House Republicans can eat a Dick.

[FenderBender]

Lol, what bullshit. Both sides want the CR passed. The republicans are using the potential negative consequences of a govt shut down as leverage to try to extort their way into a legislative semi-win after having lost in the official legislative process. How you can not see this as a problem is kind of puzzling. Basically this means that so long as either part of congress is controlled by the minority party, that party can always choose to throw the entire country under the bus as a last ditch effort to try to win some sort of cheap symbolic victory.

And Democrats are using the potential negative consequences of a government shutdown as leverage to pass a bill they want without any of the amendments that Republicans want on board.

And can we stop that implication that the Republicans are throwing the country under the bus because they are refusing to pass the stop-gap budget bill that the Democrats want at zero hour? As I said before both houses of the government brought us to this fucked point, and it's silly to say that this is the disagreement that is creating all our trouble.

 

[Frood]

And Democrats are using the potential negative consequences of a government shutdown as leverage to pass a bill they want without any of the amendments that Republicans want on board.

They want a budget passed.
The budget does not affect the ACA
Budget and ACA are not related
Boehner won't allow a vote on a budget unless dems cede on a COMPLETELY UNRELATED MATTER (AC)
ACA is already a law, and goes forth as planned regardless of budget.

 

[reggie jax]

And Democrats are using the potential negative consequences of a government shutdown as leverage to pass a bill they want without any of the amendments that Republicans want on board.

In other words, the Democrats are using the potential negative consequences of a government shutdown to pass a bill that stops the government from shutting down. It's not like the republicans have an issue with the actual bill, they have an issue with another piece of legislation which they're trying to tack on to this bill because not passing this bill has visible consequences.

 

[FenderBender]

They want a budget passed.
The budget does not affect the ACA
Budget and ACA are not related
Boehner won't allow a vote on a budget unless dems cede on a COMPLETELY UNRELATED MATTER (AC)
ACA is already a law, and goes forth as planned regardless of budget.

In other words, the Democrats are using the potential negative consequences of a government shutdown to pass a bill that stops the government from shutting down. It's not like the republicans have an issue with the actual bill, they have an issue with another piece of legislation which they're trying to tack on to this bill because not passing this bill has visible consequences.

So...

Democrats: "We want you to pass this bill that extends funding for X various government programs."
Republicans: "We will pass that bill if you include a rider that delays funding for the ACA."
Democrats: "No."
Republicans: "Ok, we won't pass the CR."
Democrats: "We already passed the ACA."
Republicans: "We know, that's why we're trying to add the rider to this bill and not that one."
Democrats: "But this bill was ruled constitutional by the SCOTUS."
Republicans: "We know, thats why we are trying to delay funding, because if the bill was found unconstitutional it wouldn't be in effect."
Democrats: "You want to fund these programs too."
Republicans: "Obviously not as much as we want to defund the ACA."

So why are the Republicans so wrong here, and the Democrats so right?

 

[chalupa]

Because this isn't the a rabbit hole, and denying the truth doesn't make it false.

 

[reggie jax]

So...

Democrats: "We want you to pass this bill that extends funding for X various government programs."
Republicans: "We will pass that bill if you include a rider that delays funding for the ACA."
Democrats: "No."
Republicans: "Ok, we won't pass the CR."
Democrats: "We already passed the ACA."
Republicans: "We know, that's why we're trying to add the rider to this bill and not that one."
Democrats: "But this bill was ruled constitutional by the SCOTUS."
Republicans: "We know, thats why we are trying to delay funding, because if the bill was found unconstitutional it wouldn't be in effect."
Democrats: "You want to fund these programs too."
Republicans: "Obviously not as much as we want to defund the ACA."

So why are the Republicans so wrong here, and the Democrats so right?

It's not that they don't want to fund the programs as much as the Democrats. Both sides are operating under the assumption that whether they win this battle or not the end result will be an eventual end to this shut down. The Republicans are basically manufacturing a crisis for the purposes of gaining leverage in the ACA debate. The reason why they are wrong for doing so is that beyond the basic and needless logistical problems that arise because of this tactic, it also hurts the credit of the United States govt and will be a disaster for politics in Washington if it were to become a normal tactic which, if it's successful, and there is no backlash, then it's hard to imagine why it wouldn't.

In short, manufacturing crises for the sake of leverage = bad. Not giving in to said tactic = necessary.

 

[FenderBender]

Because this isn't the a rabbit hole, and denying the truth doesn't make it false.

Cool man. I'll free my mind and the rest will follow.

It's not that they don't want to fund the programs as much as the Democrats. Both sides are operating under the assumption that whether they win this battle or not the end result will be an eventual end to this shut down. The Republicans are basically manufacturing a crisis for the purposes of gaining leverage in the ACA debate. The reason why they are wrong for doing so is that beyond the basic and needless logistical problems that arise because of this tactic, it also hurts the credit of the United States govt and will be a disaster for politics in Washington if it were to become a normal tactic which, if it's successful, and there is no backlash, then it's hard to imagine why it wouldn't.

In short, manufacturing crises for the sake of leverage = bad. Not giving in to said tactic = necessary.

No, the Democratic Senate could pass the house's original CR, but they're manufacturing crisis to keep the ACA funded. See, this is a fun, but ultimately pointless exercise.

 

[chalupa]

Keep changing the definition and eventually the other side will capitulate, except they won't, and the republicans will lose.

 

[reggie jax]

No, the Democratic Senate could pass the house's original CR, but they're manufacturing crisis to keep the ACA funded. See, this is a fun, but ultimately pointless exercise.

That doesn't actually make sense. They're not using the govt shutdown to keep ACA funded. ACA is already funded, they're just not capitulating to the demand that it be defunded before the shut down is resolved.

Neither side really wants the shutdown, but the Republicans are the only ones with something to gain from it. The only thing the Democrats can hope for is to not lose any ground.

 

[FenderBender]

Keep changing the definition and eventually the other side will capitulate, except they won't, and the republicans will lose.

What definition am i changing?

That doesn't actually make sense. They're not using the govt shutdown to keep ACA funded. ACA is already funded, they're just not capitulating to the demand that it be defunded before the shut down is resolved.

Neither side really wants the shutdown, but the Republicans are the only ones with something to gain from it. The only thing the Democrats can hope for is to not lose any ground.

Ok, that's fair enough. The Republicans want to dismantle a piece of legislation, and the Democrats want to keep the legislation intact. I don't see what has changed. The fact that ultimately the other programs will be funded does not mean that both sides don't want to control the terms under which they are funded.

 

[reggie jax]

I just think it's clear which side is manufacturing the crisis when you consider which side is trying to bundle the bill that would stop the shutdown with legislation that serves their partisan agenda. If they weren't trying to do so then there would be no crisis. You can of course say that if the Democrats were to pass the amended budget bill then there would also be no crisis, but that's basically the same as saying that if you just pay the ransom then there is no hostage crisis. It is bad enough that both parties already do this sort of thing with other bills but to do it with the budget takes it to a new level because of the consequences of not passing a budget.

 

[chalupa]

No, no, Reggie. The democrats are the ones screwing this up equally.

 

[FenderBender]

I just think it's clear which side is manufacturing the crisis when you consider which side is trying to bundle the bill that would stop the shutdown with legislation that serves their partisan agenda. If they weren't trying to do so then there would be no crisis. You can of course say that if the Democrats were to pass the amended budget bill then there would also be no crisis, but that's basically the same as saying that if you just pay the ransom then there is no hostage crisis. It is bad enough that both parties already do this sort of thing with other bills but to do it with the budget takes it to a new level because of the consequences of not passing a budget.

But this is not a budget bill. This is a CR. A budget would match spending to revenue (and unsurprisingly that's currently impossible to do). This is saying lets just keep paying the bills. It leaves that how part out entirely. That's why in another couple of weeks we're going to have to pass a debt-limit bill to increase our ability to borrow. This piece-meal approach is so much more rationalization than anyone seems willing to admit.

A default on our credit is going to mean our inability to pay our bills. Yes that's bad, but in my opinion it's about as bad borrowing money to pay our debts. We're trading a large immediate crisis for a later larger crisis.

 

[reggie jax]

That just brings us back to the point that neither side has the ultimate goal of not passing a CR. If the objection were with the actual idea of passing a CR then maybe I would see your point, but that's not what this is about.

I am curious though what you think should be done about the borrowing. The idea of a default sounds scary. This is admittedly not something I'm well versed in.

 

[chalupa]

But this is not a budget bill. This is a CR. A budget would match spending to revenue (and unsurprisingly that's currently impossible to do). This is saying lets just keep paying the bills. It leaves that how part out entirely. That's why in another couple of weeks we're going to have to pass a debt-limit bill to increase our ability to borrow. This piece-meal approach is so much more rationalization than anyone seems willing to admit.

A default on our credit is going to mean our inability to pay our bills. Yes that's bad, but in my opinion it's about as bad borrowing money to pay our debts. We're trading a large immediate crisis for a later larger crisis.

you are wrong, a lot, in your post here.

The CR is actually a budget package to continue spending at currently set levels. It is a budget, albeit temporary, and certainly doesn't qualify as congress doing its job.

Budgets DO NOT have to match spending to revenues, they can operate under deficit spending...and do.

The part that says "let's just keep paying our bills" is the debt ceiling debate.

You managed to mangle those up pretty badly there.

Lastly, a default in our credit isn't as bad as borrowing money to pay our bills, it is way fucking worse, because huge portions of the world's economy run on T Notes. When the US govt fails to pay on its Treasuries, the entire planet's credit and banking system will fail, the crash will be epic in the bad way, and the dollar will cease to be the currency of choice.

The correct answer is to run budget surpluses to bring our total debt down to what is thought of as "manageable" levels, but never completely eliminate US govt debt...that is, unless we can eliminate our fiat currency and move back to gold or even trinkets. US government debt is currently the basis of every credit market...it's a fucked up system to be sure, but that's the fact. Dry up government debt, and you eliminate liquidity. Eliminate liquidity, and small businesses can't get credit lines to pay vendors while they wait for payment on product sent out, for example. The whole thing dies before it has a chance to sort out another mechanism.

Simply put, defaulting on the debt causes the economy to explode. The end game might be a better way of doing things, but not after the world is laid waste. Whereas I did not support the bailouts, I do support cooling off and reducing our debt in an organized fashion, because too many Americans (and other people) will be decimated by slamming on the brakes.

 

[chalupa]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-07/a-u-s-default-seen-as-catastrophe-dwarfing-lehman-s-fall.html

After I wrote the previous post, I googled "us govt debt backs economy" and found a lot of articles saying what I wrote. This one is pretty decent about all the unknowns and the predicted retraction, though they aren't Pollyanna-ing to the level that I wrote. They did use "depression" in their description of what would happen, though.

 

[FenderBender]

you are wrong, a lot, in your post here.

The CR is actually a budget package to continue spending at currently set levels. It is a budget, albeit temporary, and certainly doesn't qualify as congress doing its job.

Budgets DO NOT have to match spending to revenues, they can operate under deficit spending...and do.

The part that says "let's just keep paying our bills" is the debt ceiling debate.

You managed to mangle those up pretty badly there.

The CR is an appropriations bill, that funds government agencies. It's no more a budget than saying, "I'm going to the movies this weekend," is a personal budget. A budget resolution is a framework for appropriations based on justifications from estimates of revenue and debt. This is more like saying, "I'm going to the movies this weekend, because my bills are paid and I earned $20 from working overtime." Raising the debt ceiling is a bill that allows the treasury to issue more T-bills. While the clear motivation for this is to continuing paying our obligations, the bill itself is not about how we're going to use the money, it's just an authorization to borrow more.

And you can stop with the temper tantrum. I'm aware you're upset. So again, the problem is that we're doing all of these things separately when the most important piece of the puzzle is the cohesive view of our finanaces, a.k.a. the budget.

Lastly, a default in our credit isn't as bad as borrowing money to pay our bills, it is way fucking worse, because huge portions of the world's economy run on T Notes. When the US govt fails to pay on its Treasuries, the entire planet's credit and banking system will fail, the crash will be epic in the bad way, and the dollar will cease to be the currency of choice.

The correct answer is to run budget surpluses to bring our total debt down to what is thought of as "manageable" levels, but never completely eliminate US govt debt...that is, unless we can eliminate our fiat currency and move back to gold or even trinkets. US government debt is currently the basis of every credit market...it's a fucked up system to be sure, but that's the fact. Dry up government debt, and you eliminate liquidity. Eliminate liquidity, and small businesses can't get credit lines to pay vendors while they wait for payment on product sent out, for example. The whole thing dies before it has a chance to sort out another mechanism.

Simply put, defaulting on the debt causes the economy to explode. The end game might be a better way of doing things, but not after the world is laid waste. Whereas I did not support the bailouts, I do support cooling off and reducing our debt in an organized fashion, because too many Americans (and other people) will be decimated by slamming on the brakes.

Again, I'm totally aware of the downside to default on our debt, but there is a reason financial planners don't advise you to pay you debt down by borrowing from other people. It's unsustainable. Allowing us to borrow more so we don't default is not a solution, it's sweeping the problem under the rug. And T-bills are going to devalue if we continue to pay their obligations by issuing more T-bills.

 

[chalupa]

You know, i'd really like to keep talking to you, but your perception of reality is so skewed I can't even begin to keep up. Where is the temper tantrum? Point it out, please.

How do you interact with people in your normal life? i'm being serious; do you frame imaginary situations to be condescending? I'm sure that has led to you being a fast sprinter.

 

[FenderBender]

No, no, Reggie. The democrats are the ones screwing this up equally.

Keep changing the definition and eventually the other side will capitulate, except they won't, and the republicans will lose.

you are wrong, a lot, in your post here.

You managed to mangle those up pretty badly there.

Seems at the least a little condescending...

 

[BigMattTheHobo]

I wish an objective third party would come in and settle this. I feel you're totally wrong, fender, for the reasons provided by lupa, but that's expected and obvious. I feel like you're objectively wrong and it's been proven, hence lupa being so blunt about you being wrong. But I really don't expect you to believe that.