(10-15-2013 11:57 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  An interesting Charlie Cook piece on the state of Congress.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/off-to-th...les_medium
Makes a good argument that the Hastert Rule is a big driver of the current issues.

Interesting article. I've had very similar conversations with a friend of mine, also a Rice alum but not active on here. I don't think the Hastert rule is that big a part of the problem. I think we've pretty much operated that way de facto forever.

I do like the idea of a more parliamentary flavor for the house. And parliamentary bodies almost always work under something like the Hastert rule.

I have thought about an approach where the house would become more parliamentary, with proportional representation and variable terms and various ways to dissolve. One problem with parliamentary systems is that the turnover in executive departments can make for numerous inefficiencies and other difficulties. Therefore, I would propose a model where the president appoints cabinet members from members of his party in the more stable senate. For example, if a democrat is elected president, then senior democrat on what is now the senate foreign relations committe becomes secretary of state, senior democrat on what is now the senate armed services committee becomes secretary of defense, etc.

That turns the senate into a part-legislative/part-executive body. In the end, you probably weaken the president, strengthen the house, and strengthen the senate considerably in that approach. All those seem good to me.

Of course, one element of parliamentary systems that I would very much like to see would be a monthly or weekly president's questions session before the combined members of both houses, like prime minister's questions in UK.

(10-15-2013 01:06 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Of course, one element of parliamentary systems that I would very much like to see would be a monthly or weekly president's questions session before the combined members of both houses, like prime minister's questions in UK.

Question time would be awesome!

(10-15-2013 02:22 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(10-15-2013 01:06 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Of course, one element of parliamentary systems that I would very much like to see would be a monthly or weekly president's questions session before the combined members of both houses, like prime minister's questions in UK.

Question time would be awesome!

On this, the three of us are in complete agreement.

I have to admit that I'm now at the point where I'm completely fed up with republicans. And have been fed up with democrats.

This is the stupidest f***ing thing I have ever seen.

(10-14-2013 10:01 AM)jh Wrote:  

(10-14-2013 09:49 AM)gsloth Wrote:  

(10-12-2013 01:56 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-12-2013 01:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I hate to keep saying it, but it really has gotten to be the stupid party versus the evil party.

So when I vote, it really is a choice of the lesser of two evils?

Not to completely derail this thing, but there is no such lesser when I vote for governor next month. They're both dogs, and that's an insult to dogs.

Assuming you are talking about Virginia, there is a third dog in the race. Now I'm not a Virginia voter, so I don't know what kind of fleas he has, but there are other options.
http://robertsarvis.com/home .

I'm well aware of him. I'm not anywhere close to as hard-core of a liberterian as he is, but there is no way I'm voting for either of the other major candidates. Unfortunately, despite having the 10% polling support necessary to get included in the final major debate next week, the media group sponsoring it and broadcasting it has not invited him (Sarvis). But he did buy advertising time on an earlier debate.

He's probably going to get between 10 and 15 percent of the final vote. But there's no way I'm voting for the kleptocrat or the theocrat. What could be really interesting is how badly the Lt. Governor for the Republicans may lose. He's a whole different level of crazy. AG race should be close (and is particularly nasty in the ad wars).

My new crazy speculation for the day:

I've heard several on the Tea Party side of the party (Erik Erickson and the head of Freedomworks, among others) suggest a third party. The Chamber of Commerce is suggesting getting involved more directly in politics, the implication being to offset the Cruz/Tea Party wing. What if the GOP splits? Or more specifically what if the CoC/Wall Street GOP combines with the Blue Dog/Wall Street wing of the Dems? We could easily have a dominant centrist party with smaller left and right wing parties on the fringes. Some would count that as a good thing. But you'd lose the alternation of power, which is why those sorts of regimes suffer from corruption and stagnation.

(10-07-2013 08:16 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Seems that the House right now is saying, we can shut down the government, we can force the US to default on its debts (which is potentially catastrophic) if we don't get what we want. So you damn well better give us what we want.

So, let's say the Tea Party wins and Obama caves. What does this teach future House majorities? That they can basically blackmail the president. That would be very fundamental shift in the way our government functions.

Didn't read the whole thread, but how is it that the House is "demanding what they want"?

Seems to me that the DRIVER of this situation is the violation of the debt ceiling and the NEED to raise the debt ceiling.

Don't ALL political "needs" come with concessions? One can argue that the most common and popular and loud demands were unreasonable... but as they obviously ended up with nothing, certainly there should have been some reasonable concession from the left to get the votes they needed.

It seems to me that the left is the one who played hard ball... we won't give you anything... and we will blame you for the problem that was primarily the fault of the left (exceeding the limits).

It's a hard analogy to tell... but it's like the woman with the shoe fetish who buys new shoes despite having no money in the bank... and when the husband demands that she return them so that they don't overdraw, she doesn't suggest any other alternative means of covering the debt, but simply refuses... so under threat of the bank closing their account and freezing their assets, she blames him to all of her friends. He gets embarrassed and caves... but he isn't the one who bounced the check.



As far as the Tea Party is concerned....

Both sides are very afraid of a truly fiscally conservative, small government party.... so they BOTH attack it. Fundamentally, you can see why this would come from "the right", but it would also have substantial appeal from the left... as a truly "small" government wouldn't be involved at all in regulating things like gay marriage. The best way to say it is that while there are certainly religious people who want to tell everyone else how to live, which you can't do with a small government... there are many many many who may be personally morally conservative, so if you ask them in a poll what they think, you will get one answer... but have no interest in making everyone agree with them.

