Jump to content

US Government Shut Down - new elections for senate and house of rep.?


Recommended Posts

Our economy used to run OK without such increases in the Fed balance sheet.

That was after Roosevelt and before Reagan, a period of time during which the wealthy paid high tax rates.

 

Note that the economy did, during that time, occasionally run up very high debts relative to GDP - WWII was expensive - but had no trouble paying them off.

 

 

 

I later had to pay 25 dollars through the mail, and I knew this, as I pulled from the toll, with the sinking feeling that EVERYTHING MY GRANDFATHER HAD DONE with the tokens for years and years, and cousins and cousins and aunts and uncles, was wiped away, unjustly.

- - - - -

How many decisions and actions of yours and mine are nullified or maginalized by the strokes of government pens?

I'm surprised your toll bridges are managed by the government - most places sub that out to private contractors.

 

Where I come from the bridges were built by the government for the public to use, and managed by the government accordingly - we don't have toll bridges here (we had one, privately managed, but lack of maintenance did it in - I was one of the last people to cross it).

 

 

 

Ok, here is one solution to the shutdown and debt ceiling impasse: Social Security payments

Social Security is a separate program, not paid for out of the Federal Budget -

 

just the opposite: a large part of the Federal debt is owed to Social Security, having been borrowed in the past from the Trust Fund of extra payments levied from the working poor - an arrangement set up by Reagan to finance the baby boomer's retirements without levying SS taxes on rich people.

 

Anything that reduces the current payin to Social Security will increase the pressure on the Federal Government to repay its borrowings.

 

 

 

No, you're right....dems vs dems hasn't threatened any shutdowns, just exponential increases in spending. The country is living beyond its means.

Most of the increases in spending, and essentially all of the increases in debt, over the past thirty years or so have come from Republican policy and legislation.

 

The country is living well within its means - it is just refusing to pay its bills with the means and money at hand, instead borrowing to its limit and then publicly threatening to default on its debts rather than pay up.

Edited by overtone
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 329
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Just thinking out loud here.....   If people like soldiers and policeman can be legally charged with 'Dereliction Of Duty' for not performing the required responsibilities of their job then why can'

Wish you guys would quit playing the game. Bush only had a surplus because Clinton stripped Social Security while he was in office. Man you ideologues are atrocious. I am glad I am not part of this ci

I never suggesed you were evil. I simply pointed out that as a matter of recent and easily remembered historical fact you and your fellow registered Republicans bear full and undiluted responsibility

How is American going to get out of this deadlock?

 

As long as we keep up the perception that this is a battle against evenly matched foes, each side nobly persevering in their duty to defend their People, deadlocked in a titanic struggle to maintain decency, integrity and the American way of life, I don't see any solutions. Americans usually admire calling a spade a spade, but we love battles more, so this isn't being perceived as the hostage situation it really is.

 

Anything Obama does that isn't capitulation will be viewed as uncooperative by the Reps, and capitulation means the Dems are right back here every time the Reps lose in Congress. While the Intelligent Design crowd couldn't sell their "Teach the Controversy!" stance for education, they've shown marked success with the whole "Obamacare Battle" strategy.

 

One thing I'd really like to know is if all this Tea Party sentiment is legitimate or not. I know the movement started in upstate NY to protest taxing non-diet soft drinks. It called the representation involved in such laws into question and was basically a great exercise in civic movements. Then the Tea Party started to attract some very wealthy supporters and the message seemed to change as well. Now many people suspect that the Tea Party is being used by corporations who want everything privatized and are just piggybacking their special interests along with the party's.

 

But why do there seem to be so many people supporting the Tea Party stance? I know lots of people who admired Ted Cruz' efforts and don't like Obamacare but when questioned don't know much about either. They all agree that big government is bad but can't say why a program that subsidizes oil isn't part of the same big government that wants to coordinate national disasters. They scream about mandated healthcare coverage like the government doesn't mandate anything else. I doubt the mandate was driven by the government anyway, since the insurance industry has the most to gain if everyone has to be insured.

