The Republican Thread

[StrangeSox]

Because the original purpose of the federal government wasn't national security or anything.

 

Partially but not "the" original purpose. I think there was something about providing for the general welfare...

 

But so what? If it's really an ineffective waste of trillions of dollars, shouldn't we stop doing it?

Edited May 7, 2012 by StrangeSox

[The Sir]

No. no.... no.... we didn't tax (the rich) enough. It has nothing to do with spending. Keep telling yourself that.

 

There's no place like home.

 

There's no place like home.

 

There's no place like home...

 

But dude, wasn't the Buffet Rule supposed to fix all this by reducing the deficit by like, what, three percent? Taxation will totally save us!

[Y2HH]

But dude, wasn't the Buffet Rule supposed to fix all this by reducing the deficit by like, what, three percent? Taxation will totally save us!

 

It's not even 3%. The Buffet Rule would have raised an additional 8-16 billion dollars per year (based on conflicting estimates). That's less than a drop in the bucket. It was more political theater and another waste of American taxpayer resources for the TV cameras.

 

They need to fix the ENTIRE tax system instead of arguing over the crumbs. Of course, they won't do this...but they'll convince their sheep followers on both sides of the isle that their way WILL fix everything...when their ways have repeatedly failed to actually do anything. Democrats will say Republicans will just block everything -- and Republicans will say Democrats will just mess everything up. And they're probably both right. As Lewis black says, "We have one party of no ideas...and another party of bad ideas."

 

And with that said, I have to say as a married homeowner with one child, who is also the sole "bread winner" in the family, that I pay enough in taxes. From federal, to state, to county, to city, to the various fees on top of other various fees, to sales tax, to soda tax, to water tax...to ever inflating property tax, to city stickers, to plate stickers...

 

If you really think about it, they're not just taxing your income once...but about 5-10 times over.

 

And now you want to convince me I should give them even more?

 

f*** off.

Edited May 7, 2012 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

Not being happy with spending and taxation levels still doesn't excuse not raising the arbitrary debt ceiling to pay for goods and services already delivered, sending the US government into default.

[The Sir]

It's not even 3%.

 

Thanks. I thought I was being generous.

[StrangeSox]

The Buffet Rule is a token political move to start the ball rolling on tax reforms or, more bluntly, to provide a cudgel to beat Republicans for opposing raising taxes on the rich while advocating for spending cuts for the poor. It's never been presented as a panacea.

[Y2HH]

Not being happy with spending and taxation levels still doesn't excuse not raising the arbitrary debt ceiling to pay for goods and services already delivered, sending the US government into default.

 

And I never said otherwise.

[Y2HH]

The Buffet Rule is a token political move to start the ball rolling on tax reforms or, more bluntly, to provide a cudgel to beat Republicans for opposing raising taxes on the rich while advocating for spending cuts for the poor. It's never been presented as a panacea.

 

...and it failed to do any of that.

[StrangeSox]

That post wasn't specifically addressed to you but to those making excuses for almost allowing the US, a monetarily sovereign nation, to default on its obligations because they don't like what some of those obligations were.

[StrangeSox]

...and it failed to do any of that.

Well it does allow Democrats to campaign by pointing out "look! they refuse to raise taxes on millionaires paying a lower rate than you, and they wanted to end middle-class tax cuts (payroll taxes)!"

 

How effective those policies would be and how effective that campaigning will be remains to be seen.

[Rex Kickass]

Yeah, we nearly went broke because of the debt ceiling fight, and not because we've spent the last 40 years spending money on asinine s***. Like $16 trillion to the War on Poverty that didn't eliminate poverty. Keep telling yourself that.

There's a difference between being broke and bankrupt. One means you are no longer honoring your obligations.

[Y2HH]

There's a difference between being broke and bankrupt. One means you are no longer honoring your obligations.

 

This is true, however, adding endless amounts of debt, despite still paying the "minimum payments due", is the inevitable road to bankruptcy.

[StrangeSox]

This is true, however, adding endless amounts of debt, despite still paying the "minimum payments due", is the inevitable road to bankruptcy.

 

You can't unspend that money, though. The deficit ceiling has to be raised periodically to pay for goods and services already approved by Congress. It wasn't a budget act. If the tea party House members had gotten their way last summer, the US would have defaulted on payments it already owed. The results would have been catastrophic.

[Y2HH]

You can't unspend that money, though. The deficit ceiling has to be raised periodically to pay for goods and services already approved by Congress. It wasn't a budget act. If the tea party House members had gotten their way last summer, the US would have defaulted on payments it already owed. The results would have been catastrophic.

 

Yep, I know that.

