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

[jon_mx]

So we are going to just endless extend our debt ceiling with no plan to stop our endless spiral into certain death. Simply brilliant. God I hate Washington.

This isn't like normal debt. This is gov't debt. It is basically meaningless.

If it is meaningless, then why collect taxes at all....just pay taxes through inflation. Meaningless, as long as people will buy the debt for a reasonable interest. At some point though, our currency becomes useless and people have no confidence in it. Then the meaning of the meaningless debt becomes a bit clearer.

 

[The Commish]

What exactly is the "sequester issue"?? Never understood this. It's law that went into effect because these morons couldn't agree on anything. So what's the actual "issue" here?

The sequester was designed to be so awful for both sides that neither side would want to see it implemented.

The Republicans didn't like it because it left entitlement programs untouched (they weren't part of the deal) and it makes big cuts to defense.

The Dems don't like it because it included no new revenues and made deep cuts to everything else.

And the cuts are stupid -- blunt, across-the-board numbers without any discretion.

So one issue is that both sides would like to see 'smarter' cuts. Another issue is that Republicans want cuts to entitlements, which they can't get via the sequester. And another issue is that there are no new revenues.

Eventually you'll see the sequester replaced IMO. The obvious solution is to trade entitlement reform for additional revenues. The 'Grand Bargain' that people talk about. And when that happens the specific spending levels and cuts in the sequester will probably be revisited.

No, I understand what the sequester cuts are and how terribly flawed they are. I get all that...what I don't understand is why the dems now want to "negotiate" them as part of this whole thing. The have basically been calling the GOP terrorists for trying to negotiate this way. Now the dems are wanting to "negotiate" laws as part of this compromise?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

It's also worth mentioning that there is no 'current law' as it relates to the budget right now. There is no law at all. There is no budget.

 

[timschochet]

Have the Republicans offered to raise the debt ceiling with no conditions? Because if they did, the Democrats would not refuse. Therefore, all of your points are completely bogus.

The NY Times article (and others) disagree with you that the Democrats would not refuse to raise the debt ceiling with no conditions. So, all of my points are spot on.

With a possible default on government obligations just days away, Senate Democratic leaders — believing they have a political advantage in the continuing fiscal impasse — refused Sunday to sign on to any deal that reopens the government but locks in budget cuts for next year.

You just contradicted yourself for the umpteenth time. You wrote "with no conditions", and then posted a quote with A MAJOR CONDITION. Do you even read these quotes before you post them??? ####### hilarious.

 

[The Commish]

What exactly is the "sequester issue"?? Never understood this. It's law that went into effect because these morons couldn't agree on anything. So what's the actual "issue" here?

The Democrats are now demanding changes be made to that law before they raise the debt ceiling... according to the NY Times as I posted above.

Can I get a "dem apologist" perspective on this??

Dems have said they aren't going to make concessions to get a clean CR and a clean debt limit bill.

But Republicans have said they have to get something -- politically they can't just completely surrender.

Dems are saying, 'OK -- we'll give you something, but we're going to get something beyond a clean debt limit and a clean CR in return since we're not making concessions just to get those.'

So now, they are overreaching...perhaps not to the same extent as the GOP did, but they are using the same tactics it sounds like. Wow....how people continue to support these morons is beyond me.

 

[jon_mx]

What exactly is the "sequester issue"?? Never understood this. It's law that went into effect because these morons couldn't agree on anything. So what's the actual "issue" here?

The Democrats are now demanding changes be made to that law before they raise the debt ceiling... according to the NY Times as I posted above.

Can I get a "dem apologist" perspective on this??

Dems have said they aren't going to make concessions to get a clean CR and a clean debt limit bill.

But Republicans have said they have to get something -- politically they can't just completely surrender.

Dems are saying, 'OK -- we'll give you something, but we're going to get something beyond a clean debt limit and a clean CR in return since we're not making concessions just to get those.'

So now, they are overreaching...perhaps not to the same extent as the GOP did, but they are using the same tactics it sounds like. Wow....how people continue to support these morons is beyond me.

Castrate all of them!

 

[timschochet]

What exactly is the "sequester issue"?? Never understood this. It's law that went into effect because these morons couldn't agree on anything. So what's the actual "issue" here?

The sequester was designed to be so awful for both sides that neither side would want to see it implemented.

The Republicans didn't like it because it left entitlement programs untouched (they weren't part of the deal) and it makes big cuts to defense.

The Dems don't like it because it included no new revenues and made deep cuts to everything else.

And the cuts are stupid -- blunt, across-the-board numbers without any discretion.

