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

[Yankee23Fan]

Fun fact for the right wingers today.

The first debt ceiling legislation (not really close to its current form though) was created/passed in 1917.

The massive change to the legislation that has resulted in the system we have (although obviously not nearly that much of a problem until recent history) was done in 1939.

Democrats in the White House both times. It's been their play for the past 100 years. They probably started WWI and WWII just to get these bills passed. Well played, Ms. Pelosi. Well played.

 

[Joe T]

Markets are nervous this morning.

DJIA +93.68

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I hope HBO makes a movie about this like a sequel for Too Big to Fail.

Oooh, that's the answer. Someone needs to meet with Warren Buffet at an ice cream store and get him to buy................. I don't know, something. That worked last time, didn't it?

 

[Redwes25]

I hope HBO makes a movie about this like a sequel for Too Big to Fail.

Oooh, that's the answer. Someone needs to meet with Warren Buffet at an ice cream store and get him to buy................. I don't know, something. That worked last time, didn't it?

It sure worked for Buffet

 

[timschochet]

Markets are nervous this morning.

DJIA +93.68

That's because they're confident your side will lose.

 

[badmojo1006]

If the Senate does reach a deal, we will see how passionate Ted Cruz is about his convictions. The Senate can pass the bill unanimously, but if one Senator objects, there is a mandatory 30 hours of debate.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

The fear mongers are in quite the tizzy this morning.

I love how you think this is not affecting Americans. I take calls from members who are impacted greatly by not getting checks. This is no more fear mongering than the Republicans saying that President Obama is is creating death panels or that he is wanting to see America fail.

I don't think you understand what fear mongering is.

Are 10% of Americans affected?

Are 1% of Americans affected?

Please do tell.

 

[jon_mx]

LOL at this stupid woman senator on CNN. 'We have to get control of our debt'. Hey #######, it will always grow. It has to grow. The country cannot function without it growing. We instantly go into a recession.

Funny, we had budget surpluses before but we did not have these instant recessions you refer to. Enlighten us with your vast knowledge of economics.

You got it. It's called Modern Monetary Theory. You should read about it rather than listening to these idiots on tv saying that we need to cut spending. It simply cannot happen. Right now you are seeing the impact of this. The shutdown is estimated to be costing the economy $300 million per day. How long do you think that can go on before another epic recession?

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-02-18/business/35442562_1_john-kenneth-galbraith-budget-surplus-economists

If the government is running a surplus, money is accruing in government coffers rather than in the hands of ordinary people and companies, where it might be spent and help the economy.

There is a reason we are the largest consumers in the world. Without us, the world economy collapses. It's actually genius, shipping jobs out of the country. Therefore we can spend as much as we want. The rest of the world can do nothing about it but go along with it. What you see on tv is simply for show. They all know it already. I know it. Now you know it.

Oh, by the way, $16 TRILLION is staring right at you if you don't believe this. Are we bankrupt? Nope and not even close.

Pretty much the same type of head in the sand logic which lead to the real estate meltdown and subsequent mortgage/banking crisis. Yes, some debt is fine. But we are headed to a point where it will not be. We have rapidly increasing debt and and aging population which is going to consume more and more of our government. The burdon which is going to placed on future genreations will be enrormous. What happens when our debt and expenditures require more than 50% of all income to be taxed? It is not a pretty future. People will become less willing to want to take on our debt and the interest rates will rise and rise. People will be less willing to work, because most of their income will be taken by the government. But go ahead and keep convincing yourself it is just imaginary and everything is rosey..

 

[Sweet J]

If the Senate does reach a deal, we will see how passionate Ted Cruz is about his convictions. The Senate can pass the bill unanimously, but if one Senator objects, there is a mandatory 30 hours of debate.

Really? I thought Senate could overrule a fillibuster with 60 votes?

 

[shader]

An 11th hour deal. I'm shocked!

 

[Joe T]

Markets are nervous this morning.

DJIA +93.68

That's because they're confident your side will lose.

My side: The US will not default. Everyone calm down.

I'm pretty sure this is not a losing side.

 

[Joe T]

CEO of JP Morgan

“The United States cannot default and, in my opinion, will not default,” JPMorgan Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon said

Agree.

I hope they get this wrapped up by the weekend so that I can go to the lake.

Bump for Tim. My "side" is posted clearly above.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

If the Senate does reach a deal, we will see how passionate Ted Cruz is about his convictions. The Senate can pass the bill unanimously, but if one Senator objects, there is a mandatory 30 hours of debate.

Really? I thought Senate could overrule a fillibuster with 60 votes?

It's not a fillibuster.

The parlimentary games that the Congress plays with itself are really interesting - to me anyway. The only job I've ever really wanted badly was a research position with the New Jersey legislature focusing on the parlimentary proceedings of the chamber for different bills and debates and whatnot. The kind of work where you spend five weeks in one paragraph of a 100 year old book looking for a semicolon. I would enjoy that. Would definately love to do it in Washington. Short of being a Supreme Court Justice (and there is about a .00000000000000000000000000000000009 chance of that happening) I would love to be the floor parlimentarian in the House.

 

[[icon]]

Take this for what it's worth which is tenuous at best...

A buddy just messaged me something about a military base in Missouri receiving "martial law" signage. He wouldn't go into much more detail but there ya go...

