• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2013 |OT1| Never mind, Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

The Librarian

Banned
Black Mamba said:
nYiQn.jpg
Click to expand...

Good cartoon:
rUTRt.png
 
S

Synth_floyd

Banned
Black Mamba said:
nYiQn.jpg
Click to expand...

What are you guys smoking? That's a good cartoon. The message is bullshit of course but that's a cool idea to caricature Obama, Kerry and Hagel as Larry, Curly and Moe and if you believe the bullshit message then what they're saying makes sense. The art and concept are great. Just the message is dumb.
 
P

polyh3dron

Banned
Scarborough has been flipping out for 30 minutes about Obama having too many men in his cabinet, bringing up the binders of women.. He went pretty crazy.
 
K

kingkitty

Member
polyh3dron said:
Scarborough has been flipping out for 30 minutes about Obama having too many men in his cabinet, bringing up the binders of women.. He went pretty crazy.
Click to expand...

lol I was watching that too and I had to change the channel every few minutes, that whole discussion made me cringe. But Morning Joe always makes me cringe. I don't know why I watch it.
 
C

codhand

Member
WHITE HOUSE THREATENS 'EXECUTIVE ORDERS' ON GUNS...
'The president is going to act'...
BANG BANG: CUOMO TO ANNOUNCE SWEEPING GUN LAWS...
Hysterical governor expects rest of country to follow...
'No One Needs 10 Bullets To Kill A Deer!!'
NRA President Fires Back...
Clinton Turns Tech Speech Into Gun Rant...
Iowa lawmaker calls for confiscation...
CT lawmaker calls for background checks to buy ammo...
Gun sales soar in Atlanta...
'Folks are grabbing just about any they can get hands on'...
Utah town to encourage arming households...
Ted Nugent unloads...
PANIC: One Million AR-15 Magazines on Backorder...
Police: Store clerk's gun beats thief's cattle prod... wait what?
PRAVDA: America, 'Never give up your guns'...
Click to expand...

Drudge's fear headlines.

"Police: Store clerk's gun beats thief's cattle prod..." wait what?
 
CHEEZMO™

CHEEZMO™

Obsidian fan
I just realised who the "Kerry" reminds me of. Tommy Cooper.

Christ, I hope your hands fall of, Ramirez you fucking hack.
 
empty vessel

empty vessel

Member
Oblivion said:
You know, I'm still not clear on how this debt ceiling thing is supposed to work. Now, I get that raising the debt ceiling doesn't mean we're getting new spending, but rather allowing for spending we already approved.

But I guess what I don't seem to understand is, if we already have agreed to a certain amount of spending, why would we hit the debt ceiling before the rest of that approved spending takes place?
Click to expand...

The debt ceiling has only to do with the total amount of debt the US government may have outstanding. When it is reached, that means that the Treasury cannot sell any more bonds, because it would put the government over the limit imposed by Congress.

The spending decisions are separate. The Treasury only sells bonds when its tax receipts do not suffice for the spending dictated by Congress. If, for example, the Treasury had collected enough in tax receipts to cover all of the spending, then the debt limit would not have been reached because the Treasury would not have sought to sell any additional bonds in order to spend the money.

That said, the debt limit is never a problem because the Treasury is empowered to create legal US tender directly. Ideally, it would always turn to the mint over the bond market when its tax receipts do not adequately cover the spending dictated by Congress. (Even more ideally, the whole charade of minting coins and of pretending to borrow money from the public would be put to rest and Congress would pass a law that instructs the Fed to just credit the Treasury's account for all needed spending.)
 
mckmas8808

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Cyan said:
Why?
Click to expand...

Because that's no way to deal with budgetary issues. It seems bad that America would have to sink so low to "create" a trillion dollar coin for this one issue and one issue only because our politicians are so inept.

I think if we have to create one coin to solve our problems, then that shows the world that clearly we aren't the world leader and that somebody else or other group of countries need to take the lead.

How long will it take for other countries to lose faith in our political system and the value of our monetary system if we have to stoop this low. I'd sooner rather see the President evoke the Constitutional option and ask to see the House in court than create some fake coin.
 