So one issue is that both sides would like to see 'smarter' cuts. Another issue is that Republicans want cuts to entitlements, which they can't get via the sequester. And another issue is that there are no new revenues.

Eventually you'll see the sequester replaced IMO. The obvious solution is to trade entitlement reform for additional revenues. The 'Grand Bargain' that people talk about. And when that happens the specific spending levels and cuts in the sequester will probably be revisited.

No, I understand what the sequester cuts are and how terribly flawed they are. I get all that...what I don't understand is why the dems now want to "negotiate" them as part of this whole thing. The have basically been calling the GOP terrorists for trying to negotiate this way. Now the dems are wanting to "negotiate" laws as part of this compromise?

The Republicans want the sequester cuts extended for another year. That was never part of any "law". That was a NEW demand made, in replace of changes to Obamacare, as the price for the CR and raising the debt ceiling. The Democrats are responding to that new demand.

 

[The Commish]

What exactly is the "sequester issue"?? Never understood this. It's law that went into effect because these morons couldn't agree on anything. So what's the actual "issue" here?

1. Most Democrats hate the sequester cuts and want them eliminated.

2. Most moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans think they're stupid. If these cuts are going to happen, they should at least be targeted, rather than across the board.

3. Most Republicans don't like the cuts to the military that are part of the sequester.

So almost everyone wants to see some kind of change to these cuts.

But they are law, yes? So they should be going through the proper channels to change the law as they are asking the republicans to. Would you agree with that?

Of course. And they've been trying to go through proper channels for months. That's why the current continuing resolution was so short. Now, however, in exchange for raising the debt ceiling and opening up the government, the Republicans are demanding a much longer continuing resolution which would lock the sequester in place for another year or so. That's why the Democrats are insisting that changes to the sequester should be part of that deal.

Quite frankly, I'm not interested in the excuses. I just wanted to make sure that the dems are now playing a very similar to the GOP game. The sequester cuts were stupid. They need to continue to go through the proper channels to get it fixed not resort to similar tactics of the GOP.

 

[timschochet]

What exactly is the "sequester issue"?? Never understood this. It's law that went into effect because these morons couldn't agree on anything. So what's the actual "issue" here?

The Democrats are now demanding changes be made to that law before they raise the debt ceiling... according to the NY Times as I posted above.

Can I get a "dem apologist" perspective on this??

Dems have said they aren't going to make concessions to get a clean CR and a clean debt limit bill.

But Republicans have said they have to get something -- politically they can't just completely surrender.

Dems are saying, 'OK -- we'll give you something, but we're going to get something beyond a clean debt limit and a clean CR in return since we're not making concessions just to get those.'

So now, they are overreaching...perhaps not to the same extent as the GOP did, but they are using the same tactics it sounds like. Wow....how people continue to support these morons is beyond me.

They are overreaching. But it is not close to the same tactics.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

No, I understand what the sequester cuts are and how terribly flawed they are. I get all that...what I don't understand is why the dems now want to "negotiate" them as part of this whole thing. The have basically been calling the GOP terrorists for trying to negotiate this way. Now the dems are wanting to "negotiate" laws as part of this compromise?

In a nutshell, everyone (including me in my more lucid moments) recognizes that expecting the GOP to publically wave the white flag and totally surrender in public isn't going to be helpful.

And that while donning the steel tipped boots and kicking the living hell out of the Republicans when they're down might be gratifying and well-deserved it's not really very useful in terms of future negotiations since the bigger discussions can't even start until this current mess is resolved.

So Dems are saying, fine ... we'll give you a fig leaf. Even though we said we wouldn't do it, politics and reality are messy. Here's something in exchange for opening the government and raising the debt limit.

But for political reasons we can't say that's what we're doing anymore than you can totally surrender. So we need to get a fig leaf of our own. What will you give us in exchange for the concessions we're making here?

 

[[icon]]

Tick Tock Tick Tock

Should be entertaining to see Tiimmay (and a couple others) approach nervous breakdown in the next 2-3 days in here

 

[The Commish]

What exactly is the "sequester issue"?? Never understood this. It's law that went into effect because these morons couldn't agree on anything. So what's the actual "issue" here?

The sequester was designed to be so awful for both sides that neither side would want to see it implemented.

The Republicans didn't like it because it left entitlement programs untouched (they weren't part of the deal) and it makes big cuts to defense.

The Dems don't like it because it included no new revenues and made deep cuts to everything else.

And the cuts are stupid -- blunt, across-the-board numbers without any discretion.