Before you lunatics try to paint me as some tinfoil hatter:

I don't forsee marshall law... I don't think Obama is out to get us... I don't think this is was part of some master plan... I give the signs arrival about 75% chance of being true (guy is merely an acquaintance, though he does indeed work at a base and in a capacity that he'd likely see this sorta stuff).

Even IF there is signage being distributed I'd wager it's more of a broad stroke precautionary measure than anything... but it's interesting to me nonetheless.

 

[[icon]]

Markets are nervous this morning.

DJIA +93.68

That's because they're confident your side will lose.

<---- BOTH morons... HTH.

 

[timschochet]

Markets are nervous this morning.

DJIA +93.68

That's because they're confident your side will lose.

My side: The US will not default. Everyone calm down.

I'm pretty sure this is not a losing side.

Thankfully it's very likely now that it won't happen. But that's because the Tea Party politicians will be outvoted.

As to your side, it was my impression that you were sympathetic to Tea Party goals and tactics. Is this not accurate?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Take this for what it's worth which is tenuous at best...

A buddy just messaged me something about a military base in Missouri receiving "marshall law" signage. He wouldn't go into much more detail but there ya go...

Before you lunatics try to paint me as some tinfoil hatter:

I don't forsee marshall law... I don't think Obama is out to get us... I don't think this is was part of some master plan... I give the signs arrival about 75% chance of being true (guy is merely an acquaintance, though he does indeed work at a base and in a capacity that he'd likely see this sorta stuff).

Even IF there is signage being distributed I'd wager it's more of a broad stroke precautionary measure than anything... but it's interesting to me nonetheless.

It's good planning. A segment of our population has already shown that they are n-v-t-s nuts. When the shutdown leads to the ceiling being breached, there will be uninformed ignorant panic. In small spurts it might not do anything except get some people some free flat screens at best. But at worst it could spread quickly Walking Dead style and at that point, it's clear that using the United States military to put down an armed insurrection against the government that is shut down and isn't funded and has no money to pay its bills is clearly the best way to handle the situation.

Did I get everyone in there? I can add more....

 

[Joe T]

Markets are nervous this morning.

DJIA +93.68

That's because they're confident your side will lose.

My side: The US will not default. Everyone calm down.

I'm pretty sure this is not a losing side.

Thankfully it's very likely now that it won't happen. But that's because the Tea Party politicians will be outvoted.

As to your side, it was my impression that you were sympathetic to Tea Party goals and tactics. Is this not accurate?

Not accurate.

Part of your normal operating procedure is to blame the Tea Party for every existing problem on Earth and then trying to lump anyone that disagrees with you into that party.

I've never once suggested that playing games with the debt ceiling was a good idea. But for some reason you continue to think I sympathize with that "side".

 

[timschochet]

The Wall Street Journal speaks out:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304561004579137791687537388

The Beltway budget melodrama rolls on to its predictable and dreary end, with both sides now split over increasingly small differences. None of this is worth a partial government shutdown, much less the risk of a debt default, and both sides are looking like losers. Let's get it over with.

As we went to press Tuesday night, Republican leaders in the House had abandoned a plan to pass a debt-increase bill that was nearly identical to the one that Senate leaders agreed to on Monday. The main differences were funding the government only through December 15, rather than January 15 in the Senate bill, and a provision to require Members of Congress and their staff to live by ObamaCare's subsidies.

None of that was enough to please the small band of 20 or so House conservatives who have been all but running the House since this fiasco began. They refused to support House Speaker John Boehner and even Budget Chairman Paul Ryan. Another 30 or so Members were tired of getting kicked around by Heritage Action and Senator Ted Cruz and want the whole thing settled. With Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi keeping her troops in line for a no vote, GOP leaders pulled the bill from the floor.

The conservatives thus undermined whatever small leverage the House GOP had left. Without a united majority of 218 votes, Republicans might as well hand the Speaker's gavel to Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid. Senate leaders announced immediately that they would resume negotiating to finish a deal that they would bring to the floor as early as Wednesday.

We should add that House Republicans also blundered in refusing to accept the Senate proposal to delay a reinsurance tax of about $60 a year per insured person. Democrats originally passed this tax to help float ObamaCare's exchanges. Insurers pay the per capita fee, which they can pass along to consumers in higher premiums, and the fee goes to a fund that then pays back the insurers if they end up with a mix of patients with higher than average claims.

House Republicans objected to the delay in the tax because unions supported the delay for their own insurance plans, but that was short-sighted. Senate Democrats were willing to delay the tax for a year to please labor and in return agree to better income verification for Americans who apply for ObamaCare subsidies. So out of political pique, House Republicans opposed two ways to make ObamaCare less destructive. Senate Republicans should try to retain it in their compromise.

This is the quality of thinking—or lack thereof—that has afflicted many GOP conservatives from the beginning of this budget showdown. They picked a goal they couldn't achieve in trying to defund ObamaCare from one House of Congress, and then they picked a means they couldn't sustain politically by pursuing a long government shutdown and threatening to blow through the debt limit.

President Obama called their bluff, no doubt in part to blame the disruption on the GOP and further tarnish the party's public image. Now the most Republicans will get out of this is lower public approval and a chance to negotiate with Mr. Obama again before the next debt-limit deadline. If the Senate passes its compromise, Mr. Boehner will have little choice other than to bring it to the floor and let it pass with votes from either party. Mr. Obama will have to deliver enough Democratic votes to pass it.

