-
Re: US Federal Government Shutdown
One way to make sure that the US stops borrowing money is to blow out the credit rating. It would force hard choices to be made. Skyrocket taxes and cut government or just slash and burn government. It could be a way to terminate nearly every government employee and start from an actual baseline, figuring out what is actually necessary expense moving forward. Farmland in the midwest wouldnt be able to be paid to lie dormant, in an attempt to bank on the increase in cost of food, farmers would have more incentive to produce than the government had money to pay. The purchasing power of all nations would rise and increase their ability to afford food. More food would hit the global marketplace. I'm in favor of a temporary expansion of the timit, but as a constituent, even if I lost my job, I could be persuaded to support a credit correction by way of default. That is the beauty of ideology over the rest. It is harder to take an individual hostage if they have a principled stoicism. Or very little could happen. Let's try it. Live a little
-
Re: US Federal Government Shutdown
GC:
I just don't see the yahoo percentage among the TEA crowd being that high. Mostly Ayn Rand FTW types, not stosstruppen.
-
Most tea partiers just want to go back in time. The reality is that tons of people are going to be losing their jobs over the next 20 years with very little job creation. Taxes are going to skyrocket and the economy is going to tank because people really aren't necessary for technological or economic growth anymore. Low taxes and individual freedom will be a thing of the past. We all know it, but who wants to live in a world like that? It will be like wall-e meets the matrix. Maybe the meaning of life was to find a way to make work obsolete. We have done a bang up job, we just need to find a way to feed people until they all die out from natural causes. Or until they can just live forever.
FTW!
-
Re: US Federal Government Shutdown
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CrossLOPER
Russian Federation forces are doing great.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not Russian so I'm not saying this out of nationalism. The dire situation of the Russian army that you think about happened during the 90s and early 2000s. Russia is recovering and her army are being well-fed. Russia developed new advanced weapons a few years ago. In fact, Moscow has the most billionaires in the world according to a global rich list, although the wealth gap is still a problem.
-
Re: US Federal Government Shutdown
This is not a constitutional crisis. This is a civic duty crisis.
The strength of any Republic lies in the strength of the public's constitution.
I am only 21 years of age. My hands are not completely clean of ignorant political practice. But the country that has repeatedly given Congress with a 10% approval rating a generous 90% incumbent rate, every two years, decade after decade has no sympathy for me.
Us Americans love to pay lip to personal responsibility and yet strive for lives completely devoid of even the most basic of communal duties that all free men are born with.
-
Re: US Federal Government Shutdown
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gelatinous Cube
I disagree, but its an outlandish scenario either way IMO.
I disagree too, but I am not American, so i only see Teaparty Propaganda and how they act infront of television and youtube. Then I see people like Sarah Palin are spearheading the campaign, and Michele Bachman, who also doesn't know anything about anything, I don't think I could trust them to pick up my groceries from the supermarket even with a shopping list and pictures of the items. It kind of gives the perception people don't exist in a plane called 'reality'.
On the otherhand, Hilary Clinton internationally comes across as some one who knows what she is doing in a political office, ideological differences aside.
Is Democrat propaganda so much more successful overseas, or things are so bad in the echo-chambers that millions of Americans have switched off their brains?
-
Re: US Federal Government Shutdown
Quote:
Originally Posted by
a completely inoffensive name
But the country that has repeatedly given Congress with a 10% approval rating a generous 90% incumbent rate, every two years, decade after decade has no sympathy for me.
That is because, by and large, people do in fact like their own congressperson:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/162362/am...sentative.aspx
I am never surprised by the low ratings that 'Congress' gets in polls. Take the current Republican-controlled Congress at any point. If you asked the average Democrat if they approved or disapproved then, from a purely partisan standpoint, most of them will say disapprove because they don't think it is progressive enough. So that is a substantial portion of the population against you already. Then you consider those who are to the right of the average Republican and they will also disapprove. Then you have Republicans who will disapprove because they think that Congress hasn't pushed its agenda hard enough. Then there are Republicans who will disapprove because they think there are too many Democrats or they perceive Democrats as standing in the way of an agenda. Not only that but it is a fairly common thing for the media to create narratives that focus primarily on conflict, so what is presented is a picture of an ineffective institution (which, by all accounts, is not too inaccurate), which is constantly bickering and this will throw further people offside. So after all this it would be astonishing if they could ever register higher than 20% of the country, except at times of crisis (I recall that approval was high post-9/11 and at the outset of the Iraq War, as was Presidential approval).
Anyway that's neither here nor there, just a random sidenote.
-
Re: US Federal Government Shutdown
Anyway actually on topic I found this comment utterly despicable:
Quote:
Rep. Lee Terry, R-Neb., was blunt when asked if he would continue collecting his paychecks during the shutdown.
“Dang straight,” he said.
Terry suggested it's an irrelevant question because the situation would be resolved before long.
What about the other members who were donating or forgoing their pay?
“Whatever gets them good press,” Terry said. “That's all that it's going to be. God bless them. But you know what? I've got a nice house and a kid in college, and I'll tell you we cannot handle it. Giving our paycheck away when you still worked and earned it? That's just not going to fly.”
Yes. Because I am absolutely sure that none of the furloughed workers had a house repayment to make or a kid in college.
Just to be clear I have no problem with Congresspeople accepting their pay cheques while they are working, but FFS at least have some tact when you are doing it.
-
Re: US Federal Government Shutdown
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CountArach
That is because, by and large, people do in fact like their own congressperson:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/162362/am...sentative.aspx
I am never surprised by the low ratings that 'Congress' gets in polls. Take the current Republican-controlled Congress at any point. If you asked the average Democrat if they approved or disapproved then, from a purely partisan standpoint, most of them will say disapprove because they don't think it is progressive enough. So that is a substantial portion of the population against you already. Then you consider those who are to the right of the average Republican and they will also disapprove. Then you have Republicans who will disapprove because they think that Congress hasn't pushed its agenda hard enough. Then there are Republicans who will disapprove because they think there are too many Democrats or they perceive Democrats as standing in the way of an agenda. Not only that but it is a fairly common thing for the media to create narratives that focus primarily on conflict, so what is presented is a picture of an ineffective institution (which, by all accounts, is not too inaccurate), which is constantly bickering and this will throw further people offside. So after all this it would be astonishing if they could ever register higher than 20% of the country, except at times of crisis (I recall that approval was high post-9/11 and at the outset of the Iraq War, as was Presidential approval).
Anyway that's neither here nor there, just a random sidenote.
I understand all of that. My point is that believing that your Congressman is the golden idol among the monsters that inhabit Congress is a symptom of the abdication of political responsibilities. People either don't vote or they pick a side and love their Congressman for the pork they chastise others for.
None of this has anything to do with the way government is structured. It is because of people who believe that Nader is the devil for splitting the liberal vote. Voters self identify as the party they belong to. Thus an attack on the party is an attack on ones self. This perfectly sums up the temper tantrums and enabling of both Congressmen and voters alike. The duty of every citizen is to look out for the American community as a whole, this concept has been completely lost.
Hence why we have zealots like Dawg advocating for nothing less than collapse of our standard of living in order to satisfy his own conception of what the perfect life is.
-
Re: US Federal Government Shutdown
Quote:
So after all this it would be astonishing if they could ever register higher than 20% of the country, except at times of crisis (I recall that approval was high post-9/11 and at the outset of the Iraq War, as was Presidential approval).
