Even a rising tide can't raise a sinking ship...
October 9, 2013 10:06 AM   Subscribe

With the government shutdown now well underway and the effects beginning to be felt, the first debt default by a major world power in modern history since the collapse of the Soviet Union speeding toward us in what could be as little as a week, what will Americans and the world think of the US Congress that refused to pay the nation's outstanding debts, making America look like a dead-beat nation to potential investors around the world? Polls show Americans overwhelmingly blame congressional Republicans for the political standoff and shutdown. With some Republican congressmen on the record arguing that a US debt default may actually be necessary to rein in further government spending, it's easy to see why many Americans blame them.

But would even an actual default really mean the sky is falling? So what if America loses its good credit on the international markets and its treasury bond values collapse spectacularly. How would it compare to, say, the Lehman collapse that triggered the global recession?
posted by saulgoodman (2760 comments total) 109 users marked this as a favorite
 
I know there's an older, open thread, but I thought a new one focusing more on the default possibility might be appropriate. No hard feelings, mods, if I was mistaken.
posted by saulgoodman at 10:07 AM on October 9, 2013 [9 favorites]


The other one is getting to be a pain in the ass to read on phones, so I'm hoping this stays open.
posted by longdaysjourney at 10:09 AM on October 9, 2013 [9 favorites]


Good call on the new thread. The other one is long and less focused on the complete issue of the debt ceiling vis a vis the shutdown. It appears highly likely that the two have already merged, given we have 8 days until the next deadline.
posted by Ironmouth at 10:09 AM on October 9, 2013


Debt ceiling is superflous and stupid. A default would be catastrophic.
posted by wuwei at 10:10 AM on October 9, 2013 [2 favorites]


If the President lets the debt ceiling expire without minting the coin or utilizing the 14th A option then he deserves severe criticism.
posted by wrapper at 10:11 AM on October 9, 2013 [4 favorites]


RE polls, the majority of the American population live in places that already elect candidates with sense. But the country has been cut up into illogical segments founded on ideology in places with a small number of people. The radicals that represent that minority are the ones holding us hostage today.

What the majority of Americans think of this congress won't matter in most political races in 2014.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 10:12 AM on October 9, 2013 [6 favorites]


I've called my reps multiple times saying "don't capitulate", what else can we do? I'm in SF so there are no Republicans I can picket nearby.

Does Boehner have local competition I can send money to?
posted by bottlebrushtree at 10:12 AM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


A better way to reign in government spending: Pass budgets with less spending. Here's an easy place to start brainstorming.
posted by anthill at 10:12 AM on October 9, 2013 [5 favorites]


Does anyone think it's possible some of the Republicans in Congress hope to back Pres. Obama into a corner and force him to use either the coin or the 14th A option to save the economy and then attack him for using constitutionaly dubious methods? I can see somebody seeing that as a way out, a way to declare moral victory without defaulting.
posted by Wretch729 at 10:14 AM on October 9, 2013 [3 favorites]


Hitting the debt ceiling just means another shutdown. Income from tax receipts is more than enough to pay interest on the debt and social security checks.
posted by anotherpanacea at 10:14 AM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


We already made massive cuts to government spending with the sequester. That's still a thing. It hasn't gone away.
posted by C'est la D.C. at 10:14 AM on October 9, 2013 [15 favorites]


The majority of the American population voted for Democratic control of the House, and yet due to state gerrymandering, the R's hold it unless they're trumped with a 7-8% loss. It's a good thing they're prepared to lose the House since it seems they're going to bet the farm on this one. I just hope they don't take my economy down with them.
posted by msbutah at 10:14 AM on October 9, 2013 [2 favorites]


The tough part of this story, I tihnk, is the profound amount of.... nothing really happening.

As someone pointed out, it's like a game of chicken: whichever side flinches, loses. If the Dems flinch, then the Tea Party minority get all they want forever by repeated hostage-taking. If the Repugnicants flinch, they look like total idiots to everyone, impacting their election prospects, and - depending on the form of the flinch - causing a fundamental internal rift in the party to manifest. And if neither flinches, everyone loses.

But the two cars involved in the game of chicken started from Washington and San Francisco, and have currently only made it as far as Utah and Ohio, respectively. So there's still a lot of waiting before the big moment that everyone knows is coming. It's a really dumb time to flinch, so we keep waiting and biting fingernails...
posted by kaibutsu at 10:15 AM on October 9, 2013 [7 favorites]


The other one is getting to be a pain in the ass to read on phones, so I'm hoping this stays open.

I refuse to take this to a vote until there are substantial changes to Obamacare!
posted by mazola at 10:15 AM on October 9, 2013 [10 favorites]


I work on Capitol Hill: We're going over that cliff. Get ready.
posted by Ghost Mode at 10:15 AM on October 9, 2013 [36 favorites]


Hitting the debt ceiling just means another shutdown. Income from tax receipts is more than enough to pay interest on the debt and social security checks.

What happens to your credit rating when you start picking and choosing which loans to pay back on time?
posted by Drinky Die at 10:15 AM on October 9, 2013 [25 favorites]


If the President lets the debt ceiling expire without minting the coin or utilizing the 14th A option then he deserves severe criticism.

Perhaps, but it's by no means an easy decision to make, and it's not necessarily the case that such action would preserve stability -- both of these actions would be subject to lengthy constitutional challenge, during the pendency of which it would be unclear whether government-issued debt were subject to full faith and credit or not.

Moreover, to do so would be to take great steps along an already-worrying trend of consolidation of Federal power in the office of the President. I'm nobody's fan of this Congress, but ultimately in the balance of things I tend to think Congress has already impermissibly abdicated both its power and its responsibility in a great many areas, to the detriment of the Republic.
posted by gauche at 10:16 AM on October 9, 2013 [6 favorites]


Hitting the debt ceiling just means another shutdown. Income from tax receipts is more than enough to pay interest on the debt and social security checks.

No, we're already in shutdown currently. It's estimated we'll actually reach true default within a little over a week (give or take a few days either way).
posted by saulgoodman at 10:16 AM on October 9, 2013 [5 favorites]


I would also vote for keeping this one, the other was a shaggy dog.

If we're going to keep this one...can we make it "rein in spending" not "reign"?

posted by emjaybee at 10:16 AM on October 9, 2013 [15 favorites]


Then when the government defaults on its debts the House Republicans can crow SEE WE TOLD YOU GOVERNMENT DOESN'T WORK.
posted by chicxulub at 10:17 AM on October 9, 2013 [17 favorites]


Oops. Yes please!
posted by saulgoodman at 10:17 AM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]




so is this going to be like "start researching Icelandic visa requirements" bad or "buy shitloads of ammo" bad
posted by theodolite at 10:17 AM on October 9, 2013 [10 favorites]


I just hope they don't take my economy down with them.

Haha nonono the Republicans are conservative and therefore know best about the economy silly
posted by Hoopo at 10:17 AM on October 9, 2013 [11 favorites]


A better way to reign in government spending: Pass budgets with less spending. Here's an easy place to start brainstorming.'

This has nothing to do with spending, at all.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 10:17 AM on October 9, 2013 [34 favorites]


I work on Capitol Hill: We're going over that cliff. Get ready.

How?
posted by Going To Maine at 10:17 AM on October 9, 2013 [14 favorites]


At this point, the GOP has become the action hero villain who says, all crazy-eyed "if I'm going down, I'm bringing you with me." In this case, the "you" is the American economy and people.
posted by lunasol at 10:17 AM on October 9, 2013 [20 favorites]


If the President lets the debt ceiling expire without minting the coin or utilizing the 14th A option then he deserves severe criticism.

It is extremely hard to predict how the Supreme Court would rule on this issue if it came before them, and hard to figure how to find someone with standing (someone who has suffered a "particularized harm") who could force them to bring legal clarity. Meanwhile you've plunged the country into a constitutional crisis on top of the fiscal crisis. There are really, really good reasons for Obama to declare firmly that this is simply Not An Option, at least until such time as the Republicans prove themselves psychotic enough to throw the country over that cliff. At that point he may have to revise his stance for the good of the country, but it won't be a panacea by any means. It will be a question of just how jagged the rocks we fall on to will be.
posted by yoink at 10:18 AM on October 9, 2013 [8 favorites]


Can the public start a class action lawsuit against members of the Republican Party for economic damages?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:18 AM on October 9, 2013 [32 favorites]


It's all been downhill since they stopped challenging one another to duels. But like, they'd have access to tanks and shit now, there would be live news coverage, and sports statistics overlays and advertisements for Nike on their dueling jackets. Maybe they should just settle things over a battle on Eve Online?
posted by TwelveTwo at 10:20 AM on October 9, 2013 [3 favorites]


I'm actually really scared that this will pan out the same way as the sequester. First it was a thing that was so awful nobody could imagine it happening. Then people started to crawl out of the woodwork talking about how it actually wasn't a big deal. Then it happened. I'm seeing the same pattern here.
posted by C'est la D.C. at 10:20 AM on October 9, 2013 [25 favorites]


How?

You can get the supplies you will need for a default at many local stores.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:20 AM on October 9, 2013 [45 favorites]


I read about an interesting alternative to the platinum coin/14th amendment option. Essentially, create a bond with 23 percent interest:

The debt ceiling applies to the face amount of bonds, not the amount raised, so selling a $100 bond for $275 only counts $100 against the debt ceiling and gets you $175 in debt-ceiling-free money. There are rules against issuing premium Treasury bonds, but the rules are just Treasury rules and they can be changed unilaterally by Treasury with no notice and no Congressional approval. So Treasury could do an auction tomorrow seeking to sell $100 billion of 23 percent bonds for $275 billion and as far as I can tell no one could stop them.

Mint the premium bonds!
posted by wikipedia brown boy detective at 10:20 AM on October 9, 2013 [8 favorites]


If the President lets the debt ceiling expire without minting the coin or utilizing the 14th A option then he deserves severe criticism.

I mean, sure, I'd like this as opposed to default, but even if he does that the rest of the world has no reason to place faith in the the US to pay their bills ever again. Either way, the full faith and credit of the US Treasury has been destroyed.

Hitting the debt ceiling just means another shutdown. Income from tax receipts is more than enough to pay interest on the debt and social security checks.

There are a hojillion articles pointing out how wrong this is, please do even the barest bit of research on this before barging into the thread. The absolute latest we could possible do this is November 1. And that's with prioritization, which is at best sets a horrific precedent (imagine if a Republican President decides to fund soldiers and let the old and poor get sick and die), and at worst is insanely illegal.
posted by zombieflanders at 10:21 AM on October 9, 2013 [14 favorites]


So what's the recommended course of action for people who'd like to preserve the current value of their retirement funds? My little 401k just recently got back to where it was in 2007-08 when the Great Recession started. It would be nice to not lose 30% of the value of my retirement fund when the markets finally catch up to the fact that the crazy people are driving the bus and are headed over the cliff.
posted by longdaysjourney at 10:21 AM on October 9, 2013 [9 favorites]


Here's the TPM post on why the 14th amendment and giant block of platinum strategies won't work, even if they were carried out. Answer: We need confidence in our system, and either move would be stuck in the courts forever, undermining confidence in the bonds etc underwritten by those moves, and thereby making them worthless even before they're issued.
posted by kaibutsu at 10:22 AM on October 9, 2013 [3 favorites]


So what's the recommended course of action for people who'd like to preserve the current value of their retirement funds?

When do you want to retire? People retiring in less than 5 years and more than 15 years have drastic different courses of action when it comes to managing market volatility.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 10:22 AM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


longdaysjourney: Probably a good idea to get cash out of the markets ASAP and convert it to a currency that isn't the dollar. But that's just my two cents...
posted by kaibutsu at 10:23 AM on October 9, 2013


"a US debt default may actually be necessary to reign in further government spending"

...say the people in charge of authorizing government spending.

I mean srsly do they even listen to the words coming out of their own mouths
posted by ook at 10:24 AM on October 9, 2013 [15 favorites]


It's all been downhill since they stopped challenging one another to duels. But like, they'd have access to tanks and shit now, there would be live news coverage, and sports statistics overlays and advertisements for Nike on their dueling jackets.

I think there is an anime about this now.
posted by curious nu at 10:24 AM on October 9, 2013 [4 favorites]


You have two cents? Can I borrow one? I need to pay a few debts.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 10:24 AM on October 9, 2013 [2 favorites]


Well, assuming no major illnesses, I'd like to retire when I hit 65 (I'm 40 now).
posted by longdaysjourney at 10:25 AM on October 9, 2013


You have two cents? Can I borrow one? I need to pay a few debts.

Sorry, I won't let you borrow any more money unless you drop your kids from your health insurance plan.
posted by xbonesgt at 10:27 AM on October 9, 2013 [50 favorites]


Hitting the debt ceiling just means another shutdown. Income from tax receipts is more than enough to pay interest on the debt and social security checks.

Even if this were true, it's far from clear that the government can prioritize payments like this. Who has the right to choose? By what authority?
posted by It's Never Lurgi at 10:27 AM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


My understanding is that currency speculation if the default really happens will be kind of worthless.

A more financially savvy friend of mine compared it to "duck and cover" in the case of an imminent nuclear strike. It'll make you feel better, and the money looks nice, but you're still holding worthless paper...
posted by lattiboy at 10:27 AM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


I mean srsly do they even listen to the words coming out of their own mouths

I get the feeling they would rather be a homeless person with no debt than a rich person making a mortgage payment every month.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:28 AM on October 9, 2013 [2 favorites]


The thing that makes the little blood vessel on my forehead bulge about the Republicans hate-on for spending is that it's their guys (Reagan, Bush the Elder, Bush the Lesser) who MASSIVELY increased the debt. Things have increased under Obama, but that probably has something to do with the entirely new department and two wars his predecessor was kind enough to leave for him.
posted by entropicamericana at 10:28 AM on October 9, 2013 [27 favorites]


Do the markets expect a default? Have bond rates shot up lately?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 10:28 AM on October 9, 2013 [2 favorites]


A more financially savvy friend of mine compared it to "duck and cover" in the case of an imminent nuclear strike. It'll make you feel better, and the money looks nice, but you're still holding worthless paper...

So...buy Bitcoin?
posted by Drinky Die at 10:28 AM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


I think there is an anime about this now

Girls und Panzer. It's far, far more fun than it has any right to be.

Probably the least helpful contribution to this thread so far, but there you go.
posted by garius at 10:29 AM on October 9, 2013 [5 favorites]


Are we really panicking and talking about taking our money out of 401ks? Would that even work at this stage?

Because like longdaysjourney, if I stay healthy I've got 15-20 more years of work ahead of me. I am reluctant to start acting like an end-of-days survivalist.
posted by emjaybee at 10:29 AM on October 9, 2013


If the President lets the debt ceiling expire without minting the coin or utilizing the 14th A option then he deserves severe criticism.
The coin is a clever, nifty idea but it has problems. The one that gets overlooked the most is it wouldn’t actually make everything normal after it was invoked. It would be subjected to all kinds of challenges and litigation. As a straightforward matter the Federal Reserve wouldn’t give Treasury a trillion dollars for that coin. We looked carefully at it, but for both practical and legal reasons, the legal reason being the law obviously wasn’t meant for anything like this and the practical reason being that the Federal Reserve would need to cooperate and wouldn’t, it wouldn’t work.

The 14th Amendment shares similar problems in which you would invoke a constitutional crisis of sorts. One side would say the president broke the law and should be impeached. That would occupy all the oxygen in Washington. That’s not a reason not to do it if it’s the right thing to do. But if the objective is keeping our status as the safest and best investment in the world you’ve created all kinds of doubts about us. I don’t think proponents have thought enough about what would happen after you did it.
The whole article was pretty great for helping a non-American understand what's actually going on here.
posted by 256 at 10:29 AM on October 9, 2013 [8 favorites]


Polls show the GOP getting hammered for this as even the most isolated people know the basic facts of this manufactured crisis.

The democrats want nothing but an open government. The republicans want an open government after a laundry list of conservative policies and wet dreams are implemented. The best part being, they don't even know what they really want anymore. Defunding ACA? Delaying it? Social safety net cuts? Tax cuts?

Sadly, the Tea Party fringe already has what it wants and has had it since government shut down. You can't get a government much smaller than one that isn't there. This, then compounded by Boehner having enough moderate votes to pass a clean CR with democratic help but lacking enough moderate votes to keep himself in power in the fallout of such a move.

Madness.
posted by Slackermagee at 10:30 AM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]




On September 18, I positioned myself to buy like a motherfucker. Of course, so did many others.
posted by Ardiril at 10:31 AM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


With some Republican congressmen on the record arguing that a US debt default may actually be necessary to reign in further government spending

I think a lot of the general public doesn't grasp this part of the problem. There are a lot of Tea Party types out there (I know a few personally) that think government should do little besides defend our borders and enforce laws and contracts. (I realize this is ridiculous for many reasons, but they think like that anyway.) With this shutdown and the looming deficit ceiling they have accomplished that. They have no reason to change their postion on the matter; they think they have won. But that needs to be publicized so that people understand this isn't about a failure to compromise (as the news media keeps repeating, much to my chagrin) as a bunch of anti-government zealots forcing their program on everyone without going through the normal legislative process.
posted by TedW at 10:33 AM on October 9, 2013 [82 favorites]


So do I need to cash everything out and move to Somalia to become a warlord? Plz advise

i instinctively feel i would be good at warlording, idk
posted by elizardbits at 10:33 AM on October 9, 2013 [69 favorites]


I have a question about how realistic a particular theory is, but it's from the previous thread and hopefully not a derail in this one.

The NYT posted an article about how the debt ceiling crisis has been planned out by the Koch Brothers and the former Attorney General, Edwin Meese III for months. Then, death and taxes posted this article about the specific rhetoric being used. In the previous thread, oneswellfoop posted this theory about the Koch Brothers' business.

Is this an actually legitimate theory, or are these things purely conjecture?
posted by gucci mane at 10:34 AM on October 9, 2013 [8 favorites]


Tedw: spot-fucking-on.
posted by mazola at 10:35 AM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


One of the funnest (for Dwarf-like definitions of Fun) solutions to the debt ceiling that I've heard was for the treasury to ignore the debt ceiling limit and wait for the court case/police to show up before actually turning off the tap.

There was equal parts desperation, self-deception, assumptions of willingness to be party to illegality on the part of all treasury members, assumptions of the feds to shrug their shoulders and tell the GOP, "Well, you stop them, we're not crashing the economy.", and an assumption that the eventual court case about it would result in the debt ceiling limit being abolished.

So a shitty plan, but Boatmurdered survived worse. I'm sure the capital will make do.
posted by Slackermagee at 10:35 AM on October 9, 2013 [9 favorites]


Sadly, the Tea Party fringe already has what it wants and has had it since government shut down. You can't get a government much smaller than one that isn't there.

I get the feeling more than a few House tea-partiers see bringing the government down completely as a perfectly acceptable outcome. Then, kill-off social programs and privatize everything else. Mission accomplished.
posted by Thorzdad at 10:35 AM on October 9, 2013 [3 favorites]




Meanwhile you've plunged the country into a constitutional crisis on top of the fiscal crisis.

Oh, it's already a constitutional crisis. There are laws on how the money must be disbursed from the treasury, and the President will be in violation of a whole lot of them once the treasury goes into default. This is the GOP Plan B - country goes into default, they get to impeach (tho likely not convict) the President, and then ride the wave of popular outrage over Obama's obvious badness into retaking the Senate and, eventually, the White House.

Delusional? The right wing? Were you not paying attention to the freak-out meltdowns on election night? These guys have no idea what reality looks like outside the echo chamber. The polls are skewed, the media is biased, and Ted Cruz has a plan.
posted by Slap*Happy at 10:36 AM on October 9, 2013 [21 favorites]


A fucking default. Seriously. I had hope saner minds would prevail, but it's dwindling. Damn overly-ideological political purists. It's a sign of a weak and ignorant mind. (left, right, whatever you are)
posted by Annika Cicada at 10:36 AM on October 9, 2013 [3 favorites]


So do I need to cash everything out and move to Somalia to become a warlord? Plz advise
Nah, no reason to go to Somalia. You'll be able to become a warlord here soon enough. Have patience.
posted by Flunkie at 10:36 AM on October 9, 2013 [51 favorites]




Hitting the debt ceiling just means another shutdown. Income from tax receipts is more than enough to pay interest on the debt and social security checks.

Its the effect on the markets we are talking about.
posted by Ironmouth at 10:37 AM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


Dear America,
Your system is broken.
Love
from
Europe
posted by Dr Ew at 10:37 AM on October 9, 2013 [4 favorites]


In Soviet Russia Capitalist America, Somalia comes to you!
posted by enn at 10:37 AM on October 9, 2013 [22 favorites]


i instinctively feel i would be good at warlording, idk

If you're in need of a lieutenant or mad-scientist I might know someone who is currently dependent on the Office of Technology Transfer that might be available in the near future.
posted by Slackermagee at 10:37 AM on October 9, 2013


the first debt default by a major world power in modern history since the collapse of the Soviet Union

The Soviet Union should provide a sobering example of just how quickly things can go south even for a superpower but I fear there are a lot of people in the US who may be doomed to repeat history.
posted by TedW at 10:39 AM on October 9, 2013 [9 favorites]


So a shitty plan, but Boatmurdered survived worse. I'm sure the capital will make do.

American Fortress is a pretty good game, but it's best when you're starting out the country and have to fight off Indians and the British. Once you get into the endgame it's all just factional squabbling and Americans occasionally becoming obsessed with creating a masterpiece, not being able to find the requisite legislative coalitions, and going crazy.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:39 AM on October 9, 2013 [7 favorites]


Is there any 'nuclear option' the Democrats could throw back at the Republicans as a sort of reverse-hostage taking? Like 'Run us out of money and we sell an aircraft carrier to China.' Or an immediate total recall of all overseas troops, or something along those lines - something the Republicans would find totally and completely unacceptable but would be within the power of the presidency?
posted by Mitrovarr at 10:40 AM on October 9, 2013 [20 favorites]


i instinctively feel i would be good at warlording, idk

Don't you hate children? Where will all your soldiers come from?
posted by C'est la D.C. at 10:40 AM on October 9, 2013 [10 favorites]


Anyone else feels like this is the zombie apocalypse and night after night the Republicans are swarming outside the window calling out, "Brains! Brains!"?
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 10:41 AM on October 9, 2013 [2 favorites]


Americans occasionally becoming obsessed with creating a masterpiece, not being able to find the requisite legislative coalitions, and going crazy

Sounds like they need more Craftsmericans to wall the offending Nobl-I mean legislators into sealed offices. With a single, shining, unknown, masterwork, lever.
posted by Slackermagee at 10:41 AM on October 9, 2013


The Soviet Union should provide a sobering example of just how quickly things can go south even for a superpower but I fear there are a lot of people in the US who may be doomed to repeat history.

Huh? What is even remotely analogous to the fall of the Soviet Union and what is happening now in the US?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 10:41 AM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


Hey, I would like to default on my student loans without any penalties. Overall, I think this would be good to manage my further spending, yes?

In all honesty, I wonder if there prepper-types, who stock up on canned goods and ammunition in preparation of a doomsday fantasy are just a little bit excited right now.
posted by inertia at 10:41 AM on October 9, 2013 [3 favorites]


i instinctively feel i would be good at warlording, idk

Don't you hate children? Where will all your soldiers come from?


You make it sound like hating children isn't an incentive in that case.
posted by Etrigan at 10:41 AM on October 9, 2013 [2 favorites]


This shit keeps me up at night. After the whole Snowden NSA revelation thing, I listen a little more closely to the sky-is-falling conspiracy dudes.

We live in an RV, if the shit hits the fan we don't have too much room to stockpile food and such. OTOH, when the apocalypse comes, we can just drive our home far away from the rampaging hordes. We can live comfortably for days or weeks without access to water or electricity. Obviously, I hope it doesn't come to that, but I feel safer than I would in our old apartment.
posted by desjardins at 10:42 AM on October 9, 2013 [2 favorites]


Dear America,
Your system is broken.
Love
from
Europe


Sooo... anyone over there hiring? I'm getting furloughed next week and I'm pretty sure my company will have to lay people off if the debt ceiling is breached - either programs or going to get cut or the company's just going to stop getting paid.
posted by backseatpilot at 10:42 AM on October 9, 2013


One of the funnest (for Dwarf-like definitions of Fun) solutions to the debt ceiling that I've heard was for the treasury to ignore the debt ceiling limit and wait for the court case/police to show up before actually turning off the tap.

This was one of the options that the DC government (the people that actually live here, not the shitbags the states send in) talked about (since the city budget is controlled by Congress). Not sure what's going to happen here if the default happens.
posted by inigo2 at 10:42 AM on October 9, 2013


In all honesty, I wonder if there prepper-types, who stock up on canned goods and ammunition in preparation of a doomsday fantasy are just a little bit excited right now.

I know a few. You have no idea. If there's a bullet left for sale in Tennessee after this weekend, I will be fucking amazed.
posted by Etrigan at 10:43 AM on October 9, 2013 [20 favorites]


"electing several dozen stupid people who quite literally don't understand how American government works"

Sounds to me like they know exactly how american government works.
posted by Ardiril at 10:43 AM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


Huh? What is even remotely analogous to the fall of the Soviet Union and what is happening now in the US?

I think the strength of the analogy is dependent on how quickly unpaid-but-working employees/soldiers resort to selling government property.
posted by Slackermagee at 10:43 AM on October 9, 2013 [3 favorites]


Guys go with me on this but it just occurred to me that maybe electing several dozen stupid people who quite literally don't understand how American government works- I mean, actually operates on a civics level as opposed to conjecture- to run said American government was a pretty fucking bad idea.

As someone currently represented by one of the idiots, allow me to just say: we tried.

When moving to a third world country is looking attractive, we've done something fundamentally wrong.
posted by sonic meat machine at 10:44 AM on October 9, 2013 [4 favorites]


As long as we're seeking solutions from video games, I've been playing a lot of Crusader Kings II lately, and I've gotta tell you, I think marrying off John Boehner matrilineally is the way to go. To, I dunno, Burkina Faso or Guatemala or whoever will take him.
posted by Flunkie at 10:44 AM on October 9, 2013 [50 favorites]


What is even remotely analogous to the fall of the Soviet Union and what is happening now in the US?

Not so much an analogy as an example that even a large, powerful nation can fail suddenly, catching many people off guard. I think it is unlikely that things will go that far here, but not out of the realm of possibility.
posted by TedW at 10:45 AM on October 9, 2013 [4 favorites]


2008 fucked my life permanently... my plan has become: hope everything else falls apart before I do.

looking good so far...
posted by ennui.bz at 10:45 AM on October 9, 2013 [22 favorites]


As I mentioned in the other thread, anything Obama and the Administration does to lessen the impact of the crisis when it comes can and will be spun as an argument that it isn't that much of a crisis after all.

And there's also a constituency of people out-of-work in the Private Sector who celebrate when the "protected class" in the Public Sector become equally unemployed. Of course, they forget that now they're competing for even less jobs with even more people, many far more qualified than you, Bozo.
posted by oneswellfoop at 10:45 AM on October 9, 2013 [15 favorites]


Regardless of the convoluted schemes to keep the money flowing, the damage will and already is being done to our reputation and trust worthiness. We got downgraded (among various reason) because our government was ineffective at handling this mess the first time. And here we are again. Businesses don't hire, people don't spend, and everyone sits on their hands watching and waiting while our elected 'leaders' fiddle with their thumbs up their asses. A small cadre of elected individuals are causing real damage to our people and our country. I only hope that the vitriol they earn won't come at too high a price.
posted by msbutah at 10:45 AM on October 9, 2013 [2 favorites]


To, I dunno, Burkina Faso or Guatemala or whoever will take him

There's a House of Orange joke here that I can't quite put my finger on
posted by elizardbits at 10:46 AM on October 9, 2013 [24 favorites]


Ugh I'm still caught in a trap I stepped into in 2008, ennui.bz.
posted by Mister_A at 10:46 AM on October 9, 2013


As long as we're seeking solutions from video games,

U.S. MUST CONSTRUCT ADDITIONAL PYLONS
posted by Going To Maine at 10:47 AM on October 9, 2013 [50 favorites]


The shutdown has already caused at least one prospective investor involved in government contracting to back out of a funding deal for my company at the last minute. There is a lot of panic in the DC money set right now.

The grim satisfaction that the extremists on the right wing derive from this impending calamity is so ugly. It's shocking to me. It reminds me of one of the worst things I have personally witnessed, when I saw a man jump in front of a subway train after being encouraged to do so by strangers. I don't think many people are contemplating the consequences of their actions right now.
posted by feloniousmonk at 10:47 AM on October 9, 2013 [16 favorites]


As long as we're seeking solutions from video games,

US NEEDS FOOD BADLY
posted by Mister_A at 10:48 AM on October 9, 2013 [32 favorites]


FYI, we actually hit the limit back in May. We're waiting on the 'extraordinary measures' to no longer be sufficient to meet all obligations, which it looks like might happen sooner rather than later.

A very simple timeline for the debt-ceiling crisis, Brad Plumer, Washington Post Wonkblog, 8 October 2013

The Daily Default Dashboard is now ‘Getting kind of scary’, Zachary A. Goldfarb, Neil Irwin, and Darla Cameron, Washington Post Wonkblog, 9 October 2013
posted by ob1quixote at 10:49 AM on October 9, 2013 [5 favorites]


As long as we're seeking solutions from video games,

YOU CAN'T CUT BACK ON FUNDING! YOU WILL REGRET THIS!
posted by backseatpilot at 10:50 AM on October 9, 2013 [39 favorites]


Actually, no one has really talked about this, from what I've seen, but one of the biggest problems that's going to happen is the petroleum trading markets. I can pretty much guarantee that they will likely start trading in Euro's should the U.S. default. Because I'm pretty sure all our "allies" in the oil producing countries are going to be a little bit, um, pissed off, if we completely tank the value of the dollar.

Maybe someone could correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the value of the dollar explicitly linked with the credit rating of the U.S. and how much interest we have to pay on any loans that we have to finance our government? So if the credit goes from AAA (or AA+ in the case of S&P) to, like CC- or whatever the ratings are (not the absolute bottom, but a significant drop), doesn't that mean that inflation will suddenly spike, like massively overnight? Or will it cause a deflation (I don't see how that would happen).

So suddenly all those billions of dollars sitting in banks around the world are worth a whole lot less than they were. At this point, we're not talking about Lehman Brothers, we're taking 1929 crash + hyper inflation + Weimar Republic levels of non-functioning government.

Those Republicans and Tea Party reps? They aren't playing to keep their jobs in government. They are playing to make those jobs worthless to hold. What good would it be to unseat them, when the power of the office is about as good as putting on a bozo the clown suit.

Then we get the "true libertarian/Real Americans" setting up feifdoms and trying to control their local communities through a) their ownership of guns, b) their stockpiles of food and fuel, and c) their "large church membership militia for Jesus".

Expect some interesting things to start happening as some wackadoodle fantasies start to manifest themselves.

Sometimes, I swear this is how CASE NIGHTMARE GREEN will actually manifest itself. I'm going to be pissed if I don't get to start casting awesome magic spells though.
posted by daq at 10:51 AM on October 9, 2013 [20 favorites]


You know, I got a new job this year and things were going ok and I was considering buying a new car for the first time in six years and maybe even starting to save for a house down payment, because renting gets old.

But in this climate? Fuck no. I'm not spending anything. My company relies on government contracts. Mostly state-funded at the moment, but it's not like that shit isn't going to roll downhill and affect us. Now I'm saving in case I get laid off. So that's less money going into the economy. How many others are there like me? How many big financial decisions are now on hold because fuck, we're all going over the waterfall, it's too risky?
posted by emjaybee at 10:51 AM on October 9, 2013 [8 favorites]




With some Republican congressmen on the record arguing that a US debt default may actually be necessary to [rein] in further government spending, it's easy to see why many Americans blame them.

If there were no other evidence of their insanity, this alone would be enough to illustrate it. To be completely oblivious of the impact of significantly raising the cost of the debt we already hold on our ability to afford the government at present taxation levels is wanton ignorance at best and schizophrenia-level delusion at worst.
posted by Mental Wimp at 10:53 AM on October 9, 2013 [7 favorites]




So we just started watching Revolution the other night and my SO was like "This is like a zombie show without the zombies" to which I responded "Yup, it's like our future!" At first it was a funny joke, but now, not so much.
posted by Big_B at 10:54 AM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


When moving to a third world country is looking attractive, we've done something fundamentally wrong.

Don't have to move; just stay put.
posted by Mental Wimp at 10:55 AM on October 9, 2013 [6 favorites]


I wonder what is going to happen to hospitals, when the 18 billion that Medicare would need to pay out on November 1, doesn't happen? Will they have to start sending patients home?
posted by mittens at 10:55 AM on October 9, 2013


If life turns into Revolution, I get to be Pollos Hermanos.
posted by Mister_A at 10:55 AM on October 9, 2013 [2 favorites]


mittens: "I wonder what is going to happen to hospitals, when the 18 billion that Medicare would need to pay out on November 1, doesn't happen? Will they have to start sending patients home?"

No, silly, the market and/or churches will provide!
posted by Mister_A at 10:56 AM on October 9, 2013 [9 favorites]


If life turns into Revolution, at least we will have unrealistically gorgeous hairdos.
posted by Think_Long at 10:56 AM on October 9, 2013 [13 favorites]


the rest of the world has no reason to place faith in the the US to pay their bills ever again.

And yet, the "United States" debased its money back in the day. Its why the phrase "not worth a Continental" exists.

Perhaps a default and a whole bunch of retirement funds/banks being reduced to $0 will get a whole lot of people suddenly interested in what happens in the halls of power and demanding accountability VS the present situation.

Investment advice for this possible time of trouble:
Rail based transportation. But you need the tar, feathers and some rope to tie 'em to the rails so they can be run outta town.
posted by rough ashlar at 10:57 AM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


Don't have to move; just stay put.

Vietnam already had its wars.
posted by sonic meat machine at 10:57 AM on October 9, 2013 [2 favorites]


I wonder how many of our elderly relatives are hearing the words "debt ceiling" and defaulting to "dad-gummed Spend-o-Crats" in their minds. Should make Thanksgiving interesting.

Assuming there's still poultry by then.
posted by Z. Aurelius Fraught at 10:58 AM on October 9, 2013 [5 favorites]


The answer to almost every hypothetical question in this thread is "we have no idea what will happen." Which is, you know, horrifying.
posted by C'est la D.C. at 10:58 AM on October 9, 2013 [18 favorites]


This may be the gloom-and-doomiest MetaFilter thread since the 2008 financial meltdown. I'll don my hockey mask and put some spikes on our jeep in celebration.
posted by charred husk at 10:59 AM on October 9, 2013 [15 favorites]


The democrats want nothing but an open government.

They may want that but sure seem to do a poor job of making that happen.
posted by rough ashlar at 10:59 AM on October 9, 2013 [3 favorites]


I was "lucky" enough to have had my life (health and financial, the latter following the former) fall apart some time before all you other people, and was "saved" by Social Security Disability and Medicare. Where it effects me is when the November 'check' does or does not come in. Now, without the Prioritization that the Treasury Secretary insists is "impossible", checks will go out but many will just bounce. How many? Which ones? I get Direct Deposit - don't know if that puts me at the top of the list, or if it'll hit the account on the 3rd and disappear on the 4th...
posted by oneswellfoop at 10:59 AM on October 9, 2013 [5 favorites]


I wonder what is going to happen to hospitals, when the 18 billion that Medicare would need to pay out on November 1, doesn't happen? Will they have to start sending patients home?

I've been low-level irritated for the past 2 weeks because (at work) we keep getting "ohnoes emergency funding needed" spam emails from various local arts organizations, and I'm just like PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY GOING TO DIE IN REAL LIFE SO I DON'T REALLY CARE ABOUT YOUR FUCKING INSTALLATION RIGHT NOW.
posted by elizardbits at 11:00 AM on October 9, 2013 [26 favorites]


When you die in Canada...OH WAIT THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN THERE.
posted by inertia at 11:01 AM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


It's like letting a guy drive your car who wants to prove to you that cars aren't safe. All he has to do to be right is drive into a tree. You'll both be terribly injured, but if he hasn't thought that far ahead--or if, in addition to his theory that cars aren't safe, he has another theory that trees aren't hard--then you're screwed. As we all are now.
posted by Sing Or Swim at 11:01 AM on October 9, 2013 [30 favorites]


Do the markets expect a default? Have bond rates shot up lately?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 1:28 PM on October 9


Short Term Rates Rise as Investors Seek Default Protection
posted by Comrade_robot at 11:02 AM on October 9, 2013 [2 favorites]


http://thomas.loc.gov/home/approp/app14.html

You posted a bunch of factually incorrect stuff in the previous thread; not sure what you're going for here?
posted by inigo2 at 11:05 AM on October 9, 2013 [5 favorites]


Its the effect on the markets we are talking about.

Just so "we" understand what "we" are talking about - "the markets" are 70% traded as computer programs that operate in milliseconds?

Or is this some other "the markets" involving humans of varying levels of rationality?
posted by rough ashlar at 11:06 AM on October 9, 2013 [2 favorites]


"Do the markets expect a default? Have bond rates shot up lately?" - Let's just say that bond insurance salesmen are promising their wives a remodeled kitchen for Christmas.
posted by Ardiril at 11:06 AM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


The thing that makes the little blood vessel on my forehead bulge about the Republicans hate-on for spending is that it's their guys (Reagan, Bush the Elder, Bush the Lesser) who MASSIVELY increased the debt. Things have increased under Obama, but that probably has something to do with the entirely new department and two wars his predecessor was kind enough to leave for him.

Had Obama done thing one to reverse Bush two, you might have a point. But we're into Term Two and we're still shipping back wounded and dead from overseas and are still shackled with the New Department Which Cannot Be Named. (And never mind his continuing cheek-to-cheek with Wall Street to the strains of Pennies From Heaven.)

NB also that the tea party types holding this up are not the creations of Reagan or Bush - they are a new breed entirely, as fed up with old line Republicans as with Democrats.

We are allowed to be furious at both parties. I know I am.
posted by IndigoJones at 11:08 AM on October 9, 2013 [13 favorites]




Who supports the Tea Party? Baby Boomers, that's who.

I've been thinking about this shutdown and the craziness of the Tea Party. It seems to me to be a direct consequence of the continuing irrelevance of old white men in this country. Republicans are by and large an old party now. Their target demo is now white males in their 60's.

What allows the House to be so different than the majority of the electorate is the much lower turnout in midterm elections. The Tea Party won in 2010 because all the idealists who supported Obama in 2008 largely stayed home. You know who came out for the vote? Religious nutjobs and the Tea Partiers. It was the far Right that was able to marshal Boomers, racists, and evangelicals to create an unholy voting bloc bent on reclaiming the country and stamping out godlessness and women's rights.

What makes the Republicans so brash in their views is that they are beholden to no one. The gerrymandered districts a lot of the House Republicans come from are so red that nothing (except a challenge from someone even farther on the Right) can unseat most of these people. So why does Ted Cruz need to listen to anyone when he knows he'll be in Congress unless we are hit by the Apocalypse? Even big business doesn't matter because they don't need to spend all that much to win their seats again.

To tie all these points together, Boomers support the Republicans because they have no fear of any long term consequences. As long as Medicare, Medicaid and Tricare function satisfactorily, Boomers are fine. It's the selfish Boomer mentality that says "Cut benefits for everyone else as long as I'm not affected that much." So what if the debt ceiling is breached? Most of the Boomers will be dead soon enough. They don't have to deal with any of the fallout. Allowing these people to have a say in national affairs is like letting a roommate who's moving out pick out the new living room set.
posted by reenum at 11:09 AM on October 9, 2013 [7 favorites]


Jonathan Chait on the state of the shutdown: "The single most implausible element of the House leadership’s "let’s negotiate" gambit is the premise that a bipartisan budget deal would satisfy the Republican base. Any bipartisan deal, even one heavily slanted to the Republican side, would enrage conservatives. Even the tiniest concession — easing sequestration, closing a couple of token tax loopholes — would be received on the right as a betrayal. Loss aversion is a strong human emotion, and especially strong among movement conservatives. Concessions given away will dwarf any winnings in their mind. Boehner, Ryan, and Cantor have spent months regaling conservatives with promises of rich ransoms to come. Coming back with an actual negotiated settlement would enrage the right."
posted by T.D. Strange at 11:11 AM on October 9, 2013 [13 favorites]


What better way to show the world you love your country, I suppose, than by deliberately destroying its credit worthiness and ensuring the world knows it can't be trusted to pay its bills.

If you love something, sometimes you've got to chop off its limbs and starve it to death for a while, I guess is the theory. That's tough lough for you.
posted by saulgoodman at 11:11 AM on October 9, 2013 [21 favorites]


Who supports the Tea Party? Baby Boomers, that's who.

Oh brother. Sure that brush is broad enough for you, reenum?
posted by mondo dentro at 11:12 AM on October 9, 2013 [24 favorites]


Had Obama done thing one to reverse Bush two, you might have a point. But we're into Term Two and we're still shipping back wounded and dead from overseas and are still shackled with the New Department Which Cannot Be Named. (And never mind his continuing cheek-to-cheek with Wall Street to the strains of Pennies From Heaven.)

My point was kind of a remove-the-log-from-thine-own-eye thing. And don't tell me that the TP aren't creations of Reagan, because they still hold the senile old codger as some sainted leader and he loudly beat the drums of "small government" even as he spent like there was no tomorrow.
posted by entropicamericana at 11:13 AM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


Drinky Die: “So...buy Bitcoin?”
If the unthinkable happens, I think the conservative Salt, Olive Oil, Beans, Rice, and Ammo heavy portfolio will be what pays off for the hungry investor.
posted by ob1quixote at 11:14 AM on October 9, 2013 [5 favorites]


Who supports the Tea Party? Baby Boomers, that's who.

I'd like to introduce you to the 20 and 30-somethings in my neighborhood (and family, ffs) who think the tea-party is the best thing evar. I mean, yeah, there are a shit-ton of boomers who back the TP. But, there's also a shit-ton of younger people who are just as on-board with the TP.
posted by Thorzdad at 11:14 AM on October 9, 2013 [5 favorites]


Hey Tommy, look at this big box of Ohio Blue Tipped Matches. Can you believe they left these things in our control? We're only 5 years old. Let's start some fires in the woods. We'll see how big we can let them get and still stomp them out. If they get out of control, we'll just run like like hell and blame that Obama kid.
posted by caddis at 11:14 AM on October 9, 2013 [7 favorites]


http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2013/oct/09/back-door-secession/ - not worth a Continental if you ask me!
posted by mattbucher at 11:14 AM on October 9, 2013 [3 favorites]


reenum, you're conflating Tea Partiers with Republicans as a whole. They're not one and the same; that's why Boehner's in the mess that he's currently in.
posted by xbonesgt at 11:14 AM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


If you love something, sometimes you've got to chop off its limbs and starve it to death for a while, I guess is the theory. That's tough lough for you.


The Republicans as Annie Wilkes? Sounds like one hell of a political cartoon.
posted by C'est la D.C. at 11:15 AM on October 9, 2013 [3 favorites]


Who supports the Tea Party? Baby Boomers, that's who.

Oh brother. Sure that brush is broad enough for you, reenum?


This baby boomer is less upset about being held responsible for the Tea Party than being told I'll probably be dead soon.
posted by TedW at 11:15 AM on October 9, 2013 [5 favorites]


.
posted by localhuman at 11:15 AM on October 9, 2013 [3 favorites]


US NEEDS FOOD BADLY

CRUZ SHOT THE FOOD
posted by Copronymus at 11:16 AM on October 9, 2013 [31 favorites]


The Republicans as Annie Wilkes?

Or as Nick Cavanaugh.
posted by saulgoodman at 11:16 AM on October 9, 2013


saulgoodman: "Polls show Americans overwhelmingly blame congressional Republicans for the political standoff and shutdown."

From the article: Overall, 62 percent mainly blamed Republicans for the shutdown. About half said Obama or the Democrats in Congress bear much responsibility.

It's clear they blame Republicans more than Dems. ~12% doesn't strike me as "overwhelmingly."

Also from the article: — Fifty-two percent said Obama is not doing enough to cooperate with Republicans to end the shutdown; 63 percent say Republicans aren't doing enough to cooperate with him.

I personally think the Republicans are 100% to blame for this bullshit. But the poll seems split in assigning blame.
posted by zarq at 11:17 AM on October 9, 2013 [5 favorites]


I'm wondering if there's whispered words being shared between the Dems and Republicans who want a vote on a clean CR about who would be a Boehner replacement they could all live with if they have to boot him from the Speakership at the 11th hour, quickly sub in a pro tem and hold the debt ceiling vote. That maneuver would make the fallout a House procedural crisis and not a Constitutional one.
posted by jason_steakums at 11:17 AM on October 9, 2013 [9 favorites]


If all those "necessary" but currently unpaid federal workers started refusing to show up to work I'd wager the gov shut down would be over in a day.
posted by edgeways at 11:19 AM on October 9, 2013 [3 favorites]


"the poll seems split in assigning blame" - ... and the right soundbite could alter all of those numbers in either direction.
posted by Ardiril at 11:19 AM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


reenum, you're conflating Tea Partiers with Republicans as a whole. They're not one and the same; that's why Boehner's in the mess that he's currently in.

I don't think it's "conflating" to observe that the Tea Partiers are running the Republican Party right now. Operationally, Tea Party == Republican Party, even if there are individual Republican Congressmen who don't identify as Tea Partiers.
posted by Asparagus at 11:20 AM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


Yeah it's not "the boomers" it's "the racists" "the religious nuts" "the know-nothings" and those who manipulate them. Some of them are boomers, some are even older, some are younger. You can be a hate-filled destructive moron regardless of age!

I've blocked (and probably been blocked by) three of my fellow gen-xers in the last six months on FB. The funny thing is, I used to be more radical right than them! But I grew out of it, while they got worse. It's all "Jesus hates taxes and liberals just like I do!" all the time.
posted by emjaybee at 11:20 AM on October 9, 2013 [17 favorites]


The press coverage of this situation has been despicable and contributes to the misguided public who want to blame both sides. Reasonable reporters would point out that House Republicans had years to negotiate the budget situation, but instead waited to inflict the most damage on the country in hopes of holding a better bargaining position.
posted by exogenous at 11:21 AM on October 9, 2013 [38 favorites]


Let's just start our own country, based on America, but different, a reboot, a fan-fiction of America. It'll continue the plot but veer in crowd pleasing ways. There never would have been a war in Iraq, or any PRISM project, and the president wears a sash like an old timey mayor. We can do it. We can reimagine America, an America with political scandals modeled after yaoi plots, and textbook history books filled with ninja, and space samurai. I've already uploaded a few sketches on a deviantart account called BetterAmerica20xx, let's dream of worlds that don't need solutions. Let us imagine!
posted by TwelveTwo at 11:21 AM on October 9, 2013 [13 favorites]


I'm still looking for concrete suggestions on how to put pressure on the process here. I've complained enough on metafilter, facebook and twitter. Called my Rep. Called my Senator.

What's left to do?
posted by bottlebrushtree at 11:23 AM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


US NEEDS FOOD BADLY

CONGRESS, YOUR LIFE FORCE IS RUNNING OUT
posted by ennui.bz at 11:23 AM on October 9, 2013 [6 favorites]


Why would the 14th Amendment option necessary be stuck in the courts "forever." The Supreme Court made an awfully quick decision on the election in Bush v. Gore. And it took about three weeks for it to order Nixon to hand over the Watergate tapes in U.S. v. Nixon. All this would dominate the news, and hearing about it would get old fast. But two or three weeks would not equal "forever."
posted by raysmj at 11:24 AM on October 9, 2013 [3 favorites]


Welp, considering that as a child my first trans role model was a freedom fighter/female singer named Lance Belmont AKA "Yellow Dancer" in the Robotech anime series, I think I can figure out a way to be a t-gender freedom fighter in the forest of New-America, LOL.

...now where'd i put my damn mech-warrior motorcycle?
posted by Annika Cicada at 11:24 AM on October 9, 2013 [7 favorites]


"a reboot" - Oh ferchrissake, we don't need a reboot. Just a Constitutional amendment or two. Giving the Supreme Court restricted powers to intervene would be a good start.
posted by Ardiril at 11:25 AM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


The press coverage of this situation has been despicable and contributes to the misguided public who want to blame both sides.

Unfortunately, we're still living with the fallout from the heady days of conservatives constantly screaming about the liberal press. Media outlets seemed to bend-over backwards to make sure they appeared balanced, even when the issue was as unbalanced as this, by adopting the "they both do it" approach to reporting. Another mission accomplished by the right.
posted by Thorzdad at 11:25 AM on October 9, 2013 [20 favorites]


So, any mass protests planned in DC if this all goes down?
posted by edgeways at 11:26 AM on October 9, 2013 [5 favorites]


It worked for Battlestar Galactica, it could work for America. Well, it worked until the inevitable descent into religious babble. Wait, maybe we already had a reboot, maybe we are living in someone else's fanfiction of America!!
posted by TwelveTwo at 11:26 AM on October 9, 2013 [3 favorites]


we don't need a reboot

True, but we could really do with some Governor General intervention.
posted by Slackermagee at 11:28 AM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


Unfortunately, we're still living with the fallout from the heady days of conservatives constantly screaming about the liberal press. Media outlets seemed to bend-over backwards to make sure they appeared balanced, even when the issue was as unbalanced as this, by adopting the "they both do it" approach to reporting. Another mission accomplished by the right.

And don't forget how many stations are owned by the right.
posted by jason_steakums at 11:28 AM on October 9, 2013 [4 favorites]


LORD GOD ALMIGHTY, WHAT IS THE HOLD UP HERE? LET THE BOY SLEEP IN YOUR BED! HE'LL WASH THE SHEETS!


I'm not going to wash the sheets.


HE DOESN'T NEED TO WASH THE SHEETS! HE'S A CLEAN BOY!
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 11:29 AM on October 9, 2013 [6 favorites]


Wait, maybe we already had a reboot, maybe we are living in someone else's fanfiction of America!!


“There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the United States are for and why it they are here, they will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.

There is another theory which states that this has already happened.”
posted by Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug at 11:29 AM on October 9, 2013 [17 favorites]


I can't tell if this is a long con, actual panic from the less-wingnutty 1%ers, or just an attempt to pretend they're not the men behind the curtain. It skeeves me out no matter what, but if it's either of the first two, that could be a tell here:

GOP losing powerful allies in hostage crises
the Koch brothers' company sent a letter to Congress this morning, making clear that Koch Industries is not on board with the idea of tying the Affordable Care Act to the government shutdown. Around the same time, Heritage Action CEO Michael Needham told reporters he wants to defund "Obamacare," but he doesn't want this to be tied to the debt ceiling.
Under questioning at a breakfast with reporters, hosted by the Christian Science Monitor, Needham, a product of the Stanford Business School, conceded that failure to raise the debt ceiling would indeed disrupt the global economy.

"I'm sure the markets will react negatively," he said, even if, as he suggested was possible, the Treasury could "prioritize" interest payments to foreign bondholders.... "No, we should raise the debt limit," he said, though he added that he would oppose an increase that extends until after the 2014 election, which is Obama's preferred outcome.

Soon after, FreedomWorks CEO Matt Kibbe told the Huffington Post that he, too, believes Congress needs to raise the debt ceiling.
Huh?

It's worth remembering that far-right groups like these receive quite a bit of money from corporate allies and very wealthy benefactors, who (a) understand the consequences of default better than many congressional Republicans; and (b) don't want to lose an enormous chunk of their wealth as part of a feeble attempt to undermine a moderate health care law.

Many GOP lawmakers are reportedly worried about primary challenges, facing rivals financed by groups like Heritage and FreedomWorks. On the debt ceiling, it appears these Republican members can do the right thing without fear of blowback from these far-right powerhouses.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:30 AM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


Night Vale seems like a comparatively sane place right now.
posted by desjardins at 11:31 AM on October 9, 2013 [6 favorites]


Koch Industries can say they don't support the shutdown/default all they want, but that won't stop them from funding a primary challenge to any House Republican who votes to end the shutdown/raise the debt ceiling.
posted by Asparagus at 11:32 AM on October 9, 2013 [5 favorites]


It's worth remembering that far-right groups like these receive quite a bit of money from corporate allies and very wealthy benefactors, who (a) understand the consequences of default better than many congressional Republicans; and (b) don't want to lose an enormous chunk of their wealth as part of a feeble attempt to undermine a moderate health care law.

You assume that they can control the monsters they have unleashed.
posted by stevis23 at 11:32 AM on October 9, 2013 [8 favorites]


This may be the gloom-and-doomiest MetaFilter thread since the 2008 financial meltdown.

Doom... hardly, my greatest fear is that things will just continue on as they have been. 2008 is when lots of people, like me, realized they could be just kicked out of the boat and no one cared. happened to textile workers, steel workers, auto workers, postal workers, semi-conductor workers, call-center workers, etc. then it happened to me. the boat continues on and i'm left to swim for myself.

the republicans try to push my head underwater, the democrats tell me to swim harder. if the boat sinks we'll all be in the same position.
posted by ennui.bz at 11:32 AM on October 9, 2013 [30 favorites]


I'm wondering if there's whispered words [about a] Boehner replacement they could all live with if they have to boot him from the Speakership at the 11th hour

I think we're going over the cliff with this one. It's like Krugman's comments on revolutionary power--what, 10 years ago?--and the inefficacy of liberalism in the face of it. Even now, people are not understanding the internal logic of what the hard right is doing. They keep talking about how "irrational" they are. That's totally wrong. The catastrophe is by design. On top of that, armed goon squads are in place. I expect them to be egged on shortly, as the chaos thickens. There's already a "trucker strike". We're only a few steps away from an armed march on Washington by Good Christian Patriots.
posted by mondo dentro at 11:32 AM on October 9, 2013 [3 favorites]


Shutdown Will Not Affect U.S. Creditworthiness, Moody's Says.

So what's Moody's angle here?
posted by schoolgirl report at 11:33 AM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


So, any mass protests planned in DC if this all goes down?

There's a mass protest against the planned for the 26th, but it relates to the NSA. The shutdown could make the coverage of that one go a little awry.
posted by Going To Maine at 11:33 AM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


It is very bizarre to see surprise from people over the idea that the Republican Party is deliberately destroying the country to make the president look bad, given that this is a thing the party literally said openly that they intend to do, and have attempted to do so for five years.

Osama bin Laden was on the record saying that his plan was to bankrupt the U.S. by dragging us into conflicts in the Middle East. Despite knowing this plan, we launched two massively expensive wars (one the longest in U.S. history, and getting longer every day). When villains are caught giving monologues, we should adapt our strategies to deal with them, but we never seem to.
posted by Thoughtcrime at 11:35 AM on October 9, 2013 [29 favorites]


That Koch Industries letter is a red herring. It's not the activities of the actual companies that matter. It's the Koch Brothers themselves, and their use of personal wealth to finance things that matters. It does look like they are trying to deflect blame from them, though, which is interesting. Up until now, they haven't been at all public about their activities or their influence.
posted by daq at 11:35 AM on October 9, 2013 [7 favorites]


"U.S. MUST CONSTRUCT ADDITIONAL PYLONS"

Seattle is way ahead of you
posted by Blasdelb at 11:37 AM on October 9, 2013 [2 favorites]


If life turns into Revolution, at least we will have unrealistically gorgeous hairdos.

Woot! The nanites fix the baldness!

We are allowed to be furious at both parties.

Not on The Blue sir. You can only hate on the one side.

The Tea Party won in 2010 because all the idealists who supported Obama in 2008 largely stayed home.

The idealists no longer had Hope because the previously discussed Change didn't actually happen.

A new pack of idealists will have to be lovingly nurtured, emotionally coddled, and then have their illusions crushed. If you can tie such an emotional rollercoster to providing nurturing to psychic succubi who look like a disco ball when they go into the sunshine, you've got the next Hunger games tween novel.
posted by rough ashlar at 11:38 AM on October 9, 2013


I do not trust the polls on this right now, I think that the people who do not hold the House Republicans responsible for this madness are exactly the ones keeping them in power: their specific constituents. I received a lovely phone call from my dad yesterday (in his early 70s, lives in Mississippi, has a Tea Party rep but no longer supports the Republican party) and just listened to him vent about Obama and the Congress and how all of them are to blame, for the better part of half an hour.* There are still many, many Americans who are not parsing this issue and are holding "the government" responsible.

Which means that the Koch brothers have spent their money extremely effectively. Their end game is to destroy the federal government as thoroughly as possible to create their libertarian, unrestricted free-market ideal. It's working.


*-it turned into a lovely shouting match because he wouldn't let me get a word in edge-wise to correct his mis/disinformation until I was quite verbally forceful. Which is fine, he and I kind of love to yell at each other about politics but he's a pretty well-informed guy, tries to find good information sources online but still gets sucked into the larger political culture of his region nonetheless. I have texted him his rep's phone number.
posted by LooseFilter at 11:39 AM on October 9, 2013 [4 favorites]




So, any mass protests planned in DC if this all goes down?

I'm not sure if this counts as protest, per se, but I keep getting Facebook messages about a plan to annoy the shit out of congress with a mass vuvuzela orchestra on the Capitol steps.
posted by C'est la D.C. at 11:40 AM on October 9, 2013 [9 favorites]


Night Vale seems like a comparatively sane place right now.

I mean at least they have libraries there.
posted by jetlagaddict at 11:41 AM on October 9, 2013 [2 favorites]


I think we're going over the cliff with this one. It's like Krugman's comments on revolutionary power--what, 10 years ago?--and the inefficacy of liberalism in the face of it. Even now, people are not understanding the internal logic of what the hard right is doing. They keep talking about how "irrational" they are. That's totally wrong. The catastrophe is by design. On top of that, armed goon squads are in place. I expect them to be egged on shortly, as the chaos thickens. There's already a "trucker strike". We're only a few steps away from an armed march on Washington by Good Christian Patriots.

The trucker strike thing has already been backed down from sensationalist tough talk to essentially a drive-by sign-waving. And the Republicans aren't a cohesive bloc on this issue, the hard right may want this badly but there are enough Republicans willing to vote it all away if Boehner lets the vote hit the floor and many in the GOP are publicly repudiating the Tea Party. Also, any kind of armed uprising would be incredibly short. This isn't the 1860's no matter how much some would like it to be.
posted by jason_steakums at 11:41 AM on October 9, 2013


A mass vuvuzela orchestra would be amazing! Let's get on this thing even if people sober up and play nice with our country.
posted by Arbac at 11:41 AM on October 9, 2013 [3 favorites]


not worth a Continental if you ask me!

It's always annoyed me how Republicans and now even "mainstream media" started calling the Democratic Party the "Democrat" Party. Since the GOP can get away with renaming their opposing political parties, can Democrats now just call the GOP what it really is - the Confederate Party? I'm sure many Republicans would not object.


Jonathan Chait on the state of the shutdown

I thought the opening paragraph was enlightening:
One way to understand the dysfunction within the Republican Party is to think of it as a hostage scheme that spun out of control. The plan, originally formulated by Paul Ryan and other party leaders, involved a more aggressive reprise of the 2011 negotiations, where Republicans would use the threat of default, along with sequestration, to force President Obama to accept unfavorable budget terms. The plan was hijacked by Ted Cruz and transformed into a scheme using a less effective hostage threat (shutting down the government rather than defaulting) but tethered to the much more grandiose ransom of repealing Obamacare. As the Cruz scheme disintegrates around the Republicans, the original leaders are attempting to reassert control and revert to the original plan.
posted by Golden Eternity at 11:43 AM on October 9, 2013 [7 favorites]


C'est la D.C. I'm seeing the same pattern here.

See:
  • Communist Threat
  • Drug Threat
  • Oil Threat
  • Terror Threat
  • Fiscal Threat
posted by mmrtnt at 11:44 AM on October 9, 2013 [4 favorites]


If the boat sinks we'll all be in the same position.

Latin proverb of the day: Commune naufragium dulce means "a common shipwreck is sweet".
posted by WalkingAround at 11:44 AM on October 9, 2013 [12 favorites]


reenum, I'm a boomer (whatever the heck that means; I don't think it means all that much really), a Democrat, and a Federal employee currently out on furlough. For what it is worth, there are 2 cohorts of baby boomers and those of us who were born in the second half of the baby boom and came of age in the seventies of unemployment and gas shortages are different from the sixties boomers (though Bill Clinton is a 60's boomer from the early cohort so there's that). So, yeah, you are way overgeneralizing.

Also, I know a heck of a lot of Gen Xers who are more conservative than I am and are tea party supporters.

Also, really hoping, since I'm in my fifties, that I am not going to die imminently, thank you very much.

Also, I and my husband and my friends of my generation happen to care about the country, and its future, and believe in public service. I want my younger friends, and my 20 year old niece, to have a future and a decent job in a country they can be proud of. I don't see the tea party as the answer to that, and never have.

I also agree with LooseFilter that this is absolutely maddening right now: There are still many, many Americans who are not parsing this issue and are holding "the government" responsible.
posted by gudrun at 11:45 AM on October 9, 2013 [8 favorites]


So, any mass protests planned in DC if this all goes down?

Anonymous plans Million Mask March on Washington

(Oh and did you all see the date on the Mandiatory evacuation posterboard in the promo material for the PS3 game "The Last of Us"? )
posted by rough ashlar at 11:46 AM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


Anonymous plans Million Mask March on Washington

Oh, that's helpful. Are they marching for Rand Paul or something?
posted by Golden Eternity at 11:48 AM on October 9, 2013 [3 favorites]


Also, any kind of armed uprising would be incredibly short.

I don't think it would play out like that (with guns blazing). Intimidation is working. Armed intimidation will work even better. An armed march has been floated multiple times. It will happen. What would you imagine Obama doing if 20,000 armed Good Christian Patriots showed up in town? It's just too logical for the Right not to do it. Crank up the social pain, rile up the thuggishness. It's Rightism 101.
posted by mondo dentro at 11:49 AM on October 9, 2013


Is there anything I can do? Should be doing? To help myself not... I dunno, what? Not get fired from my job that depends partially on US government money? Not be eaten by roving cannibal gangs? Not die in a massive cholera outbreak? Or do I have nothing to worry about? Or should I go be an illegal immigrant in Canada? I'm so fucking confused and angry.

Like I've been all "oh, should I go back to grad school, should I change my ~career~" and part of me is like... what's the point? What's the fucking point of doing any of that? I'm just going to die in a postapocalyptic wasteland anyway so why fucking bother?
posted by showbiz_liz at 11:50 AM on October 9, 2013 [21 favorites]


I have decided to panic and cry.
posted by elizardbits at 11:52 AM on October 9, 2013 [34 favorites]


Also, any kind of armed uprising would be incredibly short.

Thing is, any military force put against an armed uprising would play directly into many of the far-right's fantasies of the "government coming to get us" or "Obama's building concentration camps for conservatives" and all the rest. Any actual bloodshed would only make the rhetoric even more biblically apocalyptic. It's really a no-win for the government in this day and age.
posted by Thorzdad at 11:54 AM on October 9, 2013 [3 favorites]


What would you imagine Obama doing if 20,000 armed Good Christian Patriots showed up in town?

I imagine him doing nothing. Let them mill around and protest things, and trust the police to do their jobs.
posted by Etrigan at 11:55 AM on October 9, 2013 [13 favorites]


elizardbits, sounds more effective than my current strategy of "have imaginary fights in my head with conservative relatives."
posted by inertia at 11:55 AM on October 9, 2013 [26 favorites]


Like I've been all "oh, should I go back to grad school, should I change my ~career~" and part of me is like... what's the point? What's the fucking point of doing any of that? I'm just going to die in a postapocalyptic wasteland anyway so why fucking bother?

Wait, are the 80s still back? I thought we had moved on to the 90s.
posted by entropicamericana at 11:55 AM on October 9, 2013 [4 favorites]


I've got one last Ativan at home that I can't decide on taking now or later.

Maybe I should get some more before things get really scary?

But seriously, why should I be doing other than my normal day to day? Teach my kid how to survive thunderdome?
posted by furnace.heart at 11:55 AM on October 9, 2013 [3 favorites]


So, uh, should I be buying a lot of canned food and gallon tanks of water or something? What the hell is your average citizen supposed to do in the event of economic collapse?
posted by sonmi at 11:55 AM on October 9, 2013


Is there anything I can do?

Be prepared to react.
posted by Slackermagee at 11:57 AM on October 9, 2013


i instinctively feel i would be good at warlording.....
I have decided to panic and cry.


The market for warlords who panic and cry is rather small.
posted by rough ashlar at 11:57 AM on October 9, 2013 [23 favorites]


Teach my kid how to survive thunderdome?

More like Blunderdome, amirite?
posted by Slackermagee at 11:58 AM on October 9, 2013 [2 favorites]


Practice by playing "The Last Of Us"
posted by Hairy Lobster at 11:58 AM on October 9, 2013


I have decided to panic and cry.

What happened to drinking and masturbating?
posted by desjardins at 11:58 AM on October 9, 2013 [16 favorites]


Shouldn't we lie down, or put paper bags over our heads, or something?
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 11:59 AM on October 9, 2013 [16 favorites]


What happened to drinking and masturbating?

So, maintain business as usual?
posted by Thorzdad at 11:59 AM on October 9, 2013 [12 favorites]


So, uh, should I be buying a lot of canned food and gallon tanks of water or something? What the hell is your average citizen supposed to do in the event of economic collapse?

I'd expect the problems to be more people-being-broke-and-homeless than Thunderdome - basically, the recession squared. Plan to do whatever you would do if you lost your job and were suddenly utterly broke and so were many of your friends. Would you squat your house until the bank kicked you out? Would you live with friends who have stable housing?

"Collapse" is just going to be "many, many people being immiserated" not "there is no more government". The Repugs - the ones who aren't actually stupid - are just relying on being rich enough and connected enough not to suffer.
posted by Frowner at 12:00 PM on October 9, 2013 [6 favorites]


Shutdown Will Not Affect U.S. Creditworthiness, Moody's Says.

Shutdown ≠ Debt ceiling breach
posted by Mental Wimp at 12:00 PM on October 9, 2013 [10 favorites]


I don't think I'll be able to live without Elizardbit's Tumblr feed. Can we make sure that stays funded?
posted by Annika Cicada at 12:00 PM on October 9, 2013 [5 favorites]


I imagine him doing nothing. Let them mill around and protest things, and trust the police to do their jobs.
A Georgia congressman who is running for Senate said on Tuesday that he was fighting to delay, defund and repeal President Barack Obama’s health care reform law because it would literally “destroy everything we know as a nation.”
So, you think people who believe this sort of thing will just "mill around"? The political box that right-wing populist violence will put the US government in is real power, and real power always ends up being used. The groundwork has been layed. It's just a question of will.
posted by mondo dentro at 12:01 PM on October 9, 2013 [4 favorites]


Winter is coming.
posted by nikoniko at 12:01 PM on October 9, 2013 [12 favorites]


It's tempting to fear that we really are wading into a Guns of August (perhaps Guns of November) scenario. There are already groups of people who gather in DC in relatively large numbers (less than 100, I don't really keep regular track of it) to protest with AR-15s and the like. It's not hard to imagine several state's worth of them getting together and trying to assemble somewhere closer to the Mall. The DC law enforcement apparatus already keeps these protests under as tight control as they possibly can. I can't imagine they would get a permit for such a thing on the Mall or anywhere a permit is required, which is pretty much everywhere.

I honestly don't know what to make of it at this point. No one really expected Sumner to be beaten nearly to death by Brooks. Events seem to have a force of their own right now.

The easiest refuge appears to be belief in self-interest. I continue to believe that there is too much personal wealth at stake to allow a default, not just of the upper echelons of the unelected leadership of the right wing, but on the floor of Congress itself and throughout DC.
posted by feloniousmonk at 12:02 PM on October 9, 2013


See:
Communist Threat
Drug Threat
Oil Threat
Terror Threat
Fiscal Threat


Oooh, ooh also Africanized Killer Bee Threat. But you will also notice that like the killer bees, none of the threats you listed originated from Congress itself. And Congress seems to be pretty good on following through on its threats.
posted by C'est la D.C. at 12:02 PM on October 9, 2013


> The market for warlords who panic and cry is rather small.

It's a diversionary tactic. While you're distracted by the open weeping, the grain silos are being pillaged.
posted by davelog at 12:03 PM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


BTW, I'm not panicking. I'm just trying to stay clear-eyed and prepared. I don't think there will be some sudden, massive national coronary, a la the USSR. For the US, it will be more of a chronic wasting disease.
posted by mondo dentro at 12:03 PM on October 9, 2013


What we are effectively seeing is the end of the Republican party as an legitimate opposition party. There was kinda this default assumption that because Obama has basically played along with previous hostage taking that the Republicans could bluster and threaten and Obama would cave (which I guess could still happen) but now Obama shows no sign of caving (never running for office again and having polling and your party squarely behind you does that) so that the House is either forced to give ground on this or risk being blamed for any number of dire events that not even Fox News will be able to spin as being Obama's fault.

But because Boehner and company have assured their back benchers and their constituents that Obama would cave and they would get concessions they feel like not getting concessions now would permanently transfer initiative to Obama and the democrats so they can't surrender their hostage without getting prizes.

So basically the only options outside of allow default (which the money guys propping up the Republican party will call in all sorts of markers to prevent) is to surrender control over the hostage or hope that Obama surrenders. Obama surrendering seems unlikely so the smart move is to just cut bait and realize that you lost out on this opportunity and try again on something else down the road because you still can block most forward Government movement. Also it has the potential of breaking the Tea Party's back so that Republicans are less beholden to them as kingmakers which will have lasting benefits for the party.

Unfortunately pride seems to be getting in the way of rational decision-making.
posted by vuron at 12:04 PM on October 9, 2013 [11 favorites]


It's tempting to fear that we really are wading into a Guns of August (perhaps Guns of November) scenario

Yeah, that book's been on my mind a lot, too... Same feeling of a bunch of idiots marching happily into hell.

I don't think this will wind up being apocalyptic; I think there'll be some sort of deal as shit approaches fan. But it's still disquieting as all get-out.
posted by COBRA! at 12:04 PM on October 9, 2013


Lord help us if a killer bee threat originates from Congress.
posted by C'est la D.C. at 12:04 PM on October 9, 2013


It's a diversionary tactic. While you're distracted by the open weeping, the grain silos are being pillaged.

Also the heads of my defeated enemies shall be displayed on stakes. We don't do that enough anymore and I feel it has become detrimental to society.
posted by elizardbits at 12:05 PM on October 9, 2013 [6 favorites]


There are already groups of people who gather in DC in relatively large numbers (less than 100, I don't really keep regular track of it) to protest with AR-15s and the like.

Cite? There was that one guy over the summer planning something, but if I remember right he was the only one that showed up, with an unloaded shotgun maybe?
posted by inigo2 at 12:06 PM on October 9, 2013


Any actual bloodshed would only make the rhetoric even more biblically apocalyptic.

If the press opts to not cover the event - how would a wider audience know?

So, uh, should I be buying a lot of canned food and gallon tanks of water or something? What the hell is your average citizen supposed to do in the event of economic collapse?

The same kinds of things ready.gov tells you to do in the event of a natural disaster. Rather than storing water - understand how to process water to make it potable. The old advice was 10% of your money in metals like Gold. Other cultures had a %age in gold jewelry.

Meanwhile while The Blue is watching the "new" Democratic partiers, odds are you are not watching the old.
Jimmy Carter claims today's middle class Americans resemble the poor of the 1970s
posted by rough ashlar at 12:06 PM on October 9, 2013 [4 favorites]


So, you think people who believe this sort of thing will just "mill around"? The political box that right-wing populist violence will put the US government in is real power, and real power always ends up being used.

Now you're shifting from "armed march" to "populist violence." That's different, and I expect that Obama's reaction to it would be significantly different.
posted by Etrigan at 12:06 PM on October 9, 2013


Give people ten years to relocate and then let the neo-confederates have their own damn country. Sometimes divorce is the right answer.
posted by LastOfHisKind at 12:06 PM on October 9, 2013 [7 favorites]


I hope the DC police defend us against heavily armed paramilitary groups which target minorities and the poor.
posted by gorbweaver at 12:06 PM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


The easiest refuge appears to be belief in self-interest. I continue to believe that there is too much personal wealth at stake to allow a default...

I agree with this as a general principle, but... the only thing is, there's competition among the super rich. Who will be the King of the World? The risk-taking proclivities of someone who wants that title could indeed lead to such an event, precisely because they may be (or think they are) positioned to come out on top after the collapse. It's very logical, once you've abandoned the notion that leaders somehow always think in terms of the "greatest good for the greatest number".
posted by mondo dentro at 12:07 PM on October 9, 2013 [2 favorites]


Now you're shifting from "armed march" to "populist violence."

Nope. That's what I meant in the first place.
posted by mondo dentro at 12:09 PM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


It's tempting to fear that we really are wading into a Guns of August (perhaps Guns of November) scenario

Honestly, what this reminds me of is France before WWII. If you read Janet Flanner's coverage of the various political and financial crises and scandal (in Paris Was Yesterday, which starts out being all about Josephine Baker and surrealist poets and flowers and ends up being about disaster, corruption and the run-up to war) the climate seems very similar - idiots and villains, phony populism, phony nationalism, countless regular people going broke and in a panic, and the rich doing whatever they please. Although in France there were a few more mechanisms for regular people to make their will felt - OTOH, the will of regular people was often pretty terrible and stupid.
posted by Frowner at 12:09 PM on October 9, 2013 [3 favorites]


If the press opts to not cover the event - how would a wider audience know?

Good point. You'd think, in this day and age, there would be some mechanism for widespread communication that didn't rely on the mainstream press...
posted by Thorzdad at 12:10 PM on October 9, 2013 [3 favorites]


If all those "necessary" but currently unpaid federal workers started refusing to show up to work I'd wager the gov shut down would be over in a day.

Not likely at the moment because people, myself included, still think the chances are better that eventually we will get paid rather than having to try to find a whole new job just to afford rent. But I bet the longer this goes on, the more likely it is that people will bail out of self-preservation.
posted by likeatoaster at 12:13 PM on October 9, 2013


Cite? There was that one guy over the summer planning something, but if I remember right he was the only one that showed up, with an unloaded shotgun maybe?

Here's one article about it. This started in 2009 and has been a recurring thing since then. To my knowledge, they've all been relatively sparsely attended and anti-climactic, nothing like the 20,000+ people fantasies being bandied about lately.
posted by feloniousmonk at 12:13 PM on October 9, 2013


As long as we're seeking solutions from video games

REPUBLICAN RAMPAGE

DATELINE: PEORIA

YOU MUST EAT FOOD TO SURVIVE

CLIMB BUILDINGS AND PUNCH OPEN WINDOWS TO FIND FOOD

DESTROY ALL BUILDINGS TO ADVANCE TO NEXT CITY

When you die in Canada...OH WAIT THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN THERE.

You don't die in Canada? Holy crap, your healthcare IS good!

Give people ten years to relocate and then let the neo-confederates have their own damn country. Sometimes divorce is the right answer.

Yeah, I sometimes think that, but then I think about how having Neo-Confederate Liberia along the border is going to be pretty bad for us when it almost instantly collapses.
posted by Amanojaku at 12:14 PM on October 9, 2013 [3 favorites]


Is there anything I can do?

Only park in reserved parking spots (not handicapped spots, of course; but those sweet executive spots right near the entrance)! That'll show 'em! /not really

(I really don't know what we can do. These maniacs don't seem to give two shits about the consequences of their ideological radicalism.)

Shutdown ≠ Debt ceiling breach

Exactly. If there's an actual material default (i.e. unpaid bill), some bond rating agencies are required to lower the US credit rating. Even Moody's has said it will have to do that much if Oct. 17th passes and a pending bill doesn't get paid.

Here's a Reuter's piece on all the credit agencies basically saying that if there's a default, the US's Bond Rating (basically its credit score) will be lowered. That will trigger massive treasury bond sell-offs, tanking the value of the bonds that the social security fund and many other large institutional investors are heavily invested in. It's a financial disaster scenario that could make the recent Great Recession look like a minor bump in the road by comparison.

It's very logical, once you've abandoned the notion that leaders somehow always think in terms of the "greatest good for the greatest number".

Or as I like to call it, "unenlightened self-interest."
posted by saulgoodman at 12:15 PM on October 9, 2013 [4 favorites]


Now you're shifting from "armed march" to "populist violence."

Nope. That's what I meant in the first place.


Oh, in that case: it isn't going to happen. As feloniousmonk noted while I was typing the previous sentence, an armed insurrection of 20,000 people is staggeringly hard to put together. You can't just tweet "HEY EVERYBODY COME TO DC WITH YOUR GUN AND WE'LL KILL 'EM ALL" and expect an army to assemble.
posted by Etrigan at 12:15 PM on October 9, 2013




dire events that not even Fox News will be able to spin as being Obama's fault

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA *whimper*
posted by ook at 12:15 PM on October 9, 2013 [6 favorites]


If you haven't done so already, I encourage you to read the links in Rhaomi's excellent earlier FPP on the subject of this whole political clusterfuck. Many of your questions about how and why this is happening (and theories/debunkings about how we can get out of it) are addressed in both the original post and in the comments.
posted by Joey Michaels at 12:18 PM on October 9, 2013 [6 favorites]


an armed insurrection of 20,000 people is staggeringly hard to put together. You can't just tweet "HEY EVERYBODY COME TO DC WITH YOUR GUN AND WE'LL KILL 'EM ALL" and expect an army to assemble.

Its a good thing that leadership learned from the whole Bonus Army issue back in the 1930's and no longer treats its past war vets poorly so such won't happen again.
posted by rough ashlar at 12:18 PM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


Here's one article about it.

From that article: "Those in Washington, D.C., chose not to carry any firearms in compliance with the district's strict gun laws".

I just want to be clear that bringing their guns into DC is something they've been talking about for a while, but not that they've actually done. They'll talk the talk, but they're really a bunch of cowards. (The second half of which, frankly, I'm grateful for.)
posted by inigo2 at 12:18 PM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


The place they did bring the guns was just about within rock-throwing distance of Reagan National and the Pentagon. Yes, technically not in DC, but just across the river on the GW parkway.
posted by feloniousmonk at 12:20 PM on October 9, 2013




Oh, in that case: it isn't going to happen. As feloniousmonk noted while I was typing the previous sentence, an armed insurrection of 20,000 people is staggeringly hard to put together.

Well, this is a massive derail, but again, it wouldn't happen like that. There is a range of things that could happen between people milling around and a full blown armed insurrection. 20,000 people (or 1000, or 5000, whatever) could go for the same reasons people are already showing up in public spaces with their AR-15s. To support their "constitutional rights" to... whatever.

That's the tinder box, right there. All you need is one fired bullet and one death at the hands of Obama the Usurper (and it really doesn't matter who fires the shot, BTW).
posted by mondo dentro at 12:22 PM on October 9, 2013


Adding to the general sense of the whole country going to hell, I saw this on Twitter yesterday:

The top 1% of US earners accounted for 19.3% of all household income last year, breaking a record set in 1927.

The richer are getting richer faster than they ever have before in this country. They are beating the records set by the Robber Barons. Meanwhile, the wages of everyone else are stagnating. But the resentment of the poor and those in need of government assistance is more vigorous than the resentment of the rich. It's crazytown. And now, the Republicans may just blow the whole damn economy up because THERE IS NOW A SYSTEM IN PLACE FOR EVERYONE TO BUY PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE. That's what is doing them in. Mandated private health insurance, with subsidies for the poor.

It's important to avoid sensationalism, but we are now at a point where we can look out the window and see a cultural, economic, and constitutional crisis all merging to create a superstorm. Can it be avoided? Yes. But is it just as plausible that it might not be? Absolutely. You get the sense that history books eighty years from now will have a section that begins in October 2013, and it'll be titled something like "Crisis: The Default of 2013 and the Long Aftermath."
posted by Pater Aletheias at 12:24 PM on October 9, 2013 [64 favorites]


Chill, lattiboy, they are a conservative organization that did the same thing in '11. I'm not saying everything is going to be fine, just pointing out that this isn't a harbinger of inevitable doom.
posted by Mister_A at 12:25 PM on October 9, 2013


It worked for Battlestar Galactica, it could work for America. Well, it worked until the inevitable descent into religious babble. Wait, maybe we already had a reboot, maybe we are living in someone else's fanfiction of America!!

The US is basically Good Old Cause fanfiction. When Ironmouth draws a parallel between the English Civil War and the US Constitution, it's not just a good analogy, it's the actual reason. But keep your spirits up, the original Commonwealth only lasted ten years, so you're doing twenty-something times better already.
posted by Thing at 12:26 PM on October 9, 2013


The top 1% of US earners accounted for 19.3% of all household income last year, breaking a record set in 1927.

1927? That's great news; we've got two more years!
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 12:26 PM on October 9, 2013 [13 favorites]


Fidelity just sold it's government debt for November.

The article points out that this also happened in the previous 2011 debt limit almost-default. So, not quite a sign of the apocalypse.

I suppose more worrying is that the interest rate on Tbills has gone to 0.3 -- the last time it was that high was 2008, as the article reminds us.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 12:27 PM on October 9, 2013


Chill, lattiboy, they are a conservative organization that did the same thing in '11. I'm not saying everything is going to be fine, just pointing out that this isn't a harbinger of inevitable doom.

Sorry, just about ready to cry in a corner at this point. I'm getting married in a few weeks and am really starting to think about the future. All this shit has me so on edge I can hardly concentrate on anything.
posted by lattiboy at 12:27 PM on October 9, 2013 [5 favorites]


I hear you, it's certainly not great news and I'm very worried as well.
posted by Mister_A at 12:29 PM on October 9, 2013


You get the sense that history books eighty years from now will have a section that begins in October 2013, and it'll be titled something like "Crisis: The Default of 2013 and the Long Aftermath."

Tip for future kids: it's easy to remember the date because 13 is an unlucky number and October is when Halloween is!
posted by theodolite at 12:31 PM on October 9, 2013 [8 favorites]


As a moderate, establishment, pro-business, Rockefeller-style Republican, I hope this episode is clarifying for the party. Today's Gallup poll showing the GOP's popularity at an all-time low (28%) should be a wake-up call that whatever the merits of "Obamacare," banging our heads against the wall is ineffective both as a means of changing the law and of changing Americans' minds.

I was heartened to read Paul Ryan's op-ed in the Wall Street Journal today, in which he proposed trading the nonsensical sequestration cuts for structural reforms to entitlement programs. That's where we should have been focused all along. I'm hoping more brave Republicans like Charlie Dent and Peter King continue to speak out against the Tea Party-inspired bullies who lead us into Alamo-style showdowns meant to bathe their leaders in glory while leaving the troops to die.
posted by BobbyVan at 12:32 PM on October 9, 2013 [4 favorites]


Fidelity just sold it's government debt for November.

Not surprising. Money Market funds are supposed to be the safest possible. Given even a 1% risk of a default, any competent money market manager is going to get out of US Treasuries.

If Congress gets over this and raises the debt ceiling, they'll move right back in.
posted by eriko at 12:32 PM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]




Right-wing coup: Deluded secessionists have already won, David Sirota, Salon, 9 October 2013
posted by ob1quixote at 12:33 PM on October 9, 2013 [2 favorites]


I think the armed extremist patriot types pose a bigger risk to dispersed Federal buildings than they do to anything in DC. Take for example the IRS facility in Ohio that was at the heart of the fake scandal earlier in the year. I don't see these types joining together en masse and marching on anywhere, but I can see a local group of them getting a big idea about forming a posse and sending a message etc., should a default occur and a worst case scenario transpire.

I think we're in a weird limbo this week. Nothing can break the logjam until a critical mass gathers and the only thing capable of gathering that is the dwindling amount of time before the global markets open on 10/18. I hope I'm wrong but I think we'll see another week or so of the same before anything breaks one way or another.
posted by feloniousmonk at 12:33 PM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


The ironic part is that in a crisis situation, the executive branch has far more power than it otherwise would. Obama can decide which federal employees are essential or not, he can ignore the debt ceiling, and if it comes to prioritizing spending, he gets to do the prioritizing. There is nothing to stop him from cutting funding for GOP-favorite programs like missile defense or farm subsidies -- or Social Security in red states only. Failing to raise the debt ceiling would be giving a massive amount of political power to the president, which is why I don't think it will happen.
posted by miyabo at 12:35 PM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


I was heartened to read Paul Ryan's op-ed in the Wall Street Journal today, in which he proposed trading the nonsensical sequestration cuts for structural reforms to entitlement programs. That's where we should have been focused all along.

That would be a great thing for Ryan to bring to the discussion the next time a budget bill is being assembled and debated. It's not a great thing to insist on as a condition in exchange for not blowing up the economy.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 12:35 PM on October 9, 2013 [36 favorites]


> the next time a budget bill is being assembled and debated

Exactly. This youtube video is a great soundbite for people to understand that yes, it's not about the spending.
posted by anthill at 12:39 PM on October 9, 2013 [4 favorites]


As a moderate, establishment, pro-business, Rockefeller-style Republican...

That is, a contemporary Democrat? (I kid! I kid!)

...trading the nonsensical sequestration cuts for structural reforms to entitlement programs...

Why should programs that are proven to be economically sound for the country as a whole, and that benefit primarily the 99%, be axed to further enhance wealth and income inequality? Our economy is simply not in trouble because of "entitlements"... that is, unless you consider the huge amount of taxpayer money being funneled to the military-industrial-surveillance-prison-extraction-industry complex to be "entitlements". Going after welfare and healthcare is just another example of shit flowing downhill. Cut the military budget by 80%, shift it to a massive green energy program that creates jobs in the US and enhances our global security... then we can talk about "entitlements".
posted by mondo dentro at 12:39 PM on October 9, 2013 [60 favorites]


It's worth remembering that the best case scenario for Speaker Boehner right now is an above-average life expectancy in a state of wealth and security beyond the imaginations of 99.9% of the world, peppered with lunches and dinners held in his honor. The worst case scenario for him is exactly the same.

And this is true for the rest of the Tea Party/Republicans in the House who are responsible for this. To a one of them.

Literally a single government employee who misses a rent check because of this has greater stakes than the entire Republican Leadership combined.

And the debt ceiling just threatens to put the entire rest of the world in the same boat with that employee.
posted by Navelgazer at 12:40 PM on October 9, 2013 [41 favorites]


I was heartened to read Paul Ryan's op-ed in the Wall Street Journal today, in which he proposed trading the nonsensical sequestration cuts for structural reforms to entitlement programs. That's where we should have been focused all along.

House Republicans’ Ransom Demands Falling (emphasis mine)
The policy demands in Ryan’s op-ed are sufficiently vague that, if viewed as an opening bid, they would not completely preclude some kind of deal if he actually wants to bargain. The trouble is that Ryan’s entire history strongly suggests he does not want to deal. Every major attempt to create bipartisan budget negotiations has been quashed by Ryan. He voted against the Bowles-Simpson proposal, kiboshed a 2011 agreement between John Boehner and President Obama, then single-handedly blew up a bipartisan Senate budget deal.

Obama’s reelection has not prompted Ryan to veer from this strategy. Last spring, the president tried to spur bipartisan negotiations by compromising with himself in his budget, including cuts to Social Security and Medicare along with reducing tax deductions. Ryan waved it away and made no counteroffer. Instead, working through what Republicans called the “Jedi Council,” Ryan crafted a strategy of using the debt ceiling to extract unreciprocated concessions. He spent much of the year repeatedly turning down a budget conference on the assumption that he could get a better deal by threatening default. He confidently assured Republicans that Obama would fold and bargain for the debt ceiling. (National Review’s Jonathan Strong two weeks ago: “I asked Ryan if he believes President Obama’s steadfast vows that he won’t negotiate over the debt ceiling. His reaction? You’ve got to be kidding me. ‘Oh, nobody believes that.’”)

Is it possible Ryan has undergone some deep-rooted mental conversion and now wants a regular, bipartisan budget negotiation where the two parties make trade-offs? It’s possible, sure. But then why would he be demanding that the debt ceiling and the government shutdown be part of the negotiations? This is very simple: If the implicit or explicit alternative to an agreement is that you blow up the world economy, then you’re not negotiating — you’re extorting.
posted by zombieflanders at 12:41 PM on October 9, 2013 [22 favorites]


TwelveTwo: "Let's just start our own country, based on America, but different, a reboot, a fan-fiction of America"

Why not? We already have the nation state slash fic ready to go.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:42 PM on October 9, 2013


Bobby, the more that Republican representatives hear from the silent majority that tends to be pro-business and moderate conservatives that simply aren't as vocal as their Tea Party brethren the more likely there is to be some positive movement in this regard. I understand that alot of 2010 freshmen got voted into office promising to try to stop Obamacare but at a certain point you have to realize that battle is lost and you have to choose other battles. Continuing to strive over the same battleground that you've continually lost skirmishes on is stupidity and if there is one thing I don't typically associate with old-school Republicans it's stupidity.

Yes ditching the Tea Party types will undermine the party in the short term but it's a much better long term outcome even if it means that from an electoral strategy Republicans are basically the opposition party. It at least gives you guys time to reinvent yourselves to make your message more palatable to the new demographic realities whereas the current course of action seems destined to result in a massive dogmatic schism among conservatives and a crushing blow to the Republican brand.

Personally as a liberal I'd like to see your coalition to get broken apart some but honestly watching you guys implode and take down the economy in the course of imploding kinda diminishes any enjoyment I'd get from the implosion. Couldn't you guys just have an internal fight over gay marriage, immigration, pot or any number of other fault lines that aren't going to result in a massive shock to our already weak economy?
posted by vuron at 12:42 PM on October 9, 2013 [8 favorites]


Thing is, any military force put against an armed uprising would play directly into many of the far-right's fantasies of the "government coming to get us" or "Obama's building concentration camps for conservatives" and all the rest. Any actual bloodshed would only make the rhetoric even more biblically apocalyptic. It's really a no-win for the government in this day and age.

So say an armed march goes from just so much talk to an actual thing. Obama calls a press conference and says that the protesters are well within their rights provided they are following existing gun laws, says that local gun laws and weapons restrictions on Federal property will continue to be enforced, and impresses upon the people that they should go about their daily business like normal because this is a good faith free speech demonstration and he expects the protesters to be responsible gun owners. He publicly orders the police and feds to meticulously exercise restraint, not to escalate use of force (hell, have them arm themselves with nonlethal weaponry only, they'd still have the capability to bring armed units in if real shooting broke out, they've got all sorts of rapid response capability from Homeland Security money), and to be an open book with the press covering the protests. Press and police and civilian cameras are everywhere because of the nature of the event. Document everything. Clear chain of command, 100% by the book. If an officer starts agitating in the slightest, make a public show of sending him away from the protest and into suspension. Treat the protesters like princes, and if they start firing it's on them. The false-flag crowd will go apeshit no matter what, but the administration can cover their ass. If something kicked off in a situation like that, the Federal forces would be, very publicly, on the defensive side of the whole thing. It wouldn't have the optics of a Waco or a Ruby Ridge.
posted by jason_steakums at 12:42 PM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


Sane people HATE HIM!!!

Ohio man discovers one weird trick that will collapse the world economy.
posted by gauche at 12:43 PM on October 9, 2013 [77 favorites]


I mean, really, I just can't wrap my brain around this line of thinking: "Well, we have a long term deficit we need to deal with, and debt that we would like to pay down. Over here, we have a group of insanely rich citizens who control massive amounts of wealth, and are richer than any similar group in American history. Looks like we should cut aid to the poorest Americans so we can pay down our debt." There's no way to say that with a straight face without incredible an incredible commitment to protecting the wealth of people who already have more money than they will ever need in their lives. But, yeah, let's make it harder for grandma to pay the water bill so the CEO's don't have to pay more than 15% on their investment income.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 12:43 PM on October 9, 2013 [67 favorites]


House Republicans’ Ransom Demands Falling...

True, but they've already achieved virtually the original Ryan budget because they outfoxed Obama on the sequestration.

Again, at that time the establishment viewed sequestration as "too extreme" and "illogical". It wasn't. It worked. Budget slashed.

Can't really blame them for trying again, can we?
posted by mondo dentro at 12:43 PM on October 9, 2013 [2 favorites]




I am running for Congress in 2014. Here I am at a recent stump speech outlining my "Surrender to me your fuel -- or perish!" platform.
posted by Mister_A at 12:46 PM on October 9, 2013 [2 favorites]


I mean, really, I just can't wrap my brain around this line of thinking: "Well, we have a long term deficit we need to deal with, and debt that we would like to pay down. Over here, we have a group of insanely rich citizens who control massive amounts of wealth, and are richer than any similar group in American history. Looks like we should cut aid to the poorest Americans so we can pay down our debt."

but...but the Rich are the JOB CREATORS! What jobs has grandma created? Paperboy?
posted by desjardins at 12:47 PM on October 9, 2013 [2 favorites]


fwiw, I would totally make mad scientist things for warlord elizardbits in exchange for food.
posted by Blasdelb at 12:50 PM on October 9, 2013 [4 favorites]


Mister_A I don't have permission to view that image. I demand increased transparency in your campaign!
posted by jacalata at 12:50 PM on October 9, 2013 [6 favorites]


But, yeah, let's make it harder for grandma to pay the water bill so the CEO's don't have to pay more than 15% on their investment income.

"...and for our next trick, the propaganda wing of the party will convince a sufficient number of grandmas in key electoral districts that it's not our fault at all!"
posted by scody at 12:51 PM on October 9, 2013 [12 favorites]


fwiw, I would totally make mad scientist things for warlord elizardbits in exchange for food.

Release the ULTRAPUGGLE!
posted by Slap*Happy at 12:52 PM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


Thirty-odd Republicans have become the biggest threat to this country since the Cold War. Maybe even before that, the Soviets weren't this stupid.
posted by Mick at 12:53 PM on October 9, 2013 [10 favorites]


fwiw, I would totally make mad scientist things for warlord elizardbits in exchange for food

I hope you like macaroni and cheese and red velvet cake for all of your meals, actually this sounds great, elizardbits for emperor!
posted by jetlagaddict at 12:54 PM on October 9, 2013 [3 favorites]


Suppose for a moment that Obama has already decided that if worse comes to worst, he'll announce that his first obligation is to the constitution, and the 14th amendment, that he's going to pay the bills, and Congress can pursue the remedy of impeaching him if they don't like it. At what point would he say so?
posted by tyllwin at 12:54 PM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


jacalata, I will do as you ask once you surrender your fuel.
posted by Mister_A at 12:55 PM on October 9, 2013


> Mister_A I don't have permission to view that image. I demand increased transparency in your campaign!

The image request has to come from their server. Click the URL bar on your browser and hit enter.
posted by davelog at 12:55 PM on October 9, 2013


fwiw, I would totally make mad scientist things for warlord elizardbits in exchange for food.

Yeah, elizardbits, if you need a mage or a shaman I can provide references.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 12:55 PM on October 9, 2013 [3 favorites]


What jobs has grandma created? Paperboy?

Clicking for cookies has employed hundreds if not thousands of individuals worldwide!
posted by elizardbits at 12:55 PM on October 9, 2013 [16 favorites]


that worked. Lucky, because for fuel I only have a bus pass and the front wheel of a poorly-locked-up bike.
posted by jacalata at 12:56 PM on October 9, 2013


Mister_A, doesn't that collar chafe a bit?
posted by mondo dentro at 12:57 PM on October 9, 2013


Grandma has kept Elmo & Patsy in business for way too long. FIGHT THE REAL ENEMY.
posted by mintcake! at 12:58 PM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


CHAFING IS AN OCCUPATIONAL HAZARD OF WARRIOR-CONGRESSPEOPLE
posted by Mister_A at 12:58 PM on October 9, 2013 [2 favorites]


Fidelity just sold it's government debt for November.

These are the bonds that come due in November. This highlights the fact that those who say the government has enough revenue to pay the interest forget that we also have to pay off the principal when it come due. We probably can't do that without raising the debt limit.
posted by Mental Wimp at 12:59 PM on October 9, 2013


We need a way to ensure our political representatives have some skin in the game—the same skin the rest of us poor mofos have in it. Their fuckups should hurt them at least as much as it hurts us.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:00 PM on October 9, 2013 [3 favorites]


I think Obama would probably let stuff get bad but not horribad before pulling out some sort of 14th amendment hail mary. Basically he's immune to impeachment for doing so but it would create a massive amount of constitutional wrangling that would be unlikely to be worked out anytime soon.

That being said if we are heading down the collapse of American civilization road I'd really expect for him to pull out some sort of legal justification for protecting the full faith and credit of the economy even if untangling that mess could take decades.

After all there is few things that the public likes better than someone that can restore stability in the face of chaos and there is basically nobody on the Republican side willing to do that right now.

The only question is how badly would Obama want to break the Republican party before he steps in. Considering how badly he's been treated by them I'd be tempted to sacrifice a lot in the name of vengeance but that's also a good reason why I shouldn't be president.
posted by vuron at 1:01 PM on October 9, 2013 [8 favorites]


I agree with five fresh fish - flay them alive!
posted by Mister_A at 1:02 PM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


Huh, CNN's got "a senior House GOP source" saying that Tuesday, Oct 15 is the date that a solution might be forced.
posted by jason_steakums at 1:03 PM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah...All that we have to do is to send two mujahedeen to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al Qaeda, in order to make generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic and political losses without their achieving anything of note other than some benefits for their private corporations...the darkness of black gold blurred [Dubya'] vision and insight, and he gave priority to private interests over the public interests of America.
--Osama bin Laden, November 1, 2004.
posted by zombieflanders at 1:04 PM on October 9, 2013 [14 favorites]


I agree with five fresh fish - flay them alive!

I am just happy I transferred my retirement plan into Guillotine Futures.
posted by scody at 1:04 PM on October 9, 2013 [4 favorites]


Unfortunately Five Fresh Fish, the changes in how people get elected are rapidly changing the type of people that can actually get elected back into a wealthy aristocracy that are generally concerned with maintaining status quo rather than being responsive to the needs of the average American. As long as campaigns are won by whoever can fundraise the best or who can self-fund to get to prominence you are going to be reinforcing oligarchic principles rather than a truly representative democracy.
posted by vuron at 1:04 PM on October 9, 2013 [2 favorites]


FLAY
posted by Mister_A at 1:06 PM on October 9, 2013 [2 favorites]


I was going to say that everyone really can stop panicking, and that this isn't going to end up as some kind of mad max apocalypse where people are hoarding food and water. Then I realized that this kind of worry comes from the exact same place as the prepper's "worry" comes from. Hope. Hope that the hardship of their mundane daily lives will be transformed into a fantasy scenario where the hardship they face can be met with their own agency.

I'm sorry to say, but no, the worst case scenario isn't that the economy/society collapses and your debt will be wiped out. It's that everything goes on as it has, except now you don't have a job and your retirement savings are wiped out.

So you know. Yay!
posted by danny the boy at 1:07 PM on October 9, 2013 [30 favorites]


the changes in how people get elected are rapidly changing the type of people that can actually get elected back into a wealthy aristocracy that are generally concerned with maintaining status quo rather than being responsive to the needs of the average American.

Coming to a red state near you...Two-tier voting.
posted by Thorzdad at 1:07 PM on October 9, 2013 [3 favorites]


BOBBY FLAY?
posted by mondo dentro at 1:07 PM on October 9, 2013


FLAY BOBBY FLAY
posted by Mister_A at 1:08 PM on October 9, 2013 [4 favorites]


lay lady lay
posted by scody at 1:08 PM on October 9, 2013 [4 favorites]




"Release the ULTRAPUGGLE!"

I was thinking an engineered strain of Gonasyphaherpaloids targeted to attack the junk of her enemies, or weaponized flying monkeys, or a gay virus (Requiring a new family of Fabuloviridae to be constructed), or a red velvet cake tree, or a smell ray (fart in the mouths of your enemies from a distance!), but I could totally get to work on a post-apocalyptic Ultrapuggle.

[NOTE: OTHER POTENTIAL EMPLOYERS LIKELY TO REQUIRE A VOLCANO LAIR IN ADDITION TO GREASY HONKEY PIE AND CAKE - SUBJECT TO NEGOTIATION]
posted by Blasdelb at 1:09 PM on October 9, 2013 [5 favorites]


>...can Democrats now just call the GOP what it really is - the Confederate Party?

I like calling them "Republics" whenever the opportunity presents itself.

My larger take on the whole situation as a late-era boomer is that being the party-in-charge of the US is extremely intoxicating in its power and marvelously lucrative.

I think the Dems and Reps have been fighting over this for decades, probably since before I was born.

The Republics had it sewn up for most of the '80's, and again in the late '90's, early-aughts.

But now, their demographic - older, white, heterosexual Christians - is shrinking and it's causing panic.

Gays, guns and abortion is not enough to get out the vote and bring in the dollars like it used to and it's driving them batshit insane.

Make no msitake, I am outraged at the Obama administration's defense of the NSA, their war on whistleblowers and their willingness to act as Hollywood's Copyright Cops.

The only reason the Democratics are out ahead in any way is because of their inadvertent alignment with the Culturally Diverse, a group which may not be as dependable as the Straight White Christian Gun Club, but can be played for votes pretty much the same way.

posted by mmrtnt at 1:16 PM on October 9, 2013 [2 favorites]


Give people ten years to relocate and then let the neo-confederates have their own damn country. Sometimes divorce is the right answer.

~500,000 dead Indians/Pakistanis might beg to differ.
posted by acb at 1:17 PM on October 9, 2013 [4 favorites]


I'm so tired of living in a state of permanent exception. I think ending that is a necessary goal in America. Normality must eventually return.
posted by clockzero at 1:17 PM on October 9, 2013 [4 favorites]


If one wished to be a Pollyanna and make lemonade one could see this as an excellent opportunity to drive a stake into the GOP heart (assuming it could be located) and send them the way of the Whigs...
posted by jim in austin at 1:19 PM on October 9, 2013


I made a perhaps ill-advised venture into a friend's Facebook status the other day to talk about politics. He's a self-made man who had terrific grades in high school and probably could've gone to any college he chose to, and instead volunteered for the Marine Corps out of a feeling of patriotic duty. He's currently supporting himself through law school. He posted about how the shutdown was affecting military families, and the rank hypocrisy of the American right in how its behaving. Unsurprisingly this attracted a few right wingers to come in and say how it's actually Obama's fault.

I decided to provide a few emotionally distant facts (emergency room waiting times and the actual functioning of the ACA), but I was struck by something in the process: these people have no idea what they're talking about. They're not operating in the same reality, and it seems that they live in the imagination land constructed by right wing AM radio instead. Whatever Limbaugh and company have waiting for them after death isn't nearly harsh enough to compensate for what they've done in life. American politics (for the worse) is no longer the domain of factual argument, but rather ideology. The American left's failure, I think, is largely a failure of ideology. Perhaps this is unavoidable, since the ideology of Limbaugh and company is usually just ginned up race hatred, so maybe it's best not to go down that path, but surely there has to be some morally consistent leftist ideology that would appeal to the people currently being brainwashed by their radios (no coincidence that it's a supposed trucker convoy to convene on DC this Friday - who else spends that much alone time with the right-wing ideologues muttering in their ears?). One person in the Facebook conversation actually quoted Thatcher in her screed - Thatcher who called the NHS one of the best parts of the government. The neo-liberals that these people look up to are just idols at this point - their actual beliefs are so far from each other that I'd welcome Reagan as a centrist Democrat and he'd be vilified and ejected from the modern GOP.

I also realized that in defending the ACA I was defending a policy that I don't particularly like. It's a market solution without much in the way of redistribution or socialism (two things that were claimed about "Obamacare"). The real irony of this is that the imagined demon that the right-wing has convinced their base about is what I'D LIKE TO HAPPEN, and what's actually happening IS THE COMMON RIGHT-WING SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM! It's so fucking backwards that it makes me want to drink just thinking about it.
posted by codacorolla at 1:20 PM on October 9, 2013 [89 favorites]


Osama bin Laden, November 1, 2004.

As long as we're continuing with this line of thought, his goal wasn't just to be able to laugh at how low the Americans could be brought, just like his goal wasn't to frustrate air travelers with more hoops to jump through. The end point of his plans was to unite the entire Muslim world behind one banner and to totally evict the US from the new Islamic Caliphate so that they would never again have a direct say in the doings of the Muslim world. On those front, his actual goals, bin Laden was somewhat less successful. If anything, Muslims are more divided and the US is more entrenched than 15 years ago.
posted by Copronymus at 1:20 PM on October 9, 2013 [4 favorites]


ShowBiz_Liz I'm just going to die in a postapocalyptic wasteland anyway so why fucking bother?

If it's any help, I felt like this a lot in my early 20's during the mid-to-late '70's

posted by mmrtnt at 1:21 PM on October 9, 2013 [7 favorites]


>...can Democrats now just call the GOP what it really is - the Confederate Party?

I like calling them "Republics" whenever the opportunity presents itself.


In my head I call them Royalists.
posted by Navelgazer at 1:21 PM on October 9, 2013 [3 favorites]


This thread, to my mind, illustrates part of the problem that the teabaggers are exploiting: It is full of hyperbolic doom saying, but almost every single piece of it is generic and non specific, and largely not backed up. If you want to get people really engaged and believing, we need specific consequence that result from the loss of money. The previously mentioned timeline was a good source of such things. From it, we see that possibly social security cheques may not go out. That is real. That people can get their teeth into. That isn't just making your interest payments. So when the GOP says "we can make our interest payments" you can say "but not also pay social security". Just saying NO, OMG OMG OMG THE MARKETS WILL CRASH isn't really all that scary, especially after 2008. It doesn't seem real to them.
posted by Bovine Love at 1:21 PM on October 9, 2013 [5 favorites]


Elastigirl: Remember the bad guys on the shows you used to watch on Saturday mornings? Well, these guys aren't like those guys. They won't exercise restraint because you are children. They will kill you if they get the chance. Do not give them that chance.
posted by Ghost Mode at 1:23 PM on October 9, 2013 [5 favorites]


Take for example the IRS facility in Ohio that was at the heart of the fake scandal earlier in the year.

Yes, the idea that the IRS would be used as a political tool was addressed with the reforms of the Church Commission after Nixon so now, under the Rule Of Law, the IRS could never EVER be used as a way to punish or reward.

That's why the scandal was fake - right?
posted by rough ashlar at 1:23 PM on October 9, 2013


"The only reason the Democratics are out ahead in any way is because of their inadvertent alignment with the Culturally Diverse, a group which may not be as dependable as the Straight White Christian Gun Club, but can be played for votes pretty much the same way."

The Democrats have almost accidentally become The Voice of Reason in modern American politics. They didn't ask for it, but when the other guys went from lawful evil to chaotic evil, pants on head, suicide vest wearing fantics, they didn't have much choice in the matter. Somebody has to keep the country running.
posted by Kevin Street at 1:24 PM on October 9, 2013 [20 favorites]


Somebody has to keep the country running.

I hope so.
posted by craven_morhead at 1:24 PM on October 9, 2013


Get back, honkey pie.
posted by box at 1:25 PM on October 9, 2013


Well, these guys aren't like those guys. They won't exercise restraint because you are children. They will kill you if they get the chance. Do not give them that chance.

Are you saying that we're the wedding party in the drone videos and they are the drones?
posted by rough ashlar at 1:26 PM on October 9, 2013


That's why the scandal was fake - right?

The scandal was fake because in actual fact the IRS using a shorthand to look closely at a handful of political groups did not cost anybody anything and did not impinge on anybody's rights. It was further trumped up nonsense as the IRS during this time likewise scrutinized the filings of many groups alligned with progressive political causes as well.
posted by gauche at 1:27 PM on October 9, 2013 [12 favorites]


Just saying NO, OMG OMG OMG THE MARKETS WILL CRASH isn't really all that scary, especially after 2008.

Oh, yeah, we're all just loving the extended unemployment with less and less of a safety net. The prospect of a major market crash doesn't bother us at all. Nothing scary there.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 1:28 PM on October 9, 2013 [16 favorites]


Also, re: the IRS scrutiny of Tea Party affiliates - kind of makes sense to scrutinize someone whose public position is that they are Taxed Enough Already.
posted by Mister_A at 1:28 PM on October 9, 2013 [5 favorites]


The Atlantic has an interesting stat re: that Gallup poll BobbyVan linked to: No Party in Gallup's History Has Been Less Popular Than the GOP Is Now
posted by zarq at 1:30 PM on October 9, 2013 [15 favorites]


Let's end this IRS Scandal derail with an acknowledgement that it was a fake scandal since the IRS also scrutinized 'Democratic' groups. Plus, scrutinizing groups is sort of their job.
posted by Joey Michaels at 1:32 PM on October 9, 2013 [17 favorites]


If one wished to be a Pollyanna and make lemonade one could see this as an excellent opportunity to drive a stake into the GOP heart (assuming it could be located) and send them the way of the Whigs...

But who's holding the stake? If the GOP implodes, it will be because portions of the GOP decide they don't want to stick with it, or because the Dems make a play for the moderates. The latter seems like it would be hard, given the report previously linked by Drinky Die which suggests that the moderates also hate Obama.

This thread, to my mind, illustrates part of the problem that the teabaggers are exploiting: It is full of hyperbolic doom saying, but almost every single piece of it is generic and non specific, and largely not backed up.

In fairness, members of the tea party also engage in hyperbolic doom saying. Everybody's doin' it! (I would also argue that the use of terms like "Very Serious People" as shorthand for people-who-are-very-serious-but-just-don't-get-it isn't helping.) But then, this isn't an inside-beltway discussion, it's a hodgepodge web forum where folks don't have to read the FPP before commenting when they want to blow off some steam. If you want some material discussion of consequences, the best thing to do is probably to read the FPP, write up a reasoned response to the content, and then put it in. Folks will read it, especially the thread-sitters.
posted by Going To Maine at 1:32 PM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


That Atlantic article: Interestingly, Republicans were twice as likely to view their own party unfavorably as were Democrats theirs.

Ouch.
posted by jason_steakums at 1:33 PM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


Also, re: the IRS scrutiny of Tea Party affiliates...

Well, the scrutiny was in regard to tax exempt status for non-political non-profits. The organizations in question are, no doubt, political. Too bad the IRS/Obama administration whimped out and didn't emphasize this bit of dishonesty. Not surprising, though, Dem whimpishness.
posted by mondo dentro at 1:33 PM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


I wish I had picked a different Federal building to use as an example, sorry about the derail. I'm not interested in pursuing it myself.
posted by feloniousmonk at 1:33 PM on October 9, 2013


So the Republicans are less popular than the Communists and National Socialist White People's Party have ever been? Or did they mean to write “neither party has been less popular”.
posted by acb at 1:33 PM on October 9, 2013


No Party in Gallup's History Has Been Less Popular Than the GOP Is Now

And yet, no party has every been more popular within its own carefully gerrymandered epistemic bubbles.
posted by mondo dentro at 1:34 PM on October 9, 2013 [18 favorites]


The Atlantic has an interesting stat re: that Gallup poll BobbyVan linked to: No Party in Gallup's History Has Been Less Popular Than the GOP Is Now

Great news for the Meadow Party!
posted by entropicamericana at 1:35 PM on October 9, 2013 [5 favorites]


> none of the threats you listed originated from Congress itself.

I think I misread your original comment. I see your point.

It just seems to me that people have been being stampeded in one direction or another for decades now and that's the "pattern" I was referring to.

posted by mmrtnt at 1:36 PM on October 9, 2013


Guys, you can't be unpopular if no one knows who you are.
posted by Mister_A at 1:36 PM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


One of the consequences of Fox News and company shifting the Overton Window so insanely far to the right is that more and more people that would ostensibly be aligned with old school Republicans are now solidly in the middle of the Democratic party. The Democratic party is the party of big business and status quo, yeah they are somewhat inclusive and not at all lily-white which makes some people uncomfortable because the beautiful people (who many conservatives at least imagine themselves being) like having people that look and sound like them surrounding them and black girls and boys that like boys and omg why does that person have piercings on their face are scary and uncomfortable because they remind you that you are turning into your parents and grandparents and aren't hip anymore and what not.

So even though the social and fiscal policies of the democrats probably align closer with your values you stick with the Republicans because of tribal loyalties but you've grown more and more uncomfortable with some of the overt racism of your right-wing friends and you are scared that the black guy might get your promotion and you keep voting republican even though paying for healthcare is really expensive and you are concerned your parents can't retire or even worse will want to move in with you.

Make no mistake Rockefeller Republicans are Democrats now. Yeah they hang out with crazy pot smoking liberal hippies and that makes you uncomfortable even though you secretly want legalized pot in your state and the new tribal identity the Tea Party is creating is scary as fuck so you tell your friends you hate Obama even though you actually voted for him last time (although you voted for your local Republican Representative because he's good at bringing home jobs and getting his friends government contractor cause you know business).

The sooner the last holdouts realize that dropping the ultra fiscal libertarians who also believe in controlling people's morality is better for their party's long term future the better for all of us. Our you could hold your nose and vote democrat long enough for your party's leadership to get a clue.
posted by vuron at 1:37 PM on October 9, 2013 [6 favorites]


The scandal was fake because in actual fact the IRS using a shorthand to look closely at a handful of political groups did not cost anybody anything and did not impinge on anybody's rights.

IRS Puts Open Source Projects Under Microscope, Spawns Nonprofit Black Hole

Do explain the political group that was effected here. And do try to explain that my having to spend an additional 25 hours of time and $76 in postage because the one non-profit was tied to Open Source was not in any way an additional burden.

The Open Source hostility came to light because of the "fake scandal".
posted by rough ashlar at 1:37 PM on October 9, 2013


I have some questions here:
  1. What exactly does the Game of Thrones reference "Winter is coming" have to do with this? I don't follow Game of Thrones, but I've heard it dropped a few times.
  2. Ghost Mode: can you elaborate in any way???
  3. Should people be stocking up on non-perishable foods??? 3 month supply sound good if so???
I might have more later. I understand this is not AskMe, but this shut down business is getting serious. I'm not furloughed, but my work depends on many people who are.
posted by JoeXIII007 at 1:38 PM on October 9, 2013


Well, I decided to redistribute the funds currently in my 401k from the S&P 500 index fund to the sole available money market fund that's included in the short list of funds I can invest in in my employer's 401k plan, until things settle down. I'm aware that a default probably won't happen, but keeping the majority of my 401k funds in the index fund just feels like Russian roulette at this point.
posted by longdaysjourney at 1:40 PM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


may I make the small request that the IRS derail be spun off elsewhere?
posted by edgeways at 1:41 PM on October 9, 2013 [19 favorites]


What exactly does the Game of Thrones reference "Winter is coming" have to do with this? I don't follow Game of Thrones, but I've heard it dropped a few times.

In the show/book, winter comes and it lasts for years. It's a time of hardship and suffering. The main protagonists' house uses the phrase as a motto, as a way of saying "be prepared for the coming suffering." I'm pretty sure that's how people are using it here.

Also, it's fall in the US, so winter is literally coming, which makes it more appropriate than usual.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 1:41 PM on October 9, 2013 [13 favorites]


What edgeways said. Take it to email or drop it.
posted by cortex at 1:41 PM on October 9, 2013 [7 favorites]


I still don't see what Treasury's downside is in simply holding a bond auction that would put the country over the debt limit. Okay, it's "illegal". Say Obama issues an executive order to Treasury ordering it to ignore the debt limit (straight up, without any platinum voodoo or any justification other than "it needed doing" on prime-time TV five minutes after it's done).

Would there really be so much uncertainty around the value of the bonds auctioned under such terms that the auction would fail? Would that uncertainty cost more or less than an actual default?

Political worst case? Obama gets impeached and removed well after the fact. Yes it will take up all the oxygen in DC, but that's where we've been since 2010, and it's not like Obama's going to get anything done on his 2013-2017 legislative agenda.

There would be worse things for his legacy than being politically martyred saving the economy from a fully unnecessary collapse under ideological assault. And we'd end up with President Biden, who would at least be good for a laugh.
posted by Vetinari at 1:42 PM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]




How much longer can we pay the border guards and checkpoint workers to keep Americans from fleeing to Mexico?
posted by Mister_A at 1:42 PM on October 9, 2013 [6 favorites]


It is full of hyperbolic doom saying, but almost every single piece of it is generic and non specific, and largely not backed up. If you want to get people really engaged and believing, we need specific consequence that result from the loss of money.

My entire neighborhood (historically solid middle class) has been reclassified a Title 1 school district (meaning, the area is now so impoverished the majority of kids are on supplemental lunch aid) since the first financial collapse. We've had some houses sitting on the market not selling at less than even half their pre-crash prices for years. That crash involved the crash of synthetic derivatives markets that only even came into existence within the last couple of decades. We're talking here about crashing the market for US Treasury Bonds, which have been viewed for many, many decades as the safest most secure investment in the world ("backed by the full faith and credit of the US Treasury"). There are laws that require some local and state government funds to be primarily or solely invested in treasury bonds. Institutional investors have long treated US bonds as the closest thing there is to a guaranteed investment. If we crash the bond market, we crash America. If that's not specific enough for you, read the Bloomberg article link from the original post.
posted by saulgoodman at 1:43 PM on October 9, 2013 [24 favorites]


Thanks Bulgaroktonos! The literal meaning was pretty clear, but I knew there was some literary meaning too.
posted by JoeXIII007 at 1:43 PM on October 9, 2013


Picking up my packages from my landlord today I was wondering if I should say something about ha ha having trouble paying my rent (SSD pays the rent and a few utilities; work keeps me and three cats fed, in meds).

I decided not to. My landlords quickly move to evict if a month's worth of rent is not paid.

The nice thing is that, thanks to my last name, my check comes in next week, not the week after. Next month though, yeah, you hear about some chick with funny hair who is homeless and is disrupting Philadelphia by wheeling through the streets, screaming, that'll be me.
posted by angrycat at 1:43 PM on October 9, 2013 [2 favorites]


If that happens, angrycat, we can meet up in center city, get coffee, maybe flay some people.
posted by Mister_A at 1:47 PM on October 9, 2013 [9 favorites]


The 8 Most Plausible Ways a Debt-Ceiling Catastrophe Could Be Averted

The article is mostly serious, but I'm really hoping for #8.
posted by zombieflanders at 1:48 PM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


This thread, to my mind, illustrates part of the problem that the teabaggers are exploiting: It is full of hyperbolic doom saying, but almost every single piece of it is generic and non specific, and largely not backed up.

Linked above, but Treasury has been pretty specific (emphasis added):

"As economic activity strengthens, labor market conditions should improve further, creating new jobs and maintaining the downward trajectory of the unemployment rate. The government shutdown that began October 1 puts that outlook at risk. Private-sector economists have estimated that a weeklong shutdown could slow GDP growth in the fourth quarter by over a quarter percentage point, while a longer shutdown could have a substantially greater effect, perhaps even causing a recession.1 If such projections prove accurate, the weaker-than-expected economic expansion would be even more susceptible to the adverse effects from a debt ceiling impasse than prior to the shutdown. A protracted debate about the debt ceiling could spark renewed financial market stress, and a fall in stock prices and wider credit spreads would depress spending from the private sector. In addition, increased uncertainty or reduced confidence could lead consumers to postpone purchases and businesses to postpone hiring and investments. A precise estimate of the effects is impossible, and the current situation is different than that of late 2011, yet economic theory and empirical evidence is clear about the direction of the effect: a large, adverse, and persistent financial shock like the one that began in late 2011 would result in a slower economy with less hiring and a higher unemployment rate than would otherwise be the case."
posted by T.D. Strange at 1:50 PM on October 9, 2013 [3 favorites]


Mister-A, cool, I'll bring -- wait, can you flay with a potato peeler? I have one of those.
posted by angrycat at 1:51 PM on October 9, 2013 [3 favorites]


C'est la D.C.: "We already made massive cuts to government spending with the sequester. That's still a thing. It hasn't gone away."

And I and forty of my co-workers almost certainly lost our jobs over it on Monday. I worked for a supercomputing company that relied a good chunk of its budget from sales to the Federal Government and those sales just dried up totally this year. The third quarter, which ended last week, is where most of those sales come in and as soon as that quarter closed, they laid-off at least half of the engineering staff.

The last time I got laid-off was in '08 right when the Republicans crashed the economy and no one could borrow any money. I'm getting tired of this crap.
posted by octothorpe at 1:51 PM on October 9, 2013 [14 favorites]


One handy tip for disoriented dimension-shifters who can't tell whether or not they've landed in a fanfiction dimension: check to see if Al Gore was ever President. If he was, you're probably in a real America. If he wasn't, you're in fanfic.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 1:52 PM on October 9, 2013 [12 favorites]


I look forward to elizardbits' ALL THE GRABBY HANDS looting initiative.
posted by emjaybee at 1:53 PM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


GOP begs for final debt limit concession: A shred of dignity
This afternoon, House Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor met with their Democratic counterparts Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer to discuss a short-term debt limit increase. Almost as quickly as the news broke, Republicans assured reporters that the Democratic leaders — not they themselves — had requested the meeting.

Maybe that’s really all there is to it. Maybe the top two Democrats in the House just wanted to check in on the latest state of play, or let GOP leaders know what their members will or will not support.

But that’s just it — the only thing for these four to discuss in a formal setting right now is Democratic votes. GOP accession to the need for Democratic votes would be a first in this standoff. And if we’ve reached that phase, then Republicans are indeed in rapid retreat. Or at least on the precipice of it.
[...]
Maybe Pelosi and Hoyer wanted to tell Cantor just how convincing they found his Op-Ed. But probably it’s the other thing. (Indeed, as this piece was in production, CNN reported that Republican leaders are accepting the need for a clean debt limit increase.) And if saying Pelosi and Hoyer requested that conversation is the thing GOP leaders need to prove their mettle — to prove they haven’t been disrespected — then it’s an easy thing for Democrats to give them.
posted by zombieflanders at 1:56 PM on October 9, 2013 [3 favorites]


The only rational explanation for this mess is brain slugs.
posted by Mister_A at 1:56 PM on October 9, 2013 [4 favorites]


"There would be worse things for his legacy than being politically martyred saving the economy from a fully unnecessary collapse under ideological assault."

Yes, but who would save the economy the next time somebody tries this? And if there is any perceived benefit to debt ceiling extortion (even if that perceived benefit is only destroying the career of the sitting President), someone will try it again. The Republicans have opened Pandora's Box, and the only way to shut it is to make it absolutely clear that nobody benefits from this shit. At all.

Obama has a duty to the people of the United States, but he also has a greater duty to preserve the institution of government. The only way to avoid weakening the Presidency (from his perspective) is to play this out, let the Republicans blow their vests, and deal with the consequences as best he can.
posted by Kevin Street at 1:57 PM on October 9, 2013 [4 favorites]


14th Amendment
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Someone else may have posted it, but it's a long thread.
posted by theora55 at 1:57 PM on October 9, 2013


I'm getting tired of this crap.

I look back fondly on the days when I could not understand the rage that drove the French Revolution. They were good times.
posted by winna at 1:59 PM on October 9, 2013 [24 favorites]


I hope we see, in the very near future, legislation forbidding precisely this sort of Russian roulette approach to governance. I mean, it won't make it through both chambers, but I would like to see how congresspeople defend their right to hold the people of the US hostage.
posted by Mister_A at 2:00 PM on October 9, 2013 [5 favorites]


As long as we're positing fantasy outcomes, my personal preference would be for everyone except cops, firefighters, and nurses to go on strike until Congress passes a clean C.R. and an increase of the debt limit of not less than $1 trillion.
posted by ob1quixote at 2:00 PM on October 9, 2013 [6 favorites]




Dems should press the issue now if the GOP is nearly ready to break. Demand a clean CR at the President's budget request levels for a year, threaten a veto of a short term deal. Or a total end to the debt ceiling. Tighten the screws and turn the table on these fuckers.
posted by T.D. Strange at 2:01 PM on October 9, 2013


James Fallows has a series of examples of the real-world impact of the shutdown, with more in his blog, which is always interesting.
posted by feloniousmonk at 2:06 PM on October 9, 2013


At this time, I am not willing to commit my allegiance to any one warlord.

I am, however, willing to work as an outside contractor providing bespoke strap-on feathered mohawks and rodent-skull necklaces.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 2:09 PM on October 9, 2013 [7 favorites]


Tighten the screws and turn the table on these fuckers.

I'll open the negotiation with Single payer universal healthcare with federally funded abortion services. To simplify negotiations, let's just say you dickered us out of the abortion thing so you can save some face, and we can call this done and go get a drink....
posted by mikelieman at 2:09 PM on October 9, 2013 [28 favorites]


So long as this showdown was inevitable, I'm kind of glad that it's happening now. Obama can still derive some authority from last year's election, the current senate class is standing strong, and the reactionaries haven't yet dragged the Overton window so far right that the Republican caucus is composed exclusively of vampires, undead slavers, and mindbending extradimensional changelings.

Dateline 2015, Earth 2:

"I'm just saying that the government could stand to learn something from the way I run my charismatic doomsday cult," said Holofernes X. Echthros (R-FL), who had no experience in electoral office before his 2014 election to the House. "Sometimes my broodwives can't secrete and sell our homestyle nacreous ichor fast enough to pay for all the facilities wanting building on the Compound. But if that's the case, I act the man and tell my creditors to hold their horses, now, and I'll make good on all my debts before the fire rises over the trembling heads of the oldhumans. People respect honesty, especially once I stick my pedipalps in their brains and overwrite their engrams."
posted by Iridic at 2:09 PM on October 9, 2013 [27 favorites]


Dems should press the issue now if the GOP is nearly ready to break. Demand a clean CR at the President's budget request levels for a year, threaten a veto of a short term deal. Or a total end to the debt ceiling. Tighten the screws and turn the table on these fuckers.

The Dems would royally screw the pooch on this if they pressed for any terms other than "pass a clean CR at current levels and raise the debt limit", it would wreck the narrative that's keeping them ahead in this which is that it's immoral use the debt limit and budget to force demands that you can't get legislatively.
posted by jason_steakums at 2:12 PM on October 9, 2013 [33 favorites]


I was going to say that everyone really can stop panicking, and that this isn't going to end up as some kind of mad max apocalypse where people are hoarding food and water. Then I realized that this kind of worry comes from the exact same place as the prepper's "worry" comes from. Hope. Hope that the hardship of their mundane daily lives will be transformed into a fantasy scenario where the hardship they face can be met with their own agency.

I'm sorry to say, but no, the worst case scenario isn't that the economy/society collapses and your debt will be wiped out. It's that everything goes on as it has, except now you don't have a job and your retirement savings are wiped out.

So you know. Yay!


I think the people joking about Mad Max-style apocalypse are just blowing off steam. It's a scary situation and people need to joke to stay sane, especially since a default would mean powering down the Command Center, and then we'd have no Zordon to oppose Rita Repulsa and her fiendish consort Lord Zedd.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 2:14 PM on October 9, 2013 [5 favorites]


Does Pass a clean CR at pre-sequester levels AND abolish the debt limit work for you?
posted by mikelieman at 2:14 PM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


The Dems would royally screw the pooch on this if they pressed for any terms other than "pass a clean CR at current levels and raise the debt limit", it would wreck the narrative that's keeping them ahead in this which is that it's immoral use the debt limit and budget to force demands that you can't get legislatively.

Then demand repeal of the debt ceiling statute as the price. Problem solved.
posted by T.D. Strange at 2:14 PM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


Guys, wanting concessions from a defeated Republican party would be petty and counterproductive and probably likely to backfire. As much as I'd love for Obama to go Django on the tea party types that have fueled an incredible racist and personal series of attacks on Obama it's probably not in our best interests.