At least that's better than getting the blame for whatever happens if Treasury stops sending out Social Security checks in order to prioritize debt repayments. The politics of that are little better than defaulting on debt. Republicans can best help their cause now by getting this over with and moving on to fight more intelligently another day.

 

[timschochet]

Markets are nervous this morning.

DJIA +93.68

That's because they're confident your side will lose.

My side: The US will not default. Everyone calm down.

I'm pretty sure this is not a losing side.

Thankfully it's very likely now that it won't happen. But that's because the Tea Party politicians will be outvoted.

As to your side, it was my impression that you were sympathetic to Tea Party goals and tactics. Is this not accurate?

Not accurate.

Part of your normal operating procedure is to blame the Tea Party for every existing problem on Earth and then trying to lump anyone that disagrees with you into that party.

I've never once suggested that playing games with the debt ceiling was a good idea. But for some reason you continue to think I sympathize with that "side".

You have posted in this thread several times, and never once criticized what the Republicans were doing. Instead, you mocked anyone who believed that going over the debt limit was a big deal. This would cause anyone reading to reasonably assume that you were on the Tea Party side. But if that was wrong, I apologize.

 

[shader]

The Wall Street Journal speaks out:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304561004579137791687537388

The Beltway budget melodrama rolls on to its predictable and dreary end, with both sides now split over increasingly small differences. None of this is worth a partial government shutdown, much less the risk of a debt default, and both sides are looking like losers. Let's get it over with.

As we went to press Tuesday night, Republican leaders in the House had abandoned a plan to pass a debt-increase bill that was nearly identical to the one that Senate leaders agreed to on Monday. The main differences were funding the government only through December 15, rather than January 15 in the Senate bill, and a provision to require Members of Congress and their staff to live by ObamaCare's subsidies.

None of that was enough to please the small band of 20 or so House conservatives who have been all but running the House since this fiasco began. They refused to support House Speaker John Boehner and even Budget Chairman Paul Ryan. Another 30 or so Members were tired of getting kicked around by Heritage Action and Senator Ted Cruz and want the whole thing settled. With Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi keeping her troops in line for a no vote, GOP leaders pulled the bill from the floor.

The conservatives thus undermined whatever small leverage the House GOP had left. Without a united majority of 218 votes, Republicans might as well hand the Speaker's gavel to Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid. Senate leaders announced immediately that they would resume negotiating to finish a deal that they would bring to the floor as early as Wednesday.

We should add that House Republicans also blundered in refusing to accept the Senate proposal to delay a reinsurance tax of about $60 a year per insured person. Democrats originally passed this tax to help float ObamaCare's exchanges. Insurers pay the per capita fee, which they can pass along to consumers in higher premiums, and the fee goes to a fund that then pays back the insurers if they end up with a mix of patients with higher than average claims.

House Republicans objected to the delay in the tax because unions supported the delay for their own insurance plans, but that was short-sighted. Senate Democrats were willing to delay the tax for a year to please labor and in return agree to better income verification for Americans who apply for ObamaCare subsidies. So out of political pique, House Republicans opposed two ways to make ObamaCare less destructive. Senate Republicans should try to retain it in their compromise.

This is the quality of thinking—or lack thereof—that has afflicted many GOP conservatives from the beginning of this budget showdown. They picked a goal they couldn't achieve in trying to defund ObamaCare from one House of Congress, and then they picked a means they couldn't sustain politically by pursuing a long government shutdown and threatening to blow through the debt limit.

President Obama called their bluff, no doubt in part to blame the disruption on the GOP and further tarnish the party's public image. Now the most Republicans will get out of this is lower public approval and a chance to negotiate with Mr. Obama again before the next debt-limit deadline. If the Senate passes its compromise, Mr. Boehner will have little choice other than to bring it to the floor and let it pass with votes from either party. Mr. Obama will have to deliver enough Democratic votes to pass it.

At least that's better than getting the blame for whatever happens if Treasury stops sending out Social Security checks in order to prioritize debt repayments. The politics of that are little better than defaulting on debt. Republicans can best help their cause now by getting this over with and moving on to fight more intelligently another day.

There is no risk of a "debt default". Of all the things I've learned in the past few weeks reading up on this, that is one thing that grates at me the most. The fact that journalists and people who should take the time to learn these things, don't.

There is a risk of a financial meltdown, of stock market panics, and loss of benefits, ie social security, medicare, etc. But there is no risk of a default on the debt. That simply can't happen because tax receipts are more than enough to pay the debt and the interest, and that MUST be paid first.

If I'm wrong, I apologize. But this is what I understand the truth to be, and the inaccuracy of reporting shouldn't surprise me, but still does.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

This is awesome:

One Republican senator who wished to remain anonymous said, “The House of Representatives couldn’t pass a True/False quiz if you told them all of the answers on the quiz were “true.” The entire branch is broken. They give a whole new meaning to the phrase “inefficient government,” and they’ve taken it to a level never before seen in the history of our great country.” #HORIncompetence

 

[TheIronSheik]

Take this for what it's worth which is tenuous at best...

A buddy just messaged me something about a military base in Missouri receiving "marshall law" signage. He wouldn't go into much more detail but there ya go...

