The Shutdown is Shot Down! (At Least Til Next Thursday!)
Hoo boy, President Obama is telling us that Congress and he compromised so the government could get back to work.
Obama hit all the high (read: low) lights possible: The Washington Monument (it will stay open!), Winning the Future (which you really can't spell without WTF), and, yes goddammit, the children (for whom DC leaders care so much that they are giving the kids a shitload of debt).
This new short-term continuing resolution lasts all the way to next to next Thursday, so why don't those pols sleep in for a couple of days. Before they fund the rest of this fiscal year and then get started on looking at FY2012 budgets that raise spending by as much as $2 trillion over the next decade (as Obama's bold and austere plan does).
We dodged a bullet this time. Here's what might happen if we're not so lucky the next time a president whose party controls both house of Congress can't pass a budget on time:
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
FUCK!
I was looking to PARTY !
I was going to take the bolt cutters and go fishing, civil-disobedience-style, in a "closed" national recreation area. I'll schedule the revolution for next Thursday Damnit!
Not going to happen. Even if it did, all of your employers will still enforce out tax laws. They take your money and fund us, effectively making them extensions of the IRS,
Even if the govt' did close down, we federal employees would, and, during past shutdowns always have earned our pay. We are paid retroactively even though we do nothing because the services we offer are so valuable.
Services like not putting you people in prison for tax evasion - you americans in the "land of the free, home of the BRAVE" will pay almost anything for that.
http://youareproperty.blogspot.....ouble.html
I tried that last time the government supposedly "shut down" and they still had enough money to keep me out of the national parks.
The only solution is to forget about revolutions or voting in a ballot booth and instead, vote with your feet. Alternatively, imagine living with a responsible government like Hong Kong, in a Mediterranean climate like California. Chile offers a combination of pleasant climate and fewer government burdens than many others. If you're ready to shed the debt your government has imposed upon you, it is a good destination to consider:
http://brophyworld.com/move-to-santiago-chile/
They have to have surveillance on every locked gate. You don't just cut the one where you are going...open em' all.Most people would have no idea the government "shut down" if the gate is open.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaI5IRuS2aE
This is terrible news.
That some people thought, encouraged by the media, that they couldn't live without the federal government for a few days is a sign the government is too big.
Nonsense, you couldn't make it 3 hours without your masters. You'd be like those zombies that came wandering across the East German border after the wall came down, not even able to feed yourselves without us feds, AKA your masters.
You don't even realize how badly even you "libertarians" depend on us at the government to spoon feed you.
You have nothing to worry about, we're not letting 300 million + subdued servants of us feds go free; keeping you in oblivious bondage is very lucrative for us.
http://youareproperty.blogspot.....attle.html
You really suck at this. Stop it. Now.
Government Man!!!
My eternal foe!!!
Once again, the roads are safe and Somalia is averted.
And it's all thanks to me, son!
What's a non-essential government service?
Most of them
Apparently nothing.
A redundant phrase.
The milk enema subsidies were saved, right?
Ooooh, yes!
*places post 1986 machine gun in case, affixes return to sender sticker*
...a sad face ensues
Yep, I could tell! At 12AM east coast time, the lights didn't go off on the west coast!
We're SAVED!
Or something.....
BTW, I presume every one of the assholes involved will be patting themselves on the back for actually doing what they're paid to do.
In my business, doing so would mean you don't quite get fired.
orders
HEY! OVER HERE! LOOK AT ME!!!!!
assholes ... patting themselves on the back
LOOOOOOOOOOOOVE MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Let me be clear, these cuts hurt. They were in areas that are important, but they needed to be made. Most important of all, we need to win the future. These cuts will not delay that victory.
There are still six days to fix this budget. I will rest on the seventh, just like my father, Yahweh, did.
Military and Defense spending will not only continue, but will be increased over the objections of the naysayers. Our humanitarian role in the Middle East will continue unabated.
Bottom line - I am disappoint. I wanted a shutdown REAL BAD.
Oh well.
Yeah. We've been cheated out of a great round of the blame game, and just when it seemed like it was getting good with Reid accusing Republicans of being blood-thirsty mammogram-deniers and Boehner questioning Democrats' loyalty to the troops.
It's like no one wants a spectacle anymore.
Planned Parenthood doesn't do mammograms -they only pretend they do on TV
http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler.....ammograms/
The blame game will almost surely devolve to "TEH LIBERTERRIENZZZZ!!!", particularly on sites like HuffPo and KOS.
It's always amusing watching leftist tards rail away at libertarian philosophy as if we controlled the world or some shit.
Kochtopus!!
I know, right? We spend as much time arguing about pizza vs. deep-dish slop and discussing beer and music as we do politics, yet the Team Blue yo-yos seem to think we mastermind every policy Team Red comes up with.
Of course, most of Team Red seems to think we're just a bunch of hippie-stoners who want to inject heroin into the eyeballs of newborns and distribute porn and condoms to 8-year old's at the mall.
inject heroin into the eyeballs of newborns and distribute porn and condoms to 8-year old's at the mall.
DON'T JUDGE ME, YOU BASTARDS -- !!!
Several people have said it, but it bears repeating: Koch has become the Soros figure to the left.
But twice as scary.
I like how Obama is touting that the $38B compromise as "the biggest annual spending cut in history" when it's about 2% of the annual federal deficit.
Let me be clear, this cut is unprecedented. Yet in order to win the future, it is crucial.
#winning
Actually Tulpa I would think what might be more distressing for you is that a cut of 2% of the annual deficet is likely in some sense "the biggest annual spending cut in history."
Bonus points to the professor who was asking me today at lunch what the difference between debt and deficit was. I guess I come across as the one who really knows technical finance terminology in my clique.
correct me if I'm wrong, but one is the integral of the other, right? They stopped teaching calculus to PhDs long ago.
This was the most transparently ham-handed fakeout in a long time. Nobody wanted a shutdown, though some Dems might not have been exactly paralyzed in fear over the prospect. Boner played hardball by holding women's health and the natural environment hostage, and we cut funding that might do damage but which certainly won't meaningfully affect deficits at all. Maybe by 2012 we can get back to governing without having to bother with the screaming toddlers demanding lollipops.
the screaming toddlers demanding lollipops.
Now, now. No need to drag the poor, put-upon SEIU into all of this, is there?
By 2012, we'll have the draft reinstated and that will be social justice to force all of those naysayers and chickenhawks into the sands of Africa and Asia -- with no lollipops.
Tony will volunteer for BushPig Obama's vanguard fighting force.
Tony will volunteer for BushPig Obama's vanguard fighting force.
The bombed-upon brown people of Libya shall welcome him as a liberator, doubtless.
"Maybe by 2012 we can get back to governing without having to bother with the screaming toddlers demanding lollipops."
Is that the royal we? I don't think they're going to make you dictator, sorry.
Is that the royal we?
Tony faithfully includes me in the decision-making process, re: ALL of his postings.
Doubtless, Tony's "solution" to the onrushing doomsday debt crisis would most likely resemble that of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which includes the following insanities, re: "restoring long-term fiscal solvency:
"[D]ramatically increasing payroll taxes on both the employer and employee side, and funneling the money into even more generous benefits."
"[A]n additional $1.45 trillion in economic stimulus spending."
Never waste precious time arguing with an out-and-out lunatic, folks: their frothing, pop-eyed mania renders them virtually tireless... and you'll never manage to out-shout the angry beehives of voices in their respective heads, in any event.
Nobody wanted a shutdown
I did.
Maybe by 2012 we can get back to governing without having to bother with the screaming toddlers demanding lollipops.
I agree. What the Dems and unions did to hold Wisconsin government hostage was pretty immature.
what might happen if we're not so lucky the next time a president whose party controls both house of Congress can't pass a budget on time
In California it's a long a and honored tradition. The legislature can't even agree to spend a whole shit-load more money than they can afford to on time.
Why you do think Obama had to discuss starting a new war in Libya with Italy, France,and England? Our congress would still be talking about it two years from now.
Seriously, at this stage of the game, is there anything we can do that would shame, coerce, or persuade these jerks in congress to get the fucking check book balanced?
Nah,I didn't think so. Party on boys and girls, you've a little more time before the walls cave in.
It's nights like this that I usually drop a Benjamin in the tip jar for Reason Foundation. Keep fighting the good fight!
Poor Benjamin-why are you sex trafficking him?
Of course your mind would go straight to sex, small dick libertarian.
No shutdown? Blast. I was so looking forward to the wailing from all those non-essential employees and the lamentations of the Left. Republicans really ought to be more gung-ho about shutting down government, since about the only people who'd really suffer from a shutdown are all the parasites at the public trough whose campaign contributions mostly go to Democrats anyway. A few Republican donors would be hit too, but who needs them? The voters who'd revel in the suffering of government leeches far outnumber those who'd feel sorry for them.
I think Tony is right -I thought both the R and D were playing the public
"I think"
I'll stop you right there babe. I don't.
"all the parasites at the public trough"
Gotta love this kind of talk.
""all the parasites at the public trough"
Gotta love this kind of talk."
Yes, when you have no valid response, just act bored.
