Updated! Down Goes Boehner: Will Put Senate Bill to End Shutdown, Raise Debt Ceiling to Vote in House
Scroll down for update at 1pm ET
Politico is reporting
[Sen. Harry] Reid (D-Nev.) and [Sen. Mitch] McConnell (R-Ky.) are very close to finishing an agreement to reopen the government through Jan. 15, lift the debt ceiling through Feb. 7 and develop a bicameral budget committee that would be required to develop a conference report by Dec. 13. The deal would also deliver back pay to furloughed federal workers, require income verification for people seeking health-insurance subsidies under the Affordable Care Act and also allow the Treasury Department to use extraordinary measures to pay the nation's bills if Congress doesn't raise the debt ceiling by Feb. 7.
There's this:
The bill will barely scathe Obamacare, however, and putting it on the floor will mark a huge concession by the House after sparking a 16-day government shutdown over insistence that the health care law be defunded or delayed as a condition to keep the government open. Dozens of conservatives in the House will be disappointed by the proposal and House Speaker John Boehner will need Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to deliver a bevy of votes to pass the bill.
Via Instapundit and Hot Air.
Though it's a Senate bill, it will be voted on in the House first as a way to expedite passage. It's still not clear whether Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) or Mike Lee (R-Utah) will bottle it up in the upper house or not.
Well, this is how the world ends, right? Not with a bang but with a whimper.
That said, I hope that someone in either party takes seriously the spending challenge posed by recent years and uses the proposed budget committee as a platform to explain why outlays need to be pruned back substantially. The short version is that under the best possible realistic scenarios, there's no way that spending and revenues will come close aligning. If the CBO is correct, they will narrow briefly before diverging. Neither the Senate nor the president's budget plans even bother to pretend to balance the budget and the House Republican version relies on, among other things, revenue from Obamacare taxes (while not including any spending on same). Reining in spending and reducing debt is not, as I've written, an "accounting fetish." It is a much-needed corrective to hugely expansionary and destructive increases in the size, scope, and spending of the federal government. Everyone from Barack Obama to Paul Krugman to Rand Paul agrees we've got a debt problem. But only one of those three acknowledges that we do today is implicated.
Update: Politico reports around 1pm ET:
McConnell's caucus showed remarkable unity after he briefed them on the contours of the deal, and conservatives said they will not block swift passage of the legislation in the Senate. After leaving the meeting, conservative senators said they will allow swift passage of the bill. Asked if he'd block a quick vote, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) answered: "Of course not."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Pretty sure that if one were so inclined they'd find a post from me saying this would happen the day the shutdown began. Far too lazy to actually look for it myself though.
Everyone knew this would happen from day one.
BLANK CHECK OR DOOOOOOOOOOOOM!
Boehner: 'Oh, well, if you put it that way! We'll just cave in.'
Accomplished nothing aside from damaging themselves politically. Excellent work.
The Stupid Party in a nutshell.
Well, if one were to be generous, there was one thing accomplished: the opportunity was given for the administration and its lackeys, the National Park Service, to thug out, and they took it. That was pretty fucking bad PR for them, closing parks and using gun-toting goons to keep old people away from memorials.
But there's no way I'm going to attribute that to GOP planning; it was just a side effect.
I think people will remember that crap longer than they will remember the shutdown. And it made it clear which party is responsible for Obamacare. That point can't be made enough. Every Dem Senator had to go on record voting to keep Obamacare and put it into effect this year.
Every Dem Senator had to go on record voting to keep Obamacare and put it into effect this year.
I hate to tell you John, but I believe the majority of voters think that's a good thing.
I'm feeling very cynical today though.
The polls say otherwise. And as I said on the other thread, if they are willing to see their health care get rationed and become significantly more expensive and like it, then we are all wasting our time anyway.
The reason Obamacare polls so poorly is simple. They can only poll the living. If they want to poll all likely voters, they need to include the dead.
There is that.
They are (willing) and we are (wasting).
And as I said on the other thread, if they are willing to see their health care get rationed and become significantly more expensive and like it, then we are all wasting our time anyway.
There's nothing in that formula that can't be blamed on republicans or the Koch brothers.
Sure it can, if people are complete morons who will believe ridiculous things. And again, if America is populated by morons who will believe anything the media tells them, then we are all wasting our time.
I think it depends on what your goals are. Look, I'd love to see the culture of this country change, become more fiscally responsible, value individual liberty and personal responsibility, etc., and I proselytize every chance I get. Hell, I'm even involved in local politics to those ends. But at the end of the day, my goal is to keep as much of the Fed and the Prog mouthbreathers on their collectives heels as possible. I think a lot of people *are* morons willing to believe the unbelievable, so my primary goal is to minimize as much as possible the impact of that on my family and me.
To sum up with a metaphor, I'm totally willing to patch the hull and pump the seawater out, but I'm inflating my life raft first, thanks very much.
You're going to have a hard time selling people who work two low wage jobs, with no insurance that rationing is a problem. Less than you want is always better than nothing.
The 'rationing' claim is ridiculous, anyway. What do you think the private insurance market does? Arguing that a 'faceless bureaucrat' is going to be much worse than an insurance company employee, who is focused on the bottom line, doesn't hold water.
Only because the majority of voters haven't had to deal with Obamacare directly.
Yet.
I have a hope that the strong affirmation of Osamacare by Dems will be remembered as more and more of the middle-class and higher find their old plans being replaced by 'compliant' ones with price hikes to match, and more and more of their doctors retiring or going cash-only.
I'm sure the more strident statist pinkos will just call them reactionaries and write their names down for future retaliation.
People will remember this the same way they remember that Benghazi was about a video and that IRS thing was a phony scandal.
Your faith in the American public is honorable, but kind of naive.
If you don't have faith in the public, then I don't see how you can believe in freedom. If they really are all stupid sheep, then the liberals have a point.
Wow, you have been listening to me. This is my age old argument that libertarians necessarily are optimists about human nature. I fell...the opposite of Othered by John. Thanks, I needed that boost.
No, libertarians are realists about human nature. We know that if you concentrate too much power in the hands of a few, they will abuse it. We have no great faith in the judgment or restraint of our fellow man; we want to limit the damage when that judgment is lacking and that restraint ceases to exist.
The sheep and moochers outnumber the rest of us.
WRT Obamacare, the moochers already get Medicaid and will be eligible for OC subsidies, so they don't care, and the sheep will be led to believe that greedy insurance companies and tea party anarchists are to blame for this clusterfuck.
Then you have all of those people who will continue to the ins through their employers, so they won't care either.
So I just don't see this as the moment when enough people will wake up to make any kind of difference.
I'd say libertarians have to be by default optimists about humanfolk's innate smartiness and goodiness but their optimism varies from person to person. It's possible to be an optimist about people and still think they act like sheeple/retards/bastards sometimes.
But it isn't possible to always complain about how dumb they are, and how smart you are by implication, without seeming like a hypocrite. Same applies in regards to people's innate goodness vs wickedness, but I've never seen anyone here accuse the voting public of being a bunch of baby eating fascists.
What CE said.
I've always understood Libertarians and laissez-faire capitalists as believing that people are innately more good than evil, more smart and intellectually curious than dumb, but also flawed and vulnerable to corruption.
How else could humans make it this far in our evolution as intelligent social animals? It seems we're designed to think and to care for each other.
Therefore letting a small cabal of people run our lives makes no sense, no matter how many fancy degrees they may have.
To complain that the sheeple are irredeemably too dumb for freedom suggests the collectivists, social engineers and socialists win... for then, the inherent problems of having a small group of overlords control us doesn't seem as bad if de-regulation and capitalism means chaos and suffering.
