What? No government shutdown threads?

[Fern]

Now you're being silly.

For one thing default is a specific term. Simply put it means failure to make interest or principal payments on a note (or bill or bond etc.). You are not in default if you pay your auto mechanic late.

And no, we have not incurred these bills through appropriations. We are currently in a situation where we have no further appropriations to pay discretionary expenses.

Fern

 

[Fern]

The act of raising the debt ceiling is simply allowing the treasury to pay our bills. It's like getting a credit card bill in the mail and having to ask your mom if it's ok if you pay it. Unless your mother is an idiot she will tell you to pay the bill everytime you ask.
-snip-

Bad analogy.

The credit card was appropriations, and we have none ATM. I.e., the CC has already been taken away.

Fern

 

[ivwshane]

Bad analogy.

The credit card was appropriations, and we have none ATM. I.e., the CC has already been taken away.

Fern

You should change your sig line from "Fern" to "zero clue" because you don't have one.

The credit card may have been taken away but the bill is still on the table.

Your move.

 

[fskimospy]

Now you're being silly.

For one thing default is a specific term. Simply put it means failure to make interest or principal payments on a note (or bill or bond etc.). You are not in default if you pay your auto mechanic late.

And no, we have not incurred these bills through appropriations. We are currently in a situation where we have no further appropriations to pay discretionary expenses.

Fern

This is obviously false. Money is appropriated through ongoing (mandatory) appropriations and discretionary appropriations. Mandatory spending goes on, despite the government shutdown.

Now when it comes to the debts of the US, you're trying to play with words. You claimed Obama was wrong when he said the debts of the US would not increase with the debt ceiling. This is again, undeniably true. Whether or not you are in default if you pay your mechanic late, that is unarguably a debt you owe. The US is obligated by force of law to make payments on laws that Congress has already passed. Those debts exist regardless of whether or not the US raises the debt ceiling.

So again, without question Obama was correct that America's debts remain the same regardless of debt ceiling action. The only thing the debt ceiling does is allow us to meet our other debts through the sale of treasury securities.

 

[fskimospy]

You should change your sig line from "Fern" to "zero clue" because you don't have one.

The credit card may have been taken away but the bill is still on the table.

Your move.

Apparently if you put the bill on your credit card you've increased your debt. If you just sit at the table staring at the bill your debts stay the same.

 

[OGOC]

I would be fine if there was a bipartisan agreement on fiscal policy to resolve this. That will mean a republican offer that includes tax increases or some other such concession on their part.

There was a bipartisan agreement to raise taxes last time. Tax rates are already higher this year.

 

[Fern]

You should change your sig line from "Fern" to "zero clue" because you don't have one.

The credit card may have been taken away but the bill is still on the table.

Your move.

Nope.

There is no authorization to incur bills on the discretionary side.

There's is no bill to put on the table ATM.

Fern

 

[ivwshane]

Nope.

There is no authorization to incur bills on the discretionary side.

There's is no bill to put on the table ATM.

Fern

Lol wow! I didn't realize our debt was imaginary.

 

[fskimospy]

Nope.

There is no authorization to incur bills on the discretionary side.

There's is no bill to put on the table ATM.

Fern

False.

The mandatory/discretionary distinction is irrelevant. There is a new restaurant bill every day.

 

[ivwshane]

False.

The mandatory/discretionary distinction is irrelevant. There is a new restaurant bill every day.

Didn't you know that with the government shut down companies aren't sending their bills to the fed?

No bills means we don't have to worry about anything except interest on existing debt.



//Face palm

 

[werepossum]

Not really. If you borrow $100 from the bank you are $100 in debt, right? What if I go to the mechanic and he services my car and it costs $100? Until I have paid him I am $100 in debt to him as well.

The US has already incurred these financial obligations in the form of appropriations bills. They are legal debts that the US owes, they just aren't debts that take the form of Treasury securities.

Obama is 100%, irrefutably correct that our debts are the same regardless of the debt limit.

LOL Just when I think you can't possibly get any more dishonest, you once again outdo yourself and surprise me.

