PDA

View Full Version : US Government Shutdown



Pages : [1] 2

Minskaya
29 Sep 13,, 11:29
U.S. Nears Shutdown as House Votes To Delay Health Law
September 29, 2013

WASHINGTON—The U.S. government moved to within hours of its first shutdown since 1996, as House Republicans redoubled their drive early Sunday to delay the new health care law and Senate Democrats stood firm against changing the law as a condition of funding federal departments. The standoff left little prospect that Congress could reach agreement on terms for funding the government by midnight Monday, when the current fiscal year expires. A shutdown would leave essential services operating but prompt federal agencies to suspend many functions and furlough hundreds of thousands of workers.

On a 231-192 vote, the House early Sunday passed a one-year delay of the health law, often called Obamacare, and attached it to a plan to fund the government through Dec. 15. The legislation now goes to the Senate. It also includes a provision repealing a tax on medical devices intended to help finance the health law, which the House approved on a 248-174 vote. The stare-down between the two chambers intensified as Democratic aides said Mr. Reid had no plans to call the Senate into session before its planned Monday afternoon return. That will be just hours before government funding for many federal functions runs out with the end of the fiscal year. The next step is unclear, as no official business on Capitol Hill is planned for Sunday. There was no sign negotiations were being scheduled among congressional leaders and no lawmakers—from graybeards to backbenchers—said they were optimistic that a shutdown would be averted.
Source: WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304526204579103192640919478.html)

It certainly looks like a federal government shutdown will occur on October 1. From my understanding, Congress and US military personnel will continue to be paid.

antimony
29 Sep 13,, 11:32
Source: WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304526204579103192640919478.html)

It certainly looks like a federal government shutdown will occur on October 1. From my understanding, Congress and US military personnel will continue to be paid.

I wish Congress does not get paid during the shutdown, the certainly don't deserve it

Doktor
29 Sep 13,, 11:42
I wish Congress does not get paid during the shutdown, the certainly don't deserve it

They live from their salaries? :red:

Mihais
29 Sep 13,, 14:56
They live from their salaries? :red:

Dude,we think the same too much. :biggrin:

desertswo
29 Sep 13,, 15:24
Good. Let it all fall down.

snapper
29 Sep 13,, 15:28
I wish Congress does not get paid during the shutdown, the certainly don't deserve it

Why not make them personally financially responsible for any budget shortfall? A Congressional 'bail in'.

Doktor
29 Sep 13,, 15:48
Why not make them personally financially responsible for any budget shortfall? A Congressional 'bail in'.

That way the ceiling will be 2x the debt at any given time.

Doktor
29 Sep 13,, 15:49
Dude,we think the same too much. :biggrin:
Chernobyl winds maybe :tongue:

Gun Grape
29 Sep 13,, 17:15
Source: WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304526204579103192640919478.html)

It certainly looks like a federal government shutdown will occur on October 1. From my understanding, Congress and US military personnel will continue to be paid.

The military will be paid on the first. That is the last paycheck they will see until Congress grows up

antimony
29 Sep 13,, 18:06
They live from their salaries? :red:

Of course not.

But I bet self interest will kick in. On second thoughts, maybe not. The Cock brothers will probably be chipping in anyway

Doktor
29 Sep 13,, 18:38
The military will be paid on the first. That is the last paycheck they will see until Congress grows up

Out of curiosity...

Whenever they reach a deal, is there a mechanism for retro-payments?

Or you guys just get unpaid leave? What happens if someone invades you?

JAD_333
29 Sep 13,, 19:55
Of course not.

But I bet self interest will kick in. On second thoughts, maybe not. The Cock brothers will probably be chipping in anyway

Naw, the theory is, like the military, Members of Congress are technically always on the job--can't be laid off or furloughed. Also they can't be detained on the way to the Capital to vote for a bill, even of they rob a 7-11 on the way and get caught.

Albany Rifles
29 Sep 13,, 22:29
This temper tantrum has real impacts.

1. A workforce that has not had a pay raise in 3 years, been laid off 7 to 22 days this year and face more unpaid days gets shafted again. Oh and those employees swear an oath to have that job.

2. I follow a simple rule....if I receive money from the government....that is salary, payments, benefits I don't bitch about taxes...I don't have a right to.

3. When it is called the Affordable Care Act it polls in positive numbers. It only polls negative when called Obamacare.

4. Hey SEN Cruz, Theodore Giesel was a New Dealer! And at the end of the book Sam LIKES green eggs and ham! Way to miss point of the story.

5. And because of this I have to pull back my employees and leave Soldiers with an antiquated supply system.


The reason I dislike the Republicans is they keep forcing me to vote for Democrats!

JAD_333
30 Sep 13,, 01:13
The reason I dislike the Republicans is they keep forcing me to vote for Democrats!

Well, I'm a Republican, and I and a lot of Republicans I know are none too happy with the tea party Republicans in Congress, especially Cruz, whose phoney filibuster wasted crucial time and cut the legs out from under Boehner who was crafting a compromise that stood a decent chance of ending the stalemate.

I don't think the tea party members in the House thought this through. A budget extension with a provision to defund Obamacare doesn't have a chance.

They were blinded by the belief that this is their last best chance to kill Obamacare, but chance is probability, and the probability that Obama would sign a bill to defund the ACA and be robbed of his place in history is virtually nil.

Furthermore, they really didn't see that if the government is shut-down because neither side gives in, their side will get the blame, and that can translate into lost elections if a shutdown sets the economy back.

Meanwhile, the insurance exchanges open October 1. The websites (http://http://www.healthcare.com/insurance/online-quotes/homeindex12.php?CID=3685&SRC=hc_google&Sub_ID=insurance%20exchange&bw_keyword=insurance%20exchange&position=1t1&mobile=&bw_state=Virginia&utm_content=31128469499&kid=243080351654561&pdv=c&google_network=g&creativeid=31128469499&matchtype=b&gclid=CO2Hpdrc8bkCFYWe4AodKzsAkQ) are already up. People who couldn't afford health insurance before are poised to get cheap coverage. Defunding would force shutting down the whole thing.

My guess is some last minute deal will be made to save face for the GOP, but it won't be defunding Obamacare.

Albany Rifles
30 Sep 13,, 02:29
JAD

That the Grand Old Party would become this.

You and I see it on our TV daily with Cuchenelli and McCaulife.

Really? This is the best the Old Dominion can do?

As I say ....Where is Dirksen? Where is Hollingsworth? Where is Rockefeller? Where is Nunn? Where is Baker?

Tip and Dutch may have trashed each other in private (or semi-private) but they GOVERNED!!!!


Where the hell is governing in all of this???

JAD_333
30 Sep 13,, 03:30
AR, it is a sad spectacle. I take some solace in the fact that we've been in the desert before without big guns to lead us.

I think we may be witnessing a swing of the pendulum, left to right. What do you think?

It doesn't happen many time times in a lifetime, and only this once in mine. Last time it was right to left in 1930s. The in-between mini-shifts, notably Reagan, were too short-lived.

Its really not a bad thing...healthy actually. We really have gone too far in the New Deal direction. Of course, there's no going back all the way...maybe some de-Federalizing and some fiscal correction. I'd call it weeding and consolidation. Things will be explosive politically for awhile...gridlock in Congress and so forth. If history is any guide, it won't end up with the tea party in control. It's like a 3rd party, a catalyst, but too radical. We'll see a more moderate brand of conservatism take hold.

Just a prediction from a old poly sci major.

InExile
30 Sep 13,, 05:59
I am not too concerned about the Government shutdown, but I am wondering if the Republicans are crazy enough to not pass the debt ceiling. That would be insane and could lead to a crisis greater than 2008.

I think Obama is right to refuse to negotiate on this one, using the debt ceiling for political extortion has to end.

tbm3fan
30 Sep 13,, 06:51
JAD

That the Grand Old Party would become this.

You and I see it on our TV daily with Cuchenelli and McCaulife.

Really? This is the best the Old Dominion can do?

As I say ....Where is Dirksen? Where is Hollingsworth? Where is Rockefeller? Where is Nunn? Where is Baker?

Tip and Dutch may have trashed each other in private (or semi-private) but they GOVERNED!!!!


Where the hell is governing in all of this???


Names I long miss also along with M.C. Smith, Brooke, Javits, and Hatfield to name a few others. Their kind is now long extinct I'm afraid. Even Packwood I would put there for his stands in the 70's despite what later occurred in the early 90's.

Doktor
30 Sep 13,, 06:59
AR,

Why the GOP is making you vote for Dems?

Haven't the Senate been here already? The POTUS knows he can't pass a budget like this, yet he pushes it? Why?

They are both mad for playing poker with stakes so high.

Zinja
01 Oct 13,, 01:16
Both sides are zealots, they should be lined up against the wall. Why the GOP does not want every employed person to take insurance (for themselves i must add) is probably the most perplexing paradox of today's american, im still waiting to hear a rational explanation of their argument. Why Obama thinks he can talk to Rohan, Putin, Natenyahu etc but not fellow americans just because they hold a different view, to the extent of likening them to terrorist suicide bombers, is the height of arrogance which is not fitting of a leader of a country of US' stature.

Perhaps what i find most infuriating in all this is the complete disregard, total dismissal of the rights of unborn future generations. How a today's american thinks it is right to take away a trillion dollars every year from future generations with no plan whatsoever of paying it back or even a sense of responsibility to pay it back makes me believe that indeed man is inherently selfish, greedy, and outright evil to the core. By demanding education, health, wealth, security of a today's american now by stealing a trillion dollars from future generations, today's american is gutting the trillion dollars that the future american would have used for his education, health, wealth and security and living him with no choice but to be either be a beggar or steal from someone else. How even mentioning a mandatory balanced budget (forget repaying the debt itself) has become such an evil term that is assigned only to goblins for anyone who dares to utter such a thought, is beyond me. There is no one, i repeat, no one today in America who will be willing to donate $200bn to future generations from today's budget but people would burn you at the stake if you try stopping them from looting a trillion dollars that is not theirs - how that is logical, please someone educate me! Americans have become callous, self serving monsters that would stop at nothing to feed their insatiable lists of want, want, want!

Right now, i don't care what budget is agreed on now, i just want somebody to tell me what America's debt will be at the end of the fiscal year of whatever budget is passed. If it is more than it is today, unless they can accompany it with a mandatory action plan that will reduce the increase to zero within the next five year..........i say let government shut down! Frankly, let America default come mid Oct. Future generations have not authorised anyone to use their money, they didn't cast a vote for their poverty. America does not start and end with today's american, there is America after this sickening selfish american of today. If it takes a government shut down and/or a default to make people live within their means so be it! I feel very offended by today's american!!!!!!

Blademaster
01 Oct 13,, 01:58
The reason I dislike the Republicans is they keep forcing me to vote for Democrats!

This is the biggest reason behind my ire against the Republican leadership. Because they cannot stand up to those nutty people, i.e., the Tea Partiers, and smack them down, I have lost complete respect for the Republican leadership.

I think the moderate Republicans need to leave the party and set up their own party calling themselves as the Forward Republicans or the New Republicans although it sounds similar to New Deal.

bonehead
01 Oct 13,, 02:14
They need to drop the term "republicans" all together. Too much negative baggage connected to that name.

desertswo
01 Oct 13,, 04:03
JAD

That the Grand Old Party would become this.

You and I see it on our TV daily with Cuchenelli and McCaulife.

Really? This is the best the Old Dominion can do?

As I say ....Where is Dirksen? Where is Hollingsworth? Where is Rockefeller? Where is Nunn? Where is Baker?

Tip and Dutch may have trashed each other in private (or semi-private) but they GOVERNED!!!!


Where the hell is governing in all of this???

Why the hell do you need "governing?" I've been a big boy for a long time now. I allowed myself to be "governed" for 25 years. I'm over that phase and happily cured.

Albany Rifles
01 Oct 13,, 04:47
SWO

Governance gives us things like roads, meat inspectors, air traffic controllers, vaccines and park rangers.

Oh yeah....and DOD too.

It's the price of living in a civilized society.

InExile
01 Oct 13,, 06:07
This is the biggest reason behind my ire against the Republican leadership. Because they cannot stand up to those nutty people, i.e., the Tea Partiers, and smack them down, I have lost complete respect for the Republican leadership.

I think the moderate Republicans need to leave the party and set up their own party calling themselves as the Forward Republicans or the New Republicans although it sounds similar to New Deal.

+1

Yes, it might lead to sweeping Democrat control for a couple of election cycles, but if the issues of debt and the poor economy persist it wont take long before the people look for an alternative, and with the tea party marginalized, a moderate conservative party could win by a landslide.

InExile
01 Oct 13,, 06:12
So Reid has turned down the request by the house for conference. The tea party has always thought to be reckless and unreasonable, but think the Democrats are showing this time that two can play at that game.

Minskaya
01 Oct 13,, 09:07
With Congress at impasse, government starts shutting down
September 30, 2013

WASHINGTON — U.S. government agencies were ordered to close for the first time in more than 17 years after lawmakers stalemated over Republican efforts to block President Obama's healthcare law. More than 800,000 federal workers were to spend Tuesday, the first day of the new fiscal year, on unpaid furloughs as agency managers executed contingency plans for the costly process of closing down operations indefinitely. The official word to shut down came from the White House just before midnight Monday. Hours earlier, the Senate, by a 54-46 party-line vote, killed a House measure that would have funded government agencies for six weeks but delayed key parts of Obamacare for a year.

It was the second such vote that the Senate took during a day in which the two chambers exchanged volleys of legislation with little expectation that any of it would become law. The one exception to the legislative futility was a bill to ensure that military service members would be paid during the shutdown. Obama signed it into law late Monday night. Obama warned that a shutdown would harm the nation's economy and vowed that the healthcare law, his signature domestic policy achievement, would move forward.

Indeed, among the ironies of the standoff is that a shutdown will have no effect on the law the Republicans tried to block. The money to implement the law does not depend on the annual spending bills stuck in the congressional logjam. A major element of Obamacare, online marketplaces that consumers without insurance can use to buy coverage, will open to the public Tuesday.

"That funding is already in place. You can't shut it down," Obama said during a short appearance earlier in the White House briefing room. "This is a law that passed both houses of Congress, a law that bears my signature, a law that the Supreme Court upheld as constitutional, a law that voters chose not to repeal last November," he said, referring to his reelection. "I'm always willing to work with anyone of either party to make sure the Affordable Care Act works better," he added. "But one faction of one party in one house of Congress in one branch of government doesn't get to shut down the entire government just to refight the results of an election."
Source: LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-government-shutdown-20131001,0,7732220.story)

So it begins. What the Tea Party faction of the GOP has done here is shameful. Holding the US budget/economy hostage is nothing less than extortion.

tuna
01 Oct 13,, 15:04
Let's hope that they stick to their guns this time. Time and again we see the Republicans cave to the looney left, and that is what brought us the Tea Party. They brought this - now don't wimp out after causing the trouble, own it and make it right.

By the way - I'm now furloughed, so yes this shutdown affects me negatively. But I'll take the hit as long as it will do some good. If I'm going to be forced to sacrifice with no more income coming in, don't deal just to deal and go back to the way it was so we can have this fight again next year.

Doktor
01 Oct 13,, 15:30
Source: LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-government-shutdown-20131001,0,7732220.story)

So it begins. What the Tea Party faction of the GOP has done here is shameful. Holding the US budget/economy hostage is nothing less than extortion.

I asked it once, will ask again...

Why the TP standing to what they understand to be the right thing to do is bad, while the Dems sticking to their side is OK?

IMV, both sides are loonies. This is not politics.

Blademaster
01 Oct 13,, 15:42
So Reid has turned down the request by the house for conference. The tea party has always thought to be reckless and unreasonable, but think the Democrats are showing this time that two can play at that game.

No Reid didn't do it because it was reckless but a way of showing resolve that the Tea Party tactics will not work and also send a message to the GOP to stop wasting time.

desertswo
01 Oct 13,, 15:56
No Reid didn't do it because it was reckless but a way of showing resolve that the Tea Party tactics will not work and also send a message to the GOP to stop wasting time.

Wasting time with regard to what? Expediting our doom as a nation? Some of you here really need to wake up and smell the humus.

desertswo
01 Oct 13,, 16:02
SWO

Governance gives us things like roads, meat inspectors, air traffic controllers, vaccines and park rangers.

Oh yeah....and DOD too.

It's the price of living in a civilized society.

So, I need HUD and the Department of Education, just to name two? What about all of those extra-constitutional "czars" running around?

DoD is something at least implied in the Constitution. None of the rest of this stuff is, and I don't need any of it to make me "civilized." It's a term that has no basis in practical reality in the first place, and could even be argued by some to be "racist" both implicitly and explicitly. You all are so inured to being governed by the concept of "penumbras and emanations" that you you've lost sight of the way things are supposed to be run. Seriously, a lot of folks here think they are smarter than Thomas Jefferson. Not in this lifetime.

Blademaster
01 Oct 13,, 16:13
Wasting time with regard to what? Expediting our doom as a nation? Some of you here really need to wake up and smell the humus.

Then start telling the Tea Partiers to stop doing the stupid shit and get back to governing instead of bitching and broadcasting their hatred for anything Obama.

Blademaster
01 Oct 13,, 16:16
So, I need HUD and the Department of Education, just to name two? What about all of those extra-constitutional "czars" running around?

DoD is something at least implied in the Constitution. None of the rest of this stuff is, and I don't need any of it to make me "civilized." It's a term that has no basis in practical reality in the first place, and could even be argued by some to be "racist" both implicitly and explicitly. You all are so inured to being governed by the concept of "penumbras and emanations" that you you've lost sight of the way things are supposed to be run. Seriously, a lot of folks here think they are smarter than Thomas Jefferson. Not in this lifetime.

Get over yourself, please. A lot of things that we take for granted wouldn't have happened without federal assistance or intervention. Like the interstate highway system which is the envy of the world, albeit it needs restoration and upgrading. The Army Corps of Engineers' works such as levees, dams, canals, and etc. The communication system that we so rely upon would not be where it would be without federal assistance. Even private companies couldn't do it on their own. If we were to follow Thomas Jefferson's teachings or advice to be an agrarian society, America would not be the superpower of today.

Zinja
01 Oct 13,, 16:19
Let's hope that they stick to their guns this time. Time and again we see the Republicans cave to the looney left, and that is what brought us the Tea Party. They brought this - now don't wimp out after causing the trouble, own it and make it right.

By the way - I'm now furloughed, so yes this shutdown affects me negatively. But I'll take the hit as long as it will do some good. If I'm going to be forced to sacrifice with no more income coming in, don't deal just to deal and go back to the way it was so we can have this fight again next year.
Hats off to you. You are willing to pay a price to right what has been so wrong for far too long. If the GOP blinks now again, they should never require their constituencies to go through this again.

Zinja
01 Oct 13,, 16:25
No Reid didn't do it because it was reckless but a way of showing resolve that the Tea Party tactics will not work and also send a message to the GOP to stop wasting time.
What is so time wasting in requiring that Fed gov employees also sign up to their vaunted prescription they shoving down everyone's throat? What is so time wasting in asking that individuals also enjoy the same exemptions that companies have been given? What is good for the goose is also good for the gander.

Zinja
01 Oct 13,, 16:30
Then start telling the Tea Partiers to stop doing the stupid shit and get back to governing instead of bitching and broadcasting their hatred for anything Obama.
You can also go tell Obama to stop playing KING Pharaoh and start talking to Americans not just erstwhile 'friends' overseas that he seems to miss so much.

Blademaster
01 Oct 13,, 16:49
You can also go tell Obama to stop playing KING Pharaoh and start talking to Americans not just erstwhile 'friends' overseas that he seems to miss so much.

Then you can also start telling the Tea Partiers to stop being dickwads and asses and start talking to the rest of America who are for Affordable Care Act instead of engaging in these infantile games like Sen Cruz did. Once they stop being dickheads, then Obama can start listening to them. I don't blame Obama for not listening to the tea Party because he did for the first four years and nothing good came out of it. They just want him to roll over and go home. Fuck that. He is the President of the U.S. and besides he has other responsibilities to take care of, not like the Tea Partiers who are playing to the crowd of birthers and nuts and crackheads.

Blademaster
01 Oct 13,, 16:50
Hats off to you. You are willing to pay a price to right what has been so wrong for far too long. If the GOP blinks now again, they should never require their constituencies to go through this again.

Ok I could say the same thing about the Democrats. It is this kind of mentality that makes me sick about the Tea Partiers. They have to be right and only can they be right. Everybody is just plain wrong and if you cede an inch, you are immediately a traitor.

Fuck this shit.

desertswo
01 Oct 13,, 16:56
Then you can also start telling the Tea Partiers to stop being dickwads and asses and start talking to the rest of America who are for Affordable Care Act instead of engaging in these infantile games like Sen Cruz did. Once they stop being dickheads, then Obama can start listening to them. I don't blame Obama for not listening to the tea Party because he did for the first four years and nothing good came out of it. They just want him to roll over and go home. Fuck that. He is the President of the U.S. and besides he has other responsibilities to take care of, not like the Tea Partiers who are playing to the crowd of birthers and nuts and crackheads.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

Oxymoron - "A combination of words that have opposite or very different meanings."

- Merriam-Webster

Blademaster
01 Oct 13,, 17:03
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

Oxymoron - "A combination of words that have opposite or very different meanings."

- Merriam-Webster

Do you have proof that the Affordable Care Act would result in higher insurance rates or medical bills? The act was designed to control healthcare spending costs which have been skyrocketing higher than inflation or wage increases and afford insurance to everybody while at the same time making sure nobody got a free ride, hence the need for universal mandate.

Red Team
01 Oct 13,, 17:20
Irrespective of its many imperfections, ACA was passed, signed and ruled constitutional through the full extent of the process. Debating viciously to begin a dialogue through which amendments to the law can be discussed is one thing, but what House Republicans are doing right now basically amounts to the equivalent of a child's kicking and screaming.

You want to use the Federal Government's budget as a a bargaining tool? Start by cutting your own salaries first.

Parihaka
01 Oct 13,, 17:57
Fascinating. It's almost like the US has accidentally developed a Proportional Representation System but no one told the government. The Tea Party has quite clearly demonstrated they currently pull the strings, yet they are a tiny minority in Congress. There's no need for them to be in control but both major parties have given it to them anyway. Only in America :)

Blademaster
01 Oct 13,, 18:00
Fascinating. It's almost like the US has accidentally developed a Proportional Representation System but no one told the government. The Tea Party has quite clearly demonstrated they currently pull the strings, yet they are a tiny minority in Congress. There's no need for them to be in control but both major parties have given it to them anyway. Only in America :)

And that is the biggest problem I have with the Tea Party. They think they can get whatever they want without compromising. It is like the UltraOrthodox Party in Israel.

Status Quo
01 Oct 13,, 18:05
Do you have proof that the Affordable Care Act would result in higher insurance rates or medical bills? The act was designed to control healthcare spending costs which have been skyrocketing higher than inflation or wage increases and afford insurance to everybody while at the same time making sure nobody got a free ride, hence the need for universal mandate.

Basic econ shows that ACA will increase medical costs. What happens when you increase the demand, what happens to the demand curve?

Blademaster
01 Oct 13,, 18:13
Basic econ shows that ACA will increase medical costs. What happens when you increase the demand, what happens to the demand curve?

Here's a news article that says otherwise. Schafer: Affordable Care Act is already slowing cost increases | Star Tribune (http://www.startribune.com/business/224634231.html)

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/07/the-economics-of-the-affordable-care-act/?_r=0

cdude
01 Oct 13,, 18:51
Basic econ shows that ACA will increase medical costs. What happens when you increase the demand, what happens to the demand curve?

Except that a more efficient market place will reduce costs. And the ACA WILL create a more efficient market place for medical care (hint: squeeze some of the middle man).

Status Quo
01 Oct 13,, 20:58
Except that a more efficient market place will reduce costs. And the ACA WILL create a more efficient market place for medical care (hint: squeeze some of the middle man).

Can you really expect the government to be more efficient than the private sector? Or just be efficient in general? So far, the majority of evidence suggests, that the United States is not very efficient with their dough.

Doktor
01 Oct 13,, 21:11
Fascinating. It's almost like the US has accidentally developed a Proportional Representation System but no one told the government. The Tea Party has quite clearly demonstrated they currently pull the strings, yet they are a tiny minority in Congress. There's no need for them to be in control but both major parties have given it to them anyway. Only in America :)

Welcome to multiparty system.

Dreadnought
01 Oct 13,, 21:19
I was very proud of our WWII Vets that knocked down the barricades at the WWII memorial on the mall this morning and marched on the monument. If it wasnt for these men then society would have no clue over what "balls" really are.

God Bless them for showing the government today that they will not be denied what they fought for.

They took no shit in their day and certainly took no shit today!:tank:

WWII Vets Knock Over Shutdown Barrier to Visit Memorial | Washington Free Beacon (http://freebeacon.com/wwii-vets-knock-over-shutdown-barrier-to-visit-wwii-memorial/)

Mihais
01 Oct 13,, 21:24
Welcome to multiparty system.

strangely,the rest of us,having in theory a multiparty system devolve to a two parties system,or even a single party system.:redface:

Parihaka
01 Oct 13,, 21:56
strangely,the rest of us,having in theory a multiparty system devolve to a two parties system,or even a single party system.:redface:
Yeah but you Europeans are weird by anyone's standards:tongue:

Doktor
01 Oct 13,, 22:30
Yeah but you Europeans are weird by anyone's standards:tongue:

We are, but at least we are not under down under.:danc:

Wooglin
01 Oct 13,, 23:05
Here's a news article that says otherwise. Schafer: Affordable Care Act is already slowing cost increases | Star Tribune (http://www.startribune.com/business/224634231.html)

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/07/the-economics-of-the-affordable-care-act/?_r=0

Does it say otherwise? Where in the article does it claim costs are not going up?

Also, your article says...


