national debt crisis invective thread

[foolsguinea]

I decided not to hijack my own post ( #58 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14056083&postcount=58) ) for this:

Go ahead, start a global depression, let the American T.E.A. Party middle-income class get blamed for everybody's bad decade. But in 20 years, your constituency & platform will be at least as discredited as they were by 1950 for causing the 1930's domestic depression--which was rooted in similar attitudes. And this time whoever takes control & restores order may decide, like Churchill bombing Germany back to an agrarian society, never to let this sort of thing come to power again. I hope to live to see the Conservative Movement outlawed & its colleges transformed into re-education camps, that the backward masses of this country may become a competent modern electorate.

So, here's a thread for whatever distracting, overwrought,or obnoxious thing you want to say about national economic policy, in whatever nation you feel strongly enough about.

[Chefguy]

I just swept all of our TSP funds into the G fund, and cashed out the few stocks I had still invested in. If Europe goes tits up and the righties have their way, this could get very ugly very quickly.

[L. G. Butts, Ph.D.]

I wonder about this. It is my firm belief that the current Republican stances on fiscal policies and climate change will be proven to be disastrously wrong in the long run, but will they really pay for it? There is always another populist stance to take to gains support...

[Giraffe]

I wonder about this. It is my firm belief that the current Republican stances on fiscal policies and climate change will be proven to be disastrously wrong in the long run, but will they really pay for it?
Absolutely not. Heck, the fact that they can even pretend to suddenly be the party of fiscal responsibility after eight years of running up an enormous deficit with a insane marriage of profligate spending and tax cuts shows how willing people are to disregard history in favor of the fictional narrative their particular team wraps itself in.

The fact is, Republican politicians are complete financial retards. They create huge messes and then cry and stamp their feet when the grownups have to step in and clean them up. Start a war, but have a fit if anyone asks that they come up with the revenue to pay for it. Identify an impending shortfall in Social Security, but refuse to either cut benefits or raise revenue to pay for it: instead, propose huge revenue cuts in the form of privatization and then drop the whole issue when people notice the difference between positive and negative numbers. Keep interest rates at record lows even after an unbelievably obvious housing bubble is well underway, push for more and more financial sector deregulation, then once everything starts collapsing, blame the guy who ends up averting the second Great Depression for spending money.

Now the current game is: talk about how much spending needs to be cut, without actually proposing any spending cuts. Instead, only push for target spending numbers and budget-constraining amendments, so you don't have to have your name on any of the spending cuts you're demanding, because the children you represent only want spending cuts that don't actually result in any cuts to the things they like. Which, in most cases, is most of the budget. For a retard double feature, reject the plan put forth by the other side (containing actual specifics) because it closes some tax loopholes for the richest people in the country and it's far better to drive the economy into the ground than compromise on taxing rich people.

Letting Republicans have any say in running the country is now like letting your drunk four year old drive your SUV. Really, it's your own fault when it crashes.

[Chefguy]

For a retard double feature, reject the plan put forth by the other side (containing actual specifics) because it closes some tax loopholes for the richest people in the country and it's far better to drive the economy into the ground than compromise on taxing rich people.



I believe you meant to say "job creators" here. :p

[Ambivalid]

Absolutely not. Heck, the fact that they can even pretend to suddenly be the party of fiscal responsibility after eight years of running up an enormous deficit with a insane marriage of profligate spending and tax cuts shows how willing people are to disregard history in favor of the fictional narrative their particular team wraps itself in.

The fact is, Republican politicians are complete financial retards. They create huge messes and then cry and stamp their feet when the grownups have to step in and clean them up. Start a war, but have a fit if anyone asks that they come up with the revenue to pay for it. Identify an impending shortfall in Social Security, but refuse to either cut benefits or raise revenue to pay for it: instead, propose huge revenue cuts in the form of privatization and then drop the whole issue when people notice the difference between positive and negative numbers. Keep interest rates at record lows even after an unbelievably obvious housing bubble is well underway, push for more and more financial sector deregulation, then once everything starts collapsing, blame the guy who ends up averting the second Great Depression for spending money.

Now the current game is: talk about how much spending needs to be cut, without actually proposing any spending cuts. Instead, only push for target spending numbers and budget-constraining amendments, so you don't have to have your name on any of the spending cuts you're demanding, because the children you represent only want spending cuts that don't actually result in any cuts to the things they like. Which, in most cases, is most of the budget. For a retard double feature, reject the plan put forth by the other side (containing actual specifics) because it closes some tax loopholes for the richest people in the country and it's far better to drive the economy into the ground than compromise on taxing rich people.

Letting Republicans have any say in running the country is now like letting your drunk four year old drive your SUV. Really, it's your own fault when it crashes.

Hmm, well put.

[silenus]

The problem is, we're too "civilized" to string them up from the closest lamp-post when it all comes crashing down. A few salutary hangings might convince a few people that they screwed the pooch, economy-wise, and they should pay for it. Confiscate all their property and assets, turn their children out into the wilderness, and sew salt where their mansions once stood. Start with the upper echelons of AIG, Bear Stearns, and any other financial group that has every had anything to do with derivitives.

Carve flutes from their bones and play them as we dance around the bonfires of their Mercedes'.

[curlcoat]

The fact is, Republican politicians are complete financial retards. They create huge messes and then cry and stamp their feet when the grownups have to step in and clean them up.

OTOH, the Democrats haven't done a very good job with California these past, what?, 35-40 years?

[R. P. McMurphy]

OTOH, the Democrats haven't done a very good job with California these past, what?, 35-40 years?

Ever hear of Prop 13? I didn't think so. That was the beginning of the end.

[curlcoat]

Ever hear of Prop 13? I didn't think so. That was the beginning of the end.

Of course I've heard of Prop 13 - I live in California, do you? And what does the state's lack of ability to raise our property taxes until we can't afford the house, with was passed over 30 years ago, have to do with our current economic woes? Or are you saying that if we could just squeeze more blood out of the middle class we wouldn't be having these problems?

[joebuck20]

I said it in the other thread, but I'll say it here again. I don't think the Republicans are actively rooting for the economy to fail. The problem, I think, is that they just don't give a fuck. What matters most is that Obama comes out looking bad. If the entire economic system comes crashing down in the process, well that's just collateral damage as far as they're concerned.

[Giraffe]

OTOH, the Democrats haven't done a very good job with California these past, what?, 35-40 years?

Yes, the California legislature contains a ton of retarded Democrats. You win a "yeah, but THEY..." point. Give yourself a pat on the back.

[Ambivalid]

I said it in the other thread, but I'll say it here again. I don't think the Republicans are actively rooting for the economy to fail. The problem, I think, is that they just don't give a fuck. What matters most is that Obama comes out looking bad. If the entire economic system comes crashing down in the process, well that's just collateral damage as far as they're concerned.

That's just the thing; if the economy fails, it'll be under Obama's leadership and "failed policies" and blah blah blah and that'll be the launching pad into office for 2012. So in a way they ARE actively rooting for the economy to fail.

[curlcoat]

Yes, the California legislature contains a ton of retarded Democrats. You win a "yeah, but THEY..." point. Give yourself a pat on the back.

Huh. Decades of Democrats doing the same thing as you say the Republicans are doing isn't the same thing? Ignorance fought I guess...:rolleyes:

[septimus]

One point I'd make is that "The Republican Party" gets something of a pass from some people, because it's an "ancient (by American standards) venerable institution; it can't possibly be as lunatic as those liberals claim it is."

If there were a brand-new Party with a brand-new name pursuing the same policies as the zombified GOP, it would be a laughing-stock and nothing more.

By the way, an article at WSJ on-line with the interesting title "Forget About Black Swans, the One Floating Ahead is Neon" seems to conclude that a logical haven for those worried about Treasury default is (are you sitting down?) once again to move your funds to the "world's safest investment":

And, even with disaster seeming inevitable, many investors may be paralyzed by uncertainty. "U.S. government securities have long been the yardstick for measuring the risk of most other investments," he says. "One of the most disturbing things that we all have to get our minds around should the unthinkable happen," he adds, "is that the reference point for pricing securities around the globe could be lost. No one can predict what would happen worldwide."

Not that Treasurys will necessarily get pounded. If the U.S. defaults or its credit rating is downgraded, says William Bernstein of Efficient Frontier Advisors in Eastford, Conn., Treasury prices would probably "go to 97 or 98," losing only a few percentage points in value. ... Mr. Bernstein expects corporate and municipal bonds to drop much more drastically if the Treasury market is hit by default or downgrade. And stocks, he says, could be massacred....

Thus, keeping a sizable balance in short-term Treasurys—the securities that suddenly feel shaky—is probably a good idea in case stocks and bonds go on sale.

[BigT]

Huh. Decades of Democrats doing the same thing as you say the Republicans are doing isn't the same thing? Ignorance fought I guess...:rolleyes:

STOP IT! You know what he's getting at. You are a horrible excuse for a human being if you make even a thread about possible WORLD ECONOMIC COLLAPSE into yet another "We got to beat them Democrats!"

There is a fucking time and place for politics. It is not when there is a real emergency. All you are doing is the same exact shit that your people are doing in the legislature. You care more about scoring political gotchas than the real fucking world.

This isn't a fucking game. THis is real shit that people like you are causing. The only appropriate response in this thread are for you to fucking apologize for being wrong, and to disavow the people in your party that are trying to create a depression worse than the Great Depression.

It is 100% not relevant what the Democrats are doing in California--because Californians are still fine. If this shit happens, the U.S., and even the world, may not be.

[Merneith]

Oh, this is just precious. You're all going to love this.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/23/super-congress-debt-ceiling_n_907887.html

'Super Congress': Debt Ceiling Negotiators Aim To Create New Legislative Body

WASHINGTON -- Debt ceiling negotiators think they've hit on a solution to address the debt ceiling impasse and the public's unwillingness to let go of benefits such as Medicare and Social Security that have been earned over a lifetime of work: Create a new Congress.

This "Super Congress," composed of members of both chambers and both parties, isn't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, but would be granted extraordinary new powers. Under a plan put forth by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his counterpart Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), legislation to lift the debt ceiling would be accompanied by the creation of a 12-member panel made up of 12 lawmakers -- six from each chamber and six from each party.