Besides looking magnanimous befits a statesman and let's be perfectly honest the knives will come out from within the Republican party against those party leaders that let this crap get completely out of hand, they'll just want the bloodletting to happen behind closed doors but it will be appropriately damaging to those caught in the crossfire.
posted by vuron at 2:15 PM on October 9, 2013 [4 favorites]


I think the politically expedient thing would be to schedule another budget showdown this time next year, only make it a full budget and tie a bunch of needed stuff to it. Yeah the Rs are kinda hurting right now poll wise, but that means shit when the next election is just over a full year away. Lots of time for the ADD American memory to shift away.
posted by edgeways at 2:15 PM on October 9, 2013 [2 favorites]


Did somebody (a hundred comments back) suggest the country do a Reboot?
relevance: zero - it's even a Canadian company involved, but geeez, we need some comedy relief here
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:16 PM on October 9, 2013


it's probably not in our best interests.

There's a lot of range between "worst" and "best" interests, and maybe "best" isn't the most optimal goal sometimes? Just sayin'....
posted by mikelieman at 2:16 PM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


US Antarctic Program (and everyone else's antarctic programs) fucked.

This is just completely awful. People try for years and years to get those jobs, which don't even pay a ton and are often major steps down in job title (chief sysadmins working as line cooks, etc)- just for the chance to work on the ice and help advance the scientific mission of the USAP. For a lot of people, it's their passion and their life's work... and now those people are completely screwed. As he says in that post, they are out of work for the next year- and many of them rely on the money from their summer Antarctic work to get them through the rest of the year. Even apart from the damage to science that's being done, this is tragic.
posted by showbiz_liz at 2:19 PM on October 9, 2013 [26 favorites]


"Does Pass a clean CR at pre-sequester levels AND abolish the debt limit work for you?"

That would be nice, eh? Avoid default, put everything back the way it was before the crazies started causing trouble, and make sure this particular crisis can't happen again. Like the ending of a Hollywood movie.
posted by Kevin Street at 2:19 PM on October 9, 2013 [3 favorites]


14th Amendment
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.


OK, let's break down, again, why the 14th Amendment does not work here.

First, the 14th Amendment, Section 4 does not explicitly authorize anything the President may do here. In fact, it was created to prevent a later Congress from refusing to pay civil war debts, especially bounties to people who hired substitutes in the draft.

The claim is that somehow there is an implicit power to issue debt in the 14th Amendment. There is not. First, it is explicitly stated in the Constitution, that the power to issue debt is in the hands of Congress:
SECTION 8.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
So any argument that the vague words "shall not be questioned" empowers the executive to issue debt requires that the explicit giving of those rights to the Congress in Article I, Section 8 is implicitly overriden by the 14th Amendment. There's no way any court would find that the explicitly enumerated powers of congress could be overriden by implication.

The defining rule of the Constitution is that only the Congress can raise revenue or borrow money. It is the basis for the separation of powers. Imagine George W. Bush with the power to raise funds by fiat. It boggles the mind.
posted by Ironmouth at 2:21 PM on October 9, 2013 [14 favorites]


Like the ending of a Hollywood movie.

Do we have any budget left over for Giant Robot VFX? Shit, let's kill the F-35 project and just build us some giant robots.
posted by mikelieman at 2:22 PM on October 9, 2013


I'm just saying that right now Obama is winning this battle based on the fact that he appears to be somewhat rational and isn't willing to engage with hostage takers. Turning into a hostage taker even if it might make some sense in terms of pressing his advantage both ignores the political realities as well as diminishes his own bargaining position because he'll look bad trying to take hostages (especially since a lot of Tea Party types don't even care if the hostage is shot).

Boehner having to pass a clean CR with democratic help and a smattering of Republicans will be victory enough because it means Boehner is toast as Speaker and the Tea Party Caucus would be effectively finished.
posted by vuron at 2:22 PM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


Like the ending of a Hollywood movie.

I'm thinking In The Mouth of Madness, personally.
posted by Sticherbeast at 2:23 PM on October 9, 2013 [6 favorites]


Then demand repeal of the debt ceiling statute as the price. Problem solved.

It's just the beginning of the problems if they try to pull anything other than "pass a clean CR and raise the debt limit", that's what they've been asking for and anything else will only play as rank hypocrisy.

Anyways, following up this debacle with a purely legislative victory in good faith is the power move here, whether it's a budget victory or repeal of the debt ceiling or campaign finance reform, and the iron has never been hotter for the latter two.
posted by jason_steakums at 2:23 PM on October 9, 2013


There's a lot of range between "worst" and "best" interests, and maybe "best" isn't the most optimal goal sometimes? Just sayin'....

No. There is no range here. Attaching any demands to the passage of the CR or debt ceiling increase will set a terrible precedent that allows the minority party to completely subvert the legislative process by holding the nation's economy hostage. Either that precedent is set, or it isn't.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 2:26 PM on October 9, 2013


Then demand repeal of the debt ceiling statute as the price. Problem solved.

It's just the beginning of the problems if they try to pull anything other than "pass a clean CR and raise the debt limit", that's what they've been asking for and anything else will only play as rank hypocrisy.

Anyways, following up this debacle with a purely legislative victory in good faith is the power move here, whether it's a budget victory or repeal of the debt ceiling or campaign finance reform, and the iron has never been hotter for the latter two.


Really, the debt ceiling cannot be repealed. Congress' actual mechanism to issue debt is the debt ceiling statute. What we are looking for is a return to the "Gephardt Rule," which was a House Rule that stated that the debt limit was increased by the amount of an appropriation when an appropriations bill was passed. You'll never guess who got rid of that rule in 1995.
posted by Ironmouth at 2:27 PM on October 9, 2013 [8 favorites]


Imagine George W. Bush with the power to raise funds by fiat. It boggles the mind.

But Obama isn't raising funds arbitrarily to fund his own side projects, he is borrowing money to pay for the budget approved by congress. There is something broken when congress can pass a budget and approve spending and then refuse to raise the money to pay for it, putting the President and Treasury in a position where anything they do is illegal. I don't really know what I'm talking about, of course, but it seems like appropriations and budgeting, or whatever, and the debt limit must go together in a single bill. Congress can pass a budget without approving the taxes or debt to pay for it.
posted by Golden Eternity at 2:27 PM on October 9, 2013 [3 favorites]


As long as we're seeking solutions from video games,

LINK

LINK

LINK

PLAY THE SONG OF TIME ALREADY LINK
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 2:28 PM on October 9, 2013 [6 favorites]


A break in the story:
Washington (CNN) – A Senior House GOP source concedes to CNN that to get the White House on board with a debt ceiling deal, House Republicans would likely have to agree to a clean short term debt ceiling increase. In exchange, Republicans would need to get clear and specific parameters from the White House for discussions and negotiations on ways to reduce the debt and deficit.

This source believes that at the end of the day, enough people in the GOP caucus could be OK with this because the economic implication of breaching the debt limit "scares people." This source also acknowledged that under this scenario, House GOP leaders may have to agree to pass a debt ceiling bill without all Republicans on board, and with Democratic support.



The source also told CNN the key date to look for is Tuesday October 15. If nothing is agreed upon by then, it could be the day that forces a solution.

Why?

Because the bond market is closed Monday, Columbus Day, and if the markets are going to react to the lack of a deal, it would likely happen on Tuesday October 15. Also, October 15 is a federal payroll day.

That means serious talks and movement really have to happen by this coming long weekend.
Suspect this is the beginning of the end.
posted by Ironmouth at 2:29 PM on October 9, 2013 [3 favorites]


Either that precedent is set, or it isn't.

Hey, they wanted a 'conversation'. Here's the 'conversation'. Boehner LIED over the negotiating table during the sequester compromise. He reneged on that deal. He's not trustworthy **across a negotiating table**, so I don't think it's reasonable to -- behind the scenes -- insist: (1) Boehner's out. (2) Boehner's commitments are kept without any more bullshit and (3) the "conversation" is about Single Payer Universal with federally funded abortion services.

Publicly, yeah, you just keep a cool poker face and let them 'blow their vests' as it was so eloquently put upthread, but behind the scenes, at the very least you have to make sure people who can't be trusted across a negotiating table get their just deserts, and -- while not public publicly, in such a way that no-one ever THINKS about going back on a deal....
posted by mikelieman at 2:30 PM on October 9, 2013 [4 favorites]


Yep, even dreaming of "turning this around on the Rethuglicans" is (1) way too early and (2) ill-advised. It'll take a lot of Things Falling Apart to get to the point where we can dream of rebuilding it better (Six Million Dollar Man reference, anyone?)
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:31 PM on October 9, 2013


Imagine George W. Bush with the power to raise funds by fiat. It boggles the mind.

But Obama isn't raising funds arbitrarily to fund his own side projects, he is borrowing money to pay for the budget approved by congress. There is something broken when congress can pass a budget and approve spending and then refuse to raise the money to pay for it, putting the President and Treasury in a position where anything they do is illegal. I don't really know what I'm talking about, of course, but it seems like appropriations and budgeting, or whatever, and the debt limit must go together in a single bill. Congress can pass a budget without approving the taxes or debt to pay for it
.

OK, this has a lot of misconceptions in it. First, the Budget is a framework that the House and Senate agree upon to deal with appropriations. It has no power. When the government authorizes the spending of funds, it uses an appropriations bill.

There is nothing broken when congress can pass a budget and approve spending and refuse to raise money. This is how the Founders wanted it--its a feature, not a bug.

There's simply no constitutional way for the President to issue unauthorized debt. It is 100% illegal.

Put simply, this is a political crisis of one party, not a Constitutional one.
posted by Ironmouth at 2:33 PM on October 9, 2013 [4 favorites]


In exchange, Republicans would need to get clear and specific parameters from the White House for discussions and negotiations on ways to reduce the debt and deficit.

I can't see how this is the beginning of any good end. Any concession at all just tells the GOP to keep doing this every time. Our entire budget is already built on the principles of austerity economics, which have been proven to damage countries that implement them.
posted by mondo dentro at 2:33 PM on October 9, 2013


i think another aspect of this that sort of calls for a blowing off of steam is that, unlike the 2012 election, there isn't a narrative of o shit scary GOP oh shit Obama blew a debate HA HA BIDEN KILL THAT KID and then BUT CANDY -- CANDY and then HA HA LOOK AT THE LOOK ON THE FACE OF THOSE FUCKING LOSERS LOSING

now it's just, fuck this, fuck that, fuck these things in particular. I mean, what if we go through all this and there's a deal on the debt ceiling but the XL comes out of it. It will be just, oh my fucking God. Just, look, wake me up when another species evolves.
posted by angrycat at 2:34 PM on October 9, 2013 [3 favorites]


so I don't think it's reasonable to -- behind the scenes -- insist: (1) Boehner's out. (2) Boehner's commitments are kept without any more bullshit and (3) the "conversation" is about Single Payer Universal with federally funded abortion services.

Even behind the scenes it's unreasonable. Just because the other guys tried to do it, doesn't mean it's OK to extract demands on what should otherwise be an entirely procedural vote.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 2:34 PM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


Bug fix requested
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:36 PM on October 9, 2013 [4 favorites]


In exchange, Republicans would need to get clear and specific parameters from the White House for discussions and negotiations on ways to reduce the debt and deficit.

I can't see how this is the beginning of any good end. Any concession at all just tells the GOP to keep doing this every time. Our entire budget is already built on the principles of austerity economics, which have been proven to damage countries that implement them.


Uh, they have to negotiate appropriations bills at some point. Threat or no threat, the money has to be appropriated. What we're asking for is no threats. Will the House, Senate and the President have to agree on appropriations? Of course. Its how the Constitution works.
posted by Ironmouth at 2:36 PM on October 9, 2013


Suspect this is the beginning of the end.

Yes, but nothing likely to actually happen for the next six days, or to use a movie cliche, until the countdown timer goes down to 0:07... So I'm checking out of this for a while. Have fun storming the castle!
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:37 PM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


OK, so assume the Republicans fold. They pass a clean bill with Democrat's votes. The Tea Party boots Boehner, which starts the long foretold splintering of the Republican party.

How exactly does that work our on a practical level? Do the Tea Party take over the Republican tent? Do they march off and start their own, for reals this time, party? Do the few moderate (hah!) Republicans cross over as Blue Dogs?
posted by Eddie Mars at 2:39 PM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


Jesus Christ.

Fidelity just sold it's government debt for November.


Bill Gross: We're buying what Fidelity is selling.

We are not going to default on our debt.
posted by triggerfinger at 2:40 PM on October 9, 2013


OK, so assume the Republicans fold. They pass a clean bill with Democrat's votes. The Tea Party boots Boehner, which starts the long foretold splintering of the Republican party.

How exactly does that work our on a practical level? Do the Tea Party take over the Republican tent? Do they march off and start their own, for reals this time, party? Do the few moderate (hah!) Republicans cross over as Blue Dogs?


I think the Tea Party doesn't have the votes. There's enough votes to elect Boehner if they tried to force a vote.
posted by Ironmouth at 2:40 PM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


I think the Tea Party doesn't have the votes. There's enough votes to elect Boehner if they tried to force a vote.

Yep. That'll be one of the the "concessions" he'll get out of the Democrats: that Pelosi will whip her conference to vote for him. If he can bring ~20 of his folks with him, he gets to keep the gavel and she gets to keep his manhood on her trophy shelf.
posted by zombieflanders at 2:44 PM on October 9, 2013 [4 favorites]


/me wonders if she ought to move back to what might soon be called Cascadia
posted by Annika Cicada at 2:44 PM on October 9, 2013


I think the Tea Party doesn't have the votes. There's enough votes to elect Boehner if they tried to force a vote.

Yep. That'll be one of the the "concessions" he'll get out of the Democrats: that Pelosi will whip her conference to vote for him. If he can bring ~20 of his folks with him, he gets to keep the gavel and she gets to keep his manhood on her trophy shelf.


To be clear, what would happen is that the Tehadists would have to move a resolution to depose the Speaker. Then a majority would have to vote for the motion. Dems would just not vote for that, not vote for Boehner in a new election.
posted by Ironmouth at 2:53 PM on October 9, 2013 [2 favorites]


Like the ending of a Hollywood movie.

Complete with a visit to the Time Masheen and the Un's defeat of Charlie Chaplin and the Nazi dinos.
posted by raysmj at 2:54 PM on October 9, 2013 [4 favorites]


This afternoon, House Speaker John Boehner and Mighty, Mighty Majority Leader Eric Cantor met with their Democratic counterparts Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer to discuss how to deal with the winged behemoths stalking the capitol. Armored wasps had risen to the sky amid a shrieking din and a short-term debt limit increase. Almost as quickly as the news broke, Republicans assured reporters that the Democratic pantywaists - not they themselves - had requested the meeting.

Gettin' all apocalyptic up in here.

posted by mmrtnt at 2:55 PM on October 9, 2013 [2 favorites]


rough ashlar: "Just so "we" understand what "we" are talking about - "the markets" are 70% traded as computer programs that operate in milliseconds?

Or is this some other "the markets" involving humans of varying levels of rationality?
"

The system doesn't run autonomously. The legions of clerks they employ do produce inputs, and the managers do have control on the investment path.

All of those people react psychologically to crises.
posted by IAmBroom at 2:57 PM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


Maybe this is a ridiculous question, but if the House is voting on a new speaker, and the whole House votes, and the Republican party is split, is it possible that the Democrats could elect a Democratic speaker in a Republican majority House?

Like:

Boehner - 200 votes
Some Tea Party Guy - 34 votes
Pelosi - 201 votes

There must be some reason why that's impossible, right?
posted by Ragged Richard at 2:59 PM on October 9, 2013


The speaker could be anyone elected to the post. They don't even have to be a member of the House. It'll never happen, but it's technically possible.
posted by msbutah at 3:01 PM on October 9, 2013


There must be some reason why that's impossible, right?

I'd guess that members of Congress probably announce their intentions ahead of such a vote to prevent that scenario from ever happening.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 3:02 PM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


In the immortal words of Winston Churchill, Americans always do the right thing...after every other possible option has been exhausted.
posted by dry white toast at 3:02 PM on October 9, 2013 [11 favorites]


There must be some reason why that's impossible, right?
It may be implausible, but it's totally possible under the Constitution, which just says the the represantatives choose their Speaker and makes no mention of "parties".
posted by dfan at 3:04 PM on October 9, 2013


The tea party would keep Boehner rather than hand it to Pelosi. that would wipe the GOP out, because the speaker has a lot of power.
posted by Ironmouth at 3:06 PM on October 9, 2013


The way it actually works is that the parties vote for their speaker in caucus, and then everyone from the caucus votes for the winner in the House. It's sorta like a primary/general system. So, the only way for the Democratic speaker to win is if the party breaks ranks and refuses to vote for the speaker their party chose in the caucus.
posted by chrchr at 3:07 PM on October 9, 2013 [2 favorites]


I'm thinking In The Mouth of Madness, personally.

I made this exact comparison a few days ago, in the wake of the driver trying to crash the White House and the guy who set himself on fire on the mall. We are most definitely living in some horror novelist's twisted mind right now.
posted by Roommate at 3:11 PM on October 9, 2013 [2 favorites]


We are most definitely living in some horror novelist's twisted mind right now.

oh god no
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 3:12 PM on October 9, 2013 [8 favorites]


because the speaker has a lot of power.

With great power comes great resp- ah fuck it!
posted by mazola at 3:13 PM on October 9, 2013 [2 favorites]


US Antarctic Program (and everyone else's antarctic programs) fucked.


This is so fucking sad. I can only imagine how fucking terrible you must feel to get to Antarctica and be told it's time to pack up and go home, because the US is too fucking incompetent and broken to do science.
posted by inertia at 3:17 PM on October 9, 2013 [20 favorites]


Apparently this sort of happened in Australia, at least until the Queen fired everyone and started from scratch.
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 3:17 PM on October 9, 2013 [5 favorites]


As long as we're seeking solutions from video games,

US NEEDS FOOD BADLY


"I AM SINISTAR" - John Boehner, Speaker of the House
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 3:18 PM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]




A Very Long List of All The Things Obama Is Comparing Republicans To

"Children who believe in magic" pretty much nails it.
posted by jnnla at 3:21 PM on October 9, 2013 [5 favorites]


We are not going to default on our debt.

Wouldn't be too sure about that. The article includes an explanation by Bill Gross that the reason Pimco is buying government debt is that it is less sensitive to market volatility (such as might be caused by a default) than a money market fund:

"The difference in strategy has to do with how the two firms work, he said. In the case of a government default-even if it lasts just an hour or a day-a money market mutual fund is required to mark down its debt to zero. Pimco on the other hand, can stomach the volatility."
posted by longdaysjourney at 3:22 PM on October 9, 2013


This is so fucking sad. I can only imagine how fucking terrible you must feel to get to Antarctica and be told it's time to pack up and go home, because the US is too fucking incompetent and broken to do science.

Heh, allow me to introduce my brother. He may be spending some time on a dock in South America in the not too distant future.

posted by Kid Charlemagne at 3:22 PM on October 9, 2013


So I finally got a form email back from my Congressman('s office). He really goes out of his way to avoid taking a side at all.

Thank you for sharing your perspective on the government shutdown, the issues surrounding the debt ceiling, and the implementation and effects of the Affordable Care Act.

We have heard from many constituents during this time and opinions vary, as one would expect, in a robust, participatory constitutional republic. But there is consensus on at least one issue: government is increasingly dysfunctional, and managing our fiscal affairs can be done in a more thoughtful way than a government shutdown over a continuing resolution, which even if passed, would fund government only through December 15, 2013.

To those the shutdown has impacted directly or indirectly, let me offer a profound and sincere apology for our failure to meet the basic duty to debate and pass funding bills. The issues being debated are important: fiscal responsibility, the role of government, accountability for the institutions of government, and treating people equally under the law. Our Framers envisioned that there would be differences in opinion and that those differences would be serious. But division is different from dysfunction.

Both Republicans and Democrats in the House of Representatives have voted to open components of the government including veterans benefits, cancer research, emergency and disaster recovery, paychecks for our National Guard and Reserves, nutrition assistance for low-income women and children, and our national parks and museums. In light of the very real impact decisions made by lawmakers have on the lives of the citizens they purport to serve, it is my hope that we can engage in the fact-centered debate and legislative process as envisioned by the Framers.

Thank you again for contacting our office. We hope you will let us know if we can ever be of assistance to you.

Sincerely,
Trey Gowdy

posted by Roommate at 3:27 PM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


As we read this thread very, very rich people are calling their pet Congressmen and chewing them out. There are far more sane rich people who do not want this to go on, and in particular for the debt to default, than there are self-absorbed jerks like the Kochs who want to burn down everything that doesn't lick their boots.

These people thought they had bought themselves a political party fair and square, and they are now feeling buyer's remorse. I believe at that at 11:59 they will prevail on 20 or 30 Republican House members -- perhaps the "leaders" mentioned above -- to throw in with the Democrats and pass a clean CR. This will be catastrophic to their careers but it will be made plain to them by people who can make it happen that the alternative will be catastrophic to their careers.

Then the fallout will come. Rather than the Teapublicans kicking out Boehner I expect it to be the Republicans kicking out the Teapublicans, and their separation into two caucuses both of which will be minorities. There is no way the mainstream Republicans will want to risk this again and we all know how well teh Teabaggers listen to direction. The Republicans will have no choice but to be completely rid of them in order to try to save their brand.

That will have the advantage, since the Republicans have a lot more control over their primary processes than the Dem leadership does, of giving some relief to those members who fear a Teabag primary. If teabaggers are excluded from the R primary it becomes a three way race in the general which dramatically shifts the outcome possibilities.

It's hard to see the votes emerging to kick Boehner out this year but the race for the Speaker of the next House could be more interesting than usual.
posted by localroger at 3:28 PM on October 9, 2013 [3 favorites]


what will Americans and the world think of the US Congress that refused to pay the nation's outstanding debts

You can ask that after the last ten years?

If a certified enemy were doing the damage to us that our "leadership" has been doing (long, LONG list omitted), people would be doing more than disapproving openly on the Internet.
posted by Twang at 3:32 PM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


I hope Obama doesn't budge on not negotiating on the debt limit because the logical way for this to play out is for Tea Party Congresscritters to push the government to the brink, be forced to back down by Boehner, which will allow them to demonstrate to their voters that they remained ideologically pure and fought the good fight.

Even Congressmen with sterling Conservative records were ousted in primaries by Tea Partiers. Many mainstream Republicans are putting their jobs at risk by being seen to even negotiate with Obama.
posted by dry white toast at 3:34 PM on October 9, 2013


So I finally got a form email back from my Congressman('s office). He really goes out of his way to avoid taking a side at all...

It's time someone had the courage to stand up and say: "I'm against those things that everybody hates".
posted by Atom Eyes at 3:35 PM on October 9, 2013 [3 favorites]


vuron: "Guys, wanting concessions from a defeated Republican party would be petty and counterproductive and probably likely to backfire. As much as I'd love for Obama to go Django on the tea party types that have fueled an incredible racist and personal series of attacks on Obama it's probably not in our best interests.

Besides looking magnanimous befits a statesman and let's be perfectly honest the knives will come out from within the Republican party against those party leaders that let this crap get completely out of hand, they'll just want the bloodletting to happen behind closed doors but it will be appropriately damaging to those caught in the crossfire.
"

You sound like... the Democratic Party.

There are some lows they will not stoop to. Some things they will not do - disenfranchisement of voting groups, spreading doubt about the legitimacy of the POTUS (and anyone EVER had reason to do so, the Dems in 2000....).

That's not the Democratic party I want. I want one that can win against the GOP, and show them that these tactics are a bridge too far. A gentlemen's agreement behind closed doors, or laws passed; I don't care.

I want the Democratic party to collect scalps of fallen Republicans. I want them to take every single strategic advantage they can from their enemies' weakness.
posted by IAmBroom at 3:35 PM on October 9, 2013 [11 favorites]


I think predicting a formal split is vastly underestimating how beholden your average Republican member is to FOX News and the conservative media. There's no real indication that there's some great block of "moderate" Republicans just desperately trying to find a way of of this and to get back to civil governance, and after whatever resolution comes it will be right back to the next obstruction ploy that plays well on Hannity's show. This is the Republican party now, there are no alternative policy positions that exist other than maximum destruction.
posted by T.D. Strange at 3:38 PM on October 9, 2013 [4 favorites]


To again go back to that report, there is a block of moderate Republican voters that makes up about a quarter of the party (mentioned in the report, citation needed). There are also blocks of Tea Party and Evangelical voters.

Formal splits don't emerge from nothing. Were a formal split to occur, it would require organization and a sense that this group could have some clout. Either a perception that they were the majority, or that they could snatch the Republicans who had gone over to the democrats or independents. As someone with no political background, I'd hypothesize that what you really need are some prominent politicians or former politicians to establish a new party or co-opt an existing one.

Of course, I'm just some jerk on the Internet saying things. Any historians / poly sci. folks care to weigh in?
posted by Going To Maine at 3:52 PM on October 9, 2013


One thing I don't understand about the shutdown is the nature of "essential" personnel. I had a friend who was off last week, but was recalled on Monday. It seems more workers are being recalled as need for them arises. Everyone's getting backpay (eventually), so the shutdown isn't actually saving any money, it's just deferring the payment.

So what's to stop Obama from just declaring everyone essential and de facto reopening the government? It would actually cost less than stopping and restarting everything.
posted by heathkit at 3:55 PM on October 9, 2013 [2 favorites]


I'm pretty skeptical of any kind of public split coming in the GOP unless the Tea Party are the ones who force it. Keeping the GOP together with duct tape, denial and mutual need, even if it's nothing but a laughable facade, is the most likely path, IMO. Until a couple consecutive elections' worth of hard data show really convincing evidence that there's no more hope of securing a majority in either chamber, no point in staying together. And unless everyone involved is as dumb as a sack of hammers, I bet you'd first see some in the GOP floating trial balloons for ditching first-past-the-post voting and redistricting reforms to prepare for a survivable 3+ party future if they see it coming, because nobody's going to jump without a safety net. Or you'll see a mad scramble to court minorities from the moderate GOP.

I'd be interested to see if the Dems split into center and left parties in the event of a GOP split.
posted by jason_steakums at 3:56 PM on October 9, 2013 [2 favorites]


And that's not even considering that they'd all be throwing away a state- and local-level machine that's still going like gangbusters by splitting over national-level issues.
posted by jason_steakums at 3:58 PM on October 9, 2013


Honestly, a split seems like a bad bet until you start seeing some kind of instant runoff voting.
posted by Going To Maine at 3:59 PM on October 9, 2013


U.S. nuclear agency to shut; reactor report not available.

I'm sure this will end well.
posted by zarq at 4:00 PM on October 9, 2013 [8 favorites]


> maybe we are living in someone else's fanfiction of America!!

Maybe we are. In the fanfic America I live in, we went through this same exact threatened government shutdown, threatened default, threatened end of civilization posturing over raising the debt limit back in 2011, right down to the last overheated syllable. It's kind of spooky to think everybody here but me must have been born since 2011 because nobody else remembers that it's just same-old same-old.
posted by jfuller at 4:07 PM on October 9, 2013 [3 favorites]


think predicting a formal split is vastly underestimating how beholden your average Republican member is to FOX News and the conservative media.

If they are gonna let the Dems vote the debt ceiling for them, its next years primaries where the war will occur.
posted by Ironmouth at 4:08 PM on October 9, 2013


If Paul Ryan can lead the GOP out of this mess, it probably makes sense to give him the speakership. I'd feel a lot more comfortable with him than Cantor.
posted by Golden Eternity at 4:09 PM on October 9, 2013


So what's to stop Obama from just declaring everyone essential and de facto reopening the government? It would actually cost less than stopping and restarting everything.

Given that much, if not all, of the federal workforce is unionized, I would assume who is "essential" is collectively bargained and pre-determined, despite others being recalled to work.
posted by dry white toast at 4:10 PM on October 9, 2013


If a certified enemy were doing the damage to us that our "leadership" has been doing (long, LONG list omitted), people would be doing more than disapproving openly on the Internet.

Yeah, and what would that mean? People talk about "riots in the streets," but we've already had Occupy! If something else happens, it's going to have to up the ante, and many of us don't want to think what that would mean.
posted by JHarris at 4:10 PM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


We've also had the Tea Party, which has clearly been the more effective model.
posted by Going To Maine at 4:13 PM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


Occupy wasn't an effective protest. There can still be effective protests that are peaceful but much more pointed and directed. The challenge is that the people we need to protest, perhaps, are more our fellow citizens and less the people they elect.
posted by Joey Michaels at 4:15 PM on October 9, 2013


Sorry, my comment was weird.

If you want to talk about how "the people" might take direct action to change things, you might want to steal a new page from the right, not the left, at least in America. While the Tea Party has benefited quite a bit from financial support and has dubious grassroots credibility, it has also had amazing success. It seems like that financially-supported playbook would be the thing to use for any future attempts at altering the country's direction.
posted by Going To Maine at 4:17 PM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


The Tea Party chose to dominate electoral politics, while Occupy dismissed electoral politics as a sucker's game. While Occupy was occupying public parks and staging battles with cops, the Tea Party was getting candidates elected at every single level of government. While Occupy asked for donations to buy pizzas to feed their campers, the Tea Party was effectively funding election campaigns. Electoral politics really matters, you guys.
posted by chrchr at 4:24 PM on October 9, 2013 [26 favorites]


My shrink was a kid during the Great Depression. Yeah, he's fucking old. Anyway, so he has this 3/4 century outlook that's really impressive, and because his mind is so sharp, I really sometimes wish I could interview him. As it is, he's like, "Yes, this is an unheard of catastrophe; now, let's talk about your anxiety" and it's kind of like, yeah, well, I'M ANXIOUS
posted by angrycat at 4:25 PM on October 9, 2013 [9 favorites]


the Tea Party was effectively funding election campaigns

…with corporate money.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:26 PM on October 9, 2013 [5 favorites]


Golden Eternity: "If Paul Ryan can lead the GOP out of this mess, it probably makes sense to give him the speakership. I'd feel a lot more comfortable with him than Cantor."

They are both shitstains on the tighty-whities of the American Politic, the whities stitched with the waistband corporate name "GOP".

One shitstain is merely less darkly brown than the other, less ground into the fabric. But make no mistakes.

They're both still shitstains.
posted by symbioid at 4:27 PM on October 9, 2013 [5 favorites]


heathkit and dry white toast -

The government shutdown is not saving money.

Also, much as we (and Obama) would like to consider people in places like the National Park Service and the Smithsonian as essential (the actual term is excepted), there are some specific definitions of who is excepted and who is not (and this is not determined by collective bargaining - most federal unions are pretty weak anyway - anyone remember the air traffic controllers when Reagan busted the union?).

See the section on Which parts of government stay open? here for specifics, some of which I've extracted below.

Excepted employes include:
- Any employee or office that "provides for the national security, including the conduct of foreign relations essential to the national security or the safety of life and property." That means the U.S. military will keep operating, for one. So will embassies abroad.

-- Any employee who conducts "essential activities to the extent that they protect life and property." So, for example: Air traffic control stays open. So does all emergency medical care, border patrol, federal prisons, most law enforcement, emergency and disaster assistance, overseeing the banking system, operating the power grid, and guarding federal property.

-- Agencies have to keep sending out benefits and operating programs that are written into permanent law or get multi-year funding. That means sending out Social Security checks and providing certain types of veterans' benefits. Unemployment benefits and food stamps will also continue for the time being, since their funding has been approved in earlier bills.

-- All agencies with independent sources of funding remain open, including the U.S. Postal Service and the Federal Reserve.

-- Members of Congress can stick around, since their pay is written into permanent law. Congressional staffers however, will also get divided into essential and non-essential, with the latter getting furloughed. Many White House employees could also get sent home.

posted by gudrun at 4:28 PM on October 9, 2013 [5 favorites]


jnnla: A Very Long List of All The Things Obama Is Comparing Republicans To

"Children who believe in magic" pretty much nails it.


Personally, I liked "Children Who Believe in Magic and Maybe Werewolves." Because the Republican arguments for government shutdown and default are about as grounded in reality as the plot of Teen Wolf.
posted by C'est la D.C. at 4:28 PM on October 9, 2013


Wouldn't be too sure about that. The article includes an explanation by Bill Gross that the reason Pimco is buying government debt is that it is less sensitive to market volatility (such as might be caused by a default) than a money market fund:

"The difference in strategy has to do with how the two firms work, he said. In the case of a government default-even if it lasts just an hour or a day-a money market mutual fund is required to mark down its debt to zero. Pimco on the other hand, can stomach the volatility."


Market volatility caused by fear of a default. Bill Gross wouldn't buy debt if he thought the government was going to default on it. Money market funds are cash proxies and it's important that they remain highly liquid and don't "break the buck". The Pimco fund can ride out that price volatility because it's not a cash proxy and the expectation that it won't fall below NAV isn't there.

Even Fidelity doesn't think we're going to default.
posted by triggerfinger at 4:30 PM on October 9, 2013


the Tea Party was effectively funding election campaigns.

Well, sure... because it's not actually a grassroots movement.
posted by scody at 4:30 PM on October 9, 2013 [17 favorites]


You know, one thing I can say is that I never thought that this crisis would lead me to a sight of George Clooney's naked erect penis, which was one of the stories on J Stewart's 'Wheel of Silly Stories' or whatever he calls it that he turned to after proclaiming that he needed to talk about something else than this fuckery.

Not that I was appalled by the sight or especially intrigued, it's just somehow I thought Clooney kept his junk under pretty tight lock and key, image wise.
posted by angrycat at 4:34 PM on October 9, 2013


This thread, to my mind, illustrates part of the problem that the teabaggers are exploiting: It is full of hyperbolic doom saying, but almost every single piece of it is generic and non specific, and largely not backed up

Along similar lines, I've been really disappointed with Obama's messaging w/r/t to the ACA and now the shutdown. I think the administration has a major problem with getting ahead on issues where they think it's patently obvious that their position is the correct one. Sure, the teapartiers & co are so clearly in the wrong that you'd hope the President wouldn't have to bother with such superficial matters. But he has to, because the TPers are masters of their message. TP talking points -- no matter how stupid -- always penetrate.

Obama needs to drop the usually comforting measured tone and amp this up to 11. I just listened to his latest press conference and he might as well have been reading the tax code.

This is one of those times where I wish Obama could tag in Bill Clinton
posted by snarfles at 4:40 PM on October 9, 2013 [6 favorites]


This all feels a bit like Fail Safe, wherein the Tea Party is the crew of the bomber, moderate Republicans are the captain's wife and child on the phone pleading with him to stop and the President is the President.
posted by The Card Cheat at 4:40 PM on October 9, 2013 [2 favorites]


The Card Cheat, surely you mean the better adaptation, Dr. Strangelove?
posted by jokeefe at 4:45 PM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


I've been reading Red State every day. They seriously do seem to be living in some kind of secondary universe where the shutdown is Obama's fault, his poll numbers are falling, and the few members or congress who are "showing some spine" are soon going to bring the sobbing Democrats to the table to concede to all demands.

It's mind-boggling.
posted by jokeefe at 4:47 PM on October 9, 2013 [5 favorites]


Bill Gross wouldn't buy debt if he thought the government was going to default on it.

Yeah, and his company's vaunted PIMCO Total Return Fund hasn't done so hot this year, although that was likely unavoidable with stocks doing well. I should know. (Sighs a bit, remembers to look at the long term, unless we have a default, in which case all bets are off.) I don't know the ins and outs of all that, am not a financial person. I do have a PoliSci graduate education, though, and I have no faith in Boehner or this Congress. Countless observers never thought sequestration would happen either.
posted by raysmj at 4:55 PM on October 9, 2013


Osama bin Laden was on the record saying that his plan was to bankrupt the U.S. by dragging us into conflicts in the Middle East. Despite knowing this plan, we launched two massively expensive wars (one the longest in U.S. history, and getting longer every day).

Well, he totally fucked up then, because the US is nowhere near bankrupt, and recession spending is good for the economy.

Funny, the only people who agree with bin Laden's hilariously wrong view of how the American budget and economy work are the Republicans.
posted by spaltavian at 4:58 PM on October 9, 2013 [2 favorites]


I feel like the most important thing about the possible trillion dollar coin workaround is how to best execute it in a memorable way. It's not every day you circumvent a federal and fiscal hostage situation through a dubious interpretation of the constitution.

Were I the Commander in Chief, I'd probably just schedule a press conference on the last day before the default, and invite Ted Cruz and Boehner.

Then, I'd wordlessly reach into my pocket, and toss a coin out to the Secretary of Treasury, and leave.

Ideally, it'd be a chocolate coin.
posted by mccarty.tim at 4:58 PM on October 9, 2013 [9 favorites]


My general fear is just that this is the new normal and that we'll go through this every couple of months from here on out, and the American public won't give a sufficient shit to vote the assholes out.
posted by klangklangston at 5:01 PM on October 9, 2013 [11 favorites]


What's likely to happen to cash (the stuff in our bank accounts)?

I know the answer is "no-one knows" but some crowdsource supposition would be useful.
I read some people saying that a default means the US dollar is no-longer backed by anything (because the treasury assets are debt in default) so the value will plummet.
I hear others pointing out that history, when people get scared, they seek the safehaven of USD, so the dollar will strengthen.

Thoughts? Speculations?

I note that in the 2007-2008 crash, a major part at the start was when finance people parked their money in a traditionally-safe place, then discovered they were going to get back only 98%, and they just collectively freaked the fuck out like the apocalypse was happened and fire was literally raining from the sky, and froze in the fetal position, paralyzed everything else in the economy.
A US credit default makes that look like a bump in road, so my expectation is that Wall Street has no fucking clue how to even begin to comprehend thinking outside their norms, and switch from panic to complete hysteria rather than react in any kind of productive way, or even a fails-to-be-harmful way.

So, I'm worried.
posted by anonymisc at 5:03 PM on October 9, 2013


My general fear is just that this is the new normal and that we'll go through this every couple of months from here on out, and the American public won't give a sufficient shit to vote the assholes out.

My fear is that gerrymandering and voter suppression mean there will be no way to get the 18% or whatever it is of Tea Party extremists out of their "safe" districts.
posted by immlass at 5:04 PM on October 9, 2013 [3 favorites]


I think it'll definitely be the new normal if the democrats give up anything significant. The real danger is the way this game of chicken plays out, it's all a gamble on how long the tea party will drag this out, and if they'll really let the nation default to prove a point.

I doubt they would, but their near-sociopathic rhetoric that we'd be fine if we only did everything they wanted makes me very nervous.
posted by mccarty.tim at 5:05 PM on October 9, 2013


Were I the Commander in Chief, I'd probably just schedule a press conference on the last day before the default, and invite Ted Cruz and Boehner.

Then, I'd wordlessly reach into my pocket, and toss a coin out to the Secretary of Treasury, and leave.

Ideally, it'd be a chocolate coin.


And the value would be in the minted foil wrapper, so after everyone oohs and ahhs the $1T coin, you unwrap it, eat the coin in front of Cruz, scrunch up the trash, drop it in the bin, which is instantly swarmed by the Secretary of Treasury and a hundred secret service agents.
posted by anonymisc at 5:07 PM on October 9, 2013 [10 favorites]


I mentioned this in the other thread, but the end result of giving in to this sort of extortion is that the tactic will be used regularly and will ultimately lead to somebody making an extortion threat that is even worse than defaulting. Default, to whit, becomes inevitable. This must be stopped now.
posted by Joey Michaels at 5:08 PM on October 9, 2013 [6 favorites]


I owe Westpac two grand and they are on the phone to me five times a day, as well as sending me a letter a week. They're really hurting because of that two grand. Statistically, the US Government probably owes them money too, in the order of millions. But they call me five times a day. Gotta get that two grand. Hot damn.
posted by turbid dahlia at 5:09 PM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


I wouldn't worry about personal bank/credit union accounts. As long as you're under the federally-insured limits, national default shouldn't have any effect on them. Assuming that we're talking about a momentary default here, like the Feds are late by maybe a week on payments before things start running again, rather than dragging it out for six months or something else totally absurd.
posted by indubitable at 5:10 PM on October 9, 2013


Boy it's going to be an awkward midterm election for some people if Obamacare actually turns out to be popular next year.
posted by jason_steakums at 5:15 PM on October 9, 2013 [3 favorites]


> I owe Westpac two grand and they are on the phone to me five times a day

They don't have a right to do that, and you can shut them up.

This Google search has lots of resources.

Know your rights!
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 5:30 PM on October 9, 2013 [5 favorites]


the US Government probably owes them money too, in the order of millions. But they call me five times a day.

Maybe you should take a page from the US Govt's playbook and have your phone answered by a machine that puts the caller on hold for an hour, then informs them that office hours are closed and please call back tomorrow.

The more often you(r machines) invite them to call you back, the less they'll be inclined to do so!
posted by anonymisc at 5:32 PM on October 9, 2013 [2 favorites]


Yeah, and his company's vaunted PIMCO Total Return Fund hasn't done so hot this year, although that was likely unavoidable with stocks doing well.

Don't I know. it. I hold it in my 401k. Though bond markets have been bad this year in general and Pimco TRF has pretty much ended up with the same (negative) return as the bond index for the year to date.

I almost never find myself in agreement with what Bill Gross says but I agree with him on this. We are not going to default. I think the bigger concern (though less catastrophic) is that this is basically going to become a regular occurrence, as some people have already mentioned. And with the tea party living in a bizarro fantasyland, the chances of abolishing the utterly pointless debt ceiling are virtually nil.
posted by triggerfinger at 5:34 PM on October 9, 2013


Republicans seem to be moving towards raising the debt limit but keeping the shutdown going. David Koch and others have endorsed the idea.
posted by humanfont at 5:39 PM on October 9, 2013


Boy it's going to be an awkward midterm election for some people if Obamacare actually turns out to be popular next year.

Hence their desperation to delay it a year. If they actually thought it would be a disaster, I suspect it would be their own "please proceed, Governor Nazi Socialist Kenyan" moment.
posted by scody at 5:45 PM on October 9, 2013 [21 favorites]


As Obama said, they sure won't call it Obamacare.

Though, given that it's basically a spruced-up GOP plan, I don't doubt that some of them will have the chutzpah to try to take credit for it.
posted by tonycpsu at 5:48 PM on October 9, 2013


If the Republicans try a clean debt limit without a CR, expect the Senate and Obama to block it. Obama plays long-game poker and this is his move. If he had stood firm the first time he would have been blamed for any resulting catastrophe, but it's now more than plain that the Teabaggers never had any intention of dealing in good faith. That's what all that "giving away the house" stuff was about last time, which pissed off the Left so much. He made a bunch of offers he knew they would refuse to establish that no compromise was really possible.

If the Teabaggers force the mainline Republicans to sacrifice a score of their own to a Devil's pact with the Democrats to keep their true wealthy backers from eating them alive, there will be no forgiveness. If there is one thing these people don't do for anybody, it's forgiveness. They will know that it was the teabaggers' refusal to have their backs even at 11:59 that forced them to lick the Democrats' boots, and this will incline them far more to destroy the Tea Party than to hold a grudge against the Democrats.

So what I would expect, if it goes down that way, is that going forward there will be a purity test and any Republican that doesn't vote aye on a boilerplate must-pass bill when the Republican leadership says to will be OUT. No committee seats, no caucusing, no campaign finance money from the party. You are now an Independent, buddy. Then they will join with the D's in a nice bipartisan supermajority when necessary to not embarrass themselves again while the teabaggers take the blame.

It could go down differently, but I tend to think this is the most likely scenario. The wealthy moderate backers of the non-Tea Republican Party will exert enormous pressure, and the Tea Partiers are looking ever more like jihadists who are willing to take it all down rather than lose an inch.
posted by localroger at 5:50 PM on October 9, 2013 [3 favorites]


localroger, no way the Democrats turn down a clean debt limit increase. Doing so would put them on the hook for the economic repercussions.
posted by tonycpsu at 5:53 PM on October 9, 2013 [3 favorites]


localroger, no way the Democrats turn down a clean debt limit increase.

Is it 'clean' if it doesn't end the sequestration spending? That's horribly phrased but I think it can be parsed. Not 'clean', but 'acceptable'. You can't go onto new business before old business, right?
posted by mikelieman at 5:58 PM on October 9, 2013


We'll see, tony. I think the order of the day is going to be "no extortion." They will tie the CR and debt limit together and invite the Republicans to throw both into the river together.

I have written many times that Obama's strategy is poker-like. He has caved a lot because he has gotten nothing but really crappy cards, but he's managed to draw those terrible hands out into some decent wins, including the ACA. Right now he's rope-a-doped the Republicans into believing that he would always save the hostages, and now that he's folded his arms and said fuck you they have no response at all. Expect him to press that advantage to the maximum.
posted by localroger at 5:58 PM on October 9, 2013 [3 favorites]


anonymisc: "Maybe you should take a page from the US Govt's playbook and have your phone answered by a machine that puts the caller on hold for an hour, then informs them that office hours are closed and please call back tomorrow.

The more often you(r machines) invite them to call you back, the less they'll be inclined to do so!
"

"The check's in the mail, hey! You're beautiful
Don't ever change you know what I mean
My girl will call your girl we'll talk, we'll do lunch
Or leave a message on my machine
So baby won't you sign on the dotted line
I'm gonna make your dreams come true
The check's in the mail, would I lie to you?
Oh, trust me!

The check's in the mail, hey! You're beautiful
Don't ever change you know what I mean
Why don't you leave a message with my girl
I'll have lunch with your machine

So baby won't you sign on the dotted line
I'm gonna make your dreams come true
The check's in the mail, would I lie to you?
The check's in the mail, would I lie to you?"
posted by symbioid at 6:00 PM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]




Is it 'clean' if it doesn't end the sequestration spending?

It's clean if it raises the limit with nothing else attached. The government remains shut down, and they argue over the CR/budget stuff in the mean time.

That's the best tactical move for the GOP, because the Democrats lose the "holding the global economy hostage" talking point. It then becomes "you're holding the country hostage", which works much better for the wealthy corporate donors who don't really care who wins the fight over the size of the deficit, the individual mandate, etc.

I have written many times that Obama's strategy is poker-like.

Meh, this is starting to sound a lot like the eleven-dimensional chess argument, where we were assured that Obama was winning by losing on the ACA, or the sequester, etc., but that we just weren't seeing his loses from the right perspective. I'm not buying it.

Yes, Obama had crappy cards (I see you, Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln!) and I'm not saying he could have gotten more out of Obamacare or the sequester fight, but the idea that any of these other losses sets the table for a win now seems very unlikely to me. I'll accept that Obama simply didn't have good hands, and in some cases, I'll throw my lot in with those who believe he really isn't all that progressive to begin with, but I don't think he's some grand master that's thinking 20 moves ahead as you seem to be suggesting here.
posted by tonycpsu at 6:12 PM on October 9, 2013 [2 favorites]


Meh, this is starting to sound a lot like the eleven-dimensional chess argument

No, that's exactly what I have written about; Obama doesn't play chess he plays poker. Like poker, politics is a game of bluffing and imperfect information, and in this instance it's remarkably like a game of no-limit Hold'Em, because either side can get "stacked" in a single disastrous play. It is completely, and familiarly if you've ever studied the two games, unlike chess in any number of dimensions.

Advantage play gambling paid off my house. What Obama has been doing for the last few years is exactly how you play something like no-limit Hold'Em, where you play as if you have one strategy for a long time on relatively minor hands and then pounce and reverse when an opportunity arises and nobody is likely to expect you to do what you're doing. This is exactly how he got the ACA passed, and right now it's how he is trying to kill this extortion technique in the House.

And frankly, I think it will work. Obama's advantage this time is the hidden players, the rich people who aren't the Koch brothers who have always thought of themselves as Republicans but who are very much not down with this, who are his pocket Kings.
posted by localroger at 6:25 PM on October 9, 2013 [4 favorites]


Your mouth to God's ears, but the idea that the richies will devote more effort to destroying folks they agree with on 99 percent of issues than to those they agree with on 40 percent seems pretty far-fetched.
posted by klangklangston at 6:31 PM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


klang, most of the "richies" aren't self-destructive narcissistic assholes. It only looks that way because the most vocal ones are. Believe me there are a lot of people with seven-digit net worths who are used to writing 5-figure donation checks who are loudly telling their reps that they will switch parties if this thing crashes into the wall. I actually know a couple of people like that and this is causing them to do a lot of soul-searching politicswise. This is not a good thing for any fraction of the Republican party.
posted by localroger at 6:35 PM on October 9, 2013 [2 favorites]


and then pounce and reverse when an opportunity arises and nobody is likely to expect you to do what you're doing. This is exactly how he got the ACA passed,

Yeah, I don't know what news channel you were watching in 2009-2010, but that's not how the ACA battle went at all. Far from some kind of lurk then pounce strategy, it was a constant battle to twist arms and Rube Goldberg the shit out of it to get people like Presidents Snowe and Collins to sign on, only to have them walk away anyway. Then there was the internal battles against Bart Stupak and Ben Nelson. If you want anyone to buy into your idea that Obama somehow pulled a fast one or used any kind of bluffing strategy to make the ACA happen, you're really going to need to provide some kind of citation that shows that strategy in action. I certainly don't remember it that way.
posted by tonycpsu at 6:37 PM on October 9, 2013


(The twisted arms, by the way, were Democratic arms. Obama's primary enemies were conservatives in his own party. He got zero GOP votes, because he didn't need any. How is this an example of good strategy on his part?
posted by tonycpsu at 6:40 PM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


Tony, the Republicans' intentions in 2009-2010 were to not allow Obama or the Democrats to pass any legislation, at all, full stop. Obama gave up a bunch of other very sweet stuff including better forms of the ACA but then pulled a last-minute jujitsu that got the ACA we have through both houses of Congress, a move almost everybody thought was impossible for anything more significant than naming a public square.
posted by localroger at 6:42 PM on October 9, 2013


I think it's really easy to underestimate the accomplishment inherent in Obama getting any legislation whatsoever through Congress, not to mention something that has the long term good will potential of something like the ACA.
posted by feloniousmonk at 6:44 PM on October 9, 2013 [2 favorites]


The Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and a sizable majority in the house, so the Republicans' intentions meant nothing. I don't see how you can argue that he deftly outmaneuvered the GOP on a bill that got zero GOP votes.
posted by tonycpsu at 6:45 PM on October 9, 2013


feloniousmonk: "I think it's really easy to underestimate the accomplishment inherent in Obama getting any legislation whatsoever through Congress, not to mention something that has the long term good will potential of something like the ACA."

Oh, don't get me wrong -- I recognize that it's a significant achievement -- but the GOP was entirely cut out of it. There's no strategery involved in a 60-vote Senate majority falling from the sky.
posted by tonycpsu at 6:47 PM on October 9, 2013


The Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and a sizable majority in the house

Their majority in the Senate was not filibuster-proof. That was the entire problem.
posted by localroger at 6:47 PM on October 9, 2013 [9 favorites]


localroger: " Their majority in the Senate was not filibuster-proof. That was the entire problem."

58 D + 2 I(D) == 60
posted by tonycpsu at 6:48 PM on October 9, 2013


It was, if there had been unity behind the ACA on the conservative wing of the party.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:49 PM on October 9, 2013


The Democratic majority was a coalition including Blue Dog members, who had minimal to zero incentive to cooperate with the President on anything. It was really a majority in name only. It was a saner version of the GOP/Tea Party divide, really, and about as productive for the Democratic majority as the current state of affairs is for the Republican majority.
posted by feloniousmonk at 6:49 PM on October 9, 2013 [2 favorites]


58 D + 2 I(D) == 60

It was only 58 D for a couple of 5-minute periods, and one of the I was always Joe Lieberman. The Senate filibuster was 2009's version of 2013's Boehner House.
posted by localroger at 6:52 PM on October 9, 2013 [2 favorites]


They had a reason, it was pragmatic for the party to work with the President. Harry Reid is keeping everybody in line with a much smaller majority these days in order to protect the same bill. Of course, that reason isn't as compelling as protecting your own seat for a Senator.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:53 PM on October 9, 2013


It appears we're talking past each other, localroger. If you're saying Obama outmaneuvered the conservatives his own party on the ACA, I can see what you're saying, but I'd counter that he just outlasted them and larded it up to satisfy them. But I've yet to see any prominent examples of him outmaneuvering the GOP, which is what I thought you were trying to demonstrate.
posted by tonycpsu at 6:54 PM on October 9, 2013


I mean, really, has "winning" been defined down to "making the bill shitty enough to get Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson to vote for it?"
posted by tonycpsu at 6:56 PM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


Well Tony maybe we'll see soon. He outmaneuvered a system that was stacked against him, in such a situation the smart player draws no distinction between "enemy" R's and "unreliable friend" D's. You either win the hand or you don't. Obama won hands nobody thought could be won, several times.

One of the most significant differences between chess and poker, other than perfection of information, is that the position you establish in poker through successful play is one-dimensional, the size of your stack, which is a thing but not nearly as meaningful as an established board position in chess. You can play what looks to be bad poker for many hours and then leave everyone at the table wondering how you got their money.
posted by localroger at 6:57 PM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


I mean, really, has "winning" been defined down to "making the bill shitty enough to get Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson to vote for it?"

If those are the people with whom you have to work to get past the Republicans, then it kind of has to be.
posted by Going To Maine at 6:58 PM on October 9, 2013 [2 favorites]


If the other side's stated goal is to prevent you from accomplishing anything, I think getting anything accomplished is pretty close to winning. I think the ACA is better than no progress whatsoever.
posted by feloniousmonk at 6:58 PM on October 9, 2013 [3 favorites]


I mean, really, has "winning" been defined down to "making the bill shitty enough to get Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson to vote for it?"

That is what compromise looks like in a functioning two party system. Everyone leaves a little unhappy with the outcome. The irony being, of course, that the Democrats had to negotiate with Democrats since the Republicans washed their hands of their own health care plan.
posted by Joey Michaels at 7:00 PM on October 9, 2013 [2 favorites]


Really though, this is kind of a derail into the same old fight. This is sort of the essence of why this issue is so frustrating: operating the government should not involve values debates over policy. They're related but orthogonal. If the government has voted to fund a policy one day, it shouldn't then refuse to implement the funding when the time comes.
posted by feloniousmonk at 7:01 PM on October 9, 2013 [8 favorites]


Also, to elaborate a bit more on the poker analogy, an important part of good poker play is not being afraid of looking like a bad poker player. If you go out looking like a shark those opportunities you need will always be denied to you. This is a critical part of the current standoff; if this was the first time, Obama folding his arms and saying "unconditional surrender" would look unreasonable. But he's done the reasonable thing, everyone saw how that panned out, and now the reasonable thing might be expected but the hard line doesn't look like such a dick move.
posted by localroger at 7:02 PM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


operating the government should not involve values debates over policy

I hear you have an interestingly sane alternate universe. Are there lots for sale?
posted by localroger at 7:03 PM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


Y'know, if your base is a weird marriage of the super-rich and resentful working white people who are losing ground, then prosperity and broad economic well being are not your friends. Rising income inequality and stagnant or falling wages are. I honestly think the Republican agenda is basically "fuck the country and blame the minorities and entitlements". Their biggest fear about the ACA is that it will work.
posted by George_Spiggott at 7:03 PM on October 9, 2013 [18 favorites]


We lost the 60 member majority when a couple of prominent Dem pols got taken out early. The state GOP led a successful recall drive and got Scott Brown in, then of course, Ted Kennedy died. That brought the Dems below the veto proof majority early on. Link with more details here, but take with a grain of salt. Just some blog. But it cites credible media accounts.
posted by saulgoodman at 7:04 PM on October 9, 2013


localroger, your theory is fine as theories go, but you have no evidence that shows he was just pretending to be a bad player instead of actually being a bad player. I think someone who wanted to win the most progressive bill possible with a majority in both houses would have pushed harder for single payer, even if they knew there wasn't a chance in hell of it happening. The GOP has used this Overton window-stretching strategy to great effect on any number of issues. I see no benefit to starting out with a position of lukewarm support of a public option when we already have single payer for the poor and the elderly. That's just horrible negotiating.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:14 PM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


I think it's even worse negotiation to go in with an offer you know people on your own side can't support, which is why I think the public option was never included. There was a non-trivial percentage of the Democratic caucus who wouldn't support it.
posted by feloniousmonk at 7:17 PM on October 9, 2013


Assuming that Obama wanted the most progressive bill possible might be a stretch. Obama ran a campaign pledging bipartisanship, and has generally tried for that.
posted by Going To Maine at 7:17 PM on October 9, 2013 [3 favorites]


you have no evidence that shows he was just pretending to be a bad player instead of actually being a bad player

He got the ACA passed when the opposition party was opposed to letting him blow his nose and every similar effort in 40 years had failed. Single payer was never a possibility because even during those two 5-minute periods when "we" had 60 in the Senate Lieberman was one of them. If Obama was a bad player there would be no health plan at all, just as there wasn't after Bill & Hillary, and the people who are now covered under their parents' plans until 26 would be screwed and the people who can now buy insurance despite pre-existing conditions would be screwed, and as it's turned out the prices would be higher, so yes, it was a win.
posted by localroger at 7:18 PM on October 9, 2013 [4 favorites]


Boy it's going to be an awkward midterm election for some people if Obamacare actually turns out to be popular next year.

Nothing is ever awkward for them. They just rewrite the past or decide they never meant it.

I mean, Noelle Nikpour looked like a crazy person on the Daily Show and then tweeted about how she'd had a great time doing a comedy show, relax people...
posted by mdn at 7:28 PM on October 9, 2013 [2 favorites]


Assuming that Obama wanted the most progressive bill possible might be a stretch.

Obama wanted a bill that could pass that was better than the status quo. He knows to play on the field of the possible. This is, in fact, how he beat Hillary in the 2008 primary; playing the long game he picked up so many singleton delegates in ones and twos that finally winning California couldn't put Hillary over. That was the thing that convinced me he had the chops to be President.
posted by localroger at 7:34 PM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


Yeah. If ACA is a success, the moderate GOP can claim they saved ACA by fixing the the country financially, helping to reform to medicare and the tax code, and expellling the bat-shit insane Tehadists from their party. That's fine. Obama should take the high road and allow them some way to save face.
posted by Golden Eternity at 7:39 PM on October 9, 2013


For those talking about the filibuster proof majority, and those counter-arguing that two of them were not formally Dems., remember that several Democrats did not reliable vote with the rest of the Dems. and certainly did not have the president's back. See, in re to health care: Montana's Max Baucus Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, and a lawmaker Obama had no choice but to try to work with), Louisiana's Mary Landrieu, former Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, etc.
posted by raysmj at 7:43 PM on October 9, 2013


I honestly think the Republican agenda is basically "fuck the country and blame the minorities and entitlements".

Yup. The national GOP leadership knows that they can't win another presidential election without changing this, um, platform. And after the election autopsy reports, they paid some lip service to the idea of broadening the party to appeal to people who aren't typically in their wheelhouse.

But the demographic "problem" isn't a threat to Repubs in House, where gerrymandered districts will continue to produce extreme rightwingers that probably couldn't get elected at the state level, let alone national.

These wingers are now the face of the GOP, further undermining the leadership's half-hearted attempt to create a more inclusive GOP party. And really, the teabaggers have no incentive to tone it down. Their seats are safe, and they seem to be more interested in tearing the govt down piece by piece than actually administering it.

This is why republican governors are trying to pull away from DC republicans, and why some think that the party's best shot at 2016 is a Chris Christie or similar, who can embrace a different brand of conservatism than the one Congress is selling. In that case, I think the question for a lot of moderates and independents will be whether such a person could or would stand up to the extreme right in Congress, and on what issues.
posted by snarfles at 7:44 PM on October 9, 2013


I mean, really, has "winning" been defined down to "making the bill shitty enough to get Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson to vote for it?"

If those are the people with whom you have to work to get past the Republicans, then it kind of has to be.


You must have numbers. It is very simple, you must have 60 votes to pass it. The glory days of the dems, 65 votes most of the time.

This guy has grabbed the grail of we as a society owning our duty to keep our fellow citzens healthy. Clinton, failed. LBJ, failed. Kennedy, failed. FDR failed. Obama succeeded. And he doesn't win dramatic victories. He just wins them. He's dogged, he never gives up on getting his agenda passed. And he has. Stimulus, Dodd-Frank, ACA, DADT repeal. He really doesn't buy into the antics, and gives ground when it suits him. Traded austerity for a tax increase. He forced the GOP to allow a significant income tax increase. A permanent one. And they are as choked on it as we are, because he kept entitlements out of the deal.

So, I guess what I'm saying is votes count. So everyone HAS to vote in 2014. Vote against any GOP candidate.
posted by Ironmouth at 7:50 PM on October 9, 2013 [26 favorites]


"Their seats are safe" presumes many things. One of them being that The Establishment would never want to see a (D) in that seat than a (BatshitInsane), just to prove the point that (BatshitInsane) isn't tolerated.

Prove the point that they're not secure and they'll fall in line.
posted by mikelieman at 7:52 PM on October 9, 2013


I've been reading Red State every day. They seriously do seem to be living in some kind of secondary universe where the shutdown is Obama's fault, his poll numbers are falling, and the few members or congress who are "showing some spine" are soon going to bring the sobbing Democrats to the table to concede to all demands.

It's mind-boggling.


No, it isn't, it's a calculated strategy. Let me drop into metaphor here. In wrestling--stay with me--there are the fans, usually kids, who think it's real, and then the fans who know it's all scripted but enjoy it for various reasons be it the theatrics or the acrobatics or two behemoths pretending to pound away at each other.

For a long time, that's also the way politics worked here in the States. Rudy Republican would go home and bitch about the commies and Dan Democrat would go home and bitch about the nazis, and there'd be all this high-flown rhetoric analogous to the chest-beating speeches in wrestling. And then they'd go back to Washington and chuckle about the rubes back home and get some shit done.

However, the Tea Party actually believes that the metaphorical wrestling is real. This is something I really have to fight to get through the heads of my irony-drenched liberal friends. It's like that interview with Scalia where he literally believes in the Devil and people were chortling like "The DEVIL? Come on, man!" Like it was some ruse or gag. But I know dudes like that and I've lived in places where they sell self-help books for getting demons out of your home at the grocery store. And they aren't speaking metaphorically or being ironic. They believe in a literal, evil, supernatural creature that can haunt your house and cause bad shit to happen.

And yes, the Obummer Muslim Kenyan Communist Socialist thing is actually what some right-wingers think. There is a massive media complex designed to keep them inflamed with fear that everything they have is going to come crashing down around them and it also tells them that said media complex is the only source that can be trusted. All the people making fun of them and laughing at them and posting witty imagemacros on Facebook just reinforce how right they are in their own minds, coupled with the natural self-segregation people do, so all their friends talk about the same thing, all they hear are the same things, and the media they take in are saying the same things. I mean, the Romney campaign was well and truly convinced they were going to win and genuinely astonished when they were not, because the whole right-wing bubble is absolutely vicious when anyone speaks up against the groupthink, so everyone was telling them it was a sure thing. It goes all the way to the top. They are true believers.
posted by Ghostride The Whip at 7:52 PM on October 9, 2013 [89 favorites]



And yes, the Obummer Muslim Kenyan Communist Socialist thing is actually what some right-wingers think.


And as mentioned upthread much more eloquently, their goal IS destroying the government. They honestly believe that they've won, and the more destruction to the government that occurs, the better off they'll be.

Seriously, if the GOP could purge the paleocons for **suggesting** that the invasion of Iraq might not be a good idea, they can do likewise with these morons.
posted by mikelieman at 7:55 PM on October 9, 2013 [2 favorites]


and there'd be all this high-flown rhetoric analogous to the chest-beating speeches in wrestling. And then they'd go back to Washington and chuckle about the rubes back home and get some shit done.

However, the Tea Party actually believes that the metaphorical wrestling is real.


Totally, utterly true.
posted by Ironmouth at 7:59 PM on October 9, 2013 [6 favorites]


However, the Tea Party actually believes that the metaphorical wrestling is real.

"MARANATHA! COME LORD JESUS COME!" - Michelle Bachmann

some actually believe they are helping to bring about their own mis-reading of Revelation.
posted by quonsar II: smock fishpants and the temple of foon at 8:04 PM on October 9, 2013 [4 favorites]


Yada yada yeah these people are my family members too. My mother in law is one of them, and she's coming to stay with us next week. Should be awesome.

The reason I make fun of them is becuase there is no reaching them. There is no website that you can show them that will convince them they are wrong. They've been convinced that Politifact is an evil George Soros funded deception machine. Snopes lies. Etc, etc.

Screw it. I'm pointing out the crazy from here on out. Ridicule is my only release.
posted by Big_B at 8:27 PM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


Dear MetaFilter: thank you for helping me win fights on Facebook, for whatever that's worth. Being able to toss out the Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917 and the history of the debt ceiling just shut down someone who was determined to blame Obama.
posted by Lulu's Pink Converse at 8:31 PM on October 9, 2013 [16 favorites]


Fuck you, Congress.
posted by medusa at 8:36 PM on October 9, 2013 [8 favorites]


Being able to toss out the Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917 and the history of the debt ceiling just shut down someone who was determined to blame Obama.

my someone simply stated i'd better stop drinking the libtard kool-aid and left it at that. you cannot reason with unreasonable. especially not with facts.
posted by quonsar II: smock fishpants and the temple of foon at 8:50 PM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


my someone simply stated i'd better stop drinking the libtard kool-aid and left it at that. you cannot reason with unreasonable. especially not with facts.

Whenever I have conversations like that, I am reminded of Proverbs 26:4 and 26:5. And I think for a few seconds that I understand what the author had in mind.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 9:02 PM on October 9, 2013 [3 favorites]


"MARANATHA! COME LORD JESUS COME!" - Michelle Bachmann

"But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only." - Matthew 24:36 (KJV naturally)

If no one, including you Bachmann, doesn't know and can't know when he'll arrive ("like a thief in the night" - meaning Christ's return will be expected as much as the the Spanish Inquisition), then you can't expect to somehow nudge God into saying "Ok, you've laid the groundwork of fear, death, destruction, and cat + dog cohabitation. How can I resist?"

I suppose other parts of the Bible talk about signs and such, but I like to think the plot hinges on the complete surprise angle. The sort of surprise which, once it happens, was totally foreshadowed by earlier episodes and you should have known it was coming, but still, total shock at the reveal. Kinda like how Republicans will feel in the blast wave of the default.
posted by honestcoyote at 9:27 PM on October 9, 2013 [2 favorites]


>Ironmouth: [Obama] traded austerity for a tax increase.

Some trade there. Tax increases and spending cuts are both austerity policies. In other words, he traded austerity for more austerity. And remember that one of those tax increases was the payroll tax on the poorest of wage earners.
posted by JackFlash at 9:32 PM on October 9, 2013 [3 favorites]


Ironmouth: [Obama] traded austerity for a tax increase.

Some trade there. Tax increases and spending cuts are both austerity policies. In other words, he traded austerity for more austerity. And remember that one of those tax increases was the payroll tax on the poorest of wage earners.


The better deal you would have gotten? Look at these people. You think there was a better deal to be had with these people who are doing this now? Please give me the vote count on how your additional stimulus was going to pass. It will be some kind of crazy math.
posted by Ironmouth at 9:46 PM on October 9, 2013


Let me get this straight: If treasury bonds yield plummets below 0, we're all fucked. The number one stable investment is treasury bonds. Has it ever happened before (yield=0)?

Would this put the US credit rating so low that we can only shop at Fingerhut and Rent-A-Center? Does RAC even have tanks and black hawks?

Also, would that also mean our 'partnership' with oil is in jeopardy? Will it consider the US$ too risky? What will they use? Euro? Yen? Rupees? Septims? What will happen then? Hyperinflation? Where should I put my investments now so that this doesn't affect me as much as it would if I invested in US based instruments? Iceland? They seem to be on the up-and-up nowadays.

Anyway, my main point is: What can I do? My nest-egg is very tiny (lost most of it in '08). I live in a Confed-O-Public now, and have considered investing in Ammo for it's new-found economic value (I don't own a gun, but am not opposed to your right to own one).
posted by Monkey0nCrack at 9:50 PM on October 9, 2013


The better deal you would have gotten?

The Bush Tax Cuts were on a sunset. The better deal would be to wait and negotiate from there using new tax cuts as leverage for spending.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:54 PM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


i can't help but think the media exposure* (if not 'actual journalism' ;) and that gallup poll aren't unrelated; keep it up! sunlight being the best disinfectant and all.

even if it doesn't always seem that way, politicians are listening (to the polls at least) and ultimately accountable to the electorate.

like in a different context, obama seems to be thinking: "I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it."

-Obama Can't Save Us From Crisis Himself**[*]
-Where's The Liberal Tea Party?
-Tea Party radicalism is misunderstood: Meet the "Newest Right"
While each of the Newest Right's proposals and policies might be defended by libertarians or conservatives on other grounds, the package as a whole—from privatizing Social Security and Medicare to disenfranchising likely Democratic voters to opposing voting rights and citizenship for illegal immigrants to chopping federal programs into 50 state programs that can be controlled by right-wing state legislatures—represents a coherent and rational strategy for maximizing the relative power of provincial white elites at a time when their numbers are in decline and history has turned against them. They are not ignoramuses, any more than Jacksonian, Confederate and Dixiecrat elites were idiots. They know what they want and they have a plan to get it—which may be more than can be said for their opponents.
-Back Door Secession
The people behind these efforts are imitating what the Confederate States did even before they formally seceded in 1861. Already they ran a parallel government, in which the laws of the national government were blatantly disregarded. They denied the right of abolitionists to voice their arguments, killing or riding out of town over three hundred of them in the years before the Civil War. They confiscated or destroyed abolitionist tracts sent to Southern states by United States mail. In the United States Congress, they instituted "gag rules" that automatically tabled (excluded from discussion) anti-slavery petitions, in flagrant abuse of the First Amendment's right of petition...

So we have one condition that resembles the pre-Civil War virtual secessionism—the holding of a whole party hostage to its most extreme members. We also have the other antebellum condition—the disproportionate representation of the extreme faction. In state after state in the 2012 election, there was a large vote for President Obama, but a majority of House seats went to Republicans. In Pennsylvania, for instance, Obama won 52 percent of the votes cast, but Republicans got over twice as many seats (13 to 5), thanks to carefully planned gerrymandering of districts by Republican state legislatures. This advantage will be set in stone if all the voter restriction laws now being advanced block voters who might upset the disproportion.

The presiding spirit of this neo-secessionism is a resistance to majority rule. We see this in the Senate, where a Democratic majority is resisted at every turn by automatic recourses to the filibuster. We see it in the attempt to repeal the seventeenth amendment, which allows a majority of voters to choose a state's senators. The repealers want that choice to go back to the state legislatures, where they rule thanks to anti-majority gerrymandering.

The Old South went from virtual to actual secession only when the addition of non-slave Western states threatened their disproportionate hold on the Congress and the Court (which had been Southern in makeup when ruling on Dred Scott). It is difficult to conjecture what will happen if the modern virtual seceders do not get their way. Their anti-government rhetoric is reaching new intensity. Some would clearly rather ruin than be ruled by a "foreign-born Muslim." What will the Republicans who are not fanatics, only cowards, do in that case?
-Why Are We Talking About the Debt Ceiling Crisis As If It's Normal Politics? "It's crazy. How do you get across how insurrectionary this is?" ...it's not something that should get written about as if it's just a modest escalation of normal political disagreements. It's not normal. At all. But how do you get this across? How do you get across just how non-normal it is that we're even talking about it?"

---
*Republican Hostage Negotiation: "The GOP holds the government hostage over Obamacare, so Jason Jones employs a former F.B.I. hostage negotiator to resolve the situation."
**FULL TRANSCRIPT: President Obama's Oct. 8 news conference on the shutdown and debt limit
***he needs help!(*)
posted by kliuless at 10:28 PM on October 9, 2013 [16 favorites]


> an important part of good poker play is not being afraid of looking like a bad poker player.

As someone who's played a lot of games and has studied a lot of these games mathematically, I see people making statements about games and I go, "WTF?"

NO, you don't want to be playing poker with people who think you're a bad poker player at any time, even if you (have the mistaken belief that you) aren't. If betting to send a signal to your opponent is to have any value at all, it has value precisely when your opponent believes you actually mean what you "say". If you know your opponents think you're a moron you have two choices - folding, or betting the maximum each time.

My guess is that your total cumulative losses (without wins, or wins without losses, take your pick) in poker are almost certainly less than four figures, and certainly less than five - am I right?
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 10:44 PM on October 9, 2013 [3 favorites]


I've found a good way to win at poker is to set the AI on easy.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:48 PM on October 9, 2013 [7 favorites]


> If treasury bonds yield plummets below 0, we're all fucked.

I don't see it. Why is this a problem? This would be a good thing.

Defaulting is a serious issue involving fuckedness. A moderately negative interest rate indicates that treasuries are particularly valuable and strong. It means we, the People of the United States, can actually get paid for borrowing money. Excellent!

At some point if the interest rate became too negative, you'd have to hold cash (and I mean "cash" as in "bales of printed US dollar denominated bills in a safe" cash). But even then, negative interest rates means a "Treasuries are so solid, we're willing to pay to own them" world.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 10:49 PM on October 9, 2013 [5 favorites]


You don't want people to think you're bad at poker, but you do sometimes want people to think that you've misjudged the hand, which is not the same thing.
posted by empath at 10:49 PM on October 9, 2013


A moderately negative interest rate indicates that treasuries are particularly valuable and strong. It means we, the People of the United States, can actually get paid for borrowing money. Excellent!

This is why I think the current drive to reduce the debt is insane. If you were any business and could borrow unlimited money at near or lower than 0%, you would be crazy not to borrow as much as you can and invest it.
posted by empath at 10:51 PM on October 9, 2013 [2 favorites]


> you do sometimes want people to think that you've misjudged the hand

Even there, it's really not clear with serious players that this offers you any advantage at all.

All gambling games amongst strong, rational players involve hoping that your evaluation of your hand is better than your opponent's - even if only marginally. If you believed that your opponent was systematically better at evaluating the value of hands, you'd go home.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 10:53 PM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


And to jump to a bigger picture, I've been hearing for almost five years now that Mr. Obama is somehow playing this magical game where even though he loses consistently, he's thinking eleven dimensionally and taking less of a loss than a lesser, mortal player might take.

Occam's Razor says that he's just a bad player. Sorry, guys!

I think the moment this idea clarified for me is after he simply gave away the renewal of the Bush tax cuts without securing a debt ceiling limit raise - saying that his opponents were "honorable". At that point I just knew he was a moron. But I suspected it after a year of trying to get the Republicans to buy into the Affordable Care Act even though they were on TV every week saying that they would never agree to it - which they, no surprise, never did, even five years later.

Really, nothing has since then has had any hope of convincing me that Mr. Obama is not a moron who's simply capable of giving good speeches. (The other possibility is that he's a bright guy who's deliberately playing a bad game because he wants to get the bad results we are in fact getting. It's at least as plausible, to me.)
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 11:01 PM on October 9, 2013 [3 favorites]


Really, nothing has since then has had any hope of convincing me that Mr. Obama is not a moron who's simply capable of giving good speeches.

Really? That's what we're going with? That Obama is a moron? I'm sure if you were president, you could get this sorted out over some beers. Please.
posted by empath at 11:04 PM on October 9, 2013 [2 favorites]


Sigh.

I don't mean he's a literal moron. I mean he has dramatically underperformed in his position and is unlikely to improve in the future.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 11:08 PM on October 9, 2013


And this is what we keep getting. Not, "Our hero Mr. Obama has scored this amazing win!" but, "Here's the outcome. Sorry it's so shitty, but imagine if Mr. Obama were not President."
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 11:09 PM on October 9, 2013 [3 favorites]


Yeah, I'm not a big fan of the 11th dimensional chess stuff and I think he has made some serious errors in judgement along the way, but the dude strikes me as an extremely intelligent and thoughtful and effective leader. He has done a lot of good things for this country and I think he has earned a decent amount of respect. Even if underperforming, you can phrase it better than calling him a moron I think.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:09 PM on October 9, 2013 [11 favorites]


Really? That's what we're going with? That Obama is a moron?

Well, he's a lot smarter than me, but his whole approach to Syria does indicate a somewhat lack of strategic thinking at times.
posted by KokuRyu at 11:10 PM on October 9, 2013


As to Syria, you know what they call a great success which is stumbled into through lucky breaks?

A great success.

And I say that as someone who as anyone reading Metafilter threads on the subject probably knows was harshly critical of the policies leading up to where we are now.
posted by Justinian at 11:11 PM on October 9, 2013 [3 favorites]


I could phrase it better than "moron" but frankly, this leader (or "leader") has not earned my respect for his negotiation skills, and more, has not impressed me in the slightest with his integrity either. "Moron" is a placeholder for a complex set of generally negative adjectives which would be too tedious to enumerate.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 11:12 PM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


Well, he's a lot smarter than me, but his whole approach to Syria does indicate a somewhat lack of strategic thinking at times.

Not if you assume that he doesn't want to get involved. His main error from my point of view was drawing a red-line at chemical weapons, which he probably did because he didn't imagine that they'd actually use them, and it seems like he managed to extricate himself from having to intervene, perhaps accidentally, but either way, we aren't in Syria right now.
posted by empath at 11:12 PM on October 9, 2013 [4 favorites]


"Moron" is a placeholder for a complex set of generally negative adjectives which would be too tedious to enumerate.

No, it's sloppy and pointlessly contentious.
posted by empath at 11:13 PM on October 9, 2013 [12 favorites]


As well, as per the YouTube link to President Obama's Oct. 8 news conference on the shutdown and debt limit, his rhetoric is pretty bellicose and non-conciliatory rhetoric (using conciliatory language, or at least toning down the rhetoric, is not the same as caving in to unreasonable demands) is pretty surprising, since it does not allow Boehner or moderate Republicans much chance to save face.

I guess the strategy is to literally hammer Boehner's credibility and hope cracks appear in the Republican caucus, but it seems like a pretty risky approach when the stakes are so high.
posted by KokuRyu at 11:15 PM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


> No, it's sloppy and pointlessly contentious.

Would you prefer "ethically compromised leader with almost pathologically bad negotiation skills and a pathetic desire to get approval from Important People no matter what the cost to the vast majority of humans"?
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 11:16 PM on October 9, 2013 [3 favorites]


but either way, we aren't in Syria right now.

I know this is derail territory, but as a non-American my point was American credibility was pretty seriously negatively affected by the various reversals and missteps by John Kerry and company.
posted by KokuRyu at 11:17 PM on October 9, 2013


Anyway, hopefully this will be resolved soon...

Republican Party leaders, activists and donors now widely acknowledge that the effort to kill President Obama’s signature initiative by hitting the brakes on the government has been a failure. The law has largely disappeared from their calculus as they look for a way out of the impasse over the shutdown and for a way to avoid a possible default on U.S. debt.
posted by KokuRyu at 11:20 PM on October 9, 2013 [2 favorites]


lupus_yonderboy:
Or, in reality, it could be that he has no actual ability to, you know, write laws, since that's not part of the powers enumerated in the Constitution for the Executive Branch to do. It is not his job to write laws. It is not within his realm of influence to do any of the things people keep blaming him for or saying he's not good at negotiating or whatever. It really does not matter what he says, or what deals you think he should be cutting or what games he should be winning. He has to have someone in his Party bring all this legislation that people keep saying he should be negotiating for. And since his party does not control the House, well, that just is not going to happen.

So yeah, great, he's the President, which kind of makes him the de facto Democratic Party leader, but it does not mean he can write laws or propose bills without a member of Congress sponsoring those bills and some chance of getting those bills past committee and for the Speaker of the House to allow that bill to be brought to the floor for a vote. That's just how this works.

So no, he's not playing poker, or 11-dimensional chess. All he is doing is running the Executive Branch, with the power of veto over anything that doesn't have a 2/3 majority to overturn the veto from both the House and Senate.

I mean, this is fucking 7th grade Civics shit here. I know the narrative in the media is all about Obama and how he needs to negotiate with Boehner or whatever, but in the really real world of how the sausage is made, his job is to either sign the bills into law, or veto them if he wants to. That is about it.

And buying into that bullshit narrative that he somehow has the ability to negotiate with anything is fucking stupid. It is the other House Democrats and their leadership that the Republicans are supposed to be negotiating with. Boehner is showing his media training by trying to misdirect all of this responsibility on to the Executive Branch when it is entirely not how this works. Boehner is the one mucking up everything by not allowing votes, and not allowing conference commiitees between the House and Senate to reconcile the budget that was PASSED in both the House and Senate in March '13.

There is no game here. This is full on obstruction of the way that Congress is supposed to work by the Republicans solely because they have enough votes to have the majority. And until they don't have that majority anymore, they will continue to stonewall and block any legislation. End of story.

Presidents are not kings. They don't get to dictate what laws the Congress will vote on UNLESS their party has the majority, or they can convince enough of the opposition to vote with them on their proposed policies. Ever heard of Lame Duck Presidents? Welcome to what that looks like. Only it's only half lame. Full lame would be if both the House and Senate were controlled by the opposition party to the sitting President.
posted by daq at 11:22 PM on October 9, 2013 [45 favorites]


> Republican Party leaders, activists and donors now widely acknowledge that the effort to kill President Obama’s signature initiative by hitting the brakes on the government has been a failure.

Thank goodness - though I also believed that they weren't going to actually go all the way, this time.

Each time they get closer to hitting an artery with the knife. They aren't going to be satisfied until they see the blood fountaining up into the air.

But at least time we dodged the bullet again.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 11:22 PM on October 9, 2013


Also, it is my theory that the office of the President was originally conceived of as a way to distract the populous from the things that Congress was doing by giving people a figurehead to distract them by either having them love or hate him and his antics. Very much like the Zaphod Beeblebrox President of the Galaxy thing, only it got all screwy as Congress kept giving more and more responsibilities and powers over to the Executive Branch throughout the 19th and 20th century. There was a reason George Washington thought that having a President was a bad idea, and that was mostly because he knew that it would end up distracting the public from being fully engaged citizens. He was an anti-monarchist to begin with, and having a President is something that is basically a surrogate King/Queen.

It's diabolical and for the most part, "it just works", because it is so much easier to manipulate people by focusing on a single actor, than on the collective actions of multiple actors either working in opposition or in cahoots.

But, well, whatever.
posted by daq at 11:27 PM on October 9, 2013 [4 favorites]


When did we dodge a bullet? I'm not even remotely convinced that this is over by articles about cracks in the GOP.
posted by raysmj at 11:30 PM on October 9, 2013 [2 favorites]


> Or, in reality, it could be that he has no actual ability to, [boring stuff I read and decided was pointless deleted]

blah blah "the President is powerless" etc etc.

The President of the United States is the most powerful person on the planet. The US is the most powerful country on this planet, but more, the Constitution and subsequent case law puts the executive branch into a position of unusual power over all democracies.

It's 2013. I gave this guy reasonable doubt for four years. He's a rotten, lameass champion. Your arguments amount to nothing more than "Failure is the only outcome."

The very first time they threatened defaulting he should have made it absolutely clear - "The only way I will allow the US to default on its debts is if I'm dragged from this office in chains. I will never under any circumstances give the order to default because it will destroy this country, and if you don't like it, impeach me."
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 11:31 PM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


Republican Party leaders, activists and donors now widely acknowledge that the effort to kill President Obama’s signature initiative by hitting the brakes on the government has been a failure.

They mention the Koch Industries PR letter, but I think they really do a disservice by saying it comes from the Koch Brothers themselves, and not their company. They are not one and the same, and conflating the two is dishonest.
posted by daq at 11:32 PM on October 9, 2013 [2 favorites]


Has anyone suggested that perhaps the mainstream republicans and democrats might just be happy to jointly throw the tea party under the bus here
posted by dougiedd at 11:34 PM on October 9, 2013


> When did we dodge a bullet?

Assuming this is resolved, as KokuRyu's link seems to indicate - and as I believe is the most likely outcome.

You have to play with the blade at your neck several times before you finally make the cut. We haven't, quite, got there yet.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 11:34 PM on October 9, 2013


The US President has enormous power in foreign policy, but far less inherent power than the legislative branch. Scalia was right about this in his recent, long interview, despite all the other wacky stuff he said. The presidency is a glorified clerkship (in the words of political scientist and former Truman staffer Richard Neustadt) in that capacity. This is what any I strong to American Govt. instructor or decent high school American civics teacher can or certainly should be teaching students. international affairs and Obama's role in them have close to zero influence here.
posted by raysmj at 11:43 PM on October 9, 2013 [8 favorites]


The better deal you would have gotten? Look at these people. You think there was a better deal to be had with these people who are doing this now? Please give me the vote count on how your additional stimulus was going to pass. It will be some kind of crazy math.

Would that math be any crazier than one person risking our entire economy by not holding a stupid vote in the House for purely political and/or ideological and/or personal reasons? Because that's really crazy math.

Yes, there are extenuating circumstances surrounding the current crisis, and I'm loath to see Democrats resort to the same kind of hostage-taking that Republicans are engaged in, but it's just really, really, really, frustrating to always be told that the policies I support aren't politically feasible while the GOP/Tea Party is able to throw a tantrum and shut down the entire freakin' government.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 11:45 PM on October 9, 2013


My fellow Mefites, saulgoodman argues that this thread has more than five hundred comments, is more than twelve hours old, and provides significant loading time savings over the prior thread. But despite being ratified by the mods and by the community, I'm concerned that you've all made a terribly foolish mistake -- this topic is clearly mine, and best represented by the Real shutdown/default thread I posted last week.

Matt, please don't be alarmed that I've taken control of the site's billing account -- Metafilter, LLC's monthly server payment will clear just fine. Just as soon as saulgoodman requests this post be deleted, all favorites and comments transposed to my post, and that my post gets sidebarred and posted to the Best Of blog.



Or what? You don't want to be responsible for the catastrophic failure of Mefi's servers, do you? You can't honestly be that petty and irresponsible.

I'm waiting. As is The Planet's accounts receivable department.
posted by Rhaomi at 11:46 PM on October 9, 2013 [53 favorites]


Boehner has been embarrassed by his own party's failure to go along with him already, Cruz is unpredictable and has ludicrously strong Tea Party support, some lawmakers might not agree to anything without deep cuts to entitlements. Who knows with these folks? Until I see vote counts on a specific bipartisan agreement, I'm not believing that anything is over.
posted by raysmj at 11:49 PM on October 9, 2013


The American public should collectively sequester their work. Take two weeks off, just like the Feds. Shut. It. All. Down.

This would get the attention of The Powers That Be.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:51 PM on October 9, 2013 [3 favorites]


"Nihilists! Fuck me. I mean, say what you like about the tenets of Democratic legislation, America, at least it's an ethos."
posted by jason_steakums at 11:51 PM on October 9, 2013 [3 favorites]


"Its The Republican Party's self-alienation has reached such a degree that it can experience its own America's destruction as an aesthetic pleasure of the first order."
- Walter Benjamin
posted by Pyrogenesis at 12:59 AM on October 10, 2013 [8 favorites]


obama isn't a lousy poker player, he's just got a lousy hand
posted by pyramid termite at 2:41 AM on October 10, 2013 [1 favorite]


if anybody saw the last 'dodged a bullet comment' and was like, 'hooooorraaay' there's no deal on the table, just the latest crazy about 'it's not about ACA after all' with a funny quote from Grover Norquist about Cruz because, outside of the realm of mental illness, it's funny to see crazy call crazy crazy.
posted by angrycat at 3:23 AM on October 10, 2013


You don't want people to think you're bad at poker,

Poker. Yeah I've seen it on tv now and again. Is it fun to play?
posted by mikelieman at 4:07 AM on October 10, 2013 [1 favorite]


Maybe electing several dozen stupid people who quite literally don't understand how American government works- I mean, actually operates on a civics level as opposed to conjecture- to run said American government was a pretty fucking bad idea.

The US won't be the first empire to be laid low by the Dunning-Kruger effect. Probably not the last one either.
posted by GrammarMoses at 4:33 AM on October 10, 2013 [4 favorites]


I don't get Dave Weigel's latest update. He seems to say that there's a good chance that there will be a two/three week lift of the ceiling to negotiate on entitlements. How is that going to happen. Maybe I'm uninformed/too angry, but are there any areas of legislation upon which the crazy people and the Dems agree? There was some mention of the Baucus committee, but, honestly, I would really love to hear a Tea Party proposal and think, 'hmm that sounds reasonable.' Hasn't happened, to my knowing.
posted by angrycat at 4:36 AM on October 10, 2013


Those trying to use strained Texas Hold-Em metaphors need to realize there are two pots.

The GOP and the Dems are working a big pot. (The 2013 CR/Government Shutdown.) Suddenly, the Tea Party steals most of the GOP's remaining stack and goes all in. The President and the Senate Majority Leader call. (This is the Debt Limit.) The GOP, now short thanks to the Tea Party, is forced to call short and is now playing a side pot. The Dems now have to bet.

It is perfectly possible for the GOP to screw the Tea Party by voting an increase of the debt limit while continuing to not vote a budget or continuing resolution. This leaves the US in a bad place, but not a catastrophic one, does not involve an economic nuclear attack on the global economy, and would be a huge political loss for the Teabaggers as a whole and Ted Cruz in particular. John Boehner would only survive as speaker with the help of the Dems.

Both a clean CR and debt limit raise means the Dems rake both pots. Boehner gets fired.

A default (read, the Dems lose on the showdown) means the Tea Party rakes the main pot, the GOP rakes the side pot, and nobody cares because we're fucked.

If the Dems fold (read, agree to suspend ACA), then the GOP and the Tea Party rake and the Dems are busted out. Obama's presidency is doomed, the GOP will just use the same trick over and over, knowing Obama will cave.

This is why he won't. At least, god, I hope he doesn't, because we are fucked hard if he does.
posted by eriko at 5:06 AM on October 10, 2013 [2 favorites]


Believe me there are a lot of people with seven-digit net worths who are used to writing 5-figure donation checks who are loudly telling their reps that they will switch parties if this thing crashes into the wall.

The 2 party "system" is part of the problem.
posted by rough ashlar at 5:13 AM on October 10, 2013 [2 favorites]


I'm super-late to this thread, but I feel obligated to link CGPGrey's video explaining the debt limit, because I will use literally any excuse to link his videos I can find.
posted by jsnlxndrlv at 5:24 AM on October 10, 2013 [4 favorites]


The Amarillo Slim line gets quoted out of context a lot. Here it is (from the 2005 version of his 1973 Play Poker to Win):
It never hurts for potential opponents to think you're more than a little stupid and can hardly count all the money in your hip pocket, much less hold onto it. That's one reason why I wear a big cowboy hat, cowboy boots, and western duds--especially when I'm globe-trotting and looking for high action. People everywhere assume that anyone from Texas in a ten-gallon hat is not only a billionaire but an easy mark, a real hayseed. That's just fine with me, because that's the impression I'm trying to leave. This approach puts those dudes in the category of guessers, and guessers are losers in poker, guessers are losers! That's my meat, to make the other guy guess. If a player makes a bet, it's me who's guessing whether he's got a hand or not. But if this cat makes me a mediocre bet and I play back at him, he is the one guessing. He's saying to himself, "Well, reckon that slim son of a bitch has got a hand or not?" As a guesser, he's at a psychological disadvantage and getting into a situation where I can move in on him fast.
Note that he is talking about potential opponents who do not know that they are up against Amarillo Fucking Slim.

The worry for me is that Cruz, Bachmann & Co. aren't the proverbial suckers at the table... they are the Koch Brothers' ten-gallon hat.
posted by argonauta at 5:27 AM on October 10, 2013 [17 favorites]


I don't get Dave Weigel's latest update. He seems to say that there's a good chance that there will be a two/three week lift of the ceiling to negotiate on entitlements.

This is the hope of the GOP - since the President refuses to work with the immediate threat hanging over his head, they hope it will work better when it's a looming threat. They think their problem was leaving it to the last minute, and if they can make their demands with some breathing room, Obama will now be willing to be bullied by the debt ceiling.

No dice, guys. I doubt any bill that doesn't push the next debt ceiling brouhaha past the 2014 elections won't make it out of the senate. The Democratic Party's primary goal is now to put the political process back on the rails by all means at their disposal.
posted by Slap*Happy at 5:47 AM on October 10, 2013 [1 favorite]


And to jump to a bigger picture, I've been hearing for almost five years now that Mr. Obama is somehow playing this magical game where even though he loses consistently, he's thinking eleven dimensionally and taking less of a loss than a lesser, mortal player might take.

Losing? Which planet are you on? Obama laid out a series of policy proposals: a stimulus package, repeal of DADT, Wall Street reform, Health Care Reform, killing bin Laden, closing Gitmo, repeal of DOMA and a tax increase on richer Americans.

He didn't get Gitmo closure because of his own party, and DOMA was gutted by the Supreme Court.

Can you name another Democratic President who gave out such a laundry list and got it passed?

Clinton wanted Health Care Reform and a whole laundry list. You have to go back to LBJ to see a President who got his agenda passed.

And this President got it passed with only 2 years of a far smaller majority than LBJ had for every second of his presidency. Think about how much resistance this President has had, yet he has still enacted his agenda.
posted by Ironmouth at 6:11 AM on October 10, 2013 [42 favorites]


want to see the United States default on its obligations and not pay its bills on time. On the other hand, I don't think passing a trillion-dollar increase in the debt ceiling without doing anything at all about our $17 trillion national debt is the right approach

Your excellent point aside, see how they are trying to shift the game to more cuts? It means they are losing.

Also, a clean short term increase is fine. In 1995 the GOP started really losing bad when they tried to push it again after an extension.

The problem here is that the GOP wants a situation where they have won the election and aren't splitting.

Also, question: would you trade a debt ceiling raise and opening the government for immigration reform?
posted by Ironmouth at 6:16 AM on October 10, 2013


I was literally screaming at the radio on the way home yesterday when NPR was interviewing Sen. Susan Collins [snip] ...and Melissa Block failed to even slightly challenge this completely insane confusion over the debt limit versus the national debt.

Imagine my surprise.

I would add that Block also failed to point out the fact that Senator Susan "National Debt Concern Troll" Collins thought it was hunky-dory to pay for two wars with a tax cut, and supported every massively-in-deficit budget to come down the pike as long as a Republican was in the White House.
posted by Gelatin at 6:27 AM on October 10, 2013 [4 favorites]


No dice, guys. I doubt any bill that doesn't push the next debt ceiling brouhaha past the 2014 elections won't make it out of the senate. The Democratic Party's primary goal is now to put the political process back on the rails by all means at their disposal.

There's another option, and I think that absolutely nobody will like it except the Beltway press (who eat this shit up) and the less politically-involved, and seems too clever by half, but is exactly the kind of thing that will play well in Peoria:
1) Boehner and his Gang of 18 (c'mon, we know that's what they'll be called) tromp over to the White House this morning. While they're there, Obama tells them that Reid is going to introduce a CR with a rider that transfers debt ceiling raises to the President subject to a 2/3rds supermajority veto in Congress, an idea actually proposed by Mitch McConnell back in 2011.

2) With this bill, Reid and Obama will dare the Senate, and McConnell in particular, to filibuster it. In terms of "optics" it looks like not only is the GOP blocking the debt ceiling raise, but they're doing it to their own legislation. But Reid probably has the six GOP members to get away with cloture vote, and after that he just needs 51 (or 50+Biden if need be).

3) Obama promises the Gang of 18 negotiations, and probably budges on a couple things like the medical device tax (which is hated by everyone). Hopefully the latter part doesn't include scary shit like Keystone XL or Chained CPI, but with Obama it's depressingly hard to tell. Let's stay in our happy place and assume that he offers talks but nothing concrete (after all, he can't lose many Democrats on the left), just enough cover for Boehner to not go down in the history books as the man who started the Second Great Depression/World War Z/etc.

4) Obama (and Pelosi) promise that Boehner keeps the gavel as long as he can bring the Gang of 18 along with him. The same offer is probably extended to Cantor and/or Ryan, assuming Boehner retires and the GOP keeps the House as expected.
Like I said, this seems too clever to work well, is riddled with parliamentary back-and-forth that has multiple points of failure, and is completely opaque to 99% of Americans. But it's possible.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:37 AM on October 10, 2013 [3 favorites]


Losing? Which planet are you on? Obama laid out a series of policy proposals:

Your right. Obama and the Government isn't loosing.

There must be some loser with the NSA spying and the new bar set on government transparency however.
posted by rough ashlar at 6:50 AM on October 10, 2013


Greg Sargent: "Multiple reports this morning tell us that the House GOP is set to roll out yet another strategy. They appear ready to support a “clean” six week debt limit hike, while keeping the government shut down and using that as their leverage to keep up the fight against Obamacare.

...

The new idea appears to be that if Republicans keep the government shutdown status quo alive long enough — deferring default for the time being — then vulnerable Dems will ultimately cave and give up…something. But what? No one knows."

Sorry, essential workers. Keep working for 6 more weeks, but don't expect any pay after tomorrow.
posted by T.D. Strange at 7:07 AM on October 10, 2013


I was literally screaming at the radio on the way home yesterday when NPR was interviewing Sen. Susan Collins ...

Oh, I hate NPR* with this kind of stuff. They always do this "here's the Democratic view" and "here's the Republican response" without any context or without bothering to point out that the Republican response is total nonsense wharrgarbl.

*On The Media excepted.
posted by octothorpe at 7:23 AM on October 10, 2013 [7 favorites]


It's well known that reality has a liberal bias, and NPR can't afford to show any bias, soooo...
posted by entropicamericana at 7:50 AM on October 10, 2013 [2 favorites]


No dice, guys. I doubt any bill that doesn't push the next debt ceiling brouhaha past the 2014 elections won't make it out of the senate. The Democratic Party's primary goal is now to put the political process back on the rails by all means at their disposal.

I don't know about that. I do think the Dems want to get the political process back on the rails, but I also think they don't want to do something that could lead to an economic catastrophe. They want to look like the responsible people here.

If I'm Obama and/or Reid, and the House passes a short-term increase, I'd say something like this: "We would prefer a long-term increase, but if we have to, the Senate will pass this and the President will sign it. We do not want to prompt an economic catastrophe. However, we also refuse to negotiate under threat, and a six-week debt limit is a ticking time bomb, and it still constitutes a threat. We'll pass/sign whatever debt ceiling increase the House gives us if we have no other choice, but we will not negotiate on anything until a long-term increase is passed."
posted by breakin' the law at 7:55 AM on October 10, 2013


The House GOP's Little Rule Change That Guaranteed A Shutdown
Late on the night of Sept. 30, with the federal government just hours away from shutting down, House Republicans quietly made a small change to the House rules that blocked a potential avenue for ending the shutdown.

It went largely unnoticed at the time. But with the shutdown more than a week old and House Democrats searching for any legislative wiggle room to end it, the move looms large in retrospect in the minds of the minority party.

"What people don't know is that they rigged the rules of the House to keep the government shut down," Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), ranking member of the House Budget Committee, told TPM in an interview. "This is a blatant effort to make sure that the Senate bill did not come up for a vote."
posted by zombieflanders at 8:01 AM on October 10, 2013 [15 favorites]


The 2 party "system" is part of the problem.

Duverger's Law
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 8:26 AM on October 10, 2013 [2 favorites]


The GOP is on TV right now caving. I reiterate my comment from the other thread:

You get nothing! You lose! Good day, sir!
posted by Justinian at 8:26 AM on October 10, 2013 [7 favorites]


Is this debt ceiling only or a CR to reopen the government?
posted by cmfletcher at 8:35 AM on October 10, 2013


Debt ceiling only. Short term.
posted by Uncle Ira at 8:36 AM on October 10, 2013


The GOP is on TV right now caving.

Money talks, the GOP walks.

Same as it ever was.
posted by rough ashlar at 8:37 AM on October 10, 2013


Short-term debt ceiling increase to make time for more negotiations is my understanding. The government would remain shutdown.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 8:38 AM on October 10, 2013


Yes, they are hanging on to the governmental shutdown. But that's a face saving measure; I expect that in a few weeks or whatever when they get the longer term debt limit increase it will include the CR.
posted by Justinian at 8:38 AM on October 10, 2013



Oh, that's helpful. Are they marching for Rand Paul or something?
posted by superghost at 8:39 AM on October 10, 2013


So I shouldn't have liquidated my 401k to buy ammo and canned food?
posted by entropicamericana at 8:39 AM on October 10, 2013 [6 favorites]


You can never have enough ammo.
posted by Justinian at 8:39 AM on October 10, 2013 [1 favorite]


Or canned food. I mean, Spam is a staple of Hawaiian cuisine.
posted by Elementary Penguin at 8:40 AM on October 10, 2013 [1 favorite]


Are they gonna need D votes to pass this thing? Make them reopen the government.
posted by wikipedia brown boy detective at 8:41 AM on October 10, 2013


Redstate: House GOP Preparing to Give Up

This is not going over well with the RedStaters.
posted by octothorpe at 8:41 AM on October 10, 2013 [3 favorites]


Oh, snap!
posted by KokuRyu at 8:42 AM on October 10, 2013


This doesn't sound like caving, it sounds like they still want negotiations before opening the government. Unless that means just talks and no deals that's still a huge win for the GOP, because that means they've won the hostage taking war.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:44 AM on October 10, 2013 [2 favorites]


I wonder if Obama could have the GSA cut the power, ac and heat off at the capital and congressional office buildings. Also suspend house keeping and janitorial services until things are re-opened.
posted by humanfont at 8:45 AM on October 10, 2013 [2 favorites]


he better deal you would have gotten?

The Bush Tax Cuts were on a sunset. The better deal would be to wait and negotiate from there using new tax cuts as leverage for spending.


Except how do you convince the country they need their taxes raised if you want to use it on spending? If you don't, you lose too many seats.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:46 AM on October 10, 2013


So I shouldn't have liquidated my 401k to buy ammo and canned food?

It is possible that the increase in food costs will exceed what the investment would have made. Plus when you can't afford Obamacare and need to go onto Medicaid you'd need to liquidate the 401k anyway.
posted by rough ashlar at 8:46 AM on October 10, 2013


Except how do you convince the country they need their taxes raised

The taxes are on a sunset. You are convincing them to accept tax cuts.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:48 AM on October 10, 2013


So I shouldn't have liquidated my 401k to buy ammo and canned food?

Protip: with the right caliber barrel, canned food is ammo.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:48 AM on October 10, 2013 [14 favorites]


The WH is just said no dice unless the deal includes both debt ceiling and government reopened, which is exactly right.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:50 AM on October 10, 2013 [23 favorites]


link?
posted by Drinky Die at 8:51 AM on October 10, 2013


I wonder if Obama could have the GSA cut the power, ac and heat off at the capital and congressional office buildings. Also suspend house keeping and janitorial services until things are re-opened.

The Italian town I used to live in once hosted a conclave for a new Pope that went on for a year as the cardinals enjoyed their fine hospitality.

After a year, they apparently took the roof off the building and fed them nothing but bread and water. I hear it works like a charm!
posted by jetlagaddict at 8:53 AM on October 10, 2013 [6 favorites]


I wish I could watch every moment of Boehner's humiliation.

I know that is bloodthirsty, but I am bloodthirsty.
posted by angrycat at 8:54 AM on October 10, 2013 [4 favorites]


GOP plan will also prevent Treasury from taking "extraordinary measures" i.e. the only reason we didn't default ba ck in May. This isn't caving, this is a shady backstabbing that Obama should reveal for the sham it is. He needs to punt, then twist the knife by telling the public about the House GOP rule that forced shutdown.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:55 AM on October 10, 2013 [2 favorites]


The sheriff says you have to return the rancher's daughter and the cattle you rustled.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:55 AM on October 10, 2013 [1 favorite]


Cue the GOP response that it's now Obama using the debt ceiling for leverage. The WH messaging team is surely prepared for this, and the "trading one hostage for another" talking point writes itself, but I worry about a strategy that depends on the press accurately reporting what's going on instead of just repeating what both sides say is going on.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:55 AM on October 10, 2013


Except how do you convince the country they need their taxes raised if you want to use it on spending?

When there is no political entity that articulates the reasons, via ideological parables and through political action, why such things should be happening, the answer is "you can't". That sums up the effete nature of the Democrats. There is no longer a significant US party that plays class warfare from the bottom up. So all we get is the perpetual rightward ratcheting that we see now. This particular event is hardly a victory, and I don't see the GOP as "caving" in any significant way. They've just punted. For now.

Obama and his party have failed us precisely because they have no interest in actually changing this dynamic--because they are beholden to more or less the same financial interests as the GOP. The process of relentless extraction--from the middle class as from the land--will continue.
posted by mondo dentro at 8:56 AM on October 10, 2013 [4 favorites]


White House reaction
posted by cmfletcher at 8:56 AM on October 10, 2013




Except how do you convince the country they need their taxes raised

The taxes are on a sunset. You are convincing them to accept tax cuts.


Yes, you explain to Americans that their taxes going up is a tax cut. Ought to go over like gangbusters.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:57 AM on October 10, 2013


The very first time they threatened defaulting he should have made it absolutely clear - "The only way I will allow the US to default on its debts is if I'm dragged from this office in chains. I will never under any circumstances give the order to default because it will destroy this country, and if you don't like it, impeach me."

The shutdown sucks, but hey the fanfics are great.
posted by Theta States at 8:59 AM on October 10, 2013 [9 favorites]


Yes, you explain to Americans that their taxes going up is a tax cut. Ought to go over like gangbusters.

I wouldn't be explaining that since it would not be what I was doing.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:01 AM on October 10, 2013


The shutdown sucks, but hey the fanfics are great.

"The only way I will allow the US to default on its debts is if I'm dragged from this office in chains." Boehner unravels a length of chain and starts to wrap it around the president. "No, please, stop!" President Obama cries, a coy smile on his face.

"Maybe we can come to a clean resolution," Boehner returns his smile. The Lincoln bedroom is just down the hall. . .
posted by Think_Long at 9:03 AM on October 10, 2013 [16 favorites]


yeah, that's just wrong
posted by angrycat at 9:04 AM on October 10, 2013 [3 favorites]


"Maybe we can come to a clean resolution," Boehner returns his smile. The Lincoln bedroom is just down the hall. . .

does Obamacare cover brain bleach?
posted by jetlagaddict at 9:04 AM on October 10, 2013 [4 favorites]


I think the brain bleach is administered by little death panels.
posted by feloniousmonk at 9:05 AM on October 10, 2013 [4 favorites]


Obama and his party have failed us precisely because they have no interest in actually changing this dynamic--because they are beholden to more or less the same financial interests as the GOP. The process of relentless extraction--from the middle class as from the land--will continue.

Saying that Obama and his party have failed us because they haven't done something they aren't interested in doing sounds more like we have failed by not choosing leaders who have pledged to change that dynamic. The blame lies elsewhere.
posted by Going To Maine at 9:07 AM on October 10, 2013 [2 favorites]


Yes, you explain to Americans that their taxes going up is a tax cut. Ought to go over like gangbusters.

I wouldn't be explaining that since it would not be what I was doing.


When the GOP plan is "no tax increase at all?" Really, now. Obama wanted to raise taxes. Playing up is down bullshit games just like the GOP? That's your solution? Call it a tax increase slimdown? Just like them? One thing I've noticed about the US far left--they actually admire the Tea Party methods and think its good for the country, as long as their policy priorities are the ones at the end of the lie.
posted by Ironmouth at 9:08 AM on October 10, 2013 [1 favorite]


Fear is the little death panel.
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 9:09 AM on October 10, 2013 [12 favorites]


When the GOP plan is "no tax increase at all?" Really, now. Obama wanted to raise taxes. Playing up is down bullshit games just like the GOP? That's your solution? Call it a tax increase slimdown? Just like them? One thing I've noticed about the US far left--they actually admire the Tea Party methods and think its good for the country, as long as their policy priorities are the ones at the end of the lie.

No. I would propose tax cuts from the rates after the sunset. Just tax cuts. Literal actual tax cuts.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:12 AM on October 10, 2013


Ironmouth, Obama did some of the very same "up is down" messaging with the fiscal cliff deal. Yes, the marginal rate went up on top earners, but the income level at which that rate kicks in doubled at the same time, depriving us of a lot of revenue for people in the $200k-$400k range.

Meanwhile, the payroll tax holiday expired, and, yes, I know it was only meant to be a temporary stimulus measure, but when you're increasing taxes more significantly (as a portion of income) on the working class than you are on people making six figures, well, that's not exactly a progressive win, even if it does hit the richest of the rich harder.

Maybe the blue team got all they could out of the deal, maybe they didn't, but I don't see it as a big win when, as Drinky says, they had the sunset to use as leverage.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:15 AM on October 10, 2013


The concession will be that Obama agrees to start calling this amazing money-saving, jobs-creating, Republican-tested, Heritage-designed, free-market-supporting law ReaganCare and then everybody can go home.
posted by gauche at 9:16 AM on October 10, 2013 [2 favorites]


Saying that Obama and his party have failed us because they haven't done something they aren't interested in doing sounds more like we have failed by not choosing leaders who have pledged to change that dynamic. The blame lies elsewhere.

What you're saying is formally true, but otherwise terribly glib. I certainly agree that US citizens have a large degree of responsibility for the state of our country, starting with a general apathy and ignorance when it comes to civic matters. But let's be honest here: who have the people actually had to vote for? It's been the Globetrotters vs. the Generals at least for 60 years now.

A basic principle of ethics is that those with more power have more responsibility. The fact is that both parties spend a tremendous amount of time lying (let's call it what it is) to the people to get their votes. "Change we can believe in" is not exactly a promise to abide by the status quo as much as Obama ended up doing, is it?
posted by mondo dentro at 9:17 AM on October 10, 2013 [1 favorite]


If by "admire the Tea Party tactics" you mean "think it would be a good idea to organize and elect leftists to local and national offices and then use that to push the Democratic party leftward", then yes, I admire their tactics.
posted by vibrotronica at 9:18 AM on October 10, 2013 [6 favorites]


One thing I've noticed about the US far left...

Ironmouth? Seriously? Channeling Bill O'Reilly? I wouldn't have expected that from you. WTF are you talking about "far left"?
posted by mondo dentro at 9:19 AM on October 10, 2013 [4 favorites]


That sums up the effete nature of the Democrats.

Let's please not do this thing here.

If you mean weak, use weak, don't use a word that means "feminine" as though that was a synonym for weakness.
posted by emjaybee at 9:19 AM on October 10, 2013 [42 favorites]


As the government shutdown grinds toward a potential debt default, some of the country’s most influential business executives have come to a conclusion all but unthinkable a few years ago: Their voices are carrying little weight with the House majority that their millions of dollars in campaign contributions helped build and sustain.
posted by KokuRyu at 9:20 AM on October 10, 2013


so, sorry to add to the noise, but can somebody bottom-line this for me? The House GOP went to the WH and said, here are the terms of our defeat, we want some way to fuck with you some more later on, and the WH said, ha ha, fuck you, let go of all hostages or GTFO?
posted by angrycat at 9:20 AM on October 10, 2013


I think the WH is taking the six weeks to avoid default, but they aren't going to negotiate on anything until the shutdown is also ended.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:22 AM on October 10, 2013


You know what I would really love to see come out of this? A backlash against gerrymandering. I mean really, what more proof could you possibly ask for that setting up wildly extreme voting districts has really corrosive long-term effects, than all this crap? I would love to see the Dems and moderate end of the GOP reach the conclusion that they could be rid of all these whack jobs by passing even some mild anti-gerrymandering legislation.
posted by mstokes650 at 9:24 AM on October 10, 2013 [11 favorites]


One thing I've noticed about the US far left--they actually admire the Tea Party methods and think its good for the country, as long as their policy priorities are the ones at the end of the lie.

Cite pls.
posted by jessamyn at 9:24 AM on October 10, 2013 [7 favorites]


so, sorry to add to the noise, but can somebody bottom-line this for me? The House GOP went to the WH and said, here are the terms of our defeat, we want some way to fuck with you some more later on, and the WH said, ha ha, fuck you, let go of all hostages or GTFO?

I don't know if this makes things easier or harder to follow, but here's what it looks like as of now: House GOP leaders look for a way out
House Republican leaders just rolled out their new plan for a way out of the crisis: A temporary debt limit hike, through November 22nd, coupled with a demand that Democrats enter into budget talks. The government would remain closed.

The White House has said it is open to a short term debt limit increase, as long as it remains clean. However, in a statement today, a White House official reiterated that no negotiations would take place unless Republicans agree to a clean debt limit hike and to reopening the government.

Here’s the core point that remains unclear. Will Republicans agree to lift the debt limit temporarily and cleanly if Democrats don’t agree to enter into negotiations?

I put that question to a House GOP leadership aide. His answer: “We’ll see.”

For all practical purposes, what this means is that we still don’t know whether the House GOP plan to raise the debt limit temporarily is conditioned on what Democrats do. In other words, Republicans still appear to be trying to use the debt limit as leverage to force Dems to enter into talks, without the government getting reopened — even as they are suggesting they may be willing to raise it temporarily.

It’s also unclear how these talks would be structured, in the sense of whether they would be tied to any future raising of the debt limit. The embrace by House Republican leaders of a temporary debt limit hike would appear to indicate that they are not prepared to allow default under any circumstances. But Paul Ryan reportedly told Republicans in a closed door meeting yesterday that the next debt limit hike would be contingent on how much in spending cuts Dems are willing to concede.
posted by zombieflanders at 9:26 AM on October 10, 2013 [1 favorite]


starting with a general apathy and ignorance when it comes to civic matters.

How about trained via pain avoidance to avoid challenge?

How many of you are willing to subject your property (home, financial matters, emails) to the fine tooth inspections of the various regulatory bodies and the resulting judgements/enforcement actions?

How many of you think that if you stand up to your Local/State/Fed Government Officials there would not be a reaction by others not involved in the fight adding a bureaucratic compliance load to your life?

Locally at one time property taxes could not be charged - so the idea was to tax closet space instead. And to this day, taxes are paid to a man, not the City. Now why would that be, if the City seems to own the building and pay the people in the Tax office....why not pay the City directly?
posted by rough ashlar at 9:27 AM on October 10, 2013


Let's please not do this thing here...

Oh bother. Fine. I had no idea about this etymology. My apologies.

The word is not just used as a synonym for "weak", though. It refers to a power structure that has become exhausted, and lost its vitality over time--like, you know, the Liberal Establishment.
posted by mondo dentro at 9:28 AM on October 10, 2013 [2 favorites]


Trying to keep a bunch of neanderthals from dragging the country backwards a few centuries is hard work.
posted by entropicamericana at 9:29 AM on October 10, 2013


Don't liquidate your retirement accounts to buy ammo and canned food. If you instead purchase the ammo and canned food as your retirement account's portfolio, you get tax-advantaged growth, and can delay (or in some cases even avoid) paying tax on their capital gains.
posted by Flunkie at 9:30 AM on October 10, 2013 [10 favorites]


"...some of the country’s most influential business executives have come to a conclusion all but unthinkable a few years ago"

Great, welcome to the big tent and all, but a new source of funds from infuential businesses and other moderate-right defectors sure isn't going to help move the Democratic party any further back to the left.
posted by klarck at 9:31 AM on October 10, 2013 [1 favorite]


dragging the country backwards a few centuries is hard work.

With the previous century built on cheap barrels of oil and the oil becoming more and more expensive to get and use part of the going backwards comes from certain physical energy gathering limitations that have yet to be overcome.

To go back "a few centuries" places you with actual physical slavery, no electric motors, not much metalworking/maching, no mass communications, and not much other than a bucket of leaches and bloodletting to cure the patient.

The bloodletting cure is going on right now, that I'll give you. But the rest of "a few centuries ago" - not so much.
posted by rough ashlar at 9:37 AM on October 10, 2013 [1 favorite]


Mod note: Few comments removed - if you can't keep this conversation decent, please take a breather and come back later.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:38 AM on October 10, 2013


I apologize if it seemed like was calling you a liar personally. But it would be a lie to use the techincal operation of the sunset clause to act like there weren't two positions, raising taxes and not raising taxes.

It's not a technicality. It's a law designed with an expiration date. After it occurs the only position is to cut taxes. The final rates could be exactly the same for most people as they were before the sunset, it requires zero lies or deception. This is getting tiresome.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:38 AM on October 10, 2013 [2 favorites]


Saying that Obama and his party have failed us because they haven't done something they aren't interested in doing sounds more like we have failed by not choosing leaders who have pledged to change that dynamic. The blame lies elsewhere.

What you're saying is formally true, but otherwise terribly glib. I certainly agree that US citizens have a large degree of responsibility for the state of our country, starting with a general apathy and ignorance when it comes to civic matters. But let's be honest here: who have the people actually had to vote for? It's been the Globetrotters vs. the Generals at least for 60 years now.


I suppose my response was glib because I felt like your saying Obama had failed was also glib? I'm not really getting your Globetrotters vs. Generals metaphor, since that suggests the elections are staged match-ups where one side is guaranteed to win, which I don't believe to be the case. If you mean that both sides have been drawn towards being bland & gormless, I'd say that this is sort of true because both sides pull towards where they think they can get the votes, and that sentiments on both of these seemingly bland sides have become pretty polarized. With the wide split in Democratic and Republican opinion about who to blame for the shutdown as evidence for this. When Michael Lewis documented the outsiders in the 1996 presidential campaign, his conclusion was that for all that people claimed they wanted something different, they really wanted more of the same. Hardly scientific, but I liked his analysis.

Saying "Who have the people had to vote for" honestly seems to move the burden back to the people. Candidates are human beings, and they espouse the values they think play to them. If enough of the people haven't come forward to make a candidate that they'd vote for, well, the onus is on them. That is, us. Which would probably put us in similar camps I suppose. Perhaps the people should be getting behind instant-runoff voting and other changes?

"Change we can believe in" is not exactly a promise to abide by the status quo as much as Obama ended up doing, is it?

Quite a few people felt that way and made their opinions felt in the run-up to the 2012 election. But "change we can believe in" isn't a promise at all, and treating it as having more substance than the similarly vague "compassionate conservatism" is silly. (Quite a few people made that point in the run-up to the 2008 election...) We'd do better reviewing Obama's campaign promises and seeing which ones he broke & which one he adhered to, where there's more meat to be had for people on both sides. Indeed, fighting about that was occurring earlier in this thread.
posted by Going To Maine at 9:42 AM on October 10, 2013 [5 favorites]


One thing I've noticed about the US far left--they actually admire the Tea Party methods and think its good for the country, as long as their policy priorities are the ones at the end of the lie.

Cite pls.


For example, any plan to let the tax cuts expire and then turn around and claim you're giving a tax cut for people. Its fakery when the other party is offering no tax increase at all. The American people would see right through that. The GOP would rightly say--we are for not increasing taxes, they are for increasing taxes. To then go before the public and claim that your refusal to extend the Bush tax cuts was not an attempt to raise taxes and you are really giving them a "tax cut?" that is the same as calling a government shutdown a "slimdown."

Obama wanted to increase taxes. He said that in every campaign he did. How can he then say "I'm giving you a tax cut"? seems impossible to me. and it seems like exactly the kind of deception our Republican friends are practicing.

Social Security must be paid for.

As one well known bureaucrat D. Vader has said "I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it further."

What is anyone here going to do if the deal is altered? Make a FPP and respond to that - now that'll show 'em won't it?


There was never any intention expressed by anyone that the payroll tax holiday was going to be permanent. That's why its called a 'holiday'. So no deal was altered.
When originally enacted in December 2010, the 2% reduction was originally scheduled to last only one year, its finite nature evidenced by its description in the statute as a “payroll tax holiday."
posted by Ironmouth at 9:48 AM on October 10, 2013


For example

I was looking for any sort of example that the US far left admires the Tea Party methods, at all. You can follow up with me over MeMail if you like, I don't really need to make this thread more about you than it already is.
posted by jessamyn at 9:50 AM on October 10, 2013 [4 favorites]


That sums up the effete nature of the Democrats.

Let's please not do this thing here.

If you mean weak, use weak, don't use a word that means "feminine" as though that was a synonym for weakness.


Uhh, effete doesn't mean feminine.
posted by aspo at 9:50 AM on October 10, 2013 [5 favorites]


As the government shutdown grinds toward a potential debt default, some of the country’s most influential business executives have come to a conclusion all but unthinkable a few years ago: Their voices are carrying little weight with the House majority that their millions of dollars in campaign contributions helped build and sustain.

Ha, ha, ha! Oh, did Mephistopheles come back for his fee? Such fools. I'd actually be more mirthful except of course their foul bargain is dragging the nation I live in down the tubes.
posted by JHarris at 9:51 AM on October 10, 2013 [2 favorites]


aspo: " Uhh, effete doesn't mean feminine."

Among other things, it means "resembling a woman."
posted by zarq at 9:53 AM on October 10, 2013 [1 favorite]


In the same way the antonym of "effete" is "beefy"
posted by KokuRyu at 9:55 AM on October 10, 2013


Going To Maine: I'm sure we are more or less in the same camp. We appear to differ in where the center of gravity of responsibility lies. I put it with the ruling elites. You put it with the people. In a sense, this makes you a more properly idealistic citizen of a democratic republic than I. Your view is important because the people have to realize they are ultimately responsible, else they'll have no motivation to take action.

But I tend to think wealth concentrations and mass media (both the technological infrastructure and the techniques of mass manipulation)--and the governmental and regulatory capture that goes along with them--put the responsibility more on the elites. Part of the problem is precisely that we citizens are having a harder and harder time exerting any influence--and this is sort of by design (going back, say, to the infamous Powell memo, which leads in a meandering way to Citizens United).
posted by mondo dentro at 9:57 AM on October 10, 2013


For example, any plan to let the tax cuts expire and then turn around and claim you're giving a tax cut for people. Its fakery when the other party is offering no tax increase at all. The American people would see right through that. The GOP would rightly say--we are for not increasing taxes, they are for increasing taxes. To then go before the public and claim that your refusal to extend the Bush tax cuts was not an attempt to raise taxes and you are really giving them a "tax cut?" that is the same as calling a government shutdown a "slimdown."

When tax rates are high and then you make them low it is a tax cut. It doesn't matter how they got high, in this case because the Bush tax cuts always had an expiration date. This is not playing word games like calling a shutdown a slimdown, it is the literal truth. You are getting caught up in semantics here for no reason.

The main difference here with tea party tactics is that Democrats would be perfectly willing to continue negotiations right up to the day of the sunset to try and leverage a good deal. All that happens after the Sunset is the Republicans get less from such a deal. There is no need to lie or deceive, you can be totally open about what you are doing and what rates you are trying to implement. Nothing about the messaging Obama used changes, just the willingness to play hardball up to the deadline.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:58 AM on October 10, 2013




GtM, mondo, you're both right. Obama oversold himself as a champion of progressive causes, but a lot of people were also reading things in-between the lines that simply were not there in his sales pitch. (I'd probably count myself among them.)

In 2008, it's fair to say that most Obama voters had the impression that he would govern a notch or two to the left of Clinton domestically, and I guarantee you very few of them predicted his heavy-handed drone-based foreign policy, or that the Afghan war would last as long as it has. I think we did expect him to wind down the Iraq war, given that those events were set in motion prior to his inauguration.

It doesn't have to be a simple one or the other explanation. His political team was happy to have everyone overestimate how progressive he would be, especially given the congressional opposition he knew he'd be going up against, which would give him a valid explanation for not getting those things done (whether he intended to do them or not.)

In conclusion, Obama is a land of contrasts.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:59 AM on October 10, 2013 [2 favorites]


Ironmouth: " There was never any intention expressed by anyone that the payroll tax holiday was going to be permanent. That's why its called a 'holiday'. So no deal was altered. "

But it *was* extended before, and with the sunset of the Bush tax cuts, Obama had a lot of leverage to get it extended again.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:00 AM on October 10, 2013


It refers to a power structure that has become exhausted, and lost its vitality over time--like, you know, the Liberal Establishment.

The word you're looking for is "etiolated."
posted by octobersurprise at 10:01 AM on October 10, 2013 [1 favorite]


The OED on effete:
Etymology: < Latin effētus that has brought forth young, hence worn out by bearing, exhausted, < ex out + fētus breeding.
1. Of animals: That has ceased to bring forth offspring. Obs.
2a. transf. Of material substances: That has lost its special quality or virtue; exhausted, worn out.
2b. Of strength, vital power: Spent, worn out.
3. fig. Of persons in an intellectual sense, of systems, etc.: That has exhausted its vigour and energy; incapable of efficient action. Also, of persons: weak, ineffectual; degenerate. More recently, effeminate.

Looks to me like it picked up the "woman-like" connotation because it looks kind of like "effeminate".
posted by dfan at 10:01 AM on October 10, 2013 [14 favorites]


Slouching Toward a Grand Bargain
But the idea that the President did something wily by refusing to defund Obamacare is pretty funny. If anyone's done anything wily, it's the Republicans who deployed Nixon's madman theory and seem to have persuaded the Democratic establishment that if they just pretend a "deal" to cut Social Security (and God knows what else) isn't a vindication of their shutdown strategy, the crazies will never do it again. I eagerly await the Democratic victory dance.
posted by T.D. Strange at 10:04 AM on October 10, 2013 [1 favorite]


Mod note: Folks, knock off the effete derail please.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:05 AM on October 10, 2013 [10 favorites]


Ironmouth: " There was never any intention expressed by anyone that the payroll tax holiday was going to be permanent. That's why its called a 'holiday'. So no deal was altered. "

But it *was* extended before, and with the sunset of the Bush tax cuts, Obama had a lot of leverage to get it extended again.


But it would be bad policy to not fund the Social Security trust fund. Especially the disability trust fund which has a 2 year cushion.
posted by Ironmouth at 10:09 AM on October 10, 2013 [1 favorite]


Can't we just say "the eff'ing Liberal Establishment"?
posted by KokuRyu at 10:09 AM on October 10, 2013 [4 favorites]


Obama and Reid have been saying "no negotiations until a clean CR is passed and the debt limit is raised" this whole time and it's been polling just fine, so I really don't know what the GOP thinks is going to happen if they offer to do anything other than exactly that. I think they just can't wrap their minds around even the idea that they can't have everything they want whenever they want it even if they kick and scream. Privilege dies hard.

But there's literally no reason for the Dems to do anything but stand firm on this until Boehner caves or is forced out of the way or a default actually happens, so if Boehner wants to play some idiotic short term debt limit raising game he's just going to have to keep on doing it every few weeks, looking worse and weaker every time someone in his party threatens not to, while eating the blame for the increasingly dire effects of the shutdown. As long as the votes are there to end this and Boehner's the only thing standing in the way, and as long as the Dems stay miles away from even the thought of leveraging their own policy gains with this stuff, it's completely on shoulders of Boehner, the Tea Party and the GOP.
posted by jason_steakums at 10:10 AM on October 10, 2013 [4 favorites]


T.D. Strange: "Slouching Toward a Grand Bargain"

I see the "Grand Bargain" thing as more of a centrist pundit wet dream than anything the Democrats would take at this point. It's not that some of the Democrats (and maybe Obama himself) don't want it -- surely some do -- it's that doing any kind of tinkering with Social Security heading into mid-term elections where a shit-ton of old people vote is electoral suicide. Even centrist pundits who believe in that shit are going to keep quiet about it now, especially while their opponents are loudly proclaiming they want to cut benefits to their most reliable voting bloc.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:14 AM on October 10, 2013 [1 favorite]


Ironmouth: " But it would be bad policy to not fund the Social Security trust fund. Especially the disability trust fund which has a 2 year cushion."