Mike Lenz, vice president of strategic initiatives for the health plan Medica, said the ACA is just one of a full list of reasons that “could be close to a dozen” for the slowing increase in costs, and he starts his list with a sluggish recovery from the last recession. Health care is not exactly recession-proof, and in hard times people will put off medical procedures that seem discretionary.

Anyway...


But what happened to the spending slowdown?

Some readers may recall that a few months ago, there were widespread reports of a slow-down in health spending. Not surprisingly, the White House has been quick to claim credit for the slowdown in health spending documented in the health spending projections report, arguing that it “is good for families, jobs and the budget.”

On this blog, Avik Roy pointed out that a) since passage of Obamacare, U.S. health spending actually had risen faster than in OECD countries, whereas prior to the law, the opposite was true. Moreover, to the degree that U.S. health spending was slowing down relative to its own recent past, greater cost-sharing was likely to be the principal explanation. Medicare’s actuarial experts confirm that the lion’s share of the slowdown in health spending could be chalked up to slow growth in the economy and greater cost-sharing. As AEI scholar Jim Capretta pithily put it:

"An important takeaway from these new projections is that the CMS Office of the Actuary finds no evidence to link the 2010 health care law to the recent slowdown in health care cost escalation. Indeed, the authors of the projections make it clear that the slowdown is not out of line with the historical link between health spending growth and economic conditions" (emphasis added).

Obamacare Will Increase Health Spending By $7,450 For A Typical Family of Four [Updated] - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/09/23/its-official-obamacare-will-increase-health-spending-by-7450-for-a-typical-family-of-four/)

dave lukins
01 Oct 13,, 23:39
Yeah but you Europeans are weird by anyone's standards:tongue:

I represent that remark :biggrin:

Zinja
01 Oct 13,, 23:45
Then you can also start telling the Tea Partiers to stop being dickwads and asses and start talking to the rest of America who are for Affordable Care Act instead of engaging in these infantile games like Sen Cruz did. Once they stop being dickheads, then Obama can start listening to them. I don't blame Obama for not listening to the tea Party because he did for the first four years and nothing good came out of it. They just want him to roll over and go home. Fuck that. He is the President of the U.S. and besides he has other responsibilities to take care of, not like the Tea Partiers who are playing to the crowd of birthers and nuts and crackheads. I don't care which side of the isle says what, but whoever says federal government should also join obamacare i agree with because its going to be $1Bn less stolen from future generations, that is not a gimmick, that is a true accounting $1bn! Just because Kim Jung-un says the sky is blue does not make it wrong. Stop fighting people and criticise their points instead. You are becoming anti.

Zinja
01 Oct 13,, 23:48
Ok I could say the same thing about the Democrats. It is this kind of mentality that makes me sick about the Tea Partiers. They have to be right and only can they be right. Everybody is just plain wrong and if you cede an inch, you are immediately a traitor.
Fuck this shit.
They are right about the federal gov joining the obamacare. They are right about the unfairness of giving companies a reprieve that they don't want to give struggling individual americans. Companies don't have children to feed and take to school, individuals do.

Zinja
01 Oct 13,, 23:51
And that is the biggest problem I have with the Tea Party. They think they can get whatever they want without compromising. It is like the UltraOrthodox Party in Israel. The tea party has compromised on twice already within the last two weeks, with each successive offer increasing the compromise, what have the Dems compromised?

gunnut
01 Oct 13,, 23:52
So...who is affected by this "shutdown?"

I don't see planes falling out of the sky. The power is still on. Dogs still chase cats. Water still turns to steam at 100C under 1 atmospheric pressure.

What exactly is "shut down?" And why do we care?

Zinja
01 Oct 13,, 23:59
Except that a more efficient market place will reduce costs. And the ACA WILL create a more efficient market place for medical care (hint: squeeze some of the middle man).
More efficient economy subsidised by the government by sinking further into debt so that future generations would pay the bill.

Status Quo
02 Oct 13,, 00:10
So...who is affected by this "shutdown?"

I don't see planes falling out of the sky. The power is still on. Dogs still chase cats. Water still turns to steam at 100C under 1 atmospheric pressure.

What exactly is "shut down?" And why do we care?

Government spending. State parks and other government facilities are not in operation.

In reality, I don't think this will end up being that big of an issue, rather it's media hype.

Zinja
02 Oct 13,, 00:12
If people do not see the sense of putting a knife on their throats, then i say let the government shut down indefinitely. Someone should stand up to this drunken ideology that people can realise their dreams on the back of future generations.

bigross86
02 Oct 13,, 00:28
And that is the biggest problem I have with the Tea Party. They think they can get whatever they want without compromising. It is like the UltraOrthodox Party in Israel.

Not anymore. The latest government got rid of them, just for that purpose, because they were a minority bloc controlling the government

bigross86
02 Oct 13,, 00:34
Isn't a shutdown good for saving money? Think of all the wasteful government services that aren't wasting money anymore...

Zinja
02 Oct 13,, 00:47
Not anymore. The latest government got rid of them, just for that purpose, because they were a minority bloc controlling the government
Exactly. If these 'spenders' cant see the need for responsible spending then let the nation go on an imposed weight loss. This may actually achieve better results than tea partiers could have ever thought of. Its actually more effective than sequestration in that it doesn't spread the issue over a decade.

Red Team
02 Oct 13,, 00:55
Isn't a shutdown good for saving money? Think of all the wasteful government services that aren't wasting money anymore...

Yeah all those pesky scientific research grants and employee salaries, good riddance to bad pork! :mad:

...wait sorry was this rhetorical? :confused:

Status Quo
02 Oct 13,, 01:14
Isn't a shutdown good for saving money? Think of all the wasteful government services that aren't wasting money anymore...

If this was intend to be funny; it was.

But, members of government are still being paid. ?

gunnut
02 Oct 13,, 02:39
Government spending. State parks and other government facilities are not in operation.

In reality, I don't think this will end up being that big of an issue, rather it's media hype.


Yeah all those pesky scientific research grants and employee salaries, good riddance to bad pork! :mad:

...wait sorry was this rhetorical? :confused:

Like I've said, how has this "shut down" affected anyone in any real world sense at all?

All vital government functions continues to run. All "non-essential" parts are shut down. Isn't that a good thing?

Status Quo
02 Oct 13,, 02:52
Like I've said, how has this "shut down" affected anyone in any real world sense at all?

All vital government functions continues to run. All "non-essential" parts are shut down. Isn't that a good thing?

Not if you like state parks and other non-essential parts of the gov :biggrin:

Albany Rifles
02 Oct 13,, 03:00
If this was intend to be funny; it was.

But, members of government are still being paid. ?

Not if you are furloughed.

Had to furlough 18 guys today...not good.

antimony
02 Oct 13,, 03:15
Like I've said, how has this "shut down" affected anyone in any real world sense at all?

All vital government functions continues to run. All "non-essential" parts are shut down. Isn't that a good thing?

So what happens when a company applies for a new trademark or license? Guess we can do away with that shit now, when PTO shuts down in a few weeks? What about people who are expecting IRS refunds?

Oh by the way, looks like shutting the govt. losing economic output to the tune of $ 300 Mil per day.
Shutdown Will Cost U.S. Economy $300 Million a Day, IHS Says - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-01/shutdown-would-cost-u-s-economy-300-million-a-day-ihs-says.html)

JAD_333
02 Oct 13,, 03:38
Source: LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-government-shutdown-20131001,0,7732220.story)

So it begins. What the Tea Party faction of the GOP has done here is shameful. Holding the US budget/economy hostage is nothing less than extortion.

Well, extortion is rather the norm in all political wrangling. And it is not all that uncommon for stalled legislation to affect the economy, but not this way. The 'pain' of a shutdown (partial shutdown, that is) is more how it looks to people. We've had shutdowns before. One lasted 21 days. It cost $1.5 billion at the time, not much in the total scheme of things.

However, a big hunk of the pain, aside from that felt by the workers 'laid-off', is being felt by the Republican party. It's image is taking a royal beating every hour it lasts. Of course, the Democrats could cave in a little and end the shutdown, but they long ago warned the Republicans they wouldn't give an inch on the ACA. Guess the Tea Party didn't believe the president.

There may be a silver lining in all this. With all the crap being dumped on the heads of the Republicans, repeating the hostage process on the much more important debt ceiling increase when it comes up in a couple of weeks would inundate them with negative public opinion and that could cost them the House in next year's elections.

None of this make's the House GOP leadership comfortable. It wouldn't surprise me if Boehner and his team seize the moment for the 'good of the country' and call for a straight up or down vote on the Senate version of the continuing resolution. If all 200 Democrats in the House and only 33 out of 212 Republicans vote for it, it passes, and the shutdown ends.

Seems Obama senses internal dissatisfaction among House GOP members. Today he tried to drive a wedge between the Tea Party and the rest of the GOP by blaming "a faction of the GOP" for the impasse rather than the whole party.

Edit: Obama might do well to give something to the GOP after round 1. If the GOP
enters round 2, the debt ceiling legislation, having gained nothing for all their trouble so far, they may try again, and once again we'd be facing the fiscal cliff.

gunnut
02 Oct 13,, 03:46
Not if you like state parks and other non-essential parts of the gov :biggrin:

State park or national park?

gunnut
02 Oct 13,, 03:51
So what happens when a company applies for a new trademark or license?

Why is the federal government in the trademark business?


What about people who are expecting IRS refunds?

Why is the government withholding our money to begin with?


Oh by the way, looks like shutting the govt. losing economic output to the tune of $ 300 Mil per day.
Shutdown Will Cost U.S. Economy $300 Million a Day, IHS Says - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-01/shutdown-would-cost-u-s-economy-300-million-a-day-ihs-says.html)

Let's see...$300 million a day, which comes out to be about $9 billion a month. Fed is printing almost 10x that to prop up our "economic" activity. We're still ahead.

gf0012-aust
02 Oct 13,, 04:09
Like I've said, how has this "shut down" affected anyone in any real world sense at all?

All vital government functions continues to run. All "non-essential" parts are shut down. Isn't that a good thing?

The australian stock market wen down a few points when word came out

JAD_333
02 Oct 13,, 05:02
The australian stock market wen down a few points when word came out

Not here, although it did yesterday in anticipation of a shutdown. Today was largely green.

antimony
02 Oct 13,, 05:03
Why is the federal government in the trademark business?


Who should be in the trademark business? By the way, feel free to get legislators around to change the rules. Don't hang the government just to find out what happens



Why is the government withholding our money to begin with?


Again, feel free to get legislators around to change the rules



Let's see...$300 million a day, which comes out to be about $9 billion a month. Fed is printing almost 10x that to prop up our "economic" activity. We're still ahead.

You have just laid off 40% of the Federal workforce. See what that does to or overall economic activity. Say goodbye to a quick recovery. And by the way, expect to pay the Fed employees backpay once work resumes.

DOR
02 Oct 13,, 05:13
OK, enough is enough.
It is now starting to have an impact on economists, so knock it off, boys and girls!

__________________________________________________ ____________

Special Notice:
This website is currently not being updated due to the suspension of Federal government services. The last update to the site was Monday, September 30. During the shutdown period BLS will not collect data, issue reports, or respond to public inquiries. Updates to the site will start again when the Federal government resumes operations. Revised schedules will be issued as they become available.

Please visit OPM.gov (http://www.opm.gov) for the most recent information on Federal government suspensions, shutdowns, and closings.
__________________________________________________ ____________

Dreadnought
02 Oct 13,, 07:32
Like I've said, how has this "shut down" affected anyone in any real world sense at all?

All vital government functions continues to run. All "non-essential" parts are shut down. Isn't that a good thing?

What do you think about certain areas being effected such as the possibility of tanking the stock market do to such bullshit?

The average Joe takes the hit as well as 401ks. Its things like this that are influenced by the governments actions.

IMO, The American people should be PISSED to find the government acting like such children at the peoples expense.

People should be in the streets demanding either better results of their Congress or their removal.

bigross86
02 Oct 13,, 11:39
People should be in the streets demanding either better results of their Congress or their removal.

And that is the best thing that can come out of this entire situation. Like Dok says, both sides are acting like idiots, both sides deserve the blame, it's not just the GOP, despite how it's being spun as the Tea Party's fault.

If you ask me, every single person in political office on the day of the shutdown, on both sides of the aisle, should be given the heave-ho, and never be allowed to run for office again.

astralis
02 Oct 13,, 17:28
BR,


And that is the best thing that can come out of this entire situation. Like Dok says, both sides are acting like idiots, both sides deserve the blame, it's not just the GOP, despite how it's being spun as the Tea Party's fault.

uh, no. this is called false equivalence.

ONE SIDE threatened a government shutdown, and got it, because they wanted to connect another legislative issue with the fiscal issue.

when democrats shut down the government or threaten a debt limit crisis because they insist on, say, gun control or abortion rights or what have you, then your statement will be true.

republicans really haven't thought this one through. let's assume for a moment that they WIN on this issue and obama caves. are they so stupid to think that this won't be standard operating procedure EVERY TIME from now on, regardless of administration?

EDIT: well, at least ONE republican has.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/03/us/politics/congress-budget-battle.html



To many Senate Republicans, the House conservatives’ position has become mystifying. In a meeting of Senate Republicans, Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee rose to ask how the party would respond if it controlled the White House and the Senate and a Democratic House insisted it would not finance the government unless Washington rolled back laws hampering unions.

bigross86
02 Oct 13,, 17:39
Like Dok says:


Haven't the Senate been here already? The POTUS knows he can't pass a budget like this, yet he pushes it? Why?


I asked it once, will ask again...

Why the TP standing to what they understand to be the right thing to do is bad, while the Dems sticking to their side is OK?

IMV, both sides are loonies. This is not politics.

Agnostic Muslim
02 Oct 13,, 17:51
The tea party has compromised on twice already within the last two weeks, with each successive offer increasing the compromise, what have the Dems compromised?
Negotiations and compromise over legislation should have occurred when the legislation was being debated, prior to being passed.

astralis
02 Oct 13,, 18:53
BR,


I asked it once, will ask again...

Why the TP standing to what they understand to be the right thing to do is bad, while the Dems sticking to their side is OK?

IMV, both sides are loonies. This is not politics.

because using the operations of the government and the faith/credit of the US is not something that should be up for negotiations. this is not a republican or a democratic interest, it's a national interest.

and to leverage a national interest for partisan advantage-- what the REPUBLICANS are doing by linking the Affordable Care Act to this-- is despicable.

it's as if a thug stuck a gun to your mother's head and said "give me $10 million, and nobody gets hurt," and a bystander blames both you and the gunman for putting your mother in such a situation. and is it any more acceptable now that the gunman lowered his ransom from $10 million to $5 million?

read what alexandar lamar says again. if one side starts getting away with leveraging national interest for partisan gain then everyone will do so in the future.

Blademaster
02 Oct 13,, 19:00
The tea party has compromised on twice already within the last two weeks, with each successive offer increasing the compromise, what have the Dems compromised?

See Astralis' response. He said exactly my sentiments!

antimony
02 Oct 13,, 19:06
Negotiations and compromise over legislation should have occurred when the legislation was being debated, prior to being passed.

Not only that, this has been challenged in the Supreme Court and still held up. So we have a law passed as per the book and is also held to be constitutionally sound.

You hate it? Fine, get a new legislature to repeal it. Till then, play by the rules!!!

Doktor
02 Oct 13,, 19:31
BR,



because using the operations of the government and the faith/credit of the US is not something that should be up for negotiations. this is not a republican or a democratic interest, it's a national interest.

and to leverage a national interest for partisan advantage-- what the REPUBLICANS are doing by linking the Affordable Care Act to this-- is despicable.

it's as if a thug stuck a gun to your mother's head and said "give me $10 million, and nobody gets hurt," and a bystander blames both you and the gunman for putting your mother in such a situation. and is it any more acceptable now that the gunman lowered his ransom from $10 million to $5 million?

read what alexandar lamar says again. if one side starts getting away with leveraging national interest for partisan gain then everyone will do so in the future.

Asty,

If that's the analogy you'd like to use, I'd never send my mother to a looney with a gun. If I do that or if he somehow sneaks in, who is responsible for that?

I am not for what the Reps are doing, but they clearly see it as their last resort. If Obama was a leader, he would have never been in this position, nor would have put them to feel this way.

Can you imagine FDR or Reagan in this position?

antimony
02 Oct 13,, 19:44
If that's the analogy you'd like to use, I'd never send my mother to a looney with a gun.

It is written in the constitution that you have to send your mother to meet and deal with this person. Unfortunately he turns out to be a loony with a gun.

Your move.



Can you imagine FDR or Reagan in this position?

Reagan had Tip O'Neil. Obama has Boehner, who has no control over his lot. You need a worthy opponent to work with. Obama is not without faults, but Boehner is less than useless.

Doktor
02 Oct 13,, 19:46
It is written in the constitution that you have to send your mother to meet and deal with this person. Unfortunately he turns out to be a loony with a gun.

Your move.

I give her a west, a helmet, a shotgun and RPG launcher just in case.

antimony
02 Oct 13,, 20:27
I give her a west, a helmet, a shotgun and RPG launcher just in case.

Which is what Obama and the Dems are doing, fighting back this time around

Doktor
02 Oct 13,, 21:41
Reagan had Tip O'Neil. Obama has Boehner, who has no control over his lot. You need a worthy opponent to work with. Obama is not without faults, but Boehner is less than useless.

Obama will be the first President to lose two notches of credit rating. And I am scared to even think what would happen if this non-sense lasts for 3 to 6 months.

Status Quo
02 Oct 13,, 22:23
What Obama is good at: killing terrorists, public speaking, and law
What Obama sucks at: being competent as a "leader," and pretty much everything else that is pertinent for being a president of the US.

Seriously, what has Obama achieved - health care...? Even Bush had Iraq, Afghanistan, Patriot Act, enhanced interrogation techniques, and No Child Left Behind.

Agnostic Muslim
02 Oct 13,, 22:54
What Obama is good at: killing terrorists, public speaking, and law
What Obama sucks at: being competent as a "leader," and pretty much everything else that is pertinent for being a president of the US.

Seriously, what has Obama achieved - health care...? Even Bush had Iraq, Afghanistan, Patriot Act, enhanced interrogation techniques, and No Child Left Behind.
What does any of that have to do with a highly flawed and nationally destructive Republican tactic of negotiating over a law that was passed 3 years ago by holding the entire government hostage?

What were Republicans doing when the law was being debated in Congress before being passed?

antimony
02 Oct 13,, 23:02
Seriously, what has Obama achieved - health care...? Even Bush had Iraq, Afghanistan, Patriot Act, enhanced interrogation techniques, and No Child Left Behind.

Iraq, Afghanistan, Patriot Act, enhanced interrogation techniques, and No Child Left Behind

These are the achievements? I assume you are being sarcastic.

Zinja
03 Oct 13,, 00:09
Negotiations and compromise over legislation should have occurred when the legislation was being debated, prior to being passed.
Do you forget how Obamacare was frog jumped into legislation by special presidential 'powers'? That effectively shut down any debate and those who didn't agree were left seething. That bubble has now come back to burst.

America today is the weakest it has ever been in recent memory. I can't remember a time when America was this divided. Maybe this can only be rivaled by the civil rights movement of the 60-70s. At least then the cause was an undisputed noble one, but this time .......not so sure.

GVChamp
03 Oct 13,, 00:15
Not only that, this has been challenged in the Supreme Court and still held up. So we have a law passed as per the book and is also held to be constitutionally sound.

You hate it? Fine, get a new legislature to repeal it. Till then, play by the rules!!!

Which rules in this particular case?

Status Quo
03 Oct 13,, 00:30
What does any of that have to do with a highly flawed and nationally destructive Republican tactic of negotiating over a law that was passed 3 years ago by holding the entire government hostage?

What were Republicans doing when the law was being debated in Congress before being passed?

Absolutely nothing. Other than Doktor and Antimony were discussing Obama, so I thought I chime in with my flawless observations :biggrin:

Seriously though, shouldn't members of Congress have the ability to challenge laws that were passed in prior years?


Iraq, Afghanistan, Patriot Act, enhanced interrogation techniques, and No Child Left Behind

These are the achievements? I assume you are being sarcastic.

Good guess sir. I just love comparing Obama and Bush, because generally it gets people all fired up (whether in context, or out of context).

Zinja
03 Oct 13,, 00:41
See Astralis' response. He said exactly my sentiments!

I see Astralis' point. But the honest truth is Republicans did not just wake up on the 30th of Sep and decided to go nuclear. This thing has long been in the making. Obama has let this thing ferment, seethe and now it is exploding. Obama has been a very poor leader in managing differences in American affairs. He has roughshoded republicans from the word go. He has been going after all those issues and institutions that are at the very core of people's identities forcing them to submit to the tyranny of the majority. That invokes very personal emotions and becomes an attack on people's very identities. It creates very deep bitterness forcing people to take desperate measures to defend their turf. I said this during the presidential campaigns that Obama is pitting Americans against each other, he was relishing the divide at the time because the numbers were on his side, now look what he has created for himself and the nation?

Another thing that is being left unsaid here is the issue of deficit. I have never understood why the Republicans never wanted a mandatory insurance for all working americans, im glad they seem to have resigned now from their ill advised opposition. But one issue that i agree with the Republicans is that Obamacare will mean more people subsidised by government when government coffers are empty. All that means is more of the national credit card. The notion that government will spend less paying for 50 million people more than when it was without is just laughable. These are the issues at the very core of Tea Partiers and Obama is continually making the mistake of ignoring them because he has the poll numbers. Obama and the Democrates should learn to exercise their majority power to unite the nation than divide it.

Zinja
03 Oct 13,, 00:46
What does any of that have to do with a highly flawed and nationally destructive Republican tactic of negotiating over a law that was passed 3 years ago by holding the entire government hostage?

What were Republicans doing when the law was being debated in Congress before being passed? Don't forget mate, that Obama muzzled the Republicans on this debate with special presidential tactics when he couldn't get his way. This was a too important and emotional issue to use such tactics, and people at the time did point that out, now chickens have come home to roost.

astralis
03 Oct 13,, 01:16
zinja,


But the honest truth is Republicans did not just wake up on the 30th of Sep and decided to go nuclear. This thing has long been in the making. Obama has let this thing ferment, seethe and now it is exploding. Obama has been a very poor leader in managing differences in American affairs. He has roughshoded republicans from the word go. He has been going after all those issues and institutions that are at the very core of people's identities forcing them to submit to the tyranny of the majority.

it's certainly no secret that obama is not a wheeler-dealer politician like LBJ or Clinton.

OTOH republican opposition to obama's policies is not so much personality-driven as you claim, but simple electoral politics:

Where the G.O.P.'s Suicide Caucus Lives : The New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/09/meadows-boehner-defund-obamacare-suicide-caucus-geography.html)

at the local level there is little cost to opposing obama and high costs to actually negotiating with him. so obama could be the Second Incarnation of Clinton and still see very limited effects in terms of getting the opposition to negotiate.

after all...clinton had his shutdown, as well, and no one could say HE was a bad politician whom never negotiated.


But one issue that i agree with the Republicans is that Obamacare will mean more people subsidised by government when government coffers are empty. All that means is more of the national credit card. The notion that government will spend less paying for 50 million people more than when it was without is just laughable. These are the issues at the very core of Tea Partiers and Obama is continually making the mistake of ignoring them because he has the poll numbers. Obama and the Democrates should learn to exercise their majority power to unite the nation than divide it.

this is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the ACA actually is. it represents the government subsidizing insurance vice subsidizing medical care, which is what we have today. the former is significantly cheaper than the latter. our current system is considerably more socialist, and expensive, than what the system will look like after ACA implementation.

you keep on saying "obama and the democrats should unite the nation", as if all they had to do was talk nicely. for that matter, ACA itself IS a compromise to republican/conservative sensibilities-- the democratic wish is for single-payer or at least a public option. and even when ACA was being negotiated the republicans absolutely refused to do a give and take, because they wanted to see it defeated altogether. far from trying to "muzzle" republicans, obama was DESPERATE for republicans to sign on, because he wanted a fig leaf of bipartisanship. several amendments were offered up to address their concerns-- these were pocketed without any republicans actually signing on, which enraged the democratic base.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting/republican-ideas

well, the price for refusing to compromise is that when you lose, you lose big-- and that's exactly what happened.

the simple fact of the matter is that compromise becomes quite difficult when the other side's viewpoint is that "bipartisanship ought to consist of Democrats coming to the Republican point of view," as a certain failed Tea Party senatorial candidate once said.

Minskaya
03 Oct 13,, 09:14
What you have here is a young hard-core faction of the GOP shutting down the US government in order to realize a political agenda... de-funding the ACA. They do not control the White House nor the US Senate. They do not have the legislative votes in Congress nor a legal writ from the Supreme Court to repeal/de-legitimize the ACA. So they decided to hold the US fiscal budget hostage until they get their way. They consider their partisan political goal here to be of greater importance than the functioning of government, the well-being of government employees and their families, and continued economic recovery. Americans should be pissed. You pay your taxes to ensure that government will operate and the United States will pay her bills. Plainly, you are not receiving the government services that you pay for solely due to political avarice and a shocking 'so what' mentality.

Doktor
03 Oct 13,, 11:57
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/03/health/millions-of-poor-are-left-uncovered-by-health-law.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20131003&_r=0

The article in essence says the ACA aka Obamacare wont help those who it is designed for, mainly because Republicans in said states refuse to implement it.

OTOH, the citizens of those states vote Republican. Anyone caring to chip me in why is that?

Triple C
03 Oct 13,, 12:21
Without commenting on the actual benefits of ACA, it would appear to me that a law duly voted into being, survived 35 attempts to repeal, and debated extensively at the presidential election, should be acknowledged as a law. This government shutdown harms U.S. credibility more than any diplomatic flop.

