Support NeoGAF

[Fatghost]

Most people think that the debt ceiling needs to be raised only so Obama can "spend more", without truly recognizing how disastrous it'd be if we did default

The US won't default. Interest and Principal payments will be made no matter what.

The downgrade is the issue. Downgrade to AA+ isn't the end of the world but it could mean higher yields on the bonds which means higher interest cost for the government.

Mortgage rates are based on bond rates which means higher mortgage costs. Which hurts housing prices and sales. which hurts construction and ultimately employment. Which costs Americans more which means less spending in other areas of the economy. Which hurts the recovery both in the US and globally.

And it would be a downgrade based solely on the politicians being idiots. It would be a cost for no reason except blind ideology. It would be mostly the tea party's fault, but it would also be the fault of not-crazy republicans for not abandoning the tea party and putting the country first.

 

[Dude Abides]

So that opens Obama for impeachment ?

Impeachment is entirely political - no courts are involved - so anything Obama does opens him up for it.

 

[ElRenoRaven]

they are not conservative. They are just....crazy!!

Oh I know that but they like to call themselves conservative. So that gives us all a bad rep. I mean I can understand their point of view. I agree with the fact our government needs to reign in the pocketbook. However government can't function without both sides working together. It just can't.

 

[HylianTom]

More likely

The American people would have to put down their cheez doodles and get up from their laptops/smartphones/tvs in order to wage a revolution. 1/3 of them would be wheezing from the exertion that comes from walking briskly from the sofa to the street corner.

 

[Averon]

Here's some good news for once

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/27/stem-cell-research-ruling_n_910799.html


Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research Funding Can Go Ahead, Judge Rules

WASHINGTON -- A lawsuit that had threatened to end the Obama administration's funding of embryonic stem cell research was dismissed Wednesday, allowing the U.S. to continue supporting a search for cures to deadly diseases over protests that the work relies on destroyed human embryos.

The lawsuit claimed that research funded by the National Institutes of Health violated the 1996 Dickey-Wicker law that prohibits taxpayer financing for work that harms an embryo. But the administration policy allows research on embryos that were culled long ago through private funding.

U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth, chief of the federal court in Washington, last year said the lawsuit was likely to succeed and ordered a stop to the research while the case continued. But under swift protest from the Obama administration, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals here quickly overturned Lamberth's injunction and said the case was likely to fail.

Lamberth said in his opinion Wednesday that he is bound by the higher court's analysis and ruled in favor of the administration's motion to dismiss the case.

 

[Fatghost]

Oh I agree completely, but if that happens then get ready for Obama is an Islamo-Fascist-Nazi-Commie-Kenyan-Interloper 2.0 becoming the narrative all over again.

The world will just have to hope that this will be a wake up call to all intelligent Americans to abandon ideology and recognize the danger of the tea party.

 

[Evlar]

The relevant law all this shit is about, by the bye, is Title 31, Section 3101, subsection (b) of the United States Code:

(b) The face amount of obligations issued under this chapter and the
face amount of obligations whose principal and interest are guaranteed
by the United States Government (except guaranteed obligations held by
the Secretary of the Treasury) may not be more than $8,965,000,000,000,
outstanding at one time, subject to changes periodically made in that
amount as provided by law through the congressional budget process
described in Rule XLIX \1\ of the Rules of the House of Representatives
or otherwise.

That's what they would attempt impeachment over, and that's what Obama will argue is unconstitutional (that the Rules of the House of Representatives run afoul of the 14th Amendment by calling into question the validity of the public debt).

 

[teruterubozu]

The American people would have to put down their cheez doodles and get up from their laptops/smartphones/tvs in order to wage a revolution. 1/3 of them would be wheezing from the exertion that comes from walking briskly from the sofa to the street corner.

Plus they'd have to be willing to die for....Boehner.

 

[Averon]

Oh I know that but they like to call themselves conservative. So that gives us all a bad rep. I mean I can understand their point of view. I agree with the fact our government needs to reign in the pocketbook. However government can't function without both sides working together. It just can't.

I think that was the goal from the start.

 

[TacticalFox88]

I think that was the goal from the start.

Pretty damn stupid in hindsight....but then again...it was a different age back then

 

[Fatghost]

Oh I know that but they like to call themselves conservative. So that gives us all a bad rep. I mean I can understand their point of view. I agree with the fact our government needs to reign in the pocketbook. However government can't function without both sides working together. It just can't.

Yeah, the tea party makes me ashamed to say I'm conservative.

We need a new label, like how Dawkins wants Atheists to be called "Brights".

