What? No government shutdown threads?

[Doc Savage Fan]

lol

“Despite these stakes, the president is refusing to negotiate,” Wallace said. He noted that previous votes to raise the debt ceiling have included campaign finance reform, school prayer, and a nuclear freeze. “What’s unprecedented is not Congress tying strings; what’s unprecedented is a president refusing to negotiate.” - Chris Wallace (10-06-13)

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/wallace-...ng-obamas-refusal-to-negotiate-unprecedented/

 

[werepossum]

Good grief. Without me wasting any more time on this, let me say that if we were on the verge a legitimate debt crisis these numbers:
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-ce...interest-rates/Pages/TextView.aspx?data=yield
would be trending much, much higher and this number
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Reserve_currencies.svg
would be trending much, much lower. As it is all we have are morons trying to artificially create a crisis by stamping their feet and refusing to pay the bills.

Obviously this is political theater and there is no real fear that investors won't get repaid.

Over two thousand furloughed civilian workers at Pearl Harbor just got sent back to work as of today.

I wonder if this method of trickling down the shutdown is going to continue unabated until the Repubs can actually point to it and say the effects were minimal and not technically lie about it.

I still think it's hilarious that all those Tea Party hotheads were gunning for the shutdown until the winds of public opinion they were arrogantly pissing into blew their stinking vitriol right back in their faces.

I think it more hilarious still that all the Tea Party has learned from this humiliation is to piss into the wind without unzippering first.

Interesting. Were they declared essential, are they being paid with authorized but unspent remaining funds, or what?

Neither side is responsible or accountable these days.

Quit bashing the parties. I dont think anybody in here said that Republicans are awesome or Democrats are perfect. No one is that stupid anymore.

QFT.

In effect the Democrats have subverted the process for three years by simply refusing to do their jobs, forcing the Republicans to accept continuing resolutions funding the government every year at bail-out levels. Only by forcing the issue did Republicans get a very small reduction via sequestration.

I'd have zero problem with the Republicans' actions in prior years, but now the Democrat-controlled Senate has finally passed a budget and the Republicans are ignoring it. Therefore the Republicans are now not doing their jobs. Both parties suck.

 

[Texashiker]

"Also known as QE, it's the technical term for the Federal Reserve's policy of buying bonds and other assets in order to push more money into the economy. The most recent strategy, called QE3, had the Fed buying $85 billion of bonds every month. "

To put that $85 billion into perspective, that is enough money to build 6 super aircraft carriers every month. The USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) cost $13.5 billion and took 4 years to build. If one month of $85 billion had been pumped into ship construction jobs, it would have provided thousands of jobs for close to 30 years.

Over the course of a year at $85 billion a month the US could have doubled the number of aircraft carriers the world has.

Rather than dumping money into construction projects or infrastructure, stuff that needed, the federal reserve is buying bonds?

Everything the fed is doing screams they are bailing out wall street.

 

[LightPattern]

Democrats have held the debt ceiling hostage to get their way many times in the past. Are you saying Republican presidents were fools to negotiate and compromise with them? I just seems so childish to me that Obama won't even talk. We're headed for default and he shares the blame in my opinion.

We need to put a noose around the necks of those who would push our nation into default. Whether they're doing it to make a political point, or for something more substantive is irrelevant.
The very real and irreparable damage it would do to hundreds of millions of people outweighs their careers.

Risking being voted out of office is not enough to properly motivate them to resolve the situation. Anything, short of violence, would be justified in my opinion.

 

[First]

“Despite these stakes, the president is refusing to negotiate,” Wallace said. He noted that previous votes to raise the debt ceiling have included campaign finance reform, school prayer, and a nuclear freeze. “What’s unprecedented is not Congress tying strings; what’s unprecedented is a president refusing to negotiate.” - Chris Wallace (10-06-13)

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/wallace-...ng-obamas-refusal-to-negotiate-unprecedented/

Yes, that partisan conservative is quite funny as well.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Yes, that partisan conservative is quite funny as well.

