US Government Shut Down - new elections for senate and house of rep.?

[iNow]

As I said before. The government should have kept their nose out of it.

Well... That's fine as a personal political opinion or ideology, but as I have demonstrated already using evidence (more than once in this thread alone), the fact is that the Community Reinvestment act is NOT the cause of the subprime mortgage crisis as you previously asserted.

[doG]

Well... That's fine as a personal political opinion or ideology, but as I have demonstrated already using evidence (more than once in this thread alone), the fact is that the Community Reinvestment act is NOT the cause of the subprime mortgage crisis as you previously asserted.

I understand that it's your opinion that it played no part in it. I posted a supporting opinion that demonstrates a contribution to the whole affair. Regardless of the root cause it is my opinion that the subprime crisis is a big part of the current budget problem and that government is partly to blame.

[tar]

iNow,

 

No single snowflake feels responsible for the avalanche. They all contributed. Trying to prove that snowflake 6,845,495 had no role in the avalanche is in my opinion, quite narrowminded.

 

The tea party may have concerns. The fact that they should not be using the tactics they are using, the fact that there might be bigotry and hatred and stupidity included in the tea party movement, does not mean that any of the concerns themselves, are not worth discussing. And concerns about the government reaching into ALL areas of our lives, are concerns I have as well, even though I would like to disassociate myself ideologically from the uglier components of the tea party.

 

jduff, and the end of the worlders, are not approaching this, from a sustainable tact, but neither are the liberals who think our society can do just fine by having the rich not only provide most of the jobs, but provide for everyone without one.

 

Under such a liberal plan, (admittedly overstated, but with every program and law we move a step closer), the capable and industrious and risk takers, take on dual responsibilty. Once to serve society by doing their part, and then again, by serving society by doing the part of those who are not rich.

 

----

 

Separate topic (but still referring to the shutdown).

 

There is much catching up, that we as a society have to do, to get to the point where we should be, where all men are indeed created equal. Where talent and ability, education and trustworthyness of equal portions found in a black man, and a white man, and a mexican woman, all going after the same job, would find all three with equal chances of getting the job. That is the law, but its not reality yet. Money still talks. Ivy league connections still talk. Hiring from your own is still the natural human thing to do. Black decision makers might tend toward blacks. Women decision makers might tend toward women. Gay decision makers might tend toward gays. And it is OBVIOUS to me that the golf club crowd, tends toward the golf club crowd.

 

We still have a priveledged class, and some of us are in, and some of us are out, even if we are white, educated, male, talented and trustworthy, but have not joined the club, from lack of money, or connections, or desire to take on the risks and responsibilities and stresses of being responsible for other people's lives.

 

So maybe Republicans as a whole are people we should have some respect for, since many are our bosses anyway.

They include leaders of business, and social organisations, and banks. These people should not be marginalized or discounted as lowlifes and bigots and mindless sheep. They are instead the ones we count on to be there, doing the things they do.

 

We can't say OMG OMG OMG we want equality NOW NOW NOW, and think we can achieve it, by passing a law.

Laws help. But the real changes come one hiring at a time, and one heart at a time.

 

Regards, TAR2

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

What part of, 'Can we keep the argument over the cause of the sub-prime crisis to another thread.' are people not getting? Stop derailing this thread. All related posts have been deleted.

[overtone]

So maybe Republicans as a whole are people we should have some respect for, since many are our bosses anyway.

They include leaders of business, and social organisations, and banks. These people should not be marginalized or discounted as lowlifes and bigots and mindless sheep. They are instead the ones we count on to be there, doing the things they do.

The vertigo-inducing absence of sound political and economic judgment on the part of Republicans in general, and the leaders of the banks and oil companies and such in particular, has been so thoroughly demonstrated that we are entitled to simply assume it.

 

This shutdown their favored and supported political representatives (hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign support, clear majorities in their vote) have set up, and the default to come, is merely the latest in a thirty year string of decisions and adventures that can only be described as moronic, asshat, clownbox political incompetence. And their agenda, the reason their undoubted intelligence and capability has been deflected and failed to insulate them from gross folly, is completely explained by ignorant, shortsighted greed - they simply don't want to pay taxes, and are willing to put W and Palin and Cruz and Bachmann and Cheney and Boehner and Ryan and McConnell and Reagan and and a whole slew of other feebs and criminals into office, give free rein to the likes of Blankfein and Greenspan and Countrywide and Enron and Halliburton and Blackwater, on that criterion alone.

