The Tea Party is back in business! (1 Viewer)

[humpback]

Here's a hypothetical...

Let's suppose that no significant changes are made this time, the politicians simply kick the can down the road again, and the immediate "crisis" is averted. We all know that the status quo isn't good. We all know that the status quo will eventually lead to a significant economic collapse, probably one that will make 2008 look like a walk in the park.

If that's so, when will it be the right time to endure an immediate crisis in order to fix things and avoid the bigger crisis down the road?

This sounds a lot like Democrats circa 1986.

There is no such thing as the "status quo." The budget picture changes every year. I mean technically if we maintained this "status quo" we'd be running a surplus by around 2018. I don't think it's gonna happen that way, but I don't pretend to know what will happen.

It doesn't say that at all.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Here's a hypothetical...

Let's suppose that no significant changes are made this time, the politicians simply kick the can down the road again, and the immediate "crisis" is averted. We all know that the status quo isn't good. We all know that the status quo will eventually lead to a significant economic collapse, probably one that will make 2008 look like a walk in the park.

If that's so, when will it be the right time to endure an immediate crisis in order to fix things and avoid the bigger crisis down the road?

This sounds a lot like Democrats circa 1986.

There is no such thing as the "status quo." The budget picture changes every year. I mean technically if we maintained this "status quo" we'd be running a surplus by around 2018. I don't think it's gonna happen that way, but I don't pretend to know what will happen.

It doesn't say that at all.

Whatever. Change it to if we maintained this "trajectory," if that makes you feel better.

 

[humpback]

Here's a hypothetical...

Let's suppose that no significant changes are made this time, the politicians simply kick the can down the road again, and the immediate "crisis" is averted. We all know that the status quo isn't good. We all know that the status quo will eventually lead to a significant economic collapse, probably one that will make 2008 look like a walk in the park.

If that's so, when will it be the right time to endure an immediate crisis in order to fix things and avoid the bigger crisis down the road?

This sounds a lot like Democrats circa 1986.

There is no such thing as the "status quo." The budget picture changes every year. I mean technically if we maintained this "status quo" we'd be running a surplus by around 2018. I don't think it's gonna happen that way, but I don't pretend to know what will happen.

It doesn't say that at all.

Whatever. Change it to if we maintained this "trajectory," if that makes you feel better.

You changed the link, which specifically said the deficit was projected to shrink to a smaller level before increasing again in future years, and then give me an attitude? Hackerrific!

 

[Rich Conway]

Fine, a simpler question. Is there any amount of debt and/or government spending that justifies a government shutdown?

 

[TobiasFunke]

Here's a hypothetical...

Let's suppose that no significant changes are made this time, the politicians simply kick the can down the road again, and the immediate "crisis" is averted. We all know that the status quo isn't good. We all know that the status quo will eventually lead to a significant economic collapse, probably one that will make 2008 look like a walk in the park.

If that's so, when will it be the right time to endure an immediate crisis in order to fix things and avoid the bigger crisis down the road?

This sounds a lot like Democrats circa 1986.

There is no such thing as the "status quo." The budget picture changes every year. I mean technically if we maintained this "status quo" we'd be running a surplus by around 2018. I don't think it's gonna happen that way, but I don't pretend to know what will happen.

It doesn't say that at all.

Whatever. Change it to if we maintained this "trajectory," if that makes you feel better.

You changed the link, which specifically said the deficit was projected to shrink to a smaller level before increasing again in future years, and then give me an attitude? Hackerrific!

I originally posted the wrong link- I had intended to post just the chart, not the accompanying opinion. It was the most up to dateimage that came up with I did an image search for deficit charts, and I accidentally linked the site instead of just the image. I corrected it to just link to the jpg before I saw your post. Settle down.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Fine, a simpler question. Is there any amount of debt and/or government spending that justifies a government shutdown?

No, because it's a meaningless gesture with respect to the debt. Mandatory spending and debt payments continue in a shutdown, and that comprises 70% of federal spending. Also, of the portion that's discretionary, the majority is military spending, which is pretty much the worst possible thing to eliminate if you want the country to, you know, not get blown up.

If those percentages shifted significantly it might be a different story. But a long term shutdown would impact the economy, which would impact tax receipts, so I'm still not sure how much it would solve anything.

 

[timschochet]

Fine, a simpler question. Is there any amount of debt and/or government spending that justifies a government shutdown?

No.

To your earlier point, whether or not the "status quo" leads to a bigger disaster, as you predict, or an improvement, as some progressive types here predict, is irrelevant. The point is this: we can't improve things with a government shut down. We can't improve things with a government ANYTHING. What we need to do is basically kick the can down the road and hope that we get out of this mess through economic improvement and technological innovation. In the meantime there are little things that we can do to encourage this: more free trade, more creating an environment friendly to new businesses (which Obama is not doing.) Government shut down is not the solution. Across the board cuts are not the solution. Refusing to raise the debt ceiling is not the solution. All of these make the situation worse than before. They are simplistic, ill-thought out remedies to complicated problems.

 

[humpback]

Here's a hypothetical...

Let's suppose that no significant changes are made this time, the politicians simply kick the can down the road again, and the immediate "crisis" is averted. We all know that the status quo isn't good. We all know that the status quo will eventually lead to a significant economic collapse, probably one that will make 2008 look like a walk in the park.

If that's so, when will it be the right time to endure an immediate crisis in order to fix things and avoid the bigger crisis down the road?

This sounds a lot like Democrats circa 1986.

There is no such thing as the "status quo." The budget picture changes every year. I mean technically if we maintained this "status quo" we'd be running a surplus by around 2018. I don't think it's gonna happen that way, but I don't pretend to know what will happen.

It doesn't say that at all.

Whatever. Change it to if we maintained this "trajectory," if that makes you feel better.

You changed the link, which specifically said the deficit was projected to shrink to a smaller level before increasing again in future years, and then give me an attitude? Hackerrific!

I originally posted the wrong link- I had intended to post just the chart, not the accompanying opinion. It was the most up to dateimage that came up with I did an image search for deficit charts, and I accidentally linked the site instead of just the image. I corrected it to just link to the jpg before I saw your post. Settle down.

That part wasn't an opinion, it was the current forecast for the deficit. Nice backpedal though.

 

[Rich Conway]

Fine, a simpler question. Is there any amount of debt and/or government spending that justifies a government shutdown?

No.

To your earlier point, whether or not the "status quo" leads to a bigger disaster, as you predict, or an improvement, as some progressive types here predict, is irrelevant. The point is this: we can't improve things with a government shut down. We can't improve things with a government ANYTHING. What we need to do is basically kick the can down the road and hope that we get out of this mess through economic improvement and technological innovation. In the meantime there are little things that we can do to encourage this: more free trade, more creating an environment friendly to new businesses (which Obama is not doing.) Government shut down is not the solution. Across the board cuts are not the solution. Refusing to raise the debt ceiling is not the solution. All of these make the situation worse than before. They are simplistic, ill-thought out remedies to complicated problems.