That's what happens when you work backwards from a conclusion.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1600/congress-public.aspx
-
Re: US Federal Government Shutdown
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tiaexz
I disagree too, but I am not American, so i only see Teaparty Propaganda and how they act infront of television and youtube. Then I see people like Sarah Palin are spearheading the campaign, and Michele Bachman, who also doesn't know anything about anything, I don't think I could trust them to pick up my groceries from the supermarket even with a shopping list and pictures of the items. It kind of gives the perception people don't exist in a plane called 'reality'.
On the otherhand, Hilary Clinton internationally comes across as some one who knows what she is doing in a political office, ideological differences aside.
Is Democrat propaganda so much more successful overseas, or things are so bad in the echo-chambers that millions of Americans have switched off their brains?
A bit of both really. The bulk of our media, aside from Fox News and the WSJ, are populated (heavily) by people who are politically left-leaning themselves. They don't set out to slant their coverage per se -- and can and do hammer any and all politicians with tough questions from time to time -- but in a hundred little things like word choice, body language, eye contact or tone of voice they (possibly unknowingly) slant their coverage (I recall a couple of posts by Euro.orgers who visited the US, saw our news programs first hand for a change, and were appalled at the bias). So yes, to some extent, you see a biased view from our media that represents our political left as rational intellectuals and our political right as ideologues and airheads. Neither Palin or Bachman is as vapid as the coverage makes them out to be, just as Obama is not the would-be Stalinist our right wing radio pundits demagogue about.
That having been said, there are a fair number of Americans who seek out our right-leaning radio media gurus to reinforce their own belief that their beliefs will and should be triumphant and skimp on the thinking part. There are not enough right wingers out there who, like myself, force themselves to listen to Rachel Maddow et al so as to consider a different perspective on the issue. Ignorance may be bliss, but it does make for ideological fanaticism. Also, remember that the USA has an anti-intellectual tradition of long standing (Common Sense and Street Smarts are usually depicted as wiser/better/cooler than formal education; labeling someone as "book smart" is meant as an insult) and politicians strive mightily to be seen as "just another citizen," "homespun," or down to earth.
Small points: I would probably loathe her policy initiatives, but acknowledge that Clinton has very much been groomed for the Presidency and probably has enough spine and intelligence to acquit herself well. Bachman clearly did not have anything resembling that level of gravitas, which is why she good a swift trip out of the primaries last go around. Palin as well simply doesn't have the depth and breadth of experience the position OUGHT to require. I actually think you're going to see a serious run made by Jeb Bush this next time around. Cruz and Paul might challenge that, as might Rubio -- it is early days.
-
Re: US Federal Government Shutdown
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tiaexz
I disagree too, but I am not American, so i only see Teaparty Propaganda and how they act infront of television and youtube. Then I see people like Sarah Palin are spearheading the campaign, and Michele Bachman, who also doesn't know anything about anything, I don't think I could trust them to pick up my groceries from the supermarket even with a shopping list and pictures of the items. It kind of gives the perception people don't exist in a plane called 'reality'.
On the otherhand, Hilary Clinton internationally comes across as some one who knows what she is doing in a political office, ideological differences aside.
Is Democrat propaganda so much more successful overseas, or things are so bad in the echo-chambers that millions of Americans have switched off their brains?
I don't identify as conservative or support the Republican Party but I do believe that conservatives aren't always as incompetent as they appear. Utah, the state that I live in is, is overwhelmingly Republican and has been ranked as one of the best managed states in the nation.
I also agree with Seamus that the media has a role in our perception of the Republican Party. I happened to be in Alaska during Troopergate and the impression I received of Sarah Palin then was different than the one I received during her Vice Presidential candidacy. She seemed more savvy and intelligent, and she was not the naive bimbo presented in the media during the 2008 presidential election.
-
Re: US Federal Government Shutdown
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Seamus Fermanagh
but in a hundred little things like word choice, body language, eye contact or tone of voice they (possibly unknowingly) slant their coverage (I recall a couple of posts by Euro.orgers who visited the US, saw our news programs first hand for a change, and were appalled at the bias). So yes, to some extent, you see a biased view from our media that represents our political left as rational intellectuals and our political right as ideologues and airheads. Neither Palin or Bachman is as vapid as the coverage makes them out to be, just as Obama is not the would-be Stalinist our right wing radio pundits demagogue about.
Any idea why? I mean journalists in general seems to be trending left, in the same way that the military trends right, but at least serious Swedish media tries to be neutral on the news and facts, with the bias coming in the analysis. They're of course accused of having a left wing bias on average and you can probably see a lot of bias on what news that's decided to be pushed, but during the programmes themselves, they try to be even handed.
Anyway, I suspect the echo-chamber has completely destroyed any factchecking. How many Americans do you think knows that Obama has been running most of his years with the lowest taxes in 50 years and that more than 75% of the expenses are bound up by medicare/aid, social security, interest and military?
-
Re: US Federal Government Shutdown
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ICantSpellDawg
Most tea partiers just want to go back in time.
Their problem is that the time they want to go back to never existed in the first place.
-
Re: US Federal Government Shutdown
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoreTore
Their problem is that the time they want to go back to never existed in the first place.
Like most self-respecting fascists.
-
Re: US Federal Government Shutdown
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sarmatian
Like most self-respecting fascists.
Well, fascism is revolutionary in nature; even though their intended modernization draws heavily on a mythical past. Mussolini's Italy wasn't an attempt to recreate the Roman Empire, even though he drew heavily on it for justification.
In many ways, the Tea Party is similar, with the difference that they do not seem to be aware of it. Their 'golden age' never existed, so what they aim for is new and revolutionary.
-
Re: US Federal Government Shutdown
Quote:
Originally Posted by
a completely inoffensive name
I understand all of that. My point is that believing that your Congressman is the golden idol among the monsters that inhabit Congress is a symptom of the abdication of political responsibilities. People either don't vote or they pick a side and love their Congressman for the pork they chastise others for.
None of this has anything to do with the way government is structured. It is because of people who believe that Nader is the devil for splitting the liberal vote. Voters self identify as the party they belong to. Thus an attack on the party is an attack on ones self. This perfectly sums up the temper tantrums and enabling of both Congressmen and voters alike. The duty of every citizen is to look out for the American community as a whole, this concept has been completely lost.
Hence why we have zealots like Dawg advocating for nothing less than collapse of our standard of living in order to satisfy his own conception of what the perfect life is.
Yeah, you'd think people are selfish if you didn't know they're all good christians.
-
Re: US Federal Government Shutdown
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gelatinous Cube
America is such a big country that there are no truly acceptable answers to those questions.
Really? America is a country these days :inquisitive:
-
You guys are all just angry and you don't know where to aim your anger, so you aim it at the GOP. What do you think would happen to your paychecks if the GOP just ceased to exist? Utopia would ensue? I say let's call your bluff and eliminate the GOP. The imaginary world that you live in where the GOP makes it impossible to govern when you control the other House, the executive and nearly every bureaucrat is on your side. It is not incumbent on the party that is against government to just cave to your statist whims. We win when the government fails to expand.
