93 replies to this topic

[Wolf O'Donnell]

Well, just read up on the entire topic and I would like to say to the OP that if America's House/Senate were more like the British parliament, you wouldn't be in this mess in the first place. If this sort of thing happens in the UK, a vote of no-confidence is triggered. If the Prime Minister loses that, he MUST resign and Parliament is dissolved. This situation would be far more detrimental to Obama if the Founding Fathers had merely copied the British system.

[Masamune]

That does sound pretty awesome.

 

I have noticed, however, that gas prices are at an all time low this year. Coincidence? I have no idea. 

[SteveT]

If this sort of thing happens in the UK, a vote of no-confidence is triggered. If the Prime Minister loses that, he MUST resign and Parliament is dissolved. This situation would be far more detrimental to Obama if the Founding Fathers had merely copied the British system. 

 

Have you SEEN the Republican Party?  We'd have to find a new government every year.  

 

Anyway, I do have to say that I agree with the Democrats on this one.  Trying to use budget negotiations to repeal a law is just not how our government is supposed to work.  If they got their way, it would set a very dangerous precedent of yearly shutdowns based on partisan wish-lists.

[Chikara Nadir]

Trying to use budget negotiations to repeal a law is just not how our government is supposed to work.  If they got their way, it would set a very dangerous precedent of yearly shutdowns based on partisan wish-lists.

Agreed. My concern lies around the fact that Obamacare already was passed by both the House and Senate, signed by Obama, and appealed to the Supreme Court - who then agreed that it was lawful. Only now that elections have brought in a new set of politicians to the House, they're claiming that this mandate will "Destroy the American way of life" if it is enacted. 

 

Now don't get me wrong. If the Republicans passed a law that went against my beliefs, I would be upset. I would expect it to be appealed, if appeals were due, and if it were so vicious that it needed changes to be made, I would then expect new laws or votes to repeal that law. But I would expect these actions to happen through the proper channels, with the proper votes, not by holding the nation hostage to attempt to prevent the law from taking effect. 

 

What's more, as Steve suggested there's a wishlist that's begun to be drawn of all the various demands that Republicans want to see pass if the Democrats want to see the debt ceiling raised (or at least see the Debt ceiling suspended for one year).

 

If we want to get inflammatory, here's a graph from journalist Bill Moyers that sums up the Democrat's feelings on the topic:

[Wolf O'Donnell]

If this sort of thing happens in the UK, a vote of no-confidence is triggered. If the Prime Minister loses that, he MUST resign and Parliament is dissolved. This situation would be far more detrimental to Obama if the Founding Fathers had merely copied the British system. 

 
Have you SEEN the Republican Party?  We'd have to find a new government every year.

That's separation of power for you. Over here, the upper house (the House of Lords) cannot reject a bill and cannot force the PM to resign. Effectively, the Conservative/Liberal Democrat controlled House of Commons should be able to pass any bill with relative ease. Especially if the party enforces a three line whip; then the Conservative MPs are technically only allowed to vote the way the government wants them to vote or face disciplinary measures.

You'd have to be pretty unpopular to trigger a rebellion in the UK system.

[Selena]

Well, just read up on the entire topic and I would like to say to the OP that if America's House/Senate were more like the British parliament, you wouldn't be in this mess in the first place. If this sort of thing happens in the UK, a vote of no-confidence is triggered. If the Prime Minister loses that, he MUST resign and Parliament is dissolved. This situation would be far more detrimental to Obama if the Founding Fathers had merely copied the British system.

 

You Brits and your parliament! And your NHS! And your Queen! And your TEA!

 

 

Interesting fact -- the early American system was a bit closer to British parliament, actually!

 

At least in the similarities between the House/Senate and House of Commons/House of Lords. Like the House of Lords, early US senators weren't elected by the public. They were appointed. This was because the House -- having been elected by a fickle public -- was more prone to unproductive dramatic fits. The appointed Senate was meant to be the rational counterbalance, especially since senators had to be well-educated in order to receive the post. In the early 1900's, that changed. Now the House and Senate are both elected by the public. Which means there's no longer any functional difference between them.