In other words, there are no solutions other than to hope that, somehow, continuing our policies of the last 40 years will somehow manage to fix all the problems created by those same policies.

 

[humpback]

Fine, a simpler question. Is there any amount of debt and/or government spending that justifies a government shutdown?

No.

To your earlier point, whether or not the "status quo" leads to a bigger disaster, as you predict, or an improvement, as some progressive types here predict, is irrelevant. The point is this: we can't improve things with a government shut down. We can't improve things with a government ANYTHING. What we need to do is basically kick the can down the road and hope that we get out of this mess through economic improvement and technological innovation. In the meantime there are little things that we can do to encourage this: more free trade, more creating an environment friendly to new businesses (which Obama is not doing.) Government shut down is not the solution. Across the board cuts are not the solution. Refusing to raise the debt ceiling is not the solution. All of these make the situation worse than before. They are simplistic, ill-thought out remedies to complicated problems.

You can disagree with the tactics or their proposals if you'd like, but do you really think their end game is to shut down the government? That's what they are using as a negotiation tactic to get their ideas to boost the economy, address the deficits, etc., in place. Please tell me you at least see this...

 

[TobiasFunke]

Here's a hypothetical...

Let's suppose that no significant changes are made this time, the politicians simply kick the can down the road again, and the immediate "crisis" is averted. We all know that the status quo isn't good. We all know that the status quo will eventually lead to a significant economic collapse, probably one that will make 2008 look like a walk in the park.

If that's so, when will it be the right time to endure an immediate crisis in order to fix things and avoid the bigger crisis down the road?

This sounds a lot like Democrats circa 1986.

There is no such thing as the "status quo." The budget picture changes every year. I mean technically if we maintained this "status quo" we'd be running a surplus by around 2018. I don't think it's gonna happen that way, but I don't pretend to know what will happen.

It doesn't say that at all.

Whatever. Change it to if we maintained this "trajectory," if that makes you feel better.

You changed the link, which specifically said the deficit was projected to shrink to a smaller level before increasing again in future years, and then give me an attitude? Hackerrific!

I originally posted the wrong link- I had intended to post just the chart, not the accompanying opinion. It was the most up to dateimage that came up with I did an image search for deficit charts, and I accidentally linked the site instead of just the image. I corrected it to just link to the jpg before I saw your post. Settle down.

That part wasn't an opinion, it was the current forecast for the deficit. Nice backpedal though.

I meant to post just the chart. I posted the attached article instead, so I corrected it. End of discussion. If you want to argue about the opinion piece that was posted along with the chart on some blog I lifted it from, you'll have to do it with someone else.

 

[timschochet]

Fine, a simpler question. Is there any amount of debt and/or government spending that justifies a government shutdown?

No.

To your earlier point, whether or not the "status quo" leads to a bigger disaster, as you predict, or an improvement, as some progressive types here predict, is irrelevant. The point is this: we can't improve things with a government shut down. We can't improve things with a government ANYTHING. What we need to do is basically kick the can down the road and hope that we get out of this mess through economic improvement and technological innovation. In the meantime there are little things that we can do to encourage this: more free trade, more creating an environment friendly to new businesses (which Obama is not doing.) Government shut down is not the solution. Across the board cuts are not the solution. Refusing to raise the debt ceiling is not the solution. All of these make the situation worse than before. They are simplistic, ill-thought out remedies to complicated problems.

In other words, there are no solutions other than to hope that, somehow, continuing our policies of the last 40 years will somehow manage to fix all the problems created by those same policies.

Yes.

In the last 40 years, as a nation, we have chosen to spend far more than we earn. We have done this before. We will no doubt do it again. Sometimes when we do it, it is good for us long term. (as in the case of World War II.) Sometimes it isn't. There's no way to know about this time around yet; maybe we'll know in 20 years, or maybe in 100. When it happens, there is nothing we can do about it but go along with it until we earn enough to make the debt seem insubstantial again (at which point we'll probably increase spending yet again.) What else is there?

 

[Rich Conway]

Fine, a simpler question. Is there any amount of debt and/or government spending that justifies a government shutdown?

No, because it's a meaningless gesture with respect to the debt. Mandatory spending and debt payments continue in a shutdown, and that comprises 70% of federal spending. Also, of the portion that's discretionary, the majority is military spending, which is pretty much the worst possible thing to eliminate if you want the country to, you know, not get blown up.

If those percentages shifted significantly it might be a different story. But a long term shutdown would impact the economy, which would impact tax receipts, so I'm still not sure how much it would solve anything.

So if a government shutdown can't get politicians to reduce an unlimited amount of debt, what can?

 

[Rich Conway]

Fine, a simpler question. Is there any amount of debt and/or government spending that justifies a government shutdown?

No.

To your earlier point, whether or not the "status quo" leads to a bigger disaster, as you predict, or an improvement, as some progressive types here predict, is irrelevant. The point is this: we can't improve things with a government shut down. We can't improve things with a government ANYTHING. What we need to do is basically kick the can down the road and hope that we get out of this mess through economic improvement and technological innovation. In the meantime there are little things that we can do to encourage this: more free trade, more creating an environment friendly to new businesses (which Obama is not doing.) Government shut down is not the solution. Across the board cuts are not the solution. Refusing to raise the debt ceiling is not the solution. All of these make the situation worse than before. They are simplistic, ill-thought out remedies to complicated problems.

In other words, there are no solutions other than to hope that, somehow, continuing our policies of the last 40 years will somehow manage to fix all the problems created by those same policies.

Yes.

In the last 40 years, as a nation, we have chosen to spend far more than we earn. We have done this before. We will no doubt do it again. Sometimes when we do it, it is good for us long term. (as in the case of World War II.) Sometimes it isn't. There's no way to know about this time around yet; maybe we'll know in 20 years, or maybe in 100. When it happens, there is nothing we can do about it but go along with it until we earn enough to make the debt seem insubstantial again (at which point we'll probably increase spending yet again.) What else is there?

Stop spending?

 

[timschochet]

Fine, a simpler question. Is there any amount of debt and/or government spending that justifies a government shutdown?

No.

To your earlier point, whether or not the "status quo" leads to a bigger disaster, as you predict, or an improvement, as some progressive types here predict, is irrelevant. The point is this: we can't improve things with a government shut down. We can't improve things with a government ANYTHING. What we need to do is basically kick the can down the road and hope that we get out of this mess through economic improvement and technological innovation. In the meantime there are little things that we can do to encourage this: more free trade, more creating an environment friendly to new businesses (which Obama is not doing.) Government shut down is not the solution. Across the board cuts are not the solution. Refusing to raise the debt ceiling is not the solution. All of these make the situation worse than before. They are simplistic, ill-thought out remedies to complicated problems.

You can disagree with the tactics or their proposals if you'd like, but do you really think their end game is to shut down the government? That's what they are using as a negotiation tactic to get their ideas to boost the economy, address the deficits, etc., in place. Please tell me you at least see this...

I believe that the intent of the Tea Party in particular is to shut down the government unless they can get Obamacare defunded. I believe that they want to stick it to Obama, and if this fails, they mean to shut things down. What TPW wrote earlier today in this thread is highly representative, IMO.

I believe the Republican establishment, and some old line conservatives, are using this threat in order to get concessions from the Dems, exactly as you write here. But they're playing with fire, because they can't control the Tea Party. The Tea Party mean it. For them, THIS is the end game.

 

[timschochet]

Fine, a simpler question. Is there any amount of debt and/or government spending that justifies a government shutdown?

No.

To your earlier point, whether or not the "status quo" leads to a bigger disaster, as you predict, or an improvement, as some progressive types here predict, is irrelevant. The point is this: we can't improve things with a government shut down. We can't improve things with a government ANYTHING. What we need to do is basically kick the can down the road and hope that we get out of this mess through economic improvement and technological innovation. In the meantime there are little things that we can do to encourage this: more free trade, more creating an environment friendly to new businesses (which Obama is not doing.) Government shut down is not the solution. Across the board cuts are not the solution. Refusing to raise the debt ceiling is not the solution. All of these make the situation worse than before. They are simplistic, ill-thought out remedies to complicated problems.

In other words, there are no solutions other than to hope that, somehow, continuing our policies of the last 40 years will somehow manage to fix all the problems created by those same policies.

Yes.

In the last 40 years, as a nation, we have chosen to spend far more than we earn. We have done this before. We will no doubt do it again. Sometimes when we do it, it is good for us long term. (as in the case of World War II.) Sometimes it isn't. There's no way to know about this time around yet; maybe we'll know in 20 years, or maybe in 100. When it happens, there is nothing we can do about it but go along with it until we earn enough to make the debt seem insubstantial again (at which point we'll probably increase spending yet again.) What else is there?

Stop spending?

Never gonna happen.

 

[B-Deep]

Fine, a simpler question. Is there any amount of debt and/or government spending that justifies a government shutdown?

No.

To your earlier point, whether or not the "status quo" leads to a bigger disaster, as you predict, or an improvement, as some progressive types here predict, is irrelevant. The point is this: we can't improve things with a government shut down. We can't improve things with a government ANYTHING. What we need to do is basically kick the can down the road and hope that we get out of this mess through economic improvement and technological innovation. In the meantime there are little things that we can do to encourage this: more free trade, more creating an environment friendly to new businesses (which Obama is not doing.) Government shut down is not the solution. Across the board cuts are not the solution. Refusing to raise the debt ceiling is not the solution. All of these make the situation worse than before. They are simplistic, ill-thought out remedies to complicated problems.

You can disagree with the tactics or their proposals if you'd like, but do you really think their end game is to shut down the government? That's what they are using as a negotiation tactic to get their ideas to boost the economy, address the deficits, etc., in place. Please tell me you at least see this...

This is going to royally screw things up at Walter Reed. Fortunately the military folks and contractors funded with FY13 money (the majority right now) will be able to continue working. The patient load won't be going away. If this thing goes on past a few days, please realize that dudes and chicks who gave up limbs in the Middle East will be getting crummy service or none at all. Dudes who hid in rice paddies and got put in tiger cages for months as prisoners won't be getting their mental health care. Aging vets from the greatest generation won't be getting their heart meds.

Maybe at a macro level the world keeps turning, but here, there is going to be an immediate impact starting Tuesday and it will get exponentially worse each day. Just something to keep in mind.

neither side should be playing around with this
a shutdown is not a political event, is is a real life event that has pracitcal implications on people

cut the bul#### and get this done

 

[timschochet]

Fine, a simpler question. Is there any amount of debt and/or government spending that justifies a government shutdown?

No, because it's a meaningless gesture with respect to the debt. Mandatory spending and debt payments continue in a shutdown, and that comprises 70% of federal spending. Also, of the portion that's discretionary, the majority is military spending, which is pretty much the worst possible thing to eliminate if you want the country to, you know, not get blown up.

If those percentages shifted significantly it might be a different story. But a long term shutdown would impact the economy, which would impact tax receipts, so I'm still not sure how much it would solve anything.

So if a government shutdown can't get politicians to reduce an unlimited amount of debt, what can?

Nothing.

 

[Rich Conway]

Fine, a simpler question. Is there any amount of debt and/or government spending that justifies a government shutdown?

No.

To your earlier point, whether or not the "status quo" leads to a bigger disaster, as you predict, or an improvement, as some progressive types here predict, is irrelevant. The point is this: we can't improve things with a government shut down. We can't improve things with a government ANYTHING. What we need to do is basically kick the can down the road and hope that we get out of this mess through economic improvement and technological innovation. In the meantime there are little things that we can do to encourage this: more free trade, more creating an environment friendly to new businesses (which Obama is not doing.) Government shut down is not the solution. Across the board cuts are not the solution. Refusing to raise the debt ceiling is not the solution. All of these make the situation worse than before. They are simplistic, ill-thought out remedies to complicated problems.

In other words, there are no solutions other than to hope that, somehow, continuing our policies of the last 40 years will somehow manage to fix all the problems created by those same policies.

Yes.

In the last 40 years, as a nation, we have chosen to spend far more than we earn. We have done this before. We will no doubt do it again. Sometimes when we do it, it is good for us long term. (as in the case of World War II.) Sometimes it isn't. There's no way to know about this time around yet; maybe we'll know in 20 years, or maybe in 100. When it happens, there is nothing we can do about it but go along with it until we earn enough to make the debt seem insubstantial again (at which point we'll probably increase spending yet again.) What else is there?

Stop spending?

Never gonna happen.

We're debating what SHOULD happen, not what WILL happen. What will happen is that our politicians will continue to be beholden to special interests, continue to ignore the best long-run interests of the country in favor of their own short-term interests, and continue to govern and campaign on sound bites rather than sound policies.

What SHOULD happen is we should get spending under control. And there are plenty of ways to do that, despite your "every solution is worse" sky-is-falling hysteria.

 

[Rich Conway]

Fine, a simpler question. Is there any amount of debt and/or government spending that justifies a government shutdown?

No, because it's a meaningless gesture with respect to the debt. Mandatory spending and debt payments continue in a shutdown, and that comprises 70% of federal spending. Also, of the portion that's discretionary, the majority is military spending, which is pretty much the worst possible thing to eliminate if you want the country to, you know, not get blown up.

If those percentages shifted significantly it might be a different story. But a long term shutdown would impact the economy, which would impact tax receipts, so I'm still not sure how much it would solve anything.

So if a government shutdown can't get politicians to reduce an unlimited amount of debt, what can?

Nothing.

And, frankly, if you're right that nothing can ever get our politicians to take the country's problems seriously, then count me in the camp of let's just have the disaster now and ride it out rather than leaving it for my children and grandchildren to experience. Let's shut it down and keep the debt ceiling, ride out five years of pain, and fix things once and for all.

 

[timschochet]

Even if you were correct, Rich, that the solution is to stop spending, that is not the point of THIS threatened shutdown. The Republicans and the Tea Party don't want overall spending reduced; they want Obamacare defunded. They also want to spend more on the Pentagon, to relieve the sequester cuts put in place (but only on defense spending.) In other words, this has nothing to do with the issue you're raising.

 

[humpback]

Here's a hypothetical...

Let's suppose that no significant changes are made this time, the politicians simply kick the can down the road again, and the immediate "crisis" is averted. We all know that the status quo isn't good. We all know that the status quo will eventually lead to a significant economic collapse, probably one that will make 2008 look like a walk in the park.

If that's so, when will it be the right time to endure an immediate crisis in order to fix things and avoid the bigger crisis down the road?

This sounds a lot like Democrats circa 1986.

There is no such thing as the "status quo." The budget picture changes every year. I mean technically if we maintained this "status quo" we'd be running a surplus by around 2018. I don't think it's gonna happen that way, but I don't pretend to know what will happen.

It doesn't say that at all.

Whatever. Change it to if we maintained this "trajectory," if that makes you feel better.

You changed the link, which specifically said the deficit was projected to shrink to a smaller level before increasing again in future years, and then give me an attitude? Hackerrific!

I originally posted the wrong link- I had intended to post just the chart, not the accompanying opinion. It was the most up to dateimage that came up with I did an image search for deficit charts, and I accidentally linked the site instead of just the image. I corrected it to just link to the jpg before I saw your post. Settle down.

That part wasn't an opinion, it was the current forecast for the deficit. Nice backpedal though.

I meant to post just the chart. I posted the attached article instead, so I corrected it. End of discussion. If you want to argue about the opinion piece that was posted along with the chart on some blog I lifted it from, you'll have to do it with someone else.

Love it, now you're downplaying your own source. The "opinion piece" was quoting the report from the CBO regarding the budget deficits.

So, you meant to only show a chart to pretend that we'd have a surplus if we followed that path, while actually ignoring the data that you love to support (when it suits you) which specifically forecasts that we won't be following that path and having a surplus? How intellectually honest of you.

 

[timschochet]

Fine, a simpler question. Is there any amount of debt and/or government spending that justifies a government shutdown?

No, because it's a meaningless gesture with respect to the debt. Mandatory spending and debt payments continue in a shutdown, and that comprises 70% of federal spending. Also, of the portion that's discretionary, the majority is military spending, which is pretty much the worst possible thing to eliminate if you want the country to, you know, not get blown up.

If those percentages shifted significantly it might be a different story. But a long term shutdown would impact the economy, which would impact tax receipts, so I'm still not sure how much it would solve anything.

So if a government shutdown can't get politicians to reduce an unlimited amount of debt, what can?

Nothing.

And, frankly, if you're right that nothing can ever get our politicians to take the country's problems seriously, then count me in the camp of let's just have the disaster now and ride it out rather than leaving it for my children and grandchildren to experience. Let's shut it down and keep the debt ceiling, ride out five years of pain, and fix things once and for all.

That won't cause 5 years of pain nor will it cause a "fix things once and for all." All it will do is cause a few months of pain, followed by a return to status quo slightly worse off than before, except that the Republican party will be in disgrace, and all of the things they could have influenced (like free trade and more friendly to business environment) will be lost for a decade or more. Is that really what you want?

 

[Rich Conway]

Fine, a simpler question. Is there any amount of debt and/or government spending that justifies a government shutdown?

No, because it's a meaningless gesture with respect to the debt. Mandatory spending and debt payments continue in a shutdown, and that comprises 70% of federal spending. Also, of the portion that's discretionary, the majority is military spending, which is pretty much the worst possible thing to eliminate if you want the country to, you know, not get blown up.

If those percentages shifted significantly it might be a different story. But a long term shutdown would impact the economy, which would impact tax receipts, so I'm still not sure how much it would solve anything.

So if a government shutdown can't get politicians to reduce an unlimited amount of debt, what can?

Nothing.

And, frankly, if you're right that nothing can ever get our politicians to take the country's problems seriously, then count me in the camp of let's just have the disaster now and ride it out rather than leaving it for my children and grandchildren to experience. Let's shut it down and keep the debt ceiling, ride out five years of pain, and fix things once and for all.

That won't cause 5 years of pain nor will it cause a "fix things once and for all." All it will do is cause a few months of pain, followed by a return to status quo slightly worse off than before, except that the Republican party will be in disgrace, and all of the things they could have influenced (like free trade and more friendly to business environment) will be lost for a decade or more. Is that really what you want?

No, I want to fix things. We're standing in the middle of the freeway, and a bus is heading straight at us. My solution is "move", yours is "hope it doesn't hit us". Worse, your solution of "hope it doesn't hit us" only postpones the problem until the next bus comes rumbling down the highway.

 

[humpback]

Fine, a simpler question. Is there any amount of debt and/or government spending that justifies a government shutdown?

No.

To your earlier point, whether or not the "status quo" leads to a bigger disaster, as you predict, or an improvement, as some progressive types here predict, is irrelevant. The point is this: we can't improve things with a government shut down. We can't improve things with a government ANYTHING. What we need to do is basically kick the can down the road and hope that we get out of this mess through economic improvement and technological innovation. In the meantime there are little things that we can do to encourage this: more free trade, more creating an environment friendly to new businesses (which Obama is not doing.) Government shut down is not the solution. Across the board cuts are not the solution. Refusing to raise the debt ceiling is not the solution. All of these make the situation worse than before. They are simplistic, ill-thought out remedies to complicated problems.

You can disagree with the tactics or their proposals if you'd like, but do you really think their end game is to shut down the government? That's what they are using as a negotiation tactic to get their ideas to boost the economy, address the deficits, etc., in place. Please tell me you at least see this...

I believe that the intent of the Tea Party in particular is to shut down the government unless they can get Obamacare defunded. I believe that they want to stick it to Obama, and if this fails, they mean to shut things down. What TPW wrote earlier today in this thread is highly representative, IMO.

I believe the Republican establishment, and some old line conservatives, are using this threat in order to get concessions from the Dems, exactly as you write here. But they're playing with fire, because they can't control the Tea Party. The Tea Party mean it. For them, THIS is the end game.

So the Tea Party will shut the government down forever unless Obamacare is gone, that's what you're sticking to?

 

[shader]

Is the world going to end again? These Tea Party guys sure do cause a lot of mayhem.

 

[TPW]

Fine, a simpler question. Is there any amount of debt and/or government spending that justifies a government shutdown?

No, because it's a meaningless gesture with respect to the debt. Mandatory spending and debt payments continue in a shutdown, and that comprises 70% of federal spending. Also, of the portion that's discretionary, the majority is military spending, which is pretty much the worst possible thing to eliminate if you want the country to, you know, not get blown up.