 

They bought the Laffer Curve, the Chicago School, Supply Side Economics, and the "theories" of Ayn Rand. They fought in favor of the Citizens United ruling, and against the minimum wage. They fought against removing lead and MTB from gasoline, and in favor of privatising Social Security and the National Parks. Ten years ago, and right up until the crash of '08, they were trying to mandate putting the entire Social Security income stream into the stock market. Just before that, their spokesmen were publicly expecting the US to turn a profit on the Iraq War. They think Obama "leans socialist", Ted Cruz has a legitimate argument, the Crash of '08 was caused by poor people assuming excessive mortgage debt.

 

They have no business interfering in government - it's not their field, and they aren't any good at it.

Edited October 14, 2013 by overtone

[iNow]

What do folks think, is this portrayal of the current situation accurate?

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/14/opinion/krugman-the-dixiecrat-solution.html

So you have this neighbor who has been making your life hell. First he tied you up with a spurious lawsuit; you’re both suffering from huge legal bills. Then he threatened bodily harm to your family. Now, however, he says he’s willing to compromise: He’ll call off the lawsuit, which is to his advantage as well as yours. But in return you must give him your car. Oh, and he’ll stop threatening your family — but only for a week, after which the threats will resume.

 

Not much of an offer, is it? But here’s the kicker: Your neighbor’s relatives, who have been egging him on, are furious that he didn’t also demand that you kill your dog.

 

And now you understand the current state of budget negotiations.

[jduff]

Reading the commentary here reminds me of early 1930ies Germany. Not saying anyone is a Nazi. But as far as the politics and stances, they are similar. Pre-Nazi party.

[tar]

Overtone,

 

How are the banks evil, and the Fed not?

 

How does your greed for the wealthy's money, differ from their greed for yours?

 

How does one person aquire wealth sustainalbly, if they themself are not creating any value?

 

How does federally subsidised insurance make any societal sense, or economic sense?

 

Is AIG evil or good, in your estimation?

 

Should the Dutch happen to live below sea level, should the rest of the world subsidize their efforts to keep the sea out?

Should New Orleans happen to live below sea level, should the rest of the country subsidize their efforts to keep the sea out?

 

Should the Army Corp of Engineers rebuild the Jersey Shore? How much should the rest of the country subsidize the effort?

How much should we as a country subsidize flood insurance on the Jersey Shore?

 

Is insurance a good thing or a bad thing in your estimation? Who should pay the premiums? Who should subsidize the payment of the premiums for those who can not afford it? Who bails out the insurance company when disaster strikes? Who pays the higher premiums required in the aftermath, when the rates go justifiably up? What restrictions and rules are the payers of the insurance entitled to impose on the property they indemnify?

 

If we indemnify everybody, against all evil, the premiums will be high. Do we have the money to pay the premiums? Or should we just go ahead and do it, and send the bill to our children?

 

Regards, TAR2

Perhaps we should send some representatives to Washington to decide what is in our best interests, as a country.

To avoid unwittingly perpetrating a Ponzi scheme upon our kids.

[moth]

What do folks think, is this portrayal of the current situation accurate?

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/14/opinion/krugman-the-dixiecrat-solution.html

Even if there are enough "moderate" reverse-dixie republicans willing to allow the country to pay it's bills, John Boehner told George Stephanopoulis he felt Obamacare was so dangerous that he'd rather shut down the government than take the chance people may like it. The metaphore that occurs to me is shooting somebody to prevent their attempt at suicide. But only if you buy the argument that A.C.A. is bad for the country.

We've been trying trickle-drown reagonomics for 30 years now, can't we try affordable healthcare for a year or two?

[Delbert]

There will doubtless be a painful initial period, but this default business, apparently resulting the current lending and borrowing spree being brought to a halt, can only bode well for the future.

 

Wasn't it in one of W Shakespeare's plays about lending and borrowing, and how it all ends?

[john5746]

There will doubtless be a painful initial period, but this default business, apparently resulting the current lending and borrowing spree being brought to a halt, can only bode well for the future.

 

Wasn't it in one of W Shakespeare's plays about lending and borrowing, and how it all ends?

