a _Republican_ - a certain D. Cheney - that said _"Reagan proved that deficits don't matter_"? Which was good for Reagan, considering he _tripled_ the US national debt while he was in office.
> 
> Funny how debt levels only get to be a worry when a Democrat is in the White House,eh?


At this point Reagan wouldn't fit that well in the Republican party.


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 20, 2013)

Inciatus said:


> At this point Reagan wouldn't fit that well in the Republican party.



And that's what happens when you've gerrymandered the electorate to the point _where the only votes that count are those of the party faithful _(whoever they be), not the actual electorate you're _supposed _to be serving.


----------



## ADF (Oct 20, 2013)

Defaults are so politically toxic that they are a last resort, but there is more than one way to default. Printing your way out of debt is still a declaration that you are unable to repay your debts, and the more America does it the more they will be punished. They're going to gradually run out of creditors, America is already its own primary lender while its previous primary lender is calling for it to be stripped of its reserve currency status.

The only reason the US hasn't faced severe inflation and loss of confidence is because of its reserve currency status, it can export inflation to the rest of the world and there is always an artificial demand for dollars. But it is going to lose those privileges at some point, especially with these sort of antics loudly declaring to the world that America can no longer be trusted.

It doesn't matter if you don't want to technically call it a default, America is not going to be able to sustain its debts at some point and you can see with the deals quietly being made in the background; the world is preparing for that event.



Lobar said:


> FFS, how many times am I going to have to say this?
> 
> *The U.S. is the sovereign issuer of the currency our debt is denominated in.  We cannot run out of it.*



And its comments like this that is pushing the world to eventually dump the dollar.

If you just print money to pay off your debts you're going to run out of people being willing to lend you money, because what you pay back will be worth less than what they paid you. The only reason that is taking so long to happen is because the world doesn't have better options right now, it's more about capital preservation than profit right now, there is a shortage of safe assets.


----------



## thoughtmaster (Oct 20, 2013)

Hmm, I just thought of something. The US has only defaulted twice, once during the carter administration because of a error in filing and the other time during the war of 1812 because, at the time, WASHINGTON D.C. WAS BURNING TO THE GROUND! We had passed a law making sure that, no matter the circumstance, the US would pay the interest on the debt. We are still currently dealing with debt from the civil war. With that occuring, would it not be fine if we defaulted on our debts, seeing as it is over 200 years worth. Let's put it this way, how many other nations have debt all the way back to it's founding which is over 100 years old?


----------



## MethidMan (Oct 20, 2013)

What does it really matter how old the debt is? There is no situation that makes a default a good thing, period.


----------



## Toboe Moonclaw (Oct 20, 2013)

Lobar said:


> Faster yes, less painful, no.  A U.S. default is a doomsday scenario.


If you assume that the only way for this to end is the belly flop, then it IS less painful.

Unless you are an US American hoping that the shit goes on until you are below the earth.


----------



## BRN (Oct 20, 2013)

Toboe Moonclaw said:


> If you assume that the only way for this to end is the belly flop, then it IS less painful.
> 
> Unless you are an US American hoping that the shit goes on until you are below the earth.



No, the choice proposed is simple; intravenous saline injection, or death by old age.

There's a certain level of cataclysm after which it becomes fucking stupid to compare like-with-like. 

"Well, MY horrific artificial disaster will only ruin the economic stability of SEVENTEEN countries! That's far better than NINETEEN!"


----------



## thoughtmaster (Oct 20, 2013)

I'm just thinking that with the fact that most nations have renewed themselves, through toppling the current form of government, or through a regular default. We are stuck with the debt of around three times the average time period, accumulated. With that fact in mind, a default looks like something that most likely log overdue in occuring and is impossible to prevent. Also, with a majority of the debt owned by China, us defaulting would mostly harm them, which is good for the balance of power because it destroys both superpowers.


----------



## MethidMan (Oct 20, 2013)

Your reasoning doesn't make sense. There's never a good reason to burn down a building just because it's old unless it's condemned. The same reason I stated before there's no good reason for a country to default unless it's already doomed.


----------



## thoughtmaster (Oct 20, 2013)

And the US is salvageable how?


----------



## Lobar (Oct 20, 2013)

thoughtmaster said:


> And the US is salvageable how?



The U.S. is doing just fine, despite your doomsaying.

You are not smarter than the entire financial sector that still feels that U.S. securities are the safest assets in the world.


----------



## Inciatus (Oct 21, 2013)

thoughtmaster said:


> I'm just thinking that with the fact that most nations have renewed themselves, through toppling the current form of government, or through a regular default. We are stuck with the debt of around three times the average time period, accumulated. With that fact in mind, a default looks like something that most likely log overdue in occuring and is impossible to prevent. Also, with a majority of the debt owned by China, us defaulting would mostly harm them, which is good for the balance of power because it destroys both superpowers.


Right now I think most the US debt is held by the US.


----------



## ADF (Oct 21, 2013)

Lobar said:


> The U.S. is doing just fine, despite your doomsaying.
> 
> You are not smarter than the entire financial sector that still feels that U.S. securities are the safest assets in the world.



It has nothing to do with intelligence, anyone can judge the lessor evil of bad outcomes.

Say you have $1000 and you have four options to invest.

Invest it in bond A and get back $970 in purchasing power.

Invest it in bond B and get back $930 in purchasing power.

Invest it in bond C and get back $880 in purchasing power.

Invest it in bond D and get back $800 in purchasing power.

Or do nothing and have your money devalued to $700 over the same period through debasement.

Whatever bond choice you make you're going to lose money, the only other option is the equivalent of taking it down the casino. So you have a choice of the least worst option, which is the US. But that isn't a testament to America, it comes down to an artificial privilege given to it for reasons that are no longer valid today. Which without it would be just as bad as the other options, if not worse.

The world is forced to accept the dollar for international trade, which gives it artificial strength. That will change one day.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 21, 2013)

AHAHAHA XD
http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/21/politics/cnn-poll-shutdown-re-election/index.html
I find it hilarious that republicans thought that this was a good idea looking at the new poll results.


----------

