Support NeoGAF

[Manmademan]

I'm sure foreign investment in the US and the value of the dollar against foreign currencies will be just rock steady after we do that, too. Burning the basement timbers to keep ourselves warm.

It actually would, because at that point you remove all uncertainty as to whether or not the US will pay its bills that rack up via the debt ceiling.

Inflation I.e. ww2 Germany or Zimbabwe 10 years ago isn't an issue, because the coin never enters circulation, and does not increase the general money supply.

 

[Cyan]

I'm sure foreign investment in the US and the value of the dollar against foreign currencies will be just rock steady after we do that, too.

You're being sarcastic, but this is actually correct. Minting the coin would help a lot with investor confidence.

 

[DrSlek]

The more I read about the debt ceiling, and the minting of magic coins, and government shut downs, the more I start to think that it's possibly not a good idea to have the USD as the worlds reserve currency.....because the US is looking pretty shaky from an economic standpoint.

 

[Piecake]

The more I read about the debt ceiling, and the minting of magic coins, and government shut downs, the more I start to think that it's possibly not a good idea to have the USD as the worlds reserve currency.....because the US is looking pretty shaky from an economic standpoint.

What other currency would you pick? Personally, I think we are still the most stable and definitely will be if we mint that 1 trillion dollar coin or end this stupid debt ceiling forever some other way

 

[Nesotenso]

Is there a number on the people employed by the federal government directly or indirectly ?

 

[Gotchaye]

Harry Reid's point, which he seemingly failed to make, is that the entire conceit of representational democracy relies on the actors involved abiding by an agreed rulebook, even when that rulebook is arbitrary. Shit, because it's arbitrary.

You don't get to fund just the parts of government you like, or the parts that are politically useful for your purposes. You don't get to enjoy government a la carte, or rebuild it using only the parts you find ideologically consonant.

You either agree to govern and legislate according to the oath you swore -- inheriting a continuing project and representing the political will of the people within an agreed framework -- or you secede.

I'm actually a little uncomfortable with not passing a la carte spending bills, given that they're spending on things that both parties like.

The only really strong argument that the Democrats have that the Republicans are doing something illegitimate here is that the Republicans are engaging in "hostage-taking", in that the Republicans don't actually want a shutdown but are threatening (to continue) one unless they get something else they want which the Democrats don't want to give them. It'd be hard to argue that the Republicans were abusing the process if they actually didn't want the government funded - "keeping the government open" would actually be a concession to Democrats.

But then it becomes a little hard to say that Democrats are justified in not funding national parks, or whatever, until Republicans agree to fund a bunch of other things. Democrats think national parks should be funded, and they think they should be funded even if other things don't get funded (that is, funding national parks being a good thing isn't contingent on other funding). So Democrats are doing something facially similar - they're taking hostage national park funding in order to force Republicans to agree to fund something else.

If the Republicans' position is "give us what we want or we shoot the hostages", then the Democrats' position is "release all the hostages or don't bother releasing any". Which is a little strange. Maybe it can be argued that it's justified in response to Republican hostage-taking, but I'm uncomfortable with it.

 

[Christine]

I meant that the rules and procedure are arbitrary. Obviously the consequences are very, very real.

I don't even think the rules and procedures are entirely arbitrary. People made them for reasons. I'll grant that their resulting gestalt solution space for available political tactics is somewhat arbitrary and uncontrollable, but what's going on now isn't arbitrary, it's psychotic.

 

[teh_pwn]

I'm sure foreign investment in the US and the value of the dollar against foreign currencies will be just rock steady after we do that, too. Burning the basement timbers to keep ourselves warm.

If the US defaults, the entire world economy may go into a deep depression. Europe is still on thin ice due to 30% unemployment in Greece, Spain, and nearly that much in Italy.

Who cares about 10% inflation if we're in soup lines and we lose a decade of our life to utter stupidity of the GOP.

 

[DrSlek]

What other currency would you pick? Personally, I think we are still the most stable and definitely will be if we mint that 1 trillion dollar coin or end this stupid debt ceiling forever some other way

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/06/29/us-dollar-reserves-un-idUSTRE65S40620100629

 

[Christine]

Who cares about 10% inflation

People with large amounts of dollar-denominated savings. The larger the savings, the more they care.