Long story short - spending increases vs what we take in seem to be unstoppable. You know this is the case and it leads directly to increased government consumption of your assets and income. We want major cuts to Federal programs, but all we get are major increases to Federal programs. People tell you that every program is absolutely essential for you to just continue living your life. You must know that this is BS. We can create new programs and allow the government to expand, but in your own interest you must know that there are places that we can seriously cut back.
Why are people villains for demanding accounting transparency and a walk back of nonessential services? A re-definition of what an "essential service" is. Should the government just continue expanding, exponentially and raising it's take of your take, all while showing you more and more contempt in its regulations and law? What do you think is supposed to happen? But you have found a villain to make yourselves feel better while you are swindled. If it wasn't so awful it would be humorous.
The US government is no longer a protector of your rights. It is a guardian of a kaleidoscope of entrenched interest which have nothing to do with you as an individual. It no longer deserves your loyalty even though the law demands it. The founding fathers were a bunch of seditionists who rebelled against a government which held them in contempt. We can do better and times are changing.
-
I have a long question.
You guys can't accuse me of being a racist, because I believe that all people should be given a blank slate to prove themselves and I reject the idea that some hold themselves above others because of their upbringing or backgrounds.
You can't call me a fascist because I want to diminish the role and power of government over the lives of individuals. I am a soft on crime Republican.
I want to reform the immigration system to make it easier to migrate to the United States and exist as a human being with protected rights.
I don't reject the idea that the health system is broken and needed to be fixed and that the ACA is probably better than single payer for the purposes of individual liberty.
What are you guys accusing me of being? An asshole, being crazy? I'm a moderate Republican, but you have left us no choice with the endless expansion of government. I see the next few years as the last time that we will have to keep the government out of our lives. You accuse me of being old fashioned. Old fashioned is the government controlling your life. Government involvement in the lives of individuals needs to be scaled back. It is absolutely essential. This is why I support a shutdown. It is better to pay Federal employees for doing nothing than to allow them to continue boring a whole into the American life.
Carrying a credit balance for the US government is probably a good thing, even though for individuals it is not. At this point, though, we have crossed the Rubicon into very bad territory. The hostage takers are those who say that we have come to far with our financial hemorrhage to turn back. That we must continue spending beyond our ability to pay back due to how far we come and that anything short of a boost to spending will tank the economy and kill Americans. This is the hostage situation!
-
Re: US Federal Government Shutdown
I'd say "fanatical" fits.
Especially because of the "it's now or never" view of an ultimate showdown that is absolute in nature.
Life is about compromise, man. Let things fly, it'll work itself out in the end.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoreTore
I'd say "fanatical" fits.
Especially because of the "it's now or never" view of an ultimate showdown that is absolute in nature.
Life is about compromise, man. Let things fly, it'll work itself out in the end.
I agree with you, but where is the compromise? We pay for the budget 100% as passed by the Senate or eat curb? Find me the compromise and I will probably support it as I tend to do. I do not support strongarm demagogy. More spending without cuts is not compromise and it is not reasonable, so why should it be supported by the side who stands against it?
Those who are worried about being one of the only nations who can spend light years more than we expect to be able to pay back are called fools and obstructionists. Where do we get the right to spend all of the worlds and our future children's money on the drug war, mass incarceration, golden parachutes for federal workers, etc. It is unjust. We need to discuss where our spending is and if the budget fight isn't the place to do that, I have absolutely no idea what planet I'm on.
It doesn't always work itself out in the end, to be truthful. Sometimes people go to war against one another over less serious differences. Sometimes radical organizations take over government and exterminate millions of citizens, sometimes nuclear weapons wipe out cities in Japan. Sometimes, in the end, it just ends. I just find nothing cautious or intellectually compelling in the argument that government must simply grow and grow spending more and more.
-
Re: US Federal Government Shutdown
Obamacare is a result of a compromise. It was originally intended to be much larger, but has been scaled back as the result of a compromise between various conflicting interests.
What's happening now is that one side has pulled out of this compromise and taken a "my way or the highway" stance.
Accepting Obamacare is the first step to a compromise.
This presidency will be about a compromise leading to increased spending. Next you'll have a president where the compromise is on decreasing spending, like what Bush did(somewhat).
Learn to accept not getting your way now. Accept "defeat" on Obamacare, move on.
-
Re: US Federal Government Shutdown
Quote:
We need to discuss where our spending is
...and the only way to do it is to burn everything to the ground.
-
Re: US Federal Government Shutdown
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Seamus Fermanagh
Latest Pew poll apparently shows the US public more or less evenly split with 44% blaming GOP and 42% blaming Obama and the Dems. Though apparently, that was in a forced choice kinda question. There is a huge group that thinks they are all being idiots, regardless of party.
Here's a poll without the forced choice. In short, everyone sucks, but the Republicans suck more than the rest. It also shows the GOP starting to splinter:
Quote:
The wide unpopularity of Republicans in Congress in budget talks is in large part due to a schism within Republicans themselves. By 59 to 39 percent, conservative Republicans approve of the way their party’s members of congress have handled budget negotiations in combined interviews over two weeks. But Republicans who identify as moderate or liberal split narrowly: 44 percent approval to 49 percent disapproval.
This ideological split within the Republican party comes into sharper focus when looking at the most conservative party members. Republicans who describe themselves as “very conservative” approve of Republicans in Congress by 68 to 32 percent. Those who are just “somewhat conservative” split 51 to 45 percent in two weeks of combined poll results.
The shutdown itself is also increasingly looking like the nail in Cuccinelli's coffin. I hesitate to call the loss of the VA Governor's race a consequence of this because it was looking like the Cooch was going to lose anyway, but it's certainly going to start inflicting a political price on the GOP very shortly.
-
Re: US Federal Government Shutdown
Would the GOP still object to the budget if the ACA were not in it?
What else could the Dems remove while keeping the ACA in in order to make the GOP agree with the budget?
-
Re: US Federal Government Shutdown
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoreTore
Obamacare is a result of a compromise. It was originally intended to be much larger, but has been scaled back as the result of a compromise between various conflicting interests.
What's happening now is that one side has pulled out of this compromise and taken a "my way or the highway" stance.
Accepting Obamacare is the first step to a compromise.
This presidency will be about a compromise leading to increased spending. Next you'll have a president where the compromise is on decreasing spending, like what Bush did(somewhat).
Learn to accept not getting your way now. Accept "defeat" on Obamacare, move on.
Wooooaaahhh woaahhh. Wait a second. The compromise was between factions in the Democratic party. The GOP was close to united against the proposal. It was a compromise between blue and red dems, but that has nothing to do with the GOP. You make it seem like the GOP was part of dialogue other than saying "no". Not the case. The ACA was a compromise between Democrats in the blue dog coalition and Democrats at large.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TinCow
Here's
a poll without the forced choice. In short, everyone sucks, but the Republicans suck more than the rest. It also shows the GOP starting to splinter:
The shutdown itself is also increasingly looking like the nail in Cuccinelli's coffin. I hesitate to call the loss of the VA Governor's race a consequence of this because it was looking like the Cooch was going to lose anyway, but it's certainly going to start inflicting a political price on the GOP very shortly.
C' mon, McCaullife broke away in August. Nail in the coffin, yes, but that implies that his coffin was already there and that Ken was in it.