Ketogenic, you are mixing up freedom with democracy. This is something Americans do frequently.
The irony here is that it's usually autocratic systems that have better resistance to tyranny. If a king breaks a constitution, he will appear tyrannical, rebels will pop up and claim the law on their side.
But if a President breaks the law, he can claim to be the "vox populi", the voice of the people, as the old Roman Consuls would.
Just as how Obama and Bush frequently trampled the constitution without so much as a shot fired despite millions of American soldiers and police having taken oaths to defend that constitution from precisely such a "domestic" enemy.
To clarify, a great example is how when Hitler took over the Weimar Republic, the people who believe in democratic forms of government generally bowed to his popularity.
It was monarchists like von Stauffenberg, Ludwig Beck, Bonhoeffer, etc. who formed serious resistance and risked everything to kill Hitler.
Even the left-wing, like the SPD, they just disbanded and basically plotted to wait him out (understandably).
But what about faith in the na?vet? of the American public?
And, to be sure, the GOP could still make very tasty lemonade of that and of the still existing need to dramatically cut spending. Will they? Be shocked if they do in anything beyond a few rhetorical flourishes.
Rhetorical flourishes are the heart of politickin'
No, because we never hear on TV how much spending has increased since 2007. They only talk about the deficit, as if tax revenues aren't already far more than needed to fund a very large and active federal government.
"That was pretty fucking bad PR for them, closing parks and using gun-toting goons to keep old people away from memorials."
Not from what I've seen. It was blamed on the rethugs and no one seemed to correct the impression.
No, I think both parties (and the president) took some pretty good hits during all of this. And it's not really over--just another punt.
I personally think the GOP should've made a much bigger stand, to force major and permanent spending cuts, including ACA, but not just that. Of course, since they don't really want to do that, they did no such thing.
Also, maybe shortly the speaker of the house won't be an orange crybaby.
That was pretty fucking bad PR for them
How much of this really got into the MSM, though? (I don't have time to watch TV much any more.)
This is so predictable, I suspect Nick pre-wrote the article on October 1 and was just waiting to hit the "post" button.
Well, admit it, the article does kind of write itself.
And had that WINNING alt-text prepped too!
develop a bicameral budget committee that would be required to develop a conference report by Dec. 13.
Those fuckers should be locked in the basement of an abandoned house in Detroit until they produce this "report".
Dominos pizza and mountain Dew.
The consequences should be Sequester 2: The Slashening.
Nice. I was thinking the Papal conclave of 1268. Bread and water ... and if they're slow, remove the fucking roof.
A committee to make recommendations on the budget. What a brilliant idea! I wonder why nobody ever thought of that before?
"Dominos pizza" was a fun Michigan touch.
Also, you know who else was locked in the basement of an abandoned house?
Batman?
The thing is that while the Republicans control the House, they don't own every seat. If every Dem is willing to vote for something, it only takes what, 20 Republicans to get a majority? Maybe 30 but not many more. What is happening here is the left wing of the Republican caucus is breaking and with that forming a majority with the Dems.
As bad as Boehner is, I am not really sure anyone could have prevented that. The individual Reps do not have to vote as he tells them. I don't see how anyone could keep blue state Republicans in line. It is frankly a miracle it lasted this long.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hastert_Rule
Thanks. I did not know that. So Boehner did roll. I stand corrected. Fucking bastard.
So in other words, this was just a paid vacation for a bunch of overpaid, over-entitled assholes. Got it.
At least the overpaid, over-entitled assholes couldn't vacation in public parks.
Who got to complain about it for several weeks.
You knew that. I see the value of doing it. It forced the Dems to own Obamacare. But after they forced the vote in the Senate, if they were going to cave, they should have just caved then. What was the point of continuing? They had to have known the more left wing Republicans were going to break eventually.
They should have not linked this with the debt ceiling. The thing is that fairly or unfairly, the credit rating agencies started making noises over the debt ceiling in the last few days. Once that happened, the Dems could legitimately claim this thing could cause real harm.
Take the debt issue away and we are left with the partial shutdown. No one but mostly dem voting public employees noticed that at all. The Republicans could have held out forever on that. Hell, shut the government down for a year. No one would have noticed. But the debt ceiling was more serious and thus actually took away the Republicans' leverage.
This was one of the problems with the GOP tactics, bluring the shut down with the debt ceiling. They should have just passed a "clean" debt ceiling bill that went on for 6 months or something like that. Then batled over the shutdown, assuming the shutdown itself had merit.
your suggestion presumes an honest battle to be had over the debt ceiling or, for that matter, over anything else. That's one thing about Obama - we don't have the usual political deal making.
We have the far more incendiary version, with opponents labeled as terrorists or hostage-takers or something else. Hard to have good faith debate in that sort of scenario.
Exactly. They somehow convinced themselves they had more leverage with the debt ceiling. They had less leverage. The problem is that Obama doesn't give a shit. I think he actually default the country out of spite. You really can't play chicken with someone like that
But on the government shutdown, they were the ones who were willing to go all of the way. The Dems had more to lose on that issue than the Republicans.
Well its that the debt ceiling oculd actually have some major eocnomic affects if markets get spooked.
With the shutdown, virtually no one noticed.
The problem with how they did the shutdown those is that they were just flailing around with different demands, rather than picking a single purpose, pounding that out in the media talk for a month prior and making this a very clear thing, so that its Obama going ot bat to keep the healthcare bill.
Instead, to the muchy voter, it was republicans shutting down the government for no clear reason, and the media having a field day.
That too. Where they really fucked up was after they made their point with Obamacare, they should have passed a bill funding it but doing something that is popular but the Dems hate. To me Keystone was a no brainer. After the Dems in the Senate went on record funding Obamacare, the House should have said fine, here is your funding for Obmacare but in that bill is a rider requiring Obama to approve Keystone.
Then it would have been the Dems refusing to open the government after getting what they wanted. They would have had to have rolled over and the Republicans would have gotten something worth having out of this.
Except that Hairy Reid would have refused to let it come up for a vote while saying 'he won't let a small minority in the House use the budgetary process to force a policy question yada yada yada. They need to pass a clean funding bill for Obamacare and we can debate Keystone later and separately.'
I think the real damage for the stupid party will be later. The D's will use a vote to fund Obamacare as support for it.
Reid would have said that but that dog wouldn't have hunted. The typical low interest low information voter would have just seen Obama and Reid getting their way and still not being happy. It would have changed the entire dynamic.
And as far as voting to fund Obmaacare, most Republicans are going to vote against that. Only a small minority in swing districts will vote yes.
Beyond that, you can't spend weeks claiming that Republicans are evil and want to destroy the government because they hate Obamacare so much and then turn around the next year and claim they really support it. That is a bridge too far even for the Dems. The Dems own Obamacare. There is no getting out of that.
You're far more optimistic than I am, John. I saw the various news outlets doing exactly that for the past two weeks. No mention of the spending bills that Reid kept bottled up but a whole lot on Boehner doing that very thing.
As for the ownership, I say just wait. Down the road when (or if) R's try to fight against Obamacare, this and and any other funding bill that R's vote for will be used against them.
The whole default thing is bullshit anyway, bond payments only require about 18% of tax revenue, any other spending is discretionary and not covered by the 14th Amendment.
Yep, you're not the only one saying that. Everyone from Erick Erickson at RedState to me has been saying "get the debt ceiling battle pushed into the future (but not past the 2014 elections) so we can fight this fight".
Stupid party strikes again.
Stupid party strikes again.
It will be interesting to see of Boehner is still Speaker after 2014.
Yeah, why pay them for work not done? We could have at least had SOME budget savings.
Who could possibly have seen that coming.
I'd hoped that we'd get at least a day at the debt ceiling. Maybe see a few people admit that reaching the debt ceiling doesn't mean immediately defaulting.
This is what I was hoping for.
As I was just saying, "Our long national nightmare continues."
The fact that John Boehner has spent this entire shutdown episode completely wasted makes me respect him just a little. I have fun explaining to my foreign friends one of the more arcane rituals of our governing system: it ain't over till Boehner tears hit the lecturn.
Hey, Tony, How's that Obamacare roll-out going? Haven't seen you comment on that. Is it all you just knew it would be?
Hey, Tony? Tony? TONY????? Is this thing on? No comment on OC rollout?
I don't know because I've been paying attention to the spectacle of Republicans pissing all over the place and then drowning in the puddles.
I don't know because I've been paying attention to the spectacle of Republicans pissing all over the place and then drowning in the puddles.
Read as: "I've been too busy hitting f5 trying to sign up for 2 weeks to comment on it."
yes, but the Repub spectacle will join Egypt and Syria in the forgotten zone the day after tomorrow. O-care, meanwhile, not going anywhere for a while. Get it a Snickers bar.
You may be right. Then again, the tea party people aren't just going to shut up after this.
The grapevine has it they're going after impeachment next. Snickers indeed.
O-care will implode all by itself. Impeachment is hardly an irrational route, considering how The Obama has ignored/delayed provisions of the law he finds inconvenient.
Repubs should just get out of its way, let people feel the pain for themselves.
I don't think they can get out of the way as long as they control the House. A vote to fund will be a vote to support Obamacare.
Something to be said for that. It's a shame that the innocent will be hit by it, but I am just as giddy as a school girl at the prospect of seeing the faces of all the idiots who voted for Obama (including some friends and acquaintances who can't understand why I'd be against "free" healthcare...) when they find out what their new premiums will be. If you get the government you deserve, then maybe America needs to feel the pain of unfettered Progressive government in order to reform itself in the long run.
I don't know
Right. Sure.
I don't know because I've been paying attention to the spectacle of Republicans pissing all over the place and then drowning in the puddles.
I always suspect that you were a golden shower aficianado.
Tony thinks Boehner represents the Tea Party.
I had someone tell me a week or so ago that Santorum was a "big tea party guy"
They're so dumb.
They're been focusing their two-minute hate drills on Boehner for so long, they've convinced themselves that he's their enemy.
John Boehner is more Obama's representative to the Tea Party than he's the Tea Party's representative to Obama. Just goes to show how much progressives depend on low-information voters.
I don't think anyone considers Boehner a Tea Partier. Just someone who mostly refuses to stand up to the Tea Party.
standing up to the group whose election made you speaker is such smart strategy that he will likely lose his title.
My girlfriend thinks the Tea Party cares more about social conservatism than fiscal conservatism. This must be the talking point on lefty sites.
My girlfriend thinks the Tea Party cares more about social conservatism than fiscal conservatism. This must be the talking point on lefty sites.
I think she's right, for the most part. At the very least they care about both equally, which is just as bad.
Really? Please name a single socon policy initiative the Tea Party Republicans in Congress are pushing. I can't think of one.
Is Ted Cruz or Rand Paul demanding Congress ban abortion or homosexuality? Are the Republicans in the House passing bills to further criminalize porn?
What concrete proposals make you say that?
Is Ted Cruz or Rand Paul demanding Congress ban abortion or homosexuality? Are the Republicans in the House passing bills to further criminalize porn?
I was referring more to the citizens than the senators. It appears they care about preventing fags from getting married just as much as Obamacare, and when it comes to cutting military spending they shit bricks.
It appears they care about preventing fags from getting married just as much as Obamacare, and when it comes to cutting military spending they shit bricks.
I don't see that at all. Show me the evidence that causes you to think that? Where are Cruz and Paul taking any kind of heat for not pursuing these policies? I don't see where they are. And if they are not, I don't see how you can say the Tea Party cares so much about these issues. The only reason you say that is because the Tea Party is full of people culturally you find icky, so you automatically assume they are not really what they appear to be.
Until Libertarians get over their "oh my God we can't be seen with those people" attitude, they will never accomplish anything.
The only reason you say that is because the Tea Party is full of people culturally you find icky, so you automatically assume they are not really what they appear to be.
No, I say that based on various comments sections that I peruse around the internet which have led me to these conclusions.
I hardly find Paul to be a "Tea Party" person. Cruz fits the description a little better, but still not quite.
I don't find them "icky" people, I just don't find them to be libertarians; they're still OK with a slightly smaller Big Government, in my eyes. -NOBODY- is out there saying "You know what? We should cut the federal budget 80%."
I am OK with the fact that they want to cut government a little bit, and to the point where their ends and mine coincide I will continue to support their efforts; where their ends do not coincide with mine I won't support their efforts.
No, I say that based on various comments sections that I peruse around the internet which have led me to these conclusions.
Since when are internet comments sections indicative of anything? Moreover, show me which ones and provide some links.
hardly find Paul to be a "Tea Party" person.
Both the Tea Party and Paul himself would disagree. The fact that you claim Paul isn't really a Tea Party person just says that Tea Party to you mans someone you don't like.
The Tea Party is the first no kidding grass roots small government movement in God knows how long. And sure enough, Libertarians hate it and manage to convince themselves they shouldn't associate with it.
And sure enough, Libertarians hate it and manage to convince themselves they shouldn't associate with it.
WTF? I didn't say I hate the TP. I just said that I don't agree with some of the things I see their members supporting.
Go read the comments section at the Daily Caller sometime if you want my take on the TP.
And yes, I do base my opinion of a political movement on what members of that political movement declare themselves proponents of.
I just said that I don't agree with some of the things I see their members supporting.
That should be a given for any group of people, or is there some group where you agree 100% with all their members?
Rand Paul wrote The Tea Party Goes to Washington.
"No, I say that based on various comments sections that I peruse around the internet which have led me to these conclusions."
Ah. So no evidence then. I see.
If you care to cite sources, perhaps you might be able to, dare I say, "reason" with everyone here.
Tea Party is full of people culturally you find icky,
I'd like to add John that if you were to meet me, you'd probably find me culturally "icky."
I'd like to add John that if you were to meet me, you'd probably find me culturally "icky."
Doubtful. I generally don't judge people's tastes and lifestyle choices. I don't care if you are a born again Baptist or a secular atheist. That is your business not mine. And I have no problem being in a political movement with either.
The only "culture" issue I find objectionable is snobbery. Otherwise, to each their own.
Until Libertarians get over their "oh my God we can't be seen with those people" attitude, they will never accomplish anything.
There's *WAY* more than that keeping the LP from accomplishing quite literally anything.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T.....mographics
Yeah, the TEA Party looks to me like a bunch of run-of-the-mill Republicans with a new label and a new enthusiasm.
I am sure they do Juice. Of course you have no facts to back that up. But I don't doubt you think that. The rest of us need facts and evidence before we make such conclusions. But don't let that stop you from concern trolling.
A significant number of people who self-identify as supporters of the "tea party" movement in the Republican party come out pretty strong against stuff like gay marriage and abortion. That's not to say that "tea party" Reps are proposing bills banning homosexuality, of course, nor does it imply that they aren't primarily concerned with fiscal responsibility, but the "base" appears to be, at least in part, socially conservative as well as fiscally conservative. Which is fine, because I think it's easier to move from a classical liberal economic system to a libertarian culture than from a soc-dem style Keynesian economy, but I'm just sayin' there's a socon element to the "tp" that materialized about six years ago. They're closer to the Constitution Party than the Libertarian Party.
Yes John, personal impressions of people who consider themselves Tea Party are of course no evidence at all of what people who consider themselves Tea Party believe. Unlike your stellarly sourced understanding of the Tea Party. Where were those cites, again?
Really guys, you need to stop taking John seriously when he goes on his "anyone who disagrees with me is an ignorant troll" rants, his head is too far up his ass to see anything he doesn't want to see.
So you completely missed the kerfuffle a year or so ago when 17 Tea Party groups and GOProud signed a letter about "not wanting to go down the social policy rabbit hole"?
SoCons were ready to kick GOProud in the teeth over that one, despite the fact that they didn't even write the letter, they just signed onto something a bunch of Tea Party groups wrote.
John -
Not sure if you'll see this, but I'm going to agree with others that the Tea Party seems to have a fairly religious/conservative stance based upon their main membership.
I don't know if this holds true across the US, but this is certainly true in the STL region and likely in a couple of others places at minimum (& I say this as a good thing - they're mostly decentralized so regional Tea Party groups differ from each other in some ways, though with enough individual groups - at least a few of them will likely have a majority of members who are also religious conservatives).
"House Speaker John Boehner will need Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to deliver a bevy of votes to pass the bill."
Do you understand what that sentence means, Tony?
It means the Tea Party loses. They get nothing. Good day sir.
It means that because John Boehner doesn't have the support of the Tea Party, he has to turn to Democrats to get his spending bill passed.
It means John Boehner is basically working for Nancy Pelosi, now. It means all the stupid shit people say about John Boehner being a Tea Party obstruction to Obama is just stupid, uninformed shit.
It means you're a fucking idiot, Tony.
I'm struggling to find your point.
You always do. Try looking atop your head sometime.
How's the Obamacare roll-out going, Tony?
Not spectacularly, what's your point?
You mean, you've been wrong about OC? It's not the fabulous program you promised us? We didn't get to keep our doctors or our policies if we liked them? Our premiums increased? The policies offered on the exchanges are expensive with incredibly high deductibles and out-of-pocket expenses? The plans offer limited doctor, hospital and specialist networks?
Right. Right. It's early days. The Lightbringer will make everything all right.
Keep hope alive, Tony. Keep hope alive.
When did I promise a fabulous program?
Oh you're so silly. Remember Tony doesn't really like Obamacare, cause he thinks it doesn't go far enough. He wants single-payer healthcare. Cause government should pretty much run everything(or everything)in his twisted world.
.....what's your point?
That you're a moron.
Hey retards, did you notice that you feeding Tony got you absolutely nowhere? How's THAT working out for you?
How's whining about it working out for you?
I'm not sure pointing out factual issues with government policies is "whining" and I don't know if any of it actually "works out" for anyone in particular, but openly commenting on current events as they happen is quite a bit more honest than deliberately hiding from threads which demonstrate your team's active failures.
...RAP the BATTELS Say it loud and say it proud, we're all Keynesians now.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Nick, you so funny!
OT: not sure if this got in the long-winded AM Links:
Analysis: Obamacare glitches scare off many Web site users
Most people don't care enough to spend a lot of time doing this. They are going to give up.
Especially, as you've pointed out, the number of young people needed to make this float. Without their dollars to subsidize the moochers, the exchanges will go broke very quickly. But these are people who get irritated very fast if tech applications work like shit; they don't have the patience to wait very long for a website to operate properly.
The catch is that the federal website, at least, is architecturally unsound and will never operate smoothly without a complete overhaul at this point. So you're right that most of the people they really need to make this thing go will simply give up and either seek other venues or just take the penaltax.
But these are people who get irritated very fast if tech applications work like shit; they don't have the patience to wait very long for a website to operate properly.
I order misc. hardware/connectors/bullshit from a company that has a salesperson who comes around once a month.
I tried to use their website once. The online catalog is so shitty I immediately stopped and haven't tried since. It's been probably 4 years now.
I expect the web site to be similar to http://www.usajobs.gov in quality. I'm not expecting much.
I read yesterday that the biggest problem with the website is that they didn't want people to know up front out horribly expensive it is. So they make people put in all of their information before getting a quote. That apparently bottlenecks the entire system. From what I read, no system could work like that. But they never want people to easily know just how expensive this is. So they are not going to change that and thus the website is unlikely to ever function properly.
that's govt at work, at least govt run by the left - hide reality, as if no one will ever discover it. It's the thing I hate most about the left - its refusal to honestly say what it wants.
Also, once the privacy concerns becomes a bigger story, and other stories about how this has facilitated identity theft get out, it's going to drive a lot of people away.
This is going to be one epic clusterfuck.
That too. The identity theft is going to be huge. If you are a budding identity thief, wouldn't Obamacare navigator be the job for you?
Shreek claims "150,000 (somethinged) in the state exchanges", none in the fed's site.
I'm still looking for one (1) *confirmed* insurance purchase through any of them.
Semi OT:
Unintentionally funny news story on NPR out of China today:
Chinese people can't figure out why the U.S. isn't in chaos and there aren't riots due to our "government shutdown" (all implications of scare quotes implied).
Our media and administration have so successfully sold this word "shutdown" that internationally, people actually believe that the government is shut down. Imagine their surprise if they were to find out that some insignificant paper shufflers have been sent home on a temporary vacation with back pay, yet the enforcement arm of the government is in full...fucking...swing, let alone all the overtime and jobs added to aid with the "shutdown".
It also shows a lack of understanding of the separation of local vs. Federal Government. Imagine if there was a true Federal Government shutdown. 100% of the employees stopped working, military included. Other than the significant hit in consumer spending, what would be the impact on day to day lives of non-employees/dependents? Nothing.
It's only the leeches that lose.
. 100% of the employees stopped working, military included. Other than the significant hit in consumer spending, what would be the impact on day to day lives of non-employees/dependents?
Honestly?
I think there'd be a bigger economic boon than the end of WW2.
Just think about all of the economic destruction that would stop -instantly.-
Just think about all of the economic destruction that would stop -instantly.-
The reality is that everyone would continue to obey all of the job killing regulations during such a shutdown, in anticipation of the restart. So yeah, it's just a spending hit.
And yeah, for some, that spending means food on the table. But still, just a spending hit.
A significant hit to GDP is nothing?
A significant hit to GDP is nothing?
Just because the Government doesn't spend the money does not mean the money doesn't get spent, shithead.
Not in Tony land.
Just because the Government doesn't spend the money does not mean the money doesn't get spent, shithead.
I think in the short term it does. Government spending is a part of GDP as calculated. Time would be needed to adjust.
Yes, it is nothing in the context of my argument. I'm not talking about longer term economic disruptions caused by a decrease in spending. I'm talking about day to day lifestyle changes that would result from 1 month without active Federal employees.
As for the GDP hit, if that awoke people to the danger of being dependent on a Government this large, so be it. Before FDR, even the GDP hit could've been shrugged off.
I am a full believer that if the federal government actually did shut down, that any pain I personally feel is well-deserved, and I take it as a personal challenge to work through that pain.
Oh, and Tony, GDP... the operative part of GDP is P, which is 'Production'. The government destroys far more than it produces.
there's still a person that thinks GDP is a useful measure of anything?
"A significant hit to GDP is nothing?"
Fuck me! Did you really just say that? I'm keeping this quote for the next time my liberal friends say I exaggerate lefty economic ignorance. I'll point to your statist insanity and say "See? You cannot parody this shit!"
In the light of the failures of Obamacare, not delaying might in the end be detrimental to Democrats in '14. It's a turd and not getting any better, and now there's no avoiding it.
If Wolf Blitzer and Ezra Klein can both admit it's a dog that should have been delayed, the Tea Party Republicans might end up looking insightful in retrospect.
Mickey Kaus as an interesting take on whether the shutdown distracted from the disaster of OC:
http://dailycaller.com/2013/10.....a-dissent/
It's a turd and not getting any better, and now there's no avoiding it.
It's like taking a shit, forgetting to flush, going on vacation for a couple of weeks, and then coming back to the horror that has grown in your absence.
If you're a Democrate it's like:
Taking a dump, having your spouse insist you flush, refusing to flush, going on vacation, and then coming home to the horror with your spouse standing over you blaming you for the shit storm.
No 'e' on Democrat. ugh.
Correction:
Lady Bertrum|10.16.13 @ 11:40AM|#
'If you're a Democrate it's like: BUUUUSH!'
That might be true. The other thing is that most people will forget the shutdown by next week. The Obamacare failure will go on and on. James Toranto describes the shutdown distraction as like giving a terminal patient morphine. It gave the Dems a reason to feel better this week. But it doesn't change the underlying problem.
Absolutely.
It's time to let them have all the rope they want on ObamaCare.
They're got until the end of Q1 2014. If the insurance companies are losing money--there won't be a speech Obama can make or an editorial the NY Times can write that can save them.
A big issue will be, as we move into next year, how bad the adverse selection problem is on the exchange policies. If it's bad then insurance companies will start losing money, and next year's rates will either skyrocket, and/or companies wil start pulling out of the exchanges. And they we'll see how everyone reacts.
There is one other side effect, companies will start cutting expenses by rationing care. They can only raise rates so much. Demand becomes price sensitive at some point. So they will also have to ration care to save money.
Basically, everyone in America short of a few people who had no insurance and pre-existing and serious conditions is going to see their premiums rise and the availability of their health care shrink.
They can only raise rates so much. Demand becomes price sensitive at some point. So they will also have to ration care to save money.
But Chocolate Nixon assured us that this was just teathuglican hyperbole!!!111one
If you like your plan you can keep it!! Obama and Tony told me that. You mean they were lying?
"If you like your health care plan, you can keep it."
"I did not have sex with that woman."
"I am not a crook."
"Most transparent administration ever."
"We are not actively prosecuting legal marijuana growers/users."
"We do not spy on our citizens."
"We are willing to negotiate."
"ACA will lower healthcare costs."
companies will start cutting expenses by rationing care.
but but but death panels is just a fox news lie. tony told me so.
Rationing? Expenses? John, John, John..."scarcity", "expenses", and "demand" are just silly stories that Republican "economists" invented to beguile the proletariat into supporting their fat-cat capitalist masters! I mean, come on, we invented US dollars! We print them right here in the US of A! We can just print more whenever we need them!
It's about getting rid of the pre-existing condition exclusion a full six quarters before the penaltax kicks in.
The insurers are going to have to pay for people with pre-existing conditions for six quarters before the penaltax kicks in.
The insurers are going to lose a lot of money on paying for people with pre-existing conditions, and that's supposed to be covered by healthy people buying insurance. But why would healthy people suddenly start buying insurance a full six quarters before the penaltax kicks in?
Because Obama wants them to?
Q1 2014, that's the first quarter the insurance companies report earnings after they have to start covering pre-existing conditions--and if they're losing money at that point, ObamaCare isn't going to survive until April 15, 2015, when the penaltax kicks in.
And I would expect the charges for covering people with pre-existing conditions to be MUCH higher than they are now.
The bulk of the large insurers revenu comes from corporate group plans and most companies are hedging their bets on the exchanges by limiting themselves to only some states.
They may very well lose money on the exchanges, but its likely not going to dominate their earnings.
All those people with pre-existing conditions? They weren't screening them out before for nothing!
Remember, variable costs there are a function of who you treat that's sick. It's a relatively small portion of their policy holders that account for the lion's share of their costs.
And all those people with pre-existing conditions have an enormous incentive to sign up now--much more of an incentive than healthy people who want to avoid paying a relatively small fee sixteen and a half months later.
The Obama Administration argued for years that the pre-existing condition exclusion couldn't be gotten rid of without the individual mandate--for a reason! I see no good reason to doubt them on that.
Preexisting conditions only become a problem for you if you havent previously had insurance. HIPPA rules allow you to transfer to another plan if you have been insured within the last 3 months I believe it is. So anyone on a compnay group plan or anything sho was previously individually insured does not have that problem.
The only problme are people who went a long time without insurance, then develop a chronic issue and then expect below market insurance rates.
This problem, though does exist, was blown way out of proportion during the whole debate, because it polled well for the dems. People got scared, oh my god that could be me!. Without knowing that if you just saty insured it wont effect you.
So no, for the entirety of the insurance market these people are not that big of a deal. But they could create an adverse selefction problem in the individual exchange market which is much smaller and has price controls in place. Or even without the conditions it might just be that older people sign up in larger numbers, who are also not allowed to be priced correctly.
We'll have to agree to disagree about how big the number of people there are out there with pre-existing conditions and how much of an effect they'll have on the insurance companies' bottom lines.
Suffice it to say for now: 1) the insurers thought it was a big enough problem--industry wide--that they excluded people with preexisting conditions 2) the Obama Administration went to the wall for the individual mandate because they thought that was the only way ObamaCare could both work and get rid of the preexisting condition exclusion 3) we won't have to wait too long to find out who's right--just a few months and the earnings start being reported.
Ken, the only criteria for pre-existing is who gets to decide when the clock starts.
Is genetic disposition a pre-existing condition? Seems like a convenient way to get out of playing claims. And a convenient way to justify another eugenics pogrom, er, program.
I'll concede that I have a preexisting condition, and that might make the prevalence of people like me seem higher than it is--but I'm not the only self-employed person out there. There are millions of people like me who either were self-employed or who were working jobs that didn't offer health insurance when we were first diagnosed.
I'm not saying it's not a problem Ken. You are an example, being self employed. But most people arent, on the national average.
I'm not saying that this isn't going to help screw up the exchange policies. I'm just saying that as a percent of total insurance revenue, which is dominated by company plans, taking losses in the exchanges is likely not going to be the primary driving earnings factor.
We shall see. I just think that a lot of disucssion around here is based on the premise that 95% of people are going to get directly boned by this bill. When in reality, the direct effects are likely only going to be felt by a smaller swath, maybe 20% of the population.
Do you know what's a good cure for pre-existing conditions? Paleo. And Gary Taube's GCBC book
Make no mistake, I will not stand idly by while Insurance Companies recklessly raise their rates to draconian levels.
Sorry, but federal elections are nothing but symbolic gestures. All you have to do is figure out what symbolism moves the pieces of shit in your gerrymandered district and you're in, actual federal government results DO. NOT. MATTER.
Totally. I mean it is not like the House hasn't changed hands twice in the last six years or anything. I mean it is not like we haven't had three wave elections going in different directions in the last 20 years or anything. It is totally symbolic. Nothing ever changes. The population never gets angry and takes it out on one side or the other.
The House has changed hands a fee times over 20 years. That's pretty much PROOF that it's purely symbolic.
Nothing has changed. FedGov has never ceased to be ever more intrusive, ever more wasteful, ever more broke.
That just says we have a terrible political class. And something that can't go on forever won't. At some point the political class is going to have to start representing the interests of its constituents or the constituents will get a new political class.
If you think it is hopeless, stop commenting and worrying about it. The thumb sucking and the feeling sorry for ourselves is getting old.
Stop projecting and being such a dick.
Bullshit. That is exactly what it is. I have also had it with the elitism. Yeah lets have another lecture about how everyone but Libertarians are all just ignorant sheep. Fuck that. If there is one thing I hate more than the Progs, it is elitists. Take this "the American public will never understand and will just take up the ass and ask for single payer" bullshit and shove it up your ass.
None of you fuckers are that God damned bright. If you can figure it out, everyone else will too.
Sad John has a Sad.
I am not sad. I just think you are a prick.
Coming from a condescending asshole like you, I take that as a point of pride.
He's not an asshole, he's a dick. See: Team America, World Police.
You've had it so much that you can't seem to do anything else but post over 200 comments a day here.
Just call me an optimist Finger. I keep hoping you people will get some sense. We all have to have a dream I guess.
call me an optimist
First you say you've had it, then you say you're an optimist.
You say you hate elitists, then you think you're smarter than "you people".
Don't let your dreams become delusions.
"Yeah lets have another lecture about how everyone but Libertarians are all just ignorant sheep. "
But what if it is true? Not the part about libertarians being smarter than everyone else (though on most things they are) but what if this nation has become, by and large, an army of ignorant sheep comprised of three groups: those who get free shit and are not going to stop demanding it; those believe without intrusive, abusive govt. we'll have anarchy and poison food and terrorists will molest our children; and the political class and their lackeys who convince themselves that every brutal action taken on behalf of "the good" is automatically justified?
Then Plato was right. His Republic system of smart first-class citizens ruling over the lesser-class sheeples is the answer. Why give freedom and free markets to a bunch of parasites and sheeples that have no hope of changing their ways?
After all, it's not like anyone who was a statist ever became a capitalist/libertarian throught logic and debate.
Shh. John, don't be mean. People just wanna feel special.
"But only one of those three acknowledges that we do today is implicated."
English, motha****a, do you speak it?!
Debt ceiling is a joke in your town.
It's not a ceiling, it's a hat. It goes up as the debt grows.
"House Speaker John Boehner will need Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to deliver a bevy of votes to pass the bill."
And if it passes with Democrat votes over the objection of Tea Party Republicans, that'll be the end of Boehner's stint as Speaker of the House.
I'd say I'm glad to seem him go, but that isn't the half of it. What a disgrace Boehner is: TARP probably wouldn't have happened without him. He championed Bush's prescription drug benefit.
I hope we get a Tea Party Republican as the next Speaker: someone to show Obama and the progressives what real obstructionism looks like.
He needs to go. He no longer represents the majority of the party. And worse, he no longer commands the respect of the majority of the party. It is hard to see how he can continue like this much longer.
A danger of Boehner getting replaced, he could bring up the terrible Senate Immigration bill and have it passed with enough Dems. Just a parting shot...
Funny you mention that. Word is that there will be a "pivot" to immigration in the House as soon as the shutdown fight is over.
Now I do support immigration reform, but that Senate bill was just awful.
Obstructionism is all we've got at this point. Rolling anything back seems impossible, and at least obstructing their "progress" let's people see how violent and disgusting they are to the core. I'd say the same thing if the Wacky Worshipers were in power, ramming through national tithes, no divorce for horrible spouses, and forced church time instead of the current dystopian horrors we face.
Obstructionism is all we've got at this point.
mumble mumble checks and balances mumble mumble
Indeed. The Framers didn't give the Peoples Representatives the power of the purse to just be a rubber stamp for the more entrenched branches.
So long as legislation requires the president's signature, we can't repeal anything until there's no longer a progessive in the White House.
So, obstructionism is the most important thing our politicians can do. The most important thing we can do still involves what we say to other people.
Whatever influence we have with friends, coworkers, and family, etc. It sounds trite, but there's a reason why dictators try to control what people say to each other; it scares the shit out of 'em because that kind of thing is powerful.
I was actually at this very show back in the day:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7Nr1AV9xI0
It's up there with and beyond "Sonic Reducer", some of the greatest punk anthem lyrics ever. I keep thinking about them lately; they just kinda came to me a few days ago thinking about how people are waking up to all of Obama's bullshit--all of a sudden. Suddenly, a lot of my friends and family are feeling disillusioned--even if they don't know why.
We gotta take advantage of that.
"The serenade is dead and now the only question's why?
Why when we are young, we're told it's right to love
Told it's human nature and that comes from God above
As time moves on we realize that we all look from the pit
While a plan hangs above us, to keep us in the shit
Because the minute we are born, we're told what's right and wrong
Raised with certain morals, never mentioned in their songs
As we grow up, we find out that the path's been neatly set
In a world of such destruction, we only can regret
Regret that is the word for it, as we look for our way out of it
Why can't they understand we don't want any part of it?
The pain they create everyday, that just ain't gonna go away
We've got to stick together, but still you're asking why?"
Find a studio version. Colin's an Anarchist, but make it your own. They don't write 'em like that anymore.
"if the Wacky Worshipers were in power, ramming through national tithes, no divorce for horrible spouses, and forced church time"
Who are these Wacky Worshippers? The Bushpig Rethuglikkkans? They had control of Congress and the Presidency for several years under Bush and never considered laws such as you mention.
Even Santorum, the ultimate OMG Extremist Theocrat, hasn't proposed such laws.
I was using this as a hypothetical possibility we aren't even close to right now. The current discourse is so strained, I've found the only way to prevent being called an out and out religious racist by fucking progressive is by acknowledging that the other "reality" is bad as well. In the end, it doesn't matter, because I'm drunk.
" require income verification for people seeking health-insurance subsidies under the Affordable Care Act "
So this part is a law telling Obama to follow the previous existing law. This time, we really mean it.
And the fact that this is a *concession* by the Dems shows their view towards enforcing their own laws.
..."I hope that someone in either party takes seriously the spending challenge posed by recent years and uses the proposed budget committee as a platform to explain why outlays need to be pruned back substantially."...
Santa Claus doesn't get here but once a year.
"Live with a man 40 years. Share his house, his meals. Speak on every subject. Then tie him up, and hold him over the volcano's edge. And on that day, you will finally meet the man."
What choice does Boehner have, facing massive protests like this?
I've taken shits bigger than that crowd
The funny part being there are probably more reporters there than protesters.
So this Senate bill that keeps government running for three more months, does it keep it running at sequestration level spending?
If Boehner and a few backstabbing republicans cave on both Obamacare AND sequestration, he runs a really good chance of being stripped of the Speaker position.
I think he might lose it anyway. But yeah, losing sequestration would be the nail in the coffin.
So we get to do this again in a few months. If the exchanges are still a mess or if sticker shock has set in, then public opinion may look a lot different then. Then the GOP can point to Dem stubborness to delay a terribly flawed roll out. They can even hit them with big biz cronyism charges for delaying the employer mandate and not the individual one.
This has been fun enough to watch that I'm looking forward to doing this every three months.
I concur with Genital here.
Gentile.
It delays them from passing other idiotic laws, erodes the citizens faith in big government, and shows our creditors how unserious we are about budgeting.
That counts as a solid win for me.
Precisely. Plus we got to see Obama pout like a child and the unhinged left let the mask slip and call for dictatorship. Politics hasn't been this great for decades.
Yeah, but these 3-month recesses are bullshit.
I want to see Congressional fisticuffs and gunfights. This bullshit decorum is boring.
Take Pam's electroshock bumfights, substitute half of the bums with half DC politicians (which could also be considered bums I guess), and pay-per-view that shit. Make billions.
I'm kinda looking forward to seeing a TP fire-breather as the next Speaker. Maybe someone will actually represent the fiscally conservative wing of the party that cloaks itself (falsely more often than not) in that mantle. The delicious part will be how quickly Boehner is rehabbed among the liberals.
It wouldn't surprise me much to see Boehner retire in the fairly near future.
He has been there long enough to collect a decent pension, and there's no way he enjoys this stuff. And he doesn't really give a flying crap about the the future of this country and the generations to come; all he wants is to get along, enjoy his perks, and play golf.
If Republicans were smart they'd go along with a debt ceiling increase that lasts until after the election. It's not going to go any better for them the next time or the time after that. If this were put to bed for a year they'd have America's gnat-like attention span on their side.
Ah someone is butt hurt. What is the matter Tony, that whole Obamacare thing not working out like you thought?
Does butthurt mean so gleeful at the prospect of the Republican party's collapse that I'm willing to offer free political advice to them just because I'm feeling generous? Because that's not what I thought it meant.
Yeah. Tony. Perhaps the failure of Obama and the Dems signature achievement and millions of American voters losing their health insurance or seeing what they have get much worse and much more expensive is going to totally usher in the collapse of the Republican Party and the Democratic Party ascendancy. Honestly, I can't think of a way to get voters to love you more than destroying their health insurance.
What a brilliant plan the Democrats have come up with.
Tony,
You come to gloat like a good TEAM BLUE fanboy over what you perceive as a loss by TEAM RED, but you fail to show up anytime OC is discussed. You pushed and gloated over OC and now you won't discuss its failures. You really are a disingenuous and intellectually dishonest shit.
That is because even the sock puppets can't defend Obamacare. Even shreek, the most brazen and retarded of all of them, has been reduced to claiming it will be a big nothing and won't matter to many people. None of them are claiming it is a success. They don't have any talking points for Obamacare. They are still in shock at how bad it actually is. So yeah, even Tony can't defend it. I guess there really are some things that are truly indefensible.
I think I've been pretty consistent in my hesitation to fully support the ACA, since I think it's a pretty crappy law, though imo it is a step in the right direction.
Well it does take a step towards ensuring that no one in the middle class gets decent healthcare. So yeah, it is not surprising you would find it to be positive. I am thinking all of those people who you are robbing might disagree.
He thinks it's positive because it's a step towards the holy grail of single payer. Single payer is equality. So what if standards drop if everyone is subjected to the same crappy standards? Equality means the lowest common denominator.
Not what happens in other countries. We pay twice per capita single-payer countries do, and that includes more public spending, with no better health outcomes and without universality.
Your bullshit doesn't fly when there is actual evidence out there.
No better health outcomes??? Unless you have cancer or other chronic illnesses.
Or maybe you just need some work done on your heart:
http://www.thestar.com/news/ca.....rgery.html
Or extend it for 6 months or so. Then, once a week hold a huge press conference, a big deal, to say that the debt ceiling is approaching in X months/weeks. Has anything been done to obey the law and avoid hitting the ceiling? No? See you next week. Every week, "Here is the ceiling. We know it's coming. What are we doing to avoid hitting the ceiling? Nothing? See you next week." Then the ceiling inevitably hits. "You did nothing to even attempt to avoid the ceiling. You get nothing."
If Republicans were smart they'd go along with a debt ceiling increase that lasts until after the election.
I agree with Tony here, for about the third time this year.
I love the Chicago Tribune idiocy.
Headline: "Senate near deal to end shutdown".
Accompanied by a picture of House speaker Boehner.
I call it idiocy, but maybe it's intentionally mocking the stupidity of whatever subscribers they have left.
Doesn't it seem trivial to anyone that all this hoopla is being raised over debt, when in fact, the fiat money system is dependent on debt to function? All money comes from debt. The US government can never be free of debt, because that's where US dollars originate from. I've never heard a single politician ever mention this, even the ones I don't hate (Amash, Massy, Rand). Why? Not saying I like debt, just that this whole debt debate is only a function of the real underlying issue of a broken and unfair monetary system.
I've pointed it out in roundabout ways.
If their claim is true that the gov't and economy will collapse if we can't borrow more, then that seems to be a tacit acknowledgement that our system is built on ever increasing debt, which would seem to be unsustainable.
Of course, people seem to think that because we've gotten away with it for 80-100 years, its proof it can go on forever.
The reason the economy will collapse absent government debt is that the economy has been so regulated that the creation of actual wealth is virtually prohibited. So they replace wealth with funny money, and pretend it's all good.
So counterfeiters should get tax credits instead of jail time?
Why?
Politically it's a non-starter. Remember how far Ron Paul got with ending the Fed? I mean, if you can't explain to people that money is not wealth, that wealth cannot be created out of thin air, that inflation is theft, and all the other economic principles required to understand what's wrong with our monetary system in school, you certainly can't explain it in a political speech.
That is because the economic adjustment to going back to the gold standard would be enormous. No one wants to take the blame for that no matter how good the long term effects would be. At this point it is fiat money until the system collapse or forever if it never does. There is no going back once you go off the Gold standard, absent a complete collapse.
The economic adjustment is going to happen anyway.
Maybe. The Gold bugs think it will. But a lot of other people disagree. Regardless, no one knows when it will happen. And thus there is no incentive for anyone to bring it on. Why bring it on and take the blame when you can possibly kick the can to the next guy?
No politician will ever voluntarily put us back on the gold standard. It is simple game theory.
Oh right, simple Game Theory. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
It is true. I don't know what else to tell you.
You know, like NASH EQUILIBRIUM. HTH.
The people who disagree are generally the same people who mocked the Austrians that predicted the housing bubble in the late 90's and early 2000's. Even Keynesian models admit that interest rates must adjust in the long run (in this case, it probably won't be that long). When that happens, the shit hits the fan. You're right about kicking the can though.
Oh also just to clarify, it might be a de facto commodity standard where people will only barter or use gold/silver/etc. as money because paper money is worthless.
It is not as simple as the Gold bugs make it appear. What they don't count on is how sneaky central bankers are. They keep inflation just low enough for people to adjust to it and not notice the long term decline in the value of their money.
I am increasingly convinced that the crisis will never come. We will just sort of float along, at least for the duration of my lifetime
Meh, I always count on central bankers being sneaky. I never said it was simple, but it is inevitable. Perhaps not today, or this year, or next. But within 10 years, the dollar bubble WILL burst. Inflation will be out of the Fed's hands.
We will see. They were saying the same thing over 20 years ago when I was studying economics. The big inflation is always ten years away.
Yeah, instead we got a mini-depression and record low interest rates. I don't think economic collapse is imminent, but eventually the FedGov won't be able to pay its bills or inflate its way out of trouble, and the USA will dissolve into 50 separate states, or a maybe a few regional confederations.
I wonder if at least they could have a preset maximum amount of circulating money based on Census population statistics...
Of course it's not popular, but I would expect somebody like Amash to understand the real problem. He's taken unpopular stances before, so why is this different? Probably 97% of politicians have no clue how our monetary system works, but the few who care enough to know should be talking about it. And sadly you're right, it's virtually impossible to explain this stuff in a political debate, because most Americans just don't care. It's so much easier to yammer about the debt.
This part seems rather disturbing:
"and also allow the Treasury Department to use extraordinary measures to pay the nation's bills if Congress doesn't raise the debt ceiling by Feb. 7."
So basically Congress is ceding responsibility here? Can someone offer a less cynical take?
There isn't one. Congress is happily giving the President the power to borrow so they don't have to go on record allowing it. It is utterly cynical and despicable.
Sooo...the Republicnas control the part of Congress which initiates spending bills, and using that leverage, they obtain a promise from Obama to actually enforce the income limits on Obamacare that he should have been enforcing already. In exchange for this gracious concession, Obama gets "emergency" borrowing powers.
What have I missed? What kind of 3-dimensional chess are the Republicans engaging in which I'm too stupid to notice?
That seems to be about it. But it does get them out of taking any responsibility. So there is that.
All borrowing powers are "emergency". When you're borrowing money to pay debts, that's called a fucking big-assed emergency.
Borrowing for one-time emergencies; good.
Borrowing for daily expenses; bad.
Borrowing to pay debts; so bad only Dems think it's a good idea.
I may have to steal that
Why not just borrow it?
So, why is it a terrible idea to go back to having congress individually approve each issuance of debt?
Gridlock is why. Good government means spending what you need, when you need it, without debate or delay.
Good government means spending what you need, when you need it, without debate or delay.
You are assuming as fact what is actually in question. Is what you are spending it on *really* needed or is 'needing' it just an excuse to spend even more money (which needs to be borrowed from future generations of taxpayers who conveniently can't vote)? It is often (if not mostly) the latter. To equate good government with simply spending money when you claim to need it is ludicrous.
Now that the 80+% of us that weren't shut down are in danger of running out of money.....
So what about Freeman starting for the Vikes on Monday? Good move? Better than Cassel?
If the Vikes lose to the Giants...ugh. I can't even think about it.
Fran Tarkington's corpse would be a better choice than Cassel or worse Ponder. Freeman was stuck playing for an idiot college coach. I bet he does allright in Minnesota.
Freeman was inaccurate and inconsistent with the previous coach, too, and at Kansas State.
I can't actually recall him being great for a whole game, but he has had great quarters and even halfs. Or halves, though that reads funny to me for some reason in the context.
Fran Tarkington's corpse would be a better choice than Cassel or worse Ponder
He looks pretty alive to me.
I know. But if we was dead, he still would be better than Cassel.
Freeman has never been good. At least we know Cassel can be, in the right situation. Ponder looks like a wasted pick.
Freeman only looks better if compared to Cassel. There was a reason the Bucs benched him and it is more than Schiano being a prick.
Bonnie Doon Ice Cream in Michiana, Indiana shutting down due to Obamacare.
They don't want to provide healthcare to their workers? Good riddance.
/Bill Maher.
It'll be blamed on the rethuglicans.
God, this sucks. Their main restaurant is right down the street from my sister. I use to run down there and get some during the summer. I love their ice cream. The left's fucking everything up in this country.
"stupid people are ruining America."
Herman Cain
OT: I was just reading Mich. State Police Legal Update No. 86 about open carry in MI, when I came across the line:
I was amazed to actually see this written by someone employed by the state police. I then had a sadz that it is absolutely necessary for such to be written in the first place - a big reflection on how our populace views government as an entity providing permission.
Surely you've heard your garden variety progressive who says "Show me the law that says you're allowed to do that."
There is a significant population in this country that believes, to the marrow of their bones, that if you haven't been given permission, you're not allowed to do it.
I am well aware of the progressive you describe. Hence my sadz.
I'm stunned. Oh, wait. I forgot. The reality of occasional employment uncertainty is for us poor sorry-ass bastards who hold non-government jobs. As a taxpayer not employed by the government, I am proud that my hard earned tax dollars help to insulate the federal government's high caliber workers from that hardship. Even though my inflation adjusted income has been diminishing since 2006 and even though my pay and benefits are much less than a federal employee for the same work, I am glad to do my part.
I demand back pay for that one week last month where I didn't get any new clients!
I thought everyone hated the medical device tax, why didn't the dems agree to repeal it? But they agreed to the income verification for subsidies?
If O-care is off the honors system, than it could get even more unpopular. And I'm going to guess the verification process will lengthen the waiting time even more.
That's like asking if everyone could see that the Federal exchanges weren't going to be working in time, why didn't they delay it?
Because Obama is infallible, his law is infallible and any changes would be an unacceptable sign of weakness and failure.
Everyone also thought Congress-critters shouldn't get subsidies for buying insurance on the exchanges as, really, they don't need them and was the easiest "gimme" in this entire sh*t-show. Yet, Republicans could not even get that into the compromise.
On the floor of the US Senate, Democratic leader Harry Reid called the legislation "historic", saying it would provide time for Congress to work toward a long-term budget agreement.
Oh, blow it out your ass, Reid.
right...because a lack of time has been the problem. Probably explains why the Senate has passed a budget once in the past five years.
No kidding. Besides, the only budget that means anything is the current one. Everything in future years is pure fantasy. A "long-term budget agreement" means nothing. It's less than useless.
If You Like Your Plan, You Can Keep It...Unless Your Employer Shuts Down
What a greedy, greedy company. Oughta be a law!
Damn counterrevolutionary Kulaks.
Did somebody queef?
I hate to burst the "Obamacare is unpopular" meme that this website and other right-leaning websites want to hitch their political / electoral wagon to... but the ONLY reason it polls with relatively high unpopularity is because a significant portion of the Left believes it does not go far enough. 15-20% of the country is "against" the law for that reason.
You can't exactly count those people as supporting Republican efforts to get rid of the law; they will bash the law but end up voting FOR it time after time because they see it as a means towards an end.
15-20% of Americans think it is Free Healthcare and will be upset when they found out it isn't.
Add in some more who thought they would save $2,500 and get better health insurance, and you have a lot of angry people.
But, give it 5 years, and slowly everyone will forget how it was cheaper and better before, and in 50 years it will be beloved, like the NHS is.
Sad but true.
True because most people live in ignorance about economics and have never heard anyone seriously defend capitalism.
Was this not expected?
Well, Nick, you are always one to provide us with poll numbers when they back your stance, so let me provide you some...particularly some on those of your new golden boy, Ted Cruz:
Since his rise to ascendancy a few weeks ago, favorability ratings for the Tea Party is at 21%, Republicans 25%, and Ted himself 14%.
And the Houston Chronicle just withdrew their support of him, and actually asked readers if they are missing Kay Bailey Hutchison yet. Yikes.
http://www.chron.com/opinion/e.....d=opedhprr
My suggestion Nick is next time pick someone with more gravitas to hitch your coattails to. It will take you a long time to live this one down.
Cruz only gets 14% support in his district? Now that would be news.
Every parent knows not to issue a threat unless you are willing to follow through. Republicans have lost the little bit of credibility they had to begin with?
"The GOP can't win. The Dems have the senate and the House. Their defund strategy was doomed, and the shutdown hurt them in the polls."
"The GOP caves! They should have fought harder, because the shutdown doesn't affect us most of us and is actually a good thing!"
I'm confused, which is true?
As I recently emailed to some friends discussing the Congressional Stupidity of the Year(s),...
"Ignoring the point that ALL BUT TWO nations on this planet DO NOT HAVE ANY "DEBT LIMIT" on their books, yet seem to be doing fairly well, all things considered (ignoring, for the moment, Greece, Spain and several other screwed up ones?)
"So, again, since OUR Debt Limit has been raised scores of times since its inception, I still strongly believe and suggest that the LIMIT is not the issue? it's the "living beyond our means" that IS? pouring money into every program that sounds nice without FIRST making sure that revenues cover the expenditures.
"Or am I really missing something ELSE so fundamental?"
The first reply I got was, "No, you're not."
Bread and Circuses, brought to you by the same people who give Congress a barely-two-digit approval rating, yet re-elect well over 90% of them, year after year.
And some of you think CONGRESS or the Presidebt is The Problem?
I beg to differ.
You can buy louis vuitton
replica handbags in a variety of variations in styles from online shops as well as from
apparent outlets. The first must have this season in the range of
href="http://www.orderswithin.com"replica handbags are the Boston and Joy handbags.
The Federal Outlays per Capita chart is interesting, but it should be paired with a Federal Outlays as Percentage of GDP chart, the favorite of American progressives. Wikipedia has one in the article on Government Spending.
just as Carol responded I didn't know that people can make $6819 in 1 month on the computer. read this
http://WWW.JOBS72.COM