Future Debt Ceiling Hostage crisis

Trapper Gus wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:I'd prefer to witness what they do vs. some sanitized version of who they claim to be.

like the Republican party.. I suspect if you looked them up, they'd tell you that they're good christians who believe in the sanctity of human life while upholding the Constitution and working tirelessly to promote freedom for all across the fruited plain.

My experience is that they are agnostics or atheists.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:I'd prefer to witness what they do vs. some sanitized version of who they claim to be.

like the Republican party.. I suspect if you looked them up, they'd tell you that they're good christians who believe in the sanctity of human life while upholding the Constitution and working tirelessly to promote freedom for all across the fruited plain.

My experience is that they are agnostics or atheists.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

My experience is that they are agnostics or atheists.

aren't they the ones treading across government-funded roads while displaying flags and stickers saying "don't tread on me"?

What caused this? Two scholars of nineties violence, the historian Kathleen Belew and the sociologist Stuart A. Wright, point to militarization, not just of law enforcement but of civilians, too. After the Vietnam War, the weapons and tactics of war flowed into domestic life. In her book “Bring the War Home,” Belew describes political violence in the U.S. as the “catastrophic ricochet” of fighting abroad.

Locking people up was nothing new. But, by the nineties, the line that the United States had long drawn between its police and its military was badly blurred. Police departments relied increasingly on units, such as swat teams, that used military weapons, vehicles, equipment, outfits, and tactics.

Gun advocates warned of a tyrannical state using black helicopters to subdue the populace, thus turning “black helicopters” into shorthand for unhinged paranoia. But it’s not paranoia if they really are out to get you, and the helicopters, at least, were real—some flew over Waco. Sherry writes that, by the eighties, the wall separating the police from the military had already crumbled to the point where helicopters were “swooping down on alleged California pot growers,” some “blaring Wagner’s ‘Ride of the Valkyries.’ ”

There is a long history of law enforcement besieging and attacking U.S. communities. In 1973, federal agents had a months-long standoff, with gunfire, against Native activists at Wounded Knee (itself the famous site of an 1890 Army massacre). In 1985, police bombed the Black commune move in Philadelphia, sparking a fire that burned sixty-one homes and caused eleven deaths.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote: aren't they the ones treading across government-funded roads while displaying flags and stickers saying "don't tread on me"?

Those kooks are a bit more militant than the Libertarians, though not always.

It is interesting is a way that the far right & far left both want to do away with the police, though.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/05/08/waco-jeff-guinn-waco-rising-kevin-cook-book-review-homegrown-jeffrey-toobin

What caused this? Two scholars of nineties violence, the historian Kathleen Belew and the sociologist Stuart A. Wright, point to militarization, not just of law enforcement but of civilians, too. After the Vietnam War, the weapons and tactics of war flowed into domestic life. In her book “Bring the War Home,” Belew describes political violence in the U.S. as the “catastrophic ricochet” of fighting abroad.

Locking people up was nothing new. But, by the nineties, the line that the United States had long drawn between its police and its military was badly blurred. Police departments relied increasingly on units, such as swat teams, that used military weapons, vehicles, equipment, outfits, and tactics.

Gun advocates warned of a tyrannical state using black helicopters to subdue the populace, thus turning “black helicopters” into shorthand for unhinged paranoia. But it’s not paranoia if they really are out to get you, and the helicopters, at least, were real—some flew over Waco. Sherry writes that, by the eighties, the wall separating the police from the military had already crumbled to the point where helicopters were “swooping down on alleged California pot growers,” some “blaring Wagner’s ‘Ride of the Valkyries.’ ”

There is a long history of law enforcement besieging and attacking U.S. communities. In 1973, federal agents had a months-long standoff, with gunfire, against Native activists at Wounded Knee (itself the famous site of an 1890 Army massacre). In 1985, police bombed the Black commune move in Philadelphia, sparking a fire that burned sixty-one homes and caused eleven deaths.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Those kooks are a bit more militant than the Libertarians, though not always.

It is interesting is a way that the far right & far left both want to do away with the police, though.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/05/08/waco-jeff-guinn-waco-rising-kevin-cook-book-review-homegrown-jeffrey-toobin

I just think it's weird to be "anti-government" while relying on the government for day to day services.

Maybe Im.old fashioned.

OUR CURRENT BUDGET MODELS don’t create random errors. They don’t sometimes overstate and sometimes understate costs. They create systematic errors, making many investments look far more expensive than they are. They lead to the routine underfunding of critical programs and enforcement activities, and they distort the policymaking process from start to finish.

