Debt Ceiling Round 3? 4?

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Debt Ceiling Round 3? 4?

Postby sardia » Wed Oct 09, 2013 12:33 am UTC

Here's the funny thing, nobody is mentioning The Affordable Care Act anymore. The GOP is demanding that the Democrats negotiate instead. They probably still object to it, but it's really strange that nobody wants to talk about the original cause of the brinksmanship.

Tyndmyr, it's insensitive that once you got your job back, that you say it's not so bad anymore. The government does more than just give military pork to feed off of. There are plenty more people who aren't working, aren't getting services, not to mention our losses in foreign policy because of this. Now that you got your job back, do you care less about resolving the crisis?

Lastly, http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/j ... html?hp=l4
Anyone have any opinions about Biden's absence? It certainly correlates with the Democrat's hardline stance. I was always concerned that the Democrats negotiate poorly, but I didn't think that Biden was a potential source.

User avatar
Eomund
Posts: 115
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 11:48 pm UTC
Location: The Great White North (Left side)

Re: Debt Ceiling Round 3? 4?

Postby Eomund » Wed Oct 09, 2013 1:44 am UTC

thudworm wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote: I hear in australia, you shut the government down too much, and they kick you all out automatically and elect new folks. That might be a good start.


It's happened once before.


It happens that way in all Parliamentary democracies and is called loss of supply.

The fact that the US government can remain deadlocked is, in my opinion, one of the worst parts of it. Especially when they still get paid for doing nothing. In Parliamentary Democracies if any import bills are defeated the government collapses and there is an election*.

*This isn't strictly accurate as two or more of the opposition parties can form a collation and propose to the governor general that they can form a government that has the confidence of the house but this doesn't happen very often.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Debt Ceiling Round 3? 4?

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Oct 09, 2013 2:19 am UTC

sardia wrote:Here's the funny thing, nobody is mentioning The Affordable Care Act anymore. The GOP is demanding that the Democrats negotiate instead. They probably still object to it, but it's really strange that nobody wants to talk about the original cause of the brinksmanship.

Tyndmyr, it's insensitive that once you got your job back, that you say it's not so bad anymore. The government does more than just give military pork to feed off of. There are plenty more people who aren't working, aren't getting services, not to mention our losses in foreign policy because of this. Now that you got your job back, do you care less about resolving the crisis?


*shrug* I've worked the entire time. However, I do have a hard funding sunset, after which I go into "not being paid, not being reimbursed afterward" status. This has not changed at all.

However, many people DID go back to work, and voting to ensure people would be reimbursed after the fact did happen. For most people, that's a positive development. Doesn't help me at all, but I find progress encouraging.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10546
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Debt Ceiling Round 3? 4?

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Oct 09, 2013 4:02 am UTC

sardia wrote:Tyndmyr, it's insensitive that once you got your job back, that you say it's not so bad anymore. The government does more than just give military pork to feed off of. There are plenty more people who aren't working, aren't getting services, not to mention our losses in foreign policy because of this. Now that you got your job back, do you care less about resolving the crisis?


Except that's how most people are. Someone offers you two options. Option one, keep things as is. Option two, improve the world slightly, except you and only you lose most of your income. No, you don't get any benefits such as lowered crime in your neighborhood, etc, and the world improves just a bit more than by how much more your life sucks. How many people would honestly choose option two?

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Debt Ceiling Round 3? 4?

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Oct 09, 2013 2:49 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:
sardia wrote:Tyndmyr, it's insensitive that once you got your job back, that you say it's not so bad anymore. The government does more than just give military pork to feed off of. There are plenty more people who aren't working, aren't getting services, not to mention our losses in foreign policy because of this. Now that you got your job back, do you care less about resolving the crisis?


Except that's how most people are. Someone offers you two options. Option one, keep things as is. Option two, improve the world slightly, except you and only you lose most of your income. No, you don't get any benefits such as lowered crime in your neighborhood, etc, and the world improves just a bit more than by how much more your life sucks. How many people would honestly choose option two?


Oh, I'll admit to being self interested. I just think that a whole bunch of people going back to work, and ALL the government people getting confirmation that they'll be paid represents an improvement. At a minimum, it reduces fear and uncertainty(which usually are not positive factors on the economy), and considering that they were likely going to be paid anyway, putting some people back to work reduces the efficiency hit.

Also, I wouldn't describe all of DoD as military pork. Surely, some unnecessary stuff gets funded through DoD, but they also fill many vital and useful roles.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Debt Ceiling Round 3? 4?

Postby Diadem » Wed Oct 09, 2013 3:14 pm UTC

Eomund wrote:
thudworm wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote: I hear in australia, you shut the government down too much, and they kick you all out automatically and elect new folks. That might be a good start.


It's happened once before.


It happens that way in all Parliamentary democracies and is called loss of supply.

I think that term applies specifically to Britain-inspired parliamentary democracies, but yeah, most seem to have something similar. Having a distinction between a head of state and a head of government seems to be the key part here. In the US, no one can send the government home because there is no higher authority. If you have a separate head of state, you have a mechanism to resolve these kind of deadlocks. And by keeping the position otherwise entirely or almost entirely ceremonial, you make sure it won't be abused.

