Mr. and Mrs. Smith decide they are only willing to have $5,000 worth of debt on their credit card.

Then they run out and buy $10,000 worth of stuff.

When the Visa bill comes they say, "Sorry, we are only willing to have $5,000 worth of debt. We aren't going to raise our debt ceiling."

... think Visa's gonna go for that?

Did you vote for this man? Do you at least kick yourself several times a day or at least a week?

I think my wife might be ready to admit she made a mistake, but my brother and my cousin still think he walks on water.

He is technically correct ... but really wrong. (really I am not 100% certain what he is saying.)

Years ago I had $800 on my credit card with a $1000 credit limit. The bank upped my limit to $5000 (I guess in the hopes I would borrow more)...I still only owed $800. No when my work travel got messed up I had to put about $4000 on it...I got re-reimbursed for it...but I then owed the $4000 or so dollars.

The thing is, he's right. Raising the debt ceiling just authorizes congress to pay bills it has already incurred. Not doing it risks defaulting on the good name and credit of the United States.

And yes, although he has been disappointing in some significant ways, I don't regret my votes. We could have done far worse. When I think of a President Romney... or a President McCain... (shudder)

Some grasps of reality are unreal.

His math is correct. If you pass bills to spend $1,000 and know
that taxes will bring in $500, an increase of $500 in debt is
completely predictable.

The honest thing would be to acknowledge that at the time, and
increase the debt limit right then. The dishonest thing would be to
act as if the increase in debt were a surprise and refuse to pay
what you've already obligated yourself to pay.

Senator Obama voted against raising the debt ceiling, and spoke out quite forcefully on the issue.

Gee, I wonder what changed?

And yes, although he has been disappointing in some significant ways, I don't regret my votes. We could have done far worse. When I think of a President Romney... or a President McCain... (shudder)

You, sir, need a course in Civics. Neither of those gentlemen would have been a bargain, and either of them could have been almost as bad as Obama. But it is difficult to see how either (especially Romney, who is at least not senile) could have been worse. Neither of them, for starters, is as completely ignorant of the basics of economic and governmental function as the president is.

But don't ask me; I voted Libertarian. I'm not even sure I'd invite someone who didn't regret a vote for Obama to eat in my home unless they were related to me. That's a level of self-delusion that I'm not sure I'd want to expose my children to.

"Did you vote for this man? Do you at least kick yourself several times a day or at least a week?"

amen!

And, yes, I think a President McCain or President Romney would have been preferable - by far! They, at least, might not have shoved Obamacare down our throats like a rapist screaming "you'll like it bitch, you'll like it!" And then go play a round of golf with his friends (and apologists) who think he is just dreamy ("sends a shiver down my leg in a bromance kind of way")

If there's one campaign promise he's kept, please let me know.

"Under my plan, electricity prices would necessarily skyrocket."

PROMISE KEPT!!

And it's just beginning. I work in power generation.

"When I think of a President Romney... or a President McCain... (shudder)"

Romney? In what what would he have been worse than Obama? Oh, I know, he might in some minor way have restricted federal funding for abortions. National disaster! Much much much worse than a multi-trillion dollar debt!!!!2!!!!22!!!

Now, McCain, I might grant you that one.

At the time I preferred him to a president who wears magic underwear.

Maybe I was wrong. He's become positively sinister.

I actually have zero faith in just about any president or would-be president today (at least those who have a chance of being elected) making good decisions for our country.

But yeah, maybe magic underwear would have been slightly less bad. We'll never know.

Well, Romney candidly told Ohio voters that he was planning on offshoring their jobs to China. That would indeed, by itself, make Romney a worse choice than Obama for two reasons. 1) The obvious reason of causing yet more unemployment in the U.S. by taking jobs away; and 2) the breathtaking stupidity of admitting this to voters as if this was somehow going to help his chances.

"Yes, I'll tell Ohio that I'm going to send their jobs to China and leave them unemployed. That will surely make them vote for me."

It doesn't get any dumber.

And Obama is correct. Raising the ceiling on debt does not raise the debt. However, it does give Congress license to spend yet more money that it doesn't have.

Well, Romney candidly told Ohio voters that he was planning on offshoring their jobs to China. That would indeed, by itself, make Romney a worse choice than Obama for two reasons. 1) The obvious reason of causing yet more unemployment in the U.S. by taking jobs away; and 2) the breathtaking stupidity of admitting this to voters as if this was somehow going to help his chances.

"Yes, I'll tell Ohio that I'm going to send their jobs to China and leave them unemployed. That will surely make them vote for me."

It doesn't get any dumber.

And Obama is correct. Raising the ceiling on debt does not raise the debt. However, it does give Congress license to spend yet more money that it doesn't have.

Posted by: Patrick at September 24, 2013 6:43 AM

Only Patrick could be so deluded as to think that jobs are outsourced to China by presidential decree.