 

[fskimospy]

LOL Just when I think you can't possibly get any more dishonest, you once again outdo yourself and surprise me.

I love how to you "dishonest" now means "telling me facts I don't like".

Whatever it takes to maintain your delusion, huh?

I strongly encourage you to tell me how money you owe someone under force of law isn't a debt though. As with my example earlier, your argument appears to be that if I borrow $100 from the bank and use it to fix my car I'm $100 in debt, but if I just go to the mechanic first and have him fix my car, and he sends me a bill for $100, that isn't a debt.

You can try to play with words all you want, but I'm unimpressed.

Also, aren't you not talking to me anymore because I'm so mean and terrible? You can't even be honest about not talking to someone because you think they aren't honest. lol.

 

[boomerang]

 

[Juddog]

Wow that guy is an idiot; he looks like a wannabee Ron Swanson.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Wow that guy is an idiot; he looks like a wannabee Ron Swanson.

The projection is strong with you...he was joking.

 

[boomerang]

Wow that guy is an idiot; he looks like a wannabee Ron Swanson.

For a liberal, you're awfully intolerant.

 

[Juddog]

For a liberal, you're awfully intolerant.

I'm not a liberal, but for a conservatard, you're par for the course.

 

[Juddog]

The projection is strong with you...he was joking.

No shit, Sherlock. You have a remarkable ability to state the obvious.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

No shit, Sherlock. You have a remarkable ability to state the obvious.

ROFL...nice self ownage!

 

[Juddog]

ROFL...nice self ownage!

True - you have owned yourself pretty good in this thread.

 

[werepossum]

I love how to you "dishonest" now means "telling me facts I don't like".

Whatever it takes to maintain your delusion, huh?

I strongly encourage you to tell me how money you owe someone under force of law isn't a debt though. As with my example earlier, your argument appears to be that if I borrow $100 from the bank and use it to fix my car I'm $100 in debt, but if I just go to the mechanic first and have him fix my car, and he sends me a bill for $100, that isn't a debt.

You can try to play with words all you want, but I'm unimpressed.

Also, aren't you not talking to me anymore because I'm so mean and terrible? You can't even be honest about not talking to someone because you think they aren't honest. lol.

Didn't say I wasn't going to talk to you, said I wasn't going to argue with you. But since you strongly encouraged me, I'll restate ONCE what Fern has already pointed out . . .

No spending bills & no continuing resolutions = no authorization for spending. You could legitimately argue that mandatory spending is already owed unless and until the laws are repealed, but mandatory spending does not bust the existing debt limit. Technically we have no debt on discretionary spending until we borrow money, but even if one takes the nonsensical position that government MUST spend all dollars it authorizes we cannot possibly owe the money, even in principle stretched to transparency, until those authorization bills are crafted, passed and signed into law. But please feel free to continue lying about this too.

 

[IronWing]

 

[fskimospy]

Didn't say I wasn't going to talk to you, said I wasn't going to argue with you. But since you strongly encouraged me, I'll restate ONCE what Fern has already pointed out . . .

No spending bills & no continuing resolutions = no authorization for spending. You could legitimately argue that mandatory spending is already owed unless and until the laws are repealed, but mandatory spending does not bust the existing debt limit. Technically we have no debt on discretionary spending until we borrow money, but even if one takes the nonsensical position that government MUST spend all dollars it authorizes we cannot possibly owe the money, even in principle stretched to transparency, until those authorization bills are crafted, passed and signed into law. But please feel free to continue lying about this too.

I like how your description of a 'nonsensical position' is what the rest of us like to know as 'the law'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Budget_and_Impoundment_Control_Act_of_1974#Impoundment

As I already explained to Fern, even current appropriations that are ongoing are in total greater than revenues. Not only is military pay ongoing, but so are tons of other services for which pay is guaranteed, operations, etc. Not to mention that as repeatedly previously mentioned, Treasury revenues are highly inconsistent, making monthly shortfalls highly likely. This is why those analysts described your position as one that people who don't understand the Treasury take.

But yeah, keep arguing and calling people who are trying to educate you liars. Wouldn't want to threaten your world view.