Also, most countries have the old budget staying in effect until a new one is passed. Here in The Netherlands budget bills are almost never defeated, but even if they would be, the government wouldn't shut down. It would almost certainly lead to new elections though. Refusing to pass a budget bill is not formally a vote of no confidence, but it would certainly be interpreted that way.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
MartianInvader
Posts: 809
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 5:51 pm UTC

Re: Debt Ceiling Round 3? 4?

Postby MartianInvader » Wed Oct 09, 2013 11:36 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Here's the funny thing, nobody is mentioning The Affordable Care Act anymore. The GOP is demanding that the Democrats negotiate instead. They probably still object to it, but it's really strange that nobody wants to talk about the original cause of the brinksmanship.

Well, which message do you think resonates better with the American people? "We'll keep the government shut down until you defund The Affordable Care Act" or "We want to negotiate and the democrats don't"? That message switch seems like one of their smarter moves so far (admittedly, a low bar).
Let's have a fervent argument, mostly over semantics, where we all claim the burden of proof is on the other side!

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Debt Ceiling Round 3? 4?

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Oct 10, 2013 1:40 am UTC

Definitely a good move.

Now we see an interesting scenario play out...the republicans have voted through what, ten minor bills to reduce the effect of the shutdown in some way, and for the eleventh, they tried to hook up DC. DC, of course, has it's finances all intertwined with the federal government, and while the mayor did proclaim every single city worker essential...the city is going to run out of money to pay them after about, oh, tuesday. This is gonna cause problems, so the house republicans tried to exempt them from the shutdown...and the senate shot it down.

Meanwhile, the senate is trying to get the house gym declared non-essential. While the idea of declaring the house gym essential is kind of ludicrous, these moves by the senate are not particularly well advised. The gym thing is pretty minor in the grand scheme of things, and while it makes an excellent observation, getting it declared non-essential would be mostly a symbolic victory. It wouldn't actually fix anything, whereas the DC issue would have improved people's lives.

So, in practice, we still have a deadlock, and while the republicans have made some good tactical adjustments, there still isn't much reason to hope for a rapid resolution.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Debt Ceiling Round 3? 4?

Postby sardia » Thu Oct 10, 2013 3:30 am UTC

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/10/us/bu ... f=politics
Business groups that helped elect these superconservatives regret what they have wrought. Turns out that in order to have a low regulation government, you need to have a government in the first place.

Tyndmyr, don't you find it the least bit weird that after finally getting to shut down the government, the GOP is spending an awful lot of time passing bills that restart the government? They're saying "I don't need government at all...except for this pet project, and that pet project, and this special program, and that special program. How is passing a bunch of bills to weasel out of the responsibility of the mess they caused and that getting shot down, "progress"? They're still not talking to each other, and nobody is thinking of face saving measures to end the artificial crisis.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Debt Ceiling Round 3? 4?

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Oct 10, 2013 3:36 am UTC

Well, less shutdown is better than more shutdown.

Even small government fans like me recognize that some ways of getting a small government are better than others. Sudden shutdowns along somewhat arbitrary lines of "mandatory" spending is not a very good way at all.

And frankly, the GOP never wanted no government. They want to run government.

User avatar
MartianInvader
Posts: 809
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 5:51 pm UTC

Re: Debt Ceiling Round 3? 4?

Postby MartianInvader » Thu Oct 10, 2013 9:45 pm UTC

Fun article listing the 9 companies that now have more cash-on-hand than the US government:

http://qz.com/134093/all-of-these-compa ... overnment/
Let's have a fervent argument, mostly over semantics, where we all claim the burden of proof is on the other side!

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Debt Ceiling Round 3? 4?

Postby sardia » Thu Oct 10, 2013 11:42 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Well, less shutdown is better than more shutdown.

Even small government fans like me recognize that some ways of getting a small government are better than others. Sudden shutdowns along somewhat arbitrary lines of "mandatory" spending is not a very good way at all.

And frankly, the GOP never wanted no government. They want to run government.

That sort of attitude is how we got into this rut in the first place. You kick the can down the road a year later, or a few months later, just to ease the pressure. And then, bam another crisis. Were you just as optimistic during the 2012 crisis? What about the 2011 debt ceiling? Or the fiscal cliff? Or the sequester. Christ Tyndmyr, there's optimism, and then there's naivety.
Do you even listen to those crazier parts of the GOP? Congressman Tom Coburn has magical thinking in that if he says we don't default, we won't. Ted YOLO of Florida thinks defaulting on our debts would help. Who the hell elected these dumb fucks and what did they promise you? Oral sex every day? Guns instead of money when you lose a tooth? The ridiculous promises that he can return you to the times when you thought the world was safe because your parents coddled you? I'd name more names, but these guys are so stupid they make Palin look rational.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli ... l/2937087/
Link if you don't believe me.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Debt Ceiling Round 3? 4?

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Oct 11, 2013 4:43 am UTC

sardia wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Well, less shutdown is better than more shutdown.

Even small government fans like me recognize that some ways of getting a small government are better than others. Sudden shutdowns along somewhat arbitrary lines of "mandatory" spending is not a very good way at all.

And frankly, the GOP never wanted no government. They want to run government.