 

We've never had a proper "vote of no confidence" mechanism, though. Impeachment is our alternative, but it's pretty rare that one of those is successfully carried out. Of course, with things the way they are right now, I'd echo Steve's sentiments that we'd probably have a new president every other week if no-confidence voting was an option.

 

But unlike other countries, we don't have a real safety mechanism for kicking out an ineffective Congress. We have to wait for fixed elections. There's no "abort Congress" button.

 

Courtesy of that whole (inaccurate, if endearing) "AUSTRALIA'S GOVERNMENT SHUT DOWN ONCE, SO THE QUEEN FIRED EVERYONE" meme that's been going around, I researched that whole crisis. Australia's government is set up like ours, to a degree, but they have a mechanism called a "double dissolution" for when their politicians are stuck in deadlock. If a deadlock continues for a specific amount of time, the Governor-General has the power to dismiss both the House and Senate and hold emergency elections.

 

Which sounds like a reasonable safeguard within the confines of our political system.

 

It's pretty dangerous, I think, to not have a way to kick politicians out of office if they crash the entire government. They still get paid during shutdowns. They don't lose their jobs. There's no real "threat" to keep them in line and get things in motion again. They can comfortably endure the storm while the country suffers.

 

 

 

 

edit: Also, Ted Cruz is now saying he's going to use the debt ceiling as leverage in the ongoing crisis. Fantastic! >__>

[Chikara Nadir]

Too true. The only threat that the House/Senate have is that they may not be re-elected next term.

 

But as long as they're able to spin the situation into saying "I did it for your best interest", and follow it up with enough financial backing to out-shout their opponent, they still feel fairly secure. They just need to hope that the constituents of their state still agree with whatever their stance was on the Healthcare bill.

 

Edit: Because nobody has really mentioned this in detail in this thread so far: a lot of people out there are getting outraged by the fact that Congress is still getting paid, the 27th Amendment dictates that Congress cannot change their salary until the following term. It was meant to be a safety device to keep them from constantly voting to increase their pay, but obviously a double-edged sword. Funny, too, because only 3 years later was the first US Gov't shutdown.

[Egann]

I actually don't think this particular shutdown is caused by the constitution structure. It's being exasperated by it, to be sure, but the root cause is the budget. The national debt has indeed exceeded the 100% GDP marker which means our beloved representatives are fighting over who takes the fall for it. 100% of GDP is kind of a tipping point because it's where debt really gets the inertia to go exponential. It's still possible to pay it back, but more likely than not politicians will resort to taxes or inflation. Politicians don't want to do either of those because those both upset the status quo.

 

Of course, partisan politics factor into this, of course. Republicans want the debt bomb to go off because they're basically the minority party, and Democrats don't want it to go off (yet) until they loose the house and senate. Political parties benefit from this kind of nonsense, so rather than fixing it politicians hold it off until the end of their term. This could happen just as easily in a multi-party system as easily as in a two party system: the problem is that the parties are too strong and consistently act in their own interest.

[Jasi]

So I saw someone write on Facebook today, "This shutdown is nothing more than a child (Obama) throwing a temper tantrum because they can't have their way." 

 

Seriously.

 

 

I think I'm going to die of irony overdose.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

So I saw someone write on Facebook today, "This shutdown is nothing more than a child (Obama) throwing a temper tantrum because they can't have their way." 

 

Seriously.

 

I think I'm going to die of irony overdose.

 

And now you know why your country is in such a position. How polarised have you all become?

 

It's no wonder the Divided States of America trope is so popular.

[Delphi]

This is going on in my neck of the woods. The park worker reactions are interesting.


http://m.deseretnews...esne.ws/OfA8wKj

[Egann]

 

So I saw someone write on Facebook today, "This shutdown is nothing more than a child (Obama) throwing a temper tantrum because they can't have their way." 

 

Seriously.

 

I think I'm going to die of irony overdose.

