What? No government shutdown threads?

[michal1980]

Your post makes no sense. What are the Republicans giving up to avoid breaking through the debt ceiling? Nothing. They are simply making demands.

And please don't say that the Republicans don't want to raise the debt ceiling at all, as they are explicitly on the record numerous times saying that is not the case.

Obama was against raising the debt ceiling until he spent so much he needed it raised.

 

[Texashiker]

Obama was against raising the debt ceiling until he spent so much he needed it raised.

Obama was against raising the debt ceiling until he got elected.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

He was against it before he was for it!

 

[Fern]

He's not compromising with Congress; he's being asked to meet an arbitrary list of demands of a few people who are in Congress, and those demands don't even mostly deal with the ACA. The compromising phase of the process for the ACA occurred when it was debated, assented, and then went before the Supreme Court for good measure.

This is abuse of a non-process - it's incredible that Americans are standing for this.

No law passed by a previous Congress enjoys immunity from a subsequent Congress. No Congress may impose its will on a subsequent Congress.

The 111th Congress passed Obamacare, the 112th Congress (currently seated) may change it as they wish. Obamacare has already been subject to something like 19 legislative changes.

The SCOTUS is irrelevant here. They delt with a specific issue not in question here.

Fern

 

[thraashman]

Shut it down, shut it all down.

$10 for a gallon of milk here we come. Hopefully government subsidies will be one of the first things to go.

Shut down HUD, food stamps, free phones, public housing,,,, shut everything down.

So you advocate for a likely outcome of hundreds of thousands of dead Americans?

 

[thraashman]

Obama was against raising the debt ceiling until he spent so much he needed it raised.

Except for the fact that he's added the least amount of spending of any President in 60 years.

 

[Fern]

What kind of a compromise is that supposed to be when cuts only is your primary goal?

I'd say it's the mirror imagine of when the Dems want to compromise. They want to raise taxes and their compromise is limited to the question of 'how high'.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

No law passed by a previous Congress enjoys immunity from a subsequent Congress. No Congress may impose its will on a subsequent Congress.

The 111th Congress passed Obamacare, the 112th Congress (currently seated) may change it as they wish. Obamacare has already been subject to something like 19 legislative changes.

The SCOTUS is irrelevant here. They delt with a specific issue not in question here.

Fern

This sums things up pretty well:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ur-current-governing-crisis-in-two-sentences/

1) Only one party is demanding major concessions from the other in exchange for keeping the government open at sequester spending levels – levels leaders of that same party have already declared is a victory for them — while the other party is demanding exactly nothing in exchange for doing that.

2) Only one party is demanding major concessions from the other in exchange for making it possible for the U.S. to pay its bills — an outcome leaders of the same party have already declared is necessary to spare the country default and economic havoc – while the other party is demanding exactly nothing in exchange for doing that.

 

[Texashiker]

So you advocate for a likely outcome of hundreds of thousands of dead Americans?

A hungry stomach is a driving force to real change.

Except for the fact that he's added the least amount of spending of any President in 60 years.

What about the $85 billion the fed is buying in bonds every month? That money has to come from somewhere.

That is enough to build 6.5 super aircraft carriers every month. So every 2 months the fed is buying enough bonds to build 13 super aircraft carriers.

Someone has to be paying for those purchases.

 

[Fern]

This is really more false equivalence. Forget the ACA, pretend it is just law X and Party A and Party B.

Less than one year after an election that saw Party A lose the presidency by five million votes, lose House seats, lose Senate seats, and lose the overall congressional vote by 1.7 million votes, you have the defeated party A making exactly this demand:

1.) Unless you repeal law X, we will not allow the federal government to function.

2.) Following that, if you still fail to repeal law X and do not implement this list of other policies that we want, we will cause a worldwide financial crisis.

If Party B says yes to this, what is there to stop Party A from threatening the stability of the country and the world each and every year? And just as importantly, when the balance of power shifts what stops Party B from doing exactly the same thing? Presumably we can all agree that yearly financial crisis would be a horrible long term policy, yet that is the inevitable outcome of giving in to this behavior.

Sooner or later someone will miscalculate or want to test the waters and that crisis will happen. Might as well happen now as the alternative is even worse.

Party A has been elected by the people and are in charge of the House of reps. The Constitution empowers the House of Reps as far as taxing and spending go.

I see no problem with the House exercising it's constitutional authority.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Party A has been elected by the people and are in charge of the House of reps. The Constitution empowers the House of Reps as far as taxing and spending go.

I see no problem with the House exercising it's constitutional authority.

Fern

The Constitution requires that all taxing and spending be approved by all three elected bodies of government. The House is not empowered outside of the origination of bills and even that is constantly and easily gotten around.

If you do not see a problem with the exact scenario we are going through right now repeating itself every 12 months for the rest of our lives you have a very poor understanding of how to run a government. Imagine if Mitt Romney had been elected and the Democrats were threatening a debt ceiling breach unless he put a public option into the ACA. I challenge you to even try to say with a straight face that you would have the same opinion.

It is baffling to me that you want to enable such irresponsible behavior.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Again though, I don't really care about the shutdown nearly so much as the debt ceiling. Sure the Republicans are acting incredibly irresponsible with the government shutdown, but in the end the economic impact will likely be modest. There is simply no precedent for any serious threat to not raise the debt ceiling.

This is about a spending bill, not the debt ceiling. Keep pushing that party line, very few here will notice cuz they've heard Obama say it repeatedly (albeit erroneously). The deadline for voting on the debt ceiling is later this month.

Fern

 

[Fern]

When has there ever been a successful attempt to repeal a piece of significant legislation?

Every tax code we've ever had, excepting the current one.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

This is about a spending bill, not the debt ceiling. Keep pushing that party line, very few here will notice cuz they've heard Obama say it repeatedly (albeit erroneously). The deadline for voting on the debt ceiling is later this month.

Fern

This is obviously about both, which has been clearly and repeatedly discussed.

 

[Fern]

It would be if Dems were threatening to shut down the govt over spending already appropriated, but they're not.
-snip-

What?

You're confused. This is a SPENDING BILL they're arguing over.

You're claiming it's a debt ceiling bill and it's not.

Fern

 

[IronWing]

What about the $85 billion the fed is buying in bonds every month? That money has to come from somewhere.

That is enough to build 6.5 super aircraft carriers every month. So every 2 months the fed is buying enough bonds to build 13 super aircraft carriers.

Someone has to be paying for those purchases.

We all will pay for the money printing through inflation. However, the Federal Reserve bond buying is not federal spending and adds nothing to the deficit.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Of course, to be fair the bill would also repeal the tax on medical devices (we shall fund health care by raising taxes on, um, health care . . .) and we all know that tax increases are sacred to Democrats.

This bit of utter stupidity has gone unnoticed with all the other BS claims and drama.

The whole 'we're going to make HC cheaper by taxing it and then use the money to fund it' is absurd in the extreme. However, just a routine piece of what Obamacare represents.

Fern

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You're just continuing to cling to your idea of how things need to work. I don't care about the Democratic Party. I don't like how the US electoral system is set up. In fact I'm nearly certain we've both participated in threads where I've discussed this. Because you're so invested in the false equivalency narrative, you think that opposition to the Republican Party means support for the Democratic Party. You just don't know how to look at problems differently, I guess.

I would strongly prefer a multiparty system of government, but that's extraordinarily unlikely to happen. So, we work with what we have.

OK. I'll accept that you don't care about the Democratic party. The issue remains that it must be the party you support because you cannot abide the Republicans. I get that. The number who feel the same are legion. That goes for the other side too.

And that's a problem. You have four choices. One is to vote for Democrats. The other Republicans. Only they can win.

You could vote for a third party which has absolutely no chance in the real world or you could just watch it with as much detachment as possible because there's nothing you can really do.

So you ( a somewhat generic you) decide to vote. You don't like the Democrats, but you sure as heck don't like the Republicans so you vote against the latter.

The parties know this. They know how some will say they don't want the Democrats to win, or at least the particular faction in power, but they also know you will vote for them anyway. Again "you" would be a voter who picks based on which seems more palatable. I don't know many people who love either party as they currently exist.

And so the parties chase votes to get and retain power. Thinking about doing the best possible job even if it requires looking at problems differently. That however might lead to things not being tightly controlled and that means "originality not done here". I've beaten on the Democrats and the ACA but that does not mean I like the Republican attitude either. What is unendingly frustrating is that we insist on political solutions to all problems. Naturally Congress must vote on any issue, however in an increasingly complex world it is impossible for any of them to spend much time on any issue no matter how important. You pointed this out long ago and it's true. We need a different way to approach the path to important legislation.

I do understand your point about one party being able to blackmail another and I get why some resist based on that. They really can't afford to give in, but real change comes about by crisis and I'm thinking it may be time for one. If people realize just how dysfunctional and out of depth politicians are in DC then we may have improvement for a time. The inevitable consequence is that people get hurt. That's not good.

 

[Fern]

So now your argument is that they are making a slightly less onerous unilateral demand, devoid of all compromise on their part.
-snip-

Really?

LOL, your irrationality is showing.

Aren't all demands raised in a negotiation "unilateral"?

Hint: If they aren't, you've got the wrong people negotiating for you. "We'll concede your point if you'll grant your other point". WTH???

Fern

 

[Slew Foot]

Lets see, should we piss off the military, or people on welfare?

People on welfare have already shown that they are too stupid to suceed at life so if their checks stop coming theyll simply roll into a ditch and die, problem solved for everyone.

 

[Fern]

Compromise means offering something in order to get something. What is it that the Republicans are offering in order to get what they want?

Funding every other damn thing, even the ones they don't like (of which there are many, BTW)?

Fern

 

[Texashiker]

People on welfare have already shown that they are too stupid to suceed at life so if their checks stop coming theyll simply roll into a ditch and die, problem solved for everyone.

I am hoping to see a replay of the LA riots after the Rodney King verdict.

Shut is all down and lets see what happens. How long before people riot and demand a change of government.

 

[fskimospy]

Really?

LOL, your irrationality is showing.

Aren't all demands raised in a negotiation "unilateral"?

Hint: If they aren't, you've got the wrong people negotiating for you. "We'll concede your point if you'll grant your other point". WTH???

Fern

Wait, the guy who supports the Republicans acting like this is trying to call someone else irrational?

It looks like from your posts that you just don't understand the situation (or that you consume a lot of right wing news). Both Republicans and Democrats agree that we should fund the government and raise the debt ceiling. In exchange for doing what both sides say they want, the Democrats demand nothing. In exchange for doing what both sides say they want, the Republicans demand major policy concessions. That's what I mean about unilateral demands... they are not accompanied by any demands from the other side.

And by the way no, not giving in to your demands is not the same as having demands of my own.

I will admit it takes a lot of balls to have your position and call someone else irrational though, so in that way I give you some props.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Your post makes no sense. What are the Republicans giving up to avoid breaking through the debt ceiling? Nothing. They are simply making demands.

And please don't say that the Republicans don't want to raise the debt ceiling at all, as they are explicitly on the record numerous times saying that is not the case.

Based on the article that was linked.

The Republican desire to keep the spending levels at point A.
The Democrats want to increase the spending level to point C.

Wait, the guy who supports the Republicans acting like this is trying to call someone else irrational?

It looks like from your posts that you just don't understand the situation (or that you consume a lot of right wing news). Both Republicans and Democrats agree that we should fund the government and raise the debt ceiling. In exchange for doing what both sides say they want, the Democrats demand nothing. In exchange for doing what both sides say they want, the Republicans demand major policy concessions. That's what I mean about unilateral demands... they are not accompanied by any demands from the other side.

And by the way no, not giving in to your demands is not the same as having demands of my own.

I will admit it takes a lot of balls to have your position and call someone else irrational though, so in that way I give you some props.

The Dems are demanding - increased spending



As a "compromise" (do not cut ACA); we Dems will accept spending levels at point B.

So the Democrats toss out another option and tell the Republicans that they can not have Option 1 (ACA); we will talk about option 2 (amount of increase of spending levels

So the Democrats pull one item off the table and put a poison pill up instead. The Dems still want to increase the amount of spending rather than decrease it.

 

[Fern]

Except for the fact that he's added the least amount of spending of any President in 60 years.

"facepalm;

Fern