Well, I guess I could talk about equating human beings to parasites and how that has gone historically or I could have noted that for that analogy to work the host (the public) would have to have asked for the parasite and the parasite would perform some function the host asked it to, but hey, why not just laugh at it?
Yep. You've got no valid response.
---"I could have noted that for that analogy to work the host (the public) would have to have asked for the parasite and the parasite would perform some function the host asked it to"---
Parasitism or symbiosis, how does that work.
MNG|4.9.11 @ 1:36PM|#
"Well, I guess I could talk about equating human beings to parasites and how that has gone historically or I could have noted that for that analogy to work the host (the public) would have to have asked for the parasite and the parasite would perform some function the host asked it to,"
Yes, and you could have added even more of your typical weaseling and your ducking and weaving and you *still* wouldn't have offered anything worthy of consideration. You've simply stated: "I'm right!"
"but hey, why not just laugh at it?"
Why not? Dipshits (that would be you) who can't offer anything else do exactly that.
MNG, if you were half as smart as you believe, your posts might be worth considering. You're not; you're an egocentric, ignorant asshole.
MNG is to actual, verifiable intelligence as Snoopy is to World War I flying ace.
You have to love the GOP shill-bots around here. They criticize my post saying "where is the substance?" I provide and then we get four straight substance-less rebuttals-from them.
Keep flinging it at the wall boys, maybe some will stick!
Yep. You've got no valid response.
It is kind of a strange mixed metaphor; "parasites at the public trough" brings to mind parasites that infect anyone who eats at the public trough, which is probably not what was intended.
Maybe I've been watching too much Monsters Inside Me
Think of it this way: what's in the public trough is your blood. Of course, according to MNG here, you asked these parasites here to drink it. Do you remember asking anything like that of these parasites? I sure don't.
See Tulpa, these people are blood sucking parasites! Where have we heard that before?
If you're gonna play the Godwin card, play it. Don't do this passive aggressive bullshit.
I was so looking forward to the wailing from all those non-essential employees and the lamentations of the Left.
Weigel Whines: "Boehner Wins, Austerity Wins, and the Social Conservatives Go Home With A 'Participant' Trophy"
(http://www.slate.com/BLOGS/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/04/09/the-shutdown-wrap-boehner-wins-austerity-wins-and-the-social-conservatives-go-home-with-a-participant-trophy.aspx)
Klein Snivels: "This is a bad deal. And the way Democrats are selling it makes it much, much worse."
(http://twitter.com/#!/ezraklein/status/56591724482535424)
Ask, and ye shall receive. 😉
Proper links to the cited, above:
Weigel Whines: "Boehner Wins, Austerity Wins, and the Social Conservatives Go Home With A 'Participant' Trophy"
Klein Snivels: "This is a bad deal. And the way Democrats are selling it makes it much, much worse."
Yeah, but then Weigel and Klein throw hissy fits if they don't get enough foam on their frappuccinos.
Weigel and Klein throw hissy fits if they don't get enough foam on their frappuccinos.
They're the sort of natural born prison bitches who routinely end up being raped by moderately larger prison bitches.
Prison bitches eh? I guess blood sucking parasites wasn't bold enough for ya.
Weigel really isn't that bad as far as lefty pundits go. Perhaps a few molecules of libertarianism rubbed off at him during his tenure at Reason.
That's Diet Wailing and Lamentation Lite we're hearing there: less filling, and not quite as nutritious, alas.
So the numbnuts in Washington figured out the debt ceiling wouldn't be reached for another week. What a farce.
In lieu of the ordinary morning links this Saturday, God Save the Queen!!!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/fem.....esque.html
Ooh la la! This could make me change my aversion to royalty...But of course the real question is, would Epi turn his nose up at Katrina?
It is the future queen's cousin. That is hysterical.
This is the same group that a few generations ago was scandalized because one them was going to marry a school teacher. How the mighty have fallen...
Queen Consort, John. She's not technically Queen, just as Elizabeth's husband isn't technically King.
C'mon. I thought the armpit hair was a Continental thing.
Dis-gusting.
What the fuck happened to the prince?!?! (bottom photo)
He use to be hot (nohomo) now he looks like a shoe.
Kate has also looked better in other pictures...
lol, great. Let the wasteful spending continue lol.
http://www.Anonymous-Toolz.tk
Dois Mos, so good to see you! OMG! Remember when you used to punch your clown like 20 times a day and had to go see a shrink? LOL Good to see they let you out. I mean really.
Jess
http://www.anon-lol.com
There's not a goddamn thing wrong with punching some stinking clown, dammit!
Well, I'm a fed worker. I'm in charge of a diagnostic service providing rapid testing unavailable anywhere else for a smallish group of patients (a few hundred a year). We were going to have to stop accepting any new samples and only finish up the ones we already had received. And we've just had notice of some samples from kids (yes, think of the children!). I was sick with worry about not getting to those. At the same time, I was kinda looking forward to a week of video games and drinking.
...unavailable anywhere else...
Bwahahahahaha. [gasps. catches breath] Bwahahahahaha.
...unavailable anywhere else...
[laughs hysterically while wiping tears from eyes]
Stop, please. You're killing me.
"...fed worker....rapid..."
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Actually it's true. Rapid molecular testing, 24 hr turn around time. Too small a patient base for commercial labs to look at and few states/localities have the resources to do even a part of the testing we do. Sorry to burst your Ryandian fantasy but that's the way it is.
Rapid molecular testing, 24 hr turn around time. Too small a patient base for commercial labs to look at and few states/localities have the resources to do even a part of the testing we do.
Linky-linky?
Yeah, "rapid molecular testing" sounds like something somebody heard in a movie that they thought sounded 'technical'.
"Too small a patient base for commercial labs to look at."
So then set up a charity.
lol where's the love? 😉 I'll think of you fondly when I'm collecting my one gov't pension at age 55 and still collecting a 6 figure salary towards my second gov't branch pension. *kisses*
Just curious, how critical is the timing on this testing?
Prviatization Debate in my Area and Nationwide
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....l?hpid=z10
Opponents of the deal call public libraries, like fire or police protection, the epitome of local government service. And even in these shaky financial times, they shudder at the idea of libraries being run by a firm looking to make money.
I will say that I'm uncomfortable with privatization when that involves taxpayers paying private firms to perform government tasks. That's a corruption magnet. Having government do it directly or leaving it totally to markets strikes me as better.
Well you're half right. Government is the corruption magnet, whether it's collecting the funding or doing that and the job.
MNG|4.9.11 @ 8:30AM|#
"I will say that I'm uncomfortable with privatization when that involves taxpayers paying private firms to perform government tasks."
Care to define "government tasks"?
Things the government pays for in this instance.
How dare those people put on a private cowboy poetry festival. What's next? Somalia1!!
Idiot.
So if a government pays for something, it becomes a 'government task'?
Now you're getting it! Welcome to the wonderful world of Statism, Komm?ade!
The nice thing to know about sevo's stupidity is that it comes with an equal helping of predictability. I said in this instance for a reason, because my point was to avoid a pedantic discussion of what government "should" do and stick with my point that whatever government decides to pay for it should do itself rather than contract it out.
What if a private company can do it faster & cheaper?
MNG|4.9.11 @ 1:39PM|#
"The nice thing to know about sevo's stupidity is that it comes with an equal helping of predictability. I said in this instance for a reason, because my point was to avoid a pedantic discussion of what government "should" do and stick with my point that whatever government decides to pay for it should do itself rather than contract it out."
The nice thing to know about MNG's ignorance is that MNG presumes that if MNG *states* something, MNG therefore presumes that others accept the statement as "true".
Now, there are those who post here who accept the concept of proving their claims.
Then there are those who presume that a simple statement should be accepted as fact, since their momma told them they were smart.
Right, asshole?
Oh, MNG?
Your momma lied.
I actually agree with you there, MNG. I'd also throw in schemes that flow the other way, where private firms pay the government to gain coercive power (as in the Chicago parking meter privatization fiasco that The Reason Foundation loves).
Ooooh! Busted, Reason Foundation!
Where's your libertarianism, now???
I'd say it depends on the service in question. I have a problem with private prisons, since the operators are compensated on the number of prisoners they have. Private libraries don't scare me nearly as much, since the potential costs of corruption don't include people being jailed to enrich others.
And even in these shaky financial times, they shudder at the idea of libraries being run by a firm looking to make money.
Given my comparative experiences borrowing DVDs from my public library and from Netflix, such shudders may be unwarranted.
"Web firms face increased federal scrutiny over Internet privacy"
This week, Internet radio site Pandora revealed that it was called into a broad federal grand jury investigation into the alleged illegal sharing of user data by a number of firms that create apps for the iPhone and Android devices. Days earlier, Google settled with the Federal Trade Commission on charges it exposed data through its Buzz social networking application without the permission of users. Last year, Twitter settled with the agency after an investigation found the micro-blogging site's loose security allowed hackers to access user information.
The damage from those investigations comes in the form of legal costs and, in the case of Google, the mandate of regular privacy audits. But the bigger worry is how those inquiries hurt reputation, said venture capital investor Raj Kapoor of the $2.8 billion Mayfield Fund.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....l?hpid=z10
Bittersweet.