Agnostic Muslim
03 Oct 13,, 13:20
Seriously though, shouldn't members of Congress have the ability to challenge laws that were passed in prior years?
They absolutely should - keep introducing legislation to repeal and/or amend the law in Congress (whether it passes or fails is another matter), but don't tie it to the functioning of the entire government.

Agnostic Muslim
03 Oct 13,, 13:28
Do you forget how Obamacare was frog jumped into legislation by special presidential 'powers'? That effectively shut down any debate and those who didn't agree were left seething. That bubble has now come back to burst.

What 'special presidential powers'?

Captain Worley
03 Oct 13,, 14:18
If they would only pass a budget, instead of continuing resolutions ad infinitum, maybe this wouldn't happen.

Blademaster
03 Oct 13,, 14:22
Zinja, I agree that Obama made a mistake. He should have forced the Congress to agree to a four year budget or raise the debt ceiling to a certain number so that the Tea Party wouldn't pull off this shenigan again when he agreed to the tax cuts demanded by the Republicans.

If I was President, the only way I would allow the tax cuts is to force the Tea Party to give up any threats of shutdown or preventing the debt ceiling from being raised. Otherwise I would lose my leverage. So what I would do is renew the tax cuts every year or every two years, not make it permanent.

Monash
03 Oct 13,, 14:37
Just out of curiosity do Senators and Congressmen/women or their staff on Capital Hill still get to collect their pay cheques now that the shut down has commenced or do they have to work for gratis as well ? (If so it might be the first time they were paid what they are worth! :))

Pedicabby
03 Oct 13,, 17:12
34045

Wooglin
03 Oct 13,, 18:08
President Barack Obama went on a rhetorical offensive against House Republicans on the third day of the federal government shutdown, telling a crowd in Maryland Thursday that there's only one party at fault and one remedy.

"There's only one way out" of this reckless and damaging "Republican shutdown," he said.

"Congress has to pass a budget that funds our government with no partisan strings attached," Obama told workers at M. Luis Construction in Rockville.

There's always only one way, Obama's way. That's part of the reason we're here. It's always his way, or he does an end run around congress. Fuck em... let this drag out for all I care.

Dear President Obama, negotiate doesn’t mean “my way or the highway” (http://www.irishcentral.com/story/news/from-the-right/president-obama-negotiate-doesnt-mean-my-way-or-the-highway-225888801.html)


Usually there is some give and take if there is a genuine willingness between individuals to find an agreement.

As the US careens towards a government shut down there has been no indication from Senate leader Harry Reid, or President Obama, of any willingness to find common ground with the House of Representatives (the people's house) on moving forward with a “Continuing Resolution” to keep the government running.

Even the use of a “Continuing Resolution” in lieu of a regular budget is a failure of executive leadership to find ways to work together.

In the past, it has worked in the Presidents favor to pretend he is an outsider in the process and point his finger at those “anarchist/terrorist” Republicans in the House who just fail to act reasonably….By doing it his way.

The usual suspects in the main stream media are starting with the drumbeat of blaming the Republicans for this latest impasse.

But this time there is a huge elephant in the living room and many folks have started to notice it.

Fresh on the heels of President Obamas eagerness to negotiate with two known terrorist states, Syria and Iran, as well as his high profile acquiescence to Russias President Putin in averting a violent confrontation in the Mideast…Has many questioning why he won’t even sit down and negotiate with fellow Americans of another political party to find a budget solution.

President Obama’s decree that the House of Representatives need to do their job…In other words, sit down, shut up and rubber stamp what President Obama and Harry Reid want.

In the face of the urgency, President Obama spent a leisurely weekend golfing and attending parties. Over the weekend, Harry Reid let the Senate go home and enjoy family time…..The House of Representatives stayed on the job throughout the weekend offering alternatives, trying to find a way to get an agreement.

The main bone of contention has been the implementation of the heavily flawed Obamacare legislation. The bill has so many defects, that President Obama himself has made exceptions, carve outs and delays to many of his supporters….This in itself is an admission the law is not ready to be enacted on the rest of the country. This is also an unlawful way to re write legislation.

But perhaps the most insulting part of the law is that President Obama, Congress political appointees and their staffs are exempted or specially subsidized from it….and that is creating a lot of resentment.

The latest rumored proposal from the House is that they want to delay the individual mandate for Obamacare for one year, just like what President Obama gave to corporations. Additionally, a demand that all political leaders in Washington be subject to Obamacare. All other provisions of the “Continuing Resolution” would be funded.

All indications from Harry Reid and President Obama are that they will accept no changes to their demands and want the budget resolution bill passed intact with Obamacare untouched.

If anything comes out of this, it will magnify the Presidents unwillingness to negotiate with Republicans on almost any level, yet he seems eager to negotiate with terror states and repressive regimes.

It is also high time for the politicians that pass laws for the American people, be subject to those same laws…..America went through a revolution to rid themselves of royal decrees 237 years ago and Obamacare is starting to smell like a royal decree.

astralis
03 Oct 13,, 20:37
Daily chart: Obamacare's hidden parentage | The Economist (http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2013/10/daily-chart-1?fsrc=scn/fb/wl/dc/obamcarehiddenparentage)

Agnostic Muslim
03 Oct 13,, 21:18
There's always only one way, Obama's way. That's part of the reason we're here. It's always his way, or he does an end run around congress. Fuck em... let this drag out for all I care.

Dear President Obama, negotiate doesn’t mean “my way or the highway” (http://www.irishcentral.com/story/news/from-the-right/president-obama-negotiate-doesnt-mean-my-way-or-the-highway-225888801.html)

The democrats made several compromises resulting in the final ACA Law that was actually passed - astralis posted a chart showing Republican policy ideas that made it into the bill, and conservatives could go back a decade or two and see how even the 'private exchange structure' and some other major policies underlining the ACA were proposed by Conservatives/Republicans.

Zinja
03 Oct 13,, 23:11
zinja,
it's certainly no secret that obama is not a wheeler-dealer politician like LBJ or Clinton.

OTOH republican opposition to obama's policies is not so much personality-driven as you claim, but simple electoral politics:

Where the G.O.P.'s Suicide Caucus Lives : The New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/09/meadows-boehner-defund-obamacare-suicide-caucus-geography.html)

at the local level there is little cost to opposing obama and high costs to actually negotiating with him. so obama could be the Second Incarnation of Clinton and still see very limited effects in terms of getting the opposition to negotiate.

after all...clinton had his shutdown, as well, and no one could say HE was a bad politician whom never negotiated.

Astralis, Jim Jordan won by a margin of 20% but came out against the Tea Party agenda. Charlie Dent (won by 20%), Tom Cole (won by 41%), Peter King (won by 44%) and Raul Labrador (won by 10%), just to name a few, all came out against the Tea Party agenda. Except for Raul, these are hard core Republican constituencies but they publicly disagreed with the tea party regardless, your theory has holes.

Secondly I never said this is personality driven. It is ideologically driven. The tea party resent Obama as much as they do Harry Reid, its got nothing to do with the person of the president its his ideology. When the president ordered to ignore Parkistan sovereignty to go after OBL, everyone congratulated him, including republicans (and Dubya even).

Tea partiers hate Obamacare because of the burden it loads on individuals, businesses, and the government. Obama is the one who is personality driven, he just called out white people today on this matter just because he cant get his way. How do you think white Americans feel now being demonised and called out like that by a black man? He stoops so low and resorts to such cheap politics which frankly is not fitting of a president.

I have said this before and I will say this again, personally im not bothered about the burden it brings to individuals because my philosophy is 'if you don't want to pay for your own health then who should?'. Expanding this entitlement when the government does not have the money and run it on a credit card which beneficiaries are not willing to pay back is just insane. Its this selfishness that i can't stand.



this is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the ACA actually is. it represents the government subsidizing insurance vice subsidizing medical care, which is what we have today. the former is significantly cheaper than the latter. our current system is considerably more socialist, and expensive, than what the system will look like after ACA implementation.

At the very best what you have just explained there is 'funging'. You are moving funds from one place to another without addressing the issue for which Obamacare was advertised to achieve ie reduce debt, that to me means this obamacare is nothing but a hoax.

Secondly, to say obamacare will be 'significantly cheaper' is misrepresentation of facts, we don't know that yet, the jury is still out. What is agreed for now is that costs will go down for those who already have insurances and are already sick but will go up for those who are healthy. On the other hand, most definitely and without any doubt, the cost to the government will go up. Insuring 50 million more americans cannot be offset by the alleged reduced premiums that will kick in due to increased competition, anyone who tells you otherwise lives on cuckoo land. Go and ask any economist what will be the total government expenditure on health for the americans under this new deal compared to just the current system of medicare and mediAid and you will see that the cost is pointing where the angels are and with no end in sight. Effectively as far as government debt is concerned this solves nothing, and that to me means the law is not worth the paper its written on.



you keep on saying "obama and the democrats should unite the nation",
The whole of his presidential campaign was about the 'good' middle class and the 'evil' 1% and you know it Astralis, thats pitting americans against each other. Two days ago he just called Americans that don't agree with him 'fat cats', that is not uniting americans. Today he just called out 'white' americans, do you think that is uniting americans? Do you really not see how divisive that is? Can you imagine what atmosphere that creates at a work place work colleagues of different skin colours watching that clip of obama calling out whites like that? Obama is the most divisive president i can ever think of.



for that matter, ACA itself IS a compromise to republican/conservative sensibilities-- the democratic wish is for single-payer or at least a public option. and even when ACA was being negotiated the republicans absolutely refused to do a give and take, because they wanted to see it defeated altogether. far from trying to "muzzle" republicans, obama was DESPERATE for republicans to sign on, because he wanted a fig leaf of bipartisanship. several amendments were offered up to address their concerns-- these were pocketed without any republicans actually signing on, which enraged the democratic base.

Republican Ideas Included in the President's Proposal | The White House (http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting/republican-ideas)

For the record, im all for a single payer system if it means the government offering a service that it can afford without stealing from future generations. Anyone who wants something that is more special than that should pay for themselves or go into debt for themselves, leave the government out of it. I am not fighting a tea party corner here, im arguing my personal convictions that are informed by facts we know, just because some of my views coincide with that of the tea party is just that....coincidence.



the simple fact of the matter is that compromise becomes quite difficult when the other side's viewpoint is that "bipartisanship ought to consist of Democrats coming to the Republican point of view," as a certain failed Tea Party senatorial candidate once said.
Tell me Astralis, what is so difficult about the Federal government joining obamacare (after all its supposed to be 'good' for america) like everyone else and giving individuals a fair treatment that Democrates have afforded companies?

Zinja
03 Oct 13,, 23:15
They do not have the legislative votes in Congress nor a legal writ from the Supreme Court to repeal/de-legitimize the ACA.
Let us be clear here: The supreme court ruled the legality of ACA not its commercial sense. Lets not confuse the two.

Doktor
03 Oct 13,, 23:22
If it is legal, why the fuss now? Let them use their power, rule it out and only then not fund it.

What's next? Someone not funding any law because they don't like it?

Blademaster
03 Oct 13,, 23:44
Let us be clear here: The supreme court ruled the legality of ACA not its commercial sense. Lets not confuse the two.

What kind of logic is that? It doesn't make sense to me.

Zinja
04 Oct 13,, 00:08
If I was President, the only way I would allow the tax cuts is to force the Tea Party to give up any threats of shutdown or preventing the debt ceiling from being raised. Otherwise I would lose my leverage. So what I would do is renew the tax cuts every year or every two years, not make it permanent.
Actually, personally im not all that nuts about tax cuts. While im of the persuasion that tax cuts are better for the economy, they should only be up to enough collectable revenues to cover expenditure expected without resorting to debt. The disconnect that is in modern America now is that people want services for which they don't want to pay for, i have a problem with that. Just trumpeting tax cuts without explaining how you are going to pay for the expenditure that you still want the government to spend on you is just selfish.

Zinja
04 Oct 13,, 00:35
If it is legal, why the fuss now? Let them use their power, rule it out and only then not fund it.
What's next? Someone not funding any law because they don't like it?
Being legal does not equate to implementing it anyway you like. They are not refusing to fund ACA, they are refusing to fund elements of it that they feel are 'not good implementation.' The supreme court ruled on the individual mandate debate not on whether federal employs should be on the ACA or not, or individuals should be given a reprieve or not. These are are implementation issues not legalities of the law itself.

astralis
04 Oct 13,, 00:38
zinja,



Astralis, Jim Jordan won by a margin of 20% but came out against the Tea Party agenda. Charlie Dent (won by 20%), Tom Cole (won by 41%), Peter King (won by 44%) and Raul Labrador (won by 10%), just to name a few, all came out against the Tea Party agenda. Except for Raul, these are hard core Republican constituencies but they publicly disagreed with the tea party regardless, your theory has holes.


certainly there are non-Tea Party republicans in the party. but tell me, how is it that the Tea Party is driving the republican agenda when republican leaders and the establishment are all talking about this shutdown being a stupid, unforced error?

moreover, just because one is against Tea Party tactics doesn't necessarily mean they are FOR negotiation with obama. quite a few republicans hate this current fight not because they don't want to fight, they just think it's a fight they can win.

as for the rest of your post:

let me get this straight.

you're for single-payer healthcare provided "it can afford without stealing from future generations", which is left undefined. you're okay with government providing actual healthcare, yet in the same breath you think the government subsidizing insurance is "selfish".

you think that the individual mandate is fine because everyone should bear personal responsibility. so in effect, you're okay with the Affordable Care Act as long as the government doesn't subsidize low-income folks.

or are you okay with either that subsidy or even healthcare provided that an appropriately large tax is levied to make it deficit-neutral?

seriously, your view on healthcare and the government role is...very confused, to say the least.


Today he just called out 'white' americans, do you think that is uniting americans? Do you really not see how divisive that is?

can you provide me the exact quote?


Tell me Astralis, what is so difficult about the Federal government joining the obamacare (after all its supposed to be 'good' for america) like everyone else and giving individuals a fair treatment that Democrates have afforded companies?

sigh. here's a piece from the CONSERVATIVE national review.

The Obamacare Non-Exemption | National Review Online (http://m.nationalreview.com/article/359742/obamacare-non-exemption-patrick-brennan)

Zinja
04 Oct 13,, 00:40
What kind of logic is that? It doesn't make sense to me.
It is legal for the US government to spend taxes it collects, but it makes no economic sense to use the taxes to buy every american an iPad,a flat screen, and a personal body guard....just in case :).

Zinja
04 Oct 13,, 02:19
zinja,
but tell me, how is it that the Tea Party is driving the republican agenda when republican leaders and the establishment are all talking about this shutdown being a stupid, unforced error?

Because one party is talking from the heart and the other is talking from the head. Conviction can be more potent than intellectual reason.



moreover, just because one is against Tea Party tactics doesn't necessarily mean they are FOR negotiation with obama. quite a few republicans hate this current fight not because they don't want to fight, they just think it's a fight they can win.

You are not willing to give tea partiers any credit at all because your card has already been played. There are doctors, truck drivers, teachers, fire fighters, accountants, lawyers etc, and of cause politicians, who agree with these tea partiers. They cant all have been born of the same mother, they can't all be mad. Try and lend them a bit more of your ear and listen to them more, you will find that they are real people with real concerns. Sanity does not belong to the Democrates only.



seriously, your view on healthcare and the government role is...very confused, to say the least.

You are confused because i don't fit into your stereotypical camp, i will try and explain myself.....



as for the rest of your post:

let me get this straight.

you're for single-payer healthcare provided "it can afford without stealing from future generations", which is left undefined.
What i mean is if a single payer system is what the nation can afford without having to supplement its coffers by borrowing, so be it. It is stealing from future generations when people demand a service that can only be sustained by a perpetual culture of borrowing. Any borrowing made is against future generations when you won't pay it back yourself.



you're okay with government providing actual healthcare, yet in the same breath you think the government subsidizing insurance is "selfish".

Im ok with government providing actual care and subsidising insurance as far as its collectable revenues permit. Im neither for or against the principle of providing actual health or subsidising insurance, im against going into debt to fund something you don't afford with the resources you have, that is what is selfish.



you think that the individual mandate is fine because everyone should bear personal responsibility. so in effect, you're okay with the Affordable Care Act as long as the government doesn't subsidize low-income folks.
No! Im ok with the individual mandate because that is the right thing to do; there is nothing wrong with people paying for themselves, no one is being cheated out of pocket there or using someone's resources. Its good old personal responsibility, why wouldn't anyone want to be responsible for themselves? I do not want the government subsidising anyone with money it does not have, and especially federal employees, house of reps, the president and all his/her lieutenants, who incidentally don't happen to be the 'low income folks' (as it happens that is what Republicans are advocating hence i agree with them on that, its got nothing to do with the person of the president). When you subsidise by borrowing, thus taking resources that would have been used by future generations, how do future generations pay for their own health insurance? They will too have to take from future generations and the national bill keeps rising, you see my point? Im saying this has to stop - period! People should learn to live within their means.



or are you okay with either that subsidy or even healthcare provided that an appropriately large tax is levied to make it deficit-neutral?
If that tax serves to provide for your services of cause by all means. Who do you want to pay for your services if not yourself? Scandinavian countries pay high taxes to live their life styles, same goes. But then again you will have to address the issue 'who in your society should be taxed to provide for these services?', that becomes detail but yes, expenditure MUST be deficit neutral.



can you provide me the exact quote?

I saw it on a news clip, i will look for it for you.


zinja,
sigh. here's a piece from the CONSERVATIVE national review.

The Obamacare Non-Exemption | National Review Online (http://m.nationalreview.com/article/359742/obamacare-non-exemption-patrick-brennan)
Its all gimmicks Astralis, the difference is the same. They get to keep their 75% contribution by employer that noone else on the exchange will be eligible for. This is what the Republicans are on about.

“The following employees are not eligible to purchase a health benefit plan for which OPM contracts or which OPM approves under this subsection, but may purchase health benefit plans, as defined in 5 U.S.C. 8901(6), that are offered by an Exchange, pursuant to §1312(d)(3)(D) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111-148, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, Public Law 111-152 (the Affordable Care Act or the Act).”

This ruling forces Congressional staffers to enroll in an Obamacare exchange, yet at the same time, retain their employer paid benefits and contributions.


Read more at Obamacare: Congress Exempt From Affordable Care Act: Both A Myth And A Fact (http://www.inquisitr.com/978389/obamacare-congress-exempt-from-affordable-care-act-a-myth-or-a-fact/#x2Q5fSiI9apTLYHQ.99)

Blademaster
04 Oct 13,, 02:32
It is legal for the US government to spend taxes it collects, but it makes no economic sense to use the taxes to buy every american an iPad,a flat screen, and a personal body guard....just in case :).

I am sorry but that doesn't make sense because in 50 states, we are required to buy car insurance because it is very foreseeable that we would get into car accidents and would need car insurance to take care of it so hence the creation of the concept of "paying forward" for the day it will happen. Same thing with health insurance. It is very foreseeable that every one of us would need and require medical care and that medical care would be expensive and would not be able to afford it in one go so we need to pay it forward for that one day when we need medical care.

It does not equate with iPad, a flat screen or a personal body guard or for that matter, that reductio absurdum argument that government are forcing people to buy broccoli. When S.C.J. Roberts used that argument and brought it up, I rolled my eyes and pretty much lost respect for Robert's debating style.

If you are going to use the broccoli argument, then I will very well apply to every program that the Tea Party hold dear and reduce their arguments to absurdity.

Zinja
04 Oct 13,, 02:55
I am sorry but that doesn't make sense because in 50 states, we are required to buy car insurance because it is very foreseeable that we would get into car accidents and would need car insurance to take care of it so hence the creation of the concept of "paying forward" for the day it will happen. Same thing with health insurance. It is very foreseeable that every one of us would need and require medical care and that medical care would be expensive and would not be able to afford it in one go so we need to pay it forward for that one day when we need medical care.

It does not equate with iPad, a flat screen or a personal body guard or for that matter, that reductio absurdum argument that government are forcing people to buy broccoli. When S.C.J. Roberts used that argument and brought it up, I rolled my eyes and pretty much lost respect for Robert's debating style.

If you are going to use the broccoli argument, then I will very well apply to every program that the Tea Party hold dear and reduce their arguments to absurdity.when you rolled your eyes over Robert's argument I too rolled my eyes with you, Republicans were just being crazy there.

What Robert was arguing was whether Americans can be forced/made to buy health insurance, which is princely what was taken up the Supreme Court. The court ruled 'Yes' Americans can be made to purchase health insurance only, the law in that demand was not unconstitutional. Other issues were left out, eg states can opt not to take up Obamacare.

The Republicans are no longer arguing the constitutionality of forcing Americans to take up health care, they are arguing whether Reps and federal employees should retain the 75% perks, whether companies only should be given a one year reprieve and not individuals. These are different issues to what was addressed by the SC. These are issues of implementation of the law not the right of the law to exist, two very different issues.

DOR
04 Oct 13,, 03:49
Doktor,


I am not for what the Reps are doing, but they clearly see it as their last resort. If Obama was a leader, he would have never been in this position, nor would have put them to feel this way.

Can you imagine FDR or Reagan in this position?

How many times was the Federal Government shut down under Reagan? I can’t remember if it was six or eight . . .


Obama will be the first President to lose two notches of credit rating. And I am scared to even think what would happen if this non-sense lasts for 3 to 6 months.

Why in the world would you associate the deliberate damaging of the US economy by the GOP-Tea Party coalition, twice, with the Obama presidency? These idiots would have done the same to Al Gore, John Kerry or anyone else from the Democratic Party.

= = = = =

antimony,


Reagan had Tip O'Neil. Obama has Boehner, who has no control over his lot. You need a worthy opponent to work with. Obama is not without faults, but Boehner is less than useless.

Amen.

= = = = =

Status Quo,


What Obama is good at: killing terrorists, public speaking, and law
What Obama sucks at: being competent as a "leader," and pretty much everything else that is pertinent for being a president of the US.

Seriously, what has Obama achieved - health care...? Even Bush had Iraq, Afghanistan, Patriot Act, enhanced interrogation techniques, and No Child Left Behind.

LMAO ! One’s good at killing terrorists, and the other’s a terrorist; one speaks well and the other stifles free speech; and one knows and respects the law and the other violated it with impunity.

= = = = =

Zinja,

What “special presidential powers” stop the House and / or Senate from doing whatever they want to do, other than the veto?

You were asked before, and didn't answer. Please elaborate, or retract.

Minskaya
04 Oct 13,, 08:54
It is legal for the US government to spend taxes it collects, but it makes no economic sense to use the taxes to buy every american an iPad,a flat screen, and a personal body guard....just in case :).
The Supreme Court is composed of jurists who rule on legality issues per the Constitution. Tertiary issues such as overall economic merits/demerits is not within their legal purview unless it impinges on the Constitution.

Doktor
04 Oct 13,, 09:36
Doktor,How many times was the Federal Government shut down under Reagan? I can’t remember if it was six or eight . . .
Five. No one noticed.

Parihaka
04 Oct 13,, 10:36
Doktor,



How many times was the Federal Government shut down under Reagan? I can’t remember if it was six or eight . . .


Wait! Gasp! You mean the government has been shut down before? By no lesser party than the Democrats? So they are as 'crazy' and 'demented' as the Tea Party? Gasp! Who would have thought?

Doktor
04 Oct 13,, 10:49
Wait! Gasp! You mean the government has been shut down before? By no lesser party than the Democrats? So they are as 'crazy' and 'demented' as the Tea Party? Gasp! Who would have thought?

30 years ago both sides had more sense.

Parihaka
04 Oct 13,, 11:16
30 years ago both sides had more sense.

Did they? Both sides seems like teams scoring points, then and now. Supporters, flags, pie and a beer at half time. The only difference between then and now seems to be the current administration wants the rest of the world to take it seriously.

DOR
04 Oct 13,, 11:40
The only difference between then and now seems to be the current administration wants the rest of the world to take it seriously.

So . . . Reagan & Co didn't want to be taken seriously? Well, that would explain a few things, like supply side fiscal fiascos and Star Wars Missle Defense!

Doktor
04 Oct 13,, 13:16
Did they? Both sides seems like teams scoring points, then and now. Supporters, flags, pie and a beer at half time. The only difference between then and now seems to be the current administration wants the rest of the world to take it seriously.

Look at the duration of shutdowns.

Captain Worley
04 Oct 13,, 14:21
30 years ago both sides had more sense.

No, they had no more sense then than they do now.

They also had no internet and 24/7 news channels.

Doktor
04 Oct 13,, 14:32
No, they had no more sense then than they do now.

They also had no internet and 24/7 news channels.

They had radios.

Are you saying that because the information was traveling slower they were able to reach consensus more quickly?

desertswo
04 Oct 13,, 15:39
They had radios.

Are you saying that because the information was traveling slower they were able to reach consensus more quickly?

Actually, it is more complex than just speed. It's more to do with news sources. For instance, I don't watch US television news AT ALL. Too many agendas that go beyond just telling one what is going on. I watch the BBC and I read British newspapers. I find it rather peculiar that I can find out much more about what is going on in my country in one of the British tabloids, regardless of political leanings, than I can from the New York Times or the Washington Post. The media in this country is a joke; period.

Agnostic Muslim
04 Oct 13,, 16:25
An interesting piece trying to explore the views and emotions behind Tea Party intransigence:

Why Republicans Shut Down the Government
By Francis Wilkinson Oct 4, 2013 8:35 AM ET

If you want to understand why the government is shut down or why elected Republicans would even consider doing something as reckless as using a debt default to extract policy concessions from the White House -- without necessarily even knowing which policy concessions they want -- Stan Greenberg has a memo for you.

Greenberg has been a prominent Democratic pollster for decades, with a specialty in white working-class distrust of Democratic elites. In addition to his own polling firm, he operates Democracy Corps with former Democratic consultant James Carville. (Both men worked for former President Bill Clinton.)

