EPTOn October 01 2013 13:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
It's realistic to prioritize creditors over other spending.
It's realistic to prioritize creditors over other spending.
It's realistic that there is no other spending but creditors.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 489
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
It's realistic that there is no other spending but creditors. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4894 Posts
On October 01 2013 13:07 packrat386 wrote: On one hand, the republican argument against different restrictions for congress seems reasonable, on the other hand, why the fuck do we have to argue about it right now -_- Because there is no other time. If they keep passing spending Obama wants, they won't be taken seriously. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
http://isthegovernmentshutdown.com/ | ||
KwarK
United States43557 Posts
On October 01 2013 13:09 Introvert wrote: Because there is no other time. If they keep passing spending Obama wants, they won't be taken seriously. The spending was already passed. This is just setting fire to shit until they go back and unspend the money. | ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
On October 01 2013 13:10 KwarK wrote: The spending was already passed. This is just setting fire to shit until they go back and unspend the money. The spending has already been done, let alone passed. Because expenditures are authorized by separate legislation, the debt ceiling does not actually restrict deficits. In effect, it can only restrain the Treasury from paying for expenditures that have already been incurred.. Source | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On October 01 2013 13:08 acker wrote: It's realistic that there is no other spending but creditors. This ain't Japan bro  I mean really, what the hell are you talking about? Some crazy broad definition of creditor? | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On October 01 2013 13:09 Introvert wrote: Because there is no other time. If they keep passing spending Obama wants, they won't be taken seriously. Only by beating up public service workers are you taken seriously! 'MURICA | ||
|
packrat386
United States5077 Posts
| ||
|
packrat386
United States5077 Posts
On October 01 2013 13:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote: This ain't Japan bro I mean really, what the hell are you talking about? Some crazy broad definition of creditor? Arguably the biggest impact is that the rating agencies have taken the stance the US credit rating will suffer. Whether or not we can technically pay our debts is irrelevant. | ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
On October 01 2013 13:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote: I mean really, what the hell are you talking about? Some crazy broad definition of creditor? My definition of creditor is the same as yours. What on earth are you talking about? | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Introvert
United States4894 Posts
On October 01 2013 13:10 KwarK wrote: The spending was already passed. This is just setting fire to shit until they go back and unspend the money. When it comes down to it, the only Constitutional spending required is on the debt and pensions. But seriously though, this is there only chance to even try to negotiate on some of these insane deficits. I refuse to accept the idea that we have no choice but to spiral out of control. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4894 Posts
On October 01 2013 13:13 DoubleReed wrote: Only by beating up public service workers are you taken seriously! 'MURICA They'll get payed for doing nothing, just late. They have it ok so I'm not concerned. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
Yes, wikipedia has poor wording sometimes. | ||
|
Kergy
Peru2011 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
On October 01 2013 13:16 Introvert wrote: They'll get payed for doing nothing, just late. They have it ok so I'm not concerned. Actually Congress has to authorize their back pay. So they may not actually be paid if Congress does nothing. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43557 Posts
On October 01 2013 13:15 Introvert wrote: When it comes down to it, the only Constitutional spending required is on the debt and pensions. But seriously though, this is there only chance to even try to negotiate on some of these insane deficits. I refuse to accept the idea that we have no choice but to spiral out of control. The choice whether or not to spend the money was made back when the money was spent in a budget that was legally passed. If you want to make a choice whether or not to spend some more then you can fight the next budget. The current fight is over whether or not to set fire to shit because you didn't like the outcome of the last fight and hope that somehow fire will change the past. | ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
On October 01 2013 13:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Yes, wikipedia has poor wording sometimes. I can go directly to the source if you want. The debt limit does not authorize new spending commitments. It simply allows the government to finance existing legal obligations that Congresses and presidents of both parties have made in the past. Treasury | ||
|
OuchyDathurts
United States4588 Posts
| ||
| ||
