|
Pounding my fists on the table, chanting Coin! Coin! Coin! like a hungry child
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2023 21:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 21:58 |
|
|
Fetterman appears to be in fine fettle. This seems newsworthy to me since there's so much talk right now about elected officials being unable to fulfill their responsibilities, and alot of that has been directed at Fetterman due to his medical problems. https://twitter.com/JohnFetterman/status/1648456948004827137?s=20 Dick Trauma fucked around with this message at 21:43 on Apr 19, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2023 21:32
|
|
|
Professor Beetus posted:It's not that far off from "safe, legal, and rare" which, to be clear, is bullshit framing which caves to the right wing framing of abortion as wrong or bad or something to be ashamed off. But certainly aborting female fetuses because you want a boy would be wrong?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2023 21:32
|
|
|
Failed Imagineer posted:Shutdown it is then It will be a default and not a government shutdown. Much more serious. Randalor posted:When do they have to pass it by before? Any bets on who will be the ones to vote against it? The "more moderate" Republicans for going too far, or the right-wing extremists who'll sink it out of spite/because they can/to own the libs? Treasury estimates that June 5th is when they will hit the debt ceiling. The only people who have spoken out against it on the Republican side are two right-wing Republicans who say they will never raise the debt ceiling (which is obviously not a tenable position, so unclear when they would actually do it).
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2023 21:42
|
|
|
Still find it annoying that nobody really and definitively pushed back against the claim that "if we default nothing bad will happen". Like, defaults for any country are bad, I imagine a default for a country who's currency is the de-facto world reserve currency would be catastrophic. But of course Republicans already hosed up the USA's credit rating and even then still think this game of chicken is something they can win. Speaking of, surprising that nobody has asked anyone in the GOP why they think ruining our credit rating is in line with "fiscal responsibility" and "you gotta budget the country like you budget a house". I know they wouldn't give a straight answer but it's still surprising.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2023 21:46
|
|
|
There's an interesting legal theory that the 14th Amendment negates the statutory debt limit anyway. If Biden were to invoke it and just tell the Treasury to keep printing money to pay debts, I think he'd probably stand a pretty good chance. The Supreme Court is insane right now, but I don't think they're so insane as to issue a 5-4 ruling that global financial collapse needs to happen immediately. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/23/opinion/fourteenth-amendment-debt-ceiling.html quote:Then there is Section 4, which offers a way out of the current impasse over increasing the debt ceiling. “The validity of the public debt of the United States,” it declares, “shall not be questioned.”
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2023 21:49
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:There's an interesting legal theory that the 14th Amendment negates the statutory debt limit anyway. If Biden were to invoke it and just tell the Treasury to keep printing money to pay debts, I think he'd probably stand a pretty good chance. The Supreme Court is insane right now, but I don't think they're so insane as to issue a 5-4 ruling that global financial collapse needs to happen immediately. I'm just operating on the assumption that default doesn't happen, the same way I'm operating on the assumption that I won't be taken out by a deorbiting toilet seat tomorrow. Exactly how it doesn't happen will be interesting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2023 22:11
|
|
|
So, K-Mac appeared on CNBC the other day to talk, generally, about his plan and dealing with the debt ceiling, and in there he had this very brief exchange with one of the presenters:CNBC posted:Presenter: So, even if you cobble together the votes in the House, it then goes to the Senate. And then what? To me, this sounds like a soft admission that McCarthy has no real path forward here if the Senate Dems do what they should do with such a House bill - namely, take it, strip out everything that's not raising the debt ceiling, and throw it back down to them. What is the likelihood of something like that happening, should we actually get that far? And would enough Republicans in the House fold at that point to just pass a clean debt ceiling bill? Or would the Senate spiting them directly get them to dig in further?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2023 22:15
|
|
|
