US government Shutdown

[TimothyC]

I like the part where my question got ignored.

Fair enough.

Okay, what concessions must he give...?

Major spending cuts - to everything (DoD included), entitlement and deficit reform. A reversion to 2007-2008 budget levels would be a good start.
But that's what I want. Politically, he needs to come down to a budget of about $3550 billion, or lower. He needs to get serious or get out the way.

The fundamental fact is you get 15-20% of GDP in taxes - no matter what the tax levels. Everything has to fit inside of that - or the costs of servicing the debt will eat the budget up, and then there won't be any money for your precious government health care, or schools, or roads, or science, or parks, or a military or anything, because the bought classes of people who will rely on entitlements won't let us cut those.

Because you lost the White House and the Senate, and this is supposed to be a democracy, not rule by a spoiled minority having a tantrum.

Come on Broomstick, you're smart enough to remember that the power of the purse is held in the House, not the Senate or the executive.

[Losonti Tokash]

The House has a bill. If the Republicans weren't total cowards throwing a fit, they'd allow a vote on it. Their refusal to do so even with mounting public pressure to at least vote for or against it speaks volumes about their willingness to actually do their jobs.

[TimothyC]

The House has a bill. If the Republicans weren't total cowards throwing a fit, they'd allow a vote on it. Their refusal to do so even with mounting public pressure to at least vote for or against it speaks volumes about their willingness to actually do their jobs.

They've voted on bills. They've passed bills.
They just happen to not be the bills you want.

They include things like letting DC use local funds to fund city services like fire and police protection. Can't have that now can we! Harry Reid told the DC mayor (who ambushed him at a press conference) “I’m on your side. Don’t screw it up, okay? Don’t screw it up.”

[Terralthra]

The Federal budget for FY 2012 was USD 3.538 trillion. So....he's serious, by your own definition.

[TimothyC]

The Federal budget for FY 2012 was USD 3.538 trillion. So....he's serious, by your own definition.

No, because doing a CR right now is just political theater. We should be using a real budget, and his was $3770 billion, while the senate's was $3700 billion. The house budget was $3500 billion.

[Terralthra]

That someone who supports the House Republicans - the group that voted to overturn ACA 42 times, knowing that it would not pass the Senate, and that it would be vetoed if it did - would accuse anyone else of "political theatre" is hilarious.

[SirNitram]

The Federal budget for FY 2012 was USD 3.538 trillion. So....he's serious, by your own definition.

No, because doing a CR right now is just political theater. We should be using a real budget, and his was $3770 billion, while the senate's was $3700 billion. The house budget was $3500 billion.

So it's your idea that we should extend the shutdown, and all human misery, suffering, and potential death it brings with it, to negotiate a full budget, which is always time consuming, instead of an established and viable method of funding?

Are you ignorant, or just sociopathic?

[Covenant]

Tim, while I think everyone can agree that creating a more balanced budget makes sense, and it should be something to continue working at, targeting a single program that has been astoundingly durable has got to be the worst kind of way of starting a debate discussion. They've targeted this over and over, concessions have been made, it's been picked at and messed with and passed and upheld. It's law now. And the government is shut down because the government is attempting to enforce a law it passed, and is having an aneurysm because of a smallish portion of it.

If there was a massive groundswell of support for vast budgetary discussion that have any hope of going somewhere, wasn't there a really good time to do that before? Especially when the budget was being planned? I understand from an entirely mechanical perspective this is an opportunity to chuck ethics and actually find a weak spot in an overwhelming majority, a Governmental Thermopylae of sorts, and thus is very attractive.

Aside from an assumed merit in this action, it has to be be clear that using this brinksmanship to circumvent the results of previous legislation is a bad thing. It devalues debate and undermines the importance of the House of Representatives. For a sub-minority to wield such incredible power by hostage-taking seems to imply that the rules were either designed to encourage this (which I believe we can assume they were not) or that everyone assumed nobody would be so crazy as to attempt this. I'm left believing the latter option.

So basically there's two major issues with the line of debate you're doing here:

1) The Republicans aren't really budgetary crusaders in any serious way, at least not this season, so saying this is a way to force Obama to come to the table seems false. It may be appealing to cast it in that light, but they repeatedly failed to engage on budgetary issues before. Maybe they don't want to engage if they know they'll lose or be forced to compromise, but that is not a governing strategy. They are only here because they have been elected to do these things.

