Heretic;1517851 wrote:Sadly, I think that's more today's climate than anything else. Seems that most of the people propped up by their side's powerbrokers are more along the "empty suit; follow their directives" types than actual leaders. I wouldn't claim things would be the exact same if Romney was in office instead, but when push comes to shove, I think both sides would wind up taking the "we're right and they're wrong, so work to spin things to make them look like the obstructing villains" direction because they'd look at anything else as essentially conceding defeat, which would equal showing weakness, which could be used against them during elections to hurt them in trying to gain or maintain control.

I think it should be less "L vs R" and more "outsider vs career insider" as far as politics go because the main problem is the career politicians basing everything around maintaining their power or taking the other side's power instead of actually working in the country's best interests.

It absolutely is today's climate. And it is sad. Our government sucks.

WebFire;1517881 wrote:So proposing a clear CR with no change to ACA isn't budging?

I agree though, both sides are playing the game. That is why it is so important for the President to step in and take charge of this. But his agenda is more important than the economy I guess.

They didn't do that.

Interesting piece by Thomas Sowell.

http://capitalismmagazine.com/2013/10/shut-government/

I Wear Pants;1517894 wrote:They didn't do that.

Yeah they did. The only thing was no exceptions for Congress.

fish82;1517905 wrote:Interesting piece by Thomas Sowell.

http://capitalismmagazine.com/2013/10/shut-government/

Mr. Sowell tells is like it is, not how Barry and his band of agitators spins the yarn. Thanks for posting it.

WebFire;1517907 wrote:Yeah they did. The only thing was no exceptions for Congress.

If I recall it wasn't just no exceptions for Congress but that there wouldn't be a contribution for Congress which is something that's been done for a while.

I Wear Pants;1517894 wrote:They didn't do that.

They did do that. Only thing they added was that congress had to use Obamacare too. The Senate rejected they.

Now Reid is even going for more than just a "clean" CR. He wants to repeal the sequester cuts and increase spending.

Knowing the the liberals that will just be the entitlement programs while leaving the cuts on defense.

I think this is a game of hot-potato. Both sides are trying to leverage the issue to attach their unilateral demands. So it comes down to whichever side (House or Senate) can send a resolution to the other that leaves no time to volley it back (i.e. the 11th hour proposal will have to be reluctantly passed by whichever side is left standing when the music stops).

If you had a fair and impartial media, the House could probably stay the course and then deal with the legitimate fallout over their end-around on Obamakare. But the dynamics change if the media is going to blame them for a potential "default" or the ongoing govt "shutdown".

I Wear Pants;1517912 wrote:If I recall it wasn't just no exceptions for Congress but that there wouldn't be a contribution for Congress which is something that's been done for a while.

Congress originally was in Obamacare just like everyone else. Then congress passed a law that gave themselves subsidies to pay for Obamacare. The House passed a clean CR that just took the subsidies away so that Congress had to pay the same as the rest of the US citizens.

Still think it is the Rs fault?

fish82;1517905 wrote:Interesting piece by Thomas Sowell.

http://capitalismmagazine.com/2013/10/shut-government/

Read this last week. Sowell's views are spot on.

believer;1517949 wrote:Read this last week. Sowell's views are spot on.

Always are .......... too bad barack obama is not Mr. Thomas Sowell

Boehner is bringing all kinds of crazy right now.

If he doesn't allow a vote on the Senate plan (which is being rumored will get around 70-80 votes) and we go into default he is going to be the most hated man in America.

I feel bad for Boehner, but it is over. He has to accept that the Tea Party caucus is never going to like them, and no amount of pandering on his part will change that.

New rumor is Boehner is going to try and pass a Tea Party backed bill tonight and then have everyone leave town leaving the Senate/President with a default or accept our bill situation.

All holy hell will break loose if he does that.

That's um, insane.

Regardless of wherever you place the blame on the shutdown I think everyone can agree that it's absolutely retarded that in the end it might come down to something like the medical devices tax and subsidies for members of Congress. While those might seem more important for some people than others I imagine it will be difficult for you to find someone not in a straightjacket that thinks those are issues worth shutting the government down or threatening default over.

