|
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. |
On October 01 2013 13:16 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 13:13 DoubleReed wrote:On October 01 2013 13:09 Introvert wrote: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. 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.
Wow, yea, I'm sure that's no problem to the men and women living paycheck to paycheck. Nothing bad could ever happen from being paid late.
You know, part of what gets cut is appropriations to Veterans Affairs. I can't imagine that having any negative consequences while we have a suicide epidemic. But yea, I see what you mean. Who cares about veterans, amirite?
"Paid for doing nothing." Screw you, buddy.
|
On October 01 2013 13:15 acker wrote:Show nested quote +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?
Paying creditors is a small portion of Federal spending.
^ I think the treasury can cover that tyvm.
|
RIP usa ;~;
Actually Congress has to authorize their back pay. So they may not actually be paid if Congress does nothing.
In the 17+ (or is it 25+?) times this has happened since the 70s, they have always received back pay.
We haven't seen this in almost 20 years, but this shutdown is not some new, novel occurrence.
|
There's bigger news than the government shutdown.
Obamacare is live!
Welcome to the rest of the advance world and enjoy your universal healthcare. 
|
On October 01 2013 13:20 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 13:16 Introvert wrote:On October 01 2013 13:13 DoubleReed wrote:On October 01 2013 13:09 Introvert wrote: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. 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. Wow, yea, I'm sure that's no problem to the men and women living paycheck to paycheck. Nothing bad could ever happen from being paid late. You know, part of what gets cut is appropriations to Veterans Affairs. I can't imagine that having any negative consequences while we have a suicide epidemic. But yea, I see what you mean. Who cares about veterans, amirite? "Paid for doing nothing." Screw you, buddy.
it's that or just keep adding to 17 trillion in debt. So I think this matters more. besides, I don't know for sure, but I would imagine the temp bill the house tried to pass the other day included spending for all military needs. The SENATE rejected it.
I mean the president hoisted this massive disaster of a bill on us, but since it's "progress" you are a ok with that screwing we are going to get!
|
On October 01 2013 13:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 13:15 acker wrote: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? Paying creditors is a small portion of Federal spending. ^ I think the treasury can cover that tyvm.
Your definition of realistic isn't the same as mine. Unless you think we can cut government spending by roughly 20% in seventeen days?
|
On October 01 2013 13:20 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 13:16 Introvert wrote:On October 01 2013 13:13 DoubleReed wrote:On October 01 2013 13:09 Introvert wrote: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. 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. Wow, yea, I'm sure that's no problem to the men and women living paycheck to paycheck. Nothing bad could ever happen from being paid late. You know, part of what gets cut is appropriations to Veterans Affairs. I can't imagine that having any negative consequences while we have a suicide epidemic. But yea, I see what you mean. Who cares about veterans, amirite? "Paid for doing nothing." Screw you, buddy.
_Thank you_ I would very much like to keep eating please.
|
On October 01 2013 13:24 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 13:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 01 2013 13:15 acker wrote: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? Paying creditors is a small portion of Federal spending. ^ I think the treasury can cover that tyvm. Your definition of realistic isn't the same as mine. Unless you think we can cut government spending by roughly 20% in seventeen days?
They can start SOMEWHERE. The White House refuses to start ANYWHERE.
|
|
|
On October 01 2013 13:19 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 13:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Yes, wikipedia has poor wording sometimes. I can go directly to the source if you want. Show nested quote +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
They're writing broadly for the general public.
Creditor usually means debt holder.
|
On October 01 2013 13:25 Introvert wrote:
They can start SOMEWHERE. The White House refuses to start ANYWHERE.
That's where you're wrong. They're starting with a government shutdown.
I hope you think the Republicans can win this one.
On October 01 2013 13:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
They're writing broadly for the general public.
Creditor usually means debt holder.
Do you have a source that contradicts the Treasury? It seems pretty clear that the ability to spend money is not at all the same thing as the ability to honor repayments.
|
|
|
I work in the mortgage industry.. wonder if rates are going to go up because of this. =(
|
Say goodbye to the last 3 or 4 independent voters you didn't manage to scare away with the 2012 election, GOP.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 01 2013 13:21 paralleluniverse wrote:There's bigger news than the government shutdown. Obamacare is live! Welcome to the rest of the advance world and enjoy your universal healthcare.
It's not universal healthcare. 30 million people still without health insurance. We are far, far from the ideal.
|
Wow I didn't know the shut down in 95 was 3 weeks long. Crazy.
|
On October 01 2013 13:27 Eben wrote:
I work in the mortgage industry.. wonder if rates are going to go up because of this. =(
probably not for a bit. If there is a prolonged shutdown its gonna have some bad impacts though.
|
On October 01 2013 13:24 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 13:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 01 2013 13:15 acker wrote: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? Paying creditors is a small portion of Federal spending. ^ I think the treasury can cover that tyvm. Your definition of realistic isn't the same as mine. Unless you think we can cut government spending by roughly 20% in seventeen days?
We need to cut by 20%? Source?
|
On October 01 2013 13:27 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 13:21 paralleluniverse wrote:There's bigger news than the government shutdown. Obamacare is live! Welcome to the rest of the advance world and enjoy your universal healthcare. It's not universal healthcare. 30 million people still without health insurance. We are far, far from the ideal.
Closer than we were before at least~
|
On October 01 2013 13:28 DannyJ wrote:
Wow I didn't know the shut down in 95 was 3 weeks long. Crazy.
And some real deals came from it too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