Of course,if we shut down oil refineries in the US, ( as Patrick suggested we should) and coal mining, as Obama promised to do, just where do you think the jobs in mining manufacturing and energy production are going to go?

Yawn, Isab. I'm not jumping through your stupid hoops and deny or confirm every stupid thing you want to accuse me of saying, so have a field day. You obviously attended the Radwaste/lujlp School of Blog Posting.

By the way, I've bounced your perspective on children's rights off a couple of real lawyers. Basically, their conclusion is that if your head was in further up your ass, you could crawl up inside yourself and disappear completely. Which wouldn't disappoint me in the least, by the way.

Oh, but, harrumph, harrumph! Isab has a JD. (So does Orly Taitz.)

Not doing it risks defaulting on the good name and credit of the United States.

Not true. There is enough revenue rolling in that debt payments can be made, and I think enough enough left over to fund social security and some of the military.

The rest? enjoy your furlough...

But that's up to the Secretary of the Treasury to make sure the funds go to the right places. Which means that they'll intentionally default by not paying the debts as owed.

Besides, at the rate we're racking up debt, we will default on it. You can argue with math, but you will lose. Just a matter of when, and how much.

For some reason, every time I read this subject line, I keep reading it as "All The President's Meth."

Now, this debt ceiling -- I just want to remind people in case you haven't been keeping up -- raising the debt ceiling, which has been done over a hundred times, does not increase our debt; it does not somehow promote profligacy. All it does is it says you got to pay the bills that you've already racked up, Congress. It's a basic function of making sure that the full faith and credit of the United States is preserved.

I don't see a need to paraphrase this. The president is right. What the fuck is so hard to understand about this?

I sure wish you tea party nuts would stop pretending that it isn't true and stop holding the economy hostage. Okay, we get it. You want to defund Obama-care. Guess what? The rest of us don't. Where is my proof of this? We've elected him twice. I know you can't wrap your mind around it, but we don't regret it and really wish you tea party nut jobs would get the fuck out of the way, stop trying to destroy the economy with your nonsense ideology, and let the people's will go forward.

If there's one campaign promise he's kept, please let me know.

That's an unrealistic standard.

Teh Won's promises come with expiration dates. It is unfair to say he broke a promise once that expiration date has come and gone.

Hey whistleDick, tell us what happens after the debt ceiling is raised?

Does the Treasury hold an auction to sell new bonds to fund future spending? or do they buy some of them back and remove some debt?

Technically, raising the debt ceiling does not raise the debt.

Selling new bonds, however does raise the debt. The one follows the other like night follows day. That's were the lie lies.

I R A,

The debt has already been raised by spending bills. You know this. It's a matter of whether or not we're going to pay our bills. If you get a bill in the mail and decide not to pay it, does that lower your debt? Or does it just fuck up your credit?

Stop pretending that you don't know this.

As several commenters have implied, the solution isn't to spend money and then not pay the bill. It's to not spend the money in the first place.

But how can we possibly achieve that, at this point? "The people's will" is to get more free shit, and more than half of the people in the USA are getting a direct government check.

Their complicity has been purchased, with all the dollars the Fed can print. No one will oppose the status quo and insist on any meaningful change when they depend on the government's purse strings.

"The debt has already been raised by spending bills. You know this. It's a matter of whether or not we're going to pay our bills. If you get a bill in the mail and decide not to pay it, does that lower your debt? Or does it just fuck up your credit?"

Here's a news flash: the government stiffs vendors and contractors all the time. I've seen it first hand. In fact, I recently got to experience it for myself. As a private entity contracting with the government, you have zero leverage. If the government decides they want to alter the terms of their exisitng contract with you, they do, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it.

And Obama is correct. Raising the ceiling on debt does not raise the debt. However, it does give Congress license to spend yet more money that it doesn't have. ~ Patrick

Technically, he is correct; this is merely raising the government's credit limit and willingness to absorb more spending. But one doesn't ask Visa for a higher credit limit if one is not planning on spending that money.

So, while raising the debt ceiling does not increase the debt, it is an acknowledgement that the government is still not living within its means - and has no plans to do so.

The US government has not had a budget for at least three years now (even though the federal budget has become by now a joke) ... and Obama's okay with that because it means he can't over-spend the budget (or be punished politically for his profligate spending).

No budget and an need to continually raise the debt ceiling.

This is what you get when you elect as president a man who has never created a budget, made a payroll, or developed a strategic plan in his entire life.

[Although, in fairness to Obama, he's not the only president who has asked for an increase in the debt ceiling.]

When I think of a President Romney.... (shudder) ~ squint

I would much rather have had President Romney, who made a very successful career of turning around struggling enterprises by making tough choices.

