The Democrats will win whoever they put up for POTUS

Instead of fallacious argument, how about a cogent argument. Oh but then you wouldn't have an argument.

What you can't google, funny that?

Are you really that dumb? If so I suggest you go back and reread, this time more slowly.

I'm not worried about my word use of the English language. It certainly seems to be having an effect on you my friend. If I were you, I'd be more worried about your ignorance of statistics, government, economics, history, logic, current affairs and use of language and terms of which you have very little knowledge.

You clearly cannot prove your assertion, hence all this obfuscation. Because your assertion was very clearly false. There was no straw man - only your many demonstrably false assertions. If you would go back and read, and if you could comprehend, what was written, you would know I said the Great Recession was not the run of the mill recession to which you insist on comparing it to (e.g. the slowest recovery since the Great Depression) - one of "dem" minor details again. You have repeatedly made false comparisons (i.e. compared apples to oranges).

Except I didn't. Pointing out your many errors of fact and logic isn't a straw man. It is simply a fact. Albeit an unpleasant fact for you.

Oh, so you are seeing drool now?

I'm getting a little tired of holding your hand and spoon feeding you. Look it up.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Oops. I did miss this bit: "If, not later than December 31, 2011..." Sorry for the oversight, but that does not change the priority discretion of the Executive branch. What has not exceeded its authorization is Title 31, Sec 3123, which states (in part):

(a) The faith of the United States Government is pledged to pay, in legal tender, principal and interest on the obligations of the Government issued under this chapter.

(b) The Secretary of the Treasury shall pay interest due or accrued on the public debt. As the Secretary considers expedient, the Secretary may pay in advance interest on the public debt by a period of not more than one year, with or without a rebate of interest on the coupons.​

There does not appear to be any option for late payment. Upon taking on national debt an obligation exists until paid. This is not included in yearly budgets/appropriations, as it still exists from previous years. This is the difference between budget authority and outlays. Outlays have already been authorized at the time of taking on the obligation.

Yes, Congress is responsible for the budget. Good job! But the Treasury Department is responsible for disbursements, included what should be prioritized in a shortfall (including previously authorized outlays). You act like the Treasury would just be stymied on what to do with the continuing inflow of revenue should there be any shortfall. It is cute that you assume they would just stop and sit on incoming revenue, even when there is existing authorization for payment. The Constitution gives no guidance on shortfall disbursement, hence the proposed balanced budget amendment. In 2013, it was the Senate that refused to pass any appropriation bills that should have been passed in lieu of a budget agreement.

In lieu of a new spending agreement, the existing outlays are still authorized for payment.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So no attempt to support your claim. Seems apropos. I did look, that is why I ask. It is hard to find things others only imagine.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So you looked did you?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

As I said, I am getting a little tired of spoon feeding you.

You cited the NBER as the authority, but then when you realize its findings are contradictory to your beliefs, its NBER who? That is the very definition of the cognitive dissonances you like to accuse others of suffering friend. You really should take a long serious look at yourself before you go scapegoating others and projecting your own inadequacies on them. That was something I learned in high school, many years ago. Seriously, you should think about this for long while and before you pickup your crayons again.

 

Yeah, I cited a Huffington Post article. But where did I ever refute the NBER? And how does that conflict with anything I have said?

Tried, but got nothing but Republican governors reestablishing work requirements for food stamps. Support your claims.

 

Do you not know what you have posted? Do you not know what you have written? I'll give you one more chance....look it up.

 

I have told you several times now that I have been talking about the recovery, not the length of the recession.

 

I said:

"slowest economic recovery in history"​

No qualifiers about "since the Great Depression". That was something you added:

"As for your argument about "slowest economic growth", well we haven't seen a recession of this magnitude since The Great Depression."
​

You were the first to use "run of the mill", and without any provocation from me, here:

See, I compared it to the Great Depression. I have never compared the Great Recession with ANY other recession. And if I had, why have you not managed to find that quote?

 

Hmm, so when you used the word "slowest" you really didn't mean it? You do realize the word "slow" is a measure of time and length is integral to time? Then again, perhaps you don't know that. Maybe we need to add physics to your course list. You asserted this was the slowest recovery since The Great Depression. And in doing so equated The Great Recession with the routine cyclical recessions incumbent in the business cycle. You made a fallacious comparison which you have repeated. As repeatedly put to you, this recession was almost a Great Depression 2.o and in comparing it to the cyclical recessions of the past as you have done, you have made a fallacious comparison.

 

Yes, you did. Too bad you didn't realize you posted it, and I had to repost it in order to show you did indeed post it. And then you went on offer an opinion piece from the WSJ, where you post material in direct contradiction to your NBER reference. In other words, your WSJ reference was a partisan hack job which was very clearly wrong and had but one purpose which was to deceive ignorant folks like you and it worked.

Seriously, you should know the material you post. Obviously, you don't. As previously and repeatedly pointed out to you, The Great Depression was longer (i.e. slower) and much deeper than The Great Recession. That is just a simple matter of fact. The Great Recession was much shorter per the NBER and much less painful, thanks to the quick response and Democratic fiscal policy and Fed monetary policies.

 

Hey, whatever helps you sleep.

 

My bet is Syne doesn't know why, though it should be abundantly clear.

 

Please, do tell.

The ideological consolidation nationwide has happened on both the left and the right of the political spectrum, but the long-term shift among Democrats stands out as particularly noteworthy. The share of Democrats who are liberal on all or most value dimensions has nearly doubled from just 30% in 1994 to 56% today. The share who are consistently liberal has quadrupled from just 5% to 23% over the past 20 years.

In absolute terms, the ideological shift among Republicans has been more modest, in 1994, 45% of Republicans were right-of-center, with 13% consistently conservative. Those figures are up to 53% and 20% today.
- http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/section-1-growing-ideological-consistency/​

 

Hmm. Yet in the past 20 years democrats have:

-abandoned their advocacy of single payer
-created a healthcare overhaul initially championed by Mitt Romney
-reformed welfare (and indeed made it quite a bit more conservative)
-supported the Iraq and Afganistan wars
-supported the Patriot Act
-supported Medicare cuts

They look like they are moving to the right more often than they are moving to the left.

 

That doesn't mean the Democratic Party has moved more to the left as you have asserted. It just means more people are taking up what is currently viewed as “liberal” positions. You don’t seem to be able to understand the difference. As Billvon has pointed out, Democrats have taken up more and more positions that were once held by Republicans, Obamacare being a case in point.

Your reference material speaks to “ideological consistency”, not wither the Democratic Party has become more extreme. Your reference just doesn’t support your assertion that the Democratic Party has become more “liberal”. Republicans consider anything not endorsed by Republican entertainment as "liberal". In that way, Republicans discount and ignore the many inconvenient facts which are inconsistent with their Republican entertainment industry inspired beliefs. Perhaps that is one of the many things you are simply not capable of understanding either through lack of sufficient grey matter, ignorance and/or your cognitive biases. Unfortunately, this is what passes for thinking in the world of Republican entertainment. Unfortunately for Republicans, Democrats have become more conservative over the course of the last few decades and unfortunately for the nation, Republicans have become more extreme to the point of irrationality.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/14/opinion/frum-mann-ornstein/index.html

"The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.

"When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country's challenges."

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...-rapid-radicalization-of-the-republican-party

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/14/opinion/frum-mann-ornstein/index.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-conason/measuring-gop-extremism-w_b_3666565.html

And it is for this reason, the USA might become a has been nation at some point in our future. It won't be because of China, Russia or any other external threat. It will because of Republican extremism inspired and led by the Republican entertainment industry who misinform and deceive Republicans and would be Republicans.

 

In my (admittedly limited) experience (I try not to get involved in politics - too much bullshit, dick waving, and mud slinging, and not enough getting stuff done for my taste) it seems that "facts" are something republicans tend to either ignore, or cherry pick incredibly precisely to try and back their claims.

Granted, in that respect (cherry picking) Democrats aren't much better (and, in fact, no party is)... but yeah, what can ya do when it's a choice between the "lesser of two evils"

 

Or they are being brain washed into thinking that way. Tell people lies long enough , they become the truth.

They haven't shifted they have become more and more pushed into the publics eye. As gay marriages, legal marijuana and a host of other liberal thinking ways.

 

Don't forget women's rights, minority rights, legalization of interracial marriages, pollution reduction, science research and all those other evil liberal things.