So one issue is that both sides would like to see 'smarter' cuts. Another issue is that Republicans want cuts to entitlements, which they can't get via the sequester. And another issue is that there are no new revenues.

Eventually you'll see the sequester replaced IMO. The obvious solution is to trade entitlement reform for additional revenues. The 'Grand Bargain' that people talk about. And when that happens the specific spending levels and cuts in the sequester will probably be revisited.

No, I understand what the sequester cuts are and how terribly flawed they are. I get all that...what I don't understand is why the dems now want to "negotiate" them as part of this whole thing. The have basically been calling the GOP terrorists for trying to negotiate this way. Now the dems are wanting to "negotiate" laws as part of this compromise?

The Republicans want the sequester cuts extended for another year. That was never part of any "law". That was a NEW demand made, in replace of changes to Obamacare, as the price for the CR and raising the debt ceiling. The Democrats are responding to that new demand.

The BCA isn't law? What is it?

 

[timschochet]

What exactly is the "sequester issue"?? Never understood this. It's law that went into effect because these morons couldn't agree on anything. So what's the actual "issue" here?

1. Most Democrats hate the sequester cuts and want them eliminated.

2. Most moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans think they're stupid. If these cuts are going to happen, they should at least be targeted, rather than across the board.

3. Most Republicans don't like the cuts to the military that are part of the sequester.

So almost everyone wants to see some kind of change to these cuts.

But they are law, yes? So they should be going through the proper channels to change the law as they are asking the republicans to. Would you agree with that?

Of course. And they've been trying to go through proper channels for months. That's why the current continuing resolution was so short. Now, however, in exchange for raising the debt ceiling and opening up the government, the Republicans are demanding a much longer continuing resolution which would lock the sequester in place for another year or so. That's why the Democrats are insisting that changes to the sequester should be part of that deal.

Quite frankly, I'm not interested in the excuses. I just wanted to make sure that the dems are now playing a very similar to the GOP game. The sequester cuts were stupid. They need to continue to go through the proper channels to get it fixed not resort to similar tactics of the GOP.

OK, this is pointless. By writing "I'm not interested in the excuses", you're basically saying that you have your own view of this and it's not going to change no matter what facts are presented that contradict your POV. The Democrats are not playing a game similar to the GOP. The Democrats ARE going through "proper channels" to change the sequester- channels that were created by the Republicans. What the Democrats are doing, while unwise IMO, bears no relation to what the Republicans have done- it's not even on the same planet. But all along you have wanted to make both sides equally guilty in your mind, and so now you have seized on this misinterpretation to do so. Have at it.

 

[[icon]]

If I was a mod on this board I'd utilize the word filter system to change the word "Republican" into "Democrat" and vice versa.... then sit back and watch people lose their ####### minds

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

So now, they are overreaching...perhaps not to the same extent as the GOP did, but they are using the same tactics it sounds like. Wow....how people continue to support these morons is beyond me.

You'd rather Democrats insist on total and abject surrender and simply refuse to negotiate anything until government is open and the debt limit is raised with no strings attached?

 

[Joe T]

Have the Republicans offered to raise the debt ceiling with no conditions? Because if they did, the Democrats would not refuse. Therefore, all of your points are completely bogus.

The NY Times article (and others) disagree with you that the Democrats would not refuse to raise the debt ceiling with no conditions. So, all of my points are spot on.

With a possible default on government obligations just days away, Senate Democratic leaders — believing they have a political advantage in the continuing fiscal impasse — refused Sunday to sign on to any deal that reopens the government but locks in budget cuts for next year.

You just contradicted yourself for the umpteenth time. You wrote "with no conditions", and then posted a quote with A MAJOR CONDITION. Do you even read these quotes before you post them??? ####### hilarious.

That's not a condition... its a continuation of what exists now. It's already existing law.

How is that so difficult to understand?

 

[jon_mx]

Tick Tock Tick Tock

Should be entertaining to see Tiimmay (and a couple others) approach nervous breakdown in the next 2-3 days in here

That alone would be worth the billions of dollars it will cost the taxpayers.

 

[The Commish]

So now, they are overreaching...perhaps not to the same extent as the GOP did, but they are using the same tactics it sounds like. Wow....how people continue to support these morons is beyond me.

You'd rather Democrats insist on total and abject surrender and simply refuse to negotiate anything until government is open and the debt limit is raised with no strings attached?

I'd rather both sides stop acting like petulant children, but that's not going to happen. It appears to me that the dems are now doing what they ripped the GOP for doing, but then I have Tim telling me BCA isn't law, so I'm not sure what to believe anymore.