At least he was willing to tackle the problems we're having a take measures to fix them, even if it meant not using the government to protect overpriced union-wage jobs in Ohio; rather than stick his fingers in his ears and insist we just need to spend yet more taxpayer money on debt service and the economy fairies will come and rescue us.

Senator Obama voted against raising the debt ceiling, and spoke out quite forcefully on the issue. ~ Isab

Hypocrisy? From Obama? Say it ain't so.

Here's a news flash: the government stiffs vendors and contractors all the time. I've seen it first hand. In fact, I recently got to experience it for myself. As a private entity contracting with the government, you have zero leverage. If the government decides they want to alter the terms of their exisitng contract with you, they do, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it.
Posted by: Cousin Dave at September 24, 2013 8:38 AM

What Cousin Dave may be alluding to is when you owe multiple entities huge amounts of money, it is the debtor who has the creditor by the balls, and not the other way around....

All the debtor nation has to do, is debase the currency (print more money) and the creditors are effectively hosed.

Is this really the direction in which we want to be going?

"Economists define a nation to be a welfare state when 20% or more of its gross domestic product (GDP) is spent by the state on welfare and education. The United States has never hit that level, but welfare and education 'investment' spending under President Barack Obama rose to 19.4% of GDP in 2012. Implementing Obamacare will convert America into a welfare state for the first time in our history."

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/09/europe_declares_the_welfare_state_dead.html#ixzz2fpItvPIY

Conan: Technically, he is correct; this is merely raising the government's credit limit and willingness to absorb more spending. But one doesn't ask Visa for a higher credit limit if one is not planning on spending that money.

Thank you, Conan. Exactly my point. Raising the debt ceiling does not increase debt. However, you don't asked for an increased debt ceiling, unless you plan on raising the debt.

Conan: I would much rather have had President Romney, who made a very successful career of turning around struggling enterprises by making tough choices.

Which may be about the most euphemistic way I've ever heard to describe what Romney did. "Hey, that's a great idea! We just lay off our employees and send their jobs overseas where we can pay sweatshop wages. That saves us ten billion! Here's one billion for you, Mr. Romney! Thanks a billion!"

So what you are saying Patrick, is that you would rather vote for liar who tells you what you want to hear rather than a serious candidate who tells the unpleasant, but very necessary truth. Actually, based on your postings this doesn't surprise me in least.

Which may be about the most euphemistic way I've ever heard to describe what Romney did. "Hey, that's a great idea! We just lay off our employees and send their jobs overseas where we can pay sweatshop wages. That saves us ten billion!

That, Patrick, is the populist way of describing Romeny's job. And it's wrong.

The companies Bain bought an interest in were generally in trouble. Most were dead companies walking. Those jobs were gone anyway - all of them, not just some of them; until Bain took over and restructured the company.

Unlike the hostile takeovers of the '80s, where investors bought dying companies and sold off the assets, Bain attempted to save the company. That sometimes meant that labor costs had to be trimmed by eliminating some jobs and off-shoring others. But, unlike just letting the company die, at least some jobs remained in the US.

Some companies couldn't be saved. Some could. Bain actually had an outstanding record in turnarounds.

And Romney did it again with the Olympics.

Romney assembled an outstanding team of experts around him and listened to them.

While he would never have been (and will never be) my first choice for president, he still ranks way ahead of the community organizer from Chicago currently in the office.

For some reason, every time I read this subject line, I keep reading it as "All The President's Meth."

Walter White for President!

sj, ha!

That's MATH, yo!!!

"The debt has already been raised by spending bills."

Several people have said this, or something very like it. The thing is: this is wrong.

I can go down to a car dealership and sign a contract to buy a ferrari. When it comes time to pay the bill, they'll discover I haven't got that kind of money, and they won't give me the car.

Congress can pass spending bills all day long (and they do). If the debt ceiling is not raised, those bills will make pretty lousy toilet paper.

The debt ceiling is a really lousy way to make the government reign in spending. However, given that Congress cannot even pass a budget (despite this being their explicit responsibility), it may the that the debt ceiling is the only chance we have. If the government is not allowed to pay its bills, it will be forced to deal with its out-of-control spending.

Technically, he is correct; this is merely raising the government's credit limit and willingness to absorb more spending. But one doesn't ask Visa for a higher credit limit if one is not planning on spending that money.

Technically if I stab a man in the heart I havent killed him. His own body's inability to rapidly heal and the loss of blood killed him.

Isab, thanks for that read. However, I admit I was referring more directly to this fact: the government is not, in fact, obligated to pay a single damn bill if it doesn't want to. All that has to happen is that Congress refuses to appropriate the money, or withdraws a previous appropriation, and that's that. This has happened in the past. Going back to the Civil War, we have the example of the government-established Freedman's Bank, which when under after the government refused to pay its incurred debts, forcing a lot of newly-freed blacks into bankruptcy.