 

I get the feeling many who share a few Tea Party ideals never wanted it to go this far. They rebelled against wiser heads and took up with this underdog and now they're regretting it, realizing how rabid and radical this conservative movement has become. And many people still want government to be smaller, they just don't want it to be smaller in ways that benefit corporations more than people. They still want better representation, and hopefully now they realize that the current Tea Party doesn't represent them either. They want what they want but aren't willing to shut down the whole government to get their way. I hope, anyway.

 

I also hope this doesn't cause too many more people to give up on interest in their government. I think we've lost most of the younger ones already with crap like this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL,

 

Cannot believe you actually think our debt is party related. Cracks me up! You need to do a little research. Here are some things to look up. Petrodollar, BRICs, then you may get a better response than the bullshit party line argument.

 

Now as to Obamacare. A fresh story found on facebook just for those AHCA supporters. Enjoy!

 

My name is Ashley Dionne and I’m a 26-year-old recent graduate from Michigan.

The phony Obamacare signup poster boy made me want to send a message about how Obamacare is really affecting people.

I graduated from The University of Michigan in 2009. In my state, this used to mean something, but even with a bachelor’s I was told I was too educated and wouldn’t stay. I watched as kids with GEDs and high school diploma’s took the low-paying jobs for which I applied.

I went back to school and got a second degree and finally found work at a gym. I work nights and only get 32 hours a week for eight dollars an hour. I’m unable to find a second job at this time.

I have asthma, ulcers, and mild cerebral palsy. Obamacare takes my monthly rate from $75 a month for full coverage on my “Young Adult Plan,” to $319 a month. After $6,000 in deductibles, of course.

Liberals claimed this law would help the poor. I am the poor, the working poor, and I can’t afford to support myself, let alone older generations and people not willing to work at all.

This law has raped my future.

It will keep me and kids my age from having a future at all.

This is the real face of Obamacare and it isn’t pretty.

 

Ref:https://www.facebook.com/DennisPrager/posts/10151880807716998

 

Pretty sad! Have youngsters at my work who are in the same boat.

 

My story, I am diabetic, had insurance til this month. Everything was going fine, til our insurance company (United Health) told us we cannot re-up our insurance til Jan 1st due to Obama Care. I am without insurance til January. My premiums are expected to go up 200%. So from 67 dollars bi-weekly to 140 dollars bi-weekly.

 

As to why Obama wont negotiate with Republicans. He is waiting for so many people to sign up on Obama Care that it would be impossible to defund or get rid of it. The whole reason why Obama wont negotiate!

 

Obama makes Carter look like a saint!

 

Dont worry! Democrats will pay at the mid elect! If we do not go broke first!

Edited by jduff
Link to post
Share on other sites

So the defacto balanced budget law goes into effect in 8 days. So again, what should we cut and what should be eliminated? Should it be the military? Should it be head start? Should it be the NSA? Should it be the EPA. Maybe we should just assign all government programs a random number and have a random number generator choose which programs to kill until we have a balance budget. We have to service our debt so something is going to have to give.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics-live/liveblog/live-updates-the-shutdown-4/?hpid=z2#c1e3ada3-dc00-41d8-92cb-327c5c814d82

Edited by waitforufo
Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose in 8 days Obama decides which programs go unfunded or we continue with the current shutdown, until Congress can pass a bill and Obama signs it, or Congress makes it unnecessary to have Obama's signature.

Edited by EdEarl
Link to post
Share on other sites

heh, from Moodys! Imagine that! A excerpt!

 

Moody’s says in the memo dated Oct. 7.

” We believe the government would continue to pay interest and principal on its debt even in the event that the debt limit is not raised, leaving its creditworthiness intact,” the memo says. “The debt limit restricts government expenditures to the amount of its incoming revenues; it does not prohibit the government from servicing its debt. There is no direct connection between the debt limit (actually the exhaustion of the Treasury’s extraordinary measures to raise funds) and a default.

 

You can find the full story here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics-live/liveblog/live-updates-the-shutdown-4/?hpid=z2#c1e3ada3-dc00-41d8-92cb-327c5c814d82

 

Guess the scare tactics can stop now!

Link to post
Share on other sites

heh, from Moodys! Imagine that! A excerpt!

 

Moody’s says in the memo dated Oct. 7.

