14th amendment and the debt ceiling

[Tgo01]

Okay so lately I've been reading that Pelosi, Reid and other Democrats are urging Obama to invoke the 14th amendment to "ignore" the debt ceiling. I'm not sure I understand how this works, can someone enlighten me?

The parts of that amendment that pertain to the debt are:


The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.


The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Where is the idea that the president has the power to ignore the debt ceiling from that?

First of all it says Congress has the power to enforce, by legislation, the provisions of this article. Secondly even if Congress didn't increase the debt limit it's not like the US can't continue to pay it's debt. The federal government pays about 30 billion dollars a month towards the debt while collecting about 250 billion dollars a month.

I'm not here to argue that it will be the worst thing in the world if the debt ceiling wasn't increased and that all anarchy would break out because the US would have to make some drastic cuts somewhere. I'm just curious how people figure the 14th amendment gives the president the right to ignore the debt ceiling.

[Warriorbird]

Okay so lately I've been reading that Pelosi, Reid and other Democrats are urging Obama to invoke the 14th amendment to "ignore" the debt ceiling. I'm not sure I understand how this works, can someone enlighten me?

The parts of that amendment that pertain to the debt are:





Where is the idea that the president has the power to ignore the debt ceiling from that?

First of all it says Congress has the power to enforce, by legislation, the provisions of this article. Secondly even if Congress didn't increase the debt limit it's not like the US can't continue to pay it's debt. The federal government pays about 30 billion dollars a month towards the debt while collecting about 250 billion dollars a month.

I'm not here to argue that it will be the worst thing in the world if the debt ceiling wasn't increased and that all anarchy would break out because the US would have to make some drastic cuts somewhere. I'm just curious how people figure the 14th amendment gives the president the right to ignore the debt ceiling.

It is far more logical than the famous 'penumbras and emanations.'

[Buckwheet]

Basically the amendment says that the current debt we have is valid and can not be questioned and has to be paid. So no matter what the debt ceiling is, we have this debt and we have to be paying it. Its open to debate if it means the president can use it to raise the ceiling.

Even if he CAN do it, I don't think he will do it. It probably would be challenged and sent to the USSC.

He also has the power to mint a X dollars platinum coin to erase debt and deposit it with the fed. But I don't think he would do that either.

[Tgo01]

Basically the amendment says that the current debt we have is valid and can not be questioned and has to be paid. So no matter what the debt ceiling is, we have this debt and we have to be paying it.

I understand that part. What I don't understand is the idea that unless the debt ceiling was increased we would be unable to pay back the debt. As I said the federal government pays 30 billion dollars a month towards the debt while at the same time collects almost 250 billion dollars a month in revenue. The only reason we continue to borrow is to pay for future spending, not for future debt repayments.

[Buckwheet]

I understand that part. What I don't understand is the idea that unless the debt ceiling was increased we would be unable to pay back the debt. As I said the federal government pays 30 billion dollars a month towards the debt while at the same time collects almost 250 billion dollars a month in revenue. The only reason we continue to borrow is to pay for future spending, not for future debt repayments.

That is just it. If it does not get raised, the 14th amendment says we have to pay. So I don't know where the idea you are talking about comes from, but I am fairly certain its in error.

[Tgo01]

That is just it. If it does not get raised, the 14th amendment says we have to pay. So I don't know where the idea you are talking about comes from, but I am fairly certain its in error.

Yes, the validity of the US debt shall not be questioned, that much is in the constitution. What I'm saying is the US would have no problem paying back it's debt obligations every month if the debt ceiling was not raised. We do not borrow money to pay for future debt payments, we borrow money to pay for future spending. The 14th amendment only talks about the US debt, not US spending.

[Androidpk]

I was just reading about that $1 trillion platinum coin the other day. On paper it does sound good. But would it actually be feasible? What would it do to inflation?

[Buckwheet]

Yes, the validity of the US debt shall not be questioned, that much is in the constitution. What I'm saying is the US would have no problem paying back it's debt obligations every month if the debt ceiling was not raised. We do not borrow money to pay for future debt payments, we borrow money to pay for future spending. The 14th amendment only talks about the US debt, not US spending.

As far as I am aware you can request a cash advance on a credit card. As soon as you do it becomes debt. Not spending.


I was just reading about that $1 trillion platinum coin the other day. On paper it does sound good. But would it actually be feasible? What would it do to inflation?

Since it would never enter circulation and just be in a vault at the fed, it would have little to no impact right?

[Tgo01]

I was just reading about that $1 trillion platinum coin the other day. On paper it does sound good. But would it actually be feasible? What would it do to inflation?

I would imagine the world would just start viewing the US currency as one giant joke. We just mint up a trillion dollar coin every time we get in trouble.

[Tgo01]

As for the amendment idea, there's a decent argument for what the Democrats are suggesting. Congress already authorized the spending by passing the legislation that created the debt in the first place--they committed to spending the money, it's been spent, and the constitution explicitly states that the debt shall not be questioned.

Yes, Congress has spent the money in the past, they haven't spent the money in the future. If I say I'm going to spend 100 dollars a month on junk food this year but I end up not spending a dime I'm not in debt to anyone, I just cut junk food from my budget. I understand Congress has to take the US debt seriously, as I said the US is entirely capable of paying back it's debt obligations every month without the debt ceiling being raised.

[Atlanteax]

I just wish I knew why/how cutting Discretionary spending is *SO* difficult for Congress to do...

[Tgo01]

That's the one upside of being massively in debt while also being in total control over the supply of what you "owe." If things get bad enough, that pile of money we owe China doesn't mean anything--print it, and hand it over to them, and their suddenly less valuable pile of money doesn't mean anything.

Meanwhile, the US remains the powerhouse global source of entertainment, healthcare R&D and scientific development. It would mean chaos for the world economy, and hardship for Americans, but we could never become anything like Greece, as Greece owes people euros--which it can't print--not drachmas. That's also why fear-mongering about us "becoming Greece" is intellectually dishonest.

I'm pretty sure printing up trillions of dollars to pay our debtors and defaulting on the money we owe would pretty much have the same consequences.

[Lulfas]

Because one person's discretionary spending is another person's reelection boon.

[Tgo01]

I'll just leave this here.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/pascalemmanuelgobry/2012/10/19/no-the-united-states-will-not-go-into-a-debt-crisis-not-now-not-ever/

If it's so easy and has so little consequences why don't we just do it then? Why aren't we printing up trillions of dollars and buying the world?

[Buckwheet]

If it's so easy and has so little consequences why don't we just do it then? Why aren't we printing up trillions of dollars and buying the world?

Because that is what China is doing and we don't like them.

[WRoss]

I just wish I knew why/how cutting Discretionary spending is *SO* difficult for Congress to do...

It's what gets them elected.

[WRoss]

If it's so easy and has so little consequences why don't we just do it then? Why aren't we printing up trillions of dollars and buying the world?

Because it would make the dollar worth less. One of the strengths of our economy is the buying power of the dollar. By printing up trillions of dollars, we loose our edge in the world economy. Also, it would likely result in riots as people could no longer afford basic necessities. This idea that printing up enough money to pay off our national debts would not be disastrous is ridiculous.

[Tgo01]

Because it would make the dollar worth less. One of the strengths of our economy is the buying power of the dollar. By printing up trillions of dollars, we loose our edge in the world economy. Also, it would likely result in riots as people could no longer afford basic necessities. This idea that printing up enough money to pay off our national debts would not be disastrous is ridiculous.

That's what I was trying to get at but apparently Ashliana thinks that wouldn't happen.

[WRoss]

I often wonder what would happen if we recalled Ithis is a hypothetical as it would be impossible to do) all the money lost in remittances and illegal trades around the globe. Remittances alone are in the tune of 300-350 billion and year with upwards of 100 billion in illegal activities. Roughly a trillion every two years is leaving the economy.

[Wrathbringer]

Even if he CAN do it, I don't think he will do it. It probably would be challenged and sent to the USSC.

That hasn't stopped him in the past. Nothing he does surprises me anymore.

[Atlanteax]

I just wish I knew why/how cutting Discretionary spending is *SO* difficult for Congress to do...


Because one person's discretionary spending is another person's reelection boon.


It's what gets them elected.

But what about their *MORAL* (as TheE would put it) responsibility to the well-being of the U.S. ?

In a manner, it only 'proves' that people are predominantly only concerned with their self-interest (sorry TheE !) ... it is just such a shame when it causes injury at the national level and we are increasingly unlikely to ever see it reigned in (it grows exponentially instead).

Probably why the Founding Fathers advocated a *small* narrow-focus government ... they understood it could only become a monster (as opposed to a well-run benevolent entity).

[Back]

That's what I was trying to get at but apparently Ashliana thinks that wouldn't happen.

This is the entire reason Tgo01 created this thread. To troll someone with.

[crb]

Maybe you should re-read what I actually said.



I didn't say there wouldn't be consequences--the opposite. But the fear-mongering that we're "headed for Greece" is bullshit, and shows you don't understand the differences in position between the US, being the world's reserve currency, and Greece, which doesn't control their own currency, and doesn't have the benefit of being the world's reserve currency. And the article I posted specifically addressed the potential for inflation.

But, by all means, dismiss what I'm saying as "far-left liberalism" when it's pretty much common knowledge for anyone who's studied economics or investment. The dollar is the world's reserve currency for a reason--it didn't just "happen." It's possible that the world could move away from the dollar, but there are a bunch of impediments to it, and the European debt crisis has shown just why the dollar is a better choice than the euro, and China's got a long way before anyone would even consider it.

You're an idiot.

We are headed to greece, and here is why.

1. Ben Bernanke is currently keeping the borrowing cost of our nation low in a vain attempt to buy congress time to act. He cannot keep this up forever. If interest rates ever just return to historic averages, fuck high interest, if we just ever get average interest, the cost of our debt is going to balloon. Couple that with trillion+ deficits per year and interest on our debt, alone, will take up every taxpayer dollar. There will be no social security, no medicare, no pentagon. There will literally be no money left. Borrowing money when you don't have money to pay for the interest on your existing borrowing isn't an option for obvious reasons.

2. We'll have two options at this point. Massive austerity the likes of which you'll cannot fathom, much worse than greece has because there is no one able to bail us out, we're too big for that. Or print tons of money and inflate our way out of the mess which is practically a default on our debt anyways, it'd surely piss china off, and everyone else. Put a thousand dollar bill in a vending machine for a coke. But, since inflation is a tax on everyone, especially those with no assets, it really fucks everyone regardless. Do you know what caused the Arab Spring? Food price inflation.

You'd be correct in saying we'll never be like Greece because we can print our own currency, but that ignores the fact that A. Greece can too, they just have to leave the euro to do so, and B. printing your way out of debt has tons of negative consequences.

Face it, there is no cheat way to get out of paying for your spending. The bill will be paid.

Also, even the darling of the left Warren Buffet has nice things to saw about Switzerland's currency, it is like you think "world's reserve currency" is a crown that grants us special powers or something. It isn't.

[Tgo01]

Maybe you should re-read what I actually said.


It would mean chaos for the world economy, and hardship for Americans


But the fear-mongering that we're "headed for Greece" is bullshit


I'm pretty sure printing up trillions of dollars to pay our debtors and defaulting on the money we owe would pretty much have the same consequences.


I'll just leave this here.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/pascalemmanuelgobry/2012/10/19/no-the-united-states-will-not-go-into-a-debt-crisis-not-now-not-ever/


In other words, while in theory printing tons of money could create inflation, in practice demand for the dollar is so high–and for structural reasons that have very little to do with how the US economy is doing at a particular point in time–that it’s hard to imagine a circumstance under which the US government would have to print so much that it would cause significant inflation.

You'll have to forgive me, I'm not fluent in speaking out of both sides of my ass.


This is the entire reason Tgo01 created this thread. To troll someone with.

Actually my original question/topic still stands. If you would care to weigh in on the original topic you are more than welcome, but I have a feeling it's a wee bit over your head which is why you chose not to.

I wasn't even going to reply to Ashliana's off topic banter but it began to be too good to pass up.

[ClydeR]

I don't understand it either, which puts you in good company. To hazard a guess, some debts accrue interest and otherwise increase in amount without actual payment.

Maybe, just maybe, the point is not to have a winning legal argument but, instead, to have a plausible legal argument.

[Jarvan]

I doubt they'll actually end up using the 14th amendment provision to extend the debt ceiling, or resort to the trillion dollar platinum coin idea, but it all depends on how insane the GOP feels like being this year. When they brought the nation close to shut down in previous years, the private sector lobby always stepped in and pulled them back, because, y'know--for some reason--businesses have a stake in not seeing the economy implode in the name of ideological GOP intransigence and unwillingness to compromise.