 

And now you know why your country is in such a position. How polarised have you all become?

 

It's no wonder the Divided States of America trope is so popular.

 

The problem is that parties have become the sole means for ordinary citizens to pass legislation, and parties have wound up with an odd collection of ideals.

 

The only bills which reliably pass are the ones for the special interests who pay for politicical campaigns. You know? That small list of donors who give generously to everybody running so they have whoever won by the gonads? Our government is effectively property of Iowa Corn Farmers and Monsanto. The rest is basically a horse race.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

The problem is that parties have become the sole means for ordinary citizens to pass legislation, and parties have wound up with an odd collection of ideals.
 
The only bills which reliably pass are the ones for the special interests who pay for politicical campaigns. You know? That small list of donors who give generously to everybody running so they have whoever won by the gonads? Our government is effectively property of Iowa Corn Farmers and Monsanto. The rest is basically a horse race.

Well, that's pretty much true over here. Conservatives are funded by big business. Labour are funded by the trade unions and at one point, were also funded by big business. It's probably true for Germany too.

[Selena]

It's hard to say why the polarization has gotten so much worse in the last couple decades. Maybe it has something to do with the internet. I see so many people getting their political "facts" from facebook posts and blog posts now. All of which are usually way off base, regardless of party affiliation. Media was always biased and never told you the whole story, but the internet just makes that whole phenomenon so much worse. Especially with TV fueling the fires of misinformation in a bid for ratings.

 

There was also probably more conversation in the past -- and communication is what breeds understanding. Now with the internet, you can effectively block any opinions you don't want to see. When you only associate with people who think just like you do, you grow increasingly intolerant of even minor dissent.

 

At least for the public.

 

With politicians, yeah, it's all about the money -- and keeping the increasingly extreme electorate happy.

 

 

 

 

 

But yeah, I'm in agreement that I'm more pissed off about politicians using the debt ceiling/shutdown date as a "hail Mary"*** maneuver to get what they want. Horrible precedent. You don't like Obamacare. Okay. That's fine. I don't necessarily like it either (if only because I wanted a proper national health service). But you have challenged it and challenged it and challenged it -- over 30 times. And you lost every time. In multiple arenas. This is like me going to a bar, having a guy hit on me, and him not relenting after I've told him no a million times. Just accept defeat. It's not happening.

 

If you can't pass or block a bill during regular session, then you can't wait until the budget deadline to threaten a government shutdown until you get your way. Steve hit the nail on the head -- this is how politics is going to be from now on, at least with major policy changes. It will become routine. For both sides.

 

 

 

 

 

 

*** I don't actually know football. I think this is the right sports metaphor. Isn't it?

[Jasi]

A better football metaphor would be the Giants threatening to shut down the NFL unless the refs give them 25 more points so that they can win the game, after they've already been defeated on the playing field. (metaphor credit: Jon Stewart)

 

edit: but yes, like Steve and Lena and others have said, I really do think this is objectively totally on the Republicans. They are using a completely unconstitutional method to try to effectively repeal a law through defunding it—not actually repealing it—when it's favored by the majority of Americans, passed the House and the Senate, signed by the President, and been deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court. This is absolutely and entirely on them.

 

There is nothing to compromise about. The compromise happened when the bill was being revised during the debate process that finally allowed it to pass in both parts of the legislature. This bill is the result of compromise. So all the Republicans saying "Democrats need to compromise!" are being completely absurd. There is no compromising about whether or not a law is a law.

Edited by Jasi, 08 October 2013 - 05:03 PM.

[Elvenlord]

Best metaphor

 

Except, not really a metaphor. BUT STILL BEST

Edited by Elvenlord, 08 October 2013 - 07:33 PM.

[Egann]

 

*** I don't actually know football. I think this is the right sports metaphor. Isn't it?

A hail mary is when the quarterback tells all the eligible receivers to just sprint downfield, then he throws the ball as far as he can and hopes someone actually catches it. The QB is supposed to drop on a knee and recite a full hail mary prayer (which is about six lines long) before anyone has a chance to catch the ball.