Democracy Corps issued a report this week on six focus groups conducted with Republican subgroups -- two each with Tea Partiers, evangelicals and moderate Republicans. The results somehow manage to be unsurprising and shocking at the same time -- largely due to the bracing effects of reading the real words of (almost) average Americans.

First, a word on focus groups. Unlike a poll, which asks a series of standardized questions to hundreds of people and then tallies the results, a focus group is more like a conversation. Usually 10 or 12 people are chosen because they meet certain demographic and partisan profiles and invited to a conference room. A professional moderator is charged with keeping the conversation flowing in a productive (for the researchers) direction, and a sense of safety is established among participants.

Safety is largely a function of sameness. If you want to know what black working-class men think about Mitt Romney, for example, don't throw three white professionals with briefcases into the mix. Instead, surround like with like. Groups that are homogenous in terms of race and class tend to produce far more uninhibited responses.

That's what Greenberg did -- putting together separate homogenous groups of white Tea Partiers, white evangelicals and white Republican moderates.

The moderates are in some respects a breed apart. They share the antipathy Tea Partiers and evangelicals have toward President Barack Obama, but lack the other groups' default position amid demographic, political and cultural change.

That default is essentially abject terror. Before discussion began, participants were asked to write down private thoughts about Obama that they wouldn't have to share with the others. Here's a sample:

"Socialist, income redistribution"
(Tea Party man, Raleigh)

"What is he really thinking?"
(Tea Party man, Raleigh)

"Background"
(Tea Party man, Raleigh)

"Lack of relationship with the American people."
(Tea Party man, Raleigh)

"Muslim; birth agenda; Fake; not true"
(Tea Party man, Raleigh)

"Not a US citizen. Supports Terrorists."
(Evangelical man, Roanoke)

"I don’t believe he’s a Christian. He’s a tyrant."
(Evangelical man, Roanoke)

"He wants to fundamentally change the country."
(Evangelical man, Roanoke)

"He is going to try to turn this into a communist country."
(Evangelical woman, Colorado Springs)

"His motives behind his actions."
(Evangelical woman, Colorado Springs)

"He supports everything that is against Christianity."
(Evangelical woman, Colorado Springs)

It's worth noting these were not the words of activists dressed in colonial garb on their way to a Capitol Hill protest. All these participants did was get paid to attend a focus group in or around their home towns.

For them, Greenberg notes, Washington looks nothing like the capital many others see. Gridlock? There is no gridlock. Only a socialist steamroller before which the Republican Party is feeble and afraid. "Evangelicals who feel most threatened by trends embrace the Tea Party because they are the ones who are fighting back," the report states. Republican base voters "think they face a victorious Democratic Party that is intent on expanding government to increase dependency and therefore electoral support."

This is the context of the fight against Obamacare. The basic idea -- similarly articulated by some Republican officeholders, including Texas Senator Ted Cruz -- is that Obama has extended a new entitlement to create a class of lazy, poor voters whose well-being is dependent upon the Democratic Party. Shorthand: more 47 percenters.

"Their party is losing to a Democratic Party of big government whose goal is to expand programs that mainly benefit minorities," the report states.

The Republican moderates were staunch fiscal conservatives, but most readily embraced new gender relations and minority empowerment, including gay rights. The Tea Partiers and evangelicals spoke as if they were in the midst of War of the Worlds. As the report characterizes the Tea-Party worldview: "Obama's America is an unmitigated evil based on big government, regulations and dependency."

It's a tough situation to rectify. A lot of Americans were not ready for a mixed-race president. They weren't ready for gay marriage. They weren't ready for the wave of legal and illegal immigration that redefined American demographics over the past two or three decades, bringing in lots of nonwhites. They weren't ready -- who was? -- for the brutal effects of globalization on working- and middle-class Americans or the devastating fallout from the financial crisis.

Their representatives didn't stop Obamacare. And their side didn't "take back America" in 2012 as Fox News and conservative radio personalities led them to believe they would. They feel the culture is running away from them (and they're mostly right). They lack the power to control their own government. But they still have just enough to shut it down.

Why Republicans Shut Down the Government - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-04/why-republicans-shut-down-the-government.html)

Status Quo
04 Oct 13,, 18:15
Actually, it is more complex than just speed. It's more to do with news sources. For instance, I don't watch US television news AT ALL. Too many agendas that go beyond just telling one what is going on. I watch the BBC and I read British newspapers. I find it rather peculiar that I can find out much more about what is going on in my country in one of the British tabloids, regardless of political leanings, than I can from the New York Times or the Washington Post. The media in this country is a joke; period.

I don't want to derail this thread too far, but how is NYT and WP a joke? They seem to be pretty good papers (well, at least the NYT; never read the WP).That said, I do agree that a majority of the media in the US is absolutely terrible.

desertswo
04 Oct 13,, 19:02
I don't want to derail this thread too far, but how is NYT and WP a joke? They seem to be pretty good papers (well, at least the NYT; never read the WP).That said, I do agree that a majority of the media in the US is absolutely terrible.

All media, the world over, is agenda driven. For a country that espouses freedom of the press, we do a piss poor job of delivering. There are no true honest brokers of information among the major newspapers and television outlets in this country. Whether CNN on the left or Fox on the right, an editorial agenda . . . I was going to say "creeps" but it's too obvious for that . . . into what ought to be straight reportage. Those same things occur in the British press, and one knows that going in. The reason that I read them though is that they will at least report on events in this country that American media studiously ignores because it doesn't back their agenda. If the American media were honest, they would find equal fault with both sides in this mess, but to hear them tell it, it's those evil Tea Partiers, Evangelicals, etc., etc., etc., but never Barry O or Harry Reid. I've never known any perfect human being in my nearly 60 years, have you? Least of all me. I just would like some real, honest, reporting of facts. Then get the fuck out of the way and let me form my opinions. I can think for myself; I don't need the editorial staff at NBC to do it for me.

astralis
04 Oct 13,, 19:13
desertstwo,


f the American media were honest, they would find equal fault with both sides in this mess, but to hear them tell it, it's those evil Tea Partiers, Evangelicals, etc., etc., etc., but never Barry O or Harry Reid.

frankly it sounds like you're more interested in media that confirms your way of thinking vice the other way around. "no one is perfect but they're blaming only one side this time, so they must be biased."

Status Quo
04 Oct 13,, 19:28
Editorials and Op-Ed's are always going to be bias, and especially from the news organizations that you named above. ABS, CBS ,CNN, FOX, MSNBC, etc are alway terrible ways in obtaining information, and don't even get me started on the television... But, how does that make the NYT bad (and I am not talking about Editorials and Op-Ed's, merely the news)? Editorials, Op-eds, and OP's are not news.

desertswo
04 Oct 13,, 21:28
Editorials and Op-Ed's are always going to be bias, and especially from the news organizations that you named above. ABS, CBS ,CNN, FOX, MSNBC, etc are alway terrible ways in obtaining information, and don't even get me started on the television... But, how does that make the NYT bad (and I am not talking about Editorials and Op-Ed's, merely the news)? Editorials, Op-eds, and OP's are not news.

What part of, ". . . an editorial agenda . . . I was going to say "creeps" but it's too obvious for that . . . into what ought to be straight reportage . . ." did we not understand? Let me restate it; editorializing is fine . . . on the editorial page. However, it doesn't stay on that page; it is finding it's way into the reporting of events, and that should never happen. Report it, and then if the publisher or editor wants to hold forth on the proper page, have at it. But that doesn't happen. If you don't think things have changed in the last 50 years with regard to that occurrence, you are living in a fool's paradise.

Parihaka
04 Oct 13,, 21:38
So . . . Reagan & Co didn't want to be taken seriously? Well, that would explain a few things, like supply side fiscal fiascos and Star Wars Missle Defense!

Oh everyone wants to be taken seriously DOR, even you.

The 'issue' of govt. shutdown is being played far more by your spin doctors this time round. We're all going to die apparently unless the Tea Party is eviscerated. Why Legarde herself said so, though the markets don't seem to be of the same mind.

Parihaka
04 Oct 13,, 21:41
Look at the duration of shutdowns.

Yep, three days so far. Woe is me. Are you predicting a protracted session? I find legislators find compromise when their toilets aren't cleaned so maybe another 2 days or less?

Status Quo
04 Oct 13,, 21:41
What part of, ". . . an editorial agenda . . . I was going to say "creeps" but it's too obvious for that . . . into what ought to be straight reportage . . ." did we not understand? Let me restate it; editorializing is fine . . . on the editorial page. However, it doesn't stay on that page; it is finding it's way into the reporting of events, and that should never happen. Report it, and then if the publisher or editor wants to hold forth on the proper page, have at it. But that doesn't happen. If you don't think things have changed in the last 50 years with regard to that occurrence, you are living in a fool's paradise.

Ah gotcha; misunderstanding. I do not doubt that editorializing occurs (else where than the editorial page), but isn't that is why NYT is considered a good paper-because this happens less frequently, than in comparison to most other news outlets?

desertswo
04 Oct 13,, 21:43
Ah gotcha; misunderstanding. I do not doubt that editorializing occurs (else where than the editorial page), but isn't that is why NYT is considered a good paper-because this happens less frequently, than in comparison to most other news outlets?

That has not been my experience.

Parihaka
04 Oct 13,, 22:03
Forbes begins to get it, though they're not their yet


President Obama must continue to refuse to negotiate policy while the government is shut down. If he does not hold firm on this principle, these mindless and grossly inefficient closures threaten to become the new normal. Real shutdowns—and not just vague threats of closures– could well become a standard part of the annual budget process.

President Barack Obama speaks on the government shutdown and the budget and debt ceiling debates in Congress during a visit to M. Luis Construction in Rockville, Maryland, October 3. (Image credit: AFP/Getty Images via @daylife)

President Obama must continue to refuse to negotiate policy while the government is shut down. If he does not hold firm on this principle, these mindless and grossly inefficient closures threaten to become the new normal. Real shutdowns—and not just vague threats of closures– could well become a standard part of the annual budget process.

And it may not end there. If shutdowns become routine, attention-seeking lawmakers (are there any other kind?) will only escalate their threats. Breaching the debt limit then becomes the next target of opportunity. In just two weeks, we may be there as well.

This is not an argument for retaining the Affordable Care Act or any of its provisions—the issue ostensibly behind the current stalemate. It is an argument for not slipping into ever-more paralyzing fiscal gridlock. In this case, the process matters far more than the immediate policy controversy.

Already much of Washington and Wall Street has become dangerously blasé about the current shutdown. Oh, a few days or a week—no big deal. If it goes longer than that, they insist, then we’ll worry.

This is an exceedingly dangerous view that ignores the reality that every parent learns the hard way: Unchecked bad behavior begets worse behavior.

Just take a look at what’s happened to the Senate in recent years. Once, filibusters were rare exceptions. Now, they are constant. Nearly every bill, no matter how trivial, requires 60 votes for passage in a body that historically required a mere majority.

Similarly, presidential nominations are now routinely blocked for reasons only occasionally having to do with the qualifications of the nominee. Lawmakers have learned that they can take a nominee hostage in order to send an ideological message or convince an administration to change a regulation.

As a result, behavior that was once rare has become as routine as the Senate’s daily prayer.

The same thing has happened with the budget process. Over the past four decades, various efforts to manage the deficit eventually failed in the same way: Each included special rules aimed at waiving their spending limits in the event of an emergency. But lawmakers soon learned they could use these exceptions whenever they wanted. They got addicted, the waivers became the legislative norm, and efforts to control spending withered.

I fear the same is about to happen with government shutdowns. Once those who would use the shutdown as a useful legislative lever succeed, it will become a tool of choice. True, it couldn’t be used in every circumstance, but there would be enough opportunities to make it the next filibuster.

Obama deserves as much blame for this turn of events as the tea party Republicans. It was the president who, in the summer of 2011 willingly used a similar artificial crisis to try to win a grand fiscal bargain with the congressional GOP. His effort was a miserable failure, but it taught lawmakers that fiscal hostage-taking works.

Late last year, Washington repeated the same exercise—again bringing the government to the brink of a shutdown and threatening a breach of the nation’s debt limit.

So it should have been a surprise to no one that headline-seeking lawmakers used a similar set of circumstances to once again manipulate the political system to their advantage. But this time, the mere threat of a shutdown wasn’t enough. This time, they had to go the next step and padlock the doors (some of them, anyway).

If the president cracks under the pressure, lawmakers of both parties will learn a simple lesson: You get what you want by forcing a government shutdown. It will happen again and again. And most of us will come to regret it.

astralis
05 Oct 13,, 01:50
Obama deserves as much blame for this turn of events as the tea party Republicans. It was the president who, in the summer of 2011 willingly used a similar artificial crisis to try to win a grand fiscal bargain with the congressional GOP. His effort was a miserable failure, but it taught lawmakers that fiscal hostage-taking works.

Late last year, Washington repeated the same exercise—again bringing the government to the brink of a shutdown and threatening a breach of the nation’s debt limit.

it was obama's fault in 2011 that a clean CR wasn't passed during the last debt-limit crisis?

or was it obama's fault that he ended up kowtowing and agreeing to a series of deficit reduction measures in order to get the debt ceiling raised?

i agree the second was poor politics. once you agree to negotiate with hostage-takers, you shouldn't be surprised when the hostage-takers strike again. but again, let's not forget whom was doing the hostage-taking.

lest one forgets, Mitch McConnell himself said at the time:

"I think some of our members may have thought the default issue was a hostage you might take a chance at shooting. Most of us didn't think that. What we did learn is this – it's a hostage that's worth ransoming. And it focuses the Congress on something that must be done."

and somehow obama gets the blame. okay.

Parihaka
05 Oct 13,, 02:35
and somehow obama gets the blame. okay.
Start thinking about it less in terms of 'your team' and more in terms of an outside observer. I admit it can be dangerous: I was nearly strung up in the office during the Americas cup for suggesting just because someone paints New Zealand on the side of a boat doesn't mean it represents New Zealand. As I said before


....Both sides seems like teams scoring points, then and now. Supporters, flags, pie and a beer at half time. The only difference between then and now seems to be the current administration wants the rest of the world to take it seriously.

Parihaka
05 Oct 13,, 03:00
Ok, firstly I freely admit I'm channeling the ghosts of WAB past here, also I admit it is full of the usual paritisan (pick a side) purple prose but I'm posting it because

1: at its core there's a kernel of truth
and
2: It mentions New Zealand



SNIP

Meanwhile, Republicans offered a bill to prevent the shutdown (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/360429/shutdown-simulacrum-mark-steyn?fb_action_ids=10202128517836770&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%7B%2210202128517836770%22%3A435 497163228157%7D&action_type_map=%7B%2210202128517836770%22%3A%22og .likes%22%7D&action_ref_map=%5B%5D) affecting experimental cancer trials for children. The Democrats rejected it. “But if you can help one child who has cancer,” CNN’s Dana Bash asked Harry Reid, “why wouldn’t you do it?”

“Why would we want to do that?” replied the Senate majority leader, denouncing Miss Bash’s question as “irresponsible.” For Democrats, the budget is all or nothing. Republican bills to fund this or that individual program have to be rejected out of hand as an affront to the apparent constitutional inviolability of the “continuing resolution.” In fact, government by “continuing resolution” is a sleazy racket: The legislative branch is supposed to legislate. Instead, they’re presented with a yea-or-nay vote on a single all-or-nothing multi-trillion-dollar band-aid stitched together behind closed doors to hold the federal leviathan together while it belches its way through to the next budget cycle. As Professor Angelo Codevilla of Boston University put it, “This turns democracy into a choice between tyranny and anarchy.” It’s certainly a perversion of responsible government: Congress has less say over specific federal expenditures than the citizens of my New Hampshire backwater do at Town Meeting over the budget for a new fence at the town dump. Pace Senator Reid, Republican proposals to allocate spending through targeted, mere multi-billion-dollar appropriations are not only not “irresponsible” but, in fact, a vast improvement over the “continuing resolution”: To modify Lord Acton, power corrupts, but continuing power corrupts continually.

America has no budget process. That’s why it’s the brokest nation in history. So a budgeting process that can’t control the budget in a legislature that can’t legislate leads to a government shutdown that shuts down open areas of grassland and the unmanned boat launch on the Bighorn River in Montana. Up next: the debt-ceiling showdown, in which we argue over everything except the debt. The conventional wisdom of the U.S. media is that Republicans are being grossly irresponsible not just to wave through another couple trillion or so on Washington’s overdraft facility. Really? Other countries are actually reducing debt: New Zealand, for example, has a real budget that diminishes net debt from 26 percent of GDP to 17 percent by 2020. By comparison, America’s net debt is currently about 88 percent, and we’re debating only whether to increase it automatically or with a few ineffectual strings attached.

JAD_333
05 Oct 13,, 03:06
I was nearly strung up in the office during the Americas cup for suggesting just because someone paints New Zealand on the side of a boat doesn't mean it represents New Zealand.

And well you should have been.:)

JAD_333
05 Oct 13,, 05:03
Forbes begins to get it, though they're not there yet

The article was written by Howard Gleckman, a frequent contributor to Forbes' commentary blog. He works for the Urban Institute, a liberal think tank established in 1968 as an outgrowth of an advisory committee formed by Lyndon Johnson. He does not represent Forbes' editorial policy.

Pari, I point this out because one could easily assume that Forbes, a respected, leading business publication endorses the writer's views. To Forbes' credit it's simply being objective in giving space to a liberal think tanker.

As for the article, it's correct in observing that there is a new normal in American politics, in which once rare measures for defeating or holding up legislation have become commonplace, such as routine filibusters and adding budget cuts to critical legislation like raising the debt ceiling.

IMO, by implication he, like a lot of other liberal commentators, condemns the Tea Party's use of Congressional rules designed to confer limited powers on the minority. I wonder if he would defend the practice if the shoe was on the other foot.

tankie
05 Oct 13,, 16:19
10.000 dollar bet refused by politician :whome:

'Cut the Crap!': Hannity Takes on Democrat Bill Pascrell Over ObamaCare 'Perks' for Congress | Fox News Insider (http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/10/04/cut-crap-hannity-takes-democrat-bill-pascrell-over-obamacare-perks-congress)

dave lukins
05 Oct 13,, 21:18
A tad of good news perhaps "Most of the 400,000 US defence department staff sent home amid the US government shutdown have been told to return to work next week. Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel said the decision was based on an interpretation of the Pay Our Military Act. A budget row between Republicans and Democrats has forced the closure of federal services for five days now. But the sides have now voted to approve back-pay for the 800,000 federal workers sent home without salaries. In a rare moment of bipartisan co-operation, the House of Representatives approved by 407-0 a bill to pay the federal workers once the shutdown ends".

JAD_333
06 Oct 13,, 03:42
10.000 dollar bet refused by politician :whome:

'Cut the Crap!': Hannity Takes on Democrat Bill Pascrell Over ObamaCare 'Perks' for Congress | Fox News Insider (http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/10/04/cut-crap-hannity-takes-democrat-bill-pascrell-over-obamacare-perks-congress)

A load of bull from a highly paid flamer.

No ‘Special Subsidy’ for Congress (http://www.factcheck.org/2013/08/no-special-subsidy-for-congress/)

tankie
06 Oct 13,, 11:06
Glad you enjoyed it Jad , thing is he refused the bet , and yup , 2 sides to every coin ;)

I must admit he is very good the way he gets his words across ,I was impressed with the way he dealt with that arsewipe hypocrite choudary from the UK , we want sharia law shite .

astralis
06 Oct 13,, 15:38
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/opinion/sunday/governing-by-blackmail.html

Governing by Blackmail

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: October 5, 2013

SUPPOSE President Obama announced:

Unless Republicans agree to my proposal for gun control, I will use my authority as commander in chief to scuttle one aircraft carrier a week in the bottom of the ocean.

I invite Republican leaders to come to the White House and negotiate a deal to preserve our military strength. I hope Republicans will work with me to prevent the loss of our carrier fleet.

If the Republicans refuse to negotiate, I will be compelled to begin by scuttling the U.S.S. George Washington in the Pacific Ocean’s Mariana Trench, with 80 aircraft on board.

In that situation, we would all agree that Obama had gone nuts. Whatever his beefs with Republicans, it would be an inexcusable betrayal to try to get his way by destroying our national assets. That would be an abuse of power and the worst kind of blackmail.

And in that kind of situation, I would hope that we as journalists wouldn’t describe the resulting furor as a “political impasse” or “partisan gridlock.” I hope that we wouldn’t settle for quoting politicians on each side as blaming the other. It would be appropriate to point out the obvious: Our president had tumbled over the edge and was endangering the nation.

Today, we have a similar situation, except that it’s a band of extremist House Republicans who are deliberately sabotaging America’s economy and damaging our national security — all in hopes of gaining leverage on unrelated issues.

The shutdown of government by House Republicans has already cost at least $1.2 billion, with the tab increasing by $300 million a day. Some estimates are much higher than that.

The 1995 and 1996 shutdowns cost the country $2.1 billion at today’s value, and the current one is also likely to end up costing billions — a cost imposed on every citizen by House Republicans, even as members of Congress pay themselves.

The government shutdown and risk of default also undermine America’s strength around the world. It’s not just that 72 percent of the intelligence community’s civilian work force has been furloughed. It’s not simply that “the jeopardy to the safety and security of this country will increase” daily, according to James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence.

Nor is it just that the White House telephone number is now answered with a recording that says to call back when government is functioning again. It’s not simply that several countries have issued travel advisories about visiting America. It’s not just that we’re mocked worldwide, with the French newspaper Le Monde writing: “Jefferson, wake up! They’ve gone crazy!”

Rather, it’s that America’s strength and influence derive in part from the success of our political and economic model. When House Republicans shut our government down and leave us teetering on the abyss of default, we are a diminished nation. We have less influence. We have less raw power, as surely as if we had fewer aircraft carriers.

Some Americans think that this crisis reflects typical partisan squabbling. No. Democrats and Republicans have always disagreed, sometimes ferociously, about what economic policy is best, but, in the past, it was not normal for either to sabotage the economy as a negotiating tactic.

In a household, husbands and wives disagree passionately about high-stakes issues like how to raise children. But normal people do not announce that if their spouse does not give in, they will break all the windows in the house.

Hard-line House Republicans seem to think that their ability to inflict pain on 800,000 federal workers by furloughing them without pay gives them bargaining chips. The hard-liners apparently believe that their negotiating position is strengthened when they demonstrate that they can wreck American governance.

The stakes rise as we approach the debt limit and the risk of default — which the Treasury Department notes could have an impact like that of the 2008 financial crisis and “has the potential to be catastrophic.” Astonishingly, Republican hard-liners see that potential catastrophe as a source of bargaining power in a game of extortion: We don’t want anything to happen to this fine American economy as we approach the debt limit, so you’d better meet our demands.

In this situation, it strikes a false note for us as journalists to cover the crisis simply by quoting each side as blaming the other. That’s a false equivalency.

The last time House Republicans played politics with this debt limit, in 2011, Standard & Poor’s downgraded America’s credit rating. In the long run, that may mean higher debt payments and higher taxes.

My opening example of a president scuttling naval ships was ludicrous. No one would do that. But if we default because of extremist House Republicans, the cost could be much greater to our economy and to our national security than the loss of a few aircraft carriers.

Tamara
06 Oct 13,, 16:04
You know, when I went to grade school, one of the checks and balances of the system I was told was that though a President may say something to be done, Congress could always refuse to fund it.

Minskaya
06 Oct 13,, 18:30
You know, when I went to grade school, one of the checks and balances of the system I was told was that though a President may say something to be done, Congress could always refuse to fund it.
It was simply an analogy of political extortion. Students also learned that Congress has the obligation of budgeting our Federal tax dollars to fund the government and pay debts. That is not what is currently occurring.

tuna
06 Oct 13,, 19:00
Editorials and Op-Ed's are always going to be bias, and especially from the news organizations that you named above. ABS, CBS ,CNN, FOX, MSNBC, etc are alway terrible ways in obtaining information, and don't even get me started on the television...

Sorry to jump into this late - but the biggest problem is that none of these are lying, they're just reporting on the highlights that their audiences want to see, kind of preaching to the choir.

One of the problems I see is that people now have vast amounts of information literally at their fingertips, and don't look for facts, but just want to be spoonfed info bytes. I see this with my new troops, who think they make an effort at being diverse by reading both MSNBC and FOX (and listening to BOTH kinds of music). Since we focus on foreign news at work, I try to get my new troops to see the point of "who cares what someone in New York thinks about Syria?" They can't believe the number of news sites that are available (freaking kids).

That's one of the things I like about this site, is that not only do we have "professionals" (sorry but this IS the internet, DesertTwo could be a retired naval officer as he says - and I don't doubt him, but he could also be an ugly Icelandic hooker with a computer and a lot of free time) but it offers valid links to news sites around the world.

You'll always get a bias in news reporting, but sometimes it is just as telling the type of bias you're getting from the different sources. Kind of like going to a different denomination church to see what they say about God. For the most part, they're all looking at the same God, but through a different set of lenses.

Wooglin
06 Oct 13,, 19:07
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/opinion/sunday/governing-by-blackmail.html

Governing by Blackmail

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: October 5, 2013

What utter crap.

Apparently, you and the author were born yesterday.


WASHINGTON — Surrounded by 37 Democratic senators on the steps of the Capitol, Democratic Leader Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada threatened Tuesday to shut down the Senate over the issue of filibusters of President Bush’s judicial nominations. Reid would exempt from his shut-down only national defense matters and spending needed to ensure ongoing federal operations.

Right after the Senate returns from its two-week break, which begins Friday, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is likely to move to change a Senate rule that requires 60 votes to cut off debate on a nomination in order to bring it to final up-or-down vote.

Frist would lower the filibuster threshold for nominations to 51.

Reid called on Americans to “oppose this arrogant abuse of power” and accused Bush and his Republican allies in the Senate of trying to “break down the separation of powers and ram through their appointees to the judicial branch.”