Before you lunatics try to paint me as some tinfoil hatter:

I don't forsee marshall law... I don't think Obama is out to get us... I don't think this is was part of some master plan... I give the signs arrival about 75% chance of being true (guy is merely an acquaintance, though he does indeed work at a base and in a capacity that he'd likely see this sorta stuff).

Even IF there is signage being distributed I'd wager it's more of a broad stroke precautionary measure than anything... but it's interesting to me nonetheless.

It's good planning. A segment of our population has already shown that they are n-v-t-s nuts. When the shutdown leads to the ceiling being breached, there will be uninformed ignorant panic. In small spurts it might not do anything except get some people some free flat screens at best. But at worst it could spread quickly Walking Dead style and at that point, it's clear that using the United States military to put down an armed insurrection against the government that is shut down and isn't funded and has no money to pay its bills is clearly the best way to handle the situation.

Did I get everyone in there? I can add more....

I'm in for a coup. Who's with me?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Take this for what it's worth which is tenuous at best...

A buddy just messaged me something about a military base in Missouri receiving "marshall law" signage. He wouldn't go into much more detail but there ya go...

Before you lunatics try to paint me as some tinfoil hatter:

I don't forsee marshall law... I don't think Obama is out to get us... I don't think this is was part of some master plan... I give the signs arrival about 75% chance of being true (guy is merely an acquaintance, though he does indeed work at a base and in a capacity that he'd likely see this sorta stuff).

Even IF there is signage being distributed I'd wager it's more of a broad stroke precautionary measure than anything... but it's interesting to me nonetheless.

It's good planning. A segment of our population has already shown that they are n-v-t-s nuts. When the shutdown leads to the ceiling being breached, there will be uninformed ignorant panic. In small spurts it might not do anything except get some people some free flat screens at best. But at worst it could spread quickly Walking Dead style and at that point, it's clear that using the United States military to put down an armed insurrection against the government that is shut down and isn't funded and has no money to pay its bills is clearly the best way to handle the situation.

Did I get everyone in there? I can add more....

I'm in for a coup. Who's with me?

I am so there...... http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/1961-Coupe-de-Ville-on-double-dubs-side.jpg

 

[Fennis]

The guy who collects bitcoins is telling people the sky isn’t falling, when there is a looming disaster. If that’s not a sign of the apocalypse I don’t know what is.

 

[timschochet]

The Wall Street Journal speaks out:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304561004579137791687537388

The Beltway budget melodrama rolls on to its predictable and dreary end, with both sides now split over increasingly small differences. None of this is worth a partial government shutdown, much less the risk of a debt default, and both sides are looking like losers. Let's get it over with.

As we went to press Tuesday night, Republican leaders in the House had abandoned a plan to pass a debt-increase bill that was nearly identical to the one that Senate leaders agreed to on Monday. The main differences were funding the government only through December 15, rather than January 15 in the Senate bill, and a provision to require Members of Congress and their staff to live by ObamaCare's subsidies.

None of that was enough to please the small band of 20 or so House conservatives who have been all but running the House since this fiasco began. They refused to support House Speaker John Boehner and even Budget Chairman Paul Ryan. Another 30 or so Members were tired of getting kicked around by Heritage Action and Senator Ted Cruz and want the whole thing settled. With Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi keeping her troops in line for a no vote, GOP leaders pulled the bill from the floor.

The conservatives thus undermined whatever small leverage the House GOP had left. Without a united majority of 218 votes, Republicans might as well hand the Speaker's gavel to Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid. Senate leaders announced immediately that they would resume negotiating to finish a deal that they would bring to the floor as early as Wednesday.

We should add that House Republicans also blundered in refusing to accept the Senate proposal to delay a reinsurance tax of about $60 a year per insured person. Democrats originally passed this tax to help float ObamaCare's exchanges. Insurers pay the per capita fee, which they can pass along to consumers in higher premiums, and the fee goes to a fund that then pays back the insurers if they end up with a mix of patients with higher than average claims.

House Republicans objected to the delay in the tax because unions supported the delay for their own insurance plans, but that was short-sighted. Senate Democrats were willing to delay the tax for a year to please labor and in return agree to better income verification for Americans who apply for ObamaCare subsidies. So out of political pique, House Republicans opposed two ways to make ObamaCare less destructive. Senate Republicans should try to retain it in their compromise.

This is the quality of thinking—or lack thereof—that has afflicted many GOP conservatives from the beginning of this budget showdown. They picked a goal they couldn't achieve in trying to defund ObamaCare from one House of Congress, and then they picked a means they couldn't sustain politically by pursuing a long government shutdown and threatening to blow through the debt limit.

President Obama called their bluff, no doubt in part to blame the disruption on the GOP and further tarnish the party's public image. Now the most Republicans will get out of this is lower public approval and a chance to negotiate with Mr. Obama again before the next debt-limit deadline. If the Senate passes its compromise, Mr. Boehner will have little choice other than to bring it to the floor and let it pass with votes from either party. Mr. Obama will have to deliver enough Democratic votes to pass it.

At least that's better than getting the blame for whatever happens if Treasury stops sending out Social Security checks in order to prioritize debt repayments. The politics of that are little better than defaulting on debt. Republicans can best help their cause now by getting this over with and moving on to fight more intelligently another day.

There is no risk of a "debt default". Of all the things I've learned in the past few weeks reading up on this, that is one thing that grates at me the most. The fact that journalists and people who should take the time to learn these things, don't.