If those percentages shifted significantly it might be a different story. But a long term shutdown would impact the economy, which would impact tax receipts, so I'm still not sure how much it would solve anything.

So if a government shutdown can't get politicians to reduce an unlimited amount of debt, what can?

Nothing.

And, frankly, if you're right that nothing can ever get our politicians to take the country's problems seriously, then count me in the camp of let's just have the disaster now and ride it out rather than leaving it for my children and grandchildren to experience. Let's shut it down and keep the debt ceiling, ride out five years of pain, and fix things once and for all.

That won't cause 5 years of pain nor will it cause a "fix things once and for all." All it will do is cause a few months of pain, followed by a return to status quo slightly worse off than before, except that the Republican party will be in disgrace, and all of the things they could have influenced (like free trade and more friendly to business environment) will be lost for a decade or more. Is that really what you want?

The Republican party is already a disgrace. The Democrats are downright treasonous. I said a couple of years ago that the true goal of Obama's presidency was creating essentially a one-party state similar to the PRI's rule in Mexico throughout much of the 20th century. There's no negotiating with those who by their own admission want to "fundementally transform the United States of America".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrefKCaV8m4

 

[timschochet]

Fine, a simpler question. Is there any amount of debt and/or government spending that justifies a government shutdown?

No.To your earlier point, whether or not the "status quo" leads to a bigger disaster, as you predict, or an improvement, as some progressive types here predict, is irrelevant. The point is this: we can't improve things with a government shut down. We can't improve things with a government ANYTHING. What we need to do is basically kick the can down the road and hope that we get out of this mess through economic improvement and technological innovation. In the meantime there are little things that we can do to encourage this: more free trade, more creating an environment friendly to new businesses (which Obama is not doing.) Government shut down is not the solution. Across the board cuts are not the solution. Refusing to raise the debt ceiling is not the solution. All of these make the situation worse than before. They are simplistic, ill-thought out remedies to complicated problems.

You can disagree with the tactics or their proposals if you'd like, but do you really think their end game is to shut down the government? That's what they are using as a negotiation tactic to get their ideas to boost the economy, address the deficits, etc., in place. Please tell me you at least see this...

I believe that the intent of the Tea Party in particular is to shut down the government unless they can get Obamacare defunded. I believe that they want to stick it to Obama, and if this fails, they mean to shut things down. What TPW wrote earlier today in this thread is highly representative, IMO.I believe the Republican establishment, and some old line conservatives, are using this threat in order to get concessions from the Dems, exactly as you write here. But they're playing with fire, because they can't control the Tea Party. The Tea Party mean it. For them, THIS is the end game.

So the Tea Party will shut the government down forever unless Obamacare is gone, that's what you're sticking to?

Yes.

 

[Rich Conway]

So the Tea Party will shut the government down forever unless Obamacare is gone, that's what you're sticking to?

Yes.

So which option are you predicting then:

* Eventually the Democrats give in and get rid of Obamacare

* The government gets shut down until January 2015, when the next elected House takes over

Those must be the only two options, right?

 

[humpback]

So the Tea Party will shut the government down forever unless Obamacare is gone, that's what you're sticking to?

Yes.

So where on your incredibly vague spectrum does this fall?

If the government shuts down for any period of time, a lot of people will be hurt. Much like the sequester, that will be a crisis for those who are hurt, but not a national crisis. if the government shuts down for a long period of time (say the 3 months that TPW hopes for) that will be a more severe crisis that will affect all of us- but still not sky is falling type of crisis.

If the debt ceiling threatens not to be raised, that will also hurt a lot of people. If the debt ceiling actually is not raised, that will be a crisis, possibly a bad one. If the debt ceiling is not raised for a long period (this is very doubtful) then the sky actually would fall.

 

[timschochet]

So the Tea Party will shut the government down forever unless Obamacare is gone, that's what you're sticking to?

Yes.

So which option are you predicting then:* Eventually the Democrats give in and get rid of Obamacare

* The government gets shut down until January 2015, when the next elected House takes over

Those must be the only two options, right?

3. Conservative allies of the Tea Party (but not members themselves) will fold. How soon I'm not sure. But this will create a war within the GOP.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Fine, a simpler question. Is there any amount of debt and/or government spending that justifies a government shutdown?

No, because it's a meaningless gesture with respect to the debt. Mandatory spending and debt payments continue in a shutdown, and that comprises 70% of federal spending. Also, of the portion that's discretionary, the majority is military spending, which is pretty much the worst possible thing to eliminate if you want the country to, you know, not get blown up.

If those percentages shifted significantly it might be a different story. But a long term shutdown would impact the economy, which would impact tax receipts, so I'm still not sure how much it would solve anything.

So if a government shutdown can't get politicians to reduce an unlimited amount of debt, what can?

Nothing.

And, frankly, if you're right that nothing can ever get our politicians to take the country's problems seriously, then count me in the camp of let's just have the disaster now and ride it out rather than leaving it for my children and grandchildren to experience. Let's shut it down and keep the debt ceiling, ride out five years of pain, and fix things once and for all.

Yeah, five years of a tanked economy should fix things right up and we'll be back on track. Greece is what, 1-2 years away from decades of prosperity and a balanced budget?

Five years

 

[Rich Conway]

So the Tea Party will shut the government down forever unless Obamacare is gone, that's what you're sticking to?

Yes.

So which option are you predicting then:* Eventually the Democrats give in and get rid of Obamacare

* The government gets shut down until January 2015, when the next elected House takes over

Those must be the only two options, right?

3. Conservative allies of the Tea Party (but not members themselves) will fold. How soon I'm not sure. But this will create a war within the GOP.

Ah, so basically your prediction is that the same thing that always happens will happen again. But, somehow, "this time" the sky is falling.

 

[Rich Conway]

Fine, a simpler question. Is there any amount of debt and/or government spending that justifies a government shutdown?

No, because it's a meaningless gesture with respect to the debt. Mandatory spending and debt payments continue in a shutdown, and that comprises 70% of federal spending. Also, of the portion that's discretionary, the majority is military spending, which is pretty much the worst possible thing to eliminate if you want the country to, you know, not get blown up.

If those percentages shifted significantly it might be a different story. But a long term shutdown would impact the economy, which would impact tax receipts, so I'm still not sure how much it would solve anything.

So if a government shutdown can't get politicians to reduce an unlimited amount of debt, what can?

Nothing.

And, frankly, if you're right that nothing can ever get our politicians to take the country's problems seriously, then count me in the camp of let's just have the disaster now and ride it out rather than leaving it for my children and grandchildren to experience. Let's shut it down and keep the debt ceiling, ride out five years of pain, and fix things once and for all.

Yeah, five years of a tanked economy should fix things right up and we'll be back on track. Greece is what, 1-2 years away from decades of prosperity and a balanced budget?

Five years

Five years, ten years, twenty years, doesn't matter. Whatever it is, it needs to happen at some point. Might as well rip the band aid off versus hoping it can stay on forever.

 

[timschochet]

So the Tea Party will shut the government down forever unless Obamacare is gone, that's what you're sticking to?

Yes.

So which option are you predicting then:* Eventually the Democrats give in and get rid of Obamacare

* The government gets shut down until January 2015, when the next elected House takes over

Those must be the only two options, right?

3. Conservative allies of the Tea Party (but not members themselves) will fold. How soon I'm not sure. But this will create a war within the GOP.

Ah, so basically your prediction is that the same thing that always happens will happen again. But, somehow, "this time" the sky is falling.

I never said the sky would fall- it will if the Tea Party gets their way. Hopefully they won't.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Fine, a simpler question. Is there any amount of debt and/or government spending that justifies a government shutdown?

No, because it's a meaningless gesture with respect to the debt. Mandatory spending and debt payments continue in a shutdown, and that comprises 70% of federal spending. Also, of the portion that's discretionary, the majority is military spending, which is pretty much the worst possible thing to eliminate if you want the country to, you know, not get blown up.

If those percentages shifted significantly it might be a different story. But a long term shutdown would impact the economy, which would impact tax receipts, so I'm still not sure how much it would solve anything.

So if a government shutdown can't get politicians to reduce an unlimited amount of debt, what can?

Nothing.

And, frankly, if you're right that nothing can ever get our politicians to take the country's problems seriously, then count me in the camp of let's just have the disaster now and ride it out rather than leaving it for my children and grandchildren to experience. Let's shut it down and keep the debt ceiling, ride out five years of pain, and fix things once and for all.

Yeah, five years of a tanked economy should fix things right up and we'll be back on track. Greece is what, 1-2 years away from decades of prosperity and a balanced budget?

Five years

Five years, ten years, twenty years, doesn't matter. Whatever it is, it needs to happen at some point. Might as well rip the band aid off versus hoping it can stay on forever.

Would you be cool with a huge tax increase as a means of "ripping off the band aid'? Six of one, half dozen of the other, and at least then our government wouldn't have to default on its obligations.

 

[timschochet]

Fine, a simpler question. Is there any amount of debt and/or government spending that justifies a government shutdown?

No, because it's a meaningless gesture with respect to the debt. Mandatory spending and debt payments continue in a shutdown, and that comprises 70% of federal spending. Also, of the portion that's discretionary, the majority is military spending, which is pretty much the worst possible thing to eliminate if you want the country to, you know, not get blown up.

If those percentages shifted significantly it might be a different story. But a long term shutdown would impact the economy, which would impact tax receipts, so I'm still not sure how much it would solve anything.

So if a government shutdown can't get politicians to reduce an unlimited amount of debt, what can?

Nothing.

And, frankly, if you're right that nothing can ever get our politicians to take the country's problems seriously, then count me in the camp of let's just have the disaster now and ride it out rather than leaving it for my children and grandchildren to experience. Let's shut it down and keep the debt ceiling, ride out five years of pain, and fix things once and for all.

Yeah, five years of a tanked economy should fix things right up and we'll be back on track. Greece is what, 1-2 years away from decades of prosperity and a balanced budget?

Five years

Five years, ten years, twenty years, doesn't matter. Whatever it is, it needs to happen at some point. Might as well rip the band aid off versus hoping it can stay on forever.

So you're hoping to create an artificial economic disaster in the hope that it might avert a bigger one in the future?

 

[B-Deep]

sometimes i wadner into a thread that really matters and means something

and then i come back into a like this thread filled with ill informed political partisan bull#### on both sides and it seems such a meaningless waste of energy

and i want to punch all of you in your spleens

but in the end, i should just have someone punch me in the spleen for coming back into a thread like this

 

[The Commish]

When it comes to issues like this, I hold Washington responsible. If that's what you're talking about here, then so be it. So stupid of me to hold Washington responsible for doing their job. If that's not what you're talking about then explain.

One party wants to pass a continuing resolution and raise the debt limit, the other refuses (for now) to do so unless a duly enacted law is defunded. Either you're OK with that tactic or you're not. Regardless of how you feel, blaming "Washington" really means you're blaming nobody because it gives the people on the other side a pass. It's lazy and irresponsible. If one party knows that they can demand anything they want because people will blame an impasse on "Washington" instead of bothering to understand the particulars and voting accordingly in the next election, they'll just make more ridiculous demands leading to more standoffs. Basically, you're part of the problem.

Oh bull####....what's lazy and irresponsible is taking sides and enabling the finger pointing while they just kick the can down the road. No thanks. These people were elected to do a job so do the job and stop whining about how hard it is. Seriously, if I pulled a tenth of the crap these morons have I'd have been fired 5 days into my job. What's worse for me is that I haven't voted for a single person in our Congress or the White House. These parties know their voting constituents will vote for them simply because of the label beside their name and they will feed them whatever line they can to get their vote. I do agree that people not bothering to understand the particulars and voting accordingly are the problem....anyone voting for these idiots is part of the problem.

There is plenty of blood on the hands of both sides that can be attributed to the state of affairs in this country. It's short sighted to look at the hear and now and say X is the problem. Doing so holds all else constant and that's simply not true. That we are in the position where the GOP can do what it's doing is troubling to me. It shouldn't have even come to this. The GOP is playing the crazy card right now with their pissing and moaning. In time it will be the Dems.

 

[timschochet]

sometimes i wadner into a thread that really matters and means something

and then i come back into a like this thread filled with ill informed political partisan bull#### on both sides and it seems such a meaningless waste of energy

and i want to punch all of you in your spleens

but in the end, i should just have someone punch me in the spleen for coming back into a thread like this

1. I f the government shuts down, it probably will affect you eventually in some way. If the debt ceiling is not raised, it almost certainly will affect you. So this thread is meaningful.

2. The claim that it's "partisan bull#### on both sides" is getting a little tiresome. These are artificial threats raised by the right wing of the Republican party. Unless you actually expect the Democrats to agree to defund Obamacare, there is no give and take here, nothing that the Dems should be doing or are responsible for.

 

[timschochet]

When it comes to issues like this, I hold Washington responsible. If that's what you're talking about here, then so be it. So stupid of me to hold Washington responsible for doing their job. If that's not what you're talking about then explain.

One party wants to pass a continuing resolution and raise the debt limit, the other refuses (for now) to do so unless a duly enacted law is defunded. Either you're OK with that tactic or you're not. Regardless of how you feel, blaming "Washington" really means you're blaming nobody because it gives the people on the other side a pass. It's lazy and irresponsible. If one party knows that they can demand anything they want because people will blame an impasse on "Washington" instead of bothering to understand the particulars and voting accordingly in the next election, they'll just make more ridiculous demands leading to more standoffs. Basically, you're part of the problem.

Oh bull####....what's lazy and irresponsible is taking sides and enabling the finger pointing while they just kick the can down the road. No thanks. These people were elected to do a job so do the job and stop whining about how hard it is. Seriously, if I pulled a tenth of the crap these morons have I'd have been fired 5 days into my job. What's worse for me is that I haven't voted for a single person in our Congress or the White House. These parties know their voting constituents will vote for them simply because of the label beside their name and they will feed them whatever line they can to get their vote. I do agree that people not bothering to understand the particulars and voting accordingly are the problem....anyone voting for these idiots are part of the problem.

Do you believe the Dems should negotiate over defunding Obamacare? If not, then how are they equally guilty here?

 

[TobiasFunke]

When it comes to issues like this, I hold Washington responsible. If that's what you're talking about here, then so be it. So stupid of me to hold Washington responsible for doing their job. If that's not what you're talking about then explain.

One party wants to pass a continuing resolution and raise the debt limit, the other refuses (for now) to do so unless a duly enacted law is defunded. Either you're OK with that tactic or you're not. Regardless of how you feel, blaming "Washington" really means you're blaming nobody because it gives the people on the other side a pass. It's lazy and irresponsible. If one party knows that they can demand anything they want because people will blame an impasse on "Washington" instead of bothering to understand the particulars and voting accordingly in the next election, they'll just make more ridiculous demands leading to more standoffs. Basically, you're part of the problem.

Oh bull####....what's lazy and irresponsible is taking sides and enabling the finger pointing while they just kick the can down the road. No thanks. These people were elected to do a job so do the job and stop whining about how hard it is. Seriously, if I pulled a tenth of the crap these morons have I'd have been fired 5 days into my job. What's worse for me is that I haven't voted for a single person in our Congress or the White House. These parties know their voting constituents will vote for them simply because of the label beside their name and they will feed them whatever line they can to get their vote. I do agree that people not bothering to understand the particulars and voting accordingly are the problem....anyone voting for these idiots is part of the problem.

There is plenty of blood on the hands of both sides that can be attributed to the state of affairs in this country. It's short sighted to look at the hear and now and say X is the problem. Doing so holds all else constant and that's simply not true. That we are in the position where the GOP can do what it's doing is troubling to me. It shouldn't have even come to this. The GOP is playing the crazy card right now with their pissing and moaning. In time it will be the Dems.

I stand by what I posted. This lazy but angry "blame 'em all!" attitude is part of the problem. How do you expect things to get better if you don't take the time to figure out who you hold responsible (or if you prefer, more responsible) and vote accordingly? If you think the GOP is "playing the crazy card right now with their pissing and moaning," what's their motivation not to do so if people like you just write it off when you step into the voting booth by lazily assuming the Dems would do the same? I don't know of any instance in which the Dems have threatened to put the government into default unless enacted legislation is defunded. Do you? If not, why do you assume they'd do the same in time?

 

[Joe T]

sometimes i wadner into a thread that really matters and means something

and then i come back into a like this thread filled with ill informed political partisan bull#### on both sides and it seems such a meaningless waste of energy

and i want to punch all of you in your spleens

but in the end, i should just have someone punch me in the spleen for coming back into a thread like this

 

[humpback]

Oh goodie, another speech- eating it up Tim?

 

[shader]

Oh goodie, another speech- eating it up Tim?

Greatest speech in last 30 years.

 

[The Commish]

When it comes to issues like this, I hold Washington responsible. If that's what you're talking about here, then so be it. So stupid of me to hold Washington responsible for doing their job. If that's not what you're talking about then explain.

One party wants to pass a continuing resolution and raise the debt limit, the other refuses (for now) to do so unless a duly enacted law is defunded. Either you're OK with that tactic or you're not. Regardless of how you feel, blaming "Washington" really means you're blaming nobody because it gives the people on the other side a pass. It's lazy and irresponsible. If one party knows that they can demand anything they want because people will blame an impasse on "Washington" instead of bothering to understand the particulars and voting accordingly in the next election, they'll just make more ridiculous demands leading to more standoffs. Basically, you're part of the problem.

Oh bull####....what's lazy and irresponsible is taking sides and enabling the finger pointing while they just kick the can down the road. No thanks. These people were elected to do a job so do the job and stop whining about how hard it is. Seriously, if I pulled a tenth of the crap these morons have I'd have been fired 5 days into my job. What's worse for me is that I haven't voted for a single person in our Congress or the White House. These parties know their voting constituents will vote for them simply because of the label beside their name and they will feed them whatever line they can to get their vote. I do agree that people not bothering to understand the particulars and voting accordingly are the problem....anyone voting for these idiots is part of the problem.

There is plenty of blood on the hands of both sides that can be attributed to the state of affairs in this country. It's short sighted to look at the hear and now and say X is the problem. Doing so holds all else constant and that's simply not true. That we are in the position where the GOP can do what it's doing is troubling to me. It shouldn't have even come to this. The GOP is playing the crazy card right now with their pissing and moaning. In time it will be the Dems.

I stand by what I posted. This lazy but angry "blame 'em all!" attitude is part of the problem. How do you expect things to get better if you don't take the time to figure out who you hold responsible (or if you prefer, more responsible) and vote accordingly? If you think the GOP is "playing the crazy card right now with their pissing and moaning," what's their motivation not to do so if people like you just write it off when you step into the voting booth by lazily assuming the Dems would do the same? I don't know of any instance in which the Dems have threatened to put the government into default unless enacted legislation is defunded. Do you? If not, why do you assume they'd do the same in time?

You assume that I don't see the problems and who's responsible. That's an incorrect assumption. I don't know what you expect me to do I already don't vote for the GOP. Now what?

 

[The Commish]

When it comes to issues like this, I hold Washington responsible. If that's what you're talking about here, then so be it. So stupid of me to hold Washington responsible for doing their job. If that's not what you're talking about then explain.

One party wants to pass a continuing resolution and raise the debt limit, the other refuses (for now) to do so unless a duly enacted law is defunded. Either you're OK with that tactic or you're not. Regardless of how you feel, blaming "Washington" really means you're blaming nobody because it gives the people on the other side a pass. It's lazy and irresponsible. If one party knows that they can demand anything they want because people will blame an impasse on "Washington" instead of bothering to understand the particulars and voting accordingly in the next election, they'll just make more ridiculous demands leading to more standoffs. Basically, you're part of the problem.

Oh bull####....what's lazy and irresponsible is taking sides and enabling the finger pointing while they just kick the can down the road. No thanks. These people were elected to do a job so do the job and stop whining about how hard it is. Seriously, if I pulled a tenth of the crap these morons have I'd have been fired 5 days into my job. What's worse for me is that I haven't voted for a single person in our Congress or the White House. These parties know their voting constituents will vote for them simply because of the label beside their name and they will feed them whatever line they can to get their vote. I do agree that people not bothering to understand the particulars and voting accordingly are the problem....anyone voting for these idiots are part of the problem.

Do you believe the Dems should negotiate over defunding Obamacare? If not, then how are they equally guilty here?

I believe the two groups should have worked together to get something feasible done. The problem we have in this country is we don't look at the big picture enough. We have no one in charge that has any sort of vision and anyone who MIGHT have visions is automatically opposed by the other side. That's the mentality that all of you keep voting back into office over and over and over and over. Washington is about keeping a job these days, not leading a country. Until that changes, we're stuck with what we have.

 

[TobiasFunke]

When it comes to issues like this, I hold Washington responsible. If that's what you're talking about here, then so be it. So stupid of me to hold Washington responsible for doing their job. If that's not what you're talking about then explain.

One party wants to pass a continuing resolution and raise the debt limit, the other refuses (for now) to do so unless a duly enacted law is defunded. Either you're OK with that tactic or you're not. Regardless of how you feel, blaming "Washington" really means you're blaming nobody because it gives the people on the other side a pass. It's lazy and irresponsible. If one party knows that they can demand anything they want because people will blame an impasse on "Washington" instead of bothering to understand the particulars and voting accordingly in the next election, they'll just make more ridiculous demands leading to more standoffs. Basically, you're part of the problem.

Oh bull####....what's lazy and irresponsible is taking sides and enabling the finger pointing while they just kick the can down the road. No thanks. These people were elected to do a job so do the job and stop whining about how hard it is. Seriously, if I pulled a tenth of the crap these morons have I'd have been fired 5 days into my job. What's worse for me is that I haven't voted for a single person in our Congress or the White House. These parties know their voting constituents will vote for them simply because of the label beside their name and they will feed them whatever line they can to get their vote. I do agree that people not bothering to understand the particulars and voting accordingly are the problem....anyone voting for these idiots is part of the problem.

There is plenty of blood on the hands of both sides that can be attributed to the state of affairs in this country. It's short sighted to look at the hear and now and say X is the problem. Doing so holds all else constant and that's simply not true. That we are in the position where the GOP can do what it's doing is troubling to me. It shouldn't have even come to this. The GOP is playing the crazy card right now with their pissing and moaning. In time it will be the Dems.

I stand by what I posted. This lazy but angry "blame 'em all!" attitude is part of the problem. How do you expect things to get better if you don't take the time to figure out who you hold responsible (or if you prefer, more responsible) and vote accordingly? If you think the GOP is "playing the crazy card right now with their pissing and moaning," what's their motivation not to do so if people like you just write it off when you step into the voting booth by lazily assuming the Dems would do the same? I don't know of any instance in which the Dems have threatened to put the government into default unless enacted legislation is defunded. Do you? If not, why do you assume they'd do the same in time?

You assume that I don't see the problems and who's responsible. That's an incorrect assumption. I don't know what you expect me to do I already don't vote for the GOP. Now what?

I based that assumption on the post where you said "when it comes to issues like this, I hold Washington responsible."

I disagree. I think a small minority within the GOP is 90% responsible, and the establishment GOP is 10% responsible for lacking the backbone to stand up to them. Why do you think all of Washington is responsible?

 

[timschochet]

The establishment GOP is far more than 10% responsible. Beginning with John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin, they deliberately unleashed these people. Prior to Palin, the "grass roots" of the Republican party were devoted to social issues like abortion and homosexuality. When it came to economic concerns, they let the grownups take over. The Republican establishment deliberately unleashed their base in order create a populist uprising that would garner them more election victories. It worked, but this is the result: taking populism into economic areas of concern.

 

[The Commish]

When it comes to issues like this, I hold Washington responsible. If that's what you're talking about here, then so be it. So stupid of me to hold Washington responsible for doing their job. If that's not what you're talking about then explain.

One party wants to pass a continuing resolution and raise the debt limit, the other refuses (for now) to do so unless a duly enacted law is defunded. Either you're OK with that tactic or you're not. Regardless of how you feel, blaming "Washington" really means you're blaming nobody because it gives the people on the other side a pass. It's lazy and irresponsible. If one party knows that they can demand anything they want because people will blame an impasse on "Washington" instead of bothering to understand the particulars and voting accordingly in the next election, they'll just make more ridiculous demands leading to more standoffs. Basically, you're part of the problem.

Oh bull####....what's lazy and irresponsible is taking sides and enabling the finger pointing while they just kick the can down the road. No thanks. These people were elected to do a job so do the job and stop whining about how hard it is. Seriously, if I pulled a tenth of the crap these morons have I'd have been fired 5 days into my job. What's worse for me is that I haven't voted for a single person in our Congress or the White House. These parties know their voting constituents will vote for them simply because of the label beside their name and they will feed them whatever line they can to get their vote. I do agree that people not bothering to understand the particulars and voting accordingly are the problem....anyone voting for these idiots is part of the problem.

There is plenty of blood on the hands of both sides that can be attributed to the state of affairs in this country. It's short sighted to look at the hear and now and say X is the problem. Doing so holds all else constant and that's simply not true. That we are in the position where the GOP can do what it's doing is troubling to me. It shouldn't have even come to this. The GOP is playing the crazy card right now with their pissing and moaning. In time it will be the Dems.

I stand by what I posted. This lazy but angry "blame 'em all!" attitude is part of the problem. How do you expect things to get better if you don't take the time to figure out who you hold responsible (or if you prefer, more responsible) and vote accordingly? If you think the GOP is "playing the crazy card right now with their pissing and moaning," what's their motivation not to do so if people like you just write it off when you step into the voting booth by lazily assuming the Dems would do the same? I don't know of any instance in which the Dems have threatened to put the government into default unless enacted legislation is defunded. Do you? If not, why do you assume they'd do the same in time?

You assume that I don't see the problems and who's responsible. That's an incorrect assumption. I don't know what you expect me to do I already don't vote for the GOP. Now what?

I based that assumption on the post where you said "when it comes to issues like this, I hold Washington responsible."

I disagree. I think a small minority within the GOP is 90% responsible, and the establishment GOP is 10% responsible for lacking the backbone to stand up to them. Why do you think all of Washington is responsible?

Because, over time, it's not been one single group that has gotten us to this point. As I said before, both parties have plenty of blood on their hands when it comes to putting us in this position. You're looking at this specific point in time. I suspect the GOP would be a lot more willing to work with the Dems had the Dems included them in the initial passing of Obamacare. I said long ago that the only way this was going to work is if they all got locked up in a room together and hammered this thing out without having to worry about being reelected. I KNOW these people can come up with a solution, but they are so concerned about saving face to get reelected, they can't say what they really want to.

So when I say I blame Washington, I am looking at it from a macro level. I'm looking how the bill got proposed, drafted, etc etc. Not just where we're at right now. If the politicians didn't have the foresight to predict opposition like this they aren't very smart. Getting a bill into law isn't just about the idea. It's about the idea plus how it fits into the ideology of both groups and how it can get enough support to be passed into law. That's on Washington IMO.

You insist people like me are part of the problem. I'll ask again...what else should I be doing that I'm not already?