 

You know? Hail Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women. That one. 

 

Alas, our politicians have no wide receivers, so this play doesn't even have a way it's conceptually "supposed" to work. As far as sports metaphors go, our Quarter Back is Rhett Bomar.

 

"The arm of GOD. The brains of a cockroach." 

[Oberon Storm]

It is rediculous to demand a debate on what is settled law. I feel it is even more rediculous to attach that debate to a continuing resolution to fund the government. The ACA has nothing to do with funding the government.

[Selena]

"Many in GOP Offer Theory: Default Wouldn't Be That Bad."

 

 

 

 

I mean, sure, it won't release the zombie apocalypse or result in a spontaneous shower of nuclear warheads, so no -- it wouldn't all that bad if you compared it to other horrible events. You know. In the grand scheme of things.

 

BUT IT IS STILL BAD AND YOU SHOULD FEEL BAD WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE THE WORLD'S STRONGEST COUNTRY AND YOU'RE ALREADY MAKING EXCUSES FOR WHY THE BILLS WON'T GET PAID BY SAYING OH, WELL, IT "WON'T BE THAT BAD." THE DEBT IS MANAGEABLE BECAUSE OF THE MONEY YOU'RE SAVING ON FURLOUGHS EACH DAY? YOU VOTED TO AUTHORIZE BACK-PAY FOR ALL THE PEOPLE STAYING HOME IT'S NOT FREE MONEY FOR YOU TO JUST TOSS AROUND BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT TO DO YOUR JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOB. THIS WHOLE CRISIS IS UNNECESSAAAAAARRRRRY.

 

 

 

...I've actually been assuming that a default would happen for a while now, but the presence of this mentality more or less seals the deal, I think. It's only some politicians who are saying this stuff, but. Nobody seems willing to compromise, and with some of the right wing guys just saying "okay, do it, I want you to do it," the odds are not in our favor.

[Masamune]

I don't agree with them holding the country at hostage, but I'm hoping they have enough sense that if it comes down to the final hour, they'll give in.

 

Right now? They're playing chicken. It's their poker face. Of course they're going to casually act like missing the deadline is no big deal. It's the only strategy they have to win. If the democrats are thinking are you nuts, we're going to crash into each other oh my god what is wrong with you, then they'll swerve at the last minute and give in. 

[Jezzer]

I was certain that even the Teaparty members of the Rebuplican party would not be crazy enough to want a default; however after listening to some of their statements both on and off air comments I am reassessing my position.  The prospect of a default terrifies me as this is truly something that has never happened in our country.  Sure other countries have defaulted but none of which were anywhere close to the size of our government.
 
However, I have been thinking back to the last debt ceiling debate about the mentioning of the 14th Amendment.  So after reviewing my copy of the US Constitution I think Section 4 of the 14th Amendment will not allow us to default on our debt.

 

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

 

That is the first sentence of Section 4 of the 14th Amendment.

 

So new questions to ponder:

1. Will the 14th Amendment be invoked?
2. Would causing or attempting to cause a default on US debt be unconstitutional?
3. Would causing or attempting to cause a default be a criminal act as it is against the constitution?
4. If we do default will the Teaparty members of the Repulican party be held in contempt of the US goverment?

    

[Selena]

It's hard to say. That section was mostly written to say, "our debts are valid... but we aren't going to reimburse your for any loss of funds that resulted from you losing your slave labor."

 

I don't think any official at the time could have dared conceive of the financial mess we're in right now, much less the proper course of action to fix it -- so we're largely in uncharted waters.

 

 

Certain members of the GOP seem excited about default because it would "force" the government into making deep spending cuts.

[Jezzer]

It's hard to say. That section was mostly written to say, "our debts are valid... but we aren't going to reimburse your for any loss of funds that resulted from you losing your slave labor."

 

I don't think any official at the time could have dared conceive of the financial mess we're in right now, much less the proper course of action to fix it -- so we're largely in uncharted waters.

 

 

Certain members of the GOP seem excited about default because it would "force" the government into making deep spending cuts.

 

Doesn't negate the fact it is still an amendment of the constitution. 

 

The joys - and subsequent genious - of the document being quite vauge in the wording and meaning of many of its sections.

[JRPomazon]

Hilarious but true stories:

 

Mount Vernon is a privately funded national heritage site. The US Parks service thinks otherwise and decided to barricade the place anyway.

 

http://thecollegepol...n-parking-lots/

Edited by JRPomazon, 09 October 2013 - 08:42 PM.

[Oberon Storm]

I doubt anyone in Washington gives a glorious fuck about the Constitution. The 14th included.

[Egann]

And

 

It's hard to say. That section was mostly written to say, "our debts are valid... but we aren't going to reimburse your for any loss of funds that resulted from you losing your slave labor."

 

I don't think any official at the time could have dared conceive of the financial mess we're in right now, much less the proper course of action to fix it -- so we're largely in uncharted waters.

 

 

Certain members of the GOP seem excited about default because it would "force" the government into making deep spending cuts.

It wouldn't. Once you default, your bonds get devalued and you're more likely to default again.

 

Besides, Obama's already announced a plan to pay the debt off. You just have to be able to read between lines to understand it. In the middle of this turmoil Obama appointed Janet Yellen to replace Ben Bernanke as the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. A little poking and prodding on these people's records tells us what we need to know: Bernanke is known for coining terms like "savings glut" and controlling interest rates to maintain stable investor environments. Janet Yellen, however, is outspoken that she doesn't particularly care about inflation. Just unemployment.

 

This is a very clear telepath that Obama intends to inflate his way out of the government's debt. Right now interest rates are 3-5%. Six months from now I'm guessing it will be 8-9%, and right before the next election it'll be 10-15%. That will take care of the national debt, all right, and my savings will go with it. If you have cash on hand, put it in a tangible asset RIGHT THE FUCK NOW.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

This is a very clear telepath that Obama intends to inflate his way out of the government's debt. Right now interest rates are 3-5%. Six months from now I'm guessing it will be 8-9%, and right before the next election it'll be 10-15%. That will take care of the national debt, all right, and my savings will go with it. If you have cash on hand, put it in a tangible asset RIGHT THE FUCK NOW.

Wait a minute. Didn't the Weimar Republic try that? I don't remember their attempt going too well.

[Egann]

 

This is a very clear telepath that Obama intends to inflate his way out of the government's debt. Right now interest rates are 3-5%. Six months from now I'm guessing it will be 8-9%, and right before the next election it'll be 10-15%. That will take care of the national debt, all right, and my savings will go with it. If you have cash on hand, put it in a tangible asset RIGHT THE FUCK NOW.

Wait a minute. Didn't the Weimar Republic try that? I don't remember their attempt going too well.

 

Yup. 

 

This is actually straight from Bernanke's Wikipedia page:

 

In a footnote to his speech, Bernanke noted that "people know that inflation erodes the real value of the government's debt and, therefore, that it is in the interest of the government to create some inflation.

The government's interest. Not our interest. Methinks we have an agency conflict.

[Jasi]

Why is this STILL GOING ON? Ughhh. 

 

Can this be a "Government Shutdown Vent Thread"? I want to whine without contributing anything of substance.

[Egann]

So now I've heard each side has said "enough already" only for the other side to say "that's not enough" and then the next day they trade places. 

 

Although I did run across this gem of a rant the other day...

 

 

 

(about a dystopian TV show) Thank God it's only a fiction, right and we're safe in our world where the government can't manage to keep the Statue of Liberty open for business, but can monitor the world's phone and internet activities and blow people up with it's fleet of flying robots. We at least have the comfort of knowing that people with unfathomable access to power and knowledge can fuck up challenges that wouldn't phase a manager at Arby's. Welcome to bitter old man theater: I'm Chuck Sonneburg. GET OFF MY LAWN.

Edited by Egann, 13 October 2013 - 08:10 PM.