Do you have anything beyond your assertion that your analogy is correct and redefinition of terms like debt? If so, I'd really like to see it. The way you think things ought to work has no bearing on how they actually work.
Claiming that writing laws creates an obligation on all future congresses that can't legitimately be overturned is nonsense. At any point up until the point of acquisition, congress is free to change it's mind, exactly like a person who is purchasing goods or services. Given general discussion regarding the power of the purse, and past attempts to defund various programs as a way to get rid of them(Reid pushed to defund the iraq war for instance), I don't think most people view the law the way you think they do.
Full faith and credit is a clause in the constitution about states obligations regarding each others laws and contracts. It's not normally applied to valuation of the Dollar, but let's stipulate that people's belief the stability of government is a major factor in it's value. Government deciding to spend more and more money than it's taking in, and continuing to borrow with no end in sight, is far more likely to cause people to lose faith in it than choosing to stop borrowing money and reducing the sorts of things it does. Anything that can't go on forever will stop eventually. It's not actually possible to prove which way any given choice will affect the value of the dollar. However, the unsustainable explosion in government borrowing with no plausible fix was part of the rationale for our last credit downgrade.
Even if it does reduce the value of the dollar to have the government opt not to follow through with some plans, it's irrelevant to whether or not those plans can legitimately be called a debt. The two things have nothing to do with each other.
Our publicly held debt is the credit card balance. Credit card balances are increased when you actually buy something with borrowed money, not when you make the decision to go out and buy it. Raising the debt limit to cover payments is like getting your max increased so you can keep buying more stuff instead of cutting back to living within your means. This should be a simple tautology: We haven't spent the money until we've actually spent the money. Really, read that sentence, then go back and read your post, and see if you can see how you are blurring the lines between planning to spend and actually spending. At the very most, contractual obligations can be considered actual debts. Laws establishing government agencies and responsibilites are only statements of intentions.
They never actually offered anything that Republicans could support, and most of the negotiation was with other Democrats in conservative districts. Amending a dead bill from the house by replacing everything but the bill number so that it would technically originate in the house may be technically legal, but it's not the sort of thing you do if you want your opponents to play nice.
Actually, it just needs majority approval in both houses. Republicans are a majority in the House. Eliminating anything the government does that doesn't maintain majority support sounds just fine to me. Being an established law isn't some magic talisman you can waive in the fact of future congresses to make them support it.
You're mistaking tradition for the law. There is nothing anywhere that states funding is a formality. There's a reason it is specifically in the constitution.
Also, the money is NOT spent until we actually transfer it. Nor do we owe it to anyone until we actually receive something from them. Saying we intend to have this or that happen is not the same as receiving a product and then refusing to pay. If business don't actually understand that fact, they are fools. I work for the government, and I'm well aware that given certain actions, including enacting policies I actually prefer, I could be out of a job at short notice. It's not likely. Even with things like this, it remains true that government employment is far safer than any form of private employment.
Just because you think something ought to be true, doesn't make it true.
You need legislation in order to tax. Most so called corporate welfare involves not taxing, and requires no legislation for the status quo to stay in place.
That's almost certainly not why Obama was voted into office. The republicans gained a lot of power immediately after Obamacare passed, and have a much better claim to the support of the American people regarding Obamacare.
Gridlock is a feature, not a bug. The entire separation of powers concept is intended to keep one party from getting it's way, and make change more gradual.
The definition of cold and warm reboots, at the time, was based on power going off. Calling a software initiated boot cold just because it triggers a post seems like a poor fit to me. Having had errors where i had to actually shut off the power supply on a more modern computer for 10 seconds for everything to fully clear (not frequently, but it's happened), there is a big difference between a true cold boot and a boot where capacitors never fully dicharge. IIRC, ctl-alt-del did not invoke POST when used from DOS, but I can't swear to it and I'm not going to install dos to test it. I know I've seen at least one system where a windows restart would skip bios memory testing even if it was turned on in BIOS, so I would call it warm boot as well. It may be hardware specific.
Yes, they are getting cheaper for you, at least when compared to the utility to the consumer. Consider the price per GB of hard drives 15 years ago to today... or the price of a low end laptop.
You didn't actually follow my links did you? Your link provided claims about items other than temperature, which I didn't touch on, unless you switched to the intermediate tab. There they provided a graphcal comparison of 3 different scenarios under a model by Hansen, which showed some consistency with real data up until 2005. I noted that those particular models have been extended past that by other people, and doing so made it clear that they overestimated growth. My provided link was to a comparision of a large number of models, all of which overestimated temperature growth.
Enviornmental impact laws are government pressure, not market pressure, by definition. I'm not going to dispute Republicans being all for certain kinds of market regulation above and beyond disallowing coercion, but that particular example was particularly poor. At least some rules that make organizing harder aren't regulating a market, they are protecting individual workers from coercion. Without specifics, your other point is useless.
So, following your link to skeptical science, and examining the intermediate level to actually look a temperatures, the models they showed have in fact been compared to data extending past 2005, although they stopped observed data there. Doing so makes it clear that for the bast 15+ years, that particular set of models overestimated the temperature growth.
A broader comparison is available here. Climate models fairly consistently diverge in their predictions. You might aso check a later link.
One was a vote on initial passage, one was a vote to reconcile differences between the versions the house and senate both passed. If it had gone to veto, the initial bill count is much more relevant.
I really wish I could mod you up, because the exact thought occured to me. By the judges reasoning (at least the snippet in the summary), everything is a currency, and therefore subject to SEC regulation.
"... allowed to control..." as if there was some agency somewhere with authority that delegated it to the US. Who would disallow it? The UN has no inherent authority over any of the technical processes that the US currently dominates. Anything the US is doing, other countries are free to do on their own, although it would almost certainly lead to everyone else routing around them unless you got a lot of countries to go along with it. Good luck with that.
Slashdot Mirror
Damn, I thought I replied to this yesterday.
Do you have anything beyond your assertion that your analogy is correct and redefinition of terms like debt? If so, I'd really like to see it. The way you think things ought to work has no bearing on how they actually work.
Claiming that writing laws creates an obligation on all future congresses that can't legitimately be overturned is nonsense. At any point up until the point of acquisition, congress is free to change it's mind, exactly like a person who is purchasing goods or services. Given general discussion regarding the power of the purse, and past attempts to defund various programs as a way to get rid of them(Reid pushed to defund the iraq war for instance), I don't think most people view the law the way you think they do.
Full faith and credit is a clause in the constitution about states obligations regarding each others laws and contracts. It's not normally applied to valuation of the Dollar, but let's stipulate that people's belief the stability of government is a major factor in it's value. Government deciding to spend more and more money than it's taking in, and continuing to borrow with no end in sight, is far more likely to cause people to lose faith in it than choosing to stop borrowing money and reducing the sorts of things it does. Anything that can't go on forever will stop eventually. It's not actually possible to prove which way any given choice will affect the value of the dollar. However, the unsustainable explosion in government borrowing with no plausible fix was part of the rationale for our last credit downgrade.
Even if it does reduce the value of the dollar to have the government opt not to follow through with some plans, it's irrelevant to whether or not those plans can legitimately be called a debt. The two things have nothing to do with each other.
Our publicly held debt is the credit card balance. Credit card balances are increased when you actually buy something with borrowed money, not when you make the decision to go out and buy it. Raising the debt limit to cover payments is like getting your max increased so you can keep buying more stuff instead of cutting back to living within your means. This should be a simple tautology: We haven't spent the money until we've actually spent the money. Really, read that sentence, then go back and read your post, and see if you can see how you are blurring the lines between planning to spend and actually spending. At the very most, contractual obligations can be considered actual debts. Laws establishing government agencies and responsibilites are only statements of intentions.
Got a cite for that? Democrats are masters of gerrymandering as well, and have done their level best to keep power that way.
Troll? Really? Providing cites upon request is the opposite of trolling.
They never actually offered anything that Republicans could support, and most of the negotiation was with other Democrats in conservative districts. Amending a dead bill from the house by replacing everything but the bill number so that it would technically originate in the house may be technically legal, but it's not the sort of thing you do if you want your opponents to play nice.
Actually, it just needs majority approval in both houses. Republicans are a majority in the House. Eliminating anything the government does that doesn't maintain majority support sounds just fine to me. Being an established law isn't some magic talisman you can waive in the fact of future congresses to make them support it.
Actually, no. Funding for the ACA is already covered. They had to explicitly defund it, and some included delays of portions of it.
You're mistaking tradition for the law. There is nothing anywhere that states funding is a formality. There's a reason it is specifically in the constitution.
Also, the money is NOT spent until we actually transfer it. Nor do we owe it to anyone until we actually receive something from them. Saying we intend to have this or that happen is not the same as receiving a product and then refusing to pay. If business don't actually understand that fact, they are fools. I work for the government, and I'm well aware that given certain actions, including enacting policies I actually prefer, I could be out of a job at short notice. It's not likely. Even with things like this, it remains true that government employment is far safer than any form of private employment.
Just because you think something ought to be true, doesn't make it true.
You need legislation in order to tax. Most so called corporate welfare involves not taxing, and requires no legislation for the status quo to stay in place.
That's almost certainly not why Obama was voted into office. The republicans gained a lot of power immediately after Obamacare passed, and have a much better claim to the support of the American people regarding Obamacare.
He found that the individual mandate is a tax. That's not all of Obamacare.
Since the disputed section involved defunding a portion of the government, it would presumably qualify.
Gridlock is a feature, not a bug. The entire separation of powers concept is intended to keep one party from getting it's way, and make change more gradual.
By their own words, Obama care is merely the first step to single payer.
I assume you meant unwilling?
The definition of cold and warm reboots, at the time, was based on power going off. Calling a software initiated boot cold just because it triggers a post seems like a poor fit to me. Having had errors where i had to actually shut off the power supply on a more modern computer for 10 seconds for everything to fully clear (not frequently, but it's happened), there is a big difference between a true cold boot and a boot where capacitors never fully dicharge. IIRC, ctl-alt-del did not invoke POST when used from DOS, but I can't swear to it and I'm not going to install dos to test it. I know I've seen at least one system where a windows restart would skip bios memory testing even if it was turned on in BIOS, so I would call it warm boot as well. It may be hardware specific.
Yes, they are getting cheaper for you, at least when compared to the utility to the consumer. Consider the price per GB of hard drives 15 years ago to today... or the price of a low end laptop.
ctrl alt del is a warm boot. a cold boot requires the computer to actually be shut off.
You didn't actually follow my links did you? Your link provided claims about items other than temperature, which I didn't touch on, unless you switched to the intermediate tab. There they provided a graphcal comparison of 3 different scenarios under a model by Hansen, which showed some consistency with real data up until 2005. I noted that those particular models have been extended past that by other people, and doing so made it clear that they overestimated growth. My provided link was to a comparision of a large number of models, all of which overestimated temperature growth.
Enviornmental impact laws are government pressure, not market pressure, by definition. I'm not going to dispute Republicans being all for certain kinds of market regulation above and beyond disallowing coercion, but that particular example was particularly poor. At least some rules that make organizing harder aren't regulating a market, they are protecting individual workers from coercion. Without specifics, your other point is useless.
So, following your link to skeptical science, and examining the intermediate level to actually look a temperatures, the models they showed have in fact been compared to data extending past 2005, although they stopped observed data there. Doing so makes it clear that for the bast 15+ years, that particular set of models overestimated the temperature growth.
A broader comparison is available here. Climate models fairly consistently diverge in their predictions. You might aso check a later link.
It's worse than that. From the article, they processed the motion for the lawsuit 1 day before his corrective action plan was recieved.
One was a vote on initial passage, one was a vote to reconcile differences between the versions the house and senate both passed. If it had gone to veto, the initial bill count is much more relevant.
I really wish I could mod you up, because the exact thought occured to me. By the judges reasoning (at least the snippet in the summary), everything is a currency, and therefore subject to SEC regulation.
"... allowed to control..." as if there was some agency somewhere with authority that delegated it to the US. Who would disallow it? The UN has no inherent authority over any of the technical processes that the US currently dominates. Anything the US is doing, other countries are free to do on their own, although it would almost certainly lead to everyone else routing around them unless you got a lot of countries to go along with it. Good luck with that.