There is a risk of a financial meltdown, of stock market panics, and loss of benefits, ie social security, medicare, etc. But there is no risk of a default on the debt. That simply can't happen because tax receipts are more than enough to pay the debt and the interest, and that MUST be paid first.

If I'm wrong, I apologize. But this is what I understand the truth to be, and the inaccuracy of reporting shouldn't surprise me, but still does.

I think you're wrong, and here's why. Despite the 14th Amendment, I believe that if the federal government had to at some point decide between servicing the debt and paying Social Security checks, they MIGHT do the latter with the hope that defaulting for a few days or weeks on the debt wouldn't be too catastrophic, because the world would have to assume that at some point we would make good on what was due. But the Social Security recipients couldn't afford to be without their checks even for a few weeks. So given that situation, it's not unreasonable to think we might default.

 

[Fennis]

Take this for what it's worth which is tenuous at best...

A buddy just messaged me something about a military base in Missouri receiving "marshall law" signage. He wouldn't go into much more detail but there ya go...

Before you lunatics try to paint me as some tinfoil hatter:

I don't forsee marshall law... I don't think Obama is out to get us... I don't think this is was part of some master plan... I give the signs arrival about 75% chance of being true (guy is merely an acquaintance, though he does indeed work at a base and in a capacity that he'd likely see this sorta stuff).

Even IF there is signage being distributed I'd wager it's more of a broad stroke precautionary measure than anything... but it's interesting to me nonetheless.

If I had a bitcoin for every time some nut said Obama was declaring martial law, I would be worth a million schrute bucks.

 

[msommer]

Take this for what it's worth which is tenuous at best...

A buddy just messaged me something about a military base in Missouri receiving "marshall law" signage. He wouldn't go into much more detail but there ya go...

Before you lunatics try to paint me as some tinfoil hatter:

I don't forsee marshall law... I don't think Obama is out to get us... I don't think this is was part of some master plan... I give the signs arrival about 75% chance of being true (guy is merely an acquaintance, though he does indeed work at a base and in a capacity that he'd likely see this sorta stuff).

Even IF there is signage being distributed I'd wager it's more of a broad stroke precautionary measure than anything... but it's interesting to me nonetheless.

Spelled like that?

 

[Doctor Detroit]

I wonder if the House had terms greater than 2 years, whether any of this would have happened.

 

[Slapdash]

The Wall Street Journal speaks out:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304561004579137791687537388

The Beltway budget melodrama rolls on to its predictable and dreary end, with both sides now split over increasingly small differences. None of this is worth a partial government shutdown, much less the risk of a debt default, and both sides are looking like losers. Let's get it over with.

As we went to press Tuesday night, Republican leaders in the House had abandoned a plan to pass a debt-increase bill that was nearly identical to the one that Senate leaders agreed to on Monday. The main differences were funding the government only through December 15, rather than January 15 in the Senate bill, and a provision to require Members of Congress and their staff to live by ObamaCare's subsidies.

None of that was enough to please the small band of 20 or so House conservatives who have been all but running the House since this fiasco began. They refused to support House Speaker John Boehner and even Budget Chairman Paul Ryan. Another 30 or so Members were tired of getting kicked around by Heritage Action and Senator Ted Cruz and want the whole thing settled. With Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi keeping her troops in line for a no vote, GOP leaders pulled the bill from the floor.

The conservatives thus undermined whatever small leverage the House GOP had left. Without a united majority of 218 votes, Republicans might as well hand the Speaker's gavel to Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid. Senate leaders announced immediately that they would resume negotiating to finish a deal that they would bring to the floor as early as Wednesday.

We should add that House Republicans also blundered in refusing to accept the Senate proposal to delay a reinsurance tax of about $60 a year per insured person. Democrats originally passed this tax to help float ObamaCare's exchanges. Insurers pay the per capita fee, which they can pass along to consumers in higher premiums, and the fee goes to a fund that then pays back the insurers if they end up with a mix of patients with higher than average claims.

House Republicans objected to the delay in the tax because unions supported the delay for their own insurance plans, but that was short-sighted. Senate Democrats were willing to delay the tax for a year to please labor and in return agree to better income verification for Americans who apply for ObamaCare subsidies. So out of political pique, House Republicans opposed two ways to make ObamaCare less destructive. Senate Republicans should try to retain it in their compromise.

This is the quality of thinking—or lack thereof—that has afflicted many GOP conservatives from the beginning of this budget showdown. They picked a goal they couldn't achieve in trying to defund ObamaCare from one House of Congress, and then they picked a means they couldn't sustain politically by pursuing a long government shutdown and threatening to blow through the debt limit.

President Obama called their bluff, no doubt in part to blame the disruption on the GOP and further tarnish the party's public image. Now the most Republicans will get out of this is lower public approval and a chance to negotiate with Mr. Obama again before the next debt-limit deadline. If the Senate passes its compromise, Mr. Boehner will have little choice other than to bring it to the floor and let it pass with votes from either party. Mr. Obama will have to deliver enough Democratic votes to pass it.

At least that's better than getting the blame for whatever happens if Treasury stops sending out Social Security checks in order to prioritize debt repayments. The politics of that are little better than defaulting on debt. Republicans can best help their cause now by getting this over with and moving on to fight more intelligently another day.

There is no risk of a "debt default". Of all the things I've learned in the past few weeks reading up on this, that is one thing that grates at me the most. The fact that journalists and people who should take the time to learn these things, don't.

