US Federal Government Shutdown

Interesting dates from a comment in one of Lemur's linked articles, in case things weren't clear in earlier comments:

Quote:

---

October 22 - The date the CBO predicts the government will actually start missing payments.

October 24 - Treasury must roll over $24 billion in T-Bills. Technically the interest should be considered an expenditure (unlike the principal) but due to the zero coupon nature of these instruments I'm unclear on the actual govt accounting.

October 31 - Treasury must roll over $115 billion in Treasury Notes and Bonds and make an accompanying $6 billion interest payment.

November 1 - $55 billion in Medicare, Social Security, and military payments are due.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny

Decent summary of spending/expenditure consequences in event of no deal:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...crew-americans

The patient doesn't expire immediately, but its all about which limbs to amputate first.

---

I think if it hits this point, it is where we go 'So long and thanks for all the Fish' to the United States. Perhaps it is time to look emigrating to Canada, @Lemur .

Quote:

---

So long and thanks for all the fish
So sad that it should come to this
We tried to warn you all but oh dear?

Your Republicans may not share our intellect
Which might explain their disrespect
For all the natural wonders that
grow around you

So long, so long and thanks
for all the fish

Your country about to be destroyed
There's no point getting all annoyed
Lie back and let the economy dissolve(around you)

So long, so long, so long, so long, so long
So long, so long, so long, so long, so long

So long, so long and thanks
for all the fish

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

We don't need [liberals] when we have you.

---

If I'm your idea of a flaming libtard, then you appear to have led an extremely sheltered life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

you could stop all spending for your armed forces and use the money to pay interest for example.

---

Yeah, and that assumes that the Treasury has a system in place to pay bills by some sort of prioritizing system besides when the bills come in. Completely unclear if that is possible from an operational perspective.

The argument is that after the debt limit is hit the Treasury can "prioritize" payments, meaning that it would guarantee that bondholders get paid, while withholding money from, say, soldiers or Social Security.

Of course, this would obliterate the economy (Goldman estimates that this would erase 4.2% of GDP) but it wouldn't mean a debt default.

But is this actually possible?

Here's the answer: Nobody knows.

Seriously, it is remarkably difficult for anyone outside of Treasury to get any real answer to what is possible with regard to prioritization.

Cardiff Garcia has a must-read post at FT Alphaville just walking through the ABCs of the Treasury payment system. Suffice to say, just the ABCs are very complicated.

Over 80 million payments go out per month, and they're handled by three different systems.

From Credit Suisse:

As we understand it, there are three main systems – the Department of Defense Disbursing Offices, the Bureau of the Fiscal Service (which deals with Treasury security related payments), and the Financial Management Service (which makes all other payments).

The way that they are set up, they can either be set to “on” or “off” – i.e., a system either makes all of its payments or it doesn’t make any at all.

The extent to which the system can be rearranged to honor Treasury payments first, and then disbursing what's left over is unclear, though at a minimum it would be extremely difficult.

But even if there were some technical approach to all this, you'd still have the legality.

If they could prioritize so that old white people don't get their Social Security checks, the Tea Party might just disappear overnight. ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

If they could prioritize so that old white people don't get their Social Security checks, the Tea Party might just disappear overnight. ~D

---

An article on say the Onion with actual real numbers and then spreading it around might actually work. With current climate, I don't think a politician can state how drastic the consequences are without it being spinned as a threat or similar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

If I'm your idea of a flaming libtard, then you appear to have led an extremely sheltered life.

---

Lemur, you are exactly what the Democratic party is. Every argument you make might as well be made by the DNC. I do the same thing, but I was sensible enough to re-register as a Republican. At least I'm not deluding myself into thinking I'm some detached moderate. You are a Democrat by Long Island, NY standards.

Are you a "flaming liberal"? I don't know what that means anymore. I would say no, but the Democratic party isn't all "flaming liberals". Partisan shill? If I am, then you are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

Every argument you make might as well be made by the DNC.

---

Why, exactly?

Because he supports his arguments with research, and actually alters his stance based on the facts of a case? Because he applies a pragmatic common sense position? Because his opinions are guided by what works, instead of utopian ideals of "how it really should be"? Because he has a distaste for lies, double standards and hypocrites?

If that excludes him from the republican party, you're in deeper dog-doo-doo than you know...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Why, exactly?

Because he supports his arguments with research, and actually alters his stance based on the facts of a case? Because he applies a pragmatic common sense position? Because his opinions are guided by what works, instead of utopian ideals of "how it really should be"? Because he has a distaste for lies, double standards and hypocrites?

If that excludes him from the republican party, you're in deeper dog-doo-doo than you know...

---

It is because I can't think of a single issue that he disagrees with them on as a party. Their good ideas he boasts, their bad Ideas he pretty much glosses over. I am more critical of the Republican party and I'm registered. The idea that there is any breathing room between them is laughable. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with being a democrat, but it is weird to not register when you think they are right about everything.