There's no impenetrable firewall between the trust fund and the rest of the government budget. Money is fungible. We've routinely borrowed against the trust fund for general spending, and if it ever ran a deficit, we could fund it from somewhere else with no changes to the current law.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:17 AM on October 10, 2013


does Obama have a version of Malcolm Tucker? I want to send, I dunno, psychic powers to this person so that he bollock the GOP like some sort of angry god.
posted by angrycat at 10:17 AM on October 10, 2013 [1 favorite]


But there's literally no reason for the Dems to do anything but stand firm on this until Boehner caves or is forced out of the way or a default actually happens, so if Boehner wants to play some idiotic short term debt limit raising game he's just going to have to keep on doing it every few weeks, looking worse and weaker every time someone in his party threatens not to, while eating the blame for the increasingly dire effects of the shutdown. As long as the votes are there to end this and Boehner's the only thing standing in the way, and as long as the Dems stay miles away from even the thought of leveraging their own policy gains with this stuff, it's completely on shoulders of Boehner, the Tea Party and the GOP.

Cross Your Fingers That House Ultras Reject Short-Term Debt Ceiling Hike
The key to the whole drama thus far has been that while mainstream GOP representatives don't necessarily approve of the course the least-compromising segment of their caucus has chosen, they don't want to actually have a fight with them about it. The "true conservative" brand has enormous strength and prestige inside Republican Party politics, and very few members actually want to find themselves in an above-board intra-party fight in which they don't get to be the true conservatives.

But that's a problem for Boehner and Eric Cantor and their supporters. For the country, the leadership's focus on caucus unity is a disaster. As Robert Costa says, if this gambit fails then the leadership may have no choice other than to accept the need to split their caucus and come up with a plan that Democrats will also support. That's what the country needs—bipartisan center-out majorities to reopen the government and avoid default, not strategies built from the right-in whose purpose is to preserve the strength of the GOP caucus.
posted by zombieflanders at 10:19 AM on October 10, 2013 [1 favorite]


One thing I've noticed about the US far left--they actually admire the Tea Party methods and think its good for the country, as long as their policy priorities are the ones at the end of the lie.

Oh, bullshit. You want an actual "far left" (i.e., socialist) analysis of the current Tea Party shenanigans? Read this: Does GOP spell "bad for business"? The Tea Party faction is driving Republican strategy during the shutdown circus--and no one seems capable of reining them in.

Then please cite precise parts of the article in which the author expresses "[admiration] for Tea Party methods and think[s] it's good for the country."
posted by scody at 10:25 AM on October 10, 2013 [12 favorites]


Well, the Tea Party method of grass roots involvement in local government (if that is truly a thing) is admirable, imo.

How about a compromise where Obama accepts 1% overall spending cuts, all of which will take place within the NSA and the Surveillance State (it would be hard to find anyone who would be against a few less Snowdens driving around in their Porsches while their not at work spying on their ex-wives), in exchange for a promise from Speaker Ryan (who may actually keep his promises) that the Houses next course of action will be to vote on their version of an immigration bill? To seal the deal and symbolize the new spirit of compromise in DC, James Clapper's head will be pounded onto a spike in front of the NSA headquarters as a warning not to betray the American people again.
posted by Golden Eternity at 10:33 AM on October 10, 2013 [3 favorites]


Woah, scody. Flattering photo of Cruz in that SW link. Looks like he has fangs.

The part of the Tea Party that I'd like to see the left emulate is the whole "getting billionaires to bankroll all of your activism" thing. That would be awesome.
posted by mondo dentro at 10:33 AM on October 10, 2013 [1 favorite]


By "far left" he means people who are tired of Democratic compromise, and wants to see the Dems push a hard game, is my guess. But I don't know why he thinks that any sort of hard-game is legit in the "far-left" view. It's quite possible, logically, that some hardballs are legitimate tactics, and others should be verboten. Every individual would have to take their own position on such things.

At least, that would be my reading on what I think is consistent with his past statements and stances on Democratic politics (i.e. compromise to get *something* done, vs "no-compromise" hardline which gets nothing done). I'm not saying I agree with that stance, but I think that's how IM views things. As usual, feel free to correct if I'm wrong...
-------
But as a Communist/Maoist, I utterly abhor the bullshit happening now. Not because I view the US deficit as some holy untouchable artifact but because in the end, it hurts too many people who are struggling in their day to day lives as it is, while those who get PAID still get paid... Default will make it harder on most of us, while it won't hurt the wealthy one bit.

Yeah - I'd rather tear the whole damn system down, but I don't want to destroy the bits that are working somewhat for the people if we're stuck in a system that isn't being torn down. Hell, I even know ANARCHISTS who take a position against this shutdown for the same reason: deleterious effects on the working population/the disabled/the elderly/children, etc...
posted by symbioid at 10:45 AM on October 10, 2013 [4 favorites]


That SW article was a fun read - seriously. The tone showed only slightly less contempt for the Democrats than for the Republicans.
posted by klarck at 10:54 AM on October 10, 2013 [2 favorites]


By "far left" he means people who are tired of Democratic compromise, and wants to see the Dems push a hard game, is my guess. But I don't know why he thinks that any sort of hard-game is legit in the "far-left" view. It's quite possible, logically, that some hardballs are legitimate tactics, and others should be verboten. Every individual would have to take their own position on such things.

At least, that would be my reading on what I think is consistent with his past statements and stances on Democratic politics (i.e. compromise to get *something* done, vs "no-compromise" hardline which gets nothing done). I'm not saying I agree with that stance, but I think that's how IM views things. As usual, feel free to correct if I'm wrong...


I think you're pretty much right on. If there is one thing John Boehner is having reinforced today, you need to have the votes to get something passed. The Left Ultras, in my mind, share one thing with the Erick Ericksons in this world, which is if you wish it hard enough, you can overcome electoral and legislative math. You cannot. Many of the counter examples that have been provided here over the years are LBJ and FDR. Except those presidents had gigantic, filibuster-proof majorities, majorities that neither party has seen for decades. The other thing is there is often fantastical "let's start with single-payer" in negotiations when the Dem caucus is not for it and Obama cannot be blamed for that. There was never enough votes for any of the nice stuff I would have loved to have in the bill. I'm for all of the great things if we can get them. However, I think that, like the GOP right now, those who have been calling for a harder brand of ball are unrealistic.
posted by Ironmouth at 11:08 AM on October 10, 2013 [1 favorite]


One other point. One of my problems with the Left Ultras is that they do not bring the votes they claim are there. It is always up to Obama to magically provide those votes by some sort of power of a green lantern ring or something like that. This is not how legislative politics works. You need the votes first.
posted by Ironmouth at 11:10 AM on October 10, 2013 [2 favorites]


Can't we just say "the eff'ing Liberal Establishment"?

No, because there is no Liberal Establishment in America.
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 11:10 AM on October 10, 2013 [2 favorites]


"There's no impenetrable firewall between the trust fund and the rest of the government budget. Money is fungible. We've routinely borrowed against the trust fund for general spending, and if it ever ran a deficit, we could fund it from somewhere else with no changes to the current law."

Well, we coulda voted for a president who would have put Social Security in a lockbox and also invented the internet, but…
posted by klangklangston at 11:10 AM on October 10, 2013 [8 favorites]


"One other point. One of my problems with the Left Ultras is that they do not bring the votes they claim are there. It is always up to Obama to magically provide those votes by some sort of power of a green lantern ring or something like that. This is not how legislative politics works. You need the votes first."

While I generally share some of your skepticism toward the aspirations of the left — like, I don't really think there were enough votes to make Obamacare single-payer — you're also engaging in a lot of really dubious hippy-punching here, especially in your bizarre derail about the expiration of the Bush tax cuts.

And you miss the fundamental difference between hard left and hard right: Hard left people have almost zero actual power in America, and the comparison is therefore fairly shallow at best. There are literal secessionist neo-Confederates who hold elected office now — there are zero Maoists in Congress. You're engaging in the same false equivalency that poisons a lot of American discourse.
posted by klangklangston at 11:14 AM on October 10, 2013 [41 favorites]


I think that's actually part of his point. There are a lot of folks, myself included, pushing for more liberal policies in the US yet as you say there just aren't any politicians doing the same. Hence the "where are the votes" refrain every time this comes up. Either we're really bad at politics or there just aren't enough really liberal voters to sway things and it only seems like an overwhelming majority because internet.
posted by Skorgu at 11:19 AM on October 10, 2013 [1 favorite]


And you miss the fundamental difference between hard left and hard right: Hard left people have almost zero actual power in America, and the comparison is therefore fairly shallow at best. There are literal secessionist neo-Confederates who hold elected office now — there are zero Maoists in Congress. You're engaging in the same false equivalency that poisons a lot of American discourse.

I feel like there is an effect on the politics. The GOP has a very narrow range of views and a large number of people holding them. This puts a premium on unity. Literally, they just walked in lockstep to the edge of an abyss.

The Dems, on the other hand are less unified. Every Jane Hamsher that signs a letter with Grover Norquist is literally weakening the Dems and the position of the left. If we don't stay together, they win. Especially now, that is critical.
posted by Ironmouth at 11:21 AM on October 10, 2013 [1 favorite]


. One of my problems with the Left Ultras is that they do not bring the votes they claim are there. It is always up to Obama to magically provide those votes by some sort of power of a green lantern ring or something like that.

That is certainly what you accuse everyone who ever disagrees with you of wanting, but in years of reading these threads I've never seen anyone actually argue that. The problem you run into is thinking you "need the votes first". Obviously you need votes, but part of the legislative process is getting those votes. You make an assumption that everything Obama does is perfectly pragmatic and the best possible liberal policy achievable, but that is often not the case. It's certainly the goal Obama strives for but he has made mistakes along the way. Not everybody who thinks there are more votes to get in negotiations believes in magic. Not everybody who thinks a riskier game of hardball might earn more concessions from Republicans is a hard left whacko. Not everybody who thinks a particular issue is worth expending more political capital than a Centrist Dem would is unrealistic, they just have different priorities.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:23 AM on October 10, 2013 [8 favorites]


If unity is so important, make fewer accusations of bad faith against people nominally on your own side.
posted by feloniousmonk at 11:25 AM on October 10, 2013 [11 favorites]


Ironmouth: " The Dems, on the other hand are less unified. Every Jane Hamsher that signs a letter with Grover Norquist is literally weakening the Dems and the position of the left. If we don't stay together, they win. Especially now, that is critical."

This is true, but there's room for people to be critical of Obama and the Democratic leaders in Congress without literally joining up with Grover Norquist. You'll notice Jane Hamsher's sway over the leftosphere isn't what it used to be, with people like TBogg, Charles Pierce, and the LGM and Balloon Juice clans owning much more of the mindshare. These are people who, at the end of the day, are going to be "in the tank" for any credible Democratic candidate, but who also recognize the value of pointing out where the Democrats aren't playing above replacement level.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:25 AM on October 10, 2013 [1 favorite]


I feel like there is an effect on the politics.

Really? You think the Dems are listening to the Socialist Worker editorial page? They don't even listen to Bernie Sanders.
posted by scody at 11:26 AM on October 10, 2013 [5 favorites]


We wish they would!
posted by jessamyn at 11:26 AM on October 10, 2013 [23 favorites]


I feel like there is an effect on the politics. The GOP has a very narrow range of views and a large number of people holding them. This puts a premium on unity. Literally, they just walked in lockstep to the edge of an abyss.

The Dems, on the other hand are less unified. Every Jane Hamsher that signs a letter with Grover Norquist is literally weakening the Dems and the position of the left. If we don't stay together, they win. Especially now, that is critical.


The Republicans struggle with unity because of distinct factions. Tea party folks, the social conservatives, and the moderates. The Democrats are much more unified on what they want to achieve, disagreements are more about appropriate tactics with some folks demanding more action sooner and some preferring a more careful, pragmatic approach.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:26 AM on October 10, 2013


What really bothers me about Boehner "just asking the Dems to sit down at the table" or "just have a conversation" is that THEY ALREADY DID. And Boehner agreed to a clean resolution that was $70 billion less than what the Senate offered. And then he reneged. He admitted as much on This Week with Stephanopoulus:
STEPHANOPOULOS: But Mr. Speaker, he says -- and he said it publicly on many occasions, that you came to him back in July and offered to pass a clean government funding resolution, no Obamacare amendments, that was $70 billion below what the Senate wanted. They accepted it. And now, you've reneged on that offer.

BOEHNER: No, clearly there was a conversation about doing this.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Several conversations.

BOEHNER: Several. But--

STEPHANOPOULOS: And you offered a clean resolution.

BOEHNER: But I and my members decided the threat of Obamacare and what was happening was so important that it was time for us to take a stand. And we took a stand.
Asshole.
posted by zakur at 11:31 AM on October 10, 2013 [16 favorites]


BOEHNER: But I and my members decided the threat of Obamacare and what was happening was so important that it was time for us to take a stand. And we took a stand.

...and almost immediately decided to pretend like this was never about Obamacare but we're still standing for some reason.
posted by jason_steakums at 11:37 AM on October 10, 2013 [21 favorites]


So, not that I believe they need to, but...have any of them stated what effects they actually believe the ACA will have, concretely? I have heard a lot of completely empty "destroy everything great about this country" rhetoric, but I wonder if a single one of them has anything more substantial to say on the subject.
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 11:38 AM on October 10, 2013 [1 favorite]


BOEHNER: But I and my members decided the threat of Obamacare and what was happening was so important that it was time for us to take a stand. And we took a stand.

...and almost immediately decided to pretend like this was never about Obamacare but we're still standing for some reason.


Also, we didn't actually take a stand, this is an Obama shutdown!
posted by Drinky Die at 11:39 AM on October 10, 2013 [13 favorites]


From when Boehner was first made Speaker, but I assume the reasons are the same today: “It will ruin the best health care system in the world. It will bankrupt our nation, and it will ruin our economy!”

They believe this.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:42 AM on October 10, 2013 [1 favorite]


have any of them stated what effects they actually believe the ACA will have, concretely?

My rep is all, "Obamacare scared off the second-largest insurer in our state, because they couldn't afford to operate here!" Of course, we also turned down the Medicaid expansion.
posted by mittens at 11:43 AM on October 10, 2013 [1 favorite]


I guess WH Press Secretary Jay Carney was right: there's a subsection of Republicans who want to hold out for Obama to resign.
posted by emjaybee at 11:43 AM on October 10, 2013


As a lifelong liberal Democrat and lifelong Wisconsinite, it rocks me to the core of my being to see people apparently earnestly suggesting motherfucking Paul Ryan as a "moderate" successor to John Boehner. Dude is nothing but a Randian wingnut, and he has been that way since the start of his political career. I know the Overton window has shifted so far that I'm basically a legitimate Communist at this point, but have we already forgetten the 2012 election cycle? He's utterly off his nut, same as it ever was, and he is certainly not anything remotely resembling "moderate." A world in which his oversight and actions would be materially different than Boehner's has about as much chance of existing IRL as Galt's Gulch.

Just about the only "news" I can handle right now comes from extremely dark-humored lefty blogs, and TBogg seems to be getting his National Treasure on over at Raw Story right now. To wit, his latest: Paul Ryan has an unused agenda he thinks you might want to reconsider.
Returning from obscurity after having brought less to a presidential ticket since Joe Lieberman sandbagged his own national run, blue-eyed sociopath and former Oscar Meyer weinermobile chauffeur Paul Ryan is attempting to rise out of the ash and flame of the Republican party like a phoenix who wants to smother your grandmother in her bed.

[...]

You may remember all of this from before when Ryan called it the Path To Prosperity or possibly you played the EA Sports videogame version: Galtscape – Ayn Rand's Survival Of The Fattest. You may also remember that America rejected Ryan's innumerate plan and the Rafalca it danced in on. But now times have changed with a faction of Ryan's own House having shifted into Bachmann-Gohmert Overdrive and are threatening to burn the whole country down in order to save it at the behest of the Tea Partiers who figure they have enough bullets, bibles, and cans of Vienna sausages to ride out the Fiscal End Times when either Jesus or Sarah Palin returns. So Paul Ryan felt the need to step into the breach and use his "moderate" K St cred to go "Whoa, whoa, whoa there folks. Sure we want to destroy the safety net, deny people medical care, allow children to go hungry in the streets, and turn our country into a crumbling riot-torn post-apocalytic hellscape that will make Somalia look like the Hamptons, but let's not take down the T-bill market in our haste. I mean, c'mon."
posted by divined by radio at 11:45 AM on October 10, 2013 [43 favorites]


The US far left does not exist.. Puh-leeze, quit using those words together. There is no US far left, no US ultra left, no substantive US left at all. It is absolutely bogus to use terms like "ultra left" and "far left".
posted by five fresh fish at 11:48 AM on October 10, 2013 [26 favorites]


I guess WH Press Secretary Jay Carney was right: there's a subsection of Republicans who want to hold out for Obama to resign.

Yeaaah... they haven't thought through what happens when they're stuck with an angry President Biden without Obama to rein him in.
posted by jason_steakums at 11:50 AM on October 10, 2013 [7 favorites]


Well then who shut down Port of Oakland? The bridge club?
posted by KokuRyu at 11:50 AM on October 10, 2013


The Republicans struggle with unity because of distinct factions. Tea party folks, the social conservatives, and the moderates. The Democrats are much more unified on what they want to achieve, disagreements are more about appropriate tactics with some folks demanding more action sooner and some preferring a more careful, pragmatic approach.

I don't think that's so. We have a unique situation here where a few total nutjobs have taken over the GOP. And the Moderates came close to diving off the cliff with them. But generally, they are far more narrow and far more in agreement than the Dems are.
posted by Ironmouth at 11:50 AM on October 10, 2013


it only seems like an overwhelming majority because internet.

The Internet allows you to be the filter so you can find places that give your own believes reinforcement so it seems that your voice is a majority.

And using vague terms like "the left" and "the right" allow projection into them along with them being little boxes one can toss something into and therefore apply the "want the precious" and "hate the hobbit" emotions to with little more thought about things other than a broad nebulous label.

Well then who shut down Port of Oakland?

Because this is The Blue and a port shutdown must be bad I'll take a historic port reference and say "The Tea Party".
posted by rough ashlar at 11:51 AM on October 10, 2013 [1 favorite]


Well then who shut down Port of Oakland?

Moderates, possibly social conservatives. These are truck drivers - they enjoy beer and football and shows about duck hunting. To imagine they're anywhere near socialist, or even mostly liberal, is idiocy. Just because someone doesn't immediately prostrate themselves whenever management walks into the room doesn't make them a leftist. The political discourse in this nation has been completely borked by Limbaugh and Fox News.
posted by Slap*Happy at 12:02 PM on October 10, 2013 [6 favorites]


The US far left does not exist.. Puh-leeze, quit using those words together. There is no US far left, no US ultra left, no substantive US left at all. It is absolutely bogus to use terms like "ultra left" and "far left".

Generally the terms are used in context. So you can talk about Labour's Right wing in the UK, etc. There is a far left in the US, unless you compare it to the USSR or something like that.
posted by Ironmouth at 12:02 PM on October 10, 2013 [1 favorite]


There is a far left in the US, unless you compare it to the USSR or something like that.

Or the rest of the developed world.
posted by crayz at 12:04 PM on October 10, 2013 [14 favorites]


There is a far left in the US, unless you compare it to the USSR or something like that.

Yes, but the context here is you comparing them to the Tea Party, not just to centrists Democrats. In that sense it's a specious and false comparison, because the "Far Left" has no relation to the kind of Far Right represented by the Tea Party.
posted by OmieWise at 12:06 PM on October 10, 2013 [7 favorites]


A Big Tent approach to building a political party means that you will have lots of people with different points of view - both in terms of what they want to accomplish and how they want to accomplish it. When you let in a wide range of people with a wide range of views and agendas, you're less likely to be able to move as a unit. Furthermore, you're likely to always be in the process of pissing off a certain portion of your party's membership.

The Republicans have been on a quest for purity in the last decade or so. That we would look at far right nutjobs like Ryan or King and say "that's a Republican moderate" while the Teahadists say "that's a RINO" kind of shows you where they are as a group. They're able to walk in lockstep because, in general, they are in lockstep. The purity brigade has burned off most of the impure Republican dross or at very least cauterized it enough to keep it from spreading.

Politics should be like herding cats, not cattle. Part of the electoral success of the Democrats is that they represent disparate groups of people.

Furthermore, if our elected representatives are doing their jobs correctly, we should be getting some stuff we want and some stuff we don't want all the time. That's what compromise is all about. I give up on single-payer (for now), the conservatives give up "all the poor people to of scurvy all the time." We're both unhappy, but we both got something.

There's very little dancing on the political corpses of your enemies and hearing the lamentation of their families in a functioning system. Wanting that and nothing but that is part of what has led the Tea Party to create this sorry impasse - how many times have we read of them doing something "just to piss off the liberals." Spite is a lousy central tenet on which to build policy.
posted by Joey Michaels at 12:07 PM on October 10, 2013 [8 favorites]


Paul Ryan as a "moderate" successor to John Boehner.

Well I was musing about Ryan being a better candidate than Cantor, but I never thought he was moderate. The feeling I get, probably completely wrong, is that faced with driving over a cliff: Cantor would drive right over it fueled by irrational hatred of Obama, Boehner would either agree not to go over the cliff but drive over it anyway or act like Baghdad Bob and announce that the cliff does not exist, and Ryan would more than likely not go over the cliff. Furthermore, he seems to be one of the few GOP congressmen who actually prefers legislating to playing golf, may be accepted by the tehadists, and may actually want to get a few things done that he can put his name on, which necessitate compromising on his Randian beliefs to make a deal with the Democrats. But who knows? (not me).
posted by Golden Eternity at 12:11 PM on October 10, 2013


Ironwood, I couldn't disagree more with your take on the macro aspects of US politics.

First, who the hell are "Left Ultras"? As has been pointed out, there are outright fascists corporatists, theocrats, and neo-Confederates in congress on the right, with serious sway on the party leaders, backed up by political platforms, movements, and heavily bankrolled. Who is there on the left? Bernie Saunders and Alan Grayson? What support do they have? Nuthin. Nada. Zilch.

There simply is no significant "ultra left" in US politics. Hell, I wouldn't even say there's much of a "somewhat left".

The deeper error, though, is that you talk about "votes" as if they are facts of nature, that exist out there in the world, so that political parties must cater to the holders of these votes in order to harvest them. This is bass-ackwards. Political parties are supposed to shape public opinion as much as they are to follow it. This is something the Right has been doing very successfully since at least Reagan/Thatcher. The Left, in comparison, has stood by mute, displaying alternating personas of "please don't hit me" and "me too!" in the face of right-wing policies. My own belief is that this is because the left foolishly abandoned "class warfare" (i.e. unions, circa Reagan) and decided to throw in its lot with financial capitalists (circa Clinton).

Case in point: the Occupy Movement (and the related WI movement against Scott Walker). It's fashionable to talk about how it "failed" and "didn't have a clear message", etc. But that's bunk. Occupy was a genuine grass-roots movement that cut across demographic lines, had reasonable positives among the masses, a very easy-to-digest message (the 99% thing--economic justice and equality), and did something very successfully: it created political energy. This energy was left to rot on the vine by the Democratic ruling class, yet it was there, waiting to be an Energizer Bunny of progressive politics. Why did the Dems never seriously support these successful mass activities? My belief is that it was because they dared not go against their paymasters in the financial industry.

Contrast the treatment of Occupy with how rapidly the plutocratic right co-opted the Tea Party, and the lesson is clear: the Dems don't shape public opinion because the "progressive brand" (which is really all they've got) is in dissonance with their money men. So they can't sell themselves ideologically, since to do so (so they think) would turn off their money spigot. And Citizens United has succeeded in making this situation even worse.
posted by mondo dentro at 12:15 PM on October 10, 2013 [30 favorites]


Ironmouth: " There was never any intention expressed by anyone that the payroll tax holiday was going to be permanent.

And then you turn right around and imply that the Bush tax rates were expected to be permanent. You can't have it both ways.

You seem to be quite confused on economic issues. Previously you claimed trading austerity (spending cuts) for tax increases as a good thing, failing to recognize they are both the same, austerity policies.

Look, everyone knew that the Bush tax rates were expiring. Obama didn't have to bargain at all if he wanted tax increases. He could get them for free by doing nothing, pointing out that the harm was coming from extortionate Republicans, just as he is doing now. After the expiration of the Bush tax rates, he could then campaign for tax cuts for the middle class, a lot easier sale than tax increases. From a position of strength, he might have even been able to extend the payroll tax holiday. Instead, in his misplaced eagerness to get tax increases, he ended up giving away the store.
posted by JackFlash at 12:16 PM on October 10, 2013 [4 favorites]


I do want Biden do to one of those moves where he rips his shirt off in shreds, paints his face with Jill's lipstick, bursts into the room where Cantor is bloviating. Secret Service scoots Obama out of there and then props the chair under the doorknob. The men stand stunned as they listen to screams, Biden roars, and finally silence.

That's what I want, if anybody asks.
posted by angrycat at 12:17 PM on October 10, 2013 [12 favorites]


Monstertrucks at dawn, sir!
posted by Slap*Happy at 12:19 PM on October 10, 2013 [3 favorites]


Spite is a lousy central tenet on which to build policy.

But a wonderful tool for rallying the base, especially if your base more resembles a mob of drunken, angry football fans than a well-informed constituency.
posted by Atom Eyes at 12:20 PM on October 10, 2013 [1 favorite]


I don't think that's so. We have a unique situation here where a few total nutjobs have taken over the GOP. And the Moderates came close to diving off the cliff with them. But generally, they are far more narrow and far more in agreement than the Dems are.

Not really. The social conservatives are there for issues like opposing gay marriage while the tea party folks have a libertarian streak that leads many to support it. The tea party wants to cut spending to the bone but many of the social conservatives and moderates are part of the mainstream that supports the major programs. They may be worried about spending too much, but they want the programs to be there. There is a reason every Presidential candidate they put forward in the primaries turns themselves into a walking joke. (If they aren't one already) To get the support of the party as a whole you need to incoherently try and get the support of people with conflicting views.

Meanwhile Hillary and Barack rip into each other on minor details of healthcare policy and who has the most preparedness for foreign policy.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:27 PM on October 10, 2013 [2 favorites]


I'm a bit ashamed of myself for thinking it, but I would almost rather see a default than see Obama back down on this. I remind myself over and over how bad this would be for so many people if it happened, and yet.

Also: Holy crap, I want to move to Vermont so I can vote for Bernie Sanders.
posted by Mooski at 12:28 PM on October 10, 2013 [2 favorites]


There was a politico article tweeted a few minutes ago that I can't link to but described Susan Collins was putting something together that people are thinking would be more successful than the latest thing from the House GOP
posted by angrycat at 12:37 PM on October 10, 2013


Only 6% of tea party members support marriage equality. http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/08/20/713021/poll-tea-party-members-adamantly-oppose-marriage-equality/

Don't kid yourself about these people. They are reactionaries.
posted by Ironmouth at 12:38 PM on October 10, 2013 [5 favorites]


You seem to be quite confused on economic issues. Previously you claimed trading austerity (spending cuts) for tax increases as a good thing, failing to recognize they are both the same, austerity policies.

A tax increase on the wealthy (which is what it was) is not austerity. Austerity is where the government spends less, reducing consumption. A tax increase on the wealthy pays for stimulus, which puts money in the hands of the non-rich, increasing consumption and jobs for the working and middle classes. The rich should pay for stimulus. And Obama sure hopes to have a majority for more stimulus. But he didn't when he made those deals.

Plus he did an end around with Quantitative Easing.

And if I had to choose between a tax increase for the wealthy or deficit-funded stimulus, I will take the long-term tax increase on the rich, thank you.
posted by Ironmouth at 12:45 PM on October 10, 2013 [3 favorites]


I think they have painted themselves into a corner. That's what the 6 week debt ceiling bill proposal is about -- saving face. The real question is whether they will then feel enough heat to re-open the government too, because I believe Obama will in fact require that as well before he engages in budget discussions.
posted by bearwife at 12:46 PM on October 10, 2013


I would like to see the Republican Party irrevocably split into R and T factions. However, I fear the consequences of a party that is nominally theocratic while doctrinally vague and publicly libertarian while internally authoritarian. The Tea Party is a recipe for "freedom if you're white and as long as we say you're not a criminal."
posted by infinitewindow at 12:48 PM on October 10, 2013 [1 favorite]


Only 6% of tea party members support marriage equality.

I've seen numbers as high as 26%, but for the most part the Tea Partiers I have spoken with who do oppose it see it as a very low priority. It might be better to describe them as Libertarian Republicans than TPers, since many people who do identify with the TP are just Republicans identifying with the fiercest opposition to Obama. It's not about their own views.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:50 PM on October 10, 2013


26%? That's the high end??
posted by Theta States at 12:54 PM on October 10, 2013


A tax increase on the wealthy (which is what it was) is not austerity.

No, all tax increases are austerity measures. They reduce the amount of consumer spending. Taxes on the wealthy have a smaller multiplier than taxes on the middle class, but they are still contractionary.

Whether you even need to pay for stimulus by raising taxes in a recession is debatable when real borrowing rates are near zero. That is another argument Obama failed to make.
posted by JackFlash at 12:56 PM on October 10, 2013 [3 favorites]


zombieflanders: "GOP plan will also prevent Treasury from taking "extraordinary measures" i.e. the only reason we didn't default ba ck in May. This isn't caving, this is a shady backstabbing that Obama should reveal for the sham it is. He needs to punt, then twist the knife by telling the public about the House GOP rule that forced shutdown."

This is literally the only important thing in the proposal. Were it not for the extraordinary measures, we would already be defaulted. The Republicans are not being at all conciliatory, they are blatantly attempting to strengthen their ability to force a default at the time of their choosing.

They are still not ready to be serious. Hopefully the public can be made to understand why this isn't a deal that can possibly be accepted at the present time. It makes the situation worse, not better.
posted by wierdo at 12:58 PM on October 10, 2013 [3 favorites]




It might be better to describe them as Libertarian Republicans than TPers, since many people who do identify with the TP are just Republicans identifying with the fiercest opposition to Obama. It's not about their own views.

Look at who these TP people are running this shutdown. Mike Lee and Cruz. Not lining up to gay marry their buddies.

The people we are facing now are not the Paulites.
posted by Ironmouth at 1:00 PM on October 10, 2013


This energy was left to rot on the vine by the Democratic ruling class, yet it was there, waiting to be an Energizer Bunny of progressive politics. Why did the Dems never seriously support these successful mass activities? My belief is that it was because they dared not go against their paymasters in the financial industry.

FWIW, while the Democrats may have failed to harness Occupy's energy, that's as much the result of Occupy's insistence on staying aloof from electoral politics as Democratic neglect. I'm sympathetic to Occupy, but they dissipated their energies all on their own.
posted by octobersurprise at 1:02 PM on October 10, 2013 [7 favorites]


The Republicans are not being at all conciliatory, they are blatantly attempting to strengthen their ability to force a default at the time of their choosing.

Accepting a clean raise for even a short amount of time establishes the precedent that there will not be negotiations to prevent default. Citizens are sick and tired of these crisis situations and the Republicans will pay a HUGE price if they try again in six weeks. They would be much better off passing a longer debt ceiling raise and playing out their hand on the shutdown as best they can.

Look at who these TP people are running this shutdown. Mike Lee and Cruz. Not lining up to gay marry their buddies.

The people we are facing now are not the Paulites.


Who said we were? Opposition to Obamacare is one thing Republicans are definitely unified on.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:04 PM on October 10, 2013 [1 favorite]


(But if you can't see the Paulism in the air in the "Shutdown is not so bad" and "it would be okay to default" stuff than you are a political blind man)
posted by Drinky Die at 1:06 PM on October 10, 2013 [2 favorites]


A tax increase on the wealthy (which is what it was) is not austerity.

No, all tax increases are austerity measures. They reduce the amount of consumer spending. Taxes on the wealthy have a smaller multiplier than taxes on the middle class, but they are still contractionary.

Whether you even need to pay for stimulus by raising taxes in a recession is debatable when real borrowing rates are near zero. That is another argument Obama failed to make.


First we are not in a recession. We are in a weak recovery where the fruits are not trickling down. So that money needs to be gotten from somewhere. Second, pulling money currently on the sidelines into the economy isn't austerity, its the opposite of it. The amount of consumption that it set aside is relatively low, as you said. The effect is countered when we get the kind of spending we need. For that we need the votes.
posted by Ironmouth at 1:09 PM on October 10, 2013 [3 favorites]


Mod note: Folks, please be mindful of not letting this thread just be a referendum on your own views or arguments with one or two people?
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 1:11 PM on October 10, 2013 [6 favorites]






Historic methods of reset were debt jubilees and the destruction from War. Got suggestions on how to have a reset that arn't the destruction of War?

Wage inflation.
posted by T.D. Strange at 1:23 PM on October 10, 2013 [8 favorites]


How about we just let 2-3% inflation per year effectively wipe out the debt over time? I'm not sure I'm going to take seriously analysis by someone who is essentially a professional doom predictor.
posted by Justinian at 1:23 PM on October 10, 2013 [3 favorites]


When you're resorting to posting unhinged blog rantings from actual crazy people, perhaps you're not making your case very well.
posted by zombieflanders at 1:24 PM on October 10, 2013 [2 favorites]


Why does everyone else have secret contacts on Wall Street that call them to confide secret information in them? I feel left out.
posted by Elementary Penguin at 1:25 PM on October 10, 2013 [8 favorites]


What is a 6 am range phone call and how much tin foil is involved
posted by angrycat at 1:25 PM on October 10, 2013 [1 favorite]


actual crazy people,

Meow.

Oh, but do show the link to actual clinical evaluation of this "crazy" label you are opting to attach to whatever post you were referring to. Bonus points if you can show how that "crazy" position will be cured under the ACA.

Cuz otherwise the label of "crazy" is just an attempt to associate negative connotations to whatever position you were responding to.
posted by rough ashlar at 1:30 PM on October 10, 2013


rough ashlar: " an attempt to associate negative connotations to whatever position you were responding to."

youve cracked the code
posted by boo_radley at 1:35 PM on October 10, 2013 [3 favorites]


Oh, but do show the link to actual clinical evaluation of this "crazy" label you are opting to attach to whatever post you were referring to. Bonus points if you can show how that "crazy" position will be cured under the ACA.

From your link:
“It all comes down to this,” concluded my source, “You only have two ways out of this that have ever been invented. One is the Biblical Leviticus Jubilee where debts get forgiven and the other is Sharia law where interest is outlawed outright. The latter isn’t going to happen in the West and so that leaves what? Reset while its manageable or wait till it blows up on compound interest and hope it can all work out. That’s the choice and we’re there right now.”
As to the ACA, there's hundreds if not thousands of articles about how it contributes to deficit reduction. You're the one throwing out stuff to see what sticks all the time. You want to engage in your usual, tiresome "here's something crazy, now disprove it" shtick, by all means make the all-encompassing FPP you keep on threatening to make.

Cuz otherwise the label of "crazy" is just an attempt to associate negative connotations to whatever position you were responding to.

Well, yes, someone advocating for complete economic destruction leading to billions more being impoverished, in all likelihood millions of deaths, and a systematic dismantling of rational governance by rapacious market libertarians is both crazy and a negative.
posted by zombieflanders at 1:39 PM on October 10, 2013 [15 favorites]


rough ashlar,
The reason your link is called "crazy" is because there was a lot of reference to returning to a partial gold standard, and something about the German courts with ODR denoted in Euro direct transactions. This is, quite frankly, Coast to Coast AM radio levels of insane.

I don't doubt that a lot of people who do not actually work with high finance or who have grandiose notions of "how things work" are saying that we need an "actuarial reset" (yeah, that phrase deserves quotes), but for anyone who actually has real skin in the game, you are talking about wiping out several trillion dollars of wealth. That is plain stupid. That is Lyndon LaRuche levels of nutbaggery.

The entire world economy is fixed on the "full faith and credit" of the U.S. Dollar. There is no way in hell to switch off of this without a gradual emergence of a real, solid competing currency, which no one wants to bother with (see all the fuss about the problems with the Euro). And it would be civilization level suicide to try to force this "reset". This is full on post-apocalytic "in the dystopian future, I will be king" levels of delusion.

Oh, and do you know how I know this? Because I get those newsletters too. A lot of them. They all say the same thing. Buy gold. Watch out for the black helicopters. Don't trust the government. The New World Order is coming, arm yourself. Here's our 10 step way to be prepared for the coming (insert psychotic ranting about race, religion, nuclear annihilation here).

And it is all bunk.
posted by daq at 1:41 PM on October 10, 2013 [21 favorites]


How much longer is air-traffic control expected to remain functional? I understand the employees are working, but without getting paid certainly at some point the individual employees are going to have to quit and move on to a paying job, purely for self-preservation.

In 1995 I believe a bill was passed mid-shutdown to pay some essential employees including ATCs. Something similar may happen this time too. Tomorrow is the first check that will be officially disrupted, with employees getting paid only through Sept 30 rather than Oct 4. No one should miss a mortgage payment over 4 days, at least you'd hope. The next check on Oct 15 will be the one that really hurts.
posted by T.D. Strange at 1:41 PM on October 10, 2013


"Oh, but do show the link to actual clinical evaluation of this "crazy" label you are opting to attach to whatever post you were referring to. Bonus points if you can show how that "crazy" position will be cured under the ACA.

Cuz otherwise the label of "crazy" is just an attempt to associate negative connotations to whatever position you were responding to.
"

Point taken about abling language; consider the pejorative revised to "fucking morons," in which case, the point is self-evident.
posted by klangklangston at 1:41 PM on October 10, 2013 [2 favorites]


I'm as critical of Occupy as anyone, but saying the Democrats "failed to harness Occupy's energy" when the Obama FBI coordinated a simultaneous, heavy-handed nationwide police crackdown is some really grade-A historical whitewashing.
posted by crayz at 1:42 PM on October 10, 2013 [30 favorites]


Why does everyone else have secret contacts on Wall Street that call them to confide secret information in them? I feel left out.

To be fair - I was being lazy....there is a group who've made arguments about a debt reset and I really didn't want to spent 2 hours filtering out the non-jubliee crowd and the student debt crowd doesn't answer the "how are ya planning on paying off 16 trillion?" question. But hey, feel free to answer the addressing the debt issue VS "deficits don't matter".

So far in however many comments are in this FPP - I don't recall anyone showing a way the present amount of debt will be paid beyond the latest "inflation" answer. Of course to do that spending would have to be controlled no? But then again, no one responded to the Carter comment - and that is a response to the offered inflation argument no?
posted by rough ashlar at 1:42 PM on October 10, 2013


I miss the mother thread.
posted by Theta States at 1:44 PM on October 10, 2013 [7 favorites]


Oh, but do show the link to actual clinical evaluation of this "crazy" label

Would you prefer "idiot" or "con-man" instead? Because looking at his Coast to Coast AM shows tells me he's one of three, at least.

Tell me, do you think he can predict the effects of a default as accurately as he did the events of 2010?
posted by octobersurprise at 1:45 PM on October 10, 2013 [1 favorite]




And I forgot to add the response that shows that Carter is actually right.

Reality versus Belief (youtube video, showing income disparity versus what most people believe it to be).

So yes, some facts are valid in that screed, but the conclusions they are reaching based on those facts are as wild as feral cats. And probably have just as many toes.
posted by daq at 1:46 PM on October 10, 2013 [1 favorite]


When is the new 'iPhone-friendly' thread due?
posted by mazola at 1:46 PM on October 10, 2013 [1 favorite]


Why does everyone else have secret contacts on Wall Street that call them to confide secret information in them? I feel left out.

gimme your number. i got a few free minutes.
posted by quonsar II: smock fishpants and the temple of foon at 1:51 PM on October 10, 2013


rough ashlar,
The reason your link is called "crazy" is because there was a lot of reference to returning to a partial gold standard, and something about the German courts with ODR denoted in Euro direct transactions.


The "crazy" comment is implied to be my link and I treated it as such - but the OP did not quote as I have.

And thank you for giving a reason.

The 'crazy' may not have a valid answer to the question of "How do you pay off 16 Trillion?" but other than the wage inflation answer, no one in The Blue brain trust has come up with an answer either. Which would be more damaging - inflation, a reset, austerity, or some other path not mentioned on The Blue in the comments here in this FPP? If a reset at 16 trillion is painful, would a 20 Trillion reset be less so? If stopping the bleeding via austerity would be painful, what is the alternative? 50%+ of FedBudget is on the Military, 25+% of the economy is tied to the Military - if that was reduced to 0% .... would the rest of the world care about the US Dollar for trade? What would be the effect on the US economy of no more borrowed money injected as make-work military related projects? The 50%/25% Military spending only got mentioned in passing with the Antarctica link.

If the present economic system needs no forced reset, what is the way out? Or is there no need for a way out, everything is fine?
posted by rough ashlar at 1:56 PM on October 10, 2013


I'm a bit ashamed of myself for thinking it, but I would almost rather see a default than see Obama back down on this

I'm not ashamed. I would rather see a default than have Obama back down. A default would be pretty bad, but Dems caving to the Repubs would set a precedent that would more damaging to this country in the long term.
posted by nooneyouknow at 1:59 PM on October 10, 2013 [8 favorites]


"The 'crazy' may not have a valid answer to the question of "How do you pay off 16 Trillion?" but other than the wage inflation answer, no one in The Blue brain trust has come up with an answer either."

Over time, like the rest of our debt.

Which would be more damaging - inflation, a reset, austerity, or some other path not mentioned on The Blue in the comments here in this FPP?"

The other path is not having a default and largely proceeding as before. So, that one would be less damaging.

If a reset at 16 trillion is painful, would a 20 Trillion reset be less so?

If begging 16 trillion questions is tedious, would begging 20 trillion be less so?
posted by klangklangston at 2:01 PM on October 10, 2013 [6 favorites]


rough ashlar: I mentioned the military budget earlier, and advocated for the swords into plowshares approach. We could right now convert a large amount (I dunno, 75%?) of that military budget into a massive green energy program (sending much of the money to many of the same defense contractors, to grease the skids politically), with the aim of getting us entirely on wind, solar, hydro by, say, 2050 (a la Mark Jacobson). This is win, win, win in terms of the economy, national security, and the environment.

The fact that this is possible but not being done is something that's made secular me come back around to believing in tangible Evil.
posted by mondo dentro at 2:09 PM on October 10, 2013 [1 favorite]


Over time, like the rest of our debt.

Fine, but doesn't that answer 1st need to have income exceed spending? And while raising taxes has been mentioned - what is the spending cut plan? 50% on the military is far more than the 23% spending at the start of the 21st century - where is either side on cutting the Military spending or justifying why the doubling in a decade and 1/2 as an example?
posted by rough ashlar at 2:10 PM on October 10, 2013


Senate GOP rallies around rival plan on debt ceiling, shutdown

"Senate Republicans are unhappy with a House GOP plan to raise the debt ceiling for six weeks without funding the federal government. They are coalescing around their own proposal to pair a short-term debt-ceiling increase with a year-long stopgap to fund the government.

Under their plan, the government would be funded for a year at the $967 billion level set by the 2011 Budget Control Act.

The package would also include a repeal of ObamaCare's medical-device tax and language to require income verification of people who apply for healthcare subsidies under the Affordable Care Act, said GOP sources familiar with the talks."

posted by madamjujujive at 2:10 PM on October 10, 2013


I think it's important to separate the question of paying off the national debt from the current shutdown fiasco. The answer is to pay it off slowly over time through gradually reducing spending and raising taxes in some areas. The desire to have some kind of massive, all-at-once reset is dangerous because the social and financial impact would be devastating and (as usual) disproportionately affect the poor and the middle class.

Public policy is boring, and it should be. People who are secretly hoping for some massive event (Rapture, government collapse, etc.) scare me. I think it stems from a desire to oversimplify the world ("... and then the war on terror will be won", "... and then the debt will be solved", etc.). In this case the Republicans seem to be trying to force some kind of bullshit Old West shootout. They got what they wanted with the ACA (pro-business "free-market" solution) but now they have changed their minds apparently. And now they have been de-emphasizing the ACA part of the showdown and are suddenly trying to re-frame it as being about fiscal responsibility - it reminds me of how quickly the Iraq war reasons changed from WMD to "liberate the Iraqis" once the intelligence on WMD was shown to be flawed.
posted by freecellwizard at 2:11 PM on October 10, 2013 [9 favorites]


Surely income verification was needed before, yeah? Or are we to praise Jebus the GOP figured out that there was none
posted by angrycat at 2:13 PM on October 10, 2013


Nate Silver on the shutdown
posted by box at 2:13 PM on October 10, 2013 [4 favorites]


ideas? well in the other thread I put these out:

hard choice: capitol gains tax increase
hard choice: eliminating all loopholes for companies making over 5 million profit a year
hard choice: raise income taxes on top 3% of income earners
hard choice: reduce military spending so it is merely 50% of discretionary spending
hard choice: raise inheritance tax to those receiving more than 1 million
hard choice: income for congressional members is tied to personal income. the more you make outside of congress the less you make serving in congress, this includes benefits
hard choice: Social security benefits is tied to net worth minus primary residence.


I mean we have all manner of ways to increase revenues, but people tend to start panicking when the military budget is mentioned, and anytime increased taxation on those most able to afford it we get weird "job creators" and "real Americans" type of rhetoric. But I tell you honestly, I really think a healthy country needs less GDP geared towards military and much more skewing of the taxation system to stop favoring the obscene accumulation of wealth in the hands of so few.
posted by edgeways at 2:14 PM on October 10, 2013 [8 favorites]


The package would also include a repeal of ObamaCare's medical-device tax and language to require income verification of people who apply for healthcare subsidies under the Affordable Care Act, said GOP sources familiar with the talks.

Nope. Nope. Nope. It passed into law, you fucking asshats.

/crosses fingers that the President feels the same.
posted by emjaybee at 2:14 PM on October 10, 2013 [2 favorites]


...but people tend to start panicking when the military budget is mentioned...

That's why the green energy, swords into plowshares approach would be such a winner--everyone would still get their pork via largely the same mechanisms as they do now, but we'd be doing something productive with the money (and creating additional US jobs), instead of just dumping the money down the toilet.
posted by mondo dentro at 2:19 PM on October 10, 2013 [5 favorites]


"Fine, but doesn't that answer 1st need to have income exceed spending? And while raising taxes has been mentioned - what is the spending cut plan? 50% on the military is far more than the 23% spending at the start of the 21st century - where is either side on cutting the Military spending or justifying why the doubling in a decade and 1/2 as an example?"

Well, not so long as interest rates are so low that other countries basically pay us to hold their money.

But the deficit is a mild, long-term problem. To paraphrase Charles Pearce: Fuck the deficit. People got no jobs, people got no money. Fix that and we'll see a real decrease in the deficit. Until then, it's a bunch of cranks worrying about an imaginary problem as a distraction from real, actual ones.
posted by klangklangston at 2:25 PM on October 10, 2013 [4 favorites]


Just as a data point, Canada successfully climbed down from a steep debt situation by a calm, prudent, and long-term plan of tax raises and expenditure cuts. But you do need the tax rises, which is why I have a hard time taking the Republicans seriously on their sudden intense concern about the debt.
posted by Erasmouse at 2:25 PM on October 10, 2013 [8 favorites]


Yeah, but... socialism. (!)
posted by mazola at 2:28 PM on October 10, 2013


America sure enjoys being exceptional, doesn't it.
posted by mazola at 2:30 PM on October 10, 2013 [2 favorites]


Meanwhile, in Maine
LePage declares civil emergency because of government shutdown; union calls move a ‘power grab’
With the proclamation, LePage has taken the authority to circumvent state laws or rules if he determines they “prevent, hinder and delay effective management of the emergency.”

"The way life should be" indeed.
posted by madamjujujive at 2:31 PM on October 10, 2013


...which is why I have a hard time taking the Republicans seriously on their sudden intense concern about the debt.

News flash: that's because they don't care about it! What they care about is weakening the Federal government and dismantling the New Deal (and then sowing salt into the soil so it can never grow again). This entire fiscal conservatism schtick is utter bullshit, and it's distressing how many people even actually debate it with them. The Democratic party, and even many rank and file liberals, have absorbed it as a legitimate issue. It just simply is not. And, to beat my favorite drum, it's why I say the Democrats are a zombie party: the reason this austerity narrative has legs, is that the opposition (supposedly the Democrats) never formulates the alternative story. And why do the Dems not do this? Because they're competing for the same capitalist largess as the GOP.
posted by mondo dentro at 2:32 PM on October 10, 2013 [20 favorites]


Canada successfully climbed down from a steep debt situation by a calm, prudent, and long-term plan of tax raises and expenditure cuts. shifting the debt to the provinces.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 2:36 PM on October 10, 2013 [3 favorites]


That is certainly what you accuse everyone who ever disagrees with you of wanting, but in years of reading these threads I've never seen anyone actually argue that. The problem you run into is thinking you "need the votes first". Obviously you need votes, but part of the legislative process is getting those votes.

Why aren't you doing that then? Where are these votes for things that Obama never promised? That's my whole point. If Bernie Sanders or Grijalva wants these things passed, it is their job to get the votes, not Obama's. These members of Congress want Obama to take risks they don't have to take for their pet things, like the public option. If those members want something, they have to make the deals that will get the votes. Not Obama. Obama didn't run on the public option. He ran on a program that was nearly the same as the ACA ended up being. The idea that Obama is supposed to just burn political capital making deals for things that don't have enough votes in the first place baffles me.
posted by Ironmouth at 2:36 PM on October 10, 2013 [2 favorites]


Could start on cutting the debt by not giving states more than they pay in federal taxes. But I feel like red states might not like that.
posted by inigo2 at 2:36 PM on October 10, 2013 [1 favorite]


Mod note: comment trawling just to eyeroll at other users considered harmful to civil discourse. Don't do that here.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 2:48 PM on October 10, 2013


Obama didn't run on the public option.

We had this debate before, and yes Obama did run on the public option.
posted by crayz at 2:49 PM on October 10, 2013 [6 favorites]


symbioid: "Default will make it harder on most of us, while it won't hurt the wealthy one bit."

That is crazypants talk. Default absolutely will hurt many of the wealthy. It will not hurt them to the point of worrying about losing their home or where their next meal will come from, but it may force them to sell the Swiss chalet, if they even can.

The financial crisis also hurt the wealthy in a very real, but generally temporary, way. Although in reality it's actually been only the ultra wealthy who got through with pretty much no consequences. Many of the nine figure net worth set have seen some pretty nasty fallout from the credit crunch, housing bubble, CRE bubble, and their associated aftermath. Again, nothing like what the little people have been suffering, but still something.

tl;dr: Even (many of) the ultra wealthy will lose in a default scenario, even it will just be their score taking the hit, not a significant impact on their quality of life as the rest of us will have to bear. Take "comfort" that many of the eight or nine figure rich will share in our pain to a large degree, especially the owners of small businesses who will really be taking it in the shorts. Again.
posted by wierdo at 2:52 PM on October 10, 2013


Even (many of) the ultra wealthy will lose in a default scenario, even it will just be their score taking the hit, not a significant impact on their quality of life as the rest of us will have to bear. Take "comfort" that many of the eight or nine figure rich will share in our pain to a large degree

One would think paying a little more in taxes each year would beat the pants off of living in a situation where they might lose an assload of money because of legislative ineptitude.
posted by Joey Michaels at 2:56 PM on October 10, 2013 [1 favorite]


Obama didn't run on the public option.

We had this debate before, and yes Obama did run on the public option.
posted by crayz at 5:49 PM on October 10 [3 favorites +] [!]


Read your own link. if you think a single mention of "a public plan" in his first election campaign means he meant the public option, I'd love to see evidence backing that up. Every other mention is from after the election. I would have liked the public option. However, the Dem senator from Arkansas, deep in a re-election fight she lost, got on the Senate floor and said that she would never, ever ever vote for the public option, before the final passage. So Obama is supposed to use magic powers to get over that hump?
posted by Ironmouth at 3:02 PM on October 10, 2013 [1 favorite]


Maybe he could have convinced a Republican to flip?

I keed!
posted by mazola at 3:04 PM on October 10, 2013


Nate Silver has posted a blog post to Grantland breaking down some polling data and trying to frame it realistically. I think the take-away is: results foggy, check back later.
posted by codacorolla at 3:04 PM on October 10, 2013 [2 favorites]



One would think paying a little more in taxes each year would beat the pants off of living in a situation where they might lose an assload of money because of legislative ineptitude.


Something about leading a horse to water and drinking applies here.

I really wish it was simpler, but the number of high rollers who are still in denial about the possibility of an actual default is staggeringly high.

I really hope I am not being Casandra.
posted by daq at 3:05 PM on October 10, 2013


The 'crazy' may not have a valid answer to the question of "How do you pay off 16 Trillion?" but other than the wage inflation answer, no one in The Blue brain trust has come up with an answer either. Which would be more damaging - inflation, a reset, austerity, or some other path not mentioned on The Blue in the comments here in this FPP?

Because the answer isn't paying off 16 trillion dollars. The answer is the economy keeps growing, general inflation kicks in and 16 trillion eventually looks smaller than it does today.

You know who was the last president to pay off the debt?

Andrew Jackson.
posted by Talez at 3:08 PM on October 10, 2013 [10 favorites]


general inflation kicks in

What is the present spending rate increase?

Who's looking forward to inflation greater than that rate and how does pending remain at less than that rate?
posted by rough ashlar at 3:14 PM on October 10, 2013


Ironmouth: "if you think a single mention of "a public plan" in his first election campaign means he meant the public option, I'd love to see evidence backing that up."

Here ya go.

Did Obama Campaign On The Public Option? Yes But Not Entirely
By December 2007, however, Obama clearly had endorsed a government-run option. In a speech at the Iowa Heartland Presidential Forum, the then-Senator declared that if he "were designing a system from scratch" he would "probably move more in the direction of a single-payer plan,"

"But what we have to do right now," Obama added, "is I want to move to make sure that everybody has got coverage as quickly as possible. And I believe that what that means is we expand SCHIP. It means that we extend eligibility for some of the government programs that we have. We set up a government program, as I've described, that everybody can buy into and you can't be excluded because of a pre-existing condition."

In January 2008, meanwhile, Obama submitted an issue form to Ebony Magazine, in which, as the third principle of his health care reform agenda, he promised to "require all employers to contribute toward health coverage for their employees or toward the cost of the public plan."

By that point, the press, commentariat and widely respected health care observers all were reporting the government-run plan as a component of the Obama agenda.

On May 31, 2007, Atul Gawande, a surgeon at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston and a New Yorker staff writer, wrote in The New York Times that both Obama and then-candidate John Edwards, were offering "a choice of competing private plans, and... a Medicare-like public option, too."

On September 20, 2007, Ezra Klein -- then a staff writer at The American Prospect and now with The Washington Post -- wrote a column for the Los Angeles Times in which he said that "all of the Democrats" in the primary field had offered the option of "a government-run insurance program modeled on, but distinct from, Medicare."

On February 12, 2008, Jonathan Oberlander of the University of North Carolina, told NPR's Fresh Air that Obama and then-Sen. Hillary Clinton both "would create a new public plan similar to Medicare."
There's wiggle room, as there always is when a gifted politician is speaking, but the implication is clear.
posted by tonycpsu at 3:24 PM on October 10, 2013 [8 favorites]


Inflation is only around 1.5% these days. I don't understand why we don't print some money to bring the rate up and use it as stimulus. I've heard pundits say we've been deeply afraid of deflation or hyperinflation, but isn't it at all possible to increase the rate without spiraling out of control or causing too much pain for the poor/middle class?
posted by Thoughtcrime at 3:24 PM on October 10, 2013


What is the present spending rate increase?

I think you ignored 50% of the factors Talez mentions. Or do you think the growth of the economy is a minor factor?

Look, I appreciate that you may have an ideological viewpoint, but you need to ask yourself at some point whether it may need some tinkering if you have to work so hard at making it seem plausible.
posted by Mental Wimp at 3:25 PM on October 10, 2013 [2 favorites]


Obama to Boehner: No.
posted by madamjujujive at 3:26 PM on October 10, 2013


Nate Silver has posted a blog post to Grantland breaking down some polling data and trying to frame it realistically.
The best measure of this might be the generic congressional ballot, which measures overall preferences for Democrats or Republicans in congressional races around the country. However, very few generic ballot polls have been released since the shutdown began, and the exceptions are from dubious polling firms like Public Policy Polling and Rasmussen Reports.
I never thought I'd say this, but fuck you, Nate.

PPP are the most consistently accurate pollsters out there even when polling difficult races that no one else will touch. Even the controversial Colorado recall poll they were so unsure about that they declined to publish ended up being right on the money. Dismissing their polls and putting them in the same context as fickle, fallible, finger-ever-on-the-scales Rasmussen is ludicrous and petty.
posted by Rhaomi at 3:26 PM on October 10, 2013 [7 favorites]


Obama to Boehner: No.
Now we (kind of) know why: President Obama rejected the House's offer of a six-week increase in the debt ceiling because it would not also reopen the government. The announcement came after the markets, which had rallied today on news that the debt ceiling would be lifted, had closed. So tomorrow's opening bell will be fun.
Good on him for putting the screws to Boehner and Ryan. This is where Costa said the GOP caucus likely splits and Boehner is forced to get this done with Pelosi.
posted by zombieflanders at 3:26 PM on October 10, 2013 [6 favorites]


...but isn't it at all possible to increase the rate without spiraling out of control or causing too much pain for the poor/middle class?

Leadership has historically proved great restraint is possible and they are firmly in control. :P
posted by mazola at 3:28 PM on October 10, 2013




Oh, and as a way to understand the current Republican party, I found this report to be very helpful. It's not based on a representative sampling, but rather on a series of focus groups that uncritically elicited the world-view of three Republican subgroups: Evangelicals, Tea Party members, and self-styled moderates (basically fiscal but not social conservatives). It doesn't attempt quantitative analysis, but reports qualitative findings.

It really is an interesting read. Some of it reinforces my impressions that much of the fear these groups have is driven by the sense that their homogeneous local cultures are threatened by an influx of immigrants (including but not limited to those undocumented) and by the uncloseting of gays and lesbians. This idea struck me some years ago when I was driving down Lake Street in Minneapolis marvelling at the wide spectrum of Hispanic, Asian, and African people and stores on display and for some reason started to imagine how this would look to someone from an exurban community that was nearly uniformly white and Christian. I sensed the extent it would raise anxieties about the changes to be wrought eventually in their own communities and how disturbed that would make them, especially when they realized that it was too late to turn back the tide. Young people generally have the ability to adapt, but older people have more trepidation about change, especially such radical change. These anxieties are all expressed in the attached, with the added layer of perception that the benefits of social welfare programs, including Obamacare as the latest example, are a) mainly there to buy votes for the Democratic party, b) mostly going to cheaters and abusers who use them to avoid work, and c) these undeserving recipients are mostly of these non-white "others." Simple statistics, of course, easily prove b) and c) wrong, but a) is really not susceptible to fact-based debunking, because it resides in their subjective judgement and can't be argued away.
posted by Mental Wimp at 3:32 PM on October 10, 2013 [8 favorites]


The idea that Obama is supposed to just burn political capital making deals for things that don't have enough votes in the first place baffles me.

And this is the baffling part for me as a political outsider. Don't you spend political capital making deals so that there are enough votes for things? What's the difference between something not having enough votes and something not yet having enough votes? How does the debate in Washington ever change if everyone's being so pragmatic about what is and isn't feasible? What good is 'political capital' if the other party is just going to vote against whatever you're proposing out of pure spite?
posted by RonButNotStupid at 3:32 PM on October 10, 2013 [2 favorites]


"But what we have to do right now," Obama added, "is I want to move to make sure that everybody has got coverage as quickly as possible. And I believe that what that means is we expand SCHIP. It means that we extend eligibility for some of the government programs that we have. We set up a government program, as I've described, that everybody can buy into and you can't be excluded because of a pre-existing condition."

In January 2008, meanwhile, Obama submitted an issue form to Ebony Magazine, in which, as the third principle of his health care reform agenda, he promised to "require all employers to contribute toward health coverage for their employees or toward the cost of the public plan."

By that point, the press, commentariat and widely respected health care observers all were reporting the government-run plan as a component of the Obama agenda.

On May 31, 2007, Atul Gawande, a surgeon at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston and a New Yorker staff writer, wrote in The New York Times that both Obama and then-candidate John Edwards, were offering "a choice of competing private plans, and... a Medicare-like public option, too."

On September 20, 2007, Ezra Klein -- then a staff writer at The American Prospect and now with The Washington Post -- wrote a column for the Los Angeles Times in which he said that "all of the Democrats" in the primary field had offered the option of "a government-run insurance program modeled on, but distinct from, Medicare."

On February 12, 2008, Jonathan Oberlander of the University of North Carolina, told NPR's Fresh Air that Obama and then-Sen. Hillary Clinton both "would create a new public plan similar to Medicare."


So you're saying Obama ran on it because other people say he did? Look at the statements, some doctor, Ezra Klein. That's not Obama saying anything. And the stuff he's talking about, expanding current systems, is in the ACA. He's referring to techniques like raising the medicaid elgibility line, which is in the bill.
posted by Ironmouth at 3:42 PM on October 10, 2013 [2 favorites]


"What the GOP needs now is a crazy plan to defund Obamacare - preferably one with no endgame."

"None of this bad news should prevent Ted Cruz winning the vital Ames Straw Poll."

both from @daveweigel

Also, holy shit this polling must scare the GOP.
posted by lattiboy at 3:44 PM on October 10, 2013 [7 favorites]


So Obama is supposed to use magic powers to get over that hump?

I don't know how this stuff goes, so maybe the following is magic powers land, but what about (before Kennedy's death) convincing borderland Dems to vote for cloture but then vote against the public option? That way, they could have said, "I voted against the public option," while still providing the road forward for the public option to pass by making it possible to have an up or down vote. Didn't he have 50 votes supporting the public option, just not the full 60 needed to avoid a filibuster? (I don't have a very clear memory about how the votes looked with respect to the public option, so maybe he didn't even have 50.)
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 3:44 PM on October 10, 2013


He's referring to techniques like raising the medicaid elgibility line, which is in the bill.
posted by Ironmouth at 3:42 PM on October 10 [+] [!]


And how does this Medicaid "raising" interact with the 1993 Clinton era clawback?
posted by rough ashlar at 3:45 PM on October 10, 2013


So you're saying Obama ran on it because other people say he did? Look at the statements, some doctor, Ezra Klein. That's not Obama saying anything. And the stuff he's talking about, expanding current systems, is in the ACA. He's referring to techniques like raising the medicaid elgibility line, which is in the bill.

So, in the first bit, with two quotations from Obama:
We set up a government program, as I've described, that everybody can buy into and you can't be excluded because of a pre-existing condition.
And ...
In January 2008, meanwhile, Obama submitted an issue form to Ebony Magazine, in which, as the third principle of his health care reform agenda, he promised to "require all employers to contribute toward health coverage for their employees or toward the cost of the public plan."
How are you understanding "government program" and "public plan"? To me, those look like a public option, not an individual mandate to purchase private insurance.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 3:48 PM on October 10, 2013 [2 favorites]


And also not like simply expanding Medicaid ...
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 3:49 PM on October 10, 2013 [1 favorite]


JackFlash: "No, all tax increases are austerity measures. They reduce the amount of consumer spending. Taxes on the wealthy have a smaller multiplier than taxes on the middle class, but they are still contractionary."

Not in a zero rate environment where cash is largely sitting in T Bills paying less than the rate of inflation. Taxing it and spending it increases the multiplier from zero to whatever it ends up being. (The same reason it is perversely inflationary in this environment) If you're taxing money that was being circulated in the economy, that is a different story entirely, of course.

Normal economics do not apply at the moment.

Drinky Die: "Accepting a clean raise for even a short amount of time establishes the precedent that there will not be negotiations to prevent default. Citizens are sick and tired of these crisis situations and the Republicans will pay a HUGE price if they try again in six weeks. They would be much better off passing a longer debt ceiling raise and playing out their hand on the shutdown as best they can."

It's not clean, though. It has the no-more-extraordinary-measures bomb that will continue to plague us long after this particular crisis is over.
posted by wierdo at 4:01 PM on October 10, 2013 [1 favorite]


Ya know, Harry Reid is growing on me.
posted by angrycat at 4:02 PM on October 10, 2013


My guess is that your total cumulative losses (without wins, or wins without losses, take your pick) in poker are almost certainly less than four figures, and certainly less than five - am I right?

You'd be very, very wrong, but I may have learned the game in a slightly different environment than you. Before the limit game dried up the team haul was over $100K, and that was with only a couple of years at stakes.
posted by localroger at 4:03 PM on October 10, 2013


And this is the baffling part for me as a political outsider. Don't you spend political capital making deals so that there are enough votes for things? What's the difference between something not having enough votes and something not yet having enough votes?

First, what I'm saying is that Obama did not run on the things they say he did. Then they demand that he round up the votes for their pet projects, like the Public Option.

But to address your excellent larger point, the way to get votes is to trade them for things you'd rather not have enacted, but are acceptable to you as a trade. The House is easy if you have it. The Senate? Not so much. And if you look into the weeds of when the Dems had 60 votes, it turns out to be a very short time, nowhere near a 2-year term. That's a very short time. And during that time, deals were done. In early '09, they got stimulus through with 2 GOP votes. But that was it. And when Blanche Lincoln decides her entire future rides on her getting rid of the Public Option and she won't even vote cloture on a bill with it in there, there is nothing Obama can do about it. She is the 60th vote for cloture. Any threat is meaningless when Lincoln's polling said she had to break with the party or lose her seat.

And the rest is history. The GOP went bat-shit racist and ginned up the whitest electorate ever while fools claiming to be "Obama's base" said Obama should be taught a lesson and people should stay home. So the GOP House was here to stay and you see how that went.

The fact is many of the things people wanted were not attainable and the President had not run on them. For them to be upset that he didn't burn political capital on them when they were likely to be losers because Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln would not vote cloture on them seems foolish. And they tried to flex on Blanche, voting for a loyal ACA supporter in the Arkansas primary. Dude was whipped, so Blanche read her electorate right.

The other thing is the big Dem programs were marched through with 65-70 dems in the Senate. Clinton passed nothing but a tax increase in his time. Hillarycare never even made it to the floor. So, to all the Jon Stewarts, where are these votes that make single payer fly? Its not credible as a negotiating position if no one in the history of the country ever even came close.
posted by Ironmouth at 4:04 PM on October 10, 2013 [3 favorites]


Also, holy shit this polling must scare the GOP.

Brian Williams and Chuck Todd sounded gobsmacked on NBC News. I wonder if the WH got a hold of those numbers early.
posted by zombieflanders at 4:05 PM on October 10, 2013 [1 favorite]


Watching the network nightly news broadcasts tonight, I'm sickened by how wrong the reporting on the shutdown and debt ceiling are.
posted by ob1quixote at 4:05 PM on October 10, 2013 [3 favorites]


I wonder if the WH got a hold of those numbers early.

Things have been drifting ominously in that direction for over a week. Anyone who didn't see it coming has been living in a cave.
posted by localroger at 4:08 PM on October 10, 2013


And when Blanche Lincoln decides her entire future rides on her getting rid of the Public Option and she won't even vote cloture on a bill with it in there, there is nothing Obama can do about it. She is the 60th vote for cloture. Any threat is meaningless when Lincoln's polling said she had to break with the party or lose her seat.

Well, that answers my question. If Lincoln wasn't even to vote for cloture, ... sheesh.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 4:11 PM on October 10, 2013


That is certainly what you accuse everyone who ever disagrees with you of wanting, but in years of reading these threads I've never seen anyone actually argue that. The problem you run into is thinking you "need the votes first". Obviously you need votes, but part of the legislative process is getting those votes.

Why aren't you doing that then?


I am out doing that.

We were talking about tax cuts so I have no idea how you translated my reply into some sort of commentary on the public option, but as you have been told the past 10,000 times you ran this script: In the 2008 Obama-Biden health care plan on the campaign’s website, candidate Obama promised that “any American will have the opportunity to enroll in [a] new public plan.”

Whether he ran on it is a totally different question from if it was appropriate to allow it to be dropped or not, but he ran on it.

Now do the Nader routine, I love that one.
posted by Drinky Die at 4:11 PM on October 10, 2013 [2 favorites]


How are you understanding "government program" and "public plan"? To me, those look like a public option, not an individual mandate to purchase private insurance.

Well, what did Obama say in the cited paragraph? He referred to expanding current programs to reach people above the poverty line, which is in the bill, not a government-run subsection of the exchanges.

Where's the part where in 2008 he says "I want a government run plan that will compete with private plans on the exchange?" Where is it? Nobody's ever shown it to me and I searched long and hard in the discussions we had over all this in the past. I never found it.

I think what happened is that Obama would have loved to have such a plan. But he's not going to throw the whole ACA out when a member of his own party, Blanche Lincoln, said she'd vote with the GOP to filibuster the bill if it had a public option in it.
posted by Ironmouth at 4:11 PM on October 10, 2013 [1 favorite]


Watching the network nightly news broadcasts tonight, I'm sickened by how wrong the reporting on the shutdown and debt ceiling are.

Out of curiosity, which ones did you watch? I have my own feelings about which of the big network anchors is the worst. (Hint: He often appears on comedy shows and does shtick.)
posted by Atom Eyes at 4:13 PM on October 10, 2013


It's not clean, though. It has the no-more-extraordinary-measures bomb that will continue to plague us long after this particular crisis is over.

If we break their will to use the debt ceiling as blackmail, we shouldn't need the extraordinary measures in the future. If we don't...well we will have other problems.
posted by Drinky Die at 4:14 PM on October 10, 2013


Seriously tired of the Obama did he/didn't he derail.
posted by wemayfreeze at 4:22 PM on October 10, 2013 [33 favorites]


If we break their will to use the debt ceiling as blackmail, we shouldn't need the extraordinary measures in the future. If we don't...well we will have other problems.

Spot on. As you said, they can't come back in 6 weeks and do it again.

And that poll? Jesus fucking christ. Ouch.
posted by Ironmouth at 4:23 PM on October 10, 2013 [1 favorite]


The polling data is bad for the GOP and the Tea Party, but, as Nate Silver's post points out, things move quickly in American politics and today's numbers may have no bearing on the next election. Alas.
posted by wemayfreeze at 4:26 PM on October 10, 2013 [1 favorite]


And that poll? Jesus fucking christ. Ouch.

The only poll that matters to an elected official is the poll in their district. They might lose the country for the Republicans, but they'll keep their seat.
posted by Joey Michaels at 4:38 PM on October 10, 2013


The polling data is bad for the GOP and the Tea Party, but, as Nate Silver's post points out, things move quickly in American politics and today's numbers may have no bearing on the next election. Alas.

Alas nothing. It is simply up to us. We need to all out this thing like the 2008 Presidential Election. I mean really go all out.
posted by Ironmouth at 4:39 PM on October 10, 2013 [8 favorites]


My favorite bit of that poll is that ACA support has increased 7 points since Ted Cruz opened his idiot mouth.
posted by jason_steakums at 4:40 PM on October 10, 2013 [24 favorites]


Alas nothing. It is simply up to us. We need to all out this thing like the 2008 Presidential Election. I mean really go all out.

My state is reliably 100% blue, but I send my money to battleground states/districts. You can be sure I'll be targeting my money to turn some red spots blue.
posted by Joey Michaels at 4:41 PM on October 10, 2013 [2 favorites]


Atom Eyes, I watched both NBC and ABC. NBC was by far the worse, but ABC wasn't much better. A lot of "both sides" bullshit. Made me angry. Plus they both reported the stock market news as if it were good rather than kind of troubling.
posted by ob1quixote at 4:43 PM on October 10, 2013


If you're interested in where to send your money, Sam Wang may have some ideas: Gerrymandering creates a point of weakness
posted by apcmwh at 4:44 PM on October 10, 2013 [6 favorites]


Parks and Recs and Shutdown
posted by drezdn at 5:06 PM on October 10, 2013


Alas nothing. It is simply up to us. We need to all out this thing like the 2008 Presidential Election. I mean really go all out.

As with probably most of us in this thread, I live in an overwhelmingly Democratic district. There's nothing that I can do to help Mike Doyle do better. He won with 76% of the vote last year. Some years, the Republican haven't even bothered to field a candidate.
posted by octothorpe at 5:09 PM on October 10, 2013


Luckily for taking on shit I live in Pennsyltucky, a highly target-rich environment
posted by angrycat at 5:14 PM on October 10, 2013 [1 favorite]


As with probably most of us in this thread, I live in an overwhelmingly Democratic district. There's nothing that I can do to help Mike Doyle do better. He won with 76% of the vote last year. Some years, the Republican haven't even bothered to field a candidate.

I think calling Mike Doyle and attaboying him for things you like helps a lot. Let's him know folks out there are supporting him in this fight this month. Giving behavior you like acknowledgement can only help.

Sadly, I have no congressman at all. My people have to inject themselves in this fight.
posted by Ironmouth at 5:20 PM on October 10, 2013 [3 favorites]


> I never thought I'd say this, but fuck you, Nate.

PPP are the most consistently accurate pollsters out there even when polling difficult races that no one else will touch.


Nate Silver linked to this criticism of PPP by Nate Cohn.
posted by nangar at 5:21 PM on October 10, 2013


apcmwh's article reminds us that gerrymandering isn't always undefeatable, and in fact in times of national outrage it can produce surprisingly sudden reversals.

However I take issue with it being termed as creating a point of weakness. In truth, it creates situations where the electoral result doesn't reflect voter reality. It's not that it makes a weak point -- it's that it nudges the result over to where it shouldn't be. Of course the situation is weak, it shouldn't exist in the first place. When you take pains to forge a seat out of nothing, it's naturally going to be unstable.
posted by JHarris at 5:22 PM on October 10, 2013


octothorpe: " As with probably most of us in this thread, I live in an overwhelmingly Democratic district. There's nothing that I can do to help Mike Doyle do better. He won with 76% of the vote last year. Some years, the Republican haven't even bothered to field a candidate."

I'm just North in PA-12 (formerly PA-04), which was reasonably swing-y until they merged it with John Murtha's old territory, when it went from R+6 to R+9 partisan advantage. Not that Jason Altmire was anyone's idea of a reliable Democrat, but at this point, I'm not sure even a conservative Blue Dog could get elected here.
posted by tonycpsu at 5:23 PM on October 10, 2013


I'm just North in PA-12 (formerly PA-04), which was reasonably swing-y until they merged it with John Murtha's old territory, when it went from R+6 to R+9 partisan advantage. Not that Jason Altmire was anyone's idea of a reliable Democrat, but at this point, I'm not sure even a conservative Blue Dog could get elected here.

Stretch the field. Make them work. Wait for a good candidate and build organization and links. Liberal foundations give grants for this type of stuff, I know a guy who picks who gets 'em.

Really we are only helped by being involved.
posted by Ironmouth at 5:27 PM on October 10, 2013 [2 favorites]


Yeah, not saying it can't be done, just that the new districts make it a more uphill battle. I generally send my money to Actblue and OFA and other things that will put the money to better use.
posted by tonycpsu at 5:31 PM on October 10, 2013


Governorships and state offices help too - look at the mayhem that the recent crop of Republican state majorities have wreaked. I am hoping we can get rid of Scott in FL. If we want to undo the gerymandering, that happens at the state level. We need better state machines. Howard Dean was pushing that philosophy strongly.
posted by madamjujujive at 5:33 PM on October 10, 2013 [4 favorites]


... says the woman from Massachusetts....
posted by madamjujujive at 5:34 PM on October 10, 2013 [1 favorite]


At this point Obama should just tell the House that if they pass a clean CR he'll eat a bug.

Honor satisfied!
posted by George_Spiggott at 5:40 PM on October 10, 2013 [9 favorites]


"... says the woman from Massachusetts...."

worst limerick ever
posted by klangklangston at 5:51 PM on October 10, 2013 [6 favorites]


Governorships and state offices help too ...

That is true. I went to see Allyson Schwartz who is running for governor of PA speak a few months ago and we very impressed. But I'll definitely contribute to anyone who ends up running against Corbett and if I'm able do some campaigning.

tonycpsu, you had to mention Altmire. I made phone calls for that guy for almost six months in '06 and was so excited that he won and beat Melissa Hart (a Santorum protege) and was never more let down when he voted against the ACA.
posted by octothorpe at 5:52 PM on October 10, 2013


wierdo: "Not in a zero rate environment where cash is largely sitting in T Bills paying less than the rate of inflation. Taxing it and spending it increases the multiplier from zero to whatever it ends up being.

This is just plain wrong. As shown here, the Bush tax cuts had a positive multiplier, although a small one, even if you limit it to the wealthy. You evaluate a policy choice on its own merits and tax increases are contractionary. Whatever else you do is a separate policy decision. You don't get to call a contractionary policy (tax increases) expansionary because some other policy choice (government spending) happens to be expansionary. Spending is expansionary. Tax increases are not. You don't smear them together when deciding which is better for the economy. And this has nothing to do with the zero interest rates.

But in Ironmouth's case, he wasn't even talking about more spending. He was saying that Obama traded spending cuts for tax increases. Both of these are contractionary.

We shouldn't be talking about tax increases at all. We should be talking about increasing spending and increasing the debt when rates are low. Tax increases do the opposite.
posted by JackFlash at 5:54 PM on October 10, 2013


msnbc.com - BREAKING NEWS: Barack Obama Eats A Bug
posted by Rhaomi at 5:59 PM on October 10, 2013 [2 favorites]


Boehner should offer the DREAM Act to the floor and 20 GOP votes. He's got them. What else do they have of value they can give up? They've coughed up a permanent tax increase on the highest earners and DADT repeal brought to the floor and passed. Part of the problem is they have nothing left to offer. All the other times Obama got something of value. Mostly policy and 1 political, a free hand for a year where the GOP stood still and passed Obamacare repeal measures.

Basically he traded for (1) DADT and extentding the payroll tax; (2) a year of none of this until after the 2010 election; (3) a permanent raise in the marginal tax rate on the top earners.

Those were some pretty good trades. And now the GOP has nothing left to offer. Except immigration reform. The problem is the impending GOP civil war. If they give us this, the GOP Establishment is weakened. But the Eastablishment must provoke the fight now.

If I were Boehner, I'd hand the Dems immigration reform for a 1 year delay in Obamacare.
posted by Ironmouth at 6:01 PM on October 10, 2013


Obama should tell the House that if they pass a clean CR he'll fart on command.

And then they pass the clean CR and then they're like, "okay, now fart," but then nothing happens, and Obama just smiles, so then the House looks into a mirror, and that's when they realize that THEY HAVE ALL BEEN TURNED INTO FARTS

(roll credits to closing theme from "Are You Afraid of the Dark?")

(all of America dies of fright)
posted by Sticherbeast at 6:01 PM on October 10, 2013 [11 favorites]


My favorite bit of that poll is that ACA support has increased 7 points since Ted Cruz opened his idiot mouth.

Apparently some people have heard about the Obamacare glitches and--I just love the delicious irony here--blame the problems on the shutdown. I have to imagine Cruz and Lee are getting an earful on this one.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:02 PM on October 10, 2013 [14 favorites]


that's when they realize that THEY HAVE ALL BEEN TURNED INTO FARTS

Sadly, this ship has already sailed...
posted by Pudhoho at 6:09 PM on October 10, 2013 [1 favorite]


It's amazing to see how far the House is willing to sacrifice the Republican brand in the name of maintaining party unity and dedication to conservative dogma. Each of these stunts that they pull might gain them some short-term tactical advantage (although that's rapidly coming to an end because Obama has them by the short hairs now) at the cost of seeming more and more extremist.

Yes most House Republicans are basically immune to challenges except from the right due to pervasive and extreme gerrymandering which arguably insulates them from electoral backlash but also saddles them with a group of voters that simply doesn't see the current Administration as legitimate and are unwilling to compromise on anything. Sometimes having an ridiculous partisan district can actually be a long term hinderance.

These stunts are going to doom them in terms of gaining control over the Senate and makes their chances in national elections laughable. There is really no advantage in winning the short term battle if you lose the battle in the long term.

Basically conservatives basically are going to have to depend on the SCOTUS to undermine any sort of liberal shift in the country and let's be honest there is only so much that can do to New Deal and Great Society programs anymore. Considering that Scalia and Kennedy would likely retire in less than a decade the chances of a near permanent Democratic White House must be absolutely terrifying because that 5-4 advantage for Conservatives will probably become a 6-3 for liberals if Republicans keep on their current path.

So Republicans if you think this is only a short term game and the Rapture will signal an end to the game then keep on trucking on but man you guys need to look farther than 6 weeks into the future if you want to avoid a serious buttkicking in the coming decade.
posted by vuron at 6:20 PM on October 10, 2013 [2 favorites]


JackFlash: "This is just plain wrong. As shown here, the Bush tax cuts had a positive multiplier, although a small one, even if you limit it to the wealthy. You evaluate a policy choice on its own merits and tax increases are contractionary. Whatever else you do is a separate policy decision. You don't get to call a contractionary policy (tax increases) expansionary because some other policy choice (government spending) happens to be expansionary. Spending is expansionary. Tax increases are not. You don't smear them together when deciding which is better for the economy. And this has nothing to do with the zero interest rates."

Move goalposts much? The conversation was about deficit neutral stimulus, which by definition requires a taxation and spending component. Obviously, if the tax revenue is not spent, it will make not one iota of difference whether it sits idly on the government's balance sheet or the balance sheet of some corporation.

My point wasn't that taxation is inflationary, it is not. It is that in some circumstances, it is not deflationary. In some circumstances, tax decreases are not inflationary, although they usually are. Just as money printing is usually inflationary, but is presently not. This has everything to do with both ZIRP and the persistent output gap. They are what enable tax increases to be not-deflationary, and therefore make deficit neutral stimulus useful in some economic conditions.
posted by wierdo at 6:37 PM on October 10, 2013 [1 favorite]


, even if you limit it to the wealthy.

You meant to say "only if you limit it to the wealthy," I'm sure. /kidding

Wealth and income in the rest of the economy have stagnated or worse for years now, especially since the global financial collapse.
posted by saulgoodman at 8:24 PM on October 10, 2013


Wow, Ryan called discussions where the GOP plan was shot down as productive.
posted by Ironmouth at 9:06 PM on October 10, 2013


One of the things that makes this time different (not politically, just in terms of ending the impasse) is that the people who are pushing for the shutdown actually believe that shutting down the government and defaulting on the debt are good things in and of themselves. They'd like nothing more than to destroy the federal government. Half of them sincerely believe that the end of world is nearly here, anyway. So saying "If you don't do this, then you will destroy the federal government" doesn't actually give you any leverage. It's a win-win for them.
posted by empath at 9:31 PM on October 10, 2013 [3 favorites]


In which the NYT charges Boehner with an overstayment of welcome by suddenly, spontaneously realizing that Paul Ryan is smart, popular and has credibility with the Democrats:

“He's still the intellectual center of Republicans in the House,” said Representative Tom Cole, Republican of Oklahoma, who serves as Mr. Ryan’s bridge between the House Budget and Appropriations Committees. “He’s a guy who commands universal respect in the conference and the trust of leadership, and he has credibility with the other side.”

I don't think anyone's going to believe that the GOP has an intellectual center at this point.

This doesn't really change anything important, to my mind. Ryan's position is still one of negotiation and thus is no more legitimate than the extortionate mechanism underlying it.
posted by clockzero at 9:34 PM on October 10, 2013 [1 favorite]


So CBS ran this article "10 days after government shutdown, Obama and GOP start negotiating" (warning, obnoxious autoplay) and when you read the article and the other coverage of today's events, you see that Obama's part of the "negotiation" is the exact same thing it has been: clean CR, raise the debt limit. Is the new Boehner plan just to totally capitulate and pretend that he negotiated his way there?
posted by jason_steakums at 9:42 PM on October 10, 2013 [2 favorites]




Is the new Boehner plan just to totally capitulate and pretend that he negotiated his way there?

Yes.

What is the downside for him in doing what is standard Public Relations?

The people who'd point it out are 'just haters' or the 47% who weren't gonna vote his way anyway as far as he's concerned.
posted by rough ashlar at 11:42 PM on October 10, 2013


Wealth and income in the rest of the economy have stagnated or worse for years now, especially since the global financial collapse.

One can go back to the 1970's for such an analysis.

If you are a Gold bug, the Nixon withdraw from Brenton Woods is the cited reason. If you have concerns about energy use, the conventional oil production peak in the US of A is your reason. Odds are there is an argument somewhere that would claim the UFOs are to blame somehow.

Global finance collapse - seems the top 1% are doing just fine. Your personal world may be collapsed, but the system is working just fine for others.
posted by rough ashlar at 11:50 PM on October 10, 2013 [1 favorite]


Paul Ryan isn't going to be able to deliver the tea party, I don't think, based on the comments on republican message boards (Paul RINO-- seriously).
posted by empath at 12:38 AM on October 11, 2013


I'm sorry, Blasdelb, could you please, um, link to a transcript or something. Or maybe link to some kind of summary. I started to gaga afer 13 seconds. Like, um. My brain locked up.

I don't know what the FUCK is wrong with right wing media, but seriously, it causes near epileptic fits trying to listen to it. It is almost like I am lacking some kind of antibody to be able to even listen or watch it.

What the fuck is wrong with me?
posted by daq at 12:38 AM on October 11, 2013 [2 favorites]


realizing that Paul Ryan is smart, popular and has credibility with the Democrats:

The guys a fuckin' moron. Everyone knows it. They fluffed the dumbass into proposing the real GOP program of no money for Grandma. They ate it up and got pounded. Watching Denny Rehberg lose while running against the Ryan budget was a particularly good moment. On the record votes against it too.
posted by Ironmouth at 12:45 AM on October 11, 2013 [2 favorites]


Yeah, he's not smart or popular. The only reason that anyone pays attention to him is that Obama took his awful budget proposal out of obscurity and forced the GOP to stand behind it, since no one else in the GOP was willing to publicly admit that they supported a dogfood-for-seniors plan. And the GOP got suckered into making him a VP candidate!
posted by empath at 12:49 AM on October 11, 2013 [8 favorites]


Yeah, he's not smart or popular.

Per the lens of The Blue. If one decides to look at him from the framing of the Republican party, he may very well be the best they've got.
posted by rough ashlar at 12:52 AM on October 11, 2013 [1 favorite]


Objectively, he's not that popular. The last polling done on his approval rating was in March and it was like 35% approval.
posted by empath at 1:11 AM on October 11, 2013


Is the new Boehner plan just to totally capitulate and pretend that he negotiated his way there?

That would be the most amusing end to this whole tempest.

Boehner statement to the press: "Today, I convinced the President to agree to sign a clean funding and debt ceiling increase bill because we, unlike Democrats, have always believed politics should not get in the way of funding the programs important to the American people. The President may have been willing to take the nation to the brink of destruction but we are not."
posted by honestcoyote at 2:13 AM on October 11, 2013 [6 favorites]


The GOP has mostly been lying all along; why not just lie some more and say the GOP forced Obama to sign a clean CR. Hooray! We won! Everybody gets a car!
posted by angrycat at 3:23 AM on October 11, 2013 [2 favorites]


Oh, I hate NPR* with this kind of stuff. They always do this "here's the Democratic view" and "here's the Republican response" without any context or without bothering to point out that the Republican response is total nonsense wharrgarbl.

I disagree. They don't always present the Democratic view.

The scary thing about that is, NPR seems to buy into the myth that its own reporting is somehow the "liberal view". At best it presumes that reality has a liberal bias, but as noted earlier, they don't bother to distinguish between objective reality and "he said, she said" nonsense.

This morning, Elsa Chang described Newt Gingrich as being "blamed" for the 1996 shutdown, as if it were some random event for which he took the fall and not something he deliberately orchestrated.

Feh.
posted by Gelatin at 5:04 AM on October 11, 2013 [22 favorites]


>Elsa Chang described Newt Gingrich as being "blamed" for the 1996 shutdown

Seriously, is 'responsible' not supported by the historical record or something?
posted by mikelieman at 5:08 AM on October 11, 2013


From that O'Reilly link @2:19...
"now after I said that [independents would be angry with Republicans if government shut down], I received a lot of angry mail from the hard right viewers..."

The TP is out of Koch Bros' control, out of Republican party control and now, out of Fox News' control. Wow.
posted by klarck at 5:11 AM on October 11, 2013


also from the O'Reilly link:

"Democrats are going to win the next election if Republicans do not begin to solve problems."
posted by skrozidile at 6:08 AM on October 11, 2013


What's the last problem the Republicans have fixed? (Honest question)
posted by edgeways at 6:25 AM on October 11, 2013


Budget surplus?
posted by caddis at 6:31 AM on October 11, 2013 [34 favorites]


What's the last problem the Republicans have fixed?
I honestly don't mean to be snarky because it's an interesting question, but in their view: Afghanistan, Iraq, WoT/homeland security. Maybe they also take credit for the economic recovery, such as it is.
posted by klarck at 6:35 AM on October 11, 2013 [1 favorite]


What's the last problem the Republicans have fixed? (Honest question)

With an easy and obvious answer.
posted by Gelatin at 6:36 AM on October 11, 2013 [9 favorites]


What's the last problem the Republicans have fixed? (Honest question)

Snark aside (and oh the possibilities are endless) I think maybe their "tax and spend liberal" attacks pushed the Democrats into becoming the party of fiscal responsibility. Today, objectively, it isn't much of a question: compare the budget situations for Clinton or Obama vs Bush or Bush Sr. or Reagan... So maybe they get credit for making the other party better on at least one dimension?

Other than that I'm really drawing a blank. I disagree in the strongest possible terms on Iraq and homeland security, and I bet President Gore might have plausibly prevented 9/11 and at the very least not dragged us into the fascist security state that we're in today. ("Department of Homeland Security"? Really? Do people who named that even have any sense of history?)
posted by RedOrGreen at 6:40 AM on October 11, 2013 [2 favorites]


Cruz Favorability Rating plunges

Sen. Ted Cruz’s (R-Texas) favorability rating has collapsed as the public has become more familiar with him, according to a Gallup survey released on Thursday.

The survey found that 26 percent have a favorable view of the Texas Republican, against 36 percent unfavorable. That makes 62 percent of the public that has an opinion on Cruz, up from 42 percent in June, when 24 percent had a favorable view of him against 18 percent unfavorable – a 16-point negative swing.

posted by Comrade_robot at 6:51 AM on October 11, 2013 [1 favorite]


Mod note: Comment deleted; maybe just stick to this problem for this thread, rather than open a discussion of every Gov problem, ever. Thanks.
posted by taz (staff) at 6:59 AM on October 11, 2013


Sen. Ted Cruz’s (R-Texas) favorability rating has collapsed as the public has become more familiar with him, according to a Gallup survey released on Thursday.

@sissenberg: THE MANITOBAN CANDIDATE: Canadians program one of their own as an American right-winger to infiltrate the Senate and destroy the US economy.
posted by zombieflanders at 7:00 AM on October 11, 2013 [10 favorites]


Other than that I'm really drawing a blank. I disagree in the strongest possible terms on Iraq and homeland security, and I bet President Gore might have plausibly prevented 9/11 and at the very least not dragged us into the fascist security state that we're in today. ("Department of Homeland Security"? Really? Do people who named that even have any sense of history?)

Actually, the idea of a Department of Homeland Security was actually a bipartisan idea first proposed under the Clinton Administration by Gary Hart of 1988 Democratic primary fame. Of course, the National Homeland Security Agency (as it was going to be called) as envisioned by Hart/Rudman was, at least on paper, a much better-designed organization than DHS. For instance, it was an independent agency instead of a Cabinet-level position, focused much more on HUMINT than SIGINT, and it called for reductions in DOD expenditures. Not perfect by any means, but a President Gore with a NHSA would have been miles better than what we have now.
posted by zombieflanders at 7:10 AM on October 11, 2013 [2 favorites]


Just to be clear, the NYT's characterization of Ryan is obviously just bluster and a desperate GOP bid for dignity. I still regard him as the zombie-eyed granny-starver we all fell in nausea with last year.
posted by clockzero at 7:18 AM on October 11, 2013 [4 favorites]


What's the last problem the Republicans have fixed? (Honest question)

Snark aside (and oh the possibilities are endless) I think maybe their "tax and spend liberal" attacks pushed the Democrats into becoming the party of fiscal responsibility. Today, objectively, it isn't much of a question: compare the budget situations for Clinton or Obama vs Bush or Bush Sr. or Reagan... So maybe they get credit for making the other party better on at least one dimension?

Other than that I'm really drawing a blank. I disagree in the strongest possible terms on Iraq and homeland security, and I bet President Gore might have plausibly prevented 9/11 and at the very least not dragged us into the fascist security state that we're in today. ("Department of Homeland Security"? Really? Do people who named that even have any sense of history?)


It depends at what level of government we're talking about.

State? Susana Martinez and Chris Christie are popular, so are presumably doing some good things in their respective states.

The Bush whitehouse? President Bush has been credited -right here on the blue!- with doing an unprecedented amount of good for AIDS in Africa. Bush also strongly backed immigration reform via a guest worker program, and I've seen his prediction drug benefit treated as both a horrible fiasco and a kind of partial sop to people wanting bigger forms of health care reform. (e.g. Slate calling it a "fiasco" that needed to be more statist, dailykos comparing it to Obamacare after getting reformed and improved once it was passed)
posted by Going To Maine at 7:21 AM on October 11, 2013 [1 favorite]


"Democrats are going to win the next election if Republicans do not begin to solve problems."

What's the last problem the Republicans have fixed? (Honest question)


Well, he did say they have to "begin."
posted by malocchio at 7:21 AM on October 11, 2013 [1 favorite]


Sen. Ted Cruz’s (R-Texas) favorability rating has collapsed as the public has become more familiar with him, according to a Gallup survey released on Thursday.

I guess maybe that's relevant if he runs for the Presidency but otherwise, who cares? All that matters is what the folks in Texas think of him. Same goes for Ryan. Sure, his national numbers may not be great -- but so long as he keeps his job, I'm sure he's not sweating it too much.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 7:21 AM on October 11, 2013


GtM: prediction drug benefit
YOU can be a precog! And YOU can be a precog. And YOU can be a precog! /Oprah
posted by zakur at 7:25 AM on October 11, 2013 [2 favorites]


Yeah, [Ryan is] not smart or popular. The only reason that anyone pays attention to him is that Obama took his awful budget proposal out of obscurity and forced the GOP to stand behind it.

I think he's a dolt, but one way or another the sequester that Obama walked into, thinking it would be too onerous to sustain*, gets the spending levels pretty much down to the original Ryan budget. So, maybe there's different kinds of "smart", eh? And as for popular: in our era, a politician needs to be primarily popular with the money boys. Most everyone else can just be bamboozled with lots of media buys and from friendly pulpits.
____
*One of his many excellent 11-dimensional chess moves, no doubt.
posted by mondo dentro at 7:26 AM on October 11, 2013 [2 favorites]


Paul Ryan is totally an empty suit but he's an empty suit with national aspirations so I think the thought is that he's more willing to wheel and deal in an attempt to seem more centrist than someone like Cruz (who couldn't be elected dogcatcher now) but still not a complete RINO like Christie (who is quite frankly their only hope in 2016 and he probably can't survive the nomination process). That Ryan has suddenly moved from an extreme right figure to a relative centrist speak volumes as to how extreme the shift that has happened in the Republican caucus. I don't think every Republican representative has drunk the proverbial kool-aid but they are terrified of those that have and the threat from people like Chocula that their seats aren't safe if they break ranks.

So you have leadership probably twisting arms to maintain some unity and PACs saying the knives are coming for them if they cave and it's basically destroying the party from within because all of a sudden Democrats have grown spines (they really haven't but this issue is so fucking bad for the Republicans the Democrats are enjoying applying the thumbscrews).

I can't even imagine how bad it will be for Republicans if stuff like Social Security checks don't get mailed out in time. Those human interest stories write themselves.
posted by vuron at 7:30 AM on October 11, 2013




I can't even imagine how bad it will be for Republicans if stuff like Social Security checks don't get mailed out in time.

It depends how it's played in the media, really. I would foresee a ton of website comments "it costs more to hold the checks then to send them out! Washington Monument Syndrome! Obama's fault!"
posted by inigo2 at 7:36 AM on October 11, 2013 [1 favorite]


I guess maybe that's relevant if he runs for the Presidency but otherwise, who cares? All that matters is what the folks in Texas think of him.

Cruz is running for president, and don't kid yourself otherwise. I personally think we'll get a Rick Perry situation out of it--which is fine; he's got the potential for some ugly gaffes, though they're less dumbshit gaffes than mean jackass gaffes if I read the history right--but the signs are all there: the approach to the early primary/straw poll states, the national grandstanding, etc. Plus you may well have Rick Perry to kick around again.

As for my fellow Texans: we're stuck with him for another few years, but Battleground Texas is our option. (Also kicking a few to/volunteering for Wendy Davis and the statewide Democrats this election cycle to shift the tide.)
posted by immlass at 8:43 AM on October 11, 2013 [3 favorites]


These stunts are going to doom them in terms of gaining control over the Senate and makes their chances in national elections laughable. There is really no advantage in winning the short term battle if you lose the battle in the long term.

As much as I'd love for this to be true, I've been reading this for... oh, years now I guess, about how this or that policy will surely doom the Republicans in the next election cycle. I don't know how much worse you can be than fucking up the entire government and the entire world economy twice.


Well the Republicans have looked pretty bad nationally for a while though. In the 2012 election, Democrats won the popular vote for the Presidential, House, and Senate overall, and Obama's first term wasn't even that popular with anyone. The GOP are currently dealing with a major schism between old-school Reagan Republicans and further right Tea Party Republicans, when long term nationally the demographics are going to force them to move more towards the center on a lot of their key platform positions (immigration reform, gay marriage, etc.). Instead of preparing a strategy for the future they are trying and failing to hold the government hostage to block a centrist law that they failed to block four years ago and wouldn't gain anything from blocking in the first place.

There are a ton of young people who are forming their opinions about the parties right now, and the main image of the Republican party they are getting at this point is that it's the party that is ready to commit suicide over letting them get health care. Thanks to the Republican strategy of spending eight years trying to stop anything from getting done on a national level, nobody from their side is going to be able to point to anything they have actually done to improve the lives of the people who would be electing them. It's not a coincidence that most of the even marginally popular potential GOP presidential candidates for the 2016 election are state governors, because nobody in the GOP at the national level right now even wants to get anything done.
posted by burnmp3s at 8:49 AM on October 11, 2013 [3 favorites]


Cruz is running for president, and don't kid yourself otherwise.
I can't wait to hear TP excuses for why Cruz (born in Canada/American mother/foreign father) is eligible to run for President, but Obama (born in U.S./American mother/foreign father) was not.
posted by zakur at 8:53 AM on October 11, 2013 [5 favorites]


McCain To Fox News: No, The Shutdown Is The GOP's Fault

"Let's have a little straight talk, Martha," McCain said. "[The administration] wouldn't have had the opportunity to handle it that way if we had not shut down the government on a fool's errand that we were not going to accomplish. The whole premise of shutting down the government was the repeal of Obamacare. I fought against Obamacare harder than any of the people who wanted to shut down the government."

posted by madamjujujive at 9:00 AM on October 11, 2013 [8 favorites]


It's apparently racist, somehow, to even point out that little bit of Tea Party hypocrisy, zakur.
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:02 AM on October 11, 2013 [1 favorite]


WASHINGTON — Sen. Ted Cruz was greeted like a rock star Friday at a major gathering of social conservatives, exhorting the audience at the eighth annual Values Voter Summit to stand firm against President Obama's health care law.... The summit, now in its eighth year, has become a showcase for the Republican Party's up-and-coming stars and a proving ground for White House hopefuls. A presidential straw poll will be conducted.

[Family Research Council president Tony] Perkins called Cruz, Paul, Lee and Rubio the "de facto leaders of conservatives, of the Republican Party even."

posted by argonauta at 9:07 AM on October 11, 2013


That article is rather oddly written. The headline is that Cruz was heckled by protesters, but then the first line states he was greeted like a rock star, and the reporter incuriously declines to mention who the hecklers were or what they said.
posted by clockzero at 9:16 AM on October 11, 2013 [1 favorite]


Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) on Ted Cruz: “How did a guy eight months in the Senate be able to dominate the House Republicans, Senate Republicans, tie up the country, and bring the government to a halt with no end game, no strategy, and then now just sort of walk away, as if he’s done his job?”
posted by exogenous at 9:23 AM on October 11, 2013 [7 favorites]


Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) on Ted Cruz: “How did a guy eight months in the Senate be able to dominate the House Republicans, Senate Republicans, tie up the country, and bring the government to a halt with no end game, no strategy, and then now just sort of walk away, as if he’s done his job?”

When your buddies have been chopping away at a tree for long enough, it only takes one well-placed chop to bring it down.
posted by Etrigan at 9:27 AM on October 11, 2013 [8 favorites]


I can't wait to hear TP excuses for why Cruz (born in Canada/American mother/foreign father) is eligible to run for President, but Obama (born in U.S./American mother/foreign father) was not.
In the alternate reality that many on the right inhabit, "Obama (born in the U.S.)" is literally false.

I want to be clear that of course I find the idea ridiculous. But to them, Obama was not born in the U.S., full stop, and no birth certificate or anything else will ever convince them. The two situations are totally different to them.

And even for the relatively sane ones who now grudgingly admit that Obama was born in the U.S., they'd just say "Well, yeah, that's clear now, but it wasn't clear then. It's clear now that Cruz was born in the U.S." So again, the two situations are totally different to them.
posted by Flunkie at 9:31 AM on October 11, 2013 [1 favorite]


What's the last problem the Republicans have fixed? (Honest question)

They haven't quite solved it, but they're working real hard on that "black people voting too much" problem
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:40 AM on October 11, 2013 [6 favorites]


Flunkie (quoting notional Republicans): "It's clear now that Cruz was born in the U.S."

He was born in Canada.
posted by dendrochronologizer at 9:42 AM on October 11, 2013 [1 favorite]


He was born in Canada.
So what? The point is they believe what they want to believe and facts are irrelevant, so putting the Cruz situation up against the Obama situation and demanding some sort of explanation for hypocrisy is, from their point of view, nonsensical.
posted by Flunkie at 9:51 AM on October 11, 2013


And at least Canada is in America.
posted by malocchio at 9:56 AM on October 11, 2013 [11 favorites]


Also, what could be so bad about a place they call The Great White North?
posted by Atom Eyes at 10:00 AM on October 11, 2013 [2 favorites]


Ted Cruz wasn't born in the United States. Barack Obama was. That is why the former is not eligible and latter is eligible to be president.
What? "Natural born citizen" is what matters, not "citizen born in the US".

Just because being born in the US implies you're a natural born citizen does not mean that being born out of the US implies you are not a natural born citizen. In fact, relatively shortly after the Constitution was written, a law was passed that explicitly stated that certain people born outside the US are natural born citizens.

And here's a PDF a recent (2011) report for Congress by the Congressional Research Service on the matter. The upshot:
The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth,” either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth.”
I don't know whether Cruz qualifies or not, having had one and only one parent who was an American citizen; I guess maybe it depends upon exactly what the law said at the time of his birth. But simply saying "He was not born in the US and therefore he is ineligible for the presidency" is not correct. John McCain, for example, also was not born in the US.
posted by Flunkie at 10:13 AM on October 11, 2013 [3 favorites]


School the House Rock (a retro approach)
posted by Benny Andajetz at 10:14 AM on October 11, 2013 [2 favorites]


When I start agreeing with Peter King, this may be a sign of the end of days.

And he's my rep, too.
posted by inertia at 10:21 AM on October 11, 2013 [1 favorite]


Speaking of the apocalypse, if the failure of the US government portends the end of days, shouldn't folk be demanding chip implants and etc? I mean, fighting against them is, in effect, to fight against the return of Jesus. Which, I dunno, seems a little bassackwards. Two-faced.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:38 AM on October 11, 2013


George Washington was not born in the United States (they didn't exist at the time).
posted by Uncle Ira at 10:38 AM on October 11, 2013


An actual law was actually passed in 1937 explicitly stating that children of citizen parents born in the Canal Zone are citizens. So it's not as simple as you seem to be claiming.

Also, the John McCain thing is just an incidental side note. The main point is that your claim about Cruz being ineligible due to not being born in the US is not true.
posted by Flunkie at 10:41 AM on October 11, 2013 [1 favorite]


George Washington was not born in the United States (they didn't exist at the time).
The Constitution explicitly takes this into account:
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President
posted by Flunkie at 10:42 AM on October 11, 2013 [3 favorites]


He does appear to be eligible. He just isn't electable.
posted by bearwife at 10:42 AM on October 11, 2013 [1 favorite]


An actual law was actually passed in 1937 explicitly stating that children of citizen parents born in the Canal Zone are citizens.

And McCain was born in 1936. CONSPIRACY.
posted by Etrigan at 10:43 AM on October 11, 2013


As tedious and weird as the arguments about Obama's eligibility for the Presidency were when he was running, him running for President was at least a thing actually actively happening. We don't really need to rerun that whole thing for a guy who isn't doing so at the moment.
posted by cortex at 10:44 AM on October 11, 2013 [4 favorites]


The problem is all of this down time requires us to be talking about something while we wait for something to happen.
posted by Ironmouth at 10:46 AM on October 11, 2013 [4 favorites]


Rumor has it that there is a whole giant world outside of this specific thread. It's okay to treat downtime in the process as downtime in the discussion.
posted by cortex at 10:48 AM on October 11, 2013 [12 favorites]


One of my FB friends, a twentysomething office functionary in the local office of a federal agency, is wondering whether she would be better off coming to work and getting paychecks after the shutdown is over, or taking the furlough and filing for unemployment. I'm guessing, but I'd say she makes around $30k/yr, and that she does not have significant savings. Anybody have any advice?
posted by box at 10:52 AM on October 11, 2013


box: check this AskMe for some discussion of that sort of thing.
posted by Etrigan at 10:54 AM on October 11, 2013 [1 favorite]


XQUZYPHYR: "Are we really questioning if Ted Cruz is running for president?"

I'm quite curious to see if he would actually run. The Right has been making a big deal out of him recently, and saying he'd clinch the nomination if he ran. But I'm not necessarily convinced he would, and I'm not sure he wouldn't consider seniority in the Senate more advantageous and powerful than the Oval Office, since he's trying to influence domestic politics.
posted by zarq at 11:03 AM on October 11, 2013


An actual law was actually passed in 1937 explicitly stating that children of citizen parents born in the Canal Zone are citizens.

John McCain was born in 1936, so it's possible to interpret this as a grant of U.S. citizenship after his birth. But both Senator Obama and Senator Clinton believe McCain is a natural born citizen, so this is basically a non-issue.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 11:04 AM on October 11, 2013


Thanks, Etrigan and XQUZYPHYR--the advice I gave her was basically that unemployment takes a few weeks to receive, and that, if I had to guess, I'd say the shutdown will be over before that. Additional opinions on this question are very much welcome.

Ted Cruz? As long as he doesn't come out of this thing totally disgraced (and maybe even then), I imagine he'll run. Look at guys like Gingrich, Cain, Santorum and Paul--running for president on the Republican ticket is a great opportunity for profile- and fund-raising, whether you have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the nomination or not.
posted by box at 11:07 AM on October 11, 2013


Our first seven presidents were British subjects when born.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 11:08 AM on October 11, 2013


So, are we going to endure another week of this, dreading that Obama will give up something for a tiny extension of the debt limit, meanwhile imagining what one would do with superpowers, determining whether one's great powers would require showing mercy to those who have fucked things up?

Sorry, I think that last part is just me.
posted by angrycat at 11:10 AM on October 11, 2013 [1 favorite]


Rafael "Ted" Cruz is a Democrat plant! *adjusts tin-foil hat, drops mic*
posted by Mental Wimp at 11:11 AM on October 11, 2013


Ted Cruz fan says: "When Barack Obama is finally exposed for not just only Who he is but"what" he is.Ted Cruz will go down in History as modern day Paul Revere."
posted by inigo2 at 11:20 AM on October 11, 2013 [1 favorite]


"When Barack Obama is finally exposed for not just only Who he is but"what" he is.Ted Cruz will go down in History as modern day Paul Revere."

One of the lizard people?
posted by rough ashlar at 11:22 AM on October 11, 2013 [1 favorite]


I found this interested: The Debt Ceiling
posted by daq at 11:22 AM on October 11, 2013 [3 favorites]


Paul Revere: noted expositor of people's true natures.
posted by feloniousmonk at 11:23 AM on October 11, 2013 [5 favorites]




I wish you needed government permits to manufacture duck calls and enter child beauty pageants.
posted by box at 11:31 AM on October 11, 2013 [17 favorites]


"When Barack Obama is finally exposed for not just only Who he is but"what" he is.Ted Cruz will go down in History as modern day Paul Revere."

Obama's BLACK, guys.

One of the lizard people?


A black lizard person?! That fiend!
posted by homunculus at 11:32 AM on October 11, 2013


Credit where it's due, though, those black lizard people published some pretty good crime fiction.
posted by box at 11:35 AM on October 11, 2013 [8 favorites]


In VA, if you later receive back pay on top of unemployment, you will have to pay the unemployment back to the state.
posted by T.D. Strange at 11:38 AM on October 11, 2013


"Ted Cruz will go down in History as modern day Paul Revere."

Paul Revere: "The redcoats are coming! The redcoats are coming!"

Ted Cruz: "The white coats are coming to take me away, ha ha! The white coats are coming to take me away!"
posted by Atom Eyes at 11:40 AM on October 11, 2013 [1 favorite]


Without government permits, we can't fish

Without a government doing permitting, we can fish all we want!


for a little while.
posted by oneswellfoop at 11:42 AM on October 11, 2013


If you give a man a government permit, he can fish for a day.

If you teach a man to run for office on an anti-government-permit platform, it's pretty much steak and lobster from there on out.
posted by box at 11:47 AM on October 11, 2013 [12 favorites]




"Ben Carson says that Obamacare is the worst thing to happen since slavery. And he's black, so he's allowed to say that!"
-- something called downtrend.com
posted by inigo2 at 12:06 PM on October 11, 2013


Reid pans six-week debt deal
posted by localroger at 12:15 PM on October 11, 2013


The Right has been making a big deal out of him recently, and saying he'd clinch the nomination if he ran.

Please oh please oh please...
posted by Rykey at 12:18 PM on October 11, 2013 [1 favorite]


Daily Show, Jason Jones, Hostage Negotiation

This is probably linked before, but I was finally able to make it through it. I have to thank the producers and editors of that bit, they kept the crazy coming from the GOP stooge down to a minimum. I loved that Jason Jones got to express a lot of the exasperation that I'm sure a lot of people feel listening to GOP or Tea Party representatives.

But, I have to say, that lady scares the living shit out of me. I mean, not trying to armchair psychologist anything, but the utter vapidity of her responses were frightening.

This is something I have been noticing a lot with all of the right wing pundits and all of their talking points. They will say their sound bites, and then they seem to just kind of grin like they've just explained everything and that we should now totally understand what they are saying. But the sound bites and catch phrases they keep repeating just don't go anywhere. There is not follow up. No explanation. Nothing. They say something, and then that's it. And the worst thing is that they know that this works. They don't have to give any examples, they don't have to give any chain of cause and effect. They just have to repeat the same thing, like a mantra, and people will nod their heads and agree.

It reminds me of the (ok, yes, I'm going to reference Family Guy) episode of Family Guy where Lois runs for office (can't remember if it was the mayor episode, or the school council or whatever), but all she said was "9/11" over and over again, and she won the election.

I really hate to be dumbfounded by this, but is this what has happened to our society? Are there really enough people that you can just say stupid simple catch phrases and people will just suddenly agree with you and nod and vote for you and cheer you on as you go about trying to destroy the country and the government?

WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK.
posted by daq at 12:29 PM on October 11, 2013 [13 favorites]


They will say their sound bites, and then they seem to just kind of grin like they've just explained everything and that we should now totally understand what they are saying.

As far as their base is concerned, they have.
posted by Rykey at 12:36 PM on October 11, 2013 [2 favorites]


I really hate to be dumbfounded by this, but is this what has happened to our society? Are there really enough people that you can just say stupid simple catch phrases and people will just suddenly agree with you and nod and vote for you and cheer you on as you go about trying to destroy the country and the government?

Populist idiocy has always been there in society, and the real change is that government officials and the media now openly pander to it and encourage it. A sense of decency has been lost. There was a really good example on one of John Oliver's Daily Show segments about gun control in the US and Australia, where a member of Reid's staff saw winning as "being reelected", whereas the Australian pols who pushed gun control in the face of public opposition from their base saw winning as "doing the right thing but losing our jobs over it".
posted by jason_steakums at 12:39 PM on October 11, 2013 [2 favorites]


and Bob the Angry Flower is on board with the debt limit...
posted by oneswellfoop at 12:45 PM on October 11, 2013 [1 favorite]


This is a few days old, but it still depresses me:

GOPer calls for ‘four’ branches to work together
posted by malocchio at 12:46 PM on October 11, 2013


Populist idiocy has always been there in society, and the real change is that government officials and the media now openly pander to it and encourage it.

Makes my blood boil. See my rant in the earlier thread.
posted by Rykey at 12:52 PM on October 11, 2013


Watch WH presser live
posted by angrycat at 1:00 PM on October 11, 2013


WH staying firm on not linking debt ceiling to negotiations on entitlements
posted by angrycat at 1:10 PM on October 11, 2013


Carney has such sad eeyore eyes.
posted by Think_Long at 1:10 PM on October 11, 2013


malocchio: "This is a few days old, but it still depresses me:

GOPer calls for ‘four’ branches to work together
"

Hey man, it's not fair to leave Minitrue out!
posted by symbioid at 1:11 PM on October 11, 2013


GOPer calls for ‘four’ branches to work together


Subject/verb agreement evades him, too, apparently.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 1:12 PM on October 11, 2013


Damnit, David Frum, why won't you let me hate you? 1, 2
posted by George_Spiggott at 1:19 PM on October 11, 2013 [1 favorite]


Apparently Ted Cruz presented today his opinions to Obama regarding the evils of the ACA.

I have a whole revenge fantasy involving time travel and Ted Cruz but I think it's best to keep it to myself.
posted by angrycat at 1:20 PM on October 11, 2013


Apparently Ted Cruz presented today his opinions to Obama regarding the evils of the ACA.

In my head, Obama responded by staring at him blankly for a second, then laughing uproariously -- complete with slapping his knee and wiping away tears -- then finally turned to basically anyone else in the room and said, "Right. So, what were we talking about again?"

I suspect he did not actually do this.
posted by Etrigan at 1:24 PM on October 11, 2013 [11 favorites]




Carney is like, 'we are very pleased that the Republicans are showing signs of recognition of how fuckingly wrong they are'
posted by angrycat at 1:26 PM on October 11, 2013


Think_Long: "Carney has such sad eeyore eyes."

Indeed.
posted by symbioid at 1:26 PM on October 11, 2013 [1 favorite]


nice
posted by Think_Long at 1:30 PM on October 11, 2013


So – and I'm just curious – what if the Democrats sit down and say "sure, we'll lower taxes even more on the wealthiest 1% of the population, or we'll remit anyone who makes under $25K a year to the Koch Brothers' corpse farms to keep them in spare parts" or whatever it is the Republicans are demanding, and then they just... don't? It's not like we haven't seen what a Republican hissy fit looks like.
posted by Shepherd at 1:30 PM on October 11, 2013


Mark Knoller, what a right-wing annoying nut.
posted by Ironmouth at 1:46 PM on October 11, 2013


Democratic group sends snarky fruit basket to Cruz.
“Dear Ted,” said the card on the fruit and snack basket sent by the group’s president, Brad Woodhouse. “A Texas sized thank you!! Thanks to you, Obamacare is more popular and the GOP is less so. Keep up the Good Work!! Yours, Americans United for Change.”

Tea Party Group in deep financial trouble.
But the group’s financial troubles were less related to raising money in an off-cycle year and had more to do with extravagant spending, including a craft beer bar in the office and $80,000 Las Vegas hotel bills, by FreedomWorks’ top-heavy management structure, sources said. They also questioned the value in spending a reported $1 million a year to prop up Glenn Beck’s network, The Blaze.
posted by emjaybee at 1:54 PM on October 11, 2013 [6 favorites]


So – and I'm just curious – what if the Democrats sit down and say "sure, we'll lower taxes even more on the wealthiest 1% of the population, or we'll remit anyone who makes under $25K a year to the Koch Brothers' corpse farms to keep them in spare parts" or whatever it is the Republicans are demanding, and then they just... don't? It's not like we haven't seen what a Republican hissy fit looks like.

That's actually what's being discussed, along with keeping the debt ceiling and shutdown tied together instead of being made piecemeal. For right now it's a bit unclear, but it sounds like Paul Ryan et al want binding talks, which is a small step away from the ledge. But it's a step away, which kind of gives away the game. If he makes the vote about "just talk" as it were, then that's game over. If the Dems hold firm and/or Reid gets the Senate to pass something this weekend, the pressure on the House GOP ratchets up and Boehner will hopefully be forced to call a vote passing with Dem support and enough of his folks to squeak a bill through.
posted by zombieflanders at 1:54 PM on October 11, 2013


If Ted Cruz did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.
posted by symbioid at 1:58 PM on October 11, 2013


Interesting - percentage of people who perceive a need for a third party is the highest it's been in the 10 years Gallup's asked the question. 52% of Republicans, 49% of Democrats, 71% of independents. Possibly the most across-the-board-popular legislation they could pass right now would be voting reforms like instant runoff that would make third parties viable, which is unlikely to happen, but it's weird to be in a position where Tea Party delusional hubris could conceivably actually accidentally push positive reforms. As in, despite all the talk of a GOP schism, the Tea Party wouldn't be dumb enough to jump without a net - but building that net would actually poll really well right now and play into their insincere narrative about fixing broken government, and they're nothing if not enamored with dramatic shakeups. And Dems would be stupid not to jump on board if it looked like things were heading in that direction. Not really a likely thing to happen, but ahh, one can dream.
posted by jason_steakums at 2:01 PM on October 11, 2013 [3 favorites]


emjaybee,
That Raw Story article is interesting. I hope it's at least somewhat accurate, though, from what I know of a lot of Tea Party and Republican activists, it sounds extremely close to reality.

I didn't know about the $1 million a year funding of Glen Beck, though I should have guessed (I haven't been following those networks for a while).

Armey seems to be cleaning house, though. He's sucked what he wanted out of those groups and is willing to leave for a $20 million payoff? They got off cheap.
posted by daq at 2:02 PM on October 11, 2013


Hmm, could states implement IRV for senate and house seats without a Federal constitutional amendment?
posted by jepler at 2:03 PM on October 11, 2013


It seems to me like the GOP may have found a way to call Democrats' bluff, i.e. pass a last-minute "clean" debt ceiling/maybe reopen gov't bill but for only 6 weeks, and then dare the Senate/Obama to let us default rather than continue this stupid hostage situation through Thanksgiving. The real question is a) whether they want to keep playing this game, b) what they think they'll be able to extract with more time to play.

We seem to be at a point where just about everyone acknowledges the situation sucks, but still quite a distance from any agreement on a way out.
posted by crayz at 2:07 PM on October 11, 2013


Update on 'Truckers for the Constitution' mass protest:
Dozens Of Truckers Show Up To Completely Shut Down DC; Constitution Likely To Survive Anyway
posted by Atom Eyes at 2:45 PM on October 11, 2013 [2 favorites]




White House rejects key part of House Republican proposal on debt ceiling

Good, this is where I thought the WH was going to start going wobbly. The bit about small business owners is a little too pat and clever to me, but it works as part of their PR.
posted by zombieflanders at 2:51 PM on October 11, 2013


if you want to have a pretty horrifying thought experiment, think about the fact that the nutj obs in congress have a significant say in how the country addresses climate change. And because of gerrymandering, these nut jobs are gonna stick around for a while. U.S.A.! U.S.A!
posted by angrycat at 2:51 PM on October 11, 2013 [1 favorite]


I'm thinking I could really get to like this "Hardball" Obama fellow.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 3:01 PM on October 11, 2013 [3 favorites]


I had to drive on the Beltway today. I saw no protesters, nor was traffic slower, in fact it was running at speed, which is unusual during such heavy rain.
posted by humanfont at 3:04 PM on October 11, 2013


I had to drive on the Beltway today. I saw no protesters, nor was traffic slower, in fact it was running at speed, which is unusual during such heavy rain.

Friday before a long weekend (for many folks, anyway).
posted by inigo2 at 3:07 PM on October 11, 2013


Possibly the most across-the-board-popular legislation they could pass right now would be voting reforms like instant runoff that would make third parties viable, which is unlikely to happen, but it's weird to be in a position where Tea Party delusional hubris could conceivably actually accidentally push positive reforms.

Are there any examples anywhere of Tea Party types talking about IRV, or even election reform in general? Don't they rabidly oppose McCain-Feingold? I mean, this would be a nice development if it were remotely likely, but it just seems like completely wishful thinking.

A handful of states have pending IRV legislation. I think the best way to implement IRV nationwide is to have a sustained campaign to implement it locally, for municipal and state elections first.
posted by heathkit at 3:32 PM on October 11, 2013


GOPer calls for ‘four’ branches to work together

Congress, President, Courts, Bizarro Jesus.

That looks like four to me.

(In fairness to the schmuck, he probably meant House, Senate, President, courts. But he's still a schmuck.)
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 3:34 PM on October 11, 2013


I had to drive on the Beltway today. I saw no protesters, nor was traffic slower, in fact it was running at speed, which is unusual during such heavy rain.

I bet Obama paid you to say that. I read that the Obama machine was probably controlling the traffic cams today:

I’m not sure I’d trust the traffic cams...I watched a few during the bikers’ ride into DC. Didn’t see much. Then, I read articles that suggested “someone” (in the DOT?) looped video to make it look like no bikers showed up.
Kinda like they did in the movie “Speed”.
Considering this administration and it’s use of Alinsky tactics, I don’t doubt it for a second.

posted by madamjujujive at 3:38 PM on October 11, 2013


LIve trucker thing

Keep in mind the trucker strike over petrol prices in the UK had some store shelves empty and in 2008 strike action by thousands of Spanish and Portuguese truckers produced ominous knock-on effects on food supplies, aviation and industry yesterday, as Lisbon airport ran out of fuel, car factories shut down and petrol stations and supermarkets reported shortages.

So some people will be taking a strike seriously.
posted by rough ashlar at 3:44 PM on October 11, 2013


I'm thinking I could really get to like this "Hardball" Obama fellow.

Indeed, considering they gobble every concession and pretend it didn't happen and then filibuster or block every goddamn thing anyway, there's no reason he couldn't have been hardass starting from term one day one. It's not like they would have been any worse: there's never been anything worse for them to be short of setting fire to their desks and firing guns into the air.
posted by George_Spiggott at 3:46 PM on October 11, 2013 [4 favorites]


Um. These truckers are "striking". They are "protesting" and trying to stage some kind of PR stunt by 'arresting' Congress members (Democrats, I might add) and they want 'the evil kenyan dictator satan hussein osama/obama' to resign or something.

So, um, yeah.

Also, the truckers in those European countries are, well, actually organized labor, so they actions do have an actual effect. These yahoos are all high on Tea and Jebus and 'Merika. I swear those are all names for different kinds of crank somewhere.
posted by daq at 3:48 PM on October 11, 2013 [6 favorites]


Virginia state police say they stopped four tractor-trailer drivers on the Beltway, pulling them over after they began driving side-by side across all four northbound lanes of the Beltway in Fairfax County.

So this is basically Critical Mass, but with trucks?
posted by heathkit at 3:48 PM on October 11, 2013 [2 favorites]


"So this is basically Critical Mass, but with trucks?"

Only there are just 4 of them, and they kind of don't have any realistic goal or agenda other than to try and make a lot of noise and be obnoxious.

So, yes, just like Critical Mass.
posted by daq at 3:50 PM on October 11, 2013 [6 favorites]


Interesting - percentage of people who perceive a need for a third party is the highest it's been in the 10 years Gallup's asked the question.

Well, in a sense we do have three. There's the Republican party, the Democratic party, and the Democrat party. Granted the last is a fantasy of the rabid right wing, but they truly believe it exists to give away rich people's money to lazy blah people and illegal immigrants.
posted by Mental Wimp at 3:55 PM on October 11, 2013


It seems to me like the GOP may have found a way to call Democrats' bluff, i.e. pass a last-minute "clean" debt ceiling/maybe reopen gov't bill but for only 6 weeks, and then dare the Senate/Obama to let us default rather than continue this stupid hostage situation through Thanksgiving. The real question is a) whether they want to keep playing this game, b) what they think they'll be able to extract with more time to play.

Its not a winner. The '95 shutdown went bad for the GOP after they tried that.
posted by Ironmouth at 3:56 PM on October 11, 2013


I've spent a lot of time this week with one tab of my browser open to this thread, and another tab open to recaps of "Under the Dome." Sometimes it gets a little confusing as to which is the real world and which is the completely implausible clusterfuck inhabited by rank idiots.

Even more confusing is that under the Capitol dome, the Democrats are actually showing some spine, the Republicans are unravelling at the seams, and public reaction is leaning to the Democrats' favor.

I think I'll grab a canister of salt and go see what's happening in the old cement factory tunnels.
posted by malocchio at 3:58 PM on October 11, 2013


Out of all the dumb fucking talking points originating from AM radio and WND "Alinsky Tactics" makes me maddest of them all (I reserve the right to contradict or reverse that claim at a later date).
posted by codacorolla at 3:59 PM on October 11, 2013 [2 favorites]


Had to look up the reference for "Alinsky Tactics." (shakes head in wonder)

I really wish more 'liberals' would go old school and actually use some of these effective organizational ideas. They don't have to follow them to the letter, and I'm sure there is room for experimentation and improvement, but it seems that if someone is vilified by the right-wing media, it might be worth a look and see if it might actually be an effective way of countering the blowhards and know-nothings.

Maybe even get a real grass roots movement going to counter the teahadist.
posted by daq at 4:13 PM on October 11, 2013


Stop me if you've heard this one: Conservatives claim their lousy poll numbers are skewed.
posted by dirigibleman at 4:40 PM on October 11, 2013 [6 favorites]


(shakes head in wonder)

Ever been to a community effort that does the "lets play a game" thing? Ever had 1/2 of the meeting be the "simulation game" or 2/3 of the meetings feature these "fun games"?

I don't see the 'Alinsky Tactics' as effective, the only way the non profit community group happened is because after 2 years of 'Alinsky Tactics' and the person using them pulling other stunts in their attempt to be the preconceived leader is 1 person drew a line in the sand and said "on this date I will put up the website and run the software - you can either get alongside me, behind me, or out of the way. I'd prefer alongside, but this delay crap ends." The crew with the 'Alinsky Tactics' never did get the 'community power' they were looking for and didn't participate in the community org they were otherwise talking about non-stop for a year.
posted by rough ashlar at 4:41 PM on October 11, 2013 [1 favorite]


Pardon the source, but: what the whaaat?
Aside from reopening the government and agreeing to raise America's debt over the current $16.7 trillion limit, the Republicans made several other concession to President Obama and the Democrats. One such example is that Obamacare would receive funding. The Republicans would get to take out a portion of the president's signature legislation, but the law would substantially remain intact. The AP reports:

Under a proposal she and other GOP senators have been developing, a medical device tax that helps finance the health care law would be repealed, and millions of individuals eligible for subsidies to purchase health insurance under the program would be subject to stronger income verification.

In addition, some of the across-the-board "sequester" cuts would be reversed under the GOP plan. It has not been determined which specific cuts will be targeted at this time.


Rolling back the sequester, even partially? This isn't caving, it's spelunking.
posted by Rhaomi at 4:53 PM on October 11, 2013 [4 favorites]


for me the thing that is the most disorienting is that, unlike the travesty that was the Bush II presidency, there's not an easy narrative to pluck out of this. During the Bush years, it was like, yeah, really freak people out with a gigantic terrorism event, they'll make a bunch of stupid decisions. But this...

This, it's just, you went into government so that you could just fuck everything up? I mean, don't members of the GOP faction sometimes look into the mirror and murmur, 'I am a little tired for just fucking things up for no clear reason. I do see impressive flag seals all over the place, as I am a member of Congress, and maybe that means that I should try to hold shit together a little bit.' I mean, it's one thing to fight on your ideology that is probably more about racism than anything, but Holy Crap, you do understand that it's the freakin' federal government and you're a part of it, right? No? Well, how the fuck not? I completely do not understand it.
posted by angrycat at 5:02 PM on October 11, 2013 [7 favorites]


I completely do not understand it.

Edward Snowden joined the NSA effort so that he could gather docs to drop.

If the Norquist idea is 'strangle and drown' perhaps they really believe in that? Perhaps this is why they are there and doing what they are doing.

And if your mind is narrow enough to buy the left/right view or even more dangerous "they are bad, I oppose them ergo I am good and guided by the hand of providence" mindset your more nuanced POV isn't going to register.
posted by rough ashlar at 5:16 PM on October 11, 2013


I mean, it's one thing to fight on your ideology that is probably more about racism than anything, but Holy Crap, you do understand that it's the freakin' federal government and you're a part of it, right? No?

They're neo-confederates, and their goal is to destroy the federal government. They don't consider themselves part of it. They went there to end it. Obamacare is just the latest excuse.
posted by empath at 5:18 PM on October 11, 2013 [4 favorites]


Rhaomi: "Rolling back the sequester, even partially? This isn't caving, it's spelunking. "

Maybe the Chamber of Commerce's open letter is just the publicly visible tip of the ice berg? Who knows what has been communicated by business/financial interests behind closed doors and off the record but I suspect that significant pressure is being exerted at this point.
posted by Hairy Lobster at 5:24 PM on October 11, 2013




Rolling back the sequester, even partially? This isn't caving, it's spelunking.

No, most likely it's more of the Republicans' picking and choosing of stuff they like. The point of the sequester cuts was supposed to be that the cuts would be equally unpalatable to both Republicans and Democrats, so that both sides would have a strong incentive to come up with a negotiated solution. It didn't quite work out that way, but I suspect that the sequester cuts they're thinking of rolling back are the ones (like cuts to military spending) that were designed to be unpalatable to Republicans, leaving only the cuts that were designed to be unpalatable to Democrats.
posted by klausness at 5:36 PM on October 11, 2013 [9 favorites]


This, it's just, you went into government so that you could just fuck everything up?

yeah, where's the bathtub?
posted by Mister Bijou at 5:40 PM on October 11, 2013


No, most likely it's more of the Republicans' picking and choosing of stuff they like.

Exactly. One can easily imagine that the Republicans would try to slip in a repeal of all the defense sequester cuts while maintaining all the cuts in social spending.
posted by Justinian at 5:41 PM on October 11, 2013


This, it's just, you went into government so that you could just fuck everything up?

I'll tell you what, Angrycat. I write to my reps and my Senators. Because hell yeah, they are there to represent ME. That is what the REPRESENTATIVE part of Rep means.

So I am sorry about the state of things now. It sucks, I know it sucks. It sucks for you, and me, and a lot of our neighbors. I am not always proud of my Senators (being from Maine, but our reps are good, eh?).

I voted for Obama. And I voted for all the Dem candidates. And yes I voted for the Dem candidate for my Governor but we had a 3-way and I hope Cutler doesn't fuck it up this time or maybe he will get elected instead of Michaud and he can "bring it for business" who the fuck knows?

I am still standing behind Obama because I voted for him and he will get the job done as best he knows how, and I think he know a lot. I don't know about this money finance stuff, how the fuck should I? I know about Excel sheets and a bit of programming, but I don't know how to run a government, and now people are telling me I should know how to do that? Shame on you, Congress! I only know how to live my life! Call me a rube! Go ahead! Yes, I am a rube. I did accounts receivable with about $1 million but that was only a business, not the U.S. Government!

But I am rube who tries to understand these things. What they do up there. With their suits and ties. Do they do it for me? I hope so, but I fear not. Yet, if I write to them, they write back. They are far away, but they are very close. Doing what they do. Do they care about me? I think Chellie Pingree does. I know she does. The rest, I don't know. But, being a rube, I can only watch and take care of my own life and hope they work it out.
posted by Marie Mon Dieu at 5:59 PM on October 11, 2013




If the Norquist idea is 'strangle and drown' perhaps they really believe in that? Perhaps this is why they are there and doing what they are doing.

This This American Life episode made me feel like I had a decent perspective on the Norquist view. The useful takeaway was that starvation had to come first because it would force new thinking.
posted by Going To Maine at 6:33 PM on October 11, 2013 [1 favorite]


No, most likely it's more of the Republicans' picking and choosing of stuff they like.

I bet it all gets rolled back and they come to the table. And trade. Basically this is a punt to regular order on the budget. Meaning it gets done.

And the sequester rollback! Obama's gotten something out of all of these trades. First, DADT repeal and other goodies. Second them moving the next date for this crap until after the election. Third, a tax increase on the highest earners. Fourth, an end to the sequster and a return to regular order.

I also think the power of the Tea Party is smashed, which is what Boehner and McConnell (and the USA) get out of the deal.

Man. They're giving up the sequester. Amazing.
posted by Ironmouth at 6:54 PM on October 11, 2013 [1 favorite]


Erick Erickson is spitting mad over at redstate.
posted by Ironmouth at 7:13 PM on October 11, 2013 [2 favorites]


the power of the Tea Party is smashed,

The tea party this go round started as Ron Paul libertarians and 9/11 truthers who looked like they needed to be controlled and were offered media coverage by part of the monied interests. The branding was trending and some latched onto the brand.

If the monied interests backing the Tea Party message have been scared off, then yea its a broken model. If the Republican Party is a mortally wounded entity over this brew-ha-ha, the organization formed to support the tea party message will take a shot at being the replacement with some of the monied interests seeing a one time shot and below market rates to obtain better access to the levers of power.

The Constitution Party/Libertarian Party might have had a shot at being the replacement had their membership gotten off their butts and had some deliverables to the citizens so they could ask for more power based on their past performance. But they can't be bothered to show they can organize with things like a court watching program and give the citizens a deliverable of a fair court system, so what reason should anyone think the party has the skills to deliver elsewhere?
posted by rough ashlar at 7:15 PM on October 11, 2013


Erick Erickson is spitting mad over at redstate

There's a silver lining to everything.
posted by aspo at 7:35 PM on October 11, 2013 [4 favorites]


Man, those comments on Red State are some grade-A fury. One of my favorites was, "I agree, primary ALL the RINOs and once they are gone we can think about beating the dems." At this point in time, Obama isn't the enemy. Well, he's the Great Satan, but everyone knows to oppose him and his evil Healthcare. The greatest enemy are those treasonous RINOs/Moderate Republicans.

Party purity is going to kill the Republican Party because now they would rather lose the elections and remain pure than maintain the big tent and win. There's always been the idea that the Democrats are the big tent party, with a constituency of socialists to big business to Blue Dogs that often times had a hard time marshaling all of its forces at the same time (see the circular firing squad comments here or the entire dropping of single payer). There was the perception that no one would ever want to be a liberal so Democrats were always a frailer alliance the Republicans.

Only now is the truth that the Republicans, this whole time, have been a big tent party that marshaled big business, moderate soccer moms, pro-life evangelicals, libertarians, populists, nativist, fiscal conservatives, and other soccer moms so well that they made them seem like one monolithic block. It made them seem stable, unbreakable, predictable, and powerful. But that alliance is ending now, and each are going their separate ways. Some will head to the Dems, but many will spin-off to their own political parties, and some (like evangelicals) will return to being disillusioned about politics and withdraw for the most part. What will come next, I could not say.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 8:00 PM on October 11, 2013


Grade A Fury is my new band name.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:02 PM on October 11, 2013 [4 favorites]


Ironmouth: "Erick Erickson is spitting mad over at redstate."

And seeming to have trouble with the arrow of time. He seems to get cause and effect backwards.
posted by wierdo at 8:03 PM on October 11, 2013


In addition, some of the across-the-board "sequester" cuts would be reversed under the GOP plan. It has not been determined which specific cuts will be targeted at this time.

Is there some reason I'm missing to read that as anything other than the GOP proposing to end the defense portion?
posted by Drinky Die at 8:07 PM on October 11, 2013


In addition, some of the across-the-board "sequester" cuts would be reversed under the GOP plan. It has not been determined which specific cuts will be targeted at this time.

Is there some reason I'm missing to read that as anything other than the GOP proposing to end the defense portion?


The agencies get to make the calls. That means the Administration does. Its just a collapse. The GOP centrists are basically using this to extract pain. They have to move now.

Next year's primaries are going to be a war zone. Paulite, Tehadist, Evangelicals and Business Republicans will fight it out for the soul of the party. Expect the usual Republican skullduggery in these intra-party fights. And how will they run a national campaign? Who gets the war chest? The 2016 primaries? Wow. Think about it.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:17 PM on October 11, 2013 [4 favorites]


Do what now? The agencies get to pick which cuts to roll back? How does that work?
posted by jason_steakums at 8:19 PM on October 11, 2013


Next year's primaries are going to be a war zone. Paulite, Tehadist, Evangelicals and Business Republicans will fight it out for the soul of the party. Expect the usual Republican skullduggery in these intra-party fights. And how will they run a national campaign? Who gets the war chest? The 2016 primaries? Wow. Think about it.

I'm as excited as anyone for a ratfuck orgy of epic proportions, but I'm going to hold my judgement until 1) we see what the final deal is, and if that's anywhere near as good as it sounds 2) wait until election season begins in earnest to see if the infighting and damage to their brand lasts.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:24 PM on October 11, 2013 [2 favorites]


Do what now? The agencies get to pick which cuts to roll back? How does that work?

dunno. but i highly sense that the GOP Centrists are basically taking a chunk out of the nutjobs deliberately. If the GOP Senate collaborates with Dems, the pressure on the House rises incredibly. If the GOP Senate sides with the House, they become lumped in with them.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:29 PM on October 11, 2013


WaPo: Details were still fluid late Friday, but the latest 23-page draft of the emerging measure would immediately end the shutdown and fund federal agencies for six months at current spending levels. It would maintain deep automatic cuts known as the sequester, but give agency officials flexibility to decide where the cuts should fall.

Okay, the flexibility is good but I wouldn't call it ending the sequester, just making it less dumb. (But we weren't expecting to end it anyway so it's just gravy) Sounds like a deal Obama could take to me.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:34 PM on October 11, 2013 [1 favorite]


Okay, the flexibility is good but I wouldn't call it ending the sequester, just making it less dumb. (But we weren't expecting to end it anyway so it's just gravy) Sounds like a deal Obama could take to me.

that is the sequester. across the board cuts. pure dumb cuts. now we get to fix things. Plus, they are aiming for a real budget. That means give and take and new funding level discussions.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:37 PM on October 11, 2013


The cuts are still there and still dumb, it's just less pure. And I will put my surprised face on if the budget negotiations don't lead to more cuts. Obama has to propose them to appear to be credibly negotiating after all this.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:39 PM on October 11, 2013 [1 favorite]


Also in the article: "Another option under consideration but not included in the latest draft would reduce the number of workers required to receive health coverage from an employer, by changing the definition of a full-time worker from 30 hours a week to 40 hours a week." Yeah, there's a reason that wasn't included in the draft, because the Dems would have laughed in their faces. That 30 hours definition is a cornerstone of the whole thing.

And: "But House Appropriations Chairman Harold Rogers (R-Ky.) quickly blasted the Senate plan to extend temporary funding for six months, calling it “disastrous.”
“It is a punt to the executive branch for the Congress not to exercise judgement about where money is spent,” Rogers said in a statement."


I can't quite parse if 1) he's referring to the entire plan, which means he thinks Congress making a decision about where money is spent is somehow also Congress not exercising judgement about it and he's an idiot, or 2) he's referring to that "flexibility" agency officials have, which makes me think it might be some real flexibility and there's some substantial sequester rollback ahead. Kinda murky on the context, there.
posted by jason_steakums at 8:41 PM on October 11, 2013


In addition, some of the across-the-board "sequester" cuts would be reversed under the GOP plan. It has not been determined which specific cuts will be targeted at this time.

Is there some reason I'm missing to read that as anything other than the GOP proposing to end the defense portion?

The agencies get to make the calls. That means the Administration does. Its just a collapse.


If accepted, this is a defeat for Obama, yet another bargaining collapse on his part. The entire idea of Obama's original sequester plan was to make it unpalatable and painful with across the board cuts. If they remove the painful part, then Republicans get exactly what they want -- the same spending cuts they wanted all along but without the pain. This becomes a big win for them.

The only thing Obama should settle for is a rollback of the sequester, returning spending to previous levels.
posted by JackFlash at 9:13 PM on October 11, 2013


Current spending levels have been how Democrats have been defining "Clean CR" all along. It's probably too late to switch up on that as part of this deal.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:28 PM on October 11, 2013 [1 favorite]


Aside from reopening the government and agreeing to raise America's debt over the current $16.7 trillion limit, the Republicans made several other concession to President Obama and the Democrats.
...
In addition, some of the across-the-board "sequester" cuts would be reversed under the GOP plan.
...
Erick Erickson is spitting mad over at redstate.
Conan, what is best in life??

To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their bloggers.
posted by Llama-Lime at 9:37 PM on October 11, 2013 [18 favorites]


Not to say that I approve of the war-like attitude of our current divided politics, but the analogy seems appropriate, and I was kind of shocked to find myself really enjoying reading redstate...
posted by Llama-Lime at 9:48 PM on October 11, 2013


Why don't we be happy with a solid success at holding the line against further hostage taking by the crazypants wing of the Republican party, possibly dealing a devastating blow to their influence, and likely ensuring that the Republicans make little to no net gain in the House and Senate in 2014 rather than grousing that we didn't also reverse the sequester and get a long wish list of other things.

I think the optics are much better this way, because the Democrats weren't asking for anything but a bare minimum of good governance yet the Republicans still dissembled and threw tantrums and generally acted like spoiled brats for 11 days. If things turn the way the rumors are making it look, it will be a strong rebuke of the extremists. That's worthy of celebration as a major accomplishment in its own right. If the rumors turn out to be true.

I reserve the right to change my mind at any time. ;)
posted by wierdo at 10:01 PM on October 11, 2013 [4 favorites]




Why don't we be happy with a solid success at holding the line against further hostage taking by the crazypants wing of the Republican party, possibly dealing a devastating blow to their influence, and likely ensuring that the Republicans make little to no net gain in the House and Senate in 2014 rather than grousing that we didn't also reverse the sequester and get a long wish list of other things.

I think the optics are much better this way, because the Democrats weren't asking for anything but a bare minimum of good governance yet the Republicans still dissembled and threw tantrums and generally acted like spoiled brats for 11 days. If things turn the way the rumors are making it look, it will be a strong rebuke of the extremists. That's worthy of celebration as a major accomplishment in its own right. If the rumors turn out to be true.


Absolutely, the Dems can't even afford the appearance of impropriety here so with the sequester it should be "all of it goes", or "none of it goes", or "one from column A, one from column B" on the sequester bits that hurt each party's interests so they're fairly even, or else just "we'll sit down and talk after this is over". It's a tightrope act. One Democratic bonus too many coming as part of the deal and suddenly the accusation that Obama leveraged policy gains under threat of shutdown is going to be all over the place, and as we all know, that means it will be parroted unquestioned in the "view from nowhere". Tabling to discuss after is probably the most realistic though, it's safest and they'll still be holding the better hand in sequester negotiations after this with the GOP in disarray.

And speaking of tightrope acts, however this plays out, Boehner and McConnell are still walking the high wire for a while yet if the chatter about big business donors rethinking their GOP commitments is true. They need to get funding locked down fast to ward off primary threats, and that means they have to prove they're worth it by ditching the reactionary act and basically shutting the Tea Party crew out of important discussions. Which is just lighting a powder keg, and surely some in the GOP are gonna really want to get out ahead of it and field people to primary a TP candidate or two from the center-right, which requires even more cash. Because they have to get ahead of it, the only way to avoid a split or a long depressing slump into irrelevance is for one side to destroy or consume the other, so they need to make moves on the Tea Party crowd ASAP. They'll have to aim straight for the vulnerable center of independents as well as peel off some Dem votes to swing those gerrymandered districts, so it's gonna be an interesting midterm.
posted by jason_steakums at 10:24 PM on October 11, 2013 [1 favorite]




Aaah... it's almost as if, when you light the fuse on a bomb, you can reasonably expect it to explode. If the potential consequences on the country weren't so severe I'd have the popcorn out.
posted by JHarris at 2:44 AM on October 12, 2013


Hey, REPUBLICAN FRIENDS. If y'all move over to the GREENS, then you can negotiate platforms based on financial responsibility, not destroying the environment and a modicum of social justice like Jesus actually advocated.

And you can leave the crazies to continue destroying the "Republican" brand.

Just sayin'. The Greens are a legitimate political party. They're not batshit-insane. And I think that the goals of MODERATE RATIONAL 'current members of the GOP" and the Greens are a lot closer than to the current "Kill The Government' crazies in control of.. Your Governmental Representation.

Get out before it's too late.
posted by mikelieman at 4:14 AM on October 12, 2013


Senate GOP growing impatient with House

House Speaker John Boehner has a day or two max to strike a debt ceiling and government funding deal before some of his Republican Senate colleagues move more aggressively on their own ideas, several impatient GOP Senators have told CNN.

The Senators say they are willing to give Boehner a bit more time, about 24 to 48 hours, to come to an agreement with the White House to raise the debt ceiling and reopen the government.

One option Boehner is currently pursuing, a six week increase to the debt ceiling, is becoming more and more unpopular, say multiple Senate GOP sources.

posted by Comrade_robot at 5:46 AM on October 12, 2013


The only thing Obama should settle for is a rollback of the sequester, returning spending to previous levels.

I think what we have here is what we want, because this is only a CR not a budget-based appropriation. We want them back on regular order, compromise, trade this for that. This gets us exactly that.
posted by Ironmouth at 6:07 AM on October 12, 2013


damn, man, I take it back, this is like 2012, minus the debates.
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha oh boy some of my relatives must be pissed ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
posted by angrycat at 6:37 AM on October 12, 2013


Sure is a lot of premature celebrating going around this morning. Nothing is even proposed yet in an official channel and reading this thread you'd think the Dems just won a unicorn.
posted by T.D. Strange at 7:11 AM on October 12, 2013 [8 favorites]


An interesting read.. Reconstructionists, which is to say Christian dictators, have taken over parts of the GOP.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:14 AM on October 12, 2013 [1 favorite]


Sure is a lot of premature celebrating going around this morning. Nothing is even proposed yet in an official channel and reading this thread you'd think the Dems just won a unicorn.

Don't know about you, but these days it feels like any win is a unicorn.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 8:09 AM on October 12, 2013


Don't know about you, but these days it feels like any win is a unicorn.

Nothing has been won, some vague references to a potential deal have leaked to the media without any sort of details.
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:16 AM on October 12, 2013


They stopped talking about repealing obamacare, haven't they?

That's at least a unicorn fart, innit?
posted by mikelieman at 8:20 AM on October 12, 2013 [2 favorites]


Make no mistake, this is already a win, regardless. Even if there is some backstepping, the bluff has been called.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 8:26 AM on October 12, 2013


The only thing Obama should settle for is a rollback of the sequester, returning spending to previous levels.

Can't say I'm at all convinced Obama didn't want the sequester, as a way to get neoliberal, IMF-style austerity while seeming to oppose it. He's pretty much laid it on the GOP this way.
posted by mondo dentro at 8:43 AM on October 12, 2013 [5 favorites]


no one's won anything until the government is running again and we have an increased debt ceiling
posted by pyramid termite at 8:44 AM on October 12, 2013 [3 favorites]


And let's see the details of the CR first before we declare victory. 6 weeks at sequester levels is not a win.
posted by T.D. Strange at 9:00 AM on October 12, 2013 [2 favorites]


Current link for Washington Post live updates. The Democrats in the House are signing a discharge petition - will be very interesting to see if they can get any Republicans to jump ship and defy their Speaker.
posted by exogenous at 9:13 AM on October 12, 2013


No doubt we have won a unicorn already. Only question is whether it will be plain or plated in gold or platinum or stuffed with weapons grade plutonium.
posted by localroger at 9:37 AM on October 12, 2013


Keep calling your Congress people, no matter who they are and make your policy wants known. These are the days when they are actually checking what the constituents are saying. Well, obviously Mike Lee wasn't checking, but you know what I mean.
posted by Ironmouth at 9:46 AM on October 12, 2013 [3 favorites]


Politico: Democratic leaders in the Senate are rejecting an offer by Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) to end the budget impasse, arguing it asks for too much in return for too little, senators and aides tell POLITICO.
-
While it would give federal agencies more flexibility to work within the constraints of the automatic sequestration cuts, Democrats objected to the level of funding that Collins was seeking, which would lock-in the levels under the sequester at $967 billion next year, far too low for many Democrats.

Moreover, Democrats are calling for a longer-term budget deal that would raise the debt ceiling and extend government funding. And they said that agreeing to a shorter-term budget deal and a lower funding level — with a handful of changes to Obamacare — was asking too much after they have called for a “clean” increase to the $16.7 trillion national debt ceiling and a stop-gap measure to keep the government running.

posted by Drinky Die at 10:04 AM on October 12, 2013


Oh please, it's Saturday. Expecting this to end before Wednesday evening is like expecting a ticking time bomb in a Hollywood movie to be diffused before it counts down to 1.

Neither side has any particular motivation to resolve the debt ceiling crisis before then, lest they be left wondering how many more concessions they could have extracted if only they had been tougher and held out longer. How long does it take, procedurally, to introduce and conduct the vote to raise the debt ceiling? Add an hour and that's how much time will be left before both sides admit to a stalemate and start to seriously entertain resolving this issue.

The media will be breathlessly reporting a constant series of near misses and proposals-to-begin-negotiating-about-conducting-negotiations meetings until then, of course. "Oh, look, they nearly resolved the issue again! That was so close!"

Prove me wrong, Congress.
posted by ceribus peribus at 10:21 AM on October 12, 2013 [1 favorite]


"Neither side has any particular motivation to resolve the debt ceiling crisis before then"

Remind me, how did both sides trigger the debt ceiling crisis?
posted by RedShrek at 10:25 AM on October 12, 2013 [2 favorites]


These proposals are total bullshit. Ryan wants to cut Social Security and Medicare and Collins wants a substantive cave on the funding levels and neither has shit in terms of time.
posted by Ironmouth at 10:30 AM on October 12, 2013


Keep calling your Congress people, no matter who they are and make your policy wants known.

My town's a blue oasis in an otherwise red district (but not a big enough town to swing our Congressional seat blue). When I call and the staffer asks me my name and town, I know my comment's in the of-course-the-liberals-in-Bluetown-are-against-Congressman-Redpants pile. So after giving my statement, I add that I am not a Republican, and I know I live in a safely red district, BUT since you don't have to declare your party in my state, if Redpants doesn't do the right thing I'll vote for his Republican challenger next primary.

Probably not a big lever, but it might count for something. Note that if you do this yourself, if you're state's like mine your primary party ballot choice will be a matter of public record.
posted by Rykey at 10:30 AM on October 12, 2013


Remind me, how did both sides trigger the debt ceiling crisis?

I didn't say both sides triggered it. I'm saying the GOP can continue to hold out with their demands and the Dems can leverage the crisis to try to get the government running again, resulting in a prisoner's dilemma until the last possible moment.
posted by ceribus peribus at 10:30 AM on October 12, 2013


Remind me, how did both sides trigger the debt ceiling crisis?

I didn't say both sides triggered it. I'm saying the GOP can continue to hold out with their demands and the Dems can leverage the crisis to try to get the government running again, resulting in a prisoner's dilemma until the last possible moment.


I think you're misidentifying the prisoner here.
posted by Ironmouth at 10:31 AM on October 12, 2013 [2 favorites]


How long does it take, procedurally, to introduce and conduct the vote to raise the debt ceiling? Add an hour and that's how much time will be left before both sides admit to a stalemate and start to seriously entertain resolving this issue.

The problem is Boehner cannot whip votes or count them. Procedure is a problem when part of your own team is trying to sabotage you. Basically, that is why we're having these issues now. And those conditions exist in the microcosm of the final procedural votes.
posted by Ironmouth at 10:35 AM on October 12, 2013


Yeah, that label doesn't quite fit. Maybe gridlock? Pretend I said gridlock.
I need to reread my game theory textbook.

posted by ceribus peribus at 10:36 AM on October 12, 2013


sorry if this is obtuse, but why can't Boehner count the votes at least? I have this image of him going up to the GOP House in the lunch room and they all stop talking.
posted by angrycat at 10:44 AM on October 12, 2013


Boehner: "I need to know how you're going to vote on--"
Tea Party Rep: "YOU'RE NOT MY REAL FATHER!"
posted by dirigibleman at 10:47 AM on October 12, 2013 [13 favorites]


sorry if this is obtuse, but why can't Boehner count the votes at least? I have this image of him going up to the GOP House in the lunch room and they all stop talking.

If he caucuses with the Democrats to pass a deal his political career is over.
posted by Talez at 10:51 AM on October 12, 2013


sorry if this is obtuse, but why can't Boehner count the votes at least?

If he had counted and he didn't like the results, would he say anything different from what he is saying right now?
posted by feloniousmonk at 10:54 AM on October 12, 2013


He caan ask them how many votes but they all turn to look at him with their beady, lifeless eyes and start chanting "One of us! One of us!" And then Boehner knows he must immediately chant the same or they will shred him with their razor sharp teeth and devour his liver.

The orange man can never escape the terrible grandeur of the King in Yellow.
posted by honestcoyote at 10:57 AM on October 12, 2013 [15 favorites]


Robert Costa ‏@robertcostaNRO 6m

GOP sens very worried that the longer this stretches on, hour by hour, and poll #s sink, Schumer & Co will push for more R concessions

posted by Drinky Die at 11:28 AM on October 12, 2013


Just walked out of the grocery store -- overheard some customer service reps fretting that the EBT food stamp system was down nationwide. Lots of potential sales being lost, and lots of people not able to buy food. Is this shutdown-related?
posted by Rhaomi at 11:48 AM on October 12, 2013 [1 favorite]


Food Stamp Debit cards not working in many states.

Looks like it's due to a computer upgrade and not the shutdown, although a lot of people seem to be blaming the shutdown for it, currently.
posted by hellojed at 1:47 PM on October 12, 2013




hey you know who else did damage to the economy in the short run?
posted by pyramid termite at 2:24 PM on October 12, 2013 [4 favorites]


I ran into the trucker protest on the beltway a little while ago. Looks like a few hundred trucks/cars/minivans, but they aren't impeding traffic in any way, other than people rubbernecking.
posted by empath at 2:30 PM on October 12, 2013


I hope you didn't try to tread on them. They hate that.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 2:32 PM on October 12, 2013 [8 favorites]


minivans?! that's hilarious for some reason.
posted by desjardins at 2:45 PM on October 12, 2013 [1 favorite]


Watch out for Rubber Duck. He's a sneaky fucker.
posted by mazola at 2:57 PM on October 12, 2013 [2 favorites]


Morgan Griffith (R-VA)L “I will remind you that this group of renegades that decided that they wanted to break from the crown in 1776 did great damage to the economy of the colonies. They created the greatest nation and the best form of government, but they did damage to the economy in the short run.”

This is a bit like a drunkard insisting that he should not stop drinking, but rather that he has merely taken the first step towards becoming as great an author as Joyce.
posted by Sticherbeast at 2:58 PM on October 12, 2013 [36 favorites]


"Just walked out of the grocery store -- overheard some customer service reps fretting that the EBT food stamp system was down nationwide. Lots of potential sales being lost, and lots of people not able to buy food. Is this shutdown-related?"

Huh. They had signs at Trader Joe's that they were down too. But we already vote Dem :\
posted by klangklangston at 3:15 PM on October 12, 2013


down at harding's in kalamazoo
posted by pyramid termite at 4:06 PM on October 12, 2013


down in PA
posted by angrycat at 4:12 PM on October 12, 2013




Ted Cruz wins Values Voter straw poll

Washington (CNN) - A year ago, he had never held elected office. Today, he is one of the country's top potential presidential candidates for 2016.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, won the Values Voter Summit straw poll Saturday with a commanding 42% of the vote. Dr. Ben Carson, a renowned neurosurgeon and Fox News contributor, finished in second place, one vote ahead of former Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pennsylvania, a 2012 GOP presidential candidate. They effectively tied, with 13% of the vote each.

posted by argonauta at 4:40 PM on October 12, 2013 [1 favorite]


Oh shit that Dr. Ben Carson who said Obamacare is the worst thing since slavery and is also a black dude?

It seems like at some point some intervention should be staged here. Like, trap all these people in a therapeutic situation where they are given expensive marijuana to smoke and an endless supply of soft cheeses. Where counselors say things like, 'You are not your parents' and 'One day at a time' and 'if you suspect you are hallucinating, push this button and we will come to bring you medicine.'
posted by angrycat at 5:02 PM on October 12, 2013 [6 favorites]


A year ago, he had never held elected office. Today, he is one of the country's top potential presidential candidates for 2016.

2016 is gonna suuuuuuuuuck
posted by hellojed at 5:28 PM on October 12, 2013 [8 favorites]


one vote ahead of former Sen. Rick Santorum

*sad trombone*
posted by octobersurprise at 5:30 PM on October 12, 2013 [3 favorites]


Politico: But the 58-year-old Graham wasn’t through venting yet. “You can blame us [Republicans], we’ve overplayed our hand, that’s for damn sure,” Graham said. “But their response, where the president and [Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid] basically shutting everybody out, and when you try to negotiate, they keep changing the terms of the deal … it’s very frustrating.”

In the words of another famous black leader: I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:52 PM on October 12, 2013 [3 favorites]


It looks like there is a push to truly end the sequester cuts going on. From angrycat's link:

Murray, the No. 4 in Senate leadership, pointedly told Collins that it was unacceptable to lock in cuts at the sequestration spending levels. Collins scoffed at the Democratic position, arguing she had worked to find a solution that both sides could accept.

I guess the Democrats feel like they have won and all the daily pressure to stop the shutdown is falling on the Republicans so there isn't much drawback to trying for more. Honestly though I've lost track of being able to predict the course of this over the past few days since it has been less public posturing and more actual behind the scenes talking.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:08 PM on October 12, 2013


Sadly, it sounds like the messaging is slipping a bit on the Democratic side. They really, really, really need to stick with the position that the Republicans need to pass a clean continuing resolution and a clean debt ceiling hike before negotiating on the sequester or anything else. It is that clear and simple position that stymies Republican attempts to place blame on the Democrats. If they start asking for agenda items rather than a simple bare minimum of good governance they may give Republicans room to balk without looking like children.
posted by wierdo at 6:17 PM on October 12, 2013 [10 favorites]


I'm worried about that too, but they have been so disciplined about everything as a party through this I figure this isn't happening without a plan in place.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:18 PM on October 12, 2013


Remember when people thought Collins was a moderate? Man, that was funny.
posted by T.D. Strange at 6:26 PM on October 12, 2013


“I have bent over backwards to try to listen and accommodate and modify my plan,” Collins said. “I tried to explain to [Democrats] some of the different realities that I’m dealing with in my caucus as well. It’s a delicate balance to keep enough Republicans on board as well as attract Democratic support.”
And I imagine that the Democrats aren't very much interested in helping you work out a compromise which would be acceptable to those people in your caucus whose stated goal is to drown the Government in a bathtub.
posted by mikelieman at 6:55 PM on October 12, 2013 [1 favorite]




Aargh it literally only matters how 17 Republicans vote, trying to drum up a plan that appeases the whole caucus is just spinning wheels.
posted by jason_steakums at 7:43 PM on October 12, 2013


There will be no plan that appeases the whole caucus. The Dems have figured that out. The only question is how much damage will be done to the R brand before Boehner kneels before the business leaders who own him and sacrifices the rest of his political career to get this shit done with Dem votes.
posted by localroger at 7:51 PM on October 12, 2013 [1 favorite]


Ok so some Reddit threads are flipping out about this, but I'm not really sure how abnormal this kind of thing is, so I was wondering if anyone here knew House procedure enough to give some perspective - apparently on Oct. 1, House Resolution 368 changed the standing rules of the House so that only the Majority Leader could bring the Senate's clean CR to the floor? Video - Text of the HR. On its face, that seems kinda fucked up.
posted by jason_steakums at 10:50 PM on October 12, 2013 [2 favorites]


This is pretty much par for the course, but I just realized that Collins' plan would have added an income verification requirement for the exchange subsidies. Funny that a Republican would be the one writing provisions in the law to have the government be even more intrusive. Well, not really, since it would turn another one of their lies true.

And it's a little odd, since there already is verification. When tax time rolls around, if you received more subsidy than your yearly earnings would allow, they take it out of any tax refund.
posted by wierdo at 10:55 PM on October 12, 2013


The DCCC's recruits for retaking the House are already starting to pop up.
posted by zombieflanders at 5:13 AM on October 13, 2013




House Republicans are fundamentally incapable

Indeed.
posted by argonauta at 6:50 AM on October 13, 2013 [4 favorites]


That's one sorry bunch of candidates, wow.
posted by octothorpe at 7:28 AM on October 13, 2013 [1 favorite]


Part of the reason why this debt ceiling nonsense is happening at all is because the Republican Party, as it stands, doesn't work as a national party. Their base is dying and their party is fragmenting. A Republican presidential candidate would have to separate themselves from the Tea Party.

As a regional/local party, though, the Republicans still hold significant sway.
posted by Sticherbeast at 7:35 AM on October 13, 2013 [1 favorite]


jason_steakums, a news story about that amendment was linked a few days ago, either here, or in the previous thread, but I can't find it now. This Fox News piece mentions it:

“They amended the rules so only Majority Leader Eric Cantor can put something on the floor to open the government,” said Maryland Democratic Rep. Steny Hoyer, the House minority whip.
posted by amarynth at 7:37 AM on October 13, 2013


Also, an ailing Republican Party is not necessarily good at all for Dems and/or the left. Dems will absorb more conservative people and conservative ideas. The Overton Window will constantly be moving to the right. You'll also see more and more of these temper tantrum-y extinction bursts in the legislative branch and in local/state politics. And so on.
posted by Sticherbeast at 7:38 AM on October 13, 2013 [2 favorites]




Just in case anyone still thinks of Paul Ryan as the noble deal-maker with a humble "clean"-ish plan, and not, as Charlie Pierce awesomely describes him, the zombie-eyed granny starver (emphasis in original):

John Boehner’s only choice: Throw the Tea Party overboard
[S]ome rank-and-file Republicans grew visibly excited about the prospect of opposing such a deal, said one person in the room. This defiance was fed by Ryan, who stood up and railed against the Collins proposal, saying the House could not accept either a debt-limit bill or a government-funding measure that would delay the next fight until the new year.

According to two Republicans familiar with the exchange, Ryan argued that the House would need those deadlines as “leverage” for delaying the health-care law’s individual mandate and adding a “conscience clause”
— allowing employers and insurers to opt out of birth-control coverage if they find it objectionable on moral or religious grounds — and mentioned tax and entitlement goals Ryan had focused on in a recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal.

Ryan’s speech appeared only to further rile up the conservative wing of the GOP conference, which has been agitating the shutdown strategy to try to tear apart the health-care law.
If this is accurate, then the widespread portrayal of Ryan as offering a reasonable way out of this mess (remember, his WSJ Op ed piece seemed to back away from demanding concessions on Obamacare) is utter B.S. There are two things that are flatly unacceptable to Democrats under any circumstances. The first is the prospect of Republicans using the threat of widespread harm to the country — whether through a government shutdown or through default and economic havoc – as leverage to extract unrelated policy concessions. The Dem view is that not only will this force Dems to make unilateral concessions; it will also legitimize use of the default threat as a conventional negotiating tactic, only ensuring this will happen again, making default more likely later, particularly in 2014, when House Republicans face reelection and primary challenges. The second thing that is non-negotiable for Dems is anything that fundamentally undermines Obamacare.

Ryan is insisting on preserving both of those.
posted by zombieflanders at 7:52 AM on October 13, 2013 [7 favorites]


yeah, apologies for the premature celebration. Also, the continued terror bumps my 'getting involved in local races' on my todo list up several notches, so keep it coming to the last minute, *bitches.

/Pinkman style bitches
posted by angrycat at 8:02 AM on October 13, 2013


The emerging consensus in this morning's editorials seems to be that for practical purposes the ACA is off the table, and the only question is how much else the Dems will get. They of course want both clean CR and debt ceiling increase, even better with the CR reducing or fully repealing the sequester, and at least 6 months or better a year until we have to do this again. On the far right the mood seems to be "where are our hostages? Why aren't we still talking about the ACA?" Hannity was doing this as I drove home Friday and it was sweet to hear the two wingnut House members he had on the phone try to hem and haw their way back to reality.

I think that at this point the real powers behind the Republican party are ready to pick 20 sacrificial goats to roll over and vote with the Dems to get this done, and then worry about the inevitable primary challenges from kookyland tomorrow. This will be bad, but it will be even worse if their normally reliable funding sources declare them dead and start wooing people with D's after their names.

If they do have to do this it actually becomes in the Republicans' interest to give a longer duration, because this is not a fight that has helped their party at all. Rolling back the sequester is also thinkable because the next round of cuts is going to hit the military especially hard.
posted by localroger at 8:27 AM on October 13, 2013


You know, this lack of understanding about the new law could be solved by having some form of requirement to educate the populace about big laws enacted like this. I'm not sure how to delineate the difference between "big laws" and "not-big laws", but surely, something that mandates people to buy health insurance, should oblige the government to inform citizens of their responsibility.

We send out annual reports on Social Security to the populace, why not information packets to all Americans to inform them just what the ACA is, what it isn't, and how to go about participating.

Yes, we have the online signup thing, but that's not quite something granny and grampy tend to go around reading. Of course there are plenty of connected older people, but there are plenty of people who aren't connected, whether due to age/lack of familiarity with technology or poverty and lack of easy access to the internet (I've known both cases). In fact, leaving it up to individuals to seek this information out is problematic, regardless, as many people are lazy or unwilling to find out information and the facts (especially when it comes to something as politically heated as this).

Make it easy for low-information citizens to have access to this sort of information.

Whether it's the Consumer Protection Board (which has been mostly gutted by the right-wing rats in power, as it is) or some other agency (I'd go for Health and Human Services, personally), we need to get this info out.
posted by symbioid at 8:28 AM on October 13, 2013 [1 favorite]


Ahh, now I get it. It's Republicans demanding the sequester funding level remains long term and not Democrats asking to get rid of it right now. So, not a shift from the Dems.

A top Senate Democratic aide, though, say the GOP’s complaints are “disingenuous,” and says Republicans are exaggerating Democrats’ demands.

Reuplicans who say talks are breaking down because of BCA tinkering are being disingenuous. We are not backing away from the short-term CR at $988 billion we already passed. The plan all along was to pass a short-term CR, get past the debt ceiling, and then debate spending levels for 2014. Both parties knew that, so for Republicans to imply that our refusal to preemptively accept $988/967 billion for all of 2014 is a change in position is just flat-out false, and they know it.

posted by Drinky Die at 8:40 AM on October 13, 2013 [5 favorites]


We send out annual reports on Social Security to the populace

Not anymore. Annual statements were cut in 2011, several rounds of budget cutting ago.
posted by T.D. Strange at 9:36 AM on October 13, 2013 [3 favorites]


Is e President on TV every night breaking it down for the public? Explaining what ACA is, how it works, who it helps? Explaining what the House is doing and how it's harmful?

And if he isn't—why? Why isn't he informing, educating, and leading the public?
posted by five fresh fish at 10:01 AM on October 13, 2013 [3 favorites]


And if he isn't—why? Why isn't he informing, educating, and leading the public?

Because a brand new episode of Two and a Half Men is on!
posted by Talez at 11:07 AM on October 13, 2013 [3 favorites]




Wow. From that link:

Activists, right flank of House now tell me they're now winning PR war vs WH, "fight on"

Wow. Bringing Confederate flags to the lawn of the first black President is "winning the PR war" now? Maybe they should just burn a cross while they're there to really boost those poll numbers.
posted by zombieflanders at 12:08 PM on October 13, 2013 [22 favorites]


Okay. Joke's over. Somebody crank the eschatostat back down to something compatable with my continued sanity please.
posted by ob1quixote at 12:09 PM on October 13, 2013 [5 favorites]


Buzzfeed aggregation of photos of protestors today in DC and wherever Palin is.

Cruz, in Cringeworthy Carhartt Cosplay, Courts Callous Crazies
posted by jason_steakums at 12:13 PM on October 13, 2013 [2 favorites]


At tea party-like rally, Obama told to 'put the Quran down'
The rally, billed as the "Million Vet March on the Memorials," drew far fewer than a million people and evolved into a protest that resembled familiar tea party events from 2009, with yellow "Don't Tread On Me" flags throughout the crowd and strong anti-Obama language from the podium and the audience.

One speaker went as far as saying the president was a Muslim and separately urged the crowd of hundreds to initiate a peaceful uprising.

"I call upon all of you to wage a second American nonviolent revolution, to use civil disobedience, and to demand that this president leave town, to get up, to put the Quran down, to get up off his knees, and to figuratively come out with his hands up," said Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch, a conservative political advocacy group.
Remember, folks: the modern conservative movement is totally not about race and religion. You're the real racist engaging in the war on Christians for bringing it up.
posted by zombieflanders at 12:14 PM on October 13, 2013 [21 favorites]


"I call upon all of you to wage a second American nonviolent revolution, to use civil disobedience, and to demand that this president leave town, to get up, to put the Quran down, to get up off his knees, and to figuratively come out with his hands up," said Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch, a conservative political advocacy group.

That's so precious. "Figuratively come out with your hands up! You're vaguely surrounded!"
posted by jason_steakums at 12:16 PM on October 13, 2013 [4 favorites]


I call upon all of you to wage a second American nonviolent revolution, to use civil disobedience, and to demand that this president leave town, to get up, to put the Quran down

More Republican outreach.
posted by dirigibleman at 12:21 PM on October 13, 2013 [2 favorites]


Those protests fill me with a profound and not-good urge to become a deep cover troll from within the Tea Party.

"Don't tread on me! Nobama! Freedom! Yeah!

Hey, everyone, you know what would be great? If we donned these fluorescent fursuits, and then if we waved smoky censers as we paraded slowly through the nation's playgrounds, playing Sunn o))) on boomboxes, carrying signs written in an inscrutable alphabet of my own devising.

Now let us fight - for our freedoms!"
posted by Sticherbeast at 12:29 PM on October 13, 2013 [10 favorites]


Since I'm generally an optimistic person, I do find it hopeful that primary challenges are starting to arise from the right-of-center Republicans. In my own state of Kansas, the infamous tea-bagger Brownback is facing a one-two punch of a 20-something approval rating and a decent moderate opponent who had an enthusiastic groundswell of support. The various well-heeled country club Republicans are talking about funding moderates to get rid of the radicals. So maybe the tide will turn and the Republicans can return to being merely evil and not batshit insane evil.

But Confederate flags in front of the White House? "I aint a racist. Heritage not Hate, my friend. Now, let's get rid of the Communist Muslim African!"

Christ. It's going to get worse before it gets better.
posted by honestcoyote at 12:34 PM on October 13, 2013 [1 favorite]


Wise words from Snoop Dog on Twitter:

Chill tha fucc out n smoke sumthin !! #snoopify # politicalbullshit pic.twitter.com/tFapb2PSUe
posted by angrycat at 12:43 PM on October 13, 2013 [9 favorites]


Because if there's one thing that will calm an acting-out racist shithead right down, it's being told to chill the fuck out by a black rap artist.
posted by localroger at 12:51 PM on October 13, 2013 [3 favorites]


It's good advice no matter what your race.
posted by wierdo at 12:53 PM on October 13, 2013 [1 favorite]


To be fair, Snoop is beloved by many.

Also, he has a single on the soundtrack to Turbo, that snail movie. Life is weird.
posted by Sticherbeast at 12:55 PM on October 13, 2013


Wow, Rand Paul is still completely disconnected from reality or is lying through his teeth:
On CNN’s “State of the Union,” Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, played down fears that a default on the debt this week would be the cause of a downgrade of the nation’s credit rating, as happened during a similar showdown in 2011. The downgrade, he said, was not caused by the threat of default, but by the size of the United States’ debt.
--Senate Leaders Talk — G.O.P Blames Obama for Gridlock (could have sworn that was linked earlier in this thread, but didn't see it when I looked just now)

Moody's specifically stated the downgrade was due to the political gridlock increasing the chance that we'd just up and refuse to pay our bills despite the ability to do so. It would have been nice if that liberal rag known as the New York Times would have pointed that fact out to its readers since they decided to quote his lie. It's not a matter of opinion. One thing is what Moody's wrote, the other is not.
posted by wierdo at 1:03 PM on October 13, 2013 [12 favorites]




The victim complex is coming out in full force. Robert Costa reporting that the teabagger rally breaking into the WW2 memorial this week is going to re-engerize the House radicals. Quick scan of Beitbart and Drudge can confirm.
posted by T.D. Strange at 1:15 PM on October 13, 2013



If Republicans believe that the failure to raise the borrowing limit and the subsequent fault won't be a big catastrophe, then where is the source of their leverage for refusing to allow a vote to raise it?


The confederate flags make them immune to your logic.
posted by mikelieman at 1:17 PM on October 13, 2013 [7 favorites]


Wow. Don't know if this has been linked or not, but on Oct. 1, the House Republicans changed the standing rules of the House so that Senate bills could only be called for a vote by the Majority Leader or his designee. Prior to 10/1/13, any member of the House could call a vote on a Senate bill if negotiations had become gridlocked.

Video here, worth watching the whole five minutes.
posted by LooseFilter at 1:46 PM on October 13, 2013 [6 favorites]




Nay R King, Pete NY 2nd

Mind Blown. So the GOP Civil War was already going on, if Pete King voted AGAINST it.
posted by mikelieman at 2:57 PM on October 13, 2013


I'm not sure what would happen if the world did try to de-Americanise. The US would certainly see a drop in influence if they were deem oversized in markets for instance denominating things in Euros instead of US dollars.

However, I doubt a lot of the US Congress not to mention the electorate would see the US go quietly into the night after being in the world's spotlight for so long. American exceptionalism runs deep in this culture and I couldn't see it being removed from the collective national or international identity without tenuous, or worse, credible threats from the Neanderthals which make up the greatest perpetuation of this myth.
posted by Talez at 3:00 PM on October 13, 2013


7 Deadly Spins: A Guide to GOP Debt Ceiling Denial: Mother Jones

As journalists make comparisons to Monty Python, I am somehow charmed and despairing at once.
posted by angrycat at 4:04 PM on October 13, 2013


zombieflanders: "At tea party-like rally, Obama told to 'put the Quran down'

Remember, folks: the modern conservative movement is totally not about race and religion. You're the real racist engaging in the war on Christians for bringing it up.
"

I was talking to my mom tonight about the Second Congo War and how many people died.

Literally, the first thing she blurted out "It's the Muslims!"

"No, mom, it's not anything to do..."

"You just don't understand."

I dropped it, and then, just to make sure I didn't miss something (I mean, ok, maybe there's a small extremist Muslim faction involved, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't, but I'd rather make sure I have my facts straight)... I go to the Wiki, ctrl-f "Islam", "Muslim" NOPE.

If I were quick on my feet, I'd've pointed out that this is the fallout of Western White Christian Colonialism, but I wasn't. Not that it matters, they're clinging to this "War with Islam" narrative really really tightly, which is just fucking sad.
posted by symbioid at 5:04 PM on October 13, 2013 [9 favorites]


So let me get this straight. The old white people are flying flags associated with violent resistance to the government of the United States and are illegally Occupying parks and they're not getting tear-gassed and beaten? Is this one of those "both sides do it" things or am I missing something? Shouldn't we be criticizing their hygiene and lack of coherent agenda at this point?
posted by stet at 7:54 PM on October 13, 2013 [27 favorites]


This weekend was supposed to be a big deal for the right. They had the Value Voters summit, the Truck Driver Beltway protest and the Million Veteran March on the national mall. The million vet protest was about 999,500 short. The truck driver protest ended up being 4 trucks and a half dozen minivans for 15 minutes. You have to wonder if at anytime during their red meat filled barn burning speeches at the Value Voters summit the wannabe 2016 nominees looked at the nearly empty 2,300 seat theater and asked themselves where the voters were.
posted by humanfont at 8:18 PM on October 13, 2013 [6 favorites]


Gotta hoard that sweet, sweet PAC cash for next fall, especially with the Chamber of Commerce and other big business money up in the air. Astroturf budget's a little tight at the moment.
posted by jason_steakums at 8:22 PM on October 13, 2013 [1 favorite]


On Saturday, Jamie Dimon, boss of the American bank JP Morgan said the possible repercussions did not bear thinking about.

"You don't want to know [what would happen]," he said.

"It would ripple through the world economy in a way that you couldn't possibly understand."
--IMF chief warns a US default could spark recession

The whole article is interesting, even if only from the standpoint of confirmation of the danger from people other than politicians and economists, but this bit struck a particular chord with me because I can't figure out whether Dimon is being condescending and arrogant or if he means to include himself in that analysis. Either way, it's a strong indication of how stupidly wrong the people claiming there is no cliff up ahead are.
posted by wierdo at 9:11 PM on October 13, 2013 [2 favorites]


Dimon is referring to the risk of OPEC deciding to stop trading in U.S. Dollars (which from the looks of the link above about China thinking about 'DeAmericizing', seems like it's a very high chance), which means that the entire market for U.S. Dollars, which the entire worlds financial sectors are pretty much built upon, and several hundred trillion dollars worth of wealth could evaporate overnight. We're not talking hyper-inflation. We're talking ludicrous-inflation. Ever heard of "not worth the paper it's printed on"? Yeah, that.

Which I find amusing, because that would make all of these Tea Party morons as broke as me (I have 0 net worth, and very little debt). Actually, it would make them broker than me if they have a mortgage.

You should all look up the concept of "magic checkbook" due to the global oil markets. It's a pretty out-there woowoo theory, to a certain degree, but it is a whole lot better than most of the shit on right wing radio as it tracks the history of wars over oil throughout the 20th century. You might have recently heard about the C.I.A. coup in Iran where we installed the Shah and how that lead to the blowback of the Islamic Revolution? It's in there. And, actually, it's a blip compared to how it pertains to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Guess who was threatening (in 2001, and earlier, actually) to start selling oil in Euros? Yeah. Donald Rumsfeld's former buddy in Baghdad, Saddam Hussein.

So anyway, back to today's noise.
If the Tea Party are so stupid as to believe that the default won't prompt a whole lot of foreign markets to suddenly say "yeah, bye, we're going to use Euros for buying oil now, and since, you know, your government is shut down, we don't think you will be able to use your military to keep us from doing it. Also, Venezuela and Nairobi and the rest of Africa and most of South America have already been talking to China about this, and they've set up an exchange, so we're going to go deal with them."

And all those "taxes too much" Tea Party blowhards will suddenly find themselves with a net worth of negative, and their pay checks will suddenly not be worth the paper they're printed on.

I really hope someone is planning on locking all the House (R)s in a room and making them watch a presentation by a gentleman in a very expensive suit, explaining that if the dollar does not stay as the default currency of the world, all the wealth in the domestic economy suddenly goes 'poof.'

That's why Dimon says "You don't want to know [what would happen]."

Think Fight Club, only real.

Signed,
Your local woowoo watching lunatic committee.
posted by daq at 10:02 PM on October 13, 2013 [5 favorites]


Meh, I don't buy hyperinflation as an outcome of even a prolonged US Government default. China could dump its entire $3.3 trillion in forex reserves and it would be like pissing in the wind as asset devaluations due to the resulting credit crunch wiped trillions of dollars, pounds, euros, yen and everything else out of existence. As a worst case scenario if all assets were to really go to zero, I suppose it's possible, but it seems farfetched short of a postapocalyptic wasteland scenario. The world financial system is so interconnected that a major event like an effective repudiation of the debt would leave basically everybody fucked beyond belief.

Even China is in no position to have US demand fall dramatically.
posted by wierdo at 10:55 PM on October 13, 2013 [1 favorite]


China can't afford to have the US collapse; it's a symbiotic relationship. The US gets cheap goods, China gets employment for millions of workers making things that there's simply not enough demand for from domestic consumption. And in exchange, it gets piles of dollars that it can use for oil, something it consumes in great quantity.

A US default that lasts more than a couple of days* will be catastrophic for countries that trade with the US - which is pretty much everyone. The painfully achieved end result will probably be the reformation of the global economy around an EU/china axis, with the US left as a post-collapse shadow of its former self, aka the new Russia, literally run by oligarchs. I don't know if oil will be priced in Euros, but it certainly won't be priced in dollars any more.

So while there'll be a certain schadenfreude seeing the Tea Party politicians realise they were directly responsible for the end of the American Century (not that they'd be self-aware enough to admit it publicly), the cost in lives and economic destruction is too high even for us non-americans.

* I think the US could survive a short/limited default, if the immediate impact of being downrated, having bonds being dumped en-masse etc resulted in immediate action to raise the debt limit by a large amount. It'd be painful for the US, but not catastrophic as too many have too much tied up in T-bonds to drop everything immediately; but should an actual missed payment on bonds etc not be immediately fixed but dismissed by the teahadists, that's when we'll see the start of financial Armageddon
posted by ArkhanJG at 11:41 PM on October 13, 2013 [2 favorites]


...with the US left as a post-collapse shadow of its former self, aka the new Russia, literally run by oligarchs

That's an interesting thought. Perhaps the Koch Bros et al looked at what happened to the very rich in Russia post-collapse and thought "wow, how can we get in on that action."

Better to rule in hell, as it were. ... 
posted by Joey Michaels at 1:38 AM on October 14, 2013 [1 favorite]


And in exchange, it gets piles of dollars that it can use for oil, something it consumes in great quantity

Until the oil producing countries stop taking dollars for oil.
posted by empath at 4:14 AM on October 14, 2013


Better to rule in hell, as it were. ...

This is why I believe we're going over the cliff. The GOP locked themselves into a suicide run with the rules change - the one where only the Speaker can introduce a Senate bill for a vote - locking out party moderates and pro-business conservatives. The only reason to do this is that the Speaker was assured of a soft landing in the worst case scenario. He believes he'll either retain his position, or given a position of influence outside of congress, no matter what happens. They'll keep it going until the next election, if they have to.

Once we're in default, the Democrats will cave, as they're principled, not kamikaze fanatical. They'll ride the default a few days, and use it as a club in the next election cycle... "Big Deficit Republicans" and "Deadbeat Republicans" and "Abuse and Waste Republicans" have a nice ring to them.
posted by Slap*Happy at 5:20 AM on October 14, 2013


Dimon is referring to the risk of OPEC deciding to stop trading in U.S. Dollars

You're wrong. Actually, it's just Jamie Dimon being a dick.
posted by indubitable at 6:11 AM on October 14, 2013


World Leaders Press the U.S. on Fiscal Crisis

Leaders at World Bank and International Monetary Fund meetings on Sunday pleaded, warned and cajoled: the United States must raise its debt ceiling and reopen its government or risk “massive disruption the world over,” as Christine Lagarde, the fund’s managing director, put it...

Participants at the meetings remained on edge, given the gravity of the threat. Ms. Lagarde said “that lack of certainty, that lack of trust in the U.S. signature” would disrupt the world economy...

Concern over the impasse has already led to a slide in stocks — including the worst two-day dip in months. American economic confidence has taken the worst hit since the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008. And investors have dumped certain short-term Treasury debt because of fears that the Treasury might not pay them back on time...

Mr. Kim of the World Bank said that the United States’ flirtation with default in 2011 raised borrowing costs for many poor countries...

Anshu Jain, the co-chief executive of Deutsche Bank, said ... that his executive team had been trying to make contingency plans in case of a default, but it had struggled to come up with measures that would significantly stem the losses.

posted by rory at 6:13 AM on October 14, 2013 [1 favorite]


So is this thing for real? Only Boehner can introduce whatever the Senate passes?
I am really hoping that this is not a real thing. Either that or Boehner is not the sad sack of the man he seems and would actually introduce legislation despite what the crazy people in the House say.
posted by angrycat at 6:14 AM on October 14, 2013


(I did watch the linked video about the change to the House rules but wasn't sure how to parse the language of the rules being discussed)
posted by angrycat at 6:15 AM on October 14, 2013




Is there a No-Confidence kind of thing, a recall? Arrest him? What the hell is the next step?

*redacted*
posted by quonsar II: smock fishpants and the temple of foon at 6:23 AM on October 14, 2013


So is this thing for real? Only Boehner can introduce whatever the Senate passes?
I am really hoping that this is not a real thing. Either that or Boehner is not the sad sack of the man he seems and would actually introduce legislation despite what the crazy people in the House say.


I believe the new rule says "the majority leader or his designee". So it's worse than that - only Eric Cantor can introduce it. What can go wrong?
posted by Benny Andajetz at 6:26 AM on October 14, 2013 [3 favorites]


Yeah - it's fucking up to Cantor, what kind of goddamned powerplay was that, and Boehner? What a damn fool, playing a fucking King Herod, and washing his hands of the matter...

I can't believe these dumbshits are this stupid, I really can't believe they won't end up voting for raising it - it'll be like at the very last minute, but I just can't believe they'll be that fucking dumb. In particular, the so called "Leadership" of the house Repubs. The actual Tea Party dumbfucks who swept in, yeah, I can believe they're that stupid.

But everytime I can't believe these fuckers are that dumb, they keep on doing things that press my capacity for incredibility ever more.
posted by symbioid at 6:43 AM on October 14, 2013 [1 favorite]


okay, can anybody pump something soothing into the room and/or dispel the idea that this thing hinges upon Eric Fucking Cantor
posted by angrycat at 6:45 AM on October 14, 2013 [2 favorites]


ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss.....
That's the sound of soothing sleeping gas, washing over you, slowly relax. now close your eyes. breathe in, slowly, slowly.... that's right, now deeper and deeper you fall into a relaxed state....
ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss.....
posted by symbioid at 6:47 AM on October 14, 2013 [1 favorite]


Soothe frayed nerves with some Government Shutdown Cupcakes.
posted by madamjujujive at 7:05 AM on October 14, 2013 [5 favorites]


WAMU has picked an unfortunate time to fundraise.
posted by angrycat at 7:38 AM on October 14, 2013


The House is considering a 6 week DL bill with various poison pills attached, no end to the shutdown. Default is happening.

Even if default is avoided, shutdown appears to be the new normal for the federal government. Total tea party victory as federal workers are slowly forced to seek other employment and services wither and die.

No optimism in sight.
posted by T.D. Strange at 7:41 AM on October 14, 2013 [1 favorite]




They went from defunding Obamacare, to slashing Social Security, now to banning birth control coverage. It's like the rationale for the Iraq war, only this time they're attacking America.
posted by T.D. Strange at 7:50 AM on October 14, 2013 [21 favorites]


Dear lord. It scares me that China is starting to make official noise about "de-Americanizing" the world economy right now, too. That seems to be them signaling they are okay with destroying the value of the dollar despite their large debt holdings.

I'm really starting the get the anxious feeling we really are going to sail off the edge of the map here.
posted by saulgoodman at 7:51 AM on October 14, 2013 [7 favorites]


the point of needing to close the memorials is that they have to furlough all the guards and maintenance people who would otherwise have to be there.

I would love to get one, just one fucking reporter to approach these stupid motherfuckers and ask them how long they're staying behind to clean up afterward.


Well, Glenn Beck did lead a "National Day of Service" to clean up National Mall. The day before the crowd came. I know it's technically not his fault that his event preceded the vets' march, but it's amusing on a meta level.

But seriously, what stet said upthread. I sincerely want to know-- what other group of people in the country can show up en masse, with movement figureheads, with anti-government symbols, probably with arms, explicitly advocate the shutting down of the government, call for the removal of the government's head of state and military commander-in-chief, taunt the police, and uproot barricades (AND pile them at the head-of-state's residence), and not at the very least get an industrial-grade tear gassing and arrested? If the answer is "Nobody wants to be the one to authorize the arrest of a group of veterans," then seriously--what would they have to do to get the treatment that--let's be honest--anybody else in the country would get, doing the same thing?
posted by Rykey at 7:55 AM on October 14, 2013 [1 favorite]


Occupy had a lot of veterans too, but I think there's an unwritten rule in the USA that you're not a real veteran unless you're also pro-war.
posted by crayz at 7:59 AM on October 14, 2013 [7 favorites]


and that you don't have any PTSD (physical disability is, of course, ok), or that you got a nice deferral from your daddies connections. Real soldiers, otherwise fakey fakey fakers.
posted by symbioid at 8:00 AM on October 14, 2013


What are markets doing right now? Like T-bills and shit - securities can those things of the US be sold still? I suppose that's what this is all about, so... there must be movement in other currencies now... I imagine Euros?
posted by symbioid at 8:02 AM on October 14, 2013


I know that I'm looking for other opportunities, T.D. Strange, as are a number of scientists that I work with. The Tea Partiers absolutely are going to get their wish, which is the crippling of the federal government by stripping it of institutional knowledge and competence. The thing that's going to really bite a lot of us in the DC-MD-VA area is that even if we can find other jobs, we can't sell our houses when we want to move away. At some point it's going to make sense to just walk away from the mortgage, and you know that the banks are going to love that, but what other choice will people have? The nihilists are winning.

[Edited to correct poor grammar.]
posted by wintermind at 8:05 AM on October 14, 2013 [1 favorite]


If only they WERE nihilists. These assholes actually believe in something. Say what you will about the Tea Party, it's at most it's an ethos.
posted by symbioid at 8:10 AM on October 14, 2013 [2 favorites]


Maybe you're right. Their beliefs scare the hell out of me.
posted by wintermind at 8:11 AM on October 14, 2013 [1 favorite]


I realize that I'm woefully under-informed about how to plan for a "your dollar is a lira/ruble/peso/mark" crisis, but I'll ask anyway:

Should I just take my spare cash (a couple of grand in savings) & exchange it for Euros? Like, now, while it's still a reasonable exchange?

Wouldn't that be an everyman's means of mitigating losses if the dollar goes belly up?

Or is the USD so inextricably tied to other markets & currency that ALL money starts losing value?

That is, if the debt limit is breached, the world economy moves away from the dollar, & all goes south for the USD, the uptick will be that my Euros start gaining in value against the USD every day, no? I can then trade at 1EU for $100 in a couple of weeks & just pay rent with a few of those, right?

What am I missing?

[edit: grammar fix]
posted by narwhal at 8:18 AM on October 14, 2013 [2 favorites]


I'm really hoping that "senior House GOP source" of CNN's a few days ago was right, and that tomorrow is the day things will be forced through if there's no solution at hand.
posted by jason_steakums at 8:19 AM on October 14, 2013


In some ways I want this to happen if only they feel the goddamned pain of their brinksmanship and they STOP FUCKING TRIFLING WITH THIS SHIT ONCE AND FOR ALL. Because if they don't feel anything this time, they'll just play these games again and again.
posted by symbioid at 8:22 AM on October 14, 2013


I'll be pretty upset if my disability check for November doesn't show up, and my partner and I will have to scramble and maybe eat more beans. But my mom? She will riot in the streets and probably loot the Lord and Taylor's clearance section, along with her entire aquasize class. Nobody wants to piss off the little old ladies. Haven't any of these Republicans ever been to a town meeting?
posted by brina at 8:26 AM on October 14, 2013 [6 favorites]




How can I trade my dollars for Euros when I need all my current operating capital (my money, in other words) to stay liquid so I can meet debt servicing obligations and cover mandatory day-to-day expenses. I have some small amount in a Roth IRA. Can I put that into Euros or is the Yen a better bet?

What would be great is if there were some online bank that could hold all your deposited funds in a particular currency, but automatically negotiate the exchange rates and treat your money as if it were the native currency for purchasing transactions (debits). Then you could hedge your bets without much effort or loss of convenience.
posted by saulgoodman at 8:29 AM on October 14, 2013 [1 favorite]


BITCOINS!
posted by symbioid at 8:31 AM on October 14, 2013 [1 favorite]


In some ways I want this to happen if only they feel the goddamned pain of their brinksmanship and they STOP FUCKING TRIFLING WITH THIS SHIT ONCE AND FOR ALL. Because if they don't feel anything this time, they'll just play these games again and again.

I'm more than a little worried that a significant group of them won't feel anything as much as the rest of us, at least for a while, as they take the opportunity of a default to do a fire sale on state and local assets, pennies on the dollar for their business partners, cronies and family members. There's the stuff a default would really hurt, and then there's the convenient cover it allows for some heinous, shady shit, much like all the businesses that are using Obamacare fears (that they've drummed up) as an excuse to cut hours and benefits.
posted by jason_steakums at 8:34 AM on October 14, 2013 [5 favorites]


I don't think individual solutions like exchanging our dollars for euros are going to save any of us who aren't already wealthy enough to have hideouts and money stashed in other countries. This problem is way too big for anything but systemic solutions. And the dollar defaulting will hurt the euro and other currencies too.
posted by emjaybee at 8:36 AM on October 14, 2013 [1 favorite]


What are markets doing right now?

The bond markets are closed today for the Columbus Day holiday, but short term rates spiked dramatically last week. The 30-year rates have held steady.
posted by malocchio at 8:36 AM on October 14, 2013


@saulgoodman- Exactly. I was originally thinking about opening a Swiss account via a local branch here in town (UBS). Figured I could make deposits via cash & have it stored in EU. Then, drawing off that account in USD via daily market rates, I could seamlessly pay bills, etc.

Then I wondered if that was needlessly complex & I could just go get some EU cash from the airport & trade that in weekly for operating costs..
posted by narwhal at 8:38 AM on October 14, 2013


I'm more than a little worried that a significant group of them won't feel anything as much as the rest of us, at least for a while, as they take the opportunity of a default to do a fire sale on state and local assets, pennies on the dollar for their business partners, cronies and family members.

That's the real plan here. Destruction of the federal government is the ends, not the means.
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:48 AM on October 14, 2013 [6 favorites]


Yeah - I know that this is the thing that sucks, and the problem is that while those who are playing this game get somethign out of it, those that vote for them get screwed, and they won't blame them, so I know my dreams of revenge via actualizing their bitter medicine won't even do what I wish it to. :\

(not that I'm complaining I know too many people who would be affected, I mean, like, people on Disability and SSI and all that stuff, not just the run of the mill gov't stuff, but the poorest and most powerless in society).
posted by symbioid at 8:52 AM on October 14, 2013


@emjaybee- I agree that my plan probably wouldn't save me. My question is just that if ALL I have is debt & some cash, wouldn't having that cash in a different currency soften the blow?

If we really do think the House is willing to burn it all down & let us default; if we're convinced the value of the dollar is going to plummet; if we're shaking our fists in rage against this impending doom and all but certain of the outcome; in a couple of weeks, when the EU is worth $100, instead of saying "I knew this would happen!" shouldn't we put our money (literally) where our mouth is (figuratively) & at least save the value of whatever cash we have available?

Obviously, those with truckloads of assets distributed across multiple nations & investments are far better able to weather this kind of upset. Nevertheless, watching from the sidelines as the little cash I *do* have starts dwindling in value seems incorrect.

I guess I should rework my initial question & ask: is there any reason I *shouldn't* go dollars for EU (or Yen or whatever) so long as national default seems likely?

Worst (read: best) case, nothing happens & I trade it all back to USD a couple of weeks later. I'm out the cost of conversion & whatever market differences have occurred.

Right?
posted by narwhal at 8:52 AM on October 14, 2013 [2 favorites]


Having a foreign bank account as a US citizen is kind of a pain while doing your taxes, even if there is very little money in it, and I suspect the fees involved would negate any savings from currency fluctuations. Probably not worth it unless you have one meeeliiioon dollars (and if you do, talk to a professional.)
posted by jetlagaddict at 8:53 AM on October 14, 2013


A sufficiently large number of people all trying to get their savings out of USD at the same time is how bank runs happen.
posted by ceribus peribus at 8:54 AM on October 14, 2013 [2 favorites]


As I mentioned, way upstream now, I still don't understand why Mr. Obama doesn't simply claim that the Fourteenth Amendment compels him to act, that he will never under any circumstances default on the US's debt, and just unilaterally order the Treasury to issue new debt.

It's not just that there are good legal arguments for that point of view - it's that it's the right thing to do no matter what the law says. As the chief executive of the country, Mr. Obama has in practice the power to do it. The Republicans could sue or even impeach him - but that would take a long time, they'd never get the votes for impeachment, and more, that would put them in the extremely poor position of running a lawsuit saying, basically, "We want to destroy the country but the President isn't letting us."

The Supreme Court has held up the Unitary Executive Theory time and again, even when the President is doing bad things. I can't imagine that they wouldn't in this case, where the President is doing something desperately needed to save the country.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 8:56 AM on October 14, 2013


lupus, I think others have posted that even if he did so, the markets might not believe it's enough (because the Republicans almost certainly would sue/try to impeach) and so the outcome would not be clear-cut.

Now it may be that if that's the only thing to do, he should do it. I have to hope that this sort of thing is being discussed with much more detail/insight/planning in the White House than it is here. Much as I believe there are those who want to crash this whole ship so they can loot at their leisure, I also think there are still people in Washington who don't want that, and will fight it, the president, for all his faults, among them.
posted by emjaybee at 9:05 AM on October 14, 2013 [1 favorite]


and more, that would put them in the extremely poor position of running a lawsuit saying, basically, "We want to destroy the country but the President isn't letting us."

Depending on the perspective, not that I ascribe to it, it actually puts them into the position of running a lawsuit saying, basically, "We want to save the country from a muslim, extremist, socialist who stole the office of President and 'look how he violates all the things, we told you so! See, SEE!?' but the courts/democrats/rules aren't letting us."
posted by RolandOfEld at 9:11 AM on October 14, 2013


I haven't noticed my foreign bank accounts making my US taxes significantly more difficult, but if you really want to buy Euros, the easiest way is probably through an ETF or ETN such as FXE or ERO. Note: this is not a recommendation to buy Euros or to invest in these specific funds.
posted by bradf at 9:11 AM on October 14, 2013 [1 favorite]


Seriously, Euros? Europe is going to be devastated by a US default just as we will. Asking how you can prepare your finances for US default is like asking how to prepare for the universe ceasing to exist. It underpins practically everything. The way you prepare for national default is to NOT DEFAULT.

I cannot fucking believe that we are actually 1 day away from default. The only reason people aren't massing in the streets is that they have no idea what misery awaits them.
posted by indubitable at 9:19 AM on October 14, 2013 [3 favorites]


The market, today: "Calmer'n you are, Dude. Calmer'n you are."
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 9:27 AM on October 14, 2013 [3 favorites]


> because the Republicans almost certainly would sue/try to impeach

But it's mathematically impossible for them to get enough votes in the Senate to succeed at an impeachment - so that's just not a problem at all. And, as I said above, a lawsuit would take a really long time, put the Republicans in a dreadful PR position ("We want to destroy the country, but Mr. Obama won't let us!") and almost certainly not succeed.

> Depending on the perspective, not that I ascribe to it, it actually puts them into the position of running a lawsuit saying, basically, "We want to save the country from a muslim, extremist, socialist who stole the office of President and 'look how he violates all the things, we told you so! See, SEE!?' but the courts/democrats/rules aren't letting us."

This idea, "The Democrats can't do X because the Tea Party will object", seems completely irrational. The people who believe that Mr. Obama is a Muslim socialist are a minority who are going to believe terrible things about Mr. Obama no matter what he does. I don't see what possible benefit can be had by catering to their insane desires.

In particular, the idea that the crazies will continue to go crazy should absolutely NOT deter Mr. Obama from taking emergency action in a grave crisis.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 9:27 AM on October 14, 2013


I cannot fucking believe that we are actually 1 day away from default.

Three days, actually.
posted by zombieflanders at 9:27 AM on October 14, 2013


We're not one day away from default. We're at least a week away, maybe more. It's just that after the deadline passes, it gets hard to say when the checks will start bouncing.
posted by empath at 9:29 AM on October 14, 2013


The only reason people aren't massing in the streets is that they have no idea what misery awaits them.

And any massing in the streets that happens after default will get ugly. Once people start feeling the effects and the Tea Party is still out there parading around, grandstanding and pretending they didn't cause this and that they're somehow against it? How many people will be able to walk by a demonstration like that with their lives a wreck from the economic fallout and not get into an altercation? Because the unspoken thing that Tea Party types absolutely depend on is that, despite their idiot blathering about tyranny and oppression, they know everyone else is too decent to respond to them with violence. We subsidize their lack of decency with our own. But people turn when they've got nothing to lose.
posted by jason_steakums at 9:30 AM on October 14, 2013 [1 favorite]


Yeah, I caught that too after the edit window had closed. Doesn't change anything else I wrote, though.
posted by indubitable at 9:31 AM on October 14, 2013


empath, what reason do you have to believe that the Treasury is fibbing about the 10/17 deadline?
posted by indubitable at 9:36 AM on October 14, 2013


I don't see what possible benefit can be had by catering to their insane desires.

Right. I didn't say cater to it. But you have to understand the not-logic is there, know your enemy and all that. I like to think that the amount of people the GOP would gain with that potential argument would be more than counteracted by the people who saw the logic in the Executive going to extreme measures to prevent a default... but I guess I've just become jaded by people's logical and ideological imbalances that continue to get us into messes like this as irresponsible or/and selfish behaviors are repeated ad nauseum.
posted by RolandOfEld at 9:38 AM on October 14, 2013


what reason do you have to believe that the Treasury is fibbing about the 10/17 deadline?

Absolutely everything you need to know about the debt ceiling: "So what happens on Oct. 17? Is that doomsday?

It's hard to say. At some point after Oct. 17, the federal government will only bring in enough tax revenue to pay about 68 percent of its bills for the coming month, according to an analysis by the Bipartisan Policy Center. (More precisely, the government will bring in roughly $222 billion in taxes and owe roughly $328 billion between Oct. 18 and Nov. 15.)

The first missed payment won't necessarily happen right on Oct. 17, but it would likely happen soon thereafter.

...

Many analysts think that Nov. 1 is the real "doomsday" date. It's unlikely the government will be able to make that $58 billion payment [for Social Security payments, disability benefits, Medicare payments, military pay, and retiree pay] without being able to borrow more money."
posted by T.D. Strange at 9:41 AM on October 14, 2013 [1 favorite]


They aren't fibbing. They say the same thing I did. After the 17th, they don't know on a given day if they have enough money to pay the bills. Depends on tax revenue coming in and expenses.

That doesn't mean they'll default on the 17th, though.
posted by empath at 9:42 AM on October 14, 2013


And any massing in the streets that happens after default will get ugly.

I'm imagining a BBC report on UN peacekeeping forces being dispatched to quell the rioting; meanwhile the World Bank is negotiating terms of a bridge loan contingent on making several key economic and fiscal policy changes mandated by the IMF in order to promote stability and establish a working government in the region.
posted by ceribus peribus at 9:44 AM on October 14, 2013 [9 favorites]


> But from a negotiating perspective, he has to deny that he's willing to do this.

What?! Why?

I sometimes feel I've entered mirror world, where the insane becomes sane.

There is a gun pressed to the head of the American economy and its name is default. Mr. Obama is the only one who can actually pull the trigger. The Republicans are threatening to order Mr. Obama to pull the trigger if he doesn't give them what they want.

From a negotiating perspective which makes more sense:

1. Expressing great fear at this threat and telling people that, yes, you will pull the trigger and destroy the economy if the Republicans tell you to.
2. Explaining that you will under no circumstances pull that trigger and their threats are empty and baseless.

?

FFS, if Mr. Obama had done this the first time we hit the debt ceiling, as so many people urged him to do, we would not have this problem today. Once people realized that the threats were baseless, the Republicans would be caught entirely with their pants down.

And without decisive action, they're going raise the debt limit some marginal amount, and we're going to go through this all over again in a few months, and a few months after that, and...

Yes, there is some marginal risk in this scenario, but what really is the downside? Impeachment is not a possibility, so the very worst case is that the Republicans sue, the case winds its way through the courts, and you lose - so, months or even a year from now, the President is back to where he was before.

So even in the worst case, you gain some breathing time. But as I said, it's inconceivable to me that the Supreme Court would vote to destroy the US economy.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 9:51 AM on October 14, 2013


Via Slate's liveblog:
12 p.m.: Reid Makes an Offer, via Politico:
Harry Reid has privately offered Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell a deal that would reopen the government until mid-to-late December while extending the U.S. debt ceiling until next year, according to several sources familiar with the talks.
The proposal would set up a framework for larger budget negotiations with the House over the automatic sequestration spending cuts and and other major deficit issues, the sources said. Moreover, Senate Democrats are open to delaying Obamacare’s medical device tax and a requirement that those receiving Obamacare subsidies be subject to income verification — but they would have to get something from Republicans in return, sources said.

12:05 p.m.: Afternoon Action as Congressional Leaders Head to the White House, via WaPo:
President Obama and Vice President Biden will meet with the top-ranking House and Senate leaders in both parties this afternoon at 3 p.m., a White House official said. Obama will huddle at the White House with House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).
The WH meeting is a good sign, because there's no point in having that meeting unless there's something there. Backing off sequestration now and moving it to deliberations afterwards is the right thing to do, the medical device tax is an easy bone to throw them and, as has been said upthread, the income verification thing already exists at tax time so it's largely a symbolic move. The thing that gives me pause is that it's still in Boehner and Cantor's court after the Senate wrangling is over.

But the original Senate bill that keeps everything at sequester levels is still in the House's back pocket, right? And that resolution that makes it so only Cantor or his designee can bring it to the floor is the only thing blocking it? I'd bet money on Cantor designating a fall guy if that happens, out of sheer cowardice, and I'm sure that's why the "...or his designee" bit is in HR 368 in the first place.
posted by jason_steakums at 9:53 AM on October 14, 2013 [2 favorites]


Scary question that occurred to me today - once the US military stops being paid in the event of default, how long would it take before there's an attempted coup?
posted by ArkhanJG at 9:54 AM on October 14, 2013


The only reason people aren't massing in the streets is that they have no idea what misery awaits them.

And any massing in the streets that happens after default will get ugly


That's what the GOP is counting on. Let's not mass in any streets.

Instead, check if your state has a recall mechanism. Recall nutjobs.
posted by Ironmouth at 9:55 AM on October 14, 2013 [1 favorite]


> The Senate doesn't impeach; the House does, and only needs a majority vote to do so.

You are incorrect. It would have taken you only a few seconds to actually find out what the procedure actually is! Take a look: "Next, the Senate tries the accused. [...] To convict the accused, a two-thirds majority of the senators present is required."

Yes, the House proposes to impeach the President - but an impeachment is a court trial carried out in the Senate, it needs a two-thirds majority, and exactly as I claimed, there are mathematically nowhere near the votes.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 9:55 AM on October 14, 2013


“Right now, Grandma is getting a Social Security check. In a few weeks, unless we solve this STOP ACTING LIKE BIG FUCKING BABIES, she won’t,” said Steve Bell, a former top Republican Senate staff member and a senior vice president at the policy center.

FTFY
posted by symbioid at 9:58 AM on October 14, 2013


Rand Paul is still completely disconnected from reality or is lying through his teeth

Those possibilities aren't mutually exclusive.
posted by Gelatin at 9:58 AM on October 14, 2013 [6 favorites]


> the threat is that any actions he takes are ineffective.

How, exactly, would actions he took be "ineffective"? If the President simply orders the Treasury Department to issue more debt, are you expecting Jack Lew to stage an act of civil disobedience and lock himself in his office?

The Treasury Department is an executive department. Mr. Obama can simply order them to issue debt and they must comply.

As I pointed out above, the only recourse that the Republics have is to take him to court. And this would take a long time, almost certainly be effective, but moreover, be a public relations disaster.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 10:01 AM on October 14, 2013


It would have taken you only a few seconds to actually find out what the procedure actually is! Take a look:

Take a look yourself, at the very page you linked to: "The House of Representatives must first pass, by a simple majority of those present and voting, articles of impeachment, which constitute the formal allegation or allegations. Upon passage, the defendant has been 'impeached.'"

Remember, "impeached" for a president or judge is analogous to "formally charged" (or possibly "indicted") for a criminal defendant, not "convicted."
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 10:02 AM on October 14, 2013 [3 favorites]


The House does not propose to impeach, it impeaches the President. Then a trial on whether to remove the officer occurs.

This will not occur. They don't have the votes, the most important thing you need in politics.

Reminds me of The Little Green Book, which we had in our home. It was a selection of quotations from Mayor Daley. One chapter was on losing elections. It was quotes from dozens of times elections were lost. Every time, Daley said "he didn't have the votes."
posted by Ironmouth at 10:03 AM on October 14, 2013


You are completely incorrect. It would have taken you only a few seconds to actually find out what the procedure actually is! Take a look: "Next, the Senate tries the accused. [...] To convict the accused, a two-thirds majority of the senators present is required."

Not quite. Impeachment is the formal accusation, not the later trial. Even just from the Wiki page you linked to, from the sentence prior to the one you had quoted, "Upon passage [of the articles of impeachment in the House], the defendant has been 'impeached'". The article then goes on to describe how Clinton and Johnson had both been impeached, on those dates that the House passed those articles of impeachment.
posted by Sticherbeast at 10:04 AM on October 14, 2013


DevilsAdvocate: Why would Mr. Obama possibly care if the House of Representatives voted to start impeachment proceedings? Why would anyone care? What possible difference would it make - if they can't actually successfully complete the impeachment proceedings?

Indeed, it would be a huge PR boon for the President.

The idea that Americans would find decisive action by the President distasteful and questionable is a strange one, and not one supported by experience.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 10:04 AM on October 14, 2013


Instead, check if your state has a recall mechanism. Recall nutjobs.

No state has, or can have, a recall of federal elected officials.

Yes, the House proposes to impeach the President - but an impeachment is a court trial carried out in the Senate

No, impeachment is performed solely by the House and is the equivalent to a criminal indictment. Once impeached, someone is tried in the Senate.

You might consider taking your breathtaking ignorance of the American political process, which you just indicated here, as a sign that when you find yourself asking "Why did Obama do $FOO?," you should look for reasons why that might be instead of simply assuming that it's because he's stupid/evil/both and then casting around for someone who agrees that he's stupid/evil/both.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:05 AM on October 14, 2013 [7 favorites]


DevilsAdvocate: Why would Mr. Obama possibly care if the House of Representatives voted to start impeachment proceedings?

Not saying he would. I was correcting your misunderstanding about what constitutes "impeachment." Nothing more or less.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 10:06 AM on October 14, 2013


> You might consider taking your breathtaking ignorance of the American political process,

Keep a civil tongue in your head, please. There's no need to emulate the Tea Party in this thread.

SO sorry am I that I casually used the verb "impeached" to mean "SUCCESSFULLY impeached". I stand corrected, but I am not "breathtakingly ignorant" of the political process.

To use the correct terminology, it would be impossible to SUCCESSFULLY impeach the President, and bringing up impeachment as any sort of issue in this fight is irrelevant.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 10:08 AM on October 14, 2013


Instead, check if your state has a recall mechanism. Recall nutjobs.

No state has, or can have, a recall of federal elected officials.

posted by Ironmouth at 10:09 AM on October 14, 2013


"Impeachment" is the rough equivalent of an indictment in the criminal courts, with the Senate hearing the charges and deciding whether or not to remove a president. Impeachment is absolutely not a two-step process. Impeachment-and-removal is a two-step process. The Senate would likely not ever remove President Obama. Back to your scheduled Quite Possibly Forthcoming Economic Apocalypse coverage.
posted by raysmj at 10:10 AM on October 14, 2013 [4 favorites]


The real issue is whether 'Obamabonds' would be treated similarly by the world investment market; i.e. China, Japan, pension funds etc etc continue to assume that unconstitutional bonds issued without the approval of congress are valid, and they will be paid back upon expiry. Even in a best case scenario, where they are provisionally accepted as valid, it will drive up the demanded interest rates due to the risk that they're not - and a big spike in borrowing costs for the US government would be Bad, and since so many other US interest rates for mortgages, loans etc are tied to treasury bond rates, the cost of borrowing for everyone would also go up steeply.

And that's a best case scenario, just triggering a recession. Worst case is they're offered and not bought, and existing bond rollovers aren't bought either, pretty much immediately starving the treasury of funds and causing mass defaults on both bond payments and required payments.
posted by ArkhanJG at 10:12 AM on October 14, 2013 [1 favorite]


SO sorry am I that I casually used the verb "impeached" to mean "SUCCESSFULLY impeached".

You're really not getting this, lupus_yonderboy. Clinton was "successfully impeached" despite the fact that the senate did not find him guilty. The House votes on impeachment. If they vote to impeach, the impeachment is "successful" regardless of the outcome in the senate--just as anyone brought before a criminal court in the US was "successfully" indicted, regardless of whether or not the court finds them guilty. The Senate is not voting on "impeachment"--they are voting whether or not to find the President guilty of "high crimes and misdemeanors."
posted by yoink at 10:13 AM on October 14, 2013 [7 favorites]


Anyway, we should not let things get ugly and leave the ugliness to the GOP.

Everyone needs to keep up with Congress on this. If your guy or woman is blue or red, call them, make your priority preferences clear to your representatives on this issue constantly.
posted by Ironmouth at 10:14 AM on October 14, 2013 [2 favorites]


I always thought that was odd too, the wording of the process of impeachment I mean. That wiki article clears it up in my brain a bit when it references the roots of the word.

has analogues in the modern French verb empêcher (to prevent) and the modern English impede

In the roughest of laymen's terms I'm sure:

The parallel in the criminal legal system is *insert suspicion of illegal activity here* then you're 'indicted' then, if suspicion is proven valid enough, you're 'convicted'.

Whereas for the president in that same situation, and I know it's not a court and I'm just talking vocabulary here, it's *insert suspicion of illegal activity here* then you're 'impeached' then, if suspicion is proven valid enough, you're... what? Just 'fired'? Or 'Out-of-a-job'? Impeached seems insufficient to cover both situations.

And that gets to the root of what I'm talking about I guess, that's what gives 'impeachment' such power that I think it doesn't quite deserve. That vocabulary exercise makes the public think, for good or bad but it does all the same, that the accused, because they were/are impeached, is guilty or has already been found as such. When really they haven't at all, it's just the first step in the process. So it's a victory for the impeached's opponents, in my opinion anyway.

I guess there is some parallel to the societal condemnation that comes with being arrested for a crime then found not guilty, but still... it just always struck me as odd and I figured there must be a vocabulary word I was missing somewhere in the mix.
posted by RolandOfEld at 10:15 AM on October 14, 2013


Shutdown and Default Considered Small Price to Pay for Banning Birth Control, Say Catholic Bishops and Paul Ryan.

Apparently not caring how many "post-born" children will die as a result.
posted by Mental Wimp at 10:20 AM on October 14, 2013 [2 favorites]


The Constitution in Article I, Section 8 grants Congress the right to issue debt. Article III grants no such power to the President. The 14th Amendment says only the debt may not be questioned. It does not grant the President the power to issue debt. And there is no implied reading that ever overrules an explicit reading of the Constitution. President Obama has continually said the Administration has no powers under the 14th Amendment to do anything about this. And he is right.
posted by Ironmouth at 10:20 AM on October 14, 2013 [5 favorites]


It does not grant the President the power to issue debt.

The debt is already there, it's just coming due, right? Congress and the President approved the debt spending and now the bill is coming due on the payments, no?
posted by Mental Wimp at 10:22 AM on October 14, 2013 [1 favorite]


"Successfully impeached" is not a technical or legal term. To me it means, "Impeachment result in the President's removal from office."

I think it's entirely clear what I mean, but if it bothers you, you can use the phrase, "Impeachment proceedings continue until the candidate is removed from office" wherever I said, "Successfully impeached." Since it isn't a term with specific legal meaning, and since you know perfectly well what I mean, I'm thinking this is not really a strong line of argument to pursue...

I'm sorry this got less than cordial - but the fact is that I believe my original argument, "Mr. Obama shouldn't worry about impeachment because it cannot be effective," is completely correct and I don't see anyone arguing against that. Correcting my terminology is fine, but everything I said about the actual procedure is correct, and I believe my conclusion is also correct.

I need to work now, but let me reiterate my points.

1. When it comes down to it, if negotiations fail, at some point Mr. Obama would be the one to pull the trigger to default.
2. No sane person would actually do this. The consequences would likely be terrible and continue for generations.
3. At that point, we devoutly hope that Mr. Obama will prove to be sane and will not destroy the US economy.
4. If this is the case, this means that the Republicans' underlying threat is baseless.
5. There is no negotiation advantage by acting as if your opponent's baseless threat is in fact real. You simply give your opponent more ammunition.
6. The threat of impeachment is hollow and ineffective because it is impossible for it to result in President Obama's removal.

I think all of these points are unassailable except numbers 2/3 and 5.

MoonOrb:

Lots of interesting points there, starting with:

> The biggest problem, however, is the practical one: How markets would react to the 14th amendment option.

but do you - or does anyone - honestly believe that any negative consequences from this would not be a great deal better than actually defaulting?

In fact, this is a good question - does anyone on this thread believe that if it comes down to that point, Mr. Obama should actually default on the debt rather than invoke the Fourteenth Amendment (or whatever other justification he needed to not default)?

Have a good day. I'll drop in again later.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 10:26 AM on October 14, 2013 [1 favorite]


The spending was approved, the actual borrowing (by auctioning bonds) was not. Unfortunately, the debt ceiling laws don't constrain Congress' ability to spend money that requires bonds to be auctioned, it just restricts the executive branch's ability to raise money to cover their spending. It's why we're in this mess, and it's something that I hope we can get rid of so this doesn't become a regular occurrence any time the party out of power in the White House doesn't get its way.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:26 AM on October 14, 2013 [1 favorite]


It does not grant the President the power to issue debt.

The debt is already there, it's just coming due, right? Congress and the President approved the debt spending and now the bill is coming due on the payments, no?


Yeah, but there's no money to pay it. We have $30 billion in checking and our mortgage is due Oct. 31. We will have no money after that to pay our mortgage and grandma's medical bills.

When I say the government has no money, I mean it. Usually we just apply for more credit and pay bonds due with money borrowed. But we can't because we have no authorization from Congress. The House has to co-sign the loan.

Fans of the 14th Amendment solution never really worked it out. How was the President supposed to raise the money? It wasn't specified. It was all sort of "I say this isn't true," without taking into consideration what the mechanism was. The 14th Amendment doesn't grant any powers to the President. The office isn't even mentioned.
posted by Ironmouth at 10:29 AM on October 14, 2013


Heh, funny to stumble upon this (from that same wiki article as well)..

Jefferson's Manual, which is integral to the Rules of the House of Representatives,[14] states that impeachment is set in motion by charges made on the floor, charges preferred by a memorial, a member's resolution referred to a committee, a message from the president, charges transmitted from the legislature of a state or territory or from a grand jury, or from facts developed and reported by an investigating committee of the House. It further states that a proposition to impeach is a question of high privilege in the House and at once supersedes business otherwise in order under the rules governing the order of business.

It'd be awesome to have a crazy procedural counterattack via impeachment proceedings on GOP stalwarts (which according to my armchair readings) superseding Boehner's lock on the house's floor, which he only holds via the crazy-pants rule they snuck in anyway.

I guess I just watched too much of the Wendy Davis fillibuster for my own good. They don't have the votes anyway but it'd still be fun to see it end that way, loopholed out of their loophole and all that...
posted by RolandOfEld at 10:31 AM on October 14, 2013


Yeah, but there's no money to pay it. We have $30 billion in checking and our mortgage is due Oct. 31. We will have no money after that to pay our mortgage and grandma's medical bills.

So who enforces the overdraft notice? Is it the Treasury? The Fed? What happens if the checks are issued? Will banks refuse to honor the checks?
posted by Mental Wimp at 10:33 AM on October 14, 2013 [1 favorite]


Ach, one more point brought up:

> President Obama has continually said the Administration has no powers under the 14th Amendment to do anything about this.

See, this is why so many people believe that Mr. Obama is a terrible negotiator. Even if the Administration believes this, what possible advantage do they gain in negotiations by publicizing that fact?

Ironmouth, you seem pretty savvy on this. It seems to me that if Mr. Obama ordered the Treasury Department to issue more debt, they would have to do it, since they are an executive department.

What do you think?

And here's the other question - is it really the case that you think the President should default on the debt if it comes down to it? I assume you're aware that the moment he defaults, he goes down in history as "The President who defaulted on the US's debt" - even though the Republicans and Tea Party people would have pushed him to do it, he'd have had to pull the trigger himself.

Do you really think a default would be the best option for the country? Is this really what you want your beloved Mr. Obama's historical legacy to be?
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 10:35 AM on October 14, 2013


And here's the other question - is it really the case that you think the President should default on the debt if it comes down to it? I assume you're aware that the moment he defaults, he goes down in history as "The President who defaulted on the US's debt" - even though the Republicans and Tea Party people would have pushed him to do it, he'd have had to pull the trigger himself.

It's not "the president" who defaults on his debt, but the U.S.
Small difference.
posted by sour cream at 10:39 AM on October 14, 2013 [2 favorites]


Is it unconstitutional to just ignore Boehner's Hastert rule and Cantor's HR 368? Like the Sergeant at Arms stands aside and the Dems and 17+ Republicans just... vote. And the Executive goes "Well, Congress authorized this and I have no say in their internal procedural squabbles so I'm going ahead with what I've been told to do." All of the Representatives doing that would be subject to endless flak and hearings, but it still takes a 2/3rds vote for expulsion, which wouldn't go anywhere. A House procedural shitstorm is a lot better than a Constitutional crisis.
posted by jason_steakums at 10:43 AM on October 14, 2013


Even if the Administration believes this, what possible advantage do they gain in negotiations by publicizing that fact?

They basically have to say this, whether or not they believe it. If the President came out and said "I believe I can ignore the debt ceiling," then he's basically guaranteeing that the House is going to breach it. The thing that makes defaulting off the table (we hope) is that it would be catastrophic. Obama can't tip his hand that he's prepared to make it less catastrophic, even if he is.
posted by Ragged Richard at 10:44 AM on October 14, 2013 [1 favorite]


Even if the Administration believes this, what possible advantage do they gain in negotiations by publicizing that fact?

It puts more pressure on the GOP to make a deal. If they believed Obama was just going to raise the debt anyway and US financial credibility would not be damaged at all, they would have no incentive to make a deal. They could continue to demand the dismantling of ACA before opening the government or raising the debt ceiling, and get to work on impeaching the President in the meantime.

See, this is why so many people believe that Mr. Obama is a terrible negotiator.

It's probably a really good thing these people aren't involved in the negotiations.
posted by Golden Eternity at 10:48 AM on October 14, 2013 [3 favorites]


Ironmouth, you seem pretty savvy on this. It seems to me that if Mr. Obama ordered the Treasury Department to issue more debt, they would have to do it, since they are an executive department.

What do you think?

And here's the other question - is it really the case that you think the President should default on the debt if it comes down to it? I assume you're aware that the moment he defaults, he goes down in history as "The President who defaulted on the US's debt" - even though the Republicans and Tea Party people would have pushed him to do it, he'd have had to pull the trigger himself.


The bonds could be printed, but who would buy them and at what price?
posted by Ironmouth at 10:48 AM on October 14, 2013 [1 favorite]


Even if the Administration believes this, what possible advantage do they gain in negotiations by publicizing that fact?

Telling the Republicans that he's willing to invoke the 14th Amendment to keep raising funds to pay US obligations would be a HUGE victory for the Republicans. I don't see how you can't see this. It would be saying "here, I'm going to lay out this nice comfortable safety net for you so you can continue to push the country into a disastrous economic situation but the whole political conversation around it will now be about my actions rather than about yours." It would be a guarantee that the Republicans would utterly refuse to cave on any of their demands.

You keep refusing to read the multiple explanations given and linked in this thread for why the "14th Amendment solution" isn't a magic get-out-of-debt-jail free for the country. Even if Obama does it (and, if the default happens, he may well) there will still be horrible economic consequences--because no one will know if the President actually has the constitutional authority to issue new US debt, so no one who buys US treasuries will know if they will actually be honored. That will massively drive up the cost of borrowing for the US--the world's safest securities will suddenly become amongst the world's riskiest.

So despite what you think, for Obama to say "I'll invoke the 14th Amendment" is not to suddenly and magically make the Republican threat dissolve. The only thing it would definitely and strikingly change would be the political equation surrounding the crisis. At the moment, the only thing bringing the Republicans to the negotiating table is their (justified) fear that the country is going to blame them, politically, for this fiasco, and, in particular, their fear that if the fiasco gets worse, the country will punish them for it at the next election. If Obama suddenly makes a proclamation that he'll engage in a highly debateable, possibly illegal expansion of presidential power, then he's just giving them the biggest propaganda gift imaginable. Suddenly, whether or not the Republicans are at fault for using the debt ceiling as a negotiating lever stops being the national conversation, everything becomes "Is Obama the tyrant they've always claimed?" The Republicans cease to pay any political price for their intransigence, they cease to have any reason to come to the bargaining table and we're all well and thoroughly fucked.
posted by yoink at 10:52 AM on October 14, 2013 [11 favorites]


Can we stop calling him Mr. Obama?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 10:53 AM on October 14, 2013 [7 favorites]


Is it unconstitutional to just ignore Boehner's Hastert rule and Cantor's HR 368? Like the Sergeant at Arms stands aside and the Dems and 17+ Republicans just... vote. And the Executive goes "Well, Congress authorized this and I have no say in their internal procedural squabbles so I'm going ahead with what I've been told to do." All of the Representatives doing that would be subject to endless flak and hearings, but it still takes a 2/3rds vote for expulsion, which wouldn't go anywhere. A House procedural shitstorm is a lot better than a Constitutional crisis.

Huh? The Sergeant-at-Arms is appointed by Boehner.

Listen, this is not a constitutional crisis. Its a political crisis. The constitution is working as it should. The GOP isn't.

There likely won't be a default. Everything else will shut down first. Social Security and Medicare and all that. Everyone here is aware that the federal courts are essentially shutting down next week, right?
posted by Ironmouth at 10:53 AM on October 14, 2013


"Successfully impeached" is not a technical or legal term. To me it means, "Impeachment result in the President's removal from office."

Oh FFS. Answer this one question yes or no, lupus_yonderboy: did the Republican controlled House of Representatives succeed in impeaching Bill Clinton? Hint, if you say "no" you're wrong as a simple matter of historical fact. If you say "yes," you agree that they "successfully impeached" Bill Clinton and you agree that "successfully impeached" has a pretty obvious and plain meaning.
posted by yoink at 10:55 AM on October 14, 2013 [4 favorites]


You know, this lack of understanding about the new law could be solved by having some form of requirement to educate the populace about big laws enacted like this. I'm not sure how to delineate the difference between "big laws" and "not-big laws", but surely, something that mandates people to buy health insurance, should oblige the government to inform citizens of their responsibility.

Had to wait until today to respond (link was on my work computer), but the HHS is doing just that, by providing grants to partner agencies across the country to set up local networks to educate the public about the ACA and signing up in the healthcare market. Here's a link to a webinar presented to public libraries that breaks it down (relevant discussion at about 8:00, if my "play at current time" link doesn't work).
posted by Rykey at 10:56 AM on October 14, 2013 [4 favorites]


Do you really think a default would be the best option for the country? Is this really what you want your beloved Mr. Obama's historical legacy to be?

Last time I checked, its the GOP that has been refusing to raise the debt ceiling since March.
posted by Ironmouth at 11:00 AM on October 14, 2013 [5 favorites]


Huh? The Sergeant-at-Arms is appointed by Boehner.

Listen, this is not a constitutional crisis. Its a political crisis. The constitution is working as it should. The GOP isn't.


Oh, by Constitutional crisis I was referring to all the 14th talk, basically saying that if it comes down to breaking rules, maybe break the lesser ones like House procedures before breaking the big Constitutional ones. And the Sergeant at Arms is appointed by Boehner and takes orders from Boehner but there's nothing Boehner could do during the short duration of a legislative revolt to push a vote through if the Sgt just ignores him (well, if the Capitol Police have the Sgt's back). He can't just go out and snatch up a replacement in time. Just kind of idly wondering is all, I don't think it's even a remote possibility but I don't really know how stiff the penalties are for breaking House rules other than censures, failed expulsion votes and a tough reelection if your district isn't behind the reason for breaking the rule.

Speaking of censures, I wonder if we'll get a good one out of all this. They're fun, the censured party has to stand there and get yelled at publicly.
posted by jason_steakums at 11:01 AM on October 14, 2013


Possibly Obama is discounting the idea of a 14th Amendment solution because that's, you know, the actual legal truth that he can't do that?

Because if that's the case, saying he could do that would be, 1) lying through his teeth, and 2) totally stupid. Not just for the reasons already mentioned, but what happens if they call his bluff? He then gets to go on TV and say, "Well, I know I promised I wouldn't let this happen under any circumstances, but it turns out I have no ability whatsoever to do anything about it. So, uh ... whoops! Sorry about the world economy, everyone."

This does not strike me as the brilliant piece of political maneuvering some seem to think it would be.
posted by kyrademon at 11:09 AM on October 14, 2013 [5 favorites]


For those of you lucky enough to have retirement and investment accounts to worry about in all this, the NYTimes has an article Riding Out the Political Storm. The takeaway seems to be that nobody knows what's going to happen, and that there's no sure way to blunt the force of a calamity, if calamity falls. I happen to belong to the cult of Bogleheads, so I'm ignoring the noise and staying the course. Come, join our cult. The cookies are delicious. And frugal.
posted by Llama-Lime at 11:15 AM on October 14, 2013


Is it unconstitutional to just ignore Boehner's Hastert rule and Cantor's HR 368?

You can do anything you want in the House unless someone raises a point of order to call you on it. They could ignore the rule that only Cantor can bring up the senate's offer, but it would essentially have to be by unanimous consent (not a single person raising the point of order) including Cantor himself. And Boehner still doesn't have to recognize anyone to bring it up if he doesn't want to.
posted by ctmf at 11:16 AM on October 14, 2013 [1 favorite]


Imagine if kidnappers held your family for ransom. Someone who kinda sorta knows you, but who doesn't know very much about martial arts, thinks that maybe you can deliver a powerful series of ninja kicks to kill all the robbers and safely free your family. You're pretty sure that you can't. Attempting to do so will endanger your family. Attempting and failing will kill your family.

You probably wouldn't want to say to the kidnappers, "Oh yeah? Well, I can perform a powerful series of ninja kicks to end this all right now. PRAY YOU DON'T UNCHAIN THE MANTIS"

After all, the kidnappers would just say, not without reason, "well, if you can do that, then you don't need to raise the ransom for us. So, just do it. The only reason for you to wait is if you don't think you can manage it."

Even if you really could pull off the ninja kicks - and it's not likely that you could - there would be other, better ways to resolve the crisis.
posted by Sticherbeast at 11:16 AM on October 14, 2013 [6 favorites]


that's, you know, the actual legal truth that he can't do that

To be honest, it's not completely clear. There are constitutional experts who argue both sides of the case. You may agree with one side or the other, but in the end the only decision that matters is that of the nine justices of the Supreme Court. Part of what makes this a legal nightmare, though, is that it would actually be kind of hard to get a Supreme Court ruling on the issue. There are real problems in constructing any argument for standing (a showing of particularized harm, for example). That might sound like an argument in favor of just doing it, but it is actually part of what makes it such a lousy "solution" to the problem. You just get an extended period of uncertainty which exacts an ongoing economic toll.
posted by yoink at 11:17 AM on October 14, 2013


Oh FFS. Answer this one question yes or no, lupus_yonderboy: did the Republican controlled House of Representatives succeed in impeaching Bill Clinton? Hint, if you say "no" you're wrong as a simple matter of historical fact. If you say "yes," you agree that they "successfully impeached" Bill Clinton and you agree that "successfully impeached" has a pretty obvious and plain meaning.

I'm not l_y, but I would have said no to that until reading this thread. So I'm going to say that 'successfully impeached' doesn't have an obvious and plain meaning and what a fucking stupid derail take it to memail already.
posted by jacalata at 11:21 AM on October 14, 2013 [12 favorites]


I shouldn't be coming back here but:

> but it turns out I have no ability whatsoever to do anything about it.

Can you explain how this could possibly happen?

As I explained above, Mr. Obama would order the Treasury - an executive department - to issue bonds. They must comply with this order - if some individual balked (for whatever I reason I have no idea, since everyone in charge is a loyal Democrat), Mr. Obama could fire them and appoint others.

Ironmouth, a lawyer who's claimed knowledge about this, appears to concur with my reasoning, arguing only that the legal consequences of this would be grave - which would certainly be true.

When it comes down to it, when we get to the point of default, it is Mr. Obama as the chief executive of the country who actually has to make the order to his Treasury Department to default or not.

I completely agree that this was started, aided and abetted by the contemptible Republicans, but at the end he is the one who must pull the trigger - particularly since, as I keep repeating, the Treasury Department is an executive department and thus completely controlled by the President. It would no doubt be deeply unfair, but if he decided to pull the trigger and cause a default, history books will record that the US first defaulted on its obligations under the Obama Administration.

> Can we stop calling him Mr. Obama?

I'm English. Calling him just "Obama" without an honorific would imply that he's a criminal. President Obama is both too long, and not what I'm used to saying. If it's good enough for the BBC, it's good enough for me.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 11:21 AM on October 14, 2013 [1 favorite]


the legal consequences of this would be grave

Only if he's not the one standing at the end of all this...
posted by mikelieman at 11:23 AM on October 14, 2013


If it's good enough for the BBC, it's good enough for me.

I believe it's also good enough for the New York Times.
posted by Justinian at 11:25 AM on October 14, 2013


As I explained above, Mr. Obama would order the Treasury - an executive department - to issue bonds. They must comply with this order - if some individual balked (for whatever I reason I have no idea, since everyone in charge is a loyal Democrat), Mr. Obama could fire them and appoint others.

You're taking up the part of the issue that absolutely nobody disagrees with. How about addressing the multiple detailed explanations of why everything that followed after that would be a total economic clusterfuck? So, President Obama has instructed the Treasury to issue bonds. The Treasury has complied. Now, tell me why Joe and Joena Random Investor are going to be willing to buy those bonds--whose legality is subject to a hotly contested constitutional crisis with no clear and obvious end in sight--for anything approaching the same kinds of prices that they were willing to pay for the bonds issued previously that everyone assumed carried the "full faith and credit" of the United States?
posted by yoink at 11:26 AM on October 14, 2013 [4 favorites]


To be honest, it's not completely clear. There are constitutional experts who argue both sides of the case

Which Constitutional experts are arguing he can issue debt on his say so? I want to see that.
posted by Ironmouth at 11:29 AM on October 14, 2013 [1 favorite]


I heard one talking about cancelling the intergovernmental debt, but he may have been a crackpot. Honestly, there's so much noise it gets hard to separate the wheat from the chaff.
posted by mikelieman at 11:31 AM on October 14, 2013


> not accepting you just didn't understand the process

As I have claimed from the start, the President cannot be removed from office through impeachment without a two-thirds majority of the Senate and that just isn't going to happen.

Are you claiming that a failed attempt to remove the President from office through impeachment would be worse than defaulting on the debt?

-----

Again, I ask - is anyone here claiming that if it came down to the wire, then the best option would be to default on the debt?

Yes, there might be grave consequences if the President unilaterally ordered the Treasury to issue new debt - is there anyone here claiming that these consequences would be worse than immediately defaulting, or that there is somehow a way to prevent the President from ordering the Treasury not to default?
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 11:31 AM on October 14, 2013 [1 favorite]


Ironmouth, a lawyer who's claimed knowledge about this, appears to concur with my reasoning, arguing only that the legal consequences of this would be grave - which would certainly be true.

I said it would be unconstitutional and likely not prevent default. Who would buy these bonds and for what price?
posted by Ironmouth at 11:31 AM on October 14, 2013 [1 favorite]


I think with some nice artwork, and if you really push the "Obamabonds" thing, you could get 5 bucks a piece for them before the chinese come in and every teaparty vendor is selling them 3 for 5, then a buck a piece....
posted by mikelieman at 11:33 AM on October 14, 2013


"Put an Obamabond in your honey's stocking this christmas!"

It really does write itself.
posted by mikelieman at 11:35 AM on October 14, 2013


Which Constitutional experts are arguing he can issue debt on his say so? I want to see that.

Here's one example.

Here's another.

They're easy enough to find.
posted by yoink at 11:35 AM on October 14, 2013 [1 favorite]


I can't dig up a link at the moment, but I've heard interviews with Treasury officials, including the Secretary, saying that they won't break the law when it comes to issuing debt. What should Obama do if Lew refuses an order to issue dubiously-legal debt? Fire him? What about the next person? Talk about bad negotiation.
posted by feloniousmonk at 11:36 AM on October 14, 2013


Yes, there might be grave consequences if the President unilaterally ordered the Treasury to issue new debt - is there anyone here claiming that these consequences would be worse than immediately defaulting, or that there is somehow a way to prevent the President from ordering the Treasury not to default?

Your original claim was that if Obama were to proclaim his willingness to invoke a 14th Amendment option that would immediately render the Republican's threats null, and that Obama was self-evidently an idiot for failing to do this. That's an entirely different question from whether or not Obama should invoke the 14th Amendment option if he is forced to do so when the only other option is default.

It may well be that a constitutional crisis is the lesser of two evils than an actual default: but that is not at all an argument in favor of Obama proclaiming his willingness to adopt that option before he is forced to do so.
posted by yoink at 11:40 AM on October 14, 2013


Ironside: So you, if it comes down to it, you think the President should default - am I reading you correctly?

> Who would buy these bonds and for what price?

The same people who are holding Treasury debt today. Which is greater risk - a certain default today or the possibility of a default in the future?

feloniousmonk:

> What should Obama do if Lew refuses an order to issue dubiously-legal debt? Fire him?

Absolutely. This has come up many times before in US politics and the answer is always, "Fire him, and appoint someone who will rubber-stamp what you want to do."

Again, it comes down to priorities. How bad do you think defaulting on the debt is, compared to firing a civil servant? Perhaps it's my Wall Street experience talking, but I think it'd be astonishingly bad and worth avoiding at any cost.

So I guess this means that you, too, think the President should default if it comes down to it. Is this a correct reading?
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 11:41 AM on October 14, 2013


I don't think there's going to be any divisiveness in the executive. At this point can we agree that this isn't all some happenstance and that the only way to ensure that this shit doesn't happen again is to wait out the GOP until they get their shit together and get their caucuses in line.

Man, Chris Christie's sure keeping a low profile these days, isn't he? What's the odds on him being called in to pick up the pieces?
posted by mikelieman at 11:42 AM on October 14, 2013


Increase revenues, no more default. Easy peasy.

Let's start by taxing churches, because why should they not pay taxes? Well, the executive probably can't tax them like that, but... FEES... Regulatory Fees... Totally Executive branch...

Do you have a Jesus Containment Verification permit?
posted by mikelieman at 11:43 AM on October 14, 2013 [1 favorite]


lupus_yonderboy: "When it comes down to it, when we get to the point of default, it is Mr. Obama as the chief executive of the country who actually has to make the order to his Treasury Department to default or not. "

In the same way that if my rent check bounces I "ordered" my bank to default on it. I could do something illegal like robbery to put money in the account, so my rent is covered. The default situation is murkier since we don't know for sure what is illegal, but Obama (a professor of constitutional law), among many others has said that he believes he does not have this authority (= it is illegal). I see no reason not to take him at his word on this.

What's more, even if there was a chance that robbing someone to pay my rent was legal (or that I could get away with it), it would be a pain in the ass to have to defend the resulting court case, deal with my neighbors thinking I am a robber, etc. The same here -- the impeachment would be a political circus, and bond buyers would probably not be satisfied with the 14th amendment bonds

So saying Obama would "cause" the default is like saying that I "caused" my rent check to bounce because I wasn't willing to rob someone in order to pay it.
posted by dendrochronologizer at 11:43 AM on October 14, 2013 [3 favorites]


Increase revenues, no more default. Easy peasy.


Only Congress can increase taxes. That same Congress that put us in this mess.
posted by ambrosia at 11:44 AM on October 14, 2013


Increase revenues, no more default. Easy peasy.

I don't think there's anyone who has even a passing acquaintance with the Constitution who is in any doubt at all that the power to raise revenue lies entirely with Congress.
posted by yoink at 11:44 AM on October 14, 2013


> Your original claim was that if Obama were to proclaim his willingness to invoke a 14th Amendment option that would immediately render the Republican's threats null, and that Obama was self-evidently an idiot for failing to do this.

I don't believe it would render their threats null. I do believe that it would significantly blunt their threats.

You have a gun held to your family's head, and your boss tells you that he's going to order you to shoot unless you (give him stuff). Which gives you better leverage - pretending that you'll accept the order, or telling him that you never will do it? If he starts doing this repeatedly, is it really a good tactic to keep pretending that you'll shoot your family if ordered?
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 11:45 AM on October 14, 2013


Absolutely. This has come up many times before in US politics and the answer is always, "Fire him, and appoint someone who will rubber-stamp what you want to do."

This has never come up before, let alone 'many times*.' The closest situation offhand would be when Eliot Richardson resigned rather than fire Archibald Cox. I cannot accept that this is the appropriate road to go down here.

In general, I think a lot of these "Obama should just do ____" and then everything would be great! type arguments seem to overlook the consequences of the escalation it would represent if he actually took the action in question.

* Since the Civil War/Reconstruction Era. I'll grant you there are several examples there.
posted by feloniousmonk at 11:45 AM on October 14, 2013 [4 favorites]


I'm pleasantly surprised at how optimistic Reid and McConnell seem to be today, compared to this weekend. White House meeting starts in 15, here's hoping it's a good one.
posted by jason_steakums at 11:45 AM on October 14, 2013 [2 favorites]


Man, Chris Christie's sure keeping a low profile these days, isn't he? What's the odds on him being called in to pick up the pieces?

I think the sane Republicans really have to start doing something to differentiate their branding from the lunatic wing. Christie could certainly be a big part of that.
posted by yoink at 11:46 AM on October 14, 2013


Fine, you don't want to tax churches, sell a few aircraft carriers. I'm open to negotiation.
posted by mikelieman at 11:46 AM on October 14, 2013 [1 favorite]


I'm pleasantly surprised at how optimistic Reid and McConnell seem to be today, compared to this weekend. White House meeting starts in 15, here's hoping it's a good one.

It was postponed.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 11:47 AM on October 14, 2013


Revenue is revenue, whether you get it in regulatory fees ( i don't know, are they different than taxes? ) and if you say we need to liquidate assets to raise revenue, than that's fine.
posted by mikelieman at 11:48 AM on October 14, 2013


It was postponed.

Oh lovely.
posted by jason_steakums at 11:48 AM on October 14, 2013 [1 favorite]


You have a gun held to your family's head, and your boss tells you that he's going to order you to shoot unless you (give him stuff). Which gives you better leverage - pretending that you'll accept the order, or telling him that you never will do it?

I can't begin to guess how you think this scenario maps onto the current situation. The Republicans have the gun of the default aimed at Obama's (and the country's) head and they're demanding that he "give them stuff" by suspending Obamacare and slashing spending. So where does the 14th amendment come in to the equation of whether he "tells them he will never do it" (his current stance) or "pretends that he will accept the order" (which would be what, exactly, telling them he'll sign a law suspending Obamacare and then--TA DA!--not actually sign it? Wha???).
posted by yoink at 11:50 AM on October 14, 2013 [1 favorite]


Hey, it's a lot of work getting President Obama to accept the reaffirmation of Obamacare, clean CR and a clean debt limit extension the GOP's been offering.
posted by mikelieman at 11:50 AM on October 14, 2013


Hey, it's a lot of work getting President Obama to accept the reaffirmation of Obamacare, clean CR and a clean debt limit extension the GOP's been offering.

Your alternate universe sounds nice--how do I get there exactly?
posted by yoink at 11:52 AM on October 14, 2013 [1 favorite]


Postponement is likely a good thing, since it signals that the Senators are still negotiating, and want a little more time. Compared to the weeks of no real negotiating that's not a bad thing.
posted by DynamiteToast at 11:53 AM on October 14, 2013


Which Constitutional experts are arguing he can issue debt on his say so? I want to see that.

Here's one example.

Here's another.

They're easy enough to find.


What makes Sean Wilentz a constitutional expert? He's not a lawyer, nor does he do constitutional or legal history. The other thing is just a series of links, with no explanation.
posted by Ironmouth at 11:53 AM on October 14, 2013 [1 favorite]


You have a gun held to your family's head, and your boss tells you that he's going to order you to shoot unless you (give him stuff). Which gives you better leverage - pretending that you'll accept the order, or telling him that you never will do it?

Actually, L_y, let me help you out: the correct analogy to what you're advocating would be for me, in this hostage situation, to tell the hostage takers "you fools!! Ha ha! I laugh at your puny demands!! Don't you know that me and my family are all invulnerable to bullets!!" The only problem with the scenario being that I know perfectly well that we're not invulnerable to bullets. Worse, I know perfectly well that the hostage takers know perfectly well that we're not invulnerable to bullets.

So now, explain how my bravado just helped the situation?
posted by yoink at 11:56 AM on October 14, 2013 [1 favorite]


Your alternate universe sounds nice--how do I get there exactly?

Well, remember the original list of demands:

#1 Repeal Obamacare or we shutdown Government

which became

#1 Delay Obamacare or we shutdown Government

which became

#1 Something Something Medical Device Tax, Debt Limit!

So, we've already gotten a reaffirmation of Obamacare. The other 2 just require waiting until the GOP Civil War plays itself out.
posted by mikelieman at 11:56 AM on October 14, 2013


Hey, it's a lot of work getting President Obama to accept the reaffirmation of Obamacare, clean CR and a clean debt limit extension the GOP's been offering.

There is no such thing. Clean means no conditions attached. Please show me the offer that only says--the debt ceiling is raised and the CR is passed.
posted by Ironmouth at 11:56 AM on October 14, 2013


What makes Sean Wilentz a constitutional expert? He's not a lawyer, nor does he do constitutional or legal history. The other thing is just a series of links, with no explanation.

Ironmouth, you're better than that. The "other thing" is a "series of links" to blog entries on the very blog I linked you to all of which are written by Jack Balkin, Knight Professor of Constitutional Law and the First Amendment at Yale Law School.

And you really, really don't have to be a lawyer to be an expert on the US constitution. Historians of the US are just as qualified to comment on the meaning of the constitution.
posted by yoink at 11:58 AM on October 14, 2013



So now, explain how my bravado just helped the situation?


THIS is why you don't even fucking bother negotiating with terrorists.

Here's the thing. AS A HOSTAGE **I** accept that my life is over. Period. My Government IS NOT GOING TO COMPROMISE ITSELF FOREVER. Period. This is my duty as a proud citizen and perhaps the closest to a patriotic act I'll ever come.

Do what you must Mr. President. I Stand With You. I Stand With America.
posted by mikelieman at 11:59 AM on October 14, 2013 [7 favorites]


> So saying Obama would "cause" the default is like saying that I "caused" my rent check to bounce because I wasn't willing to rob someone in order to pay it.

If you think that ordering the Treasury to roll over US debt is equivalent to bank robbery, then absolutely.

Oh, except that bank robbery is clearly illegal, whereas the legality of unilaterally rolling over the debt is completely unknown, because experts disagree, but more importantly, because it is completely untested in case law.

Oh, and that in general bank robbery is ethically wrong, whereas unilaterally rolling over the debt seems to a lot of people to be the ethically best choice, under the utilitarian idea of "greatest good for the greatest number".

Regardless, it seems I'm alone here in thinking that the President should refuse to default - it's like bank robbery and no one would buy US bonds, it'd be worse than a default.

Again, it's perhaps my Wall Street background, but I can't imagine anything would be worse than defaulting on the debt. But I'm out of arguments here, so I guess we'll just wait it out.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 11:59 AM on October 14, 2013


Regardless, it seems I'm alone here in thinking that the President should refuse to default

Or you could, you know, read one of the many, many comments saying that it may be sensible for him to exercise the 14th amendment option if default is the only alternative but that it is emphatically NOT a good idea for him to advertise his willingness to do so before we reach that point.
posted by yoink at 12:02 PM on October 14, 2013


I think this entire discussion shows the damage the GOP has already done to the "full faith and credit..."
posted by mikelieman at 12:02 PM on October 14, 2013 [2 favorites]


> Or you could, you know, read one of the many, many comments saying that it may be sensible for him to exercise the 14th amendment option if default is the only alternative

Those "many, many" comments seem to be mainly from you. I'd also point out that saying something "might" be true is pretty well vacuous. All sorts of things "might" be true.

> but that it is emphatically NOT a good idea for him to advertise his willingness to do so before we reach that point.

That's a different matter. I don't agree, as you know, but we could have a reasonable discussion about this.

I do not, however, make any such claim in the post you are answering. What the President should have done in the past, while important, is secondary now we're down to the wire.

Simple question: if it comes down to it, should the President default?

mikelieman and I say, "No". Several other people appear to say yes though no one's actually come out and said it.

Your response is "Maybe" which isn't a response at all. You don't actually have to answer, but don't claim you did if you didn't.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 12:10 PM on October 14, 2013


Not super relevant, but historically interesting: Historians Put an Asterisk on US Debt Claim

Sorry if this was already linked... long thread.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 12:11 PM on October 14, 2013 [1 favorite]


Again, it's perhaps my Wall Street background, but I can't imagine anything would be worse than defaulting on the debt. But I'm out of arguments here, so I guess we'll just wait it out.

Allowing the executive to raise funds without approval from congress is worse than a recession. Why limit yourself to issuing new debt? Why not just tax everyone? The interpretation you're pushing is a recipe for dictatorship.

Ironmouth, you're better than that. The "other thing" is a "series of links" to blog entries on the very blog I linked you to all of which are written by Jack Balkin, Knight Professor of Constitutional Law and the First Amendment at Yale Law School.

They have contradictory titles and come from a group blog. Just link to the one which explains how it is constitutional, not to a page of links, every one of which I have to read to even get your argument.

And the First Amendment doesn't apply here. Let me link to the most respected constitutional scholar in the US, Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Tribe:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/08/opinion/08tribe.html
The Constitution grants only Congress — not the president — the power “to borrow money on the credit of the United States.” Nothing in the 14th Amendment or in any other constitutional provision suggests that the president may usurp legislative power to prevent a violation of the Constitution. Moreover, it is well established that the president’s power drops to what Justice Robert H. Jackson called its “lowest ebb” when exercised against the express will of Congress.

Worse, the argument that the president may do whatever is necessary to avoid default has no logical stopping point. In theory, Congress could pay debts not only by borrowing more money, but also by exercising its powers to impose taxes, to coin money or to sell federal property. If the president could usurp the congressional power to borrow, what would stop him from taking over all these other powers, as well?

So the arguments for ignoring the debt ceiling are unpersuasive. But even if they were persuasive, they would not resolve the crisis. Once the debt ceiling is breached, a legal cloud would hang over any newly issued bonds, because of the risk that the government might refuse to honor those debts as legitimate. This risk, in turn, would result in a steep increase in interest rates because investors would lose confidence — a fiscal disaster that would cost the nation tens of billions of dollars.
posted by Ironmouth at 12:14 PM on October 14, 2013 [4 favorites]


[crackpot] Can someone remind me what happens if we just tell the Mint to print us up some of our own money instead of borrowing it from the Fed? ObamaBUCKS anyone?[/crackpot]
posted by mikelieman at 12:16 PM on October 14, 2013


Simple question: if it comes down to it, should the President default?

What is default in this situation? Not paying interest on the debt? I ask because it is not a simple question.

First, is the President allowed to prioritize payments to debt holders over other obligations? If so, does he pay the debt holders first? Does he stop Social Security checks?

Simply put, where is the actual express grant of authority in the 14th Amendment allowing the President to issue debt. And if it was the intention of the drafters of the 14th Amendment to allow it, why aren't those words in the Amendment. Because it is their intent that is used to read that provision.
posted by Ironmouth at 12:19 PM on October 14, 2013 [2 favorites]


I'm joking, but can't the other Senate Republicans meet up with him in the bathroom and deliver their views on his grandstanding with extreme enthusiasm or something?
posted by mikelieman at 12:20 PM on October 14, 2013 [3 favorites]


mikelieman and I say, "No"

I'm not sure. I honestly think the damage is already done. No-one trusts the Legislature to do their simple fucking jobs. I mean, sure Congress has always been a joke but some Freshman nitwits can monkeywrench the whole fucking thing?

Imagine if the Counterculture Hippies back in the 60's knew how fragile the whole thing really was, and they should just stop smoking pot, cut their hair, put on a suit, go to church, praise jesus, and soon enough they could put themselves into one critical flawed location, twist, and MAN, THE WHOLE DAMNED SYSTEM FALLS APART! THEN WE CAN TEACH PEOPLE TO LIVE IN HARMONY WITH NATURE!

I think I need a break. Or a drink.

My point. Mr. President, DO WHAT YOU MUST. I stand with you. I stand with America.
posted by mikelieman at 12:23 PM on October 14, 2013


yoink: "... or "pretends that he will accept the order" (which would be what, exactly, telling them he'll sign a law suspending Obamacare and then--TA DA!--not actually sign it? Wha???)."

"Jinkees! You tricked us again old man Withers!" YOINK!
posted by symbioid at 12:25 PM on October 14, 2013


How different is that from Bohener renegging on the deal to fund at sequester levels?
posted by mikelieman at 12:26 PM on October 14, 2013


By the way, if you really want to all freak out, we are only a few hours away from the point where any "deal" the Senate makes would have to pass with unanimous consent, because if it doesn't, Ted Cruz could single-handedly push us past the debt limit by requiring a cloture vote and 30 hours of debate, twice.

It's... it's really great that in the seven years the Democrats had to fix this, they didn't, because reasons.


Agreed on the latter point, for sure. But isn't the "nuclear option" on the table if Cruz pulls that?
posted by jason_steakums at 12:29 PM on October 14, 2013


You have a gun held to your family's head, and your boss tells you that he's going to order you to shoot unless you (give him stuff). Which gives you better leverage - pretending that you'll accept the order, or telling him that you never will do it?

This analogy reminds me of the scene in Die Hard where the would-be negotiator gets shot in the head.

The thing is, you don't actually have Stuff. At best, there's a slim chance that you could try to cobble something together which might pass for Stuff, but probably won't pass for Stuff. Also, the Stuff Verifier (the Treasury) has already said that they won't accept Stuff cobbled together by you.

Even if the Stuff Verifier does squeak it through, the Stuff might actually be garbage on the market (who buys these bonds?). And then after your Stuff is a bust, your family gets killed anyway (the US still can't pay its debts). And then, to top it all off, your butt explodes in a fireball of rabid bees (constitutional crisis, impeachment, political chaos, government gets drowned in a bathtub).

Also, the gunman knows all this. As a matter of fact, he's counting on the fact that you'll create a situation in which it looks like you've done this all to yourself. A huge part of his whole public-facing argument is the idea that you could just give him the Stuff any time you want, but you won't.

Also, if you say, "oh yeah, well I can just get you the Stuff," even though you don't think you can, then the cops won't intervene, because if you can just get the Stuff, then there's no issue. (Roughly analogous to the voters interpreting the shutdown as Obama's failure through stubbornness, as opposed to a hostage situation created by the House Republicans.)
posted by Sticherbeast at 12:31 PM on October 14, 2013


I'm joking, but can't the other Senate Republicans meet up with him in the bathroom and deliver their views on his grandstanding with extreme enthusiasm or something?

I was wondering if maybe there wasn't an unscrupulous mobster out there somewhere who stands to lose a lot from the economy disaster and who knows how to use a telephone.
posted by ctmf at 12:32 PM on October 14, 2013


Can I give my money to Warren Buffett to take care of? I feel like he knows what to do...
posted by DynamiteToast at 12:37 PM on October 14, 2013


Shot: Poll: Republicans losing no-win game
Republicans are suffering from a continued weakness among fellow partisans, with 49 percent of self-identified Republicans approving and 47 percent disapproving of the job their party’s members of Congress are doing. Democrats are far less mutinous. Over six in 10 Democrats approve of the job their members are doing, and over seven in 10 Democrats approve of Obama.

Even among Republicans who approve of their leaders, intensity is lacking. Just 27 percent of Republicans “strongly approve” of Republicans in Congress’ handling of budget negotiations. That compares with 48 percent strong approval of Obama among Democrats.

An ideological split within the GOP accounts for the soft ratings for Republicans among their own party members. Some 63 percent of Republicans who describe themselves as “very conservative” approve of their members of Congress, using two weeks of combined polls. But approval falls below half among Republicans who are just “somewhat conservative,” with 48 percent approving and 49 percent disapproving.

The few Republicans who identify as moderate or liberal disapprove on balance by 53 percent to 42 percent approval of their own party, using combined data from two weeks of interviews.
Chaser: Dems dare GOP to provoke another hostage crisis during 2014 elections
[Senate Democrats] believe Republicans will have capitulated on the debt limit twice in a row — this time, and earlier this year — and that the political fallout from the current crisis has been so bad for Republicans that party establishment types will be eager to avoid the same thing happening again deeper into 2014.

It’s true that those who will try to force another debt ceiling crisis are Tea Party conservatives who don’t much care about the overall political health of the GOP. But as this Democratic aide explains to me, this is precisely the point: More pressure from the right for yet another debt limit crisis close to the election will be even worse for the GOP, because it could again divide the party and potentially force 2014 GOP candidates (particularly those involved in primaries) to adopt an extreme position, damaging them for general elections.

“The effect of this fight has been to destroy the Republican brand and put their 2014 candidates behind the eight ball,” the aide tells me. “We are not trying to bait them into another fight. We’d rather put it past the election. But it’s really up to them. If they want to recommit political suicide a few months before an election, that’s going to be their choice. We’re going to make sure that if this happens it has real consequences for them.”
posted by zombieflanders at 12:39 PM on October 14, 2013 [1 favorite]


MetaFilter: And then, to top it all off, your butt explodes in a fireball of rabid bees.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 12:39 PM on October 14, 2013 [4 favorites]


> "Simple question: if it comes down to it, should the President default?"

Arguments over semantics aside, in the sense that you mean it, my answer is yes. I do not believe he has the Constitutional authority to take the actions you suggest, and therefore I think it would be illegal for him to do so.

Long term, the executive unilaterally expanding its authority by granting itself this power could very well be worse than defaulting.

He could also solve this crisis by, oh, sending a military force with orders to arrest every Republican representative for treason. I don't think he should do that either. I think it would be illegal.
posted by kyrademon at 12:40 PM on October 14, 2013




When I first heard about HR-368, part of me thought "Cool! The GOP has unilaterally constructed a parliament and appointed Eric Cantor Prime Minister!"

But then I read it and found out its scope is limited to the budget resolution.
posted by lodurr at 12:46 PM on October 14, 2013


Can I give my money to Warren Buffett to take care of? I feel like he knows what to do...

OMAHA, NE, Oct 17 - Reports are coming in that billionaire Warren Buffett's modest Omaha home has ascended into the sky on thousands of balloons, much like the iconic image from the movie Up. Mr. Buffett's home was last seen heading northwest before disappearing above cloud cover, and while sources within Berkshire Hathaway have not made any official statements, this paper has heard off-the-record references to a "recession bunker deep in the Canadian wilds" unofficially termed "the Fortress of Buffettude." More as this story develops.
posted by jason_steakums at 12:49 PM on October 14, 2013 [11 favorites]


More seriously, you can indeed let Warren Buffet take care of your money. It's called buying shares of Berkshire-Hathaway.

As of today it will only set you back around $170,000 a share.
posted by Justinian at 12:51 PM on October 14, 2013 [2 favorites]


That's just Class A stock! Commoners like us can buy Class B for around $115/share.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 12:54 PM on October 14, 2013


Just 27 percent of Republicans “strongly approve” of Republicans in Congress’ handling of budget negotiations.
John: Hey, Bush is now at 37% approval. I feel much less like Kevin McCarthy screaming in traffic. But I wonder what his base is --

Tyrone: 27%.

John: ... you said that immmediately, and with some authority.

Tyrone: Obama vs. Alan Keyes. Keyes was from out of state, so you can eliminate any established political base; both candidates were black, so you can factor out racism; and Keyes was plainly, obviously, completely crazy. Batshit crazy. Head-trauma crazy. But 27% of the population of Illinois voted for him. They put party identification, personal prejudice, whatever ahead of rational judgement. Hell, even like 5% of Democrats voted for him. That's crazy behaviour. I think you have to assume a 27% Crazification Factor in any population.
posted by Elementary Penguin at 1:06 PM on October 14, 2013 [26 favorites]


Denial: Shutting down the gov will not be a catastrophe for the GOP, people hate Obamacare. Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin and Ted Cruz have the pulse of America
Anger: WTF happened to the WWII memorial
Negotiation: how about we re-open just parts that Americans like, keep the parts they hate closed. Oh they only hate the NSA and that's still open.
Depression: Olympia Snow will save us.
Accpetance: Oct 16th.
posted by humanfont at 1:11 PM on October 14, 2013 [6 favorites]


(Came in here to say that 27% looked suspiciously familiar... Just beaten to it by Elementary Penguin.)
posted by RedOrGreen at 1:14 PM on October 14, 2013


He could also solve this crisis by, oh, sending a military force with orders to arrest every Republican representative for treason. I don't think he should do that either. I think it would be illegal.

Would it be illegal for the president to order the arrest of a representative if it could be proven on the basis of personal/professional communications or other physical evidence that the representative deliberately conspired with others to take action as a legislator that would knowingly cause harm to the United states government?

Because if it is, that is some F-ed up stuff right there. Representatives could openly conspire with foreign governments against the US and there'd be no legal recourse other than to wait until the next election and hope the damage can be undone.

Is that really an acceptable situation? Can we really take for granted no legislator could be violating the trust of their elected office? And is it really okay that we have no options whatsoever in that event?

Effectively, you're saying treason is not a crime that could ever be prosecuted against a legislator, it seems to me.
posted by saulgoodman at 1:21 PM on October 14, 2013


I don't think the President can do much except wait for Congress to do its job. It'll be ugly, but they're not all crazy.
posted by mazola at 1:24 PM on October 14, 2013


e that the representative deliberately conspired with others to take action as a legislator that would knowingly cause harm to the United states government?

18 USC 371 seems to cover Conspiracy to Defraud the US Government, while everyone's favorite 18 USC 1001 covering material misstatements would surely be tossed on the indictment pile....
posted by mikelieman at 1:29 PM on October 14, 2013


Increase revenues, no more default. Easy peasy.

I don't think there's anyone who has even a passing acquaintance with the Constitution who is in any doubt at all that the power to raise revenue lies entirely with Congress.


Well, then, how is it that the same language in the same article somehow authorizes borrowing and not revenue? In other words, there is no 14th Amendment escape.
posted by Ironmouth at 1:30 PM on October 14, 2013 [1 favorite]


Again, I'm cool with that. But I'm still unclear if regulatory fees fall under taxes or some executive authority. But it's irrelevant. President Obama is going to President like never before, and I want the NSA to let him know that I'm on his side 100%!
posted by mikelieman at 1:31 PM on October 14, 2013


Obama makes sandwich
posted by angrycat at 1:33 PM on October 14, 2013


> "Effectively, you're saying treason is not a crime that could ever be prosecuted against a legislator, it seems to me."

That ... is not at all what I said. What?
posted by kyrademon at 1:34 PM on October 14, 2013 [1 favorite]


maybe not, but it was kind of fascinating to watch the rapid dissection of what it would mean if it were.
posted by lodurr at 1:36 PM on October 14, 2013


That ... is not at all what I said. What?

Sorry--you're right. You're not saying that. You're saying specifically the President couldn't legally order the army to arrest all Republican Reps. That's definitely true. I was reading too much into your position. Sorry about that.
posted by saulgoodman at 1:38 PM on October 14, 2013 [1 favorite]


One of the things I'm desperately trying not to think about in all this is where the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" principle puts Karl goddamn Rove, since he's been trying to raise PAC money to fight the Tea Party all year.
posted by jason_steakums at 1:51 PM on October 14, 2013 [1 favorite]


"Igor, what have I created???"
posted by JHarris at 1:58 PM on October 14, 2013 [3 favorites]


One of the things I'm desperately trying not to think about in all this is where the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" principle puts Karl goddamn Rove, since he's been trying to raise PAC money to fight the Tea Party all year.

Establishment Republicans: baatezu
Tea Party: tanar'ri
Koch brothers, et al.: yugoloths
posted by Sticherbeast at 1:58 PM on October 14, 2013 [1 favorite]


One of the things I'm desperately trying not to think about in all this is where the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" principle puts Karl goddamn Rove, since he's been trying to raise PAC money to fight the Tea Party all year.

The enemy of your enemy can still be an asshole, you know.
posted by sour cream at 1:59 PM on October 14, 2013 [6 favorites]


Yeah, and even David Frum doesn't sound so just plain wrong anymore.
posted by mikelieman at 1:59 PM on October 14, 2013


I mean, he is still just plain wrong, but compared to all the batshit insane, it's like almost relaxing....
posted by mikelieman at 2:00 PM on October 14, 2013 [3 favorites]


Senate deal emerges.
posted by DynamiteToast at 2:40 PM on October 14, 2013 [3 favorites]


That... is actually pretty good.
posted by Uncle Ira at 3:02 PM on October 14, 2013 [1 favorite]


The deal sounds kind of meh, mainly because it seems like it's the GOP betting on being able to make the sequester a permanent thing. Of course, that was a much better bet for them before the election than it is now, and as long as the Democrats hold firm and/or force the GOP to throw temper tantrums every couple of months it could be pretty good.
posted by zombieflanders at 3:09 PM on October 14, 2013


I think this Rand Paul quote is really fascinating as this whole thing is winding down:
Does anybody remember Charlie Sheen when he was kind of going crazy…And he was going around, jumping around saying ‘Winning, winning, we’re winning?' Well I kind of feel like that, we are winning. And I’m not on any drugs.
posted by mccarty.tim at 3:17 PM on October 14, 2013 [34 favorites]


It's like he slipped into a puddle of self-awareness, there
posted by angrycat at 3:41 PM on October 14, 2013 [12 favorites]


zombieflanders: "The deal sounds kind of meh, mainly because it seems like it's the GOP betting on being able to make the sequester a permanent thing. Of course, that was a much better bet for them before the election than it is now, and as long as the Democrats hold firm and/or force the GOP to throw temper tantrums every couple of months it could be pretty good."

Here is Grover Norquist talking about it.
posted by Blasdelb at 3:43 PM on October 14, 2013


And I’m not on any drugs.

Well there's your problem.
posted by iamabot at 3:43 PM on October 14, 2013 [2 favorites]


Quick! Somebody get that man some Tiger Blood!
posted by zakur at 3:45 PM on October 14, 2013 [1 favorite]


There's something about an Aqua Buddha man.
posted by box at 3:49 PM on October 14, 2013 [7 favorites]


Yeah, and even David Frum doesn't sound so just plain wrong anymore.
Interesting to read him. He is a conservative Republican, not insane. He does not like the Tea Party antics.
posted by dougzilla at 3:50 PM on October 14, 2013


Senators Near Deal on GOP Surrender
According to multiple reports, Senators Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell are close to a deal to reopen the federal government and lift the debt ceiling. The deal would fund the federal government through January 15, and lift the debt ceiling until February 15. Attached to that would be a pair of minor provisions. Republicans would get some kind of assurance that people can't lie about their income to get Obamacare, and Democrats would get the delay of a small "reinsurance tax" that was intended to expire after three years anyway (and which unions hated).

This is a huge win for those Republicans who got into the shutdown to help unions. For those who had other goals, it's basically a total surrender.
posted by zombieflanders at 3:50 PM on October 14, 2013 [10 favorites]


Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and Charlie Sheen appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: The first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.
posted by mittens at 3:51 PM on October 14, 2013 [4 favorites]


So we're just assuming that Boehner and the Housebaggers will just sign off on whatever Reid and McConnell can agree to? Because that sounds like a pretty damn implausible assumption.
posted by T.D. Strange at 3:55 PM on October 14, 2013 [1 favorite]


Republicans would get some kind of assurance that people can't lie about their income to get Obamacare

Kind of a derail but, goddamn is that some lazy reporting. Lie about their income to get... what? A complex system of laws designed to transform how health insurance is purchased in the US? I guess they mean "insurance subsidies". Or they think there's an actual plan you can buy from the government called "Obamacare".
posted by indubitable at 3:58 PM on October 14, 2013 [6 favorites]


The senate is coming up with a deal? Um, isn't the house the one that has been screwing around with everything? What am I missing here? Did Boehner get taken out back this weekend while I was away from the internets?
posted by Big_B at 4:02 PM on October 14, 2013


So we're just assuming that Boehner and the Housebaggers will just sign off on whatever Reid and McConnell can agree to? Because that sounds like a pretty damn implausible assumption.

@robertcostaNRO: That famous Bloc of 30-50 con Rs in House is expctd to oppose, but they were always going to oppose, so "time to move on," says one House R

and

Leadership is being pressured by growing group of House Rs to just let Sen deal come to floor if it has budg conf + short-tm CR/DL
posted by zombieflanders at 4:03 PM on October 14, 2013


Kind of a derail but, goddamn is that some lazy reporting. Lie about their income to get... what?

I believe that was meant to be sarcasm, seeing as how Chait is pretty liberal.
posted by zombieflanders at 4:04 PM on October 14, 2013


So we're just assuming that Boehner and the Housebaggers will just sign off on whatever Reid and McConnell can agree to? Because that sounds like a pretty damn implausible assumption.

Perhaps; but on the other hand, it might be an all-around win, if Boehner et al can point to those people in the senate (whose relationship to their constituencies is different geographically than in house districts, thus tempering the threat of retaliation from voters who support people like Cruz or Ryan or Bachmann) who made the deal and claim that they, not the House Republicans, intervened and brokered a deal. Everyone could come out of it looking good, unfortunately: the House Republicans can say they went to the mat for insanity but eventually deferred to their own colleagues; Senate Republicans can look reasonable and responsible; Democrats of all rank, of course, can merely note that they were opposed to destroying the global economy.
posted by clockzero at 4:06 PM on October 14, 2013 [1 favorite]


The default has already begun
posted by T.D. Strange at 4:07 PM on October 14, 2013


Salmon broadens the definition of "default" to includes (I'm paraphrasing) payments that haven't been made to furloughed workers because we've "broken promises" by not paying them when we implicitly promised we would be fully employing them.

Nothing at all to do with an implicit promise of employment. People who have been required to keep working have not been paid for the work they have done since October 1. The work is done and that unpaid debt is real, it just doesn't get the same reaction as defaulting on bonds.
posted by dilettante at 4:22 PM on October 14, 2013 [4 favorites]


Pehaps it will help to explain how the Treasury pays its bills and how it issues debt.

The Federal Reserve Bank is the banker for the U.S. Treasury and also the banker for all the other commercial banks. The U.S. Treasury has a checking account at the Federal Reserve Bank just like you have a checking account at your local bank. The Treasury pays its bills by writing checks on its checking account (although most checks are handled electronically). If the Treasury does not have enough money in its checking account, then it can't write any more checks and can't pay its bills, just like you. If it were to try to write hot checks, then no one would accept them as payment because they would be bounced by their banker, the Federal Reserve Bank. If you received such a hot check, say for your social security, and tried to deposit it, it would bounce back from the Federal Reserve as "insufficent funds." Meanwhile if you tried to write your own checks based on that deposit, a week later your own checks would also bounce for insufficient funds because you didn't really have the money you thought. More likely, the Treasury would not write hot checks. It would just stop writing checks and people, like your grandmother, would stop getting their social security deposits.

There are two ways to get more money in the Treasury's checking account. When you pay taxes or fees, you write a check to the Treasury and the Federal Reserve Bank cashes your check by making a withdrawal from your local bank account and making a deposit in the Treasury's checking account.

The other way the Treasury gets money is by issuing debt. To do this it directs the Federal Reserve to hold an auction. The Federal Reserve (figuratively) prints little pieces of paper, bonds, that say "The U.S. Treasury owes you $1000 plus interest." The Fed then puts these bonds up for auction. Investors like you bid on those pieces of paper and then write a check on your local bank account to pay for the bond. The Fed gives you the bond, withdraws the money from your checking account and then deposits it in the U.S. Treasury's bank account.

Note that there are two steps in "issuing" debt. Just deciding to issue debt doesn't magically create money in the Treasury's checking account. First the Fed, the Treasury's banker, must hold an auction and then investors must buy the bonds.

So if the President were to try to invoke the 14th Amendment to issue debt, he would have two problems. There is no problem directing the Treasury to make the request, because the Treasury works for the President. But the Fed does not. It is a separate entity that is partly government and partly private bank. The President has no direct authority over the Fed. So the Fed would first have to agree to hold the auction, which it might not if it believed its actions were illegal. Second, investors like you would have to step up with real greenbacks taken out of your checking account to buy those bonds. This is where the real problem arises. Who would be willing to take real money out of their own pockets to buy bonds with no clear assurance that those bonds are legal debt of the United States government. There would certainly be several years of legal battles before those bonds could be redeemed, if at all. Anyone who was willing to buy the bonds would demand extremely high interest because of high risks.

So there are two problems with just "issuing" debt. First you have to get the Federal Reserve to agree to do the auction and second you have to convince investors to buy the bonds. Just giving an order to "issue debt" does not put money in the Treasury's bank account.
posted by JackFlash at 4:29 PM on October 14, 2013 [13 favorites]


The Federal Reserve runs auctions for the Treasury? I think you're a bit confused on that point, the Treasury runs debt auctions directly through The Bureau of the Public Debt.
posted by indubitable at 4:38 PM on October 14, 2013


T.D. Strange: "It's unlikely the government will be able to make that $58 billion payment [for Social Security payments, disability benefits, Medicare payments, military pay, and retiree pay] without being able to borrow more money.""

There's one thing that confuses me about this. At least with respect to Social Security and Medicare, shouldn't they be able to redeem bonds out of the trust funds, thus reducing debt subject to the limit at the same time as selling an equal value of bonds on the market to raise the cash to make the payments? Obviously that won't make a difference in the long run once we use up all the free cash on interest and other non-trust-fund-backed payments, but it seems like it could buy a small amount of time.
posted by wierdo at 4:40 PM on October 14, 2013


The Social Security trust fund, at least, holds special, non-marketable Treasury securities. Selling them might be complicated if it's even possible.
posted by indubitable at 4:43 PM on October 14, 2013


The Federal Reserve runs auctions for the Treasury? I think you're a bit confused on that point, the Treasury runs debt auctions directly through The Bureau of the Public Debt.

There is a small amount of treasury bonds that are purchased directly by the public through TreasuryDirect, which is for small retail investors like yourself. But the real big money comes from institutional investors known as "primary dealers" at auction through the New York Fed.
posted by JackFlash at 5:12 PM on October 14, 2013 [2 favorites]


It'll be interesting to see how this bar on extraordinary measures plays out
posted by angrycat at 5:57 PM on October 14, 2013


I mean, why does the GOP even want that?
posted by angrycat at 5:58 PM on October 14, 2013


To have an even more immediate threat of forcing default the next time around?
posted by saulgoodman at 6:17 PM on October 14, 2013


Is the Fed's "quantitative easing" an "extraordinary measure" or is that unrelated?
posted by ctmf at 6:23 PM on October 14, 2013


...you don't want to tax churches, sell a few aircraft carriers.

to churches.
posted by quonsar II: smock fishpants and the temple of foon at 6:27 PM on October 14, 2013 [1 favorite]


just imagine the baptism possibilities
posted by pyramid termite at 6:28 PM on October 14, 2013 [4 favorites]


The Senate can't pass any deal by Thursday without unanimous consent of the whole Senate to proceed. All it takes is one Senator to object and we are done.
posted by humanfont at 6:39 PM on October 14, 2013 [1 favorite]




The Senate can't pass any deal by Thursday without unanimous consent of the whole Senate to proceed. All it takes is one Senator to object and we are done.

My money's on Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah):
"It ... is important to recognize -- at least, as I see it -- that failing to raise the debt limit does not in and of itself amount to, or inevitably result in, a default...."

He suggested that Congress should pass legislation to clarify that, in the event of a debt limit-induced revenue shortfall, the president be required to pay for the interest on the debt first before funding anything else.

The legislation "could lay out additional prioritization beyond that," he added. "I think that is something we should do right away."
posted by argonauta at 7:26 PM on October 14, 2013




...you don't want to tax churches, sell a few aircraft carriers.

to churches.


I'd start to worry about antenna heads next but we've already got bluetooth earpieces, so.
posted by curious nu at 8:08 PM on October 14, 2013 [1 favorite]


you know, it's ultimately hard to hate the Tea Party Congresspeople. I think that they're deluded, racist, and pernicious in many ways. But there is something about their ideology that intoxicates them beyond the realm of common sense. It's kind of like coming across an OK Cupid profile with love of Ayn Rand on it. You know you need to stay the fuck away, but you don't wish ill on those people.

But there have to be some people involved in this where they are just as cynical about Palin as the average mefite. It's those people I would really like to punch in the mouth. The ones who should know better. Thanks for the nightmares you fucking assholes.
posted by angrycat at 8:14 PM on October 14, 2013 [1 favorite]


It's kind of like coming across an OK Cupid profile with love of Ayn Rand on it. You know you need to stay the fuck away, but you don't wish ill on those people.

I wish I would wake up tomorrow and discover that I was definitely a different species from them, and that the recovery ships are on their way to restore me to a place where I belong where there are no people that fucking crazy.
posted by localroger at 8:23 PM on October 14, 2013 [8 favorites]


you know, it's ultimately hard to hate the Tea Party Congresspeople. I think that they're deluded, racist, and pernicious in many ways.

I really think most of them are cynical about it, though. And even those that aren't, I'm perfect happy hating the driver of the car who refuses to believe that driving off that cliff wouldn't actually be that bad. Because he'll get us all killed.
posted by JHarris at 8:23 PM on October 14, 2013 [3 favorites]


It's kind of like coming across an OK Cupid profile with love of Ayn Rand on it.

Not quite. It's more like finding out that your manager professes a love of Ayn Rand by having them give you daily speeches about her. You may be more saint-like than I, but I'd be wishing a whole lot of ill on them.
posted by jacalata at 8:57 PM on October 14, 2013 [2 favorites]


From where I sit, I tend to think Obama and Co. should hold firm while making clear that any damage to the US/world economy resulting from this will be the fault of Boehner and the tea party folks.

I can't help but think that the tea party folks are determined to see me (poor, no assets) and millions of others like me, starving in the street with nothing more than the clothes on my back. They don't seem inclined to stop that assault any time soon. Therefore I say let's get there sooner rather than later. At least doing it sooner will make it more obvious to all the sane people of the world that they were responsible.
posted by InsertNiftyNameHere at 9:22 PM on October 14, 2013 [1 favorite]


The sane people already know that. The loopy 27% will insist that Obama was responsible for the collapse and most well even believe that in their hearts. No, stopping them every time we can is a better strategy. Ideally encouraging them to break away from the Republican party so they render themselves politically impotent.
posted by Joey Michaels at 11:39 PM on October 14, 2013 [2 favorites]


Its going to be really important in the next few days that everyone continue to contact their congressman or congresswoman on this issue in the next few days. Even if you live in the bluest of the blue district. The number counters want to know you are there.

so sign dumb petitions on the internet and like things that make sense to you on whatever platform you use. Because this is, as usual, for all the marbles.

I mean that--when I was a kid, this was all between rational people who disagreed. But these people are nuts. So we have to out contact our Congressmen, because the Tea Party is going to be calling, telegraphing, writing, calling, whatevering. We should do it more. We have organizational advantages on platforms. Exploit them. Explain to them what you want to happen.
posted by Ironmouth at 12:25 AM on October 15, 2013 [5 favorites]


I'm sorry, but no, I cannot have sympathy for people who blindly take actions that hurt the vulnerable and make us all less free. These are the people who look at starving kids and people dying from lack of healthcare and shrug. People that think they deserve every good thing they have because they are Just Better than people who don't have them. People who are, at this very second, preventing this entire goddamn country from functioning because they spitefully and selfishly want to punish us all for not giving them everything they want all the time, no matter how stupid or damaging.

They are causing real harm at this very second by their actions, and glorying in it. This is not a behavior we should tolerate. We are all human and fallible, but we have to hold elected officials to the minimum standard of putting doing their jobs ahead of their petty grudges and desires. I don't care if it's hard, it's their goddamn job.
posted by emjaybee at 4:22 AM on October 15, 2013 [15 favorites]


I can't help but think that the tea party folks are determined to see me (poor, no assets) and millions of others like me, starving in the street with nothing more than the clothes on my back.

That's what's wrong with America - you think you're entitled to those clothes on your back. You and I both know that half your paycheck is for clothes rental, and you must hand them back when your employment is terminated for slacking or getting desperately sick (same thing).
posted by Slap*Happy at 4:24 AM on October 15, 2013 [2 favorites]


you know, it's ultimately hard to hate the Tea Party Congresspeople. I think that they're deluded, racist, and pernicious in many ways. But there is something about their ideology that intoxicates them beyond the realm of common sense. It's kind of like coming across an OK Cupid profile with love of Ayn Rand on it. You know you need to stay the fuck away, but you don't wish ill on those people.

These are not universal sentiments.
posted by winna at 4:28 AM on October 15, 2013 [4 favorites]


True, that. I'm just talking about my perspective. I have relatives who are mos def Tea Party wing, and they are sweet, deluded people. I'm extrapolating from that.

Howevs, if the House blocks the deal, by all means will I get my hate back on.
posted by angrycat at 4:42 AM on October 15, 2013


Harry Reid, last night: "We’ve made tremendous progress. We are not there yet, but tremendous progress. And everyone just needs to be patient," he said. "Perhaps tomorrow will be a bright day."

PERHAPS. pleasegodplease.
posted by argonauta at 4:44 AM on October 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


The Senate can't pass any deal by Thursday without unanimous consent of the whole Senate to proceed. All it takes is one Senator to object and we are done.

That's extremely high stakes, much higher than starting this whole thing. Not only would you be the one person to be blamed by 80% of the country and 99.99% of the rest of the world for what happens, you'd also be held as a representative of your party. That latter part, at least in the Senate, is a big deal. Ted Cruz and Mike Lee know that Susan Collins is sharpening that knife and determining just which of their vital organs are easily accessible from behind, and the fact that they're wishy-washy is (to me) a good sign. It sounds like they know they're beaten, they're already pariahs, and that they will be discredited by their own party until they are hounded out of office. Ted Cruz in particular would have to worry about daily accusations of impropriety secretly sourced by enemies within his own party, and all it takes is one actual one (and the whole Canada non-scandal already lends a sort of credence to it) for all but the most fanatical supporters to start doubting him for his current position, let alone a viable contender for President in 2016 in either the primaries or general.
posted by zombieflanders at 5:25 AM on October 15, 2013


From Salon.
posted by urbanwhaleshark at 5:31 AM on October 15, 2013




Those 50 will keep the other 385 from voting?
posted by mittens at 5:39 AM on October 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


That tweet could've stopped after three words.
posted by Flunkie at 5:50 AM on October 15, 2013 [23 favorites]


The House isn't going to pass the Senate deal. They'll sit on it, revise it and make it more amenable to conservatives, then pass the revision at the second to last minute, forcing the Senate and Obama to swallow it or cause default.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 5:56 AM on October 15, 2013 [2 favorites]


The House isn't going to pass the Senate deal. They'll sit on it, revise it and make it more amenable to conservatives, then pass the revision at the second to last minute, forcing the Senate and Obama to swallow it or cause default.

I'm pretty sure they can't do that, otherwise the Senate has to redo their procedural motions, which guarantees we'd go into default and it would be specifically because of the House GOP. But I could be wrong.

In any case, a bloc of 50 is fine. Hell, a bloc of 100 (or more accurately, 116) is fine. Both of those mean that Boehner could bring something to a vote without worrying about the non-existent Hastert "rule" and could hold onto his Speakership if he gets the nod from Pelosi. Politically (and cynically) speaking, that may even be better for Democrats because it puts an even brighter spotlight on GOP divisions that can be exploited in the upcoming sequester fight.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:07 AM on October 15, 2013


Both of those mean that Boehner could bring something to a vote without worrying about the non-existent Hastert "rule" and could hold onto his Speakership if he gets the nod from Pelosi.

But didn't the house rewrite its rules so that only Eric Cantor can actually bring the bill to the floor for a vote? There's been a ton of press ink spilled on this subject. Apparently the House pulled some weird last minute rule change that took the Speaker's power away and gave it to Eric Cantor in this particular case. It's not up to Boehner to bring the bill up for vote anymore; insanely, it's up to Cantor now.
posted by saulgoodman at 6:19 AM on October 15, 2013


Can we investigate and arrest any members of the House who might be playing short on T-Bills to profit from this debacle?
posted by saulgoodman at 6:21 AM on October 15, 2013 [2 favorites]


(Oh and sorry that link is more than a little bit conspiratorial in tone. But it explains the changes in House rules pretty well, I think...)
posted by saulgoodman at 6:23 AM on October 15, 2013


breaking: leadership telling GOP right now they'll move their own bill today

As I said. The Senate and Obama will have to swallow what the House comes up with, or Boehner and the conservatives won't play.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 6:23 AM on October 15, 2013


Maybe Cantor is actually the fall guy? Cantor brings up the Senate deal for a vote and it passes with Democrats, he takes the blame and Boehner lives to fight another day. Cantor has to know he's too close to Boehner and the Establishment Republicans, such as they are, now. If there's a coup for the Speaker's gavel it's not going to be Cantor taking the reins.
posted by T.D. Strange at 6:34 AM on October 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


As I said. The Senate and Obama will have to swallow what the House comes up with, or Boehner and the conservatives won't play.

That's more of a PR move than an actual ultimatum, or at least should be seen as such. The Senate hasn't even put a bill on the floor. Boehner's only real power at the moment is to sign what they give him or default.

But didn't the house rewrite its rules so that only Eric Cantor can actually bring the bill to the floor for a vote?

I don't think it took that ability away from Boehner gave it to Cantor, it's just meant to prevent the House minority from bringing up a bill. Again, I could be wrong, but that's my reading. I think T.D. Strange has it, that it doesn't matter if it's Boehner or Cantor or whatever leadership member brings it up, the leadership has been enemy #2 (after Obama) for the Crazy Caucus for months now, ever since the purge after "Plan B" failure during the fiscal cliff fiasco.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:38 AM on October 15, 2013


Eric Cantor’s glaring conflict of interest: He's the GOP's chief debt ceiling negotiator. He's also invested in a fund that will skyrocket if there's a default

Last year the Wall Street Journal reported that Cantor, the No. 2 Republican in the House, had between $1,000 and $15,000 invested in ProShares Trust Ultrashort 20+ Year Treasury EFT. The fund aggressively “shorts” long-term U.S. Treasury bonds, meaning that it performs well when U.S. debt is undesirable. (A short is when the trader hopes to profit from the decline in the value of an asset.)

posted by johnasdf at 6:46 AM on October 15, 2013 [16 favorites]


breaking: leadership telling GOP right now they'll move their own bill today

This sentence is pretty difficult to parse. Which "leadership"? Which "their"? Contextually, I'd assume this is the GOP leadership telling the rank-and-file that the leadership will be pitching a bill and the rank-and-file must lump it. However, other readings are possible.
posted by Going To Maine at 6:56 AM on October 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


Also, I should note that, if the Senate rejects the House bill but passes their own (highly likely), then all Boehner has to do is allow a straight up-and-down vote. For him personally, that's the worst possible outcome in terms of his Speakership. The only question is whether he considers that worse than crashing the world economy and becoming (in)famous for it.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:56 AM on October 15, 2013


I can't find the comment/link from earlier where someone pointed out that the antics by the Republicans might be forgotten a bit by next year's election, but by happening at this time their pushing some good but reluctant Democratic candidates into the 2014 election cycle at just the right time.

James Lee Witt '80 percent' decided on 4th District congressional run
posted by DynamiteToast at 7:00 AM on October 15, 2013


Not to mention all the tea party people heavily invested in gold.
posted by empath at 7:10 AM on October 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


From today's Washington Post live blog: Rep. Steve Southerland of Florida led the House Republicans in singing Amazing Grace this morning. "Southerland, who comes from the funeral home business, sings hymns at burial sites."

So whose funeral is it today, then? The GOP's? The Dems'? America's? Or are we burying the entire global economy?
posted by brina at 7:38 AM on October 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


johnasdf: "Eric Cantor’s glaring conflict of interest: He's the GOP's chief debt ceiling negotiator. He's also invested in a fund that will skyrocket if there's a default"

At least Pete Rose had the decency to bet on his own team winning.

Oh, wait, I guess Cantor's team is his political party, not the country we ostensibly pay him to look out for. Nevermind.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:41 AM on October 15, 2013 [5 favorites]


Last year the Wall Street Journal reported that Cantor, the No. 2 Republican in the House, had between $1,000 and $15,000 invested in ProShares Trust Ultrashort 20+ Year Treasury EFT. The fund aggressively “shorts” long-term U.S. Treasury bonds, meaning that it performs well when U.S. debt is undesirable.

Jesus Christ, how fucking cynical is that?
posted by Think_Long at 7:43 AM on October 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


Fuck him, but man it's so unsurprising in hindsight that the answer to our discussion of "What should I do with my money if we are going to default?" would have been easily found if we could know how the House GOP is investing.
posted by DynamiteToast at 7:45 AM on October 15, 2013 [3 favorites]


Under what circumstances can legislators be tried for treason?
posted by winna at 7:47 AM on October 15, 2013


It's worth noting the file date for "Eric Cantor’s glaring conflict of interest" is Monday, Jun 27, 2011 08:25 PM EDT. I think I'd really enjoy an update to the story, you know, for the sake of the current news cycle.
posted by klarck at 7:52 AM on October 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


Under what circumstances can legislators be tried for treason?

As problematic as Cantor's investment is, I don't like throwing that word around. And, on preview, yeah, it'd be nice to know if his hedge against America position is bigger or smaller since 2011.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:56 AM on October 15, 2013




If the politician who controls the trillion-dollar federal government can be bought off for a mere ten or twenty thousand dollars, we're all doomed anyway.

I accept that corruption exists, but that piddling amount of money is just embarrassing!
posted by miyabo at 7:59 AM on October 15, 2013 [3 favorites]


It's worth noting the file date for "Eric Cantor’s glaring conflict of interest" is Monday, Jun 27, 2011 08:25 PM EDT. I think I'd really enjoy an update to the story, you know, for the sake of the current news cycle.

His 2012 disclosure lists that account at "none".

And 1000-15000$ is a paltry portion of his total disclosures of ~3million.
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:00 AM on October 15, 2013 [5 favorites]


So, the House is working on a plan, the Senate is working on a plan...everyone is working on a plan! Then, when the timer goes off, everyone proposes their plan, everyone rejects everyone else's plan, and noone is responsible! Seems like that's the plan.

Leaders of the free world.
posted by ceribus peribus at 8:06 AM on October 15, 2013 [18 favorites]


I accept that corruption exists, but that piddling amount of money is just embarrassing!

It may indeed seem like a small sum, but anecdotally, I once almost made $50,000 from a $2500 stock investment because I got lucky and grabbed a stock just after its value crashed and it effectively became a penny stock (I still ended up taking home something like 10 times as much as my initial investment). When investments do extreme things--swinging wildly up or down--it's possible to make major returns on relatively small investments. That's how most of the really successful investors make their bank these days. If I had had 15000 to invest at that time, I could have walked away with $300,000.00 within three weeks of making my initial bet (at the time, my plan was to go long on the stock and wait for it to reclaim more of its lost value as a retirement investment; that didn't work out so well as the stock eventually lost its prospects for recovering, but for my first attempt at playing the markets, I made a 1000% ROI. Now imagine if I had had first-hand inside information about the timing of the likely swings in that stock price. It ultimately came down to legislative activity driving the price swings in that case, too.)

Investors make big, non-risky bets aiming for small, steady returns and small, risky bets aiming for big returns. The smaller, high-risk bets hold the most potential for really big windfalls. I wouldn't expect to see pols trading insider info on big bets. It would be the smaller, super high return bets you'd need to look at.
posted by saulgoodman at 8:32 AM on October 15, 2013 [4 favorites]




Well, here's something I didn't expect. Robert Costa: "What's in the works now: adding FULL Vitter language to House plan, prob only way to get 218+." Does full Vitter language mean that staffers are left without any employer contribution to insurance, or just that the gov't will subsidize whatever plan they choose on the exchange? Also...why would that be a bad thing (if it's subsidized I mean)?
posted by mittens at 8:41 AM on October 15, 2013


You know, shows you how far I am around the bend, but I am thinking of stocking up on cat food so my kitties can weather a few months of Thunderdome circumstances. But I am terrified that for most of us who keep animals, there's going to be a choice between feeding ourselves and feeding our pets. If our money is going to stop being good for services, no idea how any of us are going to eat. This is so fucked up I can't even rationalize it.
posted by Joey Michaels at 8:52 AM on October 15, 2013


So in the space of a few hours, the House Republicans have already proposed their shitty crazypants plan and dropped it. I think Boehner is thrashing around in wounded animal mode.
posted by jason_steakums at 8:58 AM on October 15, 2013


Under what circumstances can legislators be tried for treason?
When they wage war against the United States (or aid the enemy against the US).

And not in some tortuous metaphorical sense. "Treason" is the only crime that is defined in the Constitution. The Founders wanted to be very explicit about it, because in England, "treason" had had a history of being abused to punish political enemies. The Founders wanted to be very clear that in America, such abuses should not be tolerated; treason is waging war against the United States, literally, and nothing else.
posted by Flunkie at 9:02 AM on October 15, 2013 [7 favorites]


Sedition, on the other hand...
posted by clockzero at 9:03 AM on October 15, 2013 [4 favorites]


Probably through 2014, Boehner will basically be able to deliver democratic votes plus a handful of republicans to get anything passed.
posted by empath at 9:04 AM on October 15, 2013


Correction: October 15, 2013: An earlier version of this article misspelled, on second reference, the surname of a representative. He is Charlie Dent, not Debt.

heh
posted by argonauta at 9:06 AM on October 15, 2013 [4 favorites]


treason is waging war against the United States, literally, and nothing else.

If the reps knowingly and deliberately destroyed the US Economy as part of what their extremist ideology considers a "necessary fiscal reset," that could be viewed as an act of war against the US. We've taken diplomatic steps and declared threats of economic sabotage by other countries as acts of war in the past. Why should it matter that the enemies of the US in this case are domestic not foreign? The professed goal of many in the Tea Party caucus is to destroy the Federal government. If plotting to destroy a nation's government isn't an act of war against that nation, what is?
posted by saulgoodman at 9:08 AM on October 15, 2013 [7 favorites]


So in the space of a few hours, the House Republicans have already proposed their shitty crazypants plan and dropped it. I think Boehner is thrashing around in wounded animal mode.

What, already? I just called my Congressman to ask him to oppose it and it was already dropped? I knew I should have called about legalizing weed again instead.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:08 AM on October 15, 2013 [3 favorites]


Pelosi says Boehners plan doesn't have the votes, so he'll be jammed with the Senate version. The only question is e allows a vote without TP.
posted by zombieflanders at 9:09 AM on October 15, 2013


"And not in some tortuous metaphorical sense."
posted by Flunkie at 9:10 AM on October 15, 2013 [3 favorites]


the reps knowingly and deliberately destroyed the US Economy as part of what their extremist ideology considers a "necessary fiscal reset," that could be viewed as an act of war against the US.

No it couldn't. Please don't take that as an endorsement of the tomfoolery currently going on in the Congress.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 9:14 AM on October 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


Gahh so awkward talking to staffers sometimes, trying to somehow get across "I'm mad, and serious, but not at you sorry staffer I know you're stuck with a crappy job!"
posted by jason_steakums at 9:14 AM on October 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


The Founders wanted to be very explicit about it, because in England, "treason" had had a history of being abused to punish political enemies. The Founders wanted to be very clear that in America, such abuses should not be tolerated; treason is waging war against the United States, literally, and nothing else.


At Jefferson's urging, Aaron Burr was tried (and acquitted) for treason, without directly waging war against the US. He was accused and unsuccessfully tried for participating in a conspiracy to bring down the US government and to spark a civil war in Texas. Sure, the prosecution failed, but even some among the founders (Jefferson) didn't take such a clean-cut view on the matter.

I agree that Treason may not be the right word/legal construct (sedition is much closer to the mark). But Jesus, why don't we have any laws to protect us in these areas that are so ripe for abuse? These are the most powerful positions in our society and we basically just trust matters of intent and criminality among legislators to the honor system. It's insane.
posted by saulgoodman at 9:23 AM on October 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


If a foreign power had plotted this, we'd call it an act of war. The mere fact that those involved in plotting it are wealthy white Americans doesn't change the nature of the harm being done to the US as a sovereign nation.
posted by saulgoodman at 9:24 AM on October 15, 2013 [5 favorites]


The tools are there for a reason. Congress has the right to do what they are doing. If they abuse that power, the wrath will come from voters. I'm assuming that's how the system works.
posted by mazola at 9:26 AM on October 15, 2013 [3 favorites]


If this default happens, I'm poised to make a fortune on pitchfork and guillotine futures.
posted by entropicamericana at 9:27 AM on October 15, 2013 [2 favorites]


If a foreign power had plotted this, we'd call it an act of war. The mere fact that those involved in plotting it are wealthy white Americans doesn't change the nature of the harm being done to the US as a sovereign nation.

"It's class warfare. My class is winning, but they shouldn't be." --Warren Buffet
posted by entropicamericana at 9:29 AM on October 15, 2013 [2 favorites]


If you're feeling powerless in this game of politics, there's another game of politics you might want to try instead! Democracy 3 came out today, and we should all buy it before the currency is entirely debased.
posted by mittens at 9:31 AM on October 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


Looking at the Stock Market reactions to the THREAT of default, either word has spread that 'the fix in in' or it really will be as much a non-event as some claim (which would be the biggest victory for the Tea Party, showing that they can tear everything down while Wall Street shrugs it off). I'm shorting on pitchforks and guillotines.
posted by oneswellfoop at 9:37 AM on October 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


mazola: "The tools are there for a reason. Congress has the right to do what they are doing. If they abuse that power, the wrath will come from voters. I'm assuming that's how the system works."
posted by symbioid at 9:44 AM on October 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


We shall see. The system takes time.
posted by mazola at 9:46 AM on October 15, 2013


If a foreign power had plotted this...

How do you know that this isn't the work of a foreign power?
posted by sour cream at 9:48 AM on October 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


The tools are there for a reason. Congress has the right to do what they are doing. If they abuse that power, the wrath will come from voters. I'm assuming that's how the system works.

Obviously just because a particular power or tool exists for good reasons doesn't mean it can't be abused or misused in bad faith. Are you really arguing we couldn't stand to do a better job somehow of preventing those abuses from happening in the first place, that the best we could ever hope to do is let people do harm to us and then let them walk away from office scot-free when they're done? Not all forms of damage are reversible.

Laws that constrain people in positions of responsibility from abusing the powers that come with those positions exist in every other area of American life. You seem to be saying you believe our system is already perfect, in a Panglossian best of all possible worlds sense. But there's evidence accumulating every day that our system isn't working as intended or even as well as similar systems around the world.

We don't generally extend the benefit of the doubt to people in other positions of authority, so why should we extend it to those with the most power to abuse? Many southern reps were expelled from congress in the Civil War era; confederate sympathizers were barred for disloyalty. Would you say expelling members from congress for disloyalty to the US is impossible today? What if there were proof the members knew they would be doing at least significant short-term economic harm to the US economy with these actions? Would that be enough? What threshold would you suggest for declaring someone disloyal?
posted by saulgoodman at 9:50 AM on October 15, 2013 [4 favorites]


Any foreign power that had the resources to plot an economic fail of this scale would have so much of their GDP tied up with the US economy that it would be suicide. Do you really think China is rooting for default right now?
posted by Think_Long at 9:50 AM on October 15, 2013


The mere fact that those involved in plotting it are wealthy white Americans doesn't change the nature of the harm being done to the US as a sovereign nation.

What are you on about? This is in no way an act of war. At all. Not all harm to a country is war.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 9:50 AM on October 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


But Jesus, why don't we have any laws to protect us in these areas that are so ripe for abuse?

I still say that a DOJ prosecutor wouldn't have to work too hard to put together a case alleging violations of 18 USC 371, Conspiracy to Defraud the United States...
posted by mikelieman at 9:51 AM on October 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


I think when your stated goal is to "Drown the government in a bathtub", you've declared war against the entity you intend to drown.
posted by mikelieman at 9:52 AM on October 15, 2013 [6 favorites]


How do you know that this isn't the work of a foreign power?

I don't. In fact, I've got a pretty strong hunch the die-hard contingent are counting on the ascendency of China as the new America in a few years for their own personal portfolio risk management. But any direct evidence of influence might be hard to come by.

What are you on about? This is in no way an act of war. At all. Not all harm to a country is war.


It is potentially if some of the pols involved are also secessionists. (And in particular, if they think this chaos will help further their cause.)
posted by saulgoodman at 9:53 AM on October 15, 2013 [2 favorites]


I think when your stated goal is to "Drown the government in a bathtub", you've declared war against the entity you intend to drown.

No you haven't, one is a metaphor (the actual quote of norquist isn't the same as what you said), and a declaration of war is a real actual thing.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 9:54 AM on October 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


But if they succeed in turning all of America into Texas, they won't need to secede.

Succeed or Secede?
posted by oneswellfoop at 9:54 AM on October 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


Then again, it'll be California that'll need to secede.
posted by oneswellfoop at 9:55 AM on October 15, 2013


and a declaration of war is a real actual thing.

I understand that the day after Pearl Harbor was attacked , the German ambassador delivered to Congress a declaration of war.

I don't see one of those for the "War on Drugs" and the "War on Terror".

Hell, I don't even see one for the war in Iraq or Afghanistan.
posted by mikelieman at 9:56 AM on October 15, 2013


The framing of House Reps' actions as acts of war is every bit as helpful as it is for the GWoT and the WoD.
posted by klarck at 9:56 AM on October 15, 2013 [4 favorites]


The framing of House Reps' actions as acts of war is every bit as helpful as it is for the GWoT and the WoD.

Well, we've been fighting the GWoT and WoD for the past however many years using the same logic. If it's good there, why not here?
posted by mikelieman at 9:59 AM on October 15, 2013


I'm not sure what I'm more excited about if a deal goes through before a default happens, the evasion of an economic collapse or being able to close this thread.
posted by DynamiteToast at 10:01 AM on October 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


Because honest Liberals (yes, that's redundant) can't use War metaphors successfully... remember the War on Poverty? The War on Cancer?
posted by oneswellfoop at 10:01 AM on October 15, 2013


Would you say expelling members from congress for disloyalty to the US is impossible today?

Hopefully, yes.

Does the phrase "you're either with us or against us" ring any cautionary bells?
posted by RonButNotStupid at 10:01 AM on October 15, 2013 [5 favorites]


Its not good there, nor is it here. Anyway, if you want to use that type of rhetoric, by all means, go for it, but you look like a kook when you do.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 10:02 AM on October 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


(1) Jefferson did a lot of things.

(2) "Burr was charged with treason for assembling an armed force to take New Orleans and separate the Western from the Atlantic states."

(3) Come on, every time anything happens not to someone's political liking, someone steps up and says "Here's why my political enemy's political actions could be considered treason". "It could be considered waging war because blah blah blah blah". It's not war, it's not treason, and you're doing exactly what the authors of the Constitution wanted to prevent.
posted by Flunkie at 10:03 AM on October 15, 2013 [9 favorites]


The real issue is that the GOP was all fine with expelling the paleo-cons for their objection to he invasion of Iraq, but these nitwits stage a coup and seize control of the country and everyone's impotent to expel them?
posted by mikelieman at 10:03 AM on October 15, 2013 [2 favorites]


I agree this is a confusing use of Constitutional powers. I'm not sure, however, that it's great territory to prosecute Congressmen for using the Constitutional powers granted to them. They are operating within the rules. They're using incredibly bad judgement (IMO), but still within the framework of the Constitution. As for motive, they think they're fighting for 'America'. I think they're wrong. Say what you want about the Tea Party candidates, they seem to be representing the will of their constituents. Perhaps people will wake up and see this is nutty and vote in new Congressmen.
posted by mazola at 10:03 AM on October 15, 2013


Because honest Liberals (yes, that's redundant) can't use War metaphors successfully... remember the War on Poverty? The War on Cancer?

As Jeff Daniels' character on Newsroom opined, "We used to wage war on poverty, not poor people."
posted by Benny Andajetz at 10:04 AM on October 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


Treason/sedition business aside, there are already so many House rules in place where someone could make a case that the Tea Party reps are in violation, but enforcement is limp and just about impossible when it's majority party members breaking the rules, and the repercussions for breaking them might as well be nonexistant. For instance, no way in hell the Tea Party crew hasn't broken 1 and 2 all over the place here:

1. A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House shall conduct himself at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House.

2. A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House shall adhere to the spirit and the letter of the Rules of the House and to the rules of duly constituted committees thereof.


It's like... half of a working system. The problem is that they police themselves and there are barely any repercussions.
posted by jason_steakums at 10:04 AM on October 15, 2013 [2 favorites]


This thread will close on November 9th. If I'm very lucky, I'll have gotten my Disability payment (scheduled for the 3rd) by then.

And remember, the original Tea Partiers were committing Treason against the British Crown. It was only when they won and started their own country that the charges were dropped.
posted by oneswellfoop at 10:04 AM on October 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


They may be operating within the rules, but I expected the GOP to make sure they didn't do anything that'll actually hurt the nation. The fact that the national party is so weak and impotent that they can't act against these guys and get them in line makes me worry. What happens if Boehner ends up with The Football? Does he bring around Armageddon so that Jesus can return to Israel?
posted by mikelieman at 10:05 AM on October 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


> And remember, the original Tea Partiers were committing Treason against the British Crown. It was only when they won and started their own country that the charges were dropped.

If we thought you were good for it then for a fee we'd let you back in.
posted by vbfg at 10:06 AM on October 15, 2013


What happens if Boehner ends up with The Football?

A resolution passes giving control of all the nukes to Cantor or his designee.
posted by jason_steakums at 10:07 AM on October 15, 2013 [12 favorites]


There are definitely representatives who are on the record as secessionists in the US congress today. So why is it such an implausible stretch to see this as part of that larger anti-US government movement?

I'm not trying to have a political strategy session here about how best to frame these issues for political gain. I'm trying to discuss what they actually mean in reality.

For instance, the official Tea Party website is right now featuring front page talk about how the Texas legislature is gearing up to develop plans to manage a secession from the union in the event of a US default.
posted by saulgoodman at 10:08 AM on October 15, 2013 [4 favorites]


Wouldn't it be cool if Reince Priebus got on tv and said, "Ted Cruz has been expelled from the Republican Party"...
posted by mikelieman at 10:09 AM on October 15, 2013 [2 favorites]


"The real issue is that the GOP was all fine with expelling the paleo-cons for their objection to he invasion of Iraq, but these nitwits stage a coup and seize control of the country and everyone's impotent to expel them?"

The paleocons were easy to boot: No one with power really agreed with them. The tea party nitwits represent the unvoiced id of the GOP, and expelling them is hard because the GOP leadership agree with them in most things save tactics.
posted by klangklangston at 10:10 AM on October 15, 2013 [5 favorites]



Would you say expelling members from congress for disloyalty to the US is impossible today?

Hopefully, yes.

Does the phrase "you're either with us or against us" ring any cautionary bells?


Really? So the confederates who rebelled against the US government and their sympathizers should have been allowed to keep their seats in congress indefinitely and that would have worked out for the best somehow?

I don't really understand how this is supposed to work.
posted by saulgoodman at 10:11 AM on October 15, 2013 [2 favorites]


Yeah, but... We were right.
posted by mikelieman at 10:11 AM on October 15, 2013


And the Teabaggers are the Last Hope for the GOP... not by building up the party into a majority but by breaking the nation down into something they can rule.

And mike, history IS always written by the victors, except in some Southern school districts.
posted by oneswellfoop at 10:13 AM on October 15, 2013 [4 favorites]


For instance, the official Tea Party website is right now featuring front page talk about how the Texas legislature is gearing up to develop plans to manage a secession from the union in the event of a US default.

Subtitled: How I Went From Powerful State To Third-World Country In One Easy Step
posted by Benny Andajetz at 10:15 AM on October 15, 2013 [5 favorites]


Subtitled: How I Went From Powerful State To Third-World Country In One Easy Step

AKA This One Weird Trick That Bond Markets Hate!
posted by entropicamericana at 10:16 AM on October 15, 2013 [7 favorites]


Texas is not going to secede. Secession talk is 99.99% hokum, the rest is just lunacy.

I don't actually believe most of the Republicans want to crash the economy either. I think they are just so intoxicated by the power they hold that gives them that option, combined with their unbalanced political views, that they are effectively drunk at the wheel. Like teens playing chicken or trying to drive across the railroad tracks when the train is coming.

Drunks don't want to run you over, generally, they just do it accidentally. I mean, if the Tea Party types really wanted to shut it all down, wouldn't they have been jubiliant when the parks were closed? But they weren't. If the economy actually crashed, they'd be high on the power for a little bit, then they'd freak out louder and harder than everyone else.

Secession takes a lot more work than just throwing sand in the gears of government, which is why it will never happen. It's not easy enough. Sending the US into default, on the other hand, is apparently just a matter of throwing tantrums and refusing to do your damn job.
posted by emjaybee at 10:17 AM on October 15, 2013 [2 favorites]


The threshold for expelling a member of Congress is the same today as it always has been: A two-thirds majority of that member's house voting that that member should be expelled.
posted by Flunkie at 10:18 AM on October 15, 2013 [3 favorites]


I don't actually believe most of the Republicans want to crash the economy either.

Not if it gets blamed on them, but the prospect of the President taking the blame and getting impeached in the process is probably very attractive still.
posted by Golden Eternity at 10:22 AM on October 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


I'm shorting on pitchforks and guillotines.

Speaking of which, I clicked on the links in this hilarious comment soon after it was posted, one of which goes to an Amazon marketplace shop. And now, because of Amazon's enormous affiliate ad network, every time I load a page on Politico or Talking Points Memo that has an Amazon ad, it offers me pitchforks. Which just puts a whole new cast on reading political news.
posted by Joey Buttafoucault at 10:24 AM on October 15, 2013 [16 favorites]


The whole Texas secession subject (and its front-page positioning on the Tea Party site) goes right to the blackened little heart of the hard-core right:

I did it. Me. No one helped. I owe no one gratitude. I owe no one thanks. I owe no one allegiance. Fuck you, I got mine. And, God bless America me.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 10:29 AM on October 15, 2013 [9 favorites]


Pitchforks are just not going to make it. I lean more toward torches.

But a lot of the Republicans honestly believe they're either (a) not going to crash the economy or (b) only crash the parts they don't like (the Koch Brothers' Evil Empire is privately owned; no Stock Market exposure). And as I stated before, anything Obama and the Administration does to lessen the impact of the crisis when it comes can and will be spun as an argument that it isn't that much of a crisis after all.
posted by oneswellfoop at 10:30 AM on October 15, 2013


What we need is something that works better/faster than a discharge petition. Well, I mean, what we really need is the Gephardt Rule back, but we also need a better alternative to the discharge petition. The only other option right now to get around Boehner's obstruction is voting to ditch the sitting Speaker entirely and that's like only having a tack hammer and a sledgehammer in your toolbox, either underkill or overkill for the job at hand. Also, that Cantor resolution is straight bullshit and should be illegal, I don't care which side is doing it or if it has any precedent, the power to decide if bills can hit the floor should only be up to the Speaker (with checks against abuse) in cases that it's not up to every other member. Giving out special parliamentary powers to members of your own caucus just because you're in the majority and you can is some shady, shameful work.
posted by jason_steakums at 10:37 AM on October 15, 2013 [4 favorites]


From the "Sausage making alert: how the medical device makers influenced the current stand off" link:
“You give the money sometimes to encourage a position, to get in the door, and make sure you get heard. And in that way, the system obviously benefits those who can afford to be big contributors."
You just know, in spite of the careful wording here, that some quid pro quo is going on here. We need a sting operation to end it, because the players involved are never going to fess up. Once the mistrust born of such an operation is planted, much less corporate money will flow to "influence" lawmaking, because they won't be able to confirm any direct benefit from it.
posted by Mental Wimp at 10:44 AM on October 15, 2013


wow, House now considering passing their plan, then leaving town. That will destroy them.
posted by Ironmouth at 10:46 AM on October 15, 2013 [4 favorites]


Pitchforks are just not going to make it. I lean more toward torches.

No, you need the pitchforks to air out the stack, otherwise the ash will smother the fire.
posted by lodurr at 10:46 AM on October 15, 2013


That will destroy them.

Eh, maybe. Even if it does, they won't believe that's what did it. They're too heavily invested in their own version of events, a la Rand Paul on Tiger Blood.
posted by lodurr at 10:47 AM on October 15, 2013 [3 favorites]


That will destroy them.

Us, too.
posted by Slap*Happy at 10:47 AM on October 15, 2013 [12 favorites]


I still think that many in the Occupy movement are looking at the Tea Party on the verge of tearing down the American economy and secretly cheering them on, or, like Bob the Angry Flower, not so secretly (yes, I linked it before, a thousand comments back, but I LOVE Bob).
posted by oneswellfoop at 10:48 AM on October 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


saulgoodman: Really? So the confederates who rebelled against the US government and their sympathizers should have been allowed to keep their seats in congress indefinitely and that would have worked out for the best somehow?

I don't really understand how this is supposed to work.


It works like this: Follow the rules and don't resort to extraordinary measures unless you really, really, really, really, really, really know what you're doing and are absolutely, positively, 100% sure that whatever precedents you set won't immediately be used by your political adversaries or compatriots the next time they need to get something done.

The most damaging part of our current crisis is what comes next. If Republicans are sufficiently satisfied with whatever concessions they get, there will be no stopping them from holding the debt ceiling or federal government hostage the next time they want something.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 10:49 AM on October 15, 2013 [6 favorites]


I would be completely behind chaining them to their desks.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 10:50 AM on October 15, 2013


Ironmouth: "wow, House now considering passing their plan, then leaving town"

link?
posted by dendrochronologizer at 10:50 AM on October 15, 2013


Link.
posted by dfan at 10:52 AM on October 15, 2013 [2 favorites]


On Twitter: ‏@KagroX Lucky the air traffic controllers are working without pay, or the House Gop ding dong ditch plan wouldn't work so well.
posted by emjaybee at 10:53 AM on October 15, 2013 [5 favorites]


The threshold for expelling a member of Congress is the same today as it always has been: A two-thirds majority of that member's house voting that that member should be expelled.

That's cool, but I asked what your threshold for calling a member of congress disloyal would be, not what's required to expel someone from congress. I could look that up for myself. Again, I'm not talking in terms of law or political framing, but reality. What does it take before someone can be fairly accused of disloyalty to the US anymore? It seems to me there's a prevailing cultural wisdom that there effectively is no such thing as disloyalty. Sort of like how there are no homosexuals in the former Soviet Union states, and the mafia didn't exist to Hoover. I guess it's enough of a relief that we don't have to worry about such things anymore I won't look this particular gift horse too hard in the mouth, if you're sure. But this new disloyalty free reality of ours does seem a little too good to be true sometimes.
posted by saulgoodman at 10:55 AM on October 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


If they can send bounty hunters out in Texas to round up Democrats that fled the state, well...
posted by symbioid at 10:55 AM on October 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


House now considering passing their plan, then leaving town

It's as if they believe by leaving town they will be absolved of all responsibilities. I can't believe how craven this party has become.
posted by Mental Wimp at 10:56 AM on October 15, 2013 [4 favorites]


Or Rangers, maybe it was the Texas Rangers. Like Walker, not the baseball team.
posted by symbioid at 10:56 AM on October 15, 2013


I think it speaks to how fantastically down the rabbit hole we are on this issue when the side that is using "take my ball and go home" tactics is the side not being called horrible negotiators.
posted by feloniousmonk at 10:56 AM on October 15, 2013


Like Walker, not the baseball team.

I'd rather see the baseball team do it. Nolan Ryan could stick a fastball in someone's ear.
posted by Mental Wimp at 10:57 AM on October 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


So if all the Republicans left, could the remaining Congresspeople, who are technically not enough to make quorum, just act as if they are, nobody requesting a quorum call, and thereby pass whatever they need? It seems unlikely, but it would be hilarious.

Of course it could be defeated by leaving one Republican behind to do the quorum call.
posted by Lemurrhea at 11:00 AM on October 15, 2013


there will be no stopping them from holding the debt ceiling or federal government hostage the next time they want something

Perhaps ironically, this is why the GOP has such a weak negotiating position. Any promise they make today is effectively meaningless, since they can continue to make the same demands every time the debt ceiling is raised, forever. The best thing they could do to negotiate would be to offer to raise the debt ceiling through the next election, in return for significant concessions. The fact that they are failing to do this indicates that they are thinking emotionally, not rationally.
posted by miyabo at 11:02 AM on October 15, 2013 [4 favorites]


That's cool, but I asked what your threshold for calling a member of congress disloyal would be, not what's required to expel someone from congress
Oh, god.

You asked "Would you say expelling members from congress for disloyalty to the US is impossible today?"

Someone else then responded to you hopefully yes.

You then asked them "Really? So the confederates who rebelled against the US government and their sympathizers should have been allowed to keep their seats in congress indefinitely and that would have worked out for the best somehow?"
posted by Flunkie at 11:07 AM on October 15, 2013 [2 favorites]


It works like this: Follow the rules and don't resort to extraordinary measures unless you really, really, really, really, really, really know what you're doing and are absolutely, positively, 100% sure that whatever precedents you set won't immediately be used by your political adversaries or compatriots the next time they need to get something done.

And when congress is debating war funding matters and reviewing war intelligence reports? Or is your idea that there would have been no civil war if the confederates had been allowed to remain in congress (even though most of them simply never showed up in chambers again after their states seceded)? They wanted to secede as an end in itself. They weren't forced out by the North, you know. But some non-secession state legislators were also barred for merely being sympathetic to the cause. I don't see how anyone could argue that wasn't necessary and proper.

But ah hell, enough of this pointless tangent.

What's everybody planning to do next week after the default? Should we all just skip work? I mean, what's the point? Most of us will be losing our jobs pretty soon whether we're performing well or not. Short term operating capital will probably be even harder to come by than it was during the first crash and for a longer period. I expect many small to mid-size businesses will be caught short.

You then asked them "Really? So the confederates who rebelled against the US government and their sympathizers should have been allowed to keep their seats in congress indefinitely and that would have worked out for the best somehow?"


My exact wording: "What threshold would you suggest for declaring someone disloyal?" I took the inclusion of the word "threshold" to mean the poster was responding to this specific question, which is really a lot more interesting question to me than what does it take to expel a congressmen. So I asked that. Sorry if that's too kooky for you.
posted by saulgoodman at 11:11 AM on October 15, 2013


Short term operating capital will probably be even harder to come by than it was during the first crash and for a longer period.

...or will it?
posted by mittens at 11:13 AM on October 15, 2013


saulgoodman:
Don't worry. All the Tea Party Patriots who have been hoarding gold for the last several decades will be more than willing to open their own banks with new Tea Party Patriot currency backed by their personal gold reserves.

Though, in some parts of the country we'll see a whole lot of new barter systems emerge, and a lot of the businesses that "fail" due to lack of liquidity or capitol, will be taken over by the workers and become anarcho-synidicatalist communes and new economic paradigms will begin to emerge and compete.

Or something.

More likely a lot of starvation and death. But I'm hoping for other options.
posted by daq at 11:16 AM on October 15, 2013 [2 favorites]


Oh my god, you guys, the latest plan is for the House to pass something and then just skip town. Of course, people with more than two brain cells to rub together point out how this may not work out like the GOP plans:
[I]t sounds to me like a brilliant Boehner strategy! After all, he has two problems right now: it doesn't appear that any debt limit/funding bill can pass with only Republican votes, and he really wants to pass one prior to total surrender; and, then, he has to do the total surrender part of it with as much cover as possible (of which passing the first bill is a key part, apparently).

A brilliant strategy? See it? Here goes:

1. Get reluctant House Republicans to vote for a debt limit/CR bill as part of the "leave town" strategy. Bill passes.

2. Head to airports.

3. Wait until the 30-60 or so crazy caucus boards planes.

4. Sneak back to Capitol, pass whatever the Senate sends over -- with any luck, unanimously, now that voting that way won't separate them from the not-present radicals.

5. Everyone pretend it's a great victory for Republicans -- that Harry Reid and Barack Obama caved and accepted exactly what Republicans wanted, a short-term debt limit and a sequester-level CR.

Hey, it almost worked for Johnny Cash! And it's not as if Louie Gohmert is as smart as Columbo, right?
posted by zombieflanders at 11:25 AM on October 15, 2013 [2 favorites]


What is the best way to invest a few tens of thousands of dollars today or tomorrow? Shit is coming down the pike, and market turmoil is always a big opportunity to make money. The trick, as always, is to identify the opportunity and act boldly.

So… where is the opportunity here?
posted by five fresh fish at 11:29 AM on October 15, 2013


3. Wait until the 30-60 or so crazy caucus boards planes.

I would prefer it if they boarded the "B" Ark.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 11:29 AM on October 15, 2013 [16 favorites]


What is the best way to invest a few tens of thousands of dollars today or tomorrow?

Challengers to Tea Party seats.
posted by jason_steakums at 11:30 AM on October 15, 2013 [6 favorites]


I can't decide if the plan is funnier with the tea party caucus getting in flight wifi and getting angry at 30,000 feet or coming home to their constituents expecting to be greeted as heroes right up until they take their iPhones off airplane mode.
posted by mccarty.tim at 11:32 AM on October 15, 2013 [4 favorites]


If they actually run, you can guarantee they'll have already arranged to be met by crowds of supporters at their home airports for the photo op.
posted by jason_steakums at 11:36 AM on October 15, 2013


What is the best way to invest a few tens of thousands of dollars today or tomorrow?

Hire a financial adviser.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 11:36 AM on October 15, 2013 [2 favorites]


What is the best way to invest a few tens of thousands of dollars today or tomorrow?

Just do whatever Cantor and those other traitors are doing.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:38 AM on October 15, 2013 [2 favorites]


Hello, fellow forty and above mefites. Are you, like me, thinking, 'we survived Mutually Assured Destruction for THIS pile of flaming shit?'
posted by angrycat at 11:41 AM on October 15, 2013 [38 favorites]


The T-shirt: "I survived mutually assured destruction, and all I got was this lousy default."
posted by mondo dentro at 11:43 AM on October 15, 2013 [11 favorites]


I want to stop checking this thread because it just keeps getting worse.
posted by hellojed at 11:44 AM on October 15, 2013 [13 favorites]


There's probably a good "The US spent a ton of money on a space pen, but the Russians used a pencil"-style joke about how the Russians had to spend all their money to default on their debt, but all we had to do was have a political spat that the instigators didn't want to end.
posted by mccarty.tim at 11:45 AM on October 15, 2013


stock market down 120.
posted by angrycat at 11:46 AM on October 15, 2013


Whatever happened to "these colors don't run?"

Cowards.
posted by honestcoyote at 11:48 AM on October 15, 2013 [3 favorites]


I don't know if this has been posted already, but a handy timeline of who did what is available from the NYT: The Back and Forth Over the Shutdown.
posted by mittens at 11:48 AM on October 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


Hello, fellow forty and above mefites. Are you, like me, thinking, 'we survived Mutually Assured Destruction for THIS pile of flaming shit?'

Ha! I was just reminiscing over the weekend with a friend from junior high: "Remember how we'd listen to War by U2 and have slight panic attacks in the middle of dancing around our bedrooms because we thought we'd all be dead before we graduated from college?" "Yeah. Those were good times."
posted by scody at 11:50 AM on October 15, 2013 [16 favorites]


"Remember how we'd listen to War by U2 and have slight panic attacks in the middle of dancing around our bedrooms because we thought we'd all be dead before we graduated from college?"

You did this, too? Best years of our lives.
posted by octobersurprise at 11:55 AM on October 15, 2013 [4 favorites]


I don't know how we can say we've survived MAD with ~20k warheads still in existence, many of them probably aimed directly at cities. We are still a button click away from assured destruction, I suspect. I guess the likelihood of them being used has gone from well over fifty percent during the height of the cold war to less than a few percent (?), but that could change quickly I would think.
posted by Golden Eternity at 11:55 AM on October 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


Is the clean CR at sequester levels & debt limit raise previously passed by the Senate still available if Boehner needs to use it, the one that 20+ Republicans already said they'd vote for?
posted by jason_steakums at 11:57 AM on October 15, 2013


...many of them probably aimed directly at cities.

I thought US and Russia had re-targeted their warheads to open ocean. Are you referring to those possessed by other countries?
posted by Mental Wimp at 11:57 AM on October 15, 2013


Is there any rule that says the critters infesting the white house lawn can't pass a bill to end the shutdown?

*looks to supreme court anxiously*
posted by mccarty.tim at 12:00 PM on October 15, 2013 [3 favorites]


Is the clean CR at sequester levels & debt limit raise previously passed by the Senate still available if Boehner needs to use it [?]
As of a week ago, I believe so, but I don't think Boehner is considering it as an option at the moment - would be interested to hear if he's responded to that question more recently.
posted by verdeluz at 12:06 PM on October 15, 2013


From Bloomberg News Managing Editor Michael Tackett:

BREAKING. Sen. Feinstein says “it’s all fallen apart”

— Michael Tackett (@tackettdc) October 15, 2013
posted by Anhedonic Donkey at 12:08 PM on October 15, 2013


When you take a step back and think about it, it's really remarkable, the potential for a default. It's basically For Want of a Nail.

Consider this: A country with 5% of the world's population is threatening the global financial market by potentially not paying interest on its debt.

That country wants to pay the interest on its debt, however, it can't, because one third of it's federal government isn't passing the legislation to do it.

Within that one third of the government, one half of it has a deal ready that the other half needs to approve.

The other half (the house) very likely wants to pass that deal or at least something close to it, but a fraction of one party of it doesn't want to pass a deal to use the threat of a default as leverage.

So it's come down to a handful of people in a house of 435 represenatives holding the legislative branch at a standstill, holding the federal government at a standstill, causing markets around the world to lose it.

(Then again, to be fair, markets would also freak out if Steve Jobs said something or their computers read a scary tweet)
posted by mccarty.tim at 12:13 PM on October 15, 2013 [9 favorites]


Things fall apart.
posted by Rhaomi at 12:13 PM on October 15, 2013 [6 favorites]


Oh christ. The default is really going to happen, isn't it.
posted by troika at 12:13 PM on October 15, 2013 [1 favorite]



I thought US and Russia had re-targeted their warheads to open ocean. Are you referring to those possessed by other countries?

I don't know, but it would seem to that re-targeting them couldn't take more than a few seconds in any case.
posted by Golden Eternity at 12:14 PM on October 15, 2013


As far as passing a bill then leaving town, the President can actually force members of Congress to appear for a special session under Article II, section 3, clause 3.
posted by klangklangston at 12:15 PM on October 15, 2013 [12 favorites]


VOTE FOR SQUIRREL: HE GETS RID OF NUTS.

/haha sob let's all joke and watch the apocalypse.
posted by emjaybee at 12:15 PM on October 15, 2013 [6 favorites]


Ah, yes, Yeats rises from his grave to point a skeleton hand at us and say, "Ha. Told ya."
posted by angrycat at 12:15 PM on October 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


Oh christ. The default is really going to happen, isn't it.

I don't think so. All along, the prediction has been that Boehner will exhaust every possible avenue so that the conservatives in his caucus will save face. And then, when the time comes, they will pass what needs to be passed.

It's just -- well, geeze, they sure are cutting it close.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 12:17 PM on October 15, 2013 [2 favorites]


When this whole thing blows over, can the treasury mint some Tea Party Caucus commemorative coins worth 1/1000th of a cent?
posted by mccarty.tim at 12:17 PM on October 15, 2013 [8 favorites]


As far as passing a bill then leaving town, the President can actually force members of Congress to appear for a special session under Article II, section 3, clause 3.

So, what happens if Obama calls an extraordinary session and the Rs don't show?
posted by Sticherbeast at 12:17 PM on October 15, 2013


If a foreign power had plotted this...

How do you know that this isn't the work of a foreign power?


Well, one of Al Qaeda's stated goals is the destruction of the American economy...
posted by homunculus at 12:18 PM on October 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


From Bloomberg News Managing Editor Michael Tackett

Counterpoint: @BenjySarlin: Dem Senate aide says talks merely on hold while Boehner does his thing, not at impasse over demands
posted by zombieflanders at 12:18 PM on October 15, 2013


So it's come down to a handful of people in a house of 435 represenatives holding the legislative branch at a standstill, holding the federal government at a standstill, causing markets around the world to lose it.

How many constituents do the tea party House members represent?
posted by inigo2 at 12:19 PM on October 15, 2013


"Doing his thing?" What's his "thing?" Doing a Bubsy the Bobcat speedrun?
posted by Sticherbeast at 12:19 PM on October 15, 2013 [2 favorites]


"So, what happens if Obama calls an extraordinary session and the Rs don't show?"

I'm not a constitutional scholar, but it's my understanding that you have to be present to vote. It'd be pretty jake for the members who were there to, assuming they had a quorum, vote to rescind the Cantor rule, then vote on a clean CR.
posted by klangklangston at 12:19 PM on October 15, 2013 [2 favorites]


The really, really, really hilarious thing is that the House GOP is now stripping the language about the medical device tax. In other words, the tax survives, which is what Obama and the Dems wanted. The ONE significant thing they are getting is the Vitter Amendment, which basically forces those in Congress and the Cabinet, and their staff, to get health insurance through the ACA.

That's it.

That's why the government had to shut down for two weeks and why we had to flirt with economic ruin.

Honest. To God. Morons.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 12:19 PM on October 15, 2013 [20 favorites]


I'm waiting on a short sale to go through. This can't be good timing, right?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 12:20 PM on October 15, 2013


You're shorting equities right now? Yeah, that's (probably) a bad idea. If a default happens, you'll have plenty of opportunities to short.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 12:21 PM on October 15, 2013


Couldn't they have just opted out of federal subsidized healthcare and saved us all some money and anxiety?
posted by mccarty.tim at 12:21 PM on October 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


Laws and politics and congressional procedures are (some of) the mechanisms by which our societal choices are enforced; if we say 'this person is a disloyal American,' what does that mean?

Sure. That's why I was curious where the original poster would draw the line. For me personally, it's pretty clearly disloyal in every case to want to destroy your own country's government. It might not be unjustified, but its still disloyalty by the denotative meaning of the word. But I'm probably a little touchy because someone implied it was kooky to suggest this fiasco might be viewed as an act of war under certain circumstances (if clear evidence turned up of collusion among certain key Reps with foreign powers or pro-secession movements, for example). Either way, agreed, it's not especially useful to paint these reps as traitors (although I think kinder gentler people tend to underestimate the political power of vilifying specific political opponents). But it feels so right. I guess I would say FWIW these people do not seem to have any loyalty to the US (they'd sell the entire nation out in a heartbeat if they could profit by it and successfully sell their betrayal as the inevitable result of global market forces) and don't seem to me to be carrying out the duties of their office faithfully as pledged in their oaths of office.

I'm curious about the commercial paper market thing from up-thread, though. The Treasury has been saying it's worried about what happens to these markets in the event of a default, and it's not hard to imagine why. They may have been picking up recently but that doesn't mean they won't contract again. There's really no telling what's going to happen.

I'm starting to think default is more or less inevitable at this point, so then it becomes a question of how long it lasts. By some measures, as a couple of articles have argued, you might say default has already occurred. If we were talking about a business instead of the US government, that business would have been considered in default the moment it stopped paying its employees according to the terms of their employment contracts. So by Republican logic (thinking of the US gov't's financial obligations as if it were a household or a business), the Federal government has already defaulted on its financial obligations to its employees. If it were a business, the US government would be heading into insolvency proceedings already.
posted by saulgoodman at 12:22 PM on October 15, 2013


Anhedonic Donkey: "From Bloomberg News Managing Editor Michael Tackett:

BREAKING. Sen. Feinstein says “it’s all fallen apart”

With almost any other thing I would love to hear Feinstein utter those words. Not this, though.

posted by symbioid at 12:22 PM on October 15, 2013


what's happening with Ryan's fascist birth control bullshit. 'Cause last I heard, that was still on the House table in some way.
posted by angrycat at 12:22 PM on October 15, 2013


Couldn't they have just opted out of federal subsidized healthcare and saved us all some money and anxiety?

No, because (opens mouth; a red, and white and blue flurry of eagles flies out)
posted by Sticherbeast at 12:23 PM on October 15, 2013 [10 favorites]


Q: Eric Cantor and Ted Cruz are on a sinking ship, who is saved?
A: America
posted by symbioid at 12:23 PM on October 15, 2013 [27 favorites]


Just to follow up, from what I can tell the House quorum is 218, which means it'd need 18 Republicans. But members don't have to be present to vote, and you can vote without a quorum if no member makes a point of order to request a quorum check.
posted by klangklangston at 12:25 PM on October 15, 2013 [2 favorites]


Golden Eternity: "
I thought US and Russia had re-targeted their warheads to open ocean. Are you referring to those possessed by other countries?

I don't know, but it would seem to that re-targeting them couldn't take more than a few seconds in any case.
"

I've got just the perfect spot.
posted by symbioid at 12:25 PM on October 15, 2013


Pretty sure the boat is America. They made the hole themselves for attention, and the coast guard assumed they'd just turn on the bilge pumps and head to shore like sensible people.
posted by mccarty.tim at 12:25 PM on October 15, 2013 [3 favorites]


I've got just the perfect spot.

What, DC and the suburbs, one of the most liberal areas of the country?
posted by zombieflanders at 12:27 PM on October 15, 2013


sticherbeast: So, what happens if Obama calls an extraordinary session and the Rs don't show?

Quorum is half of the membership plus one, so I think we'd be screwed.
posted by lodurr at 12:27 PM on October 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


So, what happens if Obama calls an extraordinary session and the Rs don't show?

Don't wanna jump any guns, but isn't that one of the things the sergeant-at-arms and capitol police are for?
posted by Benny Andajetz at 12:31 PM on October 15, 2013


oops, jinx w/ klangklangston, who has better details anyway. and anyway, only dems voting would be one weird-ass outcome. de facto secession, i'd argue.

but it's academic, even if a lot of republicans stayed away, at least some would be willing to actually, you know, behave like americans.
posted by lodurr at 12:32 PM on October 15, 2013


IIRC the Sarge takes orders from Boehner.
posted by jason_steakums at 12:32 PM on October 15, 2013


Dent: House may not send anything to Senate

It's the goddamn Joker behind all this. I knew it!
posted by octobersurprise at 12:33 PM on October 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


quick, someone photoshop eric cantor in a nurse's outfit with joker makeup!
posted by lodurr at 12:35 PM on October 15, 2013 [3 favorites]


It's the goddamn Joker behind all this. I knew it!

quick, someone photoshop eric cantor in a nurse's outfit with joker makeup!


Jonathan Chait beat you guys by over a week.
posted by zombieflanders at 12:37 PM on October 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


Yeah.. "Photoshop"
posted by mikelieman at 12:37 PM on October 15, 2013


So... what's Obama's endgame? Just sitting around letting the neo-Confederates set the pace? Not any type of leadership I'm familiar with.
posted by mondo dentro at 12:37 PM on October 15, 2013


Obama's 'endgame' is when he signs the legislation sent to him. IF he agrees with it and doesn't veto it.
posted by mikelieman at 12:38 PM on October 15, 2013 [9 favorites]


So... what's Obama's endgame? Just sitting around letting the neo-Confederates set the pace? Not any type of leadership I'm familiar with.

Obama is not the fucking Green Lantern.
posted by zombieflanders at 12:39 PM on October 15, 2013 [3 favorites]


with President Barack Obama as John Stewart... I would so go see that...
posted by mikelieman at 12:41 PM on October 15, 2013 [2 favorites]


Obama is not the fucking Green Lantern.

Corny cliches designed to shut down criticism of a political strategy. How clever.

So, which is it? Obama's a political genius who did the best he could with the votes he had? Or he would have been awesome if not for the Supercalifragilistic Left undermining him at every turn? Or he's playing a long game and now he has the GOP right where he wants them?

Or maybe he's just been a failure because after 6 years of ignoring and/or appeasing the extreme right, he's now jammed into a corner? Like, no shit he's not the Green Lantern. He should have realized that when he had a substantial mandate and could actually have smacked down the political disease that is now in full bloom.

Do you really think this entire fiasco can just be dumped on the rightists? How about their enablers in the Democratic Party establishment?
posted by mondo dentro at 12:49 PM on October 15, 2013


Let's say that you wake up in Barack Obama's body right now. What, specifically, do you do.
posted by Sticherbeast at 12:54 PM on October 15, 2013 [4 favorites]


(other than take a fuckton of selfies)
posted by Sticherbeast at 12:54 PM on October 15, 2013 [13 favorites]


Corny cliches designed to shut down criticism of a political strategy. How clever.

It's more clever than "why oh why can't Obama just do something, never mind the parliamentary rules and that whole separation of powers thing?"

What is your brilliant plan?
posted by zombieflanders at 12:54 PM on October 15, 2013 [2 favorites]


Do you really think this entire fiasco can just be dumped on the rightists? How about their enablers in the Democratic Party establishment?

Please, tell us about the leftist enablers!
posted by jnnla at 12:55 PM on October 15, 2013 [3 favorites]


Sticherbeast: "Let's say that you wake up in Barack Obama's body right now. What, specifically, do you do."

Check out the merchandise?
posted by Big_B at 12:55 PM on October 15, 2013 [15 favorites]


Corny cliches designed to shut down criticism of a political strategy. How clever.

Its not a corny cliche. The 'Green Lantern' theory of politics is a real thing. Its a term used to deride those that say that a reason a political goal failed is that the political leader simply did not have enough will to achieve the goal.

Do you really think this entire fiasco can just be dumped on the rightists?

Yes.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 12:56 PM on October 15, 2013 [12 favorites]


Boehner and Obama switch bodies... MOVIE IDEA, we can force everyone in the US to go see it via an individual mandate, and all the movie profit goes towards paying the deficit.
posted by symbioid at 12:57 PM on October 15, 2013 [2 favorites]


Let's say that you wake up in Barack Obama's body right now. What, specifically, do you do.

I'd deliver the smackdown on the political disease that is now in full bloom. Obviously.
posted by octobersurprise at 12:57 PM on October 15, 2013


What is my brilliant plan? Are you serious? So, it's on me, but it's not on Obama?
posted by mondo dentro at 12:57 PM on October 15, 2013


Obama has already said "No, I will not deal with you under threat of default, even if you take us over the cliff" on the principle that if he did, then it would be "We're gonna default!" every time the Republicans wanted something.

Which they would.
You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.

So yes: it is their fault. He is not a magical unicorn who can change them with the power of love. He's just a president, he's bound by law. We have exhaustively discussed his iffy options...14th amendment, trillion-dollar coin....already.

But our system has the vulnerability that if the people in power act in very bad faith, things break. And that's what's happening. Maybe he should have been all-knowing or just less trusting, and I do not think he's a super-genius chessmaster, but he is dealing with a profoundly broken and destructive group here. If he had done all those "shouldas" we are talking about now, do you really think the republicans would not have found some way to make those actions into epic, impeachable issues?

They wanted a fight, they wanted to blow shit up, and ultimately, there is not much the president or anyone can legally do to stop them if they are really determined. The only hope we have is for people in their own party to put the squeeze on them.

Pretty fucking scary.
posted by emjaybee at 12:58 PM on October 15, 2013 [28 favorites]


Well, one of Al Qaeda's stated goals is the destruction of the American economy...

OMG, Rafael Cruz is the Manchurian candidate!!!!
posted by Mental Wimp at 12:58 PM on October 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


What is my brilliant plan? Are you serious? So, it's on me, but it's not on Obama?

...it was a rhetorical question tho
posted by showbiz_liz at 12:58 PM on October 15, 2013 [2 favorites]


What is my brilliant plan? Are you serious? So, it's on me, but it's not on Obama?


It's absolute BULLSHIT that scientists haven't figured out warp drives yet. What's up with that scientists? You could do it if you just tried harder.

Don't ask me, I'm not the scientist!
posted by Think_Long at 1:00 PM on October 15, 2013 [23 favorites]


So, it's on me, but it's not on Obama?

Well, Obama's not here right now and, I mean, you seem to have a plan, so, yes.
posted by octobersurprise at 1:00 PM on October 15, 2013 [10 favorites]


I'm finding myself entirely unimpressed with the much-vaunted corporate control Congress is supposedly under. Corporate interests have so much to lose under a default, but they're apparently unwilling or unable to give marching orders.

Or maybe he's just been a failure because after 6 years of ignoring and/or appeasing the extreme right, he's now jammed into a corner? Like, no shit he's not the Green Lantern. He should have realized that when he had a substantial mandate and could actually have smacked down the political disease that is now if full bloom.

If he would have tried to "smack down" the far right before the public turned against them like they are now, in that slim window where he had a chance (but not a guarantee) to do it, we wouldn't be having this trouble today, sure - but only because Obamacare would never have gotten off the ground, and we'd have President Romney and a Ryan budget (or worse because they could've fielded someone crazier against a weaker Obama). Because using a majority to force things to go your way can very easily give you the poll numbers the Republicans are currently enjoying. The boon it would have been to the burgeoning Tea Party movement alone, to be able to point to specific overreaches rather than vague rambling about him being a tyrant - that kind of smackdown would have legitimized them to more people. Because Republicans were still popular, no matter what kind of "mandate" Obama had.
posted by jason_steakums at 1:01 PM on October 15, 2013 [6 favorites]


So, what is Obama's endgame? Just wait to see what happens? If so, he obviously gave away the initiative to a nasty political opposition.
posted by mondo dentro at 1:01 PM on October 15, 2013


Anyway, back to the topic at hand...

Supposedly the latest deal is basically the Senate bill, minus the delay in the medical device tax and the income verification, but plus the Vitter language. Or as Michael Linden puts it:

Newest House bill says: "We shut down the government so that we could give our staff a huge pay cut."
posted by zombieflanders at 1:01 PM on October 15, 2013 [4 favorites]


JUST PASS IT YOU FUCKERRSSSS
posted by hellojed at 1:02 PM on October 15, 2013 [10 favorites]


"Corporate interests have so much to lose under a default, but they're apparently unwilling or unable to give marching orders."

"These anti-government lunatics will really reduce our tax and regulatory burden! Let's get them elected!"

"These anti-government lunatics are going to crash the government! Can't someone talk reason to them?"

Business is 1) not really monolithic — it's a handful of billionaires who are behind most of this insanity, and 2) is getting bitten after rather cynically stoking a lunatic mob. Most tea party folks aren't huge fans of big business either, they just have adopted big business's tax and regulation philosophy as a cargo cult replacement for coherent thought.
posted by klangklangston at 1:05 PM on October 15, 2013 [5 favorites]


Let's say that you wake up in Barack Obama's body right now. What, specifically, do you do.

Mobilise the National Guard, round up all of Congress and the Senate at gunpoint. Walk in there and say:

"You're not leaving this room until you jointly pass a budget or clean CR, plus we're scrapping this fucking debt ceiling bollocks and reinstituting the Gephardt rule. You put it in the bloody budget, you're paying for it in taxes or debt. Your choice.

You have ONE job, now damn well do it, you bunch of bloody children or you're going to bed without any supper either."

well you did ask what I would do.
posted by ArkhanJG at 1:08 PM on October 15, 2013 [3 favorites]


It's absolutely ludicrous to blame any of this on a lack of leadership on Obama's part.

What's he supposed to do? He's the executive. It is TOTALLY the legislature's job to deal with the budget. Is it anywhere near acceptable for the Republicans to go WAAAH WAAAH WAAAH, OBAMA WON"T DEAL WITH ME? No, that's not his job. Maybe if you'd been more cordial for, I don't know, the last FIVE FUCKING YEARS, he'd be more amenable to helping out - but it's not his job.

The Republicans flat-out picked this fight. Any blowback is on their shoulders.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 1:08 PM on October 15, 2013 [15 favorites]


jason_steakums: You're a fan of the rope-a-dope theory of Dem politics, namely "we can't do anything until the other side overreaches."

The Republicans flat-out picked this fight. Any blowback is on their shoulders.

The idea that there would not be blowback on Obama if the US goes into default under his watch is fanciful.
posted by mondo dentro at 1:10 PM on October 15, 2013


Speaking of plans,
House GOP has new plan; vote could be Tuesday

The measure would raise the debt limit through Feb. 7, as in the original proposal. But it would fund federal agencies only through Dec. 15, creating the threat of another government shutdown just before Christmas if lawmakers fail to resolve a dispute over deep spending cuts known as the sequester.
Yeah, I've got a life-sized picture of that happening.
posted by octobersurprise at 1:10 PM on October 15, 2013 [4 favorites]


that's opening the gov't for like a month and a half
posted by angrycat at 1:12 PM on October 15, 2013


You don't like it? They've got another plan to open the Government only on Tuesdays and Thursdays.
posted by octobersurprise at 1:13 PM on October 15, 2013 [3 favorites]


Can I sue Boehner, Cruz and the Tea Baggers for intentional infliction of emotional distress? Do I have standing? Because this situation is killing me, man. Can we get a class action suit going?

/onlyhalfkidding
posted by Joey Michaels at 1:14 PM on October 15, 2013 [8 favorites]


Counter it with a bill that delays it to late October 2014. Let's see how it goes down when some of them are up to a short-term vote.
posted by mccarty.tim at 1:14 PM on October 15, 2013


Business is 1) not really monolithic [...]

Yeah, that's what I mean - this whole clusterfuck kinda puts the lie to the popular "they're all in the pocket of big business" meme. Because if they were under the kind of monolithic control that's always assumed, this all would have been fixed by now by the shady guys in the smoke-filled room calling up every moderate Republican and saying "you can either take your chances of being primaried with our support or without it."

jason_steakums: You're a fan of the rope-a-dope theory of Dem politics, namely "we can't do anything until the other side overreaches."

No, just realistic about how it would go down if a guy who campaigned on pragmatic bipartisanship (no matter how unrealistic it was) suddenly turned a witch hunt loose on the party that still got the votes of nearly half the country in the slim window he had to do it, which was before he even had a chance to try and fail to build bridges across the aisle.
posted by jason_steakums at 1:15 PM on October 15, 2013


I don't know, IANAL, but they'd probably try and hide behind sovereign immunity.
posted by wintermind at 1:15 PM on October 15, 2013


LEFTIST ENABLERS FOR BOB * we demand slack, right here right now
posted by mintcake! at 1:16 PM on October 15, 2013 [6 favorites]


that's opening the gov't for like a month and a half

And the last time they yanked the football away a second time, it exploded spectacularly in Newt's face. Just picture Newt Gingrich in a Lucy van Pelt blue dress, kneeling with the football, and then yanking it away at the last second as Charlie Brown comes in to kick it... and then it explodes in Newt's face. That happened. It's happening now, only Boehner's in the blue dress, and he's being attacked by the Kite Eating Tree while yanking an exploding football away from Charlie Brown. I forgot where I was going with this.
posted by Slap*Happy at 1:16 PM on October 15, 2013 [18 favorites]


...if a guy who campaigned on pragmatic bipartisanship (no matter how unrealistic it was) suddenly turned a witch hunt loose on the party that still got the votes of nearly half the country in the slim window he had to do it...

He'd be George W. Bush?
posted by Mental Wimp at 1:17 PM on October 15, 2013 [3 favorites]


There are probably a few oligarch-wannabees with deep pockets that would be willing to take a short term hit for a more 'gov't free' playing field.
posted by mazola at 1:17 PM on October 15, 2013 [3 favorites]


...suddenly turned a witch hunt loose on the party...

Red herring, that "witch hunt".

It amazes me how people who preach "pragmatism" don't think advertising and messaging works, even though we spend billions on it every election cycle.
posted by mondo dentro at 1:17 PM on October 15, 2013


that's opening the gov't for like a month and a half

It's meant to be the last vote to delay/remove the individual mandate before it kicks in on January 1. On the other hand, it's right in the middle of the holidays, and if it weren't for the fact that the shutdown is causing actual pain, I'd be more than happy to let these guys engage in a polling freefall in the prime "Grinch" season.
posted by zombieflanders at 1:19 PM on October 15, 2013


So if these buffoons don't pass anything are we talking great depression bad or food riots breakdown of social fabric bad?
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 1:20 PM on October 15, 2013


So if these buffoons don't pass anything are we talking great depression bad or food riots breakdown of social fabric bad?

Ever see "The Walking Dead?"
posted by entropicamericana at 1:22 PM on October 15, 2013


According to a schedule of payments I googled, tomorrow is a Social Security benefit payment day, and so is the 23rd. Has the US ever, in the history of the program since 1935, ever missed a payment? Missing one would truly be an historic event.

Florida is still an important swing state in elections, right? Aren't there a lot of retirees in Florida?
posted by ceribus peribus at 1:22 PM on October 15, 2013


Ever see "The Walking Dead?"

You mean we're going to eat Boehner?
posted by Think_Long at 1:24 PM on October 15, 2013


As best I can figure the GOP plan is to force Obama to pay creditors, which includes massive payments to overseas banks in China and Japan, instead of social security and medcare recipients. Then they will scream bloody murder about it. Even though they passed a law requiring Obama do exactly that.

1) Destroy the Economy
2) ???
3) Profit
posted by Justinian at 1:24 PM on October 15, 2013


You mean we're going to eat Boehner?

huh huh huh you said---
posted by entropicamericana at 1:26 PM on October 15, 2013 [3 favorites]


Presumably they think

1) Destroy the Economy
2) Blame Obama
3) Profit
posted by ArkhanJG at 1:26 PM on October 15, 2013 [3 favorites]


He'd be George W. Bush?

Pretty much, yeah. George W. Bush was persona non grata at that point, though.

Red herring, that "witch hunt".

It amazes me how people who preach "pragmatism" don't think advertising and messaging works, even though we spend billions on it every election cycle.


So by "smack down" you really meant "yell at them before they do anything"? This kind of behavior wasn't in anywhere near full force yet in the GOP at the time, he was still dealing with a slightly defanged version of pretty much the same old unified establishment Republican opposition of the last 8 years until things started moving with the ACA and the Blue Dogs started barking and the Tea Party got a hot cash injection, and it would have been a poor move to go on the offense and shake things up at a time when he was barely holding on to the votes to pass his signature legislation.

The real failure of leadership among the Dems at the time was when they had control of both chambers and didn't try to rein in destructive legislative maneuvers by things like filibuster reform.
posted by jason_steakums at 1:26 PM on October 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


Reality check: ‘Gephardt Rule’ alone can’t fix the debt limit crisis

How many constituents do the tea party House members represent?

In the previous thread, dhartung posted a link to the fantastic article Where the G.O.P.'s Suicide Caucus Lives:
These eighty members represent just eighteen per cent of the House and just a third of the two hundred and thirty-three House Republicans. They were elected with fourteen and a half million of the hundred and eighteen million votes cast in House elections last November, or twelve per cent of the total. In all, they represent fifty-eight million constituents. That may sound like a lot, but it’s just eighteen per cent of the population.
We are facing ruin based on the infantile whims of a tiny fraction of the population. The nation has metaphorically stubbed its toe, and is cursing and flailing about in pain as if every vital organ was stabbed.
posted by Rhomboid at 1:33 PM on October 15, 2013 [5 favorites]


In all seriousness, all the of the links I can find to surviving in a time of economic default revolve around "this wouldn't be happening if the Democrats would just budge an inch towards the Republicans very reasonable requests" sites. We're making a lot of zombie apocalypse references here and elsewhere, and I recognize that we really have no idea what a default might look like, but is there stuff any of us should do to prepare just in case? I'd rather be ready for Thunderdome and not need to be ready then tied to the wheel, as it were.
posted by Joey Michaels at 1:33 PM on October 15, 2013


In event of societal breakdown:

1) Find your nearest Mormon neighbor
2) Steal their emergency provisions (they'll have a lot)
3) Leave the Postum -- you won't want that
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 1:37 PM on October 15, 2013 [6 favorites]


Oct 14th House floor activities:
...
7:04:56 P.M. H.J. Res. 80 An amendment, offered by Mr. Grayson, to strike the title of H.J. Res. 80 and insert the following "Making continuing appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Bureau of Indian Education, and the Indian Health Service for fiscal year 2014, and for other purposes, although we prefer - and would support - a comprehensive, clean continuing resolution to end the government shutdown."
posted by ctmf at 1:38 PM on October 15, 2013 [3 favorites]


So by "smack down" you really meant "yell at them before they do anything"?

Sorry I didn't come up with a comprehensive political strategy in my comment on MeFi. I can see you were reacting to my use of "smack down". Pity. Not my point.

I still want to know if Obama is just reduced to waiting at this point. If so, how can that not be something they'd want to think through "next time"? I mean, they presumably decided after they were snookered with the sequester that they wouldn't be blackmailed again. And this is what they came up with? Rope-a-dope? Well... hope it works.

And, FWIW, I know the Green Lantern theory very well. I think I first saw it on TPM years ago. Don't remember who came up with it. I don't dig it, because it's usually trotted out to shut up any criticism of the Dem establishment from the left, by self-styled "pragmatists" who know how things "really work". Sort of like shouting "Godwin" at anyone who opines that we might be trending fascist. It's not that I don't think the GL theory has a point, it's just that it should only be applied to people who think there's some Presidential deus ex machina that could save the day (like, at this very moment). But it doesn't really apply to people asking "How did the Obama administration come to this? And how might it have been avoided?" I get it: many of you think there's nothing he could have done, "because he didn't have the votes". I'm just not buying it. Agree to disagree, I guess.
posted by mondo dentro at 1:39 PM on October 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


I get it: many of you think there's nothing he could have done, "because he didn't have the votes". I'm just not buying it. Agree to disagree, I guess.

What could he have done, seeing as he didn't have the votes?
posted by Ironmouth at 1:41 PM on October 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


I'm going to go buy a machete, some nylon cording, and some dehydrated food. For my weekend camping trip. My dependence on warfarin tends to reign in my fantasies about surviving in the Libertarian Afterscape.
posted by Humanzee at 1:41 PM on October 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


Orange is the new yellow.
posted by newdaddy at 1:44 PM on October 15, 2013 [6 favorites]


It's been linked to earlier in this thread, but I think it's worth pointing out that Robert Costa's twitter feed is putting out some damn interesting information on the inside baseball going on between Boehner and the other House Republicans. It's tough to determine the overall sentiment of the House, but the individually leaked comments are fascinating.
posted by notpace at 1:46 PM on October 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


It amazes me how people who preach "pragmatism" don't think advertising and messaging works, even though we spend billions on it every election cycle.

There's a fair argument to make that upon election Obama woefully underestimated the strength of Republican resistance. And there's another fair argument to make that the Administration really dropped the ball on messaging that first "Tea Party" spring. Both of those things are true, I think. And six years in, a lot of other criticisms can be made as well.

All of that's different from blaming him for not "smack[ing] down the political disease that is now in full bloom" whatever that means. I mean, you want him to have accomplished what? The disappearance of the right? The neutralization of the GOP? What? I honestly can't tell.

I still want to know if Obama is just reduced to waiting at this point.

I assume he isn't twiddling his thumbs. That said, this is a job that belongs to Congress.
posted by octobersurprise at 1:46 PM on October 15, 2013 [7 favorites]


...and seconds after I posted that, the House bill appears on his feed
posted by notpace at 1:48 PM on October 15, 2013


Fitch just placed the U.S. on rating watch negative. "Political brinkmanship and reduced financing flexibility could increase the risk of a U.S. default."
posted by malocchio at 1:50 PM on October 15, 2013 [2 favorites]


Joey Michaels: "We're making a lot of zombie apocalypse references here and elsewhere, and I recognize that we really have no idea what a default might look like, but is there stuff any of us should do to prepare just in case?"

Divest your 401k from stocks. Move into cash and/or long-term Treasury Bills (T-Bills).

Extreme outcome #1: Boehner grows a pair, introduces a bill to save government, and the market responds by bouncing up 2%. You move back into the market that day, missing a 2% bounce.

Extreme outcome, the other direction: Markets worldiwde falter 5-10% over the next week, and continue to drop after this DESPITE Boehner coming to his senses and passing a clean CR, creating Great Recession 2.0. Your 401k money is relatively safe, although your job and mortgaged house aren't. Then MOVE BACK INTO STOCKS after the market seems to have bottomed out (say, one month bouncing around the same levels, or recovered 20% of the depth of the Recession), or else moving into cash will only have half its benefit.
posted by IAmBroom at 1:51 PM on October 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


It's been linked to earlier in this thread, but I think it's worth pointing out that Robert Costa's twitter feed is putting out some damn interesting information on the inside baseball going on between Boehner and the other House Republicans.

Seems to me like the House GOP leadership is getting ready to cave on the Senate deal (modified for clarity and flow):
Download from top R[epublican]: "If this bill passes tonight, we say, Harry, your call, protect Congress or be fair to American people and end this...and if it doesn't pass, well, we say to our guys, that's it, we failed to unite and have to deal with consequences."

The informal whip process has an edge to it, per member who just sat down with leadership...There is a sense that if Boehner loses here, and you embarrass him [because] you want [to take a] big stand on defund, conf[erence] unity will quickly break down. We want to win here, now, tonight, instead of having to call another conf[erence] and endure [the] Sen deal, whatever that is. Boehner hasn't been officially whipping, but that's not [the point, which is] he's been changing bill all day to get to 218, pushing for passage.
I doubt that Boehner can keep 18+ of the crazies after removing everything but the Vitter language, and I hope I'm right.
posted by zombieflanders at 1:53 PM on October 15, 2013 [2 favorites]


I still want to know if Obama is just reduced to waiting at this point. If so, how can that not be something they'd want to think through "next time"? I mean, they presumably decided after they were snookered with the sequester that they wouldn't be blackmailed again. And this is what they came up with? Rope-a-dope? Well... hope it works.

Huh? What is Obama going to do? change the president to the legislative branch by fiat?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 1:54 PM on October 15, 2013 [8 favorites]


Moving into T-Bills when the point of your concern is a possible default is, like, the opposite?
posted by Justinian at 1:54 PM on October 15, 2013 [2 favorites]


Justinian: "Moving into T-Bills when the point of your concern is a possible default is, like, the opposite?"

Long-term T-bills (20-year). I might be wrong, but I assume they won't be endangered unless the US defaults for years to come.

Anyway, I'm in cash.
posted by IAmBroom at 1:57 PM on October 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


octobersurprise: " I mean, you want him to have accomplished what? The disappearance of the right? The neutralization of the GOP? "

eponysterical. also. we're dealing with an october surprise from the right, no?
posted by symbioid at 1:57 PM on October 15, 2013


Above I explained how the government pays its bills, how it issues debt, and why the 14th Amendment is problematic as a solution to the debt ceiling.

Here I'll talk about how the government prints currency, mints coins and how this relates to the "platinum coin" solution to the debt ceiling.

The first thing to realize is that regardless of all the talk about printing money, it does absolutely nothing to help the government pay its bills and does absolutely nothing to change the actual supply of money in the economy. The Treasury could print trillions of dollar bills and it would change nothing.

When the U.S. Treasury prints bills, it ships them off to the Federal Reserve Banks and they just put them in their vaults where they sit. The Federal Reserve does not pay the Treasury for the bills and the bills do not increase the size of the Treasury's checking account. The bills are just chits that are traded one-for-one for other money. When your local bank needs more twenties to stock their ATMs, they have to buy them from the Federal Reserve. When the Feds send a million dollars in bills to a local bank, they debit exactly one million dollars from that local bank's checking account at the Federal Reserve. So the quantity of money is exactly the same as before. They have simply transformed money sitting in a checking account into currency bills. No new money was created in the process. This is contrary to most of the talk about the government just "printing money." The actually printing of money by the U.S. Treasury has no effect on the economy because the actual supply of money is not changed. For every dollar bill sent to a local bank, one dollar of credit is removed.

The minting of coins, however, it quite different. Coins are treated as real assets by the Federal Reserve. When the Treasury mints a one dollar coin for 16 cents and sends it to the Federal Reserve, the Feds add one dollar to the checking account of the U.S. Treasury. The U.S. mint has actually created a new dollar out of thin air (minus the 16 cent cost of minting). This is a process called seigniorage and is a routine process that occurs every day of the week and that the government has engaged in since its founding. It is a perfectly legal and everyday activity. Normally the mint only produces enough coins to keep the vending machines full and the jelly jars on your night table full, but there is no law preventing the Treasury from creating more coins.

The Treasury makes a range of coins, from one cent to one dollar. Although the cost of minting the coins is effectively nothing, the Federal Reserve is required by law to credit the U.S. Treasury for the full face value of the coin.

Here is where the platinum coin comes in. The law states "The Secretary may mint and issue platinum bullion coins and proof platinum coins in accordance with such specifications, designs, varieties, quantities, denominations, and inscriptions as the Secretary, in the Secretary’s discretion, may prescribe from time to time."

The Treasury can mint platinum coins of any denomination desired by the Secretary of the Treasury. One dollar, 100 dollars, yes even one trillion dollars. This is not traditional, but tradition does not trump the law. So the Treasury mints a coin with a one trillion dollar face value. It gives the coin to the Federal Reserve and Federal Reserve simply changes a few digits in the Treasury's checking account, crediting it with one trillion new dollars. This allows the Treasury to continue to write checks and pay all of its bills tomorrow, just like it did yesterday and the day before.

When Congress realizes that its hostage just escaped and passes a new debt limit, the Treasury simply issues new bonds just like always and uses the money received for the bonds to buy back the trillion dollar coin from the Fed and melts it down. When the Fed redeems the coin, it debits the Treasury checking account for the trillion dollars it previous put in there and everything is back to normal. The trillion dollars that was temporarily created electronically is destroyed just as easily electronically.

There have been some objections that the Federal Reserve might refuse to accept the coin. The Fed has hinted as such, but that may be just public relations to calm speculation. Unlike the 14th Amendment work around, which really does have questionable legality and gives the Federal Reserve grounds not to cooperate, the platinum coin does not. The Fed would be violating the law if it refused to accept the coin.

The beauty of this method of circumventing the debt ceiling is first, that it is perfectly legal and perfectly routine. Seigniorage occurs every day. Secondly, it doesn't rattle the financial markets since they are not even involved. It is just a matter of the Federal Reserve adjusting some digits in the Treasury's electronic checking account. It doesn't require printing bonds of questionable legality. It doesn't require the bond market to price and buy questionable bonds at auction. It doesn't require the Fed to do anything that it doesn't do every day. The Treasury simply is able to keep writing checks as always. Financial markets are not even involved. Life goes on as usual. Of course there might be a political outcry, but what else is new. No law was broken.
posted by JackFlash at 1:57 PM on October 15, 2013 [19 favorites]


Moving into T-Bills when the point of your concern is a possible default is, like, the opposite?

Presumably, the worry right now is about short-term T-bills, not long-term T-bills.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 1:57 PM on October 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


Long-term T-bills (20-year). I might be wrong, but I assume they won't be endangered unless the US defaults for years to come.

And if that's the case, then we'd have bigger problems I suppose
posted by Think_Long at 1:58 PM on October 15, 2013


is there stuff any of us should do to prepare just in case?

IANAEcon, but this seems like sound speculation on what a default will look like.
posted by octobersurprise at 1:58 PM on October 15, 2013 [3 favorites]


I agree, but I'm still not sure even a long term T-Bill is a better bet than cash if you're worried about a possible default. It's not like it would cause interest rates to go down on longer stuff.

But I could be wrong.

In any case I wish I'd gone cash last week. As it is I guess I'm all-in on the crazy stock train. If you don't hear from me again I jumped off a building after the market crashes. GO TEAM.
posted by Justinian at 2:00 PM on October 15, 2013


I can't imagine doing the shutdown thing again in December, and the debt ceiling thing again in early Feb. Why would anybody on either side of Congress want that?

Mr. Grover Norquist was at one point advocating doling out CRs on two or four week intervals, as a means of negotiating spending reductions. Anybody with an ounce of sense has to see now what a losing proposition that is.
posted by newdaddy at 2:00 PM on October 15, 2013


NYSE took nearly two months from the initial 11% crash on September 18, 1929 to reach a bottom in November. I wonder how quickly we'll reach a bottom?
posted by infinitewindow at 2:08 PM on October 15, 2013


The only thing that's consistently stated to be a silver lining for the Republicans right now is that a year is a long time in politics, and their numbers might be more favorable by election time if the electorate's memory fades a bit. It is really dumb to make that window smaller by a series of these debt limit crises, unless they really think they can get the Tea Party under control by February and pass a debt limit raise with no problems to prove they can be adults, which I seriously doubt.
posted by jason_steakums at 2:08 PM on October 15, 2013 [2 favorites]


All of that's different from blaming him for not "smack[ing] down the political disease that is now in full bloom" whatever that means.

Well, primarily that means I wrote some awfully purple prose... Color me embarrassed.

What I meant... I've already alluded to elsewhere in this thread, like here and here.

The "left ultras" [sic] and the "pragmatists" talk past each other because they're focusing on different things: the ultra lefties focus on what could be, the pragmatists on what is. Or, put another way, the ultra lefties want to talk about grand strategy, vision, messaging; the pragmatists about legislation, whipping and vote counting. These are clearly both both important, but for some reason, we all seem to settle on one more than the other. The problem is, they are both in themselves inadequate.
posted by mondo dentro at 2:08 PM on October 15, 2013 [3 favorites]


Huh? What is Obama going to do? change the president to the legislative branch by fiat?

Oh come on! It's metonymy: "Obama" refers to not just the POTUS, now does it? Obama administration? Is that better? Or Obama and the Dem leadership?
posted by mondo dentro at 2:14 PM on October 15, 2013


At least some things are stable. On the eve of a historic default, Fox News has ressurrected the old boogeyman of Acorn as their lead story.
posted by Theta States at 2:15 PM on October 15, 2013


I hear you mondo, but on this specific occasion it's nothing to do with a grand progressive vision getting railroaded by a weak strategy. This is one of the few occasions when we've seen the democratic party, from left to right, actually unified in their approach.
posted by Think_Long at 2:15 PM on October 15, 2013 [4 favorites]


Thank you for that link, octobersurprise. It both allays some of my fears and raises some of them.
posted by Joey Michaels at 2:15 PM on October 15, 2013


Oh I should have divined what you really meant rather than what you wrote. My bad.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 2:15 PM on October 15, 2013 [6 favorites]


Can the Fed Legally Refuse to Accept the Trillion Dollar Coin?

(Just following up on JackFlash's nice post above.) The author argues that the answer is "no." My worry, though, is that if the Fed actually refused -- even if its refusal was in fact illegal -- the result would be a court battle to determine that the refusal was illegal. And that court battle, I think, would be just as bad as or nearly as bad as the default it was supposed to avoid. Seeing this, I would have minted and deposited the coin a long time ago to get the court test out of the way well before default threatened, but then I suppose that if the court test failed, the House would impeach, so I can see why one might not be excited to test the waters.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 2:16 PM on October 15, 2013


I can't imagine doing the shutdown thing again in December, and the debt ceiling thing again in early Feb. Why would anybody on either side of Congress want that?

Well not Dec, but I think that both sides may want to avoid the automatic triggering of Sequestration Round 2 that kick in in February, right? Those are supposed to be brutal, not just to Dem interests but the military too. So both sides may want the opportunity to negotiate a budget.

Well, except for the drown-it-in-the-bathtub crowd.
posted by madamjujujive at 2:19 PM on October 15, 2013


Haha, @robertcostaNRO: RT @McCormackJohn House GOP source: Income verification not in bill "because because Senate was demanding union bailout in return."

House GOP: "Crap! Turns out 'negotiation' doesn't actually mean 'we get everything and they get nothing!' That's the last time we use a Texas Board of Education approved dictionary, Cruz."
posted by jason_steakums at 2:19 PM on October 15, 2013 [12 favorites]


It's absolutely ludicrous to blame any of this on a lack of leadership on Obama's part.

I assume you are familiar with the concept of enabler?

Obama's mistake was way back in 2010, when after passing a very inadequate stimulus bill, he wiped his hands and said "My work here is done. I see green shoots and now it is time to turn to deficit reduction." He consciously tried to change the agenda from figuring out how to put 20 million unemployed back to work to a Republican agenda of spending cuts. He cannot be forgiven for this monumental policy blunder. Recall that it was Obama's idea to create the Simpson-Bowles Commission and its obsession with the debt. Most of his current problems derive from that mistake of adopting a Republican economic agenda of deficit reduction.
posted by JackFlash at 2:22 PM on October 15, 2013 [14 favorites]


Is the Fed run by teabaggers? If not, I would hope that if we actually got down to trillion dollar coin vs. global economic meltdown, they'd not be inclined to throw a hissyfit.
posted by emjaybee at 2:23 PM on October 15, 2013


Costa's twitter feed is definitely making it seem like the House GOP is close to caving. The fact that Heritage Action is already calling for No votes on the new bill has to be a good sign.
posted by burnmp3s at 2:34 PM on October 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


Can the Fed Legally Refuse to Accept the Trillion Dollar Coin? My worry, though, is that if the Fed actually refused -- even if its refusal was in fact illegal -- the result would be a court battle to determine that the refusal was illegal.

The Treasury Secretary wouldn't do this out of the blue. It would first have a private, background discussion with Ben Bernanke at the Fed. Unlike the Teahadists, Bernanke is not a crazy person. If he believed that the platinum coin was preferable to a second Lehman meltdown as his legacy, I assume he would be persuaded to go along. He would simply be complying with the law if he did so.
posted by JackFlash at 2:35 PM on October 15, 2013


Folks. I said it a few days ago. I'm on the ground here in DC. The default is happening. Get used to it.
posted by Ghost Mode at 2:37 PM on October 15, 2013 [3 favorites]


Yes, "Obama" can refer to things other than himself personally. But in the context of lengthy political threads it's confusing to do that, given how frequently people assert that the President specifically, in some personal capacity, should effect change (by way of some unspecified mechanism).

Point taken. I'll try my best to achieve total clarity. But we're somewhat limited by the form, dontcha think? I'd add, too, that those whose filters immediately classify all criticisms of Obama (and his administration, yadda yadda) as exemplifying the Green Lantern Theory of Politics (It's a real thing! I saw it on the internet!) are very much inclined to make such narrow (mis)interpretations.
posted by mondo dentro at 2:39 PM on October 15, 2013


Folks. I said it a few days ago. I'm on the ground here in DC. The default is happening. Get used to it.

Yeah, but then again you said that without elaborating at all. So, forgive us if we're looking to other news sources.
posted by craven_morhead at 2:45 PM on October 15, 2013 [14 favorites]


GhostMode can you tell us more about what leads you to this conclusion?
posted by newdaddy at 2:45 PM on October 15, 2013 [7 favorites]


"Folks. I said it a few days ago. I'm on the ground here in DC. The default is happening. Get used to it."

What odds are you giving? I may take that bet out of patriotic optimism.
posted by klangklangston at 2:46 PM on October 15, 2013


The default is happening. Get used to it.
Ghost Mode, can you tell us a bit more about why/how you're so sure? JoeXIII007 asked the same question back when you first told us this, and then the conversation got sidetracked. But now, is there any additional info you can give us...? Man, I would really appreciate anything that might help shed some light on this murky process.
posted by GrammarMoses at 2:46 PM on October 15, 2013 [6 favorites]


I'm on the ground here in DC. The default is happening. Get used to it.

I was feeling pretty positive that it would all get worked out after the news that the Senate was sorting things out. Then today at 11 am I was walking right here and there was a Fox News van parking on the curb and a correspondent pre-recording a segment with the Capitol in the background. I was only close enough to hear her say the words "...However the House..." and I lost all hope.
posted by peeedro at 2:48 PM on October 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


It's absolutely ludicrous to blame any of this on a lack of leadership on Obama's part.

I assume you are familiar with the concept of enabler?

Obama's mistake was way back in 2010, when after passing a very inadequate stimulus bill, he wiped his hands and said "My work here is done. I see green shoots and now it is time to turn to deficit reduction." He consciously tried to change the agenda from figuring out how to put 20 million unemployed back to work to a Republican agenda of spending cuts. He cannot be forgiven for this monumental policy blunder. Recall that it was Obama's idea to create the Simpson-Bowles Commission and its obsession with the debt. Most of his current problems derive from that mistake of adopting a Republican economic agenda of deficit reduction.


Where were the votes to pass a better stimulus? Where were the votes to do more? The Dems had a 60-vote majority between July 7, 2009-August 25, 2009, Sept. 25, 2009-Feb 3, 2009. Not a lot of time there.
posted by Ironmouth at 2:53 PM on October 15, 2013 [2 favorites]


I don't blame you for your pessimism, Ghost Mode, but you're coming off a little like Jack Benny's race track tout: "Hey, bud. C'mere a minute..."
posted by Atom Eyes at 2:54 PM on October 15, 2013


Folks. I said it a few days ago. I'm on the ground here in DC. The default is happening. Get used to it.

My source, a very senior Senate Dem staffer with 20+ years in Congress says otherwise.
posted by Ironmouth at 2:54 PM on October 15, 2013 [9 favorites]


Folks. I said it a few days ago. I'm on the ground here in DC. The default is happening. Get used to it.

Internet commenter on the ground; certain of default.
posted by octobersurprise at 2:55 PM on October 15, 2013 [19 favorites]


@robertcostaNRO: Staffer who's familiar w/ internal GOP whip count: "They know that it is f*****d."

And so now it hinges on the Senate. Assuming Cruz or whoever doesn't filibuster (giving 50/50 odds on this one for now), the Senate bill gets fast-tracked and sent to the House, where Boehner chooses between his made-up rule that he blames on Denny Hastert and another Great Depression. Given that Costa's previous reporting basically says that the leadership frees those who are neither crazy nor abject cowards to vote for it, this is relatively good news.
posted by zombieflanders at 2:57 PM on October 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


If this goes through, double bonus: McConnell will be fucking enraged that Boehner's spinelessness forced him to be the conduit for surrender during his election year with a rabid primary opponent and capable and tenacious Democrat awaiting him in the general. Whatever enmity Mitch the Turtle has for Harry Reid--and by inside accounts, it's a fuckton--will be obliterated by the white-hot anger he will have for Boehner. And it will be glorious.
posted by zombieflanders at 3:02 PM on October 15, 2013 [13 favorites]


I am also on the ground in DC and not convinced we'll default. So there's that.

(yes I am aware of my other contribution to this thread. I panic easily.)
posted by troika at 3:05 PM on October 15, 2013


My bartender told me this is going to happen and that Obama is going to use this an excuse to round up all the Tea Party patriots and put them into FEMA camps. I might need to get a new bartender.
posted by entropicamericana at 3:07 PM on October 15, 2013 [20 favorites]


Costa: Confirmed: tonight's vote is dead
posted by Rhaomi at 3:07 PM on October 15, 2013


I might need to get a new bartender.

He sure knows how to sell liquor, though.
posted by Quonab at 3:09 PM on October 15, 2013 [7 favorites]


My bartender told me this is going to happen and that Obama is going to use this an excuse to round up all the Tea Party patriots and put them into FEMA camps.

But did he see this as being a good or bad thing?
posted by mazola at 3:10 PM on October 15, 2013 [4 favorites]


The framework of the Senate deal, negotiated by Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and McConnell, is nearly complete and awaiting a handshake. It would lift and debt ceiling through Feb. 7 and re-open and fund the federal government through Jan. 15, along with making some relatively noncontroversial changes to Obamacare

So what are these noncontroversial changes? This is basically the only bill that avoids default at this point, right?
posted by heathkit at 3:10 PM on October 15, 2013


He sure knows how to sell liquor, though.

I know, I would totally buy Obama a drink if he did that!
posted by entropicamericana at 3:10 PM on October 15, 2013 [4 favorites]


My bartender just keeps throwing underwear at me and saying "you can't drink here, this is a laundromat, I'm calling the police" but otherwise he seems bullish on a resolution.
posted by cortex at 3:14 PM on October 15, 2013 [50 favorites]


Have I said lately living in a district that overwhelmingly votes for the mendacious handpicked successor to the last mendacious asshole we had representing this district? I hate it. His "Legislative Agenda" e-mail is the height of stupidity and I told him so. He never listens because he knows I'd never vote for him under any circumstances.
posted by ob1quixote at 3:18 PM on October 15, 2013


@TheReidReport
Basically the Kochs, who financed the tea party, and Jim Demint who sicked it on the GOP, are engaged in a hostile takeover of the US.

posted by madamjujujive at 3:19 PM on October 15, 2013 [4 favorites]


Ironmouth: Where were the votes to pass a better stimulus? Where were the votes to do more?

I'm not talking about votes. I'm talking about his public agenda, his speeches. Just because you are having difficulty pushing your own agenda, you don't just give up and adopt your opponents agenda.

Deficit reduction and entitlement reform are two phrases that never should have passed his lips as long as 20 million people remained out of work. Instead, he adopted those Republican objectives wholeheartedly in every speech. They become the cornerstone of his new agenda after "seeing green shoots."

The imfamous and destructive Simpson-Bowles Commission did not require one single vote. Obama created that all by himself as an executive decision.
posted by JackFlash at 3:20 PM on October 15, 2013 [3 favorites]


five fresh fish: "So… where is the opportunity here?"

Straddle options on the market.

One month from now, the only place I don't expect to see the S&P500 is at S&P500(Oct 15, 2013).
posted by IAmBroom at 3:21 PM on October 15, 2013 [3 favorites]


Ghost Mode: here's the deal - I have read This Time is Different, and I understand that we (the US) are kind of a curious case of a nation that hasn't defaulted in its history. Thus it wouldn't surprise me if we did... finally.

But, I am about to make an evening run to Kroger and Meijer to stock up on Peanuts, trail mixes of different varieties, perhaps some hard fruit and veggies, and maybe some canned and dried goods. I'm not going to play with this default/no default/recession stuff. It's probably going to be serious if it does happen. I hope to still have my job which is dependent on the availability of Federal employees.

So if you're making a claim that this is going to happen, back it up with cited sources so that I feel sane when I shell out $200 or more to stock up on food. Otherwise, admit here you're trolling and have a great night.
posted by JoeXIII007 at 3:23 PM on October 15, 2013 [4 favorites]


I'm surprised no one's posted an AskMe about reasonable measures to take in case things take a turn for the worst. (I would, if not for a very important MP3 question I just had to ask the other day after months without asking anything.)
posted by Rhaomi at 3:26 PM on October 15, 2013 [2 favorites]


Step One: If you have a job, donate money to food banks. The first people to be hit really hard are going to be retirees and disabled people depending on Social Security payments.
posted by mittens at 3:28 PM on October 15, 2013 [8 favorites]


ronmouth: Where were the votes to pass a better stimulus? Where were the votes to do more?

I'm not talking about votes. I'm talking about his public agenda, his speeches. Just because you are having difficulty pushing your own agenda, you don't just give up and adopt your opponents agenda.

Deficit reduction and entitlement reform are two phrases that never should have passed his lips as long as 20 million people remained out of work. Instead, he adopted those Republican objectives wholeheartedly in every speech. They become the cornerstone of his new agenda after "seeing green shoots."

The imfamous and destructive Simpson-Bowles Commission did not require one single vote. Obama created that all by himself as an executive decision.


What, exactly, was the downside? If he doesn't have the votes to pass another stimulus and can use the ridiculous focus on the deficit to pass a permanent tax increase on the highest earners, its win-win, no?
posted by Ironmouth at 3:30 PM on October 15, 2013




How cute that someone here believes that the Republican agenda right now is deficit or debt reduction.
posted by raysmj at 3:31 PM on October 15, 2013 [2 favorites]


The problem is Boehner, and the so called "moderate" republicans who desperately want to avoid this but won't buck the Speaker. He won't push a bill through that stabs the majority of his party in the back, and the majority of his party will not play ball, period, end of statement.

So, he has to choose how he's fucked.

1) He says "fuck you tea party", brings a clean bill. It passes. The Dems then own the house because the only way he remains Speaker and the only way he can drive legislation is with Democratic votes. He basically becomes the ultimate quisling, and he's thrown out of the House next term, if he's not actually assassinated before then.

2) He says "fuck you Obama" and doesn't and the US defaults and everybody loses.

3) He says "fuck you and fuck me" and kills himself. I'm not sure how that ends up, but it's probably the best ending *he* gets.

Right now, the Senate probably can't push a bill through on time unless somebody does something quite illegal to Ted Cruz. If the bill comes from the House, it can be handled as privileged business, if it doesn't, Cruz will basically procedure it to death -- it'll take at least a week, if not more, to pass.

My thought? There will be no deal. We're well and truly fucked.
posted by eriko at 3:32 PM on October 15, 2013 [3 favorites]


So, Ghost Mode, are you going to elaborate or not? Or is the point to get our attention and then go away? I don't understand that, if so.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:32 PM on October 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


If I was on a Republican Congressperson's staff right now (particularly David Vitter) I would be fucking them over so hard right now. I mean, come on, we know about Vitter and the diapers, what other dirt do they have on this guy? Or any Republican? And why don't we know about it yet?
posted by fungible at 3:32 PM on October 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


Since nobody really knows what will happen if we default, I'm not sure how we could prepare for it. Things will either be okay or they won't. If they won't and if you're not ready now, I doubt you could really prepare in time.
posted by entropicamericana at 3:36 PM on October 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


@jonathanalter
I love how America's First John, Sen. David Vitter, is leading charge to penalize his staff, fed workers. Nothing like a good screwin'.
posted by madamjujujive at 3:38 PM on October 15, 2013


For all the people asking for investment advice: trying to time the market is a sucker's game. The only reason to sell or make big moves right now would be if you need cash in the next few months, IMO. Otherwise just ride it out. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the fundamentals of the US economy, so as long as you are invested in stocks, you should be fine in the long term.
posted by empath at 3:41 PM on October 15, 2013 [5 favorites]


Can somebody text me when it's time to crack each other's heads open and feast on the goo inside? Thanks!
posted by Atom Eyes at 3:41 PM on October 15, 2013 [10 favorites]


8:00 p.m. – Stock market futures are rallying on news of the deal that will ensure that bondholders get paid. But the worst is far from over. Foreign investors have already lost confidence in U.S. fiscal stability, and many large asset managers remain concerned about holding Treasury bonds. In addition, the software patches applied to Fedwire and other processing systems to make them default-compatible now need to be reversed. And in February, the whole process starts anew. Already, Ted Cruz has appeared on Fox News, where he promised to make next year's debt fight "even bigger" than this one. "I will not rest until Obamacare, the scourge of our nation, is dead and beyond resuscitation," Cruz says.

9:00 p.m. - Senator Ted Cruz collapses suddenly on the sidewalk outside the Capitol, dead of an apparent heart attack. A man calmly emerges from the gathered crowd and strolls away shaking his head, stopping briefly to drop his umbrella and gloves in a trash can.
posted by quonsar II: smock fishpants and the temple of foon at 3:43 PM on October 15, 2013 [2 favorites]


Cruz will basically procedure it to death -- it'll take at least a week, if not more, to pass.

1) Cruz is already publicly waffling on this. I feel like someone dedicated to doing it would have already stated it as a certainty. That's not to say he won't, but like I said above, I don't think it's the certainty you make it seem like.

2) The best he can hope for is going a day past, not a week:
If Cruz is truly determined to block or delay any deal that does not touch Obamacare, here’s how he’d do it: The hypothetical Reid/McConnell bill would probably be introduced as an amendment to the “clean” debt-ceiling raise that Democrats introduced—and Republicans defeated—last week. Reid voted against cloture on the motion to proceed to that bill, a procedural tactic that allows him to reconsider the bill later on. Let’s say he does so by 5 p.m. Monday. There would need to be a cloture vote on the motion to proceed. Cruz would dissent, but he wouldn’t be able to round up 41 votes for a filibuster.

That wouldn’t be his only weapon, however. The real killer is that Senate rules stipulate there must be 30 hours of post-cloture debate, unless senators agree unanimously to waive it. Reid and McConnell would want unanimous consent to move quickly, but Cruz could refuse, thereby forcing 30 hours of debate. This would drag things out until Tuesday at 11:30 p.m. Then there would be a vote on the motion to proceed (requiring a simple majority), followed by an intervening day, assuming Cruz withheld his consent to vote earlier. So now we’re looking at a Thursday cloture vote on the bill itself, followed by another 30 hours of post-cloture debate that would blow right past the Treasury deadline. Finally, sometime on Friday, there would be a vote on the bill and on the amendment to swap in Reid/McConnell.
Technically speaking, actual default probably wouldn't happen within that 60 hours+roll call votes, but politically speaking, we'll have already taken the hit with the world.
posted by zombieflanders at 3:43 PM on October 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


The best he can hope for is going a day past, not a week:

I was going off this, which quotes a McConnell spokesman as saying a House bill saves them about five days over a Senate bill -- and given that we're now at Tuesday, we're looking at Sunday-Monday minimum, and we still have no idea if such a bill would even get a vote in the House, since Boehner controls the calendar there.

And, it looks like various Tea Party funding groups are in play to make sure certain spines remain stiff. So, I expect Cruz's waffle has been fixed.
posted by eriko at 3:52 PM on October 15, 2013


trying to time the market is a sucker's game.

I pretty much agree. The thing is, there are trillions of dollars out there looking for a place to go, so if it were that obvious that the US was going to default and the market was going to crash, VIX should be higher, short interest should be higher, and the market should already be crashing. It is very strange that this is not happening considering what is coming out of DC. It seems that Wall Street doesn't believe there will be a crash? I guess VIX did go up a bit today ...
posted by Golden Eternity at 3:55 PM on October 15, 2013


Let's say that you wake up in Barack Obama's body right now. What, specifically, do you do.

Call an international press conference and do the Ed Lover dance in front of the cameras for 20 minutes on top of the Resolute desk, then go out to dinner with Beyonce and Jay Z and Michelle.
posted by elizardbits at 3:55 PM on October 15, 2013 [9 favorites]


I am literally exhausted from this goddamn day. Was going to hit the gym after work, but now I'm going home to drink.

It's so weird having almost diametrically opposed reactions to government power within a month.

A month ago: The NSA and military/industrial complex is slowly turning US into a full blown surveillance state through incredible cleverness and planning.

Now: The government is never going to re-open and the entire economy is going to crash because our collective "crazy uncle" hates black people and listens to too much AM radio.

Just fuck it all....
posted by lattiboy at 3:57 PM on October 15, 2013 [27 favorites]


It's so weird having almost diametrically opposed reactions to government power within a month.

A month ago: The NSA and military/industrial complex is slowly turning US into a full blown surveillance state through incredible cleverness and planning.

Now: The government is never going to re-open and the entire economy is going to crash because my our collective crazy uncle hates black people and listens to too much AM radio.


Nothing like some political brinkmanship to remind the plebes who's really in charge. This is political theater at its best...real crisis or no.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 4:01 PM on October 15, 2013


Now that I think about it, if we knew for certain whether or not the default was going to happen, I think the markets and economy would have responded already, for better or worse, and we don't want to play with fire in that way.

So I suppose I'll go shopping after the Tigers win or lose.
posted by JoeXIII007 at 4:07 PM on October 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


I was going off this, which quotes a McConnell spokesman as saying a House bill saves them about five days over a Senate bill -- and given that we're now at Tuesday, we're looking at Sunday-Monday minimum, and we still have no idea if such a bill would even get a vote in the House, since Boehner controls the calendar there.

We'll see. Boehner has repeatedly stated he won't allow default. If he actually means that, and if leadership actually believes they have the 18+ votes to vote with Dems (which they apparently do), then he can bring up the clean bill any time in the next 28 hours and we'll be free of this mess. This is all on him now.
posted by zombieflanders at 4:11 PM on October 15, 2013


I fear that frustration will soon give way to violence. God save us from this madness.
posted by humanfont at 4:20 PM on October 15, 2013 [4 favorites]


Dean Baker is blogging about some positive effects that would result from a possible default:

If the Dollar Stopped Being the Preeminent Reserve Currency It Would Mean More Jobs and Growth

If China Moves Away from Holding Dollars Then It Will be Doing What Bush-Obama Requested

(Although, who knows if those positive effects would outweigh the negative ones...)
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 4:27 PM on October 15, 2013


@robertcostaNRO: Jim Jordan on CNBC just now: conservative Republicans "won't support" a clean DL/CR, should Boehner bring up

Comments like this make me hopeful that Boehner bringing the Senate bill up for vote is really in the cards. No real reason for Jordan to say that otherwise.
posted by jason_steakums at 4:32 PM on October 15, 2013


While I love Dean Baker, I'm not sure I buy his argument that as imports decrease, we would make up the slack in domestic manufacturing. It seems more likely that consumption would decrease too, causing more rounds of firings.
posted by mittens at 4:34 PM on October 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


I never thought I'd say this, but I wish Peter King wasn't being so quiet right now, being the most outspoken and (yeah, gotta give it to him) ballsy of the non-Tea Party reps this past week. Though I was amused to see his Twitter header when I was checking for updates, with Lil' Pete King growing out of a window in Big Pete's forehead.
posted by jason_steakums at 4:39 PM on October 15, 2013 [3 favorites]


Doesn't the House rule change mean that the clean CR bill could/has to be brought up by Cantor?
posted by Benny Andajetz at 4:39 PM on October 15, 2013


I wish people would shut up about "Oh, but if Obama does that the House will impeach him!!" So? The Senate will just vote not guilty.
posted by eriko at 4:45 PM on October 15, 2013


Let's say that you wake up in Barack Obama's body right now. What, specifically, do you do.

Extraordinary renditions. We could call it "Operation Black Teabag."
posted by homunculus at 4:45 PM on October 15, 2013 [3 favorites]


"Operation Black Teabag."
No, no. It would be "Operation Earl Grey." With a little bit of lemon.
/Picard joke.
posted by daq at 4:47 PM on October 15, 2013


Oh shit: @robertcostaNRO "Boss heard Boehner will bring [Senate deal] to the floor... House action probably over." --House GOP aide, via e-mail.
posted by jason_steakums at 4:48 PM on October 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


No, no. It would be "Operation Earl Grey."

He's not that old.
posted by mittens at 4:48 PM on October 15, 2013


Bye bye Boehner.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 4:49 PM on October 15, 2013 [2 favorites]


Boss heard Boehner will bring [Senate deal] to the floor

Option 1, then. Wow. Boehner's not willing to destroy the country for the Tea Party.
posted by eriko at 4:49 PM on October 15, 2013


How cute that someone here believes that the Republican agenda right now is deficit or debt reduction.

Its not what they are for. Its what they say they are for. Making it perfect to force them to accept the tax increase. Hard to argue against it if its such a goddamn crisis. And then he turned around and asked for more spending, which he'll get, because the GOP will trade military spending for domestic spending.
posted by Ironmouth at 4:49 PM on October 15, 2013


@robertcostaNRO: Member texts from Cap Hill Club basement, tells me the whole R scene is "depressing... everyone needs a drink after today"

Sorry, no. Y'all can start drinking when your work is done, fuckyouverymuch.
posted by argonauta at 4:50 PM on October 15, 2013 [11 favorites]


It's still just scuttlebutt, but I'm really crossing my fingers Boehner's got the guts to do what's right.
posted by jason_steakums at 4:50 PM on October 15, 2013


Oh shit: @robertcostaNRO "Boss heard Boehner will bring [Senate deal] to the floor... House action probably over." --House GOP aide, via e-mail.

Cantor is the only person who can bring it to the floor under the new rule.
posted by Ironmouth at 4:51 PM on October 15, 2013


Cantor is the only person who can bring it to the floor under the new rule.

Is he the only person, or the only person other than the Speaker? I was never clear on that. Either way, there are ways out: Cantor could back him, Cantor could throw someone to the wolves (even Boehner) as his designee to do it, Boehner could bring up a vote to reverse that resolution.
posted by jason_steakums at 4:54 PM on October 15, 2013




Cantor is the only person who can bring it to the floor under the new rule.

HR 386 was done to prevent *anybody* from forcing a vote on a non-conferenced bill. It can't stop a majority with the Speaker from forcing a vote -- nothing in the House can stop the Speaker with a majority behind them.
posted by eriko at 4:59 PM on October 15, 2013


Cross fingers...
posted by pemberkins at 5:00 PM on October 15, 2013


BREAKING: JOHN BOEHNER FORCED TO CONSUME POTION THAT WILL HIM INTO ERIC CANTOR. "THE TRANSFORMATION WILL BE MOST PAINFUL INDEED," PURRS VIZIER
posted by Sticherbeast at 5:00 PM on October 15, 2013 [25 favorites]


I wish people would shut up about "Oh, but if Obama does that the House will impeach him!!" So? The Senate will just vote not guilty.

If I were Reid,* I wouldn't even let it get that far. I'd just move to dismiss as an obvious partisan witch-hunt. Nothing in the constitution directly lets them do that, but the rules of an impeachment are whatever a majority of the Senate says they are.

Wait, scratch that. If I were Reid and they impeached Obama, I'd require that the House manager/prosecutors appear stark naked, that they speak entirely in pig Latin, and that they do a shot of Tabasco sauce every two minutes. Then I'd get their case dismissed.

*You don't want me to be Reid unless think the blood god really needs and deserves more blood.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 5:00 PM on October 15, 2013 [4 favorites]


I quit smoking a year or so back, but damn I am envious of Boehner's first post-standoff smoke if he does this.
posted by jason_steakums at 5:03 PM on October 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


If I were Reid,* I wouldn't even let it get that far. I'd just move to dismiss as an obvious partisan witch-hunt

Oh, no. It's a trial. You have the power to compel evidence. There are a *ton* of people you should be grilling on the stand. Yes, it's an obvious partisan witch-hunt. The problem with the House impeaching Obama is, of course, they have no idea who the witches and who the hunters would be.

When they impeached Clinton, the GOP had a majority of the Senate, so this wasn't an option. Even better, Roberts would be forced to preside and couldn't preside at SCOTUS. This could drag on for a year or two....hmmm.

GOP, IMPEACH NOW!!!!!!!

I like the Tabasco sauce shot idea, though. That's a keeper.
posted by eriko at 5:07 PM on October 15, 2013


BREAKING: JOHN BOEHNER FORCED TO CONSUME POTION THAT WILL HIM INTO ERIC CANTOR.

"Yay, I'm a llama again!"
posted by elizardbits at 5:09 PM on October 15, 2013 [25 favorites]


Nothing in the constitution directly lets them do that, but the rules of an impeachment are whatever a majority of the Senate says they are.

it's simple

*house brings articles of impeachment to senate floor*

REID - "ok, guys, is the president guilty?"

*nos outnumber yeas by a satisfactory margin*

REID - "well, we've had our trial and he's not guilty - NEXT!"

well, alright, i'm certainly oversimplifying - don't think chief justice roberts would allow it - but let's face it, they might as well do it like this for all the good it's going to do
posted by pyramid termite at 5:12 PM on October 15, 2013


I like the Tabasco sauce shot idea, though. That's a keeper.

Actually, I was just thinking I should cut to the chase and replace the Tabasco with Ipecac. Or maybe any of the "You should be seated on the toilet before you take this" level of laxative. (I think that's Laxative +5, Holy Avenger) Whatever they'd hate more.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 5:13 PM on October 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


"Yay, I'm a llama again!"

WHY DO WE EVEN *HAVE* THAT LEVER????
posted by eriko at 5:14 PM on October 15, 2013 [12 favorites]


Actually, I was just thinking I should cut to the chase and replace the Tabasco with Ipecac. Or maybe any of the "You should be seated on the toilet before you take this" level of laxative. (I think that's Laxative +5, Holy Avenger) Whatever they'd hate more.

That'd be Haribo gummies, apparently.
posted by pemberkins at 5:15 PM on October 15, 2013 [6 favorites]


don't think chief justice roberts would allow it

He wouldn't have a choice. Even with the CJ presiding, his rulings are always subject to review by a majority of the Senate.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 5:15 PM on October 15, 2013


Or maybe any of the "You should be seated on the toilet before you take this" level of laxative. (I think that's Laxative +5, Holy Avenger)

Bowel Disrupter
posted by mikelieman at 5:15 PM on October 15, 2013


his rulings are always subject to review by a majority of the Senate.

That's the way it worked last time, anyway. I'm sure the Senate could vote to let Roberts make unappealable rulings if they wanted to.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 5:17 PM on October 15, 2013


well, alright, i'm certainly oversimplifying - don't think chief justice roberts would allow it

Justice Roberts: "That's not the correct procedure."

Any Senator: "I appeal the Chief Justice's ruling!"

(vote occurs)

Justice Roberts: "Fuck me. That was the correct procedure. I hate you, Senate."

Seriously, this came out last time. The Chief Justice presides, but this is the Senate, any ruling he makes can be overruled by a majority of the Senate. Remember how goofy those gold stripes on the robe looked? Now how goofy are they?
posted by eriko at 5:17 PM on October 15, 2013 [4 favorites]


The idea that impeachment could be seen as a good outcome boggles my mind. In my view, the best outcome normalizes and reinforces as little extremism as possible. Playing games with the rules to score points delegitimizes the whole system.
posted by feloniousmonk at 5:20 PM on October 15, 2013 [5 favorites]


Laxative +5, Holy Avenger

THE LORD COMMANDS YOUR BOWELS BE FREE!
posted by eriko at 5:20 PM on October 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


Sigh. Now I have Paul Robeson in my head singing "Let My Feces Go."

At least it's not Boehner... boehnering.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 5:22 PM on October 15, 2013


the "You should be seated on the toilet before you take this" level of laxative.

Colon Blow and you-u-u-u in the morning
posted by syzygy at 5:23 PM on October 15, 2013


The idea that impeachment could be seen as a good outcome boggles my mind.

Compared to the economic damage of a default on our debts, impeachment means nothing. It's happened twice so far, and changed almost nothing. Conviction in the Senate would be a huge deal, but Impeachment is basically the House throwing a temper tantrum like a two year old and deservers to be treated with the exact same respect.
posted by eriko at 5:23 PM on October 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


Apparently if Cruz or other Tea party senator tries to stop a motion to proceed, the President of the Senate aka Biden can rule his obstruction as out of order as a violation of the public debt clause of the 14th Amendment. A simple majority is all that is needed to enforce that decision.
posted by humanfont at 5:25 PM on October 15, 2013 [4 favorites]


At least it's not Boehner... boehnering.

WHATS YOUR PRICE FOR FLIGHT
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 5:25 PM on October 15, 2013 [14 favorites]


zombieflanders: "@j_strong: "It's all over. We'll take Senate deal." -GOP aide"

Any other evidence or confirmation of this?
posted by InsertNiftyNameHere at 5:25 PM on October 15, 2013 [2 favorites]


Impeachment would be hilarious in some ways but most definitely not-hilarious in others.

Even though the Senate could destroy whatever the House wants to create, it's dangerous to underestimate how chaotic the process would be. It's not a good thing. The majority of Americans aren't even clear what impeachment is, except that they know that it's bad. Most people are probably unaware that you can be impeached for literally no good reason whatsoever, provided that the House is sufficiently angry and unethical (and/or ignorant).
posted by Sticherbeast at 5:25 PM on October 15, 2013


WHATS YOUR PRICE FOR FLIGHT

I've been guilty of being silly here, but there's just no excuse to bring Night Ranger into it.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 5:27 PM on October 15, 2013 [4 favorites]


I really don't believe that we're in a position where the choices are default or impeachment. I continue to believe that there is too much individually and collectively at stake in Congress alone, not to mention in their immediate network of advisors and donors, for a default to take place.
posted by feloniousmonk at 5:29 PM on October 15, 2013


I have to say, this thread's certainly gotten a lot more entertaining recently.
posted by JHarris at 5:41 PM on October 15, 2013 [4 favorites]


...there is too much individually and collectively at stake in Congress alone, not to mention in their immediate network of advisors and donors, for a default to take place.

Well thank goodness for those ten to twenty thousand people who matter.
posted by infinitewindow at 5:42 PM on October 15, 2013 [3 favorites]


Cortex: My bartender just keeps throwing underwear at me and saying "you can't drink here, this is a laundromat, I'm calling the police" but otherwise he seems bullish on a resolution.

What kinda drinking joints you got in Portland? I know it's been a while since I've been there, but dang.
posted by computech_apolloniajames at 5:46 PM on October 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


Any other evidence or confirmation of this?

Such confirmation would be nice, given that the New York Times' home page currently leads off with "Debt Talks in Disarray as House Balks."
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 5:50 PM on October 15, 2013


First, there's this:
It was for that reason McConnell had hoped Boehner could rally his GOP House conference to send a "message" bill to the Senate, that would be harder to block and thus get a vote much more quickly.

Aides said they still hoped Boehner would send a message to the Senate on Wednesday morning to expedite the legislative process. But they also were preparing to use normal procedures, which would allow a single member to delay consideration for 30 hours if he or she wanted.

The aide suggested that an announcement of a formal deal could come as early as Tuesday night.
Then, this:

@brianbeutler: Senate Dem source says Boehner will send over a "clean message" tomorrow, will speed up process should anyone object to a time agreement.
posted by zombieflanders at 5:59 PM on October 15, 2013




Well thank goodness for those ten to twenty thousand people who matter.

I think the number is probably more like several hundred thousand and includes several layers of companies/entities, but either way, it is a sorry state of affairs indeed.
posted by feloniousmonk at 6:06 PM on October 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


FWIW, Robert Costa is on Maddow right now.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:10 PM on October 15, 2013


So, do we celebrate by watching House of Cards or The West Wing?
posted by Going To Maine at 6:11 PM on October 15, 2013


Boehner decided he didn't want to be known as the guy who destroyed the US economy, and it was becoming clear that he was going to be that guy. And he's apparently backed down.

It's going to cost him -- but it should. He never should have bet this hand.
posted by eriko at 6:12 PM on October 15, 2013 [8 favorites]


Veep, definitely.
posted by Lemurrhea at 6:12 PM on October 15, 2013 [3 favorites]


I recommend Dave
posted by wemayfreeze at 6:14 PM on October 15, 2013 [5 favorites]


I'm going to keep on hoarding Fancy Feast until everything is signed, sealed and delivered.
posted by Joey Michaels at 6:14 PM on October 15, 2013 [5 favorites]


So these new developments reinforce the view that there are a handful of reps on the GOP side that are dead committed to forcing default if they don't get what they want. That's what I've been worried about--some small contingent of committed TP true-believers who honestly want to see the government deprived of spending power for the long haul.
posted by saulgoodman at 6:15 PM on October 15, 2013


I recommend Dave

Dave's not here, man.

I'M SORRY ALL THIS TENSION IS MAKING ME A BIT PUNCHY, OKAY?
posted by entropicamericana at 6:33 PM on October 15, 2013


"DANGER POINT!! YOU LEFT THE DEBT CEILING ON!" AND I'M ALL LIKE "DANGER POINT?"
posted by localhuman at 6:37 PM on October 15, 2013 [3 favorites]


"STRIKE ONE, GOP... STRIKE ONE."
posted by infinitewindow at 6:38 PM on October 15, 2013 [2 favorites]


Is Boehner's tear mopper furloughed?
posted by MuppetNavy at 6:41 PM on October 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


Ted Cruz's college roommate tweets.
posted by octobersurprise at 6:43 PM on October 15, 2013 [7 favorites]


I just want to tell you both good luck. We're all counting on you.
posted by Elementary Penguin at 6:48 PM on October 15, 2013 [5 favorites]


SO THIS ONE TIME I'M AT THE CAPITOL BUILDING WITH MY SENATE COLLEAGUE TED CRUZ AND HE'S TEACHING ME HOW TO TROLL THE DEMOCRATS. WE'RE USING A REAL DEBT LIMIT BILL AND HE'S STANDING ABOUT ONE HOUSE DOWN FROM ME. I KEEP AMENDING THE BILL AS HARD AS I CAN BUT I CAN'T PASS IT. TED IS JUST STANDING THERE ACTING ALL SUPERIOR AND GIVING ME INANE ADVICE AND PASSING THE BILL BACK TO ME EACH TIME IT SLIDES OVER TO HIM.

ANYWAY I REMEMBER I GOT ALL FRUSTRATED AND DECIDED THAT THIS WOULD BE IT - I WAS GOING TO PASS THAT FUCKING BILL. SO I WIND BACK AND TAKE MAYBE THE HARDEST VOTE OF MY LIFE. THE BILL PASSES MAGICALLY. UP UNTIL THIS VERY SECOND NEITHER TED OR I REALIZE THAT IF I EVER DID GET THE BILL IN THE SENATE, TED WOULD BE IN SOME TROUBLE.

TIME PRETTY MUCH SLOWED DOWN FOR ME. THE BILL HAS A GOOD TWO HUNDRED DEMOCRATIC VOTES AND IS MAKING A BEE LINE FOR TED'S CONSERVATIVE CREDENTIALS. I REMEMBER SEEING TED'S EYES OPEN UP VERY WIDE, AND I SEEM TO RECALL MYSELF SHOUTING OUT SOME OBVIOUS INSTRUCTIONS ABOUT HOW HE NEEDS TO STEP ASIDE RIGHT NOW.

TED ISN'T VERY BRIGHT, AND IS NOT PAYING ATTENTION TO MY INSTRUCTIONS. I CAN SEE THE GEARS TURNING IN HIS LITTLE BRAIN, AS HE TRIES TO COME UP WITH SOME SORT OF SOLUTION TO THE IMMINENT DANGER HE IS IN. "STEP ASIDE, TED, STEP ASIDE!!" I AM YELLING EARNESTLY.

TED EYES THE BILL ONE LAST TIME AS IT FLIES A BILLION MILES AN HOUR TOWARDS HIS 2016 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN, AND AT THE LAST MINUTE DROPS TO HIS KNEES AND TAKES THE FUCKING THING IN THE FOREHEAD. KNOCKS HIM RIGHT THE FUCK OUT.
posted by Rhaomi at 6:49 PM on October 15, 2013 [27 favorites]


Also, WaPo: "By all accounts, though, an end seems near for the impasse that has once again exposed a government so divided that it sometimes borders on dysfunction. Though the House failed to muster sufficient support for a conservatives-only bill in the GOP-majority chamber on Tuesday, enough Republicans there seem likely to join House Democrats to approve a bipartisan version if it can be approved by the Senate and sent to them."

Just going off the general tone, my gut feeling is that it sounds like people are resigned to Boehner letting a vote through, and ready and waiting for him to make the move. There's less publicly admonishing him and telling him to do it and do it now like Pete King and the rest have been doing for the past week. Obama's backed off of his "Hold a vote, see what happens" stuff this week, too, and honestly, the Dems let the "we won't negotiate" turn into "we won't negotiate on the big stuff, but sure, let's talk about device taxes and sequester talks and all that". And even the Tea Party crowd seems to be couching their statements a bit (see Jim Jordan's tweet "conservative Republicans "won't support" a clean DL/CR, should Boehner bring up", and even Steve King is all saying "wait until the 2014 midterm elections to "decide whether we really want Obamacare or not.""), and there's been less elaborate photo-op grandstanding from them since Sarah and Ted's Idiot Adventure this weekend. Their next bit of outrage theater is being saved up for after Boehner lets a vote through, I'm sure.

I think maybe Boehner privately reassured a few people of his plan B over the weekend, maybe even spelled it out for them in private conferences the past few days, because there was a noticeable turn to a kind of "wait and see how this plays out" this week and less direct confrontation of Boehner. Like, it's been weirdly business-as-usual compared to last week, everybody outside of Congress and the White House is going nuts but not the people at the center, as if the past few days have been more about everybody saying their piece just to say it. Like, why is so much hung up on a bipartisan Senate agreement, for instance? The Senate's a lock and everybody knows what will and will not pass them and Obama's desk. And there wouldn't be all this talk of informally whipping votes today if it was still everybody except 20-some Republican representatives against it in lockstep and he was trying to turn them around, because how on earth would Boehner ever whip up 100 or so votes in a day from adamantly opposed reps? And I don't think that many have turned around on this. So I think his "informal whipping" might just be him confirming who's going to vote with the Dems, and I think the last few days have been kind of "get it all off your chests now, and try to get your deals through if you can, but this is happening before Thursday one way or another."
posted by jason_steakums at 6:49 PM on October 15, 2013 [2 favorites]


Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.):
"Even if this bill passed tonight, what would it have done?" King said. "After shutting down the government for two and a half weeks, laying off 800,000 people, all the damage we caused, all we would end up doing was taking away health insurance from congressional employees. That's it? That's what you go to war for? That's what we shut down the United States government for?"
posted by brevator at 6:51 PM on October 15, 2013 [22 favorites]


Washington Post just posted a new article Senate leaders race to draft debt-limit bill after House effort collapses.

"After trying all day, with increasing desperation, to cobble together a debt-limit plan that could win the support of 217 Republicans, Boehner and his top deputies gave up and abruptly canceled a scheduled vote on the measure Tuesday evening and left the Capitol without further plan or explanation.

“We are done for the night,” a weary Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said as he left a marathon session in Boehner’s office "

Well, that's a scarily depressing recounting of politics, power, and Heritage Action for America, my new scapegoat. And to think I was so optimistic just this morning.
posted by Measured Out my Life in Coffeespoons at 6:52 PM on October 15, 2013 [3 favorites]


RHAOMI
RHAOMI
IT'S NOT CAPSLOCK DAY FOR ANOTHER WEEK

HOLD ON TO YOUR CROCKETY BLOAT
posted by emjaybee at 6:53 PM on October 15, 2013 [2 favorites]


THE GOVERNMENT IS SHUT DOWN THE MAN CAN'T TELL US NOT TO CAPS LOCK
posted by jason_steakums at 6:54 PM on October 15, 2013 [7 favorites]


CAPS LOCK HAS BEEN furloughed
posted by oneswellfoop at 6:56 PM on October 15, 2013 [2 favorites]


THE GOVERNMENT IS SHUT DOWN GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES CAN'T LEGALLY STOP USING CAPS LOCK IF IT WAS ON AT MIDNIGHT OCT 1.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:57 PM on October 15, 2013 [15 favorites]


What is a crockety bloat?
posted by Going To Maine at 6:58 PM on October 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


Honestly, I feel like Al Qaeda is behind this somehow. Somehow managed to homeland some guys into congress and just shut it the fuck down.
posted by brevator at 6:59 PM on October 15, 2013


What is a crockety bloat?

ZERO BUCKS, SAME AS ON FURLOUGH
posted by cortex at 7:05 PM on October 15, 2013 [35 favorites]


i just want obama and diamond joe and hillary and nancy to ride out like the 4 horsemen on mighty steeds and drive the republicans into the sea

i mean 2008 was a long time ago but i am pretty sure that was a campaign promise
posted by elizardbits at 7:06 PM on October 15, 2013 [12 favorites]


"Even if this bill passed tonight, what would it have done?" King said. "After shutting down the government for two and a half weeks, laying off 800,000 people, all the damage we caused, all we would end up doing was taking away health insurance from congressional employees. That's it? That's what you go to war for? That's what we shut down the United States government for?"

Um. Well...yeah. Yeah. Yes, Pete, that thing you were a part of really was that stupid. It was a really bad strategy from the get-go. Like, really bad. REALLY bad.

If he ever develops self-awareness about this whole fiasco, it'll probably hit him suddenly, like a ton of bricks, but only after a considerable delay. Like, exactly 652 days in the future, he'll just be eating his shredded wheat in the morning, but then he'll look up, squint, hold his temples, emit a high-pitched mew, and then finally flip his table like a mad orangutan.

He'll run out the wall of his own house, leaving behind a perfect, cartoon-like silhouette of his own body.
posted by Sticherbeast at 7:07 PM on October 15, 2013 [15 favorites]


Do we have to have this argument all over again? They never had the votes for all four horsemen.
posted by peeedro at 7:09 PM on October 15, 2013 [11 favorites]


Pretty sure Obama rides a unicorn, Biden rides a 76 Camaro, Hilary rides Bill, and Nancy rides...hm. Not sure about that one. A giant gavel?
posted by emjaybee at 7:09 PM on October 15, 2013 [4 favorites]


Holy shit, even Pat Robertson is begging the House to accept defeat and avoid default.
posted by octobersurprise at 7:18 PM on October 15, 2013 [5 favorites]


Link, please.
posted by Going To Maine at 7:20 PM on October 15, 2013 [2 favorites]


Guys. What if the Ron Paul Funeral City weirdo blog thinger was actually a prophecy?
posted by mccarty.tim at 7:20 PM on October 15, 2013 [7 favorites]


Pat Robertson's making sense? How drunk AM I?!
posted by palomar at 7:20 PM on October 15, 2013 [5 favorites]


Pretty sure Obama rides a unicorn, Biden rides a 76 Camaro, Hilary rides Bill, and Nancy rides...hm. Not sure about that one. A giant gavel?

Nancy strides confidently in a pant suit. Everybody lines up behind her. A fighter.
posted by Ironmouth at 7:20 PM on October 15, 2013 [3 favorites]


Nancy's the fighter? Does that make Biden or Hilary the Elf?
posted by eriko at 7:23 PM on October 15, 2013 [4 favorites]


Steve LaTourette is pretty observant. Lawrence O'Donnell is the guy to watch for details.
posted by Ironmouth at 7:23 PM on October 15, 2013


Guys. What if the Ron Paul Funeral City weirdo blog thinger was actually a prophecy?

Um. Thank you for that link. That is amazing.
posted by jason_steakums at 7:26 PM on October 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


…didn't want to be known as the guy who destroyed the US economy…

Too fucking late by far. Who in the global economy will ever trust the US government, and its dollar, again? Bthe Tea Party has well and truly fucked the USA over.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:26 PM on October 15, 2013 [3 favorites]


Too fucking late by far. Who in the global economy will ever trust the US government, and its dollar, again?

Five years? Ten years? This is predictable.
posted by Going To Maine at 7:30 PM on October 15, 2013


Nancy's the fighter? Does that make Biden or Hilary the Elf?

8th Level Figher/18th Level Magic User.
posted by Ironmouth at 7:32 PM on October 15, 2013 [3 favorites]


Dems let the "we won't negotiate" turn into "we won't negotiate on the big stuff, but sure, let's talk about device taxes and sequester talks and all that"

Let's talk about sequester talks is about what they'll give us for saving their asses. Let's be honest. The sequester is also settled law. We're forcing them to give it up. They sort of clung to it as a victory after a while.
posted by Ironmouth at 7:49 PM on October 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


From redstate's erick erickson:
The RedState contact email is now getting one anti-GOP email for every one anti-Democrat email. That has never happened before. All these polls showing America hates the GOP are accurate. Even Republicans hate the GOP and the GOP might have to learn that the hard way in 2014 primaries.

Not sure what lessons he's drawing from this, but for some reason I'm thinking he's thinking the GOP isn't conservative enough.
posted by localhuman at 7:50 PM on October 15, 2013 [14 favorites]


This country is like my cat when his allergies are kicking in and he starts chewing on his tail. We need some way to put a cone of shame over the House GOP
posted by angrycat at 7:52 PM on October 15, 2013 [12 favorites]


Not sure if it's posted upthread, but he's also the guy who said, essentially, "Americans hate the GOP a lot, but they're also somewhat less mad at the Democrats. Therefore, this is a win for the GOP."

11th-dimensional-chess rationalizing democrats have met their match.
posted by mccarty.tim at 7:52 PM on October 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


From localhuman's link, Erik Erickson sez
Ted Cruz was right all along. Americans need House Republicans to fight. Mitch McConnell has no appetite for it. Senate Republicans are openly hoping to blame a debt default on Ted Cruz. They want to blame him for everything. They hate being seen as the capitulators that they are

So yeah, the lesson learned was be crazy some more, I guess.
posted by angrycat at 7:56 PM on October 15, 2013


I say, every time there's a government shutdown there should be a Congressional lock-in. For every debt ceiling crisis, the lock-in restricts representatives to the floor only.

Or we could turn Congress into a bunch of little hermitages, and ensure that none of the members are allowed to talk to anyone or do anything but read and vote for or against bills.
posted by brina at 7:57 PM on October 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


They're already threatening to destroy the credit of our nation, and by extension, screw with everything that depends on that credit.

I think he's mad they aren't exchanging blows like you see from other nations on Youtube.
posted by mccarty.tim at 7:58 PM on October 15, 2013


After two years of searching, my husband and I have found a house that we really want to buy (we have a house now; what worked for us as two people is not as great for a family of five).

Our ability to purchase said home rests on the stock price of a certain massive on-line retailer, his employer, staying at or above a certain price for a period of time.

We're fucked, aren't we? I should stop dreaming about this house, shouldn't I?

I mean, I've always despised the Tea Party nutjobs, and do not get me started about Boehner. In the past few weeks, it's gotten more personal: my father's Social Security, VA disability benefits, and Medicare (which is paying for his cancer treatment), while "secure" for now, are subject to these RWNJs. But we could take care of him, if we needed to. And it's selfish to worry about a house, when a lot of people are in his position and don't have anyone to back them up like he does. But still.

God damn them all. We have done everything we're supposed to do to be "successful" - we are a Republican wet dream. My dad did everything he was supposed to do. And yet.
posted by Lulu's Pink Converse at 8:31 PM on October 15, 2013 [11 favorites]


So, do we celebrate by watching House of Cards or The West Wing?

We don't celebrate until it's done.

Then we watch this over and over.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:33 PM on October 15, 2013


Yeah, not like the good old days.
posted by indubitable at 8:34 PM on October 15, 2013


Nothing more until tomorrow noon DC time, right?
posted by InsertNiftyNameHere at 8:42 PM on October 15, 2013


I figured it out! It all makes sense!

We're living in a 21st Century reboot of Freaky Friday, but this time, it's John Boehner and Eli Manning who've switched places!

IT ALL MAKES SENSE PEOPLE!
posted by eriko at 8:48 PM on October 15, 2013


okay, sorry if I"m being slow here, but so it goes like this: Senate passes bill, it goes to House, where it gets put up for a vote.

Assuming that the far right doesn't explode/implode or that such and explosion/implosion won't hold up the vote, what is the margin of moderate House GOPers who will vote for the thing? Is it fairly comfortable or are we still in sphincter-clutching mode?
posted by angrycat at 8:57 PM on October 15, 2013


So, do we celebrate by watching House of Cards

I haven't seen the American version of House of Cards, but the political theater playing out in Washington right now is nothing like the British miniseries from the early 90's, where the central Machiavelli had everything under control.
posted by KokuRyu at 8:57 PM on October 15, 2013


Assuming that the far right doesn't explode/implode or that such and explosion/implosion won't hold up the vote, what is the margin of moderate House GOPers who will vote for the thing? Is it fairly comfortable or are we still in sphincter-clutching mode?

There were 22-23 or so last week willing to vote for the clean CR from the Senate, so as long as 17 of them find whatever's in this bill acceptable and the Dems vote aye across the board it will be okay. (There's still a tiny voice in the back of my mind saying "please god don't let any random Democrat representatives go crazypants") I don't know if any of those moderates, aside from Peter King, have given much solid indication either way on the current conditions, but they were pissed enough with Boehner and the Tea Party last week that they might be locked in to anything short of actually becoming Democrats out of sheer anger.
posted by jason_steakums at 9:15 PM on October 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


"Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you will destroy the Government, unless you be allowed to construe and enforce the Constitution as you please, on all points in dispute between you and us. You will rule or ruin in all events. This, plainly stated, is your language…

In that supposed event, you say, you will destroy the Union; and then, you say, the great crime of having destroyed it will be upon us! That is cool. A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, “Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!” …

Let us be diverted by none of those sophistical contrivances wherewith we are so industriously plied and belabored - contrivances such as groping for some middle ground between the right and the wrong…"


Abraham Lincoln (the first Republican President), in the “Cooper Union” speech, 1860. Back when Republicans were rational.
posted by madamjujujive at 9:18 PM on October 15, 2013 [22 favorites]


That is cool? Abraham Lincoln said that is cool!?
posted by BinGregory at 9:28 PM on October 15, 2013 [10 favorites]


YE OLDE DRUDGE REPORTE

'HONEST' ABE TIPS HAND
CIVIL WAR 'IS COOL'

posted by Rhaomi at 9:29 PM on October 15, 2013 [26 favorites]


Our ability to purchase said home rests on the stock price of a certain massive on-line retailer, his employer, staying at or above a certain price for a period of time.

If this has to do with stock options or unvested company stock you might be able to lock in some future profit with options (buying puts or selling calls) foregoing further gains. Some companies don't allow this and you could get screwed if you change jobs and lose the company stock, or lose out if the stock skyrockets.
posted by Golden Eternity at 9:31 PM on October 15, 2013


That is cool? Abraham Lincoln said that is cool!?

From what I understand, that was the equivalent of "what gall!" or "the nerve!"
posted by dhens at 9:31 PM on October 15, 2013


If it helps, "that is cool" might be rendered today as "that is cold-blooded" or something along the lines of having icewater in the veins, at least by my interpretation.
posted by feloniousmonk at 9:32 PM on October 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


"that is cool" might be rendered today as "that is cold-blooded" or something along the lines of having icewater in the veins

That is cool.
posted by Rykey at 9:36 PM on October 15, 2013 [4 favorites]


Don't forget, you still have to contact your congressmen and senators. Continue to tell all three of them your policy preferences in this matter, every day. It doesn't matter if they are red or blue, they need to hear you.
posted by Ironmouth at 9:37 PM on October 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


I like it. That is how I'm going to start using that phrase now.
posted by ctmf at 9:41 PM on October 15, 2013


"House of Cards," the US version, is a period piece with modern fashions and tech and digital media and Third Way neoliberalism, a wife who leads a trendy international development firm, etc. Its lead character is a southern, white male Democrat, a sort-of Master of the Senate-era LBJ transported to the House. So it's historical fiction in disguise.
posted by raysmj at 9:43 PM on October 15, 2013


"If it helps, "that is cool" might be rendered today as "that is cold-blooded" or something along the lines of having icewater in the veins, at least by my interpretation."

Probably just as, "That is cold." Like, damn, motherfucker, that is cold.
posted by klangklangston at 9:46 PM on October 15, 2013 [4 favorites]




The most concrete thing that's making me optimistic about Boehner letting a vote through is that Reid and McConnell keep expressing optimism about their next bill passing both chambers tomorrow - obviously, they're aware how impossible it is to have a bill that will satisfy the House Tea Party reps and also stand any kind of chance at passing the Senate.
posted by jason_steakums at 9:50 PM on October 15, 2013


groping for some middle ground between the right and the wrong...
That is also cool.
posted by ctmf at 9:52 PM on October 15, 2013


brevator: "Honestly, I feel like Al Qaeda is behind this somehow. Somehow managed to homeland some guys into congress and just shut it the fuck down."

No no no. Clearly, Obama is the Manchurian Candidate. He knew that by passing SOCIALIST OBAMACARE with his thuggish tactics and the puppets in the Supreme Court that he packed, that he would be inviting the TRUE PATRIOTS to come out and fight tooth and nail to save our precious freedoms.

If that means we have to default? NO PRICE IS TOO HIGH FOR FREEDOM.

And that's what he counted on...

The true 12th dimension of that magical chessboard was revealed all along, it was Osama bin-Laden in the White House, and if you go down you can find Barrack Obama's now rotting corpse buried in the grave. He never stood a chance against Seal Team 6. He had no training, he was just an Ivy League kid from Chicago. When he stood up,he didn't fight the SEALs, he was trying to let them know that under the mask was Barry, and the imposter all along was pushing SOCIALIZED HEALTHCARE to get... kablam.

And now the the Faith and Credit of the US Government has now been thoroughly discredited and the real Osama smirks, rubbing his hands together at the beautiful game of chess he played.

Now that the world is crashing and burning, he holds a press conference.

His hand reaches up, digs into his flesh of his jaw, as the reporters stare in rapt awe as he slowly peels away a rubbery layer.

Finally, he reveals himself with the last chunks of rubber torn from his face. He smiles. Then he says ...

"CHECK

AND

MATE,

SUCKAZ!"
posted by symbioid at 9:54 PM on October 15, 2013


The most concrete thing that's making me optimistic about Boehner letting a vote through is that Reid and McConnell keep expressing optimism about their next bill passing both chambers tomorrow - obviously, they're aware how impossible it is to have a bill that will satisfy the House Tea Party reps and also stand any kind of chance at passing the Senate.

A lot still has to be done. They're trying to calm the markets.
posted by Ironmouth at 10:06 PM on October 15, 2013 [2 favorites]


[this is cool]
posted by Joey Michaels at 10:13 PM on October 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


Everyone realizes that everything seems brightest right before the big sucker punch. Right?
posted by mazola at 10:24 PM on October 15, 2013 [1 favorite]


Oh my yes. I'm waiting for the other douche to drop.
posted by Joey Michaels at 10:30 PM on October 15, 2013 [8 favorites]


"I hope the Republicans hold their breath until their states turn blue"
great comment by bonvivant at http://talkingpointsmemo.com
posted by madamjujujive at 10:38 PM on October 15, 2013 [28 favorites]


This evening on Facebook, I posted this old comic that someone had posted on Reddit a ways back. Then I looked at the file date on the image—it's from way back in September 2009.

And then I realized that this comic could apply to any and every day of the last four years. The GOP is just a broken Far Side comic-a-day calendar, every day they're just proactively engaging in same asshatery. Party above country as long as it hurts the black guy.
posted by blueberry at 11:50 PM on October 15, 2013 [4 favorites]


I still can't get my head around it: "we'll cause global economic havoc unless... um... something something birth control!" They truly are insane.
posted by George_Spiggott at 12:03 AM on October 16, 2013 [5 favorites]


Everyone realizes that everything seems brightest right before the big sucker punch. Right?

Oh my yes. I'm waiting for the other douche to drop.


If it makes you feel any better, the story about Boehner putting the Senate deal on the floor of the House so as to prevent Ted Cruz from taking advantage of procedural rule has now hit CNN and HuffPo, which means it should be making headlines just in time for all the morning shows.

Boehner has the 18, there have been at least 3 more House GOP members saying they'll go along with it, and the indications from the Senate all point to them being ready to go. I'd be shocked if this thing isn't over with time to spare tonight. And since it's the Senate deal, the next vote comes after the individual mandate goes into effect and two months closer to Election Day.
posted by zombieflanders at 1:45 AM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


“I think the Speaker’s position is actually secure,” Dent said. “Some of the leadership got pulled over by this really poorly thought-out tactic by Sen. Cruz to defund Obamacare as part of the C.R.”

And they just threw Ted Cruz under the bus.
posted by mikelieman at 2:22 AM on October 16, 2013 [5 favorites]


Ted Cruz sort of jumped under the bus himself.

I wonder who "Some of the leadership" is. Maybe some folks in the House are getting thrown under the bus as well once this is over with.
posted by Elementary Penguin at 2:32 AM on October 16, 2013


I wonder who "Some of the leadership" is.

I think it's Boehner. I think the deal is Boehner doesn't have to worry about the teaparty, because Nancy Pelosi has his back. In exchange, Boehner will be "wearing Pelosi's collar", so to speak....

Expect nothing but the most token of resistance going forward. Sure the 27% will be irate, but they're irate anyway.
posted by mikelieman at 2:38 AM on October 16, 2013


Won't somebody think of the buses? Those thick skulls are bound to cause dents.
posted by Rhomboid at 3:37 AM on October 16, 2013 [2 favorites]


I like the imagery. ATTENTION WORLD FINANCIAL MARKETS? Those teabaggers threatening to "Bring Down The Whole Damned System?" Worry not, they're nothing more than a BUMP IN THE ROAD. Everything is FINE. Clear Sailing from here on out! FULL STEAM AHEAD!
posted by mikelieman at 3:47 AM on October 16, 2013




Is HJ59 still sitting there just waiting to be voted on by the House, then sent right along for The President's signature? Hey, if the ONLY option is a clean continuing resolution because they ran the clock out, I guess that's even MORE of a loss for the "Destroy Government" and "Stop Obama(care) using any means necessary!" teams, and I really don't know anyone reasonable who can complain other than "sequester level, yeah, ok I guess" Beats getting mugged.
posted by mikelieman at 4:03 AM on October 16, 2013


Ironmouth: Let's talk about sequester talks is about what they'll give us for saving their asses. Let's be honest. The sequester is also settled law. We're forcing them to give it up. They sort of clung to it as a victory after a while.

I'm a little worried about Democrats departing the high road and bringing the sequester into this, but is it safe to say that conceding some sequester talks would provide the necessary "mess with the debt ceiling and expect to get horribly burned" lesson that's required to prevent this sort of thing from ever happening again? If there's a precedent to be set in negotiating settled law during debt ceiling talks, I think I'm OK with it being sufficiently Pyhrric to prevent it from ever being used again.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 4:28 AM on October 16, 2013


Averting US Debt Default May Hinge on Rule Shortcuts.

Is HJ59 still sitting there just waiting to be voted on by the House, then sent right along for The President's signature?


The current scuttlebutt according to both Democrats and Republicans is that Boehner will put something clean on the floor today. It seems it's a modified version of HJ59 that opens the government and raises the debt ceiling through Jan of next year, after the individual mandate kicks in but before the sequester cuts are reauthorized. They get income verification, which is largely already implemented, and in exchange the "reinsurance" tax hated by unions gets repealed, even though it was already going away in 3 years. The plan seems to be to make the GOP back off of some of the sequester and/or daring them to engage in the same poll-cratering shenanigans just as election season kicks starts warming up. In the event that the Crazy Caucus revolts, Boehner gets to stay on as Speaker thanks to (gasp!) Pelosi--who, I should add, deserves the title of Iron Lady 1000x more than Thatcher.
posted by zombieflanders at 4:38 AM on October 16, 2013 [10 favorites]


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

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

The conservatives thus undermined whatever small leverage the House GOP had left. Without a united majority of 218 votes, Republicans might as well hand the Speaker's gavel to Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid.
posted by zombieflanders at 4:41 AM on October 16, 2013 [7 favorites]


Of course the WSJ has to lead in the first paragraph with "both sides looking like losers," because obviously. Then proceeds to eviscerate the GOP and has little to nothing negative to say about the Democrats.
posted by Roommate at 4:52 AM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


GOP’s absurd final whimper: It’s all over but the crying
After his plan Z went up in flames, Boehner communicated to Reid, a top aide told me, that he’d send the Senate a “clean message” to speed things up should anyone — Ted Cruz? Mike Lee? — object to an agreement to hasten its usually lengthy legislative process. A “message” is a legislative vehicle that would allow Reid to bypass at least one time-consuming cloture motion. Alternatively, the House could pass the Reid-McConnell deal first, and send it over to the Senate, for similar purposes.

That development suggests Boehner knows the jig is up. He’s standing down, getting out of the way, working to assure GOP rebels don’t push the deal past the deadline in a fit of pique.

The truth is, there are decent reasons to think that even someone as dug in as Cruz won’t assume the risk of delaying whatever deal Reid and McConnell ink. An individual senator or group of senators that held up the plan would own the ensuing market reaction forever. It’s hard to win the presidency if you’re responsible for the Cruz Crash. It’s hard to finance a re-election campaign if the public thinks you destroyed its wealth and institutional donors know how reckless you are.

Thus, despite the time crunch, there are promising signs that Congress will avert disaster by the end of the week, and reopen the government, too. How Republicans react to such a punishing defeat, what conservatives do, and what comes next for John Boehner, will be big stories in the weeks ahead.
posted by zombieflanders at 5:10 AM on October 16, 2013 [2 favorites]


And they just threw Ted Cruz under the bus.

WAIT I WAS TRYING TO CATCH THAT BUS!

You're backing the bus up to pick me up? Thanks!

Oh, you went too far back, and now you have to pull up again? Okay! Appreciate it!

Oh, darn, you went too far back. No worries. I've got some popcorn.
posted by eriko at 5:16 AM on October 16, 2013 [15 favorites]


The conservatives thus undermined whatever small leverage the House GOP had left. Without a united majority of 218 votes, Republicans might as well hand the Speaker's gavel to Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid.

I find it sadly typical that they can't mention Nancy Pelosi here.
posted by eriko at 5:18 AM on October 16, 2013 [14 favorites]




This thread is the only thing keeping me sane this week, thanks all.
posted by octothorpe at 5:38 AM on October 16, 2013 [14 favorites]


Yeah, good luck with that whole "Republicans have to understand" thing, McCain.
posted by Flunkie at 5:39 AM on October 16, 2013 [6 favorites]


What I wouldn't give for a shutdown-themed parody of "Parents Just Don't Understand."
posted by Sticherbeast at 5:53 AM on October 16, 2013 [2 favorites]


Ted Cruz's hometown paper regrets endorsing him (bonus: a bit of hate on for David Dewhurst, Wendy Davis' opponent for Governor)
We're not sure how much difference one person could make in the toxic, chaotic, hyperpartisan atmosphere in Washington, but if we could choose just one it would be Hutchison, whose years of service in the Senate were marked by two things sorely lacking in her successor, Ted Cruz.

For one thing, Hutchison had an unswerving commitment to the highest and best interests of Texas at all times. This revealed itself in a thousand different ways. Hereabouts, we miss her advocacy for NASA, the Port of Houston and the energy industry. And we know she worked just as hard for Dallas, San Antonio and a hundred smaller Texas cities and towns.

And dare we say it? We miss her extraordinary understanding of the importance of reaching across the aisle when necessary. Neither sitting Texas senator has displayed that useful skill, and both the state and the Congress are the poorer for it.

One reason we particularly believe that Hutchison would make a difference in these hectic days is that if she had kept her seat, Cruz would not be in the Senate.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:09 AM on October 16, 2013 [32 favorites]


Hear, hear, octothorpe. MeFi has truly been the filter for this clusterfuck-- great discussion, helpful links, and people who actually understand this stuff. Thanks everybody!
posted by Rykey at 6:11 AM on October 16, 2013 [2 favorites]


No matter what happens, we can all rest easy knowing what the nation's next 10,000 dissertations on game theory will be about.
posted by COBRA! at 6:21 AM on October 16, 2013 [9 favorites]


Is it over yet?? I've departed the Chortle at Idiots zone and have entered the Cower Under Blankets sector and it is verrrrry quiet over here. WAY TOO QUIET.
posted by argonauta at 6:28 AM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


I'm not going to relax until the President signs this thing.
posted by Elementary Penguin at 6:29 AM on October 16, 2013 [3 favorites]


argonauta: "Is it over yet?? I've departed the Chortle at Idiots zone and have entered the Cower Under Blankets sector and it is verrrrry quiet over here. WAY TOO QUIET."

Are you sure you didn't end up in the Read Under Blankets (With a Flashlight) zone by mistake? That's where I am. There's a nice soothing drizzle noise, and it returns you to your favorite age between 8 and 12, removing any obsessive catastrophizing about politics and replacing it with Very Strong Opinions about children's fiction.
posted by ocherdraco at 6:33 AM on October 16, 2013 [7 favorites]


I asked our little dog what she thought about this, and she told us she hopes John Boehner gets worms.
posted by marxchivist at 6:37 AM on October 16, 2013 [4 favorites]


(bonus: a bit of hate on for David Dewhurst, Wendy Davis' opponent for Governor)

Nope - she's running against Greg Abbott.
posted by mattbucher at 6:38 AM on October 16, 2013 [2 favorites]


I'm not going to relax until the President signs this thing.

If you guys want to follow the votes on C-SPAN, the House will be opening at 10am and the Senate at noon. According to CBS News' Major Garrett, Boehner will bring the Senate bill to the floor, pass it with (presumably) mostly Democrats and 18+ Republicans, and send it to the Senate. Since it comes from the House, it gets fast-tracked, but IIRC doesn't require unanimous consent. If anyone wants to filibuster, it should come up for a cloture vote without triggering the automatic 30 hours of debate, but I'm not certain on that. From there, it goes to the President. If things go relatively smoothly, the ink should be dry before evening rush hour.

BTW: The DJIA opened up 100 points, basically erasing the fall from yesterday, which means they're confident this gets done. I guess we find out in about 2.5 hours.

Nope - she's running against Greg Abbott.

Whoops, my bad. I forgot it was AG and not Lt Gov.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:40 AM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


Like - my rational side knows this is a good thing. Truly understands that it's good we avoided default.

My angry, punish-the-fuckers side wants to see all those who voted for the Tea Party to suffer the effects, so they understand in no uncertain terms what happens when you fuck with the full faith and credit of the US.

My rational side knows that that's folly, that they will always and forever blame Obama and find a reason to blame him this time and never accept blame for any fallout.

My rational side also knows that many people I care about, who DID NOT vote for these asshats would also suffer as well. It also knows that many people who aren't suffering or that I don't know in general, but still don't deserve to suffer, will be affected.

My rational side also knows that this, politically, *might* have some fallout for the Tea Party during election time.

My emotional side hopes-to-god it does.

My doubting-Thomas side says, never put too much faith and credit in the US Populace who elects these gerrymandered thugs.

In conclusion: Yay, I guess.
I mean, I KNOW Yay, I just wish I FELT it a bit more.
posted by symbioid at 6:49 AM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


Today's Budget Brinksmanship Takes Cues From 1879's Ku Klux Klan:
To understand our current crisis, we must travel back more than a century. In 1879, the Democrats threatened to defund the federal government unless Republican President Rutherford B. Hayes repealed laws protecting the right of freed slaves to vote against the use of terror and violence by groups like the Ku Klux Klan. The Democrats' threats backfired, and Republicans swept to victory in election of 1880. The parallel should serve as a warning to today's conservative obstructionists that their tactics are self-defeating and illegitimate.
posted by mondo dentro at 6:49 AM on October 16, 2013 [7 favorites]


zombieflanders, yeh, it sure feels weird wishing relatively honorable paleocons like Hutchinson & Hatch still had power.
posted by lodurr at 6:51 AM on October 16, 2013 [8 favorites]


Saxby Chambliss, of all people, was on NPR this morning sounding reasonable, sane, and exhausted. And done with Ted Cruz.
posted by emjaybee at 6:56 AM on October 16, 2013


In conclusion: Yay, I guess.

I'm right there with you, symbioid. This doesn't feel in any way like a victory. It feels like hard fought but tiny step back from the brink of insanity, and a reestablishment of a status quo that wasn't that great to begin with. I am not optimistic that enough folks will take the right lessons from this experience. I would not be surprised to be going through this again in January or February, despite what others are saying.
posted by Roommate at 6:57 AM on October 16, 2013 [6 favorites]


I feel so numb about the supposed deal, as if it's all just bullshit and someone will manage to fuck it up. The last two weeks of brinksmanship and petty arguments have forced me to resort to my all-cussing, all-the-time vocabulary.
posted by mynameisluka at 6:59 AM on October 16, 2013 [3 favorites]


Robert Costa ‏@robertcostaNRO:
Per Sen sources, Boehner has agreed to take up the Senate's plan and allow it to pass with Dem votes.
posted by burnmp3s at 7:02 AM on October 16, 2013


Not to jinx it, but Boehner has been known to renege before.
posted by wierdo at 7:07 AM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


In conclusion: Yay, I guess.

from the Post liveblog: “There are no winners here,” Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) said on CNN. “Bottom line: We’re going to reopen government, we’re not going to default. That’s, like, very low expectations.”
posted by troika at 7:08 AM on October 16, 2013 [28 favorites]


Now House GOP members are talking about impeachment, because lol.
posted by drezdn at 7:08 AM on October 16, 2013


Someone must pay for our horrible mistakes! Which we will make again the next time the debt ceiling comes up!
posted by mittens at 7:10 AM on October 16, 2013


Now House GOP members are talking about impeachment, because lol.

So, the Sun did rise this morning. I wasn't sure.
posted by eriko at 7:11 AM on October 16, 2013 [3 favorites]


> Now House GOP members are talking about impeachment, because lol.

Because storms in teaparty cups.
posted by de at 7:13 AM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


From CNN: "...Rep. Steve King of Iowa, says GOP lawmakers intend to stand tough to save the country from what they consider to be out-of-control spending."

Funny thing though...the ratings agencies like S&P and Fitch can look at the US balance sheet just as well as anyone else, but they only downgrade our debt (or threaten to) when these idiots take us to the brink of default. They are telling us that this recurring clusterfuck is more damaging to the full faith and credit of the US government than the national debt.

The markets are in full-on rally mode this morning, but that nasty feeling in the pit of my stomach hasn't gone away just yet.
posted by malocchio at 7:15 AM on October 16, 2013 [2 favorites]


I wonder what would happen if Ted Cruz showed up on the NYSE floor....
posted by eriko at 7:16 AM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


I mean, I KNOW Yay, I just wish I FELT it a bit more

Here's a way to get some more YAY, even if it involves mixing sports metaphors I'll mangle further as I don't grok them 100% because they're not F1 or the bits of hockey that I've learned.

Cruz and the League of Dipshits in the House were basically casting themselves as Cobra Kai or Team Evil from Shaolin Soccer, and had strutted up to Obama and Pelosi bragging "Yeah, we're gonna fuck you up gonna kick your ass gonna drive a shiv through your brain gonna teabag your corpse forever hahahahahah losers!"

Except they got their asses kicked. A complete and total shutout. With more than one own goal from them, done in ways that injured their "star" players. Leaving the field in disgrace as everyone points and laughs at them, except for their own core supporters who are howling with rage at them for not winning the game they promised they would win, and some of them are likely to lose their jobs over it.

So... on the policy dimension, back to the status quo and no yay. But on the "Fuck you, fuckball" dimension? Victory. Drinking-mead-out-of-their-skulls level victory.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:17 AM on October 16, 2013 [19 favorites]


Impeachment now? They're really determined to never ever do anything resembling governing, aren't they?
posted by octothorpe at 7:18 AM on October 16, 2013 [2 favorites]


Impeachment.
posted by COBRA! at 7:19 AM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


There are no winners here
I don't know about that. I think this has the potential to really bring Republican intraparty conflict to a head. Which could be good for everyone.
posted by Flunkie at 7:21 AM on October 16, 2013




> They are telling us that this recurring clusterfuck is more damaging to the full faith and credit of the US government than the national debt.

Put one of those mad right-wingers in the POTUS position and you watch the rest of the world start talking Yen and Yuan.
posted by de at 7:22 AM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


eriko: "I wonder what would happen if Ted Cruz showed up on the NYSE floor...."

Best case scenario: the term "wolves of Wall street" suddenly seems far less metaphorical.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 7:27 AM on October 16, 2013


God I miss ericb.

And Mutant!
posted by malocchio at 7:27 AM on October 16, 2013 [9 favorites]


So I guess the only thing we got out of this is that the real, legitimate problems with the Federal roll-out of the ACA exchanges got totally buried, and now they come with a built in (and reasonable!) excuse: what do you expect? We had to do this while the government was shut down. Of course it didn't work well.

And so Ted Cruz scores what will go down as one of the greatest own-goals in history, providing political cover for a real expansion of the welfare state that leads us down to soshulizm tyranny rapture god-knows-what.

I think it's time for him to pull off his mask and reveal himself as ... Al Gore?
posted by RedOrGreen at 7:31 AM on October 16, 2013 [3 favorites]


...on the "Fuck you, fuckball" dimension? Victory. Drinking-mead-out-of-their-skulls level victory.

The comments over at RedState.com are schadenfreudetastic. If you're into that sort of thing. {cough}
posted by GrammarMoses at 7:32 AM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


The comments over at RedState.com are schadenfreudetastic. If you're into that sort of thing. {cough}

No, that's beneath me. What's the link?
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 7:33 AM on October 16, 2013 [11 favorites]


COBRA!: "Impeachment."

CATFUD

Congresspeople As Tea-Partiers (creating) Fear, Uncertainty an Doubt.
posted by symbioid at 7:40 AM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


Ted Cruz's hometown paper regrets endorsing him

I'll give you good money it's not enough to keep them from endorsing him again (or John Cornyn next fall). He'll have to get in the way of bidness a lot more for the Chron to stop endorsing the Rs statewide. / cynical native Houstonian
posted by immlass at 7:49 AM on October 16, 2013 [2 favorites]


Boehner gets to stay on as Speaker thanks to (gasp!) Pelosi--who, I should add, deserves the title of Iron Lady 1000x more than Thatcher.

Pelosi is a fucking rock.

Greg Sargent writes this morning,
However much damage this crisis has done, much of it was the direct result of the refusal by many non-Tea Party Republicans to acknowledge the basic facts of the underlying situation. Republicans steadily refused to acknowledge the actual Dem position—that they no longer would negotiate under threat conditions, because so doing would only mean more use of the tactic later. Republicans spun this situation as a conventional negotiation, and then believed their own spin—and ironically enough, this is what led them to badly underestimate Dem resolve.
Math that you do as a Republican to make yourself feel better strikes again, apparently.
posted by octobersurprise at 7:50 AM on October 16, 2013 [14 favorites]


(A)H&(W)O, I suggest starting here: Reject This.
posted by GrammarMoses at 7:56 AM on October 16, 2013


The comments over at RedState.com are schadenfreudetastic. If you're into that sort of thing. {cough}

Good Lord, the circular firing squad is in full effect. If those statements are indicative of general Republican thought, there's no way that the GOP can survive as a single party. The "RINO" concept can do nothing but ultimately rend them asunder.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 7:57 AM on October 16, 2013 [2 favorites]


It is nice to see a circular firing squad from the outside for a change, though.
posted by Elementary Penguin at 7:57 AM on October 16, 2013 [33 favorites]


ROU_Xenophobe: "So... on the policy dimension, back to the status quo and no yay. But on the "Fuck you, fuckball" dimension? Victory. Drinking-mead-out-of-their-skulls level victory."

The only question, assuming the deal actually gets done, is will it be a resounding enough defeat that the world believes that they're not going to do this again, or at least drag it out nearly this late, next year? If they don't, I think everyone will forget this little episode. If the Tea Party again manages to hold the country hostage, that may well be the last straw.
posted by wierdo at 8:00 AM on October 16, 2013


(A)H&(W)O, I suggest starting here: Reject This.

I'll count that as one of the scariest 30 seconds of my life. For at least the next hour or so until the eyebeach takes hold...
posted by mikelieman at 8:00 AM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


The problem with watching a circular firing squad is sometimes bullets go through.

So, stand back.
posted by eriko at 8:03 AM on October 16, 2013 [4 favorites]


What's the general word for terms like "RINO", where it exists mostly to shut down opposition from within your own group or presumably shared ideology?
posted by Sticherbeast at 8:07 AM on October 16, 2013


If the Tea Party again manages to hold the country hostage, that may well be the last straw.

Next year at this time, just before the mid-term elections? If there's any force on earth that could make 2014 defy the usual pattern of "off-year, party with White House weakens in Congress", that would. Of course, a nice split into two minority parties would give Iron Lady Nancy the Speakership back, even without an absolute D majority. But could enough of the GOP be really that stupid and self-destructive? This whole exercise was a "Hail Mary play" for a party whose influence is on an inevitable waning trend - anything beyond is political suicide. Bring it on.

What's the general word for terms like "RINO", where it exists mostly to shut down opposition from within your own group or presumably shared ideology?

I'd go with "PINO": Party In Name Only
posted by oneswellfoop at 8:09 AM on October 16, 2013


The RedState contact email is now getting one anti-GOP email for every one anti-Democrat email. That has never happened before. All these polls showing America hates the GOP are accurate. Even Republicans hate the GOP and the GOP might have to learn that the hard way in 2014 primaries.

So, someone had quoted this above and I was mildly wondering what they (RS) actually meant by it, it's reasonable to read that pull quote as calling for moderation and caution. But reading the paragraphs preceding the quote clearly indicates they learned nothing at all. Americans-in-general don't hate the Republicans for their moderate stances, they hate them for the radical-blow-this-fucker-up stances. So yeah, more of the same is exactly {\} what y'all need to do. Hell Romney lost the Presidential campaign because he lost control of his ability to seem like a moderate (as did McCain).

The GOP climbed up on the Tiger's back in embracing the Tea Party, and can't seem to find a way off.
posted by edgeways at 8:13 AM on October 16, 2013




What's the general word for terms like "RINO", where it exists mostly to shut down opposition from within your own group or presumably shared ideology?

Perhaps the "No True Scotsman" phrase that gets bandied about a lot nowadays?
posted by edgeways at 8:14 AM on October 16, 2013 [9 favorites]


But could enough of the GOP be really that stupid and self-destructive? This whole exercise was a "Hail Mary play" for a party whose influence is on an inevitable waning trend - anything beyond is political suicide. Bring it on.

The problem- as has been dramatically illustrated these past two weeks- is that the Tea Party folks do not have a rational plan. They have an iron will, but no rational plan. I think they really COULD be that stupid/short-sighted. Nay, I hope.

And it doesn't matter what the rest of the GOP wants if they can't bring that handful of crazies in line; essentially, if they can't work together, the Republicans and the Tea Partiers would be two parties, neither with a majority.
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:15 AM on October 16, 2013 [2 favorites]


The comments on that Redstate link are just straight up HOLY SHIT.
posted by COBRA! at 8:16 AM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


Ted Cruz's hometown paper regrets endorsing him

I'll give you good money it's not enough to keep them from endorsing him again (or John Cornyn next fall). He'll have to get in the way of bidness a lot more for the Chron to stop endorsing the Rs statewide. / cynical native Houstonian


Play-the-winner rules in large-city newspaper endorsements. How can you keep up an appearance of influence if your candidates lose?
posted by Mental Wimp at 8:17 AM on October 16, 2013


What's the general word for terms like "RINO", where it exists mostly to shut down opposition from within your own group or presumably shared ideology?


Hmmm... almost like "in-group scapegoat?" Our pet scapegoat?
posted by Rykey at 8:18 AM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


My favorite comment from the RedState link is this one: "Oh, look...another surrender monkey comes out of the woodwork. Go back into hibernation." because they're calling someone three different animals.
posted by jason_steakums at 8:19 AM on October 16, 2013 [42 favorites]


Ted Cruz's hometown paper regrets endorsing him

I am sad that they didn't use the headline MISTAKES HAVE BEEN MADE
posted by elizardbits at 8:22 AM on October 16, 2013 [12 favorites]


they're calling someone three different animals.

Well to be fair, the average House member is at least two different animals, with many exhibiting the characteristics of three and some tea partiers are downright mystical beast chimeras, fit only to be defeated in combat and vanquished back to the paranoid hell they sprung from.
posted by edgeways at 8:24 AM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


Three animals and one of them happens to also have a nationality. The marrow-deep penetration of that meme continues to astonish me.
posted by feloniousmonk at 8:26 AM on October 16, 2013


My favorite comment from the RedState link is this one: "Oh, look...another surrender monkey comes out of the woodwork. Go back into hibernation." because they're calling someone three different animals.

These are the same people that believe Obama is simultaneously a socialist who's a friend of the finance industry, a Muslim who is godless, and a brutal Chicago thug-politician who folds at every opportunity. This is par for the course.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:27 AM on October 16, 2013 [10 favorites]


French bear monkey termites, go back to french bear monkey termite land you commies!
posted by elizardbits at 8:27 AM on October 16, 2013 [15 favorites]


Quotes from the Tea Party base on the default

I guess intellectually I'm not surprised at their comments, but seeing them in their full glory makes me want to stay home and not mingle with anyone.
posted by Mental Wimp at 8:27 AM on October 16, 2013


A question for US history buffs: not that I think they would do this right now, but is there any precedent for a major party to kick a group of elected officials out of itself? Could the Republican party just tell the Tea Party people "Hey, you are cast out of the party, you can be your own party now"?
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:31 AM on October 16, 2013


If Ted Cruz didn’t exist, Democrats would have to invent him
[T]he strategy Ted Cruz managed to force on the GOP was so suicidal that Democrats felt comfortable forcing Republicans to cave completely. They were so confident that they managed to reject a deal proposed by Sen. Susan Collins and supported by many Senate Democrats because it funded the government for longer than the Democratic leadership preferred. That's a level of control over the outcome that Democrats never expected to have.

Going forward, not only will Republicans be afraid to shut down the government or threaten the debt ceiling again during this Congress, but if Republicans somehow end up doing it anyway, Democrats will be unafraid of the fight. As Democrats see it, if Republicans want to give a shutdown or a default another shot closer to the 2014 election, well, that's great news for Democratic congressional candidates.

Over the last 24 hours I've seen some Republicans complaining that President Obama and the Democrats are trying to break them. Their anger is misplaced. They should be angry at Ted Cruz for putting Republicans in a position to be broken.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:34 AM on October 16, 2013 [5 favorites]


go back to french bear monkey termite land

French bear monkey termite don't give a shit
posted by Rykey at 8:36 AM on October 16, 2013 [6 favorites]


Liz, it's not a perfect match, but you can draw a lot of parallels between the rise of the Know-Nothings and the collapse of the Whigs in the 19th Century with what's going on now.
posted by 1970s Antihero at 8:37 AM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


With all these "blame Ted Cruz" writeups, I hope people don't lose focus that the rest of the Republican party, and Boehner in particular, share the blame for this whole mess.
posted by inigo2 at 8:39 AM on October 16, 2013 [11 favorites]


I don't know about officially kick out, but the GOP certainly could marginalize them to the point where they had so little power they effectively would be their own separate party. Say by stripping any and all committee seats, refusing to endorse or fund-raise for the candidates, shutting them out of any role in conventions and so on.

of course if the Tea Party then went ahead and primaried and won significant seats in elections there would be likely a hostile takeover of the GOP lock-stock-and-barrel rather then just in-practice-only.

I hate the Tea party goals with a passion unbound, but fundamentally their election tactics are sound. And they are very clear about their goals. I just hope to dog that they never convince enough people to vote for them that they become a bigger threat then they already are.
posted by edgeways at 8:39 AM on October 16, 2013


I don't buy the impeachment talk. I know that there are Republicans that want to impeach Obama and that are looking for any reason to do so. I don't believe that after getting their asses thoroughly kicked Republicans are going to ignore recent history. Republicans shut down the government in 1995 and it didn't end well. Then in 1998 they impeached the president and that didn't end well either. There is no way that they can look at what happened in the Clinton years and think that it's a good idea to impeach Obama.
posted by rdr at 8:41 AM on October 16, 2013


"Oh, look...another surrender monkey comes out of the woodwork. Go back into hibernation."

Holy cow, that comment was made by a RedState Moderator!!!
posted by klarck at 8:41 AM on October 16, 2013 [5 favorites]


zombieflanders: If Ted Cruz didn’t exist, Democrats would have to invent him

Good stuff. I was just composing an imaginary letter to Cruz thanking him for his outstanding performance as a sleeper agent.
posted by syzygy at 8:42 AM on October 16, 2013


With all these "blame Ted Cruz" writeups, I hope people don't lose focus that the rest of the Republican party, and Boehner in particular, share the blame for this whole mess.

I assume all these "blame Ted Cruz" writeups are written with the sole intention of getting people to lose that focus.
posted by Elementary Penguin at 8:44 AM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


There is no way that they can look at that and think

I've said this SO many times since the 2000 election, and been wrong SO many times... #alternateuniverse
posted by Rykey at 8:44 AM on October 16, 2013 [4 favorites]


VA's upcoming election is going to be interesting. It looks like the former DNC chair has a shot to be elected governor. The polls have him at a good margin, but if it turns into a landslide, it could be telling.
posted by feloniousmonk at 8:46 AM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


This is the new norm. Ted Cruz isn't up for re-election until 2018. I don't expect him to slink silently back into his Senate office and never try anything like this again. If anything, the next shutdown and default will be much worse.
posted by mattbucher at 8:47 AM on October 16, 2013


My favorite comment from the RedState link is this one: "Oh, look...another surrender monkey comes out of the woodwork. Go back into hibernation." because they're calling someone three different animals.

Get them a blender so that they can mix some more metaphors for me. I find them...delicious...
posted by nubs at 8:51 AM on October 16, 2013


the next shutdown and default will be much worse.

IF it ever got to that point, yeah. But I have a hard time believing the non-wingnut Rs wouldn't be afraid of getting that close again, and that the newly-emboldened Ds wouldn't know how strong their lever is now.
posted by Rykey at 8:51 AM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


I don't buy the impeachment talk. I know that there are Republicans that want to impeach Obama and that are looking for any reason to do so. I don't believe that after getting their asses thoroughly kicked republicans are going to be stupid to ignore history. Republicans shut down the government in 1995 and it didn't end well. Then in 1998 they impeached the president and that didn't end well either. There is no way that they can look at that and think that it's a good idea to impeach Obama.

What did that ostensible bad ending really cost them, though? They retained their house majority in 1996 and actually gained two seats in the Senate. In 2000 they again retained house majority and the Dems did not gain Senate control, and then we had eight disastrous years of complete conservative if not GOP dominance of the entire government structure which Dems were totally cool with.

This is not to say that there weren't any negative repercussions from the impeachment nonsense, but to frame those two elections cycles as a decisive defeat for the GOP is simply not accurate.
posted by clockzero at 8:51 AM on October 16, 2013 [3 favorites]


VA's upcoming election is going to be interesting. It looks like the former DNC chair has a shot to be elected governor. The polls have him at a good margin, but if it turns into a landslide, it could be telling.

More tellingly, it would be the first time since 1970 that the people of Virginia elected a Governor from the same political party as the sitting President.
posted by Etrigan at 8:52 AM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


Still wondering if we're going to get a rating downgrade even if the debt limit's raised, just like last time, for playing these stupid games.
posted by jason_steakums at 8:53 AM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


What's the general word for terms like "RINO", where it exists mostly to shut down opposition from within your own group or presumably shared ideology

The first and most important target of the extremist is not the opponent. The first and most important target of the extremist is the moderate. Once you eliminate them, then the only options are the extreme positions, and one of those is yours, and you can take extreme action without moderates pointing out that you are taking extreme action.

This is why the Tea Party is more than happy to lose a seat held by a Republican if it means they lose a Republican who won't toe the Tea Party line, because it makes the whole caucus that much more extreme -- and that is their explicit goal. 50/50 is surrender. 90/10 is surrender. 100/0 or nothing.

The big problem for the US is that the Tea Party has, so far, learned the big lesson which is that you cannot leave one of the two big parties and survive. To split a party hands power to the other party for decades. They'll be Republican forever. They're just trying to purge the GOP of anyone who is not completely and utterly Tea Party.

This is why for the next year, they will of course froth a bit at the mouth about the debt and Obamacare and Muslims and Liberals oh my, but their absolute laser focused hatred will be on any member of the GOP who votes for this deal. They will want those people out of congress -- even if it means a Democratic takeover of the seat. They think they'll get that seat back next cycle, but first, they need to rid themselves of the traitor, and that will be priority #1 to them.

The interesting thing will be what's left of the rational GOP. What will they do? They're under siege from two sides -- the normal Democratic opponent and the Tea Party.
posted by eriko at 8:54 AM on October 16, 2013 [29 favorites]


I think edgeways' tactics upthread make sense:

marginalize them to the point where they had so little power they effectively would be their own separate party. Say by stripping any and all committee seats, refusing to endorse or fund-raise for the candidates, shutting them out of any role in conventions and so on.
posted by Rykey at 8:57 AM on October 16, 2013


There is no way that they can look at what happened in the Clinton years and think that it's a good idea to impeach Obama.

That would involve things like looking at history and making rational judgements. I don't think that's in the Tea Party's instruction book.
posted by marxchivist at 8:59 AM on October 16, 2013 [4 favorites]


The trouble with the GOP taking hostile action against the Tea Party is that despite it being clear as day that they're horrible for the party, only 20 or so House Republicans were willing to come out against them publicly. I don't know if the rest of the party is just fence-sitting, or terrified, or they actually think the Tea Party has some great points, but that's a lot of reps that didn't speak up even when they had public opinion behind them. Too many in the GOP are counting on that populist angry suburban vote, even if they aren't true believers.
posted by jason_steakums at 9:06 AM on October 16, 2013


I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the content of this web page. But looking at the picture, it really looks like Nancy Pelosi just made an L with her hand and just said LOSER!
posted by eriko at 9:07 AM on October 16, 2013


As quoted by zombieflanders: Over the last 24 hours I've seen some Republicans complaining that President Obama and the Democrats are trying to break them.

That's...rich.

From May 2013: Is the GOP blinded by Obama hatred?
posted by GrammarMoses at 9:11 AM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


Over the last 24 hours I've seen some Republicans complaining that President Obama and the Democrats are trying to break them.

Projection is arguably the key psychological attribute of America's extreme mainstream Right. We've seen this, what, a gazillion times since the original Contract On America?
posted by mondo dentro at 9:17 AM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


If there are any thinking ones among them, they want this to be over so they can try to make some hay over the ACA signup glitches while they still can. If they hadn't done this, do you honestly imagine that cable news would be talking about anything but that? It's another way that misgovernment by manufactured crisis has backfired on them: with perfect timing they created a distraction so big it eclipsed that almost completely. News cycles are fickle and that one got just enough oxygen to be verging on old news and getting better now. It's hard to find silver linings in this mess but at least for once when shooting up the country their own foot caught a lot of the bullets.
posted by George_Spiggott at 9:19 AM on October 16, 2013 [2 favorites]


Reid just announced his deal.
posted by empath at 9:22 AM on October 16, 2013


Reid and McConnell announcing deal bill now in the Senate.
posted by onlyconnect at 9:23 AM on October 16, 2013


I really can't elaborate on anything but I'm telling you that the default pretty much a done deal. First thing I learned when I got here is that staffers basically run the show. We all talk to each other and we're all very spooked.

Senate deal is DOA in the House.
posted by Ghost Mode at 9:23 AM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


Announcement streaming on CSPAN2.
posted by troika at 9:24 AM on October 16, 2013




More tellingly, it would be the first time since 1970 that the people of Virginia elected a Governor from the same political party as the sitting President.

On top of it, Terry MacAuliffe is not just some random Democrat, he's about as establishment as they come.
posted by feloniousmonk at 9:25 AM on October 16, 2013


Thanks for the update, Ghost Mode, I was starting to get worried about you.
posted by dfan at 9:25 AM on October 16, 2013 [10 favorites]


I suspect Ghost Mode is sitting on a large short position...
posted by diogenes at 9:25 AM on October 16, 2013 [9 favorites]


GHOST MODE WOMP WOMP
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 9:26 AM on October 16, 2013 [2 favorites]


I suspect ghost mode is talking to the wrong staffers.
posted by empath at 9:26 AM on October 16, 2013 [7 favorites]


Hell, by shutting down the government they actually inoculated the ACA process from criticism over that period and probably a little time to come. Supposedly it was protected but there's still a huge "no shit sherlock" about a goverment program launch being hinky when you've blown up the government.
posted by George_Spiggott at 9:27 AM on October 16, 2013


Ghost Mode is actually my bartender.
posted by entropicamericana at 9:28 AM on October 16, 2013 [8 favorites]


YOU GET NOTHING!
posted by Big_B at 9:28 AM on October 16, 2013


I don't have any money to put in anything, nor would I know how to manipulate this shit show for my advantage. If I did, well I wouldn't be here right now!
posted by Ghost Mode at 9:28 AM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


Supposedly it was protected but there's still a huge "no shit sherlock" about a goverment program launch being hinky when you've blown up the government.

"We would have had many more people working on it, but the shutdown put us way behind. It's going to take a good deal of time to get the development effort back up to full steam."
posted by eriko at 9:28 AM on October 16, 2013 [2 favorites]


GhostMode, are you saying that all the preening I'm seeing right now on C-SPAN2 is for nothi -- oh.

Meh. I'm inclined to believe that the bill will pass nonetheless.
posted by maudlin at 9:29 AM on October 16, 2013


If there are any thinking ones among them, they want this to be over so they can try to make some hay over the ACA signup glitches while they still can.

But they don't support the ACA, and many of them have gone on record saying unbelievably absurd things about its apocalyptic consequences. Why would they criticise its problematic roll-out when they can merely declare it "job-killing" or "bad for America" or sure to "destroy America and everything in it"? Or: why would they even bother making a sensible critique of its implementation when the official party line seems to be that the ACA is equivalent to a comprehensive nuclear strike?
posted by clockzero at 9:29 AM on October 16, 2013


Will the House shut this plan down?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 9:30 AM on October 16, 2013


If you're right about the default, you're on the opposite side of pretty much every reporter. You could make a lot of money just by shorting any market index.
posted by diogenes at 9:30 AM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


As of 10:36, TPM is reporting this as the deal:
The Senate deal lifts the debt ceiling through Feb. 7, re-opens the shuttered government through Jan. 15 and sets up bicameral budget conference tasked with sending policy recommendations by Dec. 13. It will include a provision to enforce a part of Obamacare where subsidy recipients have to verify their income eligibility first. It won't include a previously considered, labor union-backed proposal to delay a reinsurance tax under the health care law. Ultimately neither side will make major policy concessions.
posted by mondo dentro at 9:30 AM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


Reid and McConnell want nothing to do with this nightmare (McConnell HATES HATES HATES Cruz, btw). They're going to leave the infamy for Boehner.
posted by Ghost Mode at 9:30 AM on October 16, 2013 [2 favorites]


Will the House shut this plan down?

No.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 9:31 AM on October 16, 2013


I really can't elaborate on anything but I'm telling you that the default pretty much a done deal. First thing I learned when I got here is that staffers basically run

One of my best drinking buddies is a very senior Senate staffer. He never is all hushed tones and "gee I can't tell you." And he was spot on about this being resolved.
posted by Ironmouth at 9:31 AM on October 16, 2013 [8 favorites]


symbioid: "If Ted Cruz did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him."

zombieflanders: "If Ted Cruz didn’t exist, Democrats would have to invent him.

I swear I didn't know of that article when I posted my comment originally. It does appear that this article was written before my comment. Or maybe it's like when a comedian steals another comedians joke and it was a subconscious thing, so maybe I did read it. But man... You have to admit, it's kind of true.
posted by symbioid at 9:31 AM on October 16, 2013 [2 favorites]


Unless Boehner blocks the bill or the Pete King crowd was trolling the Dems, I can't imagine how this won't pass the House.
posted by jason_steakums at 9:32 AM on October 16, 2013


And even the more conservative House R's are giving Boehner the ok, pretty much:

@robertcostaNRO: One reason Boehner has some room to move now: con House Rs appreciate his willingness to stick w/ defund caucus, wk after wk

‏@robertcostaNRO: Big stmt from ex RSC chair RT @Chris_Moody GOP Rep. Jim Jordan: "absolutely no talk" of staging a coup against Speaker Boehner.

posted by jason_steakums at 9:33 AM on October 16, 2013


Ted Cruz just announced he will not filibuster the Senate bill. Apparently he woke up this morning with a horse's head in his bed.
posted by JackFlash at 9:33 AM on October 16, 2013 [22 favorites]


Well, let's be clear: this is resolved in the Senate. Now Boehner has to eat a big turd. I'm expecting him to do it, but that part ain't over yet.
posted by mondo dentro at 9:33 AM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


Reid and McConnell want nothing to do with this nightmare. They're going to leave the infamy for Boehner.

If Boehner blocks this deal now, the shitstorm that would fall on him from all but the most batshit insane tea party folk would almost be worth the temporary default.

Almost.
posted by Roommate at 9:34 AM on October 16, 2013


Remember, we actually hit the debt limit back in May. We've been account shuffling since then to keep the bills paid. You can bet the first priority the Treasury will have will be to reverse those moves so that come the next time, they'll have several months of padding to play with.

This, of course, would put the next time this whole nightmare could be brought up sometime around September, 2014. And if the Tea Party is truly stupid enough to do this again, well, thank all that is holy.
posted by eriko at 9:34 AM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


Maaaaan Ghost Mode is going to be SO EMBARASSED if the default doesn't happen now.
posted by Theta States at 9:35 AM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


One of the funnier things about watching Reid just now is that he was basically writing a series of ads for McConnell's challenger. Brilliant.
posted by zombieflanders at 9:35 AM on October 16, 2013 [4 favorites]


Of course, if John Boehner really and truly did hate America, he could very carefully tease for a couple of hours then spike the deal. Then, well, we'd be well and truly fucked.

I don't *think* that's the case.
posted by eriko at 9:36 AM on October 16, 2013


If a staffer tells you something is a 'done deal', there's probably valuable information in what they tell you -- but that information probably doesn't have anything to do with the done-ness of the deal. Unless they're Boehner's or Cantor's Chief of Staff, they just wouldn't be in a position to know.
posted by lodurr at 9:36 AM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


Can this be like an AskMe thing where Ghost Mode sends his comments to a mod and the mod posts them. We'll all act like we don't know who's saying it.
posted by DynamiteToast at 9:36 AM on October 16, 2013 [4 favorites]


Ultimately neither side will make major policy concessions.

Good! Jesus fucking Christ, that is not how government is supposed to work! And for all this, the two political parties can only agree to continue running the country properly for a few fucking months? The "concession" that the Dems should have gotten here is that the government re-opens indefinitely and that the debt ceiling is raised as usual. Those should have been the only two concessions. I assume the Dems regarded this outcome as better than default, and they might be right.
posted by clockzero at 9:37 AM on October 16, 2013 [5 favorites]


Can this be like an AskMe thing where Ghost Mode sends his comments to a mod and the mod posts them.

I keep imagining a crack of thunder and lightning and the riff from the drama button when I read the comments, it's quite whimsical.
posted by elizardbits at 9:38 AM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


Metafilter: We all talk to each other and we're all very spooked.
posted by mintcake! at 9:38 AM on October 16, 2013 [4 favorites]


I have a toddler who is more inventive and less predictable in her attention seeking behavior.
posted by iamabot at 9:39 AM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


Watching the live feed, .

Apologies if this has been linked recently, but can you please link this? I'd like to watch. Thanks!

On edit: Aw found it! Nevermind.
posted by likeatoaster at 9:39 AM on October 16, 2013


That is not a entry in the biography of any potential future President.

IIRC, he was born in Canada, and thus would be ineligable.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 9:40 AM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


Washington Post live updates
posted by exogenous at 9:40 AM on October 16, 2013


Watching the live feed, and Oh. My. God. The self congratulatory wankery... So now we're hearing the need to "roll up our sleeves and tackle this debt problem together".

Manufactured crisis averted! Now let's extract more wealth from the poor and middle class! After all, having medieval levels of wealth inequality is good for democracy!
posted by mondo dentro at 9:41 AM on October 16, 2013 [19 favorites]


Live feed
posted by Mister Bijou at 9:41 AM on October 16, 2013


Even their token victory is an instant backfire on themelves: the stiffer income verification requirements just add bureaucracy and responsibility to the hated IRS: a Big Intrusive Government provision that they can't point their finger at without the other three pointing back at themselves.
posted by George_Spiggott at 9:42 AM on October 16, 2013


IIRC, he was born in Canada, and thus would be ineligable.

Funnily enough, he doesn't seem to have gotten that memo.
posted by lodurr at 9:42 AM on October 16, 2013


No I think it's like the Airplane joke. In three days when nothing's really happening anymore, Ghost Mode will pop in and say "I'm on the ground in DC, and I can tell you we're going to default".
posted by dragstroke at 9:43 AM on October 16, 2013 [12 favorites]


Are the congressional staffer pay cuts (Vitter Amendment) in this version?
posted by inigo2 at 9:43 AM on October 16, 2013


No, that was a house thing right?
posted by DynamiteToast at 9:44 AM on October 16, 2013


College Dems of America Facebook posted something fairly optimistic given Ghost Mode's take on this, saying that the shut down will end and default will be avoided.
posted by JoeXIII007 at 9:44 AM on October 16, 2013


First thing I learned when I got here is that staffers basically run the show.

Were these staffers who "basically run the show" the ones who managed to craft a bill taking away their health insurance?
posted by zombieflanders at 9:44 AM on October 16, 2013 [8 favorites]


Who's the "Madam President" they keep talking to? Isn't Biden President of the Senate?
posted by Ragged Richard at 9:45 AM on October 16, 2013


This thread has been the only way I've been able to bear getting any information about the shutdown because everything else makes my head explode in flames (this makes it especially hard to drive, so I've basically quit NPR in recent weeks). Thank you all very much for the links and quips and sanity.
posted by rtha at 9:45 AM on October 16, 2013 [9 favorites]


I was thinking that there was a possibility he'd see this as an endless fundraising opportunity, or maybe a chance to become Emporor of the Tea Party Republic of Texas. And then we'd see Berlin Airlift-style shipments of food and goods to a walled-off Austin and swaths of other major cities.
posted by raysmj at 9:47 AM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


IIRC, he was born in Canada, and thus would be ineligable.

He's a natural born citizen of the United States. He's eligible.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 9:47 AM on October 16, 2013 [2 favorites]


I've basically quit NPR in recent weeks

It's pledge drive time here.... so if you're in the same boat you're missing that. Uhh.. grats?
posted by RolandOfEld at 9:48 AM on October 16, 2013


Who's the "Madam President" they keep talking to? Isn't Biden President of the Senate?

Yes, but he rarely actually presided. Some other senator will stand in and preside, in this case, it is a female senator (I don't know who, I'm not watching), thus, "Madam President."

President->Preside, after all.
posted by eriko at 9:48 AM on October 16, 2013


I was thinking that there was a possibility he'd see this as an endless fundraising opportunity, or maybe a chance to become Emporor of the Tea Party Republic of Texas. And then we'd see Berlin Airlift-style shipments of food and goods to a walled-off Austin and swaths of other major cities.

Don't forget about us in Houston...

Coincidentally, the Chronicle today withdrew their endorsement of him so I don't think you have to worry too much about this awful fantasy.
posted by DynamiteToast at 9:48 AM on October 16, 2013


He's a natural born citizen of the United States. He's eligible.

Strictly speaking, that's debatable, since the term "natural born citizen" has never been legally defined. But assuming you're ruled to be correct, and you probably would be, it's still liable to be a real thorn in his side after 8+ years of birtherism have turned it into a rallying cry for the opposition.

plus, the comic possibilities are nearly endless.
posted by lodurr at 9:50 AM on October 16, 2013


Ah, "swaths of other major cities". Sorry, knee-jerk reaction to the common "Austin is the only good thing in Texas" trope.
posted by DynamiteToast at 9:50 AM on October 16, 2013 [2 favorites]


George_Spiggott: "Even their token victory is an instant backfire on themelves: the stiffer income verification requirements just add bureaucracy and responsibility to the hated IRS: a Big Intrusive Government provision that they can't point their finger at without the other three pointing back at themselves."

Nah, they'll be happy to continue their tirades against the very same IRS agents they're now forcing to get involved in the income verification process, and they'll get away with it because so many people have tuned out of politics entirely.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:51 AM on October 16, 2013


Don't worry. Cruz has a good long career ahead of him. Sure, he might not be presidential material any more (though I'm not even ruling that out), but he'll be able to rake in the wingnut welfare for decades. I mean, if even the loathsome toad Gary Bauer is still a player in right-wing politics...
posted by mondo dentro at 9:51 AM on October 16, 2013 [2 favorites]


Don't forget about us in Houston...

We can resupply you by sea. The Texas navy cain't shoot for shit.
posted by lodurr at 9:51 AM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


So... when's the actual vote? Does every Senator get his or her ten minutes to pat themselves on the back and congratulate each other on not destroying the country at the last minute (as the clock ticks on)?
posted by Roommate at 9:51 AM on October 16, 2013 [2 favorites]


Dallas we'll probably have to airlift, to, though.
posted by lodurr at 9:52 AM on October 16, 2013


It would be good if we could not have the "is he or isn't he eligible" conversation for literally and factually the 2 dozenth time thx bye
posted by elizardbits at 9:52 AM on October 16, 2013 [22 favorites]


Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said shortly after the shutdown/debt ceiling deal was announced that the outcome won him a bet — apparently with fellow negotiator Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine).

“And I want to thank, especially, my friend from Maine, who enriched me with a small side-wager that we made during the course of this discussion,” McCain said with a smile.


Holy fuck how is that not illegal.
posted by Big_B at 9:53 AM on October 16, 2013 [4 favorites]


If a staffer tells you something is a 'done deal', there's probably valuable information in what they tell you -- but that information probably doesn't have anything to do with the done-ness of the deal. Unless they're Boehner's or Cantor's Chief of Staff, they just wouldn't be in a position to know.

Most staffers are furloughrd right now too, so they wouldn't know anything. My friend is one of 4 not furloughed in his Senate office.
posted by Ironmouth at 9:53 AM on October 16, 2013


Dang, T.D. Strange, that Digby/Free Republic link is *choice.*
(What is best in life, Conan?)
posted by GrammarMoses at 9:53 AM on October 16, 2013


Holy fuck how is that not illegal.

They can legally do insider trading, a bet's nothing compared to that.
posted by jason_steakums at 9:54 AM on October 16, 2013 [8 favorites]


Roommate: "So... when's the actual vote?"

Word is that the House will vote first on this plan, even though the Senate developed it.
posted by exogenous at 9:55 AM on October 16, 2013


The drudge headline of Boehner crying and the big "MERCY!" is pretty great.
posted by Theta States at 9:55 AM on October 16, 2013


I'd be interested to see what the final income verification language looks like -- for instance, if it gives the executive branch a fair amount of flexibility in how they do the verification. Since the whole thing is basically a sop to the teabaggers so they feel like they got something for shutting down the government, it seems like a great candidate for something that's rendered toothless by a signing statement or executive order. It's not like the rank-and-file GOP will have much of a stomach to fight him on it after all of this, and during an election season.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:01 AM on October 16, 2013


Important to remember here...Democrats won exactly nothing. The government reopens only to limp along under the sequester, which is entirely inadequate to deal with regular operations, let alone combat the still ongoing recession/recovery, and this deal sets up **YET ANOTHER** soon to be doomed budget commission, in which the President and Dem leaders are already falling on themselves all over TV to offer up "entitlement reforms", read: Social Security and Medicare cuts.

This whole episode was just a temper tantrum, and the game remains marred on the Teapublican side of the field, with the Democrats running the ball into their own offensive line, that is when they're not taking a self-inflicted penalty. So touchdown celebrations are not exactly appropriate.
posted by T.D. Strange at 10:01 AM on October 16, 2013 [13 favorites]


Neologism alert: schadenboehner.
posted by mondo dentro at 10:02 AM on October 16, 2013 [7 favorites]


Spooky, tonycpsu. I'd been thinking the same thing, basically word for word.
posted by George_Spiggott at 10:03 AM on October 16, 2013


Important to remember here...Democrats won exactly nothing

The Democrats won a whole bunch. They basically forced the GOP to disarm. They went into this fight with "We want a clean CR and a clean raise to the debt limit" and they got basically just that. And they established that holding the economy hostage was not acceptable. They just won a huge image battle. They just forced the GOP into conference on a budget bill.

The GOP, who demanded a whole list of things to reopen the government and raise the debt limit, got none of those things. They're being mocked by the world and slammed by their base.

Tactically, yeah, the Dems didn't win any legislation. Strategically? This is up there with Midway, Gettysburg and Stalingrad.
posted by eriko at 10:06 AM on October 16, 2013 [22 favorites]


Important to remember here...Democrats won exactly nothing.

Amen. Exactly. Political leadership would mean looking really hard at this state of affairs, when a "major victory" for your party basically is just about holding ground--and, let's face it, as far as the natural constituents of the Democratic party are concerned, we'll almost certainly be treated to even more blood-letting.
posted by mondo dentro at 10:07 AM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


Dianne Feinstein needs to stop counting chickens now.
posted by George_Spiggott at 10:08 AM on October 16, 2013


Is there a compendium of scripts to follow for manufactured crises like these? Something with steps for escalating the conflict, rejecting your enemy's attempts at resolution while criticizing them for not compromising, and then finally relinquishing to a sensible position at the eleventh hour and proclaiming yourself the hero who saved the day? It's so clockwork that there must be some reference material that they're working off of. Is there something by Machiavelli that covers this?
posted by ceribus peribus at 10:09 AM on October 16, 2013


I think that the terms of the victory rest largely in how this is played further down the road. It's not like politics ends right now and we take score.
posted by codacorolla at 10:09 AM on October 16, 2013 [3 favorites]


Holy fuck how is that not illegal.

Well, the bet could have been that someone would have to take a bathroom break before someone else or that someone's nicotine habit would return due to the stress. That aside, I dunno, I guess I just don't see a whole lot to get outraged about, doubly so with respect to all the other asshattery that's going around in DC, concerning a side bet. Even if it is directly concerned with the deal and not about a tangential subject.

Something like "I bet we do/don't make a deal" or "I bet wet come out of this looking awesome/with our tail between our legs" just doesn't come up as a blip on my outrage radar at this point.

They can legally do insider trading, a bet's nothing compared to that.

And this. The fact that, as I understand it from above, they can/may be invested in items that seem set to profit upon the default/downfall of the US financial system is much more frightening. That... that's scary [and completely unsurprising].
posted by RolandOfEld at 10:10 AM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


Right; my hope is that victory (or rather, "victory") in this skirmish will embolden left-leaners for future clashes.
posted by GrammarMoses at 10:11 AM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


Guys, let's at least wait until we actually win this thing before we start bitching about how we didn't actually win anything at all.
posted by Atom Eyes at 10:11 AM on October 16, 2013 [5 favorites]


Atrios has some friendly advice for the blue team:
Maybe next time the opening offer won't be "hey, how about we give you everything you want."
That right there is why I can't agree with people who claim, through chess, poker, or war metaphors (sorry, eriko), that Obama played this perfectly. A political victory like this worked for Clinton in the 1990s because the economy was going strong, but when the GOP wins on policy and loses on politics as they have so many times, the policy wins they get can end up putting the team nominally in charge on the hook for the country's woes.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:11 AM on October 16, 2013


t. d. strange: Democrats won exactly nothing

eriko: The Democrats won a whole bunch

you're both right. the disarmament is only temporary, there's no clear sense that the lunatic wing will be neutered and we've still got to deal most of them for at least another 14 months, we are facing another deadline in the near future, and no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American voting public, so there's no promise that the public will learn the important less from this that we need them to learn.

all in all it's just more evidence for the joker's maxim, 'whatever doesn't kill you, makes you stranger.'
posted by lodurr at 10:12 AM on October 16, 2013 [2 favorites]


I am in no mood to mock the teahadists right now, even should this deal pass the House. It would be like mocking Jason from Friday the 13th after you see him dead on the lawn but before you look back and see nothing but a bloody impression on the ground where his body had been. Tch tch tch ah ah ah.
posted by Joey Michaels at 10:13 AM on October 16, 2013 [22 favorites]


They basically forced the GOP to disarm...Strategically? This is up there with Midway, Gettysburg and Stalingrad

Mystified by this one. Even if I treat it as hyperbole, I'm not seeing it. Sure, it's good to win. But we need to wait and see what Obama and the Democrats actually do in its aftermath.

Stalingrad lead to the destruction of the Nazis. Gettysburg led to the end of slavery. In this case, do you think we'll even get the sequester reversed? I don't see it. I see more bloodletting. Why? Because that's what the Democrats want.
posted by mondo dentro at 10:13 AM on October 16, 2013 [4 favorites]


Re. the wager: I assumed it was McCain being McCain by making a joke about his gambling habit.
posted by lodurr at 10:14 AM on October 16, 2013


Frankly I'd be careful in downplaying any of the victories, large and small, during this battle. We are continuing to witness something extraordinary and historically significant within our (the US') congress and executive branch.
posted by JoeXIII007 at 10:15 AM on October 16, 2013 [5 favorites]


Strictly speaking, that's debatable, since the term "natural born citizen" has never been legally defined.
That's false; it has been legally defined, and it does not mean "born in the States". We've been asked by the mods not to discuss this (I don't really know why, but hey), so I'll just suggest that you search this thread for is what matters if you want to see details.
posted by Flunkie at 10:16 AM on October 16, 2013


(I don't really know why, but hey)

because it comes up every single time Cruz is mentioned, and then comes up again once that conversation scrolls off the thread's page, and the exact same things are said every single time.
posted by inigo2 at 10:19 AM on October 16, 2013 [11 favorites]


I guess the betting thing got at me because I just watched the Daily Show "this is not a game!" thing again, and it just shows that these guys really do think this is a game. A game to bet on. Probably for one dollar.
posted by Big_B at 10:20 AM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


Speaking of which, how much are Stewart and Colbert kicking themselves over being off the air this week?
posted by Uncle Ira at 10:21 AM on October 16, 2013


In this case, do you think we'll even get the sequester reversed? I don't see it. I see more bloodletting

Gettysburg lead to the Wilderness, to Spotsylvania Court House, to Cold Harbor, to Petersburg. It definitely lead to more bloodletting.

But there was a difference. Before, the Union would get beat by Lee, and turn and walk away. After Gettysburg, the Union would get a beating from Lee -- Cold Harbor was nothing short of a massacre -- and then turn and walk deeper into the confederacy. After Petersburg, Lee tried to move to cover Richmond, and he didn't have the troops. Grant caught up to him at Appomattox Court House. Grant, really, either tied or lost *every* major battle after Gettysburg on a tactical level -- but he still advanced. And he won the war.

I honestly think this is a sea change for the Democrats. They said. 'No conditions. You shut down this government, it's on you. You destroy this economy, it's on you. We do not negotiate with hostage takers." The US heard them -- and agreed, and the Democrats held firm, right to the end. Every time the GOP asked -- hell, at the end, Lindsey Graham was *begging* for a bone -- they said "No conditions. Clean sheet. We do not negotiate with hostage takers."

And the GOP caved. And the world *saw* them do it. If the Democratic Party learns this lesson, I think this day is a major change in the political history of the United States -- one that, comparably, ranks with Gettysburg.
posted by eriko at 10:24 AM on October 16, 2013 [13 favorites]


Important to remember here...Democrats won exactly nothing

they wanted to lock in sequester levels for 10 years. The answer was no.
posted by Ironmouth at 10:24 AM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


Democrats only ceding a small piece of policy instead of a big one is the Gettysburg of the modern American political system and Obama's speech on race was the I Have a Dream of the 21st century.
posted by 0xFCAF at 10:28 AM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


Ironmouth: " they wanted to lock in sequester levels for 10 years. The answer was no."

There's no such thing as locking levels in for 10 years because you can't tie the hands of future Congresses or Presidents. Sequester levels remaining in effect is a loss for America when the whole point of the sequester was to force both sides to come up with a better plan. The sequester is a big win for the GOP because, as it turns out, they don't hate the defense cuts as much as they thought they would. Saying Democrats won just because they prevented the GOP from "locking in" a victory that can't really be locked in makes no sense at all.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:28 AM on October 16, 2013 [3 favorites]


The GOP caved. And the world *saw* them do it.

Exactly so. Do not underestimate the optics of the so-called "Daddy party" being humiliated in this way.
posted by RedOrGreen at 10:29 AM on October 16, 2013 [3 favorites]


I honestly think this is a sea change for the Democrats.

I sincerely hope you're right.
posted by mondo dentro at 10:29 AM on October 16, 2013 [5 favorites]


at the end, Lindsey Graham was *begging* for a bone

Excuse me while I giggle like a schoolgirl.
posted by mittens at 10:30 AM on October 16, 2013 [11 favorites]


Almost everyone seems pretty confident that the House will pass the Senate deal. I hope they're right, but after the past two weeks I would not rule out further foul play.
posted by exogenous at 10:31 AM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


So the House Republicans are meeting at 3pm today to talk about the proposed debt ceiling deal, according to CSPAN.

Eeeeee fingers crossed
posted by troika at 10:32 AM on October 16, 2013


And the GOP caved. And the world *saw* them do it.

No. The GOP acted out. And the world fully expects to *see* it again.
posted by de at 10:33 AM on October 16, 2013


> "Strictly speaking, that's debatable, since the term 'natural born citizen' has never been legally defined."

Actually, it was first legally defined in the Naturalization Act of 1790, which expressly said that the term "natural born citizen" included a person born abroad to parents who are United States citizens.

The false notion that "natural born citizen" is some mysterious thing that no one knows the real definition of is complete bullshit and I really hope it dies a fiery death soon.
posted by kyrademon at 10:34 AM on October 16, 2013 [6 favorites]


If a very real chance of defaulting was averted and the Tea Party's fantasies were renounced by the public? Yeah, absolutely a victory. Even if it's not followed up by more victories, even if it's not perfect, this one goes in the win column. Tomorrow could be the day the entire world really actually starts a slide into the abyss, and if that doesn't happen it's a win.

And, whatever happens to the GOP - whatever happens to this bill today, even, pass or fail - this event is going to be where things changed for them. Time will tell what that actually means, but now the rift is exposed and the only way to hold the party together is for one side to consume the other. It's been that way for a while, but now the denial is gone. Because the Tea Party is so extreme, they can not exist if they step into the middle. If they do that, they become the RINOs and they're over as a movement. They have to take over the party, or they're done. They can't limp along forever as a minority in the party taking dramatic extremist stands that seriously hurt the bulk of the party and don't deliver any of the promises they made to their constituents.
posted by jason_steakums at 10:35 AM on October 16, 2013 [2 favorites]


I like the Gettysburg analogy. Last week may very well have been the high water mark of the Tea Party.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 10:36 AM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


There's no such thing as locking levels in for 10 years because you can't tie the hands of future Congresses or Presidents. Sequester levels remaining in effect is a loss for America when the whole point of the sequester was to force both sides to come up with a better plan. The sequester is a big win for the GOP because, as it turns out, they don't hate the defense cuts as much as they thought they would. Saying Democrats won just because they prevented the GOP from "locking in" a victory that can't really be locked in makes no sense at all.

Its a 10-year Act. The totals were already locked in. Now the political impact is they won't be locked in. There will be a reduction in the sequester.
posted by Ironmouth at 10:38 AM on October 16, 2013


(On preview: shutting up about the Naturalization Act of 1790 now. Sorry.)
posted by kyrademon at 10:41 AM on October 16, 2013


Its a 10-year Act. The totals were already locked in. Now the political impact is they won't be locked in. There will be a reduction in the sequester.

Says who? What provision of the law allows spending levels to be locked in, and what provision of this deal forces the GOP to give an inch on the sequester?
posted by tonycpsu at 10:42 AM on October 16, 2013


Dumb cuts might be replaced by less dumb cuts, but here is a preview of budget negotiations:

Republicans: Cut spending from the current levels.

Obama: Okay, as long as you give me new revenue too.

Republicans: No.

So we won't have a deal and will instead do some more CRing, but IF we have a deal...spending will be cut from where it is today.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:45 AM on October 16, 2013 [5 favorites]


Yeah, part of where I might be disagreeing with Ironmouth is that he might consider the size of the non-discretionary budget under sequestration, but with smarter, more targeted cuts, as a "win", whereas I think anything that doesn't return to funding levels before sequestration kicked in as a starting point is a very significant loss.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:47 AM on October 16, 2013


@robertcostaNRO: RT @JohnJHarwood Senate D leadership aide: hoping for passage of CR/debt deal in 5-8 pm range

Gaaahhhh that is too close to the wire.
posted by jason_steakums at 10:48 AM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


If a very real chance of defaulting was averted and the Tea Party's fantasies were renounced by the public? Yeah, absolutely a victory.

I have yet to see any poster saying it's not a victory. The disagreement is mostly just on the size of the victory, and it's ultimate impact. And that word "if" at the beginning of your sentence carries a lot of weight: it seems the first problem was averted, but the idea that the Tea Party was "renounced by the public" is truly premature. The public has a short attention span, and a proven weakness for being easily bamboozled.

As far as the agreement goes: just read it. It's not very inspiring stuff. I'm pretty sure the Teahadists will regroup, so I'm not ready to say this dysfunctional situation is over.

This does seem like a good time to give a concrete example to the "you need the votes" contingent: This is an ideal time to build votes by consistent, aggressive messaging (and, by "aggressive" I do not mean "stupid and off-putting"). If Obama (and his administration and the Democratic party) keeps talking about ideological extremists that are keeping us from getting our economy back on track (like Bill Nelson is doing as I listen to C-SPAN), they might just get the public to well and truly renounce the Tea Party. But Obama has never really been willing to be so "uncivil" before, so I'll be happily surprised if he (or his surrogates) does it.
posted by mondo dentro at 10:53 AM on October 16, 2013 [2 favorites]


Gaaahhhh that is too close to the wire.

We technically defaulted during one of the previous shutdowns in the Carter administration and the world didn't end. There was an interest rate spike that has ended up costing billions in today's dollars, but if we go over for a few hours tonight, I don't think we're in "stock up on canned goods and ammunition" territory.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:54 AM on October 16, 2013 [2 favorites]


Is there something by Machiavelli that covers this?

Machiavelli wasn't prescribing behavior, he was describing human nature.
posted by Mental Wimp at 11:02 AM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


There's no such thing as locking levels in for 10 years because you can't tie the hands of future Congresses or Presidents. Sequester levels remaining in effect is a loss for America when the whole point of the sequester was to force both sides to come up with a better plan. The sequester is a big win for the GOP because, as it turns out, they don't hate the defense cuts as much as they thought they would. Saying Democrats won just because they prevented the GOP from "locking in" a victory that can't really be locked in makes no sense at all.

If this episode isn't proof positive of the cost of uncivil messaging and not having the votes, I don't know what does. Uncivil messaging and stunt moves without the votes means you lose. Exhibit A? Ted fucking Cruz.

Why would we want to act like them? It is completely stupid.

And also, what message is the party supposed to coalesce around? The Joan Walsh caucus? How's that worked out for us?
posted by Ironmouth at 11:02 AM on October 16, 2013 [6 favorites]


"But Obama has never really been willing to be so "uncivil" before..."

Which, I think, weighed heavily in the general consensus that fault lies with the splintering Republicans and not the Dems. (Well, that and the truth.) The uninformed public may not have been as sympathetic with a Green Lantern president.
posted by klarck at 11:03 AM on October 16, 2013


included a person born abroad to parents who are United States citizens.

Both or either?
posted by Mental Wimp at 11:07 AM on October 16, 2013


"But Obama has never really been willing to be so "uncivil" before..."

Which, I think, weighed heavily in the general consensus that fault lies with the splintering Republicans and not the Dems. (Well, that and the truth.) The uninformed public may not have been as sympathetic with a Green Lantern president.


AKA Angry Black Male.

But let's put it out there folks, what does being uncivil get the Dems? How exactly does it work that being uncivil helps the Dems out?
posted by Ironmouth at 11:07 AM on October 16, 2013


Important to remember here...Democrats won exactly nothing

Well first of all this fight was pretty much the last stand for Republicans in terms of being able to defeat the ACA, which they have been obsessed with doing since before it was even passed. Starting next year, "repealing Obamacare" will mean taking away health insurance from millions of people, a large portion of which will be Republicans, rather than some vague future program that they can do a lot of FUD messaging about. This loss for the GOP makes it absolutely clear that they have no chance of getting enough leverage to cripple the key 2014 parts of the program in time.

Also the fight and the resolution of it shows how badly fractured the Republican party is and how much that hurts them in terms of being able to act as a whole in negotiations. The gerrymandering that helped them keep control of the House also injected into their party a lot of representatives whose platform is only popular with a relatively small minority of the national voting public. That gives their leadership the choice of either going along with that minority to push for unpopular policy (how this mess got started) or ignoring that minority and relying on the Democrats to vote with them (how it is now being ended). There were plenty of opportunities for the GOP overall to extract some sort of small compromise from the Democrats out of this, but they ended up having to go with the Senate bill and House Democrat votes because they didn't have the numbers within their own party to get votes on a GOP-tilted bill. It's a problem that's only going to get worse too, as the GOP tries to appeal to the centrists who voted for Obama twice in upcoming elections on issues like immigration reform.
posted by burnmp3s at 11:08 AM on October 16, 2013 [3 favorites]


And also, what message is the party supposed to coalesce around? The Joan Walsh caucus? How's that worked out for us?

I wouldn't know. We never tried it.

Votes don't exist a priori. They are manufactured by narratives promulgated by parties. When both parties are blocked from speaking certain truths because of the same monied interests, it skews the politics to the right. Indeed, that was the entire point of the Powell memo: by driving the Dems away from class warfare and unions, into the arms of financial capital, the plutocrats got exactly what they wanted, a politics of "heads I win, tails you lose".

A procedural view of politics, based only on counting votes, has never changed anything. The politics happened first, the votes only come into it at the very end.
posted by mondo dentro at 11:08 AM on October 16, 2013 [3 favorites]


So, what's the over-under on how likely Ted Cruz is to be president?
posted by mccarty.tim at 11:11 AM on October 16, 2013


Ironmouth: " If this episode isn't proof positive of the cost of uncivil messaging and not having the votes, I don't know what does. Uncivil messaging and stunt moves without the votes means you lose. Exhibit A? Ted fucking Cruz. "

How is opening negotiations at the pre-sequester levels uncivil? How would Obama opening negotiations at single payer or even public option have been uncivil? You act as if "civility" means conceding before negotiations have begun. Make them talk you off of the things you want (I doubt Obama wanted single payer, but he did say he wanted a public option, but he never got anything for it in negotiations.)

I guess you just walk into a car dealership and begin negotiations at the sticker price just so the negotiations don't get "uncivil", huh?
posted by tonycpsu at 11:11 AM on October 16, 2013 [5 favorites]


Votes don't exist a priori. They are manufactured by narratives promulgated by parties

I couldn't disagree more. Parties follow the votes. This is our fault. American citizens pressuring their congressmen made this shutdown happen.

The whole Gramsci bit is an attack on democracy. Its the fake excuse why Communists never took power in Western Europe.

And it is stupid because it insults the very voters it is trying to convince. "you voters are dumb sheep, so vote for us and get smart." How many votes does that get anyone? Never seen it work.
posted by Ironmouth at 11:12 AM on October 16, 2013


What was someone saying about circular firing squads?
posted by T.D. Strange at 11:12 AM on October 16, 2013 [11 favorites]


But let's put it out there folks, what does being uncivil get the Dems? How exactly does it work that being uncivil helps the Dems out?

Ironmouth, are you being deliberately obtuse? The quotes around "uncivil" means "it's not really uncivil, but establishment people say it is." People like, you, I guess.

Messaging works. Advertising works. Propaganda works. Parables work. Story telling works. Bean counters seem not to get the entire idea of developing votes. They think they just are there, lying around, waiting to be counted.

Calling out your opposition by saying true things about them--just like Obama finally managed to do this time, by calling out GOP threats as ransom and extortion--saying such true things is not being uncivil and can contribute to the building of votes.
posted by mondo dentro at 11:13 AM on October 16, 2013 [10 favorites]


So, what's the over-under on how likely Ted Cruz is to be president?

DISAPPROVING HISS
posted by elizardbits at 11:14 AM on October 16, 2013 [5 favorites]


The whole Gramsci bit is an attack on democracy.

Oh, nice, Ironmouth. So is this where I'm supposed to call you a corporate tool?

All I know aboug Gramsci is his name and a bit if Wikipedia. I'm no more of a commie than FDR was. So shame on you.
posted by mondo dentro at 11:15 AM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


Ironmouth: " If this episode isn't proof positive of the cost of uncivil messaging and not having the votes, I don't know what does. Uncivil messaging and stunt moves without the votes means you lose. Exhibit A? Ted fucking Cruz. "

How is opening negotiations at the pre-sequester levels uncivil? How would Obama opening negotiations at single payer or even public option have been uncivil? You act as if "civility" means conceding before negotiations have begun. Make them talk you off of the things you want (I doubt Obama wanted single payer, but he did say he wanted a public option, but he never got anything for it in negotiations.)

I guess you just walk into a car dealership and begin negotiations at the sticker price just so the negotiations don't get "uncivil", huh?


Obama didn't negotiate in this matter. He never put forward any proposal while the debt ceiling wasn't raised. As for the CR, why would you press for a continuing resolution, designed to have a short term effect, to have a higher effect. You want to move on to the real negotiations. And the GOP ate that proposal. Collins wanted the whole "sequester set for all of fiscal 2014" crap. She lost. The idea is the CR is just a short term thing. We want a budget and regular appropriations. So who cares if there is a CR at the old rates? It means nothing. Also WHERE ARE THE VOTES FOR INCREASED SPENDING LEVELS IN THE CR? Please tell me who would provide such votes and in exchange for what.

The whole purpose here is to get back to regular order, which is what we did.
posted by Ironmouth at 11:17 AM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


What was someone saying about circular firing squads?

I pushed that button. But this conversation shows the distinction between the right and the left that I typically see, I think. There's disagreement here, but it's a discussion of ideas and opinions. Not immediate, slanderous othering and distancing.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 11:17 AM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


Yeah, if this is heading in the direction of red-baiting from an ostensible lefty, then I'm out.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:19 AM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


Not immediate, slanderous othering and distancing.

That's not what I'm feeling. The establishment types, represented by you-know-who, are quick to call people who disagree with them "naive", "foolish", "uninformed"... and then what that doesn't work, they trot out "commie".

Disgusting, really.
posted by mondo dentro at 11:20 AM on October 16, 2013 [2 favorites]


that is too close to the wire.

We technically defaulted during one of the previous shutdowns in the Carter administration and the world didn't end.


Funny you'd link that as a way to reassure - I thought that was a case where the technical deadline wasn't actually breached, but it had an impact nonetheless. In other words - too close to the wire did make a difference.

Sure, the "world didn't end" but I don't think anyone has been expecting a sudden armageddon. Except for meteors, invasions or divine interventions, most downfalls are kind of crumbly and drawn out to begin with, and even if something as dramatic as national collapse is avoided, negative economic effects are still not a good thing. If there were to be impacts from this, would they be blamed on Ted Cruz or Obama?
posted by mdn at 11:21 AM on October 16, 2013


The whole Gramsci bit is an attack on democracy.

Oh, nice, Ironmouth. So is this where I'm supposed to call you a corporate tool?

All I know aboug Gramsci is his name and a bit if Wikipedia. I'm no more of a commie than FDR was. So shame on you.


Well Gramsci came up with the idea that the reason the Communists were losing wasn't because they weren't providing the voters with what they wanted, but that the voters were being brainwashed by the culture.

There's zero intent to call you a communist. I'm saying that a electoral strategy that holds that the people you are convincing are dumb tools is bound to lose.
posted by Ironmouth at 11:21 AM on October 16, 2013 [3 favorites]


Also WHERE ARE THE VOTES FOR INCREASED SPENDING LEVELS IN THE CR?

Well, all the Democrats. You might have been able to convince moderate Republicans too but it would mean entering into the shutdown crisis firmly with the messaging that the definition of a clean CR would be ending the sequester. It would be a tougher case because that isn't as clean and you lose the "We took your numbers" messaging that worked really well, but ultimately the Republicans were cornered rats on this so it's possible they would have capitulated to that demand.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:22 AM on October 16, 2013


There's disagreement here, but it's a discussion of ideas and opinions. Not immediate, slanderous othering and distancing.

Serious question: Is there a right-leaning forum where civil discourse is encouraged? The blue is generally left-leaning and the schadenfreude of redstate implosion is fun in the short term, but I would love to read some sane arguments from the right.
posted by notpace at 11:23 AM on October 16, 2013


Let me be clear, I'm not saying anything about communists. I'm saying Gramsci's theory, that voters are just robots who yelling loud enough will "manufacture" for the purposes of winning has been shown, time after time, to be wrong. If his idea on how to win voters were true, then the Tea Party would have just won that battle.

I am not accusing any person of being a communist.
posted by Ironmouth at 11:24 AM on October 16, 2013 [2 favorites]


I would love to read some sane arguments from the right.

David Frum
posted by KokuRyu at 11:24 AM on October 16, 2013


Also WHERE ARE THE VOTES FOR INCREASED SPENDING LEVELS IN THE CR?

Well, all the Democrats. You might have been able to convince moderate Republicans too but it would mean entering into the shutdown crisis firmly with the messaging that the definition of a clean CR would be ending the sequester. It would be a tougher case because that isn't as clean and you lose the "We took your numbers" messaging that worked really well, but ultimately the Republicans were cornered rats on this so it's possible they would have capitulated to that demand.


This is exactly what Ted Cruz said about the shutdown and the debt default relative to Obamacare. If we only pressure them really, really hard, they will suddenly start voting with us. How'd that work?
posted by Ironmouth at 11:26 AM on October 16, 2013


"Republicans shut down the government! You're an idiot!"
Sarah Palin complains about Democrats using Veterans for political gain as she makes a political speech at war memorial for political gain. The veterans aren't buying it.
posted by quonsar II: smock fishpants and the temple of foon at 11:28 AM on October 16, 2013 [13 favorites]


This is exactly what Ted Cruz said about the shutdown and the debt default relative to Obamacare. If we only pressure them really, really hard, they will suddenly start voting with us. How'd that work?

What happened was the Democrats pressured the Republicans really hard, and then they capitulated to the Democratic demands.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:28 AM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


I can't tell who's being sarcastic in this thread anymore. Can we go back to dancing on the grave of Boehner's career?
posted by Skorgu at 11:30 AM on October 16, 2013 [7 favorites]


Seems to me Hurricane Cruz has put a lot of establishment GOP types in the House on notice that they might have more to worry about in general elections in 2014 than they will in primaries from Tea Party nutjobs that resemble Cruz. The same coalition that's going to vote for this deal could be a coalition that could come together on a deal that restores some of the funding.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:30 AM on October 16, 2013


I'm saying Gramsci's theory, that voters are just robots who yelling loud enough will "manufacture" for the purposes of winning has been shown, time after time, to be wrong. If his idea on how to win voters were true, then the Tea Party would have just won that battle.

While unsuccessful for the entire National Body Politic, I wouldn't say it has been proven untrue in certain smaller jurisdictions. That's how the Tea Party got as many congressional districts AND state legislatures as they have.
posted by oneswellfoop at 11:31 AM on October 16, 2013 [2 favorites]


That's how the Tea Party got as many congressional districts AND state legislatures as they have.

It has just as much to do with suppressing opposition votes.
posted by Mental Wimp at 11:32 AM on October 16, 2013 [2 favorites]


I would love to read some sane arguments from the right.

David Frum


Frum is always a good read, but is there a site where regular republican voters discuss issues without resorting to *ahem* uncivil discourse?
posted by notpace at 11:34 AM on October 16, 2013


I'm saying that a electoral strategy that holds that the people you are convincing are dumb tools is bound to lose.

This is a ridiculous straw-man framing of what I'm proposing. Did Jesus think people were dumb, because he used parables instead of speaking like Heidegger? Do advertisers think you're dumb because they understand that you have an unconscious, and they play to it? (Well, yeah, actually, a lot of them do...) You are saying what I'm suggesting has "never worked". Did it work for Gandhi? MLK? Did it work for Obama's Hope and Change tour of 2008? You know damn well it worked. Where were Obama's 2008 votes before he created them with a brilliant, stirring campaign? They didn't exist.

Now, let's put the shoe on your foot: how well has neoliberal technocratic blandness worked for the Democrats? It got us GWI, Clinton's impeachment and the dot-com bubble, then GWII's Nero-level incompetence, and now Obama, who up to now, because he's listening to people you no doubt agree with, has been treating a time of revolutionary fervor and potential global calamity like it's a Rotary club meeting. And it got us a right wing that is more extreme than anything seen since the 20s and 30s. People need values language. They need a sense of purpose, hope, and direction. Democrat technocrats have not provided this, and into the breech stepped the Right.

I beg you. Wake the fuck up. If you are as much of an insider as you seem to be, we need people like you to understand that the Democratic messaging--pretty much since the red scare--has resulted in the party overseeing the destruction of it's own base, the American middle class, along with most of the American economy--the very thing that truly made America great.
posted by mondo dentro at 11:35 AM on October 16, 2013 [15 favorites]


CNN cuts away from McConnell speech to cover Speaker Cruz's reaction:
if you listen carefully, you can hear someone (I think it's CNN reporter Dana Bash) ask Cruz if he wants to wait for McConnell to finish his remarks before he begins speaking. Cruz, of course, says no—but nonetheless waits for a few more seconds to begin, not because McConnell is speaking but because:
Alright, hold on, let me wait until everyone is situated.
And there you have Ted Cruz's priorities in a nutshell: As long as the camera's are focused on him, he's good to go.
posted by Joey Michaels at 11:37 AM on October 16, 2013 [10 favorites]


This is exactly what Ted Cruz said about the shutdown and the debt default relative to Obamacare. If we only pressure them really, really hard, they will suddenly start voting with us. How'd that work?

What happened was the Democrats pressured the Republicans really hard, and then they capitulated to the Democratic demands.


No. If you'll remember, the GOP refused to vote a CR. The government was closed. The Dems had the votes to return a clean CR each and every time to the GOP. The GOP realized they were not going to be able to pressure the Dems into giving up anything, so they stopped.

Saying that the Dems "had demands" is basically giving the GOP fake messaging some credit.

Who started this? The GOP. And their dumb strategy, which everyone said was dumb from the first second, failed.
posted by Ironmouth at 11:42 AM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


When G-ddamned David-Fucking-Frum is regarded as the sane voice in the room, I think it's time for me to get my hat and coat and bid adieu to politics considering the sage words of an old friend, "Even talking about politics ENCOURAGES them..."
posted by mikelieman at 11:44 AM on October 16, 2013 [3 favorites]


Now, let's put the shoe on your foot: how well has neoliberal technocratic blandness worked for the Democrats? It got us GWI, Clinton's impeachment and the dot-com bubble, then GWII's Nero-level incompetence, and now Obama, who up to now, because he's listening to people you no doubt agree with, has been treating a time of revolutionary fervor and potential global calamity like it's a Rotary club meeting. And it got us a right wing that is more extreme than anything seen since the 20s and 30s. People need values language. They need a sense of purpose, hope, and direction. Democrat technocrats have not provided this, and into the breech stepped the Right.

I beg you. Wake the fuck up. If you are as much of an insider as you seem to be, we need people like you to understand that the Democratic messaging--pretty much since the red scare--has resulted in the party overseeing the destruction of it's own base, the American middle class, along with most of the American economy--the very thing that truly made America great.


Hey, there's a lot of the things I want. But I don't want them so much as to throw away what we have now. Where are the votes for these things you want? The Constitution says we require votes. And the theory being presented to me is that if we only act "tough" and say really mean things that make us feel emotionally well inside, a whole bunch of people will suddenly change their minds and vote with us. When has that ever happened? Has this ever motivated voters to vote with the Dems in the modern era?
posted by Ironmouth at 11:46 AM on October 16, 2013 [2 favorites]


. People need values language. They need a sense of purpose, hope, and direction.

Man, do I miss Mario Cuomo
posted by mikelieman at 11:48 AM on October 16, 2013


Funding the government and not defaulting the government should not be a demand, but in this case it was. Including ending the sequester with that demand is pretty reasonable and it seems plausible to me it could have worked, but it would have definitely been a more risky strategy.

It was not all that dumb of the GOP since the same hostage taking strategies have worked before, it's how we ended up with the sequester we are discussing getting rid of in the first place. It was dumb of them not to follow Boehner's gameplan to use the debt limit again instead of a shutdown, but the basic script has proven sound in the past.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:49 AM on October 16, 2013


if we only act "tough" and say really mean things that make us feel emotionally well inside, a whole bunch of people will suddenly change their minds

Nobody fucking said that.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:52 AM on October 16, 2013 [6 favorites]


Funding the government and not defaulting the government should not be a demand, but in this case it was. Including ending the sequester with that demand is pretty reasonable and it seems plausible to me it could have worked, but it would have definitely been a more risky strategy.

But it would have thrown away all of the leverage we needed and made us the same as the GOP. We would have legitimized the tactic of using the debt ceiling as some sort of tool to get what we wanted. And we would have lost this battle and given up stuff because it would have been a straight negotiation. It would have said to the GOP--keep doing this stuff.

Would you favor a Dem minority using this tactic?
posted by Ironmouth at 11:53 AM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


When G-ddamned David-Fucking-Frum is regarded as the sane voice in the room

I find on American domestic issues he's very sane, but when speaking about American foreign policy he's a bit of a loon and not worth reading.

Remember, you don't always have to agree with what someone is writing about. It's good to challenge one's assumptions on a regular basis to avoid groupthink.
posted by KokuRyu at 11:54 AM on October 16, 2013 [2 favorites]


(Tempers fraying much? Guys, this is a BFD, maybe take a moment to savor it instead of arguing about what it means already?)

Not a mod, this is not professional advice, use only as directed, read the full label for a listing of side effects
posted by RedOrGreen at 11:55 AM on October 16, 2013 [5 favorites]


mondo dentro did you see the focus group report on the GOP Mental Wimp posted?

Interesting that on both sides of the political spectrum there is a perception that the last 2 decades have been a series of catastrophic losses for their side. I would love if someone found a report similar to the one that Mental Wimp found that analyzed both parties' ultra-rich donor bases as opposed to voter bases and see what attitudes they held.
posted by Wretch729 at 11:56 AM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


Where are the votes for these things you want?

Sigh.

They don't exist yet. And they never will exist with this Democratic party, one that abandoned the unions to Reagan's tender mercies, and thought Bob Rubin would make good economics policy. One that gleefully had a Sister Soulja moment and "ended the welfare state as we know it" because they had lost their own progressive values and so had to fall back on crass triangulation. This Democratic party is nothing more than a Progressive Zombie. So, sure, we'll keep hearing kinder gentler words from them, since that's their brand. But they don't mean it. They'll keep marching to the Simpson-Bowles tune, and shilling for clean coal.

So, it needs to be reformed. Getting it off of Wall Street money is the first and biggest challenge. If that's accomplished, then we can create a different story, maybe. Then you'd see your votes.
posted by mondo dentro at 11:57 AM on October 16, 2013 [5 favorites]


But it would have thrown away all of the leverage

It would sacrifice some of it, but the basic dynamics always start with the Republicans threatening to destroy the country over Obamacare. It's pretty easy to frame ending the sequester nobody really wanted to have in the first place as a clean funding solution in comparison to those crazy demands. Yes, it is riskier, but it is plausible it could work. I don't imagine Obama disagrees with that, just did not see the extra risk as worthwhile in this case when it might be better approached during the regular negotiations.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:57 AM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


The whole Gramsci bit is an attack on democracy. Its the fake excuse why Communists never took power in Western Europe.

I have no clue as to why you, Ironmouth, reference Gramsci. Text search reveals this is the first mention. But you do know that in the immediate aftermath of the end of WWII, the US pulled out all the stops to prevent the Communist parties in Greece, Italy and France from coming to power?
posted by Mister Bijou at 12:05 PM on October 16, 2013 [3 favorites]


"Oh, look...another surrender monkey comes out of the woodwork. Go back into hibernation."

If we hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominoes should fall like a house of cards. Checkmate!
posted by Justinian at 12:06 PM on October 16, 2013 [27 favorites]


It's not all about leverage, it's also about expectations. The whole reason you go in with an opening bid of what you actually want is so the other side thinks they won something when you end up with a compromise. Pre-compromising does nothing, and trying to hand-wave that bad strategy away with "where were the votes" is bullshit. The votes would have been there from centrists who thought they reasonably got some concessions from the other side, and the two sides would meet closer to the middle, instead of about 3/4 the way over to the right where things ended up with the ACA, the sequester, etc.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:08 PM on October 16, 2013 [2 favorites]


From the son of Erick at RedState: While you and I and he and everyone else knows the debt ceiling issue will not actually throw us into default, we must remember low information voters and the media.

Seems amazing he could genuinely believe this, I know I should never be surprised by right wing logic, but sometimes I still am.
posted by honestcoyote at 12:09 PM on October 16, 2013 [2 favorites]


Dear Tea Party.
posted by Justinian at 12:10 PM on October 16, 2013


Nice: Cruz says it was a "remarkable victory" until the Senate Republicans "failed to unite" [YT]
posted by mondo dentro at 12:13 PM on October 16, 2013


It's not all about leverage, it's also about expectations. The whole reason you go in with an opening bid of what you actually want is so the other side thinks they won something when you end up with a compromise. Pre-compromising does nothing, and trying to hand-wave that bad strategy away with "where were the votes" is bullshit. The votes would have been there from centrists who thought they reasonably got some concessions from the other side, and the two sides would meet closer to the middle, instead of about 3/4 the way over to the right where things ended up with the ACA, the sequester, etc.

That backfires when it is obvious you do not have the votes to push what you want. See: Ted Cruz claiming that Obama might defund Obamacare to keep the government open. They got nothing despite of their forward negotiating position. Your demand has to be realistic to work. Its how its worked in the dozens of negotiations I've been involved in.
posted by Ironmouth at 12:14 PM on October 16, 2013


How do I make videos have the inline link? I guess I never used it before. Sadface.
posted by Justinian at 12:15 PM on October 16, 2013


it was a "remarkable victory" until the Senate Republicans "failed to unite"

Tigers on the Red Sox win in Game 2 of this year ALCS: "If you only look at the first 8 innings, we secured a profound victory."
posted by Joey Michaels at 12:16 PM on October 16, 2013 [9 favorites]


See: Ted Cruz claiming that Obama might defund Obamacare to keep the government open.

So you think the average House member thinks rolling back cuts to something closer to pre-sequester levels is just as much of an ask as tanking the global economy and keeping the government shut down?
posted by tonycpsu at 12:16 PM on October 16, 2013 [2 favorites]


Guys. Seriously. Take it to email if you want to keep butting heads.
posted by cortex at 12:19 PM on October 16, 2013 [8 favorites]


See: Ted Cruz claiming that Obama might defund Obamacare to keep the government open.

So you think the average House member thinks rolling back cuts to something closer to pre-sequester levels is just as much of an ask as tanking the global economy and keeping the government shut down?


I don't understand what you are saying here--are you saying an average House member thinks of tanking the economy as an ask?

An aside, this is exactly what I meant in my deleted comment from this thread from a couple of days ago.
posted by Ironmouth at 12:19 PM on October 16, 2013




2000+ comments and no one's been able to use the phrase "Cruz Control" yet.
posted by hellojed at 12:22 PM on October 16, 2013 [11 favorites]




I don't understand what you are saying here--are you saying an average House member thinks of tanking the economy as an ask?

It's almost as if a threat to tank the economy and offering a plan to return to normal spending levels are completely different things.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:23 PM on October 16, 2013 [4 favorites]


I would at least have liked Obama to require that the furloughed workers get back pay. I know the markets are 'important,' but I'm more concerned with folks making rent than hedge funds making hay.
posted by Mooski at 12:24 PM on October 16, 2013 [2 favorites]


When Boehner brings the [Senate] bill to the floor, it could easily fail to garner the support of a majority of the GOP conference – private estimates from lawmakers range from 40 GOP “yes” votes to 120.

All they need is ~20.


Damn. Every yes above and beyond those 22 or so from last week is like a shot across the bow of the Tea Party.
posted by jason_steakums at 12:25 PM on October 16, 2013 [2 favorites]


Seems amazing he could genuinely believe this

Saying that "low information voters" don't know some piece of happy horseshit is the usual I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I rhetoric; like talk radio buffoons comparing the left to Joseph Goebbels, right in the middle of their own "we are under attack" hellraising. I haven't seen them call everyone outside the bubble "in the bubble" but I doubt they've missed out on that one either.
posted by George_Spiggott at 12:26 PM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


I would at least have liked Obama to require that the furloughed workers get back pay.

Wait, are they not? I thought something was previously passed for that?
posted by inigo2 at 12:26 PM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


Wait, are they not? I thought something was previously passed for that?

That would be (welcome) news to me - I didn't hear anything of that nature.
posted by Mooski at 12:28 PM on October 16, 2013


I haven't seen them call everyone outside the bubble "in the bubble"

Bill O'Reilly did, more or less, a few days ago.
posted by mondo dentro at 12:29 PM on October 16, 2013


The back pay bill didn't pass the Senate, last I checked. Also, someone I know at the Library of Congress informed me that the bill was only going to pay people who were asked to work, not those who were home furloughed.
posted by exogenous at 12:29 PM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


I would at least have liked Obama to require that the furloughed workers get back pay.

Wait, are they not? I thought something was previously passed for that?


Senate's deal to reopen the government includes back pay for furloughed feds
posted by zombieflanders at 12:31 PM on October 16, 2013 [8 favorites]


2000+ comments and no one's been able to use the phrase "Cruz Control" yet.

I like Cruzifixion.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:32 PM on October 16, 2013 [5 favorites]


Cruz fixation?
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 12:33 PM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


I would love to read some sane arguments from the right.
I've been learning a lot from The American Conservative. Grown-up thinking and discussion over there.
posted by GrammarMoses at 12:35 PM on October 16, 2013 [5 favorites]


Boehner just officially announced the House will be voting on the Senate bill.
posted by zombieflanders at 12:35 PM on October 16, 2013 [2 favorites]


Cruzfederates?
posted by inigo2 at 12:35 PM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


Mod note: I know nobody likes to reload a 2000 comment thread but if you're responding to what feels like a derail keep in mind that it may already have been treated like a derail and make sure you're not just arguing with a ghost. Please try and make this less of a WELL NO U shouting match thing and more something focused on things actually happening, maybe.
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:36 PM on October 16, 2013 [2 favorites]


Booze Cruz
posted by hellojed at 12:36 PM on October 16, 2013


Poop Cruz
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 12:37 PM on October 16, 2013


Booze Cruz

Now there's a derail I can hop aboard!
posted by Theta States at 12:37 PM on October 16, 2013


All this time, the GOP has been Cruz-in' for a bruisin'.
posted by Atom Eyes at 12:38 PM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


Cruz Ship
posted by Drinky Die at 12:38 PM on October 16, 2013 [2 favorites]


Shutdown hurts GOP Senate chances

PPP polling for 6 key seats - pretty far out but I still enjoyed reading it - being identified as a shutdown supporter plays negatively among voters.
posted by madamjujujive at 12:38 PM on October 16, 2013


>>I haven't seen them call everyone outside the bubble "in the bubble"
>Bill O'Reilly did, more or less, a few days ago.


Hee, hee: "Democrats and the liberals live in the biggest mainstream media bubble ever created in the history of the universe."

Er, the ionosphere? The universe itself?
posted by George_Spiggott at 12:38 PM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


I think arguing for the Democrats to extract a greater price of defeat out of the Republicans ignores the evidence of Obama's governing philosophy so far. His basic approach is to do everything by the book to exacting detail, even when he knows the outcome ahead of time and knows he won't get everything he wants. In this way, he shows a long term view, but it's not some kind of 11 dimensional chess argument. I think Obama really cares about having his accomplishments stand the test of time, to be seen as legitimate by future generations in the same way that Social Security is today. He cannot achieve this by adopting extremist tactics to accomplish his goals. Throwing in with the extremists, gaming the system like the least of those members of Congress encourage, devalues the institution of government and taints anything that is associated with it.

I think this view is also compatible with the idea that Obama has squandered opportunities to accomplish much more.
posted by feloniousmonk at 12:42 PM on October 16, 2013 [13 favorites]


GOP sCruz itself.
posted by hillabeans at 12:44 PM on October 16, 2013 [6 favorites]


No one was saying Cruz-urns.
posted by T.D. Strange at 12:45 PM on October 16, 2013 [11 favorites]


I was saying Cruz-urns.
posted by Etrigan at 12:47 PM on October 16, 2013 [8 favorites]


On Andrew Sullivan's blog, an old colleague of Cruz's makes a comment. And, in Texas, the Houston Chronicle has withdrawn its endorsement.
posted by Going To Maine at 12:47 PM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


I was saying Cruz-urns!
posted by Talez at 12:47 PM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


Well, it's been no bed of roses, no pleasure Cruz...
posted by GrammarMoses at 12:49 PM on October 16, 2013 [5 favorites]


To build on what I was saying earlier, I think there is a decent analogy here to performance enhancing drugs in baseball. Once there was no rule against doing it. People knew it was an ethical minefield, and it was only allowed by technicality, or in later days, even actually outright against the rules. They did it anyway. Now those people are being evaluated by the Hall of Fame. Some of them have set records that broke previous marks set by some of the most beloved people to play the game. There's a significant number of baseball fans who want to see those records with asterisks next to them because they believe they were set by cheaters who skirted the rules, who maybe got away with it because they were technically correct or had clever lawyers or whatever. Obama doesn't want any asterisks. I believe that at some point in the future these tactics will be banned.
posted by feloniousmonk at 12:49 PM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


I can't believe I did this, but I felt an urgent need to read some freeper talk on this matter, and so went over there and found this comment:
I called my local board of elections just now. I am going to un-register to vote.
Who said there were no winners in this?!
posted by Flunkie at 12:49 PM on October 16, 2013 [15 favorites]


ex-Cruziating.
posted by ambrosia at 12:50 PM on October 16, 2013 [5 favorites]


I think arguing for the Democrats to extract a greater price of defeat out of the Republicans ignores the evidence of Obama's governing philosophy so far. His basic approach is to do everything by the book to exacting detail, even when he knows the outcome ahead of time and knows he won't get everything he wants. In this way, he shows a long term view, but it's not some kind of 11 dimensional chess argument. I think Obama really cares about having his accomplishments stand the test of time, to be seen as legitimate by future generations in the same way that Social Security is today. He cannot achieve this by adopting extremist tactics to accomplish his goals.

Hence his insistence that he get DADT Repeal passed by the legislative branch. It could have been immediately undone by an opposing majority with a President in place.

The other question is, do you think the Teahadists are right to push in ways that decrease confidence in the legislative branch? I say no. I say the damage is too high.

For example, the 14th Amendment plan to issue debt. That would set too high a price, long-term allowing for a President to issue his own debt. That's the opposite of democracy, in my mind.
posted by Ironmouth at 12:50 PM on October 16, 2013 [2 favorites]




> That would set too high a price, long-term allowing for a President to issue his own debt.

No, it would allow a President to issue his own debt rather than default.

> That's the opposite of democracy, in my mind.

The "democracy" part occurs when our elected representatives vote for a budget. There shouldn't be any choice as to whether the government pays for a budget that has already been passed.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 12:57 PM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


Issuing his own debt only specifically for the spending Congress authorized is not that much of a threat to Democracy. It's not like he would be using it to institute single payer.

Hence his insistence that he get DADT Repeal passed by the legislative branch.

Probably would have been handled by the courts anyway.

The other question is, do you think the Teahadists are right to push in ways that decrease confidence in the legislative branch?

It's not like moving an approval rating already in the toilet slightly more into the toilet is a major change in perception. It's definitely uncertain if Republicans have done any long term political damage to themselves in this.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:59 PM on October 16, 2013


Bunny sex
posted by maggieb at 12:59 PM on October 16, 2013 [2 favorites]


Republicans shut down the government in 1995 and it didn't end well. Then in 1998 they impeached the president and that didn't end well either. There is no way that they can look at what happened in the Clinton years and think that it's a good idea to impeach Obama.

So where do I sign up to start canvassing for Michelle?
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 1:00 PM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


"There is no limit to the extremism of the positions Ted would take, given the chance, and the right encouragement. He treats every political discussion like a college-style debate, and the more ordinary people see of his scorched-earth argument style, I think the less they’re going to like it."

Reminds me of Karl Rove, who apparently became addicted to dirty-politicking and ratfucking while managing campaigns for the College Republicans.
posted by Atom Eyes at 1:01 PM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


On Andrew Sullivan's blog, an old colleague of Cruz's makes a comment.

This makes so much sense- not just for Cruz, but for a lot of American politics: "Being a lawyer was a great fit in that way because you are paid to take a side, knowing that you are not tasked with crafting the outcome, but instead are playing your part in an adversarial system. Making policy, on the other hand, requires a very different mindset, and rewards different skills. I didn’t watch the filibuster, but having heard about it, it’s completely in his comfort zone, and exactly the kind of thing he knows how to do – talk for hours about why an extreme position actually makes a lot of sense because working out compromises with fellow legislators, or considering the actual consequences of taking such extreme positions – not naturally his strong suit, and not what he enjoys doing."
posted by showbiz_liz at 1:01 PM on October 16, 2013 [6 favorites]


maggieb: Bunny sex.

“A friend explained to me today, finally, what Ted Cruz is doing,” Castellanos said. “And I finally understand, he’s having bunny sex.”

“This is the late-night edition of 360,” Cooper gasped.


Ok, I wasn't prepared for the hysterical laughter that triggered.
posted by RedOrGreen at 1:02 PM on October 16, 2013


Consider: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce announced Wednesday that it supports the new Senate plan to end the shutdown and raise the debt ceiling, and it will include the measure as a key vote.

Also consider: Heritage Action announced Wednesday that it will include the Senate deal to avert default and reopen government as a key vote in its scorecard, urging members to vote oppose the measure.

Ding ding ding!
posted by RedOrGreen at 1:06 PM on October 16, 2013


And there you have Ted Cruz's priorities in a nutshell: As long as the camera's are focused on him, he's good to go.

In fairness, this really is a bipartisan thing. I assure you that it would be deeply unsafe to be standing in between Chuck Schumer and an idle TV reporter.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 1:07 PM on October 16, 2013 [4 favorites]


Is there a copy of the Senate bill online? I couldn't find it on THOMAS.
posted by exogenous at 1:08 PM on October 16, 2013


Back pay for furloughed feds, fuckall for furloughed contractors!

Don't forget that contractors are not all $$$-loaded defense contractors, and there's a lot of forgotten workers (in the DC area especially) who just went two and a half weeks without pay.
posted by troika at 1:10 PM on October 16, 2013 [3 favorites]


do you think the Teahadists are right to push in ways that decrease confidence in the legislative branch?

It's the kind of thing that has the potential to be the downfall of the government if it becomes the norm. I couldn't be against it in stronger terms. I don't believe it rises to the level of treason, it's something far more insidious: incompetence without self-awareness of same.

It's very easy to get wrapped up in the 24 hour news cycle and the play-by-play coverage it provides. I think only when the moment of crisis has passed will we fully realize just how close to the precipice we came not only to financial disaster but to a simultaneous Constitutional crisis and the paralysis of government and ensuing chaos that is sure to accompany such a thing. For my mental health, I prefer not to contemplate what consequences such a dual disaster, each feeding off one another in a terrible sort of feedback loop, might bring.
posted by feloniousmonk at 1:11 PM on October 16, 2013 [2 favorites]


I can see where the "bunny sex" thing makes a certain kind of sense. You have a certain mode of operations that works for you in a given environment, then the environment changes but you keep right on in your mode of operations and plunge headlong over a cliff. Sure.

Not coming up with a better term for this than "bunny sex" or a more convincing or coherent explanation before you go on the news? Probably snorting something.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 1:12 PM on October 16, 2013


I keep waiting for any sign that Ghost Mode is right and somehow this will all fall apart. All sides seem to be indicating this is all over but for the actual votes. Whether angry, happy, or resigned, nobody is fighting it. But I won't breathe easy until it actually happens. Hopefully tonight, as I intend to do a shot or two of bourbon when it does, and that would be pretty awkward at work tomorrow morning.
posted by Roommate at 1:16 PM on October 16, 2013


From way earlier in the thread:

As far as I know, there's no actual mechanism to prevent anyone from belonging or not belonging to a party, on an election-line basis.

Parties can do this but it's a pain in the ass and generally seems to require going to court to show that the offending party doesn't believe in the goals and principles of the party.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 1:17 PM on October 16, 2013


Us getting to hear Alex Castellanos and Anderson Cooper talk about bunny sex on TV? Whatever it is, please keep snorting it.
posted by lodurr at 1:18 PM on October 16, 2013


"I was trying to think if ever in my life, I could remember any major political party being so irrelevant. I have never seen it. I have never seen a major political party simply occupy placeholders, as the Republican party has been doing. There has not been any serious opposition...against what's happening in this country. The Republicans have done everything they can to try to make everyone like them and what they've ended up doing is creating one of the greatest political disasters I've ever seen in my lifetime...I was pondering if I could ever remember...a time when a political party just made a decision not to exist, for all intents and purposes."

--El Rushbo
posted by mondo dentro at 1:20 PM on October 16, 2013


"Back pay for furloughed feds, fuckall for furloughed contractors!

Don't forget that contractors are not all $$$-loaded defense contractors, and there's a lot of forgotten workers (in the DC area especially) who just went two and a half weeks without pay.
"

Huh. I would have thought stuff like this would be in the contracts that contractors sign. I guess it should be, going forward.
posted by klangklangston at 1:21 PM on October 16, 2013


Huh. I would have thought stuff like this would be in the contracts that contractors sign. I guess it should be, going forward.

That would be in the contractors' interest, but it depends on whether actual meaningful work can be done by the contractors while the govvies they're working for are out of work. A lot of times they can, but at some point, you don't want them just freelancing for too long.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:26 PM on October 16, 2013


"I was trying to think if ever in my life, I could remember any major political party being so irrelevant. I have never seen it. I have never seen a major political party simply occupy placeholders, as the Republican party has been doing. There has not been any serious opposition...against what's happening in this country. The Republicans have done everything they can to try to make everyone like them and what they've ended up doing is creating one of the greatest political disasters I've ever seen in my lifetime...I was pondering if I could ever remember...a time when a political party just made a decision not to exist, for all intents and purposes."

YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS YOU GROTESQUE SACK OF CRAP. THIS IS WHAT YOU'VE BEEN TALKING UP FOR THE PAST 8 GODDAMN YEARS ON YOUR FUCKING SHOW AND IT WENT OVER LIKE A LEAD BALLOON. IF YOU EVER WANT TO KNOW WHAT SELF-AWARENESS IS LIKE THEN FEEL FREE TO ASK A NORMAL HUMAN BEING OR EVEN LIKE A COMMON DOG JESUS CHRIST WHERE'S MY WHISKY!?
posted by codacorolla at 1:28 PM on October 16, 2013 [24 favorites]


"Back pay for furloughed feds, fuckall for furloughed contractors!

Don't forget that contractors are not all $$$-loaded defense contractors, and there's a lot of forgotten workers (in the DC area especially) who just went two and a half weeks without pay."

Huh. I would have thought stuff like this would be in the contracts that contractors sign. I guess it should be, going forward.


It varies depending on the company and the contract (or contracts) the employees are working under. I personally wasn't furloughed through sequester or shutdown, and am being told to take my work laptop home tonight so I can still be on the job if everyone else gets furloughed for the debt ceiling.

Bear in mind that most contractors don't sign contracts with the government -- they're just employees of a company that has a contract, which may or may not be susceptible to mid-contract suspension.
posted by Etrigan at 1:28 PM on October 16, 2013 [5 favorites]


I guess it should be, going forward.

It varies based on each contract though, so some end up on other projects, some still can work offsite depending on what they're working on, but some (like my boyfriend) are just basically screwed. I really just want some of these articles talking about federal workers to at least mention the fact that contractors are affected, too.

Also Sheldon Whitehouse is speaking now and he's got a BIG SIGN.
posted by troika at 1:32 PM on October 16, 2013 [2 favorites]


JESUS CHRIST WHERE'S MY WHISKY!?

I believe its at Cortex's laundromat.
posted by Joey Michaels at 1:32 PM on October 16, 2013 [10 favorites]


I guess the "SHEEPLE" wouldn't fit.
posted by Big_B at 1:34 PM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


I missed Whitehouse. Got Rubio. Nausea inducing.

Dammit. Wanted to hear about that sign.
posted by mondo dentro at 1:36 PM on October 16, 2013


"I was trying to think if ever in my life, I could remember any major political party being so irrelevant. I have never seen it. I have never seen a major political party simply occupy placeholders, as the Republican party has been doing. There has not been any serious opposition...against what's happening in this country. The Republicans have done everything they can to try to make everyone like them and what they've ended up doing is creating one of the greatest political disasters I've ever seen in my lifetime...I was pondering if I could ever remember...a time when a political party just made a decision not to exist, for all intents and purposes."

That Limbaugh quote is actually a bit more interesting without the ellipses. He complains that the Republicans lacked a legislative program, he claims that Cruz didn't really make anything bad (because it's not like anyone was stopping Obamacare), he lambasts moderate Republicans... an interesting window into talk radio.
posted by Going To Maine at 1:36 PM on October 16, 2013


I can't hear the phrase "Wake Up" without automatically hearing Daniel Carver finish it with "White People".

Thank you, Howard.
posted by mikelieman at 1:37 PM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


Actually, yeah, if someone could put the Whiskey Pig in the dryer and then throw that case of Bulleit into the washer on delicate, that'd be super helpful.
posted by cortex at 1:38 PM on October 16, 2013 [2 favorites]


It varies depending on the company and the contract (or contracts) the employees are working under. I personally wasn't furloughed through sequester or shutdown, and am being told to take my work laptop home tonight so I can still be on the job if everyone else gets furloughed for the debt ceiling.

Same here. A lot of us were working on contracts that were already paid through, or charged to the company's operating budget. In fact, I think the big-$$$ defense contractors were probably the hardest-hit, seeing as how they have huge workforces and therefore large drains on their operating budgets.
posted by zombieflanders at 1:38 PM on October 16, 2013


Dammit. Wanted to hear about that sign.

TIME TO WAKE UP...and come to the grand opening of my new Discovery Channel store in Union Station!
posted by mintcake! at 1:41 PM on October 16, 2013


Just remember, while Rushbo may be totally disgusted with what has befallen the republican party, it's not like he's going to blink, much less suddenly jag over to some sort of centrist path - he sets himself up to be even more hard-line with the statement "The Republicans have done everything they can to try to make everyone like them...." He's just going to veer further and further to the right and that sweet sweet bunny sex.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 1:42 PM on October 16, 2013 [2 favorites]


mondo dentro - he was talking about how climate change denial is terrible, it was great.
posted by troika at 1:44 PM on October 16, 2013


Actually, yeah, if someone could put the Whiskey Pig in the dryer and then throw that case of Bulleit into the washer on delicate, that'd be super helpful.

How to make a laundro-tini:

Put one generous scoop of ice and 5 jiggers of Ketel One into a mixer. Tap the mixer with a bottle of Vermouth and then set aside. Place the mixer into drier on "super optimum". Watch C-Span until the drier dings. Come back, open mixer, pour contents into mouth. May be served with a 50 cent, rock hard, desiccated gumball from the machine by the door as garnish (this is ordered as "Brooklyn style").
posted by codacorolla at 1:45 PM on October 16, 2013 [6 favorites]


I know someone who works as a staffer in Senator Whitehouse's office and I'd really like to find a way to set that picture to show up when his phone alarm goes off.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 1:45 PM on October 16, 2013


he was talking about how climate change denial is terrible, it was great.

Thanks, troika. I was hoping that what it was about. Good on him.
posted by mondo dentro at 1:46 PM on October 16, 2013


It's the kind of thing that has the potential to be the downfall of the government if it becomes the norm. I couldn't be against it in stronger terms. I don't believe it rises to the level of treason, it's something far more insidious: incompetence without self-awareness of same.

I think that's being too generous--have you read what some of these people actually have to say about what they believe should happen to the Federal government? They're very open about opposing the existence of all federal government programs and services and they reject the entire concept of taxation as illegitimate.

Intent is what makes the difference between treason and incompetence. If someone explicitly, deliberately aims to do harm to the US government, any actions they may take to accomplish that goal can and should be considered disloyal. You might say, well, these good people don't have the goal of harming the government--they're trying in their misguided way to improve it!

But how, for example, can we honestly reconcile the idea that their intent is only to improve the US government when all along they've also been openly agitating for and promoting state secession from the Federal Government? You can dismiss those campaigns promoting secession as wacky gimmicks or what have you, but they reveal a lot about the aims and motives behind these extremist movements and to dismiss them too lightly ignores that there are real state legislative actions underway resulting from them (regardless of whether those actions will ultimately lead to any state actually seceding).

I don't think all or even most of the Republicans in the House have treason in their hearts, but some in the more extremist factions actually do, and the fact that their own historical ignorance may have led them to that error doesn't change their intent.

That said, legally charging anyone with treason over this latest fiasco is a non-starter. The legal threshold's way too high, as it should be. But it might help the Republicans regain some shred of credibility if they could pull together enough votes to expel the dangerous radicals among them from chambers to spare us any future threat they might pose to America's continuing peace and prosperity.
posted by saulgoodman at 1:46 PM on October 16, 2013


(Where's Ghost Mode? Anyone heard from him recently?)
posted by RedOrGreen at 1:47 PM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


32 Republicans Who Caused the Government Shutdown Meet the House conservative hardliners.

Remember their names and their children's names.
posted by madamjujujive at 1:50 PM on October 16, 2013


I think that's being too generous--have you read what some of these people actually have to say about what they believe should happen to the Federal government?

More along these lines: The Theology of Government Shutdown: Christian Dominionism.

I've seen this stuff up close and personal for the past twenty years--my familial anti-particle is a right-wing Christian and Republican, a nice, smart physician who just happens to think there's no higher law than God's Law. Oh, and he happens to know exactly what that Law is, hermeneutic difficulties be damned. And it happens to align with conservative politics, but not really because the conservatives are too weak/corrupt and the "extreme left" is controlling things via the media. It's crazy stuff, but it's no joke.
posted by mondo dentro at 1:53 PM on October 16, 2013


32 Republicans Who Caused the Government Shutdown Meet the House conservative hardliners.

For some reason Congressmen remind me of used car salesmen.
posted by KokuRyu at 1:54 PM on October 16, 2013 [2 favorites]


Ironmouth: "Well Gramsci came up with the idea that the reason the Communists were losing wasn't because they weren't providing the voters with what they wanted, but that the voters were being brainwashed by the culture."

That's not quite what he was saying, but feel free to believe that dumbed down version if it makes you feel better.
posted by symbioid at 1:54 PM on October 16, 2013 [2 favorites]


have you read what some of these people actually have to say about what they believe should happen to the Federal government?

I'm familiar with the general rhetoric, the idea that the government should be responsible for national security and enforcing contracts and that's about it. I think that as theories of government go, it's something best employed as one of the options for a system of government in a Civilization game.

I think that as far as Congress goes, they're true believers. What convinced them varies, but I think they view that sort of extremely reduced government as a genuinely desirable state. It's their right to hold beliefs I find irredeemable. As far as people on the right but not in Congress? I require no convincing as to the existence of treasonous intent, or at least, treasonous fantasizing, there. I should have been more specific that I was only talking about Congress.
posted by feloniousmonk at 1:55 PM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


Trying to find out when the deal will actually be SS&D, the closest I've come is the NYT, "Senate Paves Way to End Debt Impasse,"
With Senate Republican hard-liners promising cooperation, the Senate is expected to move first. Progress slowed as the deal’s framework was being translated into detailed legislative language. The Senate vote was expected in the early evening. The House would then follow, with a final vote likely around midnight.
That's cutting it close, guys.

while Rushbo may be totally disgusted with what has befallen the republican party, it's not like he's going to blink

Today's he's disgusted, last week Cruz and Lee were winners even if they lost, next week he'll be all attaboy again. The man literally says whatever's on his mind at the moment, I believe, with the only constant being that he has all the answers.
posted by octobersurprise at 1:55 PM on October 16, 2013 [2 favorites]


By the way I found this opening to their meeting to reveal a lot about who these folks are, and not in a good way: House Republicans Sing 'Amazing Grace' Together to Open Debt Limit Meeting
posted by Mental Wimp at 1:56 PM on October 16, 2013 [2 favorites]


Today's he's disgusted, last week Cruz and Lee were winners even if they lost, next week he'll be all attaboy again.

In the full version, Cruz and Lee are still winners.
posted by Going To Maine at 1:59 PM on October 16, 2013


That's cutting it close, guys.

Is it?
Maybe someone can help me out here, but I don't quite understand: If the debt ceiling is raised, it just means that the U.S. is allowed to take on more debt, correct?
Isn't it still necessary to actually, you know, make a deal with the debtors and, say, transfer the money from account A to account B in return for handing over some T-bills? Or are the Chinese and Japanese lining up outside at the doors, cash in hand, and all you need to do is to push a button so that the money flows in?
posted by sour cream at 2:01 PM on October 16, 2013


> House Republicans Sing 'Amazing Grace' Together to Open Debt Limit Meeting

I'm an unbeliever, but that's a lovely song, and of all the details of the Republicans' deliberations, this one was pretty charming.

They've made no about being the Christian party, so it's not like it's some secret, revealed. If they're going to be Christians, they can at least sing the nice Christian songs.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 2:01 PM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


How to make a laundro-tini:

Nice, but I prefer a Tricky Dicky Screwdriver.
posted by entropicamericana at 2:02 PM on October 16, 2013 [2 favorites]


Republicans have a history of breaking out into song.
posted by troika at 2:02 PM on October 16, 2013


> Or are the Chinese and Japanese lining up outside at the doors, cash in hand, and all you need to do is to push a button so that the money flows in?

Basically, yes.

Lots of people have Treasuries (bonds, notes and bill), and when those Treasuries mature, they just roll them over into the new issue.

It's theoretically possible that an auction would fail, but there are always a lot of bids out of the money, so it just doesn't happen.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 2:04 PM on October 16, 2013


That's cutting it close, guys.

FWIW, this happened during the 2011 debt ceiling fiasco and the 2012 fiscal cliff, and stuff still managed to get done. Every member of the press with a source in both camps says it's going to get done. Even a Tea Party Congressman says it's going to get done.

If you want to get lick'rd up or whatever, you'll probably want to wait. Imma head to the bar (Fox & Hound may be interesting tonight) and tie one on with my furloughed friends, personally.
posted by zombieflanders at 2:04 PM on October 16, 2013 [2 favorites]


From Rod Dreher at the American Conservative: The Strangelove Republicans.
The Republican Party has driven the country to the brink, and this morning, House Republicans bolstered their ranks by … standing together and singing Amazing Grace. It’s Strangelovian. Maybe there won’t be a long-term fallout from this, but I tell you, it’s very hard to see entrusting power to a party that behaves this way, that manufactures crises like this for its own short-term political gain. The Republicans, having lost their mind, have destroyed their brand.

Amazing Grace. They cause this looming disaster — which, make no mistake, would be a global disaster — and then stand there singing a freaking hymn amid the ruins of their party, and the potential crash of our economy! Raving loonies, the lot.
posted by mondo dentro at 2:05 PM on October 16, 2013 [12 favorites]


32 Republicans Who Caused the Government Shutdown Meet the House conservative hardliners.

Remember their names and their children's names.


Well, that cast of characters is certainly, aaah, uhmmm, white and doughy.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 2:07 PM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]




It's theoretically possible that an auction would fail, but there are always a lot of bids out of the money, so it just doesn't happen.

So is there a T-bill auction at midnight tonight or in the wee hours of tomorrow morning before the first checks go out? Or is it more like an ongoing thing? //serious question
posted by sour cream at 2:12 PM on October 16, 2013



Daryl Issa is back to his hearings - business as usual. But does he have any shame about the ignominious behavior of his party? Not at all: House Republicans Hold Hearing on Why Their Shutdown Shut Things Down

"Even as House Republicans were capitulating on the demands that had precipitated this standoff, they were convening a hearing to get to the bottom of why the National Park Service had shuttered the memorials on the National Mall, hauling NPS director Jonathan Jarvis before the committees on oversight and natural resources in an effort to portray the closures as a politically motivated effort to turn up the heat on the GOP."


Here he is on Twitter bragging about it - check out his whackadoodle Twitter icon
posted by madamjujujive at 2:14 PM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]




This "politically motivated closings" meme is everywhere. It's one of the most assinine things I've ever seen. What part of c-l-o-s-e-d can these morons not comprehend?
posted by Benny Andajetz at 2:16 PM on October 16, 2013 [4 favorites]


I'm familiar with the general rhetoric, the idea that the government should be responsible for national security and enforcing contracts and that's about it. I think that as theories of government go, it's something best employed as one of the options for a system of government in a Civilization game.

No, no--it goes much further than that for some of these folks. In particular, there are some actual die-hard neo-confederates in the mix in these fringes--people who actually want to restore something like the confederacy, with no central government authority, no standing military, the states negotiating relations and trade between themselves, etc.

It's their right to hold beliefs I find irredeemable.

Sure, but it's not their right, as affirmed by their oaths of office, to deliberately sabotage the routine operations of government in order to further anti-government causes like secession and tax rebellion.
posted by saulgoodman at 2:16 PM on October 16, 2013 [3 favorites]


Amazing grace, that sickly sound,
It makes me want to retch,
To hear the blind vainglorious swound
Of sorest losers kvetch.
posted by The White Hat at 2:20 PM on October 16, 2013 [5 favorites]


Apparently budget impact of the government shutdown is of the same order as projected annual revenues from the medical device tax ... perhaps $3bn. So repeal or not they made sure we don't get the money.
posted by George_Spiggott at 2:20 PM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


House Republicans Hold Hearing on Why Their Shutdown Shut Things Down

Midway through his opening remarks, Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), the ranking Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, held up a small blue-edged hand mirror. "If those Republican colleagues will look look at me, I will show you who's responsible." Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.)—who recently called on the "four branches of government" to work together—stood up from his chair on the far side of his room and stared blankly in DeFazio's direction, then sat down. Most of his colleagues kept their focus straight ahead.

posted by Drinky Die at 2:20 PM on October 16, 2013 [17 favorites]


Sure, but it's not their right [...] to deliberately sabotage the routine operations of government in order to further anti-government causes like secession and tax rebellion.

And here where establishment Dem messaging comes in: unless politicians use language to name these behaviors explicitly as "secessionist" (and even "neo-confederate", as Charlie Rangel did yesterday), and accuse them of engaging in practices that hurt the country and, hence, of being unpatriotic... guess what? They'll continue to be let off the hook. If you don't name it, it doesn't exist, politically speaking.
posted by mondo dentro at 2:24 PM on October 16, 2013 [3 favorites]


We lost the race, and yet we found
a way to win in spite!
Though others claim we've run aground,
the sea is still in sight!
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 2:25 PM on October 16, 2013 [6 favorites]


There is SO MUCH hand-wringing going on and the vote hasn't even happened yet, no?
posted by Theta States at 2:26 PM on October 16, 2013


If you don't name it, it doesn't exist, politically speaking.

I haven't agreed with several of your remarks in this thread, mondo dentro, but I think this is spot-on.
posted by wintermind at 2:27 PM on October 16, 2013 [2 favorites]


Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), the ranking Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, held up a small blue-edged hand mirror. "If those Republican colleagues will look look at me, I will show you who's responsible." Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.)—who recently called on the "four branches of government" to work together—stood up from his chair on the far side of his room and stared blankly in DeFazio's direction, then sat down.

OK, this makes me feel a little bad for the guy. Kind of like watching a dog try to walk with socks on its feet.
posted by Atom Eyes at 2:31 PM on October 16, 2013 [8 favorites]


House Republicans Hold Hearing on Why Their Shutdown Shut Things Down

This article is intended to be satire, right?
posted by KokuRyu at 2:31 PM on October 16, 2013


Keep your eyes peeled to CNN/whatever you watch. Announcement coming at 7:00PM E
posted by Ghost Mode at 2:32 PM on October 16, 2013 [2 favorites]


I would have thought stuff like this would be in the contracts that contractors sign.

These issues are covered in federal procurement laws and regulations, you're really not able to change them contractually. The same Anti Deficiency Act that prevents the government from spending without appropriations also prevents contractors from working without an order in place.

Most work these days is done on a fixed firm price basis, so once the order/contract is in place and invoiced you have set funding through the term of the order and the government shutdown won't affect you. Contracts with incremental funding have a ton of confusing rules about when they can work during a shutdown, and if you make the wrong call the government can rule that you were working without authorization and refuse to pay you due to the ADA violation. Big companies can move workers to another project, but shutdowns can hit smaller contractors very hard.
posted by InfidelZombie at 2:33 PM on October 16, 2013


HE LIVES! (uh... Ghost Mode, that is.)
posted by mondo dentro at 2:33 PM on October 16, 2013 [4 favorites]


This "politically motivated closings" meme is everywhere. It's one of the most assinine things I've ever seen. What part of c-l-o-s-e-d can these morons not comprehend?

Normally they just link the wikipedia for Washington Monument Syndrome and act all smug and obnoxious bc they learned a new term, and make some totally unsourced/made up claim about "it costs more to shut them down than to keep operating", or "there are volunteers that would do that". And yes, all the while, ignoring CLOSED MEANS CLOSED.
posted by inigo2 at 2:33 PM on October 16, 2013


So is there a T-bill auction at midnight tonight or in the wee hours of tomorrow morning before the first checks go out? Or is it more like an ongoing thing? //serious question

Mentioned a bit here and elsewhere, but the Treasury Dept seems to be saying it can run until the end of Thursday, so they have all day tomorrow really.
posted by wildcrdj at 2:33 PM on October 16, 2013


Wasn't the ENTIRE closing of the Gov't "Politically motivated"? Oh, look there's that blinding cognitive dissonance....
posted by mikelieman at 2:35 PM on October 16, 2013 [3 favorites]


Daryl Issa is back to his hearings - business as usual. But does he have any shame about the ignominious behavior of his party? Not at all:

Issa during his shutdown showcase hearing on the IRS readiness for ACA (actually that wasn't the real goal but whatever) he demanded to receive a report from the IRS before the end of the hearing. Cummings (house oversight minority chair) told him that 90% of the workers there had been furloughed because of the shutdown so it would be unlikely to garner the rapid response requested. Issa shot back, but this is essential. It was pretty funny.
posted by phoque at 2:36 PM on October 16, 2013 [3 favorites]




Drinky Die: "Funding the government and not defaulting the government should not be a demand, but in this case it was. Including ending the sequester with that demand is pretty reasonable and it seems plausible to me it could have worked, but it would have definitely been a more risky strategy."

The entire point of the exercise was to broadcast to everyone that the GOP can't even be trusted to hold to even the barest standard of good governance by insisting on that and only that. When you add demands, it eviscerates the entire message. The whole point is that you are demanding the bare minimum and not getting it.
posted by wierdo at 2:38 PM on October 16, 2013 [3 favorites]


Keep your eyes peeled to CNN/whatever you watch. Announcement coming at 7:00PM E

If this turns out to be another Horse_ebooks thing, I am going to give you such a pinch!
posted by Joey Michaels at 2:38 PM on October 16, 2013 [17 favorites]


I haven't agreed with several of your remarks in this thread, mondo dentro, but I think this is spot-on.

Cool.

So, do you think Obama and the Democrats have been effective at naming things in this sense? If not, we might be in much more agreement than you imagined. When I look at the American right wing, I see a target rich environment. Yet the main political party on the (nominal) left has rarely stepped up the attack. That, for me, is the main evidence of their co-optation by big money--the silence in the face of obvious, easily refuted falsehoods.
posted by mondo dentro at 2:39 PM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


So is there a T-bill auction at midnight tonight or in the wee hours of tomorrow morning before the first checks go out?

There isn't really a hard deadline. The only thing that happens at midnight is that the treasury will hit the limit of what they can borrow, but they will have approximately $36.5 billion cash on hand. On an average day, the treasury receives about $10.8 billion and spends about $13.3 billion. The resulting burn rate of $2.5 billion per day must ordinarily be accounted for by borrowing, but in a pinch it can come out of cash on hand. So there's a small cushion to keep coasting for a very brief period. The main concerns are the large bumps in the road ahead -- a $12 billion Social Security payment on Oct. 23, a $6 billion interest payment due Oct. 31, and then a $58 billion Medicare and Social Security payment on Nov. 1. Obviously you can't coast on fumes very far, but neither is it a bomb that will explode at precisely midnight.
posted by Rhomboid at 2:42 PM on October 16, 2013 [6 favorites]


Ghost Mode is gonna rickroll y'all. You heard it here first.
posted by Justinian at 2:44 PM on October 16, 2013 [7 favorites]


'Lying To The American People': House Conservatives Blame Press For Shutdown Surrender

Is it possible to overdose from schadenboehner?
posted by mondo dentro at 2:45 PM on October 16, 2013 [5 favorites]


"Please see a doctor if your schadenboehner lasts for more than four hours."
posted by tonycpsu at 2:46 PM on October 16, 2013 [16 favorites]


So, they're shifting the goalposts after they lost the game?
posted by mccarty.tim at 2:48 PM on October 16, 2013


you know, i keep thinking about the chinese comment that it is time to de-americanize the world - it's my understanding that the media of china don't usually say things like this, preferring a more subtle, indirect approach and that they certainly don't say them without government approval

even if we do get that bill passed - (and i'm not going to believe it until it's on obama's desk with a pen in his hand) - significant and serious consequences are going to happen - the rest of the world thinks we're crazy and they no longer trust us

this may well be the moment when the american empire saw the beginning of the end, a few years earlier than it would have otherwise been apparent
posted by pyramid termite at 2:49 PM on October 16, 2013 [9 favorites]


I'm picturing Ghost Mode in a hat and trench coat, hunched over his Blackberry in a dank corner of a D.C. parking garage, frantically yet furtively typing out these comments. Occasionally you hear the roar of an engine and the squeal of tires on concrete and he launches his body to the ground to escape the glare of oncoming headlights.
posted by Atom Eyes at 2:50 PM on October 16, 2013 [11 favorites]


'Lying To The American People': House Conservatives Blame Press For Shutdown Surrender

"Y'see, the government shutdown is more like a slimdown, just like how anorexia, if you really think about it, should just be called Slim-Fast."
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 2:50 PM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


The whole point is that you are demanding the bare minimum and not getting it.

Yes. And you could make a pretty reasonable case that returning to pre-sequester funding levels is the bare minimum acceptable result.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:51 PM on October 16, 2013


the rest of the world thinks we're crazy and they no longer trust us

From yesterday's Guardian: Americans need to discover how the world sees them
posted by orrnyereg at 2:51 PM on October 16, 2013 [7 favorites]


Justinian: "Ghost Mode is gonna rickroll y'all. You heard it here first."

We're no Boehner to love...
posted by symbioid at 2:51 PM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


this may well be the moment when the american empire saw the beginning of the end

And not a moment too soon.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 2:54 PM on October 16, 2013 [3 favorites]


Mod note: Hi folks, time to dial back the user-mocking stuff.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 3:04 PM on October 16, 2013 [8 favorites]


Isn't it still necessary to actually, you know, make a deal with the debtors and, say, transfer the money from account A to account B in return for handing over some T-bills? Or are the Chinese and Japanese lining up outside at the doors, cash in hand, and all you need to do is to push a button so that the money flows in?

You can see all of the scheduled Treasury auctions listed here (PDF). There are several auctions scheduled for Thursday, which is where the October 17th deadline comes from. If they miss the Thursday deadline, there are more auctions beginning on Monday. The Treasury has been busy throughout all of this with its normal auctions, a half dozen a week, because they roll over about $200 billion of maturing bonds for the existing debt each month regardless of the limit on more debt. The debt limit just means that the auctions are about one-third smaller. So, yes, folks are lined up outside the doors and have been participating in regularly scheduled auctions every week even with the debt limit.
posted by JackFlash at 3:08 PM on October 16, 2013


Well, mondo dentro, I think that they (the Democratic leadership) have missed some opportunities for effective messaging by refusing to call things what they obviously are. However, no matter what they chose to call it, the votes were not there to pass single-payer, not with Senators such as Lieberman, Pryor, and Landrieu in the tally of 60 votes. (In fact, I expect that Pryor will lose his seat over his vote for the ACA given how conservative Arkansas has become.) I can't imagine any messaging which would have changed that. I do agree that the neo-Confederates need to have that label attached to them, and we need to call welfare states (not coincidentally, the same neo-Confederates) what they are. And, God, the term "entitlements" needs to die in a fire.

Edit: typo.
posted by wintermind at 3:09 PM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


...and we need to call welfare states (not coincidentally, the same neo-Confederates) what they are...

"Ladies and gentlemen, we must call on the welfare states, those that are taking from the rest of us, to take responsibility for themselves and stop diverting the resources of other states to solve their problems of poverty and hunger. If they cannot improve their school systems, lower their rates of incarceration, and provide good paying jobs for their citizens, then we need to stop subsidizing them. Their low-tax, ignore-the-problem policies have failed and those politicians who insist on pursuing them still need to be voted out of office and replaced with leaders of vision for the future."
posted by Mental Wimp at 3:16 PM on October 16, 2013 [17 favorites]


Keep your eyes peeled to CNN/whatever you watch. Announcement coming at 7:00PM E

Do I have to turn on the TV, or I can I just look up at the sky?
posted by diogenes at 3:19 PM on October 16, 2013 [4 favorites]


Well, mondo dentro, I think that they (the Democratic leadership) have missed some opportunities for effective messaging by refusing to call things what they obviously are. However, no matter what they chose to call it, the votes were not there to pass single-payer, not with Senators such as Lieberman, Pryor, and Landrieu in the tally of 60 votes. (In fact, I expect that Pryor will lose his seat over his vote for the ACA given how conservative Arkansas has become.) I can't imagine any messaging which would have changed that. I do agree that the neo-Confederates need to have that label attached to them, and we need to call welfare states (not coincidentally, the same neo-Confederates) what they are. And, God, the term "entitlements" needs to die in a fire.

Blanche Lincoln voted no on cloture for the Public Option several times. Personally shot it down. They only had 60 votes.
posted by Ironmouth at 3:22 PM on October 16, 2013


Keep your eyes peeled to CNN/whatever you watch. Announcement coming at 7:00PM E

Geraldo, if this involves Al Capone's vault again, you're fired.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:22 PM on October 16, 2013 [2 favorites]


Keep your eyes peeled to CNN/whatever you watch. Announcement coming at 7:00PM E

—Do I have to turn on the TV, or I can I just look up at the sky?


He said "Announcement", not "Annunciation".
posted by Atom Eyes at 3:23 PM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


He meant "ascension"--- the Tea Party faithful are all going to be raptured.
posted by entropicamericana at 3:25 PM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


If they cannot improve their school systems, lower their rates of incarceration, and provide good paying jobs for their citizens, then we need to stop subsidizing them.

A bunch of Republican governors are already way ahead of you on that proposal. Unfortunately, it's the people who are unlucky enough to live in those states that end up paying the price.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 3:26 PM on October 16, 2013


if only
posted by edgeways at 3:26 PM on October 16, 2013


(meant for the rapture bit)
posted by edgeways at 3:27 PM on October 16, 2013


You can see all of the scheduled Treasury auctions listed here (PDF). There are several auctions scheduled for Thursday, which is where the October 17th deadline comes from.

I don't think it's the auctions on the 17th that are the concern -- I think it's the settlements on the 17th from the auctions yesterday and today that are the issue.
posted by eriko at 3:30 PM on October 16, 2013


I'm still half expecting Ted Cruz or Eric Cantor to fuck this up. Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.
posted by eriko at 3:31 PM on October 16, 2013 [3 favorites]


The Tea Party suicide caucus seems to be pleased with Boehner's performance, at least. If his main goal was to remain as speaker, it looks like he'll at least have them on his side.
posted by tonycpsu at 3:33 PM on October 16, 2013


the Tea Party faithful are all going to be raptured

One can dream.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:33 PM on October 16, 2013


Ironmouth, you and I are in agreement on that point.
posted by wintermind at 3:36 PM on October 16, 2013


Blanche Lincoln voted no on cloture for the Public Option several times. Personally shot it down. They only had 60 votes.

And yet she was still defeated in 2010 amid a wave of insane Tea Party opposition to the healthcare reform we ended up getting.

I know I'm looking at this in hindsight, but I can't help but feel a little upset over how it all turned out, and I hope Democrats as a party are at least aware that some of us see it as a very raw deal.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 3:39 PM on October 16, 2013


I don't think it's the auctions on the 17th that are the concern -- I think it's the settlements on the 17th from the auctions yesterday and today that are the issue.

You're right. They missed the last auction opportunity today, which means the money they expected won't be available tomorrow, hence the potential default. The next auction is Monday but doesn't settle until a week from Thursday. So the Treasury will have to muddle along somehow, juggling bills until then.
posted by JackFlash at 3:43 PM on October 16, 2013


Jeebus, I go away for the afternoon, and there's 400+ comments. WTH? It looked like the Teabaggers blinked?
posted by computech_apolloniajames at 3:52 PM on October 16, 2013


I just turned on CNN for like fifteen minutes and now I'll be cleaning vomit off the floor all night. Thanks, Newt.
posted by mintcake! at 3:56 PM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


WTH? It looked like the Teabaggers blinked?

More like the Republican leadership, as I have been predicting all along, finally are promising to throw the teabaggers under the bus in obeisance to their true corporate masters and will then probably finish out this Congress with Boehner technically still Speaker, but wearing Pelosi's collar as having tossed enough of his own overboard to no longer have a majority he will need D votes to do anything.
posted by localroger at 3:59 PM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


Thanks, Newt.

Oh, Newt, that bloated sack of shit. The same guy who, just a week ago, was bloviating about how the poll results were "dramatically better for Republicans and worse for the Democrats and Obama."
posted by scody at 4:01 PM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


Showdown About Nothing Accomplishes Even Less

The column isn't all that insightful but I love that headline.
posted by octothorpe at 4:03 PM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


Oh, Newt, that bloated sack of shit.

No, a sack of shit is useful in agriculture.
posted by eriko at 4:04 PM on October 16, 2013 [6 favorites]


Soooo... it's just Ted "Booze" Cruz ranting. Kind of a rick-roll then.
posted by Justinian at 4:05 PM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


Keep your eyes peeled to CNN/whatever you watch. Announcement coming at 7:00PM E
posted by Ghost Mode at 2:32 PM on October 16 [+] [!]


It's about time KISS gets the Hall of Fame nod. Our long national nightmare is over!
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:05 PM on October 16, 2013 [9 favorites]


"Jerry, get this: it's a showdown about nothing!"
posted by Atom Eyes at 4:05 PM on October 16, 2013 [21 favorites]


Cruz said Senate GOP should have been the Cavalry. They were -- and he was Custer.
posted by eriko at 4:08 PM on October 16, 2013 [4 favorites]


With this victory the Democrats have accomlished what was probably their most important goal, cutting the nuts off of the hostage-taking technique so nobody in their right mind (well that doesn't include the teabaggers but they won't have the votes) will ever try such a stunt again.

It is worth noting that one thing the D leadership did was shorten the extensions offered in some of the earlier compromise drafts. They want to hand the R's this gun again so everyone can watch what they do with it. And when they put it down niiiiice and easy the Dems will be in a position to say, "now about those sequester cuts, those have to come right out of the next draft." Mark my words.
posted by localroger at 4:11 PM on October 16, 2013 [4 favorites]


Heh. No announcement at 7pm on showdown about nothing accomplishing nothing.
posted by klangklangston at 4:12 PM on October 16, 2013 [2 favorites]


So, has Senator Doofenshmirtz shut up yet now that his DEFAUTINATOR has failed to work. Again.

Still too soon for a callback, Norm.
posted by eriko at 4:14 PM on October 16, 2013 [3 favorites]


Oh, Republicans, do you have any shame?
Turns out getting the support of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) didn’t come for free. There’s an earmark in the Senate bill that more than triples the funding for the Olmsted Locks and Dam in Kentucky — a concession SenateConservatives.com has termed “The Kentucky Kickback.”
- via
posted by inigo2 at 4:15 PM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


Klang, the R's are dragging out their lamentations and wailing and displaying of hairshirts.
posted by localroger at 4:16 PM on October 16, 2013


However, no matter what they chose to call it, the votes were not there to pass single-payer, not with Senators such as...

See, the odd thing is, I never said that if Obama had used special magic language, we'd have single payer. Did anyone say that? I don't think so, but if so, yep, that would truly be an example of the Green Lantern Theory.

What I have said is that parties can only, over time, get votes for things they believe, promote, teach, explain, tell stories about--and only then with persistence and fortitude. The Democrats never even tried to get single payer. So, to say they didn't have the votes for it is only trivially true, not meaningfully true. It would be like saying I failed to climb Mount Everest when I've never even seen the Himalayas. Likewise, the Democrats (as a party) have never pushed back on the idea that the deficit is the single biggest economic problem we face, and that at its core the deficit is caused by "entitlements". Both of these things are false (and they could easily get Krugman, Steiglitz and other economic heavy hitters to help them craft language to that effect, not to mention policy). But the Dems don't develop an opposing narrative to austerity economics because they don't want to.
posted by mondo dentro at 4:16 PM on October 16, 2013 [16 favorites]


But the Dems don't develop an opposing narrative to austerity economics because they don't want to.

I believe this may be the incident which changes that. It's hard to be positive about those specifics when you've done nothing but get your butt kicked with them for 33 years.
posted by localroger at 4:18 PM on October 16, 2013 [3 favorites]


Tom the Dancing Bug has a good comic on the situation, as per usual.
posted by emjaybee at 4:26 PM on October 16, 2013 [3 favorites]


By the way I found this opening to their meeting to reveal a lot about who these folks are, and not in a good way: House Republicans Sing 'Amazing Grace' Together to Open Debt Limit Meeting

Why would they break with tradition to sing "Amazing Grace", when surely if they were to sing a hymn, precedent dictates "Nearer My God To Thee"?
posted by Homeboy Trouble at 4:26 PM on October 16, 2013 [3 favorites]


Wait, so what's going on now? Is it over? Did I miss it?
posted by brina at 4:27 PM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


Text of the Senate bill is here. It includes back pay for furloughed employees and reimbursements to states that paid park employees to open some national parks. The Vitter amendment cutting health care payments to Congressional employees is removed.
posted by JackFlash at 4:28 PM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


It's hard to be positive about those specifics when you've done nothing but get your butt kicked with them for 33 years.

All those many years as a pre-2004 Red Sox fan was good training for me. Maybe this will break the Dem curse.
posted by madamjujujive at 4:29 PM on October 16, 2013 [2 favorites]


No argument there. In fact, Krugman was ignored by the a Democratic leadership on austerity.

It is my opinion that now that we have the ACA we can move towards single-payer. Part of the narrative in support of that objective will be based on the eventual success of Obamacare. So, yes, I agree that properly drafted arguments will help create the demand for such a program. I don't think that most Americans are ready for single-payer because 1) they don't understand it, and 2) it's going to take positive experiences with the ACA to overcome the FUD surrounding single-payer.

Edit: caps lock abuse.
posted by wintermind at 4:29 PM on October 16, 2013 [2 favorites]


Wait, so what's going on now?

Well, the chestburster came out of Cruz's chest. McCain is trying to kill it with fire and brimstone, while McConnell is raising a point of order than the alien and/or demonic parasite does not have floor privileges and should be removed by the Sargent-at-Arms and/or the Senate Chaplin, depending.
posted by eriko at 4:33 PM on October 16, 2013 [12 favorites]


Actually, it would appear they are voting on something.
posted by brina at 4:34 PM on October 16, 2013


A mournful voice from the past (i.e., 2 hours ago), intones: '“I’ll vote against it,” Representative John Fleming of Louisiana said. “But that will get us into Round 2. See, we’re going to start this all over again.”'
posted by mittens at 4:34 PM on October 16, 2013


From the Grauniad:

And on her 22nd request to enter a House-Senate budget conference, senator Patty Murray gets unanimous consent.

Cloture vote happening now.
posted by eriko at 4:35 PM on October 16, 2013 [6 favorites]


All those many years as a pre-2004 Red Sox fan was good training for me. Maybe this will break the Dem curse.

Indians fan here. Still cursed. I'm hoping Cleveland can pick up the Green Lantern during the off season. I hear he's a free agent this year.
posted by mondo dentro at 4:35 PM on October 16, 2013


In which Ted Cruz somehow makes himself look even worse:

CRUZ: "They scoffed that the House of Representatives would do anything and they scoffed that the Senate would do anything. We saw first of all, millions of millions of American people rising up across this country, over two million people signing a national petition to defund Obamacare. We saw the House of Representatives take a courageous stand listening to the American people that everyone in official Washington said wouldn’t happen."

In three week period following Cruz’s speech — even as GOP’s national approval ratings plummeted — conservatives frantically built their fundraising lists and campaign coffers. In the last quarter, Cruz’s political action committee raised in $797,000, nearly twice what it pulled in the quarter prior, and Heritage Action — which has pressured conservatives to vote against any bill that does not undermine Obamcare — collected $330,000.


So, basically, this whole mess had the effect of making money for Ted Cruz to use in his political career. I really think he should be censured and expelled at this point, this is just utterly unforgivable.
posted by clockzero at 4:36 PM on October 16, 2013 [5 favorites]


this whole mess had the effect of making money for Ted Cruz to use in his political career.

Isn't that all any of this is, ever?
posted by mittens at 4:39 PM on October 16, 2013 [3 favorites]


SenateConservatives is fascinating, if only because their feasting upon their own makes me realize the one thing that I had sort of admired about the GOP, which was their unity. I mean, admire in the sense of 'holy crap that's an effective way to be evil' kind of thing.
posted by angrycat at 4:39 PM on October 16, 2013


Isn't that all any of this is, ever?

I think this incident showed us the limitations of operating under that assumption on a broad scale, much to my own surprise.
posted by clockzero at 4:40 PM on October 16, 2013


mondo dentro,
What I think you are trying to get at is not the fault of the elected officals, though they certainly do carry some of the resposibility. It is more that they have not had a coherent and strong media water-carriers that garner public respect and offer an outward sensibility that is distillable down to soundbites and simple messaging to fight the right wing media machine.

But this is not so much a failure of messaging as it is a failure of imagination and willingness to craft the proper message.

The fault, though, is ultimately upon how much of that messaging is at direct opposition to the existing media narrative, which is, at heart, the fault of human ego/nature.

You can't sell sacrifice.
You can't sell being nice.
You can't sell building up others, and creating community support.

You CAN sell greed.
You CAN sell being mean.
You CAN sell isolationism and 'rugged individualism.'

Those are the two opposing sides. Find us a way to sell sacrifice and being nice and working in diverse groups, and you can get that media narrative and you can harness those 'good' characteristics that we supposedly value. But if you look at our media landscape, from entertainment, to marketing, to religious messaging (I'm looking at Evangelicals and hardline Catholics mostly), you do not have any real solid ground to stand on.

And that seems to be what you are arguing for. Someone to layout a societal plan and function and identity for the Democrats to stand up, and frankly, it doesn't have any backing in our capitalist society. Find a way to make money off of that, and it will grow. But you can't have that support or that messaging unless it is built before it comes down to politicians needing a place to set their policies. That's half the reason the Overton Window has shifted so far to the right in America (and in many other countries as well). We aren't sold on the value of being seen as a 'good' person. The old models for a 'good person' come from the 1950's, some imagined narrative of church-going, white, nuclear families, living in their own homes, and interacting with their neighbors in non-confrontational situations. You have isolated disfunctional families, who all are sold an image of what their roles 'should' desire. The soccer-mom, the workaholic dad, the career wife. These niche roles that our society forces upon us through the media. Remember, while art is a supposed reflection of our societies, media is a crafted message, with very powerful interests backing the messages that are put on display. Between focus groups and marketing manuals with buy in as the goal. Not thought, just buy in. And this is what controls everything in our social interactions. We are not special shiny individual snowflakes. We are consumers, with individual 'brands' that are used to manipulate and coerce us into thinking and acting out predetermined roles. There is actually a science to it, if rudely applied at times.

What we are seeing with the Tea Party is the effects of certain demographics that have been pushed into their little pigeonholes so far removed from the rest of society that they are rebelling against their yokemasters, though it could also be argued that they have just been left to follow their own path and that path just happens to be destructive to the rest of society. No one is really at the wheel, or those who are just happen to be madmen and power hungry. You can see it in their eyes when they talk, if you actually get to see them. Grover Norquist is one of those guys. He just has a natural charisma when people meet him in person, but the thing to remember is that for the most part, people don't actually dissect arguments that are presented to them. They either accept or reject things, without bothering to look into the meanings or the results of the proffered 'wisdom.' Hence, the rise of the talking heads on the 24/7 news channels, with their banal mottos and cries of 'tyrrany', but no one ever asks them, 'tyranny from what'?

But that's for another rant.
posted by daq at 4:41 PM on October 16, 2013 [15 favorites]


well Cruz could be censured and expelled but I think that would be his reneging upon his deal with the devil.
posted by angrycat at 4:41 PM on October 16, 2013


over two million people signing a national petition to defund Obamacare

Out of 313 million. HECK OF A JOB, CRUZIE. That's not even a majority in fucking Cook County, Illinois.
posted by eriko at 4:42 PM on October 16, 2013 [15 favorites]


well Cruz could be censured and expelled but I think that would be his reneging upon his deal with the devil.

Cue revelation of diabolical treachery via ironic legalistic technicality
posted by clockzero at 4:43 PM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


However, no matter what they chose to call it, the votes were not there to pass single-payer, not with Senators such as...

See, the odd thing is, I never said that if Obama had used special magic language, we'd have single payer. Did anyone say that? I don't think so, but if so, yep, that would truly be an example of the Green Lantern Theory.


I believe the point being referred to is that you're supposed to start with way out there demands like single payer and negotiate down. But who offers $5 for a house? You look like an idiot if you do.

But as for trying, I think its an unchallenged assumption that the "Dems" are for single payer. Since when? I think there might be 2 people on the record saying the will vote for single-payer. I think its not even clear the majority of people are for it, either.

I do hear a lot of policy proposals floated as if there is universal agreement on how to do it amongst one party and gee why isn't it done?

The other assumption is that voters are robotic, and if only one side said things more often, that side's policy will be adopted by the voters. I think that's exactly wrong. Congress does what the people generally want. Where the shennaigans occur is where the public wants inconsistent things. That's where the exploitation begins.
posted by Ironmouth at 4:46 PM on October 16, 2013 [5 favorites]


"...millions of millions of American people rising up across this country, over two million people signing a national petition..."

Is this that Republican Math I keep hearing about? Because 2 million people equals roughly half a percent of the population. 330 million people in America, right? 2 million signed a petition. Is this that majority they keep talking about? Because that seems, um.... odd. Is this that monkeybrain thing again?
posted by daq at 4:46 PM on October 16, 2013


Meanwhile, Healthcare.gov is a steaming pile of fail:
[Ezra Klein]: What do you think went wrong in the design of the federal insurance marketplace. The Obama administration put a lot of focus on this. They knew how important it was. But what they built has, thus far, performed disastrously.

[Bob Laszewski]: I think they trusted their subcontractors. There’s an astronaut joke that an astronaut is a guy sitting on top of a rocket assembled by the lowest bidders. Obamacare is a bit like the astronaut on top of the rocket. As I understand it, some of these were no-bid contracts, like CGI.
The really delicious irony is that the Tea Party gave Obama* cover to fix this mess. But he better get on it pronto.
____
* No, I don't think Obama is actually programming the web site.
posted by mondo dentro at 4:48 PM on October 16, 2013 [3 favorites]


The other assumption is that voters are robotic, and if only one side said things more often, that side's policy will be adopted by the voters.

Ironmouth, I appreciate the esteem with which you hold voters. I'd like to think what you say is true. But, you also know, I'm sure, that polls track ad buys, right? In fact, that's how you determine if an ad is effective! So, it's an established, and acted-upon fact that human nature can be hacked by well-crafted stories. I'd like to see the good guys do it as well as the bad guys do it. We know Obama has the skills to do it, when he so chooses.
posted by mondo dentro at 4:52 PM on October 16, 2013 [4 favorites]


Announcement coming at 7:00PM

Did we ever find out what the announcement was? Was Ghost on Cruz's staff and referring to that presser? Im so confused.
posted by T.D. Strange at 4:58 PM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


Cloture passed 83-16. Nobody objected to moving the question. Final roll call for passage underway -- simple majority needed here.
posted by eriko at 4:59 PM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


Wow, Laszewski really mangled the the Alan Shepard quote.
posted by wintermind at 5:01 PM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


There's a Senator Crapo?

OF COURSE THERE IS!

OF COURSE HE'S A TEABAGGER!

CRAPO OF IDAHO!

IT JUST WRITES ITSELF.

CRAPO CRAPO CRAPO god i need a drink.

oh, here's a drink...
posted by eriko at 5:08 PM on October 16, 2013 [6 favorites]


You certainly can sell niceness, cooperation and unity. During WWII, we did just that on the home front. It was effective because lots of people like feeling good about what they do, and will even willingly make sacrifices if they are encouraged to do so for a purpose they believe in.

You could easily aim that kind of effort at problems like energy conservation, recycling, using public transportation, etc.
posted by emjaybee at 5:09 PM on October 16, 2013 [9 favorites]


As soon as the Senate passes this thing and the kids go to bed I'm having an enormous caipirinha. And getting ready to go back to work.

Edit: typo.
posted by wintermind at 5:10 PM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


As I understand it, some of these were no-bid contracts, like CGI.

This is such bullshit. CGI was not the integrator, Medicaid was. Medicaid told CGI what code to write, and it was up to Medicaid to integrate the damn thing.

The fuck up of the insurance portal should be blamed on the bureaucrats and pols (and, dare I say it?) the White House who were managing the project, not CGI.

If CGI bears any blame, it is that they agreed to work on the project in the first place.

Apparently it was something like $100 million, which is a very small amount of money to pay for such a complex system. The province of Ontario wrote off $1 billion after failing to create an online record system for health information.

Crazy, crazy, crazy.
posted by KokuRyu at 5:12 PM on October 16, 2013 [3 favorites]




"But, you also know, I'm sure, that polls track ad buys, right? In fact, that's how you determine if an ad is effective!"

Uh, from actually working on stuff like this, this is a kind of magical view of how persuasion politics works. Polls don't actually move that much from ads, and they're one of the least efficient ways to move public opinion. If poll tracking were the sole, or even main, way to evaluate any given ad's effectiveness, you'd never see any ads at all.

Ads get run against focus groups (if there's time), and even there, the focus group and polling isn't, like, viewed in total, but rather on discrete questions that the ad may influence.

The single most-effective way to move public opinion on a given issue is to talk to them face to face, again and again, and even that has an average efficacy of around eight percent, and less in an election. We worked on a campaign off-election to do education on marriage for same-sex couples, and we were getting AMAZING results of around 1 in 8 having a measurable move in opinion toward us (which is not, as is sometimes misunderstood, the same as moving them fully into support — moving someone from strongly oppose to just oppose counts the same as moving someone from neutral to support, basically). So that demonstrated that we had really strong messaging, but even then, the most effective campaign was having Latinos talk to friends and family, where we got about a 24 percent move that degraded to less than ten percent eight weeks later. And these were people who were already pretty self-selected to be persuadable. Doing doorknocks of voters, we got about 1 in 20 to actually talk to us, moved about 1 in ten of those, and this cost essentially a full day's pay for a canvasser. That's about $100 to move two likely voters one tick over in support, in areas that were already Dem voters. (Ads reach a lot more people, but there, the effectiveness is measured in people per thousand, and it's far less than doing door knocks.)

People WILDLY overestimate the effectiveness of political persuasion, and have no idea what the costs or tactics actually are. So excoriating Dems for not doing that work is a bit out of touch with the practical realities of campaigning.

(But hey, it's not just you. Our coalition partners are wanting our field team to run a decline-to-sign campaign over a new ballot repeal attempt, and I don't think many of their teams — who do mostly legislative and litigation-based activism — have any understanding of what that means either or why we're a little hesitant over it. But if you have a couple hundred thousand dollars that you want to spend defending trans students right now, I'd love to talk to you.)
posted by klangklangston at 5:14 PM on October 16, 2013 [24 favorites]


"It was effective because lots of people like feeling good about what they do, and will even willingly make sacrifices if they are encouraged to do so for a purpose they believe in.

You could easily aim that kind of effort at problems like energy conservation, recycling, using public transportation, etc.
"

God bless ya, but a lot of the reason we could unite was because we were dead serious about killing the Huns and Japs.
posted by klangklangston at 5:15 PM on October 16, 2013 [5 favorites]


Ironmouth, I appreciate the esteem with which you hold voters. I'd like to think what you say is true. But, you also know, I'm sure, that polls track ad buys, right? In fact, that's how you determine if an ad is effective! So, it's an established, and acted-upon fact that human nature can be hacked by well-crafted stories. I'd like to see the good guys do it as well as the bad guys. We know Obama has the skills to do it, when he so chooses.

He is doing it. But thiings work slowly. They do not work over short time frames. Alinsky always said you have to set the ground. We are only doing that now.
posted by Ironmouth at 5:16 PM on October 16, 2013 [2 favorites]


Ted Cruz raise $800,000 out of this. Only $800,000 with all this publicity? That's pathetic. This guy is supposed to be running for POTUS and a party star. If his stunt had really raised his profile he'd have raised a couple million, because big money would want to be able to say they were on board early.
posted by humanfont at 5:20 PM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


"Alinsky always said you have to set the ground. We are only doing that now."

And radical conservatives have dedicated about 40 years and billions of dollars to moving the country to the right.

I wanted single-payer, I think it's the best system, but we're up against a generation of massive spending on how, exactly, to get people to most hate their government. The liberals and centrists have only been really at it for about 20 years, with much less budget, and with much more internal dispute.

To allude again to our current campaign, there's a real sense that if the other side can get their shit together, we'll lose by a landslide. It's only the fact that they're fucking morons (like, failing to properly file paperwork, choosing incompetent field captains, etc.) that keeps us in this fight at all. Our best right now barely matches their worst.
posted by klangklangston at 5:21 PM on October 16, 2013 [4 favorites]


Passage in the Senate, 81-18 (via Daily Kos)
posted by Joey Michaels at 5:23 PM on October 16, 2013 [3 favorites]


Obama is speaking now, livestream
posted by argonauta at 5:29 PM on October 16, 2013


I'm not thrilled that Obama's speaking before the house votes. Unless he's willing to go to war, that's just tempting fate -- or rubbing it in. Not that I'm against it, but all you need to happen is to have Boehner snap and we're fucked again.
posted by eriko at 5:31 PM on October 16, 2013 [2 favorites]


I'm pretty sure that Mitch McConnell, et al. would blow a fucking gasket if somebody tried this shit again in a few months. This was a massive cock-up.
posted by Sticherbeast at 5:36 PM on October 16, 2013


Can someone post here the bullet points of what's in the bill just passed?

Especially: 1) What did the Dems give in on if anything?, and 2) When do we have to go thru this again?

I know I can and should find this myself, but I just feel a little exhausted and overwhelmed after all the kerfuffle.

Thanks guys !!
posted by marsha56 at 5:39 PM on October 16, 2013


[edit: grammar fix]
On edit: Aw found it! Nevermind.
Edit: caps lock abuse.
Edit: typo.

STOP DOING THAT
posted by ook at 5:40 PM on October 16, 2013 [11 favorites]


The details are in Joey Michaels' Daily Kos link. I don't see that pork for McConnell's home state that was mentioned a bit further up in this thread. (The comments at the link are also helpful in explaining a couple things.)
posted by Glinn at 5:46 PM on October 16, 2013


From Daily Kos, a summary (in case you can't or won't go there):

A continuing resolution funding government through Jan. 15;

An increase in the debt ceiling until Feb. 7, but it also continues the ability of the Treasury to use extraordinary measures to extend that period, so that's not a drop dead date. It also includes language allowing President Obama to waive the debt ceiling, which could be overridden by a vote of disapproval by Congress that could then be vetoed by the president;

New rules for income verification for Obamacare subsidies, requiring the government to "certify to the Congress that the Exchanges verify such eligibility." It does not interfere with or prevent Obamacare enrollments;

Reimbursement of lost pay to federal workers furloughed during the shutdown;

Reimbursement to states for any money they spent to replace lost federal funding during the shutdown;

Up to $450 million to the Department of Transportation to rebuild infrastructure destroyed in last month's Colorado floods;

$3.1 million to the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (yeah, that one's a head-scratcher); and

$174,000 to the widow of Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), who died in June (another head-scratcher).
posted by honestcoyote at 5:47 PM on October 16, 2013 [7 favorites]


It also includes language allowing President Obama to waive the debt ceiling, which could be overridden by a vote of disapproval by Congress that could then be vetoed by the president;

Woah WHAT? That's awesome.
posted by jason_steakums at 5:49 PM on October 16, 2013 [15 favorites]


It also includes language allowing President Obama to waive the debt ceiling, which could be overridden by a vote of disapproval by Congress that could then be vetoed by the president;

wow - that's a major burn right there - doesn't that pretty much insure that they won't be able to pull this crap again?
posted by pyramid termite at 5:49 PM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


The alleged pork for McConnell is this section of the bill:
SEC. 123. Section 3(a)(6) of Public Law 100–676 is amended by striking both occurrences of ‘‘$775,000,000’’ and inserting in lieu thereof, ‘‘$2,918,000,000’’.

This seems like about the best explanation of it so far.
posted by exogenous at 5:54 PM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


It also includes language allowing President Obama to waive the debt ceiling, which could be overridden by a vote of disapproval by Congress that could then be vetoed by the president

I don't get this. Doesn't giving the president the option to veto a vote of disapproval just mean you need a 2/3 majority to pass it? Why even bother with the first vote and veto, and just say it can be overriden by a 2/3 majority?
posted by heathkit at 5:54 PM on October 16, 2013


That would be a hilarious and crushing defeat for the Republicans. It's like a Cannae for stupid people.
posted by Justinian at 5:54 PM on October 16, 2013 [7 favorites]


Some idiot 'wingers on Maher's show. What a couple of fucking maroons.
posted by five fresh fish at 5:55 PM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


I'm unclear on when the House will vote. Allegedly they need an hour to debate before the vote, so I'm imagining it will be no earlier than 10:00pm EST. Anyone have a real time?
posted by Joey Michaels at 5:56 PM on October 16, 2013


Could be that Republicans just didn't read the bill. They have had a history of not reading bills which Obama, in the past, has quietly used to his (and our) advantage, especially in the 2011 budget fight.

But ThinkProgress had this to say about the ceiling provision:

Debt limit extended until February 7, subject to vote of Congressional disapproval, which Obama can veto

So it's probably not as good as it looks.
posted by honestcoyote at 5:57 PM on October 16, 2013


$174,000 to the widow of Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), who died in June (another head-scratcher).

Congressional pay would terminate immediately upon death of a member. Congress would normally, as a matter of course, vote to award the widow/widower an annual payment, basically a retirement payout. Now, it's basically a life insurance policy which doesn't pay out that much, all told -- this has been tradition since the early 1800s.

Sen. Lautenberg passed away in June, but because of all of the budget nonsense, it didn't happen until now. And, to be honest,it wasn't needed -- he was quite wealthy. But traditions are traditions, and maybe someday, some widow or widower will need it.
posted by eriko at 6:03 PM on October 16, 2013


Waaaay upthread, zombieflanders linked to a story mentioning that a stronger version of this Presidential discretion over the debt ceiling/Congressional disapproval if they don't like it/veto if he doesn't like that was actually originally McConnell's idea, which blows my mind. I can never quite figure the old turtle out.
posted by jason_steakums at 6:04 PM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


The new debt limit stuff starts on p. 24 of the PDF in case anyone wants to actually read the bill. It's a little convoluted to me.
posted by exogenous at 6:05 PM on October 16, 2013


I'd imagine fundamentally McConnell is an authoritarian and as much as he dislikes THIS president he thinks the office should hold significant power

Just guessing tho
posted by edgeways at 6:08 PM on October 16, 2013


Is the 'Obama can waive the ceiling' bit for real? That's astounding.

In vaguely related news, I got to vote for Cory Booker a few hours ago. That shit felt pretty good.
posted by mintcake! at 6:10 PM on October 16, 2013 [2 favorites]


It occurs to me that if the Republicans put the debt ceiling in Obama's hands this way, they can make a show of opposing debt ceiling increases while laying responsibility for supposedly out-of-control deficit spending on the president, without this messy business of endangering the economy of the entire world.
posted by chrchr at 6:12 PM on October 16, 2013 [4 favorites]


Can someone quote the exact language of the bill that allows the president to waive the debt ceiling? That's huge if it's not a misinterpretation on Daily Kos' part, but I'm not seeing it elsewhere.

EDIT: Nevermind, saw it begins on Page 24 of the document under "default prevention."
posted by mccarty.tim at 6:14 PM on October 16, 2013


It actually makes sense for the 'reasonable' Republicans to support presidential control over the debt ceiling. In the 90's, when Clinton was firmly in office, Republicans supported line item veto and even briefly passed it into law.

Having the president able to extend the ceiling would mean Congress would have the power to have a protest vote which wouldn't actually hurt anything. Perfect for keeping teabaggers in check while allowing them to have their tantrum. Gives Democrats a similar protest potential in the case of a Republican president. So win-win for everyone.
posted by honestcoyote at 6:17 PM on October 16, 2013 [2 favorites]


19 (c) SUSPENSION.—
20 (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 3101(b) of title 31,
21 United States Code, shall not apply for the period
22 beginning on the date on which the President sub-
23 mits to Congress a certification under subsection (b)
24 and ending on February 7, 2014.
So, it's saying that the after Obama affirms in writing to Congress that Treasury cannot meet current obligations, the debt limit will be suspended until February 7th. There's more language ensuring treasury bills issued in that time period will be honored, and allowing congress to vote to disapprove of the President's handling of funds and reaffirm the debt limit. But the President can also veto that. None of this applies after Feb 7th.
posted by heathkit at 6:18 PM on October 16, 2013


they can make a show of opposing debt ceiling increases while laying responsibility for supposedly out-of-control deficit spending on the president

Which is why Mitch McConnell proposed the language. He's not Tea Party. He's far right wing, but he's not batshitinsane. He's a very smart person, he know politics and he knows how the senate works, which is why he and Reid were the point guys on the whole deal -- and you can be Reid knew exactly what that language meant and was good with it being there.

Blaming the president for spending is one thing. Destroying the economy is another. McConnell is willing to try the first, but not willing to try the second. And remember -- the GOP helped give Clinton the line-item veto until SCOTUS shot it down.
posted by eriko at 6:18 PM on October 16, 2013


Yeah, it reads to me like congress gets a 14-day "take-backsies" option on the debt limit suspension.
posted by ctmf at 6:22 PM on October 16, 2013


The best compromise is one where both sides feel that they've won. The smarter Republicans will know that it's a good thing to give the President this power.
posted by Sticherbeast at 6:23 PM on October 16, 2013


And it looks like the take-back option specifically disallows all the weasel tactics to avoid voting on it. The president can veto the take-back.
posted by ctmf at 6:27 PM on October 16, 2013


I don't see where the president gets some new power to raise the debt ceiling next time.
posted by ctmf at 6:34 PM on October 16, 2013


It sounds like this is just a way to extend the debt ceiling to February without specifying a dollar amount.
posted by chrchr at 6:36 PM on October 16, 2013


House vote expected around 10:30 tonight.
posted by exogenous at 6:38 PM on October 16, 2013 [2 favorites]


Yeah, I'm seeing some other interpretations saying this is just until February. So, debt ceiling could be back if that's the correct one.

I'd really like to see them try again on an election year.

Also, reading some Ted Cruz quotes, I'm starting to realize, I came into this thinking he wasn't smart politically, despite his academic success, but now I think he's just plain not attached to the reality of his job.

It's not that he made a bad gamble. It's that he can't see a universe in which he doesn't make that gamble and win.
posted by mccarty.tim at 6:38 PM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


BUT MY LIVER WONT LAST THAT LONG.

My sarcasm will, though. We're good there.
posted by eriko at 6:39 PM on October 16, 2013


In other news: Hello, Senator Booker.
posted by Rhaomi at 6:42 PM on October 16, 2013 [12 favorites]


mccarty.tim: "Yeah, I'm seeing some other interpretations saying this is just until February. So, debt ceiling could be back if that's the correct one."

Basically they're using the same out they did last time the debt limit was raised and only passing a bill authorizing the President to raise the limit, subject to disapproval, which disapproval is subject to a veto, which veto is subject to an override. The effect is the same, but it allows Congress to say they didn't raise the debt limit.
posted by wierdo at 6:44 PM on October 16, 2013


What I'm saying is that the authority expires in February regardless, and the President has to request the increase in the next 3 days, but I apparently can't write coherently.
posted by wierdo at 6:47 PM on October 16, 2013


In other news: Hello, Senator Booker.

On that page there is a link labled "NYC's Best Free Fall Events" and NOT ONE of them involves anything approaching zero gee. Dammit.
posted by eriko at 6:50 PM on October 16, 2013 [2 favorites]


Yeah, I'm seeing some other interpretations saying this is just until February.

but does it say how much he can increase it by?
posted by pyramid termite at 6:50 PM on October 16, 2013


On that page there is a link labled "NYC's Best Free Fall Events" and NOT ONE of them involves anything approaching zero gee. Dammit.

You are NDGT and I claim my 5 pounds.
posted by maudlin at 6:53 PM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


or is it a deal where he just gets to kick the can down the road until feb?
posted by pyramid termite at 6:53 PM on October 16, 2013


Voting time
posted by notpace at 6:56 PM on October 16, 2013


Grover Norquist: Teabagger? I hardly even know her!
"It’d be a good idea if they stopped referring to other Republicans as Hitler appeasers because they opposed the strategy they put forward which failed," Norquist told National Review's Betsy Woodruff. "I think if you make a mistake as big as what they did, you owe your fellow senators and congressmen a big apology — and your constituents, as well, because nothing they did advanced the cause of repealing or dismantling Obamacare."
...
"They hurt the conservative movement, they hurt people’s health care, they hurt the country’s economic situation and they hurt the Republican party," Norquist continued. "And a lot of congressmen and senators are not going to win because we spent three months chasing our own tail — or at least, parts of the conservative movement spent three months chasing their own tail."
And yet another failure heads off to the orphanage.
posted by tonycpsu at 6:56 PM on October 16, 2013 [16 favorites]


That's 18 GOP.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:58 PM on October 16, 2013


They hurt the conservative movement, they hurt people’s health care

When did he start caring about people's health care? I ask that sincerely.
posted by raysmj at 6:59 PM on October 16, 2013 [3 favorites]


Voting time

Note, the vote with the 15 minute time is a procedural vote. The final vote will have a 5 minute time. Yay complexity. Yay time to get another drink.

First, they'll move to concur to the amendments (since the Senate changed an unrelated house bill to make this happen, because money bills have to start in the house.) Once they concur to the amendment, they can vote final passage.
posted by eriko at 7:00 PM on October 16, 2013


20 R yeas
posted by Sticherbeast at 7:00 PM on October 16, 2013


Oh, and extra special bonus points to Grover for trying to tie today's Tea Partiers to the Iraq debacle, which he was for before he was against.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:01 PM on October 16, 2013


Careful, Grover! Don't want to be labeled a RINO and driven out of the party for not being pure enough!
posted by Joey Michaels at 7:03 PM on October 16, 2013 [2 favorites]


Norquist can go drown his faux-concern for America in a bathtub filled with Republican tears.
posted by emjaybee at 7:04 PM on October 16, 2013 [11 favorites]


(cut to John Boehner unfurling a giant banner reading "OPPOSITE DAY")
(yes means no and no means yes)
(nobody notices until it's too late)
(the bill dies)
(he thinks he has won)
(but it turns out that defaulting on Opposite Day means that you agree to pay all your debts)
(QUADRUPLE CHECKMATE)
posted by Sticherbeast at 7:06 PM on October 16, 2013 [9 favorites]


A democrat voted against?
posted by ctmf at 7:07 PM on October 16, 2013


I honestly can't believe all the Republican congresspeople that are actually voting to put the country into default, even if it's symbolic at this point.
posted by dfan at 7:08 PM on October 16, 2013


Just checked c-span and it looks like it will pass with substantial Republican support. Going back to the baseball game...
posted by exogenous at 7:08 PM on October 16, 2013


A democrat voted against?

Or not...switched to yea.
posted by zombieflanders at 7:08 PM on October 16, 2013


I'm watching CSPAN and not seeing that, ctmf.
posted by troika at 7:08 PM on October 16, 2013


It went away. Must have been a typo.
posted by ctmf at 7:08 PM on October 16, 2013


BTW MSNBC saying 216 is threshold bc two Reps out of town.
posted by zombieflanders at 7:10 PM on October 16, 2013


all the Republican congresspeople that are actually voting to put the country into default

I can honestly only assume that many of those voting against just do not, or refuse to, understand what a default actually is and would mean for the country.
posted by troika at 7:10 PM on October 16, 2013


but does it say how much he can increase it by?
Under this bill, the debt limit is suspended until February 7th. The president can borrow whatever he wants, subject to the disapproval vote from Congress, and only what he asserts is necessary to keep the government running. There's no explicit dollar amount.
posted by heathkit at 7:10 PM on October 16, 2013


It went away. Must have been a typo.

The House votes by "Electronic Device." You slide a card into a terminal to identify yourself, and hit one of three buttons -- "Yea", "Nay", or "Present." Anyone who hasn't yet voted is record as NV (Not Voted.)

If you misvote, you can, until time expires, simply walk up, swipe your card, and hit the right button.
posted by eriko at 7:10 PM on October 16, 2013


And there it is!
posted by zombieflanders at 7:11 PM on October 16, 2013


220!!!!!
posted by hellojed at 7:11 PM on October 16, 2013


Going back to the baseball game...

Oh god, don't bother.
posted by jessamyn at 7:13 PM on October 16, 2013 [5 favorites]


Wow, it looks like it may get 75+ GOP. That's kind of a big deal.
posted by zombieflanders at 7:13 PM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


I assume the ones still voting for default are just worried about what their fanatic constituents will think if they vote no. Since it's done anyway, they can vote any way they want without risking an actual default.
posted by ctmf at 7:14 PM on October 16, 2013


If you misvote, you can, until time expires, simply walk up, swipe your card, and hit the right button.

Oh yeah -- in general, they are *very* lax about the time. You'll see many votes come in after the clock expires. After they officially call the vote, anybody can ask leave to vote if they haven't, but objections can be raised. After that, anybody can state that they wish to change their vote. Then the vote is recorded as final.
posted by eriko at 7:14 PM on October 16, 2013


261 at this point. Wow.
posted by troika at 7:14 PM on October 16, 2013


Erick Erickson, over at RedState:
Now conservatives can keep advancing. They should not be disheartened....

Ted Cruz and Mike Lee may not have been able to strike a death blow to Obamacare today, but they were able to fight a fight that would have been impossible before them. They have now made it less and less possible for Republicans to collaborate with Democrats to fix or stabilize Obamacare.
Holy mother of God. Why would a conservative with half a brain think this is a good result? "Good news, everyone! We've made it so that we'll be unable to make significant changes to that law we don't like!"
posted by Sticherbeast at 7:14 PM on October 16, 2013 [6 favorites]


guess I won't be needing these 240 pounds of canned tuna for another few months
posted by Flunkie at 7:14 PM on October 16, 2013 [3 favorites]


Thank god. I was worried about that sweet, sweet Kentucky pork.
posted by George_Spiggott at 7:15 PM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


Okay, we're calling the vote.
posted by eriko at 7:15 PM on October 16, 2013


jessamyn: "Oh god, don't bother."

While it may be true that no reasonable person would support the Tea Party, the same is not true of the Detroit Tigers ;-)
posted by exogenous at 7:16 PM on October 16, 2013 [4 favorites]


85 R yeas
posted by Sticherbeast at 7:16 PM on October 16, 2013


See you in February: increasingly empty bottle of Knob Creek
posted by hellojed at 7:16 PM on October 16, 2013 [2 favorites]


Sorry to burst your bubble guys, but I'm on the ground in DC. Default is happening. Get used to it.
posted by heathkit at 7:17 PM on October 16, 2013 [61 favorites]


Did security people just escort someone from the floor of the house?
posted by the duck by the oboe at 7:17 PM on October 16, 2013


Two reps aren't in the chamber (I don't know why) so there's only two NVs left.
posted by eriko at 7:18 PM on October 16, 2013


Watching on CSPAN it looked like someone just walked up to the front and then got dragged out over the sound of gaveling. Anyone know what the deal was with that?
posted by Uncle Ira at 7:18 PM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


Holy shit. Heritage and Friends just got told to fuck right off by 40% of the House GOP caucus.
posted by zombieflanders at 7:18 PM on October 16, 2013 [5 favorites]


Who was that woman?

pleasebevictoriajacksonpleasebevictoriajackson
posted by Sticherbeast at 7:19 PM on October 16, 2013 [13 favorites]


87 R yeas
posted by Sticherbeast at 7:19 PM on October 16, 2013


Sorry to burst your bubble guys, but I'm on the ground in DC. Default is happening. Get used to it.

WORST GROUNDHOG DAY EVER
posted by clockzero at 7:20 PM on October 16, 2013 [9 favorites]


That was crushing. 87 GOP yeas? Woah.
posted by Ironmouth at 7:21 PM on October 16, 2013 [3 favorites]


Almost but not quite enough to overcome a presidential veto.
posted by Flunkie at 7:21 PM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


Okay, I may have misunderstood this. I thought that was a motion to accept the amendments, not a final passage, but the journal call implies is was final passage. Confused eriko is confused.
posted by eriko at 7:21 PM on October 16, 2013


That was crushing. 87 GOP yeas? Woah.

I hope Obama starts talking about having a new bipartisan mandate just to see the veins throb in Ted Cruz' temples.
posted by jason_steakums at 7:23 PM on October 16, 2013 [14 favorites]


I think they agreed to end debate early and have a vote on passage. My 10:30 time earlier was incorrect - I blame the Post.
posted by exogenous at 7:23 PM on October 16, 2013


The Grauniad has some tweets about some weirdness.

"A stenographer was just pulled out of the House chamber, yelling about how the constitution was written by Freemasons"

"An official house court stenographer took to the microphone & was screaming ab God. She was saying in the hall you can't serve two masters."

So, apparently, we had some staffer go, what's that tag we use....oh, yeah....batshitinsane on the House. The House doesn't tolerate that.
posted by eriko at 7:23 PM on October 16, 2013 [10 favorites]


I hope Obama starts talking about having a new bipartisan mandate just to see the veins throb in Ted Cruz' temples.

That would make my century!
posted by wintermind at 7:25 PM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


I'd kind of like to get Scalia's opinion about whether Satan won this round.
posted by George_Spiggott at 7:25 PM on October 16, 2013 [8 favorites]


Why would a conservative with half a brain think this is a good result?

Because saying otherwise would be admitting that they are a complete idiot who just got his ass handed to him.
posted by Ironmouth at 7:26 PM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


I thought that was a motion to accept the amendments

IANAexpert, but I think it was called a procedural vote because it was not a bill that originated in the House. Since it came from the Senate, they just needed to agree to the bill. The 5-minute "vote" was on a motion to reconsider that basically got skipped because nobody called for the yeas and nays.
posted by notpace at 7:26 PM on October 16, 2013


Because saying otherwise would be admitting that they are a complete idiot who just got his ass handed to him.

But that would give them a whole brain!
posted by eriko at 7:26 PM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


The Smithsonian says the Pandacam should be back online by midday tomorrow.
posted by argonauta at 7:28 PM on October 16, 2013 [13 favorites]


Why would a conservative with half a brain think this is a good result?

Because saying otherwise would be admitting that they are a complete idiot who just got his ass handed to him.


Let us bear in mind that at least part of the reason Erick Erickson is considered a credible pundit is because he had the intelligence to buy "redstate.com".
posted by Going To Maine at 7:30 PM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


As soon as the President signs this thing I probably have a LOT of e-mail to read.
posted by wintermind at 7:30 PM on October 16, 2013 [2 favorites]


Let us bear in mind that at least part of the reason Erik Erickson is considered a credible pundit is because he had the intelligence to buy "redstate.com"

ERICK Erickson.

Please. This means a lot to me.
posted by eriko at 7:32 PM on October 16, 2013 [24 favorites]


House is currently appointing members to the House-Senate budget conference. Which is doomed, because they appointed Ryan. Fuckers.
posted by eriko at 7:33 PM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


So that's it, this whole stupid ordeal is over. The Republicans shut down the government and took the world the brink of a widespread depression, for what, exactly? To stop a Republican plan to expand access to private health insurance marketplaces and deny millions of people access to affordable health care. That's it. They failed in that goal, and in other stand-in goals along the way that they tried to tag in, including (1) cutting earned benefits programs for the middle class and poor and (2) reducing access to birth control under the private insurance exchanges. Instead they came away with...basically nothing. For this they inflicted $24 billion in economic damage on the country whose interests they allegedly represent. Yes, most federal workers will get back pay in this deal, so for some, it amounts to a stressful, but ultimately paid vacation.

But what about others who don't have the safety of back pay? What about private federal contractors? What about suppliers and vendors counting on orders from the federal government? What about private businesses counting on traffic to shuttered national parks? What about small business owners in time sensitive businesses like Capt. Keith Colburn, stuck waiting on the docks for two weeks while Republicans held up the permits he needs to do his work? What about the PhD candidates at McMurdo Station, who spent years working up to their capstone research on location in Antarctica, only to have the Republicans cancel science for the 2013 season because they don't like health insurance. All these people aren't getting back pay, the Republicans deliberately, specifically, intentionally hurt these Americans, for no real purpose other than because they were mad that some of the wrong people might have slight better lives through access to affordable health care, because they can, and because they don't like the President.

This episode should drive a stake in the heart of the Republican party. They have proven themselves unfit stewards of power, incapable and uninterested in running the country on even a minimally competent level. These people are dangerously incompetent, and really, they are demonstrably too stupid and reckless to be trusted with a sharp steak knife, much less the reigns of power in the most powerful country in the world. Maybe treason is too strong, but this episode was everything but.
posted by T.D. Strange at 7:33 PM on October 16, 2013 [81 favorites]


Boehner: We fought the good fight, we just didn't win. From those of us that live in reality, kindly fall on a rusty dildo.
posted by Rhomboid at 7:34 PM on October 16, 2013 [9 favorites]


House is current appointing members to the House-Senate budget conference. Which is doomed, because they appointed Ryan. Fuckers.

the man is a useful idiot for the dems.
posted by Ironmouth at 7:34 PM on October 16, 2013 [2 favorites]


The House followed suit a few hours later, voting 285 to 144, to approve the Senate plan, which would finance the government through Jan. 15 and raise the debt limit through Feb. 7.

So what stops the right from again pulling this stunt a third time in a few months?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 7:36 PM on October 16, 2013


What do they seriously expect to happen between now and Jan/Feb? Okay, they were at least savvy enough to extend this past December because even they aren't stupid enough to try to hold government hostage over the holidays. But do they really think memories are that short? The Dems, politically, don't have to give them shit now and should frankly be flat out, pedal to the floorboards pushing to get stuff back.
posted by George_Spiggott at 7:37 PM on October 16, 2013


Eventually it'll start running into their campaign time.
posted by drezdn at 7:37 PM on October 16, 2013


The House Dems should wink at Boehner after every heated argument and be obviously over-the-top nice to him off the floor, just for the implication. "Hey John, nice tie! We were gonna hit that sandwich join soon, you still in? Oh. Hi Cantor. Didn't see you there. Um, we'll catch up later, John." And all pretending they have inside jokes with him and stuff.
posted by jason_steakums at 7:38 PM on October 16, 2013 [17 favorites]


we had some staffer go, what's that tag we use....oh, yeah....batshitinsane on the House. The House doesn't tolerate that.

That's a privilege reserved for members.

Anyway. Halu-fucking-lujah!
posted by octobersurprise at 7:38 PM on October 16, 2013 [2 favorites]


For maximum trolling, Obama and Biden should stroll into the House chamber just before midnight, high and drunk as fuck, and shout "IT'S IMMIGRATION REFORM TIME MOTHERFUCKERS!"
posted by zombieflanders at 7:39 PM on October 16, 2013 [23 favorites]


I'm still thinking about that stenographer. Also, I keep wanting to write "stegosaurus" instead.
posted by Sticherbeast at 7:40 PM on October 16, 2013 [3 favorites]


I kind of think the Kentucky Pork provision was a deliberate fuck you to House Republicans. McConnell saying.. "Look you bastards, this is how politics work. "I" came out of this with millions more for my constituents. You guys? You got fuck all." I think out of everyone McConnell may have come out the best.

Bastard that he is.
posted by edgeways at 7:40 PM on October 16, 2013 [7 favorites]


Split the difference and say steganographer. They should check her transcript for hidden messages.
posted by George_Spiggott at 7:41 PM on October 16, 2013 [5 favorites]


I can't even be glad it's semi-over because this whole thing is so monumentally stupid

Just, what the fuck, guys.
posted by jetlagaddict at 7:41 PM on October 16, 2013 [3 favorites]


edgeways: "Bastard that he is."

QFT
posted by InsertNiftyNameHere at 7:41 PM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


The House followed suit a few hours later, voting 285 to 144, to approve the Senate plan, which would finance the government through Jan. 15 and raise the debt limit through Feb. 7.

So what stops the right from again pulling this stunt a third time in a few months?


285 people just said no. They are way, way short. They don't have the votes.
posted by Ironmouth at 7:41 PM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


And now, the Treasury holds a press conference and says "Sorry, we miscounted. We've already defaulted.....PSYCH!!"
posted by eriko at 7:41 PM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


Here's six seconds of stenographer. via
posted by jessamyn at 7:42 PM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


So what stops the right from again pulling this stunt a third time in a few months?

Hopefully an unwillingness to look like idiots again.

I know, a slim hope.
posted by Artw at 7:43 PM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


So, according to Ezra Klein the dems preferred getting a two-month extension to the debt ceiling to a six-month one. Anybody clear why? Maybe just because the Collins agreement had a lot of other sad baggage on top?
posted by Going To Maine at 7:43 PM on October 16, 2013


Obama should sign it using just one cheap disposable pen stamped with the DCCC brand and give it to Boehner.
posted by George_Spiggott at 7:45 PM on October 16, 2013 [7 favorites]


So, according to Ezra Klein the dems preferred getting a two-month extension to the debt ceiling to a six-month one. Anybody clear why? Maybe just because the Collins agreement had a lot of other sad baggage on top?

It puts it after the individual mandate goes into effect but before sequester is renewed.
posted by zombieflanders at 7:45 PM on October 16, 2013 [4 favorites]


I'm pretty sure it was so they would be able to re-negotiate the sequester before next year, but I could be wrong.
posted by localhuman at 7:45 PM on October 16, 2013


I kind of think the Kentucky Pork provision was a deliberate fuck you to House Republicans. McConnell saying.. "Look you bastards, this is how politics work. "I" came out of this with millions more for my constituents. You guys? You got fuck all." I think out of everyone McConnell may have come out the best.

McConnell played the pragmatic game, and he came out as far ahead as he personally could. The Teahadists were all about passionate message, and they almost destroyed their own movement and the GOP as a whole, they cost the US billions of dollars, and they endangered the world economy.
posted by Sticherbeast at 7:47 PM on October 16, 2013




In case you're wondering about who those 87 R Yeas were, here's how everyone voted, via GovTrack.us.
posted by troika at 7:47 PM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


jessamyn: "Here's six seconds of stenographer. via"

WTF? What would motivate a stenographer to start actively voicing a personal opinion during something like this?
posted by InsertNiftyNameHere at 7:48 PM on October 16, 2013


What would motivate a stenographer to start actively voicing a personal opinion during something like this?

Sleeper cell?
posted by edgeways at 7:49 PM on October 16, 2013 [3 favorites]




McConnell played the pragmatic game, and he came out as far ahead as he personally could.

And earned himself and Kentucky...very little, actually. He got an increased authorization for a Corps of Engineering project, but not actually any spending authority, and the CoE hires and sources globally, so there's no guarantee that any of that money would actually come from KY,

The whole "Kentucky Kickback" is a lame smear by the Tea Party against McConnell.
posted by eriko at 7:50 PM on October 16, 2013 [4 favorites]


What would motivate a stenographer to start actively voicing a personal opinion during something like this?
Lack of mental health care.
posted by Flunkie at 7:50 PM on October 16, 2013 [22 favorites]


WTF? What would motivate a stenographer to start actively voicing a personal opinion during something like this?

Well, stegosauruses have very tiny brains. Their brains are so tiny that they have another , separate nerve cluster just to control the rear of their body.
posted by Sticherbeast at 7:50 PM on October 16, 2013 [5 favorites]


This Cruz photo reminds me of this guy from "Cabaret". (No Goodwin)
posted by drezdn at 7:50 PM on October 16, 2013


What would motivate a stenographer to start actively voicing a personal opinion during something like this?

Psychotic break, I'm afraid.
posted by Countess Elena at 7:50 PM on October 16, 2013 [5 favorites]


Ha, at like 8 seconds into that audio clip there's an amazing little "oh, sweetheart." LOVE IT. Just short of a good ol' "bless her heart."
posted by troika at 7:51 PM on October 16, 2013 [3 favorites]


I haven't played it yet, but here's a video of the steganographer leaving her position in the well, going to a mic during the vote, and getting dragged off.
posted by eriko at 7:52 PM on October 16, 2013


"oh, sweetheart."

I'm pretty sure that was a fellow co-worker of the stenographer, trying to help the poor woman get off the floor with a modicum of dignity. I really hope people don't treat this woman's mental breakdown as a joke.
posted by longdaysjourney at 7:53 PM on October 16, 2013 [6 favorites]




Interesting that the entire Arkansas House delegation voted in favor. I would have expected Cotton to be crazy enough to vote against, but the state isn't nearly as red as a lot of people think, so he might be trying to shore up his chances in the general election next year.
posted by wierdo at 8:01 PM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


What's weird is that kind of loose-limbed gait she has as she ambles up to the microphone. Her body language doesn't match the urgency in her voice at all.
posted by George_Spiggott at 8:01 PM on October 16, 2013 [3 favorites]


"Oh god, don't bother."

Unless you want to see the best hitter in baseball have an amazing game…
posted by klangklangston at 8:03 PM on October 16, 2013


I really hope people don't treat this woman's mental breakdown as a joke.

Another open display of the GOP's religious extremism, bigotry and paranoid lunacy that nearly brought this country to its knees is hardly a joke.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:03 PM on October 16, 2013 [14 favorites]


I must have missed that Committee meeting. In any event, that's not how we wrote Constitutions when I was Master.
posted by Curious Artificer at 8:06 PM on October 16, 2013 [3 favorites]


Are we sure she wasn't just announcing as a candidate?
posted by klangklangston at 8:07 PM on October 16, 2013 [11 favorites]


HA!

‏Yes, that stenographer might be mentally ill, not just extremely right-wing, but if that possibility held me back I'd have nothing to write. -@jonathanchait
posted by lattiboy at 8:14 PM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


I really hope people don't treat this woman's mental breakdown as a joke.

Another open display of the GOP's religious extremism, bigotry and paranoid lunacy that nearly brought this country to its knees is hardly a joke.


The GOP is usually thought to speak about the Constitution in reverent terms. A woman describing the Constitution as being written by Freemasons (in a negative sense) and having potentially Satanic origins doesn't really fit their line. This is not a good thing to diagnose from videotape.
posted by Going To Maine at 8:14 PM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


In any event, that's not how we wrote Constitutions when I was Master.

It's amazing what you can sneak through when most of the brethren fall asleep during the minutes.
posted by malocchio at 8:14 PM on October 16, 2013 [3 favorites]


I really hope people don't treat this woman's mental breakdown as a joke.

I really hope unqualified people don't diagnose this woman as having had a mental breakdown on the basis of no clinical evidence whatsoever. There are elected officials in that very chamber that have said crazier shit than that on the official record.
posted by Atom Eyes at 8:14 PM on October 16, 2013 [38 favorites]


I guess people can't fucking resist the easy target. Disappointing.

There are elected officials in that very chamber that have said crazier shit than that on the official record.

And they're going to keep their jobs. I will be very surprised if that stenographer ever appears on the House floor again.
posted by longdaysjourney at 8:15 PM on October 16, 2013 [3 favorites]


Mod note: Friendly reminder at the end of a long sometimes difficult thread. Edit feature is for typos, not editing for content.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:22 PM on October 16, 2013 [4 favorites]


I will be very surprised if that stenographer ever appears on the House floor again.

Or anywhere, for that matter, except maybe the back of a stamp.

Of course, the outburst could also have been the finale of an elaborate, fatigue-induced prank.
posted by Pudhoho at 8:29 PM on October 16, 2013


Nope, Fifth Column True Believer, all the way. You'd be amazed at how many actually work on Capitol Hill. A whole bunch of staffers and "really bright young people, working in government" are pretty much full on Dominionist wackaloons. Doesn't usually interfere with their ability to do their jobs, but sometimes the stress of seeing what they've been working for going up in smoke pushes one or two over the edge.

There has been a very substantial increase in chatter on the dominionist e-mail chains about "prepare for the end of the false leaders" and total wackaloon "you've been saving up your gold, but if not, here's more places to buy gold for the coming return to the gold standard" nutballs. They even started pushing out into less religious circles and into the gun hoarders and survival nuts, going for the "after the fall" crowd.
posted by daq at 8:39 PM on October 16, 2013 [13 favorites]


Hey guys, daq's on the ground in DC...
posted by symbioid at 9:03 PM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]




This wasn't run of the mill political stupidity. This was a case where a significant portion of our national legislature deliberately did damage to our economy to score political points or maybe because they really, truly believed nothing bad would happen (though why take a hostage that you don't think is genuinely worth anything?). These nihilists are genuine threat to the nation and, frankly, the world. Good for the Democrats (and some Republicans) for sticking up to them. I fear in my heart that the worst is still yet to come.
posted by Joey Michaels at 9:08 PM on October 16, 2013 [10 favorites]


So, according to Ezra Klein the dems preferred getting a two-month extension to the debt ceiling to a six-month one. Anybody clear why?

I believe that a second round of sequestration cuts - in addition to the ones already in force - are scheduled to kick in sometime in February and they want to stop those and renegotiate the old ones. I heard some talking head say that (can't remember who) but I have not investigated or verified further. I think they indicated that the 2nd round were deep cuts and heavy on the military (among other things), so the repubs might also be agreeable to a renegotiation to save their pet things. I may have details off a bit - I have had TV on last few days while I work and can usually only half listen.
posted by madamjujujive at 9:13 PM on October 16, 2013


Yeah. They're just taking a break until after the holidays. If the healthcare.gov problems are bad enough, I wouldn't be surprised if they take another shot at delaying ACA in January. What can we do to help the ACA roll out?
posted by Golden Eternity at 9:14 PM on October 16, 2013


I wouldn't be surprised if they take another shot at delaying ACA in January.

Nah, that ship just sailed. After Jan 1st, it involves taking health insurance away from people who have it, some for the first time, and replacing it with ... nothing. Not going to happen.
posted by RedOrGreen at 9:16 PM on October 16, 2013 [3 favorites]


In that sad woman's defense, who of us could withstand being exposed to that level of bullshit and assholery over the last few weeks? I'm near mad dog rabid, spouting facial tics and prone to random outbursts of random obscenities -- and I am not in their physical presence.
posted by madamjujujive at 9:18 PM on October 16, 2013 [11 favorites]


If she truly has mental health issues, I hope she finds the help that she needs. If her outburst was simply due to a narrow and distorted worldview, I hope she can find a way to overcome her bigotry.
posted by malocchio at 9:38 PM on October 16, 2013 [4 favorites]


What can we do to help the ACA roll out?

If you're not insured sign up for insurance and help others do the same.
posted by Justinian at 9:44 PM on October 16, 2013 [2 favorites]


"These nihilists are genuine threat to the nation and, frankly, the world."

Say what you will about the tenets of establishment Republicanism, at least it's an ethos.
posted by klangklangston at 9:56 PM on October 16, 2013 [8 favorites]


More Tea Party troubles: Rep. Noem faces natural and political disaster after South Dakota blizzard.

Don't call for a government shutdown, and then belatedly realize that your state actually does require emergency government assistance, and also that your state that has no personal or corporate income tax.
posted by Sticherbeast at 10:26 PM on October 16, 2013 [18 favorites]


Mod note: Comment deleted. Cut out the personal insults here; if you want to have a personal conversation with someone, use email rather than this thread.
posted by taz (staff) at 10:37 PM on October 16, 2013 [2 favorites]


Sticherbeast: "Don't call for a government shutdown, and then belatedly realize that your state actually does require emergency government assistance, and also that your state that has no personal or corporate income tax."

Perhaps Rep. Noem could dip into her $500,000 or so in welfare agricultural subsidies to help fund the recovery effort.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:40 PM on October 16, 2013 [2 favorites]


I guess they got everything they voted for.
posted by Artw at 10:49 PM on October 16, 2013


Yeah, this is where some SD Dems need to be meeting with Ag. men and saying, "You coulda had a robust aid package; now you're gonna get what scraps she gets out of us in horsetrading. You don't like that, next time put your money behind someone who believes that Americans look out for Americans, instead of looking out for herself."
posted by klangklangston at 10:50 PM on October 16, 2013 [23 favorites]


Maybe when the Heritage Foundation buys a candidate you causes a disaster in her state they could foot the bill for it? Just a thought.
posted by Artw at 10:56 PM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


So what'd I miss?
posted by mazola at 10:56 PM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


I bet they've had zero veterans turn up to tear down the barriers from the claims offices as well...
posted by Artw at 10:57 PM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


The president signed the legislation at 12:30 a.m. Thursday. Now I've got this image of the president idly flipping through television channels in a dark and deserted living room, wearing sweatpants and drinking wine, waiting for somebody to come over with a bill for him to sign hastily with a Bic pen so that he can get to bed already.
posted by Rhomboid at 10:58 PM on October 16, 2013 [19 favorites]


klangklangston: ""These nihilists are genuine threat to the nation and, frankly, the world."

Say what you will about the tenets of establishment Republicanism, at least it's an ethos.
"

Third time in this thread LOL!!!
posted by symbioid at 11:14 PM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


I guess we're all done here. Closing this up. See you all in February.
posted by chrchr at 11:34 PM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]


This ain't over by a long shot. The fecking nutbars are still in the House and they are never, ever going to stop trying to destroy the Federal government from within. The US will be held hostage again and again.

It is absolutely vital that those of you responsible enough to exercise your right to vote, pressure those who haven't been voting to do so. The crazies can be out-voted if and only if sane people do their duty as citizens in a democracy.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:35 PM on October 16, 2013


Hey Ghost Mode, now that we've kinda seen that the only shocking announcement came from the stenographer, can you talk a little bit about what your sources thought was happening and who they were? MeMail me if you don't want to do it in public, but it's not like it's a leak that could affect anything anymore, so it'd be cool if you could talk about it here.
posted by klangklangston at 11:50 PM on October 16, 2013 [19 favorites]


I hate all this Healthcare.gov bashing. Healthcare.gov is only there to redirect you to your state's exchange.

If your state was to lazy or incompetent to setup their own exchanges, then I guess you can use the redirect site, too.

But you ever hear the term "Beggers Can't Be Choosers". Don't piss and moan how the federal site blows when all these states don't even have their own.

Also, there's like 45 days left to signup for this first round of open enrollment. December 15. Maybe THAT should be the lede in every story.
posted by mikelieman at 1:07 AM on October 17, 2013 [3 favorites]


I'm pretty shocked it has problems at all. This is Obama's primary achievement and lasting legacy here -- where's the crack team of tech wunderkinds that revolutionized the 2012 campaign and blew Romney's sad ORCA project away? Wouldn't they be itching to put the president's policies into action in a way that benefits millions, much more so than simply electing the guy?
posted by Rhaomi at 4:10 AM on October 17, 2013 [1 favorite]


To answer my question, this WaPo piece offers some guesses. In short: it's mainly HHS's turf, contracting rules hinder hiring of 2012 talent, and shit's really, really complicated.
posted by Rhaomi at 4:16 AM on October 17, 2013 [4 favorites]


Palin: On to Kentucky!
posted by empath at 4:31 AM on October 17, 2013


I was just reading about the stenographer this morning. She is being taken in for a mental health evaluation, and I suppose she could be suffering from a disorder, but my first thought was: The entire world was watching the House last night, it was one of the most important events of the year; if you're going to lose your job by speaking up and telling people what you believe, what better time would there be? I know a ton of people who would be very proud of her for this, would consider it bravery rather than a disorder. Yeah, it's a little weird to hear about the Freemasons, but it's not that weird; there's certainly a large contingent of evangelicals who believe the founders had conspiratorial and occult plans.

Of course, she'll be hospitalized, possibly jailed, with her reputation ruined and life destroyed, for talking for a few seconds into a microphone, while the people who nearly wrecked the world economy, who nearly sent millions of people into starvation and death, keep their jobs and use their legislative failure to garner votes during the campaign season.
posted by mittens at 4:39 AM on October 17, 2013 [28 favorites]


I couldn't register for three days because there was a glitch in the mechanism to create your security questions.

Well between now and December 1st, do you have any doubt that you'll be able to complete the tasks?
posted by mikelieman at 5:28 AM on October 17, 2013


And if they didn't want it to be complicated, then just shove everyone into Medicare, send all the bills to the treasury, and make everyone use VistA. Three systems we already have that work. In the case of VistA it works better than anything else out there.
posted by mikelieman at 5:30 AM on October 17, 2013 [2 favorites]


With all the crazy shit that has been happening in DC over the last few weeks, ranting about freemasons was a refreshingly mild case.
posted by fontophilic at 5:36 AM on October 17, 2013 [10 favorites]


I will be very surprised if that stenographer ever appears on the House floor again.

Or anywhere, for that matter, except maybe the back of a stamp.
Or maybe she'll have her own show on Fox News by next week.
posted by zakur at 5:59 AM on October 17, 2013 [2 favorites]


Or maybe she'll have her own show on Fox News by next week.

She'll be back in 2015 as a Senator.
posted by drezdn at 6:25 AM on October 17, 2013 [2 favorites]




Palin: On to Kentucky!

Does SHE write that stuff or have she hired a talentless young adult fiction writer? Because I don't think I've read a more contentless self contradictory peice of driver in a long time.
posted by edgeways at 6:45 AM on October 17, 2013


From T.D. Strange's link:

I’m happy that we get to go back. But it’s pissing me off – they used us as pawns in this big ego game. But they didn’t even get what they wanted. It was all for nothing.

My senator is proud-- proud-- to have voted against the bill last night. How many people like this are there in Pennsylvania? In America? Instead of an apology, my guy's out there sending emails about how he wants more reform and updating his website like it's a victory for him, that he voted against a bill to reopen the fucking government of the United States of America. He's not writing apology letters, or saying sorry. I didn't vote for him before (obviously) but man-- I will remember this when during his reelection campaign, and my money, my time, will remember this too.
posted by jetlagaddict at 6:52 AM on October 17, 2013 [8 favorites]


Palin: On to Kentucky!

If that doesn't sink the guys chances I don't know what would.
posted by Artw at 7:16 AM on October 17, 2013 [1 favorite]


They fought the good fight, duh.
posted by KokuRyu at 7:17 AM on October 17, 2013




I wonder if these pro-default people realize that they wouldn't have a job if they had gotten what they wanted? Do they assume they would just stay in some ruling class while the rest of the world eats itself? Or is it like how every person into RP fantasy thinks they'll be the King or Heroic Knight instead of just another starving peon?
posted by JakeEXTREME at 7:21 AM on October 17, 2013 [5 favorites]


Still getting the "both sides are to blame for the long shutdown, Democrats wouldn't negotiate..." on facebook. People.
posted by DynamiteToast at 7:22 AM on October 17, 2013


Or is it like how every person into RP fantasy thinks they'll be the King or Heroic Knight instead of just another starving peon?

Pretty much. They've convinced themselves they're part of the 1%.
posted by mikelieman at 7:23 AM on October 17, 2013 [1 favorite]


GOP Rep Looks To Next Showdown: 'We’re Going To Start This All Over Again' - they really are that stupid and evil.
posted by Artw at 7:24 AM on October 17, 2013


Palin: On to Kentucky!

Ugh. Lonegan was 100% uncut icky white guy. Happily, he couldn't even make English the official language of my nuts. Good riddance. Maybe the top part of my state can take care of Scott Garrett next time. NJ is a weird place.
posted by mintcake! at 7:26 AM on October 17, 2013


[context (re Lonegan, not my nuts)]
posted by mintcake! at 7:29 AM on October 17, 2013 [2 favorites]


Friends, do not be discouraged by the shenanigans of D.C.’s permanent political class today. Be energized. We’re going to shake things up in 2014.

In a much, much smaller shaker, I hope.
posted by Rykey at 7:30 AM on October 17, 2013


Sully: It Will Only Get Worse

Shorter Wingnuttia: WOLVERINES!
posted by tonycpsu at 7:33 AM on October 17, 2013 [1 favorite]


The Panda Cam is BACK! and the cub is so adorable I can't even
posted by argonauta at 7:38 AM on October 17, 2013 [5 favorites]


The Panda Cam is BACK! and the cub is so adorable I can't even

Finally, we can put this national tragedy behind us.
posted by DynamiteToast at 7:39 AM on October 17, 2013 [6 favorites]


MAXIMUM TROLLING INITIATED

Also looks like he used some of the skill points from last night's boss fight to upgrade his grin powers to level 12
posted by Hairy Lobster at 7:43 AM on October 17, 2013 [12 favorites]


I love rants about Freemasons, they make me smile. I feel bad for the Elks or Moose, though. Nobody ever worries about THOSE guys.
posted by entropicamericana at 7:52 AM on October 17, 2013 [1 favorite]


Historically American voters have short memories and are quick to forgive once the pressure is off. The next few months will be telling about how long the Republicans will be in the doghouse. Hopefully the Democrats are able to capitalize on this in Virginia and recruit some solid candidates for the house races next year. It will also be interesting if any GOP house members retire, or struggle to raise money in the wake of this.
posted by humanfont at 7:54 AM on October 17, 2013 [1 favorite]


struggle to raise money in the wake of this

It's happening already, as humanfont said earlier, Ted Cruz only got $800,000 out of this.
posted by troika at 7:57 AM on October 17, 2013


Whoops, just responded to humanfont by quoting humanfont.
posted by troika at 7:58 AM on October 17, 2013 [15 favorites]


$3.1 million to the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (yeah, that one's a head-scratcher)

Some more information on that:
The agency charged with overseeing the privacy implications of U.S. surveillance programs will receive $3.1 million for the upcoming fiscal year under the government funding bill that Congress is expected to pass Wednesday evening ...

Since 2009, appropriations for the oversight panel have ranged from $900,000 to $1.5 million.

The board asked for the $3.1 million in its semi-annual report to Congress in June.

The report, which outlined the board’s activities dating back to when it first became fully operational in March of this year, said 2014 would be “a critical year” for the group.

Next year “will be the first full fiscal year in which the Board anticipates with a full developed agenda” and has a chairman, the report said.

The $3.1 million “covers the salaries and related costs necessary to support a small staff needed to maintain an efficient level of operations,” including “Board member compensation, limited other personnel, facilities lease, administrative services, security and information technology,” the board wrote.
Until this year, PCLOB had been pretty much just limping along since its inception. It wasn't until January that the Senate finally approved the chairperson's nomination. So I guess what's going on is that PCLOB has a lot of new work ahead of it, and because of that new work it needs funding in excess of what would otherwise be provided by a clean CR.

I'm a little surprised that PCLOB was enough of an issue to have made it into the legislation.
posted by compartment at 7:59 AM on October 17, 2013 [2 favorites]


Lonegan was 100% uncut icky white guy.

A true bell-end, as the Brits say.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:00 AM on October 17, 2013


Shorter Wingnuttia: WOLVERINES!

Jeff "I'll slap you with my dick" Goldstein is going to make everyone who forced him to live under the iron fist of the ACA his "prison bitch."
posted by octobersurprise at 8:06 AM on October 17, 2013


GOP declare victory!
posted by Artw at 8:09 AM on October 17, 2013


The short attention span of the US public won't be a problem. Given the comments at Red State and from the Chick-fil-A Reps, I think the Teapartiers are going to double down and make similar, ill-advised obstructionist moves whenever or wherever they can. These people are truly their own worst enemy.
posted by klarck at 8:16 AM on October 17, 2013


I'm a believer in Jesus Christ, as I look at the End Times scripture, this says to me that the leaf is on the fig tree and we are to understand the signs of the times, which is your ministry, we are to understand where we are in God's end time history.

Court stenographer or 4-times-elected representative and member of the house intelligence committee?
posted by dirigibleman at 8:18 AM on October 17, 2013 [22 favorites]


"We saw the House of Representatives stand up to defy Washington conventional wisdom and stand with the American people against Obamacare," Cruz said on the Mark Levin radio show. "That was remarkable, it was an incredible victory."
Winning!
posted by octobersurprise at 8:18 AM on October 17, 2013 [3 favorites]


Quoted below are the (current as of today, because wikipedia) first three paragraphs the article the United States debt-ceiling crisis of 2011.

I predict it will serve as perfect copypasta to summarize the current, uh, crisis, without any edits whatever except changing the dates. We have been here and done this before; we will be back here and do this again.

Bold added by me.

The United States debt-ceiling crisis of 2011 was a stage in the ongoing political debate in the United States Congress about the appropriate level of government spending and its consequential impact on the national debt and deficit.