Legislation approved by the Super Congress -- which some on Capitol Hill are calling the "super committee" -- would then be fast-tracked through both chambers, where it couldn't be amended by simple, regular lawmakers, who'd have the ability only to cast an up or down vote. With the weight of both leaderships behind it, a product originated by the Super Congress would have a strong chance of moving through the little Congress and quickly becoming law. A Super Congress would be less accountable than the system that exists today, and would find it easier to strip the public of popular benefits. Negotiators are currently considering cutting the mortgage deduction and tax credits for retirement savings, for instance, extremely popular policies that would be difficult to slice up using the traditional legislative process.



Just what the situation calls for - more committees!

Boehner's a big fan of this as well but Republicans in general have started insisting that there should only be a short term debt ceiling increase, which means we'd need to do all this again in six months. Democrats have refused to consider a short term plan and I think they're right.

How this is supposed to get around the idea that the Republican rank & file won't vote in favor of any bill with revenue increases is beyond me. I assume the Republicans are counting on the fact that Democratic leadership would be easier to bully in a small group. I don't know. It's starting to sound like cuts to Medicare & Social Security are pretty much agreed upon by Dems & Pubs alike - they're just arguing about repealing the tax cuts.

I can't even hope that the Dems who would vote for that will lose their jobs next year, because that means we'd just end up with more Republicans.

[detop]

The problem is, we're too "civilized" to string them up from the closest lamp-post when it all comes crashing down. A few salutary hangings might convince a few people that they screwed the pooch, economy-wise, and they should pay for it. Confiscate all their property and assets, turn their children out into the wilderness, and sew salt where their mansions once stood. Start with the upper echelons of AIG, Bear Stearns, and any other financial group that has every had anything to do with derivitives.

Carve flutes from their bones and play them as we dance around the bonfires of their Mercedes'.

Your ideas intrigue me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

[Fear Itself]

I can't even hope that the Dems who would vote for that will lose their jobs next year, because that means we'd just end up with more Republicans.Not if we primary the incumbent Democrats, and elect the challengers. Difficult, but not impossible.

[Morgenstern]

. .

The fact is, Republican politicians are complete financial retards. . . once everything starts collapsing, blame the guy who ends up averting the second Great Depression for spending money.

. . .

I am applauding. . .

[njtt]

Of course I've heard of Prop 13 - I live in California, do you? And what does the state's lack of ability to raise our property taxes until we can't afford the house, with was passed over 30 years ago, have to do with our current economic woes? Or are you saying that if we could just squeeze more blood out of the middle class we wouldn't be having these problems?

California's problems absolutely are the result of Prop 13, and the requirement for a supermajority to pass any tax increase. If the Democratic majority in California actually had the power to run the state, they could have passed a very modest tax increase years ago and the states finances would be fine. It is the fact that an intransigent minority, in California, have the power to prevent the majority from governing that is the cause of the state's problems.

It would be equally disastrous, incidentally, if there were a Republican majority in California and they were totally unable to balance the budget through drastic cuts in state services, because of an intransigent Democratic minority. The real issue is not which way the budget should be balanced, the point is that the state constitution has been set up so as to make the state ungovernable in an age of strong partisan ideologies.

Likewise, for the United States as a whole. The problem is essentially a constitutional one in which the government is prevented from taking the necessary decisive and timely action (and that is the case whichever side nominally runs the government, and whatever they believe the necessary action to be). A constitution designed by 18th century gentleman landowners who all shared a broadly common world view and understood the value of compromise (but were also neurotically scared that a strong executive branch or an elected majority would become evil tyrants like the demonized King George) simply does not work in the 21st century, where one party believes in science and math and reason (much as those 18th century gentlemen did), and the other believes in The Rapture (or, at least, depends for its political survival upon people who do).

So, as this is the pit, I will finish by saying: Fuck James Madison!

[LouisB]

I will curse Tea Party/Republicans to the uttermost depths of hell with the last breath I take.

[The Hamster King]

California's problems absolutely are the result of Prop 13, and the requirement for a supermajority to pass any tax increase. If the Democratic majority in California actually had the power to run the state, they could have passed a very modest tax increase years ago and the states finances would be fine. It is the fact that an intransigent minority, in California, have the power to prevent the majority from governing that is the cause of the state's problems.Yes, exactly.

[Morgenstern]

California's problems absolutely are the result of Prop 13, and the requirement for a supermajority to pass any tax increase. . . .!

I must remind you that California reaped a budgetary windfall not all that long ago, and instead of saving for a rainy day, they spent it like a drunken sailor at a tittie bar. Don't blame prop 13 for all the financial woes CA faces.

[jsc1953]

I must remind you that California reaped a budgetary windfall not all that long ago, and instead of saving for a rainy day, they spent it like a drunken sailor at a tittie bar. Don't blame prop 13 for all the financial woes CA faces.

California's woes are a three-fold perfect storm:

Prop 13 pushed California's income from stable property tax, to wildly fluctuating sales and income tax.

The super-majority makes it difficult for either party to govern

And the legislature (which, by the way, consists of newbies thanks to term limits) is incapable of making tough decisions forced by 1 and 2, and has kicked the can down the road for 30 years.

[AlienVessels]

OTOH, the Democrats haven't done a very good job with California these past, what?, 35-40 years?

Actually, we've been doing just fine if we weren't the GOP sugar daddy. Take a gander at:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/266.html

or in graphic form:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_RNcOoR0BhTQ/SxxHqrcC8wI/AAAAAAAAACE/DOPZQfGJnVc/s640/FederalRedistribution_DonorRecipient.png

If California didn't have to support several Republican welfare states, we'd be thriving.

[Gangster Octopus]

Considering that the debt ceiling is unconstitutional, Obama should just tell Congress to go suck it.

[humanafterall]

Oh, this is just precious. You're all going to love this.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/23/super-congress-debt-ceiling_n_907887.html


Just what the situation calls for - more committees!

Boehner's a big fan of this as well but Republicans in general have started insisting that there should only be a short term debt ceiling increase, which means we'd need to do all this again in six months. Democrats have refused to consider a short term plan and I think they're right.

How this is supposed to get around the idea that the Republican rank & file won't vote in favor of any bill with revenue increases is beyond me. I assume the Republicans are counting on the fact that Democratic leadership would be easier to bully in a small group. I don't know. It's starting to sound like cuts to Medicare & Social Security are pretty much agreed upon by Dems & Pubs alike - they're just arguing about repealing the tax cuts.

I can't even hope that the Dems who would vote for that will lose their jobs next year, because that means we'd just end up with more Republicans.

That's funny, I read something on r/conspiracy that was saying that Super Congress is just another step toward NWO and Illuminati takeover and all that jazz. Ahh, the internet is like a box of penny candy. It's full of all different kinds of flavors, most of them being nutty.

[Shakes]

Oh, this is just precious. You're all going to love this.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/23/super-congress-debt-ceiling_n_907887.html

[quote]'Super Congress': Debt Ceiling Negotiators Aim To Create New Legislative Body

WASHINGTON -- Debt ceiling negotiators think they've hit on a solution to address the debt ceiling impasse and the public's unwillingness to let go of benefits such as Medicare and Social Security that have been earned over a lifetime of work: Create a new Congress.

This "Super Congress," composed of members of both chambers and both parties, isn't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, but would be granted extraordinary new powers. Under a plan put forth by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his counterpart Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), legislation to lift the debt ceiling would be accompanied by the creation of a 12-member panel made up of 12 lawmakers -- six from each chamber and six from each party.

Legislation approved by the Super Congress -- which some on Capitol Hill are calling the "super committee" -- would then be fast-tracked through both chambers, where it couldn't be amended by simple, regular lawmakers, who'd have the ability only to cast an up or down vote. With the weight of both leaderships behind it, a product originated by the Super Congress would have a strong chance of moving through the little Congress and quickly becoming law. A Super Congress would be less accountable than the system that exists today, and would find it easier to strip the public of popular benefits. Negotiators are currently considering cutting the mortgage deduction and tax credits for retirement savings, for instance, extremely popular policies that would be difficult to slice up using the traditional legislative process.



Meanwhile... At The Legion of Doom... GOP....

Yeah, I just read that in the narrator voice of the old cartoon classic, The Super Friends.

[curlcoat]

STOP IT! You know what he's getting at. You are a horrible excuse for a human being if you make even a thread about possible WORLD ECONOMIC COLLAPSE into yet another "We got to beat them Democrats!"

Actually, no I don't know what he is getting at other than trying to blame all the country's problems on one political party. And, I am not trying to make the thread about "We got to beat them Democrats!" - I hate both parties equally.

There is a fucking time and place for politics.

Quite right. Yet for some reason you only call me on this?

All you are doing is the same exact shit that your people are doing in the legislature.

"My" people?

THis is real shit that people like you are causing. The only appropriate response in this thread are for you to fucking apologize for being wrong, and to disavow the people in your party that are trying to create a depression worse than the Great Depression.

Excuse me, but I had zero to do with anything the government is doing and I do not belong to any party. Also, you are now doing what you just told me was not the time and place for.

It is 100% not relevant what the Democrats are doing in California--because Californians are still fine. If this shit happens, the U.S., and even the world, may not be.

Snort. Obviously you have no idea what is going on here...

[curlcoat]

California's problems absolutely are the result of Prop 13, and the requirement for a supermajority to pass any tax increase. If the Democratic majority in California actually had the power to run the state, they could have passed a very modest tax increase years ago and the states finances would be fine. It is the fact that an intransigent minority, in California, have the power to prevent the majority from governing that is the cause of the state's problems.

Since you have no idea what you are talking about, or you are purposely ignoring the real issues here, I think I'll just ignore you.
[/QUOTE]

[gonzomax]

You can pinpoint the Enron and energy debacle in California for the states financial problems. They were financially pretty healthy until grand scale theft occurred.

[curlcoat]

You can pinpoint the Enron and energy debacle in California for the states financial problems. They were financially pretty healthy until grand scale theft occurred.

That was just one of the killing blows, the other being the burst of the housing bubble. The problem is and always has been that too few pay too much in taxes to support too many.


I see there are others spouting off on our problems who also don't know what they are talking about, such as we no longer require a supermajority and even if we did? Tax increases are the bleeding problem! :smack:

[Broomstick]

curlcoat, you do realize your favorite entitlement/benefit/government money is on the line, too, right? Or do you think that if they cut social security and/or disability for all the riff-raff you complain about that somehow you'll be exempt? You won't.

[curlcoat]

curlcoat, you do realize your favorite entitlement/benefit/government money is on the line, too, right? Or do you think that if they cut social security and/or disability for all the riff-raff you complain about that somehow you'll be exempt? You won't.

