USA Federal government: CLOSED

[Shakey]

I very much doubt that. The instant the logjam is cleared you can bet there will be new laws enacted which prevent this from easily happening again. It could happen, but the opposing side would have to work harder at it. For instance, the little loophole they closed right before shutting the govt down - when it's re-opened I doubt it'll be so easily closed again.

Who would be able to close the loophole? There's no way Boehner or any of those that changed it would change it back again, and any vote to change it back would just get blocked.

Besides which, do you honestly believe the democrats are going to give any concessions, at all, once they get the government open again? What makes you think so?

Because the government would just shut down again in two weeks if they don't. And it would now be on the Dems shoulders, so they would take a hammering just as bad if not worse than the Republicans are taking.[DOUBLEPOST=1381778696,1381778405][/DOUBLEPOST]

Besides, Obama and the democrats have already rejected any talk about bills that are short term. So now the republicans are saying, ok, let's put a six month debt limit increase in place. Only the democrats are rejecting that too.

You see, in January bipartisan agreed upon sequestration cuts take place automatically, and the democrats want to repeal them before they take place.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_..._negotiations_democrats_want_a_deal_that.html

The democrats are busy trying to thread a needle to get everything they want without giving the republicans anything they want.

They won't accept any proposal from the republicans that is clean unless it also fits their timeframe so they have the best chance at repealing the upcoming budget cuts.

Those who claim the democrats are innocent in this current scuffle, and pretend that things are very simple are not really paying attention.

So again they're asking for a delay in funding the health care act. That's not rejecting any talk about bills that are short term. They're coming back to the table with exactly what they started with and throwing their hands up and saying the dems aren't negotiating.

 

[strawman]

1) I disagree that the democrats couldn't fix things so they'd be able to avoid this in the near future if they wanted once the shutdown stopped. I suppose we will just have to disagree then.

2) the democrats WILL NOT accept a short term deal. They've already said they won't. What makes you think they will? They won't even accept a six week clean debt limit increase they've been offered.

3) if you carefully read the entire article you'll note it mentions several aspects of the attempted negotiations over the weekend. While the republicans are still working on the healthcare thing, you should have seen that apart from that the democrats are not willing to discuss debt limit raises and budgetary shutdown timeframes that fall outside their plan. In other words, there are things the democrats are saying publicly that they will accept, but are turning down inside negotiating sessions in order to further their own partisan goals. All while still not giving anything to their opposition.

 

[GasBandit]

All this back and forth may be for nothing - Senators Reid and McConnell are sounding very chummy today.

 

[Shakey]

1) I disagree that the democrats couldn't fix things so they'd be able to avoid this in the near future if they wanted once the shutdown stopped. I suppose we will just have to disagree then.

2) the democrats WILL NOT accept a short term deal. They've already said they won't. What makes you think they will? They won't even accept a six week clean debt limit increase they've been offered.

3) if you carefully read the entire article you'll note it mentions several aspects of the attempted negotiations over the weekend. While the republicans are still working on the healthcare thing, you should have seen that apart from that the democrats are not willing to discuss debt limit raises and budgetary shutdown timeframes that fall outside their plan. In other words, there are things the democrats are saying publicly that they will accept, but are turning down inside negotiating sessions in order to further their own partisan goals. All while still not giving anything to their opposition.

1. If they could, why wouldn't they do it now? They have the votes to pass a clean funding and debt limit increase already. It just can't be presented without Boehners ok.

2. When have they said that? Like I said, the one in the article, still has a provision for delaying funding for health care. I have yet to see Boehner present a clean funding or debt limit increase no matter the timeline. If they are willing to do that, they should. No matter the timeline. Play their hand, lets see if the Dems would vote against it.

3.Again, let's see where Republicans have put forth a clean funding and debt limit increase that plays into the timeline Dems don't want. There is nothing stopping them from doing that.

 

[Dubyamn]

Besides, Obama and the democrats have already rejected any talk about bills that are short term. So now the republicans are saying, ok, let's put a six month debt limit increase in place. Only the democrats are rejecting that too.

You see, in January bipartisan agreed upon sequestration cuts take place automatically, and the democrats want to repeal them before they take place.

Except the squestration cuts were never supposed to take place. Everybody involved agreed that it was the stupidest way to cut the budget.

The sequestration cuts were supposed to be a sword of Damocles hanging over the head of the Senate and the Congress so that they could negotiate on a budget deal. Since they couldn't come to an agreement due to democrats demanding some extra taxes and republicans demanding no extra taxes sequestration happened.

Nobody should be for Sequestration cause it cuts all government programs by a set amount regardless of effectiveness or necessity.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_..._negotiations_democrats_want_a_deal_that.html

The democrats are busy trying to thread a needle to get everything they want without giving the republicans anything they want.

They won't accept any proposal from the republicans that is clean unless it also fits their timeframe so they have the best chance at repealing the upcoming budget cuts.

Except Collins' proposal wasn't clean. If it was it would have been easily passed by the senate then been rejected by the house.

Those who claim the democrats are innocent in this current scuffle, and pretend that things are very simple are not really paying attention.

Democrats would vote overwhelmingly for a clean CR and Debt ceiling increase. Collins' plan wasn't clean.

 

[Krisken]

Wanting a chance to look over what the opposing party puts in bills? Yeah, I can't see why that would be important to the Democrats.

 

[Hailey Knight]

End of Tuesday suggests GasBandit might be right, that the Republicans will soon be throwing in the towel. Right now it's the Tea Party twerps who think they can still come out on top from this and are happy to drive the country into default, but there aren't enough of them.

And why oh why did I scroll down to the comments on one of the news articles? People are so fucking stupid.

 

[jwhouk]

And yet the Tea Partiers may yet drive us off the fiscal cliff. Cruz is apparently contemplating another filibuster that would push Senate debate past the debt limit deadline.

 

[strawman]

Well the house really only has three options at this point:

Pass the senate bill
Pass their own bill (but apparently they don't have even the votes from their own party now to pass anything with meaning)
Let the deadline pass

Of course the deadline is an estimate made a month ago by the US Treasury, and as an estimate it may be off by a day or two, but they don't readjust it once they set it. Even if they have money for another day, or even if they actually "ran out" a day ago, they keep the date the same for a variety of reasons.

Some are suggesting that the date is arbitrary, and we may have more time, but the reality is that once it passes without an increase, the treasury will act accordingly and start telling investors that they are going to default on certain notes.

Now the question, if the house does decide to let the deadline slip by, is whether the treasury will act like the administration ( and they probably will, because guess who directs them?) and rather than paying some notes and asking for extensions on others if they will simply shut everything down, as they seem to enjoy doing, to make sure everyone understands that there's a problem.

At any rate I'm surprised the house hasn't passed a clean debt limit raise without reopening the government. They are missing an opportunity here to show their constituents that they are not willing to let the credit rating fail, but will continue to push their agenda with the democrats. Seems like the perfect time to force the democrats to accept a simple bill, and ask for negotiations again.

What am I missing about this that they aren't considering it?

 

[Shakey]

At any rate I'm surprised the house hasn't passed a clean debt limit raise without reopening the government. They are missing an opportunity here to show their constituents that they are not willing to let the credit rating fail, but will continue to push their agenda with the democrats. Seems like the perfect time to force the democrats to accept a simple bill, and ask for negotiations again.

What am I missing about this that they aren't considering it?

I think the problem is, a lot of them ran on a very radical hard line approach, and it's one they truly believe in. They don't want to compromise, and they seriously believe that there's no harm in letting the US default. It shows the harm that can be done by electing someone whose entire campaign is built on the "I am against everything the other party is for" idea. The voters wanted someone who was obstructionist and won't come to the table to deal at all, well here it is. Enjoy it.

I feel a bit bad for Boehner. I don't think the majority of what he says or does is what he wants. He's simply trying to hold his party together, and has no other choice but to play into the more radical element. Otherwise absolutely nothing would get done.

 

[strawman]

Well the real problem for him will come if the senate passes their bill at the eleventh hour. If they do this then there won't be time for committee. The house will either have to vote on it as-is, or not vote at all. It's my expectation that this is what the senate will do. Send a bill that can't be negotiated.

Of the house doesn't put forth and pass a bill today, and they don't vote on the senate bill, even those republicans that mostly agree with them are going to be unhappy.

Those idiots that think defaulting is maybe an ok idea are bad, bad apples.

I suppose that they could each pass a conflicting bill today, and then let it go to committee past the deadline. If the treasury and the world understood that something was definitely getting passed (and once something, anything, gets to committee, then something would definitely pass) then they might be able to go past the deadline a few days hammering things out.

Really stupid, though, not to pass a simple debt limit increase.

Really, really stupid.

 

[Shakey]

I'm not sure they can wait until the last minute, and I doubt the credit rating companies would be ok with us going past the deadline. Even getting close to the deadline will probably prompt a drop in our rating. Either way, I'm guessing Boehner will put the bill through as is. The House is such a mess right now I don't think them working to change it would do any good.

 

[strawman]

I'm guessing Boehner will put the bill through as is.

Man, I hope so. They had their chance, they wasted it, and if they flub this there isn't any benefit.

I just see so many people trying to push them to let it pass, and the fact that they've so completely missed many chances to be seen as trying to work things out that it worries me they may not make the right choice.

 

[Hailey Knight]

And yet the Tea Partiers may yet drive us off the fiscal cliff. Cruz is apparently contemplating another filibuster that would push Senate debate past the debt limit deadline.

I'm not surprised it's coming down to the Tea Party to fuck up.

 

[Krisken]

And Cruz is the asshole who would do it, too. But you watch, within the week it will be the fault of the Democrats for not raising the debt ceiling.

 

[GasBandit]

It's hilarious how much of all this is a great big fiction. The debt limit is an arbitrary number the government set on itself to give the appearance of fiscal responsibility while constantly raising it, like a fat girl saying "Ok, just one more bonbon. Just one more. Last one. One more." I don't see why they persist in the facade. Furthermore, even were the debt limit not increased, there's more than enough tax revenue coming in to more than pay off the interest on the debt, so we'd only default if someone actually makes the conscious choice not to write a 400 billion dollar check when they have 2.6 trillion in income. Agreement or not, there will be no default. I shudder to think how close to armageddon this country actually would be if we were actually incapable of paying the interest in our debt without further borrowing.

 

[GasBandit]

Moot Doesn't matter anyway, CNN's twitter feed is reporting Ted Cruz says he won't block the senate vote.

edit - Gawd I hate now knowing what moot really means.

 

[Hailey Knight]

Moot Doesn't matter anyway, CNN's twitter feed is reporting Ted Cruz says he won't block the senate vote.

edit - Gawd I hate now knowing what moot really means.

Me too. I would've rather remained ignorant.

 

[Dubyamn]

It's hilarious how much of all this is a great big fiction. The debt limit is an arbitrary number the government set on itself to give the appearance of fiscal responsibility while constantly raising it, like a fat girl saying "Ok, just one more bonbon. Just one more. Last one. One more." I don't see why they persist in the facade. Furthermore, even were the debt limit not increased, there's more than enough tax revenue coming in to more than pay off the interest on the debt, so we'd only default if someone actually makes the conscious choice not to write a 400 billion dollar check when they have 2.6 trillion in income. Agreement or not, there will be no default. I shudder to think how close to armageddon this country actually would be if we were actually incapable of paying the interest in our debt without further borrowing.

Except that the system isn't set up to prioritize the payments and even if it was the fact that we will have to slash Social Security checks or Veteran's benefits or whatever we will have to slash to make those payments will be seen by the loaning entities as proof that the American government is not doing well and will demand higher interest rates to make those loans.

Also it's not like revenues or costs are constant over the month. It will happen eventually that we'll have bills due and the money we need to pay them will be coming in next week.

Now I'm with you on the debt ceiling being a big fiction but it isn't one that can be breeched without repercussions. Last time we didn't even breech the debt ceiling but the brinkmanship that happened caused our credit rating to be downgraded and cost the American government $1.3 Billion for absolutely no gain.

 

[figmentPez]

edit - Gawd I hate now knowing what moot really means.

I read the article on what moot means, and it only made me more confused. I think I might have been using it correctly all along, but the article left me unclear as to what the proper usage was.

Looking at the dictionary, yes, I've been using it correctly. A moot point is one that is pointless to argue. Was the ice cream freezerburnt before it melted when the power went out? You can certainly debate that issue, and gather all sorts of evidence, but the point is moot since you have to go buy fresh ice cream either way.

 

[GasBandit]

I read the article on what moot means, and it only made me more confused. I think I might have been using it correctly all along, but the article left me unclear as to what the proper usage was.

Looking at the dictionary, yes, I've been using it correctly. A moot point is one that is pointless to argue. Was the ice cream freezerburnt before it melted when the power went out? You can certainly debate that issue, and gather all sorts of evidence, but the point is moot since you have to go buy fresh ice cream either way.

The point of the article is the dictionary is apparently wrong - Moot really means up for debate or unresolved. LANGUAGE IS DONE

 

[Covar]

OMG GUYS ENGLISH IS EVOLVING! QUICK PRESS B!!!

 

[figmentPez]

The point of the article is the dictionary is apparently wrong - Moot really means up for debate or unresolved. LANGUAGE IS DONE

But that is the dictionary definition.
1. open to discussion or debate; debatable; doubtful: a moot point.
2. of little or no practical value or meaning; purely academic.
3. Chiefly Law. not actual; theoretical; hypothetical.
...
6. Archaic. to argue (a case), especially in a mock court.
...
8. an argument or discussion, especially of a hypothetical legal case.

The subject can be debated, it is not a resolved issue, but it is a debate with no direct weight or consequence. It is a argument of hypotheticals or irrelevancies. It may be useful for academic understanding, but it has no direct impact on the world. Moot is exactly the word to describe debate when the debt ceiling would have been reached, if we pass legislation before that happens, making it an academic point, and not a practical one.

 

[strawman]

Also called a bike shed argument. You can argue about the color of the bike shed, but it's accepted that we need a shed, the color doesn't matter and if you want to argue, it's up for debate, but it's not very relevant to the discussion about whether we should have a bike shed or not.

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

At least it looks like it's over and the Republicans have realized they lost and are dumb.

“The House has fought with everything it has to convince the president of the United States to engage in bipartisan negotiations aimed at addressing our country's debt and providing fairness for the American people under ObamaCare. That fight will continue. But blocking the bipartisan agreement reached today by the members of the Senate will not be a tactic for us. In addition to the risk of default, doing so would open the door for the Democratic majority in Washington to raise taxes again on the American people and undo the spending caps in the 2011 Budget Control Act without replacing them with better spending cuts. With our nation's economy still struggling under years of the president's policies, raising taxes is not a viable option. Our drive to stop the train wreck that is the president's health care law will continue. We will rely on aggressive oversight that highlights the law's massive flaws and smart, targeted strikes that split the legislative coalition the president has relied upon to force his health care law on the American people.”

 

[GasBandit]

What'd I say, eh?

 

[strawman]

And once it's over, will the democrats actually negotiate anything?

Nope.

 

[GasBandit]

And once it's over, will the democrats actually negotiate anything?

Nope.

Of course not, they "won" so any opposition is simply obstructionism contrary to the will of the people. Protecting the minority/dissent is only important when democrats aren't in power. I'm sure everybody's relieved we can now go right back to spending our way to collapse as we have been all along.

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

Of course not, they "won" so any opposition is simply obstructionism contrary to the will of the people. Protecting the minority/dissent is only important when democrats aren't in power. I'm sure everybody's relieved we can now go right back to spending our way to collapse as we have been all along.

this, but unironically yes

And once it's over, will the democrats actually negotiate anything?

Nope.

Good.

 

[GasBandit]

this, but unironically yes

So I take it, since you believe in the uncompromising righteousness of majority rule, that you support upholding the 2004 Michigan ban on gay marriage that is now going before a federal court? Because that's what the majority voted for, so you unironically support it, yes?

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

So I take it, since you believe in the uncompromising righteousness of majority rule, that you support upholding the 2004 Michigan ban on gay marriage that is now going before a federal court? Because that's what the majority voted for, so you unironically support it, yes?

Any opposition to this is obstructionism

 

[GasBandit]

You heard it here first, folks. Charlie Don't Surf opposes gay marriage rights.

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

You heard it here first, folks. Charlie Don't Surf opposes gay marriage rights.

gay marriage rights have nothing to do with the debt ceiling

 

[Krisken]

I don't know what I'm missing, but it must be hilarious.

 

[GasBandit]

gay marriage rights have nothing to do with the debt ceiling

Passed by a vote is passed by a vote, and no other considerations are acceptable - that's just obstructionism. You live by the process, you die by the process. You disgusting homophobic bigot.