On the one hand I was loking forward to a government shutdown so as to see that maybe the troops would stop fighting if they stopped getting paid. I also looked forward to all the anguish the whole situation would not cause anybody except politicians and media types. On the other hand, I know with each day of approved spending, we are one day closer to the great insolvency. So I can take comfort in that.
On Fox right now Sen. Mike Johanns (R) is talking up a bill that would make sure that the military gets their government pay in the event of any future shutdown. The Foxguy said "who could be against this?"
Guess they are not government employees!
With common sense exceptions...
I would think that military would be categorized as "essential" employees. And it's not like they can just walk away and get another job, as civilian employees can do if they get sick of furloughs.
I think those classified in combat should be essential, but the ones guarding the GA/FL border and such not so much
Brilliant. Give this bill 50 years of existence, and it will be interpreted as authorizing all Federal activities continue in event of a future shutdown.
Budgets are so passe.
What a tragedy it would be if our noble troops took a break from terrorizing primitive villagers and joyriding through the skies of far-off lands.
Guess they are not government employees!
This has already been covered, dumbass; they're the hostages.
The "good guys" specifically refused to allow an authorization to continue paying troops in the field.
So solly, no have linky.
er, that's kind of my point. The GOP is all "shut it down, government employees aer tax-eating parasites, yada yada" one minute but then "common sense exceptions for our troops" the next. As if troops were not government employees paid with tax money...
As a rule of their employment, military personnel cannot simply walk off the job if their pay is cut. They will be AWOL, and subject to the Bradley Manning treatment (at least under the current administration). Virtually all other federal employees could, if they so chose, walk off the job if they were furloughed.
There is a pretty stark distinction of who should get paid and who should not in the case of a shutdown. It is certainly more easily distinguished than who is "essential" and non-essential," which tend to be more about political posturing than about continuing a functioning government in the case of a shutdown.
I have no problem paying only the overseas military, even though I hate us being there. Their ability to simply walk away doesn't exist, whereas the ones here and other federal employees could.
Actually, if we're to pay any of the military, it would need to be those who are here, NOT those overseas. The ones here are the ones with the ability/need to spend some money just to get on. Those overseas have room and board taken care of.
"As a rule of their employment, military personnel cannot simply walk off the job if their pay is cut."
Nobody made them sign up for that.
Nobody made them sign up for that.
They might not have been forced, but there is the question of the contractual obligation of pay for services rendered.
I can't find the case, but apparently a few years ago, there were three Marines charged with desertion after they quit reporting for duty. Apparently, through an error by Finance, they had not been paid for months and had to take second jobs to pay their bills, while still reporting for duty.
Eventually, they said, "Fuck it," and refused to report. They were charged with desertion, and the judge dismissed the case because it determined that the Corps had not met the terms of the contract they signed.
So the "lack of compulsion" angle is beside the point--it's a question of the government fulfilling its contractual obligations with its employees. Now, the standards can get changed--for instance, pay could be provided quarterly rather than twice a month--but I find it hard to imagine that anyone would sign up for the military if they thought they wouldn't be paid. And as Commander-in-Chief, it would be up to Obama to justify to those under his command why the change was necessary. If he doesn't get a positive reception, well, that's part of the risk of maintaining a large standing army that's fighting in three wars and running operations on every continent.
Apparently, through an error by Finance, they had not been paid for months
"I'm gonna come back and burn down this base. *mumble* Swingline *mumble*"
"I'm gonna come back and burn down this base. *mumble* Swingline *mumble*"
You sound like Nidal Hasan. Must be why they ignored you for so long.
(and yes. I get the reference, Milton)
Oh good. I was worried I was going to have to go to the hood every night to have my money stolen from me. It's much easier just to have the government steal it.
Saves on gas too.
The GOP wins for at least one reason: these budget cuts reduce demand in a weak economy, so maybe they will cause another recession just in time for the election when they can blame the president.
I do wonder how many more Republican recessions we have to go through before we stop letting them frame all economic policy debates. Oh wait, we aren't talking about economic policy, we're talking about budget policy, as if the economy is perfectly fine.
I don't know if that is fair Tony. The GOP seems to honestly think about it this way: dollars the government does not spend are dollars that taxpayers get to keep and spend. Unless you want to argue that the government will spend that money better (as far as the overall economy) I don't think your argument succeeds.
In my opinion what was egregious was the latest GOP offer to fund the military for the rest of the year and everything else for one week. They essentially took their big program off the table, it was like saying "I challenge you to a duel, but oh, I want to wear a bullet-proof vest during the duel."
But the Dems are usually pitiful on challenging the GOP on military spending so they shouldn't get much credit either.
I don't think GOP voodoo economics became any less voodoo in the interval since Bush Sr. first called it that. It's gotten all the more radical and divorced from reality, in fact.
It is true that government can create more demand by targeted spending than a few more dollars in the pockets of rich people will. As you imply, the GOP is using a Keynesian justification for their policy but going for the weakest Keynesian stimulus possible.
Tony
Do you think government spending stimulates the economy more than, say, a payroll tax cut that would target middle and lower class workers? Seems to me they would spend that money.
According to Moody's, among tax cuts a payroll tax holiday has the largest multiplier: 1.23. But in general, spending has higher multipliers than tax cuts. The biggest comes from an increase in food stamps: 1.73. So yeah obviously more money in the pockets of people who will immediately spend it is stimulative, but there's no reason to discount targeted spending, which is more effective because, well, it's targeted.
This thread here is like watching two retards try to fuck a doorknob.
This thread here is like watching two retards try to fuck a doorknob.
That comparison is demonstrably unfair to retards. And doorknobs.
This thread here is like watching two retards try to fuck a doorknob.
it is nice to see a head to head comparison of the two.
MNG wins by a landslide IMHO...but tony has been off his game for at least 3 or 4 months. I think November's results shook a screw lose or two inside his head.
"But in general, spending has higher multipliers than tax cuts. The biggest comes from an increase in food stamps: 1.73."
I think Tony actually believes this!
Multipliers!!
I think Tony actually believes this!
Price level subsidies, how the fuck does that work? Why stop at food stamps, give everybody a stamp for every purchase, and we'll grow the economy! No supplier will ever have to worry about cutting prices again.
Do I hear an amen from the university presidents? Realtors? Insurance companies? Grocery chains? Everybody gets their stamp now!
I just hope that boat can float.
haha, spending multipliers. Fuck man. Gas prices are $4.11 right now. I'll be damned if people don't start defaulting on debt pretty soon.
In my opinion what was egregious was the latest GOP offer to fund the military for the rest of the year and everything else for one week. They essentially took their big program off the table, it was like saying "I challenge you to a duel, but oh, I want to wear a bullet-proof vest during the duel."
Please show me where significant numbers of Democrats actually in power have advocated cutting military spending. Sorry, DailyKos and Dennis Kucinich don't count.
"But the Dems are usually pitiful on challenging the GOP on military spending so they shouldn't get much credit either."
Er, this was in the post you quoted from. You do know how to scroll down, don't you 😉 ?
We're SAVED!
Ezra Klein
Bureaucrats: they're like philosopher-kings, only smarter and more nobler.
they're like philosopher-kings, only smarter and more nobler.
Cromulently embiggoned, indeed.
More government bureaucracy = less inefficiency in the system as a whole?
Doubt it.
The GOP wins for at least one reason
Yeah: the steadfastly imbecilic refusal of the current Team Blue representatives in Washington -- in a period during which they controlled the House, the Senate and the Presidency, all at once -- to pass a fucking budget for FY 2011.
No one forced those darned clown shoes onto your boys' feet. They scrabbled and shrieked like rabid wharf rats in their blind, idiot insistence upon donning same.
It's just barely possible, I suppose, that a bare, meager few of 'em might have learned something from the resulting experience... but, quite frankly: I doubt it.
You don't "control" the Senate without 61 votes.
You don't "control" the Senate without 61 votes.
Bullshit. "The Senate Majority Leader is responsible for controlling the agenda of the chamber by scheduling debates and votes."
Who is currently (and was, last year) the Senate Majority Leader, and to which political party does he belong?
Yes, yes, there is no thing called a "filibuster" by which the minority party can impede Senate business.
Man, look at those goalposts fucking zoom -- !!!
Your original misstatement (You don't "control" the Senate without 61 votes.) remains refuted.
You can't even caricature a partisan moron like you.
If one party can block anyting in the Senate the other hardly "controls" it doofus.
If one party can block anyting in the Senate the other hardly "controls" it doofus.
It's always worth a giggle or three watching someone demonstrably struggling with basic literacy and reading comprehension skills spluttering impotently that their tormenter is a (schoolyard neologism) "doofus."
Baby steps, muffin: "What is the stated function of the Senate Majority Leader, and what powers is he granted in order to carry out same?"
Take your time, by all means. *snort*
I'll take that as a "I have no fucking clue whatsoever," then.
Dismissed.
