[SO] The government is shut down...
- Thread starter SL83
- Start date
Walking_Man
Veteran X
lmao you know this doorknob who wrote that has dried corn and ammo buried in fuel drums all over his barren 5 acre property and "Dont tread on me" flags hanging in his living room as he furiously masturbates to Red Dawn and fantasizes about the day he'll be proven right for investing all of his surplus money into survival gear
sweet........
even if he is wrong it will still prove to be a better hedge against inflation than his 401(k).
Feinstein alone made me a couple thousand extra dollars last year with all her gun mongering.
Also Red Dawn is OFN
This is new hotness.....even if from 1998
even if he is wrong it will still prove to be a better hedge against inflation than his 401(k).
Feinstein alone made me a couple thousand extra dollars last year with all her gun mongering.
Also Red Dawn is OFN
This is new hotness.....even if from 1998
Last edited:
tele uses two year old graph to make stupid point about investments he doesn't understand.
you're absolutely right tele, investing in a commodity is so much smarter than investing in mutual funds in a 401k. even though your chart is old as shit and corn has fallen. even though my dog probably understands commodities and mutual funds better than you.
you're absolutely right tele, investing in a commodity is so much smarter than investing in mutual funds in a 401k. even though your chart is old as shit and corn has fallen. even though my dog probably understands commodities and mutual funds better than you.
Last edited:
republithink
Ludicrous Speed
Veteran XV
This is not possible anymore there are too many people on the payroll and both parties fear losing the votes that would come with the necessary cuts that would have to be made.
ya
i posted same thing on another forum and got banned
TW: cunts welcome.
fartiusstinkius
Veteran XV
I keep hearing this talk about how Obama could use the 14th Amendment to unilateraly raise the debt ceiling. I could see some logic to that if he were to use the extra cash only to pay interest on our current debt (since it's the debt and not the rest of the US budget that that's mentioned). But it seems like he doesn't want to consider that case because he wants his budget.
Fun times fun times.
Fun times fun times.
BlueSoxSWJ
Veteran X
The fourteenth amendment option is ... complicated.
The federal government uses different terms than any other organization. What the government calls the "national debt" is actually just a balance of cash flows. Instead of accrual, asset-liability based accounting that every other economic entity in the world uses, the government uses a cash accounting basis. There are good reasons for it, but it does mean that the "national debt" isn't the only debt of the government.
If an employee or contractor does work for the government, the government owes that individual money. But that doesn't get counted as part of the debt ceiling, which only refers to the face value of all bonds issued by the Treasury. The debt ceiling actually limits the government's ability to convert other kinds of debt into Treasury bonds. The legal question would then be - is debt other than Treasury bonds covered by the 14th Amendment? Since the 14th doesn't specify a type of debt, the answer is probably yes.
That means it's just as unconstitutional to stiff other types of creditors than bondholders, so the 14th Amendment should apply to all Congressionally authorized spending, not just interest.
The federal government uses different terms than any other organization. What the government calls the "national debt" is actually just a balance of cash flows. Instead of accrual, asset-liability based accounting that every other economic entity in the world uses, the government uses a cash accounting basis. There are good reasons for it, but it does mean that the "national debt" isn't the only debt of the government.
If an employee or contractor does work for the government, the government owes that individual money. But that doesn't get counted as part of the debt ceiling, which only refers to the face value of all bonds issued by the Treasury. The debt ceiling actually limits the government's ability to convert other kinds of debt into Treasury bonds. The legal question would then be - is debt other than Treasury bonds covered by the 14th Amendment? Since the 14th doesn't specify a type of debt, the answer is probably yes.
That means it's just as unconstitutional to stiff other types of creditors than bondholders, so the 14th Amendment should apply to all Congressionally authorized spending, not just interest.
fartiusstinkius
Veteran XV
If those terms already had that meaning when the amendment was passed, then I guess Obama is kind of screwed. He very well might succeed in convincing the courts (obviously after the fact since there would be lawsuits) that his unilateraly increasing the debt ceiling is allowed, but he still wouldn't have his budget. If he increased the debt ceiling unilateraly, he'd lose a lot of leverage (since he can't claim the world economy will tank, etc.) and it would give even more incentive for the Republicans to dig in. I guess he'll have to decide what to do or really hope the Republicans give in.
uh, if it wasn't already law it wouldn't be being enacted currently.
They cannot defund the ACA, PERIOD
There are republicans telling you this right now.
fartiusstinkius
Veteran XV
The passing of laws and appropriation of funds to enact those laws are and have always been two separate processes in American politics. Whether that makes sense or not is an entirely different question, but one that doesn't really apply to this situation.
ACA IS LAW
It is funded and that's why it is getting enacted because they have funds to do so.
Never in our history has this been done for a law on the books.
It is funded and that's why it is getting enacted because they have funds to do so.
Never in our history has this been done for a law on the books.
i'm not sure how specific you're getting with that claim, but defunding laws to prevent their actual execution after being passed is done.
look at all the laws regarding consumer credit monitoring that are going effectively unenforced do to the republicans refusing to fund the department that would enforce them...
what's rarely done is that the whole fucking government is brought to a hault because one party has exhausted all reasonable approaches to getting their way, having to resort to petulant games.
look at all the laws regarding consumer credit monitoring that are going effectively unenforced do to the republicans refusing to fund the department that would enforce them...
what's rarely done is that the whole fucking government is brought to a hault because one party has exhausted all reasonable approaches to getting their way, having to resort to petulant games.
fartiusstinkius
Veteran XV
What do you mean "it is funded"? The budget is where that's decided...the same budget that has not been passed. So clearly it is not funded at the moment. Something "being law" is basically either true or false (true in this case), but something "being funded" is a sliding scale. Is it funded as much as Obama wants? Is it funded half as much? Is it not funded at all?
fartiusstinkius
Veteran XV
Yeah this isn't exactly common, but it isn't a ridiculous scenario either. If it's okay for Congress to decide how much to fund something, why can't it decide not to fund it at all?