Unfortunately, the small government mantra has been hijacked and the left can now attack the hijackers. That plan works quite well for the large and intrusive government types on both sides who dominate the conversation.

(10-18-2013 11:24 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-07-2013 08:16 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Seems that the House right now is saying, we can shut down the government, we can force the US to default on its debts (which is potentially catastrophic) if we don't get what we want. So you damn well better give us what we want.

So, let's say the Tea Party wins and Obama caves. What does this teach future House majorities? That they can basically blackmail the president. That would be very fundamental shift in the way our government functions.

Didn't read the whole thread, but how is it that the House is "demanding what they want"?

Seems to me that the DRIVER of this situation is the violation of the debt ceiling and the NEED to raise the debt ceiling.

Don't ALL political "needs" come with concessions? One can argue that the most common and popular and loud demands were unreasonable... but as they obviously ended up with nothing, certainly there should have been some reasonable concession from the left to get the votes they needed.

It seems to me that the left is the one who played hard ball... we won't give you anything... and we will blame you for the problem that was primarily the fault of the left (exceeding the limits).

It's a hard analogy to tell... but it's like the woman with the shoe fetish who buys new shoes despite having no money in the bank... and when the husband demands that she return them so that they don't overdraw, she doesn't suggest any other alternative means of covering the debt, but simply refuses... so under threat of the bank closing their account and freezing their assets, she blames him to all of her friends. He gets embarrassed and caves... but he isn't the one who bounced the check.

Seems strange to blame the debt ceiling on the dems when it was the WHOLE government who agreed to whatever level of spending was incurred that caused us to reach that debt limit. The Reps shouldn't fight the debt ceiling since they already allowed funding to pass previously that would cause us to reach it.

With regards to the shoe analogy, it's more like the husband told her wife to buy the shoes while knowing there was no money in the bank, then, when she does spend it, he gets mad at his wife for spending it and tells her to return them.

(10-18-2013 12:54 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-18-2013 11:24 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-07-2013 08:16 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Seems that the House right now is saying, we can shut down the government, we can force the US to default on its debts (which is potentially catastrophic) if we don't get what we want. So you damn well better give us what we want.

So, let's say the Tea Party wins and Obama caves. What does this teach future House majorities? That they can basically blackmail the president. That would be very fundamental shift in the way our government functions.

Didn't read the whole thread, but how is it that the House is "demanding what they want"?

Seems to me that the DRIVER of this situation is the violation of the debt ceiling and the NEED to raise the debt ceiling.

Don't ALL political "needs" come with concessions? One can argue that the most common and popular and loud demands were unreasonable... but as they obviously ended up with nothing, certainly there should have been some reasonable concession from the left to get the votes they needed.

It seems to me that the left is the one who played hard ball... we won't give you anything... and we will blame you for the problem that was primarily the fault of the left (exceeding the limits).

It's a hard analogy to tell... but it's like the woman with the shoe fetish who buys new shoes despite having no money in the bank... and when the husband demands that she return them so that they don't overdraw, she doesn't suggest any other alternative means of covering the debt, but simply refuses... so under threat of the bank closing their account and freezing their assets, she blames him to all of her friends. He gets embarrassed and caves... but he isn't the one who bounced the check.

Seems strange to blame the debt ceiling on the dems when it was the WHOLE government who agreed to whatever level of spending was incurred that caused us to reach that debt limit. The Reps shouldn't fight the debt ceiling since they already allowed funding to pass previously that would cause us to reach it.

With regards to the shoe analogy, it's more like the husband told her wife to buy the shoes while knowing there was no money in the bank, then, when she does spend it, he gets mad at his wife for spending it and tells her to return them.

I didn't blame the whole thing on the Dems... but if you don't raise the debt ceiling, you can't fund Obamacare, which is clearly a Democratic bill. The Democrats need it raised to fund Obamacare. The Republicans would have been very happy to not raise it, and that should have been obvious.

The husband may have helped spend the money that made it so that there wasn't enough money in the bank for the shoes, but clearly he didn't tell her to buy the shoes (Obamacare).

Believe me, I have no particular love for what passes itself off as a Republican these days by any measure... but the reality is that the Democrats gave absolutely nothing in exchange for the Republican votes.

(10-19-2013 10:41 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-18-2013 12:54 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-18-2013 11:24 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-07-2013 08:16 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Seems that the House right now is saying, we can shut down the government, we can force the US to default on its debts (which is potentially catastrophic) if we don't get what we want. So you damn well better give us what we want.

So, let's say the Tea Party wins and Obama caves. What does this teach future House majorities? That they can basically blackmail the president. That would be very fundamental shift in the way our government functions.

Didn't read the whole thread, but how is it that the House is "demanding what they want"?

Seems to me that the DRIVER of this situation is the violation of the debt ceiling and the NEED to raise the debt ceiling.

Don't ALL political "needs" come with concessions? One can argue that the most common and popular and loud demands were unreasonable... but as they obviously ended up with nothing, certainly there should have been some reasonable concession from the left to get the votes they needed.

It seems to me that the left is the one who played hard ball... we won't give you anything... and we will blame you for the problem that was primarily the fault of the left (exceeding the limits).

It's a hard analogy to tell... but it's like the woman with the shoe fetish who buys new shoes despite having no money in the bank... and when the husband demands that she return them so that they don't overdraw, she doesn't suggest any other alternative means of covering the debt, but simply refuses... so under threat of the bank closing their account and freezing their assets, she blames him to all of her friends. He gets embarrassed and caves... but he isn't the one who bounced the check.

Seems strange to blame the debt ceiling on the dems when it was the WHOLE government who agreed to whatever level of spending was incurred that caused us to reach that debt limit. The Reps shouldn't fight the debt ceiling since they already allowed funding to pass previously that would cause us to reach it.

With regards to the shoe analogy, it's more like the husband told her wife to buy the shoes while knowing there was no money in the bank, then, when she does spend it, he gets mad at his wife for spending it and tells her to return them.

I didn't blame the whole thing on the Dems... but if you don't raise the debt ceiling, you can't fund Obamacare, which is clearly a Democratic bill. The Democrats need it raised to fund Obamacare. The Republicans would have been very happy to not raise it, and that should have been obvious.

The husband may have helped spend the money that made it so that there wasn't enough money in the bank for the shoes, but clearly he didn't tell her to buy the shoes (Obamacare).

Believe me, I have no particular love for what passes itself off as a Republican these days by any measure... but the reality is that the Democrats gave absolutely nothing in exchange for the Republican votes.

As they shouldn't have in regards to the ACA. They had conceded ground on the debt ceiling before, and this time the Reps thought they would do it again regarding the most important piece of legislation they have passed in recent memory.

The Reps completely misplayed their hand this time around and got exactly what they deserved. They should have learned from the 30+ failed votes to repeal the ACA, along with polling that was pretty strongly against them using the ACA as a bargaining chip in the debt ceiling/budget, that they weren't going to be able to win on that front.

If they Reps had wanted to push other legislation or cut more funding across with the budget/debt ceiling they would probably have had more luck. Instead, they tried to attack the one thing that Obama and the Dems are not willing to cut back on. Not smart.

(10-20-2013 10:00 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-19-2013 10:41 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I didn't blame the whole thing on the Dems... but if you don't raise the debt ceiling, you can't fund Obamacare, which is clearly a Democratic bill. The Democrats need it raised to fund Obamacare. The Republicans would have been very happy to not raise it, and that should have been obvious.

The husband may have helped spend the money that made it so that there wasn't enough money in the bank for the shoes, but clearly he didn't tell her to buy the shoes (Obamacare).

Believe me, I have no particular love for what passes itself off as a Republican these days by any measure... but the reality is that the Democrats gave absolutely nothing in exchange for the Republican votes.

As they shouldn't have in regards to the ACA. They had conceded ground on the debt ceiling before, and this time the Reps thought they would do it again regarding the most important piece of legislation they have passed in recent memory.

The Reps completely misplayed their hand this time around and got exactly what they deserved. They should have learned from the 30+ failed votes to repeal the ACA, along with polling that was pretty strongly against them using the ACA as a bargaining chip in the debt ceiling/budget, that they weren't going to be able to win on that front.

If they Reps had wanted to push other legislation or cut more funding across with the budget/debt ceiling they would probably have had more luck. Instead, they tried to attack the one thing that Obama and the Dems are not willing to cut back on. Not smart.

Seems to me you're trying to pick a fight that isn't here.

You're clearly supportive of the Dems in this situation, which is fine... except for the fact that being wrong is still wrong, and which is "worse" is clearly a matter of perception only.

The debt ceiling is just as much "law" as the ACA, and I suspect polling would show that the debt ceiling is more popular than the ACA. The fact that it has been raised before in no way invalidates, and in fact it supports my contention that each time it has been met with concessions.

This time, debt won and fiscal responsibility lost... and you seem happy because of what the debt is being spent on THIS time, but I'm willing to bet that there are things we spend money on that you don't support... and wouldn't support raising the debt ceiling for... and you'd support YOUR side doing "whatever" to keep it from happening...

because it is the DEBT that matters, and not this little skirmish.

Playing one's hand poorly does not mean that one is wrong.

(10-20-2013 02:49 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-20-2013 10:00 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-19-2013 10:41 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I didn't blame the whole thing on the Dems... but if you don't raise the debt ceiling, you can't fund Obamacare, which is clearly a Democratic bill. The Democrats need it raised to fund Obamacare. The Republicans would have been very happy to not raise it, and that should have been obvious.

The husband may have helped spend the money that made it so that there wasn't enough money in the bank for the shoes, but clearly he didn't tell her to buy the shoes (Obamacare).

Believe me, I have no particular love for what passes itself off as a Republican these days by any measure... but the reality is that the Democrats gave absolutely nothing in exchange for the Republican votes.

As they shouldn't have in regards to the ACA. They had conceded ground on the debt ceiling before, and this time the Reps thought they would do it again regarding the most important piece of legislation they have passed in recent memory.

The Reps completely misplayed their hand this time around and got exactly what they deserved. They should have learned from the 30+ failed votes to repeal the ACA, along with polling that was pretty strongly against them using the ACA as a bargaining chip in the debt ceiling/budget, that they weren't going to be able to win on that front.

If they Reps had wanted to push other legislation or cut more funding across with the budget/debt ceiling they would probably have had more luck. Instead, they tried to attack the one thing that Obama and the Dems are not willing to cut back on. Not smart.

Seems to me you're trying to pick a fight that isn't here.

You're clearly supportive of the Dems in this situation, which is fine... except for the fact that being wrong is still wrong, and which is "worse" is clearly a matter of perception only.

The debt ceiling is just as much "law" as the ACA, and I suspect polling would show that the debt ceiling is more popular than the ACA. The fact that it has been raised before in no way invalidates, and in fact it supports my contention that each time it has been met with concessions.

This time, debt won and fiscal responsibility lost... and you seem happy because of what the debt is being spent on THIS time, but I'm willing to bet that there are things we spend money on that you don't support... and wouldn't support raising the debt ceiling for... and you'd support YOUR side doing "whatever" to keep it from happening...

because it is the DEBT that matters, and not this little skirmish.

I wasn't trying to pick a fight at all. Instead, I was trying to make a comment on the political moves that were made by the Republican Party and their poor choices to make those moves. The way things have played out have validated those comments.

And you would be incorrect on that bet. I am pretty in the middle regarding the ACA, but I am against the small faction of the House trying to keep the US from paying the bills we said we would pay in order to defund a law that they couldn't defund through traditional methods. Win the elections to get the votes needed, work magic behind closed doors to get the votes needed, but don't put people out of work or bring the nation to default because you don't like the ACA.

(10-20-2013 03:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-20-2013 02:49 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-20-2013 10:00 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-19-2013 10:41 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I didn't blame the whole thing on the Dems... but if you don't raise the debt ceiling, you can't fund Obamacare, which is clearly a Democratic bill. The Democrats need it raised to fund Obamacare. The Republicans would have been very happy to not raise it, and that should have been obvious.

The husband may have helped spend the money that made it so that there wasn't enough money in the bank for the shoes, but clearly he didn't tell her to buy the shoes (Obamacare).

Believe me, I have no particular love for what passes itself off as a Republican these days by any measure... but the reality is that the Democrats gave absolutely nothing in exchange for the Republican votes.

As they shouldn't have in regards to the ACA. They had conceded ground on the debt ceiling before, and this time the Reps thought they would do it again regarding the most important piece of legislation they have passed in recent memory.

The Reps completely misplayed their hand this time around and got exactly what they deserved. They should have learned from the 30+ failed votes to repeal the ACA, along with polling that was pretty strongly against them using the ACA as a bargaining chip in the debt ceiling/budget, that they weren't going to be able to win on that front.

If they Reps had wanted to push other legislation or cut more funding across with the budget/debt ceiling they would probably have had more luck. Instead, they tried to attack the one thing that Obama and the Dems are not willing to cut back on. Not smart.

Seems to me you're trying to pick a fight that isn't here.

You're clearly supportive of the Dems in this situation, which is fine... except for the fact that being wrong is still wrong, and which is "worse" is clearly a matter of perception only.

The debt ceiling is just as much "law" as the ACA, and I suspect polling would show that the debt ceiling is more popular than the ACA. The fact that it has been raised before in no way invalidates, and in fact it supports my contention that each time it has been met with concessions.

This time, debt won and fiscal responsibility lost... and you seem happy because of what the debt is being spent on THIS time, but I'm willing to bet that there are things we spend money on that you don't support... and wouldn't support raising the debt ceiling for... and you'd support YOUR side doing "whatever" to keep it from happening...

because it is the DEBT that matters, and not this little skirmish.

I wasn't trying to pick a fight at all. Instead, I was trying to make a comment on the political moves that were made by the Republican Party and their poor choices to make those moves. The way things have played out have validated those comments.

And you would be incorrect on that bet. I am pretty in the middle regarding the ACA, but I am against the small faction of the House trying to keep the US from paying the bills we said we would pay in order to defund a law that they couldn't defund through traditional methods. Win the elections to get the votes needed, work magic behind closed doors to get the votes needed, but don't put people out of work or bring the nation to default because you don't like the ACA.

First of all, you need to read my comments more carefully... and yes, you seem extremely confrontational.

I said I bet there are things that we spend money on that you don't support.... and you are saying that isn't true? You support everything we spend money on? I doubt that.

I also said that the demands of the Republicans were a different issue. I said the Dems should have had concessions to pass their bill, and you say no. That is fiscally irresponsibility at its core, and there really isn't any denying that.

You support the ACA, fine. People aren't REALLY put out of work, nor was the nation at REAL risk of default. You're buying into the hype and threats and rhetoric, and not looking at the simple fact that we bring in $350byn per month and our debt service is about $30byn. That isn't a recipe for anything remotely related to a "real" default... only a politically expedient one.

If you think the ACA is worth raising the debt limit, fine. Republicans generally don't.... and Democrats don't have the votes to pass the debt ceiling hike without some concessions... so your admonition to win elections and get the votes to pass what you need cuts both ways. yes, they got the votes to pass Obamacare, but didn't get the votes to pass the debt ceiling necessary to fund it on their timetable when the projections they put in place didn't pan out.

and you are basically arguing, or repeating their mantra that there isn't a single dime in the budget ANYWHERE to cut, or even to delay to fund Obamacare.

That just isn't a fact.

The cuts or delays they could have offered needn't have come from changing or delaying Obamacare. Sure, they would get many more Republican votes if they did, but they didn't need very many. There are literally thousands of programs they could have cut or delayed funding for and kept the ACA.... and once again, to your talk about what had been done before... many parts of the ACA have been delayed on numerous occasions... so similarly, what is the big problem in one more?

You see Dems as correct here and Reps as wrong. I don't. I see them BOTH as wrong. The best evidence is that everything you say about Reps is also true about dems. Please take note that I don't really take issue with your complaints about reps... I only take issue with your characterization that reps are the only ones in the wrong here.

The debt ceiling is just as much "law" as the ACA... and there have been numerous exceptions to the ACA, just like the debt ceiling. I can easily spell out the major flaws in the ACA in about 50 words, but haven't done so because this isn't about the ACA, but about the debt. The politicians, and you for that matter, want to make this about the ACA. For me, it's about the debt. I understand why politicians want to make it about the ACA... because cutting spending of virtually ANY kind takes power away from them and doesn't win many elections... but I don't understand why YOU don't care about the debt.

(10-20-2013 03:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I am against the small faction of the House trying to keep the US from paying the bills ... or bring the nation to default ...

Nobody is trying to keep the US from paying the bills we said we would pay. That's not how the debt ceiling works. There has been a tremendous amount of misinformation put out about this.

Hitting the debt ceiling would be a traumatic event. Not becuase bills wouldn't be paid, or becuase of any default regarding the debt or any other amounts already owed, but becuase many FUTURE expenditures would have to be shut off immediately. But those future expenditures are NOT bills.

It would be traumatic, no question, but it would not necessarily mean default. Unless, of course, the executive branch decided to play it that way.

Interesting question to me is this. Suppose Obama carried out his threat to ignore the debt ceiling and continue business as usual. That would require selling additional debt almost immediately. Who would buy debt issued in excess of a debt ceiling? I could see a lawsuit invalidating the debt because of the debt ceiling. That would mean no obligation to repay. Who would buy debt under those conditions?

(10-21-2013 01:06 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-20-2013 03:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-20-2013 02:49 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-20-2013 10:00 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-19-2013 10:41 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I didn't blame the whole thing on the Dems... but if you don't raise the debt ceiling, you can't fund Obamacare, which is clearly a Democratic bill. The Democrats need it raised to fund Obamacare. The Republicans would have been very happy to not raise it, and that should have been obvious.

The husband may have helped spend the money that made it so that there wasn't enough money in the bank for the shoes, but clearly he didn't tell her to buy the shoes (Obamacare).

Believe me, I have no particular love for what passes itself off as a Republican these days by any measure... but the reality is that the Democrats gave absolutely nothing in exchange for the Republican votes.

As they shouldn't have in regards to the ACA. They had conceded ground on the debt ceiling before, and this time the Reps thought they would do it again regarding the most important piece of legislation they have passed in recent memory.

The Reps completely misplayed their hand this time around and got exactly what they deserved. They should have learned from the 30+ failed votes to repeal the ACA, along with polling that was pretty strongly against them using the ACA as a bargaining chip in the debt ceiling/budget, that they weren't going to be able to win on that front.

If they Reps had wanted to push other legislation or cut more funding across with the budget/debt ceiling they would probably have had more luck. Instead, they tried to attack the one thing that Obama and the Dems are not willing to cut back on. Not smart.

Seems to me you're trying to pick a fight that isn't here.

You're clearly supportive of the Dems in this situation, which is fine... except for the fact that being wrong is still wrong, and which is "worse" is clearly a matter of perception only.

The debt ceiling is just as much "law" as the ACA, and I suspect polling would show that the debt ceiling is more popular than the ACA. The fact that it has been raised before in no way invalidates, and in fact it supports my contention that each time it has been met with concessions.

This time, debt won and fiscal responsibility lost... and you seem happy because of what the debt is being spent on THIS time, but I'm willing to bet that there are things we spend money on that you don't support... and wouldn't support raising the debt ceiling for... and you'd support YOUR side doing "whatever" to keep it from happening...

because it is the DEBT that matters, and not this little skirmish.

I wasn't trying to pick a fight at all. Instead, I was trying to make a comment on the political moves that were made by the Republican Party and their poor choices to make those moves. The way things have played out have validated those comments.

And you would be incorrect on that bet. I am pretty in the middle regarding the ACA, but I am against the small faction of the House trying to keep the US from paying the bills we said we would pay in order to defund a law that they couldn't defund through traditional methods. Win the elections to get the votes needed, work magic behind closed doors to get the votes needed, but don't put people out of work or bring the nation to default because you don't like the ACA.

First of all, you need to read my comments more carefully... and yes, you seem extremely confrontational.

I said I bet there are things that we spend money on that you don't support.... and you are saying that isn't true? You support everything we spend money on? I doubt that.

I also said that the demands of the Republicans were a different issue. I said the Dems should have had concessions to pass their bill, and you say no. That is fiscally irresponsibility at its core, and there really isn't any denying that.

You support the ACA, fine. People aren't REALLY put out of work, nor was the nation at REAL risk of default. You're buying into the hype and threats and rhetoric, and not looking at the simple fact that we bring in $350byn per month and our debt service is about $30byn. That isn't a recipe for anything remotely related to a "real" default... only a politically expedient one.

If you think the ACA is worth raising the debt limit, fine. Republicans generally don't.... and Democrats don't have the votes to pass the debt ceiling hike without some concessions... so your admonition to win elections and get the votes to pass what you need cuts both ways. yes, they got the votes to pass Obamacare, but didn't get the votes to pass the debt ceiling necessary to fund it on their timetable when the projections they put in place didn't pan out.

and you are basically arguing, or repeating their mantra that there isn't a single dime in the budget ANYWHERE to cut, or even to delay to fund Obamacare.

That just isn't a fact.

The cuts or delays they could have offered needn't have come from changing or delaying Obamacare. Sure, they would get many more Republican votes if they did, but they didn't need very many. There are literally thousands of programs they could have cut or delayed funding for and kept the ACA.... and once again, to your talk about what had been done before... many parts of the ACA have been delayed on numerous occasions... so similarly, what is the big problem in one more?

You see Dems as correct here and Reps as wrong. I don't. I see them BOTH as wrong. The best evidence is that everything you say about Reps is also true about dems. Please take note that I don't really take issue with your complaints about reps... I only take issue with your characterization that reps are the only ones in the wrong here.

The debt ceiling is just as much "law" as the ACA... and there have been numerous exceptions to the ACA, just like the debt ceiling. I can easily spell out the major flaws in the ACA in about 50 words, but haven't done so because this isn't about the ACA, but about the debt. The politicians, and you for that matter, want to make this about the ACA. For me, it's about the debt. I understand why politicians want to make it about the ACA... because cutting spending of virtually ANY kind takes power away from them and doesn't win many elections... but I don't understand why YOU don't care about the debt.

I think there are a number of misunderstandings/miscommunications/misrepresentations between the two of us, or worse, both of us just talking past each other.

I'm sorry if I came off as confrontational, I just feel very strongly that the Republicans screwed the pooch on this fight politically. And I think the evidence for that is the fact that the Dems were able to get the debt ceiling and government funded without any concessions, anywhere.

With regards to a few of your comments, I probably didn't communicate it as effectively, but I REALLY don't like using the debt ceiling as a negotiating tool with regards to any legislation/spending, regardless of my personal attitude towards the issue. Obviously there are things that we spend money on that I don't support, but I don't support using the debt ceiling as a negotiating tool, even if it is "MY" side using that tool. There are other tools that the minority can use to prove their point/delay legislation, and I believe that we should utilize those avenues instead.

Also, maybe I am a little off on my understanding of the debt ceiling, but I don't believe that raising this debt ceiling was due to the implementation of the ACA, but rather due to our normal spending/debt servicing. So the suggestion that raising the debt ceiling was necessary to fund the ACA isn't exactly true; raising the debt ceiling was necessary to fund all parts of the federal government in operation while also servicing our debt. It just turns out that the Reps wanted to target the ACA this time due to it starting. If I'm incorrect, and our debt jumped due the start of the ACA, could you point me in the direction of some literature regarding that?

Finally, with regards to your final comment about the whole issue being about the debt, I agree. The debt is something that needs to be taken seriously because my generation is going to pay for it in the long run if we don't. But the deficit is currently shrinking (which is a start; http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10...3631771366) and unfortunately, instead of trying to reinforce the idea that the debt needs to decrease with each of these debt ceiling debates, or trying to work towards budget cuts/revenue increases, the conversation returned to the ACA, the result of which was obviously unproductive.

(10-21-2013 10:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I think there are a number of misunderstandings/miscommunications/misrepresentations between the two of us, or worse, both of us just talking past each other.

Likely. Let's try again.

Quote:I'm sorry if I came off as confrontational, I just feel very strongly that the Republicans screwed the pooch on this fight politically. And I think the evidence for that is the fact that the Dems were able to get the debt ceiling and government funded without any concessions, anywhere.

Fair enough... depending on what you mean by screwing the pooch, I may or may not agree. I think the fact that they got nothing speaks to the power of the media to place blame, whether that blame is directed appropriately or not. I think they handled it poorly as evidenced by the fact that they lost... but I think that is partly to blame on the fact that many Republicans are complicit in the sham.

Quote:With regards to a few of your comments, I probably didn't communicate it as effectively, but I REALLY don't like using the debt ceiling as a negotiating tool with regards to any legislation/spending, regardless of my personal attitude towards the issue. Obviously there are things that we spend money on that I don't support, but I don't support using the debt ceiling as a negotiating tool, even if it is "MY" side using that tool. There are other tools that the minority can use to prove their point/delay legislation, and I believe that we should utilize those avenues instead.

But the debt ceiling is the ISSUE, not the tool. Congress shouldn't be able to effectively IGNORE the debt ceiling, which is what Congress as a whole has done... perhaps somewhat complicitly. These aren't concessions to the Republicans that should have been made, but concessions to the investing world and the taxpayers that should have been made. The Republicans certainly suggested what those concessions should have been (Obamacare) but as you note, we simply moved the goal post. The fact that the world didn't hammer us THIS time doesn't mean that they won't in the future... and when they do, there won't be anything we can do about it.

Yes, I'd rather delay the ACA by 6 months, or put off half a dozen projects I want for 6 months than risk losing investor confidence that we take our debt seriously. That is the ONE lesson we should all have learned from the mortgage crisis. It isn't the inability to pay your bills that is the problem, but the inability to roll your debt. Very few mortgages had defaulted when the crisis hit... all that had happened is that global investors ceased to take the mortgages as collateral for a debt at their former value. What do you think would happen if global investors merely decided that they wanted a 5% haircut on treasuries rather than a 2% one? The leverage in our system would be cut to 1/3 and there isn't triple our capital needs idle in the world to cover it.

Quote:Also, maybe I am a little off on my understanding of the debt ceiling, but I don't believe that raising this debt ceiling was due to the implementation of the ACA, but rather due to our normal spending/debt servicing. So the suggestion that raising the debt ceiling was necessary to fund the ACA isn't exactly true; raising the debt ceiling was necessary to fund all parts of the federal government in operation while also servicing our debt. It just turns out that the Reps wanted to target the ACA this time due to it starting. If I'm incorrect, and our debt jumped due the start of the ACA, could you point me in the direction of some literature regarding that?

The debt ceiling involves all of our expenses, including the ACA and debt service. Debt service is about $35byn/mo Source http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/repor...xpense.htm

Income is about $500byn/month Source http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/total

As I said, if Dems didn't want to delay the ACA (an expense that hadn't yet occurred but was due to be funded) they could have offered other cuts. They didn't. Republicans offered to pass a budget including everything EXCEPT the ACA. I guess I'd ask why the ACA should be off limits in your mind if other similarly passed legislation wasn't?

Quote:Finally, with regards to your final comment about the whole issue being about the debt, I agree. The debt is something that needs to be taken seriously because my generation is going to pay for it in the long run if we don't. But the deficit is currently shrinking (which is a start; http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10...3631771366) and unfortunately, instead of trying to reinforce the idea that the debt needs to decrease with each of these debt ceiling debates, or trying to work towards budget cuts/revenue increases, the conversation returned to the ACA, the result of which was obviously unproductive.

Wow... Okay.

Deficit and debt aren't the same thing. The deficit adds to the debt... it will never... EVER reduce the debt. Only a surplus will. The fact that the deficit is shrinking only speaks to the obvious fact that previous years involved literally trillions of dollars of supposedly "one-off" spending that we were told was deficit neutral based on future surpluses that have never come close to materializing. The reason we keep having to hike the ceiling is because we keep spending more than we take in.

Sorry, but I disagree that after many years of spending more than a trillion dollars per year more than we took in that a single year of $650byn deficit is worthy of much/any praise. We can agree to disagree on that... but we're now talking about almost 20 years of increasing debt with literally no end in sight.

and did you read the article? You've given the one-off high lite... I'll point out a few more... emphasis mine

Quote:The CBO said the improving deficit picture would continue for several years but would reverse course in 2016, when spending picks up as a share of the economy and revenue levels off. It said Medicare and Social Security would begin to consume an even larger share of the budget. By 2023, Social Security and government health-care spending is expected to hit $3 trillion, or half the budget.

Quote:The CBO said its lower deficit projection for this year reflects higher tax receipts—driven by higher individual and corporate income and one-time moves made by wealthier taxpayers to absorb a tax hit in late 2012 rather than wait until higher tax rates began in 2013 as part of the January fiscal-cliff deal.

If we won't cut a single dime in spending when our global financial reputation is on the line, when will we? If half the budget in 10 years is going to be social security and the GOVERNMENT'S portion alone of healthcare, where are we going to find cuts?

10 years isn't very long, and according to the CBO, we only have another 2 years before the "shrinking" reverses.

(10-22-2013 04:23 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

Quote:Finally, with regards to your final comment about the whole issue being about the debt, I agree. The debt is something that needs to be taken seriously because my generation is going to pay for it in the long run if we don't. But the deficit is currently shrinking (which is a start; http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10...3631771366) and unfortunately, instead of trying to reinforce the idea that the debt needs to decrease with each of these debt ceiling debates, or trying to work towards budget cuts/revenue increases, the conversation returned to the ACA, the result of which was obviously unproductive.

Wow... Okay.

Deficit and debt aren't the same thing. The deficit adds to the debt... it will never... EVER reduce the debt. Only a surplus will. The fact that the deficit is shrinking only speaks to the obvious fact that previous years involved literally trillions of dollars of supposedly "one-off" spending that we were told was deficit neutral based on future surpluses that have never come close to materializing. The reason we keep having to hike the ceiling is because we keep spending more than we take in.

Sorry, but I disagree that after many years of spending more than a trillion dollars per year more than we took in that a single year of $650byn deficit is worthy of much/any praise. We can agree to disagree on that... but we're now talking about almost 20 years of increasing debt with literally no end in sight.

and did you read the article? You've given the one-off high lite... I'll point out a few more... emphasis mine

Quote:The CBO said the improving deficit picture would continue for several years but would reverse course in 2016, when spending picks up as a share of the economy and revenue levels off. It said Medicare and Social Security would begin to consume an even larger share of the budget. By 2023, Social Security and government health-care spending is expected to hit $3 trillion, or half the budget.

Quote:The CBO said its lower deficit projection for this year reflects higher tax receipts—driven by higher individual and corporate income and one-time moves made by wealthier taxpayers to absorb a tax hit in late 2012 rather than wait until higher tax rates began in 2013 as part of the January fiscal-cliff deal.

If we won't cut a single dime in spending when our global financial reputation is on the line, when will we? If half the budget in 10 years is going to be social security and the GOVERNMENT'S portion alone of healthcare, where are we going to find cuts?

10 years isn't very long, and according to the CBO, we only have another 2 years before the "shrinking" reverses.

C'mon Ham, give me a bit more credit than thinking I don't know the difference between the debt and the deficit.

I specifically stated that the shrinking deficit is a start towards decreasing the debt since, as you noted as well, you can't decrease the debt until you get rid of the deficit. And I don't think that it is something to praise either, but you have to start somewhere, you aren't going to be able to cut that deficit in a single move.

Also, regarding the rest of the article, I was using it just to cite the decrease in deficit recently. While the CBO outlooks/models are of interest, I try not to put too much stock in them since they deal with such a macro concept.

(10-22-2013 04:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  C'mon Ham, give me a bit more credit than thinking I don't know the difference between the debt and the deficit.

I specifically stated that the shrinking deficit is a start towards decreasing the debt since, as you noted as well, you can't decrease the debt until you get rid of the deficit. And I don't think that it is something to praise either, but you have to start somewhere, you aren't going to be able to cut that deficit in a single move.

Also, regarding the rest of the article, I was using it just to cite the decrease in deficit recently. While the CBO outlooks/models are of interest, I try not to put too much stock in them since they deal with such a macro concept.

You seem to be arguing both sides here though.... You realize that budgets and projections are a macro concept, but then put some emphasis in a single data point. My issue is that you seem to give it as an indication of a trend... a start... which the CBO specifically refutes. The reality is that it is merely a lower data point in the somewhat random walk of economic activity.

Looking at the "expense" link I gave, i recall that june has something like 93 billion in debt service needs and no other month has more than $35byn (off the top of my head).... If someone were to claim that the $93 billion shows a huge increase in the debt service and that it was the start of our financial ruin, you would rightly point out that it is merely a data point and not necessarily a trend.

The point is that even the lower deficit that you point out is primarily the result of one-time tax receipts and not of a decrease in spending.... and even with a GUN to our heads, we don't cut spending... and the people who propose spending cuts are ALWAYS viewed as the villains. It doesn't matter if we are cutting the ACA or reducing our expenses for food stamps by having higher employment... people are vilified for even SUGGESTING that we cut food stamp expense from $80byn to $25byn... even though prior to Obama taking office, it had never been much over $25byn. That should be a goal of us all, and it isn't....

source that they are vilified for relatively small cuts...
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/20/us/pol....html?_r=0

$40byn over 10 years is $4byn per year from a budget that is now $80byn per year and had never been more than $25byn or served more than 28mm people before about 2002 and now serves almost double that source for the numbers: http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/SNAPsummary.htm

(10-22-2013 05:14 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 04:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  C'mon Ham, give me a bit more credit than thinking I don't know the difference between the debt and the deficit.

I specifically stated that the shrinking deficit is a start towards decreasing the debt since, as you noted as well, you can't decrease the debt until you get rid of the deficit. And I don't think that it is something to praise either, but you have to start somewhere, you aren't going to be able to cut that deficit in a single move.

Also, regarding the rest of the article, I was using it just to cite the decrease in deficit recently. While the CBO outlooks/models are of interest, I try not to put too much stock in them since they deal with such a macro concept.

You seem to be arguing both sides here though.... You realize that budgets and projections are a macro concept, but then put some emphasis in a single data point. My issue is that you seem to give it as an indication of a trend... a start... which the CBO specifically refutes. The reality is that it is merely a lower data point in the somewhat random walk of economic activity.

Looking at the "expense" link I gave, i recall that june has something like 93 billion in debt service needs and no other month has more than $35byn (off the top of my head).... If someone were to claim that the $93 billion shows a huge increase in the debt service and that it was the start of our financial ruin, you would rightly point out that it is merely a data point and not necessarily a trend.

The point is that even the lower deficit that you point out is primarily the result of one-time tax receipts and not of a decrease in spending.... and even with a GUN to our heads, we don't cut spending... and the people who propose spending cuts are ALWAYS viewed as the villains. It doesn't matter if we are cutting the ACA or reducing our expenses for food stamps by having higher employment... people are vilified for even SUGGESTING that we cut food stamp expense from $80byn to $25byn... even though prior to Obama taking office, it had never been much over $25byn. That should be a goal of us all, and it isn't....

source that they are vilified for relatively small cuts...
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/20/us/pol....html?_r=0

$40byn over 10 years is $4byn per year from a budget that is now $80byn per year and had never been more than $25byn or served more than 28mm people before about 2002 and now serves almost double that source for the numbers: http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/SNAPsummary.htm

I don't think I'm arguing both sides at all. I wasn't extrapolating that deficit decrease to the future, just stating that in order to get to a budget surplus, you need to get a decrease in the deficit, and, well, that's what happened. I wasn't trying to defend a very complicated economical model applied at a macro scale, just that hopefully this decrease in the deficit is hopefully the first step in the right direction. If you reread my comment, I was more trying to say that we have some momentum with this decrease in deficit, and instead of trying to further that momentum by going for other spending cuts, the Reps went after the program that was not going to be touched by the Dems.

Also, with regards to comment about not cutting spending when the gun is to our heads, didn't, um, this kind of happen?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_sequ...on_in_2013