What can I say, you are an idiot. I said given the filibuster no party sans 60 votes "control" the Senate. Now it would be bad enough if you were just pedantic enough to try to say they actually control because the majority party leader sets the agenda (and ignore that every item can just be filibustered), but you went to the apex of Mount Pedantic Idiot by ignoring that I said "control" in quotes, so I clearly was not talking about who could technically set the schedule.
Plant your flag moron!
No, because you've got the Maine sisters, Scott Brown, Lugar, Voinovich, and the rest of the squishy GOP crowd ready, willing, and able to leap across the aisle.
The Democrats had control of the Senate for purposes of passing a budget. They did not. On their heads be it.
The Democrats had control of the Senate for purposes of passing a budget. They did not.
Yup. Again: if they had enough votes to successfully ram ObamaCare through the Senate, in the face of absolute Republican opposition (which, obviously, they did)... then: monotonously fap!fap!fapp!ing online about how "you can't possibly pass any sort of budgetary matter without a filibuster-proof majority of 61 or more, for pity's sake!" is, demonstrably, horseshit.
ME: "Baby steps, muffin: 'What is the stated function of the Senate Majority Leader, and what powers is he granted in order to carry out same?'"
DISHONEST RETARD: "I said given the filibuster no party sans 60 votes "control" the Senate."
It was drooling, unalloyed imbecility on your part then, and (go figure) hasn't alchemized into anything appreciably less humiliating for you in the several hours since then. Why in God's name you evidently believe it gains anything in actual effectiveness -- or even simple, baseline coherence, for gthat matter -- through rote, idiot repetition is anyone's guess, really.
Here in the real world, you see (as opposed to the weird, TeleTubbie-esque panoply unspooling continually between your jug ears): 60 votes has never been necessary to effectively control -- or even your preferred idiot parlance, "control" -- the United States Senate. Both parties, whether comparatively (numerically) in power at the time or not, have always been able to shepherd reasonable amounts of their preferred legislation to successful completion; yea, even under the fell shadow of the dreaded FiliBoogeyman... all your yipped, bucktoothed assertions notwithstanding.
More to the point: no assembly of the U.S. Senate has ever, EVER lowered itself to mewling and whinnying that, gee whillikers, it couldn't possibly cough out even the most palsied attempt at a budget bill, sans a hard 60 (or more) members of one party presiding in chamber. Congratulations, Team Blue: you've actually managed to set the achievement bar at a new, previously unimaginable low. Yay, you.
You're wasting my time, chumley. Pick up your sippy cup and fuck off to bed, m'kay?
It's cute how you veer from childishly simplistic equivocating literalism ("but it says the Majority leader 'controls' Senate business, it says it!") to misdirected functionalism ("but in the 'real world' [apart from the literal rules you were pedantically staking everything on a few posts ago] you can court moderates and effectively 'control' the Senate).
To save time I should have just left it at calling you a doofus. That covered it.
"I have no rebuttal whatsoever. Hope nobody notices."
[::squirts::]
MNG, you're usually better then Tony, but this is just pathetic.
You say a filibuster proof majority is neccessary to pass a budget? Really? If this is true, then how exactly did Bush and Clinton pass their budgets?
The poor guy seems incapable of giving any responsibility to the Democratic party. The man actually blames the 40 senate Repubs for the failure to pass a budget.
The poor guy seems incapable of giving any responsibility to the Democratic party. The man actually blames the 40 senate Repubs for the failure to pass a budget.
Pitiful, ain't it...?
What does it say about Democratic attempts at legislation that they couldn't get Collins and Snowe on board?
Did you know that Colins and Snowe have conservative ratings higher than even the most conservative rated Democrat?
http://www.conservative.org/ra.....atings.htm
That says more about the ideological diversity of the Democratic Party then anything else. When a conservative Democrat is defined soley on their NRA rating, you have a party of lockstep rigidity.
Does it matter? They have their reputations for a reason. What was it that caused them to suddenly hold the line the way they did? (I have a hunch that it was the way Obamacare went down that did it; the entire process was a giant middle finger to the minority party.)
IIRC, they went in for the DADT repeal. they clearly could be reasoned with. Regardless, the fact remains that after Brown's election, legislation largely shut down at least in part due to the fact that the Democrats were unwilling or unable to moderate enough to have a single New England Republican join them. I guess the Democrats still had their principles, so good for them. But you don't get to be uncompromising and simultaneously complain that your opponent won't compromise.
"They have their reputations for a reason."
It's called misinformation. It's OK that you fell for it, but now that you know better it would be really dumb to keep pressing it.
Too bad for you other institutions do rankings as well. National Journal, for example. You also have to look at 2009; 2010 is the year they all held together so measuring their votes at the end of 2010 doesn't illustrate the normal situation.
But again, none of that matters. They remain the least conservative of the caucus, and the Democrats were in a position where they had to compromise to advance anything. Instead, they chose to offer nothing and rest on the obsolete insistence that "they won." If you can't compromise enough to pick off a single Republican, you're doing it wrong.
Yet Obamacare passed without a single Team Red vote.
You don't "control" the Senate without 61 votes.
Um, yeah you do, dickface. You control every aspect of it with the 59 they had for most of the session and certainly do with a filibuster-proof 60 they had for the rest of it.
They could have sent the budget from the the WH to the House (where control is much easier-and they had it) and then to the Senate, and made Team Red the bad guys. Well, they could have if their proposals (which they never actually proposed) weren't so distasteful to the american public.
You control every aspect of it with the 59 they had for most of the session and certainly do with a filibuster-proof 60 they had for the rest of it.
Sloopy gets an "A+" in Civics 101. MNG fails the course.
You really need to look up what a filibuster is and how it works.
And you need to do the same. While you're at it, look up "Budget Reconciliation," and "Byrd Rule."
They could have passed a budget without even taking a floor vote, and certainly could have passed one through reconciliation.
Of course, they would have had to propose a budget to pass one. But you knew that already, didn't you?
"certainly could have passed one through reconciliation."
The same process folks like you went ape-shit over last time it was invoked (by a Dem Congress I mean)?
Way to change the subject, asshole. We were talking about controlling the Senate and the process, right? Well, based on the above, they control the Senate and the process. End of discussion. Full stop.
I really don't know why you're pressing this. First, you claim it take 61 people, when 60 votes can get past a filibuster. Then you refused to acknowledge that the dems got support from several repubs on the vast majority of their landmark legislation last term.
As you lose every argument on here, you move the goalposts. I swear, by the time this discussion ends, you'll probably be arguing about how team red Senate leaders sacrifice live infants on an altar in Schenectady, NY and that's why 6o votes does not control the Senate.
You really need to look up what a filibuster is and how it works.
See above. Blubbering the word "filibuster" incessantly is no substitute for an intellectually coherent argument... and, as pointed out by both sloopy and myself: you're so demonstrably clueless as to the particulars of Senate budgetary process, you'd actually have to spend a solid week or two cramming on the subject, at this point, just to bring yourself out of the negative integers, score-wise.
Dear Lord, save me from the smugly self-confident dolts bumbling about online sans Clue the First as to just exactly how much it is they don't actually know!
I have you know my boy has advanced degrees in political science. He can take you on any day of the week!
Joe Girardi: Sorry [Mariano Rivera] I'm not sending you out there to close this home game with the Rays even though we're up by one.
Rivera: Huh?
Joe Girardi: I'm just going to forfeit the game because hypothetically speaking the Rays potentially can score 2 runs then close us out in the bottom half of the ninth.
Rivera: When did the Rays trade for Strawman?
You don't "control" the Senate without 61 votes.
Sorry, but that's fucking weak. Last year was the first time since the current budget procedure rules were implemented that a budget hadn't been hammered out in time. That's going through Dem and GOP Presidents, and Dem and GOP congresses, with smaller majorities in place.
Leaders lead, especially when they hold the majority. Posers blame circumstances for their lack of success.
But you're not part of any team, repeating these Party talking points like a good soldier... if McConnell hadn't filibustered, maybe the Dems could have passed a budget?
Does anyone not know JoJo/JB/sveo or whatever the latest incarnation today is is a GOP shill?
MNG|4.9.11 @ 10:46AM|#
"Does anyone not know JoJo/JB/sveo or whatever the latest incarnation today is is a GOP shill?"
Yes, anyone who can read.
I heard he's taking kickbacks from fracking and lolligagging corporations, too.
Party talking points
Team Blue's congenitally chinless inability to pass a budget for FY 2011 is a "party talking point" now, is it? Who knew?
Pffftt.
I study the enemy and I know a party talking point when I see it. If the Senate were run like a real legislative body and not one in which the minority gets to dictate all terms, then perhaps Dems could be blamed for not passing a budget. But perhaps you didn't notice the GOP strategy of "filibuster everything" so "the president fails," that being their "number one priority."
I know a party talking point when I see it.
Ah. So Team Blue DID actually pass a budget for FY 2011, then?
Your non-stop puling and sniveling, re: filibusters and whatnot, only humiliates you further. Every single recorded session of the United States Senate, without exception, has involved members of one party standing athwart the desires of the other. Only ONE to date, however, has resulted in a patent inability to pass some sort of budget, no matter how rudimentary. Own it, baby.