IggyPride00;1518245 wrote:New rumor is Boehner is going to try and pass a Tea Party backed bill tonight and then have everyone leave town leaving the Senate/President with a default or accept our bill situation.

All holy hell will break loose if he does that.

I'd love this.

sleeper;1518271 wrote:I'd love this.

Beats the hell out of McConnell's can-kicking to mid-January.

[INDENT] [The President] may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper....
Article II, Section 3 [/INDENT]

The President actually has the power to convene either House of Congress on Extraordinary occasions at any time int he Constitution.

If Boehner tries to cut and run, BHO can order the cops to go out and start rounding up members of Congress to bring them back.

The Tea Party's heads would collectively explode if it were to come to this.

Fitch puts US credit rating on negative watch, maintains AAA rating

Makes a ton of sense to shut the government down over concern about debt, and then act in a way that will ultimately make your interest payments higher.

In my littler corner of the world we call that cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Eventually, this is going to hurt. I honestly wonder if now, as opposed to later, is inherently bad, particularly if it minimizes the potential devastation of the economy.

I, for one, will be holed up to watch.

O-Trap;1518382 wrote:Eventually, this is going to hurt. I honestly wonder if now, as opposed to later, is inherently bad, particularly if it minimizes the potential devastation of the economy.

I, for one, will be holed up to watch.

How many people age 65 wake up every day and decide that since they are going to die in 20-30 years anyway they might as well just shoot themselves today rather than just waiting for it to happen naturally.

IggyPride00;1518398 wrote:How many people age 65 wake up every day and decide that since they are going to die in 20-30 years anyway they might as well just shoot themselves today rather than just waiting for it to happen naturally.

That assumes that they know nothing about how they might die and the pain then as opposed to now.

It's the reason that terminal patients with diseases that cause agony as they progress will opt for suicide prior to waiting: the decrease in pain of the death is more favorable than the prolonged existence.

The question is, might that be something we should ponder here?

O-Trap;1518405 wrote: The question is, might that be something we should ponder here?

I don't disagree in principle, but we aren't there yet. If I might put it better, what you are advocating is default being the cure for what is killing this country/economy. In the short-run it would be very painful, but it COULD be worth it if it puts us on a path to a better tomorrow.

But that's the problem - there are no assurances that any lasting long-run change/benefit would be achieved. Repubs have done a good job of making some of these issues front and center and finally having some truth doled out to the ignorant public. But people are just starting to wake-up to and learn about the financial crisis we really are facing, and so it's far too soon for the final exam. There may indeed come a time to take a hard-line position against raising the debt ceiling, but we aren't there yet (and certainly not when your deficit is some 20% of revenues).

Work toward the 2014 & 2016 elections and continue to push for a responsible and achievable approach. This mess cannot and should not be fixed overnight. They need to keep chipping away at the deficit and govt waste, and take on tax reform. Down the road we will have to look at entitlement reform, increases to FICA, and likely a VAT in order to reach funding levels necessary to support the level of govt Americans seem to support.

That's the insidious nature of the debt and deficits in that the American people are being deceived as to the true costs to fund this govt. I'm not sure the electorate would choose this level of govt if they fully understood the costs - especially the many hidden costs.

A lot of outcry over facebook with this video: http://www.upworthy.com/congress-did-something-so-spectacularly-creepy-that-its-too-unbelievable-to-make-up

gut;1518408 wrote:I don't disagree in principle, but we aren't there yet. If I might put it better, what you are advocating is default being the cure for what is killing this country/economy. In the short-run it would be very painful, but it COULD be worth it if it puts us on a path to a better tomorrow.

The "cure" might be a strong word. I'm thinking more along the lines of it minimizing the damage as opposed to defaulting later, but all-in-all, I think you handle it much in the same way, so no worries.

gut;1518408 wrote:But that's the problem - there are no assurances that any lasting long-run change/benefit would be achieved. Repubs have done a good job of making some of these issues front and center and finally having some truth doled out to the ignorant public. But people are just starting to wake-up to and learn about the financial crisis we really are facing, and so it's far too soon for the final exam. There may indeed come a time to take a hard-line position against raising the debt ceiling, but we aren't there yet (and certainly not when your deficit is some 20% of revenues).

Perhaps this is a good point, though I submit that the education process would likely be at least somewhat expedited, given that the mission of economic reconstruction would be likely the #1 topic in the public square, and thus, you'd not be able to escape the war of ideas as it relates to such policy ... at least until Miley Cyrus does something scandalous.

gut;1518408 wrote:Work toward the 2014 & 2016 elections and continue to push for a responsible and achievable approach. This mess cannot and should not be fixed overnight. They need to keep chipping away at the deficit and govt waste, and take on tax reform. Down the road we will have to look at entitlement reform, increases to FICA, and likely a VAT in order to reach funding levels necessary to support the level of govt Americans seem to support.

The potential (granted, not yet actual) problem with this is that we could essentially reach a "point of no return" prior to even the dip of the bell curve in this process. If that were to be the case, all of this desire to "right the ship," as it were, would be futile. Perhaps you are correct that we are not there yet, but the question that fuels my genuine curiosity on the subject is this:

In light of these three factors:

(1) where we are financially,
(2) what direction we're headed, and
(3) how quickly we can actually turn around to at least some net gain on our debt

Do we think that we are still able to gain our way out of the hole in which we find ourselves? Or by the time we were able to actually do so, would we either be so far under our own debt as to not be able to afford even our interest payments, given that they grow as well? Or even still, will our ability to do so require the impoverishment of most of the American population?

gut;1518408 wrote:That's the insidious nature of the debt and deficits in that the American people are being deceived as to the true costs to fund this govt. I'm not sure the electorate would choose this level of govt if they fully understood the costs - especially the many hidden costs.

I suspect they certainly wouldn't.

O-Trap;1518448 wrote: Do we think that we are still able to gain our way out of the hole in which we find ourselves? Or by the time we were able to actually do so, would we either be so far under our own debt as to not be able to afford even our interest payments, given that they grow as well? Or even still, will our ability to do so require the impoverishment of most of the American population?

As long as global deflation persists, they can theoretically continue to monetize the debt with little SHORT-RUN economic damage (what artificially low interest rates do to savers, retirees and pensions is where it gets tricky).

A return to more normal rates will be a large addition to the deficit, but a little less than half of the debt is intergov, and as such those interest payments actually are offset as income elsewhere. Intergovt debt is basically a tracker for, I don't know, maybe money supply expansion. It shows on the balance sheet as both a liability with an offsetting asset. It can be, effectively, ignored.

So what we are really talking is more like $10T in public debt that is relevant. A return to normal rates of @ 5% means about $500B in annual interest, which is probably about $350B incremental budget hit. It's even more critical as they've gone really short on duration to squeeze the interest pymts (when the responsible thing would have been to extend maturities at historically low rates).

That's pretty significant, but manageable. Of course, continued deficits mean that number would only go up, but in actuality the vast majority of issues (80-90% now) is being gobbled up by the Fed (i.e. more intergovt debt). When global deflationary pressure subsides, rates will rise and you won't be able to monetize the debt, but likely see a return of public demand...which means higher and higher debt service.

What I would like to see is get spending under control and take advantage of continued global deflation to further monetize the outstanding public debt - reduce that $10T number to something more manageable.

Eventually the music is going to stop, and you are talking a very hard landing if we are running $800B+ deficits or more. At that point, you have the ugly alternatives of high inflation (perhaps 8-10% or more) or high unemployment. That's when the shit really hits the fan. And point of clarification - the monetizing of the debt is showing in inflated asset prices, which have triggered the last two recessions. And in many respects the global debt bubble is potentially far more dangerous than anything we've seen recently. So in reality the clock is already ticking - they are engaged in a very risky and dangerous balancing act.

More alarming is the Fed and govt haven't demonstrated an ability, or clue, to manage the economic risks of asset bubbles. Even then, Japan has struggled and lost TWO decades utilizing similar economic policies. That's certainly not an appealing path for the US. We need to find an exit strategy. I think what we are seeing is a massive amount of debt that is materializing mostly in higher asset prices, which tend to evaporate when the fundamentals aren't there. That ultimately leaves you with a -100% ROI on the trillions of debt you are creating.