 

[teh_pwn]

People with large amounts of dollar-denominated savings. The larger the savings, the more they care.

Are they stuffing it under the mattress? Or do they have a time horizon of 6 months?

Stocks are traded in USD. Businesses operate in USD. Post inflation products and services are increased linearly with inflation. Revenue and profit increase nominally. Stock price adjusts near perfectly for inflation long term. Exceptions are people hoarding materials that depreciate.

If we have a global depression, their savings are not be as useful.

I'm not sure what the purpose of a savings account is. You lose money 100% guaranteed. Get an ETF or mutual fund.

Also, what happens if there's a great depression and banks fail? They're insured these days, right? Does the government create wealth the insure these savings? We're back to inflation.

 

[Blader]

Is there a number on the people employed by the federal government directly or indirectly ?

I think about 800,000 people are on furlough right now.

 

[darkwing]

why is the GOP against Obamacare in the first case?

 

[RDreamer]

why is the GOP against Obamacare in the first case?

Because a (black) democrat proposed and put it into place.

 

[demon]

why is the GOP against Obamacare in the first case?

.

 

[theprodigy]

why is the GOP against Obamacare in the first case?

because they can't take credit for it (remember this was originally their plan)
oh yeah also because THAT OBUMMER AND HIS SOCIALISM or something

 

[darkwing]

oh, American politics, what the

 

[Christine]

Or do they have a time horizon of 6 months?

Maybe. It's one of the more sensible contexts for some viewpoints incorporated into current fiscal policy.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Roughly 7% of the labor force is either employed by the federal government, or primarily works on federal government-contracted work.

 

[rodvik]

What other currency would you pick? Personally, I think we are still the most stable and definitely will be if we mint that 1 trillion dollar coin or end this stupid debt ceiling forever some other way

Back to the pound sterling naturally. It worked for a good 150 years or so.

 

[rodvik]

mispost

 

[slit]

I'm actually a little uncomfortable with not passing a la carte spending bills, given that they're spending on things that both parties like.

The only really strong argument that the Democrats have that the Republicans are doing something illegitimate here is that the Republicans are engaging in "hostage-taking", in that the Republicans don't actually want a shutdown but are threatening (to continue) one unless they get something else they want which the Democrats don't want to give them. It'd be hard to argue that the Republicans were abusing the process if they actually didn't want the government funded - "keeping the government open" would actually be a concession to Democrats.

But then it becomes a little hard to say that Democrats are justified in not funding national parks, or whatever, until Republicans agree to fund a bunch of other things. Democrats think national parks should be funded, and they think they should be funded even if other things don't get funded (that is, funding national parks being a good thing isn't contingent on other funding). So Democrats are doing something facially similar - they're taking hostage national park funding in order to force Republicans to agree to fund something else.

If the Republicans' position is "give us what we want or we shoot the hostages", then the Democrats' position is "release all the hostages or don't bother releasing any". Which is a little strange. Maybe it can be argued that it's justified in response to Republican hostage-taking, but I'm uncomfortable with it.

It's intended to be that way for efficiency, even though right now the gov't is broken and not efficient. I think the problem the Dems have is that the continuing resolutions are very temporary. The one that can't get through congress now is only for six weeks. You can't govern a country as large as the U.S. that way for long before the wheels come off. A la carte would make that even worse because they can't even get through things that everybody wants, except or a small faction of the GOP.Taking every single item and trying to pass it would make this whole situation even worse.

 

[Gvaz]

Do you really think that was an appropriate response?
"Why should we help a kid with cancer... there are some people out of work"
Absolutely indefensible if you ask me.

Exactly. what a massive shithead

edit in case you're misunderstanding

the life of a kid with cancer is worth 100 of your military jobs imho

 

[empty vessel]

I'm sure foreign investment in the US and the value of the dollar against foreign currencies will be just rock steady after we do that, too. Burning the basement timbers to keep ourselves warm.

First, foreign investment in the US is hardly a major concern for regular people. Same goes for the value of the US dollar relative to other currencies. Having a decent job with a decent wage is far more important to 99% of Americans and to the economy as a whole.

Second, making the system we have now--a fiat monetary system--more explicit would not affect anything. We already have a fiat monetary system with "made-up" money. In one scenario, the Treasury mints a coin, gives it to the Fed, and the Fed credits the Treasury's account via keystrokes. In another scenario, the Treasury sells a bond to a bank, the Fed credits the Treasury's account and debits the bank's account via keystrokes, and then the Fed buys the bond from the bank and credits the bank's account via keystrokes. The coin is just a gimmick, to be sure. But so are bond sales.

 

[RastaMentality]

@BFriedmanDC: "We're not going to be disrespected. We have to get something out of this. And I don't know what that even is." -Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-IN)

Not even hiding it.

 

[RyanDG]

Exactly. what a massive shithead

edit in case you're misunderstanding

the life of a kid with cancer is worth 100 of your military jobs imho

I love it when people continue to harp on a quote that was taken dreadfully out of context in order to try to score political high ground points (while using sick children as the beating stick).

 

[fallagin]

Not even hiding it.

Haha, the gop are starting to show their true colors.

 

[freenudemacusers]

in his defense, my two year make similar statements from time to time, and depending on how exhausted I am, it sometimes works.

 

[Jonm1010]

Here's Harry Reid refusing to entertain any piecemeal spending proposals for critical issues.

Vid title ('Why Would We Want To' Help One Kid With Cancer?), is a bit shitty, but it is technically accurate. Reporters not impressed at all with Harry Reid's answer here. Probably should've avoided the whole "someone of your intelligence" thing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=O0lFyFJeZSY


Obviously Democrats shouldn't cave to piecemeal spending measures right now if they want to hold on, but I don't agree with Reid's, "What right do they have to pick and choose what part of governments can be funded?" ... well, since they are half of the US Congress, they certainly have the right to pick and propose piecemeal spending. They don't get to pass it without the Senate agreeing, but being duly elected federal legislators, they do have the right Harry.

.

All Reid needed to say was that the cancer stricken kid wouldn't be in the position he is in if republicans didn't force a shutdown to hold the nation hostage to achieve a political goal. That if the republicans gave the senate a clean bill that the kid would be taken care of.

 

[fallagin]

All Reid needed to say was that the cancer stricken kid wouldn't be in the position he is in if republicans didn't force a shutdown to hold the nation hostage to achieve a political goal. That if the republicans gave the senate a clean bill that the kid would be taken care of.

Yeah, he fucked that up a bit. I'm guessing that he is extremely pissed off and stressed out right now.

The question also ignores what the republicans are trying to do. "Gee why dont you piecemeal fund the government?" Because that would be colossally stupid and would allow the GOP to re-legislate the whole government.

Edit: he literally should have just said "why should we choose between giving children cancer treatment, and feeding them, and giving them health insurance?"

 

[120v]

I'm actually a little uncomfortable with not passing a la carte spending bills, given that they're spending on things that both parties like.

The only really strong argument that the Democrats have that the Republicans are doing something illegitimate here is that the Republicans are engaging in "hostage-taking", in that the Republicans don't actually want a shutdown but are threatening (to continue) one unless they get something else they want which the Democrats don't want to give them. It'd be hard to argue that the Republicans were abusing the process if they actually didn't want the government funded - "keeping the government open" would actually be a concession to Democrats.

But then it becomes a little hard to say that Democrats are justified in not funding national parks, or whatever, until Republicans agree to fund a bunch of other things. Democrats think national parks should be funded, and they think they should be funded even if other things don't get funded (that is, funding national parks being a good thing isn't contingent on other funding). So Democrats are doing something facially similar - they're taking hostage national park funding in order to force Republicans to agree to fund something else.

If the Republicans' position is "give us what we want or we shoot the hostages", then the Democrats' position is "release all the hostages or don't bother releasing any". Which is a little strange. Maybe it can be argued that it's justified in response to Republican hostage-taking, but I'm uncomfortable with it.

the democrat stance is this "negotiating" hasn't been done before (with the exception of 2011, which was a massive clusterfuck and had economic and political repercussions on both sides) and to keep on doing so would set up a disastrous precedent for how funding the government works in general

at face value you could say rejecting piecemeal funding is tantamount to what the republicans are doing. but the point of the standoff on the democrat side is, hey, we're not going to be doing this shit every single time. its not just bad for them but for whatever party is incumbent down the line, not to mention the country.