[Jenksismyhero]

You can't unspend that money, though. The deficit ceiling has to be raised periodically to pay for goods and services already approved by Congress. It wasn't a budget act. If the tea party House members had gotten their way last summer, the US would have defaulted on payments it already owed. The results would have been catastrophic.

 

Yeah, just look at the remnants of Illinois. Look how the state stopped functioning, how no business performs any work there, etc. etc. I'm surprised people still live in the State given the amount of times the state had defaulted on its' obligations.

 

It would have been harmful, yes, but we'd still be the most secure economy to invest in. Little would have changed. We set the bar. Whether that's at 100% or 99%, we're still at the top.

[StrangeSox]

State of Illinois =! the US government, default reserve currency of the world. It would have shoved the rest of the Eurozone over the edge and made 2008's crash look mild. There are also very serious problems in even figuring out what happens with payments at that point, since there aren't any prioritization schemes on the books. Every single payment would be challenged in court by someone who didn't get theirs.

 

Has Illinois actually defaulted on debt obligations?

[mr_genius]

Obama losing voters because of his extremist views. Just goes to show the Democrats have gone insane with madness. Independents leaving Obama in droves.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505267_162-574...aign-kicks-off/

[StrangeSox]

this belongs in the Obama re-election megathread!

[Jenksismyhero]

State of Illinois =! the US government, default reserve currency of the world. It would have shoved the rest of the Eurozone over the edge and made 2008's crash look mild. There are also very serious problems in even figuring out what happens with payments at that point, since there aren't any prioritization schemes on the books. Every single payment would be challenged in court by someone who didn't get theirs.

 

Has Illinois actually defaulted on debt obligations?

 

Well obviously they're not the same.

 

And i'm not sure if they've defaulted on something like bonds, but I know they're 6 months to 2 years behind on their bills to creditors. This state is beyond f***ed.

[StrangeSox]

Well obviously they're not the same.

 

And i'm not sure if they've defaulted on something like bonds, but I know they're 6 months to 2 years behind on their bills to creditors. This state is beyond f***ed.

 

I don't think any state in the nation has actually defaulted. Illinois was leading the pack as "most likely" a year or so ago. Many would have without the Federal aid in the ARRA.

 

No one can confidently state exactly what would have happened if the US did decide to default, but basically everyone saner than Michelle Bachmann realized it was going to be catastrophic.

 

The main impact on markets would come from sharply reduced liquidity in the U.S. Treasury market, as financial firms’ procedures and systems would be tested by the world’s largest debt market being in default. Given the existing legal contracts, trading agreements, and trading systems with which firms operate, could U.S. Treasurys be held or purchased or used as collateral? The aftermath of the failure of Lehman Brothers should be a reminder that the financial system’s “plumbing” matters. All the legal commitments and limitations in a complex financial system mean a shock from an event that is viewed as inconceivable – such as a U.S. Treasury default – can cause the system to stall. The impact of a U.S. Treasury default could make us nostalgic for the market conditions that existed immediately after the failure of Lehman Brothers.

 

I think he's accurate when he uses the word "inconceivable."

[StrangeSox]

9/11 defense attorney wears hijab at hearing, wants others in court to dress more modestly

 

Bormann asked the court to order the other women present at the hearing to dress more modestly so as not to distract the defendants, who would be "committing a sin under their faith" by looking at them.

 

According to The Washington Post, chief military prosecutor Brig. Gen. Mark Martins deemed the request not worthy of a response.

 

Intentionally trying to throw the case?

[Jenksismyhero]

9/11 defense attorney wears hijab at hearing, wants others in court to dress more modestly

 

 

 

Intentionally trying to throw the case?

 

That is a strange request.

[Balta1701]

Intentionally trying to throw the case?

So far I've gotten the impression that these hearings are a trainwreck.

[Jenksismyhero]

So far I've gotten the impression that these hearings are a trainwreck.

 

I haven't gotten that feel at all. They spent an entire day on arraigning these guys, something that normally takes 10 minutes. They're being extremely patient with these guys.

[Balta1701]

I haven't gotten that feel at all. They spent an entire day on arraigning these guys, something that normally takes 10 minutes. They're being extremely patient with these guys.

They're being extremely patient with them to the point that it allows them to create a show (with requests like the one noted there)...but they have no choice but to do that since the court itself has so little credibility.

 

In a normal court, they'd have been in, arraigned, and out, and if someone tried to make a scene, the judge would have simply dealt with it and moved on with the proceedings, and that wouldn't have cost the court any Credibility, whereas a kangaroo court denying the people the right to speak every day costs the kangaroo court whatever little credibility it has.