He charged Bush and Frist with harboring a “desire for absolute power.”

'Cataclysmic event'
“If Republicans want to go down this road, they are going to be beginning a huge, partisan, cataclysmic event, the implications of which are so profound that none of us really know the answer to it,” said Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., one of the Democrats arrayed behind Reid on the Capitol steps. “It would mean the government could not function, which, more importantly, means we could not be doing the people’s work.”

Since beginning the filibuster strategy in March 2003, the Democratic minority in the Senate has killed 10 of Bush’s nominations to the federal appeals courts by threatening to keep talking on the floor until they were withdrawn.

Reid threatens partial Senate shutdown - politics - Tom Curry | NBC News (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/7193614/ns/politics-tom_curry/t/reid-threatens-partial-senate-shutdown/#.UlF_PlPN7Bo)



Reid warns shutdown is possible
By Bob Cusack - 09/20/11 02:59 PM ET

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) warned Tuesday there is a chance that the government could shutter by the end of this month.



Criticizing House Republicans for the disaster relief provisions in their budget bill, Reid told reporters, "We're not going to cave on this."



Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Tuesday confidently predicted the two sides will come together by Thursday night: "There will not be a government shutdown."

Reid, however, said, "I'm not that sure" there won't be a shutdown. He added, "I am not as certain as McConnell."



Reid warns shutdown is possible - The Hill - covering Congress, Politics, Political Campaigns and Capitol Hill | TheHill.com (http://thehill.com/homenews/news/182679-reid-government-shutdown-is-possible)





Nine Democratic female senators held a news conference Friday to slam Republicans for their insistence that funding for Planned Parenthood be stripped from a stopgap spending bill to keep the government running.

“These cuts are biased, politically motivated, they hurt women, and we the women in the Senate will not let it happen,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat. “What’s at stake isn’t the amount of cuts, it’s the ability of American women — poor American women — to get health care service.”

Added fellow California Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer: “To think that this government could shut down because there’s a group of people over in the House — Republicans — who are so extreme that they would stop women’s health programs is extraordinary.”

“We are determined to draw a line in the sand,” Mrs. Boxer added. “There are moments when you must do that, and this is one of those moments.”



Democratic female senators irate over GOP plan to defund Planned Parenthood - Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2011/apr/8/senate-dem-women-irate-over-gop-plan-defund-planne/)

As if blackmail and threats to "hold the nation hostage" is something invented by today's republicans... get a clue.

Here's a history lesson for you:

Government shutdown in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_shutdown_in_the_United_States)

There's been 18 shutdowns since 1976. We're averaging a shutdown every 2 years. Budget impasses are nothing new. 5 of those shutdowns occurred while dems had both majorities and the the White House. I'm sure you'll tell us how that must have been an extremist right wing conspiracy!

astralis
06 Oct 13,, 21:39
wooglin,

do try to make your case without resorting to personal attack.

====

re: your examples of reid.

yes, irresponsible to threaten, to begin with. but did reid or the dems actually carry out the threat? moreover, what was the original threat that caused reid to make state such?-- changing the filibuster threshold, which everyone acknowledges to be an extraordinary procedural step (note that this is a step i happened to agree with both now and at the time).

threatening a partial shutdown of the senate over an extraordinary step is qualitatively different than threatening, and going through, with a shutdown of the government over settled law.

for that matter, did reid or the dems threaten to default on the US debt?-- a much more serious issue.

as for the rest:

Here is every previous government shutdown, why they happened and how they ended (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/25/here-is-every-previous-government-shutdown-why-they-happened-and-how-they-ended/)


It's also important to note that not all shutdowns are created equal. Before some 1980 and 1981 opinions issued by then-Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti, a failure to fund some part of the government didn't necessarily mean that that part of government would stop functioning. Civiletti's opinions interpreted the Antideficiency Act, a law passed in 1884, as meaning that a failure to pass new spending bills required government functioning to shut down in whole or in part. So the "shutdowns" listed below that happened between 1976 tand 1979 did not always entail an actual stop to government functioning; they were often simply funding gaps that didn't have any real-world effect.

and of course, i'd like to note that this just covered the "5 of those shutdowns occurred while dems had both majorities and the the White House" part, without necessitating me having to use an "extremist right wing conspiracy" theory.

what's going on right now is no conspiracy. the Tea Party proudly proclaims what it's doing. let's be clear-- this current impasse is NOT a war between the republicans and the dems, but the result of a civil war between the extremist Republicans and their pragmatic (not necessarily moderate) colleagues.

in any case, let's think about what you just tried to argue. taking this sentence here:


As if blackmail and threats to "hold the nation hostage" is something invented by today's republicans... get a clue.

and setting aside all of my arguments to the contrary, are you saying that the current blackmail...or whatever word you'd like to use...is acceptable now simply because it was threatened in the past?

JAD_333
06 Oct 13,, 22:18
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/opinion/sunday/governing-by-blackmail.html

Governing by Blackmail

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: October 5, 2013

SUPPOSE President Obama announced:

Unless Republicans agree to my proposal for gun control, I will use my authority as commander in chief to scuttle one aircraft carrier a week in the bottom of the ocean.

I invite Republican leaders to come to the White House and negotiate a deal to preserve our military strength. I hope Republicans will work with me to prevent the loss of our carrier fleet.

If the Republicans refuse to negotiate, I will be compelled to begin by scuttling the U.S.S. George Washington in the Pacific Ocean’s Mariana Trench, with 80 aircraft on board.

I know you consider that example as ludicrous, but also the analogy is wrong. If the president were to start scuttling ships, he would be violating his oath to protect the US from its enemies. Every ship scuttled would diminish our security. Anyway, he'd find himself impeached in a heart beat.

The House GOP are working within the rules of the Congress. It's not blackmail any more than dozens of other political fights in the past where one side got another to modify its desires, or to compromise, as we say in polite company, by bringing legal power to bear. If there is a culprit here, it's the rules. But so long as they exist, you shouldn't blame one side for using them. You'd do it too, if it served your purpose.

JAD_333
06 Oct 13,, 22:44
...threatening a partial shutdown of the senate over an extraordinary step is qualitatively different than threatening, and going through, with a shutdown of the government over settled law.

Asty:

I see no difference in the process each side used. What you're saying is that the process shouldn't be used if it leads to a government shutdown. It's not like the dems were lying helplessly on their backs when the shutdown loomed. It takes two to tango; in this case, two intransigent sides "agreed" to a shutdown.

astralis
06 Oct 13,, 23:01
JAD,


But so long as they exist, you shouldn't blame one side for using them. You'd do it too, if it served your purpose.

this is where i disagree. there's plenty of things that COULD be done that ought not to be done; the inherently conservative, "that's just not cricket, old boy" principle. this is one of the reasons why Newt Gingrich is known as a revolutionary, and not in a good way.

a government shutdown for partisan gain is of course a violation of this principle, let alone threatening to default on the debt.

as i said earlier, think if the Tea Party caucus actually wins-- can you imagine their response to any President, Republican or Democrat, if a law is passed that they simply do not like? for that matter, what if the Dems start using this as a political tool?


It's not like the dems were lying helplessly on their backs when the shutdown loomed. It takes two to tango; in this case, two intransigent sides "agreed" to a shutdown.

i used an earlier metaphor above. a man puts a gun to your mother and demands a $10 million ransom. not coming up with such a sum, the man shoots her.

"well, it takes two to tango; you could have agreed to pay up, so the fault is partially yours."

this isn't a negotiation by any means, unless republicans decide to state that keeping the government open/not defaulting on debt are merely Democratic and not national priorities. now that i think about it, seems to me that's exactly what the Tea Party caucus is stating. the rest of the GOP minus a certain john boehner seems to disagree, thank god.

thus the current conundrum.

desertswo
07 Oct 13,, 01:29
That's one of the things I like about this site, is that not only do we have "professionals" (sorry but this IS the internet, DesertTwo could be a retired naval officer as he says - and I don't doubt him, but he could also be an ugly Icelandic hooker with a computer and a lot of free time) but it offers valid links to news sites around the world.


I could be, but I'm not. And one more time for possible penetration; my handle is "desertswo." I was a Surface Warfare Officer and I live in the desert these days. There is no "two" in there anywhere. It's really not a difficult concept to grasp.

Oh, and I'll show you mine if you show me yours (http://navylog.navymemorial.org/NavyLog/LogView/tabid/127/Default.aspx?&navy_log_id=132784).

InExile
07 Oct 13,, 01:36
If the president were to start scuttling ships, he would be violating his oath to protect the US from its enemies. Every ship scuttled would diminish our security.

Defaulting on the debt could wreck the economy and probably diminish security much more than the scuttling a few ships would. Yet, there are some who consider it a legitimate negotiating tool.

DOR
07 Oct 13,, 03:29
I am grateful to Wooglin for providing the Wikipedia link to the article about past government shut-downs. But, the reasons why are not covered in the number of cases.


1976 (10 days) – Democrats object to President Ford’s veto of funding for Dept of Labor and Health, Education and Welfare. The shut-down ended with a veto over-ride.
1977 (12 days) – Senate confronted House’s ban on use of Medicaid dollars to pay for abortions except when the mother’s life is at stake, wanting to add cases of rape or incest. A temporary agreement allowed time to resolve the issue.
1977 (8 days) – The previous agreement expired. President Carter signed a second agreement to allow more time for discussion.
1977 (8 days) – Second extension expired. House continues to reject Medicaid funding for abortions for victims of statutory rape. House caves in on all related points.
1978 (18 days) – President Carter vetoes spending bills. Medicaid/abortion issue back.
1979 (11 days) – House vs. Senate over 5.5% pay hike for congress and senior civil servants (if anyone’s interested, the inflation rate in the previous 12 months was 10.8%). Abortion, once again.
1981 (2 days) – Democratically controlled House objects to President Reagan’s Senate-approved (GOP Senate) $8.4 billion spending cut, demanding greater spending cuts. Reagan vetoed the bill and the two houses came to an agreement.
1982 (1 day) – Congress passed the spending bill a day late.
1982 (3 days) – Democratic House and GOP Senate passed a bill to fund job programs, vetoed by President Reagan. Reagan traded away MX and Pershing II missile funding to kill the jobs bill.
1983 (3 days) – Democratic House refused more money for defense, less for education and oil & gas drilling in federal wildlife refuges.
1984 (2 days) – GOP Senate tied budget approval to an anti-Title IX civil rights measure.
1984 (1 day) – Stop-gap measure for previous shut-down expired. GOP Senate backed down in exchange for funding Nicaraguan Contras.
1986 (1 day) – Wide range of issues, including sale of Conrail SOE.
1987 (1 day) – Democratic House and Senate opposed funding Contras.
1990 (5 days) – President Bush vetoed a continuing resolution unless there were more spending cuts. President won.
1995 (5 days) – President Clinton vetoed GOP House and Senate continuing resolution. Deal struck for 7-year timetable to balance the budget.
1995-96 (21 days) Dispute over economic forecasts used to draft 7-year budget. President won.
2013 . . .

tbm3fan
07 Oct 13,, 07:10
Did not Boehner say today two different things. One we need to have a conversation and then we need concessions on three things to go along with a spending bill. One of the three being the ACA which they have yet to stop despite 3 years of trying. Boehner says a clean budget bill will not pass the House unless he gets those concessions.

Hmm? We have 200 Democrats and 232 Republicans and need 217 to pass. Why is he afraid to bring the clean bill to the floor and see what happens? Does he really think all 232 Republicans will vote no? Or, is he afraid 17 will go their own way and the bill will pass? Hell there are 5 seconds left for one play and you need to go 30 yards for a TD. Time for a Hail Mary and take your shot. Nothing to lose or is there in his case?

Tamara
07 Oct 13,, 07:42
Did not Boehner say today two different things. One we need to have a conversation and then we need concessions on three things to go along with a spending bill. One of the three being the ACA which they have yet to stop despite 3 years of trying. Boehner says a clean budget bill will not pass the House unless he gets those concessions.

Hmm? We have 200 Democrats and 232 Republicans and need 217 to pass. Why is he afraid to bring the clean bill to the floor and see what happens? Does he really think all 232 Republicans will vote no? Or, is he afraid 17 will go their own way and the bill will pass? Hell there are 5 seconds left for one play and you need to go 30 yards for a TD. Time for a Hail Mary and take your shot. Nothing to lose or is there in his case?

Not being one for football, I do not understand the analogy.

In any event, these are huge stakes and there is always something to lose.

Finally, as far as ACA goes, I hope they keep on fighting it; after all, it really didn't come into being "fair and square".

tankie
07 Oct 13,, 14:03
Shame you yanks aint got one of what we have , GSTQ :)

Government shutdown: Some global perspective - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57605664/government-shutdown-some-global-perspective/)

Agnostic Muslim
07 Oct 13,, 16:38
Fox news is taking the Faux News taunts a wee bit too seriously perhaps :biggrin:

...
Fox & Friends Saturday criticized President Obama for offering to personally pay for a "museum of Muslim culture" during the government shutdown, a claim that originated from a satire website.

On October 5, the co-hosts of Fox & Friends Saturday discussed the closure of the World War II Memorial, which resulted from the Republican-led shutdown. During the discussion, co-host Anna Kooiman claimed that while the memorial is closed, "President Obama has offered to pay out of his own pocket for the museum of Muslim culture."

KOOIMAN: The Republican National Committee is offering to pay for it to keep it open so that the veterans from Honor Flight are going to be able to go and see this because who did it honor? It honored them. It really doesn't seem fair, especially -- and we're going to talk a little bit later in the show too about some things that are continuing to be funded. And President Obama has offered to pay out of his own pocket for the museum of Muslim culture out of his own pocket, yet it's the Republican National Committee who's paying for this.

Unfortunately for Kooiman, the claim that Obama offered to pay out of pocket for a "museum of Muslim culture" originated from the satirical website the National Report. As the fact-checking site Snopes.com points out, a now-removed disclaimer on the National Report noted: "National Report is a news and political satire web publication, which may or may not use real names, often in semi-real or mostly fictitious ways. All news articles contained within National Report are fiction, and presumably fake news."
...

Fox Falls For Fake Story About Obama Personally Funding Muslim Museum During Shutdown | Blog | Media Matters for America (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/10/05/fox-falls-for-fake-story-about-obama-personally/196304)

Blademaster
07 Oct 13,, 18:49
Finally, as far as ACA goes, I hope they keep on fighting it; after all, it really didn't come into being "fair and square".

What are you smoking? It did come in fair and square. It was passed by both bodies of the Congress and signed on by the President after a year of debate in which the Republicans refused to engage of their own accord at first and demanded certain things changed and complained about certain things. The Republicans delayed and demanded compromises in which the President did and yet refused to vote upon it. After the President had enough compromises and delays, he put it down before Congress and Congress mostly voted along party lines and it won by a majority. And after years of constitutional challenges, it passed muster. So how it wasn't passed "fair and square"?

If you think it wasn't passed fair and square because the Republicans were not involved, well you can blame the Republicans for that because they refused to debate on it and just vote no to any form of health care legislation.

snapper
07 Oct 13,, 19:37
Is it not perhaps slightly misleading to call it a 'Government shut down' when in fact around 1/10 of federal employees are layed off and no government contractors etc?

bonehead
08 Oct 13,, 04:04
Is it not perhaps slightly misleading to call it a 'Government shut down' when in fact around 1/10 of federal employees are layed off and no government contractors etc?

Just another manufactured crisis. A big dog and pony show if you will. We all know Obamacare is a done deal and is going to happen. We also know the budget is going to get bigger again. One side wants to be able to say they did their best with what they had while the other side wanted to show some fortitude as well. Both sides will feign indignance, anger, frustration, swear they at they are serious, this is not a game etc...then they will hammer something out, and will all be friends again on some golf course/tanning salon. Then the public is supposed to be relieved the "crisis" is over...for now. It is the American people who are going to get bent over and stuffed with the big pickle. However as long as they are stupid to vote democrat or republican this is what we deserve.

JAD_333
08 Oct 13,, 04:52
What are you smoking? It did come in fair and square. It was passed by both bodies of the Congress and signed on by the President after a year of debate in which the Republicans refused to engage of their own accord at first and demanded certain things changed and complained about certain things. The Republicans delayed and demanded compromises in which the President did and yet refused to vote upon it. After the President had enough compromises and delays, he put it down before Congress and Congress mostly voted along party lines and it won by a majority. And after years of constitutional challenges, it passed muster. So how it wasn't passed "fair and square"?

If you think it wasn't passed fair and square because the Republicans were not involved, well you can blame the Republicans for that because they refused to debate on it and just vote no to any form of health care legislation.

You're right. The ACA was passed fair and square by a Democratic-controlled Congress and some Republicans were able to get things included, and Obama did bow in the direction of exchanges instead of direct pay believing the GOP would be more amenable to a market-based plan. But then came the mid-term elections and the GOP swept into power in the House, including a bevy of Tea Party candidates who campaigned against the ACA. Then polls began to show public discontent with the ACA.

Your premise is that what has been passed cannot be reversed or modified. In fact, Congress can undo any law or appropriation it passes, anytime it wishes. Maybe it's not fair to hold out hope for so many uninsured people and then take it away. But the new guard believes, rightly or wrongly, that the ultimate good is served by doing away with the ACA as it stands today. I don't agree or disagree. To me, the ACA is a 2,700 page maze, that I can't begin to assess in terms of what it will do to the country's fiscal health. I listen to the Tea Party members of Congress to try to see what they see off in the distance. I listen to the dems to see what they see. In my mind, the jury is still out. There's good and bad in the ACA. Whether on balance there is more bad than good, I don't know yet, and I don't think anyone in political office and no partisan commentator knows anymore than what they want to believe.

JAD_333
08 Oct 13,, 04:58
Is it not perhaps slightly misleading to call it a 'Government shut down' when in fact around 1/10 of federal employees are layed off and no government contractors etc?

No. It's billed as a 'partial' shutdown by more precise reporters. The employees still on furlough may be few compared to those still on the job. But many of them are critical, e.g, those who generate economic statistics. And if the shutdown lasts much longer, more people will be furloughed, as entities, such as the Supreme Court, run out of money to pay employees.

DOR
08 Oct 13,, 05:51
You're right. The ACA was passed fair and square by a Democratic-controlled Congress and some Republicans were able to get things included, and Obama did bow in the direction of exchanges instead of direct pay believing the GOP would be more amenable to a market-based plan. But then came the mid-term elections and the GOP swept into power in the House, including a bevy of Tea Party candidates who campaigned against the ACA. Then polls began to show public discontent with the ACA.

Your premise is that what has been passed cannot be reversed or modified. In fact, Congress can undo any law or appropriation it passes, anytime it wishes. Maybe it's not fair to hold out hope for so many uninsured people and then take it away. But the new guard believes, rightly or wrongly, that the ultimate good is served by doing away with the ACA as it stands today. I don't agree or disagree. To me, the ACA is a 2,700 page maze, that I can't begin to assess in terms of what it will do to the country's fiscal health. I listen to the Tea Party members of Congress to try to see what they see off in the distance. I listen to the dems to see what they see. In my mind, the jury is still out. There's good and bad in the ACA. Whether on balance there is more bad than good, I don't know yet, and I don't think anyone in political office and no partisan commentator knows anymore than what they want to believe.

Are you saying that opinion polls should be grounds for shutting down the government and threatening to once again degrade America's credit rating, even though voters didn't support enough candidates to actually overturn the law?

And, since when did the 2010 Mid-term election trump the 2012 General election? Why not call the 2012 results a mandate, endorsing the President and his policies?

snapper
08 Oct 13,, 06:10
No. It's billed as a 'partial' shutdown by more precise reporters. The employees still on furlough may be few compared to those still on the job. But many of them are critical, e.g, those who generate economic statistics. And if the shutdown lasts much longer, more people will be furloughed, as entities, such as the Supreme Court, run out of money to pay employees.

What you mean the deceptive and sometimes blatant lies of statistics that the sham of a apologist Government subsidiary branches spout every month... the make believe fable stories will end? Will reality ensue? Oh what nightmares and dreadful thoughts infect you!


And, since when did the 2010 Mid-term election trump the 2012 General election? Why not call the 2012 results a mandate, endorsing the President and his policies?

Since they resulted as they did. Perhaps people actually do have real concerns as the opinion polls show? Is that not possible and should, presuming that is possible, should their concerns not be represented by the people they elected?

JAD_333
08 Oct 13,, 06:13
Are you saying that opinion polls should be grounds for shutting down the government and threatening to once again degrade America's credit rating, even though voters didn't support enough candidates to actually overturn the law?

No. Don't be silly. You know very well I am not saying that. If you'd stop and think, you'd see that what I was saying is that the Congress that passes the ACA is not the Congress we have today, and there is nothing particularly unusual in a later Congress overturning a law passed by an earlier Congress. You might not like your pet law being emasculated, but when your change comes to emasculate some law you don't like, what will you say to your critics? I know what you'll say: It's better for the country. Well...


And, since when did the 2010 Mid-term election trump the 2012 General election? Why not call the 2012 results a mandate, endorsing the President and his policies?

It did and it can and that's life in a democracy.

JAD_333
08 Oct 13,, 06:18
What you mean the deceptive and sometimes blatant lies of statistics that the sham of a apologist Government subsidiary branches spout every month... the make believe fable stories will end? Will reality ensue? Oh what nightmares and dreadful thoughts infect you!

Send in a translator. There must be a pony somewhere in that pile of horsesh*t. :)

Blademaster
08 Oct 13,, 06:20
You're right. The ACA was passed fair and square by a Democratic-controlled Congress and some Republicans were able to get things included, and Obama did bow in the direction of exchanges instead of direct pay believing the GOP would be more amenable to a market-based plan. But then came the mid-term elections and the GOP swept into power in the House, including a bevy of Tea Party candidates who campaigned against the ACA. Then polls began to show public discontent with the ACA.

Your premise is that what has been passed cannot be reversed or modified. In fact, Congress can undo any law or appropriation it passes, anytime it wishes. Maybe it's not fair to hold out hope for so many uninsured people and then take it away. But the new guard believes, rightly or wrongly, that the ultimate good is served by doing away with the ACA as it stands today. I don't agree or disagree. To me, the ACA is a 2,700 page maze, that I can't begin to assess in terms of what it will do to the country's fiscal health. I listen to the Tea Party members of Congress to try to see what they see off in the distance. I listen to the dems to see what they see. In my mind, the jury is still out. There's good and bad in the ACA. Whether on balance there is more bad than good, I don't know yet, and I don't think anyone in political office and no partisan commentator knows anymore than what they want to believe.

There is one thing missing from your premise. The Republicans did not win the Senate, a key ingredient in reversing ACA so the Republicans can't exactly say that they have the support of the people. Also came along 2012 where Obama won the presidency even though Romney promised to end ACA as the centerpiece of Romney's campaign and the Republicans lost several seats. in which several Tea Party members lost seats and the Democracts gained crucial seats in the Senate so it is not exactly a ringing endorsement of the Tea Party platform and the "public discontent" against ACA.

JAD_333
08 Oct 13,, 06:54
There is one thing missing from your premise. The Republicans did not win the Senate, a key ingredient in reversing ACA so the Republicans can't exactly say that they have the support of the people. Also came along 2012 where Obama won the presidency even though Romney promised to end ACA as the centerpiece of Romney's campaign and the Republicans lost several seats. in which several Tea Party members lost seats and the Democracts gained crucial seats in the Senate so it is not exactly a ringing endorsement of the Tea Party platform and the "public discontent" against ACA.

Although you are right that the GOP only controls the House, by the same token the Dems only control the Senate. I could argue civics with you. Senators, with 6 year-terms, are or were considered to be representative of state bodies, whereas House members were supposed to reflect the will of the people which is why they were given short, 2-year terms.

I acknowledge that Romney lost and a few seats in the Senate changed hands. But it was not an overwhelming repudiation. The House remained in the hands of the GOP and the Senate did not become filibuster proof. But, the more salient reality is that the House has the power of the purse. As you know, all tax and spending bills originate in the house.

So, all the rhetoric condemning the House GOP members for trying to emasculate the ACA, all the cries of unfairness and all the indignation heaped on the Tea Party, won't change the simple reality that the House has the power to pass legislation to overturn other laws and/or defund them. The Senate can vote them down, but can't make the House desist in its efforts. So, from a procedural point of view you cannot say the House is acting undemocratically. Unfairly? Maybe. But fairness is a separate matter.

antimony
08 Oct 13,, 16:46
So, all the rhetoric condemning the House GOP members for trying to emasculate the ACA, all the cries of unfairness and all the indignation heaped on the Tea Party, won't change the simple reality that the House has the power to pass legislation to overturn other laws and/or defund them. The Senate can vote them down, but can't make the House desist in its efforts. So, from a procedural point of view you cannot say the House is acting undemocratically. Unfairly? Maybe. But fairness is a separate matter.

Since the House controls the purse strings and the President is the humble executioner of their laws, the President should go on a full scale awareness campaign. If the country goes down the drainpipe, there is no reason why this should not be highlighted. Hey, its the law of the land
Then there is no reason why the President

astralis
08 Oct 13,, 18:51
JAD,


But it was not an overwhelming repudiation.

would have been, if not for the serious use of the horribly corrupting power of gerrymandering. that's the only reason why the GOP kept the House.


So, from a procedural point of view you cannot say the House is acting undemocratically. Unfairly? Maybe. But fairness is a separate matter.

again, it gets into the "it just isn't done" principle. the worst thing is that this type of action, once done, dramatically increases the chance of like actions being done by either side in the future.

for instance, obama may very well seek to defuse the entire debt limit issue by exploiting the US platinum coin loophole.

perfectly "democratic" use of his powers...

JAD_333
08 Oct 13,, 20:13
JAD,



would have been, if not for the serious use of the horribly corrupting power of gerrymandering. that's the only reason why the GOP kept the House.