Chris Wallace is a registered Democrat. You forget to take your meds today?

 

[werepossum]

What you say above assumes that the money to fund 'debt' is created out of thin air, which is not entirely true.

If the US puts out a brand new million dollar treasury, someone pays a million dollars for it.

If they do not put out a brand new million dollar treasury, that million dollars that would have been paid for it can go elsewhere. And most likely, it would go somewhere more productive than to pay inefficient Gov't agencies and employees.

Generally you are correct, but if memory serves over the last few years the Fed has been creating money out of thin air and buying T-notes. That may well be the lion's share if not the entirety of growth we've had.

 

[Juddog]

We need to put a noose around the necks of those who would push our nation into default. Whether they're doing it to make a political point, or for something more substantive is irrelevant.
The very real and irreparable damage it would do to hundreds of millions of people outweighs their careers.

Risking being voted out of office is not enough to properly motivate them to resolve the situation. Anything, short of violence, would be justified in my opinion.

Solution is simple: If they can't pass the budget, kick all of them out and force a vote for a new Congress.

Like this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...with-the-queen-firing-everyone-in-parliament/

 

[Matt1970]

Chris Wallace is a registered Democrat. You forget to take your meds today?

That's his go-to whenever he hears something he doesn't like.

 

[First]

Chris Wallace is a registered Democrat. You forget to take your meds today?

Years ago, and only for pragmatic purposes to participate in DC politics apparently.

Try harder next time, your posts are far too easy to refute and dismantle.

 

[fskimospy]

Chris Wallace is a registered Democrat. You forget to take your meds today?

Who has clearly stated that his reason for being a Democrat is so that he can participate in primary politics in DC. It says nothing about his personal views. As the Wiki article mentions, Robert Novak was a registered Democrat for the same reason.

 

[fskimospy]

Have you ever hear of QE? Do you know what it is?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/09/18/federal-reserve-quantitative-easing/2831097/

"Also known as QE, it's the technical term for the Federal Reserve's policy of buying bonds and other assets in order to push more money into the economy. The most recent strategy, called QE3, had the Fed buying $85 billion of bonds every month. "

"The Fed hoped to drive up the supply of money available for loans, driving down long-term interest rates so more people would buy and build homes and invest in businesses. With short-term interest rates already near zero, the central bank's traditional tool of lowering rates couldn't be pushed any farther."

"Will ending bond purchases raise interest rates?

It already has. Just the prospect of ending monetary stimulus has helped push up mortgage rates by about 1.2 percentage points since May. "

This is the end game result of excessive Government debt creation. The Fed is now essentially printing money to offset debt that is being created by the US Gov't and would normally suck all financial strength from the markets. For all practical purposes they are staving off a debt-led deflationary depression that should have been triggered a decade ago.

Now they cannot exit this program without tanking the economy.

Anyone with half a brain knows this does not end well. It may be this year, it may be 5 years from now, or 10 years from now.

They tried to end the normal business cycle by socializing its negative effects. Instead they have merely delayed it, though many would say not even that was accomplished. When the cycle asserts itself a final time, it will take down the Gov't with it.

Push up mortgage rates from their unprecedentedly low rates from before. You mistake artificially low rates made that way on purpose with crowding out. If you are interested in seeing the effects of QE on interest rates you can actually go look at several months where bond/asset purchasing had stopped. The effects on interest rates were quite small. Additionally, government borrowing has actually been smaller this year than in prior years, which would lead to an inverse relationship in this case.

You made an argument that government debt was crowding out investment capital. The correlation between interest rates and US deficits has been functionally nonexistent since we entered a liquidity trap.

So basically, just no.

 

[fskimospy]

Concessions are highly unlikely without negotiation. Since 1978, our debt ceiling has been "held hostage" 27 of 53 times where negotiations took place and compromises were worked out. To my knowledge Obama is the first president ever to refuse to negotiate over the debt ceiling...I believe this tactic is unprecedented.