As for the amendment idea, there's a decent argument for what the Democrats are suggesting. Congress already authorized the spending by passing the legislation that created the debt in the first place--they committed to spending the money, it's been spent, and the constitution explicitly states that the debt shall not be questioned. No one is suggesting the executive branch has the power to just spend money on whatever it wants, and force the taxpayer to foot the bill.

The GOP lawmakers talking about forcing the government to default, and then shut down, seem to think that it would only involve a few days of minor inconvenience in having DMV offices and post offices closed when, in reality, it would cause chaos throughout global economy, and probably usher in a global recession. Doesn't that sound like fun?

The problem here is this. Look at it from a person viewpoint, you ran up 30 grand in debt on your CC's. You owe it, so you pay it, you get 3k a month in income. Your CC bills are 1k a month. You can pay off your CC bills without taking out a new CC. You just don't have 1k a month to spend on other things.

It's the same with the government, they ran up their cc's. They don't need to take out more CC's to pay for the current cc's. It doesn't work 100% that way tho, since it is impossible for our politicians or our country to stop spending. They would actually have to cut the deficit to zero, and have a surplus equal to at least the debt repayments. Obviously no one will ever do this.

As for shutting down the government, the fact that Obama thinks there is no spending problem, and our issue is the fact that the rich don't pay enough for him to spend is one issue. yes, Bush did it to, so did Regan really.. tho at that time we were still in a cold war situation, which we won by spending oddly enough. The fact remains though, I don't really see any dem saying we have to cut back on spending. I don't believe that the repubs saying it will actually do it, but I don't see a dem even saying it. We are FAST approaching the point where over 50% of our revenue goes to paying interest on the debt. And yet we continue to borrow more money. Also, the fact that the fed is keeping interest rates artificially low on purpose makes it worse. 1% increase would be roughly 160+ bill a year in additional interest payments.


Also, lets not forget.. Obama was against raising the debt ceiling when he was a senator. He thought it was wrong. Now of course, since he is in power, it's the right thing to do. Go figure. Politicians, they all suck.



Maybe you should re-read what I actually said.



I didn't say there wouldn't be consequences--the opposite. But the fear-mongering that we're "headed for Greece" is bullshit, and shows you don't understand the differences in position between the US, being the world's reserve currency, and Greece, which doesn't control their own currency, and doesn't have the benefit of being the world's reserve currency. And the article I posted specifically addressed the potential for inflation.

But, by all means, dismiss what I'm saying as "far-left liberalism" when it's pretty much common knowledge for anyone who's studied economics or investment. The dollar is the world's reserve currency for a reason--it didn't just "happen." It's possible that the world could move away from the dollar, but there are a bunch of impediments to it, and the European debt crisis has shown just why the dollar is a better choice than the euro, and China's got a long way before anyone would even consider it.

BTW.. have you noticed that China, Russia, OPAC, and others no longer want the Dollar as the reserve currency? It doesn't HAVE to be you know.

[Tgo01]

Apparently the concept of something being unpleasant, and creating hardship, and yet not being the literal end of the world, or the same as being endlessly on the precipice of collapse, as Greece has been, is too difficult a concept for you to grasp. What's that? A neocon being unable to understand anything besides end-of-the-world rhetoric? What a surprise!

Whoa whoa whoa whoa WHOA! This is not my batman cup!

Seriously I have no idea what you're going on about now. If Greece went bankrupt it's not the "end of the world" for them either. The citizens of Greece will endure hardship, inflation will skyrocket, but it's not like the entire country will cease to exist and the government will fall into anarchy. Likewise, by your own admission, if the US were to print trillions of dollars to pay off its debts there would be hardship for Americans too, I'm assuming you agree that inflation will go up as well (although according to the article you linked that won't happen so I really don't know what you think really.)


If the US was under threat of imminent collapse, and there was a better alternative, you'd see every investor pull their assets out. Send me a post card from the end of the world if, as you and Crb seem to think, the US collapses. Jackass.

Again what are you going on about? No one thinks the US is going to collapse. Governments have gone bankrupt before and they managed to pull themselves out of it and continue on. No one thinks there will be pillaging and looting in the streets and entire towns set ablaze.

Talk about hyperbole and rhetoric.

[WRoss]

Speaking of hard times. I have a few hundred ounces of silver for sale.

[Parkbandit]

Speaking of hard times. I have a few hundred ounces of silver for sale.

I would keep it if I were you.

I am.

[WRoss]

I would keep it if I were you.

I am.

I was being sarcastic, somewhat. I wouldn't mind getting into some other metals.

[Parkbandit]

I was being sarcastic, somewhat. I wouldn't mind getting into some other metals.

Meh.. I'm glad everyone was focused on gold to be honest... silver has performed better.

[Jarvan]

Meh.. I'm glad everyone was focused on gold to be honest... silver has performed better.

Tech boom made silver so valuable that it isn't funny. Gold.. it's ok, but silver is so much better. Back in the 90's I used to buy 2 silver dollars a pay just cause I liked the look and feel of it. I switched to bars in the late 90's.

On a side note, one thing I think Ashliana forgot is that at the time we became the de facto reserve currency, we were on the gold standard. Since we no longer our, our money is really only worth what people think it is. Kinda like the silver market in GS. People for now agree that silver is valued at 7.5-8 per million. So someone with say 200 mill silver can figure they have a reserve of 1500-1600 bucks. If the market is flooded with 10 billion silver suddenly, or the silver buyers stop playing the game, the value could decrease. If the game folds, the value is gone.

[Wrathbringer]

Meh.. I'm glad everyone was focused on gold to be honest... silver has performed better.

^this. I considered this the silver lining in Obama getting re-elected. Pun intended. Obama is awesome for precious metals. Compare 2009 values to today. Unreal. Hooray for fiscal irresponsibility (if you're into precious metals)!

[Tgo01]

Real patriots invest their money into a failing economy!

[Parkbandit]

^this. I considered this the silver lining in Obama getting re-elected. Pun intended. Obama is awesome for precious metals. Compare 2009 values to today. Unreal. Hooray for fiscal irresponsibility (if you're into precious metals)!

In all fairness, Obama isn't the only one who is fiscally irresponsible in Washington. It started long before he became President.

[Wrathbringer]

Neg- You're right. Obama is responsible for the financial meltdown that happened under George W. Bush's presidency, but any fallout belongs to Obama. DERP

Oh, right... My bad. Obama is awesome for the dollar, not precious metals and has done/wants to do absolutely nothing fiscally irresponsible that would further deflate the dollar and in point of fact Obama is for a return to the gold standard. I was completely wrong and stand 100% corrected thanks to your insightful neg rep. Who says neg reps accomplish nothing?

[Wrathbringer]

In all fairness, Obama isn't the only one who is fiscally irresponsible in Washington. It started long before he became President.

Of course, I was just making a point. After all, he is the thrower of gas on the mess, right?

[Back]

In all fairness, Obama isn't the only one who is fiscally irresponsible in Washington. It started long before he became President.

Yeah. From 2000 to 2004 we went from almost $250 billion in surplus to $400 billion in deficit.

[WRoss]

Yeah. From 2000 to 2004 we went from almost $250 billion in surplus to $400 billion in deficit.

That's also because the tech boom stopped and we had a terrorist attack that started two wars, which both sides of the aisle agreed on. In fact, they rushed through sessions in 2 days to vastly increase spending, but blame it on Bush.

[Back]

That's also because the tech boom stopped and we had a terrorist attack that started two wars, which both sides of the aisle agreed on. In fact, they rushed through sessions in 2 days to vastly increase spending, but blame it on Bush.

Don't forget the tax cuts implemented during that time.

It is plain to see the republican party got into power and raided the war chest.

[poloneus]

I'm just curious how people figure the 14th amendment gives the president the right to ignore the debt ceiling.

Well most Republicans don't know to read when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, so I guess this is one-upmanship?

[Tgo01]

Well most Republicans don't know to read when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, so I guess this is one-upmanship?

Touche salesman.

[Jarvan]

Don't forget the tax cuts implemented during that time.

It is plain to see the republican party got into power and raided the war chest.

Technically speaking, we don't have a war chest. We borrow to go to war.

Also, we didn't really have a 250 Billion surplus. We owed all of that and then some to SS anyway. Clinton also ignored entitlement spending. Tho at least he did eventually agree to some welfare reforms. I'll admit, Clinton swing to the middle right quick.. when Newt got the speakership. Without Newt, I seriously doubt we would have even had our so called "surplus". Isn't it funny tho that during the Clinton years, it was HIS economy, and the president was able to do things about the economy. Now it's the previous president's fault, and the president himself has no control over the economy.


Face it, the Tech boom burst in 2000, bush inherited a crap economy as well. Then we were attacked by the same people that attacked us once before that we did nothing about. We as a nation, agreed to go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Granted, we didn't pay for the war, but then again, when have we paid for wars really? WWII maybe, but not even all of it. If you are going to blame Bush for not paying for something that he did, then it is basically every politicians fault since the dawn of our country really. They all do it. Obama has turned it into an art now. But.. nope, can't blame him.

[Jarvan]

Well most Republicans don't know to read when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, so I guess this is one-upmanship?

huh what?

How exactly do you read the second amendment then?

[Tgo01]

huh what?

How exactly do you read the second amendment then?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RablPaIREkk

[Parkbandit]

Yeah. From 2000 to 2004 we went from almost $250 billion in surplus to $400 billion in deficit.

What's bigger... 400 billion or 1 trillion?

If 400 billion was "raiding the war chest", what's 1 trillion?

[Back]

What's bigger... 400 billion or 1 trillion?

If 400 billion was "raiding the war chest", what's 1 trillion?

You are talking about of difference of $649 billion from 2000 to 2004 and a difference of $441 billion from 2008 to 2012.

Besides thats not the point. The point is republicans took us from a surplus to a deficit.

[Jarvan]

You are talking about of difference of $649 billion from 2000 to 2004 and a difference of $441 billion from 2008 to 2012.

Besides thats not the point. The point is republicans took us from a surplus to a deficit.

Like I said, it really wasn't a surplus.

Fiscal
Year Ending National Debt Deficit
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion

Those are the numbers for the National debt during Clinton's years. EVERY SINGLE YEAR our debt went up. How do you have a surplus and still have debt go up? Simple, he paid off public debt with intra-gov money. Mostly SS.

Claimed Surplus Public Debt Intra-Gov Holdings Total National Debt
FY1997 09/30/1997 $3.789667T $1.623478T $5.413146T
FY1998 09/30/1998 $69.2B $3.733864T $55.8B $1.792328T $168.9B $5.526193T $113B
FY1999 09/30/1999 $122.7B $3.636104T $97.8B $2.020166T $227.8B $5.656270T $130.1B
FY2000 09/29/2000 $230.0B $3.405303T $230.8B $2.268874T $248.7B $5.674178T $17.9B
FY2001 09/28/2001 $3.339310T $66.0B $2.468153T $199.3B $5.807463T $133.3B


So if you look at it like this.. the government paid bills with money they borrowed from future spending that they were required to do. Not exactly a surplus.



-Formatted better on my end.. oh well--

[Back]

Like I said, it really wasn't a surplus.

Fiscal Year|Ending|National Debt|Deficit
FY1993|09/30/1993|$4.411488 trillion|
FY1994|09/30/1994|$4.692749 trillion|$281.26 billion
FY1995| 09/29/1995|$4.973982 trillion|$281.23 billion
FY1996|09/30/1996|$5.224810 trillion|$250.83 billion
FY1997|09/30/1997|$5.413146 trillion|$188.34 billion
FY1998|09/30/1998|$5.526193 trillion|$113.05 billion
FY1999|09/30/1999|$5.656270 trillion|$130.08 billion
FY2000|09/29/2000|$5.674178 trillion|$17.91 billion
FY2001|09/28/2001|$5.807463 trillion|$133.29 billion

Those are the numbers for the National debt during Clinton's years. EVERY SINGLE YEAR our debt went up. How do you have a surplus and still have debt go up? Simple, he paid off public debt with intra-gov money. Mostly SS.

||Claimed|Surplus|Public Debt|Intra-Gov Holdings|Total|National Debt
FY1997|09/30/1997|$3.789667T|$1.623478T|$5.413146T
FY1998|09/30/1998|$69.2B|$3.733864T|$55.8B|$1.792328T|$168.9B|$ 5.526193T|$113B
FY1999|09/30/1999|$122.7B|$3.636104T|$97.8B|$2.020166T|$227.8B| $5.656270T|$130.1B
FY2000|09/29/2000|$230.0B|$3.405303T|$230.8B|$2.268874T|$248.7B |$5.674178T|$17.9B
FY2001|09/28/2001|$3.339310T|$66.0B|$2.468153T|$199.3B|$5.80746 3T|$133.3B|

So if you look at it like this.. the government paid bills with money they borrowed from future spending that they were required to do. Not exactly a surplus.



-Formatted better on my end.. oh well--

Tables are your friend.

[Jarvan]

Tables are your friend.