Never before has the filibuster been abused so much, or a party so lockstep as the modern GOP.
But I'm sure you're right and it was a Democratic conspiracy to let the budget be done after an election in which the GOP was guaranteed to increase their numbers in Congress.
Never before has the filibuster been abused so much, or a party so lockstep as the modern GOP.
Could you point out in the Senate Record the number of the Senate Budget Bill for FY 2011 that the Republicans filibustered?
Could you point out in the Senate Record the number of the Senate Budget Bill for FY 2011 that the Republicans filibustered?
Want me to run out and pick up a couple of sandwiches? We'll be waiting a good, long while for a coherent answer to that one.
This is why you are a pedantic, literalistic fool. In modern times the minority threatens a filibuster and the majority nixes the vote as not to waste time on an actual filibuster, so there will be no "record" of the filibuster of many bills.
But you knew that.
In modern times the minority threatens a filibuster and the majority nixes the vote as not to waste time on an actual filibuster, so there will be no "record" of the filibuster of many bills.
In "modern times," like the last 2 years, right?
So the majority "nixed" the vote here? Well, could you point to the committee meetings that were held to discuss the proposed budget? Could you point out a press conference where Team Red said they would filibuster it?
Also, could you tell me what the # of the HB was, because I can't seem to find it anywhere. Did the Repubs threaten to "filibuster" that as well? Or did they simply threaten to "filibuster" the delivery service the White House uses to deliver their budget proposal to either house of Congress? I ask this because neither the House or the WH proposed or debated a budget proposal. (If I am wrong, certainly you can provide a link, right?)
Just so we're straight here: the "threat" of a filibuster, of which you cannot offer a link, prevented the Senate from voting on a bill that was never even taken up in committee, was never voted on or discussed in committee in the house and was never proposed by the white house?
And you expect us to take you seriously?
Leave my lamb chop alone! You will not back him into a corner! He has advanced degrees in Poly Sci. His professors praised him as 'Mr. Winging It' because of his ability to think on his feet.
You try to back him in a corner, you will get hurt! He is just saving his best moves to really show you up.
He is just saving his best moves to really show you up.
Judging from all the available evidence, thus far: his "best moves" involve several terrified gerbils, a role of duct tape, and the theme to A Summer Place. 😉
"role" = roll. Fucking fingers.
Just so we're straight here: the "threat" of a filibuster, of which you cannot offer a link, prevented the Senate from voting on a bill that was never even taken up in committee, was never voted on or discussed in committee in the house and was never proposed by the white house?
Rtaher like one of Robert Anton Wilson's zanier Illuminati fantasies, isn't it? "... and so the EEEEEvil Kochtopus, working through its dread ninja Weblos catspaws, threatened a weeping and terrified Harry Reid with a Super-Duper Double Secret Probation Filibuster, covering any and all Senate budgetary legislation -- whether concretized or merely conceptual; past, present or future -- not to the liking of the Hooded Bavarian Masters..."
Filibuster. Filibuster Filibuster Filibuster Filibuster Filibuster. Filibuh-buh-buh-BUSTER. Filibuster.
... and, in summation: Filibuster.
If the Democrats are so ineffective they can't even propose a budget with 59 senators for fear of a a filibuster, they don't deserve to govern.
Ever heard of a chilling effect? There was no point in the Democrats spending blood, sweat, and tears putting together a budget if the Kochroots would just filibuster it.
Why argue about facts when instead you can argue about counterfactuals? Whee!
Might as well repeat what I typed upthread:
Sorry, but that's fucking weak. Last year was the first time since the current budget procedure rules were implemented that a budget hadn't been hammered out in time. That's going through Dem and GOP Presidents, and Dem and GOP congresses, with smaller majorities in place.
Leaders lead, especially when they hold the majority. Posers blame circumstances for their lack of success.
But I'm sure you're right and it was a Democratic conspiracy
I always know I've finally and indisputably won the argument, once my opponent has been reduced to making up shit I'm supposed to have "said," and then flails about spastically in an attempt to argue against that, instead.
Back into the funnycar with all your fellow greasepainted minions, Emmett Kelly.
Let me be clear, some say...
The Democrats of 2001-2008 were far more abusive of the filibuster and were far more in lockstep on everything than the modern GOP is, and has ever been.
When was the last time an actual filibuster happened?
Joe Girardi: Sorry [Mariano Rivera] I'm not sending you out there to close this home game with the Rays even though we're up by one.
Rivera: Huh?
Joe Girardi: I'm just going to forfeit the game because hypothetically speaking the Rays potentially can score 2 runs then close us out in the bottom half of the ninth.
Rivera: When did the Rays trade for Strawman?
If I were the Dems I would find many of these conservative long-time Southern congresscritters whose districts have some significant military spending in them and propose big cuts that target that. When they cry and wail just say "What, I thought you wanted to cut government? Oh did you mean government that doesn't effect your district? Then STFU."
Too bad there are a lot of Dems whose districts depend on military spending too.
But those Dems are not (to their discredit imo mind you) yelling for government cuts. As a political move I would identify the GOPers who are and who have a lot of defense spending in their districts and offer to cut it. Watch the gnashing of teeth and say "but I thought you were serious about cutting government?"
We are serious about cutting government. In the military, let's start by cutting funding for sensitivity training, defunding pensions for any officers who have never actually served in combat, and giving Petreus and everyone who agrees with his attack on Terry Jones a dishonorable discharge for dereliction of duty (failing to defend the Constitution, specifically the First Amendment).
In return for these noble sacrifices on the military's part, you'll have to pull the plug on Abortion Inc. (a.k.a. Planned Parenthood), NPR and PBS, the Department of Education, the State Department, the Libyan--er--Kinetic Military Action, and all funding to the godless commie fascist sovereignty violators at the UN.
Deal?
"godless commie fascist sovereignty violators at the UN"
Little green footballs down today? And I thought nothing could top blood sucking parasites!
Yep. You've got no valid response.
"What, I thought you wanted to cut government? Oh did you mean government that doesn't effect your district? Then STFU."
LOL--clearly you missed the chimpout that happened during the 2005 BRAC proposal.
Those cuts are damn near impossible--you've got towns like Clovis, NM, whose entire economy revolves around the military base, the way places like Boulder rely on the university to sustain theirs.
And as I've pointed out repeatedly, you could cut the DoD to $0 and you wouldn't pay off half the current annual deficit--furthermore, the cuts would inevitably lead to unemployment, so for at least a year you'd be simply moving the deficit spending from one column of the ledger to another column. So your sacred cows are going to have to get gored, too--there's no choice.
All of this spending is clearly unsustainable, but you're delusional if you think that the respective sides are going to make serious cuts to their respective political interest. We haven't paid down the national debt for 54 years, so it's clearly not going to stop until we actually hit the wall.
Unless you want to argue that the government will spend that money better
Good luck.
It is true that government can create more demand by targeted spending
Assume a can opener.
When libertarians make fun of others because of their assumptions and axioms the old quote about glass houses comes to mind...
Whenever you write stupid shit gets said.
Shorter sr7: RAAARGH!
Your tiny, impotent rage is so yummy!
Yes so much better is the GOP plan:
1) Welfare for the rich
2) ...
3) Profit!
It's not some mystical claim that the government can create demand. It has a lot of resources at its disposal.
You're actually giving too much credit to the GOP plan. Their plan is
1. Cut programs conservatives hate
2. Take programs conservatives like off the table ("with common sense exceptions")
3. Do the above with no regard to how large any programs are as percents of our spending
Supposedly Obama offered to discuss some cuts in mandatory spending but the GOP took it off the table to focus on discretionary spending. "We'll deal with that later" they said.
With common sense exceptions...
They seemed almost blindsided by the accusations that they'd be delaying paychecks for the troops with a shutdown. They sure rushed to get the "We Love the Troops Bill" or whatever out there.
It makes me so hot when you two cum-swap.
It makes me so hot when you two cum-swap.
Until today, I'd never actually witnessed the spectacle of two white socks, locked in hellish, freak show coitus.
Well... no appetite suppressant for me today, by golly!
Who gives a shit about the GOP plan? Certainly not the people y'all're pretending to score points against on this site...
Actually, a lot of us on here should care about the GOP plan. If it had passed, then we could have been bitching for more cuts. Now we're back to square one, which is to try to get the GOP plan cuts put in place.
it sounds twisted, but any progress would have been good progress as a case study in what happens when government waste is cut. It would have made the next round of deeper cuts easier to sell.
Tony, you've been trolling here for so long now, and yet you still don't realize that nobody here gives a shit about defending "the GOP plan?"
Tony, you've been trolling here for so long now, and yet you still don't realize that nobody here gives a shit about defending "the GOP plan?"
As amply demonstrated, just a few postings directly above: sadly, no.
Yeah just like you're not really for corporate welfare.
"But hey look a poor person getting a handout! Even worse, a teacher doing her job! Crush the parasite! Now what were we talking about? Corporate whu...?"
If there's daylight between your guys' economic philosophy and the GOP's, it's not that significant. One wonders what makes you think that the people who believe Jesus had a pet triceratops and that educated people are elite communists bent on repression, are suddenly right on economic policy.
Unless you define it so broadly as to include "anything that benefits a corporation at all," no, I'm not for corporate welfare - again, just like nearly everyone here.
The problem here is that Tony defines corporate welfare as anything that helps a corporation operate without government interference as well as decreased taxation.
Tax break=corporate welfare
Deregulation=corporate welfare
Limit barriers to entry=corporate welfare
Citizens United=corporate welfare
Income tax cuts=corporate welfare
The difference is that we look at all those things as =liberty.
What about a carbon tax? Or should corporations get to pollute the earth for free?
If you oppose a measure for anyone, how is it "corporate welfare?"
That's assuming hat any "carbon" (aka CO2) emissions are 100% pollution. I doubt everyone here agrees on that issue.
What about a carbon tax? Or should corporations get to pollute the earth for free?
Property rights, fuckface.
Oh, and by "pollute," do you me expelling the same thing that comes out of your mouth every time you exhale?*
*Well, it comes out of our mouths. I would imagine a combination of bile, semen and liquid fecal matter come out of yours.
Yep. This is the stunning breadth of libertarian wisdom. Just let poor Indians sue the oil companies when they start starving to death en masse! Much more efficient than just making the ones doing the property destruction pay for the privilege up front, or forbidding them from infringing on the property rights and sovereignty of other peoples altogether.
And nowhere has there ever been an insight so breathtaking that "we exhale CO2, so therefore we can pump the atmosphere full of it indefinitely!" Wow, I so trust you guys to have the right policy ideas.
And nowhere has there ever been an insight so breathtaking that "we exhale CO2, so therefore we can pump the atmosphere full of it indefinitely!" Wow, I so trust you guys to have the right policy ideas.
Just as we trust your "science is settled" jack-assery regarding global warming climate change chaos. Aw, fuck it. you'll change what it's called as soon as the new "massaged" data disproves your theory du jour.
And as far as the poor Indians starving to death, tell me how well they were being fed before the refinery or power plant employed their parents?
sloopy, what if you're wrong and the scientists are right? What if they already thought about the fact that there is a certain amount of CO2 in the normal cycle... will you be embarrassed for displaying such head-smacking stupidity or bothering to pontificate on a subject you clearly know nothing about, and prefer it that way?
So, we should base our environmental policies that would essentially end up costing every man, woman and child a shit-ton of money (in increased taxes and cost of goods) on what-if scenarios?
Head-smacking stupidity =/= skepticism of manipulated data skewed to reach a foregone conclusion.
So, no, I will not trust the "data" until it can be independently verified by those who do not stand to have their government funding cut when their conclusions aren't what they're supposed to be.
"the scientists are right?"
don't you mean instead of "the" you mean "my"?
My scientists? If you say so. They outnumber yours about 99 to 1.
Not true.
sloopy, what if you're wrong and the scientists are right?
I hear guys wearing sandwich boards, screaming about the end of times, use the same line of argument whenever I go downtown.
WWGD--What Would Gore Do?
Tony|4.9.11 @ 5:20PM|#
"...Just let poor Indians sue the oil companies when they start starving to death en masse!..."
C'mon, Tony!
Libertarians don't let them starve! We put on stomping boots and STOMP them to death!
You should know that.
I prefer stripping 'em naked and hunting them in the underbrush with a high-powered rifle, The Most Dangerous Game-style, myself.
Subject: "Corporate Welfare"
Tony|4.9.11 @ 11:31AM|#
"What about a carbon tax? Or should corporations get to pollute the earth for free?"
Hmm, was that the goal post that just went by?
Zoom!
How much carbon tax are you paying for the "pollution" coming out of your lungs 20 times per minute?
... Hobbit
" One wonders what makes you think that the people who believe Jesus had a pet triceratops and that educated people are elite communists bent on repression, are suddenly right on economic policy."
See also Guilt by association.
But they're not right about ANYTHING... except somehow the most complicated policy matter of all.
Fucking logic, how does it work?
Ok to be more explicit... the GOP and libertarians are both wrong on economic policy, in addition to the former being wrong on everything else.
Well, that's completely different! If Tony says it, it must be so.
"Follow the Gourd! The Holy Gourd of Jerusalem!"
Tony is Capt. Picard?
Tony is Capt. Picard?
More like Wesley Crusher. In Deanna Troi's clothing.
Ok to be more explicit... the GOP and libertarians are both wrong on economic policy, in addition to the former being wrong on everything else.
Coming from someone who makes this statement: "The whole reason fiat money is good is because it can be inflated at will.", I'm doubting your ability to know who is wrong and right on economic policy. Was the Wiemar Republic your perfect economy? Everybody had wheelbarrows of cash, everybody was spending, and no one was saving. Keynesian dream world!
That you're paranoid about runaway inflation shows that you don't know what's wrong with the economy and thus are likely to be completely wrong on prescriptions for economic policy. Our problem is not too much growth!
The fact that you think inflating at will is a good thing and that it doesn't negatively impact things like personal income and savings, two important pillars of the economy, show you have no idea what you're talking about.
Our problem is not too much growth!
Said the idiot who can't do basic math.
Following MNG or Tony's logic will only lead you to the Sea of Emotions.
Like the Jordan river feeds the Dead Sea, following lefty logic only leads to the Sea of Emotions which happens to be fed by the river Denial.
But Jesus did have a pet triceratops, it's in the (holy)Koran
Because in his teensy wittle bwain, he cannot imagine a world that isn't composed of only Team Red and Team Blue players.
There's plenty of GOP shills here Xeno.
Fine, amend it to read "~1% of the people here give a shit about defending 'the GOP plan.'"
Well I'm GOP, and every time I hear the latest GOP plan, I always say "You call that budget cutting!? Give me that axe, and let me show you turkeys how it's done!"
"Well I'm GOP"
Wow, noone saw that coming!
Got a problem with that, commie?
MNG|4.9.11 @ 1:59PM|#
"There's plenty of GOP shills here Xeno."
And more than enough lefty ignoramuses to make that claim.
Right, lefty ignoramus?
Government demand for union parasites *is* significantly higher than demand for same in the private sector.
You got me.
Ooh, the "union parasite" meme.
Kicking it up a notch!
Yep. You've got no valid response.
So it's not only a sense of irony and humor you lack, but also the knowledge that one need not provide a "valid response" to silly hyperbole? Why yes, you are GOP!
Yep. You've got no valid response at all.
According to Moody's
Pelosi's house economist.
We can get America back to work building barns for all those ponies!
You don't "control" the Senate without 61 votes.
Tea Bagsterdz mind control rays. And Boooooooooosh!
The United States Senate, as controlled by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid: capable of successfully ramming ObamaCare through, against unified Republican opposition... but flatly incapable of passing a fucking yearly budget.
Welcome to Tonyworld.
^^THIS^^
The most controversial bill of my lifetime can get passed, but not a fucking budget.
Iirc the Democratic leadership said they had to get Obamacare through first because it was supposed to provide savings and deficet reduction* which they wanted to count on in a budget.
* I think that's nuts btw, just saying what I recall them saying
That makes sense, they had to pass it to find out what was in it.
"That makes sense, they had to pass it to find out what was in it."
And it further 'makes sense' that MNG would try to salvage his bullshit claims by mentioning it.
You'd think there was some limit to........
Ah, forget it.
That's not at all what was said, but hey, you gotta use your talking points buzzwords somehwhere, why not here?
Minge, I noticed it took you almost 20 hours to move the goalposts here. If you want, I can get you in touch with a guy I know who manufactures automatic goalpost-movers for people on the go. They work essentially the same way you do, only faster. Basically, it is a program that randomly selects non sequiturs, strawman arguments and ad hominem attacks and injects them into a thread if it senses you are losing an argument. It's genius, really, because due to it's randomness, it mimics nonsensical behavior, which would pretty much keep us from knowing you were not writing your own drivel. Rectal has been using it for weeks and we can't tell where the stupid ends and the program begins.
He's selling the program for the low, low price of $19.95 + s&h, and since he is a libertarian, he is not licensing it. That'll allow you to share it with Tony, Chad and Max. I'll gegt you the link in a bit.
Minge, I noticed it took you almost 20 hours to move the goalposts here.
Be kind. He gets a charley horse in his lips if he tries to read any more quickly than that.
I can do this all day, baby. Well, not all day; I do have plans for this afternoon.
"Not at all"?
She said that they had to pass it so that you (meaning the people) could find out what was in it. It's a slight misquote, but really, "not at all"?
If the Senate were run like a real legislative body and not one in which the minority gets to dictate all terms
Nice.
That explains why the Democrats are working so diligently to hand the Senate majority to the Republicans Stupid Party.
You do know how the filibuster works, do you not?
Refresh our memories, Tony. What was the number of the budget bill the Republicans filibustered again?
The threat of filibuster is enough as you know, but actually I'm not clear on whether they could have done reconciliation. It seems the main reason for not passing a budget was because of the upcoming election.
Re-election, chumps!
Re-election, fools!
Sheeeeeeeit.
Oh. My. God.
So, just the threat of a filibuster in the Senate(source, please) kept the White House from issuing a budgetary proposal, the House from proposing and voting on one, and the Senate from doing the same, especially with two Senators from team Red who had consistently voted with Team Blue on every major piece of legislation the previous 4 years.
You are laughable, Tony. Just laughable.
And as far as reconciliation, they could have used it. Under the Byrd Rule, it could have applied to the 2011 budget and never actually had a floor vote. For someone who thinks they know a lot about filibustering and the budgetary process, you sure are a stupid fucker.
"especially with two Senators from team Red who had consistently voted with Team Blue on every major piece of legislation the previous 4 years."
As noted above, that's a big bowl of bullshit.
http://www.senate.gov/referenc.....L30360.pdf
"The ability of Senators to engage in filibusters has a profound and pervasive effect on how the Senate conducts its business on the floor. In the face of a threatened filibuster, for example, the majority leader may decide not to call a bill up for floor consideration, or to defer calling it up if there are other, equally important bills that the Senate can consider and pass without undue delay. Similarly, the
prospect of a filibuster can persuade a bill's proponents to accept changes in the bill
that they do not support, but that are necessary to prevent an actual filibuster."
You are blaming the power of the filibuster on the fact the Dems shelved the first budget to be shelved since Watergate?
Son, are you fucking retarded?
Mama says I'm "special."
"Son, are you fucking retarded?"
Hey, MNG has an advanced degree it shuck and jive!
"The ability of Senators to engage in filibusters has a profound and pervasive effect on how the Senate conducts its business on the floor. In the face of a threatened filibuster, for example, the majority leader may decide not to call a bill up for floor consideration, or to defer calling it up if there are other, equally important bills that the Senate can consider and pass without undue delay. Similarly, the
prospect of a filibuster can persuade a bill's proponents to accept changes in the bill
that they do not support, but that are necessary to prevent an actual filibuster."
I'll keep asking you and Tony the same questions, then: What was the # of the bill they shelved? What was the # of the HB that was shelved? Where is a link to the
Oops. To finish: Where is the link to the budget proposal sent from the WH to Congress?
How "special needs" can you be? There will not be a number because, as the quote YOU INCLUDED IN YOUR RETARDED REPLY SAYS in modern practice the filibuster is usually not brought to a vote. it was stupid the first time you repeated this talking point, but to repeat it in the same post as a quote about how it is rarely brought to a vote these days is, well, even impressive in your hallowed Annals of Retardation!
If they're too scared to try they should just resign.
Um, actually, it states that the bills are usually not presented for a vote due to the threat. They are still numbered as they come out of committee, so there would be a bill #.
I also asked you to show where they even brought it to a committee and you couldn't...or where it was brought up in the house (on the floor or in committee) where no filibuster exists and you couldn't...or where it was sent from the WH to Congress and you couldn't.
My goodness, when the (unlinked) "threat" of a filibuster not only stops the Senate from acting, but also stops the House and WH from acting on a budget, then it's some serious Jedi-filibustering.
You'd think the "threat" of an alien invasion from planet Rondo would be enough to propel the democrats to budget some money to our defenses.
Nanoo nanoo.
Joe Girardi: Sorry Mariano Riveria, I'm not sending you out there to close this home game with the Rays even though we're up by one.
Riveria: Huh?
Joe Girardi: I'm just going to forfeit the game because hypothetically speaking the Rays potentially can score 2 runs then close us out in the bottom half of the ninth and win.
Riveria: When did the Rays trade for Strawman?
Threat of a filibuster equates to actual filibuster.
Joe Girardi: Sorry Mariano Riveria, I'm not sending you out there to close this home game with the Rays even though we're up by one.
Riveria: Huh?
Joe Girardi: I'm just going to forfeit the game because hypothetically speaking the Rays potentially can score 2 runs then close us out in the bottom half of the ninth and win.
Riveria: When did the Rays trade for Strawman?
Ya, that's how team red stopped Obamacare.
I like visiting that alternative universe too.
The complete and utter paralysis of the American government is a tragedy; a national disgrace. How many years has it been since any legislation actually reached the president's desk? The filibuster has reduced us to a primitive, anarchic society, bereft of higher guidance and protection.
Oh, WOE!
Filibuster, the bump in the road to Somalia.
the road to Somalia.
Don't mind us, fellas; we're just passing through, on our way over to Dorothy Lamour's place.
[nod's head]
Doctor.
I think democrats should force the GOP to actually filibuster something before we take their "threat of a filibuster" excuse seriously.
What about a carbon tax? Or should corporations get to pollute the earth for free?
What ABOUT a carbon tax?
And, more importantly, should PREFERRED corporations get to pollute for free? It's not like we have any evidence the President will hand out waivers to his most trusted and obedient servants.
Or indulgences.
It seems the main reason for not passing a budget was because of the upcoming election.
[insert exclamation of astonishment]
... because no other assembly of the U.S. Senate ever had an upcoming election to deal with before last year's group did, y'know.
Sweet, fluffy Baby Jesus.
Everyone knows, you just can't ask them to pass a budget in November and December when they are still getting over the shock of losing an election. That would just be ever so hurtful to their delicate sensibilities.
Mah, mah pass Belle Harry Reid the smelling salts, I do believe he is feelin' a tad faint!
a teacher doing her job! Crush the parasite!
All teachers perfectly efficient and interchangeable; qualitative distinctions are evil.
Anything which doesn't involve turning the means of production over to the Workers and executing the Capitalist Vampire Class is corporate welfare.
duh
"Anything which doesn't involve turning the means of production over to the Workers and executing the Capitalist Vampire Class is corporate welfare."
This is not true. Your presumption is that Tony uses some form of logical taxonomy, flawed as that logic might be.
In reading Tony, that's not in evidence. Tony simply states "X" activity is covered under the definition of word "Y", and no proof, logic or consistency is required.
You mean like using his Team Blue talking point of "Taxing less = welfare for the rich", as if taking less money from those that earn it is a form of welfare?
Yep. That's what he means.
"and no proof, logic or consistency is required."
When you're as 'intelligent' as Tony is "the proof" becomes self-evident "I said it therefore it's true" is not only modus operandi its a way of life.
Like the river Jordan feeds the Dead Sea the river Denial feeds the Sea of Emotion where following Tony's logic always concludes.
One more before I go.
It's not some mystical claim that the government can create demand. It has a lot of resources printing press at its disposal.
FWIW, I don't think the Republicans could have gotten more than they did.
I'm not saying they wanted to, but with this president and Democrats, even if they wanted to, I doubt they could have gotten any more than they did.
Is this Winning The Future?
Toxic Dollar: Why Nobody Seems to Want US Currency
That's okay. Food stamps are the currency of the future with a 1.73 return (in the form of a multiplier even!) on investment. We'll just pay out by printing up food stamps instead of dollars. It's a win/win for everyone, especially the poor and the Chinese!
Yep. It's made of WTF.
This is the party that predicted Obamacare would become popular once it passed. We never said they were smart or had good plans. Although your argument that they are simply the most incompetent Senate in US history is intriguing.
You know why our current system of governance sucks and our media sucks?
Because there are ten billion articles out there right there focusing on the "major news" of a budget agreement, and NOT ONE FUCKING SINGLE ONE OF THOSE ARTICLES actually says what the cuts are. Not one.
And it's essentially impossible to get that information out of any government website.
And judging from some of the public statements of our elected officials, none of THEM know what the cuts are, either.
BTW:
I hate to say anything in defense of Tony, but all through the fall last year I remember reading that no progress was being made on the budget because of the combination of Dems not wanting to vote for more spending increases before the election and the GOP declaring that they would let nothing through the Senate.
It's not Tony's fantasy.
Now, it may have been bullshit when it was WRITTEN, so Tony may just be regurgitating someone else's lies, but he's not just pulling it out of his ass.
If you don't even try you can't blame your opponents for stopping you.
If you don't even try you can't blame your opponents for stopping you.
[::blink::]
[::blink::]
[::blink::]
Joe Girardi: Sorry Mariano Riveria, I'm not sending you out there to close this home game with the Rays even though we're up by one.
Riveria: Huh?
Joe Girardi: I'm just going to forfeit the game because hypothetically speaking the Rays potentially can score 2 runs then close us out in the bottom half of the ninth and win.
Riveria: When did the Rays trade for Strawman?
The funny thing is I would actually have been ok with the Republicans filibustering if their intention was to get lower spending. I'll even be generous and give the Democrats a 10000:1 ratio of dollars deficit spending to second filibustering...
(For those wondering, that's still 5 years of filibustering for the current $1.6 trillion deficit)
MNG, Tony and you need a big boot named IT'S THEIR FUCKING JOB rammed up your asses.
You made a really stupid argument. You could not have given more time to think it through than it took to rip out a big nasty wet one out of your ass, stupid.
If the Democrats presented a bill with one hundred billion in cuts from the projected spending levels would the Tea Party driven Republicans would have said no to that?
Of course not, stupid.
Why were they promising opposition? Because the Democrats were vowing not to cut spending, stupid.
Why accept the Democratic context of a filibuster as the underlying problem when it all comes back to the democrats unwillingness to cut spending. Pointing at the possibility of a filibuster is a distraction, stupid.
Give it some real thought this time, stupid, and surely you'll realize you owe every Goddamn person who visits this site an apology for your sickening display of weakness that helped bolster Tony and MNG's illegitimate case.
I'm not even offering an argument, moron.
So shut your worthless cunt hole.
Upthread there is a discussion about why the Democrats failed to pass a budget last year.
Tony said that they failed to do so because they knew they could not get their budget past the Senate due to Republican opposition.
Other posters asserted that this claim of Tony's was false and that they had never heard the claim before.
My post is merely to affirm that, YES, I had heard this claim before, and in real time as the events were transpiring last year.
NOTHING IN MY STATEMENT in any way justifies the Democrat view. Naturally they could have passed a budget if they had offered a budget the Senate minority was willing to pass.
You are too fucking stupid to read and therefore too fucking stupid to live.
He even had a glimmer of a decent argument, but then he went and messed it up by being a prick and being unable to read.
fluffy, you just ran into our recent Hit and Runpublican hissy fit this weekend. Those types are not going to read what you wrote, they just skim to see if you are full throatedly supporting GOP talking points or not and if not they attack.
so Tony may just be regurgitating someone else's lies
Speaking of par for the course, what's happening at the Masters?
McIlroy hanging on at -10. Choi and Day one back with Scott 2 behind. Angel Cabrera making a strong to get to -8 as well. Also playing....
You know what, look it up yourself. Here's a site that can help you.
Dude, what a collapse by McIlroy.
NOT ONE FUCKING SINGLE ONE OF THOSE ARTICLES actually says what the cuts are. Not one.
Those cuts are coming right out of the pockets of the most vulnerable and deserving Americans. But they're essentially meaningless and insignificant and will have no significant long term impact on the deficit, while destroying the middle class and destroying the American dream.
duh
We could have ended oil subsidies for 10 years and got $40 billion.
We could have ended the Dept of the Interior and the Dept of Edukation 10 years ago and gotten 20 times that.
We could have ended the dept of labor 10 years ago and gotten just under $1 Trillion.
We could have ended the Dept of Energy 10 years ago and gotten back $250 Billion.
We could have ended the Department of transportation 10 years ago and gotten back $750 Billion.
We could have ended the Dept of Health and human Services 10 years ago and gotten back $700 Billion dollars.
Likely Tony response:
You aren't talking about raising taxes, so until you start being serious let the adults talk.
A more likely Tony response is the start of another thread somewhere and the avoidance of these facts smacking him repeatedly in the face.
I could see that.
The fact that you are so much smarter than the world's climate scientists because you discovered that humans exhale CO2?
My point proven. Thanks, dumbass.
"I could have pulled out of the missus several decades ago, and saved the Reason message boards."
Tony|4.9.11 @ 6:04PM|#
"We could have ended oil subsidies for 10 years and got $40 billion."
I'm calling bullshit as you are an ignoramus and are too stupid to support a single claim you make.
Hey, asshole, prove me wrong.
We could have ended the Department of Commerce 10 years ago and gotten back $130 Billion.
mad libertarian guy|4.9.11 @ 1:53PM|#
"You mean like using his Team Blue talking point of "Taxing less = welfare for the rich", as if taking less money from those that earn it is a form of welfare?"
Not quite.
You're making the mistake of presuming Tony uses *any* sort of logic to establish a definition.
You could as easily say: "A new moon = welfare for the rich". Or "a cold cup of coffee = welfare for the rich". Or "running out of toilet paper = welfare for the rich".
If Tony needs a claim of "welfare for the rich", there is no use attempting a logical analysis of the word or words he chooses to force into that definition.
You might just as well try to analyze why a particular roll of a die came up 3.
"Food stamps are the currency of the future with a 1.73 return (in the form of a multiplier even!) on investment."
There's an obvious (ignored) point here:
*IF* food stamps return greater than printed value, we can all get rich if the government simply prints food stamps and hands them out!
Why, forget TARP and bailouts! Print the damn food stamps, everyone can quit working and we'll all be farting through silk undies!
Hey, sevo, either STFU or put some kind of disclaimer behind that statement. Some stupid asshole on Team Blue or Team Red might actually take that and run with it.
"Hey, sevo, either STFU or put some kind of disclaimer behind that statement."
OK, disclaimer:
It's an outright lie.
But, hey, for those who believe unicorns poop gold nuggets, the disclaimer won't help much.
for those who believe unicorns poop gold nuggets
PRESENT!
Uh, isn't that:
"Reporting for duty!"
Sorry, I still find it amusing.
What's gonna be fun is when Republicans threaten to default the economy unless they get their way on Christianist social issues and the like.
Ah, religious nutbags and corporate whores. Yet somehow correct on economic policy.
Are you ever going to realize that guilt by association is a logical fallacy?
But that's not what I'm doing. I'm saying that on economic policy, libertarians might as well be Republicans. On this issue they are a political coalition. That's guilt by identity.
So maybe libertarians and Republicans are correct on economic policy. My pointing out that Republicans are comically wrong on everything else is a reason to be skeptical of their economic policy. There is nothing illogical about that.
I'm saying that on economic policy, libertarians might as well be Republicans.
"If you're not Team Blue on economic policy, then you must be Team Red."
Fucking pitiful.
Comically wrong on, say, bailing out banks? Or keeping Guantanamo open? Or running foreign wars? Or running up record deficits? Or invoking 'state secrets'?
You're right, any party that has those sorts of ideas is highly suspect.
"My pointing out that Republicans are comically wrong on everything else is a reason to be skeptical of their economic policy."
It's a logical fallacy to say: Person A says B and C. B is wrong. Therefore, C is wrong.
If you can't understand that, you're helpless.
"I don't care! Obama is AWESOME!!!"
"Mmmmm, Mmmmm, Mmmmm."
Shorter libertarians: Sarah Palin has some intriguing economic policy ideas.
Okay, that's just a blatant flame. Spoof harder.
this is why the right is KILLING america
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXeuJTEChaw
Hey, everybody, look at my retarded rant!
Yay. let the wasteful spending continue.
http://www.Privacy-Net.tk
The funniest thing about the Hit and Runpublicans talking points diatribes above is this: do they even know where they are posting? Why would a libertarian care that the Dems failed to pass a budget last year? That GOP talking point is aimed at independent voters in an attempt to hold the Dems more than the GOP to blame for a shut down. But libertarians didn't mind a shut down, they are not cheerleaders of the Senate "doing their job and passing budgets!"
It's quite funny, but fanatics rarely take stock of where they are at any given moment...
oh I think most of us here were cheerleading for a shutdown.
if you look back upthread, we were simply refuting your Team Blue talking points about 61 votes needed, how the "threat" of a filibuster shut down not only the Senate, but the WH and House budget processes (haha) as well and the like.
Oh, and i'm still waiting for that bill #. According to the Senate's own website, the bill is introduced and numbered before it even gets sent to committee. If they even started the process, which they didn't, there would be a bill #.
You are so full of shit, you don't even know how our Senate bill process works, yet you parrot the Team Blue talking points as if they were the Gospel According to Barack.
You are so full of shit, you don't even know how our Senate bill process works, yet you parrot the Team Blue talking points as if they were the Gospel According to Barack.
You have blasphemed against the Jug-Eared Jesus.
God help you when the trained killer unicorns finally find you.
Why would a libertarian care that the Dems failed to pass a budget last year?
Argument by non sequitur. That's so cartoonishly flailing and desperate, it actual qualifies as some sort of Chuck Jones-inspired message board performance art.
Wow.
Wow.
You know, I preferred the Chuck Jones-era Tom and Jerry cartoons as opposed to the Hanna-Barbera iteration. The animation was crisper, the racism less-prevalent and the plots considerably more violent.
The Chuck Jones era was like the thin crust to the Hanna-Barbera's deep-dish.
My all-time favorite bit of animation ("Duck Amuck") is a Chuck Jones masterpiece. 😉
The best thread jack eva
I love "Duck Amuck", and think its better than the also amazing "What's Opera, Doc?"
I just went back and watched them again, plus "The Rabbit of Seville"
"Duck Amuck" > "Rabbit of Seville" > "What's Opera, Doc?" >>> anything produced by Hanna Barbera
Hey. Start being reasonable you people who comment on this site.
For those of you who skipped the comments, here is a summary:
libertarians lament that shutdown avoided.
MNG and Tony make silly arguments.
Arguments repeatedly debunked.
MNG and Tony move goalposts.
Their new arguments debunked.
Rinse.
Repeat.
As for the union bashing going on in this thread. Exactly how many federal union orgizations are there
I think the # is ?
Any is too many, as that well-known wild-eyed far-right wingnut FDR used to tell us...
Exactly how many federal union orgizations are there
Too many.
Hanna Barbera was more like those freezer-burned cardboard abominations they used to (maybe still do) serve in bars.
Winning The Future ?
I like what you have said,it is really helpful to me,thanks!
What's a non-essential government service?