If you have a mortgage or credit card debt or rent, why don't you stop paying those and see how things turn out for you. Let us know when the initial period of pain is over.

 

 

From where I am sitting, in the Netherlands, this whole situation sounds like the US political system has some inherent design flaws. Our government negotiates over changes in the budget. If my government fails to reach a compromise, nothing changes (and nothing will be shut down). And this failure to reach a compromise would nearly always result in new elections for parliament, and therefore in a new government. Why can't democracy do its job in the USA? Allow the people to vote for new members of the house of representatives and the senate, and see if they can reach a conclusion in whatever new composition they will be in after elections.

Back to the OP, I think elections would be a waste of time and money, maybe replace the leaders of each house?

 

I like the idea of having a default budget, maybe just carryover from previous(no increases or possible 1% reduction) and also add a 1% tax surcharge to income over $250,000 towards paying the debt. The details could be ironed out, but basically the idea is that the default would be to lower spending slowly and bring in some revenue as a default position.

Edited October 14, 2013 by john5746

[Phi for All]

What do folks think, is this portrayal of the current situation accurate?

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/14/opinion/krugman-the-dixiecrat-solution.html

 

I don't understand why the the White House isn't giving out civics lessons, trying to get people to understand that this is not the procedure for discussing and negotiating how we legislate our country. If this is allowed to continue, either side could conceivably do this whenever they don't represent enough legitimate votes. How can people not see how much this undermines our democracy?

 

Reading the commentary here reminds me of early 1930ies Germany. Not saying anyone is a Nazi. But as far as the politics and stances, they are similar. Pre-Nazi party.

 

I understand your argument, but do you really think Sen. Cruz could get enough support to turn the Tea Party into a single-party totalitarian state? Overthrowing democratic procedure is a good, fascist start, but will that be enough?

[michel123456]

If you have a mortgage or credit card debt or rent, why don't you stop paying those and see how things turn out for you. Let us know when the initial period of pain is over.

 

 

 

Back to the OP, I think elections would be a waste of time and money, maybe replace the leaders of each house?

 

I like the idea of having a default budget, maybe just carryover from previous(no increases or possible 1% reduction) and also add a 1% tax surcharge to income over $250,000 towards paying the debt. The details could be ironed out, but basically the idea is that the default would be to lower spending slowly and bring in some revenue as a default position.

Ah, at least a suggestion!

So far in this thread the few ideas I could pick were:

1. elections

2. go at work without payment

3. each of us go living and hunting in the countryside (after drawing back our money from the bank)

4. send a U.N. mediator

5. replace the leaders of each house (without election)

 

And some new suggestion of mine:

6. Obama takes a quick decision to draw back obamacare. The Republicans gloat and the crisis ends at Obama's cost. After a week, a federal judge tells Obama that he couldn't do that because he didn't follow the legal procedure, obamacare is resurrected and Obama wins.

or

7. send a policeman arrest the member of the Congress that provoke the crisis, or simply a number of them, for a very good reason granted by the Constitution. (for betrayal, murder, or other high offense).

What happens: when a congressman goes to jail, the Congress does not collapse, If I am not abused it is simply reduced in number of Congressmen (you must also provide the impossibility of a replacement fellow). Then the voters are less and the percentage can balance in favor of the Democrats.

 

or

8. find a constitutional "trick' that will overpass the Congress. For example find that there were irregularities in the elections and that the actual Congress is not representative or that kind of dirty game.

or

9. "buy" the Congress. What do they want? Next Presidency? ... Done*.

or

10. More dirty, [censured]

 

*After a while, Obama resigns in full glory because his job has been done and he wants to take more time with his family: the promise is forgotten. Democrats win.

Edited October 14, 2013 by michel123456

[Delbert]

If you have a mortgage or credit card debt or rent, why don't you stop paying those and see how things turn out for you. Let us know when the initial period of pain is over.

The difference between national borrowing and mortgage and credit card borrowing is that the plan is to pay back the latter. And not only that, mortgage lending is supported by the bricks, mortar and value of the house as collateral. It appears, nay patently clear, that the trouble with countries is they have no plan to pay it back. They just pile borrowing on top of borrowing. In fact here in the UK I believe they've even given it a name, it's called the public sector borrowing requirement. Requirement! Requirement such that it is a necessity. And for collateral, that's nothing more than a piece of paper. It is part of the fiscal plan. That, I suggest, is a million miles from mortgage and credit card business.

 

I'm still trying to visualise the interest on this current American credit ceiling of $16.7 trillion, a ceiling which they've hit and apparently want to increase!

 

No, what it all needs is a default. That'll perhaps restrain the lenders to be more circumspect with their lending policy, and thus constrain relevant countries to adopt a sounder financial policy.

[swansont]

 

I don't understand why the the White House isn't giving out civics lessons, trying to get people to understand that this is not the procedure for discussing and negotiating how we legislate our country. If this is allowed to continue, either side could conceivably do this whenever they don't represent enough legitimate votes. How can people not see how much this undermines our democracy?

 

 

I'm guessing it's because there are some who realize that the knowledge deficit model fails here — the idea that people disagree or resist only because they lack the correct information. But that isn't the case; just as with global warming or creationism/evolution, the culprit is ideology. And when you point out to people actual facts, the effect is that they just dig their heels in even harder. Until they are willing to question their world view, they will simply not accept facts.

 

Which helps explain tea party protesters' signs saying e.g. "Keep the government out of my medicare!" But if you tell them that medicare is a government program, they just get angry. Or the cognitive disconnect of "I've been on foodstamps and welfare. Anyone help me out? No."

Edited October 14, 2013 by swansont
clarification

[iNow]

The difference between national borrowing and mortgage and credit card borrowing is that the plan is to pay back the latter. And not only that, mortgage lending is supported by the bricks, mortar and value of the house as collateral. It appears, nay patently clear, that the trouble with countries is they have no plan to pay it back. They just pile borrowing on top of borrowing.

This strikes me as quite a silly position. While there are always some elected officials who legislate in fiscally imprudent ways, the intent is always to pay back the debts we incur. The markets essentially demand it, and economic activity is driven by the underlying premise that debts will be paid... especially by the worlds largest economy, the United States. That is why people are so willing to buy our bonds (or, WERE so willing... this could all change if we default and don't raise the debt ceiling).

 

The US has always paid its debts and that's why our bonds are such a global standard and why our economy is so foundational to the economies of the rest of the planet... and it's why so many trillions of the worlds dollars are rooted in our bonds at their base. We pay our bills and always have throughout our history. This has made our debts reliable instruments for investment and at the heart of a substantial percentage of the global economy.

 

Again... We have ALWAYS paid our bills, and that's true whether the leader or congress has been biased toward the right or the left, democratic or republican. To suggest we have "no plan to pay it back" is to simply ignore history. We have ALWAYS paid it back and never defaulted on our obligations to pay. We have never once missed a payment and that's why people are willing to hold our debt as a smart long-term investment.

 

Many people seem to forget that we're also on the tail end of a recession right now, yet you seem to want immediate cutting of programs and payment of past debts, forgetting that austerity now makes the long term debt and deficit worse, and that investment now is one of the few things that could make it better and stimulate the system. There are reams of data in support of this position, I've shared some already in this thread, and am glad to share more if needed. There is a global lack of demand currently as the economy remains depressed, and so the government becomes a last resort to create that demand. Study after study shows that spending now on the right things lowers long-term debt due to the growth it triggers throughout the rest of the economy. Trying to pay off the debt right now and cut programs paradoxically makes the very problem you're seeking to resolve worse because you further depress an already depressed economy through your actions.

 

I'll share this analogy again. Most would agree that proper diet, restricted intake of calories, and regular exercise are needed for good health. However, if you've been hit by a speeding truck, are badly injured and left laying in the desert for several days dehydrated and bleeding, you don't want to force the patient to restrict their diet and exercise heavily as soon as they're taken to the hospital. They must heal first, eating as much as possible in the present and avoiding strenuous exercise until they are healthy enough to ensure that said exercise and diet do more benefit than harm. The application of these principles is context dependent, not something that should be done at all times regardless of conditions.

 

The same is true of the current economy. We can always look for more efficiencies and find ways to direct our funding more wisely, but simply cutting will make it worse. This is a lesson we were taught right after the great depression and again in several recessions since then, and it's a shame that so many people have so easily forgotten that lesson of history and are choosing instead to base their positions on ideology over evidence.

 

You are like a medieval doctor who believed in treating illness by bleeding their patients, making the patients even sicker, and then when they get sicker you determine that the best course of action is to order more bleeding. Unless you're trying to completely kill the patient, it's time to adjust your approach.

 

 

No, what it all needs is a default. That'll perhaps restrain the lenders to be more circumspect with their lending policy, and thus constrain relevant countries to adopt a sounder financial policy.

This is completely nuts to even consider, let alone suggest and advocate. I do not understand how people feel that causing another crisis on par with the fall of Lehman in 2008 (and likely even more severe) is a reasonable way to "improve the economy"... that tanking the entire global system and yanking us back down into another deep recession and seriously increasing the chances of a global depression (while we're still trying to recover from the last one) is somehow an intelligent or valid idea.

 

One does not decrease their mortgage payment by refusing to pay it. You don't lower your medical bills by stiffing the doctors and the hospitals on fees you've previously wracked up.

 

There is a ton of opportunity to write legislation that spends our dollars more wisely and invest in different things that will realize a higher rate of return. I suspect we are all open to that. There should zero discussion, however, that our best course of action is to simply default on the bills we've already incurred... to ignore obligations to which we've committed... and that somehow it would be a good thing that would magically make the economy better if only we'd refuse to make payments on debts we've already incurred. That's on par with suggesting we can live forever by drinking unicorn piss.

[overtone]

Reading the commentary here reminds me of early 1930ies Germany. Not saying anyone is a Nazi. But as far as the politics and stances, they are similar. Pre-Nazi party.

You obviously have done no research whatsoever into the politics of early 1930s Germany - or you would not be bringing it up here, where you and your pals do not look so good in that comparison, given what we know of the outcome there.

 

 

 

How are the banks evil, and the Fed not?

The Fed is a bank. I listed Greenspan specifically among the evildoers.

 

How many simple errors like that does it take to wake up a rightwinger? teach them that they lack crucial information, their opinions are not well founded, and the sources they have been relying upon for perspective are manipulating them with misinformation ?

 

 

 

How does your greed for the wealthy's money, differ from their greed for yours?

It differs by not existing. Nobody pays taxes to me, and the money taxed away from the wealthy to pay the country's bills is mostly paid to bondholders and the like - I am not one of them.

 

 

 

How does one person aquire wealth sustainalbly, if they themself are not creating any value?

Whether the wealthy create some ("any") value or not hardly matters, and "sustainably" is completely irrelevant.

 

So the question is odd - it can be answered easily via a few examples:

 

(Managing a hedge fund in the US is one famous way to acquire great wealth that usually (over the past couple of decades, since dereguilation) subtracts, rather than adds, value. So is pumping up asset bubbles from within a given industry - the executives of the biggest and most influential mortgage lenders in the US subtracted so much value from the economy between 1998 and 2007 (putting much of that into their pockets) that they are sometimes blamed for the Crash of '08. The CEOs of the biggest for-profit medical insurance companies have for decades been pocketing a hefty fraction of the money laid out for medical care, mostly by reducing the value of the care provided and thus the overall value of medical care to the economy. The heirs of Sam Walton have never been accused of providing much "value" to the economy, but they have certainly acquired much wealth. And so forth.

 

And that's just economic value, directly measurable in dollars. Various routes by which great wealth can be accumulated by destroying things of great value in non-monetary terms are surely well known to us all.) -

 

but the real response would to discover how it is that rightwingers cannot see this kind of obvious stuff for themselves. That question is ridiculous. How do people acquire that level of obliviousness to common reality in their political outlook?

 

 

 

How does federally subsidised insurance make any societal sense, or economic sense?

Setting things up as a subsidy of for profit market based insurance provision is of course a clumsy, inefficient, and problematical way to do things, but as an improvement on the current situation it cannot be denied - it makes sense that way, if not in abstract theory.

 

 

 

If we indemnify everybody, against all evil, the premiums will be high

So don't do that.

 

 

To avoid unwittingly perpetrating a Ponzi scheme upon our kids.

Why are rightwingers incapable of distinguishing between what are and are not Ponzi schemes?