 

[teruterubozu]

I was laughing my ass off when MSNBC went into doom & gloom mode on election night coverage, when Lawrence O'Donnell predicted the debt ceiling drama. Now it's all playing out exactly as he said.

 

[Chichikov]

The relevant law all this shit is about, by the bye, is Title 31, Section 3101, subsection (b) of the United States Code:
That's what they would attempt impeachment over, and that's what Obama will argue is unconstitutional (that the Rules of the House of Representatives run afoul of the 14th Amendment by calling into question the validity of the public debt).

The GOP would never go that route, Obama will look like the responsible adult saving the country and they'll look like petty idiots.

And it wouldn't matter anyway, this will just die in the senate like Clinton's impeachment.

 

[empty vessel]

Oh I know that but they like to call themselves conservative. So that gives us all a bad rep. I mean I can understand their point of view. I agree with the fact our government needs to reign in the pocketbook. However government can't function without both sides working together. It just can't.

That ain't a fact. The US government does not spend a lot of money compared to other industrialized countries. It does, however, have a not insubstantial revenue problem.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Oh, Palin, you so crazy

- Sarah Palin accused President Obama of "scaring" the American people over the importance of raising the debt ceiling before the August 2 deadline.

"Scaring the American people is exactly what President Obama is doing," Palin said Tuesday night on Fox News. "The president's getting pretty good at this fear mongering and trying to cram down the public's throat this idea of bigger government, more spending."

Although the former Alaska governor and 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee said she respects House Speak John Boehner's efforts to negotiate with the president, she said there is a larger problem with his strategy.

"The internal problem that he has is reinventing the wheel here in the 11th hour, when we already have Cut, Cap and Balance that passed the House, and we don't need to retreat now and wave a white flag," Palin said.

The Republican-controlled House passed "Cut, Cap, and Balance," a plan that failed to pass the Democratic-controlled Senate last week. The pledge includes cuts and caps in spending and a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. Boehner is now trying to put forward a plan that includes the framework of the pledge in a deal that could become law. Obama is advocating for a "balanced approach" to the crisis that would combine spending cuts and no extension of Bush-era tax cuts for families making more than $250,000 a year.
Palin, who is considering a bid for the White House in 2012, has said raising the debt ceiling is inevitable, but that Republicans "better get something out of it."

"This August 2 deadline is looming, but it's not Armageddon, it's not life-or-death, so Boehner and the Republicans have got to make sure that they've got a good plan in front of those who will be voting on this plan," Palin said.

 

[gcubed]

meh, like has been said, default wont happen on Aug 2nd, so she's right in that regard. People won't be happy when money stops flowing. The people who don't know they are on gov't programs will very quickly find out that they are

 

[ElRenoRaven]

That ain't a fact. The US government does not spend a lot of money compared to other industrialized countries. It does, however, have a not insubstantial revenue problem.

Not going to argue this because neither of us will ever convince each other otherwise. Let's get back to the subject of Tea Party being nutcases.

 

[Trurl]

Pretty much.
Supposedly, if both numbers cancel each other out, our debt situation wont "get any worse".
The only problem is that it doesn't make sense, at all.

But since people don't seem to understand even the basic nature of public debt, you can away with such stupidity.

There is no sense of how arbitrary this all is. We might as well match the increase in the debt ceiling with budget cuts over the next 50 years.

 

[empty vessel]

Not going to argue this because neither of us will ever convince each other otherwise. Let's get back to the subject of Tea Party being nutcases.

But what I said is empirically true. The US government does not spend a lot of money compared to other industrialized countries. You can't disagree with this because it would be a denial of external reality.

Now, it's fine if, despite this, you think that the government still ought to reduce its spending. But that's different from suggesting that the US government has a spending "problem," which heavily implies its spending is outside of some norm, which it empirically is not.

And I don't think anybody could deny that this false perception that the US government has a spending "problem" or spends a lot of money is what drives the anti-tax and pro-spending-cut political support among lay persons. And then we ought to ask, how did this false perception come to be so pervasive? Who is responsible for manipulating people in this way and for what end? I think that's worth discussing.

 

[Neverwinter27]

gcubed why are you so sure it will never happen?

 

[LM4sure]

meh, like has been said, default wont happen on Aug 2nd, so she's right in that regard. People won't be happy when money stops flowing. The people who don't know they are on gov't programs will very quickly find out that they are

Can't wait! I'll have my popcorn ready.

 

[gcubed]

gcubed why are you so sure it will never happen?

not never... but the public outrage will be so high once programs start getting shut down that it'll be fixed.

 

[Mike M]

So hypothetically speaking, if despite all protestations to the contrary the 14th amendment is invoked, would that serve to *raise* the debt ceiling, or eliminate it entirely?