There is lots of stuff that both parties are dead wrong about, but I am clearly on one side over the other. I doubt he could pinpoint one GOP idea which he thought wasn't ignorant and worthy of scorn. For his position to be fair he would have to expect that we are intentionally getting things wrong to have a track record of 0 for 100000000.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

At least I'm not deluding myself into thinking I'm some detached moderate. You are a Democrat by Long Island, NY standards.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

What are you guys accusing me of being? An asshole, being crazy? I'm a moderate

---

You have spent this thread posting 500 words essays time and time again all amounting to same premise, your personal enemy is an abstract concept of centralized government. Thus, you feel not only justified, but morally right in your stance that it takes extreme measures to make sure you get what you want in what is supposed to be Representative Democracy who just re-elected a Democratic president less than 2 years ago.

I have had you pegged since I first came here, which is why I only replied to everything you said with the word "cancer". God forgive me for starting to think that you were actually a reasonable man.

The US has always been a Union of men, not of States. When we lack the character to keep this great experiment operating, it will end.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

You have spent this thread posting 500 words essays time and time again all amounting to same premise, your personal enemy is an abstract concept of centralized government. Thus, you feel not only justified, but morally right in your stance that it takes extreme measures to make sure you get what you want in what is supposed to be Representative Democracy who just re-elected a Democratic president less than 2 years ago.

I have had you pegged since I first came here, which is why I only replied to everything you said with the word "cancer". God forgive me for starting to think that you were actually a reasonable man.

The US has always been a Union of men, not of States. When we lack the character to keep this great experiment operating, it will end.

---

Your arguments have never been compelling. Lemur is worth reading. You, as I'm sure I have told you, are not worth a turd. I may also not be worth a turd, but I like to rile people up, so I enjoy reading me.

I am a moderate on many things. I am also a crazy person and enjoy getting peoples blood pumping. Maybe there is some value in that. I remember how much I hated Tribesman, but his awefullness was enjoyable on occasion. You, I'm sorry to say, are boring and never enjoyable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

I am also a crazy person.

---

Thanks for proving my point. :)

Just to make this clear; I am against secession. I believe it gives those who would steal guns and property up north a blank check. The only people who want secession are southern republicans and northern democrats. Fortunately, secession by either party would never fly due to the large numbers of opposite political ideologues spread out in all regions. It was not thus prior to the civil war. Politics were charged. A new civil war would be a bloodbath all over the nation, akin to an occupation in the Middle East, with radical political minority groups of all stripes creating a never ending sea of insurgencies.

As a Northeastern Republican, I would only lose in a secession scenario. My only hope is to stay and fight and hopefully win some ideological battles, if only a very few. I doubt that I will lose all of them, but who knows.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

I am also a crazy person and enjoy getting peoples blood pumping.

---

No, you are just starved for attention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Lemur is the very definition of moderate. If you want a flaming liberal look at me. I don't think the dems are left enough.

Gun rights being generally the only issue I agree with the right on.

---

I wouldn't consider you a flaming liberal. I wouldn't consider Lemur one either. I wouldn't consider you a Democrat, but I would consider Lemur one. The 2 parties contain the most moderate individuals out of the political spectrum, less so now than before perhaps. Independents tend to be immoderate - those who cannot moderate their own agenda's in order to even form a working coalition with others. They are not necessarily partisans, but the failure to agree with people doesnt make you a moderate: Just because someone is an independent doesn't make them a moderate - this needs to be clear. The most extreme political ideologies lie outside of the 2 party system. Why wouldn't this make sense? Parties are for those who compromise to play nice - seeking either the brainless or most politically moderate.

My point is that Lemur is pretty moderate in his approaches to policy problems, but in a distinctly partisan way. This makes him a perfect candidate for a supporter of a political party.

I prefer to undermine authority. I don't like authority and don't believe that anyone has any - outside of the use of force, which is usually unjust, except when it is being used to further undermine authority. If the GOP was in power, I would probably seek to undermine them in many ways. I am an extremist in many ways, as well as a moderate. So what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

No, you are just starved for attention.

---

Okay

Sure. My point was fair enough on the topic of Lemur's political affiliation.

You, however, have a middle of the parties position on alot of topics. I cannot remember ever once being in agreement with Lemur in a discussion on these boards. Maybe he can recall better than I. Although I often argue with you, much of it is the result of my forum-tailored callous (but confrontational) and nihilistic arguments - we also, although less often, are on a similar side of an issue. I appreciate both of your argumentative styles - but yours is less defined in a partisan way, even though the positions are sometimes less moderate than Lemur's. I'm not saying that either of you are wrong or anything like that - just different. And there is really nothing wrong with that - I like different styles and approaches to issues and respect both of your ideas often.

You happen to know your spectrum location, whereas Lemur is in denial of his obvious Democratic bonifides, which bothers me on a subcutaneous level.

Also, radicalism creeps in an and attempts to change what is viewed as the norm. The right is undergoing this invasion currently, with different types of radicalism causing major disruption within the party. In fact, both of the vying extremist veins are almost mutually exclusive. One is a militant, xenophobic and ignorant reactionary ideology that is horrifying to me. The other is a minarchist, anti-establishment libertarianism, which I vociferously support. I don't see a future for the former, but I do see a future for the latter, but we have to take hold. The direction now is for ever shrinking individual rights, more commonly ignored or co-opted by the government. I believe that we can turn this around, but only if we can convince enough people to make us a partisan norm.

Libertarians have made many advancements in the Democratic party, but have resulted in different outcomes (minority rights, destruction of restrictive social norms, etc). I hope it takes hold in both parties so that a substantial majority is able to damn government to the maximum extent possible. What was once unthinkable is now the norm. This happens in all directions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

I believe in nationalizing vital industry NO, universal healthcare Maybe, taxes on the mega rich comparable to the harshest in Europe NO, dismantling most of the military industrial complex Maybe, free education all the way to whatever level a person can handle Maybe , tripling the minimum wage Not triple, but open to increase, dismantling most of the prison system and reforming the rest YES, ending the war on drugsYES, utterly destroying monopolies that abuse the consumer and intentionally impede technological progress or human dignity in the name of profit YES, and much more. And guns


We do not agree on much at all, at the end of the day.

---

You don't give us enough credit. I said yes to more than I said no to.

I like that you aren't afraid of extremism. Extremism changes the world. Extremism abolished slavery, overthrew the King King of England, Had the Democratically controlled Senate reject an "assault weapons" ban, Pulled Gaddafi's bloated corpse into the streets, Beheaded the King of France, Started all religions and resistance movements. Extremism makes the world go round.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Lemur is the very definition of moderate. If you want a flaming liberal look at me. I don't think the dems are left enough.

Gun rights being generally the only issue I agree with the right on.

---

From an external perspective... nah.

?

Sounds like the argument of an extremist. I Like it!

If you want to decide who is the most liberal, it would make sense to define liberal first.

Mainly because US Americans usually use a wrong definition of the term.

Liberal comes from the latin "liber" which means free. You can usually deduce the rest from that. In political terms this usually refers to people who want more personal freedoms and fewer rules in society. As such applying it to the left means it only fits in social terms, where the left is often for fewer regulations regarding e.g. abortion, gay rights and so on. Economically speaking the right is far more liberal though. Our liberal party here is actually liberal in both regards but with a two-party system it gets somewhat complicated...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Our liberal party here is actually liberal in both regards but with a two-party system it gets somewhat complicated...

---

Except on guns, where each party is infuriatingly old fashioned and puritanical in your country.

Armed citizenry is the new way, not the old. It only seems old in the United States because we were among the first in modern history to experience an environment where the land was more expansive than governments ability to strip people of their means of self defense.

History is full of regimes imposing restrictions on the lower classes ability to own arms. With the discovery of the new world and subsequent years of man's realization that government's only legitimate role is as protector of individual liberty, arms began to proliferate. there was a minor speed bump in the 70's and 80's, but that bump seems to have been inverted. The future is in the equalization of power using the common ownership of arms as a deterrent. Just saying. If anyone would like to discuss this, let's take it to the gun thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

Except on guns, where each party is infuriatingly old fashioned and puritanical.

---

Since everybody was allowed to have a gun in the good old days, how is being against gun ownership (I assume that is what you mean since it infuriates you) old-fashioned?
Apart from that gun ownership falls under social policy, to view it as being on the same level as economic policy is a bit skewed.
Even Wikipedia agrees and incidentally also makes me wonder why you say Republicans infuriate you with their position on gun ownership?

no, German politicians.

Maybe the future of our country will come more in the form of what is considered de-volution rather than secession. What Pat Buchanan, in his recent article , refers to as "secession" is both that and de-volution within the system. This would be preferable to an American Civil War style secession; instead of unshackling the secessionist from the confines of the Constitution by allowing easy amendment of the unpopular content, it would allow more states the ability to more effectively govern themselves - further confounding the Federal government's ability to affect change on a larger scale - under the auspices of the same Constitution which protects all Americans. Breaking up CA, TX, NY along with many other States which have been growing quickly would be a good thing for nearly everyone. It wouldnt allow red states to abuse immigrants or blue states to abuse gun owners. Maybe the introduction of 50 more states?

Any takers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

Except on guns, where each party is infuriatingly old fashioned and puritanical in your country.

Armed citizenry is the new way, not the old. It only seems old in the United States because we were among the first in modern history to experience an environment where the land was more expansive than governments ability to strip people of their means of self defense.