2) Holding a gun to the economy is a poor way of doing the things a governing body is meant to do. Because this strategy removes the fundamental role of debate and compromise from the progress of legislature it must not be rewarded, because to reinforce it as a viable strategy will create a system (like other "last ditch" measures have increasingly done) where debate is meaningless and nothing can be accomplished until all emergency measures have passed.

Since it seems really unlikely the Republicans are the serious budgetary heroes you wish they were, defending this insane action from your own position seems irrational. I'm voting Democrat in these elections but it's not like I can honestly defend some of the things they do. When that happens I gotta just admit they're being asshats, and I really think you're intentionally mis-representing facts in a contrarian way rather than as a honest form of debate. You're driving us all nuts but you're still more reasonable than they are, and they honestly don't deserve your support in this crazy shutdown battle.

If literate people like you applaud this kind of thing then we've really got no hope for ever solving the problems because we're never going to be able to see each other's side as rational, which is a necessary first step in re-humanizing the opposition. It's too easy to just say the voters on the other side are evil, or bought (by corporations or by entitlements), or stupid, or just believe anything they see on the one TV channel they watch. The truth is always more complex, even if it doesn't mean our politicians act like it.

I mean, it's not like I care if you're just going to continue playing the peanut gallery, but honestly I'd like to at least see some sense that the battle for actual progress in the country is more important than some crazy superbowl between teams in the government. The role of the people gets entirely ignored when it's just two parties slugging it out.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Because you lost the White House and the Senate, and this is supposed to be a democracy, not rule by a spoiled minority having a tantrum.

Come on Broomstick, you're smart enough to remember that the power of the purse is held in the House, not the Senate or the executive.

Christ. Because you're in charge of the budget means you should abuse it to bully the rest of the government on other matters.

[Simon_Jester]

Fair enough.

Okay, what concessions must he give...?

Major spending cuts - to everything (DoD included), entitlement and deficit reform. A reversion to 2007-2008 budget levels would be a good start.

But that's what I want. Politically, he needs to come down to a budget of about $3550 billion, or lower. He needs to get serious or get out the way.

The fundamental fact is you get 15-20% of GDP in taxes - no matter what the tax levels. Everything has to fit inside of that - or the costs of servicing the debt will eat the budget up, and then there won't be any money for your precious government health care, or schools, or roads, or science, or parks, or a military or anything, because the bought classes of people who will rely on entitlements won't let us cut those.

I am not at all sure the ceiling is exactly where you think- if it is, then one thing we need to do very seriously is think about how we can provide for continued economic growth so that 20% of our GDP allows for growth.

The problem is that these are the worst imaginable conditions to negotiate spending cuts, because we're in the middle of a hostage situation, and the guy holding the hostages places basically zero value on most government functions.

You might be willing to negotiate a resolution to your property dispute with a neighbor. You might even think it was necessary in the long run. And yet you might STILL refuse to have those negotiations at a time when the neighbor has a time bomb planted under your house and refuses to disarm it unless you come to the negotiating table.

Because you lost the White House and the Senate, and this is supposed to be a democracy, not rule by a spoiled minority having a tantrum.

Come on Broomstick, you're smart enough to remember that the power of the purse is held in the House, not the Senate or the executive.

If control of the House means that Republicans are not responsible for the actions they take with the power of the purse, then control of the Senate and White House means that Democrats are not responsible for actions they take with the power of those offices.

The House has a bill. If the Republicans weren't total cowards throwing a fit, they'd allow a vote on it. Their refusal to do so even with mounting public pressure to at least vote for or against it speaks volumes about their willingness to actually do their jobs.

They've voted on bills. They've passed bills.
They just happen to not be the bills you want.

Yes, the basic bill is basically the Ryan budget. The Ryan budget is crap, based on deeply flawed assumptions. If the Democrats let such a budget pass, on the grounds that it is better to pass any new budget rather than continue with the old one, then they are basically saying "fine, whatever, it doesn't matter who wins the elections, the Republicans get to run the country."

Those Republican-passed bills are an exercise in political theater, not a serious attempt to negotiate a resolution to a political crisis.

They include things like letting DC use local funds to fund city services like fire and police protection. Can't have that now can we! Harry Reid told the DC mayor (who ambushed him at a press conference) “I’m on your side. Don’t screw it up, okay? Don’t screw it up.”

Yes. Actually, I think Reid has a point.

The Republicans want this shutdown to last a long time, without inconveniencing any constituents they are directly responsible to. They have every reason to spin it out. So yes, pursuing a strategy of saying "shutting down the government means actually shutting down the government, not just the bits of it you don't care about" is a legitimate countertactic.

The shutdown is not a natural disaster caused by some kind of random misfortune. If the shutdown were a natural disaster, it would be every American's duty to try and minimize the consequences of that, for the common good.

But no, the shutdown is an artificial disaster, brought about by one faction's refusal to accept the status quo. It would be grossly irresponsible for the other faction(s) to simply legitimize this by saying "okay, we take for granted that you can do this, let's minimize the consequences to the people most likely to complain and be heard, so that you can keep doing it."

And tying this into what Covenant said- what it comes down to is that the current Republican strategy is very consistent with "win points at all costs," with 'points' being scored in the brain of Ted Cruz. It is not compatible with any kind of long-term, competent and responsible government- it's a recipe for the kind of inane bickering you get in the worst kinds of democracies, and the kind which makes people honestly start wishing for a single strongman who goes back to ruling by decree... as long as he'll make the trains run on time.

Right now, the trains are very much not running on time. This is a sign that something is fundamentally wrong with the way the system is being governed, and that someone needs to change their behavior to make it work.

Why do you not accept this?

[Dr. Trainwreck]

I like how you tacitly admit that the Republicans are a bunch of brats, discussion with them is impossible, and Obama has to be the grownup. Because if they were rational beings, surely you would be saying that there is a third option: that they relent.

Why should the republicans give up? This is the only way to force Obama to the table to even talk about deficit reduction, and he likes to play dirty all the time, so why shouldn't the republicans?

The Republicans only play dirty because they have to, yup. And also, as Dio taught us, black is really white, the moon is just the sun at night, and when you walk in golden halls you'll get to keep the gold that falls.

It's heaven and hell!

Now that I mocked your bullshit: the Republican budget is 3.70 trillion, while the Democrat budget is 3.77 trillion. It exceeds the Republican budget by 70 billion, which is roughly 2% of its total sum, or 1.89% of it to be more precise. So you tell me that the Republicans put the price of the United States of America at about 2% of disagreement. I know you're totally lacking in self-awareness, but that's not a charming thing to admit.

[Borgholio]

Governmental Thermopylae

I love this term. It's a shame that the Republican "Spartans" didn't get overrun after only three days though...

[Thanas]

But like the Spartans, they managed to maneuver themselves into a position which guarantees their utter defeat and annihilation.

[Losonti Tokash]

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013 ... s-gop?lite

[Justice]

While money bills have to start in the House, it's stupid to say that they have "power of the purse" considering that whatever they pass still has to go through the Senate. It's a shared power, unlike the Senate's ability to stop appointments and directly kill treaties.

But like the Spartans, they managed to maneuver themselves into a position which guarantees their utter defeat and annihilation.

Well, the Spartans lacked a choice given the odds against them, while the Republicans actually made gains that they've basically squandered due to this: Harry Reid promised back in July to go with the Republican version of the CR to avoid a fight like this, and the Republicans couldn't keep their word. This is closer to a Governmental Stalingrad, where the target became a point of obsession with those in command to the point of completely sacrificing real and future gains because of their single-minded outlook.

[Borgholio]

This is closer to a Governmental Stalingrad, where the target became a point of obsession with those in command to the point of completely sacrificing real and future gains because of their single-minded outlook.

The longer this goes, the more of a campaign slogan it'll be for Democrats in the next few elections. "Elect me, I won't shut down the government or play chicken with the debt ceiling."

[Zaune]

On a lighter note:

BUG: Government occasionally shuts down

[Batman]

That was not inconsiderably funny. Thanks, Zaune

[Dendrobius]

As an Australian, I sit here in Down-Underland with my jaw on the ground over the way in which this has played out. I have no skin in the game, but to me, the Republicans are insane. Simply, utterly insane. UHC is a good thing guys, it really is. An anecdote. I managed to contract a UTI which presented on a Sunday evening a few weeks back...yeah, not pleasant

- Visit to emergency room: $0
- 14 day course of antibiotics: around $20
- 1st GP followup for something to stop the burning: $0
- 2nd GP followup to check on urinalysis results : $0
- different set of antibiotics due to said urinalysis: around $20
- ultrasound appointment after antibiotics were done: $0
- 3rd GP followup to check on ultrasound: $0

So, a grand total spent of around $40 Aussie dollars. I do have "private health insurance", but that only covers for actually getting hospitalized. Everything here was courtesy of Australia's Medicare and Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, especially as the 2nd set of antibiotics would apparently been ungodly expensive otherwise.

Oh, and TimC you're an idiot. You are a perfect example of a person who's supporting something that only seeks to bend you over and violate you for as long and as hard as it can, while both it and you are saying, "This is great!". I really fail to understand the doublethink required of any Americans to support the Republican Party. I know that if I was antagonistic towards America, the most effective thing I can do right now, is to help fund the Republican Party and make sure they do exactly what they say. It just seems to me that they've lost the plot. They're not for the country anymore, they're for themselves.

I feel so sorry for Americans in general over this. I really do.

[Simon_Jester]

Thinking over TimothyC's position, I think I figured out what's been going on, and why to an extent he's talking past us (and making some of us mad at the same time).

It is a common Republican point that deficit spending is irresponsible, and massive increases in deficit spending doubly so. While that is not the primary motive given for the Republicans' decision to allow a shutdown this time, it is a primary motive for TimothyC, who sees this as a genuine crisis threatening the nation, and one that is never going to be addressed if we keep quietly passing continuing resolutions and pretending that the 2008 budget is realistic for 2014 realities.

Put that way, I can see his point.

I think it would be good for us to seriously try a round of budget negotiations again, one where Republican leaders actually make a commitment to compromise on the issues and really negotiate, rather than trying to pass yet another clone of the Ryan budget and then acting shocked when it doesn't pass the Senate.* So it would be quite nice if, say, we got a negotiated resolution that says:

"Okay, I, Boehner, will do what it takes (including relying on Democratic votes) to pass an increase to the debt ceiling, and I will do the same for a clean CR, as soon as we form a committee to negotiate the budget that includes me, Senator Reid or his chosen senior representative, and President Obama and/or his chosen senior representative. And this time we'll do it right, even if it means I only get part of what I want, so long as you guys are willing to get only part of what you want in return. And any Republicans who try to sabotage this will wind up under the hammer of the full weight of my party, provided that any Democrats who try to sabotage this end up similarly hammered."

That would actually be a good outcome of this- but it would require a level of moral courage from the current Republican leadership I'm not sure they can manage.
______________________________________

*I mean come on, if you make a budget plan without even consulting the other party, or any economists not part of your own party, is it really a surprise when it falls flat on its face?

[Thanas]

On a lighter note:

BUG: Government occasionally shuts down

Oh man, instant classic. Shared with all my IT buddies.

[Thanas]

In related news:

Everything would be better if the USA was still a colony.

[Batman]

'Maybe, if we ask nicely, Britain will take us back?'
Not if they have two braincells to rub together.

[Broomstick]

"Okay, I, Boehner, will do what it takes (including relying on Democratic votes) to pass an increase to the debt ceiling, and I will do the same for a clean CR, as soon as we form a committee to negotiate the budget that includes me, Senator Reid or his chosen senior representative, and President Obama and/or his chosen senior representative. And this time we'll do it right, even if it means I only get part of what I want, so long as you guys are willing to get only part of what you want in return. And any Republicans who try to sabotage this will wind up under the hammer of the full weight of my party, provided that any Democrats who try to sabotage this end up similarly hammered."

That presupposes an amount of spine that Boehner has never shown any signs of possessing.

[Napoleon the Clown]

Ted Cruz pays someone to prove the GOP isn't as unpopular as the polls say they are.

The results are the same so he insists that because there's slightly less blame being heaped on them than in 1995 they're in a better position than 17 years ago. Even though Wall Street is currently more popular.


I give Ted Cruz the gold for mental gymnastics.