 

[mckmas8808]

Wow. The Tea Party nuts are now trying to replace John Boehner as speaker of the house. They don't want him to compromise at all. Talk about stupid. Both sides need to compromise. It's that simple. These nuts make me ashamed to call myself a conservative.

The DEMs have already compromised on the extra stuff besides the debt ceiling. It's up to the GOP now.

 

[Chichikov]

There is no sense of how arbitrary this all is. We might as well match the increase in the debt ceiling with budget cuts over the next 50 years.

As long as we keep talking about t-bills coupon payments like it's cash we're paying a Chinese loan shark in a dark ally, such bullshit will get traction with the public.
Good thing Obama has completely bought into that narrative.

 

[Escape Goat]

I had almost forgotten about Palin. Why did you have to bring her up?

 

[Invisible_Insane]

As long as we keep talking about t-bills coupon payments like it's cash we're paying a Chinese loan shark in a dark ally, such bullshit will get traction with the public.
Good thing Obama has completely bought into that narrative.

I think this is a pretty great article on a number of the ways in which our conversations about debt tend toward incoherence.

 

[Pctx]

Impeachment is entirely political - no courts are involved - so anything Obama does opens him up for it.

By this standard, what is stopping them from just walking into the oval office and putting Obama in handcuffs now? There is a process to it.

 

[SlipperySlope]

I haven't looked at the specifics of each measure, but from purely on $ terms, I prefer Boehner's bill, even without the extra cuts he'll add. Reid's bill only cuts $840 billion dollars in non-war funds for a two-year extension. The war fund cuts are a gimmick.

The CBO analysis of the Senate plan estimated that it would save $840 billion in non-war spending by government agencies.

So Reid has $840 billion in "real" cuts combined with a debt extension of over 2 trillion (I forget the exact number, was it $2.4 trillion?)

So, meh. Not a serious proposal. At least with Boehner's bill you'll have renegotiations sooner to cut more.

 

[polyh3dron]

I love how the GOP guys are all accusing Obama and the Dems of demagoguery, getting multiple members of their party to repeat the charge over and over as they do.

Probably the most egregious case of projection I've ever seen.

 

[reilo]

I haven't looked at the specifics of each measure, but from purely on $ terms, I prefer Boehner's bill, even without the extra cuts he'll add. Reid's bill only cuts $840 billion dollars in non-war funds for a two-year extension. The war fund cuts are a gimmick.



So Reid has $840 billion in "real" cuts combined with a debt extension of over 2 trillion (I forget the exact number, was it $2.4 trillion?)

So, meh. Not a serious proposal. At least with Boehner's bill you'll have renegotiations sooner to cut more.

What?

Budget analysts said Wednesday that a Senate Democratic plan to reduce the deficit and increase the nation's borrowing authority would save $2.2 trillion over a decade, more than a rival House Republican proposal but less than promised.

Oh, right. You're not counting the war efforts ending as actual "cuts". I'm shocked, to say the least.

 

[mckmas8808]

Here's some good news for once

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/27/stem-cell-research-ruling_n_910799.html


Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research Funding Can Go Ahead, Judge Rules

So does this mean that it's over? The lawsuit is dead, dead?

 

[slit]

The shit fit the right will have if this happens...

What difference does it make? They have a shit fit over everything. The entire party has turned into one big shit fit. They've been taken over by completely delusional human beings that are completely paranoid. If they try to impeach Obama it'll never make it through the senate anyway.

 

[empty vessel]

So, meh. Not a serious proposal.

Not a serious proposal for what purpose? Most reasonable people do not see any reason to cut anything. I mean, I agree with you that it isn't a serious proposal in that it is exceedingly unreasonable to be proposing that the US government cut spending, but you seem to think something else. I'm afraid your belief that spending cuts should be made makes you the unserious thing here.

 

[Dude Abides]

By this standard, what is stopping them from just walking into the oval office and putting Obama in handcuffs now? There is a process to it.

Yes, there is a process but it's entirely political. The House could decide that playing basketball is a high crime or misdemeanor, draw up articles of impeachment, the Sentate could declare Obama guilty, and he's impeached for playing basketball. The answer to your question is nothing - there is no check on it other than politics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_v._United_States

 

[Cyan]

Not a serious proposal. At least with Boehner's bill you'll have renegotiations sooner to cut more.

... which is exactly why Boehner's bill is not a serious proposal.

 

[teruterubozu]

At least with Boehner's bill you'll have renegotiations sooner to cut more.

And start these shenanigans all over again? I can hardly call that serious either.

 

[SlipperySlope]

What?


Oh, right. You're not counting the war efforts ending as actual "cuts". I'm shocked, to say the least.