History is full of regimes imposing restrictions on the lower classes ability to own arms. With the discovery of the new world and subsequent years of man's realization that government's only legitimate role is as protector of individual liberty, arms began to proliferate. there was a minor speed bump in the 70's and 80's, but that bump seems to have been inverted. The future is in the equalization of power using the common ownership of arms as a deterrent. Just saying. If anyone would like to discuss this, let's take it to the gun thread.

---

Bwahahaha. If it were up to popular opinion in Europe rather than the state imposing its standards, guns would be far more restricted than they are now. In England certainly, and I doubt it's any more liberal in most of Europe, interest in guns is enough to mark you out as a potential nutcase.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

no, German politicians.

---

http://www.theguardian.com/news/data...hip-world-list

We still rank 15th in terms of civilian gun ownership, quite close to a lot of other European countries.
So if you find Europe infuriating, the rest of the world has to make your head explode.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

97% of NASA has been furloughed. My wife's best friend is a PhD who works for NASA creating safety systems to stop airplanes from crashing. Her work is non-essential and she is not working or getting paid. Due to serious budget issues (NASA doesn't pay very well to begin with, people work there because they love their work), she has had to file for unemployment benefits. It's ridiculous.

You might excuse NASA for being a bit angry about this situation when you realize just how much they are getting frogged over. Anyone who's complaining about the lack of a NASA website needs to check their attitude at the door.

---

My post wasn't very coherent, I meant exactly this - the site for the IRS works, but NASA's doesn't?! It's absurd.

If the IRS stops working you're going to literally lose ALL government and not just part of it.

How can you complain that government services stop working and that you have to pay taxes at the same time? The former are paid for by the latter after all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

HoreTore's sayings about lefties never agreeing applies here.

Right I forgot in Europe liberal means something else.

---

The only true difinition of a leftie is that I'm the only one and you're all wrong.

That's a true leftie position. Everything else is reactionism in disguise.

You bring up another good point, that much of what is called conservatism is actually reactionary.

After all to conserve bananas does not mean to make them green again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myth

My post wasn't very coherent, I meant exactly this - the site for the IRS works, but NASA's doesn't?! It's absurd.

---

It depends entirely on which IT staff are working and which aren't, as well as the nature of the site. For example, at VA IT staff assigned for developing new software have been furloughed, but those required to keep systems running are working. It's a safety and security issue; Veterans need to be able to access information for their own health and safety benefits. The IRS site is less important for safety, but it does remain far more critical to daily life for citizens than most websites. Taxes still have to legally be paid and people require access to that information. The IRS was only 90% furloughed, in comparison to 97% of NASA. In addition, the IRS has a partially independent revenue stream and doesn't get all of its income from the Federal government. As such, it retains a cash flow that can maintain some services even though they've been cut off by Congress. In contrast, very few of NASA's goals are considered to be vital to safety or security of the nation. Almost all of the 3% still working there are involved in keeping the ISS flying so that the astronauts up there don't die, and preventing satellites from crashing into each other or falling to earth. That's basically it. Their IT staff is basically completely gone, and the website itself does not provide critical information needed by the public on a daily basis. As such, the site has been shut down to reduce expenditures, as well as because no one is around to maintain it.

I find it ironic that pretty much everyone complaining about the NASA site being down are the exact people who would never use the site in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

You bring up another good point, that much of what is called conservatism is actually reactionary.

After all to conserve bananas does not mean to make them green again.

---

It's one of the ironies of politics that old school socialists and Tories were actually quite friendly with each other, and both regarded the Thatcherites as undesirable revolutionaries. I'm from the former school, where there are different shades of community, but a shared recognition that communal effort of some kind is necessary, versus the radical individualism of Thatcherism. In Britain, both socialists and Tories count as conservatives, whereas the "Conservatives" are actually radicals.

As fascinating as I found the page-long debate over myself ... bleh, who am I kidding? Epic boredom on that topic. ICSD can hypothesize all he likes about who really belongs in what bucket, but the truth too simple for debate: If someone says they're a Republican, Democrat, or Indie, they are. Self-identification is the only reliable gauge, all else is puffery and self-delusion.

Meanwhile, yet another conservative with excellent bona fides states the obvious:

Republicans should look for a graceful exit as quickly as possible, rather than trying to use the shutdown -- or God forbid, the debt ceiling -- to extract unlikely concessions.

I know that many of my conservative readers do not believe this, but I share many of your goals. I would like a smaller government that does less stuff. I oppose the Affordable Care Act. [...]

[T]he fact that there is a problem does not mean that there is a solution. The fact that you are really angry about what has happened over the last four years and passionately wish to undo some of the damage does not mean that a way exists for you to do so. Do not fall prey to that fatal political syllogism:

1. Something must be done.

2. This is something.

3. Therefore, this must be done. [...]

My advice, for what it’s worth, is to ask for something you can get, and then settle for that. Be realistic about what Democrats are going to agree to -- and the answer is not “completely dismantling Obamacare,” however wonderful that would be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Bwahahaha. If it were up to popular opinion in Europe rather than the state imposing its standards, guns would be far more restricted than they are now. In England certainly, and I doubt it's any more liberal in most of Europe, interest in guns is enough to mark you out as a potential nutcase.