There is a risk of a financial meltdown, of stock market panics, and loss of benefits, ie social security, medicare, etc. But there is no risk of a default on the debt. That simply can't happen because tax receipts are more than enough to pay the debt and the interest, and that MUST be paid first.

If I'm wrong, I apologize. But this is what I understand the truth to be, and the inaccuracy of reporting shouldn't surprise me, but still does.

There is nothing stating this.

 

[msommer]

There is a risk of a financial meltdown, of stock market panics, and loss of benefits, ie social security, medicare, etc. But there is no risk of a default on the debt. That simply can't happen because tax receipts are more than enough to pay the debt and the interest, and that MUST be paid first.

If I'm wrong, I apologize. But this is what I understand the truth to be, and the inaccuracy of reporting shouldn't surprise me, but still does.

From what I've read in the past, and in the past few days, there is literally no mechanism for Treasury to pay debt and interest first. Or, for that matter, to give any preferential treatment to any US obligation.

There's also the broader sense in which US default means more than simply not paying its bondholders. If it misses any payment, that is broadly understood to be a default.

Indeed. Also who then doesn't get paid? The Army/Navy/Air Force? The CIA/NSA/FBI? Suggestions?

 

[The Commish]

There is a risk of a financial meltdown, of stock market panics, and loss of benefits, ie social security, medicare, etc. But there is no risk of a default on the debt. That simply can't happen because tax receipts are more than enough to pay the debt and the interest, and that MUST be paid first.

If I'm wrong, I apologize. But this is what I understand the truth to be, and the inaccuracy of reporting shouldn't surprise me, but still does.

From what I've read in the past, and in the past few days, there is literally no mechanism for Treasury to pay debt and interest first. Or, for that matter, to give any preferential treatment to any US obligation.

There's also the broader sense in which US default means more than simply not paying its bondholders. If it misses any payment, that is broadly understood to be a default.

Indeed. Also who then doesn't get paid? The Army/Navy/Air Force? The CIA/NSA/FBI? Suggestions?

How about the Senate and the House???

 

[Fennis]

The Wall Street Journal speaks out:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304561004579137791687537388

The Beltway budget melodrama rolls on to its predictable and dreary end, with both sides now split over increasingly small differences. None of this is worth a partial government shutdown, much less the risk of a debt default, and both sides are looking like losers. Let's get it over with.

As we went to press Tuesday night, Republican leaders in the House had abandoned a plan to pass a debt-increase bill that was nearly identical to the one that Senate leaders agreed to on Monday. The main differences were funding the government only through December 15, rather than January 15 in the Senate bill, and a provision to require Members of Congress and their staff to live by ObamaCare's subsidies.

None of that was enough to please the small band of 20 or so House conservatives who have been all but running the House since this fiasco began. They refused to support House Speaker John Boehner and even Budget Chairman Paul Ryan. Another 30 or so Members were tired of getting kicked around by Heritage Action and Senator Ted Cruz and want the whole thing settled. With Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi keeping her troops in line for a no vote, GOP leaders pulled the bill from the floor.

The conservatives thus undermined whatever small leverage the House GOP had left. Without a united majority of 218 votes, Republicans might as well hand the Speaker's gavel to Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid. Senate leaders announced immediately that they would resume negotiating to finish a deal that they would bring to the floor as early as Wednesday.

We should add that House Republicans also blundered in refusing to accept the Senate proposal to delay a reinsurance tax of about $60 a year per insured person. Democrats originally passed this tax to help float ObamaCare's exchanges. Insurers pay the per capita fee, which they can pass along to consumers in higher premiums, and the fee goes to a fund that then pays back the insurers if they end up with a mix of patients with higher than average claims.

House Republicans objected to the delay in the tax because unions supported the delay for their own insurance plans, but that was short-sighted. Senate Democrats were willing to delay the tax for a year to please labor and in return agree to better income verification for Americans who apply for ObamaCare subsidies. So out of political pique, House Republicans opposed two ways to make ObamaCare less destructive. Senate Republicans should try to retain it in their compromise.

This is the quality of thinking—or lack thereof—that has afflicted many GOP conservatives from the beginning of this budget showdown. They picked a goal they couldn't achieve in trying to defund ObamaCare from one House of Congress, and then they picked a means they couldn't sustain politically by pursuing a long government shutdown and threatening to blow through the debt limit.

President Obama called their bluff, no doubt in part to blame the disruption on the GOP and further tarnish the party's public image. Now the most Republicans will get out of this is lower public approval and a chance to negotiate with Mr. Obama again before the next debt-limit deadline. If the Senate passes its compromise, Mr. Boehner will have little choice other than to bring it to the floor and let it pass with votes from either party. Mr. Obama will have to deliver enough Democratic votes to pass it.

At least that's better than getting the blame for whatever happens if Treasury stops sending out Social Security checks in order to prioritize debt repayments. The politics of that are little better than defaulting on debt. Republicans can best help their cause now by getting this over with and moving on to fight more intelligently another day.

There is no risk of a "debt default". Of all the things I've learned in the past few weeks reading up on this, that is one thing that grates at me the most. The fact that journalists and people who should take the time to learn these things, don't.