” We believe the government would continue to pay interest and principal on its debt even in the event that the debt limit is not raised, leaving its creditworthiness intact,” the memo says. “The debt limit restricts government expenditures to the amount of its incoming revenues; it does not prohibit the government from servicing its debt. There is no direct connection between the debt limit (actually the exhaustion of the Treasury’s extraordinary measures to raise funds) and a default.

 

You can find the full story here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics-live/liveblog/live-updates-the-shutdown-4/?hpid=z2#c1e3ada3-dc00-41d8-92cb-327c5c814d82

 

Guess the scare tactics can stop now!

It is an opinion, perhaps form their legal department. However, the government may not follow that exact plan, and the law of unintended consequences may play a role.

Link to post
Share on other sites

heh, from Moodys! Imagine that! A excerpt!

 

Moody’s says in the memo dated Oct. 7.

” We believe the government would continue to pay interest and principal on its debt even in the event that the debt limit is not raised, leaving its creditworthiness intact,” the memo says. “The debt limit restricts government expenditures to the amount of its incoming revenues; it does not prohibit the government from servicing its debt. There is no direct connection between the debt limit (actually the exhaustion of the Treasury’s extraordinary measures to raise funds) and a default.

 

You can find the full story here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics-live/liveblog/live-updates-the-shutdown-4/?hpid=z2#c1e3ada3-dc00-41d8-92cb-327c5c814d82

 

Guess the scare tactics can stop now!

If the government uses incoming revenue to service the debt, will there be any money left over to pay Social Security, Medicare, soldiers' salaries, VA hospital costs, and so on? We don't have to default on our debt to cause a catastrophe.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't have to default on our debt to cause a catastrophe.

QFT. Their new argument is that the house fire isn't a big deal because they can dump a bucket of water on it (i.e. pay only interest on debts).

 

Our economy used to run OK without such increases in the Fed balance sheet.

Agreed, but that is completely irrelevant to anything we're discussing. That's not the economy we have now. There was this thing that happened, around 2009... You may have heard of it, some call it the great recession. We're still trying to claw our way out of it, and we're not getting any help from congress via fiscal policy. Hence, the monetary measures being used by the fed to prevent total collapse.

 

Now, back to the actual thread topic a bit...

 

Republican favorability ratings hit all time low:

 

mmj6rr5b6kem323wnfrlva.png

 

 

... and dysfunctional government surpasses the economy as the top problem in the US right now:

 

tvaiweub00-bcbwe96sm0q.png

Edited by iNow
Link to post
Share on other sites

No, you're right....dems vs dems hasn't threatened any shutdowns, just exponential increases in spending. The country is living beyond its means...

 

If you're claiming that the democrats are responsible for the big increases in spending, try again. Since Reagan, the smallest increases have occurred under the democrats.

http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2012/07/us-federal-spending-by-president.html

If the government uses incoming revenue to service the debt, will there be any money left over to pay Social Security, Medicare, soldiers' salaries, VA hospital costs, and so on? We don't have to default on our debt to cause a catastrophe.

 

And what happens to all the federal employees who are deemed critical, so they are working without pay? How long before they get sick of that and walk off the job, because they can't make their mortgage or rent payment, or put food on the table? (Not to mention the ones still furloughed)

 

Right now the rebumblicans are sounding like they're prepared for a shutdown that lasts months. Maybe if we have to start shuttering programs they'll close the house and senate gyms

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the government uses incoming revenue to service the debt, will there be any money left over to pay Social Security, Medicare, soldiers' salaries, VA hospital costs, and so on?

Yes, there will be enough money. A quick google search found the following.

 

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/08/federal-spending-by-the-numbers-2013

 

Washington will spend nearly $3.5 trillion in 2013 while collecting $2.8 trillion in revenues, resulting in a deficit of $642 billion.

So the federal government has to cut back spending by 20% (2.8/3.5=0.8) to stop borrowing money.

 

 

http://nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/

 

spending_-_mandatory,_discretionary,_int

So if we don't borrow any more money and pay the interest on the debt we need to cut descretionary spending by 26%. Well descretionary spending currently stands at 30%. No cuts in mandatory spending are required. So pain, but no catastrophe.

 

In 8 days we will start to find out just how descretionary our descretionary spending really is.

 

Currently the government is operating at 83%. We only need to cut 9% more.

 

That gets me to my daily update.

 

From the start of the partial government shutdown to today I have felt not impact nor has anyone I know.

 

Maybe that will change with the defacto balanced budget requirement but I doubt it. I will keep you posted.

Edited by waitforufo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, there will be enough money. A quick google search found the following.

 

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/08/federal-spending-by-the-numbers-2013

So the federal government has to cut back spending by 20% (2.8/3.5=0.8) to stop borrowing money.

 

 

http://nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/

So if we don't borrow any more money and pay the interest on the debt we need to cut descretionary spending by 26%. Well descretionary spending currently stands at 30%. No cuts in mandatory spending are required. So pain, but no catastrophe.

 

In 8 days we will start to find out just how descretionary our descretionary spending really is.

 

Currently the government is operating at 83%. We only need to cut 9% more.

 

That gets me to my daily update.

 

From the start of the partial government shutdown to today I have felt not impact nor has anyone I know.

 

Maybe that will change with the defacto balanced budget requirement but I doubt it. I will keep you posted.

 

Are you kidding me? You actually think that cutting 87% of discretionary spending is okay?

 

The very next image in the link you got your chart from:

 

spending_-_discretionary_pie_2014_big.pn

 

Gutting spending on all of the above isn't a catastrophe to you? You do realise that the programs that this money funds are critical for economic growth, right? I suppose cutting of your nose to spite your face the norm in politics now.

 

Also, it's interesting that you linked the Heritage Foundation. It's probably already been mentioned here, but the ACA is based off and is largely identical to something that they themselves developed and Romney introduced when he was governor of MA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I linked Heritage because it was the first link I found with the information I wanted, nothing more. First, I counted the interest twice so we only need to cut spending by 20% not 26%, so a 60% cut in descretionary spending. Second, the defacto balanced budet will only be in place for a short time. Democrats will cave soon after a the ceiling is hit. Third, to some degree States will fill the gap. So no, I don't think it will be a catastrophe. In fact I don't think it will impact my life or the lives of my loved ones at all.

 

Thank you for posting the other image. Now we can all pick and choose which parts of descretionary spending to cut. So I have to get it down to 10%. Lets see.....

 

I say keep international affairs, veterans benefits and food and ag. There, the rest of it can go.

Edited by waitforufo
Link to post
Share on other sites

jduff,

 

I heard today that the way the treasury would operate, if not able to borrow on the 17th is day by day, since they have no way to pick and chose who to pay and who not to pay. Let's say if they have 100 whatever dollars in checks to cut on monday and only 40 whatever dollars coming in every day, they would wait till they could pay ALL of Monday's bills, which would be Wednesday, and then they would cut all of Monday's checks. Tuesday's checks would have to wait till they had the funds to cover ALL of them. Hence all the bills would be paid. First paid 2 or 3 days late, then 5 or six and so on.

The late payments would get longer and longer since they would have to wait two or three days, to pay the bills due on each successive day in line.

 

iNow,

 

I agree we needed the stimulus packages that the Congress put together following the sub prime crisis.

I agree that Bernanke did a masterful job at fending off depression. No argument what so ever from me.

 

I am concerned though about QE three or QE eternity.

 

Emergency measures are one thing. Dependence on the Fed offering not only a discount window for EVERY bank, but Purchasing any ole loans they might have lying around, to the tune of 85 billion a month...for ever...is quite a different story.

 

The punch bowl should be withdrawn, and we should learn to stand on our own two feet again.

 

EVERYBODY now is dependent on the government. The poor are, the rich are, and us slubs in the middle are left to pay the bill.

 

Regards, TAR2

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yeah, One more thing. I would make sure every single person in the national park service got a pink slip. The garbage in the following link as to stop. The national parks belong to the people not the government.

 

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/park-police_762277.html

 

Why doesn't your story mention that the Moore farm is on federal land? That's information readers should probably have. I'm sure lots of federal property got treated to closure in a procedural reaction to the shutdown. It sounds like they've had time to untangle some of the special circumstances and the farm was back open today.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Waitforufo,

 

I think you are being quite stupid about this. We have worked our government into every area of our lives. The effects of the shutdown were instantaneous to many hundreds of thousands of us. And we rely on our government to keep things right in too many areas for a shutdown not to hurt people and the economy, more and more each day. Keeping our food and drugs safe and of high quality, fighting the war on terror, and drugs, and illiteracy. Keeping our businesses honest, and assisting the handicapped and the Veterans that have fought our wars. Funding University Research Projects in science and technology that provide us with better health and tools and processes for years to come.

Our government serves us. They are doing our bidding. It is not THEM that is shut down. It is US.

 

It might not have affected you personally yet, but it affected me greatly the moment it happened.

Its MY government that is shut down, and I do not wish it to be. I have my opinions as to how it could be run a little differently, with more stress on personal responsibilty and accountablity, and less on creating dependency, but that does not mean I don't love this nation, and ALL it stands for in the world. The rule of law. Human rights. Equality. The best there is in just about every area of human endevour you can think of.

 

To the tea party, all I have to say is stop embarrassing me, and give me my country back.

 

We will work out the details, man and woman to man and woman, as we have always done.

 

Regards, TAR2

And absolutely DO NOT push this lunacy to the Debt Ceiling. You are playing with the full faith and credit of the US. That's OUR country, you dimwits.

Hey, here's a novel idea. When we have a difference of opinion on exactly how we should procede, let's vote on it.

Put up a clean CR and let's see how it goes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If we cut discretionary spending right now like waitforufo wants, we'd be engaging in the very austerity that they tried in the UK and Europe which led to double dip recession. Talk about missing the forest for the trees.

In the short-term, we don't have a debt or deficit problem. We need to address things in the long-term, but while still experiencing high unemployment and lingering effects of the recession, now is not that time.

It's as if you're so focused on dieting and exercise being a good thing that you refuse to feed a patient just coming out of a leg amputation surgery and force them on the treadmill for several hours per day while still bleeding.

 

 

I agree we needed the stimulus packages that the Congress put together following the sub prime crisis.
I agree that Bernanke did a masterful job at fending off depression. No argument what so ever from me.

I am concerned though about QE three or QE eternity.

Emergency measures are one thing. Dependence on the Fed offering not only a discount window for EVERY bank, but Purchasing any ole loans they might have lying around, to the tune of 85 billion a month...for ever...is quite a different story.

Nobody in a position to make these decisions is talking about doing it forever, though. Only people in the media and folks like you are trumpeting that particular QE-Eternity / QE-infinity narrative.

So, since people who actually work at the Fed are already discussing how and when to cut back on these programs... and since they've been talking about that for several months now, and are gaining consensus by the day on that point... let's first agree that it WON'T continue forever.

 

Even if you are worried that might happen indefinitely, let's just stipulate that it will not for the sake of discussion here. Let's agree that it will end, and the question is about WHEN, not IF.

Now that we've established that baseline, we can discuss WHEN it makes sense to begin tapering. As I mentioned in a previous post, we were quite close to doing that last month in September. The employment numbers remained too weak, though, and those numbers appeared even softer given the state of congress, the threat of shutdown, the risk of not raising the debt ceiling, and the lack of further investment or stimulus programs. It would have been stupid to cut back on QE at that moment. It would have caused significant harm for no tangible good (other than appeasing folks like you who feel "icky" about it all), so they chose to delay, and I think rightly so. It's just a delay, though... again... likely until mid-2014.

So, mid-2014. That's not "forever." That's in about 6 months.

What I fail to understand is this manic need you and others seem to express that we must do it NOW NOW NOW NOW NOW NOW OMG OMG OMG NOW NOW NOW!!!! It's irrational, and ignores the circumstances we are facing. What do you think I am missing? What specific benefit comes from pulling back on these programs now instead of April/May?

Edited by iNow
Link to post
Share on other sites

From the start of the partial government shutdown to today I have felt not impact nor has anyone I know.

 

Maybe that will change with the defacto balanced budget requirement but I doubt it. I will keep you posted.

 

Yes, your selfish "I got mine so screw everyone else", short-sighted attitude has been well-documented. Personally, I see no need to keep us updated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So you disagree with the chart above...

 

No, I never said anything remotely like that. I don't disagree with the facts. I disagree with your implied assertion that spending has "increased exponentially" because of the democrats. The facts say otherwise. Even this graph tells you that. Only four of the 19 debt limit increases occurred under democratic presidents, and one of those is just barely into Obama's presidency; it was a result of Bush's budget. IOW, democratic presidencies have resulted in less that $3 trillion out of $13+ trillion in increases. Plus, part of the reason for the escalation in recent increases is all of the debt accrued by the republicans. The increase look linear until Bush II. But the republicans refuse to fix the ways that he broke the system.

 

The right decries "tax and spend" but then they employ "don't tax but still spend", which is even worse for the debt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 2010 total (14+ trillion) to me seems astronomical. What's that per head of population?

 

I'm still trying to visualise a trillion. Have I got it right in saying it's a thousand billion! And with apparently 300 odd million people am I correct in calculating $44,000 per head!! I must have got too many zeros somewhere. So perhaps someone can correct me.

 

And I understand one factor of this shutdown business is the requirement to increase the borrowing requirement! How on earth can this continue?

 

Just a small side fact: I noticed that there was no American attendance at RIAT (UK) this year. And I also noticed that the Blue Angels and the Thunderbirds cancelled all their displays this year. And then there's Detroit going bankrupt... The above graph appears to show why.

 

It seems to me that there's going to be some sort of impasse, either now as with the current position, or it seems almost certainly in the not too distant future.

Edited by Delbert
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why doesn't your story mention that the Moore farm is on federal land? That's information readers should probably have. I'm sure lots of federal property got treated to closure in a procedural reaction to the shutdown. It sounds like they've had time to untangle some of the special circumstances and the farm was back open today.

And if the people that were running the Moore farm hadn't said screw you NPS it would still be closed. I'm glad to see it hasn't stopped there.

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/9/first-amendment-used-to-break-park-service-barrier/

 

This gets me back to the mice. The mice really had to be put down? mice? No one volunteered to feed them. How hard could that be? No one said screw you I'm not going to do it? No one turned the tables and barricaded themselves in the lab. A little media attention would have put a stop to killing the mice. That seems to be the key to untangling the governments "let's make this as bad as it can be attitude."

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This gets me back to the mice. The mice really had to be put down? mice? No one volunteered to feed them. How hard could that be? No one said screw you I'm not going to do it? No one turned the tables and barricaded themselves in the lab. A little media attention would have put a stop to killing the mice. That seems to be the key to untangling the governments "let's make this as bad as it can be attitude."

 

Err, no. The mice are housed in an active labortaory. If you are not employed to work in such an enviroment, you don't have access - due to liability and OSHA. Even if someone did volunteer, it would be illegal for them to access, let alone work in a lab.

 

Addtitionally, the running costs of housing sterile, immunocompromised transgenic mouse colonies is considerable, even without the labor cost.

Link to post
Share on other sites
And I understand one factor of this shutdown business is the requirement to increase the borrowing requirement! How on earth can this continue?

 

If you're talking about the debt ceiling issue that's coming up shortly, it has nothing to do with increasing our borrowing. The debt ceiling is just agreeing to pay what Congress has already purchased. But, like this current budget shutdown, the Republicans want to circumvent our normal, Constitutional process by refusing to approve purchases they already appropriated the money for. The debt ceiling should be very perfunctory and standard, done with dignity in recognition of paying our debts honorably.

 

The President tried to explain this to the American public recently, and FoxNews accused the President of using "fuzzy math" when he said:

"And because it's called raising the debt ceiling, I think a lot of Americans think it's raising our debt. It is not raising our debt. This does not add a dime to our debt. It simply says you pay for what Congress has already authorized America to purchase, whether that's the greatest military in the world or veterans' benefits or Social Security. Whatever it is that Congress has already authorized, what this does is make sure that we can pay those bills."

 

Fuzzy math?! This from one of the top news sources in the US. They don't bother to check their facts. The debt ceiling isn't the appropriate process for discussion, that time has passed. They didn't have the votes when they were passing their budgets and appropriations through Congress. Now it's just angry losers refusing to sign a pro forma document so they can force the issue into a position where the only concession on the their side is that they'll stop the shutdown when their demands are met.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.