More recently, we have the example of McDonnell-Douglas and the A-12 aircraft program. When the DoD terminated the program because it no longer fit into the plans ("terminated for convenience", to use the jargon), Congress decided it didn't feel like appropriating the funding for the $3B or so of termination liability called for in the contract. That decision had a lot to do with the fact that McDonnell-Douglas is no longer with us.

And then we have the GM bankruptcy. The government took over the company and then repudiated a lot of its debts. Stockholders got screwed, the Delphi salaried employees' pension fund was raided, and a lot of GM vendors didn't get paid. Further, many GM dealerships were forced out of business (and were subsequently acquired for pennies on the dollar by crony franchise holders like Mac McLarty).

So don't tell me anything about the government being obligated to pay debts. The government has many times made it clear that it feels no such obligation.

Numbnuts: Technically if I stab a man in the heart I havent killed him. His own body's inability to rapidly heal and the loss of blood killed him.

Technically, that comparison is about as idiotic as it gets. Well, actually, there's no "technically" about it. It was idiotic.

If the bank gives you a 1000 dollar credit card, which you've maxed, and they raise your credit limit to 2000 dollars, your debt has not changed. Your ability to incur greater debt has.

And technically, if you do stab a man through the heart and he dies, you've killed him.

5 Reasons Obamacare Won't Save You

Pricing Glitch Afflicts Rollout of Online Health Exchanges

But of course considering that Obama got the math right on his Affordable Care Act, means he got the rest of it correct too.

this is what I get for not paying attention...

see, Patrick, for my money THIS is the lie: "it does not somehow promote profligacy." Of course it does.

I wasn't focused on the semantics of the other part. What you are saying about the increase of debt happening on it's own, JUST BECAUSE the debt limit goes up, is quite right.

But that is semantics. You don't ask for an increase on your visa card, if you don't think you may need it, and we have been shown "raising the debt ceiling, which has been done over a hundred times,"
AND EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. they have blown right through it. The part where it won't happen this time, is the lie.

And this: "I just want to remind people in case you haven't been keeping up..." how do you politely say STFU? I have been keeping up... since I was a wide-eyed lad in high school, more than 30 years ago. In the olden days, if you went to charge something on a Visa, and you were at your limit?

It was DECLINED.
But now, in an effort to "help" customers, they may not decline.
But they WILL give you an over limit charge, that may well be more that the item you are buying...
PLUS, your variable rate may suddenly shoot up, because after all, you dun know how to manage money...

Why should we allow the government to simply extend the limit every time they feel like it?

If this isn't the full gonzo explanation of "if you reward something, you get more..." Dunno what is.

Jim P., I haven't read it and wouldn't believe a single word of it. The fact that the Affordable Care Act will succeed is essentially proven by the fact that Republicans are so determined to stop it.

Why? Not because they're afraid it will fail. They're afraid it will succeed. If they truly believed it would fail, they'd let it forward, watch it fail and have victory after victory in elections.

Should it go forward, it's pretty much the death-knell of the Republican Party, because a Democrat produced what the public has been clamoring for for decades.

I hate to admit he is sorta correct in that the debt is the same. It does however give him a free pass to spend more so the end result is the same, more debt.

Hi, Patrick! I see I'm still in your dreams!

Just passed my rifle to the 10-year-old next door, since he has a right to bear arms. I'm sure he'll be just fine!

Regardless of what you and your friends state from the comfort of a living room, unconditional rights are NOT exercised by children in the USA - or anywhere. Meanwhile, there are countless examples of persons manipulating the term, "rights", to mean what will give THEM the advantage. You're a fan of government agents, apparently - I suppose you might think a person has a right to a job and food. How far DO you stretch the concept?

I know you have terminal problems with logic and definitions. For instance, you think anyone opposing you is "stupid", etc.

Nope. Sorry. Try some Midol.

However, on topic, here is a quote from President Barack Obama, your hero, when he was a Senator busily voting "present":

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government can not pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America 's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."
-Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006

Get it?

What has this man actually done? Who have the breaks gone to in Federal bailouts and exemptions from the requirements of the Affordable Health Care Act? Unions? Connected cronies in business?

There was once a "used furniture salesman" from Chicago who played favorites like this. Just what IS a "community organizer", anyway?

Now, to anyone who is an Obama supporter:

That is a direct quote above. Step up and defend him against his own words.

I thought the post was lujlp at first, since I mentioned him. But the grammar was too good, so I realized it was Radwaste. Stopped reading after hearing something about giving a ten-year-old a gun...I figured it would be something stupid (when is it not?) so I stopped reading.

@Cousin Dave

While I agree with you in principle, a legalistic contract termination which is what happened to McDonnell-Douglas, is a tough way for the government to not pay on a contract. I used to write these things for the Air Force, and they are darn near unenforceable on either side.

Defense industries are in a precarious position to start with because they know the contract can be terminated esentially on a whim. I know of two bigger boondoggles where the contractors got screwed because my cousin's husband worked on both of them. The first was the supercollider in Texas, and the second was Yucca Mountain in Nevada.
The GM bailout, in my opinion violated a number of federal laws including federal bankruptcy laws, and the lawsuits are still in litigation so we will see ultimately if the government gets away with the cram down. For now, we have to ignore that fact, that it has drug on long enough that the GM shareholders are not going to ever actually recover what they lost in real dollars.

None of these cases were ethical, but only the GM bailout cramdown was both unethical, and illegal.

Right now the government is in the process of debasing the currency so it can repudiate all its debts, in the form of inflating
them out of existence. It is working too.

I can go down to a car dealership and sign a contract to buy a ferrari. When it comes time to pay the bill, they'll discover I haven't got that kind of money, and they won't give me the car.

What Obama is saying is that Congress has already signed the contract to buy the ferrari, so if we don't take out a loan and buy the car, it's going to make us look bad.

What makes us look bad is signing a contract to buy a car we can't afford! You know what, Mr. President, THAT is what has already happened - not our going further into debt trying to pay for it.

...the Affordable Care Act will succeed is essentially proven by the fact that Republicans are so determined to stop it. ... Why? Not because they're afraid it will fail. They're afraid it will succeed. If they truly believed it would fail, they'd let it forward, watch it fail and have victory after victory in elections. ~ Patrick

Perhaps they feel it is so destructive to the American economy that to stand by and watch it destroy the economy is to be complicit in that destruction - and the honorable ones among them refuse to put political victory ahead of the nation's welfare.

Or, perhaps they want to have it on record that they were virulently opposed to it and tried to kill it so that when it fails (and it will), the Democrats can't say it was a bipartisan bill and shift the blame.

Should it go forward, it's pretty much the death-knell of the Republican Party, because a Democrat produced what the public has been clamoring for for decades. ~ Patrick

The Democrats have been clamoring for universal health care. The public has not. The Democrats have been jealous of Britain's socialist NHS for years, insisting that it is the answer to all of our prayers, while ignoring the escalating costs and deteriorating quality of care it has given to British taxpayers.

When Obama was elected and Congress began debating the ACA, the public was concerned about the rising cost of healthcare, but not about the quality of US healthcare. The ACA will destroy the quality of US healthcare while increasing the cost exponentially.

And paying for it will bankrupt the US economy. Europe, which has been a collection of welfare states for years is discovering this. The US, with its far larger economy, will not be far behind.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/dutch-king-willemalexander-declares-the-end-of-the-welfare-state-8822421.html

The Democrats have been clamoring for universal health care. The public has not.

Conan, I think you and I agree completely on the merits and effects of the ACA. But I'm not sure this statement of yours is entirely true. I believe it was at one time, but I think many Americans have been swayed to believe this will be good for them.

Because they WANT to believe. My mom got sucked into a kooky religion for the same reason. When there is a problem, and no solution presents itself that is both effective and easy, people will believe anything. They'll say, 'Ya gotta have hope!' Hope and change, indeed.

MATH, bitchez!

Quote: "I thought the post was lujlp at first, since I mentioned him. But the grammar was too good, so I realized it was Radwaste. Stopped reading after hearing something about giving a ten-year-old a gun...I figured it would be something stupid (when is it not?) so I stopped reading."

Shorter Patrick: "I'm way too chickenshit too actually respond to an argument, so I'm just going to sit here and continue to throw shit and tantrums like any other good leftist."

Quote: "Why? Not because (the Republicans are) afraid it will fail. They're afraid (ACA) will succeed. If they truly believed it would fail, they'd let it forward, watch it fail and have victory after victory in elections.

And the #1 reason Stalinists like Patrick want Obamacare so fucking bad is so that very soon, they can make conservatives and their families die painfully and needlessly in the ER, while all the good little leftists get all their care toot-sweet. Are you a relative of Ted Cruz or Rand Paul, perhaps? Well then, you better not have any kind of malady or accident EVER, because if you do and you choose to go to the ER, there will be lots of good little leftist drones like Patrick to laugh at you, tie you to a gurney, dump lots of salt into your wounds, and then throw you into a dumpster and wait for you to die. All while they're throwing a party because one of the "enemies of the people" have been disposed of, no doubt.

See how making hateful assumptions about people who disagree with you works, Patty boy? If *you* get to do it, *I* get to do it.

qdpsteve....awesome... I loved that and I too have noticed that Patrick runs from facts like rats run off sinking ships.

qdpsteve, when you edit a quotation from another source, such as when you insert words to clarify the meaning, the inserted material goes in brackets, not parentheses. These things [ ].

Also the French expression is "toute suite," a shortened form of "tout de suite" not "toot-sweet."

If I see any more grammatical errors in your post, I'll be sure I'll let you know. I might respond to the post, but it was so boring, I don't think any of it really stuck with me. But I suspect you didn't really want me to engage you on the points (whatever they were) anyway. Referring to me as "Patty-boy" tells me that you don't really care to have me read your posts. That's why I refer to Radwaste as 'Waste and lujlp as "numbnuts."

Conan, when you say "(and it will) fail," I find myself wondering who you're trying to convince. And no, Ted Cruz is not filibustering right now merely out of solicitude for the American people and the supposed devastated economy. His objective, like everyone else's in Washington, is political. Nothing else. Never was about anything else, never will be.

Sheep mommy: thanks!! :-)

Obamacare won't fail, because there's no metric by which its failure can be defined. If one person with a pre-existing condition gets health insurance which he wouldn't have gotten before, Obamacare will be a resounding success to its supporters. Things like cost increases and doctors closing their practices will be blamed on corporate greed or some other leftist bugbear.

Hate to break this to you Patrick, but, just because you choose to ignore someone, it doesn't mean that they don't have a valid argument.

I disagree with Radwaste at least as often as I agree with him, but it can be rarely said that his arguments aren't properly constructed (though they may occasionally stem from a flawed premise).

And, you didn't stop reading because of the ten year old gun recipient, you claimed to stop because you are either unwilling or unable to respond to his primary point.

That point being, that in 2006, then *Senator* Obama opposed raising the debt ceiling, for very much the same reasoning being offered by those who oppose it today (and I actually agreed with him then).

But now, hey, it's not such a big thing, daddy-o.

I'll admit that being president has different imperatives (and acting forces) than being senator, but the argument he gives for this is facile and rhetorical nonsense. Instead of saying the increase doesn't really mean that much, he should be giving an intelligent and compelling reason that there is *no* other solution than to raise the limit (and that reason *cannot* be that we overspent and blew through the credit limit again, that should not have happened in the first place).

And I'll give you the same reputation I give to Rad, I agree with you about as often as I disagree with you. I've seen you post a number of insightful and thoughtful comments. And in my opinion, someone who is insightful and thoughtful should find it utterly anathema to actively refuse to engage a legitimate argument based on what is obviously an ad hominem basis.

And, for the bit about Cruz doing the 'filibuster' like thing, I rather doubt it'll have much actual effect on the outcome, but it is kind of funny that people are simultaneously saying it doesn't matter, while commenting on it endlessly.

Tim, I hate to break it to you, but I did stop reading once I realized who I reading. Whatever his "main point" was, I did not get that far. I promise you, I stopped reading right where I said I did. If this blog had an ignore feature, Radwaste would be on mine, and he would never come off. Never. You'd see the second coming first. Ditto for lujlp. And Feebie.

As for Cruz doing the "'filibuster' like thing" (and no, he's not doing a filibuster-like thing; he's filibustering) I don't find anything particularly funny about people who are commenting endlessly about it, whoever those people are (this is the first time I've mentioned it) but at the same time claiming it will have no effect. The fact that nothing will come of Cruz's filibustering is the very reason it should be commented on.

That said, I think filibustering in general is ridiculous, no matter which side does it. You want to talk and talk and talk because some loopholes exist and you want to prevent a vote that you know will succeed. Let the votes, good or bad, go forward. If it turns out to be a bad decision made by the Congress, we fix it. But preventing votes from going forward, not allowing the Congress to do its job, is no way for us to get anything accomplished.

SwissArmyD: But that is semantics. You don't ask for an increase on your visa card, if you don't think you may need it, and we have been shown "raising the debt ceiling, which has been done over a hundred times,"
AND EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. they have blown right through it. The part where it won't happen this time, is the lie.

Absolutely. I believe I made this point already, but I consider this to be totally correct. You don't ask for an increase on your credit limit unless you're planning on spending it. I don't quite consider it a mere point of semantics, but I do understand what you're saying.

In likening this to a responsible credit card holder (which our government is anything but), I'm merely pointing that a responsible person would not go out and max out his credit card merely because he got an increased credit limit.

But if the question is, would our government go out and max their credit card (so to speak) merely because they got an increased credit limit? Absolutely. And as you say, they would go well beyond.

Amid all the "Weeeeeell, he's *technically* right, you know":

The most insidious lies are laced with half-truths.

"I'm way too chickenshit too actually respond to an argument, so I'm just going to sit here and continue to throw shit and tantrums like any other good leftist."

Like it or not, Patrick, that's the way you're behaving in this thread. I'm disappointed. Reading your comments over the past few months led me to believe that you were too smart to resort to that.