This is an attempt to conflate anyone making any deals at all that included the debt ceiling with the unilateral demands for unilateral repeal of unrelated legislation with the threat of default. It's not fooling anyone.

 

[LightPattern]

Solution is simple: If they can't pass the budget, kick all of them out and force a vote for a new Congress.

Like this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...with-the-queen-firing-everyone-in-parliament/

That's focusing on the gov shutdown rather than a credit default, but I agree with the general thrust of the argument. The main problem being that there is no mechanism to kick them all out and replace them before the 17th.

When we're talking about a default on the debt, which has never happened in the 226+ year history of the United States, every report is that the situation is much more serious.

I'm not sure what else they could legally be threatened with other than being voted out, but I think more needs to be over their heads than that.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Who has clearly stated that his reason for being a Democrat is so that he can participate in primary politics in DC. It says nothing about his personal views. As the Wiki article mentions, Robert Novak was a registered Democrat for the same reason.

Is he wrong? I see that you or First haven't produced squat to contradict his statement. Instead it appears that you want to bring his character into question because he said something you didn't like. Pretty damn lame imo.

 

[fskimospy]

Is he wrong? I see that you or First haven't produced squat to contradict his statement. Instead it appears that you want to bring his character into question because he said something you didn't like. Pretty damn lame imo.

Yes, he's wrong. We have discussed this repeatedly and information to the contrary has been provided repeatedly. You have been involved in these discussions. You are free to ignore information that you don't like, but you can't pretend it hasn't happened.

Regardless, you were clearly attempting to show that Wallace was not conservative by mentioning his political registration when his own public statements clearly state that it does not represent his political views and he does it for pragmatic reasons. That's pretty damn lame as well.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

This is an attempt to conflate anyone making any deals at all that included the debt ceiling with the unilateral demands for unilateral repeal of unrelated legislation with the threat of default. It's not fooling anyone.

The demand for unilateral repeal was a stupid political statement that they've since backed off on. Please do try to keep up.

 

[First]

Is he wrong? I see that you or First haven't produced squat to contradict his statement. Instead it appears that you want to bring his character into question because he said something you didn't like. Pretty damn lame imo.

Chris Wallace is a conservative based on his words, views and arguments on his show. He also hosts a Sunday show on Fox News. No one should be particularly surprised that a conservative took a job at Fox News, it's probabilisticly quite common.

The demand for unilateral repeal was a stupid political statement that they've since backed off on. Please do try to keep up.

lol. Your posts just keep getting worse.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Yes, he's wrong. We have discussed this repeatedly and information to the contrary has been provided repeatedly. You have been involved in these discussions. You are free to ignore information that you don't like, but you can't pretend it hasn't happened.

Regardless, you were clearly attempting to show that Wallace was not conservative by mentioning his political registration when his own public statements clearly state that it does not represent his political views and he does it for pragmatic reasons. That's pretty damn lame as well.

This is the first time I've brought up this "no negotiation" tactic as being unprecedented. You are free to ignore information that you don't like, but you can't pretend we've had this discussion repeatedly or that you've provided information to the contrary repeatedly. That's just plain bullshit.

I've always found Wallace to be even-handed in his interviews with both parties. He's also voted for both parties in the past. You apparently see him as a biased conservative because he said something you don't like. Lame.

Since 1978, there have been 27 showdowns over the debt ceiling...in how many of these did the sitting president refuse to negotiate?

 

[fskimospy]

This is the first time I've brought up this "no negotiation" tactic as being unprecedented. You are free to ignore information that you don't like, but you can't pretend we've had this discussion repeatedly or that you've provided information to the contrary repeatedly. That's just plain bullshit.

I've always found Wallace to be even-handed in his interviews with both parties. He's also voted for both parties in the past. You apparently see him as a biased conservative because he said something you don't like. Lame.

Since 1978, there have been 27 showdowns over the debt ceiling...in how many of these did the sitting president refuse to negotiate?

I actually never said anything about Chris Wallace's bias or lack thereof, I was just calling out a blatant attempt at misinformation on your part. Wallace's political registration is not related to his political views, by his own admission. You attempted to assert that he was not conservative due to this affiliation. That was wrong. Just admit it.

You are once again attempting to conflate bipartisan deals with unilateral demands. The GOP has demanded the outright repeal of the ACA, and then has 'compromised' to only gut its essential provisions. Making hilariously huge demands that you know the other party would never agree to is not negotiating. There is no precedent for these types of demands whatsoever. Now they have switched to demanding spending cuts to raise the debt ceiling. When asked if they would agree to tax increases to go along with them, the Republicans have categorically refused.

Every one of their 'offers' has simply been a demand that their policies be enacted without compromise. This is completely unprecedented, as has been gone over repeatedly.

 

[LightPattern]

Government is dysfunctional all around, you cannot go around saying the other party's dysfunctions are reprehensibly horrible while "my" party's dysfunctions are forgivable.

We all tend to lean towards those types of arguments, because it's easier to argue the process than it is the actual issue. And that is why we cannot have discussions, because there is no way the two sides will agree on the actual issue, all anyone can do is use the process as the point of argument.

Red/Blue arguments and divisiveness are incredibly crippling in this country.
That is why I continue to argue for strong 3rd parties and altering the voting procedure to something like "Single transferable vote."

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I actually never said anything about Chris Wallace's bias or lack thereof, I was just calling out a blatant attempt at misinformation on your part. Wallace's political registration is not related to his political views, by his own admission. You attempted to assert that he was not conservative due to this affiliation. That was wrong. Just admit it.

You are once again attempting to conflate bipartisan deals with unilateral demands. The GOP has demanded the outright repeal of the ACA, and then has 'compromised' to only gut its essential provisions. Making hilariously huge demands that you know the other party would never agree to is not negotiating. There is no precedent for these types of demands whatsoever. Now they have switched to demanding spending cuts to raise the debt ceiling. When asked if they would agree to tax increases to go along with them, the Republicans have categorically refused.

Every one of their 'offers' has simply been a demand that their policies be enacted without compromise. This is completely unprecedented, as has been gone over repeatedly.

Since you cannot refute the claim made by Wallace, I take it that you concede the point. Thank you. You may feel that Obama is justified in taking his stance...but that's secondary to the point that his "no negotiation" tactic is indeed unprecedented.

 

[fskimospy]

Since you cannot refute the claim made by Wallace, I take it that you concede the point. Thank you. You may feel that Obama is justified in taking his stance...but that's secondary to the point that his "no negotiation" tactic is indeed unprecented.

/facepalm

The demands he is being faced with are unprecedented, therefore saying his response to them is unprecedented is meaningless. There's no way you don't understand this fact and there's no way you don't understand the implication inherent in what Wallace said.

As for the 'I assume you concede' silliness, can it.

 

[xBiffx]

/facepalm

The demands he is being faced with are unprecedented, therefore saying his response to them is unprecedented is meaningless. There's no way you don't understand this fact and there's no way you don't understand the implication inherent in what Wallace said.

As for the 'I assume you concede' silliness, can it.

Trying to excuse the act (or rather lack of action) because the circumstances are different, really?. No duh, the circumstances are different. They've been different for every other negotiation such as this to date.

Negotiations have still taken place before this latest debacle. And trying to defund entire laws or pieces of government is nothing new.

 

[fskimospy]

Trying to excuse the act (or rather lack of action) because the circumstances are different, really?. No duh, the circumstances are different. They've been different for every other negotiation such as this to date.

Negotiations have still taken place before this latest debacle.

Yes, different circumstances require different actions. That's about the most uncontroversial statement ever.