That sort of attitude is how we got into this rut in the first place. You kick the can down the road a year later, or a few months later, just to ease the pressure. And then, bam another crisis. Were you just as optimistic during the 2012 crisis? What about the 2011 debt ceiling? Or the fiscal cliff? Or the sequester. Christ Tyndmyr, there's optimism, and then there's naivety.
Do you even listen to those crazier parts of the GOP? Congressman Tom Coburn has magical thinking in that if he says we don't default, we won't. Ted YOLO of Florida thinks defaulting on our debts would help. Who the hell elected these dumb fucks and what did they promise you? Oral sex every day? Guns instead of money when you lose a tooth? The ridiculous promises that he can return you to the times when you thought the world was safe because your parents coddled you? I'd name more names, but these guys are so stupid they make Palin look rational.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli ... l/2937087/
Link if you don't believe me.


The crazier parts can't do it by themselves. They need to keep at least a majority of the republican party on their side, minimum. A couple of republicans have publicly broken with this strategy, but not a ton. There's no way that a full on default is going to be seen as a good idea by enough people to matter. That said, seriously, florida, you guys do have a knack for the crazies down there.

Let's look at what actually happens if the debt crisis blows up like the shutdown. There's still some significant income. Payment of interest on the debt is pretty damned easy to cover, and doing so is mandatory. Sequester wasn't actually bad, it was too small in terms of budget to really get painful. Shutdown, more bad, but at least people are starting to talk a little. Not productively, yet, but it's a first step. If we actually started missing payments to military members and veterans and social security checks, though...like, straight up inability to pay them, not even the delay of the shutdown, it'd be bad. The government already isn't popular, with both parties taking a popularity hit, and congress in particular being remarkably hated. There is a limit to what politicians can expect to get away with.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Debt Ceiling Round 3? 4?

Postby sardia » Fri Oct 11, 2013 2:45 pm UTC

You're missing the point. The US can easily blow past the debt limit and still survive, but you need to think about the world the kind of world it would "survive" in. You're litterally destroying a bedrock of the financial world and the GOP thinks it's acceptable losses. And what do you gain? Nothing. The economy is worse off, the world is worse off, and all the GOP will have is the House and SCOTUS sitting atop a pile of political rubble. And what do you care about? That we prioritize soldiers and interest payments and stop paying everything else? Go ask your grandma how they would feel about having their social security check paying out 70% of it's normal size so that it can match the cash flow coming in. Tell me how many times you get shanked for even suggesting such a dumb idea.

On the naive optimism side of things, prenegotiations to negotiations are ongoing. Let's hope for some face savings compromises, if not outright surrender from the GOP.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Debt Ceiling Round 3? 4?

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Oct 11, 2013 6:32 pm UTC

sardia wrote:You're missing the point. The US can easily blow past the debt limit and still survive, but you need to think about the world the kind of world it would "survive" in. You're litterally destroying a bedrock of the financial world and the GOP thinks it's acceptable losses. And what do you gain? Nothing. The economy is worse off, the world is worse off, and all the GOP will have is the House and SCOTUS sitting atop a pile of political rubble. And what do you care about? That we prioritize soldiers and interest payments and stop paying everything else? Go ask your grandma how they would feel about having their social security check paying out 70% of it's normal size so that it can match the cash flow coming in. Tell me how many times you get shanked for even suggesting such a dumb idea.

On the naive optimism side of things, prenegotiations to negotiations are ongoing. Let's hope for some face savings compromises, if not outright surrender from the GOP.


Didn't we hit the debt limit in the fifties and sit there for a year? During Eisenhower's admin? Certainly, I know that resistance to increasing the debt was such that the korean war was financed by taxation. Not that wars paid through taxation are exactly healthy, mind you, but I feel like you're getting into hyperbole. We can hit the debt limit, and we will not turn into a roving band of gangs or whatever. Yes, political fallout would be significant and rapid. That is good and necessary.

I observe that a lot of soldiers are funded via discretionary funding, while SS and interest payments are mandatory funding. Mandatory funding is unaffected by CR/budgets and has to be paid.

JudeMorrigan
Posts: 1266
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:26 pm UTC

Re: Debt Ceiling Round 3? 4?

Postby JudeMorrigan » Fri Oct 11, 2013 6:56 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:I observe that a lot of soldiers are funded via discretionary funding, while SS and interest payments are mandatory funding. Mandatory funding is unaffected by CR/budgets and has to be paid.

Mandatory spending is unaffected by CR/budgets, but WOULD be affected by hitting the debt limit.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Debt Ceiling Round 3? 4?

Postby sardia » Fri Oct 11, 2013 7:33 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
Didn't we hit the debt limit in the fifties and sit there for a year? During Eisenhower's admin? Certainly, I know that resistance to increasing the debt was such that the korean war was financed by taxation. Not that wars paid through taxation are exactly healthy, mind you, but I feel like you're getting into hyperbole. We can hit the debt limit, and we will not turn into a roving band of gangs or whatever. Yes, political fallout would be significant and rapid. That is good and necessary.

I observe that a lot of soldiers are funded via discretionary funding, while SS and interest payments are mandatory funding. Mandatory funding is unaffected by CR/budgets and has to be paid.

Your being deceptive with the facts. If you have a year of balanced budget, there's no need to borrow more money, and no need to raise the debt ceiling in order to borrow. Come on, you're smarter than this. Using the debt ceiling as a weapon is a recent thing. You are correct that defaulting on our debts is a bad thing, or else nobody would care. The GOP wouldn't use it as a weapon to stab through themselves in order to hurt Democrats, nor would the Democrats be under pressrue to cave merely for government to continue. Using the debt ceiling as a weapon only works when one side convinces themselves that it defaulting is worth hurting Democrats. So the real question is, do you think defaulting is a better option than "surrendering", aka maintaining the status quo? Remember, even if the GOP completely dropped all their demands, it's not like Obama would demand their disctricts to gerrymandered against them. They lose nothing, and nothing changes.
I feel like it is YOU who is trying to convince everyone else that playing chicken with the debt ceiling is perfectly acceptable. You're playing an incredibly dangerous game here. How would you feel if Harry Reid told the world the US would default unless the 2nd amendment was repealed?

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Debt Ceiling Round 3? 4?

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Oct 11, 2013 7:49 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
Didn't we hit the debt limit in the fifties and sit there for a year? During Eisenhower's admin? Certainly, I know that resistance to increasing the debt was such that the korean war was financed by taxation. Not that wars paid through taxation are exactly healthy, mind you, but I feel like you're getting into hyperbole. We can hit the debt limit, and we will not turn into a roving band of gangs or whatever. Yes, political fallout would be significant and rapid. That is good and necessary.

I observe that a lot of soldiers are funded via discretionary funding, while SS and interest payments are mandatory funding. Mandatory funding is unaffected by CR/budgets and has to be paid.

Your being deceptive with the facts. If you have a year of balanced budget, there's no need to borrow more money, and no need to raise the debt ceiling in order to borrow. Come on, you're smarter than this. Using the debt ceiling as a weapon is a recent thing.


Not even close. Even if we restrict the domain to using the debt ceiling as a weapon for non-budget related things(and granted the ACA that status), democrats used it as a weapon in '73 for campaign finance reform.

If we include the budgetary domain, then yeah, the '53 incident totally counts. Eisenhower wanted to spend more money financed by debt. Congress didn't want him to do so. That's a straight up comparable situation.

Regardless of which domain you care to use, this statement is outright false, and it has only grown more popular as an option since then.

You are correct that defaulting on our debts is a bad thing, or else nobody would care. The GOP wouldn't use it as a weapon to stab through themselves in order to hurt Democrats, nor would the Democrats be under pressrue to cave merely for government to continue. Using the debt ceiling as a weapon only works when one side convinces themselves that it defaulting is worth hurting Democrats. So the real question is, do you think defaulting is a better option than "surrendering", aka maintaining the status quo? Remember, even if the GOP completely dropped all their demands, it's not like Obama would demand their disctricts to gerrymandered against them. They lose nothing, and nothing changes.
I feel like it is YOU who is trying to convince everyone else that playing chicken with the debt ceiling is perfectly acceptable. You're playing an incredibly dangerous game here. How would you feel if Harry Reid told the world the US would default unless the 2nd amendment was repealed?


The problem is that everyone keeps trying to frame it as "surrendering". Negotiation is not the same as surrender. While victory between the two parties might be a zero sum game for them....it is not a zero sum game for America as a whole. There are outcomes that are straight up better and worse, and this fixation on "surrender" makes it more likely that we'll end up with the worse options.

User avatar
Silknor
Posts: 842
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 1:21 am UTC

Re: Debt Ceiling Round 3? 4?

Postby Silknor » Fri Oct 11, 2013 11:52 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Not even close. Even if we restrict the domain to using the debt ceiling as a weapon for non-budget related things(and granted the ACA that status), democrats used it as a weapon in '73 for campaign finance reform.

If we include the budgetary domain, then yeah, the '53 incident totally counts. Eisenhower wanted to spend more money financed by debt. Congress didn't want him to do so. That's a straight up comparable situation.


I'm not sure it is comparable. A complication in trying to analogize them is that it occurred before the 1974 establishment of the modern budget process. For one thing, remember one of the factors that lead to that reform was Nixon's use of impoundments. If the President can legally refuse to spend appropriated funds, that makes a situation where the debt ceiling is hit much less problematic. By contrast, the President today lacks that power, though some Republicans have proposed a bill to allow prioritization of payments (which may be technically infeasible, especially given short notice).

But the bigger issue the degree to which a catastrophic default is a real possibility. I can't find much on that question, but what I did suggests that there was no such threat:

In retrospect, the 1953 crisis seems to bolster the arguments of modern Republicans hoping to use the ceiling as a bargaining chip. Byrd's refusal to make life easy for Eisenhower did coax extra cost-cutting.

But 60 years ago, "making do" was a plausible fiscal strategy -- budget shortfalls were small enough to be manageable. As a result, few involved in the 1953 debate believed that default was a real possibility. Certainly not Byrd, who was a fiscal conservative of the old school -- he would have been appalled by the prospect of national default. Yes, Byrd was gambling that the Treasury could stay under the debt ceiling, but it was a pretty safe bet.

Now it's anything but.


By small enough, he means that revenue covered more than 98% of expenditures. Today that figure is about 2/3rds, meaning that we'd have to cut spending by a third to get by without borrowing. That's more than $100 billion a month, or about 12 times the size of the sequester.

In both cases we can obviously cover interest on the debt (barring any technical difficulties). But there's a huge difference in terms of scale. And it's not at all clear that those in Congress resisting Eisenhower's proposed increase actually wanted a default. By contrast, Republicans today have sought to downplay the impact of default, deny it would be a problem, or even claim it's a good thing.

Now there certainly have been more recent cases in which provisions were attached to the debt ceiling increase, or where the increase was folded into a larger budget bill. Indeed only about half the increases have been clean. But that's not the same as default being plausible in those cases where something was attached, and I've no indication we've actually come this close to defaulting before outside of 2011 and a technical glitch in 1979 that caused us to miss some payments.

But it doesn't really matter if the Republican strategy since 2011 is entirely unprecedented or only more extreme than previous iterations of a game both parties have played at times. It's a strategy that has to stop. Threatening the full faith and credit of the United States isn't negotiation, it's playing Russian roulette with the world economy. As others have pointed out, it would be just as unacceptable if Pelosi and Reid had demanded an end to the Iraq War or an increase in the minimum wage as a condition to allowing the debt ceiling to increase in the Bush years.

If the only time we can have productive discussions over our fiscal future is when faced with default, a government shutdown, or something like the fiscal cliff, then we have serious problems. And if default is ever on the table, it's far worse than that.
Nikc wrote:Silknor is the JJ Abrams of mafia modding

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Debt Ceiling Round 3? 4?

Postby Belial » Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:24 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:The problem is that everyone keeps trying to frame it as "surrendering". Negotiation is not the same as surrender.


In order to negotiate, there needs to be something negotiable. Despite the GOP's insistence on throwing a massive multiyear breath-holding floor-kicking tantrum over it, the ACA is a law. It has been successfully upheld multiple times. Furthermore, it is already the result of negotiation with the GOP (without which it would be a much better law). Its time for negotiation, in a representative democracy wherein a majority vote rules, is over. Allowing it to be negotiable again would be both screwing a ton of americans out of healthcare and also inviting this exact same sort of thing the next time the GOP decides to take hostages, and the time after that, and the time after that. The logic that dictates a policy of non-negotiation with hostage-takers dictates that if this strategy works out for the GOP even once, it will never end.

I believe you stated that more shutdown is bad, yes? Repeated shutdowns are therefore worse than one shutdown.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Silknor
Posts: 842
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 1:21 am UTC

Re: Debt Ceiling Round 3? 4?

Postby Silknor » Sat Oct 12, 2013 1:44 pm UTC

Belial wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:The problem is that everyone keeps trying to frame it as "surrendering". Negotiation is not the same as surrender.


In order to negotiate, there needs to be something negotiable. Despite the GOP's insistence on throwing a massive multiyear breath-holding floor-kicking tantrum over it, the ACA is a law. It has been successfully upheld multiple times. Furthermore, it is already the result of negotiation with the GOP (without which it would be a much better law). Its time for negotiation, in a representative democracy wherein a majority vote rules, is over. Allowing it to be negotiable again would be both screwing a ton of americans out of healthcare and also inviting this exact same sort of thing the next time the GOP decides to take hostages, and the time after that, and the time after that. The logic that dictates a policy of non-negotiation with hostage-takers dictates that if this strategy works out for the GOP even once, it will never end.


What in the world? The law passed, and has survived for a few years, so it can't be revisited? Laws, even good ones, as I believe the ACA to be, are not etched in stone. Indeed there have already been numerous revisions, some through the rule-making process and some through the legislative process.

The problem isn't that the GOP hasn't given up on repeal. That's an entirely legitimate goal for the party to have. The problem is that they ran on a platform where opposition to the ACA played a key role, failed to gain enough seats to repeal it*, and now are committed to nullifying the results of an election they lost instead of winning the next one. The problem is that having failed to achieve their goal their normal legislative means, they threaten to shutdown the government and destroy the full faith and credit of the United States rather than doubling down on their efforts to convince voters that that ACA really is bad and so they should elect more Republicans to get rid of it.

It's not the the ACA should be "off-limits." It's no more off-limits than any other policy the Republicans want changed. If instead of repeal of the ACA, Republicans were demanding authorization for Keystone XL (which is quite popular), that would still be unacceptable. It's the tactics, the source of leverage, that should be out of bounds because it's far too dangerous for a healthy political system, not the goal.

The ACA, by contrast, is, and will remain, negotiable. If, after we resolve this crisis, the Republicans want to trade some changes to the ACA for them allowing something Democrats want, such as gun control or a higher minimum wage, that's a legitimate subject for negotiation. They might not be willing to agree to any deal the Democrats would accept, but there's nothing wrong with asking and talking about it. After all there's parts of the ACA that draw opposition from some Democrats too, like the employer mandate and medical device excise tax, so there is clearly space for a deal, especially if the Republicans are willing to offer up something the Democrats find valuable.

*Indeed, they didn't even win the popular vote for the House, much less the Senate or the Presidency.
Nikc wrote:Silknor is the JJ Abrams of mafia modding

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Debt Ceiling Round 3? 4?

Postby morriswalters » Sat Oct 12, 2013 2:34 pm UTC

Laws are repealed or nullified all the time. If they have the votes, they can do it. If they had done anything besides say no to the original bill they could have produced a better more workable bill. But they didn't. Maybe we should put some kind of limit on repeal for some fixed period of time.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Debt Ceiling Round 3? 4?

Postby Belial » Sat Oct 12, 2013 3:35 pm UTC

You're absolutely right that repeal is a valid path. They've already tried to repeal it about 40 times, to the exclusion of doing anything else with their governmental time. They don't have the votes. At a certain point the responsible thing to do is accept that the democratic process has spoken and you lost.

Shutting down the government and then saying it's because you "still want to negotiate" is complete fuckery. And as I pointed out, letting it work even once means the next thing the GOP don't want to accept will land right here again.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Debt Ceiling Round 3? 4?

Postby morriswalters » Sat Oct 12, 2013 4:53 pm UTC

Why expect them to be different than the rest of the human race. This is pretty much what we do. For systems which operate around a set point you introduce hysteresis to let the system settle.
Many artificial systems are designed to have hysteresis: for example, in thermostats and Schmitt triggers, hysteresis is produced by positive feedback to avoid unwanted rapid switching. Hysteresis has been identified in many other fields, including economics and biology.
We need something like this as a matter of public policy. Good or bad, stick with it some period of time so that people can adjust to the reality, and not their fear of something difficult to understand.

User avatar
Silknor
Posts: 842
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 1:21 am UTC

Re: Debt Ceiling Round 3? 4?

Postby Silknor » Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:59 pm UTC

Then we're pretty much in agreement. I think it's fine though if they want to continue to campaign on it, after all, a large portion of the GOP, both representatives and their constituents, are opposed (and the majority of provisions aren't even in effect yet, so if they're right that it'll be a disaster, which I doubt, they'll have fresh reasons to argue against it). So there may be a certain point at which they should tuck their tail and give up, but I don't think we're there yet, especially given the ACA's overall poll numbers.

But yeah, it's lamentable that they consider this a valid negotiating tactic (especially over the debt ceiling, but on the CR too); it's one that needs to be shutdown, and hard. Otherwise, they (and eventually Democrats too) will continue this incredibly risky behavior of threatening default if they don't get their way. I still think a major error of the Obama's first term was not handling the debt ceiling in 2009-2010 and then negotiating over it in 2011. Unless it was a genius play to get the Republican party to impale themselves on the debt ceiling in 2013. In which case it may yet work, though at what cost, I don't know.
Nikc wrote:Silknor is the JJ Abrams of mafia modding

JudeMorrigan
Posts: 1266
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:26 pm UTC

Re: Debt Ceiling Round 3? 4?

Postby JudeMorrigan » Mon Oct 14, 2013 11:33 am UTC

Silknor wrote:But yeah, it's lamentable that they consider this a valid negotiating tactic (especially over the debt ceiling, but on the CR too); it's one that needs to be shutdown, and hard. Otherwise, they (and eventually Democrats too) will continue this incredibly risky behavior of threatening default if they don't get their way.

Indeed. I keep reading about how the Republicans need to get something out of this so that they get a "win". As far as I'm concerned they DO get something by blinking. They get this taken off the table as a valid negotiation tactic. Meaning Democrats won't be able to pull this fuckery next time they hold the House and the Republicans hold the presidency.

User avatar
Telchar
That's Admiral 'The Hulk' Ackbar, to you sir
Posts: 1937
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:06 pm UTC
Location: Cynicistia

Re: Debt Ceiling Round 3? 4?

Postby Telchar » Tue Oct 15, 2013 4:38 am UTC

Some proof that this actually has nothing to do with the budget and everything to do with an electoral minority who is xenophobic enough and feels persecuted enough that any act of governance that they don't like is tyranny.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/1 ... f=politics
Zamfir wrote:Yeah, that's a good point. Everyone is all about presumption of innocence in rape threads. But when Mexican drug lords build APCs to carry their henchmen around, we immediately jump to criminal conclusions without hard evidence.

User avatar
Vahir
Posts: 456
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:20 pm UTC
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Debt Ceiling Round 3? 4?

Postby Vahir » Tue Oct 15, 2013 11:12 am UTC

Wow, people still think Obama's a muslim? I thought that stopped years ago.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Debt Ceiling Round 3? 4?

Postby Diadem » Tue Oct 15, 2013 11:16 am UTC

Vahir wrote:Wow, people still think Obama's a muslim? I thought that stopped years ago.

If he's not a Muslim, then why was he born black? Answer me that. You can't, can you? I thought so.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10546
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Debt Ceiling Round 3? 4?

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Oct 15, 2013 12:47 pm UTC

Hey, aren't we forgetting that he is also an atheist? An atheist Muslim. Who is also incredibly gay and wants to have sex with our daughters. Who also wants to raise taxes to expand the deficit. Who is also secretly the master of the corporations he is secretly enslaved to.

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1846
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in your ceiling, judging you

Re: Debt Ceiling Round 3? 4?

Postby eran_rathan » Tue Oct 15, 2013 1:37 pm UTC

Telchar wrote:Some proof that this actually has nothing to do with the budget and everything to do with an electoral minority who is xenophobic enough and feels persecuted enough that any act of governance that they don't like is tyranny.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/1 ... f=politics


from the above:
"The demonstrators, who were met by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and former Alaska Gov Sarah Palin, pushed through the barriers at war memorials and carried the barricades back to the White House, Confederate flags in tow."

Ah, the voices of civility and rationality. Aren't they aware that sedition is still a crime?
"Does this smell like chloroform to you?"
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: Debt Ceiling Round 3? 4?

Postby KrytenKoro » Tue Oct 15, 2013 3:46 pm UTC

(1) How is sedition (not just for Obama, back for Bush too) a bad thing, really? (2) How is it anything that the opposing sides haven't already done in their turn? (3) Didn't we previously realize the administration wasn't supposed to have those barricades put up in the first place?

I mean, yeah, they're racist morons, but...they're not wrong about the barricades.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1846
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in your ceiling, judging you

Re: Debt Ceiling Round 3? 4?

Postby eran_rathan » Tue Oct 15, 2013 4:05 pm UTC

KrytenKoro wrote:(1) How is sedition (not just for Obama, back for Bush too) a bad thing, really? (2) How is it anything that the opposing sides haven't already done in their turn? (3) Didn't we previously realize the administration wasn't supposed to have those barricades put up in the first place?

I mean, yeah, they're racist morons, but...they're not wrong about the barricades.


ah, i quoted the wrong part -

""I call upon all of you to wage a second American nonviolent revolution, to use civil disobedience, and to demand that this president leave town, to get up, to put the Quran down, to get up off his knees, and to figuratively come up with his hands out," he said."

1. Advocating the overthrow of the legitimately elected government is a crime. For all their claimed patriotism, thats rather hypocritical, isn't it?

2. False equivalency. When were the Democrats advocating overthrowing the government because they didn't like Bush? Yes, they talked a lot about getting him impeached - for apparent crimes he and his administration may have committed. But I can't recall any of the national leaders calling for a coup.
"Does this smell like chloroform to you?"
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: Debt Ceiling Round 3? 4?

Postby KrytenKoro » Tue Oct 15, 2013 4:14 pm UTC

eran_rathan wrote:
KrytenKoro wrote:(1) How is sedition (not just for Obama, back for Bush too) a bad thing, really? (2) How is it anything that the opposing sides haven't already done in their turn? (3) Didn't we previously realize the administration wasn't supposed to have those barricades put up in the first place?

I mean, yeah, they're racist morons, but...they're not wrong about the barricades.


ah, i quoted the wrong part -

""I call upon all of you to wage a second American nonviolent revolution, to use civil disobedience, and to demand that this president leave town, to get up, to put the Quran down, to get up off his knees, and to figuratively come up with his hands out," he said."

1. Advocating the overthrow of the legitimately elected government is a crime. For all their claimed patriotism, thats rather hypocritical, isn't it?

2. False equivalency. When were the Democrats advocating overthrowing the government because they didn't like Bush? Yes, they talked a lot about getting him impeached - for apparent crimes he and his administration may have committed. But I can't recall any of the national leaders calling for a coup.

I get that it's a crime, I just don't personally see why it should be. The fact that it's a crime at all seems rather despotic to me, really. Even when I don't at all agree with the reasons behind the proposed sedition, it still seems like you should be able to propose that the system is fucked up.

I meant stuff more like Occupy for the second, but whatever. In this case, I wasn't aware that this Larry guy was considered a national leader. If he is, then sure, I can't off-the-cuff think of a Democrat politician or other-aligned national leader advocating overthrowing the system. I do remember a constant stream of such declarations coming from more generic people for about every year since mid-Clinton, which is part of why I just don't care that these guys are doing it too. If they were actually calling for violence, I'd care, but just saying "hey, the people in power absolutely shouldn't be in power" seems less "immoral" and more "obvious" to me, no matter where they are personally drawing the sentiment from.

Plus, he rather clearly words it as calling for what would be an Occupy-like movement, rather than an actual coup. We've seen a coup, recently, in Egypt -- that's not what this guy is asking for at all. The guy's a racist moron, but you seem to be getting hung up on that and on his use of "revolution" and missing that he's essentially just calling for a movement that would be similar (in practice, not intent) to the Civil Rights movement.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

User avatar
Jave D
chavey-dee
Posts: 1042
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 4:41 pm UTC

Re: Debt Ceiling Round 3? 4?

Postby Jave D » Tue Oct 15, 2013 5:10 pm UTC

KrytenKoro wrote:If they were actually calling for violence, I'd care, but just saying "hey, the people in power absolutely shouldn't be in power" seems less "immoral" and more "obvious" to me, no matter where they are personally drawing the sentiment from.

Plus, he rather clearly words it as calling for what would be an Occupy-like movement, rather than an actual coup. We've seen a coup, recently, in Egypt -- that's not what this guy is asking for at all. The guy's a racist moron, but you seem to be getting hung up on that and on his use of "revolution" and missing that he's essentially just calling for a movement that would be similar (in practice, not intent) to the Civil Rights movement.


Indeed..

Simply put, the “Muslim in chief” coddles the Muslim enemy over our own U.S. military men and women. Yet, almost as bad is that establishment national security Republican “experts” like Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham stand by and allow these treasonous acts to continue without saying a word.

And, all of this and more highlights why We the People must occupy Washington on Nov. 19 and come in the millions to demand the resignations of our nation’s so-called leaders. Not just Obama must go, but key leaders in the Republican Party. If we do not succeed with our nonviolent revolution, surely another recourse will break out.

When the people are ignored and coerced into submission, and our military heroes are held out to dry and sacrificed to a Muslim enemy by a “Muslim president” and his Republican enablers, it is only a matter of time before the people and the military rise up to remove the shackles that have been placed on them by the government. That time is now. We the people have had enough!


So he calls for a "nonviolent revolution" but also strongly implies a violent revolution involving the military if [when] that fails.

Sure, maybe he's really a swell peaceful guy... but there's just something about his insane, delusional, paranoid, bigoted ranting that makes me question that.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Debt Ceiling Round 3? 4?

Postby morriswalters » Tue Oct 15, 2013 5:53 pm UTC

Let him rant. Smacking him down may give some visceral satisfaction, but until he actually does something besides run his mouth, the cure, putting him away, is worse than the disease, listening to him rant. However there are echos of the era leading to the civil war. Time will tell. And just maybe he will prod people into thinking about the types of things we consider socially acceptable, or politically for that matter.

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: Debt Ceiling Round 3? 4?

Postby KrytenKoro » Tue Oct 15, 2013 5:58 pm UTC

Jave D wrote:
KrytenKoro wrote:If they were actually calling for violence, I'd care, but just saying "hey, the people in power absolutely shouldn't be in power" seems less "immoral" and more "obvious" to me, no matter where they are personally drawing the sentiment from.

Plus, he rather clearly words it as calling for what would be an Occupy-like movement, rather than an actual coup. We've seen a coup, recently, in Egypt -- that's not what this guy is asking for at all. The guy's a racist moron, but you seem to be getting hung up on that and on his use of "revolution" and missing that he's essentially just calling for a movement that would be similar (in practice, not intent) to the Civil Rights movement.


Indeed..

Simply put, the “Muslim in chief” coddles the Muslim enemy over our own U.S. military men and women. Yet, almost as bad is that establishment national security Republican “experts” like Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham stand by and allow these treasonous acts to continue without saying a word.

And, all of this and more highlights why We the People must occupy Washington on Nov. 19 and come in the millions to demand the resignations of our nation’s so-called leaders. Not just Obama must go, but key leaders in the Republican Party. If we do not succeed with our nonviolent revolution, surely another recourse will break out.

When the people are ignored and coerced into submission, and our military heroes are held out to dry and sacrificed to a Muslim enemy by a “Muslim president” and his Republican enablers, it is only a matter of time before the people and the military rise up to remove the shackles that have been placed on them by the government. That time is now. We the people have had enough!


So he calls for a "nonviolent revolution" but also strongly implies a violent revolution involving the military if [when] that fails.

Sure, maybe he's really a swell peaceful guy... but there's just something about his insane, delusional, paranoid, bigoted ranting that makes me question that.

Honestly? I think he's a peaceful guy who is more puffery than action, just like every other demagogue promising that they'll leave the US out of disgust or that a "thousand years of darkness will come to pass" if they don't get their way.

In other words, I completely agree that he's an ass. I just don't think he poses any danger in word or deed that would justify denigrating him for supposedly engaging in sedition.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Debt Ceiling Round 3? 4?

Postby sardia » Tue Oct 15, 2013 7:02 pm UTC

I'm away from my computer but did anyone see the argument that nobody should be rewarded for using the debt ceiling? It's a harder line but I agree because giving concessions on the debt ceiling rewards the most ruthless and rich politicians. A bad thing to be rewarding. If we don't, the future will consist of sociopathic politicians demanding policy concessions on the left and right. All the libertarians here have dodged the question about how they would feel if the democrats threatened key GOP positions with the threat of default.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10546
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Debt Ceiling Round 3? 4?

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Oct 15, 2013 7:07 pm UTC

If the debt ceiling doesn't rise, what government thing gets shut down? Foodstamps? Medicare? What?

User avatar
Vahir
Posts: 456
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:20 pm UTC
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Debt Ceiling Round 3? 4?

Postby Vahir » Tue Oct 15, 2013 8:13 pm UTC

sardia wrote:I'm away from my computer but did anyone see the argument that nobody should be rewarded for using the debt ceiling? It's a harder line but I agree because giving concessions on the debt ceiling rewards the most ruthless and rich politicians. A bad thing to be rewarding. If we don't, the future will consist of sociopathic politicians demanding policy concessions on the left and right. All the libertarians here have dodged the question about how they would feel if the democrats threatened key GOP positions with the threat of default.


If the democrats were doing this, we'd be decrying it just as strongly. "He's doing it so I should too" is a terrible way to rationalize your actions, because it creates a cycle of increasing brutality. By doing what they're doing, the republicans are showing that they are no better than the democrats who they claim to hate.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests