US government Shutdown

[Broomstick]

One of the best illustrations of how much the Republican party has changed is that Richard Nixon attempted to pass a national health care plan back in the early 1970's, and Nixon was never considered a liberal by anyone.

Now, he'd be left of most Democrats on that issue.

[TimothyC]

Yes, but that doesn't mean that taking 20% or over causes us to tip over onto the 'diminishing returns' side of the Laffer curve, and at this point anyone who's really serious about the US's fiscal solvency would be pushing us about as far up the curve as we can get without hitting diminishing returns.

I honestly don't know where the peak is, but I'd imagine the federal peak would be higher with lower state and local taxes - that said, I'm in favor of state and local solutions when they work because they tend to be more responsive to the population (that is, the needs of someone in New Mexico are not the same as the needs of someone in New York).

Yes- the fundamental problem I have is that I do agree with the others here who feel that the GOP had plenty of chances to negotiate with willing Democrats, both before and after the 2010 elections, and squandered them so thoroughly that it's hardly worth even talking to Boehner now except to avert an imminent disaster.

From what I remember, prior to the election of Sen. Brown in late 2009, there were not a lot of times when the Dems even offered to seriously talk to the GOP on things - mostly because they didn't have to do so at all. After the start of 2010, the GOP wasn't in a mood to negotiate as they were convinced that they only had to hold out for two years to get a republican in the white house. The current GOP strategy (such as there is one) seems to be an attempt to drive a wedge between the President and the rest of the democrats in DC who want to still be around in a post-Obama Washington.

One of the best illustrations of how much the Republican party has changed is that Richard Nixon attempted to pass a national health care plan back in the early 1970's, and Nixon was never considered a liberal by anyone.

I've long considered the greatest failure of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party in the second half of the 20th century was their inability to make a deal with Nixon when he offered them most of what they wanted. Mind you the Tea Party wing of the GOP is possibly making a very similar mistake now, but Obama wishes he had half the spine and political acumen of Nixon.

[Grumman]

Yes, but that doesn't mean that taking 20% or over causes us to tip over onto the 'diminishing returns' side of the Laffer curve, and at this point anyone who's really serious about the US's fiscal solvency would be pushing us about as far up the curve as we can get without hitting diminishing returns.

Your government has poor impulse control. I see no reason to believe that they'll start acting responsibly just because you hand them another sackful of other people's money. Give them 30% of GDP and think you'd find them spending 35% before too long.

[ZOmegaZ]

But it's not like the government consumes money, never to be seen again. It moves it around in a non-market fashion, but in general, money the government takes in goes to employees or various social programs, where it gets spent and re-enters the economy. Just now it's at a lower level, where it does more good than concentrated in the hands of the few wealthy.

The only real exception is some part of military spending. Blowing things up does actually destroy wealth, pretty much by definition.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Many Americas on the right have been fed the idea that they get little to nothing back from "The Government".
A great many Right political cartoons will usually portray spending by the government as shoveling money into a fire down a hole or other such things. The overall message given is: 'The Government will only WASTE money, only 'You' should be able to spend 'Your' money"

[Simon_Jester]

From what I remember, prior to the election of Sen. Brown in late 2009, there were not a lot of times when the Dems even offered to seriously talk to the GOP on things - mostly because they didn't have to do so at all.

Seems credible.

After the start of 2010, the GOP wasn't in a mood to negotiate as they were convinced that they only had to hold out for two years to get a republican in the white house.

Er... you mean after the election of 2010? That was late 2010. That said, if you're right, it does not speak well of the incoming Republican House majority and enlarged Senate minority that they thought this way. "Hold out and don't let anything change and we'll win in two years and THEN get everything we want" is not responsible governance.

The current GOP strategy (such as there is one) seems to be an attempt to drive a wedge between the President and the rest of the democrats in DC who want to still be around in a post-Obama Washington.

The problem is that this is a strategy oriented around scoring points, not a strategy which makes due allowance for, y'know, running the country.

I'd love to see actual negotiations, but I really think the Republicans have worked harder than the Democrats to make that road be closed right now.

I've long considered the greatest failure of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party in the second half of the 20th century was their inability to make a deal with Nixon when he offered them most of what they wanted. Mind you the Tea Party wing of the GOP is possibly making a very similar mistake now, but Obama wishes he had half the spine and political acumen of Nixon.

Of course, Nixon's spine and acumen led him to commit felonies to pursue political objectives, so maybe he had a little too much of each...

But yes, this point is well taken.

Your government has poor impulse control. I see no reason to believe that they'll start acting responsibly just because you hand them another sackful of other people's money. Give them 30% of GDP and think you'd find them spending 35% before too long.

The problem is that right now we have a structural deficit- the mandatory spending and minimally necessary "discretionary" spending add up to more than the government is taking in, thanks to 10-15 years of persistent tax cuts while spending was allowed to remain constant or increase. At this point, we have to think about how to fix that problem, regardless of what else is or is not fixed.

Raising taxes, and thinking about how to save some real money on our mandatory or semi-mandatory programs, is pretty much the only thing that could get the US out of debt. Our long term spending issues are a problem, but if we don't at least try to get our heads above water in this decade we're going to be out of luck.

[TimothyC]

Er... you mean after the election of 2010? That was late 2010. That said, if you're right, it does not speak well of the incoming Republican House majority and enlarged Senate minority that they thought this way. "Hold out and don't let anything change and we'll win in two years and THEN get everything we want" is not responsible governance.

No, early 2010, with Sen. Brown's election to the seat long held by that paragon of virtue, Teddy Kennedy. This was reinforced by the election results in 2010 when the GOP was in a bad place to take back the Senate (and failed to do so, but did increase the size of the caucus), but took back the house. Not a recipe for great governance, but a good recipe to check the Dem's agenda (which was a valid political goal).

I'd love to see actual negotiations, but I really think the Republicans have worked harder than the Democrats to make that road be closed right now.

It really does look like we're getting negotiations on both the debt ceiling and the federal CRs right now

Of course, Nixon's spine and acumen led him to commit felonies to pursue political objectives, so maybe he had a little too much of each...

But yes, this point is well taken.

I've never denied that Nixon had his flaws, and they were deep personal flaws that kept him from becoming one of the greats, but the man was an excellent politician who never forgot his roots.

The problem is that right now we have a structural deficit- the mandatory spending and minimally necessary "discretionary" spending add up to more than the government is taking in, thanks to 10-15 years of persistent tax cuts while spending was allowed to remain constant or increase. At this point, we have to think about how to fix that problem, regardless of what else is or is not fixed.

Raising taxes, and thinking about how to save some real money on our mandatory or semi-mandatory programs, is pretty much the only thing that could get the US out of debt. Our long term spending issues are a problem, but if we don't at least try to get our heads above water in this decade we're going to be out of luck.

Alright. We're on the same page. Now, for the two of us to decide where the lines get drawn on what to cut out, what to cut back, and what to preserve would be somewhat academic (as neither of us is on a path for high political office at the moment), but I'm willing to have a civil discussion on that if you are.

[Justice]

No, early 2010, with Sen. Brown's election to the seat long held by that paragon of virtue, Teddy Kennedy. This was reinforced by the election results in 2010 when the GOP was in a bad place to take back the Senate (and failed to do so, but did increase the size of the caucus), but took back the house. Not a recipe for great governance, but a good recipe to check the Dem's agenda (which was a valid political goal).

This would be great if it were merely a check, rather than ridiculous political intrangisence. Obviously you don't have control over that, so I'm not blaming you, but if the Republicans elected had not been elected to be radicals, but to be dealmakers like the new-wave conservatives of the 90's, then we probably wouldn't have been in this mess. :-\

It really does look like we're getting negotiations on both the debt ceiling and the federal CRs right now

I'm not sure it's much negotiations as the promise of larger things in the future, hopefully without the "Defund" movement as the driving force. It's still kind of amazing how the Republicans have tossed away a solid victory on the CR level.

The problem is that right now we have a structural deficit- the mandatory spending and minimally necessary "discretionary" spending add up to more than the government is taking in, thanks to 10-15 years of persistent tax cuts while spending was allowed to remain constant or increase. At this point, we have to think about how to fix that problem, regardless of what else is or is not fixed.

Raising taxes, and thinking about how to save some real money on our mandatory or semi-mandatory programs, is pretty much the only thing that could get the US out of debt. Our long term spending issues are a problem, but if we don't at least try to get our heads above water in this decade we're going to be out of luck.