Are you really this stupid?

[Measure for Measure]

Since you have no idea what you are talking about, or you are purposely ignoring the real issues here, I think I'll just ignore you.
La la la la I can't hear you! curlcoat embodies all that's wrong with this country: empty unsubstantiated posturing with zero self-awareness. I knew you could do it curl: congratulations! California's woes are a three-fold perfect storm:

Prop 13 pushed California's income from stable property tax, to wildly fluctuating sales and income tax.

The super-majority makes it difficult for either party to govern

And the legislature (which, by the way, consists of newbies thanks to term limits) is incapable of making tough decisions forced by 1 and 2, and has kicked the can down the road for 30 years. That was some fine analysis jsc. But don't forget the fact that lots of spending is mandated by our 100+ interlocking initiatives passed since Prop 13. And don't forget that you can amend the CA state constitution with spending requirements with a simple majority of voters - forever. Even the US Congress doesn't have this power, since future Congresses can always over-ride previous Congresses.

Finally, don't forget that during the 1990 recession, Republicans agreed to split the difference and raise taxes temporarily. And yes, the tax increase was actually reversed on schedule. But that was when grownups weren't banned from the Republican Party.


CA has the most fucked up democratic structure in the world, bar none. True there are democracies with worse outcomes, but none have such convoluted red-tape and special interest encrusted procedures. But back in the 1970s CA was praised for their careful deliberation. The state has gone from best to worst in 2 generations.

[Broomstick]

curlcoat, you do realize your favorite entitlement/benefit/government money is on the line, too, right? Or do you think that if they cut social security and/or disability for all the riff-raff you complain about that somehow you'll be exempt? You won't.
Are you really this stupid?
Ah, so you think you're magically immune. Enjoy your upcoming poverty.

[Measure for Measure]

Oh yeah, the OP.

We've been discussing budget cuts during the worst downturn since the Great Depression. Crack your macroeconomics textbook and discover that this is exactly backwards. We should be spending like drunken chimpanzees on infrastructure, research, and grants to the states so they won't have to lay off firefighters, cops and teachers during the worst downturn since the Great Depression. After all, borrowing costs are at a record low.

Obama has dropped the ball by capitulating to the Republican's brain dead and ignorant rhetoric. We need a tougher President: I should have voted for Hillary. I originally thought that the swamps would go nuts if a Clinton were elected again to the top office. I was misguided: Republican hysterics invent nonsense whenever a Democrat is President: prevarication is as natural to Republicans as moving their lips.

[Measure for Measure]

Ah, so you think you're magically immune. Enjoy your upcoming poverty. Well.... there's a 50-50 chance that a deal will be struck at the last minute. And a 50-50 chance after that of a deal after Wall Street swoons.

But there's also a possibility that the Congressional Republicans will fail to see reason even by Aug 15th and that Obama will be so focused on post-partisanship that he won't simply declare the debt limit unconstitutional, as per the 14th amendment, clause 4.

Constitutional Options
Ultra-liberal US link roundup: http://my.firedoglake.com/phoenix/2011/07/24/even-larry-tribe-now-agrees-fourteenth-amendment-is-a-viable-option-so-why-wont-obama-use-it/

Tough minded economic stance: http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2011/07/debt-ceiling-charade-smart-options.html

[curlcoat]

Ah, so you think you're magically immune. Enjoy your upcoming poverty.

So, the answer is yes - you are that stupid. Nothing like showing everyone that you have no idea what you are talking about but boy, are you right there casting aspersions!

:cool:

[Broomstick]

Are you or are you not still receiving disability checks from the government?

You do realize there is a possibility such checks will NOT be issued as usual in August, yes? If not, consider yourself informed. Of course, you should be overjoyed yet another person is off the government teat, but somehow I don't think you'll be happy about it when it affects you.

[Measure for Measure]

Are you or are you not still receiving disability checks from the government?

You do realize there is a possibility such checks will NOT be issued as usual in August, yes? If not, consider yourself informed. Of course, you should be overjoyed yet another person is off the government teat, but somehow I don't think you'll be happy about it when it affects you. I wonder about how this would work politically. Bachmann says that of course we can continue to cut social security and military checks. But her plan laughably leaves nothing for even the court system. Back in 1995, Rubin told Congress that he would stop cutting social security checks and Gingrich buckled. How powerful is today's reality denial system? If Congress fails to raise the debt limit, workers are furloughed and disability checks suspended, will the nutjobs just blame Obama for following the laws of arithmetic?

If US borrowing costs go up by billions for years, will that give Republicans pause? That really isn't taxpayer-friendly.

[curlcoat]

Are you or are you not still receiving disability checks from the government?

You do realize there is a possibility such checks will NOT be issued as usual in August, yes? If not, consider yourself informed. Of course, you should be overjoyed yet another person is off the government teat, but somehow I don't think you'll be happy about it when it affects you.

OK, I'll be nice and point out once again where you have no clue.

1. You first asked me about my "favorite entitlement/benefit/government money" - I have no such thing, at least not the way you state it (see #5 below).

2. Also, in that first post, you say "Or do you think that if they cut social security and/or disability for all the riff-raff you complain about...". I do not complain about people on social security or disability.

3. Next, you tell me to "Enjoy your upcoming poverty". Only an idiot would think that missing one payment would put me into poverty.

4. You keep referring to checks - the government does not send me checks.

5. I am not and have never been "on the government teat". It is a fact of life that no matter how much you want it to be, repeating a falsehood over and over will not suddenly make it truth.

There's probably other things but that's all the time I'm going to spend on this. You keep popping up and saying inane, untrue things about me when it has been explained to you over and over what the reality is. But, apparently, since it doesn't fit with whatever picture you have decided to paint, you just ignore it and continue to prove yourself a complete idiot.

Have a nice night.

[Giraffe]

That makes nine posts to this thread by you, curlcoat, not a single one of which was on topic. Could you please for the love of God shut the fuck up already, you tedious fucking windbag?

[curlcoat]

That makes nine posts to this thread by you, curlcoat, not a single one of which was on topic. Could you please for the love of God shut the fuck up already, you tedious fucking windbag?

Well excuse me all to hell for responding to posts. Do you need me to show you how to use your scroller? Since your two posts here seem to be just opportunities to pretend that only one political party is at fault for the nation's problems, I'm not sure you have much ground to stand on regarding staying on topic.

I'm sorry my politics don't lockstep with yours, but anyone that thinks only the Republicans (or only the Democrats) are responsible for any crisis shouldn't be voting, much less commenting in public.

[jsc1953]

LThat was some fine analysis jsc. But don't forget the fact that lots of spending is mandated by our 100+ interlocking initiatives passed since Prop 13. And don't forget that you can amend the CA state constitution with spending requirements with a simple majority of voters - forever. Even the US Congress doesn't have this power, since future Congresses can always over-ride previous Congresses. ....
CA has the most fucked up democratic structure in the world, bar none. True there are democracies with worse outcomes, but none have such convoluted red-tape and special interest encrusted procedures. But back in the 1970s CA was praised for their careful deliberation. The state has gone from best to worst in 2 generations.

Absolutely agreed. Since the legislature is completely incapable of legislating, all matters of import are handled through the initiative process, so we wind up with fiascos like Three Strikes -- which has led to massive expansion of prisons, prisoners, and prison guards; completely unforeseen in the tax cutting frenzy of Prop 13.

[Measure for Measure]

I'm sorry my politics don't lockstep with yours, but anyone that thinks only the Republicans (or only the Democrats) are responsible for any crisis shouldn't be voting, much less commenting in public. False equivalences are part of the problem. The Republicans and Democrats had parity in inanity during the 1970s: the Dems may have even had an edge. But here's a newsflash: if you really care about budget deficits then you will be willing to give up some things that you like. Otherwise you are bullshitting. And one party does this far more than the other. Since the legislature is completely incapable of legislating... I was stunned to read in the Economist the following IN 1971 A CONFERENCE of state legislatures concluded that California’s "comes the closest to having all the characteristics that a legislature should have." A lot of people agreed. In the mid 1970s a political scientist, William Muir, was so impressed by the collegiality, expertise and diligence he witnessed in Sacramento’s capitol that he called his book Legislature: California’s School for Politics. It was, he said, "the finest in the world." So I don't blame the politicians. I blame the initiative system which made California ungovernable.

[curlcoat]

False equivalences are part of the problem. The Republicans and Democrats had parity in inanity during the 1970s: the Dems may have even had an edge. But here's a newsflash: if you really care about budget deficits then you will be willing to give up some things that you like. Otherwise you are bullshitting. And one party does this far more than the other. I was stunned to read in the Economist the following So I don't blame the politicians. I blame the initiative system which made California ungovernable.

I'm not trying to show equivalences. Giraffe was trying to make out that everything is the fault of one party and I merely gave an example of what happened when the other party had control of one of our biggest states for a few decades. Then I responded to some other posts and he flipped out. Shrug. As for giving up some things that I like, Christ I've been doing that all my life and I have quite a bit of trouble believing that anyone short of a millionaire doesn't do the same.

None of our current problems, be they state or federal, are the doing of any one party, or anyone currently in office. I personally don't think they are solvable by any one person, or that they will be solved in my lifetime. Particularly if people just keep pointing fingers and believing (or are they just pretending) that if someone holds X view, they must hold all the views of a particular political party.

[Measure for Measure]

I'm not trying to show equivalences. Giraffe was trying to make out that everything is the fault of one party and I merely gave an example of what happened when the other party had control of one of our biggest states for a few decades. Then I responded to some other posts and he flipped out. Shrug. As for giving up some things that I like, Christ I've been doing that all my life and I have quite a bit of trouble believing that anyone short of a millionaire doesn't do the same. I was referring to the House Republicans, who have refused a deal with 85% spending cuts and 15% tax increases though they were advocating precisely such a deal 3 months ago. Those tax increases were wholly a matter of closing loopholes and special concessions, such as the rule where hedge fund managers pay 15% tax on their income. Jeez if you can't accept a deal like that, you really don't care about the deficit.

None of our current problems, be they state or federal, are the doing of any one party, or anyone currently in office. You have not substantiated this claim. You have not dug deep enough. (That's ok actually: most of us are not political junkees). We had budget surpluses under Clinton which were turned into deficits by unaffordable tax cuts and a pointless war in Iraq. Again, we used to have fiscal solvency and could achieve it again by winding down the war and letting the Bush tax cuts expire. I know this is counterintuitive, but actually the blame really does lie disproportionately with one political party. It's not the supreme coincidence of 50-50 blame that the media likes to pretend to, always, regardless of the policy in question.

