And we're back!
Started by Caliga, November 07, 2020, 12:07:22 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 25, 2023, 06:27:47 PMNo--they are separate.Before the modern system, Congress literally had to draft a law creating bond programs of a specified size and etc. They decided this was too cumbersome for modern finance, and passed a law giving the Secretary of the Treasury authority to create and issue bonds. Not long after that, Congress realized that this in theory could allow the Secretary of the Treasury to take the U.S. into a lot of debt for no reason--while they still controlled appropriations and taxation, under the initial grant the Secretary of the Treasury could theoretically just issue debt for various reasons. The debt ceiling creates a statutory limit after which the SecTreas cannot issue any further debt.A much more logical bill 100 years ago would have just been to say that SecTreas can issue debt "as needed, but only to pay for spending appropriated by congress."
Quote from: Hamilcar on May 26, 2023, 01:24:03 AMDid the people who introduced the debt ceiling mechanism see it basically as functional, or did they intend it to be jaded as a political weapon?
Quote from: Hamilcar on May 29, 2023, 09:29:51 AMWhat I don't understand is how threatening to force the country to default unless you get your way is politically acceptable. Do the people supporting this maneuver think that defaulting is an acceptable tail risk? Or are the oblivious of what the consequences really would be?
Quote from: Barrister on May 23, 2023, 04:55:27 PMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on May 21, 2023, 09:57:25 AMDefendants can wear whatever they want, but their sartorial choices may impact their fate.Same goes for civil cases including video depositions. BAck when I was just starting out I had misdiarized something, and I had to call my client at the absolute last minute to come to court (it was something civil, but not a full trial). So my client had to come right from work, in full work clothes, his work boots covered in mud.My client was pissed - he wanted to be dressed better for the judge.But let me tell you - I guy who obviously works so hard he had to come right from the work site, his boots covered in mud, could not have played off any better in court if I had tried. The judge just ate him up.Now yes - the Alberta Provincial Court - Civil Division in High Level (just a couple hours from the NWT border) is probably not the same as court in Manhattan, but the dress code can indeed be pretty flexible.Personally when advising witnesses I tell them to dress nicely (I used to say as if going to church but then I realized that didn't mean anything to enough people) but by no means to buy new clothes. They should still dress authentically as themselves.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 21, 2023, 09:57:25 AMDefendants can wear whatever they want, but their sartorial choices may impact their fate.Same goes for civil cases including video depositions.
Quote"This is a Russian warship. I propose you lay down arms and surrender to avoid bloodshed & unnecessary victims. Otherwise, you'll be bombed."Zmiinyi defenders: "Russian warship, go fuck yourself."
Quote from: Valmy on May 30, 2023, 01:40:12 PMIt is kind of weird how many organizations claiming to be for Liberty and Freedom are actually for restricting both. Or, in this case, be unwavering in their support of arbitrary extra-judicial executions.
Page created in 0.043 seconds with 19 queries.