Thanks, anyway, since you tabled it, notice that Clinton did not in fact have a surplus? Remember back, numbers are your friend.

[Back]

Thanks, anyway, since you tabled it, notice that Clinton did not in fact have a surplus? Remember back, numbers are your friend.

You are going against just about every other report on the subject.

[Jarvan]

You are going against just about every other report on the subject.

So what you are saying is an INCREASE in the debt during a year where there was a surplus is because of what??? How exactly do you have the debt go UP when you have a surplus? I'd love to hear that answer. More importantly, the fact that the surplus was due to the use of SS's surplus -which should have been held in trust for the future not spent ( both sides do this)- and not in fact due to spending less then taking in?

[Parkbandit]

You are going against just about everything I've read about it on moveon.org.

FTFY

[Parkbandit]

You are talking about of difference of $649 billion from 2000 to 2004 and a difference of $441 billion from 2008 to 2012.

Besides thats not the point. The point is republicans took us from a surplus to a deficit.

lulwut?

Check your numbers.. you are incorrect.

[Back]

Regardless of what you call it or how you add it up we went from a great position to a terrible position. You want to keep obfuscating things and stick your heads in the sand about how messed up the republican party is on everything across the board. There is no liberal conspiracy. Its called reality and you guys are trying to avoid it.

[Parkbandit]

Regardless of what you call it or how you add it up we went from a great position to a terrible position. You want to keep obfuscating things and stick your heads in the sand about how messed up the republican party is on everything across the board. There is no liberal conspiracy. Its called reality and you guys are trying to avoid it.

lol

So, you believe it was all Bush's fault when we went into a recession in 2001... and Bush's fault when we went into a recession in 2008.. but Clinton and Obama are blameless?

You are hilarious.

[WRoss]

So what you are saying is an INCREASE in the debt during a year where there was a surplus is because of what??? How exactly do you have the debt go UP when you have a surplus? I'd love to hear that answer. More importantly, the fact that the surplus was due to the use of SS's surplus -which should have been held in trust for the future not spent ( both sides do this)- and not in fact due to spending less then taking in?

Only to add to the fact that the use of those SS funds is one of the reasons we are having troubles with SS currently. I really want to go a tangent about the baby boomers, but I'm watching a blow out.

[Jarvan]

Regardless of what you call it or how you add it up we went from a great position to a terrible position. You want to keep obfuscating things and stick your heads in the sand about how messed up the republican party is on everything across the board. There is no liberal conspiracy. Its called reality and you guys are trying to avoid it.

So what you are saying is you can't answer the question, and instead are sticking your fingers in your ear and shouting at the top of your lungs it was all Republican's fault?

You may want to take a moment and think to yourself.. it's both sides fault.

More importantly.. the Bush tax cuts were bad.. but Obama extending them forever is good? take a moment and look at the numbers... tax cuts for 200k and less 270 billion a year.. tax cuts for 200k and more.. 60 billion a year. So, it's fiscally responsible to extend them FOR ALL TIME, but bad to put them in place for 10 years?


Only to add to the fact that the use of those SS funds is one of the reasons we are having troubles with SS currently. I really want to go a tangent about the baby boomers, but I'm watching a blow out.

Actually, it's sad, but it has been the government's position that surplus SS funds have always (or nearly so) been applied to the deficit. Clinton didn't start it, but he used it to then claim he had a surplus in his deficit. Which he didn't. IF he really had a surplus, our Debt would have went down that year. Sadly, people just can't seem to grasp that.

[Kembal]

Whoa whoa whoa whoa WHOA! This is not my batman cup!

Seriously I have no idea what you're going on about now. If Greece went bankrupt it's not the "end of the world" for them either. The citizens of Greece will endure hardship, inflation will skyrocket, but it's not like the entire country will cease to exist and the government will fall into anarchy. Likewise, by your own admission, if the US were to print trillions of dollars to pay off its debts there would be hardship for Americans too, I'm assuming you agree that inflation will go up as well (although according to the article you linked that won't happen so I really don't know what you think really.)

Greece can't have inflation unless it exits the Euro. That's actually part of the reason why it can't get rid of its debt on its own....it can't print its own money to inflate away the debt.

Greece really is a special case, with its lack of tax collection, lack of its own currency, and faking of statistics to cover up its debt load. It's not useful to use as an analogy to well, any country.

[Tgo01]

Greece can't have inflation unless it exits the Euro. That's actually part of the reason why it can't get rid of its debt on its own....it can't print its own money to inflate away the debt.

Greece really is a special case, with its lack of tax collection, lack of its own currency, and faking of statistics to cover up its debt load. It's not useful to use as an analogy to well, any country.

I thought if Greece went bankrupt they would be kicked out of the Euro? Wouldn't their own currency then suffer from inflation?

[Kembal]

I thought if Greece went bankrupt they would be kicked out of the Euro? Wouldn't their own currency then suffer from inflation?

By bankruptcy, you mean default on its debt? 80% of its debt is held by European institutions now. Europe can't really let them default at this point. They're going to be bailed out and forced to take austerity measures for a long time, unless Greece chooses to thumb their nose at Europe and default by refusing to do any more austerity (which would stop the bailout money).

[Jarvan]

You know, I have been waiting for a couple of days now for Back to explain to me how Clinton had a surplus in the budget, and still had the Debt go up.

I have come to the conclusion that Back can' explain it, so he must have realized that Clinton never had a surplus.

[Back]

You know, I have been waiting for a couple of days now for Back to explain to me how Clinton had a surplus in the budget, and still had the Debt go up.

I have come to the conclusion that Back can' explain it, so he must have realized that Clinton never had a surplus.

Two reasons.

First, I honestly have no idea how it all works. Its not something I can get my head around. I do not have the education, training, or experience. I have to rely on other sources. My judgement on what I have seen is that the majority of data supports that there was in fact a surplus and it turned into a deficit by 2002.

Second. Even if I provide Jarvan with any information he will ignore it so not being one who likes to bang my head against a wall I simply have better things to do.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/

[Latrinsorm]

Two reasons.

First, I honestly have no idea how it all works. Its not something I can get my head around. I do not have the education, training, or experience. I have to rely on other sources. My judgement on what I have seen is that the majority of data supports that there was in fact a surplus and it turned into a deficit by 2002.

Second. Even if I provide Jarvan with any information he will ignore it so not being one who likes to bang my head against a wall I simply have better things to do.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/Fail, everyone knows reality has a liberal bias, your supposed "facts" and big city math are just more liberal talking points. If it were really true it would be in the Bible.

[Back]

"There are only two options to deal with the debt limit: Congress can pay its bills or they can fail to act and put the nation into default," said Press Secretary Jay Carney. "When Congressional Republicans played politics with this issue last time putting us at the edge of default, it was a blow to our economic recovery, causing our nation to be downgraded. The President and the American people won't tolerate Congressional Republicans holding the American economy hostage again simply so they can force disastrous cuts to Medicare and other programs the middle class depend on while protecting the wealthy. Congress needs to do its job."

Platinum Coin Dismissed: White House Ratchets Up Pressure On GOP To Deal With Debt Ceiling (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/12/platinum-coin-dismissed_n_2464170.html?utm_hp_ref=politics)

[Jarvan]

You know, the president can't really just increase the debt ceiling himself. We take in more then enough money to each year to pay current debts, we would just have very little really left over for spending programs. Granted, we can not cut programs to the point where we don't borrow any money anymore, mainly because we don't have a surplus in SS like Clinton did. Of course the Debt under Clinton (borrowing money) still went up.

[Warriorbird]

You know, the president can't really just increase the debt ceiling himself. We take in more then enough money to each year to pay current debts, we would just have very little really left over for spending programs. Granted, we can not cut programs to the point where we don't borrow any money anymore, mainly because we don't have a surplus in SS like Clinton did. Of course the Debt under Clinton (borrowing money) still went up.

It's awesome how you ignore independent fact checking organizations.

[Aryeh]

If it's so easy and has so little consequences why don't we just do it then? Why aren't we printing up trillions of dollars and buying the world?

It may be easy, the consequences are anything but little. Just ask post WW1 Germany.

Spending must originate in the House and that includes, since 1941, the repayment of debt. So it is not a question of the 14th amendment per say, but rather who enforces it. Congress would hold that since spending must originate in the House, that authority is theirs. The administration would argue that since the US Treasury falls under the purview of the oval office, that authority is theirs.

The POTUS probably doesn't want to test the constitutionality of either, but as of late it has been the practice of the minority party (either one) to use what was once a simple order of business for political grand standing. That bit the US bond rating in the rear last year and it seems no one learned from the experience.

[Aryeh]

You're an idiot.

We are headed to greece, and here is why.

This is tinfoil hat stuff. You should probably find an actual economist to borrow your theories from rather than short selling day traders that often predict the demise of multi-billion dollar energy conglomerates.

At the very least you should stop regurgitating what the hacks at the Heritage Foundation are trying to pass off as economic analysis. They've become less about policy and more about far right populism.

The dollar value of US GDP was 13.9T in 2009, down 321B from 2008. A 2.25% contraction. The dollar value of US GDP was 14.99T in 2011. The retraction between 2008 and 2009 was the only contraction we've seen from that date. We have recovered in the sense that we stopped contracting and started growing.

The dollar value of Greek GDP was 341.6B in 2008, 321B in 2009, 292.3B in 2010, and 289.6B in 2011. That is a 6.1% contraction followed by a 9% contraction followed by a 1% contraction.

Then consider that the US economy is 5176% larger than the Greek economy.

So already we have established a few ways in which the US economy is not the Greek economy and by extension, how patently inept it would be to make that particular comparison.

Then you must consider that the US economy is not heavily invested in things liked mortgage backed securities unlike the Greek economy was at when the housing market went nuclear.

The US economy isn't advised by banks like Bear Sterns, nor does it regularly buy banking products as a means of investment.

The US is not part of a larger union and holds autonomy over our economic and monetary policies, unlike Greece.

We could do this all day and get into very specific detail and include the massive austerity that Greek first attempted to combat the contraction of their economy as opposed to the deficit spending enacted by the US, but that would be pointless would it not? You can see how this US/Greek comparison and calls for austerity are just more tea party craziness right?

[Aryeh]

The problem here is this. Look at it from a person viewpoint

You should end it right there because that is not a sane and rational way to look at it.


As for shutting down the government, the fact that Obama thinks there is no spending problem, and our issue is the fact that the rich don't pay enough for him to spend is one issue. yes, Bush did it to, so did Regan really.. tho at that time we were still in a cold war situation, which we won by spending oddly enough. The fact remains though, I don't really see any dem saying we have to cut back on spending. I don't believe that the repubs saying it will actually do it, but I don't see a dem even saying it. We are FAST approaching the point where over 50% of our revenue goes to paying interest on the debt. And yet we continue to borrow more money. Also, the fact that the fed is keeping interest rates artificially low on purpose makes it worse. 1% increase would be roughly 160+ bill a year in additional interest payments.

Did Reagan not say that deficits don't matter? I also do not for a minute believe that you know the mind of the current POTUS or that he thinks we don't have a spending problem. The fact that he has reduced the growth of spending to record lows and at the same time reduced deficit spending says something quite to the cotrary. What we do have is a situation where massively reducing spending will have very negative impacts on the country.



Also, lets not forget.. Obama was against raising the debt ceiling when he was a senator. He thought it was wrong. Now of course, since he is in power, it's the right thing to do. Go figure. Politicians, they all suck.

I agree, but for some reason I think Obamas reasons to be against the debt limit increase then and being for them now are completely different reasons not having all that much to do with the position he is in.


BTW.. have you noticed that China, Russia, OPAC, and others no longer want the Dollar as the reserve currency? It doesn't HAVE to be you know.

Yet they still buy US bonds. Something about their posture and their actions seem to be in direct conflict.

[Jarvan]

You should end it right there because that is not a sane and rational way to look at it.



Did Reagan not say that deficits don't matter? I also do not for a minute believe that you know the mind of the current POTUS or that he thinks we don't have a spending problem. The fact that he has reduced the growth of spending to record lows and at the same time reduced deficit spending says something quite to the cotrary. What we do have is a situation where massively reducing spending will have very negative impacts on the country.




I agree, but for some reason I think Obamas reasons to be against the debt limit increase then and being for them now are completely different reasons not having all that much to do with the position he is in.



Yet they still buy US bonds. Something about their posture and their actions seem to be in direct conflict.

Sorry, but it's been reported that Obama told that to Boehner. "We don't have a spending problem, We have a healthcare problem." Now, you could argue that Obama didn't say that. Of course no where has the whitehouse or Obama denied it that I have seen. He has said before that our issue is a revenue issue. Also, how much exactly has Obama cut? Not a program, but an actual cut from his budget, you know, where his budget one year is less then the year before.... Oppps.. you can't sorry. Forgot that there hasn't been a budget in 3 years. Even still, the last budget he TRIED to pass was higher then the year previous. Soo.. yeah.