S

Synth_floyd

Banned
I don't get the whole argument of "having guns will prevent tyrannical regimes." The government has tanks, planes, missiles, mortars, body armor, tactics, training, etc. The people have a few assault rifles.

Take Syria. The rebels basically have AKs and some homemade grenades and mortars and the only reason they're winning is because they are 85%+ of the country's population.
 
mckmas8808

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
ivedoneyourmom said:
Agreed. Hope they do it so as to remind everyone of what money is.
Click to expand...

So lets so that "money" is all fake and it means nothing and it's all an illusion. Lets so your and Empty Vessel are 100% right. Why would you want to expose that? Is the system not in jeopardy if this illusion is exposed?

Why wouldn't the markets freak out if what everybody that was real, all of a sudden was exposed to be an illusion?
 
R

RoninChaos

Member
Synth_floyd said:
I don't get the whole argument of "having guns will prevent tyrannical regimes." The government has tanks, planes, missiles, mortars, body armor, tactics, training, etc. The people have a few assault rifles.

Take Syria. The rebels basically have AKs and some homemade grenades and mortars and the only reason they're winning is because they are 85%+ of the country's population.
Click to expand...

Because the constitution, red coats, 'murica.
 
C

codhand

Member
mckmas8808 said:
So lets so that "money" is all fake and it means nothing and it's all an illusion. Lets so your and Empty Vessel are 100% right. Why would you want to expose that? Is the system not in jeopardy if this illusion is exposed?

Why wouldn't the markets freak out if what everybody that was real, all of a sudden was exposed to be an illusion?
Click to expand...

I don't think it's an exact science.
 
empty vessel

empty vessel

Member
K

kehs

Banned
What I find funny about people comparing the government finances to businesses, is that business tend to work with OPM anyways.
 
U

User 406

Banned
empty vessel said:
The debt ceiling has only to do with the total amount of debt the US government may have outstanding. When it is reached, that means that the Treasury cannot sell any more bonds, because it would put the government over the limit imposed by Congress.

The spending decisions are separate. The Treasury only sells bonds when its tax receipts do not suffice for the spending dictated by Congress. If, for example, the Treasury had collected enough in tax receipts to cover all of the spending, then the debt limit would not have been reached because the Treasury would not have sought to sell any additional bonds in order to spend the money.
Click to expand...

Question, if the Republicans in the House dig in their heels and refuse to raise the debt ceiling, and the administration declines to mint the coin or invoke the 14th, is there anything genuinely stopping the federal government from continuing to spend what it needs to while bond sales cease? Is there a law that prevents this? Or would doing so be an implicit invocation of the 14th? It would be pretty illustrative of the disconnect between our fiat money system and our whole budget/debt process if the debt ceiling was able to be simply ignored.
 
mckmas8808

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Synth_floyd said:
I don't get the whole argument of "having guns will prevent tyrannical regimes." The government has tanks, planes, missiles, mortars, body armor, tactics, training, etc. The people have a few assault rifles.

Take Syria. The rebels basically have AKs and some homemade grenades and mortars and the only reason they're winning is because they are 85%+ of the country's population.
Click to expand...


Are the rebels really "winning" in Syria?
 
T

TestOfTide

Banned
Synth_floyd said:
What are you guys smoking? That's a good cartoon. The message is bullshit of course but that's a cool idea to caricature Obama, Kerry and Hagel as Larry, Curly and Moe and if you believe the bullshit message then what they're saying makes sense. The art and concept are great. Just the message is dumb.
Click to expand...

That phalic shaped thing is supposed to be obama?
 
K

Kai Dracon

Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
heliosRAzi said:
And these same people want to up the defense budget.
Click to expand...

That's the funny part of it all to me. Not just the defense budget.

But the same people who seem likely to be paranoid militia men ready to fight the government when the army comes to take over, also seem to be the same sort who go in for supporting the military and especially use phrases like "support our troops" to avoid discussion over foreign policy issues. (I.E., criticize US foreign policy in a time of war, they puff up and scream "YOU DON'T SUPPORT OUR TROOPS? YOU'RE A TRAITOR!")

So, mr. Gun Nut Revolutionist. When the government comes to take away all your guns are you still going to Support Our Troops?
 
H

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
Kaijima said:
That's the funny part of it all to me. Not just the defense budget.

But the same people who seem likely to be paranoid militia men ready to fight the government when the army comes to take over, also seem to be the same sort who go in for supporting the military and especially use phrases like "support our troops" to avoid discussion over foreign policy issues. (I.E., criticize US foreign policy in a time of war, they puff up and scream "YOU DON'T SUPPORT OUR TROOPS? YOU'RE A TRAITOR!")

So, mr. Gun Nut Revolutionist. When the government comes to take away all your guns are you still going to Support Our Troops?
Click to expand...
Chickenhawks are more honorable than actual war vets, because while they never served they kinda wanted to and never forgot the importance of kinda wanting to.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
Black Mamba said:
nYiQn.jpg
Click to expand...

Appeasement works? Seriously? Tell that to Usama Bin Laden, AQs being droned in Pakistan, and the Iranian regime crippled by sanctions.

When they pick such illogical issues, it just really fails . . . in the real world. But in the paranoid conspiracy world of the far-right . . . it works perfectly.


BTW, why is the right never able to see the interconnection between issues? They whine about the deficit for months but then switch issues and want to increase defense spending. Wait . . . what?
 
empty vessel

empty vessel

Member
Sea Manky said:
Question, if the Republicans in the House dig in their heels and refuse to raise the debt ceiling, and the administration declines to mint the coin or invoke the 14th, is there anything genuinely stopping the federal government from continuing to spend what it needs to while bond sales cease? Is there a law that prevents this? Or would doing so be an implicit invocation of the 14th? It would be pretty illustrative of the disconnect between our fiat money system and our whole budget/debt process if the debt ceiling was able to be simply ignored.
Click to expand...

That's basically what minting the coin accomplishes: it allows the Treasury to continue to spend what Congress appropriated without selling bonds to make up the deficiency in tax receipts. The Treasury's problem primarily comes into play because of the various legal constraints in place, constraints that were formulated and put in place during a time when the US was operating under a different monetary system. The entire structure of government spending and accounting is basically made for a different system. So, for example, if the Treasury's power to mint a platinum coin didn't fortuitously happen to be in the law, then the Treasury would find itself with no legal mechanism by which to continue paying once it hit the debt ceiling. The money isn't the problem, because a government with a fiat monetary system can always create the money. But the laws on the books that constrain how various parts of the government are permitted to operate can be a problem. So, if the Treasury declines to mint a coin, and also declines to sell bonds, there are no other legal mechanisms I am aware of by which the Treasury can spend money.

Does that make sense?

What we need is a total overhaul of the laws governing how the government spends money that aren't based on money being tied to a physical commodity like gold.
 
M

Magni

Member
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2...-says-gun-owners-will-be-the-next-rosa-parks/

If it comes to the actual implementation of an actual confiscatory directive from our president, then I do believe that the heroes of the law enforcement will defy this order. I do believe that there are enough soulless sheep within our government who would act on such an illegal order but I believe the powers that be at the local, state, and regional law enforcement would halt such an illegal, anti-American order…These are top notch heroes of law enforcement and military who understand this experiment in self-government and we will not let it [gun confiscation] happen, we will do it peaceful. But there will come a time when the gun owners of America, the law-abiding gun owners of America, will be the Rosa Parks and we will sit down on the front seat of the bus, case closed.
Click to expand...

My mind is full of fuck.
 
F

FLEABttn

Banned
Synth_floyd said:
I don't get the whole argument of "having guns will prevent tyrannical regimes." The government has tanks, planes, missiles, mortars, body armor, tactics, training, etc. The people have a few assault rifles.
Click to expand...

When I've seen people try to explain the "we're outgunned anyways" statement, their answer usually seems to be "well, the military wouldn't follow orders to harm the citizens of the United States, so we don't need to worry about all that" (making the need for guns as a defense against tyranny moot) or "the military wouldn't stand a chance against all of us" (implying it's literally the citizens versus the military. Which is doubly nonsensical in that we're still outgunned and the notion of the entire citizenry fighting against the entire military is some elementary school fantasy).

Best I can tell, the people who proclaim it don't really hold it as a rationally thought out strategy, but as an ideal; the best defense against tyranny is a government who fears reprisal from its people.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
The FUD from Drudge and the right on guns has been pretty impressive. I'm not sure I can criticisze the White House response and lack thereof so far because even if Obama was giving specific speeches on guns, the right would be deflecting them with comments from other government officials. No one has said anything about confiscation but that's all the right is talking about for instance.

It's very hard to see anything done on guns due to the house; can anyone name anything Obama could endorse that republicans in the house would pass without adding ridiculous amendments? To make matters worse January is running out, and February will be pure debt ceiling - as will March plus sequestration. After that bloodbath Obama's numbers will be down (historically the second term honeymoon ends in the spring), making a push over guns even more unlikely. Immigration should be the focus imo. Let gun control die, give a speech shaming congress. And move on.

If republicans are looking for some rallying victory or scalp, this will be it.
 
G

gcubed

Member
PhoenixDark said:
The FUD from Drudge and the right on guns has been pretty impressive. I'm not sure I can criticisze the White House response and lack thereof so far because even if Obama was giving specific speeches on guns, the right would be deflecting them with comments from other government officials. No one has said anything about confiscation but that's all the right is talking about for instance.

It's very hard to see anything done on guns due to the house; can anyone name anything Obama could endorse that republicans in the house would pass without adding ridiculous amendments? To make matters worse January is running out, and February will be pure debt ceiling - as will March plus sequestration. After that bloodbath Obama's numbers will be down (historically the second term honeymoon ends in the spring), making a push over guns even more unlikely. Immigration should be the focus imo. Let gun control die, give a speech shaming congress. And move on.

If republicans are looking for some rallying victory or scalp, this will be it.
Click to expand...

he can do a few things with executive orders that will help... unless the dem's take back the house in 2014 i dont see anything needing any kind of vote happening
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
gcubed said:
he can do a few things with executive orders that will help... unless the dem's take back the house in 2014 i dont see anything needing any kind of vote happening
Click to expand...
Interesting, what type of things? ATF has been gutted by congress, dunno how much of an impact Obama can have in terms of background checks and gun show loopholes without a vote. I hope he can do something, and I'd love for him to announce it during the sotu lol
 
G

gcubed

Member
PhoenixDark said:
Interesting, what type of things? ATF has been gutted by congress, dunno how much of an impact Obama can have in terms of background checks and gun show loopholes without a vote. I hope he can do something, and I'd love for him to announce it during the sotu lol
Click to expand...

there was an article on it earlier today if i can dig it up... it was mostly enhancements to databases and closing the gun show loophole. Nothing crazy


— Obama might "strengthen the database that the FBI uses to perform background checks on gun buyers. Many federal agencies that don't currently contribute to the database, such as the Social Security Administration, have access to mental competence information about prospective buyers, or details about failed drug tests and other issues that might prevent a sale to the wrong person. ... The president could also demand that the states share more information from their crime and mental-health databases." (The New York Times)

— "It is unclear what specific executive orders Obama is contemplating, though one Democratic aide with insight into the talks said Obama could sidestep Congress and bolster federally funded mental-health programs." (The Hill)

— "The coalition of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, led by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, has called for Obama to consider several measures that they said could be implemented without congressional approval: Step up prosecution by the Justice Department of felons and others prohibited from buying weapons when they attempt to buy them. ... Require federal agencies to report records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check Systems. ... Appoint an ATF director. The federal agency charged with enforcing gun laws has gone without a confirmed director for six years." (USA Today)
Click to expand...

it was on npr http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...ook-executive-action-on-guns-what-might-he-do
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Kid these days will never...
Social 2 3 4
174
7K
Agent_Nobody replied
SAW 3 | A Finale on Life Support (HyperBitHero)
Opinion
4
915
HyperBitHero replied
  • Locked
RTX 4070 TI Super for sale. Never gamed on.
1
726
LSWilson replied
Scalable games should be the standard on consoles from now on
Opinion
31
1K
GHG replied
How is it that I own a bunch of Xbox 360 games I never bought digitally?
9
1K
dragonyeuw replied
Top Bottom