Google Jeb Bush posted:I'm just operating on the assumption that default doesn't happen, the same way I'm operating on the assumption that I won't be taken out by a deorbiting toilet seat tomorrow. Exactly how it doesn't happen will be interesting. I'm sure they'll strike a deal. I'm just saying if the Democratic leadership had any kind of vision whatsoever, they wouldn't need to. Looking at the planks in McCarthy's deal, a whole bunch of it probably isn't all that objectionable to the Democratic leadership. They won't repeal the IRA and they aren't dumb enough to do that life debt ceiling thing. Voiding student loan forgiveness would lose them too much face after they spent so much time saying it was the most perfect solution to the problem anyone could ever imagine (and they won't try another tactic to redo it when the court strikes it down). Aside from those: - Cut domestic spending down to where it was in 2022 and cap the growth in total domestic spending to 1% per year for the next 10 years. Yes, they'd do that. - Requiring all unspent pandemic aid by the states to be returned and cancelling the disbursement of any remaining unspent pandemic aid at the federal level. Sure - Work requirements for SNAP beneficiaries. They aren't gonna fight hard against this. - Require faster and more additional oil and gas leasing on federal lands that the federal government has declined to hold auctions for to raise revenue. They'd love to. Biden's doing it already. - Repealing the EPA's new regulations on requiring utilities to begin removing PFAs from drinking water. Iffy on this one. - Reduce maximum TANF benefits without work or community engagement requirements. Yeah, they'll do that in a heartbeat. - Repeal a pause on leasing federal land for coal mining and increase the number of leases sold. Oh, you'd better believe they want to do this. - A resolution formally proclaiming congressional disapproval for the executive branch withdrawing the permits for the Keystone XL Pipeline (lol) Probably not.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2023 22:20
|
|
|
Google Jeb Bush posted:I'm just operating on the assumption that default doesn't happen, the same way I'm operating on the assumption that I won't be taken out by a deorbiting toilet seat tomorrow. Exactly how it doesn't happen will be interesting. I don't believe a default will happen either, but I suspect Biden will blink a little bit if McCarthy gives. However...if McCarthy gives then he's could be ejected from the speakership. If that happens.... 
Cimber fucked around with this message at 22:57 on Apr 19, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2023 22:40
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:Steve Bannon who has failed at literally every other political op post-2016 and is still chasing the gold-foil-wrapped orange dragon named Trump Yeah, but Brexit was a hella win for him. And now the UK is enjoying a 10% inflation rate with food prices even higher.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2023 23:41
|
|
|
Youremother posted:Pounding my fists on the table, chanting Coin! Coin! Coin! like a hungry child You know it will never happen. Sadly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2023 23:42
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:- Cut domestic spending down to where it was in 2022 and cap the growth in total domestic spending to 1% per year for the next 10 years. Why do you think either of these are even vaguely attractive to Democratic senators? A 10 year cap on domestic spending growth is insane, especially when the cap would shrink the federal budget in real terms because it's far below inflation. And the administration has plans for further pandemic aid, particularly wrt vaccine costs and availability.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2023 23:59
|
|
|
pork never goes bad posted:Why do you think either of these are even vaguely attractive to Democratic senators? A 10 year cap on domestic spending growth is insane, especially when the cap would shrink the federal budget in real terms because it's far below inflation. And the administration has plans for further pandemic aid, particularly wrt vaccine costs and availability. Oh I misread the spending cap part. Yeah they won't go for 10 years. The administration has been declaring covid over for awhile, and I haven't seen big pushes in the media on what they want to do with that money, so I think they'd drop it in the negotiations.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 00:27
|
|
|
I'm glad Biden has ignored the GOP's attempts to negotiate on this. I'm just curious if they have a backup plan in the likely event that nothing gets done by the drop-dead date. He has previously said that they are not going to 'mint the coin'.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 00:34
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I'm glad Biden has ignored the GOP's attempts to negotiate on this. I'm just curious if they have a backup plan in the likely event that nothing gets done by the drop-dead date. He has previously said that they are not going to 'mint the coin'. Like was posted earlier, the backup is probably the 14th amendment approach. Order the treasury to violate the debt ceiling and dare someone to take them to court over it. Then dare the court to rule that the global financial order must implode
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 00:37
|
|
|
...wasn't there just a post in here that "national" vaccine spending is ending, but if local and state goverments still want vaccine money they'll continue getting it in the federal goverment? And, yeah, the pandemic is "over" in the fact it's never going away and we're just going to have to figure out a way to maximize harm reduction because now COVID-19 has multiple animal resivors and mutates too fast for something like a polio eradication plan - which also infects gorillas, interestingly enough - to work. EDIT: Not that polio eradication is going great in the final few areas that have it due to a host of factors, some fake like "this is a secret plot to steralize you!" like the anti-vaxx crowd likes to say and some not fake like "this is being used by a cover for American spies to do stuff in the area." Twincityhacker fucked around with this message at 00:41 on Apr 20, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 00:37
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Like was posted earlier, the backup is probably the 14th amendment approach. Order the treasury to violate the debt ceiling and dare someone to take them to court over it. Then dare the court to rule that the global financial order must implode
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 00:38
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I'm glad Biden has ignored the GOP's attempts to negotiate on this. I'm just curious if they have a backup plan in the likely event that nothing gets done by the drop-dead date. He has previously said that they are not going to 'mint the coin'. I don't really expect the coin, but Biden saying he won't doesn't really mean anything since saying he would takes away all incentive for the Republicans to blink first: they can just move right onto being the principled party standing against dumb legal runarounds, or fight it in the courts ahead of time, or whatever else. That doesn't mean he's holding the coin strategy in his back pocket either to be clear: it just means there's no likely situation where it's good strategy for Biden to endorse the coin or 14th amendment argument or other such strategies in advance.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 00:42
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:But certainly aborting female fetuses because you want a boy would be wrong? It is wrong. But it’s non sequitur to abortions legality. Abortion’s legality should be independent of any deontological moral considerations because the alternative (it’s illegality) is far far worse.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 00:55
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I think that's valid but I don't get why he is against minting the coin when it's almost exactly the same play Part of it is that a large chunk of the reason the dollar is the major world reserve currency is that the rest of the world knows they can put their money in treasury bills and they will get paid back exactly what was promised exactly on the time promised. The security, stability, and insurance of it is the reason people loan the U.S. money at very low rates - because it is a guaranteed return. The problem with the coin or the 14th amendment is that it introduces a lot of legal uncertainty while it plays out and literal uncertainty because it means that things aren't functioning the way they should and they are having to take extreme measures to pay back their bills. Once you introduce a lot of uncertainty into the system, you risk damaging the thing that keeps it all going - the full faith and credit of the U.S. and the security of the dollar. There's a reason most countries aren't investing in other currencies that offer a lot larger returns, it's because the dollar and U.S. treasuries are supposed to be a 100% sure thing. When you take it down to even just a 90% sure thing, you start to wipe away a lot of what makes it valuable. Taking extreme measures or giving in to Republican policy demands essentially incentivizes additional brinkmanship and makes the entire system much more uncertain.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 01:01
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I think that's valid but I don't get why he is against minting the coin when it's almost exactly the same play His people keep insisting that he can't put trains on both sides of the coin.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 01:03
|
|
|
I don't disagree but I think that anything happening in Congress currently is a waste of time, and McCarthy is going to get removed as Speaker if he capitulates and attempts to get through a clean bill at the last minute, so I am very concerned that the only real options are going to be what had previously been expressed as 'extreme/untested measures'.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 01:05
|
|
|
Gyges posted:His people keep insisting that he can't put trains on both sides of the coin. That's bullshit, engine and caboose 
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 01:07
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:But certainly aborting female fetuses because you want a boy would be wrong? Why would it be wrong?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 01:08
|
|
|
Ither posted:Why would it be wrong? Unjustified whim
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 01:13
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I don't disagree but I think that anything happening in Congress currently is a waste of time, and McCarthy is going to get removed as Speaker if he capitulates and attempts to get through a clean bill at the last minute, so I am very concerned that the only real options are going to be what had previously been expressed as 'extreme/untested measures'. All it takes is 4 GOP members with rich backers who don’t wanna see their portfolios poo poo the bed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 01:15
|
|
|
Abortion rights revolving around the potential actions of a hypothetical person who is getting abortions just to get silly with it is still not a viable argument for or against abortion
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 01:15
|
|
|
A GIANT PARSNIP posted:All it takes is 4 GOP members with rich backers who don’t wanna see their portfolios poo poo the bed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 01:24
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:But certainly aborting female fetuses because you want a boy would be wrong? That sounds like a question of how much you believe in individual freedom vs. social responsibility. The traditional right-wing individualistic take would be that everyone should make their own decisions about what's best for their family and no one should interfere with it. A more liberal view might be that aggregate decisions favoring sons over daughters would have discriminatory consequences and people should account for that. However, there's also the further left view that issues like societal sexism can't be solved simply by moderating your own personal behavior and collective action is necessary. And of course those suspicious of encroaching government power on any part of the spectrum would want the authorities to butt out of their reproductive decisions. For me it's kinda abstract since I'm not planning to have children any time soon, and it's a hard question I don't have easy answers for. It's certainly a personal decision either way. Am I correct in assuming you're more on the individualistic side though?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 01:34
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:But certainly aborting female fetuses because you want a boy would be wrong? Driving a car into a playground would also be wrong, but it has no legal bearing on the matter of car ownership. I personally don't care why anyone would get an abortion, I don't think anyone else should, and I think the law should reflect that. And even if someone did get an abortion for some made up, objectively objectionable reason, they could just lie about it, so it's completely moot anyway.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 01:44
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Didn't McCarthy agree to a rule change that just one member of the House can put a resolution for his removal on the floor at the beginning of this session of Congress? I thought he did. No one has to remove anyone - 4 GOP members can join the Democrats in a discharge petition to send a clean debt ceiling bill to a vote. This typically doesn’t happen because at that point the speaker has lost control of the majority, but we’re kinda past that point now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 01:47
|
|
|
Youremother posted:Abortion rights revolving around the potential actions of a hypothetical person who is getting abortions just to get silly with it is still not a viable argument for or against abortion If I've learned anything in my life, it's that the only reason cancer hasn't been cured is aborted hypothetical scientists, and the deforestation of the Amazon.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 01:55
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:But certainly aborting female fetuses because you want a boy would be wrong? Exercising bodily autonomy is never wrong. Getting an abortion for any reason isn't wrong. It doesn't matter if the fetus is a magically hyperintelligent fetus that can already solve quantum physics problems.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 02:06
|
|
|
The usual way to resolve that analysis in considering various eugenic fertility treatment practices is that the selection of embryos is a separate act from the termination.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 02:20
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:But certainly aborting female fetuses because you want a boy would be wrong? Would it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 02:23
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:But certainly aborting female fetuses because you want a boy would be wrong? Only if you think aborting fetuses is a moral wrong, which I don't.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 02:23
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:Still find it annoying that nobody really and definitively pushed back against the claim that "if we default nothing bad will happen". Like, defaults for any country are bad, I imagine a default for a country who's currency is the de-facto world reserve currency would be catastrophic. Their straight answer is and will be: It's the Dem's fault. They're the ones who refuse to negotiate with us by giving us everything we want and then some and that's why they're making us do this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 02:32
|
|
|
Support of abortion in the U.S. has always been highly conditional on the circumstances & timing, and not just among republicans. Sixty percent support abortion in the first 12 weeks, but that drops to only 28 percent for beyond first trimester. And the reasons a woman chooses an abortion factor in wildly when it comes to support:  Dig it: Fewer than half of Americans support first-trimester abortion "for any reason" that the woman wants. eta the Politifact writeup: quote:Another seeming paradox pops up in a recent Fox News poll. On the one hand, 63% of respondents said Roe should be kept in place, compared with 27% who said it should be overturned. But a narrow majority of 50% supported laws that would ban abortion after six weeks of pregnancy, except in the case of medical emergency. A slightly larger majority of 54% supported laws that would ban abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy except in a medical emergency. Either policy would be considered an aggressive restriction on abortion. https://www.politifact.com/article/2022/may/05/why-abortion-polling-hides-true-complexity/ Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 02:36 on Apr 20, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 02:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 21:58 |
|
|
I have to imagine there has been movement on those questions since that poll was done 5 years ago...
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 02:36
|
|