---

Brit culture is really that far along in thinking them an inherent evil? As classifying them as an entity rather than a tool?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

As fascinating as I found the page-long debate over myself ... bleh, who am I kidding? Epic boredom on that topic. ICSD can hypothesize all he likes about who really belongs in what bucket, but the truth too simple for debate: If someone says they're a Republican, Democrat, or Indie, they are. Self-identification is the only reliable gauge, all else is puffery, self-delusion, and blissful lack of self-awareness about identity politics.

Meanwhile, yet another conservative with excellent bona fides states the obvious:

Republicans should look for a graceful exit as quickly as possible, rather than trying to use the shutdown -- or God forbid, the debt ceiling -- to extract unlikely concessions.

I know that many of my conservative readers do not believe this, but I share many of your goals. I would like a smaller government that does less stuff. I oppose the Affordable Care Act. [...]

[T]he fact that there is a problem does not mean that there is a solution. The fact that you are really angry about what has happened over the last four years and passionately wish to undo some of the damage does not mean that a way exists for you to do so. Do not fall prey to that fatal political syllogism:

1. Something must be done.

2. This is something.

3. Therefore, this must be done. [...]

My advice, for what it’s worth, is to ask for something you can get, and then settle for that. Be realistic about what Democrats are going to agree to -- and the answer is not “completely dismantling Obamacare,” however wonderful that would be.

---

Well, the latest reports suggest that the GOP is trying to find a face-saving means of caving, probably angling for further budget cuts and re-working of sequestration rather than another failed frontal on the ACA. The opening offers of movement on the Debt Limit seem to be their face-saving opener approach.

Not a resolved issue yet at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Brit culture is really that far along in thinking them an inherent evil? As classifying them as an entity rather than a tool?

---

Firing one off might be fun in a controlled environment, such as a gun club with everything kept within confines. Any interest outside that is interest in a subject which has no use in everyday life, and which has the potential for danger at best, and with the wrong people can result in something extremely bad. Blokes probably see gun enthusiasts as slightly creepy and to be kept clear of, while mothers are notoriously militantly anti-gun and anti-anything that might pose the slightest risk to their precious kids. Also, note my use of the word liberal above. Liberal gun laws are laws that allow for more freedom, as explained by Husar re: the root liber. What unreined popular opinion in Britain would demand is more restrictive gun laws that is the opposite of liberal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Firing one off might be fun in a controlled environment, such as a gun club with everything kept within confines. Any interest outside that is interest in a subject which has no use in everyday life, and which has the potential for danger at best, and with the wrong people can result in something extremely bad. Blokes probably see gun enthusiasts as slightly creepy and to be kept clear of, while mothers are notoriously militantly anti-gun and anti-anything that might pose the slightest risk to their precious kids. Also, note my use of the word liberal above. Liberal gun laws are laws that allow for more freedom, as explained by Husar re: the root liber. What unreined popular opinion in Britain would demand is more restrictive gun laws that is the opposite of liberal.

---

Have no trouble with the more denotative meaning of "liberal." I just factor in whether it is being used by a Euro (Open, Liberality, Free-thinking) or a Yank (Collectivist Government programs).

Thinking about it, ICSD's argument for "the equalization of power using the common ownership of arms as a deterrent" was exactly the argument Mikhail Kalashnikov gave for his belief in the AK-47 as an instrument of peace. Cheap and rugged enough to be ownable and useable by everyone, even the poorest and most uneducated, and it would equalise the power relationship between the strong and the weak, leading to peace. I thought it was bonkers when MK argued it, and I still think it's bonkers now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Words mean what the people want them to mean, and in the USA "Liberal" covers a very broad range of progressive notions.

---

Yes, but in this case the different meaning probably originated from a lack of knowledge as to what the term actually means, which was the point I was making between the lines. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Yes, but in this case the different meaning probably originated from a lack of knowledge as to what the term actually means, which was the point I was making between the lines. ~;)

---

Maybe the yanks should rein in their use of the English language, rather than give free rein to their misunderstanding of meanings due to lack of knowledge about the origins of words and sayings. NB. rein in, free rein. Not reign in or free reign. They're horse-riding terms, describing how much control a rider exerts on the horse.

Free reign/free rein is a good double puntendre, come on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Maybe the yanks should rein in their use of the English language, rather than give free rein to their misunderstanding of meanings due to lack of knowledge about the origins of words and sayings. NB. rein in, free rein. Not reign in or free reign. They're horse-riding terms, describing how much control a rider exerts on the horse.

---

And a boot is something you wear, while a screen is perforated and does not shield completely. :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Which is a terrible assumption. Due to only having two parties, one progressive and one reactionary (the roles often switching) the terms and labels used to define a sweeping group of beliefs lasts longer than it can remain accurate. The effect of the two party system on buzzwords and political jargon is Orwellian.

European concepts of liberal are embodied in traditional libertarians in America.

---

The two party system is Orwellian in itself, which basically shows yet again that you can only disprove a negative assumption about the USA by bringing up an even worse point that is actually true. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Well ya, in this case. But to be fair, parties are a total subversion of the founders' intent, who tried to envision each politician being a rational platform unto himself. Utopian, eh?

---

Oh, it happened numerous times in recent history, I just didn't make you aware of it every time. A gentleman never tells. ~;)

As for no parties, how then could anyone achieve a 50% majority to form a government or is that only for the Presidential election while congress and senate were supposed to reach majorities without party affiliation of the voting members?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Maybe brits should suck it up and deal with an evolving linguistic landscape. You sound like a Frenchy, all "Ze language must be PURE!"

---

It doesn't need to be pure, as English is the impurest language in the world, borrowing words and influences wherever we can't just steal them. However, surely it's not asking for too much to expect consistent logic within a single sentence. Eg. the abomination that is the Americanism "I could care less". The correct phrase is "I couldn't care less", as in one cares so little about a subject that it's impossible to care any less than one already does. By saying that you could care less, you're saying that you still care a little about the subject, and there's still a little that you can care less about, and you're not yet at the bottom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Oh, it happened numerous times in recent history, I just didn't make you aware of it every time. A gentleman never tells. ~;)

As for no parties, how then could anyone achieve a 50% majority to form a government or is that only for the Presidential election while congress and senate were supposed to reach majorities without party affiliation of the voting members?

---

Simple. Just use the British system, where the bloke who's in charge of the money and offices is able to dispense favours in such a way as to ensure orderly government, and alliances are formed to get enough votes to pass Bills through the House. If there aren't enough votes, then some favours can be given here and there to secure the votes, and if the political landscape isn't clear enough for the Chief Macchiavellian to see where to dispense said favours, then another grand election is held to clarify things. If this new election shows the ex-Chief Minister to have exhausted the patience of the electorate, it just means they've lost the Mandate of Heaven (or at least the Mandate of Buckingham), and it's someone else's turn to have a go at playing the government game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

@Pan Logic is the enemy of good English!

---

If true, it seems we reached rock bottom. Therefore the debt ceiling would, in fact, not be anything to worry about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

It doesn't need to be pure, as English is the impurest language in the world, borrowing words and influences wherever we can't just steal them. However, surely it's not asking for too much to expect consistent logic within a single sentence. Eg. the abomination that is the Americanism "I could care less". The correct phrase is "I couldn't care less", as in one cares so little about a subject that it's impossible to care any less than one already does. By saying that you could care less, you're saying that you still care a little about the subject, and there's still a little that you can care less about, and you're not yet at the bottom.

---

Yes, but remember that American English got it's start when it mugged proper English in a Boston alley and rummaged through its pockets for spare grammar and a couple of nouns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Yes, but remember that American English got it's start when it mugged proper English in a Boston alley and rummaged through its pockets for spare grammar and a couple of nouns.

---

And the battered Englishman limped back to his house, shaken not so much by the ferocity of the attack, but by the lack of taste that saw the American ruffian reject the priceless handwritten pocket edition of the collected works of Shakespeare in favour of the shoddily printed penny dreadful that he took. It's bad enough to be mugged, but to be mugged by someone with so little culture...

Until the world finds a reasonable alternative to the $US as a reserve currency expect the games to continue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny

Until the world finds a reasonable alternative to the $US as a reserve currency expect the games to continue.

---

There are several. Thus far, convenience is what keeps the USD as the reserve currency of choice.

English is a very... wide... language.

Intellectuals however look to the English English (You know, ENGLISH), as some sort of key to the language.

USAnians are obviously trying to learn this, for them, foreign language... But the attempt is rather feeble, and USAnians have completely given up on reining it in. Heck, half the things USAnians say means the exact opposite of what they mean, and the other half just has poor grammar and/or pronunciation.

"I aint dun nuffin" = I am innocent of what you accuse me of.

One of the sentences just above makes me want to kick the person in the face.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

...USAnians are obviously trying to learn this, for them, foreign language... But the attempt is rather feeble, and USAnians have completely given up on reining it in. Heck, half the things USAnians say means the exact opposite of what they mean, and the other half just has poor grammar and/or pronunciation....

---

We love English accents and find their mis-use of words quaint. Really, though, we pretty much expect the rest of you lot to learn American Standard. Foreign languages are too much work and we have too many important things to do with our time. We got the big economy anyway, so learn our language if you want to keep up.

Quote:

---

"I aint dun nuffin" = I am innocent of what you accuse me of.

One of the sentences just above makes me want to kick the person in the face.

---

Just because Germanic languages don't like negative concord doesn't make it "ungrammatical" for a particular dialect...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Just because Germanic languages don't like negative concord doesn't make it "ungrammatical" for a particular dialect...

---

So make up a new language, stop abusing an existent one.

The sentence mentioned, pronunciation aside, doesn't even make sense in the USA.

"I have not done nothing" = I have done something. STOP ABUSING A BEAUTIFUL LANGUAGE :soapbox:

Quote:

---

So make up a new language, stop abusing an existent one.

---

Er, yeah - that's how new languages arise...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Er, yeah - that's how new languages arise...

---

Well, if USAnians are to stick with English, they might as well educate themselves in it.

At least somewhat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

English is a very... wide... language.

Intellectuals however look to the English English (You know, ENGLISH), as some sort of key to the language.

USAnians are obviously trying to learn this, for them, foreign language... But the attempt is rather feeble, and USAnians have completely given up on reining it in. Heck, half the things USAnians say means the exact opposite of what they mean, and the other half just has poor grammar and/or pronunciation.

"I aint dun nuffin" = I am innocent of what you accuse me of.

One of the sentences just above makes me want to kick the person in the face.

---

Sorry Kadagar AV. If you knew about linguistics you would know that British English is the newer form of the language.

The American version is still caught up in the mid 1700s. The British accent did not arise until the 1820s or there abouts.

Regional dialects can be pegged to certain parts of England. Rustic dialects go back even further.

Sorry, but those Americans, you so despise are preserving the language of their forefathers, while the Brits have forgotten it. The Empire, you know.

Besides, you have some 70 million in all the UK speaking a wide range of dialects. I think you are referring to the Midlands dialect. Meanwhile there are only around 320 million in North America speaking similarly (Canada you know).

Assuming that London owns English is like assuming that Seattle is the home of coffee.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

The only thing I love more than English is abusing English. And there's nothing more English than that.

---

There is indeed nothing more English than abusing English. But it only happens with former public schoolboys, and they pay certain ladies good money for the privilege.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

You hear that? That was the sound of whatever you just did going right over my head. Some kind of limey slang at work?

---

Life as a dominatrix

"When you think of a dominatrix what do you think of? Black leather catsuits, whips, chains and an old Etonian boy being spanked?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

English is a very... wide... language.

Intellectuals however look to the English English (You know, ENGLISH), as some sort of key to the language.

---

Which intellectuals? At my university we're apparently using American English for scientific writings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Which intellectuals? At my university we're apparently using American English for scientific writings.

---

Really?

Over here you get ridiculed if you spell it "color".

Double negatives and you will be hit with the stupid-stick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Really?

Over here you get ridiculed if you spell it "color".

Double negatives and you will be hit with the stupid-stick.

---

Yes. I'm not fond of "color" but neither am I fond of "centre".

As for double negatives, they are not really part of American English, to assume they are used in scientific writing is ridiculous.
They are just part of everyday speech/dialects/slang, I didn't say we use slang for scientific writing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Really?

Over here you get ridiculed if you spell it "color".

Double negatives and you will be hit with the stupid-stick.

---

Old Joke on U.S. College campuses (campi?):


New Student: Hey, could you tell me where the library is at?

Old Student: At this university, we do not end our sentences with prepositions.

New Student: Sorry, so where's the library at, a******?

Is there any chance we could adjourn this pointless english lesson and get back to the matter at hand?

How did you get hung up on English? ^^

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

In America, to my knowledge, English is not a reference to dominatrixes or whatever. :shrug: You strange limeys.

---

To the best of my knowledge, English also refers to the inhabitants of England.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

To the best of my knowledge, English also refers to the inhabitants of England.

---

Thus, the link to dominatrix.

When ones idea of 'jolly good fun' involves sitting around drinking tea and crumpets, you know there's something wild going on in the bedroom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Thus, the link to dominatrix.

When ones idea of 'jolly good fun' involves sitting around drinking tea and crumpets, you know there's something wild going on in the bedroom.

---

Agreed, compensation for too much stiff.....upper lip....in public.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Agreed, compensation for too much stiff.....upper lip....in public.

---

The stiff upper lip is the bit between the rosy cheeks.

Oh look, my personal congresscritter is trying to scuttle a deal. Again. Like he always does. Two thoughts:

1. I'd like to slap my representative repeatedly.
2. Why is anyone surprised? This is consistent with his behavior over the past decade.

Gah.

[Paul Ryan] is rallying conservatives against a Senate plan to fund the government and raise the debt ceiling, the Washington Post reported on Saturday.

The plan, proposed by Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), would fund the government through March and raise the debt ceiling through January. Senate Democrats rejected the proposal on Saturday because it locks in sequestration cuts for too long.

Sources told the Post that, in a private meeting with House Republicans, Ryan said that by kicking the can down the road, the GOP would lose “leverage" in their fight against Obamacare.

Ryan's main concern appears to be delaying the health care law's individual mandate, but ThinkProgress points out that Ryan also emphasized the need to give employers the ability to deny birth control coverage based on moral or religious reasons.

According to the Post, some Republicans present for Ryan's speech "grew visibly excited about the prospect of opposing" plans like Collins'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Is there any chance we could adjourn this pointless english lesson and get back to the matter at hand?

---

Yes, like the fact that there is a very real chance that the furloughed workers are not going to be paid for a month's worth of work due to the situation we have going on at the Dick Dome?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Well, Vets are fucked. TinCow can correct me if I'm wrong, but as of today the chances of any Veteran, of any war, with any level of disability, receiving any kind of payment on-time in November is about that of a snowball in hell.

I'm out of derogatory terms for Congress. :shrug:

---

I suggest Mencken and Clemens -- both were wonderful in their excoriation of that institution. Perhaps that will allow you to re-ammo? I sadly concur that you are not likely to run short of targets anytime soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Well, Vets are fucked. TinCow can correct me if I'm wrong, but as of today the chances of any Veteran, of any war, with any level of disability, receiving any kind of payment on-time in November is about that of a snowball in hell.

---

I'm not aware of any specific date for when the November payments become "doomed," bar November 1. I know Shinseki said some stuff about late October being a deadline for getting the November checks out, but I don't recall him saying an actual date. I'd expect the "late October" stuff to be days from the 20th onwards, not anything beforehand. I would think that if a bill were passed before the 17th reopening the government and raising the debt ceiling, all checks would arrive on-time. Maybe even if it was passed a few days after. That said, I'm not privy to those kinds of discussions and my agency has nothing to do with the mechanics of actual payment in any case. I'm just a lowly grunt working away at the backlog. My personal deadline is November 7th, as that's when my agency itself runs out of cash and I no longer get paid.

[edit]I just remembered, I do recall hearing something about GI Bill payments having already been halted as of last week. That's separate from compensation and pension payments though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

I'm out of derogatory terms for Congress. :shrug:

---

I believe that referring to someone as a Congressman/woman is itself now a sufficiently derogatory term to warrant lethal response in a stand-your-ground situation in Florida and some other states.

We are obviously going to default sooner or later, let's just get the show on the road.
If the US defaults and loses a credit rating with more agencies, wouldn't this have a positive effect on other types of investment? Or would the entire standard be lowered. If people thought that the US government was irresponsible, shouldn't a recognition of this fact drive bond US prices higher, interest rates up? Wouldn't this drive money into a private sector which looks better by comparison at the same time as it dosincentivises government borrowing? Collapse of trust in government does not mean trust is gone. We live in a trust vacuum - if the government loses hold, you find trust in another's hand.

Fingers crossed for crossing the Rubicon. Government should be shown for how untrustworthy and profligate it is.

I think the GOP is finally ready to shoot the proverbial hostage. Please fold your arms, curl your body forward and brace for crash.

Also, I can't believe that there are so few articles which highlight an upside. There is literally an upside to everything. There has to be an upside to this, since it is our more likely by the minute course

I am totally cool with the prospect of dying of dehydration in a gutter within X years.

Probably less suffering if you don't fight over sustenance with the other indigents. Simply relax and try to stay asleep for the better part of a week or so. It might prove difficult at first due to the pain and all the rest, but once you're halfway-through you shouldn't be able to do much else besides sleep. It works even better if it comes to pass in the winter; this might seem counterintuitive, but the discomfort of the heat and humidity and insect-life of summer would likely make it more difficult to let go.

Don't be scared, is all I'm sayin'.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

:on_tears::on_sleep::on_109:on_moon::on_void::on_dead:

:~:wave::flybye:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

I am totally cool with the prospect of dying of dehydration in a gutter within X years.

Probably less suffering if you don't fight over sustenance with the other indigents. Simply relax and try to stay asleep for the better part of a week or so. It might prove difficult at first due to the pain and all the rest, but once you're halfway-through you shouldn't be able to do much else besides sleep. It works even better if it comes to pass in the winter; this might seem counterintuitive, but the discomfort of the heat and humidity and insect-life of summer would likely make it more difficult to let go.

Don't be scared, is all I'm sayin'.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

:on_tears::on_sleep::on_109:on_moon::on_void::on_dead:

:~:wave::flybye:

---

Doom and gloom. Let's hear the positive.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but: there is a positive to possible world-wide economic collapse, inflicted by a one group of self-interested politicians, in one single country, whose collective understanding of the international economy would apparently fit easily on the head of a pin?

Not only are they willing to destroy the US economy, but they do not even appear to have considered the wider consequences.