Alright. We're on the same page. Now, for the two of us to decide where the lines get drawn on what to cut out, what to cut back, and what to preserve would be somewhat academic (as neither of us is on a path for high political office at the moment), but I'm willing to have a civil discussion on that if you are.

Are you conspiciously leaving revenues out of the equation, or simply saying "And don't forget about cuts" here? Honest question.

[Simon_Jester]

Er... you mean after the election of 2010? That was late 2010. That said, if you're right, it does not speak well of the incoming Republican House majority and enlarged Senate minority that they thought this way. "Hold out and don't let anything change and we'll win in two years and THEN get everything we want" is not responsible governance.

No, early 2010, with Sen. Brown's election to the seat long held by that paragon of virtue, Teddy Kennedy.

When was the last time Ted Kennedy tried to shut down the government? Did he ever do that?

Not a recipe for great governance, but a good recipe to check the Dem's agenda (which was a valid political goal).

I can live with them trying to check political agendas. I cannot live with people actively trying to stop the government from doing anything, adopting a policy of delay so severe that it causes us to get hit with credit downratings.

I'd love to see actual negotiations, but I really think the Republicans have worked harder than the Democrats to make that road be closed right now.

It really does look like we're getting negotiations on both the debt ceiling and the federal CRs right now

That would be a relief, then.

Of course, Nixon's spine and acumen led him to commit felonies to pursue political objectives, so maybe he had a little too much of each...

But yes, this point is well taken.

I've never denied that Nixon had his flaws, and they were deep personal flaws that kept him from becoming one of the greats, but the man was an excellent politician who never forgot his roots.

Eh, I'm just saying he was maybe a bit too ballsy and brazen for his own good.

[Irbis]

One of the best illustrations of how much the Republican party has changed is that Richard Nixon attempted to pass a national health care plan back in the early 1970's, and Nixon was never considered a liberal by anyone.

Now, he'd be left of most Democrats on that issue.

Someone once said:

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter with a half-million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people... This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense.

Cut on military and spend on education, infrastructure, children and hospitals? Must have been some pathetic, pacifist pinko commie or something.

[gigabytelord]

One of the best illustrations of how much the Republican party has changed is that Richard Nixon attempted to pass a national health care plan back in the early 1970's, and Nixon was never considered a liberal by anyone.

Now, he'd be left of most Democrats on that issue.

Someone once said:

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter with a half-million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people... This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense.

Cut on military and spend on education, infrastructure, children and hospitals? Must have been some pathetic, pacifist pinko commie or something.

Wasn't the person who said that Eisenhower? Or maybe Roosevelt? Seems too proper to have come out of the mouth of someone more recent.

[Tiriol]

One of the best illustrations of how much the Republican party has changed is that Richard Nixon attempted to pass a national health care plan back in the early 1970's, and Nixon was never considered a liberal by anyone.

Now, he'd be left of most Democrats on that issue.

Someone once said:

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter with a half-million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people... This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense.

Cut on military and spend on education, infrastructure, children and hospitals? Must have been some pathetic, pacifist pinko commie or something.

Wasn't the person who said that Eisenhower? Or maybe Roosevelt? Seems too proper to have come out of the mouth of someone more recent.

Eisenhower said that, according to my memory, and google fu agrees with my memory.

[energiewende]

Eisenhower reduced military spending from 12% to 10% of GDP. Currently it is between 4% and 5%. In the context of the time, Eisenhower was probably right. 12% is major (but not total) war footing. The problem is everyone thought that total war had been just around the corner for some time and that it would not last long enough for any increase in spending after the fact to matter. This was not an unreasonable view in the 40s or 50s, especially as the US actually was fighting a major war in Korea. But by 1960, nuclear weaponry had come to dominate in fact as well as in vision, and the US had a significant lead.

Eisenhower was no peacenik, he merely recognised that the purpose of military preparations was to allow the civilian population to enjoy the mild comforts of peace at the lowest possible price. That's why he issued nuclear rocket launchers to anti-tank detachments.

[Mr Bean]

Everything I've been hearing all day is starting to scare me. That the Republicans plan to go one last round of hardball and pass something and leave town. And what they would pass scare me because I think it would be crafted to ensure Reid won't touch it. And because Reid won't touch it they think he will reject it and they get to blame the Democrats for the default.


*Edit damn phone posting.

[TimothyC]

Are you conspicuously leaving revenues out of the equation, or simply saying "And don't forget about cuts" here? Honest question.

Simon and I have already come to the conclusion that we need to mathematically optimize the tax base*, so I felt no reason to bring that up again.

*Doing so would represent a move to a totally apolitical structure, so if that's lower rates, then it's lower rates. If it's higher rates, then it's higher rates. If it's lower rates for some and higher rates for others, then so be it. To get there I'd like to see all deductions be removed. You pay one rate from a look-up table, and that's it. I have no problem putting tax preparation places out of business.

When was the last time Ted Kennedy tried to shut down the government? Did he ever do that?

1990, when the DNC controlled House and Senate passed a CR that didn't include deficit reduction and Bush (41) vetoed it (as he said he would).

[Flameblade]

Everything I've been hearing all day is starting to scare me. That the Republicans plan to go one last round of hardball and pass something and leave town. And what they would pass scare me because I think it would be crafted to ensure Reid won't touch it. And because Reid won't touch it they think he will reject it and they get to blame the Democrats for the default.

Because any way you slice it, they win:

President breaks out the Fourteenth Amendment?

Reinforces the idea of Obama as Tyrant while extending the power of the executive that much further, a two for one deal, since it improves their chance of winning the next presidential election, and makes the prize they'd win all the sweeter.

Democrats cave to avoid default?

Congrats, Republicans have succeeded in their coup d'etat. Now a minority bloc of one party of the lower house of the legislature can dictate policy, knowing that they simply have to grab a "hostage worth taking" to get their way. And, for extra fun, every time they succeed, it legitimizes the process.

Democrats don't cave, nation defaults?

Economic disasters favor the demagogues with the fanatical base of support. We're talking about a group that considers Somalia a role-model for governance, and has a substantial number of their members actively wanting to bring about the end of the world, as per their iron age holy book.

This core of the Republican Party hasn't been looking to govern for over a decade. They've sought one thing above all else: a permanent Republican hold on all three branches of government. It's been stated repeatedly and confirmed in every recent major action of the party. When a political party abandons the pretense of democracy, seeking one-party-rule, what the fuck else do you expect to see?

[bilateralrope]

That depends on how much the Tea Party gets in campaign contribution from businesses that will be hurt by a default. Because if the Tea Party is willing to let the US default, that makes them dangerous to big business. Which means no more campaign contributions from big business to the Tea Party and more money being spent to oppose them.

The only way the Tea Party can win here is if the democrats cave.

[Flameblade]

You assume they will be seeking election after provoking a default.

[Zaune]

What else are they going to do, secede?

Actually, come to think of it...

[Tiriol]

You assume they will be seeking election after provoking a default.

You know, insinuating that they would not do so and would rather go straight to dictatorship or some bizarre anarchy is oversimplifying. If nothing else, election would legitimatize them in the eyes of the public (or so they would hope and think). And if anything they seriously want that so that they could show to the world how their ideology was the superior one and how the people have forsaken the weak and downright traitorous Democrat ideology. And so many Tea Party members think that they are actually protecting the American democracy that if their leaders would simply call themselves Congressmen-for-life or some Dictators-in-perpetuity they would get lynched and/or abandoned entirely, losing their entire powerbase. And the leaders of Tea Party at Federal level understand, at least on some basic level, that any such action would result in an all-out struggle for power that might cause a new civil war and might actually cost their comfortable careers and income (or heads, come to that). They are ruthless and calculating and uncaring to extreme in any ways, not lunatics or Idi Amin wannabes.

[Crossroads Inc.]

The problem is... They don't LEARN!
For the past 15 years, ever major loss against the Republicans has been met with:
"We lost because we weren't conservative ENOUGH!"

People like us, people who THINK, stand and talk about how this could hurt the GOP and how this is going to bite them in the ass. WE talk about how the GOP leaders 'might' back away from the abyss because they at least realize how this could fuck them over.

Those on the FAR right, the hard core members of the tea party, well THEY are right now dancing in joy because they think that every angry American out there, is only angry at Liberals. On Fox, on CNN, on NPR time and time again I hear them say that, not only will this NOT hurt them, but it will instead lead to the downfall of Obama and a glorious revolution of the Republicans! (I actually did hear one Tea Party supporter use the words "Glorious Revolution"

So, anyone thinking "Well, the right will cave because if they don't they will get fucked hard during the elections" is running into the problem of.
A: The far right thinks this will actually HELP them.
B: The far right thinks this will ONLY hurt the Democrats.

In their eyes there is no downside.

[Rogue 9]

That depends on how much the Tea Party gets in campaign contribution from businesses that will be hurt by a default. Because if the Tea Party is willing to let the US default, that makes them dangerous to big business. Which means no more campaign contributions from big business to the Tea Party and more money being spent to oppose them.

The only way the Tea Party can win here is if the democrats cave.

Already happening.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce backs Republicans who oppose shutdown

By David Worthington | October 6, 2013, 8:53 PM PDT

UPDATED The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is preparing to make campaign donations to Republicans that vote to end the government shutdown and raise the debt ceiling, putting it at loggerheads with the Tea Party.

That is significant, because The Chamber provides a financial counter balance to House incumbents that could face a primary challenger if they support a “clean” continuing resolution to fund the operation of the U.S. government or to raise the sovereign debt that can be issued by the United States Treasury to avoid a default.

The shutdown crisis began last week over an attempt to nullify the ACA by defunding it. Republicans have unsuccessfully tried to repeal or dismantle the ACA 46 times. Opponents claim that it is a “job killer,” but some leading economists say that there’s no evidence to substantiate it. Republicans spent months planning their shutdown strategy over the law, an extreme aberration from the normal legislative process and rebuke of the 2012 election.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which opposed the Affordable Care Act (ACA), last month came forward with a large number of Wall St. CEOS against the shutdown and expressed fears that failure to raise the debt ceiling could do substantial economic damage. An AP article published last week said, “concerned, the Chamber of Commerce is preparing to participate in political primaries, protecting friendly lawmakers from conservative challengers.” The Chamber wrote me to say that it doesn’t select candidates based on any single issue.

A default would trigger an acute worldwide financial crisis by undermining confidence in U.S. Treasury Bills. Congressional Republicans are refusing to raise it unless a list of demands is met - several of which have nothing to do with spending or debt and are more political in nature.

Some influential Republican donors are now threatening to withhold their contributions to the National Republican Congressional Committee over the shutdown strategy, the Daily Beast reports. The organization’s chairman, Rep. Greg Walden, told attendees at a closed door meeting last month that Republicans were forced into the shutdown by its hard right Tea Party wing and that candidates that objected to its agenda would lose primaries.

Anecdotal reports have shown that at least some Republicans that signed up for insurance through the state exchanges now like the law, but the sourcing is patchy, and only time will tell what the public really thinks. A majority of Americans did not support a shutdown over defunding the law - whether they liked it or not.

A majority vote in the House would end the shutdown, but that hasn’t happened due to an informal ‘rule’ attributed to former House Speaker Denny Hastert that will not allow a piece of legislation to come to the floor unless it’s backed by a majority of the majority. Hastert has recently disowned it and downplayed the rule’s significance during his term. 22 Republicans currently would vote to end the shutdown if given the chance (17 are needed).

The shutdown will erode consumer confidence and hiring among U.S. businesses, and is costing approximately US$300 million per day in lost economic output. That is not lost on the Chamber of Commerce, which has become an unlikely ally for the Obama Administration over the past week.

Strange bedfellows indeed.

Update: A Chamber of Commerce spokesperson said: “the Chamber supports candidates for Congress, not on the basis of a single issue or two, but on a range of broad-based business issues. We use the cumulative score over their career to determine involvement.”

[Kitsune]

Of note, this shutdown seems to have destroyed the Republicans hope for governor of Virginia
http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/state ... f6878.html

[Mr Bean]

Just in, vote won't happen today meaning we will be going to the line. Expect the markets to either ignore everything or fucking panic tomorrow.

[AniThyng]

Reading flameblades comment that the republicans will abolish elections is high comedy when contrasted with pretty much the same sentiment regarding democrats in right wing quarters ...