There is a risk of a financial meltdown, of stock market panics, and loss of benefits, ie social security, medicare, etc. But there is no risk of a default on the debt. That simply can't happen because tax receipts are more than enough to pay the debt and the interest, and that MUST be paid first.

If I'm wrong, I apologize. But this is what I understand the truth to be, and the inaccuracy of reporting shouldn't surprise me, but still does.

There is nothing stating this.

But that is exactly what the will happen.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I wonder if the House had terms greater than 2 years, whether any of this would have happened.

I thought the same thing about having a true Senate again and getting rid of the 17th Amendment.

 

[Don Quixote]

If the Senate does reach a deal, we will see how passionate Ted Cruz is about his convictions. The Senate can pass the bill unanimously, but if one Senator objects, there is a mandatory 30 hours of debate.

Sounding like House is going to vote first, which just means need 60 votes to cut off debate.

 

[parasaurolophus]

LOL at this stupid woman senator on CNN. 'We have to get control of our debt'. Hey #######, it will always grow. It has to grow. The country cannot function without it growing. We instantly go into a recession.

Funny, we had budget surpluses before but we did not have these instant recessions you refer to. Enlighten us with your vast knowledge of economics.

You got it. It's called Modern Monetary Theory. You should read about it rather than listening to these idiots on tv saying that we need to cut spending. It simply cannot happen. Right now you are seeing the impact of this. The shutdown is estimated to be costing the economy $300 million per day. How long do you think that can go on before another epic recession?

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-02-18/business/35442562_1_john-kenneth-galbraith-budget-surplus-economists

If the government is running a surplus, money is accruing in government coffers rather than in the hands of ordinary people and companies, where it might be spent and help the economy.

There is a reason we are the largest consumers in the world. Without us, the world economy collapses. It's actually genius, shipping jobs out of the country. Therefore we can spend as much as we want. The rest of the world can do nothing about it but go along with it. What you see on tv is simply for show. They all know it already. I know it. Now you know it.

Oh, by the way, $16 TRILLION is staring right at you if you don't believe this. Are we bankrupt? Nope and not even close.

How many jobs could the interest payments we make every year provide?

You people that think the debt is some imaginary number that can never hurt us are bat #### crazy.

 

[msommer]

There is a risk of a financial meltdown, of stock market panics, and loss of benefits, ie social security, medicare, etc. But there is no risk of a default on the debt. That simply can't happen because tax receipts are more than enough to pay the debt and the interest, and that MUST be paid first.

If I'm wrong, I apologize. But this is what I understand the truth to be, and the inaccuracy of reporting shouldn't surprise me, but still does.

From what I've read in the past, and in the past few days, there is literally no mechanism for Treasury to pay debt and interest first. Or, for that matter, to give any preferential treatment to any US obligation.

There's also the broader sense in which US default means more than simply not paying its bondholders. If it misses any payment, that is broadly understood to be a default.

Indeed. Also who then doesn't get paid? The Army/Navy/Air Force? The CIA/NSA/FBI? Suggestions?

How about the Senate and the House???

Does that cover the required increase in the debt ceiling?

 

[parasaurolophus]

The guy who collects bitcoins is telling people the sky isn’t falling, when there is a looming disaster. If that’s not a sign of the apocalypse I don’t know what is.

Doesnt he mine them?

 

[The Commish]

There is a risk of a financial meltdown, of stock market panics, and loss of benefits, ie social security, medicare, etc. But there is no risk of a default on the debt. That simply can't happen because tax receipts are more than enough to pay the debt and the interest, and that MUST be paid first.

If I'm wrong, I apologize. But this is what I understand the truth to be, and the inaccuracy of reporting shouldn't surprise me, but still does.

From what I've read in the past, and in the past few days, there is literally no mechanism for Treasury to pay debt and interest first. Or, for that matter, to give any preferential treatment to any US obligation.

There's also the broader sense in which US default means more than simply not paying its bondholders. If it misses any payment, that is broadly understood to be a default.

Indeed. Also who then doesn't get paid? The Army/Navy/Air Force? The CIA/NSA/FBI? Suggestions?

How about the Senate and the House???

Does that cover the required increase in the debt ceiling?

Doubt it...no reason their pay can't be part of it though.

 

[timschochet]

Boehner to allow a vote on the Senate deal, neutering Cruz's ability to stop it.

And with that bit of news, the last obstacles are defeated. If this is true, the government will be open by tomorrow and the debt ceiling no longer an issue.

This has been a TOTAL defeat for the Tea Party, though they are sure to blame everyone else. It will be interesting to see what happens now to the GOP.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

The guy who collects bitcoins is telling people the sky isn’t falling, when there is a looming disaster. If that’s not a sign of the apocalypse I don’t know what is.

I fear for our children, you fear for the sky falling and technological advancements.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

I wonder if the House had terms greater than 2 years, whether any of this would have happened.

I thought the same thing about having a true Senate again and getting rid of the 17th Amendment.

Interesting. So how do you think going back to the old way would fix the current problems in Washington? Do you think those in the Senate sent forth by their State legislatures would be more apt to compromise and govern, or does it have more to do with the power of one elected official over time?

 

[timschochet]

Several sources suggesting that once this situation has been resolved, Obama, the Democrats, and establishment Republicans are going to work together to get immigration reform through the weakened House.