How can they be new cuts when those savings are expected anyway, without the bill? It's a charade to make the bill look bigger than it is.

 

[SlipperySlope]

... which is exactly why Boehner's bill is not a serious proposal.

I didn't say it was. It's merely a small extension to buy time so talks can begin again in a few months. Both bills being pondered currently don't cut nearly enough, so both need another debate about the problem. The sooner that second talk is, the better.

 

[ronito]

So wait.
Let me get this right.
Obama had proposed between 2-4 trillion in cuts/savings.
And Boehner told him now to do a sub trillion plan and this is a victory to republicans and tea partiers? WTF?

 

[gcubed]

So wait.
Let me get this right.
Obama had proposed between 2-4 trillion in cuts/savings.
And Boehner told him now to do a sub trillion plan and this is a victory to republicans and tea partiers? WTF?

they had worked on a bill to cut/raise 4.2 trillion, there was some tax code rework in there which the GOP would not agree to. Now they are fighting about 800billion... and the GOP thinks they are serious about deficit reduction

 

[ronito]

they had worked on a bill to cut/raise 4.2 trillion, there was some tax code rework in there which the GOP would not agree to. Now they are fighting about 800billion... and the GOP thinks they are serious about deficit reduction

 

[Clevinger]

I didn't say it was. It's merely a small extension to buy time so talks can begin again in a few months. Both bills being pondered currently don't cut nearly enough, so both need another debate about the problem. The sooner that second talk is, the better.

If you want to talk about spending cuts, talk about them when you make a budget. Don't take the fucking world economy hostage to do it.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

Yes, there is a process but it's entirely political. The House could decide that playing basketball is a high crime or misdemeanor, draw up articles of impeachment, the Sentate could declare Obama guilty, and he's impeached for playing basketball. The answer to your question is nothing - there is no check on it other than politics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_v._United_States

Just a quick clarification to your post. The House is solely responsible for impeachment. The Senate is needed only for "trial" of the impeached. And on that note, I still can't believe the number of people I talk to or see on the internets that don't know or realize that Clinton was impeached.

 

[Cyan]

Both bills being pondered currently don't cut nearly enough, so both need another debate about the problem. The sooner that second talk is, the better.

God this whole thing is so stupid. It's really frustrating. If Republicans want to talk debt, then talk debt. There is absolutely no reason to tie it to the debt ceiling. It's pure theater.

Urgh.

 

[SlipperySlope]

So wait.
Let me get this right.
Obama had proposed between 2-4 trillion in cuts/savings.
And Boehner told him now to do a sub trillion plan and this is a victory to republicans and tea partiers? WTF?

It's not a victory. Remember when they say that both sides need to make sacrifices? This is the Republican sacrifice to get something done. A small extension tied with a small spending cut.

Boehner's revising his plan to get it over a trillion. Neither side will "win" this debate. Neither side will get everything they want. They both will have to swallow some pride.

Given that both plans are sub optimal, the sooner we restart negotiations, the better, IMO. Boehner's extension is for 6 months, and Reid's will last until 2013, if memory serves.

Also, EmptyVessel, you are of the rare minority of people that thinks no spending cuts need to be made.

Anyway, need to get back to work.

 

[Cyan]

It's not a victory. Remember when they say that both sides need to make sacrifices? This is the Republican sacrifice to get something done. A small extension tied with a small spending cut.

Oh drop the bullshit. Raising the debt ceiling is not a Republican sacrifice and you know it.

 

[ronito]

It's not a victory. Remember when they say that both sides need to make sacrifices? This is the Republican sacrifice to get something done. A small extension tied with a small spending cut.

God I just laughed so hard I almost choked on my spit.


"Look honey, I know we need to both make sacrifices to make our marriage work. You've quit your job, moved across the country, and take care of our kids and I appreciate that sacrifice. For my sacrifice I promise I'll only cheat on your with overweight women. "

 

[Cyan]

Man, I'm starting to take this shit too seriously. Need to turn off the Bloomberg terminal or something.

 

[reilo]

It's not a victory. Remember when they say that both sides need to make sacrifices? This is the Republican sacrifice to get something done. A small extension tied with a small spending cut.

Boehner's revising his plan to get it over a trillion. Neither side will "win" this debate. Neither side will get everything they want. They both will have to swallow some pride.

Given that both plans are sub optimal, the sooner we restart negotiations, the better, IMO. Boehner's extension is for 6 months, and Reid's will last until 2013, if memory serves.

Also, EmptyVessel, you are of the rare minority of people that thinks no spending cuts need to be made.

Anyway, need to get back to work.

Incredible.