 

[evil solrac v3.0]

I'm actually a little uncomfortable with not passing a la carte spending bills, given that they're spending on things that both parties like.

The only really strong argument that the Democrats have that the Republicans are doing something illegitimate here is that the Republicans are engaging in "hostage-taking", in that the Republicans don't actually want a shutdown but are threatening (to continue) one unless they get something else they want which the Democrats don't want to give them. It'd be hard to argue that the Republicans were abusing the process if they actually didn't want the government funded - "keeping the government open" would actually be a concession to Democrats.

But then it becomes a little hard to say that Democrats are justified in not funding national parks, or whatever, until Republicans agree to fund a bunch of other things. Democrats think national parks should be funded, and they think they should be funded even if other things don't get funded (that is, funding national parks being a good thing isn't contingent on other funding). So Democrats are doing something facially similar - they're taking hostage national park funding in order to force Republicans to agree to fund something else.

If the Republicans' position is "give us what we want or we shoot the hostages", then the Democrats' position is "release all the hostages or don't bother releasing any". Which is a little strange. Maybe it can be argued that it's justified in response to Republican hostage-taking, but I'm uncomfortable with it.

except this is more like the Republicans trying to save a person's arm that's bleeding from the head while the democrats are trying to keep the person alive.

 

[GaimeGuy]

the democrat stance is this "negotiating" hasn't been done before (with the exception of 2011, which was a massive clusterfuck and had economic and political repercussions on both sides) and to keep on doing so would set up a disastrous precedent for how funding the government works in general

at face value you could say rejecting piecemeal funding is tantamount to what the republicans are doing. but the point of the standoff on the democrat side is, hey, we're not going to be doing this shit every single time. its not just bad for them but for whatever party is incumbent down the line, not to mention the country.

What?

 

[Ryu751]

How are these republicans not drug out in the street and shot. They ran on and want to shut down the government on purpose, and now using the evil Obamacare as an excuse. I'm sorry that is treason hang them all. I heard a whack job giving the truth about the shutdown say our government defaulting is a good thing, and the discomfort from it is like getting off a drug. Well rant over Fuck the GoP.

http://youtu.be/zo-jgXL-XIQ

 

[Suikoguy]

How are these republicans not drug out in the street and shot. They ran on and want to shut down the government on purpose, and now using the evil Obamacare as an excuse. I'm sorry that is treason hang them all. I heard a whack job giving the truth about the shutdown say our government defaulting is a good thing, and the discomfort from it is like getting off a drug. Well rant over Fuck the GoP.

http://youtu.be/zo-jgXL-XIQ

The guy in that video is nuts.

 

[Goodlife]

How are these republicans not drug out in the street and shot. They ran on and want to shut down the government on purpose, and now using the evil Obamacare as an excuse. I'm sorry that is treason hang them all. I heard a whack job giving the truth about the shutdown say our government defaulting is a good thing, and the discomfort from it is like getting off a drug. Well rant over Fuck the GoP.

http://youtu.be/zo-jgXL-XIQ

Loved the first minute of that...

"he dems are saying the reps are forcing a shutdown because they are refusing to fund ObamaCare.
This isn't the case.
The truth is the reps are forcing a shutdown because they are refusing to fund ObamaCare.

 

[scytheavatar]

Can someone explain to me why there hasn't been an effort to get the stupid Hastert Rule banned? Why isn't the minority leader of the house allowed to bring bills to vote if he/she has the votes to pass them?

 

[bonercop]

The guy in that video is nuts.

i see you aren't familiar with the other molyneux. think of every stereotype you can associate with the garden-variety, smug internet libertarian

he is that. times 20.

 

[Black Mamba]

Can someone explain to me why there hasn't been an effort to get the stupid Hastert Rule banned? Why isn't the minority leader of the house allowed to bring bills to vote if he/she has the votes to pass them?