 

[Joe T]

What exactly is the "sequester issue"?? Never understood this. It's law that went into effect because these morons couldn't agree on anything. So what's the actual "issue" here?

The sequester was designed to be so awful for both sides that neither side would want to see it implemented.

The Republicans didn't like it because it left entitlement programs untouched (they weren't part of the deal) and it makes big cuts to defense.

The Dems don't like it because it included no new revenues and made deep cuts to everything else.

And the cuts are stupid -- blunt, across-the-board numbers without any discretion.

So one issue is that both sides would like to see 'smarter' cuts. Another issue is that Republicans want cuts to entitlements, which they can't get via the sequester. And another issue is that there are no new revenues.

Eventually you'll see the sequester replaced IMO. The obvious solution is to trade entitlement reform for additional revenues. The 'Grand Bargain' that people talk about. And when that happens the specific spending levels and cuts in the sequester will probably be revisited.

No, I understand what the sequester cuts are and how terribly flawed they are. I get all that...what I don't understand is why the dems now want to "negotiate" them as part of this whole thing. The have basically been calling the GOP terrorists for trying to negotiate this way. Now the dems are wanting to "negotiate" laws as part of this compromise?

The Republicans want the sequester cuts extended for another year. That was never part of any "law". That was a NEW demand made, in replace of changes to Obamacare, as the price for the CR and raising the debt ceiling. The Democrats are responding to that new demand.

False. The sequester continues without making any changes to existing law. It is the democrats who do not want it to continue so they are demanding changes be made to the sequester.

The sequester lasts for 8 years. That is the law as originally written. The republicans aren't asking for anything new. They are asking not to change existing law.

 

[timschochet]

Have the Republicans offered to raise the debt ceiling with no conditions? Because if they did, the Democrats would not refuse. Therefore, all of your points are completely bogus.

The NY Times article (and others) disagree with you that the Democrats would not refuse to raise the debt ceiling with no conditions. So, all of my points are spot on.

With a possible default on government obligations just days away, Senate Democratic leaders — believing they have a political advantage in the continuing fiscal impasse — refused Sunday to sign on to any deal that reopens the government but locks in budget cuts for next year.

You just contradicted yourself for the umpteenth time. You wrote "with no conditions", and then posted a quote with A MAJOR CONDITION. Do you even read these quotes before you post them??? ####### hilarious.

That's not a condition... its a continuation of what exists now. It's already existing law.

How is that so difficult to understand?

 

[jon_mx]

I am baffled how anyone can support any of these assclowns. But apparently as long as it is their ########, it is all good.

 

[Joe T]

What exactly is the "sequester issue"?? Never understood this. It's law that went into effect because these morons couldn't agree on anything. So what's the actual "issue" here?

The Democrats are now demanding changes be made to that law before they raise the debt ceiling... according to the NY Times as I posted above.

Can I get a "dem apologist" perspective on this??

Dems have said they aren't going to make concessions to get a clean CR and a clean debt limit bill.

But Republicans have said they have to get something -- politically they can't just completely surrender.

Dems are saying, 'OK -- we'll give you something, but we're going to get something beyond a clean debt limit and a clean CR in return since we're not making concessions just to get those.'

So now, they are overreaching...perhaps not to the same extent as the GOP did, but they are using the same tactics it sounds like. Wow....how people continue to support these morons is beyond me.

 

[jon_mx]

multiple assclowns pass the language filter. But a singular ######## does not. Interesting.

 

[Joe T]

What exactly is the "sequester issue"?? Never understood this. It's law that went into effect because these morons couldn't agree on anything. So what's the actual "issue" here?

The sequester was designed to be so awful for both sides that neither side would want to see it implemented.

The Republicans didn't like it because it left entitlement programs untouched (they weren't part of the deal) and it makes big cuts to defense.

The Dems don't like it because it included no new revenues and made deep cuts to everything else.

And the cuts are stupid -- blunt, across-the-board numbers without any discretion.

So one issue is that both sides would like to see 'smarter' cuts. Another issue is that Republicans want cuts to entitlements, which they can't get via the sequester. And another issue is that there are no new revenues.

Eventually you'll see the sequester replaced IMO. The obvious solution is to trade entitlement reform for additional revenues. The 'Grand Bargain' that people talk about. And when that happens the specific spending levels and cuts in the sequester will probably be revisited.

No, I understand what the sequester cuts are and how terribly flawed they are. I get all that...what I don't understand is why the dems now want to "negotiate" them as part of this whole thing. The have basically been calling the GOP terrorists for trying to negotiate this way. Now the dems are wanting to "negotiate" laws as part of this compromise?

The Republicans want the sequester cuts extended for another year. That was never part of any "law". That was a NEW demand made, in replace of changes to Obamacare, as the price for the CR and raising the debt ceiling. The Democrats are responding to that new demand.

You may want to look over the Budget Control Act of 2011 (ie the sequester). It lasts 8 years. There is no new demand from the Republicans around this. You are very confused on this topic.

 

[jon_mx]

It is quite funny the level of semantics one goes through to have defend their favorite political party affiliation.

 

[The Commish]

What exactly is the "sequester issue"?? Never understood this. It's law that went into effect because these morons couldn't agree on anything. So what's the actual "issue" here?

The sequester was designed to be so awful for both sides that neither side would want to see it implemented.

The Republicans didn't like it because it left entitlement programs untouched (they weren't part of the deal) and it makes big cuts to defense.

The Dems don't like it because it included no new revenues and made deep cuts to everything else.

And the cuts are stupid -- blunt, across-the-board numbers without any discretion.

So one issue is that both sides would like to see 'smarter' cuts. Another issue is that Republicans want cuts to entitlements, which they can't get via the sequester. And another issue is that there are no new revenues.

Eventually you'll see the sequester replaced IMO. The obvious solution is to trade entitlement reform for additional revenues. The 'Grand Bargain' that people talk about. And when that happens the specific spending levels and cuts in the sequester will probably be revisited.

No, I understand what the sequester cuts are and how terribly flawed they are. I get all that...what I don't understand is why the dems now want to "negotiate" them as part of this whole thing. The have basically been calling the GOP terrorists for trying to negotiate this way. Now the dems are wanting to "negotiate" laws as part of this compromise?

The Republicans want the sequester cuts extended for another year. That was never part of any "law". That was a NEW demand made, in replace of changes to Obamacare, as the price for the CR and raising the debt ceiling. The Democrats are responding to that new demand.

You may want to look over the Budget Control Act of 2011 (ie the sequester). It lasts 8 years. There is no new demand from the Republicans around this. You are very confused on this topic.

Apparently BCA is not "law" to Tim....I'm not sure what he thinks it is. If I remember correctly BCA made provisions up til around 2020-21 or so I thought.

 

[Joe T]

The sequester lowers spending by a total of approximately $1.1 trillion versus pre-sequester levels over the approximately 8 year period from 2013 to 2021.

Tim, hi.

 

[Joe T]

What exactly is the "sequester issue"?? Never understood this. It's law that went into effect because these morons couldn't agree on anything. So what's the actual "issue" here?

The sequester was designed to be so awful for both sides that neither side would want to see it implemented.

The Republicans didn't like it because it left entitlement programs untouched (they weren't part of the deal) and it makes big cuts to defense.

The Dems don't like it because it included no new revenues and made deep cuts to everything else.

And the cuts are stupid -- blunt, across-the-board numbers without any discretion.

So one issue is that both sides would like to see 'smarter' cuts. Another issue is that Republicans want cuts to entitlements, which they can't get via the sequester. And another issue is that there are no new revenues.

Eventually you'll see the sequester replaced IMO. The obvious solution is to trade entitlement reform for additional revenues. The 'Grand Bargain' that people talk about. And when that happens the specific spending levels and cuts in the sequester will probably be revisited.

No, I understand what the sequester cuts are and how terribly flawed they are. I get all that...what I don't understand is why the dems now want to "negotiate" them as part of this whole thing. The have basically been calling the GOP terrorists for trying to negotiate this way. Now the dems are wanting to "negotiate" laws as part of this compromise?

The Republicans want the sequester cuts extended for another year. That was never part of any "law". That was a NEW demand made, in replace of changes to Obamacare, as the price for the CR and raising the debt ceiling. The Democrats are responding to that new demand.

You may want to look over the Budget Control Act of 2011 (ie the sequester). It lasts 8 years. There is no new demand from the Republicans around this. You are very confused on this topic.

Apparently BCA is not "law" to Tim....I'm not sure what he thinks it is. If I remember correctly BCA made provisions up til around 2020-21 or so I thought.

Yeah, I don't understand where he thinks anyone is asking for a continuation. The BCA continues on its own and in fact increases cuts.

 

[timschochet]

OK, I made a mistake. I forgot that the sequester cuts, as originally passed, were for 8 years. So as much as it pains me to admit it, Joe T is correct and I was wrong about this.

And yes, therefore the Commish and Joe T do have a point about the Democrats trying to overturn "settled law" after accusing the Republicans of trying to overturn "settled law." It is indeed hypocritical- also politically unwise.

However, Joe T's interpretation that it is the Democrats who are now threatening to not raise the debt ceiling if they don't get their way remains a complete falsehood. And though the Democrats are behaving in a typically political and shameless way here, it in no way compares to what the Republicans have done to start this mess in the first place. The Dems are simply using the Republican demand for negotiations to get in a few points of their own.

 

[Scoresman]

Michelle Bachma

 

[[icon]]

I love now all these numbers are now calculated in 8, 10, 50 year increments now to help out the agenda of whatever cause is angling for them

DEMS: WE MADE CONCESSIONS! The plan we just suggested will allow for $100MM in budget cuts!!!* (over the next 49 years, backloaded)

REPS: WE MADE CONCESSIONS! The plan we just suggested will allow for $100MM in tax increases!!!* (over the next 49 years, backloaded)

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

So we are going to just endless extend our debt ceiling with no plan to stop our endless spiral into certain death. Simply brilliant. God I hate Washington.

Not sure what you're hoping for here. Even if the most conservative Republicans in the House got their way with regard to spending, we would still have to raise the debt ceiling for the next decade at least. There is simply no means to cut enough spending not to.In addition, maybe it won't spiral us into "certain death." Like you, I've always been concerned that it would, but progressives like Krugman argue that, as a percentage of our overall GDP, our current spending is not especially high, and that it will not hurt our economy in the long run- in fact, it might actually benefit us, as it did during and after World War II. It;s an interesting argument...

The spiral part:

How much does our spending contribute to GDP?

It's an illusion. People say if you cut spending it will hurt our GDP, but they ignore the debt component.

 

[The Commish]

OK, I made a mistake. I forgot that the sequester cuts, as originally passed, were for 8 years. So as much as it pains me to admit it, Joe T is correct and I was wrong about this.

And yes, therefore the Commish and Joe T do have a point about the Democrats trying to overturn "settled law" after accusing the Republicans of trying to overturn "settled law." It is indeed hypocritical- also politically unwise.

However, Joe T's interpretation that it is the Democrats who are now threatening to not raise the debt ceiling if they don't get their way remains a complete falsehood. And though the Democrats are behaving in a typically political and shameless way here, it in no way compares to what the Republicans have done to start this mess in the first place. The Dems are simply using the Republican demand for negotiations to get in a few points of their own.

Sorry...this is It's a lesser degree of the same issue.

 

[Joe T]

So as much as it pains me to admit it, Joe T is correct and I was wrong about this.

Sig worthy.

 

[timschochet]

OK, I made a mistake. I forgot that the sequester cuts, as originally passed, were for 8 years. So as much as it pains me to admit it, Joe T is correct and I was wrong about this.

And yes, therefore the Commish and Joe T do have a point about the Democrats trying to overturn "settled law" after accusing the Republicans of trying to overturn "settled law." It is indeed hypocritical- also politically unwise.

However, Joe T's interpretation that it is the Democrats who are now threatening to not raise the debt ceiling if they don't get their way remains a complete falsehood. And though the Democrats are behaving in a typically political and shameless way here, it in no way compares to what the Republicans have done to start this mess in the first place. The Dems are simply using the Republican demand for negotiations to get in a few points of their own.

Sorry...this is It's a lesser degree of the same issue.

Well we will have to agree to disagree here. The fact that I was wrong about the sequester facts makes me reconsider your position and grant it more respect than I previously did. I don't blame you for believing as you do. But ultimately I still think you're incorrect here.

 

[timschochet]

So as much as it pains me to admit it, Joe T is correct and I was wrong about this.

Sig worthy.

It is, because it's so rare.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

So as much as it pains me to admit it, Joe T is correct and I was wrong about this.

Sig worthy.

It is, because it's so rare.

Tim admitting he is wrong, I agree.

 

[jamny]

Forest for the trees again Tim.

 

[jon_mx]

So we are going to just endless extend our debt ceiling with no plan to stop our endless spiral into certain death. Simply brilliant. God I hate Washington.

Not sure what you're hoping for here. Even if the most conservative Republicans in the House got their way with regard to spending, we would still have to raise the debt ceiling for the next decade at least. There is simply no means to cut enough spending not to.

In addition, maybe it won't spiral us into "certain death." Like you, I've always been concerned that it would, but progressives like Krugman argue that, as a percentage of our overall GDP, our current spending is not especially high, and that it will not hurt our economy in the long run- in fact, it might actually benefit us, as it did during and after World War II. It;s an interesting argument...

WWII was a different time. We spent money on infrastructure which could be supported by our expanding population and growing economy. Now we have an aging population which is becoming more and more dependent on government. We have to start fixing things now when it is still manageable. Of course we have to extend the debt ceiling, but we need to start taking baby steps towards some kind of fiscal solution.

 

[Scoresman]

http://i.imgur.com/T66sRiv.jpg

 

[RCon]

Have the Republicans offered to raise the debt ceiling with no conditions? Because if they did, the Democrats would not refuse. Therefore, all of your points are completely bogus.

The NY Times article (and others) disagree with you that the Democrats would not refuse to raise the debt ceiling with no conditions. So, all of my points are spot on.

With a possible default on government obligations just days away, Senate Democratic leaders — believing they have a political advantage in the continuing fiscal impasse — refused Sunday to sign on to any deal that reopens the government but locks in budget cuts for next year.

You just contradicted yourself for the umpteenth time. You wrote "with no conditions", and then posted a quote with A MAJOR CONDITION. Do you even read these quotes before you post them??? ####### hilarious.

I'm not sure I see that as a "condition". Where is "CR of exactly six weeks" written in stone?

Would a "clean CR" for 10 weeks be considered "clean" in your view? How about 18 weeks? How about six months? Why six weeks exactly?

 

[dparker713]

What exactly is the "sequester issue"?? Never understood this. It's law that went into effect because these morons couldn't agree on anything. So what's the actual "issue" here?

The Democrats are now demanding changes be made to that law before they raise the debt ceiling... according to the NY Times as I posted above.

Reading (Comprehension) Is Fundamental

This is just sad at this point.

 

[avoiding injuries]

What exactly is the "sequester issue"?? Never understood this. It's law that went into effect because these morons couldn't agree on anything. So what's the actual "issue" here?

The Democrats are now demanding changes be made to that law before they raise the debt ceiling... according to the NY Times as I posted above.

Read (Comprehension) Is Fundamental

This is just sad at this point.

Read is fundamental?

 

[shader]

I love now all these numbers are now calculated in 8, 10, 50 year increments now to help out the agenda of whatever cause is angling for them

DEMS: WE MADE CONCESSIONS! The plan we just suggested will allow for $100MM in budget cuts!!!* (over the next 49 years, backloaded)

REPS: WE MADE CONCESSIONS! The plan we just suggested will allow for $100MM in tax increases!!!* (over the next 49 years, backloaded)

Exactly. There is no such thing as a spending cut that lasts ten years. The next Congress can come in and completely overrule that spending cut. The only cuts that have value are those that take place in the current years. Anything in the future is just pure fantasy.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

What exactly is the "sequester issue"?? Never understood this. It's law that went into effect because these morons couldn't agree on anything. So what's the actual "issue" here?

The Democrats are now demanding changes be made to that law before they raise the debt ceiling... according to the NY Times as I posted above.

Read (Comprehension) Is Fundamental

This is just sad at this point.

Read is fundamental?

Ha. I guess Write is Fundamental too.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I love now all these numbers are now calculated in 8, 10, 50 year increments now to help out the agenda of whatever cause is angling for them

DEMS: WE MADE CONCESSIONS! The plan we just suggested will allow for $100MM in budget cuts!!!* (over the next 49 years, backloaded)

REPS: WE MADE CONCESSIONS! The plan we just suggested will allow for $100MM in tax increases!!!* (over the next 49 years, backloaded)

Exactly. There is no such thing as a spending cut that lasts ten years. The next Congress can come in and completely overrule that spending cut. The only cuts that have value are those that take place in the current years. Anything in the future is just pure fantasy.

Except that most big legislation is really hard to push through and often passes because of a unique set of circumstances present at the time. Add in the higher bar that comes with UNdoing something and it's not as easy as you make it sound to revisit things.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Tea Partiers are the most enthusiastic advocates of America's system of government, with its divided powers, checks and balances and representative government. So it's ironic that their innovative organizing techniques have revealed a major weakness in America's system of government.

Republican members of Congress feel intense pressure from tea party activists to stick to a principled conservative agenda. Any deviation from the conservative line is met with a flood of phone calls and a credible threat of a primary challenge.

But Democrats control the Senate and the White House. They're not interested in signing onto the tea party's conservative agenda. And traditionally, this kind of standoff has been resolved by compromise. Leaders from both sides would negotiate a compromise and then sell it to their members.

But largely thanks to the tea party, House Speaker John Boehner doesn't have much leverage over his members. He can't credibly offer to compromise with President Obama. As Obama has realized that, he has become less and less willing to compromise himself, leading to the current standoff.

Our system of divided powers often requires negotiation. And negotiation works best when all parties don't just think about the present, but also the future. Good negotiators want to get the best deal they can today, but they also try to build a relationship that will make it easier to reach the next deal. That means being willing to meet the other party halfway and looking for deals that are good for both sides.

But what do you do when you offer concessions and the other party doesn't reciprocate? For the past two and a half years, Barack Obama has faced this dilemma. He has offered concessions to help reach agreement with Republican leaders, but they haven't reciprocated. To the contrary, each time Democrats have agreed to cut spending, House Republicans have used the new figure as a new baseline for the next round of negotiation.

In 2011, Democrats agreed to $39 billion in cuts (in one fiscal year) to avert a government shutdown. A few months later, they agreed to an additional $2.1 trillion in cuts (over 10 years) as part of a deal to raise the debt ceiling.

The majority of those cuts took the form of across-the-board "sequestration"— indiscriminate cuts to virtually all discretionary programs. A "supercommittee" was supposed to come up with a more sensible package of cuts. But negotiations failed, so spending cuts were due to kick in at the start of 2013. A last-minute deal in January delayed those cuts until March, but the parties couldn't agree on a plan to replace them.

The result of all this cutting is that, adjusted for inflation, discretionary spending levels have fallen dramatically in the past three years.

The new, lower level of spending then became the Democratic position in the latest round of negotiations. House Republicans wanted spending to stay at the lower post-sequester levels and they wanted to delay Obamacare by a year.

Meanwhile, Republicans have not given an inch on Democrats' desires for higher tax revenue. Taxes did go up for high earners at the start of 2013, but that increase was scheduled by Congress more than a decade ago. Republicans have steadfastly opposed any other proposals to increase tax revenue.

And despite Democrats' flexibility, there seems to be no end in sight for the Republicans' strategy of perpetual brinksmanship. So far, the GOP has tried to use the threat of shutdown or default to extract policy concessions in March 2011, August 2011, February 2013, March 2013 and now October 2013. There's every reason to think that if Obama had made more concessions last month to avert a shutdown, Republicans would have come back for even more in 2014.

In short, Obama is negotiating with a party that always demands further concessions and is never willing to reciprocate. After a certain number of rounds of this, any rational negotiator is going to dig in his heels and refuse to give more ground.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Has anyone mentioned bombing Syria yet? I was gone over the weekend.

TIA

TIS

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Sounds like they're getting close to a deal:

Emerging from a closed-door meeting with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NY) told reporters that the sides were making progress on a deal to end the government shutdown and raise the debt limit and that he hoped to have a plan ready for a Monday afternoon meeting at the White House.

"I hope so," Reid said when asked if a proposal would be ready for a 3 p.m. meeting with himself, McConnell, President Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).

"We're getting closer," he said. Reid and McConnell met for about half an hour Monday in McConnell's office.

According to Politico, Reid has made McConnell an offer that would include re-opening the government for a shorter period, until some time in December, while extending the debt limit for a longer period, between six and nine months. Senate Democrats are also open to delaying Obamacare's medical device tax and adding requirements that people who receive tax credits through the law have their income verified -- but only in exchange for some concessions from Republicans, according to the report.

Some of Reid's Democratic colleagues were more optimistic after another short meeting in Reid's office.

"Very encouraging, very encouraging," Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) told reporters. "Everyone's just hopeful that things work out the way they should. The most promising thing is we're moving in the right direction."

 

[snogger]

Sounds like they're getting close to a deal:

Emerging from a closed-door meeting with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NY) told reporters that the sides were making progress on a deal to end the government shutdown and raise the debt limit and that he hoped to have a plan ready for a Monday afternoon meeting at the White House.

"I hope so," Reid said when asked if a proposal would be ready for a 3 p.m. meeting with himself, McConnell, President Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).

"We're getting closer," he said. Reid and McConnell met for about half an hour Monday in McConnell's office.

According to Politico, Reid has made McConnell an offer that would include re-opening the government for a shorter period, until some time in December, while extending the debt limit for a longer period, between six and nine months. Senate Democrats are also open to delaying Obamacare's medical device tax and adding requirements that people who receive tax credits through the law have their income verified -- but only in exchange for some concessions from Republicans, according to the report.

Some of Reid's Democratic colleagues were more optimistic after another short meeting in Reid's office.

"Very encouraging, very encouraging," Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) told reporters. "Everyone's just hopeful that things work out the way they should. The most promising thing is we're moving in the right direction."

The question there is.. what other concessions??