More charts: Spending has trended downwards since the 1981 recession -- but so have taxes. http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/07/chart-day-we-have-taxing-problem-not-spending-problem. Any party that denies the formula deficit=revenue-spending and says that "We don't have a taxing problem, we have a spending problem", is in denial. Any party that risks or foments a financial crisis by repealing the Gephart rule deserves nobody's support. I for one hope that the Wall St banksters figure this out: it might be worth a couple of percentage points change in taxes to be governed by the sane.

Other (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/05/chart-bush-policies-dominant-cause-of-debt.php?ref=fpblg) relevant charts (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/06/chart-of-the-day-if-congress-does-nothing-the-deficit-will-disappear.php) from another thread.

[curlcoat]

I was referring to the House Republicans, who have refused a deal with 85% spending cuts and 15% tax increases though they were advocating precisely such a deal 3 months ago. Those tax increases were wholly a matter of closing loopholes and special concessions, such as the rule where hedge fund managers pay 15% tax on their income. Jeez if you can't accept a deal like that, you really don't care about the deficit.

Since I don't follow these things, I can't comment on them other than there must be more to the story - why would they do a 180 in just three months time?

You have not substantiated this claim. You have not dug deep enough. (That's ok actually: most of us are not political junkees). We had budget surpluses under Clinton which were turned into deficits by unaffordable tax cuts and a pointless war in Iraq. Again, we used to have fiscal solvency and could achieve it again by winding down the war and letting the Bush tax cuts expire. I know this is counterintuitive, but actually the blame really does lie disproportionately with one political party. It's not the supreme coincidence of 50-50 blame that the media likes to pretend to, always, regardless of the policy in question.

I don't tend to think in terms of the last few years or even the last ten years. What I see are the repeating cycles of boom and bust, which cannot be laid at the feet of the Democrats or Republicans or Whigs or whatever. No one political party has all the answers nor carries all the blame. Particularly these days when there is so much blurring - Gov Arnie was registered as a Republican but sure didn't act like one in most cases.

Now, I am sure there are ways we could move towards making our current situation better (and ending that war sounds like a grand idea to me), but to lay all blame at the feet of one party? Do you really believe that the House Republicans don't care about the deficit? Or that they are just all blithering idiots?

More charts: Spending has trended downwards since the 1981 recession -- but so have taxes. http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/07/chart-day-we-have-taxing-problem-not-spending-problem.

GAH pop-ups! Oh sorry....

Who has been getting those tax cuts? Also, could we not also have a spending problem, such as the giant waste of taxes that is the war?


Other (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/05/chart-bush-policies-dominant-cause-of-debt.php?ref=fpblg) relevant charts (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/06/chart-of-the-day-if-congress-does-nothing-the-deficit-will-disappear.php) from another thread.

Huh. That second one seems to say that we not only need to cut some spending, it specifies the same ones that I've been on about on this board for at least a year. Guess I'm a genius! :D

[Measure for Measure]

Since I don't follow these things, I can't comment on them other than there must be more to the story - why would they do a 180 in just three months time? 1. They don't negotiate in good faith.

2. Bipartisanship helps the President. The Republicans have nothing to gain from helping Obama cut a grand deal. This is the explicit political analysis of Mitch McConnell (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/01/mitch_mcconnell_the_most_hones.html), the Senate majority leader. They don't particularly want a deal.

3. Worst case scenario, the economy tanks in 2012. Then... the Republicans take the White House. Economic sabotage is a viable Republican strategy.

4. The only complication is that Wall St. donors might get pissed if the Republicans truly demo the economy. So there's a shot at a last minute deal and another shot at a deal in August. I don't see much chance of responsible policy though. I don't tend to think in terms of the last few years or even the last ten years. What I see are the repeating cycles of boom and bust, which cannot be laid at the feet of the Democrats or Republicans or Whigs or whatever. Business cycles are something the federal government can fight, but not conquer. That's another thread. Gov Arnie was registered as a Republican but sure didn't act like one in most cases. My blanket statements about Republicans apply only to Washington Republicans. State and local should be evaluated on a case by case basis. As for Arnie, he could never win a Republican primary: he only got into Sacramento because of the recall of Grey Davis. Now, I am sure there are ways we could move towards making our current situation better (and ending that war sounds like a grand idea to me), but to lay all blame at the feet of one party? Do you really believe that the House Republicans don't care about the deficit? Or that they are just all blithering idiots? I concede it's counterintuitive. I add that there were adults in the Republican party during the 1980s and earlier. But check it out: Reagan raised taxes multiple times. You can't be serious about the budget deficit while ruling out any sort of tax increases. And you can't be serious about the budget deficit while expanding entitlements without paying for them -- as the Republicans did under G Bush with Medicare Part D.

The Affordable Care Act (2010), OTOH, was fully paid for. That's what responsible governing is about.

If the Republicans cared about the deficit, they wouldn't have passed additional tax cuts during the height of the Iraq war. Hell, they would have raised taxes. Who has been getting those tax cuts? Also, could we not also have a spending problem, such as the giant waste of taxes that is the war? Bush cut taxes on everyone, but the lion's share of the benefits go to those who used to pay 39% and now pay 36%. Yeah, all the Straum and Drang is about 3 percentage points.
Huh. That second one seems to say that we not only need to cut some spending, it specifies the same ones that I've been on about on this board for at least a year. Guess I'm a genius! :D Were you surprised that the Bush tax cuts were way larger than the Afghan and Iraq wars? I was. Another big chunk was simply tied to the current Lesser Depression: tax receipts collapse and food stamp expenditures et al increase during economic downturn.

[Broomstick]

4. You keep referring to checks - the government does not send me checks.
Alright, your direct deposit, then.

5. I am not and have never been "on the government teat". It is a fact of life that no matter how much you want it to be, repeating a falsehood over and over will not suddenly make it truth.
It's money that comes from the government to you. Therefore, it's government money.

ETA: It's also been stated a number of times that such checks failing to go out is a possible consequence if this mess isn't straightened out.

[MOIDALIZE]

If we had thought a shadowy cabal of oligarchs had full control over the Republican Party, I'd say their failure to rein in Eric Cantor after he pretty much told them to eat his shorts is proof that this is not the case.

[jsc1953]

If we had thought a shadowy cabal of oligarchs had full control over the Republican Party, I'd say their failure to rein in Eric Cantor after he pretty much told them to eat his shorts is proof that this is not the case.

Well, now, there's some good news.

Not sure, but I think I'd rather have shadowy oligarchs running the country than petulant kindergarteners.

[Gangster Octopus]

President Obama should just order Treasury Secretary Geitner to pay the debts. Amendment 14, Section 4:


Section 4. 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.

[elucidator]

So, who do you think would be the very first Congressgit to file impeachment papers? Louie Goober of Texas? Alan West of Florida? Would be quite a race, see who gets there first.

[jsc1953]

That "authorized by law" clause might be a sticking point. But apparently a few legal scholars have suggested that Obama just suspend the law, in the way that Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. I like that idea.

[Gangster Octopus]

That "authorized by law" clause might be a sticking point. But apparently a few legal scholars have suggested that Obama just suspend the law, in the way that Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. I like that idea.

Yeah, I still think he should tell them to pound sand and do it anyway.

[Giraffe]

Since I don't follow these things, I can't comment on them other than there must be more to the story - why would they do a 180 in just three months time?

Hey, don't let the fact that you don't actually know anything about a topic stop you from dropping into a thread and peppering it with platitudes and irrelevant tangets!

The current debt ceiling crisis is 100.0000% the fault of exactly one party. That would be the party that stated they would refuse to raise the debt ceiling (and thus risk a U.S. default on debt obligations) unless certain vague demands were met. Until now, the debt ceiling was raised routinely as needed to accomodate the spending that Congress had budgeted.

But, please, don't let the fact that you know fuck all stop you from chiming in with such helpful contributions as "that doesn't sound right to me" and "there are two sides to every story, you know!"

[MOIDALIZE]

Visual aid! (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/07/the-chart-that-should-accompany-all-discussions-of-the-debt-ceiling/242484/)

[Gangster Octopus]

What's amazing is how big of a deficit we ran when supposedly the econommy was humming along in the mid 2000's.

[humanafterall]

We had a budget surplus after WWII that helped us with Korea and Vietnam, and after that we still had plenty left over. That was all blown on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. You see, the Towers had been attacked during the Clinton Administration in 1991, but the terrorists failed to accomplish their objective, and they treated it as nothing. Then in 2001 when 4 planes were hijacked and 3 of the 4 hijackers accomplished their objectives, We OVERspent on both wars to hunt down the men responsible for it. The American people did not question the massive raise in defense spending.

[Measure for Measure]

But, please, don't let the fact that you know fuck all stop you from chiming in with such helpful contributions as "that doesn't sound right to me" and "there are two sides to every story, you know!" To be fair, that's the narrative that's pounded into our heads from every mainstream media outlet except Fox News and parts of MSNBC. It relies upon the supreme coincidence of 50-50 blame for every single policy issue.

In other news Harry Reid calls the House Republican's bluff: he agrees to 100% spending cuts. Republicans move football: Something you often see in negotiations is a mismatch between one side’s stated sticking points and its real sticking points. In the debate over the debt ceiling, for example, Republicans have sought to portray themselves as having two bottom lines. One is that any increase in the debt ceiling must be met dollar-for-dollar with spending cuts. The other is that no revenue increases can be part of the deal. What Harry Reid did yesterday was essentially call the GOP’s bluff by outlining a plan that raises the debt ceiling by $2.7 trillion and includes $2.7 trillion in spending cuts, a healthy share of which comes from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Republicans are rejecting this even though it nominally meets their demands. Why? Because it doesn’t achieve either of their two real objectives. In particular, the plan doesn’t cut Medicare, which means that Democratic party candidates for office in November 2012 and 2014 can accurately remind voters of the content of the Republican budget plan. In case you forgot, this plans repeals Medicare... http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2011/07/25/277811/harry-reid-calls-house-republicans-bluff/

I'm not sure where the oligarchs stand on all this. I suspect that they might think about acquiring a better set of puppets.