The only reason? Gerrymandering still cannot account for all the voters in a state. Look at how high the margins were for Romney in the states he won and where most of the Tea Party candidates hailed from. The liberals seems to be in denial or off in a cloudy mist. Fact is, a very large segment of the population genuinely doesn't like the way the liberal progressives want the country to go, and that segment is digging in its heels. And it will grow if the Federal government continues to increase its intrusion into the lives of Americans. So, gerrymandering is only a small part of the picture.




again, it gets into the "it just isn't done" principle. the worst thing is that this type of action, once done, dramatically increases the chance of like actions being done by either side in the future.


That a fine principle for cocktail parties and polite conversation. In politics, the precedent was set long age: do what works.



for instance, obama may very well seek to defuse the entire debt limit issue by exploiting the US platinum coin loophole.

perfectly "democratic" use of his powers...

So be it.

Blademaster
08 Oct 13,, 20:41
The only reason? Gerrymandering still cannot account for all the voters in a state. Look at how high the margins were for Romney in the states he won and where most of the Tea Party candidates hailed from. The liberals seems to be in denial or off in a cloudy mist. Fact is, a very large segment of the population genuinely doesn't like the way the liberal progressives want the country to go, and that segment is digging in its heels. And it will grow if the Federal government continues to increase its intrusion into the lives of Americans. So, gerrymandering is only a small part of the picture.


The states that Romney won were states with low population counts. If you check the gerrymandering maps of the districts that the Republicans won you will see that the size and shape of the districts bear no logical resemblance to geographical areas. They have purposefully divided areas that are full of democrat supporters and merged those areas with high Republican strongholds so the voting power of the democrat base would be seriously diluted without weakening the Republican strongholds. When the tea Party took power in 2010, they and the rest of the Republicans redrew the maps to make sure that they would hold onto those seats for 2012. It is very telling that despite the redrawing of the map, that the Republicans lost several seats and several Tea Party members lost their seats despite redrawing the map to their advantage. It goes to show that the Republicans don't really have the support as they think they do. Only the gerrymandering allowed them to retain their seats. If it wasn't for the gerrymandering, the Democrats would have retaken the House with a majority.




So be it.

And there lies in the problem. The Democrats are willing to compromise but the Republicans refused. See how the democrats compromised for the ACA but the Republicans refused and decided to remain stubborn and pigheaded. They refuse to come to common ground for fear of alienating the Tea Party whose ideology is zero compromise.

JAD_333
08 Oct 13,, 21:24
The states that Romney won were states with low population counts. If you check the gerrymandering maps of the districts that the Republicans won you will see that the size and shape of the districts bear no logical resemblance to geographical areas. They have purposefully divided areas that are full of democrat supporters and merged those areas with high Republican strongholds so the voting power of the democrat base would be seriously diluted without weakening the Republican strongholds. When the tea Party took power in 2010, they and the rest of the Republicans redrew the maps to make sure that they would hold onto those seats for 2012. It is very telling that despite the redrawing of the map, that the Republicans lost several seats and several Tea Party members lost their seats despite redrawing the map to their advantage. It goes to show that the Republicans don't really have the support as they think they do. Only the gerrymandering allowed them to retain their seats.

Every congressional district in the country has roughly the same population. No amount of gerrymandering will cut out every voter of a given party in any state.


If it wasn't for the gerrymandering, the Democrats would have retaken the House with a majority.


Gerrymandering does go on. The overall effect, however, does not create significant shifts in Congress. The real shift happened within the Republican party, where Republicans in safe seats were challenged by Tea Party members parading as Republicans.



And there lies in the problem. The Democrats are willing to compromise but the Republicans refused. See how the democrats compromised for the ACA but the Republicans refused and decided to remain stubborn and pigheaded. They refuse to come to common ground for fear of alienating the Tea Party whose ideology is zero compromise.

The opposition inherent in the the Tea Party runs very deep. Its goal nothing less than cutting the size of government. That tells you all you need to know to predict what they'll do. They'll starve the beast of money, knock off departments--whatever it takes. They will not get all of what they want before they fade from the scene Fringe elements rarely do. But they will get some of what they want, if history repeats itself. A large segment of the population spawned them, and now exerts a powerful centrifugal force on politics, pulling it to the right, moving its center to a new place. But the big picture gets fuzzy when we're engaged in the political battles of the day. It helps to keep a eye on the context as well as its parts.

I said 'so be it' to the idea of Obama issuing a platinum coin to pay the debt.

Blademaster
08 Oct 13,, 21:37
Every congressional district in the country has roughly the same population. No amount of gerrymandering will cut out every voter of a given party in any state.


You are not getting my point. What I am saying is that as opposed to having 5 districts where 2 are Republicans and 2 are democrats and 1 is independent, the Republicans redraw the map where it becomes 3 Republican districts and 1 independent and one democrats or 4 Republican and one democrats or possibly 5 Republicans. The way it works is that the maps gets redrawn where the Democratic base gets diluted by being divided into other districts where Republicans are in majority and would remain Republican despite the addition of Democratic voters. The loss of the Republican voters would go into the independent district or a slim Democratic district where the extra Republicans make up the difference to tide over to a Republican district. Do you see where I am going with this?

So my point remains valid that if it wasn't for the gerrymandering, the Republicans would have lost more seats and lose control of the House consequently.

JAD_333
08 Oct 13,, 22:07
You are not getting my point. What I am saying is that as opposed to having 5 districts where 2 are Republicans and 2 are democrats and 1 is independent, the Republicans redraw the map where it becomes 3 Republican districts and 1 independent and one democrats or 4 Republican and one democrats or possibly 5 Republicans. The way it works is that the maps gets redrawn where the Democratic base gets diluted by being divided into other districts where Republicans are in majority and would remain Republican despite the addition of Democratic voters. The loss of the Republican voters would go into the independent district or a slim Democratic district where the extra Republicans make up the difference to tide over to a Republican district. Do you see where I am going with this?

So my point remains valid that if it wasn't for the gerrymandering, the Republicans would have lost more seats and lose control of the House consequently.

I understand your point, and you are not entirely wrong. I disagree, however, that gerrymandering prevented the dems from getting control of Congress in the last election. To gerrymander in the first place, you have to have considerable clout in the state legislature and among the electorate. The GOP was destined to win most of seats in the states where Romney did well. Districts might be gerrymandered, but state borders don't change.

astralis
08 Oct 13,, 22:16
JAD,


The only reason? Gerrymandering still cannot account for all the voters in a state. Look at how high the margins were for Romney in the states he won and where most of the Tea Party candidates hailed from. The liberals seems to be in denial or off in a cloudy mist. Fact is, a very large segment of the population genuinely doesn't like the way the liberal progressives want the country to go, and that segment is digging in its heels. And it will grow if the Federal government continues to increase its intrusion into the lives of Americans. So, gerrymandering is only a small part of the picture.



hey, if you don't believe me, how about the Republican State Leadership Committee report? emphasis/bolding mine. right from their top of the page summary:

http://www.rslc.com/redmap_2012_summary_report


How a Strategy of Targeting State Legislative Races in 2010
Led to a Republican U.S. House Majority in 2013

On November 6, 2012, Barack Obama was reelected President of the United States by nearly a three-point margin, winning 332 electoral votes to Mitt Romney’s 206 while garnering nearly 3.5 million more votes. Democrats also celebrated victories in 69 percent of U.S. Senate elections, winning 23 of 33 contests. Farther down-ballot, aggregated numbers show voters pulled the lever for Republicans only 49 percent of the time in congressional races, suggesting that 2012 could have been a repeat of 2008, when voters gave control of the White House and both chambers of Congress to Democrats.

But, as we see today, that was not the case. Instead, Republicans enjoy a 33-seat margin in the U.S. House seated yesterday in the 113th Congress, having endured Democratic successes atop the ticket and over one million more votes cast for Democratic House candidates than Republicans. The only analogous election in recent political history in which this aberration has taken place was immediately after reapportionment in 1972, when Democrats held a 50 seat majority in the U.S. House of Representatives while losing the presidency and the popular congressional vote by 2.6 million votes.

...

However, all components of a successful congressional race, including recruitment, message development and resource allocation, rest on the congressional district lines, and this was an area where Republicans had an unquestioned advantage. Today, nearly two months after Election Day, and one day after the 113th United States Congress took the Oath of Office on Capitol Hill, the Republican State Leadership Committee (RSLC) is releasing this review of its strategy and execution of its efforts in the 2010 election cycle to erect a Republican firewall through the redistricting process that paved the way to Republicans retaining a U.S. House majority in 2012.

====


That a fine principle for cocktail parties and polite conversation. In politics, the precedent was set long age: do what works.



no, not quite. that principle also works for long-term strategy: one reason, for instance, why reid is so nervous about pulling the plug on the filibuster. throwing out the old understandings, -especially- without hard rules to replace them, means a free-for-all where no one is certain about the long-term repercussions.

this used to be enough to keep both parties in relative line. the Tea Party caucus, however, has little understanding nor cares about these old understandings /long-term strategy.


So be it.

i for one am extremely uncomfortable with this devolution. regular budgeting devolving into CRs devolving into raise-the-stakes shutdown followed by debt limit crises followed by gimmicky loophole finding. this is how a republic dies, as distrust of public institutions goes haywire.

JAD_333
08 Oct 13,, 23:09
Asty:

49% was enough. The dems didn't get 51% as one might think. Independents and write-in's siphoned off votes.

Take a look at House races nationwide (http://www.politico.com/2012-election/map/#/House/2012/). In some states the margin of victory in adjoining districts was a blow-out in favor of GOP candidates. Did gerrymandering matter in those races?

DOR
09 Oct 13,, 03:16
Every congressional district in the country has roughly the same population. No amount of gerrymandering will cut out every voter of a given party in any state.

The range from least to most people represented by a single congressional representative is about double, from 525,000 in each of Rhode Island’s two districts to one million in Montana’s At Large district.

More important, the Supremes ruled in 2006 that states can rewrite district boundaries at will, so long as they don’t disenfranchise ethnical minorities. And, if gerrymandering weren’t a big deal, why would California and a handful of other states decided to take it out of politicians’ hands?

astralis
09 Oct 13,, 03:24
there's been a lot of statistical analyses done on the effect of gerrymandering on the 2012 elections. in the absence of gerrymandering, at the very minimum the House race would have been significantly closer.

here's sam wang's analysis-- his statistical predictions were on par with nate silver's during the 2012 election.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/opinion/sunday/the-great-gerrymander-of-2012.html

anyhow, this is getting a bit into the weeds. i am actually quite curious as to how you feel about the current situation, and of the Tea Party. there's not many of the old school conservatives left, so i'd be curious to hear how you interpret the situation-- do you believe there's a civil war going on in the party, and if so, which side are you on? :)

gunnut
09 Oct 13,, 05:42
I still don't feel the effects of the shut down.

And why do we have so many "non-essential" government workers? Why hire them if they aren't needed?

Officer of Engineers
09 Oct 13,, 06:19
I still don't feel the effects of the shut down.

And why do we have so many "non-essential" government workers? Why hire them if they aren't needed?Red herring. You don't feel the effect of a SSBN off the coast of China either.

gunnut
09 Oct 13,, 06:26
Red herring. You don't feel the effect of a SSBN off the coast of China either.

Is the SSBN "essential?"

Officer of Engineers
09 Oct 13,, 06:57
Why are you asking me? I'm Canadian.

Monash
09 Oct 13,, 08:44
Canada, isn't that one of the northern States? :biggrin:

Parihaka
09 Oct 13,, 12:03
I still don't feel the effects of the shut down.
Have no fear or rather be afraid, BAD things are happening in the higher plains. Reporters are angsting, politicians are knashing, and penguins are flying north. Before long sea levels will rise, polar bears will die out, the Sahara will turn into a desert, Al Gore will put on weight and Russian nukes will explode at the start of the new millennium when their internal clocks tick past 99 years. Oh wait, sorry, wrong thread.

snapper
09 Oct 13,, 13:13
34084

astralis
09 Oct 13,, 14:32
a stupid case of political showboating then-- the debt limit was going to pass anyway. now the republicans are deadly serious, and half of them don't even believe defaulting will have negative effects.

Wooglin
09 Oct 13,, 15:21
34084

Obama used to be an extremist republican? Oh my!

JAD_333
09 Oct 13,, 16:58
The range from least to most people represented by a single congressional representative is about double, from 525,000 in each of Rhode Island’s two districts to one million in Montana’s At Large district.

More important, the Supremes ruled in 2006 that states can rewrite district boundaries at will, so long as they don’t disenfranchise ethnical minorities. And, if gerrymandering weren’t a big deal, why would California and a handful of other states decided to take it out of politicians’ hands?

What is it about the word 'roughly' you don't get?

I never defended gerrymandering. I have always had a low opinion of if it even when it was being done to help minorities get representation.

The issue of whether gerrymandering preserved the GOP control of the house in the last election certainly generates a lot of theories, but no conclusive proof exists that it gave control to the GOP. We have two facts: The GOP won control of the House and red states gerrymandered districts. That's all.

JAD_333
09 Oct 13,, 18:08
i am actually quite curious as to how you feel about the current situation, and of the Tea Party. there's not many of the old school conservatives left, so i'd be curious to hear how you interpret the situation-- do you believe there's a civil war going on in the party, and if so, which side are you on? :)

Asty:

Overall I see the political pendulum swinging rightward after a decades-long leftward swing. The swing started some time ago; exactly when I can't pinpoint. It didn't start with the Tea Party, and probably the Tea Party wouldn't be in a position of influence today had not the rightward swing already begun and gained momentum. Rather it's existence affirms the gaining momentum of the swing. The essential fact to remember is that politics does little to influence the direction of the public mood, despite what people think. I would argue the opposite. The pubic feels the affects of politics through government actions and over time reacts to the direction of government. This country is over-programmed and I suspect people are feeling it more and more, and they don't particularly like it. That mood gains strength as time goes on. Like the stock market, it leads to a correction in politics and hence governance. The left may scoff at this because its bullish power continues to this day, but if we chart that power on a graph, we may see it gradually diminishing over time. The message to politicians on left and the right: move in the direction of the public mood or be moved aside by the electorate.

DOR
10 Oct 13,, 05:12
Republican views of American federal debt:

“I have no doubt that every man who has property in the public funds will feel safer when he sees that the national debt is withdrawn from the power of a Congress to repudiate it and placed under the guardianship of the Constitution than he would feel if it were left at loose ends and subject to the varying majorities which may arise in Congress.”

Senator Benjamin Wade (R-OH), May 23, 1866

Another Republican voice,

“By virtue of the power to borrow money ‘on the credit of the United States,’ the Congress is authorized to pledge that credit as an assurance of payment as stipulated, as the highest assurance the government can give, its plighted faith. To say that the Congress may withdraw or ignore that pledge is to assume that the Constitution contemplates a vain promise; a pledge having no other sanction than the pleasure and convenience of the pledgor. This Court has given no sanction to such a conception of the obligations of our government.”

Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, Sr., in his majority decision on Perry v. United States (1935).

tbm3fan
10 Oct 13,, 06:41
Asty:

Overall I see the political pendulum swinging rightward after a decades-long leftward swing. The swing started some time ago; exactly when I can't pinpoint. It didn't start with the Tea Party, and probably the Tea Party wouldn't be in a position of influence today had not the rightward swing already begun and gained momentum. Rather it's existence affirms the gaining momentum of the swing. The essential fact to remember is that politics does little to influence the direction of the public mood, despite what people think. I would argue the opposite. The pubic feels the affects of politics through government actions and over time reacts to the direction of government. This country is over-programmed and I suspect people are feeling it more and more, and they don't particularly like it. That mood gains strength as time goes on. Like the stock market, it leads to a correction in politics and hence governance. The left may scoff at this because its bullish power continues to this day, but if we chart that power on a graph, we may see it gradually diminishing over time. The message to politicians on left and the right: move in the direction of the public mood or be moved aside by the electorate.

I don't really see that. What we have in the House was intentionally engineered that way. Both parties gerrymandered districts to insure their safety when they got the chance. So now we have about 205 safe Republican seats and around 170+ safe Democratic seats. That leaves around 55-58 seats that are actually contestable. So those will be the seats that will swing back and forth. My guess is that there are located in places where it isn't possible to have a truly safe seat.

Now we can sit back and see what happens in the 2014 House elections concerning those contestable seats. Will the Republicans pay for their current stand by losing some of them? Gut feeling tells me it will be close as to who has the 218. However, in the long run more of those contestable seats will go blue over the years due to demographic changes.

As for mood, since those safe seats are already spoken for, what is left to show that the public mood is moving? They are pretty much fixed so the only variable is the 55-58 contestable seats. I think one would find those moving one way and then the other way, just like the tides, back and forth every 2-4 years for awhile.

JAD_333
10 Oct 13,, 06:48
I don't really see that. What we have in the House was intentionally engineered that way. Both parties gerrymandered districts to insure their safety when they got the chance. So now we have about 205 safe Republican seats and around 170+ safe Democratic seats. That leaves around 55-58 seats that are actually contestable. So those will be the seats that will swing back and forth. My guess is that there are located in places where it isn't possible to have a truly safe seat.

Now we can sit back and see what happens in the 2014 House elections concerning those contestable seats. Will the Republicans pay for their current stand by losing some of them? Gut feeling tells me it will be close as to who has the 218. However, in the long run more of those contestable seats will go blue over the years due to demographic changes.

As for mood, since those safe seats are already spoken for, what is left to show that the public mood is moving? They are pretty much fixed so the only variable is the 55-58 contestable seats. I think one would find those moving one way and then the other way, just like the tides, back and forth every 2-4 years for awhile.

I'm sorry, but however true that may be, it doesn't relate to what I was saying.

JAD_333
10 Oct 13,, 07:53
tbm:

On second thought I see where you are coming from. I was referring to the back and forth swings over time in the nation's political outlook, not the composition of Congress, although the balance between parties in Congress plays a role in it. You described the electoral dynamics currently at play in determining the composition of Congress. That
addresses a different, but more immediate question. I am looking forward and backward over a longer period of time, at the forest, so to speak, to find a trend. Current events--the trees--tend to obscure the larger picture.

You speak of safe seats as if they spite the public's mood. I think if you give it some thought, you may agree that the safety of the seat ultimately depends on the positions of the incumbent and his/her political party's platform. In reality, no party owns a safe seat; the seat is defined by the electorate. Any conservative could claim a seat in a conservative district, but not necessarily any Republican. Look at recent developments. By any reckoning, Romney was a moderate Republican, yet he struggled to win over conservative Republicans. Only by claiming that he saw the light could he get their grudging support. What does that say to you? It tells me the party has moved rightward (no surprise there), but if history is any guide, this shift will pull the rest of the political spectrum to the right.

Understand that left, right and center are not static. They shift with the public's mood. If you can define the mood, and if the changing mood grows into a critical mass, you can be pretty sure what direction the country's politics will go. I am speaking as a political scientist, and we're notorious for being wrong in our predictions. So far, however, the signs are there for anyone to see.

DOR
10 Oct 13,, 11:34
Anyone notice that the Bozos running the GOP in the past 20 years won't even think of pulling these kind of tricks in an election year?

1995 . . . 1996 was not a good year for the GOP
2011 . . . 2012 was not a good year for the GOP
2013 . . . 2014 . . . not a good year for the GOP?

snapper
10 Oct 13,, 12:10
David, was Obama correct in 2006? Does America have a "debt problem"? If so why isn't he exercising the "Leadership" he advocated that "the buck stops here"? With the ultra dove Yellen at the helm of the Fed you must be happy I imagine and hopeful that unemployment, which the Fed now sees within it's remit, coming down. When do you expect to 6.5-7% unemployment? How will the QE exit procedure work and the Fed unload it's portfolio?

astralis
10 Oct 13,, 14:52
JAD,


Understand that left, right and center are not static. They shift with the public's mood. If you can define the mood, and if the changing mood grows into a critical mass, you can be pretty sure what direction the country's politics will go. I am speaking as a political scientist, and we're notorious for being wrong in our predictions. So far, however, the signs are there for anyone to see.

my own belief is that we are at the end of a 30 year conservative resurgence, very much akin to the late-1970s for liberalism and the Democratic Party.

Ronald Reagan's big tent has now been torn asunder, with Republican leadership now unable to control even a minority faction of their own Party on tactical matters, let alone strategic issues.

for that matter, the Tea Party is now feels like the revival of a neo-John Birch Society-- complete with the appeals to populism and paranoia-- only now the Republican Party has no William Buckley Jr to dispel the rabble.

having said that, the conservative wave has been big indeed, affecting as you say the entire political spectrum. the liberal democrat of today would be a conservative democrat of the 1970s. the moderate democrat today would probably share the same values of a republican back then! i believe the long-term effects of the conservative wave will overshadow that of the 40 year liberal wave from 1930-1970, because an aging populace is inherently more conservative.

JAD_333
10 Oct 13,, 15:09
JAD,



my own belief is that we are at the end of a 30 year conservative resurgence, very much akin to the late-1970s for liberalism and the Democratic Party.

You might be right. I don't know how it turns out, as my thinking runs to long time period. Wheels within wheels, and I am looking at the very outer wheel.


Ronald Reagan's big tent has now been torn asunder, with Republican leadership now unable to control even a minority faction of their own Party on tactical matters, let alone strategic issues.

It seems so, but if you think in terms of it all being a part of the whole, it shapes up differently.



for that matter, the Tea Party is now feels like the revival of a neo-John Birch Society-- complete with the appeals to populism and paranoia-- only now the Republican Party has no William Buckley Jr to dispel the rabble.

I remember the John Birchers. Off the top of my head, it seems to me they more commie-scared than anything else.


having said that, the conservative wave has been big indeed, affecting as you say the entire political spectrum. the liberal democrat of today would be a conservative democrat of the 1970s. the moderate democrat today would probably share the same values of a republican back then! i believe the long-term effects of the conservative wave will overshadow that of the 40 year liberal wave from 1930-1970, because an aging populace is inherently more conservative.

That's essentially the point I was making. And we have to keep in mind that the extremist end of a conservative or liberal force bringing about the swing does not prevail, at least not in a democracy.

JAD_333
10 Oct 13,, 16:12
Looks like a deal may be in the works. The betting is we'll get a short-term debt ceiling increase. Obama met with all the Democrat members of Congress and now will meet with 17 GOP members today. No word on whether this also means an end to the shutdown?

antimony
10 Oct 13,, 16:20
Looks like a deal may be in the works. The betting is we'll get a short-term debt ceiling increase. Obama met with all the Democrat members of Congress and now will meet with 17 GOP members today. No word on whether this also means an end to the shutdown?

It seems the shutdown is still in place

Shutdown Day 10: Short-term debt ceiling proposal on lawmakers' minds - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/10/politics/shutdown-showdown/)


Washington (CNN) -- It's not a total solution, and there's still plenty of work to be done, but House Republican leaders are considering a plan to temporarily raise the nation's borrowing limit while keeping the partial government shutdown in place, members and leadership sources told CNN.

Zinja
11 Oct 13,, 00:51
Doktor,
What “special presidential powers” stop the House and / or Senate from doing whatever they want to do, other than the veto?

You were asked before, and didn't answer. Please elaborate, or retract.
The president used an unconventional senate procedures when the lower house wouldn't budge, there is a name for it but i have forgotten it now. You can google the process that was used in 2010.

JAD_333
11 Oct 13,, 01:24
Confused situation. GOP offers 6 week extension of debt ceiling. White House signals Obama interested. A few hours ago, media reports Obama rejects offer. Minutes ago new reports say Obama hasn't decided. GOP and Dems to meet tonight to work out deal. One GOP leader said, after meeting with Obama, work continues on a deal to reopen government on Monday. Both sides appointing conferees to work out a deal. Esteemed Senate Majority leader signals no deal unless extension and ending shutdown are in one bill... I sense both sides want to end this crisis asap and now the struggle moves to face saving.

DOR
11 Oct 13,, 03:21
The president used an unconventional senate procedures when the lower house wouldn't budge, there is a name for it but i have forgotten it now. You can google the process that was used in 2010.

It would appear you've confused the President of the United States with the President Pro Tem of the Senate. Better double-check that.

DOR
11 Oct 13,, 03:30
The business community seems to be losing its enthusiasm for the GOP-Tea Party coalition, and may support candidates running against Teabaggers in 2014.

“As a result of the standoff, some influential business executives have come to a conclusion that recently would have been unthinkable: Their voices are carrying little weight with the House majority that their campaign contributions helped build, Eric Lipton, Nicholas Confessore and Nelson D. Schwartz report in The New York Times. ‘Their frustration has grown so intense in recent days that several trade association officials warned in interviews on Wednesday that they were considering helping wage primary campaigns against Republican lawmakers who had worked to engineer the political standoff in Washington.’”
[http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/10/10/morning-agenda-faith-in-u-s-debt-is-rattled/]
and

“We are looking at ways to counter the rise of an ideological brand of conservatism that, for lack of a better word, is more anti-establishment than it has been in the past,” said David French, the top lobbyist at the National Retail Federation. “We have come to the conclusion that sitting on the sidelines is not good enough.”

[http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/10/us/business-groups-see-loss-of-sway-over-house-gop.html?_r=0]

tbm3fan
12 Oct 13,, 21:33
GOP Death Watch: The Final Days of the Republican Party | New Republic (http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115134/gop-death-watch-final-days-republican-party)


I once wrote about lobbying, and this week I called some Republicans I used to talk to (and some that they recommended I talk to) about the effect the shutdown is having on the Republican Party in Washington. The response I got was fear of Republican decline and loathing of the Tea Party: One lobbyist and former Hill staffer lamented the “fall of the national party,” another the rise of “suburban revolutionaries,” and another of “people alienated from business, from everything.” There is a growing fear among Washington Republicans that the party, which has lost two national elections in a row, is headed for history’s dustbin. And I believe that they are right to worry.The battle over the shutdown has highlighted the cracks and fissures within the party. The party’s leadership has begun to lose control of its members in Congress. The party’s base has become increasingly shrill and is almost as dissatisfied with the Republican leadership in Washington as it is with President Obama. New conservative groups have echoed, and taken advantage of, this sentiment by targeting Republicans identified with the leadership for defeat. And a growing group of Republican politicians, who owe their election to these groups, has carried the battle into the halls of Congress. That is spelling doom for the Republican coalition that has kept the party afloat for the last two decades.