Spin your narratives if you'd like, but Cuccinelli scared the new Virginians and the ACA was a compromise between Democratic socialist and capitalist factions. I'm actually surprised that HoreTore thinks that the ACA was a Republican/Democrat compromise. Is anyone else surprised by that? Its fun to be slopped together on "compromises" which you opposed wholeheartedly with minimal defection
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Husar
Would the GOP still object to the budget if the ACA were not in it?
What else could the Dems remove while keeping the ACA in in order to make the GOP agree with the budget?
Yes, remember the budget fight and threatened shutdown every year and the fact that it is merely a continuing resolution? The inclusion of ACA was the straw that broke the camels back, but it didn't cause the shutdown any more than an extra 5 pound wait could kill a body builder when you add it to the 900 lbs bar he is lifting.
But your question is the point that I hope more people understand. If you can't give up ACA funding, give where you can and get ACA funding.
-
Re: US Federal Government Shutdown
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ICantSpellDawg
C' mon, McCaullife broke away in August. Nail in the coffin, yes, but that implies that his coffin was already there and that Ken was in it.
Spin your narratives if you'd like, but Cuccinelli scared the new Virginians and the ACA was a compromise between Democratic socialist and capitalist factions.
He didn't "break away" until the shutdown brinksmanship started. Cooch was consistently holding at about 4-5 points down before that point. I agree completely that he was entirely unlikely to ever be able to close that gap, but 4-5 points was theoretically surmountable. That gap has now doubled, which is remarkable given what a poor candidate that McAuliffe is. Honestly, this entire race should be a lesson the the GOP. I'm a solid liberal (mainly social) but I've been very pleased with how McDonnell has run the state and I have a lot of respect for Bolling as well. If the GOP had run Bolling against McAuliffe, they'd have my vote in a few weeks and would likely have retained the state. To be more honest as well, I really want Christie for POTUS in 2016. The ONLY reason I might not vote for him at this point is the House GOP. I'm nervous about enabling that group further by giving them a party-aligned president, even one as independently strong-willed as Christie. My hope is that the Tea Party will have their backs broken by 2016 and I'll be able to freely vote for Christie without concerns about Congress.
Think about that. The last GOP candidate I voted for for President was Dole, but I prefer Christie over any other candidate I've even heard of, including Clinton. Yet my vote could end up going to the Dems because of the House GOP.
-
Re: US Federal Government Shutdown
I believe the Dem's already attempted some accommodation.
If I understand it correctly, the initial appropriation was for over 1 billion dollars and the defunding of Obamacare; the modified Senate proposal reduced the amount to 900 million while stripping out the provisions connected to Obamacare.
I pretty certain the "no negotiation" stance is tied to the enacted ACA; odd hill to die on.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democ.../10/shutdown-0
-
Re: US Federal Government Shutdown
ICSD, I think the single most off-putting thing is your glee at the thought of a radical re-making of American society. Pretty much destroys any notion that your goals might be "conservative." ("Revolutionary," 'radical," or "extremist" would fit better.)
To dispel a few talking points:
Number of times the Democrats in House/Senate have attempted to "compromise," i.e. hold meaningful budget talks: 19. Number of times Republicans have allowed such conference: 0. (So the current Repub talking point about "They won't compromise!" is entirely true if history started last week.)
The budget arrived at for the continuing resolution was based on the sequester numbers, which was regarded by both Dems and Repubs as a Dem compromise. (Until last week, which is apparently when the world was created.)
So ... deficits are falling fast, personal and corporate taxes are at historic lows, and the Tea Party is angrier than ever.
Indeed, listen to your own rhetoric. You're ready to secede and burn the house down over ... what, exactly?
-
Re: US Federal Government Shutdown
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TinCow
He didn't "break away" until the shutdown brinksmanship started. Cooch was consistently holding at about 4-5 points down before that point. I agree completely that he was entirely unlikely to ever be able to close that gap, but 4-5 points was theoretically surmountable. That gap has now doubled, which is remarkable given what a poor candidate that McAuliffe is. Honestly, this entire race should be a lesson the the GOP. I'm a solid liberal (mainly social) but I've been very pleased with how McDonnell has run the state and I have a lot of respect for Bolling as well. If the GOP had run Bolling against McAuliffe, they'd have my vote in a few weeks and would likely have retained the state.
This entire race has just been a :daisy: sandwich, from start to finish. McAuliffe is a bad choice for the Dems, but the state GOP completely lost their minds. Cuccinelli might have had a chance, even with the Jackson stench and McDonnell scandal. Putting a large percentage of the population in both NoVa and the Hampton Roads region out of work right before the election? Good call, GOP. :no:
-
Re: US Federal Government Shutdown
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lemur
ICSD, I think the single most off-putting thing is your glee at the thought of a radical re-making of American society. Pretty much destroys any notion that your goals might be "conservative." ("Revolutionary," 'radical," or "extremist" would fit better.)
I think "Reactionary" is the word you're looking for given that he wants the system to return to a previous state at or after its conception if I understand that correctly.
I don't think this makes sense in every discipline however. Laws become complicated over time for example because people always find smaller and smaller loopholes to exploit in many cases. Reverting that to almost zero might just open up all the loopholes again. Resetting some of the pork stuff and complicated legislation that only serves special interests which lobbied and paid for it in ways that would usually count as corruption might be a goo thing though. I do however not see how the current shutdown can achieve this. So far it only seems to hurt the wrong people, I haven't seen any lobbyists cry so far.
-
Re: US Federal Government Shutdown
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Husar
I do however not see how the current shutdown can achieve this.
There's been a lot of talk about a grand bargain over the past six years, mostly from the Dems. All such attempts have been shut down, largely because the Repubs do not like the "bargain" part of grand bargain. (Fun fact: a key player in derailing all serious attempts at a grand bargain has been my very own congresscritter, Paul Ryan.)
So: 19 attempts at a budget conciliation meeting in the past year, all shut down by Repubs. Multiple attempts to sit down and hammer out a grand bargain, all torpedoed by the Repubs. (It gets a bit dry, but all of that talk about "Would you accept $1 in new revenue for $10 in budget cuts" stuff is really, really important.)
And now, with the threat of default, suddenly the Repubs want to "compromise." Does anyone actually believe them? I mean, there's a massive credibility gap here. Looks a lot like Calvinball.
-
Re: US Federal Government Shutdown
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lemur
Does anyone actually believe them?
Going by the video I posted above it's just a publicity stunt.
They pretend they want to bargain because they think/know it gives them better publicity.
-
Re: US Federal Government Shutdown
It is a bunch of hot air, they keep saying they want to compromise and bargain to make the democrats look bad, when in reality, it is the democrats who want to compromise and bargain.
It is like the school bully punching the other child whilst saying "Stop hitting me! Stop hitting me!" then the other child getting in trouble because the teacher (uninformed voter) had their back to the truth and only went off what was being said.
-
Re: US Federal Government Shutdown
This only gets better. Newest insanity to grip the radicals is that hitting the debt ceiling won't matter. No, seriously.
Here's a deep and detailed refutation of this madness.
Not that facts and numbers will have any meaning for the nihilists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Seamus Fermanagh
Neither Palin or Bachman is as vapid as the coverage makes them out to be
Dude, if you're anything but a dominionist, Bachmann is terrifying.
Bachmann falsely claimed that “President Obama waived a ban on selling arms to terrorists.”
“President Obama waived a ban on arming terrorists in order to allow weapons to go to the Syrian opposition,” Bachmann said. “Your listeners, US taxpayers, are now paying to give arms to terrorists including Al Qaeda.”
Bachmann said that the Al Qaeda funding (which isn’t happening) is a sign of the End Times: “This happened and as of today the United States is willingly, knowingly, intentionally sending arms to terrorists, now what this says to me, I’m a believer in Jesus Christ, as I look at the End Times scripture, this says to me that the leaf is on the fig tree and we are to understand the signs of the times, which is your ministry, we are to understand where we are in God’s end times history.”
“Rather than seeing this as a negative, we need to rejoice, Maranatha Come Lord Jesus, His day is at hand,” Bachmann continued.
-
Re: US Federal Government Shutdown
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ICantSpellDawg
Wooooaaahhh woaahhh. Wait a second. The compromise was between factions in the Democratic party. The GOP was close to united against the proposal. It was a compromise between blue and red dems, but that has nothing to do with the GOP. You make it seem like the GOP was part of dialogue other than saying "no". Not the case. The ACA was a compromise between Democrats in the blue dog coalition and Democrats at large.
The nature is such that almost any proposal needs to be a compromise with the opposition in order for it to pass and, more importantly, stay passed. As such, Obamacare was watered down both to satisfy the dems at large as well as the republicans.
I am of course fully aware that the republican party has generally acted like retards from the very beginning of Obamacare.
Obamacare is happening. Face up to it, be constructive.
-
Re: US Federal Government Shutdown
So we're toying with the idea of defaulting on the national debt: What could possibly go wrong?
The exit from US Treasuries accelerated on Tuesday, as concerns mounted about financial market turmoil should a failure to raise the debt ceiling result in a delayed payment later this month.
Treasury bills maturing later this month and in early November rose above 30 basis points on Tuesday, their highest level since late 2008 when the Federal Reserve adopted a zero interest rate policy and anchored short-term interest rates.
These yields are up from about zero per cent since mid-September. In turn, the general collateral rate used for financing short-term lending between banks and investors in the repurchase, or repo, market jumped to 25bp and is up from 8bp a week ago.
“We are really seeing signs of stress showing up in the plumbing of the financial system,” said John Brady, senior vice-president at RJ O’Brien. “It’s fair to say that banks don’t want to take Treasury bills as collateral if in fact they are not going to be paid.”
Pretty sure American "conservatives" are unique in wanting to destroy their own nation's credit rating. Hats off to 'em. They are unique.
-
Re: US Federal Government Shutdown
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lemur
Pretty sure American "conservatives" are unique in wanting to destroy their own nation's credit rating. Hats off to 'em. They are unique.
I think the word you are looking for is "special".
-
Re: US Federal Government Shutdown
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kadagar_AV
I think the word you are looking for is "special".
The politically correct and in this case literal term is "fiscally challenged" :smoking:
-
Re: US Federal Government Shutdown
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lemur
This only gets better. Newest insanity to grip the radicals is that
hitting the debt ceiling won't matter. No, seriously.
Here's a
deep and detailed refutation of this madness.
Not that facts and numbers will have any meaning for the nihilists.
Dude, if you're anything but a
dominionist, Bachmann is
terrifying.
Bachmann falsely claimed that “President Obama waived a ban on selling arms to terrorists.”
“President Obama waived a ban on arming terrorists in order to allow weapons to go to the Syrian opposition,” Bachmann said. “Your listeners, US taxpayers, are now paying to give arms to terrorists including Al Qaeda.”
Bachmann said that the Al Qaeda funding (which isn’t happening) is a sign of the End Times: “This happened and as of today the United States is willingly, knowingly, intentionally sending arms to terrorists, now what this says to me, I’m a believer in Jesus Christ, as I look at the End Times scripture, this says to me that the leaf is on the fig tree and we are to understand the signs of the times, which is your ministry, we are to understand where we are in God’s end times history.”
“Rather than seeing this as a negative, we need to rejoice, Maranatha Come Lord Jesus, His day is at hand,” Bachmann continued.
Bachman is a fringer for sure. While a person of faith, I have never been a literalist, so I unlike her I don't go around looking for end of time signs. The point is to live a good life and be ready to face your maker at ANY time. Oy vey. Still, I would ascribe this to fanaticism, not stupidity -- though on the viewing end the distinction may be irrelevant.
She is certainly playing fast and loose with the Syrian arming thing. Yes, some of the supplies will end up in the hands of AQ sympathizers. War zones are rarely well ordered with lots of accountants running about checking blocks so some of the stuff will likely get diverted. That is a far cry from what she is claiming.
-
Re: US Federal Government Shutdown
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lemur
Pretty sure American "conservatives" are unique in wanting to destroy their own nation's credit rating. Hats off to 'em. They are unique.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kadagar_AV
I think the word you are looking for is "special".
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Papewaio
The politically correct and in this case literal term is "fiscally challenged" :smoking:
You are all missing the obvious; clearly you forgot about American Exceptionalism. A republican will be with you shortly to address this severe lack of faith on your part.
EDIT: Serious questions:
How much control does the Federal Government really have in terms of who it chooses to retain? Are there actually any stipulations in employment contracts which would allow the Federal employees to accept a temporary pay cut instead of being furloughed? Why on earth are Congress critters still getting paid?
-
Re: US Federal Government Shutdown
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tellos Athenaios
How much control does the Federal Government really have in terms of who it chooses to retain? Are there actually any stipulations in employment contracts which would allow the Federal employees to accept a temporary pay cut instead of being furloughed? Why on earth are Congress critters still getting paid?
Congress gets paid because their salaries are mandatory, not discretionary, spending. Discretionary spending is what is currently unfunded. Congressional compensation is outlined in Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution, POTUS and federal judges are also guaranteed pay under their respective articles. Mandatory spending also includes Medicare and Social Security.
-
Re: US Federal Government Shutdown
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Greyblades
I don't see MJ12 on that list, but I guess it's too early for that.
-
Re: US Federal Government Shutdown
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Seamus Fermanagh
She is certainly playing fast and loose with the Syrian arming thing. Yes, some of the supplies will end up in the hands of AQ sympathizers. War zones are rarely well ordered with lots of accountants running about checking blocks so some of the stuff will likely get diverted. That is a far cry from what she is claiming.
What's her position on Dear Reagan arming OBL, btw?
-
Re: US Federal Government Shutdown
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoreTore
The nature is such that almost any proposal needs to be a compromise with the opposition in order for it to pass and, more importantly, stay passed. As such, Obamacare was watered down both to satisfy the dems at large as well as the republicans.
I am of course fully aware that the republican party has generally acted like retards from the very beginning of Obamacare.
Obamacare is happening. Face up to it, be constructive.
I am constructive regarding Obamacare. In fact, I will bet you that no other Republican on these boards has a better understanding of the healthcare system or the ACA than I do. I won't say that about most topics. I've stated that although it was pushed through 2 democratic houses and signed by the executive, the individual mandate was upheld by the judiciary as part of the enumerated power of the Federal Government to tax. Additionally, the GOP failed in its endeavor to oust the President and begin unraveling it. I recognize that these things make it the law of the land and, at this point, I recognize that it is a unique program, unlike the single payer systems throughout the world, a fact that both eases and worries me. I also recognize the causes of many of our healthcare woes and the reality that healthcare is not just another consumer product. With every sale your life and health are being held under duress. This, combined with the fact that basic human physiology is beyond most people makes the consumption of healthcare unique and important. Any who, for me this has never been about Obamacare, just like Iraq was never about WMD's. We wanted results and the premise was just hype to justify our goal because the actual goal was a much harder sell. Does my position make more sense? I want more trade offs. More government in one area must mean less in another.
-
Re: US Federal Government Shutdown
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lemur
This only gets better. Newest insanity to grip the radicals is that
hitting the debt ceiling won't matter. No, seriously.
Here's a
deep and detailed refutation of this madness.
Not that facts and numbers will have any meaning for the nihilists.
Dude, if you're anything but a
dominionist, Bachmann is
terrifying.
Bachmann falsely claimed that “President Obama waived a ban on selling arms to terrorists.”
“President Obama waived a ban on arming terrorists in order to allow weapons to go to the Syrian opposition,” Bachmann said. “Your listeners, US taxpayers, are now paying to give arms to terrorists including Al Qaeda.”
Bachmann said that the Al Qaeda funding (which isn’t happening) is a sign of the End Times: “This happened and as of today the United States is willingly, knowingly, intentionally sending arms to terrorists, now what this says to me, I’m a believer in Jesus Christ, as I look at the End Times scripture, this says to me that the leaf is on the fig tree and we are to understand the signs of the times, which is your ministry, we are to understand where we are in God’s end times history.”
“Rather than seeing this as a negative, we need to rejoice, Maranatha Come Lord Jesus, His day is at hand,” Bachmann continued.
Honestly, this is what happens when you ratchet up tension. The other side has a tendency to up the ante in response. Is this news to you?
-
Re: US Federal Government Shutdown
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ICantSpellDawg
The other side has a tendency to up the ante in response.
Insane. If you start a fight with no strategy to win, the other guy is not obligated to help you figure out how to exit with dignity. Have any of these fat old white men read Sun Tzu? Even heard of him?
This whole thing is beyond ludicrous, beyond comedy, beyond satire.
The House Republicans appear to have picked a fight with no game plan, no clear goals, just well-developed feelings of entitlement and rage.
Or as my favorite blogger put it in an epic rant today:
"There is effectively no Republican party any more. There is a radical movement to destroy the modern American state and eviscerate its institutions in favor of restoring a mythical, elysian, majority-white, nineteenth-century past."
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lemur
Insane. If you start a fight with no strategy to win, the other guy is not obligated to help you figure out how to exit with dignity. Have any of these fat old white men read Sun Tzu? Even heard of him?
This whole thing is beyond ludicrous, beyond comedy, beyond satire.
The House Republicans appear to have picked a fight with no game plan, no clear goals, just well-developed feelings of entitlement and rage.
Or as my favorite blogger put it in an
epic rant today:
"There is effectively no Republican party any more. There is a radical movement to destroy the modern American state and eviscerate its institutions in favor of restoring a mythical, elysian, majority-white, nineteenth-century past."
I don't want to restore anything. What are we going to lose, by that standard? If you believe that our perceived goal is impossible and absurd, what would successful strategy deliver that frenzied nihilistic barrages against the enemy won't? Failure is guaranteed, the least we can do is make our opponent suffer.
-
Re: US Federal Government Shutdown
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoreTore
What's her position on Dear Reagan arming OBL, btw?
I don't know that she's made any statements regarding that, so I cannot answer. The American political right, at the time, saw the whole thing as a way to put a thumb in the Soviet Bear's eye. At the time Good Time Charlie was pushing for funding for that CIA dirty trick effort, we were still fearful of Sov Tank brigades rolling through the Fulda gap thicker than cockroaches on a tenement floor. Making the Ruskis hurt was considered a good effort.
As is all too often true with the USA, we had a much better plan for the short term and far less of a good grasp on long term unintended consequences....including the ISI funding and equipping Saudi wahabist mujahedeen along with Pashtuns.
I suspect Bachman missed that too, just as most of us did.
-
Re: US Federal Government Shutdown
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gelatinous Cube
I'm no longer capable of discussing this in a civilized fashion. Screw the Tea Party for starting it, screw the R's for going along with it, and screw Obama and the dems for not reacting to it satisfactorily.
Seems civilized enough to me, though I read it after the edit....:yes:
"Civilized" does NOT require you to acquiesce to idiocy, merely to signal your disdain and disgust in a relatively reasoned manner.
-
Re: US Federal Government Shutdown
Nasa was apparently going to announce something big at 12 pm. USA time today. But their site is shut down because of the goverment shut down. LOL. Such absurdity, such orchestrated shennanigans. Watch your three rigned circus :laugh4: FYI the websites for the CIA, FBI and IRS are working just fine, as is usa.gov, only the NASA website is down.
Also, stopping some imaginary funding doesn't immediately render a website useless. likely it's hosted on local machines or on pre-paid dedicated servers/collocation and they have internal admins running it. So no way in hell does an artifical goverment shutdown make NASA's website go "poof" just like that. So much fail...
-
Re: US Federal Government Shutdown
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Myth
Nasa was apparently going to announce something big at 12 pm. USA time today. But their site is shut down because of the goverment shut down. LOL. Such absurdity, such orchestrated shennanigans. Watch your three rigned circus :laugh4: FYI the websites for the CIA, FBI and IRS are working just fine, as is usa.gov, only the NASA website is down.
Also, stopping some imaginary funding doesn't immediately render a website useless. likely it's hosted on local machines or on pre-paid dedicated servers/collocation and they have internal admins running it. So no way in hell does an artifical goverment shutdown make NASA's website go "poof" just like that. So much fail...
Don't let facts get in the way of the story.
As of the 2-Oct 10 of the 56 gov websites went dark
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...gly-arbitrary/
It does seem arbitrary. But it isn't only NASA and they weren't the first. It is based on who is administered by critical staff and/or non-discretionary budget.
-
Re: US Federal Government Shutdown
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gelatinous Cube
Heeeeere is an except from the email going around by the VA:
Quote:
In the event of a prolonged shutdown, no decisions on appeals or motions will be issued by the Board of Veterans
Appeals, and no Board field hearings on appeals will be held
I'm relatively lucky. Old veterans or veterans who suffered severe maimings in the line of duty will be hit first.
Anyone who supports this shutdown and claims to support the troops is a damned liar. Or a politically illiterate moron. Either way.
I'll comment on the above bit, since it's not entirely clear and that's where I work. The entire Board is considered non-essential and subject to furlough (well, technically there's 1 person out of nearly 700 that is considered essential, but she can't do all our work herself). However, we remain open and are operating because we have money left over from the last fiscal year. That money was provided to us by Congress so that we could hire more attorneys to help cut into the backlog. Instead of using that money to hire new people, we are now using it as a lifeline to keep operating. That money will keep us going through the end of October, apparently, but it will run out at some point in early November. At that time all appeal processing will also stop. In addition, even though we are operating many administrative support aspects of the VA are not. This includes the mail system. As a result, even though we are completing work it is not being dispatched to Veterans or to the regional offices. That means that we have finished work simply piling up and not going anywhere. That will result in a huge workload on the administrative side of things once we get back to work and the tide of paper is unleashed. We also aren't receiving any mail from veterans or their representatives, which means that any newly submitted evidence, motions, arguments, etc. are not getting considered in conjunction with the cases we are adjudicating. That will likely result in us having to re-do an abnormally large number of cases once the mail starts flowing again and we get new documents that impact decisions that were already issued. We also cannot conduct hearings nor get any additional development done on cases. All development work on the new paperless claims system has also halted, as most of the IT staff are non-essential and currently furloughed.
In short, the progress we've made in reducing the backlog over the past year is very rapidly being reversed. If the shutdown lasts long enough, the backlog will actually grow in 2013 instead of shrink. Congress needs to get their shit together, these games have consequences.
-
Re: US Federal Government Shutdown
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Myth
Nasa was apparently going to announce something big at 12 pm. USA time today. But their site is shut down because of the goverment shut down. LOL. Such absurdity, such orchestrated shennanigans. Watch your three rigned circus :laugh4: FYI the websites for the CIA, FBI and IRS are working just fine, as is usa.gov, only the NASA website is down.
Also, stopping some imaginary funding doesn't immediately render a website useless. likely it's hosted on local machines or on pre-paid dedicated servers/collocation and they have internal admins running it. So no way in hell does an artifical goverment shutdown make NASA's website go "poof" just like that. So much fail...
97% of NASA has been furloughed. My wife's best friend is a PhD who works for NASA creating safety systems to stop airplanes from crashing. Her work is non-essential and she is not working or getting paid. Due to serious budget issues (NASA doesn't pay very well to begin with, people work there because they love their work), she has had to file for unemployment benefits. It's ridiculous.
You might excuse NASA for being a bit angry about this situation when you realize just how much they are getting frogged over. Anyone who's complaining about the lack of a NASA website needs to check their attitude at the door.
-
Re: US Federal Government Shutdown
J-Pod, a reliably rightwing commentator:
Suicide of the Right
Every piece of evidence we have so far on the government shutdown shows the public is blaming Republicans most of all for the standoff. On Monday, an ABC poll showed 71 percent fault the GOP; 61 percent fault Congressional Democrats; 51 percent fault President Obama.
Yes, Democrats look bad. Yes, Obama is probably doing himself no favors by saying he won’t negotiate when the public wants politicians in Washington to work together.
But Republicans look considerably worse. [...]
If ObamaCare had been as unpopular as conservatives believed, their plan for the shutdown — that there would be a public uprising to force Democratic senators in close races in 2014 to defund it — would’ve worked. It didn’t. Not a single senator budged.
Their tactic failed, and now what they are left with is House Speaker John Boehner basically begging the president of the United States to negotiate with him.
One thing we know for sure is that it’s not an equal fight, this fight between a man who received 65 million votes nationwide and a man who received 246,000 votes in one congressional district in Ohio.
-
Re: US Federal Government Shutdown
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TinCow
I believe this is precisely what we are in now. I used to believe that there was a lot of wisdom in the way our government was created, with separation of powers between the branches, as well as with the distribution of powers between the states and the federal government. However, I have begun to have serious reservations over the quality of our entire system of government. As I now see it, any system of government that allows an impasse like this to occur is so fundamentally flawed as to be actively dangerous. Our current system of government is broken and no harping on about the wisdom of lots of old dead guys will change that fact. While the system worked relatively well for nearly 200 years (minus a minor civil war), I do not hold out much hope of us ever recovering from the current crisis. Now that minority parties have figured out how to block the entire working of the government, there is nothing to stop them from continuing to do that in the future, absent a total overhaul of the redistricting system, which itself I believe is impossible. Essentially, they can't put the rabbit back in the hat. As such, I am concerned that we have before us decades of political turmoil of this nature. The only alternative is going the French route and simply creating a new Republic with a new Constitution, but that's basically impossible too.
Clearly, this crisis shows the superiority of the Belgian system.
We are in a constant political crisis for a long while now but even during our famous 541 days without government, there was no notable difference for the population.
Just say the world when you want Belgians to take over your country.
For a modest fee, I am willing to start ruling the US, together with other drunkards well educated Belgians..
-
Re: US Federal Government Shutdown
Good analysis:
The truth is that Republicans can pretty much say whatever they want, no matter what the bizarre logic and no matter what connection it has to what they were saying five minutes ago, and Fox News will totally accept it and blast it for hours or days.
The result? Republicans have become incredibly lazy. After all, why bother constructing a coherent argument if you don’t need one.
So why is it a problem? Well, for one thing, it means that it’s easy for Republican politicians to fall deep within an information feedback loop, not even realizing that what everyone within that loop is excited about is unpopular, or perhaps just irrelevant, to the other 80 percent or so of the nation. Or to put it another way: Benghazi!
-
Re: US Federal Government Shutdown
Heard an NPR interview with George Will this morning.
George Will asserts that using debt limits and minority stall/stalemating are integral components of our Madisonian system of governance.
Of course, while he clearly supported the existence/use of such a tactic as manifesting Madison's concept that each branch should be struggling with the others and thereby preserve the balance, Will also said that using the tactic in connection with the ACA was a poor choice since it wouldn't work and could well backfire.
-
Re: US Federal Government Shutdown
I feel like posting another flippant analogy:
The GOP's maneuver, unless yet holding back some devious phase, is like setting an elephant loose in a house because the foundations are being weakened by termites.
Quote:
George Will asserts that using debt limits and minority stall/stalemating are integral components of our Madisonian system of governance.
*grumble*
Anyone got any more essays on sound reforms that would make the system more majoritarian?
-
Re: US Federal Government Shutdown
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Montmorency
Anyone got any more essays on sound reforms that would make the system more majoritarian?
I think these are a good start: http://www.cgpgrey.com/politics-in-the-animal-kingdom/
-
Re: US Federal Government Shutdown
I'll watch them later, but at a glance they seem to be focused on the electoral process.
How about Congressional/legislative procedure, or even the structure of the houses? OK
-
Re: US Federal Government Shutdown
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Montmorency
I'll watch them later, but at a glance they seem to be focused on the electoral process.
How about Congressional/legislative procedure, or even the structure of the houses? OK
Well, the point is that if the electoral process allowed for more than two parties with more varied views and agendas, it might be easier to find a compromise and represent a larger portion of the people. For example the Tea Party might be an actual independent party then because their views differ from those of many other Republicans. ATM they nominally stay Republican because as an independent party they'd just fade away. And doing this also apparently allows them to exert more power than they should be able to.
-
Re: US Federal Government Shutdown
To anyone still caught up in the delusion that the Repubs want to negotiate anything at all, I present the history of my own congresscritter, Paul Ryan:
Ryan’s entire history strongly suggests he does not want to deal. Every major attempt to create bipartisan budget negotiations has been quashed by Ryan. He voted against the Bowles-Simpson proposal,
kiboshed a 2011 agreement between John Boehner and President Obama, then
single-handedly blew up a bipartisan Senate budget deal.
Obama’s reelection has not prompted Ryan to veer from this strategy. Last spring, the president tried to spur bipartisan negotiations by compromising with himself in his budget, including cuts to Social Security and Medicare along with reducing tax deductions. Ryan
waved it away and made no counteroffer. Instead, working through what Republicans called the “Jedi Council,” Ryan
crafted a strategy of using the debt ceiling to extract unreciprocated concessions. He spent much of the year
repeatedly turning down a budget conference on the assumption that he could get a better deal by threatening default. He confidently assured Republicans that Obama would fold and bargain for the debt ceiling. (National Review’s Jonathan Strong
two weeks ago: “I asked Ryan if he believes President Obama’s steadfast vows that he won’t negotiate over the debt ceiling. His reaction? You’ve got to be kidding me. ‘Oh, nobody believes that.’”)
Is it possible Ryan has undergone some deep-rooted mental conversion and now wants a regular, bipartisan budget negotiation where the two parties make trade-offs? It’s
possible, sure.
-
Re: US Federal Government Shutdown
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Andres
Just say the world when you want Belgians to take over your country.
For a modest fee, I am willing to start ruling the US, together with other drunkards well educated Belgians..
Are you accepting payments in natura?
-
Re: US Federal Government Shutdown
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lemur
When Obama hands the Fed a freshly minted $1T platinum coin on the 17th, will he be wearing a FU Paul Ryan t-shirt underneath his suit? And will Ryan's head explode?
-
Re: US Federal Government Shutdown
Quote:
Originally Posted by
drone
When Obama hands the Fed a freshly minted $1T platinum coin on the 17th, will he be wearing a FU Paul Ryan t-shirt underneath his suit? And will Ryan's head explode?
Wouldn't that be implode instead?
-
Re: US Federal Government Shutdown
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Seamus Fermanagh
Wouldn't that be implode instead?
Ryan lives in a vacuum, so I would say explode.
-
Re: US Federal Government Shutdown
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lemur
J-Pod, a reliably rightwing commentator:
Suicide of the Right
Every piece of evidence we have so far on the government shutdown shows the public is blaming Republicans most of all for the standoff. On Monday, an ABC poll showed 71 percent fault the GOP; 61 percent fault Congressional Democrats; 51 percent fault President Obama.
Yes, Democrats look bad. Yes, Obama is probably doing himself no favors by saying he won’t negotiate when the public wants politicians in Washington to work together.
But Republicans look considerably worse. [...]
If ObamaCare had been as unpopular as conservatives believed, their plan for the shutdown — that there would be a public uprising to force Democratic senators in close races in 2014 to defund it — would’ve worked. It didn’t. Not a single senator budged.
Their tactic failed, and now what they are left with is House Speaker John Boehner basically begging the president of the United States to negotiate with him.
One thing we know for sure is that it’s not an equal fight, this fight between a man who received 65 million votes nationwide and a man who received 246,000 votes in one congressional district in Ohio.
Lemur is harkening the death of the GOP again. This can only be good news, as a year or 2 after his last prognostication we had the tea party run train on everyone at the midterms.
-
Re: US Federal Government Shutdown
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ICantSpellDawg
Lemur is harkening the death of the GOP again. This can only be good news, as a year or 2 after his last prognostication we had the tea party run train on everyone at the midterms.
Which (I suspect) he would assert proves him to be correct as he seas the Tea Party wing as being the instrument of the GOP's destruction.
-
Re: US Federal Government Shutdown
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gelatinous Cube
Obama could take the wind out of the sails by delaying the individual mandate for a year, and nobody of consequence would find fault with that.
Er... excuse my ignorance but what difference would that make beyond pushing the chicken game back a year?
-
Re: US Federal Government Shutdown
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lemur
Count Moody's Investors Service among the insane then I guess....
Moody’s: U.S. Need Not Default If Debt Ceiling Isn’t Raised
We believe the government would continue to pay interest and principal on its debt even in the event that the debt limit is not raised, leaving its creditworthiness intact. The debt limit restricts government expenditures to the amount of its incoming revenues; it does not prohibit the government from servicing its debt. There is no direct connection between the debt limit (actually the exhaustion of the Treasury’s extraordinary measures to raise funds) and a default.
-
Re: US Federal Government Shutdown
Yes, Moody's has a sterling record when it comes to massive financial matters that deal with the stability of our union. By all means, let's trust them and Michelle Bachmann.
The Suicide on the Right editorial came from John Podhoretz, speechwriter to the Divine Ronald Reagan, National Review writer. If he says the Repubs are being insane, you might want to listen for more than a nanosecond.
The debunking of oh-let's-breach-the-debt-limit-and-see-what-happens insanity comes from Bruce Bartlett, former congressional assistant to Ron Paul, chair of The Most Sanctified Ronald Reagan's Joint Economic Committee, senior policy analyst for George H. W. Bush.
If I were to repost things actual liberals wrote, I think the two of you would need a spell on the fainting couch. When the arguments of rock-ribbed Republicans with impeccable bona fides sound like liberal whining, maybe you've gone someplace ... interesting.
-
Re: US Federal Government Shutdown
My interest in the debt ceiling is mainly academic. I think the whole idea of the debt ceiling is a bit silly. Congress approved the spending already- the notion of the debt ceiling, when it was first conceived almost 100 years ago seems like just one of the many incremental steps congress has taken to abrogate their authority.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Yes, Moody's has a sterling record when it comes to massive financial matters that deal with the stability of our union. By all means, let's trust them and Michelle Bachmann.
Ah yes. Moody's and Moody's alone dropped the ball there, huh? So I guess if they downgrade the US's credit rating, you'll be similarly unconcerned.... cuz hey, they don't know what the hell they're talking about? amirite?
See, they've actually applied something known as "math" to the situation and determined that government receipts are enough to cover debt service. I'll take that over uninformed hand-wringing, no matter what team the particular talking head plays for. Certainly there would be consequences for bumping up against the debt ceiling, but default need not be one of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
If I were to repost things actual liberals wrote
We don't need that when we have you. ~;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Come on, don't dance around it. That "restriction of government expenditure" basically means screwing the poor by defunding the safety net. If you're taking an extreme view it is disingenuous to use such euphemisms.
Are you... responding to something I actually said? :inquisitive:
-
Re: US Federal Government Shutdown
Quote:
See, they've actually applied something known as "math" to the situation and determined that government receipts are enough to cover debt service.
Ah, so it's the delusional "prioritization" scheme again.
-
Re: US Federal Government Shutdown
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Xiahou
Ah yes. Moody's and Moody's alone dropped the ball there, huh? So I guess if they downgrade the US's credit rating, you'll be similarly unconcerned.... cuz hey, they don't know what the hell they're talking about? amirite?
See, they've actually applied something known as "math" to the situation and determined that government receipts are enough to cover debt service. I'll take that over uninformed hand-wringing, no matter what team the particular talking head plays for. Certainly there would be consequences for bumping up against the debt ceiling, but default need not be one of them.
They're outright saying that if the US drops for example all payments for the military or social security or medicare/aid (you can chose one of these, the other won't matter in size), the debt celing won't be a problem. I'm sure suddenly stop paying pensions for 50 million people won't have any negative side effects at all... Now that's a mandatory spending, so I suppose it's the military that will get abolished, being discretionary.
I think that counts as a crash and burn option.
-
Re: US Federal Government Shutdown
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Xiahou
Certainly there would be consequences for bumping up against the debt ceiling, but default need not be one of them.
Of course that's correct, you could stop all spending for your armed forces and use the money to pay interest for example.
I'm starting to like your approach...
-
Re: US Federal Government Shutdown
Decent summary of spending/expenditure consequences in event of no deal:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...crew-americans
The patient doesn't expire immediately, but its all about which limbs to amputate first.