 

[werepossum]

I like how your description of a 'nonsensical position' is what the rest of us like to know as 'the law'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Budget_and_Impoundment_Control_Act_of_1974#Impoundment

As I already explained to Fern, even current appropriations that are ongoing are in total greater than revenues. Not only is military pay ongoing, but so are tons of other services for which pay is guaranteed, operations, etc. Not to mention that as repeatedly previously mentioned, Treasury revenues are highly inconsistent, making monthly shortfalls highly likely. This is why those analysts described your position as one that people who don't understand the Treasury take.

But yeah, keep arguing and calling people who are trying to educate you liars. Wouldn't want to threaten your world view.

http://www.stimulatingbroadband.com/2011/03/ntia-rus-say-unspent-broadband-stimulus.html

The two agencies of the Obama Administration tasked by Congress with management of the $7.2 billion broadband stimulus program state explicitly that unspent funds from the initiative will be returned to the U.S. Treasury.

The agency statements first published here largely remove a rhetorical argument from leaders of the Republican Majority of the House Energy and Commerce Committee who have voiced criticism of the program.

Chairman Greg Walden (R-OR-02) of the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology will hold a Committee markup session tomorrow on his bill to mandate the return to Treasury of unspent Recovery Act broadband funds. The session is scheduled to immediately follow the broadband stimulus program oversight hearing which Walden will gavel open at 10:30 AM (ET). The mark up will work off a new staff draft of the initial legislative proposal circulated by Walden the first week in February.

Note that money allocated for specific programs was returned to the general fund. That by definition means it was not spent. Money was allocated, money was not spent.

http://quincyjournal.com/regional-b...s-unspent-office-funds-to-treasury1371875107/

A Missouri Congressman is returning money to the Treasury Department after not spending all of his alloted office budget.

Rep. Sam Graves (MO-06) announced earlier this week that his office is returning $193,763 – or nearly 15 percent of his office’s budget – to the Treasury Department for Fiscal Year 2012.

Again, money was allocated, money was not spent. The Impoundment Act prevents the President from subverting the will of Congress by defunding programs he does not like; it does not mean that money allocated must be spent. This would be significant IF we had any spending bills passed; we do not.

Once again, nobody is honestly this stupid.

According to this http://www.independentsector.org/senate_fy_2014_budget_resolution
the Senate FY2014 budget is for $3.7 trillion, of which $1.241 trillion is deficit spending. Ignoring for a moment that this is $100 billion above the FY2014 baseline, that leaves $2.459 trillion in mandatory spending. The protected deficit is $692 billion. For the math challenged, $3.7 trillion minus $0.692 trillion = $3.008 trillion projected income, which leaves $549 billion for discretionary spending assuming that Congress rescinds no mandatory spending (which it is free to do legislatively) or institutes no tax increases. Ergo we have $549 billion for discretionary spending before the debt limit HAS to go up. The Ryan budget is a few percent lower on revenue, so the cuts to discretionary spending would arguably be more draconian.

Laughing at myself for getting once again drawn into an argument with a guy who is simultaneously arguing that the debt ceiling is immaterial and that it's the end of the world if we don't immediately raise it.

 

[boomerang]

Laughing at myself for getting once again drawn into an argument with a guy who is simultaneously arguing that the debt ceiling is immaterial and that it's the end of the world if we don't immediately raise it.

He's a closet psycho. It takes a long time to draw him out into the light. But once you have, you know - like an epiphany. I have literally wondered for years why people take even a minute out of their day to "discuss" anything with him. He argues just for the sake of arguing.

I also wonder how he holds down a job. He says he has one. He posts all day every day in here with the only pause being to Google and Wiki for information.

We all knew one like him in school. The kid that could not develop any friendships because he had an insurmountable character flaw that precluded it. The know-it-all. Always "knew" more, always did it better, faster, longer - insert appropriate adjective to suit. You finally learned to just avoid him because it was so damned tiring to have to listen to the constant bragging.

I always wondered what eventually became of them. I now know. They become progressives.