American party coalitions are heterogeneous, but they endure as along as the different groups find more agreement with each other than with the opposition. After Republicans won back the Congress in 1994, they developed a political strategy to hold their coalition together. Many people contributed to the strategy including Newt Gingrich, Karl Rove, Paul Coverdell, Paul Weyrich, and Ralph Reed, but the chief architect was probably Grover Norquist, a political operative who, along with Rove and Reed, came of age in the early Reagan years. The strategy was based on creating an alliance between business, which had sometimes divided its loyalties between Republicans and Democrats, and the array of social and economic interest groups that had begun backing Republicans.In weekly meeting held on Wednesdays at the office of his Americans for Tax Reform, Norquist put forth the idea that business groups, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), but also including the specialized trade associations, should back socially conservative Republican candidates, while right-to-life or gun rights organizations should back tax cuts and deregulation. What would bind the different parts together was a common opposition to raising taxes, which Norquist framed in a pledge he demanded that Republican candidates make. Business could provide the money, and the single-issue and evangelical groups the grassroots energy to win elections.

(RELATED: Obama Should Have Accepted Boehner's Plan. Here's Why)

The strategy worked reasonably well, especially in House races. The Chamber and NFIB became election-year arms of the Republican Party. In Congress, a succession of leaders, including Gingrich, Dennis Hastert, Tom DeLay, and Roy Blunt, followed the strategy. Gingrich initially overreached, and DeLay took ethical end-runs, but by the time John Boehner became Minority Leader in 2007, it had been refined. Its economic approach consisted of promoting cuts in taxes, spending, and regulation. Boehner, as lobbyists close to him explained to me, wanted to use the battle over continuing resolutions and the debt ceiling to achieve incremental changes on these fronts. He did not contemplate shutting down the government or allowing the government to default on its obligations.But Boehner was forced to adopt the more extreme strategy. Norquist blames Cruz. “Boehner had a strategy,” Norquist told me, “but Ted Cruz blew it up.” That is, however, giving Cruz too much credit (or blame) for the result. Cruz did help convince House Republicans that if they linked passage of a continuing resolution to repealing Obamacare, he could get the votes in the Senate to follow suit. But Cruz was following a script that had been developed earlier. What has happened over the last two months, leading to the shutdown, and political paralysis in Washington, is the result of deeper factors that have put Norquist’s entire “center-right” strategy in jeopardy.Since the late 1960s, America has seen the growth of what the late Donald Warren in a 1976 book The Radical Center called “middle American radicalism.” It’s anti-establishment, anti-Washington, anti-big business and anti-labor; it’s pro-free market. It’s also prone to scapegoating immigrants and minorities. It’s a species of right-wing populism. It ebbed during the Reagan years, but began to emerge again under the patrician George H.W. Bush and found expression in support for Ross Perot and for Pat Buchanan with his “peasants with pitchforks.” And it undergirded the Republican takeovers of Congress in 1994. It ebbed during George W. Bush’s war on terror, but has re-emerged with a vengeance in the wake of the Great Recession, Obama’s election and expansion of government, and continuing economic stagnation.


In his current column in The New York Times, Tom Edsall cites the extensive polling evidence for this rising anger. According to a Pew survey in late September, anger against the government “is most palpable among conservative Republicans” and overlaps with Republicans who “support the Tea Party.” But as with the Perot and Buchanan voters, these conservatives direct their anger equally at Republican and Democratic leaders. According to another Pew survey, 65 percent of the Republicans vote in primaries “disapprove of Republican leaders in Congress.” They see Republican leaders as being complicit in whatever they find wrong with Washington.This anti-Washington sentiment, which is loosely identified with the “Tea Party,” has overshadowed and transformed grassroots Republicanism. Republican leaders like DeLay were able to keep the evangelicals and other social conservatives in line by battling gay marriage or late-term abortions. But as I recounted three years ago, many of these social issue activists have been absorbed into the Tea Party’s anti-government, anti-establishment ethos. In their current report on the GOP, based on focus groups, the Democracy Corps affirms this conclusion. Evangelicals, the report says, “think many Republicans have lost their way” and that the party leadership “has proved too willing to ‘cave’ to the Obama agenda.” They identify with the Tea Party groups (even though they may disagree on social issues) because they see them “standing up and pushing back.” During George H.W. Bush’s presidency, these kind of sentiments were directed at moderates like House Minority Leader Robert Michel or Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole, but they are now aimed at erstwhile conservatives like Mitch McConnell and Boehner. The new grassroots Republicans are Warren’s middle American radicals. They don’t necessarily have clear overall objectives. They do want to blow up government—whether by eliminating the debt or repealing Obama’s Affordable Care Act. And whatever they want to do, they want done immediately and without compromise. And they regard those like Boehner who compromise and are willing to settle for incremental changes as “RINOs”—Republicans in name only.As this Republican anti-establishment has surged, new groups have arisen in Washington to respond to it, while older groups have attempted to adapt and keep pace. The Club for Growth, perhaps the best known of these, and the one with which I am the most familiar, actually dates back to the early ‘90s when several Wall Streeters created a club to fund promising candidates. The Club’s initial agenda was to promote Jack Kemp-style growth policies, and their first big success was in getting Christy Whitman (a RINO if there ever was one!) elected governor of New Jersey on an anti-tax platform.The current Club, under former Congressman Chris Chocola, expends much of its effort on backing conservative Republicans against other conservative Republicans whom it believes are too close to the Republican leadership in Washington. The operative terms in the Club’s jargon are “outsiders” against the “establishment.” In 2012, for instance, the Club poured over $700,000 into backing a little known dentist, Scott Keadle, against Richard Hudson. The two men had very similar positions, but Keadle, Chocola explained to me, was “very much an outsider,” while Hudson had worked for a Republican House member and was backed by Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s PAC.Other groups have followed a similar strategy of backing maverick conservatives against establishment conservatives. They include FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity both of which came out of the breakup of Citizens for a Sound Economy, and the Senate Conservatives Fund, which was founded by South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint in 2010 before he resigned to become head of the Heritage Foundation. They are supplemented by blogs and web pages like Erick Erickson’s RedState and by policy groups like the Heritage Foundation’s Heritage Action.


These groups don’t get most of their funding from traditional Republican sources on K Street. Much of their money comes from multi-millionaires and billionaires who are not responsible to stockholders. These include the Koch Brothers, who fund Americans for Prosperity, and investors and hedge fund operators J.W. Childs, James Simons, and Robert Arnott, who are among the chief funders of the Club for Growth. Most of these funders espouse an extreme libertarianism—the Koch brothers were early backers of the Cato Institute—but they also stand to benefit from the kind of drastic reduction in government regulations and taxes that the groups and their candidates advocate.The groups are sometimes believed to be part of a single giant conspiracy led by the Koch brothers, but that is not the case. The Koch brothers started Americans for Prosperity after they became dissatisfied with Dick Armey’s FreedomWorks, and the two groups are now rivals. The Kochs are also not major funders for the Club for Growth. The groups themselves often back the same candidates and causes, but are sometimes at odds. FreedomWorks has taken a harder line on the government shutdown than Americans for Prosperity, and the Senate Conservatives Fund is currently running ads in Arizona denouncing one of the Club for Growth’s favorite senators, Jeff Flake, for opposing the attempt to link the continuing resolution to the repeal of Obamacare.What the groups share is an attempt to tap into the spirit of middle American radicalism. They espouse a somewhat sanitized (less anti-big business and Wall Street) version of the Tea Party’s economic libertarianism. They want to elect “champions of economic freedom” who are for “limited government.” They scorn compromise and the Republicans who make the compromises. “I think the whole concept of compromise and bipartisanship is silly,” Chocola says. Their ultimate goal, Chocola says, is to elect a “majority of true fiscal conservatives” who will transform the government—or in the meantime, gum up the works by making compromise difficult, if not impossible.To date, the groups have had a mixed record in elections. They screwed up in Nevada, Colorado, Delaware, Indiana, and Missouri by backing extreme Republicans in Senate primaries who lost winnable elections to Democrats. But they helped elect Senators Toomey, Cruz, Rubio, Flake, and Paul and about 15 House members, including Arkansas Rep. Tom Cotton whom they are now backing in the Arkansas senate race.These are still relatively small numbers, but in the peculiar American system, a few people can exert an inordinate amount of power. In the Senate, the Tea Party adherents can disrupt any attempts at compromise, as Senator Ted Cruz did recently. In the House, they can threaten John Boehner’s job, because Boehner needs an absolute majority of House members to retain his speakership. And numbers aside, the threat of a primary challenge (now converted into a verb “to primary”) hovers over the all Republican Senate and House members, most notably McConnell, and has forced Boehner and McConnell to follow dutifully the shutdown strategy of Cruz and his House allies.


Under pressure from grassroots radicals and the new outsider groups, the old Republican coalition is beginning to shatter. The single-issue and evangelical groups have been superseded by right-wing populist groups, which are generally identified with the Tea Party, although there is no single Tea Party organization. These groups can’t easily be co-opted by the party’s Washington leadership. And the business groups in Washington, who funded the party over the last two decades, have grown disillusioned with a party that appears to be increasingly held hostage by its radical base and by outsider groups. The newspapers are now filled with stories about business opposition to the shutdown strategy, and there are even hints of business groups backing challenges to Tea Party candidates. “The business community has got to stand up and say we are not going to back the most self-described conservative candidate. We are going to back the candidates that are the most rational,” says John Feehery, a former aide to DeLay and Hastert who is now president of Quinn Gillespie & Associates, a Washington lobbying firm.What Washington business lobbyists say on-the-record about the House Republicans and about Tea Party activists pales before what they are willing to say if their names aren't used. One former Republican staffer says of the anti-establishment groups, “They want to go in and **** **** up. These non-corporate non-establishmentarian guys—that is exactly what they are doing. And the problem with that is obvious. What next? What happens after you **** **** up?” Other lobbyists I talked to cited John Calhoun, Dixiecrats and Richard Hofstadter’s essay on “The Paranoid Style in American Politics” to explain the rise of the populist right. It’s the kind of reference you’d expect to read in a New Republic article, but not necessarily in a conversation with a business lobbyist.One could argue, of course, that the Republican Party will readapt to its rightwing base and eventually create a new majority of “true fiscal conservatives” who will disdain compromise. But there is reason to believe that Chocola and the Club for Growth will never achieve their objective. Rightwing populism, like its predecessor, Christian conservatism, is intense in its commitment, but ultimately limited in its appeal. Tea Party Republicans and the outsider groups probably had their greatest impact when they were still emerging phenomena in the 2010 elections. But when the Republican Party becomes identified with the radical right, it will begin to lose ground even in districts that Republicans and polling experts now regard as safe. That happened earlier with the Christian Coalition, which enjoyed immense influence within the Republican Party until the Republican Party began to be identified with it.In Washington, today’s business lobbies may come to understand what the lobbies of the ‘50s grasped—that the Democratic Party is a small “c” conservative party that has sought to preserve and protect American capitalism by sanding off its rough edges. Joe Echevarria, the chief executive of Deloitte, the accounting and consulting firm, recently told The New York Times, “I’m a Republican by definition and by registration, but the party seems to have split into two factions.” Echevarria added that while the Democrats also had an extreme faction, it had no power in the party, while the Republican’s extreme faction did. “The extreme right has 90 seats in the House,” he said. “Occupy Wall Street has no seats.” That realization could lead business to resume splitting its contributions, which would spell trouble for the Republicans.Republicans in Washington could repudiate their radical base and shun the groups that appeal to it. That is roughly what people like Feehery are suggesting. But the question, then, is what would be the Republican base? How would Republicans win elections? Are there enough rational Republicans to make up for the loss of the radical ones?What is happening in the Republican Party today is reminiscent of what happened to the Democrats in the late 1960s and early 1970s. At that time, the Democrats in Washington were faced by a grassroots revolt from the new left over the war in Vietnam and from the white South over the party’s support for civil rights. It took the Democrats over two decades to do undo the damage—to create a party coalition that united the leadership in Washington with the base and that was capable of winning national elections. The Republicans could be facing a similar split between their base and their Washington leadership, and it could cripple them not just in the 2014 and 2016 elections, but for decades to come.

snapper
13 Oct 13,, 03:51
Sounds like some would welcome no opposition but I don't believe you'll get it. With the failure of Obama's Keynesian 'stimulus' and the Fed's monetarist QE - versions of policies that caused 2008 you are merely seeing some people wake up to the realisation that more of the same won't cure the problem. The Opposition is becoming more intransigent and rightly so. How was it good for Obama to be against increasing the debt ceiling in 2006 and not now? In 2006 he said leadership requires that "the buck stops here". It does. Deal with it.

DOR
13 Oct 13,, 07:05
There is a world of difference between "no opposition" and one that is loyal and reasonable. The GOP-Tea Party coalition is neither.

As for the debt ceiling in 2006 vs. 2013, a quick glance at history might be useful. There were some unusual events between then and now, at least it seemed unusual to those of us paying attention.

snapper
13 Oct 13,, 10:32
By "loyal" I take it you do not mean to ones principles since if Obama was making a stand on principle in 2006 he is now being disloyal to them. Perhaps you mean he has no principles though - and on that I'd tend to agree - you can call it pragmatism or whatever if you wish but we all know it's just partisanship. As for "unusual events" I believe I alluded to them. Your remedy we are aware is more of the same that caused the problem with extra lashings of 'money from nowhere' on top when the fiscal stimulus fails to produce the predicted results (as graphs I have shown you previously prove). Well you're time is running out. Of course because there never was any 'currency war' the Chinese Governor of PBOC (their central bank) last week called for the $ to be replaced as the world reserve currency. I find it somewhat remiss of you David, being based in HK to have not mentioned this.


China is calling for a global currency to replace the dominant dollar, showing a growing assertiveness on revamping the world economy ahead of next week's London summit on the financial crisis.

The surprise proposal by Beijing's central bank governor reflects unease about its vast holdings of U.S. government bonds and adds to Chinese pressure to overhaul a global financial system dominated by the dollar and Western governments. Both the United States and the European Union brushed off the idea.

The world economic crisis shows the "inherent vulnerabilities and systemic risks in the existing international monetary system," Gov. Zhou Xiaochuan said in an essay released Monday by the bank. He recommended creating a currency made up of a basket of global currencies and controlled by the International Monetary Fund and said it would help "to achieve the objective of safeguarding global economic and financial stability."

Zhou did not mention the dollar by name. But in an unusual step, the essay was published in both Chinese and English, making clear it was meant for a foreign audience.

China calls for new global currency - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=7168919&page=1)

I don't suppose for an instant this passed by you David but perhaps you could explain again how QE and stimulus spending - increasing the debt ceiling and all the rest of your adding numbers malarkey that impoverishes ordinary people saves the $. Perhaps Astralis will assure us again that there is no currency war?


China has signed a €45 billion currency swap agreement with the European Union, marking a major step in internationalizing its currency.

EU signs China currency agreement | neurope.eu (http://www.neurope.eu/article/eu-signs-china-currency-agreement)

Bed time stories for the State (un)educated are one thing. Your bluff is going to be called sooner or later by those who currently hold more cards. I wonder how the professional WAB economist failed to mention that continual Government overspending - and for the last 4 years $ devaluation and debt monetisation - the Fed owns 1/3rd of the US bond market - may cause a lack of confidence in the $. The answer is simple and has already been given; when you mismanagement gets so bad that others doubt you - make war on them.


If China, Russia, North Korea or Iran tried to wreck the US economy by undermining its debt rating, and to shut down US federal government operations, we would call it an act of war.

When the buck stops - blame the foreigners. And it's these people who want to force Obamacare on you and raise the debts you will pay for? The buck is stopping like it or not.

Minskaya
13 Oct 13,, 11:20
Senate leaders take over government shutdown talks
12 October 2013

Senate leaders began negotiations Saturday aimed at reopening federal agencies and avoiding a government default after every other effort to end Congress’s impasse crumbled in the previous 48 hours. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) took over the talks, which had led nowhere in recent days. House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) acknowledged early Saturday that his discussions with President Obama had collapsed and that the Senate was the last hope to avert a financial disaster. According to the administration, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew will run out of options after Thursday for juggling the nation’s books, and by the end of the month, the Treasury will run out of cash to pay the government’s bills.

Boehner’s closest friends in the Senate, including Graham and Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), pleaded with him Friday to modify his legislation along the lines of what they were trying to broker across the Capitol. The speaker told them Saturday that the Collins plan would face opposition from too many Republicans for him to put it on the floor, Chambliss said. “We don’t support it,” House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) told reporters, saying that the reasons for opposition were “too many to go into.”In a raucous meeting in the Capitol basement Saturday morning, Boehner told his Republican colleagues that talks between the House GOP and Obama had broken down. He and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) urged members to hold firm, several said, as McConnell and Reid worked on a deal.
Source: Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/boehner-tells-house-gop-negotiations-have-ended/2013/10/12/fa0d3f42-334a-11e3-9c68-1cf643210300_story.html)

If a compromise can be reached in the Senate, the hope is that a time-crunch will force the House to accept it. However, the House GOP leadership warns that it will not bend under pressure.

DOR
14 Oct 13,, 04:48
By "loyal" I take it you do not mean to ones principles since if Obama was making a stand on principle in 2006 he is now being disloyal to them.

The term is ‘loyal opposition,’ which means continuing to work for the best national interests even when one’s party or coalition is not in power. It means refusing to work against national interests for mere political posturing.


Your remedy we are aware is more of the same that caused the problem with extra lashings of 'money from nowhere' on top when the fiscal stimulus fails to produce the predicted results (as graphs I have shown you previously prove).

As we know, that is no where near my ‘remedy.’ When demand returns to something akin to normal, it will be appropriate to tighten the money supply. The collapse of fiscal revenues that caused the massive deficits and subsequent rise in the national debt are due to the stunning economic mismanagement of most of the past decade.

But, you knew that and were just trying to see if I was paying attention, right? Cheeky.


Well you're time is running out. Of course because there never was any 'currency war' the Chinese Governor of PBOC (their central bank) last week called for the $ to be replaced as the world reserve currency. I find it somewhat remiss of you David, being based in HK to have not mentioned this.

I tend to comment on things interesting and plausible, and this report is neither. Start a new thread about the Rmb replacing the US$ and we can take it up over there.


I don't suppose for an instant this passed by you David but perhaps you could explain again how QE and stimulus spending - increasing the debt ceiling and all the rest of your adding numbers malarkey that impoverishes ordinary people saves the $.

OK, so we’re going back to explaining the difference between quantitative easing and stimulus? I think it would be easier just to read the last couple of years of economic discussion around here. You know the two are unrelated, except in Fox News [sic] short-hand for misidentifying spending as the problem, rather than revenues.

As for impoverishing ordinary people, do you really believe that leaving the financial system and economy to its own devices over the past five years would have resulted in less pain for the common (wo)man? Give me a break.


I wonder how the professional WAB economist failed to mention that continual Government overspending - and for the last 4 years $ devaluation and debt monetisation - the Fed owns 1/3rd of the US bond market - may cause a lack of confidence in the $. The answer is simple and has already been given; when you mismanagement gets so bad that others doubt you - make war on them.

Um, because over-spending has never been the cause of deficits? Spending is very slow, it can’t cause quick turns in the budget balance. Revenues, on the other hand, react very fast to changes in the economy. Every significant movement in the budget balance has always been revenue-based.

In the 1980s, the US federal government's receipts as a percent of GDP averaged 18.3%. In the 1990s, it was 18.6%, and we turned Reagan's deficits into Clinton's surpluses.

In the 2000s, Bush doubled the national debt and turned surpluses into deficits mainly by reducing revenues to 17.6% of GDP. This decade, we're averaging 16.2%.

So, first off we can stop whining about over-taxation, since we are hugely under-taxed by our own historical standards, let alone the global mean.

Second, we can stop whining about over-spending, since the problem is -- and always has been -- under-revenue.

Or, at least that's what the data says. Federal Reserve Economic Data - FRED - St. Louis Fed (http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2) has it all.


By the way, the dollar is quite strong against the yen and euro these days. Were you perhaps thinking of some other currency against which it has devalued?


When the buck stops - blame the foreigners. And it's these people who want to force Obamacare on you and raise the debts you will pay for? The buck is stopping like it or not.

And, the true sign of someone who receives her wisdom from GOP talking points memos: relating Obamacare to the entire rest of the discussion.

Doktor
14 Oct 13,, 07:12
Second, we can stop whining about over-spending, since the problem is -- and always has been -- under-revenue.

So the glass is half full?

The problem is the same, whatever you want to call it. Not enough money to pay the bill.

snapper
14 Oct 13,, 07:26
Seems to me that you consider the opposition 'loyal' only if it agrees with you; stops being an 'Opposition'. By accusing those who believe differently from you of 'disloyalty' you set a dangerous precedent. It is entirely consistent with making war against those who lose confidence in your management of the $. What you going to do? Bomb them until they buy US debt? Would it not be wiser - and more responsible - to stop spending what you don't have?

The notion that the normal person should be grateful he/she is not even worse off than your policies have made them... Are they supposed to thank you?

I acknowledge that Bush and Greenspan/Bernanke were pretty awful but Obama and Bernanke have only repeated and increased the mistakes made by Bush/Greenspan. I am also aware that China is not as strong as it may seem financially but it hardly matters. If you wish to retain the reserve currency status you cannot live forever on debt and debt monetisation. Deal with it or people will ditch the $.

JAD_333
14 Oct 13,, 07:37
The term is ‘loyal opposition,’ which means continuing to work for the best national interests even when one’s party or coalition is not in power. It means refusing to work against national interests for mere political posturing.

My only gripe with your post is the foregoing mix of fact and political invective, one of your favorite debate tactics. Basically you are right in your definition. You fail, however, to prove your implication, that the GOP is disloyal. And you seem to forget that every standoff has two sides and that each side shares culpability in the outcome.

Otherwise, I agree with the rest of your post. No question the debt would have grown slower these past 5-6 years if tax revenues were a larger percentage of GDP--16.8% is anemic compared to previous percentages. That's a telling economic metric, but the political realities behind it tell the real story. Are we seeing a political party seek to curtail government spending by deliberately allowing the debt to rise to a critical level so it can then pass spending cuts to help bring it down? Raising revenues income relative to GDP would be the last thing that party would want, since that would defeat their goal of smaller government.

Minskaya
14 Oct 13,, 08:21
Congress remains at an impasse as the Thursday deadline looms. The Tea Party has lost its bid to de-fund ObamaCare. The disagreements now are about how long to fund the US government and the debt ceiling. It appears the two sides are about $70 billion dollars apart. Analysts are speculating that Wall Street may begin reacting to the unstable situation on Monday.

bfng3569
14 Oct 13,, 19:01
Second, we can stop whining about over-spending, since the problem is -- and always has been -- under-revenue.

.

wonder if I can try that at my next performance review.... 'geee boss, it's not that I spend to much, you just don't pay me enough for all the things i want'

DOR
15 Oct 13,, 03:17
Doktor,


The problem is the same, whatever you want to call it. Not enough money to pay the bill.

In a nutshell, yes. But, the solutions are polar opposites when you frame the question in a way that reflects historic facts, rather than ideology.

= = = = =

snapper,


Seems to me that you consider the opposition 'loyal' only if it agrees with you;

One might get that impression if each time a party loses power it goes on the kind of rampage that has occurred in each of the last three times the GOP was told by the voters to take a time out. Since that isn’t the case, perhaps my analysis might actually be right.


By accusing those who believe differently from you of 'disloyalty' you set a dangerous precedent.

To reiterate, if North Korea, Iran, China or Russia tried to shut down the US Federal Government and not once but twice attempted to damage America’s credit rating, we would quickly call it an act of war.


It is entirely consistent with making war against those who lose confidence in your management of the $.

Once again, I’ll ask you to expand on your argument that the dollar is collapsing. Low inflation and relative strength vis-à-vis the euro, yen and pound would suggest the opposite.


The notion that the normal person should be grateful he/she is not even worse off than your policies have made them... Are they supposed to thank you?

After George W. Bush handed Mr Obama the healthiest, most stable economy since the 1990s, with large and growing budget surplus and a robust financial system, I can understand your concern. But, back on Planet Earth, that was Bill Clinton’s legacy to GWBush, and to ignore the devastation that followed is disingenuous.


Obama and Bernanke have only repeated and increased the mistakes made by Bush/Greenspan.

Are you arguing that it is actually Europe that has grown three times faster than the US since 2010? Again, I refer you to Planet Earth and the reality that the United States, despite the GOP-Tea Party coalition’s best efforts, is recovering better than Germany, Japan, or the UK.


Deal with it or people will ditch the $.

Be sure to give me a call when that happens.

= = = = =


JAD_333,


You fail, however, to prove your implication, that the GOP is disloyal.

See my second response to snapper above.


And you seem to forget that every standoff has two sides and that each side shares culpability in the outcome.

See my first response to snapper above.


Are we seeing a political party seek to curtail government spending by deliberately allowing the debt to rise to a critical level so it can then pass spending cuts to help bring it down?

Or, are we seeing a political coalition deliberately damaging the US economy for the mere sake of regaining political power the voters denied it?


Raising revenues income relative to GDP would be the last thing that party would want, since that would defeat their goal of smaller government.

Agreed. Regardless of the reality, ideology trumps logical policy choices.

= = = = =

bfng3569,

The ‘boss’ is the elected representatives of the American people. They determined, years ago, that X number of dollars would be spent. They now don’t want to pay the bill.

Government is not like a household or personal budget.

Doktor
15 Oct 13,, 03:38
Doktor,

In a nutshell, yes. But, the solutions are polar opposites when you frame the question in a way that reflects historic facts, rather than ideology.
IMV a small increase in taxes wont be even noticed by majority of the people and can fix the situation long term. Either that or refuse services. I am talking about the situation here o/c. In the USA where the tax base is somewhat defined should be even easier to fine tune it.

On a side note, friend's father went to local authorities to ask why there is no paved road to his cabin after 8 years. The answer, "Sir, you voted not to pay taxes". Simple, but most people don't get it. Or don't want to.



After George W. Bush handed Mr Obama the healthiest, most stable economy since the 1990s, with large and growing budget surplus and a robust financial system, I can understand your concern. But, back on Planet Earth, that was Bill Clinton’s legacy to GWBush, and to ignore the devastation that followed is disingenuous.
To be totally fair, Bush also got handed a roaming banking system that was throwing money, left, right, center and then some, creating bubbles.
Not a great combo with the aftershocks (which were more psychological imv) on the system after 9/11 and the war(s) that could have been avoided., or at least shortened not to last this long.

The way I see it, Obama's promise for changes was overhyped and people thought it will happen overnight, hence the frustration. It would have been better if instead he offered "nothing but blood sweat and tears".

JAD_333
15 Oct 13,, 04:46
Dor:


JAD_333,


You fail, however, to prove your implication, that the GOP is disloyal.

See my second response to snapper above.


And you seem to forget that every standoff has two sides and that each side shares culpability in the outcome.

See my first response to snapper above.


Why didn't you copy and paste? I know why. Neither response fit.

First, the GOP did not try to destroy the credit rating of the US:

This is the statement Standard & Poors released in 2011 when it lowered the rating:

-We have lowered our long-term sovereign credit rating on the United States of America to 'AA+' from 'AAA' and affirmed the 'A-1+' short-term rating.
-We have also removed both the short- and long-term ratings from CreditWatch negative.
-The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's medium-term debt dynamics.
-More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned a negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011.
-Since then, we have changed our view of the difficulties in bridging the gulf between the political parties over fiscal policy, which makes us pessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the Administration to be able to leverage their agreement this week into a broader fiscal consolidation plan that stabilizes the government's debt dynamics any time soon.
-The outlook on the long-term rating is negative. We could lower the long-term rating to 'AA' within the next two years if we see that less reduction in spending than agreed to, higher interest rates, or new fiscal pressures during the period result in a higher general government debt trajectory than we currently assume in our base case.

The statement clearly places the blame on all parties and, to a larger extent, the size of the debt and the paltry efforts being made to lower it. In short, the size of the debt spooked S&P, not efforts to reduce it, except, of course, their failure to arrive at a satisfactory compromise.

While S&P did not cast blame on either party, any astute observer can see that one party argues for a higher level of spending, while the other argues for the opposite. And, since their respective economic justifications are so much at odds with each other, S&P is quite correct in saying that political instability has resulted. Whose fault is that?

To say, as you do, but in not so many words, that if the GOP would just let go its end of the rope, all would be well, is pure partisanship. Your opposite partisan could say the same of the Democrats. So, why don't the Democrats just let go their end of the rope and end this tug of war over spending and the debt?

DOR
15 Oct 13,, 12:17
OK, OK, I admit it: S&P did not blame the GOP-Tea Party coalition.

I did.

Of course, I never said the S&P blamed it solely on the GOP-Tea Party coalition . . .

snapper
15 Oct 13,, 15:27
One might get that impression if each time a party loses power it goes on the kind of rampage that has occurred in each of the last three times the GOP was told by the voters to take a time out. Since that isn’t the case, perhaps my analysis might actually be right.

Your analysis is entirely partisan. The GOP clearly was elected to a majority in the House but that seems to escape your notice. Instead anyone who disagrees with your view is accused of 'disloyalty'. Are you accusing those of who might disagree with of treason? Will you put on them trial? They are elected no less than the President and to persue such a course merely invites retribution. It is dangerous to speak of 'disloyalty' in those who hold a different political or economic view to your own.


To reiterate, if North Korea, Iran, China or Russia tried to shut down the US Federal Government and not once but twice attempted to damage America’s credit rating, we would quickly call it an act of war.

How about Australia? They agreed a currency swap with China earlier this year to avoid having to use the $ BBC News - China signs $31bn currency exchange deal with Australia (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17471095) Brazil maybe who did the same? BBC News - China and Brazil sign $30bn currency swap agreement (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21949615) Maybe the UK? UK and China establish currency swap line - FT.com (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/c063da4c-dbcc-11e2-8853-00144feab7de,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=htt p%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2Fc063da4c-dbcc-11e2-8853-00144feab7de.html%3Fsiteedition%3Duk&siteedition=uk&_i_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ukip.org.uk%2Findex.ph p%2Ftopic%2C22642.msg312544%2Fboardseen.html#axzz2 hjJgzlxQ) Or Indonesia? China, Indonesia Agree $16 Bln Currency Swap - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20131007-713078.html) The EU are just the latest. You going to bomb everyone? Won't be anyone left to take your $'s.


Once again, I’ll ask you to expand on your argument that the dollar is collapsing. Low inflation and relative strength vis-à-vis the euro, yen and pound would suggest the opposite.

Have a look at UUP ticker for the last 5 years.


After George W. Bush handed Mr Obama the healthiest, most stable economy since the 1990s, with large and growing budget surplus and a robust financial system, I can understand your concern. But, back on Planet Earth, that was Bill Clinton’s legacy to GWBush, and to ignore the devastation that followed is disingenuous.

I never said GWBush, Greenspan or Bernanke managed the problems well but again you chose to see this in a partisan light. Obama and Bernanke have only compounded the mistakes made post dot com bubble that lead to 2008. More of the same on a greater scale. Nobody is saying Obama was left with a great economy but his and the Fed's continued abuse of the system along the same lines that caused 2008 now threatens the $'s status as the world reserve. Since in 2006 he claimed that "leadership" requires that these problems be addressed it is hypocritical to see him refusing to address the problems now.


Are you arguing that it is actually Europe that has grown three times faster than the US since 2010? Again, I refer you to Planet Earth and the reality that the United States, despite the GOP-Tea Party coalition’s best efforts, is recovering better than Germany, Japan, or the UK.

The only difference between the eurozone/UK and the US is the level of asset inflation caused by printing. Because the $ is the world reserve most US $ go abroad so you suffer less inflation when you produce 'money' out of thin air.


Be sure to give me a call when that happens.

I am calling you now. When China says "It is perhaps a good time for the befuddled world to start considering building a de-Americanised world" and institutes currency swaps worldwide as well buys over 2000 tons of gold in the last two years even you have to consider that the currency war 'fairy tale' may be turning into a harsh reality.


bfng3569,

The ‘boss’ is the elected representatives of the American people. They determined, years ago, that X number of dollars would be spent. They now don’t want to pay the bill.

Government is not like a household or personal budget.

The American people decide how much will be spent? Don't make me laugh. Their elected representatives do but you chose only to see the Presidents election as legitimate and ignore the legitimacy of elected representatives who disagree with you.

astralis
15 Oct 13,, 15:30
JAD,


Raising revenues income relative to GDP would be the last thing that party would want, since that would defeat their goal of smaller government.

GOP has two goals-- reducing the deficit and reducing the government. but it's very clear now which of these goals they hold in higher esteem.

largely speaking the dems have agreed to the first, with their own proposals having the practical effect of also mildly agreeing to the second.

what the GOP wants is a maximal victory on the second goal, even at a short-term cost to the first. this current impasse has reduced US growth and USG productivity, which in turn will actually worsen the short-term US deficit. this is true on a larger scale with regards to the ACA; it'll likely modestly reduce health-care expenditures/deficits over the medium/long-term, but of course the republicans are opposed to such "socialism".

zraver
15 Oct 13,, 16:40
= = = = =

snapper,



One might get that impression if each time a party loses power it goes on the kind of rampage that has occurred in each of the last three times the GOP was told by the voters to take a time out. Since that isn’t the case, perhaps my analysis might actually be right.

Told the GOP to take a time out.... Uhm, the Tea Party Caucus was elected to get rid of Obamacare....


To reiterate, if North Korea, Iran, China or Russia tried to shut down the US Federal Government and not once but twice attempted to damage America’s credit rating, we would quickly call it an act of war.

The GOP cannot damage America's credit rating, only the Dems can do that. Why only the Dems (as I am sure you already know), is that Obama is a dem, he is the only person who can order Jacob Lew to default on America's sovereign debt. Congress cannot, it is per the Constitution that at least the interest must be paid 14th Amendment, section 4 sentence 1. The order of government spending 9as illustrated by the shutdown- debt, entitlements, discretionary. Current government revenues are enough to meet debt and entitlement payments- no risk of default unless Obama orders it. Lew could refuse, but he serves at the pleasure of the president.


Once again, I’ll ask you to expand on your argument that the dollar is collapsing. Low inflation and relative strength vis-à-vis the euro, yen and pound would suggest the opposite.

The fact that the dollar is not collapsing any worse the on the currencies doesn't change the fact that for a similar basket of goods and vs wages the dollar is in long term decline. prices are up, wages are flat or declining.



After George W. Bush handed Mr Obama the healthiest, most stable economy since the 1990s, with large and growing budget surplus and a robust financial system, I can understand your concern. But, back on Planet Earth, that was Bill Clinton’s legacy to GWBush, and to ignore the devastation that followed is disingenuous.

That claim is a flat out lie, Clinton handed Bush a recession and a deflated bubble market that was anything but stable. Nor was the financial system robust after Clinton with massive Democrat support undid Glass-Steagall and committed Fannie and Freddie to under write massive sub-prime risks. Seriously dude, if you were my kid i'd wash your mouth out with soap for that lie.



Are you arguing that it is actually Europe that has grown three times faster than the US since 2010? Again, I refer you to Planet Earth and the reality that the United States, despite the GOP-Tea Party coalition’s best efforts, is recovering better than Germany, Japan, or the UK.

But not as good as it could based on previous recoveries. Funny massive stimulus has now been tried twice- in both cases recovery was total weak sauce.


JAD_333,

Or, are we seeing a political coalition deliberately damaging the US economy for the mere sake of regaining political power the voters denied it?

Another lie. The tea Party caucus was put in power and left in power in 10 and 12 specifically to defeat Obamacare. In addition, of 18 government shutdowns since 1976, the GOP has only caused 3 of them. In 5 of them, the GOP controlled not a single branch of government. How then when the Dems, who are historically 6x more likely to shut down the government claim it is disloyal?

If you want to look for disloyal traitors- look at who is using political appointees to spread the pain around both with sequester and the shut down. Denying vets access to the monument they paid for, closing rural roads Putting thousands of people at risk), throwing people out of their homes, shutting down private businesses, illegal arrest under color of law, denying funding for cancer treatments and head start programs, granting special waivers to employers and unions but not citizens....




Agreed. Regardless of the reality, ideology trumps logical policy choices.

As you've proven over and over again...



The ‘boss’ is the elected representatives of the American people. They determined, years ago, that X number of dollars would be spent. They now don’t want to pay the bill.

Government is not like a household or personal budget.

The Bosses determined c enturies ago that guns are a right that shall not be infringed, now the "boss" wants to change that... Previous bosses also decided the public had a right to tour the White House, which the "boss" has changed... Laws are not static. That is such pathetic weak-sauce argument. Tea Taxes, Prohibition, slavery, women's suffrage, Jim Crow... American history is defined by its opposition to, and overthrowing of unjust laws.

bfng3569
15 Oct 13,, 19:11
The Bosses determined c enturies ago that guns are a right that shall not be infringed, now the "boss" wants to change that... Previous bosses also decided the public had a right to tour the White House, which the "boss" has changed... Laws are not static. That is such pathetic weak-sauce argument. Tea Taxes, Prohibition, slavery, women's suffrage, Jim Crow... American history is defined by its opposition to, and overthrowing of unjust laws.

my other favorite one, immigration.

apparently obamacare 'is the law of the land' and should be fully implemented with no modifications or changes (well, no changes that arent agreed to by the boss and the dems, every one else can apparently go to hell).

last time I checked, illegal immigrants are still illegal according to the federal gov., yet they let sanctuary states subvert and out right ignore those laws to what ever extent they want.

bfng3569
15 Oct 13,, 19:16
Doktor,


bfng3569,

The ‘boss’ is the elected representatives of the American people. They determined, years ago, that X number of dollars would be spent. They now don’t want to pay the bill.

Government is not like a household or personal budget.

last I checked, those crazy tea party people in congress are elected officials, no?

make what ever analogy you want with budgets, to just sit there and say there aren't enough taxes (revenue) being collected to pay for the spending as opposed to question the amount being spent is very irresponsible.

Zinja
16 Oct 13,, 00:59
34084
I have been making that point from day one, the point of saddling future generations with modern day americans' debt. Why are these people blaming the tea party not saying anything those they are taking the resources from? Or perhaps they don't matter so much as their demands of what they 'want'? I really cant understand this blatant selfishness.

Zinja
16 Oct 13,, 01:01
a stupid case of political showboating then-- the debt limit was going to pass anyway. now the republicans are deadly serious, and half of them don't even believe defaulting will have negative effects.
Astralis, do you think the statement quoted is not true?

Zinja
16 Oct 13,, 01:33
It would appear you've confused the President of the United States with the President Pro Tem of the Senate. Better double-check that.
Correct, it was the Pro Tem Senate.....and the president blessed the practice, we know where the buck stops don't we.

Zinja
16 Oct 13,, 01:36
As for the debt ceiling in 2006 vs. 2013, a quick glance at history might be useful. There were some unusual events between then and now, at least it seemed unusual to those of us paying attention. There has been consecutive trillion dollar deficit year, the nation is now over 100% of GDP in debt, and you call that 'usual'?

zraver
16 Oct 13,, 03:02
There has been consecutive trillion dollar deficit year, the nation is now over 100% of GDP in debt, and you call that 'usual'?

Its only unusual and dangerous if a conservative is in the White house...

DOR
16 Oct 13,, 04:01
snapper,


The GOP clearly was elected to a majority in the House but that seems to escape your notice.

Since when is a majority in one-half of one-third of government a mandate to shut it down and refuse to pay debts incurred by previously elected officials? I just don’t follow the logic.


Instead anyone who disagrees with your view is accused of 'disloyalty'.

Anyone who swears an oath of office to uphold the constitution and then works to undermine the economy and reputation of the nation is a strong candidate for the term “disloyal.” Of course, I didn’t use that term, did I? What I said was that I was pining for the return of a loyal opposition.

See the difference?


Are you accusing those of who might disagree with of treason?

Now you’re just being silly. “Treason” is a term that might describe people who lie to the public, to congress and to our allies for the purpose of launching an unnecessary war of aggression.


They are elected no less than the President and to persue such a course merely invites retribution. It is dangerous to speak of 'disloyalty' in those who hold a different political or economic view to your own.

Sorry, I don’t like the notion of giving in to blackmail. Are you implying that the actions of the GOP-Tea Party coalition are going to encourage Democrats to retaliate at some future date? I strongly doubt it, as it simply isn’t the normal state of affairs.

Of course, I agree that anyone calling someone who disagrees with them ‘disloyal’ is a an idiot on the scale of Joe McCarthy. Which is exactly why I never said anything of the sort. What I said was that these idiots are damaging our country in a way that we would call an act of war if someone else did it to us.


How about Australia? They agreed a currency swap with China

Go ahead and start a new thread arguing that any country that engages in routine financial transactions with Australia is committing an act of war against the United States.


I never said GWBush, Greenspan or Bernanke managed the problems well but again you chose to see this in a partisan light.

Are you now going to argue that the state of the economy in January 2009 had nothing to do with the economic results of the past five years? Really?

snapper, recognizing that the Bush Administration screwed up the economy beyond all belief is not partisan. It is merely historic fact. And, recognizing that the Fed has had no choice but to carry the full weight of both fiscal and monetary policy ever since Congress went on strike is exactly the same thing: historic fact.


The only difference between the eurozone/UK and the US is the level of asset inflation caused by printing.

Go ahead, pull the other one. It has bells on it!

34121




uup ticker

Is that Ulster Unionist Party, United University Professions, or the synthetic superheavy element called ununpentium?

Oh, and what part of “elected representative of the American people” didn’t you understand?

= = = = =


On a related note, the new mascot for Fukashima is named . . . fukuppy. 'Fukuppy' mascot to be renamed by Fukushima firm | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2461313/Fukuppy-mascot-renamed-Fukushima-firm.html)
You can’t make this stuff up.

zraver
16 Oct 13,, 04:30
snapper,



Since when is a majority in one-half of one-third of government a mandate to shut it down and refuse to pay debts incurred by previously elected officials? I just don’t follow the logic.

1. The dems shut down government 15 times, 5 of those times without the Republicans controlling a single branch...
2. No congress is bound by the acts of a previous congress
3. The debt is not an issue, the bills already incurred will be paid, the only person who can default the US is Obama.


Anyone who swears an oath of office to uphold the constitution and then works to undermine the economy and reputation of the nation is a strong candidate for the term “disloyal.” Of course, I didn’t use that term, did I? What I said was that I was pining for the return of a loyal opposition.

So Obama is disloyal? I thought only the tea partiers thought that...


See the difference?

Do you?


Now you’re just being silly. “Treason” is a term that might describe people who lie to the public, to congress and to our allies for the purpose of launching an unnecessary war of aggression.

Hey now, Wilson, FDR, Truman and JFK/LBJ and Clinton were not traitors...


Sorry, I don’t like the notion of giving in to blackmail. Are you implying that the actions of the GOP-Tea Party coalition are going to encourage Democrats to retaliate at some future date? I strongly doubt it, as it simply isn’t the normal state of affairs.

Uhm, the dems started this whole problem of payoffs and retaliation... If you want a villain look at Reid and Pelosi


Of course, I agree that anyone calling someone who disagrees with them ‘disloyal’ is a an idiot on the scale of Joe McCarthy. Which is exactly why I never said anything of the sort. What I said was that these idiots are damaging our country in a way that we would call an act of war if someone else did it to us.

Millions of Americans disagree and feel it is the Dems waging war on the US.


Are you now going to argue that the state of the economy in January 2009 had nothing to do with the economic results of the past five years? Really?

The weak-sauce economy of 2013 is because of the last 5 years, not the years before the last 5.


snapper, recognizing that the Bush Administration screwed up the economy beyond all belief is not partisan. It is merely historic fact. And, recognizing that the Fed has had no choice but to carry the full weight of both fiscal and monetary policy ever since Congress went on strike is exactly the same thing: historic fact.

1. Bush inherited an economic system built on bubbles and primed to implode... 2007/08 was inevitable once glass steagall was repealed and Fannie and Freddie were told to underwrite sub-prime loans. Bush was handed 3 economic crisis moments, the dot-com bubble burst and recession, the 9-11 attacks and the housing bubble implosion. He did not create a single of them. That is not partisan, its merely historic fact.

2. Also non-partisan and historical fact is that the House has issued budgets every year, the hang-up and branch responsible for abdicating fiscal policy is the Senate under the control of Harry Reid. They have I believe issued just 2 budgets in 6 years...

astralis
16 Oct 13,, 05:03
zinja,


Astralis, do you think the statement quoted is not true?

i detest using a personal metaphor for something like a national economy, but it looks like i'll need to cut things up into bite-sized pieces for the idea to get through.

a man goes $25,000 into debt to pay for his kid's college education. does this debt represent shifting a burden onto the backs of his grandchildren?

i understand the flip hand argument, that a man goes $25,000 into debt drinking. yes, in that case it does represent shifting a burden onto the backs of his grandchildren.

now do please try to see it from the other side.

in any case, as has been repeated umpteenth times before-- the logical choice to make budget decisions is not AFTER the money has been spent but BEFORE. note, too, that the original republican demand had NOTHING TO DO with the budget-- they wanted to defund the ACA.

now that they've seen the absolute stupidity of their ways, now they're trying to get something, ANYTHING out of this political debacle. so now they focus on budget.

astralis
16 Oct 13,, 05:08
the problem with this thread IMHO is that all the arguments have been repeated umpteenth times by now. each side dredges up the same historical examples, and the same economic arguments. feels like groundhog day here...

Doktor
16 Oct 13,, 05:24
...the original republican demand had NOTHING TO DO with the budget-- they wanted to defund the ACA.

now that they've seen the absolute stupidity of their ways, now they're trying to get something, ANYTHING out of this political debacle. so now they focus on budget.

Funding ACA is not in the budget?

citanon
16 Oct 13,, 06:52
zinja,



i detest using a personal metaphor for something like a national economy, but it looks like i'll need to cut things up into bite-sized pieces for the idea to get through.

a man goes $25,000 into debt to pay for his kid's college education. does this debt represent shifting a burden onto the backs of his grandchildren?

i understand the flip hand argument, that a man goes $25,000 into debt drinking. yes, in that case it does represent shifting a burden onto the backs of his grandchildren.

now do please try to see it from the other side.

in any case, as has been repeated umpteenth times before-- the logical choice to make budget decisions is not AFTER the money has been spent but BEFORE. note, too, that the original republican demand had NOTHING TO DO with the budget-- they wanted to defund the ACA.

now that they've seen the absolute stupidity of their ways, now they're trying to get something, ANYTHING out of this political debacle. so now they focus on budget.

Asty,

You're missing a crucial aspect of this analogy.

When I read your analogy, I read it between the lines as:

A normal private citizen like you and I get into debt with the bank for X amount.

In reality, the more apt analogy for our national debt is:

The mafia, who also happens to print the money, borrows X amount of money from the neighborhood...

In the first case, the bank owns the borrowers. In the second case, the mob owns the lender, and it will pay the money back in its sweet time using the exact formula that favors it the most by manipulating the money supply.

In our case the danger is not that we will not be able to pay back the debt. There is no analogy to a bankruptcy because no sheriff is going to show up to collect the assets of a guy with 10,000 nuclear warheads. The real danger here is that people may wise up and start lending us less and less money at higher and higher prices. That is the threat that we actually face. We'd have to be :insane: to destroy this most beneficial racket, one of the very pillars of our prosperity for the past few decades, in spectacular and abrupt fashion by not passing a fucking debt ceiling.

Defaulting on our debt now would drag the very mode of our "bankruptcy", the risk we worry about for our children, from the distant future into the present as the ugly reality of this very weekend.

Despite my usually contempt for the left, I actually agree with them this time. The Tea Party need to stop being morons and pass the damn debt ceiling. :mad:

zraver
16 Oct 13,, 06:58
zinja,



i detest using a personal metaphor for something like a national economy, but it looks like i'll need to cut things up into bite-sized pieces for the idea to get through.

Ever thought that maybe the disconnect is on your end? Instead of telling us we are too stupid to understand actually listen to what we are saying.


a man goes $25,000 into debt to pay for his kid's college education. does this debt represent shifting a burden onto the backs of his grandchildren?

i understand the flip hand argument, that a man goes $25,000 into debt drinking. yes, in that case it does represent shifting a burden onto the backs of his grandchildren.

A man goes in debt for his own education, not only does he have to pay for that education w/ interest, but so do his kids since the person who lent him the money was a re-lender of already borrowed money... Obamacare is like this system of double paying on borrowed money. Insurance prices for the healthiest Americans are skyrocketing while health care access to the sickest is plummeting. That is epic fail, the only people benefiting are insurance companies and for profit hospitals since they now have profits protected by law.


now do please try to see it from the other side.

in any case, as has been repeated umpteenth times before-- the logical choice to make budget decisions is not AFTER the money has been spent but BEFORE. note, too, that the original republican demand had NOTHING TO DO with the budget-- they wanted to defund the ACA.

The Republicans have never stopped trying to defeat Obamacare. It should not even be law, if Congress had followed the rules as they existed when the law was introduced it would not be. Pelosi and Reid had to strong arm it through and it cost the Dems control of the House.


now that they've seen the absolute stupidity of their ways, now they're trying to get something, ANYTHING out of this political debacle. so now they focus on budget.

At this point the only people responsible for the continuing shutdown are found outside the House and the longer it goes on, the worse it will be for the left. In addition, only Obama can cause us to default. No republican or group of republicans can cause a default that power lies solely with the president.

Mihais
16 Oct 13,, 09:16
Asty,

You're missing a crucial aspect of this analogy.

When I read your analogy, I read it between the lines as:

A normal private citizen like you and I get into debt with the bank for X amount.

In reality, the more apt analogy for our national debt is:

The mafia, who also happens to print the money, borrows X amount of money from the neighborhood...

In the first case, the bank owns the borrowers. In the second case, the mob owns the lender, and it will pay the money back in its sweet time using the exact formula that favors it the most by manipulating the money supply.

In our case the danger is not that we will not be able to pay back the debt. There is no analogy to a bankruptcy because no sheriff is going to show up to collect the assets of a guy with 10,000 nuclear warheads. The real danger here is that people may wise up and start lending us less and less money at higher and higher prices. That is the threat that we actually face. We'd have to be :insane: to destroy this most beneficial racket, one of the very pillars of our prosperity for the past few decades, in spectacular and abrupt fashion by not passing a fucking debt ceiling.

Defaulting on our debt now would drag the very mode of our "bankruptcy", the risk we worry about for our children, from the distant future into the present as the ugly reality of this very weekend.

Despite my usually contempt for the left, I actually agree with them this time. The Tea Party need to stop being morons and pass the damn debt ceiling. :mad:

Your speech is clear and concise,but you're still a drug addict.

It's never a good thing to avoid reality.You still know what freedom should look like,you still know free speech and you still have the most powerful army in the world,the armed American citizen.You let the lefties fvck your children minds for another generation and the very virtues that made America a first world nation will be gone.
A man's duty is for the women and children first.So don't pass your crap to them.:biggrin: