Harry Reid... leader of the "I will not negotiate" caucus

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Crimson**

I love this pic:

**Breotan**

Crimson wrote:
I love this pic:

He just finished watching that Really Touching Ad on his iPhone.

Seriously, though. How old is that pic?

**Crimson**

Breotan wrote:

Seriously, though. How old is that pic?

I don't know. It's from Huffington Post article on the resolution of this debacle.

**Seaward**

Crimson wrote:
I don't know. It's from Huffington Post article on the resolution of this debacle.

Then there can be zero question as to its credibility, as a bastion of unbiased journalism and hard-hitting Miley Cyrus coverage like HuffPo wouldn't allow such.

**Crimson**

Yep, it is apparently an old pic from 2011 and not related to this. Oh well.

In any case, I'm glad the Tea Party didn't manage to destroy the world economy this time either. I hope this humiliating defeat dissuades them from trying this sort of crap ever again (yeah, I don't believe that either.)

**scarletsquig**

This was amusing to observe, have fun next February when the exact same thing will happen again before the US finally loses its reserve currency status.

China was not happy about the shutdown, at all. They saw it as a deliberate and calculated attempt by the US government to debase the value of the dollar to make the debts worth less on the global (and global might as well mean "Chinese" these days) markets.

**BaronIveagh**

Breotan wrote:Define "cost 24 billion dollars". Did the debt actually go UP by that much? Or is that simply revenue not collected somehow? Or is in money in service that was supposed to be spent but wasn't? Or is it the money that will be paid to furlowed people who didn't do any work while enjoying their "unexpected vacation"?

It's 24 billion dollar estimate that US bushiness would otherwise have made since the 1st of Oct, but didn't due to the shutdown, according to Standard & Poor, who, according to BBC, are forecasting weaker 4th quarter earnings because of this.

Ouze wrote:
Is this one of those estimates like how fantasy football or march madness or whatever cost employers eleventy bajillion dollars?

No, this is one of those estimates like 'Leman Brothers is having some problems this quarter'.

**Frazzled**

Breotan wrote:
Easy E wrote:
It sounds like we have a plan.

However, the wierd thign is that the Republicans get nothign for their tantrum, and are still signing off on the plan. Will this put an end to their "negotiation" tactics forever, or only postpone it until Feb?
Weird thing is that the British press seem to have a more honest analysis of things than FoxNews/NYTimes/HuffingtonPost.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100241757/us-debt-ceiling-crisis-barack-obama-has-won-the-shutdown-his-prize-is-a-lame-duck-presidency/

US debt ceiling crisis – Barack Obama has won the shutdown. His prize is a lame duck presidency

The shutdown is basically over and the President has won. Or, at least, he's won because the Republicans have definitely lost. Not only did they not get what they wanted – that "life or death" delay on Obamacare implementation – but they've given the impression of dragging partisanship to new lows. Obamacare had been passed already, the Supreme Court had okayed it and Obama had won an election on it, yet the GOP was still prepared to bring the country to the brink of ruin to cripple it. When Grover Norquist is saying that the Right went too far (he of the "drown government in the bath tub" fame) then the Right probably went a bit too far.

But there are caveats to that narrative. First, the Republicans aren't the only ones who ought to hang their heads in shame. It was the Democrat-controlled Senate that first rejected the House's bill and so sparked the crisis. It was the President who refused to talk to anyone about it (and went campaigning instead). It was the federal government – even when in shutdown – that behaved like a spoiled child, covering war memorials in fences and trying to stop military priests from saying Mass. And it was the mainstream media that took the side of the President and helped foster the impression that the GOP is run by a bunch of blowhard crazy people. For example, Dave Weigel points out that, contrary to reports, wild child Ted Cruz actually had "no intention" of delaying the critical final vote in the Senate. His image of being Sarah Palin 2.0 is entirely a media myth.

Second, what has Obama really won? He keeps his precious healthcare reform and he gets government open again – but tomorrow morning he'll still have the same gridlocked political system that he had the night before. The shutdown is a rare example of him winning, but remember that this lame duck president has not only had a very simple (and, frankly, inoffensive) gun control bill killed in the Senate but was so spooked by bad poll numbers that he tried to dump responsibility for military action in Syria onto the Congress – before quietly dropping the idea altogether. Any thought that the shutdown payoff will be that he can sail an immigration reform package comfortably through Congress is pure fantasy. This is a broken presidency living out its last few years either holding off Republican attacks or lazily cruising the country on some pointless, endless, fatuous campaign trail. Obama's administration is politically bankrupt.

The talk for the next week will be about how the Tea Party is dead and Republicans must elect a politically correct, middle-of-the-road, unimaginative, establishment, compromising candidate in 2016 (preferably a singing sloth, cos the polls show that Americans just love those). But the reality is that US politics right now is a mess for both Left and Right, and the country is stuck in partisan limbo until the 2014 midterms or even the 2016 presidential election. This is not a Republican problem, it is an American problem.