The Hastert Rule isn't a real rule. It's something Boehner just claims to abide by, but has actually broken it numerous times in the past.

The minority leader can bring a bill to the floor via discharge petition. If the majority of the House votes to allow a vote from that petition, then it gets voted on.

For obvious reasons, it's hard to have a successful discharge petition.

 

[Laughing Banana]

Maybe Obama should change the name Obamacare to Americare or Governmentcare or something. Or carebears.

 

[Jack_AG]

How are these republicans not drug out in the street and shot. They ran on and want to shut down the government on purpose, and now using the evil Obamacare as an excuse. I'm sorry that is treason hang them all. I heard a whack job giving the truth about the shutdown say our government defaulting is a good thing, and the discomfort from it is like getting off a drug. Well rant over Fuck the GoP.

http://youtu.be/zo-jgXL-XIQ

Are you advocating murdering idiot republicans? Is that what the shit I just read? Are you also suggesting speaking against and taking action against the government in a legal arena is treason? Isn't Hillary the one that called these people "patriots" when Bush was in office?

Holy fuck, man. Get a god damn grip. What's happening is shitty but calling for murdering people and hypocrisy has no fucking place here.

 

[Rubenov]

Maybe Obama should change the name Obamacare to Americare or Governmentcare or something. Or carebears.

Funny, Repubs gave it that name.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

How are these republicans not drug out in the street and shot. They ran on and want to shut down the government on purpose, and now using the evil Obamacare as an excuse. I'm sorry that is treason hang them all. I heard a whack job giving the truth about the shutdown say our government defaulting is a good thing, and the discomfort from it is like getting off a drug. Well rant over Fuck the GoP.

http://youtu.be/zo-jgXL-XIQ

Wow. Advocating outright murder... I'd say you've lost it.

 

[Sir_Crocodile]

Are you advocating murdering idiot republicans? Is that what the shit I just read? Are you also suggesting speaking against and taking action against the government in a legal arena is treason? Isn't Hillary the one that called these people "patriots" when Bush was in office?

Holy fuck, man. Get a god damn grip. What's happening is shitty but calling for murdering people and hypocrisy has no fucking place here.

By the way, do you still think both parties are to blame or just the republicans.

I'm unsure since you never responded to any of the points raised in the "Republicans trying to cater to veterans" thread.

 

[WARP10CK]

Don't know if this has been posted but this quote from a republican is disturbing they have no agenda with this and if they do no republican seems to know what it is.

Quote and link below

"We're not going to be disrespected," Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-Ind.) told The Washington Examiner. "We have to get something out of this. And I don't know what that even is."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/03/marlin-stutzman-government-shutdown_n_4034123.html

 

[The Technomancer]

Don't know if this has been posted but this quote from a republican is disturbing they have no agenda with this and if they do no republican seems to know what it is.

Quote and link below

"We're not going to be disrespected," Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-Ind.) told The Washington Examiner. "We have to get something out of this. And I don't know what that even is."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/03/marlin-stutzman-government-shutdown_n_4034123.html

Utterly unsurprising. They didn't think this far ahead. They thought Obama and the Dems would just cave again

 

[SporeCrawler]

so is there any polls going on showing who is seen as responsible for this?

 

[Blader]

Maybe Obama should change the name Obamacare to Americare or Governmentcare or something. Or carebears.

People will call it Obamacare regardless of what it's real name is. Like they already are.

 

[TacticalFox88]

People will call it Obamacare regardless of what it's real name is. Like they already are.

And in 10 years they will call it the Affordable Care Act once people start using it.

 

[Blader]

And in 10 years they will call it the Affordable Care Act once people start using it.

Nah, it'll probably always be referred to as Obamacare, the same way trickle-down will always be Reaganomics.

Don't know if this has been posted but this quote from a republican is disturbing they have no agenda with this and if they do no republican seems to know what it is.

Quote and link below

"We're not going to be disrespected," Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-Ind.) told The Washington Examiner. "We have to get something out of this. And I don't know what that even is."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/03/marlin-stutzman-government-shutdown_n_4034123.html

We're talking about a group of people who think Hurricane Sandy was caused by gay people, of course they haven't thought this through.