For those who want to shrink the government to a size that can be drowned in a bathtub, the current budget-scoring model works great. But for those who live in the real world and want a country in which all our people have a chance to thrive, bad budget models are choking us.

TravelinMan wrote:It's fascinating to watch people who have no clue what a Libertarian is, then proceed to talk about what a Libertarian is.

Trapper Gus wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:It's fascinating to watch people who have no clue what a Libertarian is, then proceed to talk about what a Libertarian is.

Pretty much a self-own in your post, TM.

It turns out there is no simple definition.

However, I have a simple question personal for you.

Given a dilemma between adhering to your beliefs in personal "social issues" liberty or personal "economic issues" liberty which would you chose.

To clarify, would you rather live in a system of "free market economics with christian values imposed upon everyone" or a "system of feudal economics with freedom of personal values"?

TravelinMan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Pretty much a self-own in your post, TM.

It turns out there is no simple definition.

However, I have a simple question personal for you.

Given a dilemma between adhering to your beliefs in personal "social issues" liberty or personal "economic issues" liberty which would you chose.

To clarify, would you rather live in a system of "free market economics with christian values imposed upon everyone" or a "system of feudal economics with freedom of personal values"?

Can you define "feudal economics?" I'm not familiar with that one.

TravelinMan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Pretty much a self-own in your post, TM.

It turns out there is no simple definition.

However, I have a simple question personal for you.

Given a dilemma between adhering to your beliefs in personal "social issues" liberty or personal "economic issues" liberty which would you chose.

To clarify, would you rather live in a system of "free market economics with christian values imposed upon everyone" or a "system of feudal economics with freedom of personal values"?

Can you define "feudal economics?"  I'm not familiar with that one.

Motown Spartan wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

Can you define "feudal economics?" I'm not familiar with that one.

Lords and peasants.

TravelinMan wrote:

Motown Spartan wrote:

Lords and peasants.

Well I guess I'm entirely confused by Trap's question then. How do you have a system of Lords and peasants with freedom of personal values? Lords are going to dictate their will upon the peasants. That's what happens.

I like the sound of free market economics, but not so much the "Christian values" part. I mean, if we're talking the basics.... don't steal, don't murder, don't cheat on your spouse... that's probably OK. But if we're going down the path of abstinence as birth control, just say no to drugs, and regulating the bedroom, then... that's a hard no from me.

Trapper Gus wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

Well I guess I'm entirely confused by Trap's question then. How do you have a system of Lords and peasants with freedom of personal values? Lords are going to dictate their will upon the peasants. That's what happens.

I like the sound of free market economics, but not so much the "Christian values" part. I mean, if we're talking the basics.... don't steal, don't murder, don't cheat on your spouse... that's probably OK. But if we're going down the path of abstinence as birth control, just say no to drugs, and regulating the bedroom, then... that's a hard no from me.

Let me rephase the option.

If you were forced to give up either Free Markets or Freedom of Personal Choice, which would you give up.

TravelinMan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Let me rephase the option.

If you were forced to give up either Free Markets or Freedom of Personal Choice, which would you give up.

As I previously stated, I'm confused as to how you can have personal choice without free markets?  Without free markets, personal choice becomes an illusion.

Trapper Gus wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

As I previously stated, I'm confused as to how you can have personal choice without free markets?  Without free markets, personal choice becomes an illusion.

Actually, the ideal of Russian Communism in stage one Communism is pretty much that.  You can do anything you like morally, as they rejected religion as "the opium of the masses", preety much total liberty of morals, while having the economics controlled centrally.

TravelinMan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Actually, the ideal of Russian Communism in stage one Communism is pretty much that.  You can do anything you like morally, as they rejected religion as "the opium of the masses", preety much total liberty of morals, while having the economics controlled centrally.

So you think Russians have personal choice?  Russia.  Where it's criminal to be gay, they lock up people for drugs, conscript kids into the military.  That Russia?

Trapper Gus wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

So you think Russians have personal choice?  Russia.  Where it's criminal to be gay, they lock up people for drugs, conscript kids into the military.  That Russia?

Russia today is not following Communism at all, so your comment is meaningless.

Third phrasing:

You can have free markets, but morality is controlled by the Christian Right.

or

You can have moral freedom, but the economy is controlled by a bureaucracy at all levels.

Which one do you chose?

TravelinMan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Russia today is not following Communism at all, so your comment is meaningless.

Third phrasing:

You can have free markets, but morality is controlled by the Christian Right.

or

You can have moral freedom, but the economy is controlled by a bureaucracy at all levels.

Which one do you chose?

C. None of the above. We deserve better.

In 2020, during the darkest hours of the global coronavirus pandemic, the U.S. government spent $3 trillion to help rescue the country’s—and, to some extent, the world’s—economy. This infusion of cash increased government debt and thus reduced government wealth by almost the entirety of that frighteningly large amount—the largest drop in nominal U.S. government wealth since the nation’s founding. Surely something this unfavorable to the government’s financial condition would have broad, adverse financial consequences.

So what happened to household wealth during that same year? It rose. And it grew by not just the $3 trillion injected into the economy by the government, but by a whopping $14.5 trillion—the largest recorded increase in household wealth in history.

Trapper Gus wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

C. None of the above. We deserve better.

Not a choice in this discussion.

Which has greater value for you. Free markets, or freedom of moral choice?

TravelinMan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Not a choice in this discussion.

Which has greater value for you. Free markets, or freedom of moral choice?

This reminds me of the film War Games. The only sensible choice is to not play.

How about a nice game of chess, Professor Falken?

sεяεηιτλ wrote:So......

Are we actually scared of reaching the debt limit and defaulting? Or do we continue to believe something will work out last minute?

Biden and co sure are acting like there's a real plan.

The republicans sure are acting like the clueless morons they are, controlled by the unamerican terrorist wing

I assumed that Biden and McCarthy would come to an agreement after some rabble rabble but i don't believe that insane wing of the republican party would budge.  Without them budging, it would take McCarthy defying them to get something done.  And then his own job would be up for a vote since he for some reason agreed to be a powerless figurehead douche to these animals just for the job title.

Trapper Gus wrote:

sεяεηιτλ wrote:So......

Are we actually scared of reaching the debt limit and defaulting? Or do we continue to believe something will work out last minute?

Biden and co sure are acting like there's a real plan.

The republicans sure are acting like the clueless morons they are, controlled by the unamerican terrorist wing

I assumed that Biden and McCarthy would come to an agreement after some rabble rabble but i don't believe that insane wing of the republican party would budge.  Without them budging, it would take McCarthy defying them to get something done.  And then his own job would be up for a vote since he for some reason agreed to be a powerless figurehead douche to these animals just for the job title.

IMO Biden has made it clear to McCanty & McConnell that if they don't raise the debt limit he will go to the mattresses with a 14th Admendment / Orginal Constitution (which was written to guarantee the states debts from the Revolutionary War) and other legal arguments that the FY 2033 appropriations bills superseded the 1917 debt limit law.

He is saying to the Republicans "you can be part of the solution or I can hammer you with it for the next 18 months"

sεяεηιτλ wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

IMO Biden has made it clear to McCanty & McConnell that if they don't raise the debt limit he will go to the mattresses with a 14th Admendment / Orginal Constitution (which was written to guarantee the states debts from the Revolutionary War) and other legal arguments that the FY 2033 appropriations bills superseded the 1917 debt limit law.

He is saying to the Republicans "you can be part of the solution or I can hammer you with it for the next 18 months"

But does he even have the time to do such a thing?

Seems like going to the courts to settle a constitutional crisis (is it one?  Many are talking like it is. Many are talking like its a slam dunk) even on an emergency basis, would take some time.  Unless the courts issue some kind of temporary ruling allowing our debt to be paid while they deliberate?

TravelinMan wrote:Lots of interesting work arounds proposed in this thread, but the problem is... they're all gimmicks. The United States (notice I didn't say Republicans or Democrats) NEEDS to demonstrate a permanent, agreed solution to this problem. It's as much a perception problem as it is a book keeping problem. If the United States can't do that, we're fucked. Full stop.

And yes, I believe we'll default. I think both sides (here's where I do call out individual parties) WANT a crisis. They'll stand there and blame each other while the country burns. It's fucking ridiculous.

14th wrote:The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

AvgMSUJoe wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:Lots of interesting work arounds proposed in this thread, but the problem is... they're all gimmicks. The United States (notice I didn't say Republicans or Democrats) NEEDS to demonstrate a permanent, agreed solution to this problem. It's as much a perception problem as it is a book keeping problem. If the United States can't do that, we're fucked. Full stop.

And yes, I believe we'll default. I think both sides (here's where I do call out individual parties) WANT a crisis. They'll stand there and blame each other while the country burns. It's fucking ridiculous.

I think the grown ups wont let that happen. Maybe a gimmick to patch the hole (premium bonds? platinum coin?) No one (except for the fucked up sect of the R party) wants the world's economic system (who ALL depend on the full faith and credit of the US) to be the last one pushing them over the brink... So either Jerome Powell will accept the gimmick... or the courts will rule on 14th amendment.

14th wrote:The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

Even with this court being so fucked up, being personally responsible for economic collapse because of trump and MTG's whims may be beyond enough of them to fix this for good.

AvgMSUJoe wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:Lots of interesting work arounds proposed in this thread, but the problem is... they're all gimmicks. The United States (notice I didn't say Republicans or Democrats) NEEDS to demonstrate a permanent, agreed solution to this problem. It's as much a perception problem as it is a book keeping problem. If the United States can't do that, we're fucked. Full stop.

And yes, I believe we'll default. I think both sides (here's where I do call out individual parties) WANT a crisis. They'll stand there and blame each other while the country burns. It's fucking ridiculous.

I think the grown ups wont let that happen. Maybe a gimmick to patch the hole (premium bonds? platinum coin?) No one (except for the fucked up sect of the R party) wants the world's economic system (who ALL depend on the full faith and credit of the US) to be the last one pushing them over the brink... So either Jerome Powell will accept the gimmick... or the courts will rule on 14th amendment.

14th wrote:The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

Even with this court being so fucked up, being personally responsible for economic collapse because of trump and MTG's whims may be beyond enough of them to fix this for good.

Motown Spartan wrote:

AvgMSUJoe wrote:
I think the grown ups wont let that happen. Maybe a gimmick to patch the hole (premium bonds? platinum coin?) No one (except for the fucked up sect of the R party) wants the world's economic system (who ALL depend on the full faith and credit of the US) to be the last one pushing them over the brink... So either Jerome Powell will accept the gimmick... or the courts will rule on 14th amendment.

Even with this court being so fucked up, being personally responsible for economic collapse because of trump and MTG's whims may be beyond enough of them to fix this for good.

Would love for the courts to say "shall not be questioned" doesn't apply because that means "shall not be infringed" doesn't apply.

TravelinMan wrote:
What grown ups?!? I see no grown ups negotiating this.

AvgMSUJoe wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:
What grown ups?!? I see no grown ups negotiating this.

The grown ups are Biden and Powell and Yellen. (Also there is a possibility that if they get a signed petition of Dems plus 5 Rs in the house they could bring debt ceiling to a vote without McCarthy... we will see if 5 step up to save economic collapse.)

Hissy fits from the house, based on lies can not be taken seriously.

There is NOTHING legit about the bill (they BARELY passed their caucus with).

TravelinMan wrote:

AvgMSUJoe wrote:

The grown ups are Biden and Powell and Yellen. (Also there is a possibility that if they get a signed petition of Dems plus 5 Rs in the house they could bring debt ceiling to a vote without McCarthy... we will see if 5 step up to save economic collapse.)

Hissy fits from the house, based on lies can not be taken seriously.

There is NOTHING legit about the bill (they BARELY passed their caucus with).

Biden holding his breath, making demands, and refusing to negotiate when he doesn't have the votes is hardly adult like behavior.

Every single politician involved in this bullshit needs to be tried for treason and hung in the Washington Mall if we default. I don't give a shit if you're a Dem, Rep, or a lizard king.

TravelinMan wrote:

AvgMSUJoe wrote:

The grown ups are Biden and Powell and Yellen. (Also there is a possibility that if they get a signed petition of Dems plus 5 Rs in the house they could bring debt ceiling to a vote without McCarthy... we will see if 5 step up to save economic collapse.)

Hissy fits from the house, based on lies can not be taken seriously.

There is NOTHING legit about the bill (they BARELY passed their caucus with).

Biden holding his breath, making demands, and refusing to negotiate when he doesn't have the votes is hardly adult like behavior.

Every single politician involved in this bullshit needs to be tried for treason and hung in the Washington Mall if we default. I don't give a shit if you're a Dem, Rep, or a lizard king.

Motown Spartan wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

Biden holding his breath, making demands, and refusing to negotiate when he doesn't have the votes is hardly adult like behavior.

Every single politician involved in this bullshit needs to be tried for treason and hung in the Washington Mall if we default. I don't give a shit if you're a Dem, Rep, or a lizard king.

TravelinMan wrote:

Biden holding his breath, making demands, and refusing to negotiate when he doesn't have the votes is hardly adult like behavior.

Every single politician involved in this bullshit needs to be tried for treason and hung in the Washington Mall if we default. I don't give a shit if you're a Dem, Rep, or a lizard king.

Republicans are acting in bad faith. The funds are required to pay for budgetary items that were legally passed by the previous congress. They don't get to default on US debt because the lost in a previous election cycle.

Floyd Robertson wrote:Should we be buying as much gold as possible asap?