 

[msommer]

The Wall Street Journal speaks out:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304561004579137791687537388

The Beltway budget melodrama rolls on to its predictable and dreary end, with both sides now split over increasingly small differences. None of this is worth a partial government shutdown, much less the risk of a debt default, and both sides are looking like losers. Let's get it over with.

As we went to press Tuesday night, Republican leaders in the House had abandoned a plan to pass a debt-increase bill that was nearly identical to the one that Senate leaders agreed to on Monday. The main differences were funding the government only through December 15, rather than January 15 in the Senate bill, and a provision to require Members of Congress and their staff to live by ObamaCare's subsidies.

None of that was enough to please the small band of 20 or so House conservatives who have been all but running the House since this fiasco began. They refused to support House Speaker John Boehner and even Budget Chairman Paul Ryan. Another 30 or so Members were tired of getting kicked around by Heritage Action and Senator Ted Cruz and want the whole thing settled. With Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi keeping her troops in line for a no vote, GOP leaders pulled the bill from the floor.

The conservatives thus undermined whatever small leverage the House GOP had left. Without a united majority of 218 votes, Republicans might as well hand the Speaker's gavel to Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid. Senate leaders announced immediately that they would resume negotiating to finish a deal that they would bring to the floor as early as Wednesday.

We should add that House Republicans also blundered in refusing to accept the Senate proposal to delay a reinsurance tax of about $60 a year per insured person. Democrats originally passed this tax to help float ObamaCare's exchanges. Insurers pay the per capita fee, which they can pass along to consumers in higher premiums, and the fee goes to a fund that then pays back the insurers if they end up with a mix of patients with higher than average claims.

House Republicans objected to the delay in the tax because unions supported the delay for their own insurance plans, but that was short-sighted. Senate Democrats were willing to delay the tax for a year to please labor and in return agree to better income verification for Americans who apply for ObamaCare subsidies. So out of political pique, House Republicans opposed two ways to make ObamaCare less destructive. Senate Republicans should try to retain it in their compromise.

This is the quality of thinking—or lack thereof—that has afflicted many GOP conservatives from the beginning of this budget showdown. They picked a goal they couldn't achieve in trying to defund ObamaCare from one House of Congress, and then they picked a means they couldn't sustain politically by pursuing a long government shutdown and threatening to blow through the debt limit.

President Obama called their bluff, no doubt in part to blame the disruption on the GOP and further tarnish the party's public image. Now the most Republicans will get out of this is lower public approval and a chance to negotiate with Mr. Obama again before the next debt-limit deadline. If the Senate passes its compromise, Mr. Boehner will have little choice other than to bring it to the floor and let it pass with votes from either party. Mr. Obama will have to deliver enough Democratic votes to pass it.

At least that's better than getting the blame for whatever happens if Treasury stops sending out Social Security checks in order to prioritize debt repayments. The politics of that are little better than defaulting on debt. Republicans can best help their cause now by getting this over with and moving on to fight more intelligently another day.

There is no risk of a "debt default". Of all the things I've learned in the past few weeks reading up on this, that is one thing that grates at me the most. The fact that journalists and people who should take the time to learn these things, don't.

There is a risk of a financial meltdown, of stock market panics, and loss of benefits, ie social security, medicare, etc. But there is no risk of a default on the debt. That simply can't happen because tax receipts are more than enough to pay the debt and the interest, and that MUST be paid first.

If I'm wrong, I apologize. But this is what I understand the truth to be, and the inaccuracy of reporting shouldn't surprise me, but still does.

There is nothing stating this.

But that is exactly what the will happen.

120 billion due on Thursday, 93 billion the week after that. Estimated 30 left in cash. Doesn't look like that is what will happen

 

[VA703]

move all tsp money into the s fund now

 

[Henry Ford]

Take this for what it's worth which is tenuous at best...

A buddy just messaged me something about a military base in Missouri receiving "marshall law" signage. He wouldn't go into much more detail but there ya go...

Before you lunatics try to paint me as some tinfoil hatter:

I don't forsee marshall law... I don't think Obama is out to get us... I don't think this is was part of some master plan... I give the signs arrival about 75% chance of being true (guy is merely an acquaintance, though he does indeed work at a base and in a capacity that he'd likely see this sorta stuff).

Even IF there is signage being distributed I'd wager it's more of a broad stroke precautionary measure than anything... but it's interesting to me nonetheless.

Spelled like that?

It's not what you think. There's a guy named Marshall who's going to be in charge for awhile. We'll see how it goes.

 

[Soonerman]

Boehner to allow a vote on the Senate deal, neutering Cruz's ability to stop it.

And with that bit of news, the last obstacles are defeated. If this is true, the government will be open by tomorrow and the debt ceiling no longer an issue.

This has been a TOTAL defeat for the Tea Party, though they are sure to blame everyone else. It will be interesting to see what happens now to the GOP.

Hopefully the Republican Party goes away. They are completely useless.

The mainstream Republicans could join the Democrats, and a smaller more libertarian-oriented party could spring up.

 

[timschochet]

Marshall Faulk?

 

[Fennis]

The guy who collects bitcoins is telling people the sky isn’t falling, when there is a looming disaster. If that’s not a sign of the apocalypse I don’t know what is.

I fear for our children, you fear for the sky falling and technological advancements.

No worries, I have no children and I work in tech.

 

[humpback]

Several sources suggesting that once this situation has been resolved, Obama, the Democrats, and establishment Republicans are going to work together to get immigration reform through the weakened House.