I don't think anyone need be afraid that Obamacare will fail; that failure will be self-evident. But - the meaning of "fail" will be changed, and the system will be modified, and eventually we'll end up with a government-funded single-payer system, since we'll be in too deep to scrap it and let the market work.

Grey Ghost: Like it or not, Patrick, that's the way you're behaving in this thread. I'm disappointed. Reading your comments over the past few months led me to believe that you were too smart to resort to that.

Your free to skip over my posts any time you care to. Although by suggesting that I'm supposedly too cowardly to respond to any point Radwaste chooses to make give Radwaste way too much credit. He's a jackass, plain and simple.

I shared some thoughts that were expressed to me regarding the TSA by some friends of mine who happened to be lawyers. Waste-product and lujlp accused me of supporting these opinions. I actually didn't think I understood the issue enough to comment, but when I tried to explain this, they demanded to know my opinions, claiming that if I didn't give it, then that could only mean that I support them.

As I said, I don't. I don't think I know enough about the Constitutionality of the TSA's activities to give an informed opinion. (And I personally think the continued outcries of "UNCONSTITUTIONAL!" on this blog are sophomoric, naive and probably underinformed.)

But the demands to know my opinion, the relentless trolling from Radwaste and lujlp continued, so I made up my mind that I wasn't going to respond to them. Ever.

Even if they posted something that would be music to my ears (if I bothered to read it), the most eloquent, intelligent (not that either of them could) and most agreeable opinion in the world, I will not indulge either of them. Period. Ever.

It has nothing to do with the arguments; it has everything to do with who's expressing them. Those two howler monkeys need to grow up. And in their case, that need is more pressing than their next breath.

Gotta say, Patrick, you've still managed to avoid commenting on the dissonance between Senator Obama's position on the debt ceiling, and President Obama's.

Now, general political cynic that I am, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that his position has changed because he's president, and Bush isn't.

Now, I'm certainly not anywhere naive enough to believe that any politician's position on any given subject has anything to do with integrity or having a consistent position based upon the constitution that they swore an oath to uphold (or, for that matter, holding a consistent position at all).

With the smallest handful of exceptions, those in government are far more interested in jockeying for position and power, and far less interested in doing the actual job they were elected to do.

I can't say that I fully agree with Cruz or Rand on a large portion of the issues they propose (though I do on some), but I still admire them for their commitment to the principles they were elected to preserve. This is a trait entirely lacking in the other significant players in the federal government.

Obama, Pelosi, Reid, McConnell, Boehner (among many others) are huge offenders.

I'm almost convinced that those above, if given the choice between actually upholding their oath of office or raping a baby on national television, would choose to rape the baby.

They hold the people who vote for them and the constitution (that permits them to hold the offices they hold) in utter contempt.

They work for us, but they want us to be subjects.

For all that they mouth off about the general welfare (itself a statement of purpose, not a directive like the amendments), they're far more interested in what benefits them. Even if they objectively harm the people who put them in office.

I disagree with a lot of the motives of the Tea Party (most notably, a lot of the social baggage), but I really like that they (occasionally successfully, even) hold some feet to the fire when it comes to what Congress is *supposed* to be doing.

If it turns out to be a bad decision made by the Congress, we fix it. But preventing votes from going forward, not allowing the Congress to do its job, is no way for us to get anything accomplished. -- Patrick at September 25, 2013 1:39 AM

In general, I won't say you are totally wrong. The issue is that once you slowly destroy all the private insurance companies in the buildup to a socialist single payer system, the re-creation of that depth of wealth in a modern environment is going to be nearly impossible.

The same issue with the Dodd-Frank law. If any of the named banks fail, there is virtually no way to open a new bank off the residuals left over. In fact there is almost no way to open a new bank. Most Federal Credit Unions are in the same position.

Or, in other words, the federal oversight has/is coming to the point that it is destroying the entrepreneur.

Just look at the Southwest History and how they worked up to a major nationwide carrier. Try that now in just about any field and you would have Congress there to fuck you over.

Do you think you could develop a new auto company like Edsel today? The fed owns GM. (And most of Dodge.)

What about replacing Roto-Rooter? Even in your local area?

Try that with becoming a major operation with anything that has a major presence today.

That is the problem.

Liberty means that you can succeed, or fail, on your own efforts. I go to the local ren fest. The one lady did fantastic work. Even the guy that has five apprentices acknowledges her work was great, but she couldn't keep up on quantity and she left the fair. That was her choice. But as the current fed system is setup is to add points to the GM because the fed owns GM.

But the popular opinion was her superior work was great, but the her limited supply chain doomed her, and she withdrew. There was no federal requirements. But if a regulation is in place, could she have opened the business knowing she had to produce and sell 25 sheaths every month?

there are some who call me Tim:

Gotta say, Patrick, you've still managed to avoid commenting on the dissonance between Senator Obama's position on the debt ceiling, and President Obama's.

You mean he didn't just vote "Present" when the issue was presented to Congress? Shocking.

I'm not sure why anyone (including you, apparently) thinks I'm such a fan of Obama. I have never voted for him, nor would I, even if he could run for a third term.

My comments on this blog that are being misconstrued as a defense of Obama are generally responses to posts that seem to blame Obama for everything.

For instance, the comments about the TSA which amount to "Foam, snort, snarl! Evil bastard Obama! Inflicting the TSA on us! Fourth Amendment rights! Gnash! Gnash!"

My response? "Oh, you mean the TSA that was started by George W. Bush in response to 9/11? That TSA? Funny, but I don't remember the indignant shrieks being raised to quite a fever pitch when Bush was President."

And your Constitutional rights are being violated, you say? Were you this upset when George W. Bush created "free speech zones" thus disallowing dissenters to be anywhere near him during his public appearances? I don't seem to remember that you were.

there are some who call me Tim:

Now, general political cynic that I am, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that his position has changed because he's president, and Bush isn't.

I must be a political cynic, too. Because I agree. And this reversal wouldn't surprise me about any politician, really. Yes, he backpedaled. Yes, it was wrong. But I'm not sure why any politician wafflin would come as a surprise to anyone.

there are some who call me Tim:

Now, I'm certainly not anywhere naive enough to believe that any politician's position on any given subject has anything to do with integrity or having a consistent position based upon the constitution that they swore an oath to uphold (or, for that matter, holding a consistent position at all).

With the smallest handful of exceptions, those in government are far more interested in jockeying for position and power, and far less interested in doing the actual job they were elected to do.

I would agree with this for the most part, however, I fail to see where any exceptions exist.

I agree with most of what you're saying, but I'm not ready to concede that Rand Paul or Ted Cruz are these noble heroes, the true stalwart patriots for whom self-interest is the furthest things from their mind. They're self-serving opportunists, like the rest of the lot.

(As an aside, I am, at this time, working on a webpage that is created to support Ted Cruz in his possible future presidential bid. Don't ask me why I'm spending all my time in support of a political candidate that I don't trust.)

Also, I take issue with the assertion that they "work for us." They are elected officials, not employees, and elected officials is its own political beast.

We do not hire them. We elect them. Congress hires them when they ratify the results of the election. We do not control their pay, Congress does. We do not have the option of firing them when they mess up. Congress must expel their own members or impeach the President or Supreme Court justices.

I also like the way you described the Tea Party. The original premise of fiscal responsibility was a wonderful original premise, and I was completely on board.

However, it seems you cannot create a political merely upon the position of fiscal responsibility. Because by failing to take a side on the other major issues such as abortion or gay marriage, you become a magnet for freaks who who don't have a political home in either of the other political parties (such as conspiracy theorists like the 9/11 truthers and birthers), which is what happened to the Tea Party.

For this, I blame the Republicans. When the Tea Party was surging on ahead, like a fast moving locomotive, the Republican Party stood on the tracks and held up a hand, bring the train to a stop and claiming it as its own, thus assimilating the aforementioned freaks that came with it.

"Relentless trolling"? Really?

Count the posts. I think you'll find Patrick far more abusive, and prolific, than I.

On this blog, I find the idea/noise ratio highest for Andrew Garland, with Jim P second. On the bottom? Gcotharn, followed closely by anyone who is sadly mistaken about my job (take the hint from my handle) but insists they know about it, like Crid, whom I miss on other topics for his genius at prose.

Everybody has strengths and weaknesses.

Everybody, Patrick. In your case, I think you've figuratively never been outside.

Were you this upset when George W. Bush created "free speech zones" thus disallowing dissenters to be anywhere near him during his public appearances? I don't seem to remember that you were.

Patrick, thats becuase you ignore everything that doesnt mesh with the narrative you are trying to spin.

I also recall several instance, after you claimed to start ignoreing Rad and I for 'jumping t conclusions' about what you wrote where you did the exact same thing to other people.

As for you reasons for ignoring Rad and I, perhaps if you acctually ignored us and didnt mention Rad or I on nearly every single topic and nearly ever other post people might take your proclamation a bit more seriously

On this blog, I find the idea/noise ratio highest for Andrew Garland, with Jim P second. -- Radwaste at September 26, 2013 11:08 AM

I'm not sure how to take that. I do my best to take facts and extract them to the logical conclusion.

I will grant that on some things I have an illogical bent such as the TSA and other unconstitutional issues. But I do my best to split on reality and what it should be in the U.S.

Jim P: I'm not sure how to take that.

Consider the source.

But at least Rad can look at the bright side; someone read that post. Wasn't me, though.

Also I dont recall a single person blaming Obama for the creation of the TSA as you claim.