As for buying bonds.. lately it's been the Fed buying the bonds.

Also if you look at what I said, I said both Dems and Repubs do it. I seriously think some of you people are mentally unstable. I bitch about both parties, and I get labeled a Republican. I bitch more about Dems cause frankly they are in power. if Repubs were in power and fucking up this much, I would be bitching about them as well.

As for reducing spending having negative impacts on the country. Yes, it would. Then again, so would be having to borrow 5 trillion a year to pay for our debt. Face it, Both options suck. Difference is, one option no one will do because they are terrified they will get kicked out of office, the other one they do because they know people in general are fucking morons and just want a status quo.

[Aryeh]

Yeah. From 2000 to 2004 we went from almost $250 billion in surplus to $400 billion in deficit.

That all depends on how you look at it. I'm not saying we didn't go into a deeper deficit, but the surplus is arguable.

I'm not going into the tinfoil hat arena with "gimmick" accounting, but the surplus is generally contingent upon factors such as revenue stream (which is affected by employment rates), which is in turn affected by the number of people collecting benefits of one type or another, as well as a myriad of other economic factors. A static tax code can in no way promise a balanced or surplus outcome.

Our surpluses were projected and not actually realized.

[Aryeh]

Sorry, but it's been reported that Obama told that to Boehner. "We don't have a spending problem, We have a healthcare problem." Now, you could argue that Obama didn't say that. Of course no where has the whitehouse or Obama denied it that I have seen. He has said before that our issue is a revenue issue. Also, how much exactly has Obama cut? Not a program, but an actual cut from his budget, you know, where his budget one year is less then the year before.... Oppps.. you can't sorry. Forgot that there hasn't been a budget in 3 years. Even still, the last budget he TRIED to pass was higher then the year previous. Soo.. yeah.

The source of that quote is Boehner. I've never denied saying a great number of things, that doesn't mean I actually said them.

The fact that we do have a revenue issue doesn't mean that Obama doesn't think we don't have a spending problem. Chances are he doesn't think we have the same spending problem you think we have.

As for cuts, what exactly are you pulling for a source on this issue? Can you possibly demonstrate that this administration has not cut the budget?


As for buying bonds.. lately it's been the Fed buying the bonds.

Seriously, where are you getting your information. And are you paying them? I seriously hope your source isn't the Romney campaign.


Also if you look at what I said, I said both Dems and Repubs do it. I seriously think some of you people are mentally unstable. I bitch about both parties, and I get labeled a Republican. I bitch more about Dems cause frankly they are in power. if Repubs were in power and fucking up this much, I would be bitching about them as well.

I don't believe I mentioned "sides". I mentioned a person without reference to "side".


As for reducing spending having negative impacts on the country. Yes, it would. Then again, so would be having to borrow 5 trillion a year to pay for our debt. Face it, Both options suck. Difference is, one option no one will do because they are terrified they will get kicked out of office, the other one they do because they know people in general are fucking morons and just want a status quo.

Debt is currently cheap, so very very cheap. It isn't the debt incurred it is the interest bearing portion of that debt that matters. Which is why making a credit card analogy is so irrational and insane.

[Tgo01]

That bit the US bond rating in the rear last year and it seems no one learned from the experience.

It did? I thought the US' borrowings costs were at record lows?

[Aryeh]

It did? I thought the US' borrowings costs were at record lows?

What exactly does that have to do with the downgrade of the US bond rating?

[Bobmuhthol]

Remember when crb talked about the debt being a bigger issue when interest rates increase even though that makes absolutely no sense ever?

[Tgo01]

What exactly does that have to do with the downgrade of the US bond rating?

Well, usually a lower bond rating means an INCREASE in borrowing costs. Since the borrowing costs for the US went down or stayed near the same levels I think that proves that the rating agencies are probably just grasping at straws trying to stay relevant now. Remember when they had all of the banks at high ratings before the shit hit the fan? I do.

[Aryeh]

Well, usually a lower bond rating means an INCREASE in borrowing costs. Since the borrowing costs for the US went down or stayed near the same levels I think that proves that the rating agencies are probably just grasping at straws trying to stay relevant now. Remember when they had all of the banks at high ratings before the shit hit the fan? I do.

I wouldn't dismiss a reduction of the bond rating by one agency so casually. Certainly the response has been stagnant, but you're trying to imply that the rating reduction was without consequence as opposed to pointing out causal factors that would better explain the absence of an adverse impact.

[Bobmuhthol]

Price -- or in the bond market, interest rate -- is a single metric that contains all information. The worst mistake you can make is to say, "X should cause price/rates to move in this direction, and yet price/interest rates moved in the opposite direction, so X clearly isn't important." All it takes is 1 more effect (there are theoretically an unlimited number of effects on price) to discredit your entire argument.

[Aryeh]

Price -- or in the bond market, interest rate -- is a single metric that contains all information. The worst mistake you can make is to say, "X should cause price/rates to move in this direction, and yet price/interest rates moved in the opposite direction, so X clearly isn't important." All it takes is 1 more effect (there are theoretically an unlimited number of effects on price) to discredit your entire argument.

I'm not exactly sure who you're responding to, but I certainly didn't imply a single event was responsible or not responsible for the borrowing terms.

I'm simply pointing out that just because you didn't get burned the first time in no way means you are fireproof and that you should continue down the same path.

[Bobmuhthol]

Given that my post specifically targeted Tgo01's point, I was probably responding to Tgo01.

[Tgo01]

Price -- or in the bond market, interest rate -- is a single metric that contains all information. The worst mistake you can make is to say, "X should cause price/rates to move in this direction, and yet price/interest rates moved in the opposite direction, so X clearly isn't important." All it takes is 1 more effect (there are theoretically an unlimited number of effects on price) to discredit your entire argument.

True true. So what is the point of ratings if they don't have a clear impact on interest rates?

[Aryeh]

True true. So what is the point of ratings if they don't have a clear impact on interest rates?

The impact must be clear?

[Tgo01]

The impact must be clear?

So what are the not so clear impacts?

[Aryeh]

So what are the not so clear impacts?

Clearly, for lack of a better word, those impacts that mitigate the adverse or advantageous impacts of a positive or negative ratings change.

The case in point would be the previously mentioned bond rating downgrade and the causal factors that nullified the negative consequences of the downgrade. Be that the treasuries response or the consumer response. The downgrade certainly did have an impact. To suggest otherwise is just illogical.

[Tgo01]

The downgrade certainly did have an impact. To suggest otherwise is just illogical.

And that impact was...?

[Aryeh]

And that impact was...?

Off of the top of my head? Further easing of paid interest on purchased bonds which would have resulted in lower bill for the tax payers.

You're asking for a clear impacts again. The impact is not always clear, even in retrospect.

[Tgo01]

You're asking for a clear impacts again. The impact is not always clear, even in retrospect.

I'm asking for an impact, any impact. You said it would be silly to assume there has been no negative impact from the rating downgrade. The US has never had trouble selling bonds so that isn't an issue. This happened about 17 months ago, interest paid on US bonds have dropped 25% since then, bond rates dropped 25% the 17 month period prior to the downgrade so that doesn't seem to be an issue.

[Aryeh]

I'm asking for an impact, any impact. You said it would be silly to assume there has been no negative impact from the rating downgrade. The US has never had trouble selling bonds so that isn't an issue. This happened about 17 months ago, interest paid on US bonds have dropped 25% since then, bond rates dropped 25% the 17 month period prior to the downgrade so that doesn't seem to be an issue.

You continue to miss the point. There are at the very least a few thousand causal factors and you're asking for a clear impact. There will never be a clear impact. Not even in hindsight.

Stating that the downgrade had no impact is illogical when a rating is just one factor amid a sea of factors. It happens to be a big factor, but even a big fish is quickly consumed by thousands of smaller fish.

You can't ignore a ratings change. More specifically what the causal factors were to incur a ratings change, just because the impact isn't readily obvious.

[Tgo01]

I'm going to start using this argument technique, it's awesome, I can never be told I'm wrong and I don't even have to backup the claim I'm making either.

"Apples are poisonous."

"What? No they're not."

"Yeah they are, just trust me. It's foolish to think otherwise. I don't have to provide any information to backup my statement, you're just going to have to sit there and accept what I say as fact. Stop being illogical."

[Aryeh]

Except in this case it was you who claimed that ingesting arsenic had no effect.

You want specifics while offering none yourself. I'm just pointing out that the impact of a downgrade is not readily apparent and we shouldn't court another one just because the previous had no "clear" impact of a negative nature.

[Tgo01]

You want specifics while offering none yourself.

I've offered no specifics to back up my claim?

Alright I think we're done here.

[Aryeh]

I've offered no specifics to back up my claim?

Alright I think we're done here.

I think you were done far before you began.

[Jarvan]

I think you were done far before you began.

Are you the kid of Back and WB? It sure seems like it. I didn't know the two of them bred tho.

As for fed buying bonds... quantitative easing, ever heard of it? Or are you saying the fed doesn't print money and buy bonds with it?

So here is a question for you, if revenue is our biggest problem, why did we extend the middle class tax cut? Since that would have increased revenue by 3.4 trillion or so over 10 years. Where exactly do YOU (notice what I did there) think we should get the revenue to pay for all the spending we have that we apparently need and can not cut.

[Aryeh]

Are you the kid of Back and WB? It sure seems like it. I didn't know the two of them bred tho.

I haven't been a kid for at least 20 years.


As for fed buying bonds... quantitative easing, ever heard of it? Or are you saying the fed doesn't print money and buy bonds with it?

Your previous statement implied that the fed is buying up debt at rates higher than NGMs. And I quote;

"As for buying bonds.. lately it's been the Fed buying the bonds."

That is only true in so far as the fed is almost always buying bonds. But not so true in so far as they are buying them at higher rates than anyone else. US debt is largely being purchased by conventional buys of debt. Be that households, businesses (foreign and domestic), and other governments.


So here is a question for you, if revenue is our biggest problem, why did we extend the middle class tax cut? Since that would have increased revenue by 3.4 trillion or so over 10 years. Where exactly do YOU (notice what I did there) think we should get the revenue to pay for all the spending we have that we apparently need and can not cut.

Why would you take more money out of the market? The middle class and working poor constitute the largest group of consumers in this country. What happens when they have less money to spend? Allowing those tax cuts to expire would have only worked against increasing revenues in the long haul as those tax dollars aren't spent in a way that requires industry to produce.

[Jarvan]

I haven't been a kid for at least 20 years.



Your previous statement implied that the fed is buying up debt at rates higher than NGMs. And I quote;

"As for buying bonds.. lately it's been the Fed buying the bonds."

That is only true in so far as the fed is almost always buying bonds. But not so true in so far as they are buying them at higher rates than anyone else. US debt is largely being purchased by conventional buys of debt. Be that households, businesses (foreign and domestic), and other governments.



Why would you take more money out of the market? The middle class and working poor constitute the largest group of consumers in this country. What happens when they have less money to spend? Allowing those tax cuts to expire would have only worked against increasing revenues in the long haul as those tax dollars aren't spent in a way that requires industry to produce.

I see you missed the question I put in there for you. As to why.. why hit the highest income earners then? They don't "spend" money or invest it? Isn't investing good for the economy?

[Warriorbird]

I see you missed the question I put in there for you. As to why.. why hit the highest income earners then? They don't "spend" money or invest it? Isn't investing good for the economy?

You seem to be confused as to what percentage of middle and high incomer earners' wealth goes to subsistence. You must also be unaware what those with high incomes earn money off of.

[Aryeh]

I see you missed the question I put in there for you. As to why.. why hit the highest income earners then? They don't "spend" money or invest it? Isn't investing good for the economy?

I didn't miss the question. I found the answer to the question to be obvious. "Obviously" I was mistaken in this instance.

Top tier income earners do not spend more or less than anyone else. They don't really buy more food, clothing, housing, transportation, or anything else at rates significantly higher than those earning below them. They certainly have that buying power, but it does not translate into consumption.

Investments are not made to create jobs. Nor are jobs really that driven by investment. They're driven by consumerism. Why does it make sense to tax the top down? Because generating that revenue isn't hazardous to economic growth. Someone doesn't invest because they'll make less money. They invest and bitch about making less money. No one says I'm not going to make money because I don't like the tax structure.

What does happen in the real world is that people will wear shoes a little longer, eat less, and generally buy fewer things if they have less money to do so.

Is that clear enough for you?

[Atlanteax]

Looks like Aryeh just conceded we need to cut spending since we apparently cannot raise taxes.

[Latrinsorm]

True true. So what is the point of ratings if they don't have a clear impact on interest rates?Consider defending a shot in basketball. You can do a really good job, but the shot still goes in. This specific case does not indicate that defense is generally futile.

In cases such as this, where we cannot control for all of the variables, we are best off looking at broad samples in the hope that the rest of the variables will even out.

[Aryeh]

Looks like Aryeh just conceded we need to cut spending since we apparently cannot raise taxes.

I would have to deny before I could logically concede, correct? I don't believe I have denied that spending needs to be cut. I just don't think you and I would agree on what cuts should be made.

Conversely, it looks like you have admitted that revenue needs to be raised.

[Tgo01]

Consider defending a shot in basketball. You can do a really good job, but the shot still goes in. This specific case does not indicate that defense is generally futile.

In cases such as this, where we cannot control for all of the variables, we are best off looking at broad samples in the hope that the rest of the variables will even out.

So are you saying the credit rating downgrade might have had an impact/could have an impact in the future, are you saying it did have an effect or are you saying there is no way of knowing?

[Parkbandit]

Top tier income earners do not spend more or less than anyone else. They don't really buy more food, clothing, housing, transportation, or anything else at rates significantly higher than those earning below them. They certainly have that buying power, but it does not translate into consumption.

Source?


Investments are not made to create jobs.

Intellectually dishonest. I didn't start my businesses to create jobs either... but guess what.. they did.



Nor are jobs really that driven by investment.

No, really they are.


They're driven by consumerism.

What is it they are consuming? Oh, that's right.. the goods and services that the investments made. And who are the consumers? Oh, those people who got those jobs from those investments.


Why does it make sense to tax the top down? Because generating that revenue isn't hazardous to economic growth. Someone doesn't invest because they'll make less money. They invest and bitch about making less money. No one says I'm not going to make money because I don't like the tax structure.

In your fantasy world where investments don't create goods and services and jobs.. you're right. But hey, let's talk about the real world in which the exact opposite happens.


What does happen in the real world is that people will wear shoes a little longer, eat less, and generally buy fewer things if they have less money to do so.

Is that clear enough for you?

So, these consumers are comsuming less and less... what effect do you think that has on the economy?

For someone who has lurked for 3 years, you sure seem to suddenly have something to say....

If you didn't want us to know it's you, It, you should have come in far more gradually.

[Some Rogue]

If you didn't want us to know it's you, It, you should have come in far more gradually.

Too much lawyerspeak if you know what I mean...

[Back]

Too much lawyerspeak if you know what I mean...

Having been banned as a result of PB's paranoia I would say who gives a shit and when did PB become a moderator?

[Some Rogue]

Having been banned as a result of PB's paranoia

Ah, the good old days.

[Parkbandit]

Having been banned as a result of PB's paranoia I would say who gives a shit and when did PB become a moderator?

Who said I was moderating?

I like pointing out pathetic people like you and It for trying to pull something over on people.

And seriously, I'm the one that got you banned? Holy shit, how did I not hear about this???

I'm a fucking legend.

[Parkbandit]

Too much lawyerspeak if you know what I mean...

I also noted some missing bold, underlined and capitalized letters... it's part of It's "cover".

[Tgo01]

Who is It?

[Aryeh]

Source?

You need one after what follows by you being without citation? The double standard you enjoy is entertaining

What percentage of income do the wealthy spend on every day living expenses?


Intellectually dishonest. I didn't start my businesses to create jobs either... but guess what.. they did.

You say intellectually dishonest and then you validate the statement. Which is it?

Since you admit that you started your business for money, the statement that investments are not made to create jobs is therefore intellectually honest. The fact that you supposedly started a business and you supposedly created jobs with that investment clearly indicates that jobs were the by product, not the intent.

Since we know that not every investment creates a job my statement is anything but untrue.


No, really they are.

Source?

You have a child like grasp of economics apparently. Jobs are not created by investment, were that true our current unemployment rate would be below the 4% rates we enjoyed in the 90s. You make the classic mistake of assuming that all investments are in products or services and that all investments lead to the creation of jobs. Bank products are neither and do not.

People invest to make money. If that money can be made meeting a consumable market demand, then that is where they will invest. If the money is to be made in exotic offshore investment vehicles, then that is where they will invest.


What is it they are consuming? Oh, that's right.. the goods and services that the investments made. And who are the consumers? Oh, those people who got those jobs from those investments.

Incorrect.

People don't have the ability to drink root beer because someone invested in root beer. The people at the root beer factory do not wait for someone to invest before they make more root beer. They make it because people buy it. Those sales fuel the wages, the operation, the raw materials, the processing into a finished good, and the distribution. It is a cycle that exists with or without investment.

Investments do not make anything. People do. Investments may at time facilitate that manufacture, but they do not manufacture. Investments are also responses to market demand. If that demand for a product wasn't there, the investment wouldn't count for much. It would be a loss.

In the end it is consumerism that drives investment, not the other way around.


In your fantasy world where investments don't create goods and services and jobs.. you're right. But hey, let's talk about the real world in which the exact opposite happens.


I think you have substituted reality for one that you find agreeable with your inability to grasp basic economic principles.


So, these consumers are comsuming less and less... what effect do you think that has on the economy?

Consumers consume less when they have less money to spend. This and the effect has already been explained in the very post you are responding to. Perhaps you should re-read it instead of asking questions after the answer has already been provided.


For someone who has lurked for 3 years, you sure seem to suddenly have something to say....

Why is this odd to you? How paranoid you must be in order to arrive at these conclusions simply because you don't like what a person is saying.

I've read this forum for the better part of 3 years. Rarely reading beyond game content, but I saw something that interested me and replied. I find the conversations I get on facebook to be circular and without much change. Two of the forums I've posted in are no longer.


If you didn't want us to know it's you, It, you should have come in far more gradually.

As much as I care to post, you'll never know me as I've learned from previous forums and games not to share private information. Unless of course you're continuing the paranoid thought that I must be someone else you're familiar with. That this must be another account of a person who currently posts or has posted in the past.

I'm beginning to think that the need for medication is common with this forums membership.

[Back]

Who said I was moderating?

I like pointing out pathetic people like you and It for trying to pull something over on people.

And seriously, I'm the one that got you banned? Holy shit, how did I not hear about this???

I'm a fucking legend.

Actually, you were wrong. As usual. That is what you are best at. A legend of being wrong.

[Parkbandit]

Actually, you were wrong. As usual. That is what you are best at. A legend of being wrong.

Really? Let's play a game. You quote each post of mine that is wrong and I'll quote one of yours. I have far more posts to pick from, so it should be a slam dunk for you to win.

You are more wrong on any given day than I've been wrong in the past 10 years here.

Now go get yourself another beer, smoke another blunt and put on that really cute scarf of yours.. as you reminice about how I single handedly got you banned from this forum.

[Back]

Really? Let's play a game. You quote each post of mine that is wrong and I'll quote one of yours. I have far more posts to pick from, so it should be a slam dunk for you to win.

You are more wrong on any given day than I've been wrong in the past 10 years here.

Now go get yourself another beer, smoke another blunt and put on that really cute scarf of yours.. as you reminice about how I single handedly got you banned from this forum.

2012 election? Oh snap!

[Parkbandit]

You need one after what follows by you being without citation? The double standard you enjoy is entertaining

What percentage of income do the wealthy spend on every day living expenses?




You say intellectually dishonest and then you validate the statement. Which is it?

Since you admit that you started your business for money, the statement that investments are not made to create jobs is therefore intellectually honest. The fact that you supposedly started a business and you supposedly created jobs with that investment clearly indicates that jobs were the by product, not the intent.

Since we know that not every investment creates a job my statement is anything but untrue.



Source?

You have a child like grasp of economics apparently. Jobs are not created by investment, were that true our current unemployment rate would be below the 4% rates we enjoyed in the 90s. You make the classic mistake of assuming that all investments are in products or services and that all investments lead to the creation of jobs. Bank products are neither and do not.

People invest to make money. If that money can be made meeting a consumable market demand, then that is where they will invest. If the money is to be made in exotic offshore investment vehicles, then that is where they will invest.



What is it they are consuming? Oh, that's right.. the goods and services that the investments made. And who are the consumers? Oh, those people who got those jobs from those investments.



In your fantasy world where investments don't create goods and services and jobs.. you're right. But hey, let's talk about the real world in which the exact opposite happens.



Incorrect.

People don't have the ability to drink root beer because someone invested in root beer. The people at the root beer factory do not wait for someone to invest before they make more root beer. They make it because people buy it. Those sales fuel the wages, the operation, the raw materials, the processing into a finished good, and the distribution. It is a cycle that exists with or without investment.



Why is this odd to you? How paranoid you must be in order to arrive at these conclusions simply because you don't like what a person is saying.

I've read this forum for the better part of 3 years. Rarely reading beyond game content, but I saw something that interested me and replied. I find the conversations I get on facebook to be circular and without much change. Two of the forums I've posted in are no longer.



As much as I care to post, you'll never know me as I've learned from previous forums and games not to share private information. Unless of course you're continuing the paranoid thought that I must be someone else you're familiar with. That this must be another account of a person who currently posts or has posted in the past.

I'm beginning to think that the need for medication is common with this forums membership.

I wanted to make sure I quoted this before you go back and start doing what you normally do and delete posts. I'll get to this at a later time... it's chuck full of stupid.

[Parkbandit]

2012 election? Oh snap!

5 people in a Dominoes.

Back to you.

[Aryeh]

I wanted to make sure I quoted this before you go back and start doing what you normally do and delete posts. I'll get to this at a later time... it's chuck full of stupid.

You may want to go back and make another copy. Some of my responses shifted as I have lazy fingers when using a touch screen.

I find your paranoia and accusations quite entertaining. Almost as entertaining as your worse than terrible understanding of even the most basic economic lessons.

FYI, I believe the proper usage is "chalked full of". Chuck full of sounds like Biff from Back to the Future, which would explain a lot.

[Latrinsorm]

So are you saying the credit rating downgrade might have had an impact/could have an impact in the future, are you saying it did have an effect or are you saying there is no way of knowing?I personally do not know either way if this particular credit rating event had an impact either way. I would not be surprised that there was no way of knowing if you restrict yourself to one event, just like anything else. Returning to the basketball analogy, you can't tell whether someone's a good or bad defender based on one outcome, because nobody's true talent level is 100% or 0% FG% allowed.

[Tgo01]

I personally do not know either way if this particular credit rating event had an impact either way. I would not be surprised that there was no way of knowing if you restrict yourself to one event, just like anything else. Returning to the basketball analogy, you can't tell whether someone's a good or bad defender based on one outcome, because nobody's true talent level is 100% or 0% FG% allowed.

So what you're saying is it's silly to claim to know for sure that the credit downgrade had an effect?

Alright, thanks for backing me up Latrin, now get back to helping us figure out the bard multisong renewal thingie. I NEED ANSWERS DAMMIT.

[Aryeh]

So what you're saying is it's silly to claim to know for sure that the credit downgrade had an effect?


It would be equally silly to claim to know for sure it had no effect, or even mildly make such a suggestion.

[Bobmuhthol]

True true. So what is the point of ratings if they don't have a clear impact on interest rates?I'm not going to read whatever conversation you had with Aryeh about this point because I don't care, but here's the answer. Bond ratings on risky assets have a very measurable effect. They will almost always dictate the interest rate demanded on new issuances from a corporation, and they will change the market value of existing debt. Ratings will also typically move stock prices. Every market effect, however, comes about as a result of trading -- there is no price/rate if there are no transactions, and those transactions are conducted by people who we assume have the capacity to think for themselves. When it comes to the borrowing power of the United States Department of the Treasury, financial markets universally agree that there is no safer investment, so it really comes down to people's opinion of who wins in a fight between S&P's rating and the fundamental truth that the government will be the last entity to default. The Treasury won. Additionally, borrowing costs (interest rates) are under constant pressure from the Fed (independent of the Treasury) as a result of quantitative easing. So, it's possible that the bond downgrade could have moved rates up, but the Fed with certainty moved them down.

[Tgo01]

It would be equally silly to claim to know for sure it had no effect, or even mildly make such a suggestion.

Now now, let's not forget who was dealing in absolutes here.


I'm not going to read whatever conversation you had with Aryeh about this point because I don't care, but here's the answer. Bond ratings on risky assets have a very measurable effect. They will almost always dictate the interest rate demanded on new issuances from a corporation, and they will change the market value of existing debt. Ratings will also typically move stock prices. Every market effect, however, comes about as a result of trading -- there is no price/rate if there are no transactions, and those transactions are conducted by people who we assume have the capacity to think for themselves. When it comes to the borrowing power of the United States Department of the Treasury, financial markets universally agree that there is no safer investment, so it really comes down to people's opinion of who wins in a fight between S&P's rating and the fundamental truth that the government will be the last entity to default. The Treasury won. Additionally, borrowing costs (interest rates) are under constant pressure from the Fed (independent of the Treasury) as a result of quantitative easing. So, it's possible that the bond downgrade could have moved rates up, but the Fed with certainty moved them down.

Thank you Bob.

[Latrinsorm]

So what you're saying is it's silly to claim to know for sure that the credit downgrade had an effect?Well, if you could demonstrate that the two were highly correlated, you could be highly confident that this particular one had an effect. Standard deviation. Chi-squared. Kamehameha.
Alright, thanks for backing me up Latrin, now get back to helping us figure out the bard multisong renewal thingie. I NEED ANSWERS DAMMIT.Give me better data! You experimentalists are all slouches.

[Bobmuhthol]

FYI, I believe the proper usage is "chalked full of". Chuck full of sounds like Biff from Back to the Future, which would explain a lot.http://grammarist.com/usage/chock-full/ But yeah, totally, good job.

[Aryeh]

http://grammarist.com/usage/chock-full/ But yeah, totally, good job.

Sometimes you fall on your face. When that happens it is best to just to eat it.

[Aryeh]

Now now, let's not forget who was dealing in absolutes here.


What absolute?

[Parkbandit]

You may want to go back and make another copy. Some of my responses shifted as I have lazy fingers when using a touch screen.

Lazy fingers.. lazy mind... seems to fit.


I find your paranoia and accusations quite entertaining.

I find your story that you were lurking for 3 years and then suddenly one day you decided to post 40+ posts in the political folder not entertaining at all. You would have to be a complete idiot to believe that... and an even bigger one to think we would believe it.


Almost as entertaining as your worse than terrible understanding of even the most basic economic lessons.

Well, when it comes to fantasy economics, you are Queen.


FYI, I believe the proper usage is "chalked full of". Chuck full of sounds like Biff from Back to the Future, which would explain a lot.

Actually, it's chock-full.

[Back]

Oh shit! Liberal slap fight! Krugman calls out Stewart and Stewart throws it back!

Platinum coin? Indeed.


http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-14-2013/paul-krugman---the-trillion-dollar-coin?xrs=share_copy

[Tgo01]

Gotta love Jon Stewart.

[Latrinsorm]

Why does anyone ever call out Jon Stewart? Masochism?

[Parkbandit]

Why does anyone ever call out Jon Stewart? Masochism?

Besides Backlash, who takes him seriously?

[Bobmuhthol]

I take Stewart over Krugman any day.

[Aryeh]

Lazy fingers.. lazy mind... seems to fit.



I find your story that you were lurking for 3 years and then suddenly one day you decided to post 40+ posts in the political folder not entertaining at all. You would have to be a complete idiot to believe that... and an even bigger one to think we would believe it.



Well, when it comes to fantasy economics, you are Queen.



Actually, it's chock-full.

Do you expect to be taken seriously and anything other than an idiot with a personal attack that has nothing to do with the response?

[Parkbandit]

I take Stewart over Krugman any day.

He's a Nobel Prize winning economist though!

[Parkbandit]

Do you expect to be taken seriously and anything other than an idiot with a personal attack that has nothing to do with the response?

Do you expect to be taken seriously when you have to create new login to post?

Also, your OMG PERSONAL ATTACKS! Would be valued higher if you didn't use them as well. It makes you look like a gigantic hypocritical douchebag.

[Parkbandit]

Totally unhinged, Parkbandit. That guy isn't me, regardless of what you want to believe is true. Then again, you see exactly what you want to see, Dick Morris.

Unhinged and Dick Morris? Sounds like more projecting from a queer Sat night of yours.

[Parkbandit]

You should come up with some better material other than "HURRR, YER GAY, IMMA GONNA MAKE 'YER SO QUEER JOKES'" in response to everything. Seek professional help.

I simply respond in kind. Your ZOMG UR OLD is neither fresh nor new. Once someone feels comfortable enough to hurl personal insults at me, I deduce that they can take it as much as they give it. And you seem the type of fag that plays the catcher.. so I'm not sure why you get so upset when you have to take it.

[~Rocktar~]

:lol: It's not about being insulted. You just don't have anything new to say. You pull out the same shit every time. You're boring, but I suppose that's because--you guessed it!--old people like routine.

And your second comment, much like you thinking that every other person on the forum is me, is a baseless assumption. You're good at that. It is funny constantly see you lose your composure at strangers, though.

And young, stupid, pot smoking idiots like you only have one trick. In this case to call arguments boring and insult the age of the person. Way to go, demonstrating some champion debate skills there.

[Parkbandit]

:lol: It's not about being insulted. You just don't have anything new to say. You pull out the same shit every time. You're boring, but I suppose that's because--you guessed it!--old people like routine.

It's cute how you invoke the Pee Wee Herman defense... "I know you are but what am I!"

Must be a gay thing..


And your second comment, much like you thinking that every other person on the forum is me, is a baseless assumption. You're good at that. It is funny constantly see you lose your composure at strangers, though.

I'm pretty emotional-less about things like you. I laugh.. I'm thankful I am nothing like you... but that's pretty much it. You are the only one here getting upset.. but that probably has more to do with your lack of certain male genes/hormones...

[Parkbandit]

You will put me in my place?? LOL. Girl, that place is well above you and any imaginary ability you think you have. Miles above.

Thanks for once again entertaining me with your nonsense. While you are tired and boring as hell, making fun of you made my day go by quickly.

[Aryeh]

Do you expect to be taken seriously when you have to create new login to post?

Also, your OMG PERSONAL ATTACKS! Would be valued higher if you didn't use them as well. It makes you look like a gigantic hypocritical douchebag.

You seriously need meds. If I've just created a new log in what did I post under previously?

My use of personal attacks? Seriously?

[Parkbandit]

You seriously need meds. If I've just created a new log in what did I post under previously?

My use of personal attacks? Seriously?

So, you believe saying "you seriously need meds" is not a personal attack?

Hypocrites are hilariously entertaining. Thank you.

[Aryeh]

So, you believe saying "you seriously need meds" is not a personal attack?

Hypocrites are hilariously entertaining. Thank you.

If you're accusing me of being a another account or someone who has posted previously, well. That isn't a personal attack. That is a response to a person who is apparently in need of professional help and medication.

Your apple is not an orange.

[Tgo01]

If you're accusing me of being a another account or someone who has posted previously, well. That isn't a personal attack. That is a response to a person who is apparently in need of professional help and medication.

Your apple is not an orange.

You can't win this PB, Aryeh has said something so it is automatically fact and nothing you can do or say can change this.

[Parkbandit]

If you're accusing me of being a another account or someone who has posted previously, well. That isn't a personal attack. That is a response to a person who is apparently in need of professional help and medication.

Your apple is not an orange.

So it's only a personal attack when someone does it to you.

Check.

[Parkbandit]

You can't win this PB, Aryeh has said something so it is automatically fact and nothing you can do or say can change this.

Hypocrites are funny that way...

[Aryeh]

And thus it is demonstrated how to bring a discussion to an end when you have no logical rebuttals to offer counter the things you do not agree with.

[Parkbandit]

And thus it is demonstrated how to bring a discussion to an end when you have no logical rebuttals to offer counter the things you do not agree with.

Precisely.

And I don't think it was because you had no logical rebuttals.. it was that you were full of assumptions.

[Atlanteax]

And thus it is demonstrated how to bring a discussion to an end when you have no logical rebuttals to offer counter the things you do not agree with.

We're still waiting to hear one from you.

[Candor]

One from you.

[Jarvan]

So republicans offered to extend the debt ceiling for 3 months, IF the Senate actually does what is required by law and pass a budget. White house said it was encouraged by this change by the republicans to be willing to offer a "clean" debt ceiling bill.

Obama has stated that at each of the upcoming "fights" he won't negotiate, he wants more taxes on the rich and that's it. How exactly can you use the same argument over and over and over for every discussion?

[Atlanteax]

How exactly can you use the same argument over and over and over for every discussion?

Perhaps when a superiority complex is in play, as well as the self-delusion of having a mandate as per a 51% popular vote win?

[Back]

I dunno. Maybe because the majority of people of this country voted for him to be president for a second term and he clearly stated repeatedly in his campaign that he felt the top 1% has had enough of a tax break since 2001?

Either that or its because hes black.

[Back]

So republicans offered to extend the debt ceiling for 3 months, IF the Senate actually does what is required by law and pass a budget. White house said it was encouraged by this change by the republicans to be willing to offer a "clean" debt ceiling bill.

Obama has stated that at each of the upcoming "fights" he won't negotiate, he wants more taxes on the rich and that's it. How exactly can you use the same argument over and over and over for every discussion?


Perhaps when a superiority complex is in play, as well as the self-delusion of having a mandate as per a 51% popular vote win?

If silence is assent then he won by quite a larger margin than that. 90 million people did not vote so we can assume they all were in favor of Obama.

[Parkbandit]

I dunno. Maybe because the majority of people of this country voted for him to be president for a second term and he clearly stated repeatedly in his campaign that he felt the top 1% has had enough of a tax break since 2001?

Either that or its because hes black.

No they didn't. Learn2math

[Wrathbringer]

If silence is assent then he won by quite a larger margin than that. 90 million people did not vote so we can assume they all were in favor of Obama.

Nah. We can't assume that. Could be that those people are smart enough to realize that no matter who wins, we lose. Perhaps they hold no allusions that their vote actually matters in the corporate machine that is the U.S. Government. More likely, the vast majority of them just don't care. Regardless, the idea that their inaction amounts to tacit support of the eventual winner is a fallacy.

Edit: All that to say that silence is not assent.

[Back]

Edit: All that to say that silence is not assent.

If you're not with us you're against us!

I disagree with everything you said. Voting is a privilege we enjoy in this country. At our founding it was a radical concept that was meant to ensure equality and fairness. Men and women fought and died for our right to vote and continue to do so to protect that right. How many people in this world do not get to actively participate in shaping the direction of their country?

Don't give me that "it does not matter if I vote" bullshit. It so very much does matter.

[Whirlin]

If you're not with us you're against us!

I disagree with everything you said. Voting is a privilege we enjoy in this country. At our founding it was a radical concept that was meant to ensure equality and fairness. Men and women fought and died for our right to vote and continue to do so to protect that right. How many people in this world do not get to actively participate in shaping the direction of their country?

Don't give me that "it does not matter if I vote" bullshit. It so very much does matter.

I don't think that's what he was going for... Voting, by definition and theoretically, is exactly as you say. I don't think he was trying to argue against that.

When applied to the US government, becomes a polarized two party system which not does always have candidates that reflect personal values. Therefore within the current system, without finding a relatible candidate, its easy for people to become disenfranchised with the notion of voting.

So, the emphasis and intent of the statement was to point out that people that did not vote do likely promote Obama or Romney, but likely feel disenfranchised, and dismiss both of them. This points out the flaw in your statement on the 2nd post of page 17, where you stated that the 90m that didn't vote promote Obama.

[Jarvan]

I dunno. Maybe because the majority of people of this country voted for him to be president for a second term and he clearly stated repeatedly in his campaign that he felt the top 1% has had enough of a tax break since 2001?

Either that or its because hes black.

Funny, they also voted in a republican congress, thereby nullifying your thoughts. If they really wanted the president to "stick it to the rich" they would have given dems the house.

[Whirlin]

Funny, they also voted in a republican congress, thereby nullifying your thoughts. If they really wanted the president to "stick it to the rich" they would have given dems the house.

That may be more a symptom of gerrymandering rather than reflecting a majority of people. This is not to say it's not done by both sides, but it's another issue that needs to be addressed. And geographic areas for house seats do not necessarily reflect the aggregated majority... Similarly to the whole electoral college thing.

[Wrathbringer]

If you're not with us you're against us!

I disagree with everything you said. Voting is a privilege we enjoy in this country. At our founding it was a radical concept that was meant to ensure equality and fairness. Men and women fought and died for our right to vote and continue to do so to protect that right. How many people in this world do not get to actively participate in shaping the direction of their country?

Don't give me that "it does not matter if I vote" bullshit. It so very much does matter.

I used to agree with that viewpoint, but I think "at our founding" is key in your statement. America is a different place today. Actively participating in shaping the direction of the country? That may have been so 200 years ago. Today, we're voting for one of two main parties who have everything in common on matters of policy. That's a fact. I don't consider that a real choice, and certainly not one worth defending. "I'm going to shoot you in the right eye, or the left, but I'm giving you the choice so don't say you didn't have a voice in this agenda. If you don't vote, you're automatically assenting to being shot in the left eye since that's what the majority of people chosen."

[~Rocktar~]

Voting is a privilege we enjoy in this country. At our founding it was a radical concept that was meant to ensure equality and fairness. Men and women fought and died for our right to vote and continue to do so to protect that right. How many people in this world do not get to actively participate in shaping the direction of their country?

Voting is RIGHT, not a priviledge you braindead loaf of equine fecal material. That RIGHT is protected by the Second Amendment, the very ammendment that you thought it ok to tread on oh so heavly in a fit of emotional bluster to "protect children" from a threat that wasn't even true. http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/50208495#50208495 That right, also includes the Right to not vote. While I don't agree with the decision not to vote, I will defend a person's Right to make that choice.

Now you feckless piece of filth, please shut the fuck up and stop shit posting.

BTW, the flu has now killed more children this season than Adam Lanza. Are we going to ban the flu? After all, it's to protect the children.

[Kastrel]

Voting is RIGHT, not a priviledge you braindead loaf of equine fecal material. That RIGHT is protected by the Second Amendment, the very ammendment that you thought it ok to tread on oh so heavly in a fit of emotional bluster to "protect children" from a threat that wasn't even true. http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/50208495#50208495 That right, also includes the Right to not vote. While I don't agree with the decision not to vote, I will defend a person's Right to make that choice.

Now you feckless piece of filth, please shut the fuck up and stop shit posting.

BTW, the flu has now killed more children this season than Adam Lanza. Are we going to ban the flu? After all, it's to protect the children.

I'm pretty sure his implication was that we are privileged to have the right to vote. He even says "died for our RIGHT to vote".

[Atlanteax]

Voting is *so* overrated ... hence the consistently underwhelming voter turnout.

[Jarvan]

That may be more a symptom of gerrymandering rather than reflecting a majority of people. This is not to say it's not done by both sides, but it's another issue that needs to be addressed. And geographic areas for house seats do not necessarily reflect the aggregated majority... Similarly to the whole electoral college thing.

BUT, if the support of Obama was as massive as Back likes to think, even gerrymandering wouldn't have stopped the Dems from taking the house. I think in 2 years we will see even more. If Repubs keep the house, it's another death toll to the whole "I have a Mandate" bullshit.

[Back]

Voting is RIGHT, not a priviledge you braindead loaf of equine fecal material. That RIGHT is protected by the Second Amendment, the very ammendment that you thought it ok to tread on oh so heavly in a fit of emotional bluster to "protect children" from a threat that wasn't even true. http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/50208495#50208495 That right, also includes the Right to not vote. While I don't agree with the decision not to vote, I will defend a person's Right to make that choice.

Now you feckless piece of filth, please shut the fuck up and stop shit posting.

BTW, the flu has now killed more children this season than Adam Lanza. Are we going to ban the flu? After all, it's to protect the children.

Dude. Switch to decaf and put down the "Ye Olde Insults" book.

[Jarvan]

I'm pretty sure his implication was that we are privileged to have the right to vote. He even says "died for our RIGHT to vote".

It is both a privilege and a right. Same with the right to bear arms in a sense. Under certain circumstances, it can be taken away. Also the same people that died for our right to vote, died for our right to bear arms.

Btw Back. Since there is still conflicting info on the weapon used. -and there are helicopter photos showing two rifles removed from the trunk of the car- If it turns out the Ar-15 WASN'T used, will you back off your ban assault weapons crusage, and switch to "ban whatever weapon was used" crusade?

[~Rocktar~]

Dude. Switch to decaf and put down the "Ye Olde Insults" book.

Dude, stop shit posting.

[Aryeh]

BUT, if the support of Obama was as massive as Back likes to think, even gerrymandering wouldn't have stopped the Dems from taking the house. I think in 2 years we will see even more. If Repubs keep the house, it's another death toll to the whole "I have a Mandate" bullshit.

I think you misunderstand both mandate and gerrymandering.

It would be difficult, to say the very least, to gerrymander the presidential election or the election of senators. The house not so much.

The GOP managed to retain the majority by winning around 54% of the seats while losing by 1,362,351 popular house votes. That is losing 49.15% to 48.03%, yet holding a 33 seat majority. When you zoom in on state by state results the disparity is magnified.

Then there's mandate. The conservatives paraded while chanting "mandate" in 2004. By every measurable datum Obama beat what the GOP did in 2004 ... yet now it isn't a mandate? Seriously?

[Aryeh]

It is both a privilege and a right. Same with the right to bear arms in a sense. Under certain circumstances, it can be taken away. Also the same people that died for our right to vote, died for our right to bear arms.

Btw Back. Since there is still conflicting info on the weapon used. -and there are helicopter photos showing two rifles removed from the trunk of the car- If it turns out the Ar-15 WASN'T used, will you back off your ban assault weapons crusage, and switch to "ban whatever weapon was used" crusade?

Source?

[Jarvan]

I think you misunderstand both mandate and gerrymandering.

It would be difficult, to say the very least, to gerrymander the presidential election or the election of senators. The house not so much.

The GOP managed to retain the majority by winning around 54% of the seats while losing by 1,362,351 popular house votes. That is losing 49.15% to 48.03%, yet holding a 33 seat majority. When you zoom in on state by state results the disparity is magnified.

Then there's mandate. The conservatives paraded while chanting "mandate" in 2004. By every measurable datum Obama beat what the GOP did in 2004 ... yet now it isn't a mandate? Seriously?

Sorry to burst your bubble, but 51% of the vote is not a Mandate. Maybe in the political world people may think that, but that is BARELY a majority. Even then you are looking at voters only. If that 51% was a poll it would have a +/- of likely 3% meaning it is well within a margin of error.

man·date (mndt)
n.
1. An authoritative command or instruction.
2. A command or an authorization given by a political electorate to its representative.
3.
a. A commission from the League of Nations authorizing a member nation to administer a territory.
b. A region under such administration.
4. Law
a. An order issued by a superior court or an official to a lower court.
b. A contract by which one party agrees to perform services for another without payment.
tr.v. man·dat·ed, man·dat·ing, man·dates
1. To assign (a colony or territory) to a specified nation under a mandate.
2. To make mandatory, as by law; decree or require: mandated desegregation of public schools.

Yeah, it qualifies as 2... but then again, so do the republicans then.

BTW.. what the fuck are you talking about with gerrymandering the presidency? Who said that? I said Republicans held the house, The PEOPLE voted for them, not Dems. Then someone brings up Gerrymandering. Well. if Obama had a MANDATE from the PEOPLE, wouldn't the PEOPLE vote in dems to support him? Yes some districts are more republican then democrate, but if he had a MANDATE to do what he wanted, Surely those republicans would have voted for him since he had a MANDATE from all the people.

Nope.. sorry.. you can claim he had a Mandate from the Democratic voters, but that is about it. Just like the republicans have a Mandate from their voters.

Sorry.. you fail again.

[Jarvan]

Source?

Honestly, there were 10 or 15 different conflicting stories within that first week. And they haven't released any info yet. As for the photos, you can find them online. A number of officers stated they found 4 handguns in the room with Lanza. carver claimed all wounds were with a rifle. No autopsy info has been released, and all investigation info was sealed for 90 days. SO we will find out eventually. The people that survived the shooting are been ordered not to talk about it either. Also, it is typically much more likely to kill yourself with a handgun over a rifle.

Like I said.. IF it wasn't used. We will find out for certain someday. I am just wondering if Back, and maybe you, will still demand bans on Semi auto rifles if it was done all with handguns.

[Aryeh]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but 51% of the vote is not a Mandate. Maybe in the political world people may think that, but that is BARELY a majority. Even then you are looking at voters only. If that 51% was a poll it would have a +/- of likely 3% meaning it is well within a margin of error.

man·date (mndt)
n.
1. An authoritative command or instruction.
2. A command or an authorization given by a political electorate to its representative.
3.
a. A commission from the League of Nations authorizing a member nation to administer a territory.
b. A region under such administration.
4. Law
a. An order issued by a superior court or an official to a lower court.
b. A contract by which one party agrees to perform services for another without payment.
tr.v. man·dat·ed, man·dat·ing, man·dates
1. To assign (a colony or territory) to a specified nation under a mandate.
2. To make mandatory, as by law; decree or require: mandated desegregation of public schools.

Yeah, it qualifies as 2... but then again, so do the republicans then.

BTW.. what the fuck are you talking about with gerrymandering the presidency? Who said that? I said Republicans held the house, The PEOPLE voted for them, not Dems. Then someone brings up Gerrymandering. Well. if Obama had a MANDATE from the PEOPLE, wouldn't the PEOPLE vote in dems to support him? Yes some districts are more republican then democrate, but if he had a MANDATE to do what he wanted, Surely those republicans would have voted for him since he had a MANDATE from all the people.

Nope.. sorry.. you can claim he had a Mandate from the Democratic voters, but that is about it. Just like the republicans have a Mandate from their voters.

Sorry.. you fail again.

You don't make a very convincing argument. You can't claim Obama didn't win a mandate when, in the past, wins with lesser numbers were declared mandates. Your opinion is noted but is contrary to declarations of a mandate in the past.

Then there's your gerrymandering response. It was you that said "BUT, if the support of Obama was as massive as Back likes to think, even gerrymandering wouldn't have stopped the Dems from taking the house. "

Clearly you do not understand what gerrymandering is. I pointed out that the numbers in one election do not really translate into the results of another. I provided numbers ... if you still do not understand I can't help you any further.

[Aryeh]

Honestly, there were 10 or 15 different conflicting stories within that first week. And they haven't released any info yet. As for the photos, you can find them online. A number of officers stated they found 4 handguns in the room with Lanza. carver claimed all wounds were with a rifle. No autopsy info has been released, and all investigation info was sealed for 90 days. SO we will find out eventually. The people that survived the shooting are been ordered not to talk about it either. Also, it is typically much more likely to kill yourself with a handgun over a rifle.

Like I said.. IF it wasn't used. We will find out for certain someday. I am just wondering if Back, and maybe you, will still demand bans on Semi auto rifles if it was done all with handguns.

I asked for a source, not a song and dance excuse. If you don't have one just say so.

[Back]

I asked for a source, not a song and dance excuse. If you don't have one just say so.

He'd get booed off of American Idol auditions with that act.

[Aryeh]

"Thread: 14th amendment and the debt ceiling
.........."

Quit your crying. It is rather pathetic.

[Whirlin]

BUT, if the support of Obama was as massive as Back likes to think, even gerrymandering wouldn't have stopped the Dems from taking the house. I think in 2 years we will see even more. If Repubs keep the house, it's another death toll to the whole "I have a Mandate" bullshit.

Please don't misunderstand. I also pointed holes in Back's comments, and really have no idea what he's talking about. I never meant to imply that Obama has more support than he does.

I think you may be underestimating the influence of Gerrymandering. Aligned with other aspects of the entire electoral college, the majority of the macro levels doesn't necessarily reflect the micro-levels. Ohio went Democratic by 6% of voters for Obama, yet they had 12 Republican house, and 4 Dem house members. If House reflected the vote perfectly (this is assuming that democrats and republicans vote down party lines), shouldn't there be 6% more house democrats in Ohio than Republicans?

Now, please don't extrapolate, I'm not saying that this is necessarily a bad thing. I think that this is a necessary part of the entire political process. Individual districts require independent representation in order to reflect their collective interests, and need to be balanced evenly between their own desires, then the desires of their state, and the desires of their country. Otherwise, it would just be balanced on the state level, and we'd just have the senate instead of the house. On the flip side, it's also the reason that all states have 2 senate seats, regardless of population size.

Whether or not the entire system is broken... I kinda touched on that in a previous post. But what I was really trying to point out is that house representation is not necessarily reflecting the macro level majority by design.

[Atlanteax]

You don't make a very convincing argument. You can't claim Obama didn't win a mandate when, in the past, wins with lesser numbers were declared mandates. Your opinion is noted but is contrary to declarations of a mandate in the past.

Wait wait WAIT

When were wins with less than 51% of the popular votes declared mandates?

Clearly you are just making stuff up to support your view-point.

Practically speaking, a President has a mandate, when he is elected with a 55%+ vote, and the political party he belongs to (Reps or Dems) gained seats in both the Senate and House to the extent of having a sizable majority so as to enable the President to pursue whatever agenda he desires.

Obama got 51% and the Republicans are able to 'block' via their control of the House ... this is definitely not a 'mandate'.

[Jarvan]

I asked for a source, not a song and dance excuse. If you don't have one just say so.

I take it you haven't learned how to use google yet huh. It's ok, it will come to you one day.

[Jarvan]

Wait wait WAIT

When were wins with less than 51% of the popular votes declared mandates?

Clearly you are just making stuff up to support your view-point.

Practically speaking, a President has a mandate, when he is elected with a 55%+ vote, and the political party he belongs to (Reps or Dems) gained seats in both the Senate and House to the extent of having a sizable majority so as to enable the President to pursue whatever agenda he desires.

Obama got 51% and the Republicans are able to 'block' via their control of the House ... this is definitely not a 'mandate'.

BUT.. it doesn't matter. it/she/he will state anything they want and it is fact since they are liberals and their word is law. Didn't you know this?

By her/his logic, she/he is saying that Bush did infact have a mandate in 2004 and they can no longer complain about what Bush did.

[Aryeh]

Wait wait WAIT

When were wins with less than 51% of the popular votes declared mandates?

Clearly you are just making stuff up to support your view-point.

Practically speaking, a President has a mandate, when he is elected with a 55%+ vote, and the political party he belongs to (Reps or Dems) gained seats in both the Senate and House to the extent of having a sizable majority so as to enable the President to pursue whatever agenda he desires.

Obama got 51% and the Republicans are able to 'block' via their control of the House ... this is definitely not a 'mandate'.

What am I making up? Clearly you have no long term memory.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2008/11/04/in-2008-will-media-recall-2004-declarations-of/146033

[Aryeh]

I take it you haven't learned how to use google yet huh. It's ok, it will come to you one day.

It is not my job to validate your claims. You do know what onus is don't you?

If you don't care to validate your claims, I don't really care to take you seriously.

[Tgo01]

What am I making up? Clearly you have no long term memory.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2008/11/04/in-2008-will-media-recall-2004-declarations-of/146033

Isn't it a rule that if you link to Media Matters to back up your argument you automatically lose any and all future arguments you participate in?

[Jarvan]

Isn't it a rule that if you link to Media Matters to back up your argument you automatically lose any and all future arguments you participate in?

Not to mention the fact that Bush had the House and Senate at that time. Which would seem much more like a mandate then the current election. Even still, I wouldn't call Bush's 2004 election a mandate.

[Aryeh]

Isn't it a rule that if you link to Media Matters to back up your argument you automatically lose any and all future arguments you participate in?

The messenger does not dictate the message. Read the article. Just because it is from media matters does not change the fact that several outlets echoed Bush's claim of a mandate in the 2004 election.

You need to try harder next time.

[Tgo01]

The messenger does not dictate the message. Read the article. Just because it is from media matters does not change the fact that several outlets echoed Bush's claim of a mandate in the 2004 election.

You need to try harder next time.

Doesn't matter, it's Media Matters. You lose sir, good day!

[Atlanteax]

What am I making up? Clearly you have no long term memory.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2008/11/04/in-2008-will-media-recall-2004-declarations-of/146033

If there was any suggestion of Bush having a 'mandate' (which I would say *no* because of how close that election was) ... Republican *did have* *BOTH* the Senate and House.
Edit: note that Republicans did not have super-majority in both Senate and House, to Bush was not exactly able to get anything he wanted passed ... which as I indicated earlier, would quantify a President as having a 'mandate'.

Democrats *had* control of both in 2008 (iirc) when Obama got elected, but lost the House in 2010 (also iirc). So if Obama ever had a 'mandate' it was only for the first two years, 2008-2010, and definitely continues to be without a 'mandate' (he won by a *slimmer* margin than in 2008) as it would be practically defined, as oppose to hyperbole media up-talk.

[Aryeh]

If there was any suggestion of Bush having a 'mandate' (which I would say *no* because of how close that election was) ... Republican *did have* *BOTH* the Senate and House.

Democrats *had* control of both in 2008 (iirc) when Obama got elected, but lost the House in 2010 (also iirc). So if Obama ever had a 'mandate' it was only for the first two years, 2008-2010, and definitely continues to be without a 'mandate' (he won by a *slimmer* margin than in 2008) as it would be practically defined, as oppose to hyperbole media up-talk.

The difference between 2004 and 2012, the GOP actually had the popular vote to back up a majority win in the house. Not so much in 2012.

[Aryeh]

Doesn't matter, it's Media Matters. You lose sir, good day!

When you can prove anything in that article to be false, you'll have a point.

I'm sorry you're an idiot though. My deepest condolences.

[Jarvan]

It is not my job to validate your claims. You do know what onus is don't you?

If you don't care to validate your claims, I don't really care to take you seriously.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/12/newtown-connecticut-school-shooting/59999/

That timeline itself states numerous different things. I am sure you won't read it tho, since you already know the "facts" no matter what is told.

Also you can look at all the different new broadcasts where they were told by police at the scene conflicting info.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju_NllT1iDo

Now it could be argued that it looks like a shotgun, tho he is not pumping it to remove bullets, he is sliding something on the side. I don't know of any shotgun that has a slide to remove bullets. Also there are other pictures out there that show two guns take out of the trunk, the video only shows one.

[Jarvan]

The difference between 2004 and 2012, the GOP actually had the popular vote to back up a majority win in the house. Not so much in 2012.

So you are proving that he doesn't have a mandate, good for you.

[Tgo01]

When you can prove anything in that article to be false, you'll have a point.

I'm sorry you're an idiot though. My deepest condolences.

You're so cute. Any links from the DNC website you'd like to share while you're at it?

[Atlanteax]

The difference between 2004 and 2012, the GOP actually had the popular vote to back up a majority win in the house. Not so much in 2012.

So the 'fact' that the GOP still controls the House, despite of this ... is irrelevant to you in your insisting that Obama has a 'mandate' ?

You're clearly an Obama homer.

[Latrinsorm]

I used to agree with that viewpoint, but I think "at our founding" is key in your statement. America is a different place today. Actively participating in shaping the direction of the country? That may have been so 200 years ago. Today, we're voting for one of two main parties who have everything in common on matters of policy. That's a fact. I don't consider that a real choice, and certainly not one worth defending. "I'm going to shoot you in the right eye, or the left, but I'm giving you the choice so don't say you didn't have a voice in this agenda. If you don't vote, you're automatically assenting to being shot in the left eye since that's what the majority of people chosen."The early Presidential elections were very different from today, but in the other direction: the common people had much less say. This was arguably by design.

Personally I dismiss this as yet another thing the Founders got wrong, but I thought it was relevant to the discussion.
When were wins with less than 51% of the popular votes declared mandates?

Clearly you are just making stuff up to support your view-point.President Bush personally declared a mandate when he won the 2004 election with 50.7% of the popular vote. Referring to that election on our own forum Delaroz declared "As an aside, it'll be obvious to Bush that he has a mandate", from Parkbandit we have "51% to 48% is screaming a mandate." I'm honestly surprised this is a point of contention, it was a pretty widespread sentiment at the time.

[Parkbandit]

The early Presidential elections were very different from today, but in the other direction: the common people had much less say. This was arguably by design.

Personally I dismiss this as yet another thing the Founders got wrong, but I thought it was relevant to the discussion.President Bush personally declared a mandate when he won the 2004 election with 50.7% of the popular vote. Referring to that election on our own forum Delaroz declared "As an aside, it'll be obvious to Bush that he has a mandate", from Parkbandit we have "51% to 48% is screaming a mandate." I'm honestly surprised this is a point of contention, it was a pretty widespread sentiment at the time.

As illustrated in the mediamatters.org link, the mandate was because Republicans were able to maintain the White House, win seats in the House to maintain control and win seats in the Senate to maintain control.

It's really isn't that difficult to understand.. but if you (general "you", for anyone proclaiming again and again it's an Obama mandate, it really is! I NEED IT TO BE!!!! ) still can't figure it out, I will proclaim it an Obama mandate.. because the term "mandate" changes nothing at all.

Obama mandate.

Boom, now your miserable lives can continue.

[Jarvan]

As illustrated in the mediamatters.org link, the mandate was because Republicans were able to maintain the White House, win seats in the House to maintain control and win seats in the Senate to maintain control.

It's really isn't that difficult to understand.. but if you (general "you", for anyone proclaiming again and again it's an Obama mandate, it really is! I NEED IT TO BE!!!! ) still can't figure it out, I will proclaim it an Obama mandate.. because the term "mandate" changes nothing at all.

Obama mandate.

Boom, now your miserable lives can continue.

lol

I guess the republicans should just do what ever Obama wants now that it is a mandate huh PB. All those people elected by their districts don't matter at all, Obama won, he has a Mandate to do all the things he has always wanted.

[Aryeh]

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/12/newtown-connecticut-school-shooting/59999/

That timeline itself states numerous different things. I am sure you won't read it tho, since you already know the "facts" no matter what is told.

Also you can look at all the different new broadcasts where they were told by police at the scene conflicting info.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju_NllT1iDo

Now it could be argued that it looks like a shotgun, tho he is not pumping it to remove bullets, he is sliding something on the side. I don't know of any shotgun that has a slide to remove bullets. Also there are other pictures out there that show two guns take out of the trunk, the video only shows one.


You're cherry picking information at this point. The only reports that matters are from the police and the medical examiner/coroner. Since we do not have official reports, we have to rely on what they're telling us right now.

http://startingpoint.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/14/newtown-one-month-later-searching-for-healing-answers-while-the-investigation-continues/?iref=allsearch

CT state police lt Paul Vance;

"Vance also confirmed the shooter used "several" high capacity magazines, each carrying 30-rounds during the course of the mass murder. Each magazine for the AR-15 style semi-automatic made by Bushmaster was only partially used. Vance says the killer reloaded time and again. Investigators have been working to determine whether the gun jammed or whether Lanza had another reason to reload repeatedly."

If there is conflicting information, it is because people are looking for conflicting information. The official reports will give specific detail, but from what the state police has told the press, nothing much is actually conflicting.

[Aryeh]

You're so cute. Any links from the DNC website you'd like to share while you're at it?

Your refusal of the outlet does not negate the facts provided. I could understand opinion, but the article did not provide opinion, it outlined information from a number of sources.

You do understand the difference between fact and opinion yes? Facts do not change base upon the outlet that presents them.

[Aryeh]

So the 'fact' that the GOP still controls the House, despite of this ... is irrelevant to you in your insisting that Obama has a 'mandate' ?

You're clearly an Obama homer.

I don't believe I've insisted anything. I've pointed out the disparities of the position between 2004 and 2012.

Your position that a very relevant piece of information being irrelevant is pretty irrelevant. The GOP only retain control of the house due to gerrymandering. Something they did not have to rely on in 2004.

[Aryeh]

lol

I guess the republicans should just do what ever Obama wants now that it is a mandate huh PB. All those people elected by their districts don't matter at all, Obama won, he has a Mandate to do all the things he has always wanted.

It really has little to do with what Obama wants and more to do with what the voters want. The last house refused to do the will of the people and this house looks to be on the same course.

Read a poll every once in a while.

[Jarvan]

It really has little to do with what Obama wants and more to do with what the voters want. The last house refused to do the will of the people and this house looks to be on the same course.

Read a poll every once in a while.

And yet the last house was re-elected. I guess we shall see in 2 years if they get re-elected then, will Obama still have a Mandate?

[Parkbandit]

I don't believe I've insisted anything. I've pointed out the disparities of the position between 2004 and 2012.

You did indeed... although you didn't point out the differences in the election outcome. As I pointed out, the Republicans gained seats in the House and Senate and had the majorities in both. To put it another way, they controled the power in all 3. The Democrats currently control 2 of 3.

There's a pretty big difference.. if you know anything about how our political process works. You can claim a mandate... but good luck putting that mandate to work for your liberal causes. :(

[Atlanteax]

It really has little to do with what Obama wants and more to do with what the voters want. The last house refused to do the will of the people and this house looks to be on the same course.

Read a poll every once in a while.

The last House was doing the will of their constituents.

"Will of the poeple" ? Is that whatever Obama wants to do?

Yep, you're an Obama homer.

[Back]

The last House was doing the will of their constituents.

"Will of the poeple" ? Is that whatever Obama wants to do?

Yep, you're an Obama homer.

So if someone likes Obama that makes them an "Obama Homer"? Is the opposite of that an "Obama Hater"?

Is your world that black and white? Wait. I know the answer. Yes. It's very white.

[AnticorRifling]

Quick Back make it about race to distract from the point!

[Back]

Quick Back make it about race to distract from the point!

You wish I would. That would fuel your desire to hate. Why do you hate so much?

[Parkbandit]

You wish I would. That would fuel your desire to hate. Why do you hate so much?

You already did.. which was his point.


Is your world that black and white? Wait. I know the answer. Yes. It's very white.

[Atlanteax]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323539804578259910309186042.html?m od=WSJ_hps_LEFTTopStories


The House voted Wednesday to approve legislation suspending the debt ceiling for three months, a move that will allow the government to keep paying its bills and give lawmakers breathing room for long-term budget negotiations.

The House bill, which needs a Senate vote and the president's signature, requires the Senate to pass a budget by mid-April and threatens to withhold lawmakers' pay if it fails to do so.

Senate Democratic leaders indicated the bill would be voted on in the coming days in the Senate, and the White House said that President Barack Obama would sign it into law if it reaches his desk.

and...


The House voted 285-144 to approve the legislation. House Democratic leaders objected to the notion of tying congressional pay to the Senate's ability to pass a budget.

Is this because they do not want to be unable to continue feeding from the trough if they are unable to compel themselves to cut spending?

[Parkbandit]

It's sad that we have to hold people's paycheck to force them into doing their job... for the first time in 4 years, the Senate might actually pass a budget.

Throw them all out.