[Measure for Measure]

We had a budget surplus after WWII that helped us with Korea and Vietnam, and after that we still had plenty left over. That was all blown on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. You see, the Towers had been attacked during the Clinton Administration in 1991, but the terrorists failed to accomplish their objective, and they treated it as nothing. Then in 2001 when 4 planes were hijacked and 3 of the 4 hijackers accomplished their objectives, We OVERspent on both wars to hunt down the men responsible for it. The American people did not question the massive raise in defense spending. The Iraq war had nothing to do with Al Qaeda.

The Bush administration was more concerned with missile defense in the Spring of 2001 than with terrorism: they thought the warnings of the Clinton administration were overblown. Richard Clarke had an inside look at both Presidencies and concluded that Al Gore would have been more on the ball than GWBush.

[curlcoat]

1. They don't negotiate in good faith.

So, when they said they wanted the spending cuts 3 months ago, it was a lie?

2. Bipartisanship helps the President. The Republicans have nothing to gain from helping Obama cut a grand deal.

So, they aren't thinking like humans, they are only thinking "party line" and that's it?

3. Worst case scenario, the economy tanks in 2012. Then... the Republicans take the White House. Economic sabotage is a viable Republican strategy.

I can't see why anyone would want to be president if the economy is tanked.

4. The only complication is that Wall St. donors might get pissed if the Republicans truly demo the economy. So there's a shot at a last minute deal and another shot at a deal in August. I don't see much chance of responsible policy though.

I'd think that the Republicans would be extremely concerned with what Wall St thinks, if the stereotype is true and they are all well off fat cats. As for responsible policy, shoot how often have we had that and has it ever lasted any longer than one term?


Alright, your direct deposit, then.

Merely an indication of how little you know about the subject.

It's money that comes from the government to you. Therefore, it's government money.

Which is a hell of a lot different than what you said at first. Face it, if I were over 65 and/or didn't hold views you disagree with, you wouldn't keep pissing and moaning about this. Which is your burden, not mine.

ETA: It's also been stated a number of times that such checks failing to go out is a possible consequence if this mess isn't straightened out.

And? Did I say anything to the contrary? Of course not.

[curlcoat]

Hey, don't let the fact that you don't actually know anything about a topic stop you from dropping into a thread and peppering it with platitudes and irrelevant tangets!

The current debt ceiling crisis is 100.0000% the fault of exactly one party. That would be the party that stated they would refuse to raise the debt ceiling (and thus risk a U.S. default on debt obligations) unless certain vague demands were met. Until now, the debt ceiling was raised routinely as needed to accomodate the spending that Congress had budgeted.

But, please, don't let the fact that you know fuck all stop you from chiming in with such helpful contributions as "that doesn't sound right to me" and "there are two sides to every story, you know!"

How about you just shut the hell up and actually try to understand what I post? Everything you say here is wrong, which you would know if you would read without bias.

Sheesh.

[Broomstick]

Which is a hell of a lot different than what you said at first. Face it, if I were over 65 and/or didn't hold views you disagree with, you wouldn't keep pissing and moaning about this. Which is your burden, not mine.
No, if you were over 65 and sucking on the social security teat instead of the disability one I'd still call you a hypocrite, because you are. You benefit from one of largest entitlement programs ever devised, while looking down your nose at others who also receive money from the government. In reality, you're no better than they are.

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

No, if you were over 65 and sucking on the social security teat instead of the disability one I'd still call you a hypocrite, because you are. You benefit from one of largest entitlement programs ever devised, while looking down your nose at others who also receive money from the government. In reality, you're no better than they are.

Even if curlcoat paid into it, and would've been happier pocketing the money instead of paying into SS every month, and now only wants the money back?

[curlcoat]

No, if you were over 65 and sucking on the social security teat instead of the disability one I'd still call you a hypocrite, because you are. You benefit from one of largest entitlement programs ever devised, while looking down your nose at others who also receive money from the government. In reality, you're no better than they are.

It simply amazes me that you cannot see the difference between a retirement plan (that was forced on me by the feds) and an entitlement program. Further, that you are either willing to lie about what you believe, or that you are actually dumb enough to state that you think that every senior getting SS is "sucking on the social security teat". Perhaps some day you will be able to look beyond your jealousy or whatever the hell your problem is and get perspective.

Even if curlcoat paid into it, and would've been happier pocketing the money instead of paying into SS every month, and now only wants the money back?

That's the thing, I did pay into it, for decades. Broomstick thinks that because SS has had it's funds plundered that my taking it is the same thing as people who spend their lives on the dole.

[Jas09]

Broomstick thinks that because SS has had it's funds plundered that my taking it is the same thing as people who spend their lives on the dole.Please tell me what federal government dole one can spend their entire life on?

[Broomstick]

That's the thing, I did pay into it, for decades. Broomstick thinks that because SS has had it's funds plundered that my taking it is the same thing as people who spend their lives on the dole.
There has been a 5 year lifetime limit on the so-called "dole" since the mid-1990's. In other words, it's been impossible to be on the dole for life for 15+ years now.

On top of that, quite a few people on government benefits used to be tax payers for years, even decades, and given half a chance will go back to be tax payers in the future.

You, on the other hand, will be extracting money from the government for the rest of your life.

[Ravenman]

Just to add a few more facts: the number of families on welfare (such as it is these days) has been reduced by more than 60%, and the amount spent on Temporary Assistance to Needy Families has been frozen for the last five years -- not "Washington DC frozen" where there are inflation adjustments, but real frozen as in the budget for TANF has not changed in that time: $16.489 billion.

Even if curlcoat paid into it, and would've been happier pocketing the money instead of paying into SS every month, and now only wants the money back? It isn't his money. There's no account at the Social Security Administration with a cash balance of how much you, I, or anyone else has paid in. Asking for the money back is as stupid as me going to State Farm and asking for my money back because I paid $1,400 in car insurance last year and I didn't get into a single accident.

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

It isn't his money. There's no account at the Social Security Administration with a cash balance of how much you, I, or anyone else has paid in. Asking for the money back is as stupid as me going to State Farm and asking for my money back because I paid $1,400 in car insurance last year and I didn't get into a single accident.

Oh, I know there's no account; that's why I never wanted to pay in to begin with -- and why the analogy needs to involve someone who hadn't wanted to pay State Farm in the first place, as curlcoat specified.

[Jas09]

Oh, I know there's no account; that's why I never wanted to pay in to begin with -- and why the analogy needs to involve someone who hadn't wanted to pay State Farm in the first place, as curlcoat specified.Ah, then your remedy is to elect politicians that want to repeal Social Security. Good luck! ;)

[Ravenman]

Oh, I know there's no account; that's why I never wanted to pay in to begin with -- and why the analogy needs to involve someone who hadn't wanted to pay State Farm in the first place, as curlcoat specified.How about this then?

"I don't have any children, why should I pay for public education?! If I want the American economy to collapse because we begin producing generations of illiterate children, then that's my own business and nobody else's! Nobody ever said knowledge of arithmetic is guaranteed in the Constitution, so poor children should either become rich and buy their own education, or they should go pound sand. Now get off my lawn!"

[user_hostile]

I can't see why anyone would want to be president if the economy is tanked.

"Whiff" [the diminutive of "Whoosh"]

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

How about this then?

"I don't have any children, why should I pay for public education?! If I want the American economy to collapse because we begin producing generations of illiterate children, then that's my own business and nobody else's! Nobody ever said knowledge of arithmetic is guaranteed in the Constitution, so poor children should either become rich and buy their own education, or they should go pound sand. Now get off my lawn!"

Not remotely the same thing.

Curlcoat never wanted to let the government hold that money in SS to begin with, and is now getting branded as a hypocrite for getting the money back. How does that compare to someone who doesn't want to pay for public education but -- has to and does? No analogy is perfect, but you're glossing over the key component.

[joebuck20]

Well, Obama just used his bully pulpit. Boehner is now on giving his take and of course they don't appear to see eye to eye at all.

[Broomstick]

The hypocrisy is not in getting the money back (and really, there's no "back" here, as noted, there is no account with her name on it), The hypocrisy is

1) Her continued insistence she doesn't accept any sort of government assistance while accepting government dollars every month, and

2) Looking down on others who get government assistant, but are not her kind of people.

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

The hypocrisy is not in getting the money back (and really, there's no "back" here, as noted, there is no account with her name on it), The hypocrisy is

1) Her continued insistence she doesn't accept any sort of government assistance while accepting government dollars every month, and

2) Looking down on others who get government assistant, but are not her kind of people.

The whole problem is that there's no account with her name on it. She didn't want them to hold her money at all; she didn't want them to hold it without putting it in a specific account in particular; she now gets characterized as "accepting government dollars" when she would've been happier to keep her own dollars throughout.

Do you truly not see that? It's not assistance; it's recompense.

[Broomstick]

She's on disability, not social security/retirement, OK? This is NOT her retirement money we're talking about, because she didn't work until retirement age.

Her being unable to work due to a disability is no more (and no less) her fault than someone accepting government money because their house burned down or was washed away in Katrina or a wildfire got out of control or corporate America decided to shed millions of jobs at once, unemploying millions of people who did nothing wrong. Yet she looks down on everyone else who takes government money for any reason, basically accusing them of being welfare queens and "on the dole for life" when, in fact, it is SHE who now has a indefinite allowance going forward, instead of being cut off after five years (TANF) or 18 months (SNAP) or 6 months (unemployment, without extensions, 99 weeks maximum extension) or whatever the defined limit of various programs happens to be. If it's OK for her to take money from the government then it should be OK for those others qualifying for assistance to take money.

[humanafterall]

The current debt ceiling crisis is 100.0000% the fault of exactly one party. That would be the party that stated they would refuse to raise the debt ceiling (and thus risk a U.S. default on debt obligations) unless certain vague demands were met. Until now, the debt ceiling was raised routinely as needed to accommodate the spending that Congress had budgeted.

Now is NOT the time for blame, now is the time to act. The guilty party, whoever they may be, will be discovered and held accountable. Though in my opinion, if you want to see who's guilty, go look in a mirror. I'm not picking on you specifically, I even know that I'm somewhat to blame for this, in some small way. We all are. but those who have caused the most trouble, the instigators will stand for their crimes in the end.

[Measure for Measure]

So, when they said they wanted the spending cuts 3 months ago, it was a lie? I believe the technical term is bullshitting. Here's a chart (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/07/the-chart-that-should-accompany-all-discussions-of-the-debt-ceiling/242484/) comparing policy changes of 2 Presidencies, GWBush (2002-2009) and Obama (2009-2017), with some spending plans going forward. You have to read it carefully, since Obama will probably propose new spending over the upcoming years. Still, there's no way you can look at that and say that Republicans care about the deficit: they just a) use it as a tool to bash the Dems with it and b) use it to paper over proposed cuts to the safety net.

That said though... look at the sort of plans that they've rejected. Reid recently proposed a plan with 100% spending cuts that they don't like. Here's the link again (http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2011/07/25/277811/harry-reid-calls-house-republicans-bluff/): what Republicans say they want differs from their actual agenda. Forget about their words: track their behavior. So, they aren't thinking like humans, they are only thinking "party line" and that's it? Er, what? They want to keep their jobs and capture the Presidency. I can't see why anyone would want to be president if the economy is tanked. Well, this economy is fixable, given sufficient stimulus. The Repubs would presumably pass huge tax cuts if they got into office. I'd think that the Republicans would be extremely concerned with what Wall St thinks, if the stereotype is true and they are all well off fat cats. As for responsible policy, shoot how often have we had that and has it ever lasted any longer than one term? With all due respect, your posts lack a certain level of substance to them. Again, federal spending declined as a share of GDP during the Clinton era, and he achieved budget surpluses. To the extent that he doesn't get credit for that, it's a problem, right? Right?

And it's a problem when Republicans pivot from responsible policy to mega-tax cuts for the rich, right? It's not like economic or job growth was that high during the 2000s. Here's a chart showing the GWBush tax cuts in dollar amounts to various income groups (http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2011/07/25/278270/obamas-worst-campaign-promise/).

This "Both sides are to blame" stuff is just lazy.

[Measure for Measure]

She's on disability, not social security/retirement, OK? This is NOT her retirement money we're talking about, because she didn't work until retirement age. In my experience many conservatives who are not on disability are highly suspicious of disability. They conceive of it as welfare. Social security is thought of differently.

To me, all of this is safety net stuff. That said, the Federal Government is basically a large pension plan that happens to have an army. Slashing welfare for the non-elderly won't get you very far: I wouldn't call the sums trivial, but they really aren't a big part of the budget, though they get a lot of play by the less than wholly informed.

[Measure for Measure]

Now is NOT the time for blame, now is the time to act. If the House Republicans were serious about acting, they would be negotiating a bipartisan agreement with the Senate. Instead they're basically busy trying to evade blame. The media will let them, because otherwise they will be accused of bias by whiners. The guilty party, whoever they may be, will be discovered and held accountable. Wishful thinking. Though in my opinion, if you want to see who's guilty, go look in a mirror. I'm not picking on you specifically, I even know that I'm somewhat to blame for this, in some small way. We all are. but those who have caused the most trouble, the instigators will stand for their crimes in the end. No, you look in the mirror. The first step is to understand the world as it is, not how project it to be.


Backing up some, non-parliamentary systems depend upon bipartisanship. The Republicans aren't interested in this: Mitch McConnell is pretty explicit about that. He has a strategy of obstructionism (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/01/mitch_mcconnell_the_most_hones.html). Thus the system breaks down. There's a reason that Presidential democratic systems survive for shorter periods of time than parliamentary ones.

[elucidator]

Funny comment picked up about Boehners speech. About how he's been there twenty years, but talks about Washington like he's an outsider.

[Enderw24]

Now is NOT the time for blame, now is the time to act. The guilty party, whoever they may be, will be discovered and held accountable. Though in my opinion, if you want to see who's guilty, go look in a mirror. I'm not picking on you specifically, I even know that I'm somewhat to blame for this, in some small way. We all are. but those who have caused the most trouble, the instigators will stand for their crimes in the end.

What in the hell does this mean? This almost sounds like a parody of the Katrina response.

See, we can assign blame. Because it's the Republicans who aren't acting. And we're blaming them for it.

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

She's on disability, not social security/retirement, OK? This is NOT her retirement money we're talking about, because she didn't work until retirement age.

If that's so, then I want to change my reply to Ravenman's analogy by reversing it: it's not that she wants back the money she paid an insurance company because nothing bad befell her; it's that she was forced to buy an insurance policy and now collects on the payout. I'm still not seeing a problem on her side; it's like someone swiping money out of my wallet to buy lottery tickets and then presenting me with the winnings.

[Broomstick]

Right - and people who are on unemployment paid into that (or their employers did) as a form of insurance, yet I see people (not necessarily in this thread - yet - but otherwise) criticizing those who accept unemployment. I worked 25 years before being laid off and paid my taxes and likewise see things like foodstamps as a form of safety net/insurance, paid for by my taxes to be there if I ever needed them. You do NOT just walk into a public aid off and say "gimme money" - my application for aid ran to 30 pages and was a cross between doing my taxes and taking a test. Nor is the aid indefinite in length - ALL of these programs have sharp cut-offs. NO ONE is ever on aid for life anymore, unless they're on some sort of disability like curlcoat - which is appropriate because if someone can not work then they shouldn't be left to starve.

Unfortunately, with discussions of not sending out money for things like social security, disability, food stamps, etc. then that is exactly what will happen - the poorest and least able to fend for themselves will be left to starve, lose their housing, and so forth.

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

Right - and people who are on unemployment paid into that (or their employers did) as a form of insurance, yet I see people (not necessarily in this thread - yet - but otherwise) criticizing those who accept unemployment.

But, as you say, you're not seeing that in this thread. You're seeing, as far as I can tell, someone being called a hypocrite for getting a return on an investment she paid into -- sure as you "worked 25 years before being laid off and paid my taxes and likewise see things like foodstamps as a form of safety net/insurance, paid for by my taxes to be there if I ever needed them." I don't see that anyone who sticks up for that must -- to be consistent -- endorse all government payouts, up to and including those made to folks who never purchased insurance to begin with.

[Ravenman]

Curlcoat never wanted to let the government hold that money in SS to begin with, and is now getting branded as a hypocrite for getting the money back. How does that compare to someone who doesn't want to pay for public education but -- has to and does? No analogy is perfect, but you're glossing over the key component.
The key component is that there is a subset of conservatives who can't possibly imagine that there can be a tremendous benefit to various things that the government does that may not benefit every single person in the country.

Social Security is not optional because it spreads risk around every working person in the country and returns the benefit of not having to deal with poor and indigent old or disabled people. As George Will once said, Social Security is the most fantastically successful government program in history. I'm not accusing that other poster of being a hypocrite, I'm accusing the other poster of being stupid, short-sighted and greedy.

Same thing with public education. It is a huge benefit to the country. Just like Social Security, everyone contributes to it, relatively few benefit directly, but everyone benefits indirectly, and substantially. Anyone who complains about public education (not the other poster we were talking about, but there have been such people on this board) is stupid, shortsighted, and greedy.

That's why my analogy is awesome.

[Broomstick]

Right now, most people receiving government benefits are like me - people who paid into the system.

The "welfare queen", "on the dole for life" people all got cut off no later than 2001. They're gone. OK, there are a very few coming as young adults but they are required to either look for work or get educated as a condition of receiving aid. And by "looking for work" that means documenting who you applied to, who you talked to, where an interview took place, how long the interview was, who interviewed you.... And the aid workers do call the prospective employer to confirm the details. It's much more intensive than what's required to receive unemployment insurance payments. Those in school are required to maintain a certain minimal grade average. If those conditions are not met aid is discontinued and, in most cases, they must wait at least six months to reapply.

For those like myself, who are employed but very low income, we must detail every aspect of our incomes and submit it on a regular basis. Really, it IS comparable to doing my taxes all over again every three months, it's that much paperwork. Of course, part of the reason is because, since I couldn't get anyone to hire me (yes, I did the document-the-work-search thing for awhile, that's why I know about it) I started a small business. Of course, since my assets were down to around $1,000 at that point and no one would lend me money it's woefully undercapitalized and growing extremely slowly. Alright, it's not growing at all, just barely holding even, but I am working, just not as much as anyone would like, and having to submit detailed reports on every aspect of the business, my home expenses, etc. When my Dad fronted me the money to travel to Buffalo to see the family I almost lost all that because it put me ten dollars over the income limit that month, and I had to get signed affidavits from not only Dad but every adult in the house I visited swearing up and down I was a blood relative and they weren't supporting me in any way, I wasn't living there, etc. for a one week visit. This notion that you can simply collect and collect and collect with no one watching you is wrong - aside from fraud, of course.

(Of course, some folks later told me the mistake was Dad sending me a check which went through my bank account. Public aid does require I give them access to my bank record as a condition of aid. Silly, former middle class me is just used to dealing with checks. Apparently, most of the savvy recipients either use Western Union or send cash through the mail... which, of course, is a reason people do that, despite it being a bad idea, because it's fucking stupid that someone being given $80 for gas and food for 1,000 mile round trip to visit relatives might lose their needed aid over it)

Oh, and I've been audited twice in the past three years - once while on unemployment, once while receiving food stamps. It sucked, although I was able to supply the needed information fairly quickly.

All too many people assume "welfare" is the same it was in, say, the 1970's. It's not. It hasn't been for 15 years. It is MUCH more limited, controlled, and policed. The notion that most of the people using the social safety net never paid into the system is woefully outdated. Most of them have. Most of them will again, once they're back on their feet, but right now instead of taking six months to find a job it's taking some people years to do so.

[curlcoat]

Please tell me what federal government dole one can spend their entire life on?

I didn't say federal.

There has been a 5 year lifetime limit on the so-called "dole" since the mid-1990's. In other words, it's been impossible to be on the dole for life for 15+ years now.

And yet, people still do it. This (http://truth-it.net/AMERICAN_WELFARE_SYSTEM.HTML) was just the first (non-UK) link I hit on a Google search - note, I have no idea if the site is biased or not. Plus, all you have to do to stay on just WIC in California is have a baby every five years or so, and even that is fuzzy. I can't even find a limit on how long one can stay on food stamps or MediCal/DentiCal - apparently as long as you have children, you can get benefits. Add that to the cites I provided in an earlier thread about the two and three generations of welfare families in (I think it was) the Atlanta area.

On top of that, quite a few people on government benefits used to be tax payers for years, even decades, and given half a chance will go back to be tax payers in the future.

And, of course, I am not talking about those folks, and, of course, you continue to choose to pretend otherwise.

You, on the other hand, will be extracting money from the government for the rest of your life.

Well, if the government decides to continue to pay them...

As I said, you would not have a problem with this if my views on welfare agreed with yours. Therefore, I'm not too concerned with what you think about my disability payments.

It isn't his money. There's no account at the Social Security Administration with a cash balance of how much you, I, or anyone else has paid in. Asking for the money back is as stupid as me going to State Farm and asking for my money back because I paid $1,400 in car insurance last year and I didn't get into a single accident.

"Her" money, and I know this. However, this does not negate the fact that the feds took this money from me for 35+ years and said I could have it back when (not if) I qualified for it. State Farm has never said that to you.

Oh, I know there's no account; that's why I never wanted to pay in to begin with -- and why the analogy needs to involve someone who hadn't wanted to pay State Farm in the first place, as curlcoat specified.

Exactly. I don't know why folks other than Broomstick (who is negatively biased) have so much trouble with this - perhaps they are just much younger than I am and didn't grow up and begin their working lives with the "iron clad promise" that was Social Security back then.

[curlcoat]

Yet she looks down on everyone else who takes government money for any reason.

Will you please quit lying about what I have said? I have told you, specifically, that is not true, yet you trot it out at every opportunity. If the only way you can win a point is by lying, I suggest you revisit your motives.

Still, there's no way you can look at that and say that Republicans care about the deficit: they just a) use it as a tool to bash the Dems with it and b) use it to paper over proposed cuts to the safety net.

That said though... look at the sort of plans that they've rejected. Reid recently proposed a plan with 100% spending cuts that they don't like. Here's the link again (http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2011/07/25/277811/harry-reid-calls-house-republicans-bluff/): what Republicans say they want differs from their actual agenda. Forget about their words: track their behavior. Er, what? They want to keep their jobs and capture the Presidency. Well, this economy is fixable, given sufficient stimulus. The Repubs would presumably pass huge tax cuts if they got into office.

So, in a nutshell, you are saying that the Republicans plan to do as much as they can to block any revival of the economy until the next presidential election, in hopes of getting one of their own in office?


With all due respect, your posts lack a certain level of substance to them.

I wouldn't doubt that - I quit paying close attention to this around the Nixon years and any attention when Bush Sr was in office. OTOH, I am not sure that who the President is makes that much difference in the long run - one of the reasons that I gave up paying attention is that who the POTUS is makes zero impact on me, and it never has. Since I cannot control what he is doing, nor what Congress is doing, and since it isn't affecting me, it just seems like there is no reason to spend the time, effort and brain cells on it.

And it's a problem when Republicans pivot from responsible policy to mega-tax cuts for the rich, right? It's not like economic or job growth was that high during the 2000s. Here's a chart showing the GWBush tax cuts in dollar amounts to various income groups (http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2011/07/25/278270/obamas-worst-campaign-promise/).

Wouldn't there be a bigger benefit as you go up in income, due to the fact that there was more income to tax to begin with? That's probably not clear- what I am trying to say is looking at raw numbers might be misleading since someone making $1 million is paying more tax to begin with than someone making $20,000. It also doesn't say anything about whether all else was equal - was the $20,000 writing off four kids vs whatever people who make $1 million write off.

This "Both sides are to blame" stuff is just lazy.

I don't think so, if you are looking at it beyond the last couple of decades. It may be true that our current crop of Republican leaders in DC are a pack of hyenas, but to paint the whole party with that same brush? And try to pretend that the opposite party is all sweetness and light? Seems extremely illogical if nothing else.

[foolsguinea]

CHRIS MATTHEWS: How many days do you think we have, on the outside, to get this debt ceiling through before we have a problem? How many days?

LEE: I don’t know, maybe ten days.

MATTHEWS: Okay, in ten days you want to change the United States Constitution by two-thirds vote in both houses? That’s what you’re demanding.

LEE: Yes. If possible we can’t change the Constitution just in Congress but we can submit it to the states. Let the states fight it out.

MATTHEWS: And you think you’re being reasonable by saying you want a two-thirds vote in the House, which is Republican, and in the Senate which is Democrat. You want the Democratic Senate, by a two-thirds vote, to pass a constitutional amendment or you want the house to come down?

LEE: Yes. That’s exactly what I’m saying and I’ve been saying this for six months.What these people are up to is an effort to take a one-off election victory, and use it to permanently alter the government of the USA, and alter it in such a way as to make it effectively impossible to turn back. They are trying to destroy the "majority rules" premise of our government, much like they did when they make 60 votes in the Senate the effective limit by screaming "filibuster!" every ten minutes.

Its no longer about persuading a majority of the people to agree with you, its about denying and destroying the capacity of a majority to govern. They see themselves as losing the game, and so they want to change the rules. And they are desperate enough to take any chance, risk any disaster, to have their way.

Barry Goldwater would puke his guts out.
(http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14066127&postcount=273)
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/07/25/278811/lee-admits-he-is-an-extortionist/

You're on the list, Mike.

[Broomstick]

I didn't say federal.
Then please name a STATE dole you can stay on for life. Or a county or any other level of "dole".

And yet, people still do it. This (http://truth-it.net/AMERICAN_WELFARE_SYSTEM.HTML) was just the first (non-UK) link I hit on a Google search - note, I have no idea if the site is biased or not.
It contains gross inaccuracies.

1) It says welfare needs to be temporary - it IS! Since 1996 no one get lifetime benefits anymore (unless it's disability, like curlcoat)

2) It says those on welfare need to document a job search - this is already the case. You must either be looking for a job, in school, or employed (because yes, you can be employed but so low income you qualify for some type of assistance, which will be scaled according to your income.

3) My public aid office is plastered with signs about workshops on basic decorum, interviewing skills, etc. They don't insist on "office decorum" because not everyone works in an office but they certainly offer them.

4) Tutoring programs for children on welfare? Lets begin with Head Start, which has been around since 1965 and go from there. There ARE such programs for children on welfare, there have been for decades, and the biggest problem is lack of funding.

So... you grabbed the first thing you found on Google and it's full of misinformation. Good job. :rolleyes:

Plus, all you have to do to stay on just WIC in California is have a baby every five years or so, and even that is fuzzy.
Right, because it's for pregnant and breastfeeding women and their infants. There are huge societal savings to making sure pregnant women get adequate nutrition Or would you rather foot the lifetime bill of someone with, say severe spina bifida that could have been prevented with a better diet for his or her mom? Because, you know, hydrocephalus, paralysis, and wheelchairs are so damn cheap, right? It kicks in every time a woman gets pregnant, and contrary to what you believe, not every woman on welfare is a baby machine.

I can't even find a limit on how long one can stay on food stamps
No more than three months out of every 36 UNLESS you are either working or in a "work program" - meaning training, program to get you employed, or school. If you can't be arsed to do one of those three you're cut off after three months. If you are doing one of them then you can continue to receive benefits.

This shouldn't be hard for you to discover.

or MediCal/DentiCal
Hey, those are your state programs, why would I know anything about them?

apparently as long as you have children, you can get benefits.
No. There is a five years out of a lifetime limit on "welfare" benefits, now known as Temporary Assistance to Needy Families or TANF. Let's take a hypothetical "welfare family" - mom and first kid go on TANF. After five years, their benefits are exhausted for the rest of their lives. Oh! But mom has a new baby! Well, OK, she gets WIC for that pregnancy... but mom and the first kid can never get TANF again. She gets it for the second kid, for five years... and is now supporting three people on an allotment sized for just one. Has another kid? She's supporting four people on the allotment for one.

And, of course, since mom burned through the kid's lifetime amount of benefits when they were infants/toddlers these kids can NEVER get that assistance again - if they have a baby at 18 they can NOT get TANF for themselves. Ever. They'll get an allotment for the kid, but not for them, so they'll be supporting two on the allotment of one.

And it only applies to people with children. I can NEVER get TANF because I never had children.

By the way - the 60 month limit is the maximum. States are free to set shorter time limits. If your state doesn't and you think that's a good idea, well, call you're state reps and give them an earful. Oh, and a child's paternity must be declared for TANF to be received, as when that happens, the state goes after daddy for child support, at least in my state. If paternity is not declared then nothing.

Add that to the cites I provided in an earlier thread about the two and three generations of welfare families in (I think it was) the Atlanta area.
Since 1996 it has been impossible for a person to be on "welfare" for life. Impossible. I don't doubt there is persistent poverty, but then, when you cut off benefits after five years whether the family's lot in life has improved or not why are you surprised they never climb out of the hole?

Given the gross inaccuracies in your other "research" I question the validity of these so-called multigenerational welfare families you claim exist.

As I said, you would not have a problem with this if my views on welfare agreed with yours.
I dislike you because you're a raging hypocrite. You look down on people who receive any sort of government assistance yet receive money monthly from the government. You are hateful, disdainful, and assume anyone who is poor is filthy human trash. Yes, I despise you.

"Her" money, and I know this. However, this does not negate the fact that the feds took this money from me for 35+ years and said I could have it back when (not if) I qualified for it.
No, the money you're taking now you had to qualify for. When you're 65, THEN you get the money you were promised if you lived long enough.

[septimus]

I don't think so, if you are looking at [Republican politics] beyond the last couple of decades.

What?? :confused: :confused: :confused:

I don't think so, if you are looking at [Republican politics] beyond the last couple of decades.

That's what I thought you said.

When Republicans establish their credentials with long-dead statesmen like Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, or even Reagan or Goldwater, you know they're desperate.

We don't assign blame to present-day Germans for what the Nazis did. For the same reason it makes no sense whatsoever to assign credit to the "Republicans" of today for GOP behavior when it was a legitimate Party not operated, as today, by lunatics and hypocrites for the benefit of an evil elite.

Thank you.

[curlcoat]

I snipped a bunch of stuff from this post because Broomstick is apparently using the laws in her state re: welfare to tell me what my state is doing.

Right, because it's for pregnant and breastfeeding women and their infants. There are huge societal savings to making sure pregnant women get adequate nutrition Or would you rather foot the lifetime bill of someone with, say severe spina bifida that could have been prevented with a better diet for his or her mom? Because, you know, hydrocephalus, paralysis, and wheelchairs are so damn cheap, right? It kicks in every time a woman gets pregnant, and contrary to what you believe, not every woman on welfare is a baby machine.

The question was, "how does one stay on welfare for life", not "is any given program a good idea".

<more snippage for the same reason>

Hey, those are your state programs, why would I know anything about them?

Since you were trying to do so for other programs, why stop now?

No. There is a five years out of a lifetime limit on "welfare" benefits, now known as Temporary Assistance to Needy Families or TANF. Let's take a hypothetical "welfare family" - mom and first kid go on TANF. After five years, their benefits are exhausted for the rest of their lives. Oh! But mom has a new baby! Well, OK, she gets WIC for that pregnancy... but mom and the first kid can never get TANF again. She gets it for the second kid, for five years... and is now supporting three people on an allotment sized for just one. Has another kid? She's supporting four people on the allotment for one.

Even Wiki doesn't agree with you on this one. "In enforcing the 60-month time limit, some states place limits on the adult portion of the assistance only, while still aiding the otherwise eligible children in the household"

And it only applies to people with children.

Which, of course, I have pointed out numerous times.

I can NEVER get TANF because I never had children.

When did this become about you? Oh, that's right - you have an issue with me having a better standard of living than you, or that you think I deserve, or whatever it is.


<more snippage of stuff that has nothing to do with the subject>

Since 1996 it has been impossible for a person to be on "welfare" for life. Impossible. I don't doubt there is persistent poverty, but then, when you cut off benefits after five years whether the family's lot in life has improved or not why are you surprised they never climb out of the hole?

Except, they don't cut them off here. Perhaps in your state, but not here.

I dislike you because you're a raging hypocrite. You look down on people who receive any sort of government assistance yet receive money monthly from the government. You are hateful, disdainful, and assume anyone who is poor is filthy human trash. Yes, I despise you.

HA! You despise me for things you have made up out of whole cloth! What a twit.

No, the money you're taking now you had to qualify for. When you're 65, THEN you get the money you were promised if you lived long enough.

Uh, the difference between qualifying due to disability and qualifying due to age at retirement is...?

When Republicans establish their credentials with long-dead statesmen like Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, or even Reagan or Goldwater, you know they're desperate.

I am not a Republican, I am not trying to establish anyone's credentials and I am not talking about anything as far back as Roosevelt or Lincoln. Broomstick has already made an idiot of herself (again) for jumping to conclusions, I don't think we really need two.

[septimus]

In an article from Reuters we learn that the debt deadline is just more bullshit from the libtards:
"The first risk of a legitimate default is August 15," said Ward McCarthy, chief financial economist and managing director at Jefferies & Co. "Cash is not going to be an immediate problem. The debt ceiling space is not going to be an immediate problem."

McCarthy and other Wall Street analysts predict that the Treasury will have enough cash to meet its early-to-mid August obligations, including $23 billion in Social Security payments to the elderly and disabled on August 3.

That view lends credence to claims that some Republicans have been making for days now that the U.S. government will be able to keep functioning and paying its bills even if there is no deal by August 2.

I think we should start calling it ObamaScare, rhyming with ObamaCare, to help people remember this man's cynical methods.

I still believe the debt ceiling should not be raised by a single penny until a Constitutional Balanced Budget Amendment is passed, but righteous thinkers need to wait until August 14 to start that process, to ensure there is real pressure on the Democratic Socialists. Those who say one day is not enough time to pass a Constitutional Amendment are just too used to the glacial pace of government workers when Democrats are in charge.

Also at Reuters we learn this:
Experts are starting to put a dollar figure on the possible economic fallout if America loses its triple-AAA credit rating. Economists say it will cost the U.S. $100 billion in additional interest payments and hurt both consumers and the economy. Some on Wall Street say Washington will avoid default, but may not avoid the downgrade. Tom Roth: "The expectation is that there is a likelihood, I think at this point, that we do see a downgrade of the long-term treasury rating of the United States."

A lousy $100 billion and the libtards are getting all into a tizzy about it. They didn't think that was a lot of money when they wanted to steal it from the rich or give it all to welfare bums. They pretend it's not a lot of money when they waste it on the space program, nanny government programs like Head Start or propaganda like NPR. But now they're boo-hooing about it as if they were the ones who really love America.

Democrats are such hypocrites.

[user_hostile]

In an article from Reuters we learn that the debt deadline is just more bullshit from the libtards:


I think we should start calling it ObamaScare, rhyming with ObamaCare, to help people remember this man's cynical methods.

I still believe the debt ceiling should not be raised by a single penny until a Constitutional Balanced Budget Amendment is passed, but righteous thinkers need to wait until August 14 to start that process, to ensure there is real pressure on the Democratic Socialists. Those who say one day is not enough time to pass a Constitutional Amendment are just too used to the glacial pace of government workers when Democrats are in charge.

Also at Reuters we learn this:


A lousy $100 billion and the libtards are getting all into a tizzy about it. They didn't think that was a lot of money when they wanted to steal it from the rich or give it all to welfare bums. They pretend it's not a lot of money when they waste it on the space program, nanny government programs like Head Start or propaganda like NPR. But now they're boo-hooing about it as if they were the ones who really love America.

Democrats are such hypocrites.

[Homer Simpson] Oh septimus, will you ever stop being the class clown? [/Homer Simpson]

[Broomstick]

The question was, "how does one stay on welfare for life", not "is any given program a good idea".
It is physically impossible for a woman to be pregnant for her entire life.

Even Wiki doesn't agree with you on this one. "In enforcing the 60-month time limit, some states place limits on the adult portion of the assistance only, while still aiding the otherwise eligible children in the household"
If the state in which you reside decides to provide additional benefits that is the choice of the people of that state - it does not alter the Federal rules on the Federal program known as TANF. If those same children moved to another state that was not so generous they'd be instantly cut off.

Except, they don't cut them off here. Perhaps in your state, but not here.
Then take it up with your state government - don't assume that everywhere else is exactly like California.

Uh, the difference between qualifying due to disability and qualifying due to age at retirement is...?
You get retirement simply by living long enough, and you get it even if you are ABLE to continue working but choose not to - something you continually accuse the poor of doing (true or not).

Disability is not something you automatically get (you have to PROVE disability) and only a minority of people ever receive, and the money the disabled receive is provided by money paid in by other people, a fact you seem unable to grasp.

[Broomstick]

I still believe the debt ceiling should not be raised by a single penny until a Constitutional Balanced Budget Amendment is passed, but righteous thinkers need to wait until August 14 to start that process, to ensure there is real pressure on the Democratic Socialists. Those who say one day is not enough time to pass a Constitutional Amendment are just too used to the glacial pace of government workers when Democrats are in charge.
First of all, it DOES take more than one day to pass a constitutional amendment because, after passing Congress, it must be ratified by 3/4 of the states, or did you somehow forget that? Or never knew it in the first place? Until it's ratified it's not in effect.

Second, I think a BBA is a bad idea because it ties the hands of government in the event of a national emergency. I don't think we should have unbalanced budgets normally, but once in a while borrowing makes a hell of a lot of sense. The problem isn't borrowing or debt, it's that it hasn't been properly managed.

Third, there is NOTHING stopping Congress from submitting and passing balanced budgets NOW - so why don't they? And if they are, for some reason, incapable, how is passing a BBA going to change things?

For an example - look at a state like Illinois, which has a BBA, and is in total financial mess right now. A BBA doesn't solve the underlying problem of fiscal mis-management, it's just a feel good measure to appease the electorate before the politicians go back to screwing things up.

[septimus]

First of all, it DOES take more than one day to pass a constitutional amendment because, after passing Congress, it must be ratified by 3/4 of the states, or did you somehow forget that? Or never knew it in the first place? Until it's ratified it's not in effect.

Oh, is August 14 a weekend or something? I didn't check. Do it the Friday before then. If the libtards in the state legislatures try to take Friday off, we can call them on it.

[Fear Itself]

OIf the libtards in the state legislatures try to take Friday off, we can call them on it.Oooh, I'm sure the very thought of that strikes terror into the hearts of liberals everywhere.

[kaylasdad99]

Oh, is August 14 a weekend or something? I didn't check. Do it the Friday before then. If the libtards in the state legislatures try to take Friday off, we can call them on it.Just curious: what is the process by which a state approves an amendment for ratification? Is it normally done by referendum / plebiscite or are all fifty State Legislatures empowered to signal approval on their own?

P.S. August 14 is a Sunday.


And you're an idiot.

[Broomstick]

If I recall correctly, it can be done either way.

[kaylasdad99]

Evidently not, if septimus has anything to say about it.

[curlcoat]

It is physically impossible for a woman to be pregnant for her entire life.

Apparently the Duggar woman is trying, but yes she cannot be pregnant her entire life unless she dies young. However, it isn't necessary that the female adult in a household have all the children. You really don't know how these things work, do you?

If the state in which you reside decides to provide additional benefits that is the choice of the people of that state - it does not alter the Federal rules on the Federal program known as TANF. If those same children moved to another state that was not so generous they'd be instantly cut off.

Since you are now completely off subject, this looks like you are backpedaling.

Then take it up with your state government - don't assume that everywhere else is exactly like California.

I never did. You brought up the laws of places I don't pay taxes to, not me.

You should really study what you have done here and see how it is an example of how you build this fictional life for me (and then despise it). Somehow, from my saying "the dole", you decided this had to mean only federal money, and only a few programs. Then you moved to trying to "prove" your point by quoting information from a state other than the one I pay taxes to. All the while ignoring every time I point out where you are wrong.

Here are the actual facts - I resent having to pay quite a bit of tax to support people who have little or no interest in doing so themselves. (Due to cultural differences, this is a bigger problem in California than many or most other states.) Why do you think the fed cut TANF to just five years? Because there were a significant number of people who chose to live their lives on welfare, and even with the new rules, there are still people who figure out how to game the system.

OTOH, I have no problem with people on unemployment, retirement, or anyone on any program they are trying to get off of. Shit happens and at times people need a leg up, but that is all it is supposed to be. On yet a third hand, that doesn't mean that people who live at or beyond their means should be allowed to use these programs as their go to fall back plan, as many seemed to do when the bottom fell out of the housing bubble.

You get retirement simply by living long enough, and you get it even if you are ABLE to continue working but choose not to - something you continually accuse the poor of doing (true or not).

Disability is not something you automatically get (you have to PROVE disability) and only a minority of people ever receive, and the money the disabled receive is provided by money paid in by other people, a fact you seem unable to grasp.

:rolleyes: Ok, I'm not going to take up any more time now to respond to your back pedaling and attempts to move the goalposts.

[septimus]

And you're an idiot.

I just noticed your secret message. :D

Am I to infer you didn't guess my postings were intended to be an hilarious parody of right-wing idiots? If so, I should apologize for not adding a laughing-face icon.

On the other hand, it does show how idiotic the idiots have become, if an hilarious parody is a believable imitation of genuine right-wing "thought."