Edited October 14, 2013 by overtone

[waitforufo]

Fundamentally there is no problem with debt. Weather it is personal debt or governmental debt. In fact governmental debt has positive functions in our economy. If for nothing else it is a safe harbor for money when looking for other more profitable ventures or when your risk tolerance is very low. Debt becomes a problem when your debt-to-income ratio gets out of whack. Our problem in the US (and many other countries) is that our income isn’t growing fast enough to keep up with our borrowing. The best way to get out of that problem is to grow your income if you are an individual or grow the economy if you are a government. Otherwise you have to cut spending or go bankrupt.

 

Looks like we are trying to choose option 3. The problem with that choice is the constitution requires that we pay our debt.

 

I’m always amazed that growing the economy is no longer considered an option. It has worked well in the past.

 

There is one financial problem with growing the economy when you are in the current US situation. We finance most of our debt with short term notes to receive a more favorable interest rate. Grow the economy and interest rates will go up. So will our interest payments because we have to constantly turn our short term notes. Perhaps the improved revenue of a growing economy will more than compensate for rising interest rates, but we better make sure our growth rate is very robust to get ahead of the rising interest rate curve. Or we can just have lots of inflation.

[overtone]

 

 

Our problem in the US (and many other countries) is that our income isn’t growing fast enough to keep up with our borrowing. The best way to get out of that problem is to grow your income if you are an individual or grow the economy if you are a government.

The economy grows by itself. The role of government is to remove obstacles, such as liquidity traps or criminal organizations, and provide infrastructure or social capital that cannot be market provided due to its inherent cost and benefit relationship.

 

 

 

There is one financial problem with growing the economy when you are in the current US situation. We finance most of our debt with short term notes to receive a more favorable interest rate.

The US government finances most of its debt with medium term obligations - two to ten year "notes".

 

The single most serious factor preventing US economic growth is the fact that we have fallen into a liquidity trap (the bust phase of bubble boom and bust). The only known workable, demonstrated, and reasonably fast (within a decade or so) solution to that is a massive overall government spending boost on wages, infrastructure and capital investment of various kinds.

 

We have not done that (the Obama stimulus was mostly wiped out by shrinkage of State and local government spending), so we are not getting the benefits of having done that. A Federal government shut down of course makes that problem even worse.

[waitforufo]

You say the economy grows by itself, but then you mention the Obama stimulus. If the government wasn't trying to stimulate economic growth what was it trying to stimulate?

[iNow]

The best way to get out of that problem is to grow your income if you are an individual or grow the economy if you are a government. <snip> I’m always amazed that growing the economy is no longer considered an option. It has worked well in the past.

Interestingly, that's YET ANOTHER area in which republicans have chosen to block progress and tie an anchor to our potential economic growth.

 

http://www.epi.org/blog/congressional-republicans-smothered-rapid-economic-recovery/

 

Frontline has an interesting piece on the GOP response to President Obama’s election in 2008, reporting that, “After three hours of strategizing, they decided they needed to fight Obama on everything.”

 

Part of this “everything” was the efforts of the new administration to end the Great Recession and restore the economy back to full health. From the start, the GOP sought to block measures that a wide swath of economists agreed would provide help to boost the economy and bring down unemployment. This obstructionism has been a constant theme throughout the past four years, and it continues today.

 

Congressional Republicans have made it clear that they intend to use every bit of leverage they can to force cuts to domestic spending in the coming year. This leverage includes threats to not raise the statutory debt ceiling and/or force a federal government shutdown after March 27, when the standing appropriations continuing resolution (CR) expires. This, of course, would represent the long-promised repeat of the spring and summer of 2011, when congressional Republicans secured over $500 billion in domestic spending cuts in CR fights and another $2.1 trillion in spending cuts in exchange for incrementally raising the debt ceiling by an equivalent amount—better known as the Budget Control Act (BCA) of 2011.

 

The BCA cuts have already done damage, and will all-but-surely slow growth in the rest of 2013 as well. The various components of the BCA accounted for about one-third of the total fiscal drag exerted by the major components of the “fiscal cliff” that was facing Congress ahead of the lame duck budget deal. And the components of the BCA account for 48 percent of the remaining fiscal drag unaddressed by the deal—a drag that is poised to shave 1.0 percentage point from real GDP growth in 2013. House Republicans have voted to replace the Defense cuts contained within the sequester—again rapidly approaching, following its postponement to March—in it with deeper domestic spending cuts, leaving a drag of 0.8 percentage points from the BCA for 2013, all while threatening to use the debt ceiling and CR as leverage to get their way.

 

If this ideologically driven objective of deeply cutting spending is met, this will represent just one more way that the GOP Congress has managed to delay full recovery from the Great Recession. The evidence continues to pile up that that these spending cuts, forced on a still-depressed economy, can easily throw the nation back into an outright recession and prolong the nation’s economic misery.

 

Is this an overly harsh read on the motivations of GOP members of Congress? Not at all. Motivations aside—regardless of whether they deeply believe that their ideological goal of reducing government spending will help the economy or whether they think that a slowed economy will simply help their own electoral prospects—the facts are simply that congressional Republicans have consistently hamstrung efforts that a large consensus of economists agree would have provided crucial help in lowering American unemployment.

 

Specifically, they have objectively weakened the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), repeatedly filibustered routine extensions of emergency unemployment benefits, blocked aid to state governments, filibustered infrastructure investment, used extreme legislative vehicles like refusing to follow precedent on the typically pro forma votes to raise the debt ceiling to extract more economically damaging government spending cuts, blocked passage of a majority of the American Jobs Act (AJA), demanded counterproductive offsets to fiscal stimulus, and attacked the Federal Reserve’s expansion of the monetary base and other policy responses intended to lower unemployment. What follows is an abbreviated chronology.

[doG]

 

How can people not see how much this undermines our democracy?

But we are not a democracy and were never intended to be. The founders established a republic to avoid being a democracy.

To avoid unwittingly perpetrating a Ponzi scheme upon our kids.

Like social security?

[swansont]

Still think this isn't a GOP shutdown? They rigged the rules to prevent a vote that could normally have been brought.

 

[jduff]

 

 

 

 

I understand your argument, but do you really think Sen. Cruz could get enough support to turn the Tea Party into a single-party totalitarian state? Overthrowing democratic procedure is a good, fascist start, but will that be enough?

De-legitimize the government, make it of no value and what do you have? With most of the populace already resenting or not trusting the government(As well as most of the world). How much nudging do you think it would take? Just one event could topple our government currently. In or out! How many new allies would a new party get?

 

It is almost as if our administration wants this. But of course for a different purpose. Why so many NSA, TSA, Homeland Security? Not saying that it is only this administration. I believe that plan has been in effect for a very long time. If it does happen. I believe it will be quite a different outcome than the one our government has planned.

 

Glad I am somewhat a prepper. My conservative nature! Dont worry have quite a bit of liberal too Ohh!, and to let you know, democrats, liberals, republicans, conservatives, are just tools.

 

Something to think about. Why for the past decade or so education teaches femininity in males? Making them more docile. No offense intended to those who are young. While under the guise of a liberal agenda?

 

Have a populace that is both lethargic and docile. Weak, and non-resistant? What would be the purpose?

 

Have a police force that is brutal and feels superior to every other civilian? They feel they have the right to carry a gun, but a civilian does not? Just saying...

 

Why would the government want a weak, unarmed, docile population? So you know, I am not looking at this in a short time frame. As many of the social and psychological programming has taken in some cases decades.

 

From GI-Joe and Barbie to Captain Planet and how to save the world while playing with a twirly stick. Coincidence? All under the guise of liberalism? Heh, slick that is!

 

That above just one part of a many faceted plan set in motion! All coming together

Edited October 15, 2013 by jduff

[overtone]

 

 

You say the economy grows by itself, but then you mention the Obama stimulus. If the government wasn't trying to stimulate economic growth what was it trying to stimulate?

It's for breaking a liquidity trap, removing an obstacle to growth. It stimulates private lending and investment of trapped liquid assets, especially cash, which then leads to overall growth of the economy.

 

 

To avoid unwittingly perpetrating a Ponzi scheme upon our kids.

Like social security?

It's consistent - this was directly undernath:

Why are rightwingers incapable of distinguishing between what are and are not Ponzi schemes?

 

meanwhile:

 

De-legitimize the government, make it of no value and what do you have?

Tea Party Utopia. Or more informatively, the US circa 1861, Spain circa 1936, Colombia circa 1964, Chile circa 1973, Afghanistan circa 1978, USSR circa 1990, Somalia circa 1991, - - - -