The Republican Party, which had retaken the House of Representatives the prior year, demanded that the President negotiate over deficit reduction in exchange for an increase in the debt ceiling, the statutory maximum of money the Treasury is allowed to borrow. Were the United States to broach the debt ceiling and not be able to use other "extraordinary measures", the Treasury would have to either default on payments to bondholders or immediately curtail payment of funds owed to various companies and individuals that had been mandated but not fully funded by Congress. Both situations would likely have led to a significant international financial crisis.

On July 31, two days prior to when the Treasury estimated the borrowing authority of the United States would be exhausted, Republicans agreed to raise the debt ceiling in exchange for a complex deal of significant future spending cuts. The crisis did not permanently resolve the potential of future use of the debt ceiling in budgetary disputes, as can be seen in the current debt-ceiling crisis of 2013.


Those who do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it. Those who do remember the past are doomed to repeat it anyway.
posted by jfuller at 8:20 AM on October 17, 2013


Also, reading some Ted Cruz quotes, I'm starting to realize, I came into this thinking he wasn't smart politically, despite his academic success, but now I think he's just plain not attached to the reality of his job.
It's not that he made a bad gamble. It's that he can't see a universe in which he doesn't make that gamble and win.


Actually, Cruz made-out like a bandit throughout all this. He was using his grandstanding and bomb-throwing primarily as a fund-raising method.
posted by Thorzdad at 8:26 AM on October 17, 2013


I found John McCain's remarks, linked above, that Republicans had signed up for a lost cause in trying to defund Obamacare refreshing. I specifically appreciated his analysis that you just can't achieve that much change when you have a simple majority in the House while the Democrats control the Senate and White House. I know it is weird to give kudos for plain logic and accepting blame, but compared to other Republicans who are all "This was an incredible victory" and "Je ne regrette rien" it is reassuring to see a conservative who is living in the actual world and not in a feedback loop inside his own head.
posted by onlyconnect at 8:27 AM on October 17, 2013 [2 favorites]


Shutdown Endgame: The Republicans May Lose, But So Will You

tl;dr: Heck of a job, Barry!
posted by mondo dentro at 8:31 AM on October 17, 2013


TBogg: So long , and thanks for all the salmonella
Ted Cruz is like a guy who kills all of his friends in a fiery crash while drunk driving and then complains that they aren’t around to talk about how awesome it must have looked.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:35 AM on October 17, 2013 [9 favorites]


Hannity apparently now has a time machine, last night claiming that the ACA--which doesn't even go into effect until January--has caused premiums to skyrocket, and has cost triple what it was projected to.
posted by Rykey at 8:37 AM on October 17, 2013 [1 favorite]


Ted Cruz is like a guy who kills all of his friends in a fiery crash while drunk driving and then complains that they aren’t around to talk about how awesome it must have looked.

Come to think of it, the Tea Party's behavior during all of this has basically been, "Hold my beer and watch this."
posted by entropicamericana at 8:42 AM on October 17, 2013 [12 favorites]


tl;dr: Heck of a job, Barry!

Did not RTFA, I guess? The TL;DR is right there at the end:
It’s easy to blame this all on Ted Cruz, Tea Party Republicans, and groups like Heritage Action that supported them. But give these conservatives their due: Many of them really believe that nutty stuff about Obamacare and Obama. It’s the less extreme Republicans, the ones who know better, who allowed this to happen, because they never stood up to the far right wing. And one reason they stayed silent is nobody stood up to lead them.

That somebody should have been Boehner. He’s the Speaker, after all. He may not command the power of his predecessors, who were able to parcel out earmark spending projects. He may have an unusually petulant and impractical caucus on his hands. But he still has some power to push back—to challenge his critics, to rally his own supporters, and to appeal to the public at large. Standing up to his party's right wing would have meant risking ouster, but sometimes that's what leaders do—they take controversial stands and dare their followers to undermine them. Boehner didn't do that. Instead, he accommodated the Tea Party and waited until the very last minute before defying them, in the hopes they would understand he had no choice.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:48 AM on October 17, 2013 [14 favorites]


tl;dr: Heck of a job, Barry!

Summary of the article:

Even with default avoided, there are still bad consequences. It's not necessarily all the idiot teabaggers' fault; some of the blame belongs to "moderate" Republicans and especially Boehner. The only actual mention of Obama in the article is that he refused to negotiate.

So the fact that you dr is pretty obvious. Crazy suggestion: next time you link to an article, rtfa.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:51 AM on October 17, 2013 [9 favorites]


The short attention span of the US public won't be a problem. Given the comments at Red State and from the Chick-fil-A Reps, I think the Teapartiers are going to double down and make similar, ill-advised obstructionist moves whenever or wherever they can. These people are truly their own worst enemy.

They're so predictable that I'm hoping next year in late September/early October the polling on Obamacare is positive enough, after people have used it for most of a year, that the Dems can propose some minor improvement patches - nothing crazy, just strengthening something that helps the people in states that opted out, or a bump in the subsidies, or fixing some part that people are kinda frustrated with even though they generally like the new normal, something like that. The Tea Party crowd would go insane, right on cue.
posted by jason_steakums at 8:52 AM on October 17, 2013


Rykey: "Hannity apparently now has a time machine, yt last night claiming that the ACA--which doesn't even go into effect until January--has caused premiums to skyrocket, and has cost triple what it was projected to."

They've been doing that for awhile. One of the tea party reps in California (I know right?) that I got redistricted out of (yay!) has been repeatedly posting "So and So from X tiny mountain town wrote us today about how Kaiser canceled her coverage because of Obamacare." and people just eat it up. No proof, no letter, no backup. "SEE! PEOPLE ARE ALREADY DYING!"

Also my very right-wing mother-in-law is visiting, and we have completely avoided talking about politics for two days. Last night she leaned over and showed me this "hilarious" meme style pic that said "America: Where the parks are more secure than the borders" and proceeded to say "It's sad because it's true." It's really bizarre.
posted by Big_B at 8:54 AM on October 17, 2013 [1 favorite]


@OKnox: Here's @speakerboehmer boarding at the Dulles gate next to mine. Good sport about the attention.

Looks like Obama's not the only one who wears mom jeans.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:57 AM on October 17, 2013 [2 favorites]


"Hannity apparently now has a time machine, yt last night claiming that the ACA--which doesn't even go into effect until January--has caused premiums to skyrocket, and has cost triple what it was projected to."

The small nonprofit I work for supplies health insurance to 5 or 6 employees. Based on the HR lady's cursory survey of the health exchange site, our organization is going to save $1000-$1500 per month come January. And we'll almost certainly have lower copays, too.
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:57 AM on October 17, 2013 [9 favorites]


Crazy suggestion: next time you link to an article, rtfa.

I read it. Before you mock my reading ability, think more carefully about your inferences.

The part I focused on is that even if the GOP loses, we all lose. You guys like to just view this as a sporting event, so if your side "wins" it's all good. I don't view political leadership that way. I guess you like the idea of a president saying "the buck stops here", unless it's your guy? The demeanor and policies of this president, knowing the nature of his opposition, was inadequate, and in my opinion there's a direct line from those attitudes and policies to where we are now. So I hold Obama fundamentally responsible. He's the guy I voted for. I know these other peoples are destructive assholes. I've known it since Clinton. Didn't he?!
posted by mondo dentro at 8:57 AM on October 17, 2013


So I hold Obama fundamentally responsible. He's the guy I voted for. I know these other peoples are destructive assholes. I've known it since Clinton. Didn't he?!

Obama is not King of America. God knows there have been MANY times in the past several years where I've thought "Obama should have done more." This is not one of those times. This is 100% on a handful of Congressmen and the morons who voted for them, and Obama handled it better and more spine-fully than he's handled many previous Tea Party fracases. I wish he'd grown these balls earlier, frankly.
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:00 AM on October 17, 2013 [28 favorites]


jason_steakums: "The Tea Party crowd would go insane, right on cue."

Y'know, part of me wants to mercilessly mock them and point at the scoreboard, but the last time the Tea Party crowd went (more) insane was when they took over Congress in 2010. I'm not saying that Democrats shouldn't run on Obamacare -- they definitely should -- but asking purple state Democrats to support any kind of expansion is a surefire way to make sure the Hoveround "Take your Government hands off my Medicare" set shows up to vote. Off-year elections are hard enough for Democrats without giving them an extra reason to show up.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:01 AM on October 17, 2013 [1 favorite]


Judging by PPP's polls, Democrats just need to run on the "Hey remember who shutdown the government?" platform.
posted by DynamiteToast at 9:02 AM on October 17, 2013 [4 favorites]


I guess you like the idea of a president saying "the buck stops here", unless it's your guy?

Or unless the buck is owned by one of two other branches of government specifically intended to counterbalance the president.
posted by George_Spiggott at 9:04 AM on October 17, 2013 [5 favorites]


The part I focused on is that even if the GOP loses, we all lose. You guys like to just view this as a sporting event, so if your side "wins" it's all good.

This was refuted many times by other posters the last time people started this semi-derail. In any event, there a million other articles out there that actually made this point and assigned more blame to Obama. Some of them may already have been posted here.

The demeanor and policies of this president, knowing the nature of his opposition, was inadequate, and in my opinion there's a direct line from those attitudes and policies to where we are now. So I hold Obama fundamentally responsible. He's the guy I voted for. I know these other peoples are destructive assholes. I've known it since Clinton. Didn't he?!

Yes, because literally no one was like this before Obama was even elected. There was no Jeremiah Wright, or birth certificate nonsense, or talk about "real Americans" who don't "pal around with terrorists," or accusations of being a Socialist Kenyan Muslim usurper, or "kill whitey" rumors. That's all his fault, right? He could have stopped all of that, right?

For someone who loudly and repeatedly claimed that they were being unfairly tarred with believing in Obama Green Lanternism to say that he's "fundamentally responsible" for everything and that we must believe that "the buck stops here" with him is mind-blowing.
posted by zombieflanders at 9:06 AM on October 17, 2013 [6 favorites]


It's a sad day for platinum coin enthusiasts.
posted by Artw at 9:07 AM on October 17, 2013 [16 favorites]


Y'know, part of me wants to mercilessly mock them and point at the scoreboard, but the last time the Tea Party crowd went (more) insane was when they took over Congress in 2010. I'm not saying that Democrats shouldn't run on Obamacare -- they definitely should -- but asking purple state Democrats to support any kind of expansion is a surefire way to make sure the Hoveround "Take your Government hands off my Medicare" set shows up to vote. Off-year elections are hard enough for Democrats without giving them an extra reason to show up.

Yeah, that's why I couched it in "I hope the polling is positive enough" - because one of the smartest things about the ACA is that it rolls out in full force in a midterm election year and, if it's more popular than what came before it, it completely destroys the "socialist" scaremongering. There's a chance that the landscape will have shifted next year. Not saying it's a good chance, but I'm crossing my fingers. It's a realistic enough possibility that the Republicans almost destroyed the world over it.
posted by jason_steakums at 9:07 AM on October 17, 2013




Hey mondodentro, I think you are about to play out the same scene we did several thousand comments earlier. Maybe everyone should just go back upthread and read your earlier comments.
posted by Going To Maine at 9:09 AM on October 17, 2013


It's a sad day for platinum coin enthusiasts.

The democrats did the best they could, but they just didn't have the groats.
posted by mittens at 9:14 AM on October 17, 2013 [3 favorites]


Guess everyone just wants a big daddy
posted by edgeways at 9:21 AM on October 17, 2013


Guess everyone just wants a big daddy

More Rapture propaganda!
posted by mittens at 9:22 AM on October 17, 2013 [3 favorites]


You guys like to just view this as a sporting event, so if your side "wins" it's all good.

No one concerned with these events thinks that they are "just a sporting event." But say you are right—what should we be doing here? What are you looking for here?

The demeanor and policies of this president, knowing the nature of his opposition, was inadequate, and in my opinion there's a direct line from those attitudes and policies to where we are now. So I hold Obama fundamentally responsible.

You're blaming Obama for what his opponents chose to do on the grounds that he didn't keep them from opposing him in the first place? Why stop there? There's so many more things Obama hasn't kept from happening that you could blame him for as well.
posted by octobersurprise at 9:25 AM on October 17, 2013 [8 favorites]


God knows there have been MANY times in the past several years where I've thought "Obama should have done more." This is not one of those times.

I'm much more interested in where we go now, and in advocating for constructive pressure to move us into a more desirable direction, than in feeling good that "my side won". Understanding how we got here is crucial to that. Those who are letting Obama off the hook are focused too narrowly on this particular skirmish and not asking how it is related to inadequacies in the Obama brand of Dem party politics. I see a direct connection between these Democratic party aims and policies over the past 6+ years and the fact that the "batshit insane" right has got so much power.

I'm not that interested in just saying "yay! we won", when, first of all I don't think we did win much at all. Don't get me wrong, it was a satisfying win on multiple levels--I enjoy seeing Cruz and the Teabaggers getting smacked down as much as anyone. And the internal conflicts in the GOP are a positive development. But if you look at the news, it's not like the crazy faction is chastened.

Besides that, we are yet to have any indication that the Dems will do anything other with this "victory" than head right back to a disastrous austerity model of economics. What do you think the political meaning of having John McCain sing kumbaya with the Obama administration would be? What do you think "let's get past partisanship, roll up our sleeves, and make tough choices" is going to result in? I think we all need to draw a bright line connecting this erroneous austerity policy with the upper-hand given to the right in general. The policy sucks, and it sucks equally badly if it's motivated by neoliberal Democrats or crony capitalist Republicans.
posted by mondo dentro at 9:26 AM on October 17, 2013 [1 favorite]


Hey mondodentro, I think you are about to play out the same scene we did several thousand comments earlier.

So, do you make the same comment to the people playing out the "we won" and "Cruz sucks" for hundreds of entries?
posted by mondo dentro at 9:29 AM on October 17, 2013


mondo dentro, I do agree with you at least to the point that he's been incredibly slow to realize that there's no such thing as unilateral bipartisanship and that they simply treat everything he offers as weakness and it gives them the spine to be even worse. But he did the right thing here, we're all breathing a sigh of relief over what didn't happen and hoping this bodes well for the future.
posted by George_Spiggott at 9:30 AM on October 17, 2013 [5 favorites]


he who tangles the ladder box knows not where his eyebrows are.
posted by quonsar II: smock fishpants and the temple of foon at 9:31 AM on October 17, 2013


So, do you make the same comment to the people playing out the "we won" and "Cruz sucks" for hundreds of entries?

I think that those people are just having a generic everybody-gets-a-high-five good time, while people having a fight aren't really having one. Also, maybe if people look at the old discussion they'll come to some new understandings & not just repeat it.
posted by Going To Maine at 9:33 AM on October 17, 2013 [1 favorite]


tonycpsu: "Sully: It Will Only Get Worse"

"On cue, Eric Erickson calls for an even more extreme Republican party:
"We only need a few good small businessmen and women to stand up and challenge these Republicans who are caving.""
Oh FFS, the Summer Businessman and the Sunshine Entrepreneur...

This guy is no Thomas Paine. They really are Jonesing for a new Revolutionary/Civil War. It terrifies me to think that if I hadn't made a few life choices I could very well easily have turned into one of them.
posted by symbioid at 9:33 AM on October 17, 2013 [1 favorite]


I'm much more interested in where we go now, and in advocating for constructive pressure to move us into a more desirable direction, than in feeling good that "my side won". Understanding how we got here is crucial to that. Those who are letting Obama off the hook are focused too narrowly on this particular skirmish and not asking how it is related to inadequacies in the Obama brand of Dem party politics.

Good thing these people you describe are not running amok in this thread.

I'm not that interested in just saying "yay! we won", when, first of all I don't think we did win much at all. Don't get me wrong, it was a satisfying win on multiple levels--I enjoy seeing Cruz and the Teabaggers getting smacked down as much as anyone. And the internal conflicts in the GOP are a positive development. But if you look at the news, it's not like the crazy faction is chastened.

See, now you're addressing the thrust of the article you linked to, which is that the crazy faction is a lost cause and that pressuring the moderates into splitting from them is a viable tactic.

So, do you make the same comment to the people playing out the "we won" and "Cruz sucks" for hundreds of entries?

If you're going to insist that everybody that says that (or even most, for that matter) is mutually exclusive from those who want to push for better things, you're not really following what's been going on.
posted by zombieflanders at 9:34 AM on October 17, 2013


I'm much more interested in where we go now, and in advocating for constructive pressure to move us into a more desirable direction, than in feeling good that "my side won".

So talk about it then, instead of just blaming everyone else for not having the conversation you want to have, right here, right this moment.
posted by octobersurprise at 9:35 AM on October 17, 2013 [10 favorites]


mittens: "Guess everyone just wants a big daddy

More Rapture propaganda!
"

NO GODS, NO KINGS, ONLY MAN!
posted by symbioid at 9:36 AM on October 17, 2013 [1 favorite]


@HardSciFiMovies: An asteroid is successfully prevented from hitting Earth. At least one person says "stop celebrating, this is no victory! Nothing's any better than it was before!"

(i keed)
posted by George_Spiggott at 9:37 AM on October 17, 2013 [16 favorites]


I work for the Duke Brothers: We're going over that cliff. Get Ready.
posted by drezdn at 9:45 AM on October 17, 2013 [13 favorites]


So let's talk about the problem of an active extremist movement in the US. The moderate Republicans own it, but it still belongs to both parties. I don't know what the moderate/mainstream party membership should do and I haven't a clue what the Dems could possibly do. But a shift even further right isn't going to make anyones' job easier. This still sucks for everyone.
posted by klarck at 9:46 AM on October 17, 2013 [1 favorite]


So talk about it then, instead of just blaming everyone else for not having the conversation you want to have, right here, right this moment.

octobersurprise, this makes no sense at all. I posted a comment that implied I place some blame on Obama for this state of affairs. Then I was told by two separate commenters that I didn't read my own link because the article does not assign blame to Obama. But I did read the link--I just drew a different conclusion. It seems that many won't tolerate any criticism of Obama from within his own tribe, and there are multiple reasons used to justify this, which I wont' enumerate. On top of that, it seems that this thread is now supposed to be a victory celebration, and so any other type of comment is "off topic". In response to these replies to my one brief post, I explained where I was coming from in good faith, and so now you tell me I'm "blaming everyone" as way of trying to shame me, to get me to shut up. That's just passive aggressive bullshit. I'm not "blaming everyone". I'm just expressing an opinion that, it is clear, you and others don't like. So noted.
posted by mondo dentro at 9:50 AM on October 17, 2013 [2 favorites]


I work for Snoop Lion. We rollin' up that spliff. Get ready.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:51 AM on October 17, 2013 [12 favorites]


The moderate Republicans own it, but it still belongs to both parties.

What does this even mean
posted by ook at 9:52 AM on October 17, 2013


I work for Snoop Lion. We rollin' up that spliff. Get ready.

You mean Snoopzilla!
posted by jason_steakums at 9:53 AM on October 17, 2013 [1 favorite]


mondo dentro, I think part of the problem is you're talking to a crowd that has an intense reaction to the "there's fault on both sides" thing, after years of even the supposedly independent media reporting everything as a disagreement rather than reporting which position is factual. Even a whiff of false equivalence is going to get a reaction, particularly in this exact place and at this exact time. Irrespective of whether you're right or wrong, you might want to pick your moment.
posted by George_Spiggott at 9:58 AM on October 17, 2013 [3 favorites]


On preview - beaten to the punch on Snoopzilla! The thread took too long to load! This is a tragedy.
posted by Arbac at 9:59 AM on October 17, 2013 [1 favorite]


>Well between now and December 1st, do you have any doubt that you'll be able to complete the tasks?

I'm not sure what the point of this question is

Deadline for open-enrollment is DECEMBER 15. So, as long your enrollemnt is done by the first of december, is there really an issue?
posted by mikelieman at 10:01 AM on October 17, 2013


On cue, Eric Erickson calls for an even more extreme Republican party

Lawrence O'Donnell sought Howard Dean's opinion on an Erickson quote on his TV show last night and the little grimace of disgust that crossed his face before he spoke was visible from my sofa. And I imagined Dean thinking "I've governed Vermont, run for President, and managed a national party. What's this guy Erickson ever done besides blog and run his mouth?"

So I hold Obama fundamentally responsible.

Rhetorically, this reminds me a little of a maneuver the late '90's Hitchens was fond of whereby every Republican outrage seemed to be Clinton's fault because Clinton was such a mendacious betrayer of left principles. And because it all Clinton's fault, really, you couldn't really blame the Republicans who were merely punishing a man who so deeply deserved it.
posted by octobersurprise at 10:03 AM on October 17, 2013 [8 favorites]


It seems that many won't tolerate any criticism of Obama from within his own tribe,

I don't agree with that at all. I think some of the most cognizant and vicious criticisms of Obama do come "from within his own tribe", and that three really are very few people who will not criticism him on something or another.

You may be feeling defensive because some have criticized you on your point. Generally there is not a lot of kid gloving hereabouts and we all come under fire at one point or another. How you handle that counts for a lot.

To be fair some people may well want a victory lap or two, and I don't think that is unwarranted because a lot of us are in it for the long haul and part of that is taking note of when things go well... or at least not horrible, and this, for better or worse, was one of those times things didn't go nearly as horrible as they might have. You might feel your being "realistic" or ...?, but to some it might just be a bucket of unwelcomed cold water out of the blue that just might not be welcomed or warranted at this time.
posted by edgeways at 10:06 AM on October 17, 2013 [6 favorites]


Even a whiff of false equivalence is going to get a reaction, particularly in this exact place and at this exact time

Is there a time when that is not true, though? I mean, when would be the best time to say, god, I wish Obama and the Democrats had offered a line of discussion that wasn't "Let's make these very rational and much-needed cuts that will hurt millions, as opposed to our opponent's less well-thought-out cuts that will hurt millions"? Leaving aside the issue of legislative possibility, why not frame every conversation with a paper, every Sunday news show appearance, every public speech, as, "The right wants to make cuts that will slow the economy and hurt, yes, possibly even kill, Americans. They're dressing this up in talk of patriotism, but let's face it: It's crazy talk, and it needs to stop." Just over and over, strict message discipline, whatever the tea party says isn't even in the realm of the reasonable, and isn't up for discussion. But things like that weren't getting said, so you have to assume no one actually believed that very strongly...and so, yes, if nobody believes the tea party was actually making big category errors in their thinking, then there is a sort of--not equivalence, but certainly culpability, and it warrants bringing up, even in the middle of what is unmistakably good news, that the government gets to go back to work.
posted by mittens at 10:11 AM on October 17, 2013 [2 favorites]


George_Spiggott: mondo dentro, I think part of the problem is you're talking to a crowd that has an instant, near-violent reaction to the "there's fault on both sides" thing...

I'm not reading the criticisms against me that way. I think some people just want me to STFU. Like I said, so noted. But if what you're saying is true, it's quite bizarre. From that perspective, Krugman, and podcasters like Seder, are "both sides do it" guys. I believe MeFites are way to savvy to confuse them with Andrea Mitchell or Chuck Todd. Thanks for trying to bring some light, though.

zombieflanders: If you're going to insist that everybody that says that (or even most, for that matter) is mutually exclusive from those who want to push for better things, you're not really following what's been going on.

Given the precision of language you and others want to hold me to, I call bullshit on this, as well. When have I insisted that everybody who says "we won" doesn't want to push for better things? Would that be nowhere?
posted by mondo dentro at 10:11 AM on October 17, 2013 [1 favorite]


I've been hearing the "cost of healthcare for everyone has sky rocketed" stuff taken as fact for months. When people keep saying it without any push back it becomes a weird kind of truth. All this stuff about the WWII memorial and socialism... we know it's bullshit and ignore it, but there's a ready audience of people that hear only that and assume there's a ring of truth to it. They don't want to live in a Libertarian state or a Dominionist religious paradise, but what are their options?

I wish Obama's Whitehouse could use Bill Clinton's 2012 convention speech as an example and find a way to COMMUNICATE the good government does. That's what is missing. I guess it falls under marketing and maybe they don't see the point of marketing? I used to think all marketing is bullshit but now I see it as the only way to get a clear message out in our information saturated society.
posted by readery at 10:13 AM on October 17, 2013 [5 favorites]


Next time they play golf, Obama should step on Boehner's ball and say "I'll move if you give up three strokes."
posted by George_Spiggott at 10:13 AM on October 17, 2013 [2 favorites]


ball, singular?

(sorry)
posted by edgeways at 10:14 AM on October 17, 2013 [2 favorites]


Posting "Heck of a job, Barry!" as the "tl;dr" of the particular article you linked does not seem like a good-faith contribution to discussion. You are not being uniquely held to an unfair standard here.
posted by argonauta at 10:15 AM on October 17, 2013 [18 favorites]


cost of healthcare for everyone has sky rocketed

I don't know if the cost of healthcare has skyrocketed recently, but there seems to be plenty of solid data showing the same exact healthcare services are way more expensive in the US than anywhere else (an MRI costing 5x as much here as in France for example). It seems to me addressing this may be the most critical and effective way to manage our debt. I've heard some suggest that if the U.S. paid the same prices for healthcare as most other countries, we wouldn't have a debt problem.
posted by Golden Eternity at 10:17 AM on October 17, 2013 [1 favorite]


mondo, I'm probably closer than most here to you on the firebagger/O-bot spectrum, and I agree that it's not time for premature celebration (nsfw), but maybe right after the first big political victory in a very long time isn't the best time to get fighty with people who share most of your goals, if not your tactics. Let people enjoy the moment, even if there's a bit more spiking of the ball than you'd like, and there will be plenty of time to fight about how progressive the messaging and negotiating tactics should be as the budget conference committee does its thing.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:18 AM on October 17, 2013 [1 favorite]


I've been hearing the "cost of healthcare for everyone has sky rocketed" stuff taken as fact for months.

It's still true, that healthcare costs are rising faster than costs in the general economy. And businesses are certainly trying to mitigate that by cutting benefits, or introducing slight increases to costs passed on to employees. There is still a lot of uncertainty out there about how soon any cost reductions will show up.
posted by mittens at 10:18 AM on October 17, 2013


On top of that, it seems that this thread is now supposed to be a victory celebration, and so any other type of comment is "off topic".

Personally I follow these long current event threads for updates on the current event and general informative comments about the event. Whereas a large amount of your comments have been debating basically the same topic for days regardless of the events, and both those comments and the people disagreeing with you have at times taken over the thread. So that is why I personally feel that the comments have been a distraction that takes away from the core topic of the thread. It doesn't really have anything to do with you specifically or your views, just the fact that a long sprawling argument centered around one person's comments tends to derail a thread.
posted by burnmp3s at 10:20 AM on October 17, 2013


I thought the infighting was the celebration!
posted by malocchio at 10:21 AM on October 17, 2013 [13 favorites]


Healthcare costs are probably going to start getting a little saner, unless there's a factor I'm missing. Which is entirely likely.

But we're still going to trail Europe by a hell of a lot. The system in the Netherlands is broadly comparable and it's the most expensive in Europe, despite the fact that both insurance and medical practice are essentially not-for-profit. We're still gonna have 20% margins on insurance and unrestrained profits on delivery. But for the time being, I'll take it.
posted by George_Spiggott at 10:21 AM on October 17, 2013 [2 favorites]


Rhetorically, this reminds me a little of a maneuver the late '90's Hitchens...

I wish. The guy could be a douche. But he was a brilliant douche. I can only dream of being in that douchey league.

...And because it all Clinton's fault, really, you couldn't really blame the Republicans who were merely punishing a man who so deeply deserved it.

Well, I can see why you'd be pissed by that interpretation of my opinion. I'd be pissed, too. But, gotta say. I'm shocked you'd find me to be saying that the batshitcrazy right is something "Obama deserves". Nope. Not saying that. Don't even see where that's coming from. All I can say is, I'll certainly keep that interpretation in mind.

Now, let me reflect back to you, with the best of intentions (cue "Highway to Hell"): your dislike of my Obama criticism reminds me of those who hate it when people point out that 9/11 was a predictable consequence of American foreign policy. People who make such connections are frequently vilified as "blaming America for 9/11". But they're not. They're just pointing out cause and effect, with the hope that we won't repeat the problem and create more future terrorists by, say, indescriminate drone strikes.
posted by mondo dentro at 10:22 AM on October 17, 2013 [3 favorites]


It's not just MRIs. Even simple stuff like a primary care visit and antibiotics. Go to any country in the developing world with normal doctor visit stuff-- a wound requiring stitches, a cough, something like that, and it'll cost you a few bucks to get it sorted out, if they charge you anything at all.
posted by empath at 10:22 AM on October 17, 2013 [1 favorite]


I wish Obama's Whitehouse could use Bill Clinton's 2012 convention speech as an example and find a way to COMMUNICATE the good government does.

Were you alive or of the age of comprehension of politics when Bill Clinton was president? Similar crap was happening then, all the live long day.
posted by raysmj at 10:23 AM on October 17, 2013 [4 favorites]


Mod note: Please don't make this long long thread a referendum on your own opinions and be part of the conversation in progress. Thank you.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:24 AM on October 17, 2013 [10 favorites]


I've been hearing the "cost of healthcare for everyone has sky rocketed" stuff taken as fact for months. When people keep saying it without any push back it becomes a weird kind of truth.

Well, it is true. And it's unconnected to the ACA. See Exhibit 1.13, here. The chart shows that the average premium for employer-covered workers with family coverage has gone from about $5800 in 1999 to more than $16,000 in 2013. It nearly doubled between 1999 and 2004.

usual disclaimer: I work for the place that made the thing I linked to, but I don't make any of those things, I just post them.
posted by rtha at 10:26 AM on October 17, 2013 [3 favorites]


The left has this confusion that if they criticize their greatest allies they'll logically see the error of their ways and come around to pushing pointless idealism. Like if only we could just shout louder we'd get those votes. Fuck that. I want to see any change in a progressive direction. I won't stand by and shit on people just because they won't prove their ultra-liberal superhero credentials.

It's like how tea party shitters have fucked up the Republican party. Thankfully liberals are too lazy to actually primary someone (or even show up at midterms) and will just make snide little remarks sitting in the corner.

I'd love this country to have national health care, a sane welfare system, immigration reform and reformed representation but I know while over half the house are browbeat into stopping socialist Kenyan Muslims that only exist in their wild imaginations, this shit ain't going to happen. And no amount of me yelling "OBAMA YOU PUSSY" is going to make that any different.
posted by Talez at 10:29 AM on October 17, 2013 [20 favorites]


An ex president is a lot freer to communicate then a sitting president. And yeah the Clinton years where just as full of bull shit as the Obama years. Gore (potentially) lost in 00 because he didn't want to be painted with the same brush as Clinton had been (which wasn't an invalid concern) and didn't take advantage of Bill's campaigning. There where plenty of things to like about Clinton, but we shouldn't overly romanticize it and he certainly wasn't the best of the best, his office made a hell of a lot of missteps and outright fuck ups.
posted by edgeways at 10:30 AM on October 17, 2013 [2 favorites]


It seems that many won't tolerate any criticism of Obama from within his own tribe

That's pretty much the exact opposite of what I see happening on Metafilter every day. People constantly criticize him from all sides.

In this case though, I think he and the Dems did the exact right thing. The people pushing for the government shutdown/ACA repeal are incredibly self-interested and not very cogent in their desires. There have been plenty of times and venues to discuss improving the ACA and dealing with the deficit, and the Republicans failed to make good use of those because they are driven by extreme ideology rather than any sort of desire to improve the government.

I am not really celebrating "victory" but I see this as almost a failed coup attempt, so I'm glad the far right lost the battle. What I wish is that we had two (or more) parties in Washington that were trying to resolve things like the deficit, the state of health care, immigration, etc. But instead it seems like you have one side (Dems) that likes to think things through and carefully consider details, and another side (Repubs) that just goes with their misguided gut feelings all the time and is sort of short on facts and even shorter on "Christian" values like empathy for their fellow citizens. I'm not affiliated with either party, but that's how it looks to me. I would imagine that working on a random project at my job with a random set of Dem congresspeople would be a much more pleasant experience than with a random set of Repubs. They just seem like they make no sense, don't understand logic, and have crazy ideas about what God wants and so forth. Every now and then one pays to go to Harvard to learn to bang sentences together and seem intelligent, but it's usually an empty shell. Terrifying.
posted by freecellwizard at 10:32 AM on October 17, 2013 [19 favorites]


We can't even get 60% of eligible voters to turn up in presidential election years, and off-year turnouts are abysmal.
posted by rtha at 10:49 AM on October 17, 2013 [1 favorite]


Stay wanky, CNN. (Read on an empty stomach.)
posted by tonycpsu at 10:57 AM on October 17, 2013


We can't even get 60% of eligible voters to turn up in presidential election years, and off-year turnouts are abysmal.

The Republican nightmare is tens of millions of those normally no-show voters showing up to say thank you now that they have coverage. To this end, expect red state politicians to try to claim that the branded versions in their states are not Obamacare, and aren't you glad you have this great system we thought up instead?
posted by George_Spiggott at 11:02 AM on October 17, 2013 [1 favorite]


Stay wanky, CNN.

It's sort of cute how they think a substantive negotiation went on, instead of simply terms of surrender. I guess it keeps their horse-race narrative viable for filling all that air-time.
posted by Mental Wimp at 11:07 AM on October 17, 2013 [1 favorite]


What's this guy Erickson ever done besides blog and run his mouth?"

To be fair, he was a city councilor in Macon, GA for three years (before he quit in the middle of his term).
posted by octothorpe at 11:08 AM on October 17, 2013 [2 favorites]




It's like how tea party shitters have fucked up the Republican party. Thankfully liberals are too lazy to actually primary someone (or even show up at midterms) and will just make snide little remarks sitting in the corner.

Liberals do the pragmatic, correct thing and don't primary out centrists to run unelectable nuts...but I just have to find some snide, irritating way to hippy punch so I'll just call them lazy.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:13 AM on October 17, 2013 [7 favorites]


They should have had Curiosity tweet back a picture of "U MAD, GOP?" written in the Martian sand.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:14 AM on October 17, 2013 [12 favorites]


Stay wanky, CNN.

That's their mission statement, isn't it?
posted by Gelatin at 11:16 AM on October 17, 2013


At the top of the drudge report today:

Networks blamed shutdown on GOP in 41 stories --- 0 for Dems

Which is linked, presumably, to show the liberal bias of the mainstream media. Never mind the fact that the Republicans are actually the ones to blame!.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:18 AM on October 17, 2013 [18 favorites]


Networks claim Earth revolves around Sun in 41 stories --- 0 for Sun revolves around Earth.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:20 AM on October 17, 2013 [30 favorites]


There is more than one USA. Maybe a federation of small nations would play out better for the USA.

The United Nation-States of Northish America. A unified, limited Federal lawset that defines the United Bill of Rights, and a very small progressive tax on Nation-State GDPs to run it.

If United Nation-States were run by sensible people, they could collectively agree on a ton of standards and metrics, significantly reducing their own running-a-State costs. A common electric code is a great thing. So is driving in the right lane.

Do it well enough and it would resemble a single nation. But a good-sized bit of the USA apparently doesn't much care for nation-hood.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:22 AM on October 17, 2013


Which is linked, presumably, to show the liberal bias of the mainstream media objective reality.

Maybe that'll help them. For pity's sake, the Republicans have been touting the "leverage" the shutdown / debt limit strategy would give them for months, most notably when refusing to negotiate -- hello! -- with the Democrats on an actual budget.
posted by Gelatin at 11:22 AM on October 17, 2013 [1 favorite]


Networks blamed shutdown on GOP in 41 stories --- 0 for Dems

Will the liebrul democrat media never stop reporting things that everyone agrees are objectively true???
posted by showbiz_liz at 11:24 AM on October 17, 2013 [2 favorites]


"Which is linked, presumably, to show the liberal bias of the mainstream media. Never mind the fact that the Republicans are actually the ones to blame!"

Man who shot blamed in shooting by anti-gun media.
posted by klangklangston at 11:25 AM on October 17, 2013 [1 favorite]


The headline has changed: SALSA OVERTAKES KETCHUP IN U.S. So I guess it's on to immigration reform.
posted by Going To Maine at 11:31 AM on October 17, 2013 [3 favorites]




(Sorry, hit post too soon)

“Valerie came up with the concept late at night, after the kids and grandma and were gone.”

“She convinced the president that a government shutdown and default offered a great opportunity to demonize the Republicans and help the Democrats win back a majority in the House of Representatives in 2014 .

Valerie also came with the idea of using the words `hostage’, and `ransom,’ and `terrorists’ against the Republicans,’” Klein said.

posted by RedOrGreen at 11:33 AM on October 17, 2013


There is more than one USA. Maybe a federation of small nations would play out better for the USA.

And wind up with several tiny, querulous nation states unfettered by reason and armed with nukes. That's bound to end well!
posted by Pudhoho at 11:35 AM on October 17, 2013


Emerging right-wing theme: Obama planned shutdown with Valerie Jarrett as trap for Republicans

SHOW US THE DERP CERTIFICATE, WINGNUTS.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:35 AM on October 17, 2013 [3 favorites]


Stay wanky, CNN. (Read on an empty stomach.)

I'm really pleased that Al Jazeera America bought Current TV so now I can watch them instead. They're much less wanky than CNN or MSNBC.
posted by homunculus at 11:35 AM on October 17, 2013


Well, people like to say salsa.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:35 AM on October 17, 2013 [3 favorites]


Did someone already link to the terrifying yet delightful GOP Clown College?
posted by emjaybee at 11:41 AM on October 17, 2013 [5 favorites]


I thought salsa had been outselling ketchup in the US since the 90s?
posted by zakur at 11:41 AM on October 17, 2013 [3 favorites]


people like to say salsa.

SALSA SALSA SALSA!
posted by quonsar II: smock fishpants and the temple of foon at 11:46 AM on October 17, 2013




your dislike of my Obama criticism reminds me of those who hate it when people point out that 9/11 was a predictable consequence of American foreign policy.

One response and then I'll drop it. I don't dislike your criticism of Obama, certainly not in the sense that I think he should be exempt from criticism. I do think it's nonsense to say that Obama is to blame for Tea Party or for this particular shutdown. We can talk reasonably about how the September 11th attacks were or were not a consequence of US foreign policy. We can even talk reasonably about how the Bush Administration may or may not have been negligent in preventing the attacks. But no non-conspiratorial person would assert that the attacks were George W. Bush's fault. Likewise, we can talk about how the Tea Party was a consequence of Obama's election; we can even talk about how different messages and/or policies might have mitigated or diminished their influence and possibly avoided the present conflict. That's all more or less reasonable. What's unreasonable (from a left/liberal perspective, anyway) is the assertion that this present shutdown was Obama's fault.
posted by octobersurprise at 11:49 AM on October 17, 2013 [14 favorites]


I wanted seltzer, not salsa!
posted by zakur at 11:50 AM on October 17, 2013 [5 favorites]


I thought salsa had been outselling ketchup in the US since the 90s?

As they split the tomato-loving vote, mayonnaise comes from behind to win!
posted by mittens at 11:51 AM on October 17, 2013 [3 favorites]


So long , and thanks for all the salmonella

Warnings as salmonella strains resist antibiotics
posted by homunculus at 11:51 AM on October 17, 2013 [1 favorite]






So - honest question here after I got righteously upset with a part-time coworker regarding this (while trying to explain to another coworker what "Obamacare" is)...

The original question or point of contention is that "McDonald's workers are exempt from being forced to pay" (i.e. they have the subisidies). Obviously that's a shitty framing, but it's how she understood it as parroted by her right-wing relatives (i.e. my boss's wife and whoever else talks about this shit).

So, one question I have is that yes, they have subsidized health care up to, IIRC 133% of the federal poverty level, yes?

Looking further I see the "subsidies" are actually a "tax-break" not a payment towards those plans directly (which, ugh, but whatevs)...

Even though it's a tax break, is there still a contribution that they have to pay towards the subsidies? That is to say, they aren't exempt from contributing to the pool, even if they get a bit of a break via the subsidies? Or are they 100% exempt from paying anything in?

I want to know my facts when trying to make a cogent case, especially against blatant false information.

In fact, is there a single serving site that can provide answers and counterpoints to the right-wing regarding this legislation? One of these people seems to be more open to the idea, while the other person I'm talking to is more, once I get to the facts on the ground, then resorts to "CONSTITUSHUN" (I told her, later, not to worry, when Obama raises the Hammer and Sickle flag over Washington that I'd put in a good word for her to delay them taking her to the death camps LOL)...

So anyways, I'm hoping more to reach the more moderate type person who might be open to things. A little sheet that not only tells what it is, but also what it IS NOT would be greatly appreciated. Because while telling what it is, is important, I think the converse is also vital.
posted by symbioid at 11:55 AM on October 17, 2013


RedOrGreen: "Emerging right-wing theme: Obama planned shutdown with Valerie Jarrett as trap for Republicans

What is this I don't even...
"

The shit?

It actually seems to hearken back to this sort of argument I heard from some right-wing jackass (a big name, perhaps it was Grover Norquist, or David Horowitzk?) during the BP Oil Spill crisis that there's this belief that he has some political machinations that use emergencies in order to push through things he wants. I suppose it's sorta like "The Shock Doctrine" theory but taken up by Right-Wingers in their little world. I think they might believe this was a concept originating in Alinsky or something like that...

----------------

I (and others upthread ) told you, dog... We told you Obama was a socialist-nazi-muslim who entrapped them and tricked them to try to default in order to bring the US Down. I TOLD YOU!
posted by symbioid at 12:02 PM on October 17, 2013


Symbioid, have you seen the KFF.org site? That's what I've used while trying to explain this stuff to family.
posted by mittens at 12:02 PM on October 17, 2013 [5 favorites]


My top secret sources on the Hill say that we're going to default. Stay tuned.
posted by Justinian at 12:03 PM on October 17, 2013 [4 favorites]


Looking further I see the "subsidies" are actually a "tax-break" not a payment towards those plans directly (which, ugh, but whatevs)...

They can actually be applied directly to the insurance ahead of tax time instead of getting them later, you just have to report changes in income during the year. And there are subsidies for up to 400% of the poverty level, the 133% thing is the new higher limit for Medicaid eligibility in states that took the Medicaid expansion.
posted by jason_steakums at 12:06 PM on October 17, 2013


quonsar II: smock fishpants and the temple of foon: "he who tangles the ladder box knows not where his eyebrows are."

Dammit, quonsar, now I have to change my fucking password. Again. It took me two and a half weeks to memorize that one. Quit it!

symbioid: "So, one question I have is that yes, they have subsidized health care up to, IIRC 133% of the federal poverty level, yes?"

Anybody who isn't eligible for an employer-sponsored ACA-compliant health plan can buy on the exchange and receive a subsidy if they qualify, yes. Below 100% of the poverty line, there are no subsidies for the exchanges, because you are supposed to go on Medicaid at that point. Even Medicaid is not entirely free of cost for recipients, but that's not what you asked.

Basically, where your income falls between 100% and 400% of poverty dictates exactly what sort of subsidies you will receive. At the low end, subsidies are provided to prevent annual premiums of the average cost Silver plan from costing you more than 2% of income. At the high end, your share goes up to a maximum of 8% of income.

You can take the same dollar amount of subsidy and apply it towards a Bronze plan if you prefer. Most people who are eligible for subsidies and choose a Bronze plan will have their entire premium paid by the government. The downside to the insured of going that route is that their out of pocket expenses will be very high. Bronze plans are only required to cover an average of 60%(ish) of your yearly medical costs.

If you're very close to the poverty line, you also get what is called cost sharing, where your deductible and out of pocket limits are much lower than standard. At the low end, it's a $500 deductible and $500 out of pocket yearly maximum, but goes up from there. Everybody pays something, unless perhaps they went with a Bronze plan and only visit a doctor for preventative care, which is 100% covered on all exchange plans. (except perhaps catastrophic only for those who are young enough to buy it)
posted by wierdo at 12:06 PM on October 17, 2013 [3 favorites]


What's unreasonable (from a left/liberal perspective, anyway) is the assertion that this present shutdown was Obama's fault.

As an actual left/liberal, I'd say it's his "fault" in much the way the Bush Admin ("Bush") is at fault for failing to read certain memos that indicated that evil was well-afoot and running a deficient intelligence apparatus. 9/11 didn't have to happen.

Had Obama done a better job of using traditional and social media to lead the country toward his goals and toward co-ownership of the challenge of meeting those goals, there wouldn't be so much ignorance about the economy, social classes, structural challenges, and whatnot.

And then maybe the past election would have turned out more favourably—to wit, more sane voters electing more sane representatives.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:07 PM on October 17, 2013 [1 favorite]


‘Fox & Friends’ suggests House stenographer targeted for bringing ‘message from God’

They speak truth yet misunderstand procedure. If you listen to the recording, at no point do you hear "The Chair recognizes God's representative on Earth." And indeed that wouldn't have been procedurally possible during a vote anyway.
posted by George_Spiggott at 12:07 PM on October 17, 2013


Symbioid, there's a pretty clear Health Affairs article explaining the Advanced Premium Tax Credit. From the article, "the tax credit is paid in advance directly to an insurer on a monthly basis", but individuals can opt to receive the money as a single lump sum if they feel that they can use the tax credit more effectively in other ways. The tax credit generally does not cover the complete cost of an individual's premiums, so there is some individual contribution on top of the APTC.
posted by notpace at 12:08 PM on October 17, 2013 [1 favorite]


Had Obama done a better job of using traditional and social media to lead the country toward his goals and toward co-ownership of the challenge of meeting those goals, there wouldn't be so much ignorance about the economy, social classes, structural challenges, and whatnot.

See, I can see this being effective to an extent, but it's just going to get reported alongside the other "side" of the argument no matter how inane that is, without any discussion of which view is factual, just like it is now. The "view from nowhere" is the real enemy of the messaging.
posted by jason_steakums at 12:10 PM on October 17, 2013 [1 favorite]


The best part of the "Shutdown as Obama-orchestrated Republican Trap" was this:
[E]nforcement of one aspect of the partial shutdown proved to conservatives the shutdown had been planned in advance – by the president.

“They already had barricades, cones, from New York to California, Utah, Arizona, South Dakota – they had worked out in advance that they were closing these things down,” said Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) during a Wednesday afternoon Fox News interview.

He was referring to the closure of national parks and other landmarks after about 800,000 federal employees were furloughed, and which became a cause célèbre among conservatives.
Cones! Barricades! What possible use would a national park or national monument facility have for cones and barricades?? Oh, and I suppose they just happened to have all those "PARK CLOSED" signs just lying around, too?
posted by Atom Eyes at 12:10 PM on October 17, 2013 [10 favorites]


I hope the "on the ground - default is a sure thing" meme becomes a fixture on mefi :) We haven't had one in a long while, I think.
posted by symbioid at 12:10 PM on October 17, 2013 [2 favorites]


16 year old can of soup found in EPA fridge.
I think Venkman has an idea whose soup that was.
posted by blueberry at 12:11 PM on October 17, 2013


I hope the "on the ground - default is a sure thing" meme becomes a fixture on mefi

I don't, because it would essentially be an extended pile-on on one user.
posted by Anything at 12:13 PM on October 17, 2013 [6 favorites]


DEFAULTED ALL MY LIFE
posted by zombieflanders at 12:14 PM on October 17, 2013 [3 favorites]


I guess I can see that, but removed from context, especially it's a bit funny. Just like the "it vibrates"? Also - I see it more as fun gentle ribbing of cohorts than any serious mean snark like I feel towards some users when discussing things here.
posted by symbioid at 12:15 PM on October 17, 2013 [1 favorite]


So this default, it vibrates?
posted by zombieflanders at 12:15 PM on October 17, 2013 [8 favorites]


YES!
posted by symbioid at 12:18 PM on October 17, 2013


Getting some serious John Wayne Gacy vibes from the GOP Clown College links ...maybe it's the shared lack of empathy?
posted by leotrotsky at 12:18 PM on October 17, 2013 [1 favorite]


The more Louie "terror baby" Gohmert quotes I read the more I really dislike him. I will donate money to anyone running against this manchild. Primary opponent? Here, have some money. General election? Here, have some money. Get that man out of government!
posted by Arbac at 12:23 PM on October 17, 2013 [1 favorite]


The more Louie "terror baby" Gohmert quotes I read the more I really dislike him. I will donate money to anyone running against this manchild.

I agree that Gohmert is a toolbag of the highest order, but I can assure you from the experience of having someone running against my local Tea Partier (who himself ran against a guy who was by no means a RINO) from the right, there is almost certainly someone worse out there. Do your research before you open your pocketbook.
posted by Etrigan at 12:38 PM on October 17, 2013 [1 favorite]


Had Obama done a better job of using traditional and social media to lead the country toward his goals and toward co-ownership of the challenge of meeting those goals, there wouldn't be so much ignorance about the economy, social classes, structural challenges, and whatnot.

And then maybe the past election would have turned out more favourably


Well sure, if you want to ignore the fact that even if Obama was the second coming of Eugene Debs, the traditional and social media still wouldn't go along with him. However liberal actual journalists may be, editors and producers (i.e. the people responsible for filtering the news) have almost always been much more conservative, and the tech industry is run largely by market libertarians. And remember, by non-American standards, that means the average journalist is right-of-center, so you can imagine what that means for editors, producers, and tech executives. Twitter in the US isn't the same tool as it was in Egypt or Syria or Iran. It also doesn't help that, at any given time, the people most likely to vote will largely be made up of that quarter of the nation that is deeply and possibly irrevocably politically wackadoo.
posted by zombieflanders at 12:39 PM on October 17, 2013 [1 favorite]


I wanted to make sure I had a Fair and Balanced understanding of current events, so I started looking into some of the talking points mentioned above.

Today I learned that the shutdown was caused by Valerie Jarrett, who is a radical Muslim Jewish Swahili Nazi Iranian Saudi elitist communist tree-hugging Illuminati slumlord terrorist who hates football.

Who has the eye bleach? Pass it over, I need it bad.
posted by argonauta at 12:42 PM on October 17, 2013 [1 favorite]


I don't, because it would essentially be an extended pile-on on one user.

Well that's what all of our best memes are. Believe me, I know more about MetaFilter memes than you could possibly imagine.
posted by burnmp3s at 12:44 PM on October 17, 2013 [22 favorites]


MAXIMUM TROLLING INITIATED

I do love The Biden.
posted by tavella at 12:49 PM on October 17, 2013


Believe me, I know more about MetaFilter memes than you could possibly imagine.

i'd bet my right hand on it.
posted by quonsar II: smock fishpants and the temple of foon at 12:52 PM on October 17, 2013 [14 favorites]


It also doesn't help that, at any given time, the people most likely to vote will largely be made up of that quarter of the nation that is deeply and possibly irrevocably politically wackadoo.

Which is why it's all the more important to get on the tube to talk to people. An informed population is a more effective population.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:54 PM on October 17, 2013


"i'd bet my right hand on it."

-Todd Lokken
posted by klangklangston at 12:55 PM on October 17, 2013 [11 favorites]


Had Obama done a better job of using traditional and social media to lead the country toward his goals and toward co-ownership of the challenge of meeting those goals, there wouldn't be so much ignorance about the economy, social classes, structural challenges, and whatnot.

OTOH, I agree. I think Obama, and the Administration, has always tended to believe that good policy will speak for itself. I don't think nearly enough preparatory message work accompanied the push for the ACA. I don't think enough instruction accompanies Healthcare.gov today. It's possible that the economic and social fears the Tea Party thrived on at the start could have been addressed in ways that might have diminished their influence a bit. OTOH, Americans tend to tune out consciousness-raising that isn't directed to specific, short-term goals, so I think it's unrealistic to imagine that marginalizing the right is simply a matter of better marketing. George Bush marketed us into a war, but he couldn't market us out of one.
posted by octobersurprise at 1:03 PM on October 17, 2013 [5 favorites]


Emerging right-wing theme: Obama planned shutdown with Valerie Jarrett as trap for Republicans

I didn't see anything in that article that explains how Obama and Jarrett got inside Boehner's head and forced him to refuse to call a vote on a CR. That's gotta be the coolest part!

Even if this crock of shit idea were true, it sure wouldn't make the Republicans look any smarter for falling for it.
posted by Rykey at 1:09 PM on October 17, 2013 [6 favorites]


I don't think nearly enough preparatory message work accompanied the push for the ACA.

I've given Obama a lot of shit on this site, a lot of it deserved, but I'll bet it turns out his office knew for several months about the Republican-led attempt at a coup d'état and he has been a bit preoccupied with trying to keep the country from being taken over and destroyed by religious extremists. Not to mention having to plan contingencies to deal with potential outcomes from various legislative and judicial challenges to the ACA along the way. Unless it really turns out that he was asleep at the switch, I'd happily cut him and his staff some slack on this one.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:10 PM on October 17, 2013 [4 favorites]


"i'd bet my right hand on it."

-Todd Lokken


That's my favorite Pretty Flowers song!!
posted by OmieWise at 1:15 PM on October 17, 2013 [3 favorites]


Believe me, I know more about MetaFilter memes than you could possibly imagine.

My god... it's full of stars.
posted by edgeways at 1:19 PM on October 17, 2013 [2 favorites]


‘Fox & Friends’ suggests House stenographer targeted for bringing ‘message from God’

They speak truth yet misunderstand procedure. If you listen to the recording, at no point do you hear "The Chair recognizes God's representative on Earth." And indeed that wouldn't have been procedurally possible during a vote anyway.


The GOP runs the House, so if anyone was doing that, it was Boehner.
posted by Ironmouth at 1:23 PM on October 17, 2013


I didn't see anything in that article that explains how Obama and Jarrett got inside Boehner's head and forced him to refuse to call a vote on a CR.

You're obviously not paranoid enough to be a Republican. Boehner was in on the plan all along.
posted by honestcoyote at 1:24 PM on October 17, 2013 [4 favorites]


Boehner backwards is Renheob.

Renhoe b
Renoe
rino
RINO!!!!
posted by symbioid at 1:26 PM on October 17, 2013 [1 favorite]


Remember people - PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, until it's something you don't like the outcome then it's BLAME DEMOCRATS!
posted by symbioid at 1:27 PM on October 17, 2013 [3 favorites]


Believe me, I know more about MetaFilter memes than you could possibly imagine.

My god... it's full of stars.


beans
posted by leotrotsky at 1:33 PM on October 17, 2013 [3 favorites]


Administrator, please hope him.
posted by JHarris at 1:40 PM on October 17, 2013


Republicans Give In Right Before Obamacare Would Have Been Repealed

I don't know how much work it would be, but it would be hilarious if editors at the Onion come up with fake comments sections for their articles.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:41 PM on October 17, 2013 [10 favorites]


Believe me, I know more about MetaFilter memes than you could possibly imagine.

My god... it's full of stars.

beans


I didn't realize you where part of the MeFi EVE team
posted by edgeways at 1:51 PM on October 17, 2013


There's plenty of room for criticism of the Obama administration, whether it's about things like the NSA and drones, or whether it's about its failures in messaging. However, there's good criticism, and then there are Bronx cheers.

For an example of better, finer-grained criticism of the Obama administration's messaging, consider the criticism presented in The Submerged State. Part of the book traces how Obama's weaker messaging is often an outgrowth of its embrace of behavioral economics. The administration engineered the payroll tax cuts to be gradual and stealthy, so as to actually benefit the economy. However, while the stealthy tax cuts in and of themselves performed as expected, the loss was that most Americans had no idea that Obama was cutting their taxes. This made it much easier for Republicans to craft the narrative that Obama was a stereotypical tax-and-spend liberal.

This is also part of a larger problem, about how the state is "submerged" for many Americans: because of how our culture works, and because of how government programs have been designed, middle-class people do not think of themselves as receiving government assistance, even though obviously they do.

The book goes on more generally to talk about the kind of messaging needed to counteract the "submerged" state.

Anyway, my point is, this is a criticism of Obama's messaging, but it's detailed, with concrete points. It's also tied into a larger narrative about problems in American culture and deep-set habits with regard to how we run our government.

Had Obama done a better job of using traditional and social media to lead the country toward his goals and toward co-ownership of the challenge of meeting those goals, there wouldn't be so much ignorance about the economy, social classes, structural challenges, and whatnot.

This is true to a certain extent, but it's trivially true in the same way that one could criticize the Super Bowl loser by saying, "you should have scored more points and prevented the other team from scoring as many points." OH, we should have scored MORE points, not FEWER, now that changes everything.

It's very easy to speculate that a better PR department would have produced better results. It's much, much harder to actually come up with a halfway-decent plan, and to know what, realistically, those results could have been. It's not so easy to change the public's opinion on things, especially if we're talking about a wholesale change in how people relate to their government. It is not necessarily true at all that there is some hypothetical PR campaign that would turn even 25% of the country into true blue progressives, on any kind of predictably predictable, reasonably short timeline.
posted by Sticherbeast at 1:56 PM on October 17, 2013 [11 favorites]


Tea Party Insult Generator.
posted by emjaybee at 2:22 PM on October 17, 2013 [6 favorites]


It's very easy to speculate that a better PR department would have produced better results. It's much, much harder to actually come up with a halfway-decent plan

So best to just STFU? That seems to be the gist of your message: either post the entirety of "Submerged State" or say nothing.
posted by five fresh fish at 2:24 PM on October 17, 2013


Obama planned shutdown with Valerie Jarrett as trap for Republicans

Well, of course he did. This is the same guy that trotted out Sandra Fluke to TRAP the Republicans into ranting about slutty sluts and their birth control slut pills. HE MADE THEM DO IT.
posted by scody at 2:26 PM on October 17, 2013 [5 favorites]


It's a sad day for platinum coin enthusiasts.

I say Nic Cage should go ahead and make National Treasure 3: The Trillion Dollar Coin anyway. The plot is easy: Obama had the Trillion dollar coin minted, Just In Case. Once the crisis had passed, the coin was supposed to be melted down. BUT... <cue opening credits>
posted by fings at 2:30 PM on October 17, 2013 [9 favorites]


So best to just STFU? That seems to be the gist of your message: either post the entirety of "Submerged State" or say nothing.

What is it with MeFites being asked to come up with specific solutions rather than just saying stuff they assume to be true when it is demonstrably not today?
posted by zombieflanders at 2:31 PM on October 17, 2013 [2 favorites]


I'm inclined to agree with Anything... if we create a meme that focuses on a particular user, it will probably not wendell.
posted by Riki tiki at 2:31 PM on October 17, 2013 [11 favorites]


No one is telling anyone to STFU, we're just asking for something that isn't "Why won't Obama FIX it/LEAD America/etc already?" We can assume you're not lazy and mendacious like Ron Fournier, so following his lead seems odd.
posted by zombieflanders at 2:35 PM on October 17, 2013 [2 favorites]


I think - and this is not meaning to bring up the argument/attack mode of the previous discussion, but Sticherbeast, I think this is a better example here of what Gramsci is talking about.
It's not so easy to change the public's opinion on things, especially if we're talking about a wholesale change in how people relate to their government. It is not necessarily true at all that there is some hypothetical PR campaign that would turn even 25% of the country into true blue progressives, on any kind of predictably predictable, reasonably short timeline.
We have what's called "Base" which is, essentially, equivalent to "the masses" the body politic in their own individual capacit.

Then we have what's called "The Superstructure" which encompasses all the socio-political normative institutions that guide our society in a given direction.

That is to say Government, Banks, Business, Educational, Religious sectors of society. All these elements of the super structure build up a certain world view (I can't remember what term Gramsci uses here... I generally prefer the German word "Weltanschauung", though I'm not sure if it exactly maps to Gramsci's context).

There is a sort of feedback loop that goes on between the base and superstructure, such that the base influences the superstructure and conversely, the superstructure influences the base, whether via outright propaganda, normative sanctions upon individuals to "fit the mold" of whatever the current social/economic/political context is for a given time period, or legalistic rules and regulations that define conduct as society wishes it to be.

The understanding of Gramsci is that there are a lot of implicit assumptions in what we call "common sense" such that "common sense" is really a more socially constructed illusion than some actual essential thing that is permanently binding on reality.

What we're discussing here is having an invisible hand of superstructure "guiding" via behavioral economics (I would like to know if there is any way to actually test the thesis that stealth tax cuts actually did stimulate spending vs non-stealth cuts... ), in a way that won't cause resistance to certain specific desired outcomes and have a pre-emptive abortion via direct knowledge of the actual goal.

I think it's essential to note that these are not things that happen overnight. Revolution is HARD. I'm not even talking about the bullets and icky stuff that isn't necessarily bound to even result in something one is hoping for, but the fact that the goal of overturning an entire mode of thinking requires a long term, large scale effort of PR/Propaganda.

The left in the US is up against a large well funded machine. I kinda get tired of this idea that the Tea Party is a result of Koch Brother machinations. I think that tries to create a boogieman where there isn't an easy boogieman. I think it tries to create a narrative that these are sudden short term things. Even using the Koch Brothers as enemy to focus on, it should point to the larger picture: that they have their hands in a lot of separate sections of the pie. Industry, Media, Lobbying, etc... They aren't just funding small campaigns or giving political contributions. But it's not just them, or any particular set of people on one side of the aisle...

So we are running up against two (or more, depending on how you look at it) ideologies that are attempting to manipulate the populace at large in getting them to agree with their desired outcomes. You have a push and pull of propaganda via various institutions and attempts to spread that message out. Controlling the narrative and discourse is essential to further your goals and get people to understand the reasons behind those goals.

The superstructure works best when it can read the public sentiment, and learn how to work with that sentiment to manipulate it in its own interest. This is not a conscious thing, however. History is an accident. We humans push and try to bring about certain results. Each effort of "the other side" is seen as a giant conspiracy - whether it's the mass mailings of Richard Viguerie or the Koch Brothers ownership of institutions as the boogiemen to the left, or, I dunno... Hollywood Communists to people like Joe McCarthy or the generalized "Liberal Media" picture that has been pushed by people like Rush Limbaugh. That side has been working a long time build their narrative and spent billions and billions. There is no one single simple answer that will result in a quick overthrow of the curren regime. And we're not even discussing whether current Democratic political movements are themselves in the same order/superstructure, or whether they represent a different paradigm.

Just my 10 kilocents.
posted by symbioid at 2:36 PM on October 17, 2013 [21 favorites]


So best to just STFU? That seems to be the gist of your message: either post the entirety of "Submerged State" or say nothing.

Five fresh fish, that is a very strange misunderstanding, especially considering that the example I gave of "interesting" criticism was less than 10 sentences long. Yes, I took it from a longer book, but how is that a problem?

Nobody is asking you to STFU. People want you to speak more. Nobody is asking you to create an entire pitch or plan, but people do want to read criticism that is more incisive and more substantiated (or at least, more funny) than just "Obama is bad. He would be better if he was better! If he was better, everything would be better, much better! And everybody would be happy! But he's bad! Things are not better! We are not happy!"
posted by Sticherbeast at 2:41 PM on October 17, 2013 [6 favorites]


Thanks for the thoughtful response, symbioid. I'll respond to it later.

(I would like to know if there is any way to actually test the thesis that stealth tax cuts actually did stimulate spending vs non-stealth cuts... )

My Forbes link didn't have a "test" in it, but it is about a study showing how the logic behind the tax cut's format was ultimately vindicated. However, there was arguably a trade-off between the benefit of the stealth format, and the loss of people not realizing that the Obama administration was actually was doing them a solid.
posted by Sticherbeast at 2:48 PM on October 17, 2013 [1 favorite]


I should clarify that I meant that the pullquote from your quote was a great example for Gramsciian concepts than some of the other claims above. So - I hope you don't think I'm arguing with you on anything you wrote as that wasn't the intent there.
posted by symbioid at 2:49 PM on October 17, 2013


I got that, but thanks for clarifying!
posted by Sticherbeast at 2:51 PM on October 17, 2013 [1 favorite]


symbioid,
Can you and I have a few beers and discuss these things into the wee hours of the morning for like a week? Because you are talking my language, only you seem to be siting a lot of actual academic or prior works that do a lot to get a bigger picture view of how the world works (well, at least my Americanized point of view. Is there any real study of other cultures/societies?).
posted by daq at 2:57 PM on October 17, 2013


It's very easy to speculate that a better PR department would have produced better results. It's much, much harder to actually come up with a halfway-decent plan

So best to just STFU?


I see a fairly wide range of possibilities between "Avoid armchairing" and "Shut the fuck up."
posted by Rykey at 4:23 PM on October 17, 2013 [3 favorites]




symbioid,
Can you and I have a few beers and discuss these things into the wee hours of the morning for like a week? Because you are talking my language, only you seem to be siting a lot of actual academic or prior works that do a lot to get a bigger picture view of how the world works (well, at least my Americanized point of view. Is there any real study of other cultures/societies?).


First round's on me
posted by clockzero at 4:56 PM on October 17, 2013 [2 favorites]




And before anyone diagnoses the woman, that language is perfectly intelligeable to anyone familiar with evangelical/charismat
posted by winna at 5:18 PM on October 17, 2013 [7 favorites]


It's very easy to speculate that a better PR department would have produced better results. It's much, much harder to actually come up with a halfway-decent plan

So best to just STFU?

I see a fairly wide range of possibilities between "Avoid armchairing" and "Shut the fuck up.


these people will be stopped with votes, cash and hard work. So contribute, volunteer and vote. Tuesday, November 14th, 2014.

Plus, keep calling your representatives. At least once every 2 weeks.
posted by Ironmouth at 5:20 PM on October 17, 2013 [4 favorites]


The comments at the Fox article linked via Gawker are genuinely frightening. And I've spent pleeenty of time around evangelicals, thank yon very much. (Sighs.)
posted by raysmj at 5:29 PM on October 17, 2013 [3 favorites]


The thing (OK, one of the things) that gets me about the current Republican party is that they lie. Not a little, but a lot, seemingly much more than they tell the truth. Huge, blatant, disprovable lies that either get put into a 'differing accounts' narrative if not accepted outright by a distressingly large amount of the American population, including news reporters. It feels like that's been ratcheting up for the last few years, since before that quote about making their own reality, and this whole mess has provided a focal point to show just how obviously deceptive they can be and still successfully get their message out.

Because, as has been noted elsewhere, they don't care for government, anything that is negative about the Democrats or negative about both sides/all sides/all politicians benefits them, while the Democrats only benefit from things that make them look good or the Republicans look bad. This gives the Republicans access to a whole field of scorched earth tactics that Democrats can't really touch, but can only try to counter.

The best thing about the shutdown is the Republicans, to a greater proportion of the population of a traditionally rightward-leaning country, rightly bore the brunt of the responsibility for it. One of the many terrible things about it was watching the Republicans continue their campaign of complete bullshit and still have it resonate with some people - sure, fewer people, but there's still some people who accepted that reality over the truth.

It's frustrating and infuriating. And I'd love for the Democrats to show that more often. But I don't think to blame them for the bullshit of their opposition.
posted by gadge emeritus at 6:21 PM on October 17, 2013 [15 favorites]


Oh, man, those comments are...something.
Dance monkeys! Dance! Repeat what your satanic media feeds you like good little children. You will sleep in the bed you made and the blood of millions will be on your IGNORANT hands. You judge things you clearly do not understand because you honestly believe you have a right to do so and you have the gall to repeat "Judge not lest ye be judged" to us. This woman is the only one in there making any kind of real sense while blind, evil monsters force their sickness upon us and you just sit there with your fingers in your ears nodding and smiling at whatever they say. I can see who the nuts are here. It's too obvious.
Then again, I'm in this thread talking about Opposite Day and people turning into farts, so who knows.
posted by Sticherbeast at 6:21 PM on October 17, 2013 [8 favorites]


Romney Proudly Explains How He's Turned Campaign Around: 'I'm Lying More,' He Says
“It’s a freeing strategy, really, because I don’t have to worry about facts or being accurate or having any concrete positions of any kind,” Romney added.

Romney said he is telling at least 80 percent more lies now than he was two months ago. Buoyed by his strong debate performance, which by his own admission included 40 or 50 instances of lying in one 90-minute period, the candidate said he will continue to “just openly lie [his] ass off” until the Nov. 6 election.

Whether it’s a senior citizen, military family, working mother, businessman, or middle-class American, Romney said, he will lie to every single one of them as often as he can if that’s what it takes to win the presidency.

“The best part is, it’s really easy to lie,” said Romney, who added that voicing whatever untruths come into his mind at any given moment is an easy thing to do because all it requires is opening his mouth and talking. “For example, if someone accuses me of having a tax plan that makes no discernible sense, I just lie and say that I do have a tax plan that makes sense. I also say there is a study that backs up my plan. See that? Simple. None of it is remotely true, of course, but now we’re moving on to the next topic because people are usually too afraid to ask me straight up if I’m lying, because that is apparently not something you ask someone who is running for president.”

Moreover, Romney said, if anyone does accuse him of lying, he will simply say he is not lying, which he noted is just an extension of the overall strategy.
posted by Rhaomi at 7:46 PM on October 17, 2013 [1 favorite]


Wow. That's the kind of thing that would make Gene Ray say "He is really out there."
posted by JHarris at 7:49 PM on October 17, 2013


Thanks for paying, clockzero ;)

And daq, while I'd like to say I have some sort of ... I dunno... special training or insight, I'm just some chump who reads a bit here and there. No college or anything. As for whether there are any real studies of culture, I guess that's a good question that isn't really for this thread, heh.

If we're ever at a meetup at the same time I'd certainly chat with you :)
------------

Sticherbeast. That's... WTF. How does giving people health care = "Forcing their sickness upon people". I mean, sure, mandating giving money to a private company kinda sucks, but damn.

To paraphrase Lewis Black: The Nazis came to KILL, Obama wants to give me health care. If that's 'coming for them', then COME FOR ME!
------------

Explaining to a coworker and a helper today, some of the stuff (thanks again for the links) and the helper started to say why it was just so baaaaaaaaaaad. And when I mostly shot down her arguments, her last argument was literally "But FREEDOM!"

I was still quite worked up and my other coworkers didn't want to see it escalate any further so I backed off.

Then before lunch, I go up to her and say "You know, don't take it personally, I still love you. When Obama comes and raises the hammer and sickle over DC, I'll put in a good word for you before they take you to the death camps."

GAAAAAAAAH!

Oh, and I am going to start calling Tea Party/Libertarians of this ilk "Freedummies"
posted by symbioid at 7:52 PM on October 17, 2013 [10 favorites]


And before anyone diagnoses the woman, that language is perfectly intelligeable to anyone familiar with evangelical/charismat[ics]

Absolutely. That doesn't mean that she does not have a delusional disorder of some kind. Probably I'm projecting all over the place, but I feel a strange deep pity and compassion for her that I can't quite explain. She's a vector for ridiculous beliefs that are hundreds of years old, demonstrably false yet deeply American. I don't believe anything she does, but I can't hate her.
posted by Countess Elena at 8:00 PM on October 17, 2013 [2 favorites]


She's probably just suffering from mild Post Teahadist Stress Disorder - along with the rest of us.
posted by Golden Eternity at 9:08 PM on October 17, 2013 [1 favorite]


Having to write everything those clowns say all day has got to be more soul-destroying even than being a YouTube comment moderator or Facebook TOS violation investigator.
posted by ctmf at 9:32 PM on October 17, 2013 [15 favorites]



Mitch McConnell holds his ground on Kentucky dam project
The Senate minority leader steadfastly denied any role in a provision saving 250 jobs at the lagging and over-budget Olmsted Locks and Dam project.
[...]
“The Army Corps requested it, both House and Senate passed an authorization for it, and every senator — every single one — had a chance to review it and ask for it to be taken out,” McConnell told POLITICO, adding: “The toughest guy on so-called earmarks in our conference, Tom Coburn, reviewed every single one of these. And some members kicked out other requests. Nobody kicked this one out. I rest my case.”
posted by Golden Eternity at 10:33 PM on October 17, 2013


Bob Altemeyer's - The Authoritarians (261 page PDF) is a fun read and may provide some insight into the question of what makes tea party types tick and tock all the way to total ding dong status.
posted by phoque at 1:31 AM on October 18, 2013 [6 favorites]


Mitch McConnell holds his ground on Kentucky dam project

Yeah, apparently his primary opponent isn't opposed to it either. I can't believe I'm about to type this, but: Mitch McConnell is in the right here, and this seems to be less pork and more necessary.
posted by zombieflanders at 3:53 AM on October 18, 2013


The thing that annoys me about the lock project is that it's exactly what we should be doing in the whole country right now. I live at the other end of the same river and all of our locks and dams need to be rebuilt. I'm here in the city of bridges and a huge number of them are in need of major upgrades before they fall into the rivers. This country's infrastructure is in need of a massive amount of work and we have a stagnant economy and people out of work. We should be funding a huge build-out of public projects but instead we're cutting funding.
posted by octothorpe at 5:17 AM on October 18, 2013 [31 favorites]


We should be funding a huge build-out of public projects but instead we're cutting funding.

As a resident outside the city of brotherly love, I would like to A++++ and second your motion, because oh my god, are the bridges in PA in terrifying shape. Because bridges are socialist, or something.
posted by jetlagaddict at 6:38 AM on October 18, 2013 [7 favorites]


The thing that annoys me about the lock project is that it's exactly what we should be doing in the whole country right now.

Yeah, this is why it bugs me. If it was a project in a blue state (or maybe, any state besides his own), I don't believe that it wouldn't be a big "issue". In the same way that republicans will vote against federal aid for blue states, but when they need something it's obvious they should get it.

As for nobody in the process giving him shit about it -- well, he was in charge. They needed him on board.
posted by inigo2 at 6:39 AM on October 18, 2013 [2 favorites]


Speaking of bridges, I take this bridge when I visit my folks... YIKES!
posted by symbioid at 6:45 AM on October 18, 2013


Really, this was more a win for moderates in the GOP Caucus against the nutjobs. Which means Dem policy goals are somewhat more in reach.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:56 AM on October 18, 2013


Apropos of the bridges and dams discussion:

Here’s a 'grand bargain' for ya: Tax cuts for $1 trillion in infrastructure spending
Wouldn’t Republicans howl that [infrastructure spending] would increase the deficit? Maybe, but it’s also obvious that Republicans’ anti-deficit stance is 99 percent BS posturing. What’s more, the deficit really isn’t that big of a deal right now, as Ezra Klein says. In fact, the biggest problem with the deficit is it’s coming down too fast. All this austerity since 2011 has been a palpable drag on the economy, and if doubling the budget deficit would bring unemployment down a couple points, I’d make the trade in a heartbeat. What’s more, the US has a lot more fiscal running room than even three years ago — future budget projections have improved sharply, due to slowing health care cost growth.

Such an offer would throw the incoherence of the Republican budget position into sharp relief. Paul Ryan’s budget (like the Bowles-Simpson plan) ostensibly was motivated by near-panic over the size of the budget deficit, but its foundational principle was a huge package of tax cuts. I’d wager that if the offered tax cuts were big and juicy enough, Republicans would conveniently forget all about their balanced budget mania (just like they did in the Bush years) and might be ready for some good old logrolling.

This deal would be quite a long shot. But it’s got a better chance that anything that hinges on tax increases–and we don’t need tax-side austerity in this economy anyway. In fact, probably the biggest roadblock to such a deal would be President Obama, who seems to actually value his deficit reduction quite highly.

I earnestly urge him to consider otherwise. This would be a trade worth making.
posted by zombieflanders at 9:02 AM on October 18, 2013


Really, this was more a win for moderates in the GOP Caucus against the nutjobs. Which means Dem policy goals are somewhat more in reach.

Where moderates = the Rovian GOP. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy for anything that pushes back against the Tea Party because they're far more dangerous, but the whole thing feels like a fight we have to fight to get back to the original fight.
posted by jason_steakums at 9:06 AM on October 18, 2013 [8 favorites]


The core bit of reality-based thinking from zombieflander's linked article is the part about how austerity economics is a proven loser. And, that little tie in with the ACA at the end of that same paragraph is especially satisfying, after the recent unpleasantness. The article links to this piece by Kevin Drum: It's the Austerity, Stupid: How We Were Sold an Economy-Killing Lie. One interesting stat in Drum's article is that in every recent recession, in administrations of both parties, government spending has gone up--except in this one, in which it's decreased:
The Beltway establishment may have applauded Obama's pivot to the deficit, but much of the economic community saw it as nothing short of a debacle. Sure, there were still a few economists who believed that even in a deep recession government spending merely crowded out private spending and thus did no good, but they were a distinct minority. Most economists acknowledged that deficit spending was appropriate at a time like this. Paul Krugman fumed that Obama was cravenly trying to score political points by doing a "deficit peacock-strut" that would be destructive in the wake of the financial crisis. Mark Zandi, a centrist economist who has advised leaders of both parties, used more judicious language, but likewise warned that spending cuts might "cost the economy significantly in the longer run."
So, unfortunately, my expectations are not high. I more align with Atrios, who says in linking to the same article as zombieflanders:
I'll Take That Deal!
But, of course, Obama wouldn't, because as Ryan says, he seems to love his deficit reduction. I always joke that nobody cares about the deficit, but the truth is Obama is probably the exception to that. I have no idea why.
posted by mondo dentro at 9:39 AM on October 18, 2013 [2 favorites]


The thing that annoys me about the lock project is that it's exactly what we should be doing in the whole country right now. I live at the other end of the same river and all of our locks and dams need to be rebuilt. I'm here in the city of bridges and a huge number of them are in need of major upgrades before they fall into the rivers. This country's infrastructure is in need of a massive amount of work and we have a stagnant economy and people out of work. We should be funding a huge build-out of public projects but instead we're cutting funding.

And we could have been doing it with negative real long term interest rates! At record low commodity prices! The world was effectively giving the US an interest free loan to do infrastructure upgrades at the cheapest price it's been in a decade and we didn't fucking do it. That's how stupid and short fucking sighted deficit hawks are.
posted by Talez at 9:51 AM on October 18, 2013 [15 favorites]


This is who the GOP should look to for leadership. Seriously. I'm not just saying that as a Minnesotan either. To be fair, I didn't vote for him, but also to be fair, there are Democrats out there compared to whom Carlson would be a much better leader.

(speaking of which the MN GOP is all "worried" about how the shutdown makes Republicans look. Which is hilarious. These are the folks who shut down state government not long ago, who's serious overreach on trying to enshrine discrimination in the State Constitution resulted in gay marriage now being legal, who's top legislator got caught with her her knickers down with her top aide all the while preaching family values, the party that has been skirting bankruptcy for awhile now. Who purged 18 state party members for a few years because they weren't hardline enough... these are the folks who are suddenly worried about how they look? ha)
posted by edgeways at 10:02 AM on October 18, 2013 [2 favorites]




The world was effectively giving the US an interest free loan to do infrastructure upgrades at the cheapest price it's been in a decade and we didn't fucking do it.

And when it comes to infrastructure, massive spending to switch our energy (and food production, and transportation systems) to sustainable sources should be on the top of the list. It solves environmental, economic, social, and national security problems in one fell swoop.

Hmmm... if only there were some way to explain this to voters...
posted by mondo dentro at 10:03 AM on October 18, 2013


who would then say it's a socialist propaganda stunt and cars are good enough, there is no such things as global warming and even if it was happening, which it isn't!, then it most certainly isn't OUR fault. Cut taxes now. Hell, whatshisface was nearly crucified for trying to get people to drink slightly less soda, Michelle Obama came under fire for encourage people to drink more water, and yet all it will take is some 'plaining? I, uh, am a bit less optimistic the American public at large can be swayed by anything that doesn't tap into our base visceral emotions. We tend not to be terribly good at that education thing, especially when delivered by politicians.
posted by edgeways at 10:09 AM on October 18, 2013 [2 favorites]


I, uh, am a bit less optimistic the American public at large can be swayed by anything that doesn't tap into our base visceral emotions.

I'm with you... but I gotta say, "WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!!!!!!" is working pretty well for me.
posted by mondo dentro at 10:14 AM on October 18, 2013


Michelle Obama came under fire for encourage people to drink more water

That wasn't water; It was socialism juice. BOMB LAKE ERIE!
posted by Talez at 10:18 AM on October 18, 2013 [5 favorites]


It was socialism juice.

And do you know how we knew that? Because she only wanted us to drink fluoridated water.
Ripper: "Mandrake, have you ever seen a Commie drink a glass of water?”

Mandrake: “Well, I can’t say that I have.”

Ripper: “Vodka, that’s what they drink . . . on no account will a Commie ever drink water, and not without good reason . . . Have you never wondered why I drink only distilled water, or rainwater, and only pure-grain alcohol? Have you ever heard of a thing called fluoridation of water? Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous Communist plot we have ever had to face?”
posted by mondo dentro at 10:22 AM on October 18, 2013 [11 favorites]


Michelle Obama came under fire for encourage people to drink more water

And walk more.

And having our kids eat healthier and exercise more.

There's a small part of me that wishes she would come out in favor of not setting tire fires in the middle of your living room.
posted by dirigibleman at 10:28 AM on October 18, 2013 [16 favorites]


Why is there such an over-abundance of truly stupid people?
posted by five fresh fish at 11:31 AM on October 18, 2013


Theda Skocpol, interviewed at Salon, has some interesting things to say about this recent mess. One thing she mentions is that the Tea Party indeed has elements of racism and xenophobia, but that more importantly, supporters are also mistrustful of young people in general, even in their own families, whom they suspect of not having the same values. In particular, Tea Party supporters tend to see today's young people as entitled for expecting a cheap college education and for being unemployed. Another interesting tidbit is that (e.g.) Ted Cruz's behavior has been disturbing enough even to other Republicans that it might pave the way for both parties to enact some parliamentary reforms. Worth a read.
posted by en forme de poire at 11:33 AM on October 18, 2013 [8 favorites]


The other thing Skocpol mentions, in line with some comments I've seen here, is that there's not much cause for concern about ACA repeal; after 2016 it is likely to be popular enough that even Republicans wouldn't be able to touch it. She continues that Republicans are well aware that any improved relationship between the federal govt and working-age people makes their mission (to roll back and defund all parts of the welfare state) much harder. Here she cites William Kristol's 1993 memo about Clinton's attempt at passing health care, which, plus ça change.
posted by en forme de poire at 11:39 AM on October 18, 2013 [1 favorite]


Why is there such an over-abundance of truly stupid people?

I suspect that stupid people are over-represented because they are so easily recognized. It's harder to quantify the not stupids because, since they're not fucking things up, there's not much to observe. The not stupids are behaving normally and that simply passes your attention.

It's easy not to take exception to the ordinary.
posted by Pudhoho at 11:44 AM on October 18, 2013 [6 favorites]


Pudhoho, +1 Insightful.
posted by JHarris at 11:55 AM on October 18, 2013


I guess that goes back to the importance of encouraging/helping one's not-stupid friends and acquaintances get out to vote. They don't have to make the same choice as you do, they just have to choose sane candidates.

Without most everyone voting, the looney-tune 27% end up getting their freaks into power.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:01 PM on October 18, 2013 [1 favorite]


Without most everyone voting, the looney-tune 27% end up getting their freaks into power.

That's reductivist though. While it's a good idea to get "your side" out and voting generally, many of the battlezone areas are small. Understanding this issue--why we have some of the terribly ignorant people in positions of power and what happened over time to make that the way it is--is significantly more complex than voting. Unless people move en masse to some of the odd gerrymandered districts that some of these troglodyte types are representing, voting alone isn't going to take care of this.
posted by jessamyn at 12:28 PM on October 18, 2013 [3 favorites]


George_Spiggott: "I guess you like the idea of a president saying "the buck stops here", unless it's your guy?

Or unless the buck is owned by one of two other branches of government specifically intended to counterbalance the president.
"

Uh, correction: I seem to recall a wise Republican who should know a thing or two about how the Constitution works, state that there are 4 branches, so you should say one of three other branches to be correct.
posted by symbioid at 12:43 PM on October 18, 2013


It's not really about getting your side out to vote, it's about the people who don't have a side. Liberals are already out voting for liberals, conservatives are out voting for conservatives. They are the most dedicated voters. You turn elections by getting people who don't care to start caring. Obama was really good at that. I saw a lot of people who never really cared about politics get excited for him and they have bloomed into people who are very informed on the subject.

It really helps when Democrats act as reasonable and competent as Obama does, because people who don't vote seem more likely to vote on those grounds rather than ideology. I think you might be able to turn some tea party districts that aren't too lopsided already by convincing people they should be fed up with the crazy. Even putting up some credible challenges that fail can help moderate a Representative.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:51 PM on October 18, 2013


Yeah, there are a lot of idiots out there, but maybe a more fundamental problem is that all humans, even intelligent ones, are very, very hackable.

We're hackable pretty much in all domains: in food ("Sugar and fat!" Yum! Gimme more!"), intimacy ("I need love and sex!" Hey! Look! Pictures of naked people!"), beliefs ("Uncertainty is scary! Tell me what to do!"), and social organization ("My tribe is in danger! Attack, attack!"). And in the modern world, it's even easier to do this than it used to be. Science has given us a good look at all of our human "source code".

That's why a good education is so important. It provides a person with a sort of built-in firewall. But that's easier said than done--for starters, we have to figure out what "good" means, education-wise. Many of the Tea Party are not dumb, nor uneducated. Cruz is very smart (by all accounts), and well educated. Many educated professionals have been attracted to fundamentalist faiths.
posted by mondo dentro at 12:53 PM on October 18, 2013 [3 favorites]


For most campaigns I can remember, it was those inscrutable "undecideds" who ended up determining the winner.
posted by klarck at 12:56 PM on October 18, 2013 [2 favorites]


For most campaigns I can remember, it was those inscrutable "undecideds" who ended up determining the winner.

I'd go so far as to say that there would be no election campaigns at all, as we know them anyhow, were this not the case.
posted by Rykey at 1:12 PM on October 18, 2013


Without most everyone voting, the looney-tune 27% end up getting their freaks into power.

That's reductivist though. While it's a good idea to get "your side" out and voting generally, many of the battlezone areas are small. Understanding this issue--why we have some of the terribly ignorant people in positions of power and what happened over time to make that the way it is--is significantly more complex than voting. Unless people move en masse to some of the odd gerrymandered districts that some of these troglodyte types are representing, voting alone isn't going to take care of this.


I think the gerrymandering is really not the force people say it is. This article discusses some of the issues related to it and cites to a few studies. It does have an effect, but it isn't the only one.

Also, we never win if we don't vote or turnout the vote. We should treat voting as mandatory--that's the way the people who wanted this shutdown act. We should mimic them on (1) contacting our representatives; and (2) voting. Always, always, always!
posted by Ironmouth at 1:20 PM on October 18, 2013 [3 favorites]


That's why a good education is so important. It provides a person with a sort of built-in firewall. But that's easier said than done--for starters, we have to figure out what "good" means, education-wise. Many of the Tea Party are not dumb, nor uneducated. Cruz is very smart (by all accounts), and well educated. Many educated professionals have been attracted to fundamentalist faiths.

I used to go to an alternative high school with a jumble of kids who couldn't fit in at regular high schools for a wide variety of reasons. One of our principals tried to describe us as kids who were either "book smart" or "street smart", but that was a terribly inadequate approach.

OTOH, I think Reid's description of Cruz here is dead on:
"Ted Cruz is smart," Reid said. "He has always been able to talk down to people. He is now in the Senate. People are as smart as he is. He can't talk down to anyone anymore. But he has still not accepted that in his own head. He still thinks he's smarter than everybody else. He might be able to work a calculus problem better than I can. But he can't legislate better than I can."
Josh Marshall extends the observation:
Cruz never seems to have grasped that there are people every bit as sharp as him who didn't go to an Ivy League School (even a 'top Ivy'). My read on Cruz, from talking to people who knew him very well in college and law school, is that he's so confirmed in his belief in his own rectitude and genius that he's likely impervious to what most of us would interpret as rejection or failure. This didn't work? Well, too many stupid people or cowards who didn't flock to my banner. That seemed to be the gist of his speech before the vote. And my guess it wasn't just puffing but represented his genuine belief.
How smart is someone who really seems unable to read a room or learn from experience?
posted by maudlin at 1:27 PM on October 18, 2013 [12 favorites]


How smart is someone who really seems unable to read a room or learn from experience?

Kind of a narrow version of Dunning-Kruger. Not incompetent in general, but incompetent enough in social interactions that they can't determine who else is competent, thus underestimating their worthy opponents.
posted by Mental Wimp at 1:36 PM on October 18, 2013 [2 favorites]


Well, he's book smart, but not people smart (and probably not street smart, even if the street is 15th St. NW or whatever).

I just came up with this notion a minute ago, but I would suggest that someone who hopes to win national office needs to be at least two out of the three.
posted by box at 1:38 PM on October 18, 2013 [2 favorites]


Uh, correction: I seem to recall a wise Republican who should know a thing or two about how the Constitution works, state that there are 4 branches, so you should say one of three other branches to be correct.

I think that's actually true. The fourth branch is K Street, or the Corporate branch. It's basically a kind of House of Lords, the place where the people who actually own the country decide how to run it.
posted by George_Spiggott at 1:38 PM on October 18, 2013 [3 favorites]


Cruz did manage to become a Senator and, within a year of taking office, had become a household name (even if infamous to most) and a cult figure to many. So it ain't all book learnin'. Don't get me started on the "book learnin'" insult bit.

Anyway, he was into and successful in collegiate debates besides, which would imply he had some sort of social skills. Having heard segments of his not-technically-a-filibuster thingie, though, I would say he likely needs someone on his or her feet and strong, compellingly delivered opinions to debate with in a highly controlled environment for his debate skills to come through. He certainly did not benefit from having a small TV audience of political junkies and weirdos and retired shut-ins to talk at for 21 hours. Or either his debate skills have declined due to ideological isolation.
posted by raysmj at 2:04 PM on October 18, 2013 [1 favorite]


If what floats his boat is the conviction that he's smarter than everyone else, he has unerringly gravitated to the constituency that will confirm it for him.
posted by George_Spiggott at 2:07 PM on October 18, 2013 [8 favorites]


Anyway, he was into and successful in collegiate debates besides, which would imply he had some sort of social skills.

You can be a successful debater with no social skills at all. Indeed, in some cases, presence of social skills mar your ability to be a first class debater

#formerdebatecoach
posted by Joey Michaels at 2:11 PM on October 18, 2013 [5 favorites]


Well, maybe that combination of smarts and arrogance will turn Cruz into McNulty. (I'M STILL ONLY MIDWAY THROUGH SEASON ONE PLEASE NO SPOILERS THX.)
posted by maudlin at 2:15 PM on October 18, 2013 [1 favorite]


And when it comes to infrastructure, massive spending to switch our energy (and food production, and transportation systems) to sustainable sources should be on the top of the list. It solves environmental, economic, social, and national security problems in one fell swoop.

Jimmy Carter was the best 2-term President the US never had.
posted by five fresh fish at 2:17 PM on October 18, 2013 [8 favorites]


…voting alone isn't going to take care of this.

No, but voting and communicating with representatives are essential components in shifting society to where we want it to be.

The loons are fanatics: they do pester their reps, they do participate in primaries, and they do vote.

They also represent about a third of the population. With the remaining population split between two parties, it leaves very little space between sense and nonsense getting elected.

The alarming thing is that there's an increasing demand for a third party. If that party is left of the Democrats, the vote split will essentially guarantee that far-right republicans and looney-right teaparty republicans will become the dominant reps. See: Canada.

Oh, for a return to the 70s, when the republicans were center-right and dems were center-left.
posted by five fresh fish at 2:29 PM on October 18, 2013 [2 favorites]


George_Spiggott: That's more or less what I was getting at there. He had to have that little something, perverse charisma or whatever (which a pol HAS to have to get ahead) that allowed him to get this far and already so well-known. But his not-quite-a-filibuster was a disaster that will, I think, preclude him from ever winning the presidency. All an opponent will have to do is pull out one dumb quote another another, put it in an ad. I suppose it's still possible to reinvent himself down the line, but he'd have to be of once-in-a-lifetime, better-than-Clinton level of political skills to overcome a disaster of that ilk (and Clinton's salesmanship skills were not always wondrous, despite being hailed as the best ever, earlier in this thread--just, no one could come back disaster quite like Bill).
posted by raysmj at 2:40 PM on October 18, 2013


Cruz did manage to become a Senator and, within a year of taking office, had become a household name (even if infamous to most) and a cult figure to many.

The candle that burns twice as not very bright burns half as long.
posted by Pudhoho at 4:02 PM on October 18, 2013 [8 favorites]




That's okay: so is Hannity.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 7:05 PM on October 18, 2013 [6 favorites]




The stupid part (ok, one of the stupid parts) is that you don't have to make up fake bullshit to point out problems with the ACA rollout. The federal site has been a disaster and the claim that if you like your plan you can keep your plan is indeed bullshit. But I guess that's not enough of a critique so they have to go with making up "OBAMACARE IS GOING TO COST ME TWENTY SEVEN MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR" crap.
posted by Justinian at 7:56 PM on October 18, 2013


The stupid part is that people aren't upset because ACA is not single-payer public healthcare.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:54 PM on October 18, 2013 [8 favorites]


The stupid part is that most people don't know their ass from a hole in the ground.

Bummer.
posted by Pudhoho at 9:32 PM on October 18, 2013 [3 favorites]


If you feel like being infuriated, you could read Anatomy of a Shutdown, from Politico.
posted by Elementary Penguin at 2:56 AM on October 19, 2013


Tea Party Insult Generator (from actual posts on John Boehner's Facebook page)
posted by box at 8:56 AM on October 19, 2013


I wasn't aware that "infuriated" felt so much like "sated on a delicious heaping pile of schadenfreude."
posted by localroger at 9:09 AM on October 19, 2013




I'm a bit annoyed by some of the coverage I've read/heard about the budget conference committee being another version of the "supercommittee" that was created to hammer out a "grand bargain" in 2011, when in fact, this looks to me like a plain old conference committee that's designed to reconcile differences between the Senate and House budgets.

The partisan breakdown of the supercommittee was 6 D and 6 R, while the partisan breakdown of this conference committee is 15 D and 14 R. Angus King is a Democrat for all intents and purposes, and my guess is he'll be a more reliable vote with the Democrats than someone like Bill Nelson (D-FL) or Mark Warner (D-VA).

So, while it appears the Democrats have an advantage in raw numbers, my concern is that, with the odd number of members, and at least two bipartisan-curious Democrats, we'll end up with a compromise that will lean pretty far to the right. I don't see any compromisers / moderates in the GOP field. Maybe Lindsey Graham would be one, but he's got a Tea Party challenger to defend against, so he's out. Kelly Ayotte? Ron Johnson? I don't see them offering anything meaningful in concessions given their voting records.

The supercommittee "failed" in that it did not come up with a deal, but any deal would have been a policy disaster. My concern is that this budget conference committee will "succeed" in passing a deal that will also be a policy disaster. Senator Sanders might increase the leftitude of the committee, but when it comes to a compromise on party-line votes, I'm worried about the Democrats' advantage in raw numbers being erased by a defection or two.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:45 AM on October 19, 2013 [1 favorite]


when it comes to a compromise on party-line votes, I'm worried about the Democrats' advantage in raw numbers being erased by a defection or two.

The take away from the entire sequester/shutdown/default debacle is that the Moderate Republicans and the Democrats have forged a new bi-partisan alliance, and you should also look at which (R)'s aren't in the loony-wacko brigade and don't be surprised if they stand up for sensible policies...
posted by mikelieman at 10:35 AM on October 19, 2013


Kelly Ayotte?

I wonder if she is on there in part because of her open disagreement with Cruz and rejection of the "loony-wacko brigade" as mikelieman alludes. From the Politico article linked above:

Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) teed off on Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), lambasting him for what she considered a failed strategy with no way out. Cruz arrived late, but Ayotte wanted Cruz to hear this, too. She repeated her remarks, this time directing them at Cruz, too. . . . The lashing humbled Cruz, who began to take a quieter role in the intervening days.

And holy crap, the Obama hatred in the Politico comments is just . . . whoah.
posted by onlyconnect at 11:05 AM on October 19, 2013


I prefer Charles Pierce's title of Tiger Beat on the Potomac. It fits Politico's mission, editorial styles, and audience so much better.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:09 AM on October 19, 2013 [5 favorites]


I wonder if there's any sort of aftermath to this effort by Paul Ryan, discussed earlier, to out-Serious Boehner, apparently at the latter's expense?
posted by Anything at 11:14 AM on October 19, 2013


which (R)'s aren't in the loony-wacko brigade and don't be surprised if they stand up for sensible policies...

Look at the commitee assignments shown in the link and tell me who the potential vote-switchers are. I'm sure Kelly Ayotte is probably getting a steady stream of flowers and fruit baskets from Harry Reid right now, but her reputation as a moderate is undeserved -- her DW-NOMINATE score in the 112th Congress was 82, which means only 16 other Senators were more conservative than her. She might not be in the loony-wacko brigade, but she's voted with them more often than not.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:15 AM on October 19, 2013


The take away from the entire sequester/shutdown/default debacle is that the Moderate Republicans and the Democrats have forged a new bi-partisan alliance, and you should also look at which (R)'s aren't in the loony-wacko brigade and don't be surprised if they stand up for sensible policies...

Eh, I think aside from a handful of Republicans they're actually going to keep pretending it's business as usual until the next time they come to a head. Boehner's official statement on bringing the Senate bill to the floor was all the same old screed, he was given cover by Tea Party guys at the last minute with their whole "we still respect John Boehner, he stood by us" stuff, Fox News and Reince Priebus have been waffling on choosing a side among the GOP this whole time, I really think they're attempting to just forget it happened. Drinking to forget that the marriage is a shambles, until the next time one of them cracks.
posted by jason_steakums at 11:48 AM on October 19, 2013 [1 favorite]


A neighbor stopped by last night. His work hours had been cut again, he can't afford to pay the premiums for the insurance offered through his employer, and he's needed a knee replacement for a couple of years. And still he complained about "Obamacare." I tried to help and I think I made some progress. I hope so, anyway.
posted by maurice at 1:55 PM on October 19, 2013 [2 favorites]


her DW-NOMINATE score in the 112th Congress was 82

0.451. 82 is her rank-order; 19 voted more conservatively than her.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 2:24 PM on October 19, 2013


The supercommittee "failed" in that it did not come up with a deal, but any deal would have been a policy disaster.

A worse "policy disaster" than the sequester + the default battle + the government shutdown + doing it all over again? I think that's unlikely. For all our gleeful "look at what a bunch of nutjobs those hardline Republicans are!" comments (and they sure are a bunch of nutjobs), the enthusiasm for the "everyone knows you have to be willing to compromise with the other side" line sure gets a lot fewer adherents when it's our side offering to compromise with their side.

The fact is, the Republicans control the House, the House holds the purse strings and any budget agreement quite properly should reflect some Republican priorities. I personally thing their budget priorities are loopy, and I fervently hope the American people become sufficiently persuaded of that point of view to vote them out of their majority. But in the meantime, it is clear that if the US polity were functioning as the constitution intends, the budget should be one that neither the Democrats NOR the Republicans wholly embrace. It would be nice if the US left would model for the right wing nutjobs a sane acceptance of the necessity of compromise in a democratic system of government rather than howling about betrayal as soon as Obama or Reid agrees to some painful concessions.
posted by yoink at 5:05 PM on October 19, 2013 [1 favorite]


She repeated her remarks, this time directing them at Cruz, too. . . . The lashing humbled Cruz, who began to take a quieter role in the intervening days.


Kelly Ayotte told Cruz to heel and he did? Please, make this be true.
posted by maggieb at 5:10 PM on October 19, 2013 [1 favorite]


It would be nice if the US left would model for the right wing nutjobs a sane acceptance of the necessity of compromise in a democratic system of government rather than howling about betrayal as soon as Obama or Reid agrees to some painful concessions.

Yeah, the left really never should have tossed Obama and Reid out of office for all that compromising they did during Obama's first term.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:47 PM on October 19, 2013 [4 favorites]


yoink: "A worse "policy disaster" than the sequester + the default battle + the government shutdown + doing it all over again?"

Actually, yes.

The sequestration budget is a very painful cut to discretionary spending, but for the most part leaves the major safety net programs alone. Meanwhile, the Republican proposals outlined in that link would have gutted the safety net, reduced the progressivity of the tax code, and brought about a kind of austerity economics that would have made the sequestration budgets look luxurious.

The two sides' proposals were so far apart that it's hard to imagine what a compromise would have looked like, but the smart money is always on the GOP being more willing to kill the deal entirely than give any meaningful concessions, and, as usual, the Democrats opened with a far more centrist proposal than the Republicans did.

So, yeah, I think the supercommittee deal would have been much worse than the events that have transpired since. The cuts get deeper and deeper as time goes on, so I'm not saying there won't be a point at which it would have been better to take the hypothetical supercommittee deal, but at that point we're into the butterfly effect zone, trying to figure out how the politics of such a deal would have shaken out, how the GOP's voyage on the U.S.S. Failboat will affect their strength in the reconciliation committee's negotiations, etc.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:09 PM on October 19, 2013


Yeah, the left really never should have tossed Obama and Reid out of office for all that compromising they did during Obama's first term.

I didn't say they "tossed them out of office." The Tea Party didn't "toss Boehner and Mcconnell out of office" either. I'm saying that whenever Obama has accepted any kind of compromise deal with the Republicans we see the prominent left wing Democrats (and many who share their views here on Metafilter) declaring that they have "given up" on Obama and that he's "betrayed" us and that the Republicans have "walked all over him" etc. etc. etc. You know--the exact, mirror image of Tea Partier's "RINO!" frothing.

Meanwhile, the Republican proposals outlined in that link would have gutted the safety net, reduced the progressivity of the tax code, and brought about a kind of austerity economics that would have made the sequestration budgets look luxurious.


You borked the link, but even if you hadn't, it's disingenuous to reply to an argument that we should be willing to accept a compromise between Republican and Democratic party desiderata by replying that allowing the Republicans to simply dictate the budget would be calamitous. Yeah, the Republican ideas are crazypants stupid. But, again, they control the House. If the Democrats controlled the House with a Republican President and Republican Senate none of us would be saying "yeah, well, we've only got the House: obviously the Republicans should get to do pretty much whatever they want."
posted by yoink at 8:07 PM on October 19, 2013


I didn't say they "tossed them out of office."

The left rewards the Democrats with votes and continued support. That is the model for the right, who is now planning to primary out people like Mitch McConnell.

"Some people on Metafilter" have a habit of confusing any criticism of Democratic policy or tactics as "howling" and "frothing" and launch circular firing squads at their liberal allies when what they should be doing is trying to find new ways to persuade and energize new voters. Responding to sound criticism with hippy punching is certainly not going to help there.

What I have personally always viewed as a the major flaw in how the left thinks about these negotiations is the cartoonish villain image of people like John Boehner many of the more party line people hold. From my perspective as an unemotional pragmatic independent on the center left, the only reason I ever saw for the previous hostage taking to have worked as well as it did was the belief that Boehner really is willing to annihilate the country to get his way. He never was. I said it at the time, but somehow having a more human view of our opponents made me a frothy howler I guess because I was unwilling to believe Obama did everything 100% perfectly.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:31 PM on October 19, 2013 [5 favorites]


Tyrone [sic] Cowen writes at Marginal Revolution: Tyrone on why the government shutdown and the debt ceiling crisis were brilliant Republican strategy
Look where we stand. In real terms government spending has been falling. Sequestration appears to be permanent, or it will be negotiated away by Republicans in return for preferred changes in tax and spending policy. Leading Democratic intellectuals are talking about future fiscal bargains with no new taxes. The American public polls as increasingly conservative.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 10:07 PM on October 19, 2013


yoink: "You borked the link"

Fixed link.

but even if you hadn't, it's disingenuous to reply to an argument that we should be willing to accept a compromise between Republican and Democratic party desiderata by replying that allowing the Republicans to simply dictate the budget would be calamitous.

Perhaps it would have been disingenuous if that's the argument I was replying to, but in fact I was only responding to your assertion that it was unlikely that a supercommittee deal would have been worse than what ensued after it failed. Like I said, in these negotiations, while the Republicans don't simply dictate the budget, they do get the upper hand, because their opening positions are a lot farther from status quo than the Democrats', and they have shown themselves to be time and again far less willing to compromise.

On the merits of reaching a compromise, it depends on what the compromise is. There are good and bad compromises. The only reason to accept a compromise is if it's better than the status quo, which we can extend as long as we need to with continuing resolutions. Obviously we'd like to get back to regular order with a proper annual budget, but if the price for that is legitimizing the GOP's hostage-taking strategy by giving into their unreasonable demands, then no sale.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:51 PM on October 19, 2013 [1 favorite]


The fact is, the Republicans control the House, the House holds the purse strings and any budget agreement quite properly should reflect some Republican priorities.

Should, schmuld. Governmental ideology is nothing to destroy the world economy over.

What should be is whatever causes the most good to the most people, and I don't care who says otherwise, be it Alexander Hamilton or Mickey Milhouse Mouse. No system of government can provide that without good people to embody it, so the FFs gave us what they could -- they gave us a system that reflects the popular will, more or less, on the grounds that whatever it is we get, at least we'll deserve it -- it won't be some lord from on high declaring we kill ourselves at his whim and taking our money for his coffers, but ourselves.

Now we see the weakness of this system -- if the people don't deserve it, because they have been led astray by demagogues, it causes problems in proportion to how stupid they are being. It is well and good for you to say that it serves 'em right, except it doesn't serve all of them right, what people deserve in the aggregate overlooks a lot of suffering in particular, especially when so much of the world has come to rely on the United States.
posted by JHarris at 1:38 AM on October 20, 2013 [2 favorites]


Republicans are all full of shit about the budget. To prove it, just start every discussion with "Why haven't you killed the F-35 and all corporate subsidies if fiscal responsibility is important?" The precepts of Economic Calvinism demand that a business that isn't going to succeed on its own merits NOT be artificially supported.

It's G-d's will that those businesses will fail, and increasing entitlements will just make them dependant forever. They'll never go start a successful business otherwise.
posted by mikelieman at 3:49 AM on October 20, 2013 [4 favorites]


The American public polls as increasingly conservative.

This is only true if you poll using politically loaded words like liberal, conservative, democratic, or republican, or the names of bills associated with party policies. When you poll on actual policies, describing them instead of naming them by their creators, the American public is quite liberal. Nearly all of the provisions of the ACA turn out to be overwhelmingly popular even among Republicans when they are described as hypothetical instead of as part of the ACA.

The most disastrous thing about this episode for the Republicans is that it has caused a lot of those people to notice details they normally don't. Most elections turn on centrist people who vote on vague impressions and ad messages. A lot of those people have now noticed that the Republican party recklessly shut down the government because, apparently, its leadership couldn't hold its shit together. They have less than a year now to fix that.
posted by localroger at 8:09 AM on October 20, 2013 [15 favorites]


The politics of all this were just handled so sloppily for anyone paying attention. The small government conservatives shut down the government to stop Big Government Obamacare.

Well, that was the storyline right up until the shutdown actually happened and then it became Republicans introducing bill after bill to fund various important parts of the government that Obama had shut down, and arguing in favor of government and all the amazing and necessary things it does, because they were trying to make Democrats look like cruel anti-government dudes who didn't want to spend government money. Trust me, they don't mind one tiny little bit if tea partiers want to get up and talk about how important government programs are for a few weeks.

Look, not even their own base could buy that. They have had too many years of propaganda about how Democrats love big government in every single form to believe they suddenly changed their mind.

So instead we got "Obama hates vets!!!11" stuff and lost any pretense whatsoever that this was a shutdown about anything at all besides Obama hatred. If they were going to do it, the only way to do it was to keep a laser focus on Obamacare. It still probably had no chance of working, but why shut it down if you aren't even going to try?
posted by Drinky Die at 8:26 AM on October 20, 2013 [1 favorite]


Hilariously, they would have had a much better shot at delaying Obamacare if they'd done nothing because of the disaster of a rollout. Instead the crazies sabotaged their own efforts. What a bunch of maroons.
posted by Justinian at 3:00 PM on October 20, 2013 [5 favorites]


Seriously, I'm infuriated with how the launch has gone as someone who wants to sign up for a plan through the exchange. I've been trying since the launch to get an account on the website and still can't. I tried to call and was met with a terrible connection and a lady with a very thick accent. I just could not make it through the process. There are definitely moments where I am thinking, "If they can't get a website right, should I really have trusted them to reform the entire healthcare system this thoroughly?"

Better hope the meat of the implementation is going to go better and people will be really happy with the changes. If it proves a disaster there will be some difficult elections coming up.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:25 PM on October 20, 2013 [2 favorites]


As a thought experiment, what happens in two years if, as is happening, many people on individual plans see their insurance companies eliminate the old individual plans in favor of the state exchange plans... but young healthy people don't join up? Do they start eating huge losses or do they jack up the prices massively to the point where it becomes unaffordable for most of the individuals on the exchanges even with subsidies?

I wish the enforcement mechanism was better.
posted by Justinian at 4:04 PM on October 20, 2013


Oops, I meant that what is happening is insurance companies moving people from their previously offered individual plans onto the plans they are offering on the state exchanges, not that young people aren't signing on. We don't yet have official numbers (or satisfactorily working websites) to make that call either way.
posted by Justinian at 4:05 PM on October 20, 2013


"What should be is whatever causes the most good to the most people, and I don't care who says otherwise, be it Alexander Hamilton or Mickey Milhouse Mouse."

Sure, OK, utilitarianism. But for a lot of folks, what causes the most good to the most people is maximizing freedom (which is speciously defined as absence from government interaction) and godliness.

I tend to value things like class mobility, because it's a moderately useful way to measure everyone getting an equal shot, some fuzzy notion on health outcomes as a proxy for suffering, and freedom more tied to expression and ability to achieve goals.
posted by klangklangston at 4:32 PM on October 20, 2013 [1 favorite]


Ah, well, good response, hmm.
posted by JHarris at 5:08 PM on October 20, 2013


Poll: Majority say the GOP shouldn't control the house

The poll was conducted Friday through Sunday, just after the end of the 16-day partial federal government shutdown that was caused in part by a push by House conservatives to try and dismantle the health care law, which is President Barack Obama's signature domestic achievement. According to the survey, 54% say it's a bad thing that the GOP controls the House, up 11 points from last December, soon after the 2012 elections when the Republicans kept control of the chamber. Only 38% say it's a good thing the GOP controls the House, a 13-point dive from the end of last year.
posted by Comrade_robot at 6:12 AM on October 21, 2013


Poll: Majority say the GOP shouldn't control the house

A majority also said that on Election Day last November. Doesn't matter who wins the generic ballot with competent gerrymandering.
posted by spaltavian at 6:24 AM on October 21, 2013 [8 favorites]


jesus god, localroger, thank you for that. If you come back and have some handy, are there particular examples you find useful? I ask because I have to have this discussion all the time.
posted by lodurr at 7:51 AM on October 21, 2013


klangklangston: and freedom more tied to expression and ability to achieve goals.

I feel this at a gut level and always have, but I find it doesn't speak to most people of libertarian or conservative sentiment. So recently I've been trying to frame the value of civil libertarian 'freedom' in terms of its value to 'don't boss me around' freedom by pointing out that it's civil libertarian freedom that enabled the Arab Spring, first and foremost. When they point out that you can't beat guns with mobile phones,* I point out in reply that by the time guns matter, laws against guns are irrelevant.

--
*notwithstanding arguments that in a larger sense, maybe you can.
posted by lodurr at 7:56 AM on October 21, 2013


... also re. the Arab Spring, pointing out that with a sufficiently motivated populace, you didn't need a ton of civil libertarian freedom. Ideally the more we have, the better, but it does us no good to feel powerless because the NSA can read our emails.
posted by lodurr at 7:58 AM on October 21, 2013 [1 favorite]


Nearly all of the provisions of the ACA turn out to be overwhelmingly popular even among Republicans when they are described as hypothetical instead of as part of the ACA.

This phenomenon is precisely what one who says the Dems have ceded the messaging battle to the GOP would predict. It will take a concerted generations-long effort to regain the ground lost since guys like Gingrich (assisted by spinmeisters like Luntz) set about making words like "liberal" and "feminist" pejoratives. (They've even done it with "Democratic", by lopping off the "ic"... and the Dems generally let them do it!). Polling results like these show the consequences of this very clearly: people are actually quite liberal, in a classical sense, but they self-identify as "moderate" or even "conservative".

Sure, OK, utilitarianism. But for a lot of folks, what causes the most good to the most people is maximizing freedom (which is speciously defined as absence from government interaction) and godliness.

I'm reminded of a truism from systems and optimization theory: any time someone presents something as "the greatest" or "the best", it contains within it a major interpretive pitfall: it's only "the best" with respect to a specific cost function. In that sense, optimization language is a powerful rhetorical trick: whoever controls the definition of the cost function, controls the meaning of "good". Utilitarianism (which I find quite reasonable) is only as good as the criteria used to select what is the "greatest". Libertarianism is similarly afflicted with this: most contemporary self-identified libertarians have never even thought about this question, but accept the cost functions of financial capitalists as if they have the ontological standing of, say, electromagnetic theory or gravitation. They don't. We can make up different cost functions that expand different kinds of freedom other than those enjoyed by top-of-the-foodchain capitalists. Like, say, maximizing our access to clean air, water, and healthy food.

Ideally the more [civil libertarian freedom] we have, the better...

How is "civil libertarian freedom" different than "freedom", in your view? However you define it, as a matter of principle I'd say it is not at all clear that "freedom" is something for which we can say "the more the better". As with individuals, societies are healthy when there is some sort of balance between liberties and constraints, at multiple levels. For example, family and community are social structures that can be viewed as constraints on our liberty, yet most people understand that to be without either is to be adrift and alone. It's worth considering libertarianism/anarchism when it acknowledges this tension between our need for autonomy and our need to belong.
posted by mondo dentro at 8:50 AM on October 21, 2013 [5 favorites]


Drinky Die: What state are you in? I had no trouble setting up the account on the federal exchange site, and last week was able to browe info about plans, but could not have my ID confirmed. So I've put things off, figured all the attention during the Late Congressional Display of Utter Dysfunction was leading people to rubberneck en masse.

Also I dealt with having to activate by phone Windows for use in a Virtual Box AND getting Comcast to fix TCM, which is the only reason to have cable at all, besides occasional sporting events (and then ESPN's sound goes in and out--oh, you superior private sector) so my patience was shot for the week as far as customer tech service goes. I figure I'll wait until I can find proper sedation.
posted by raysmj at 8:54 AM on October 21, 2013 [1 favorite]


PA, using the Federal exchange site. I face a different error or error message each time I have tried to register.

Lucikly, there is still hope: New, Improved Obamacare Program Released On 35 Floppy Disks
posted by Drinky Die at 12:21 PM on October 21, 2013 [5 favorites]


A moment of levity: Pregnant Woman Who Nearly Fainted Behind Obama Today Is 'OK'
While Obama was making the case for the Affordable Care Act, despite the many glitches involved in its rollout, Karmel Allison - a diabetic who was there to show support for Obamacare - began to wobble and looked like she was going to faint. The president turned around and took her arm, saying "There you go, you are ok. I'm right here. I got you."

"This happens when I talk too long," Obama joked before Allison was escorted away. "You'll be okay," the president told her. "She recovered and walked away as the audience applauded," according to a pool report.

On Twitter, Allison said "I'm ok world- just got a little lightheaded.Thanks, @BarackObama for catching me! And good thing this pregnant diabetic is pregnant :)"
posted by zombieflanders at 12:55 PM on October 21, 2013 [1 favorite]


I don't... what? Why?
posted by Justinian at 3:11 PM on October 21, 2013


Fox is going to claim that was so obviously staged.
posted by JHarris at 5:37 PM on October 21, 2013


FALSE FLAG FAINT!
posted by scody at 5:55 PM on October 21, 2013 [3 favorites]


FEINT! Feigned faint!
posted by GrammarMoses at 7:49 PM on October 21, 2013 [6 favorites]


NTSB announces effects of the government shutdown

The hard numbers:
During the shutdown, there were 59 new aviation accidents, of which ten were fatal crashes. In addition, there was a deadly motorcoach crash, a significant pipeline leak, a house explosion caused by a natural gas leak, a fatal grade crossing accident and a fatal transit accident. The agency launched investigators to only two of those accidents where it was determined that there was an imminent threat to life or property.

The NTSB will determine the probable cause of each of the 59 aviation accidents, but some investigations will be limited in scope.
posted by backseatpilot at 2:04 PM on October 22, 2013 [3 favorites]


Some fallout in Virginia's gubernatorial election: Bottom Falls Out For Cuccinelli.
But today’s Rasmussen poll from Virginia is still startling: it shows [Terry McAuliffe] opening up a 17 point lead on [Cuccinelli] (50/33, with 8% for Libertarian Robert Sarvis). This is a poll of likely voters, BTW, so it shows a race not terribly vulnerable to surprising turnout patterns.
posted by Elementary Penguin at 2:17 AM on October 23, 2013 [2 favorites]


Yeah, I'm in northern VA and people here are terrified at the prospect of Cuccinelli winning. As in planning on moving to another state if he does. We have a GOP governor now, but he's kinda middle of the road and hasn't done much that's been particularly obnoxious. Cuccinelli is a fanatic, though.
posted by empath at 3:49 AM on October 23, 2013 [2 favorites]


Crossing my fingers that Virginia is the start of a Democratic wave over the next year. If Republicans can screw up that contest, they can screw up any contest.
posted by octothorpe at 4:33 AM on October 23, 2013 [3 favorites]


There was just a story on NPR about how many states there are where poor people will get NO coverage from the exchange. No medicare, no subsidy. That seems like it is destined to backfire on the GOP. They have a lot of poor rural voters that vote GOP in the south, and I can't believe that they would vote for ideology over free healthcare for very long. It's literally and figuratively suicidal for the GOP to not take the medicaid extension.
posted by empath at 5:51 AM on October 23, 2013


“I believe [expanding Medicaid] is a matter of life and death. It’s going to happen. It’s just a matter of when.”

What un-American leftist commie-lovin' governor would say such a thing? Republican John Kasich of Ohio.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:14 AM on October 23, 2013 [1 favorite]


FWIW, I think the GOP reception in Northern Virginia can be summarized by my father's shifting attitude. He's had a long career in the federal government, been a Republican his whole life. Social issues have never been his thing—he's not religious. Fiscally/foreign policy wise, he's a Republican.

This is a guy who knocked on doors for George W's first term. He regularly donates to the GOP. He was really happy when McCain was nominated, and devastated when Palin was picked. He continues to be baffled by Tea Party types. I suspect, (though he wouldn't fess up to it) that he voted for Obama in 2012.

He didn't believe the GOP would allow the shutdown to happen. Then he didn't think it would last a week.

He's voting for Sarvis, acknowledging that it is a vote for McAuliffe.
posted by fontophilic at 6:31 AM on October 23, 2013 [1 favorite]


Kasich is an interesting case. He squeaked into office (49%-47% versus Ted Strickland. He won by 77,000 votes,) in 2010 thanks to broad support from the state's Tea Party activists. He's up for re-election in 2014 and in the ensuing years the Tea Party has soured on him. They've protested his decision to expand Medicaid. He's raised taxes on gas and oil companies, which further pissed them off.

There has been talk of running a third party extreme right candidate to split the vote -- which would virtually guarantee the election go to the Dems. But if Tea Partiers simply stay home on election day he might lose anyway.
posted by zarq at 6:53 AM on October 23, 2013


Election posters from Virginia: "Don't Let Election Day Go Down Without You" and "Get Your Head In The Game"
posted by octothorpe at 6:59 AM on October 23, 2013 [1 favorite]


That seems like it is destined to backfire on the GOP. They have a lot of poor rural voters that vote GOP in the south, and I can't believe that they would vote for ideology over free healthcare for very long. It's literally and figuratively suicidal for the GOP to not take the medicaid extension.

Voter suppression will take care of that!
posted by scody at 8:46 AM on October 23, 2013 [2 favorites]


... they have a lot of poor rural voters that vote GOP in the south, and I can't believe that they would vote for ideology over free healthcare for very long.

Well, white rural southern poor have been voting for ideology over prosperity since, what, 1865? So, not sure healthcare is going to change that for them.
posted by mondo dentro at 10:12 AM on October 23, 2013 [2 favorites]


That darn Obama took their medicaid!
posted by Artw at 10:28 AM on October 23, 2013 [3 favorites]


It's literally and figuratively suicidal for the GOP to not take the medicaid extension.

I field several emails a day from people who use our subsidy calculator and and are rightfully confused and furious as to why their family of 4 with an annual income of $12,000 would see premiums of $6200 and they're not eligible for a subsidy and it's Obama they're mad at.

It's my job to pass these emails on to the (beleaguered) staffer whose job it is to answer them, which is good because my answer would be "Because you live in a stupid state that chooses not to expand Medicaid to cover you. Blame your governor and legislators."
posted by rtha at 10:54 AM on October 23, 2013 [10 favorites]


What a disaster. Even Obama is talking about delays now.
posted by Justinian at 3:57 PM on October 23, 2013


What a disaster. Even Obama is talking about delays now.

Unless something's changed in the last 30 minutes, that's not really true. AFAIK, Obama hasn't said anything, and the only thing remotely close is a few Senators, and they're not really delaying anything:
The discriminating reader will notice that [the reports talk about] two different things. The mandate is the tax that non-insured people will have to pay; the enrollment deadline is the enrollment deadline. Twenty-two House Democrats and Joe Manchin have previously been on the record for a one-year mandate delay, but that's not what's being talked about here.

FUD is already part of the storyline. Here, the conservative PAC America Rising reports that Sen. Mark Begich has "flip-flopped on the individual mandate" because he now wants some unspecified time added to the enrollment clock. Here's the NRCC saying Rep. Jared Polis "today called for 'waivers' from the federal government for his constituents who don’t buy health insurance." What Polis actually wants -- one year of waivers for residents of Summit County, Colorado, until they could be consolidated with other counties in the state's exchange and drive their rates down.

This is obviously a story of Democrats facing re-election and sweating negative feedback from the troubled roll-out. No spinning that. Democratic hypocrisy? Well: The Republicans who wanted a one-year delay specifically wanted it to knock out the foundations of the law. The Democrats who want to fiddle with the deadline now don't want to end the mandate -- they want to maximize the numbers of enrollments. The moral hazard of a short delay is hardly comparable to that of a one-year punt.

But I remember when Manchin's previous endorsement of a mandate delay was interpreted, by Republicans, as the first blocks coming down the walls of Jericho. I'm girded for a sequel -- with a fresh new subplot about how "Republicans offered this and Democrats rejected it," for all you gullible people.
BTW Joe Manchin and some House Dems talking about delays is so 2011.
posted by zombieflanders at 4:13 PM on October 23, 2013 [3 favorites]




zombieflanders: You're right, sources are claiming that the Administration is pondering a delay to the deadline for applying, not delaying the individual mandate.
posted by Justinian at 4:24 PM on October 23, 2013


“I believe [expanding Medicaid] is a matter of life and death. It’s going to happen. It’s just a matter of when.”

I assure you, Kasich gets no joy from that declaration. He's just suffering from a rare moment of honesty about the elephant in the room-- that the expansion of healthcare is inevitable. I happen to believe that full-blown single-payer healthcare in the USA is inevitable too (albeit a ways down the road, thanks to assholes like Kasich). The imperative for Republican politicians is that it happens during somebody else's career, not their own.
posted by Rykey at 4:26 PM on October 23, 2013


mondo dentro: How is "civil libertarian freedom" different than "freedom", in your view?

In my view, it's not. Most of the people I've met who use the unqualified term "freedom" as a reason for the political actions or opinions would have a double-standard on the matter, though: some people deserve to be free of surveillance, other people ought to be surveilled. Often there's also a racial or nationalistic component.

Personally I take the broad view: If it's freedom for me, it should be freedom for the person who just immigrated from Saudi. I've pretty much always taken that view, even back when I was a hard-core Conservative Libertarian (which was over 30 years ago).
posted by lodurr at 5:29 PM on October 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


It seems to me the two may actually be opposed in some respects. In American libertarianism freedom seems to be focused on the freedom to own anything as private property even at the expense of others as long as their involvement can in some way be characterized as "voluntary," whereas a standard use of freedom may include freedom from this sort of exploitation and freedom to access and share resources. I guess with American libertarianism everything is always supposed to be happening "voluntarily" because it is based on "free" markets or whatever, even if this were to ultimately lead to massive wealth disparity and abject, dismal poverty for a majority of people.
posted by Golden Eternity at 8:29 PM on October 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


The Reign Of Morons: Absurdity In The Senate
There was an act of absurdity in the U.S. Senate yesterday -- and it was not called "convening for the day," ya bastids. There were 27 Republican senators who voted "symbolically" to repudiate their own actual votes a couple of weeks ago to raise the debt ceiling. This is every single Republican who voted to raise the debt ceiling. It is important to know this because the ranks of the repudiators include notable "moderates" like Kelly Ayotte and our reasonable friend from South Carolina, Huckleberry J. Butchmeup. This is important to know because of the simple fact that, for pure, sweaty, bowel-whitening fear, there is no such thing as a Republican "moderate" any more. They are all terrified, at one level or another, of empowered and weaponized insanity.

You may recall that John Kerry once was lampooned from hell to breakfast for having voted for something before he was against it. Haw, haw. These clowns, because they live in terror of billionaires who write checks, and angry shut-ins who buy gold from Glenn Beck, and costumed clowns in tricornered hats, just did something far beyond anything Kerry ever did. They voted to apologize to those very forces for having been responsible enough to keep the United States from defaulting on its fiscal obligations. This may well have been the silliest vote ever taken in the history of the United States Senate, and that is saying something, indeed.

Consider what it means. For 12 days, the government shut down, and the country flirted with default, because a rump faction of the House of Representatives in the worst Congress ever elected, led by a renegade senator from Texas who belongs in a zoo, scared the entire Republican party into a dangerous inertia. Finally, with even the Chamber of Commerce howling in anger, the Senate voted a stop-gap measure aimed at keeping the absolute worst from happening. It managed to pass the House, primarily through Democratic votes. The worst was averted. Temporarily. Now, while we're all hanging fire to see what happens after the first of the year, the people who did the right thing, and helped the country avoid the fiscal abyss, find themselves obligated, essentially, to apologize to the people who did the most damage, and to the people who supported them, because, otherwise, there might be a political price to be paid for not wrecking the economy. This is not leadership. This is submitting to an ideological show trial because you want to keep your job at the expense of actually doing your job.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:47 AM on October 30, 2013 [12 favorites]


Stay wanky, CNN.

Wanky News: Good or Bad?
posted by homunculus at 1:23 PM on October 30, 2013 [2 favorites]


Republicans Declare Yet Another War
With votes slated for Thursday, Senate Republicans were poised to reject by filibuster the nomination of Rep. Mel Watt (D-N.C.) to head a major federal housing agency. Patricia Millett’s bid for a seat on the prestigious D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals also looked to be right on the margin of getting the 60 votes needed defeat a filibuster.

The two standoffs come as a group of other Republicans, led by Sens. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.), have threatened to filibuster the nominations of Janet L. Yellen for Federal Reserve chairman, Jeh Johnson for homeland security secretary and a host of other presidential picks.
Sure enough, Watt and Millett have been blocked, and Yellen is being blocked two ways. Rand Paul plans to hold her nomination until he gets a vote on his father's "Audit the Fed" hobbyhorse, and Graham and McCain are blocking both Yellen and Johnson until they "get answers" on Benghazi.

So that's that. All of these are perfectly ordinary, well-qualified candidates without any special ideological baggage. Except that they're liberals, of course. Apparently that's enough. Republicans are back to war.
posted by zombieflanders at 10:48 AM on October 31, 2013 [3 favorites]


« Older These were the people I loved. They said "Chink"...   |   The Ultimate (Frisbee) Argument For Visiting... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments