Government Shut Down

[richlevy]

There are 233 members in the house. About 80 of them are in safe districts. The other 150 odd members at this point are asking themselves if it's more dangerous to piss off the Tea Party and risk a primary challenge on the right, or follow them off the cliff and have their Democratic opponent in the general make the point that this wouldn't have happened with a Democratic majority.

Democrats took the house after a 12 year Republican rule in 2006. Republicans took it back in 2010. Even with a huge amount of gerrymandering at the state level, any large enough event that tarnishes the Republican brand can lose them their 33 seat advantage. Driving the government over the cliff would do it. While Fox News and the right wing media machine can preach to the choir and blame Obama, most of the independents will blame the Republicans.

Boehner is out in the weeds and is vainly hoping the Senate Democrats and Obama will both blink. His party is about to go into uncharted territory in delivering the first US default in our nations history. This will impact everyone, including billionaires. It is an unprecedented man-made disaster that would have global implications.

The President has very limited powers regarding the military in domestic situations under the Posse Comitatus Act with some exceptions to deal with any physical fallout. What powers he might claim with the Treasury and Justice Departments are much less limited. The point would need to be made with the rabid right that by inflicting damage to the government they actually give more power to the President to restore order.

It would be very easy to turn a conspiracy theory into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[Adak]

Wrong - again!

We have had 27 gov't shutdowns, and so far, survived every one of them.

Which is why the democrats won't compromise on their spending. As both Pelosi and Reed have stated "there is nothing that can be cut".

The Democrats know that they don't have to compromise, because the Republicans are split, and don't control the Senate or the Executive house of the gov't. They don't give a damn if you're reduced to poverty over the shut down, because if you are, well - you'll need welfare and food stamps, and housing help, and all the other gov't hand out programs they favor.

The Democrats LOVE the poor - they must, because they make so many of 'em.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Adak

Wrong - again!

We have had 27 gov't shutdowns, and so far, survived every one of them.

I'm not talking about a shutdown, I'm talking about a default. We came close a few years ago and as a result slipped our credit rating. This costs us real money in terms of borrowing costs. Actually defaulting, even for a second, would have consequences. I heard Rand Paul poopoo this, but his arguments were based on the idea that the money would still be there. Anyone paying a credit card could tell him that the money being there does not prevent the rate from getting jacked up if the check is even a day late.

In the financial markets the mantra for the US is 'full faith and credit'. This is the invisible shield that allows us good credit despite our debt - why we are not being treated like Greece. The Republicans, the so-called part of finance, are threatening that.

[Adak]

There will be no default, according to the Conservatives. (who are in favor of a shutdown).

I love how this is all blamed on the Republicans. You'd think we just had ONE political party that was being hard to deal with.

The fact is, this is the only card that the Republicans can play right now, because the Democrats are in power elsewhere, and have ABSOLUTELY NO intentions of cutting the gov't spending, in any meaningful way. They have refused to do so, ever since Obama came into office, and the Democrats got control of the Senate.

If the Republicans are being obstinate, it's because the Democrats showed them that was what would be required, as they continue to run our national debt to the moon.

[DanaC]

It isn't all about debt ya know. There are people involved. people whose children will go without food, and whose parents will go without care, and who may, just may, need some kind of help whilst out of work.

Cutting government spending, by cutting 'entitlements' may take something off the headline debt figure, but it is a false economy. If people aren't able to afford even the basics for survival then they don't spend. By cutting entitlements you remove a swathe of people from active involvement in the marketplace.

Better to give those benefits and have those people spending that money back in the shops. And better to have those with some financial wriggleroom confident enough that they are not fearful of losing their jobs and starving on the streets, else they also will spend less.

Cutting benefits is a quick fix that ultimately damages the country in real terms.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Adak

The fact is, this is the only card that the Republicans can play right now, because the Democrats are in power elsewhere,

There are 3 branches of government. The executive, the legislative, and the judicial.

The Democrats currently control the White House.
The Republicans control the Supreme Court.
The Congress is split 50/50 between the Democrats and Republicans. One party has the House, and one party has the Senate.

You couldn't get more evenly balanced if you tried.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Adak

I love how this is all blamed on the Republicans. You'd think we just had ONE political party that was being hard to deal with.

Did you every read your own posts? Just ask'in.

[glatt]

I'm starting to get the emails at work about what's going to happen during the looming shutdown.

Looks like many of the government entities we work with will remain open for business for a couple weeks. They have financial reserves from fees collected in the previous year and will continue to function. Courts, and the PTO mostly.

Looks like it's really going to happen though.

[orthodoc]

We have our instructions for tomorrow morning. Since workplace safety isn't considered essential, we'll be furloughed. I have a Plan B, though, since I'm not a federal employee and can continue some things on my own.

It'll be strange going in tomorrow morning, tidying up/cancelling meetings etc., and getting back on the metro.

Although - just got an email saying demonstrations are planned at the entrances to our building and we may be prevented from leaving this afternoon.

[glatt]

Your son is at the PTO, right? I understand they can stay open for 4 weeks.

Metro is going to lose a lot of money with many federal workers not riding.

I wonder if they will go to a weekend schedule if ridership is down significantly. I hope not. That would suck, having to wait half an hour for a crowded train.

[orthodoc]

Yes, my oldest son is at the PTO. He's hoping like mad that this is resolved quickly. He's been told they have about ten days of reserves, but if it's 4 weeks, fantastic.

A weekend schedule for the metro would be awful. We attempted to get downtown this past weekend to see museums and monuments and ended up walking an extra mile or two because the trains were just standing. Good exercise, but we already had a major hike planned. Doing that on workdays would ... well, I guess we'd get used to it.

I'll be furloughed but I can grab an extra desk at another non-government (but occ med/environmental med) office, apparently, so I'll still be going into the city each morning.

[Griff]

Interesting Poll here

79% of the country thinks a shutdown is a bad thing. 46% blame the GOP Congress if it occurs. 69% believe the Reps in Congress are behaving like spoiled children. 58% say the Dems in Congress are. 38% are in favor of Obamacare. 57% oppose it. 60% however think its more important to prevent a government shutdown than stopping ACA. 68% say it would be bad to shutdown the government for a few days. 79% think it would be bad to shut it down for a few weeks.

Bottom line, the people are not convinced that Obamacare is a good thing, however, shutting down the government is seen as an extreme response. The GOP appears to have an extremist problem at least as far as these poll responders are concerned, but the Democrats need to stop pretending Obamacare currently has widespread support. We'll see what happens to those numbers as people get more familiar and implementation continues. One reading of it anyway.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Of course people are against it, they've been bombarded with half-truths, and flat out lies for the last six years. Look at ADAK, for Christ sake. Most of the people I meet who are against it have no idea what it is or how it works, no less how it will affect them. Fear of the unknown is one of man's worst.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by glatt

There are 3 branches of government. The executive, the legislative, and the judicial.

The Democrats currently control the White House.
The Republicans control the Supreme Court.
The Congress is split 50/50 between the Democrats and Republicans. One party has the House, and one party has the Senate.

You couldn't get more evenly balanced if you tried.

The Supreme Court is more liberal than conservative, and has already given the legal green light to ObamaCare. So right now, the Court is out of the picture.

That leaves us with the two houses of Congress: Senate and House of Representative. There we have a split between the parties, currently.

What I'm saying is that the two parties need to come to a good compromise on their concerns here - instead of just snarling at each other like a pair of mean dogs. Compromise makes great politics. Being obstinate - and by God the Democrats have been absolutely obstinate about cutting anything substantial from the budget - will only get more of the same from the other party.

That's just human nature. You push people, and they'll start to push back. Duh!

In my opinion, the Republicans would leave ObamaCare alone, IF the Democrats would agree to cut the exemptions, and cut some substantial spending NOW (not in the future, we've seen how that plays out haven't we?).

Since the Republicans in the Senate failed to support further action against ObamaCare, I thought the House Republicans would follow suit. But NO, they have not! So it appears VERY LIKELY we will have a shutdown. Some parts of it will start at Midnight, Eastern Daylight Time, unless the parties can reach some kind of a compromise.

Which is totally unlikely, because Reed has already put his foot in his mouth saying he will not compromise. Well, that cuts the chances of a last minute compromise, right down to about nothing, doesn't it?

[Adak]

Originally Posted by DanaC

It isn't all about debt ya know. There are people involved. people whose children will go without food, and whose parents will go without care, and who may, just may, need some kind of help whilst out of work.

Cutting government spending, by cutting 'entitlements' may take something off the headline debt figure, but it is a false economy. If people aren't able to afford even the basics for survival then they don't spend. By cutting entitlements you remove a swathe of people from active involvement in the marketplace.

Better to give those benefits and have those people spending that money back in the shops. And better to have those with some financial wriggleroom confident enough that they are not fearful of losing their jobs and starving on the streets, else they also will spend less.

Cutting benefits is a quick fix that ultimately damages the country in real terms.

No, it isn't better! The number one priority for any country's economic health, is to maintain a good private sector.

That's the people like you and me, that pay the gov't our money. If the private sector businesses go bust, the gov't will be TOTALLY OUT OF $$$, and unable to pay it's debt. You will be bankrupt pretty soon, and unable to buy ANYTHING. Our money won't be worth the paper it's printed on. That's a financial collapse, and THAT is something you and I, NEVER want to see happen.

That is what we're headed for - and everybody knows it if they're into economics at all - it's like the Soviets, when they overspent during the Cold War years. They kept it up for about 30 years, but inevitably it wiped them out.

We could cut a lot of fat out of the federal gov't - no doubt about it. But the Democrats know that the more people they have getting some kind of $$$$ from the gov't, the more Democratic voters they are likely to get on the next election day.

So they spend, and spend, and spend, and of course, grow the federal gov't bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and ...