Yep.
This is what happens when you have an absentee executive in the day care center, the 2 year olds throw poop and run around the place.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:
Breotan wrote:
Weird thing is that the British press seem to have a more honest analysis of things than FoxNews/NYTimes/HuffingtonPost.

That's an interesting take on the word "honest". Or even, hell, accurate - the Telegraph has been calling Obama a lame duck since July, 2010.

The last paragraph is pretty accurate, though.

He hasn't been?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breotan wrote:
BBC.co.uk wrote:"We've got to get out of the habit of governing by crisis," the Democratic president added.
Congress doesn't govern. The President goes on vacation and gives speeches at colleges.

Corrected your typo

**Ahtman**

And then things got a little weird.

**motyak**

Ahtman wrote:
And then things got a little weird.

Didn't Breotan mention that? Or was that in one of the other shutdown threads.

**Dreadclaw69**

motyak wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
And then things got a little weird.

Didn't Breotan mention that? Or was that in one of the other shutdown threads.

It was mentioned on the last page.

Anyone else not surprised that a deal was reached? I always thought it was going to happen, and that each side wanted to see who'd blink first.

**Easy E**

So, the pundits have a mixed feeling about whether 2/7 will just be a replay of the House R's "extortion Negotiation" (per Sebs) tactics or if the R's divided caucus taught some lessons.

**motyak**

Easy E wrote:
2/7

Honestly that is one of the most interesting parts of the OT. Re-setting my method of reading dates from day-month-year to month-day-year to avoid weird kerfuffles. Very interesting.

**Breotan**

Wasn't one of the reasons for avoiding the "default" the threat of a credit downgrade?

http://www.france24.com/en/20131017-chinese-agency-downgrades-us-credit-rating

Chinese agency downgrades US credit rating

AFP - A Chinese ratings agency downgraded its US sovereign credit rating Thursday despite Washington's resolution of the debt ceiling deadlock, warning that fundamentals for a potential default remained "unchanged".

Dagong lowered its ratings for US local and foreign currency credit from A to A-, maintaining a negative outlook, the agency said in a statement.

The announcement came after the US Congress passed and President Barack Obama signed a bill that extends the nation's borrowing authority and ends a two-week government shutdown.

"The fundamental situation that the debt growth rate significantly outpaces that of fiscal income and gross domestic product remains unchanged," Dagong said in the statement, adding Washington's solvency was vulnerable as old debts were still repaid through raising new debts.

"Hence the government is still approaching the verge of default crisis, a situation that cannot be substantially alleviated in the foreseeable future," it said.

Dagong made headlines in August 2011 when it lowered its main rating for US sovereign debt after Congress passed an earlier bill to raise Washington's debt ceiling.

The agency, which is far less prominent than long-established Western competitors including Moody's, Fitch and Standard and Poor's, has been working to further raise its profile.

China's official news agency Xinhua said Thursday in a bylined commentary that US politicians had held the rest of the world hostage in the crisis.

But Beijing welcomed the agreement, saying it will contribute to global economic stability.

**Crimson**

Breotan wrote:
Wasn't one of the reasons for avoiding the "default" the threat of a credit downgrade?

Constant threats of default are bad for ratings too. Of course actual default would be much worse.

**Forar**

Crimson wrote:
Breotan wrote:
Wasn't one of the reasons for avoiding the "default" the threat of a credit downgrade?

Constant threats of default are bad for ratings too. Of course actual default would be much worse.

Yeah, one of the other ratings agencies downgraded the US the last time a faction of the party looked lovingly at defaulting too.

It wasn't exactly a crushing blow, but there are consequences for loudly threatening to go over the cliff. People start believing enough of them are crazy enough to actually do it.

I'm sure this won't be a massive blow to the US either, but it's not a good thing all the same.

**Easy E**

R's and Teapartiers are already starting the traditional spin that Conservativsm never fails, it can only be failed! Weak leaders and RINOs ruined thier plan to.... I have no idea what their plan was.

**juraigamer**

Hell it's about time this was settled.

**BaronIveagh**

juraigamer wrote:
Hell it's about time this was settled.

Except it hasn't been. It's just been delayed a few months and then we get it do it all again. In the middle of winter. I wonder how many people will die due to the loss of their federally subsidized heat this time around?

**Frazzled**

oodles and oodles?

You know whats cool. IF YOU PASS A BUDGET you don't need CRs.

I agree the debt ceiling thing is a joke.

**whembly**

Frazzled wrote:
oodles and oodles?

You know whats cool. IF YOU PASS A BUDGET you don't need CRs.

I agree the debt ceiling thing is a joke.

Yeah... both parties think the DL thing is a useful hammer... but, it's obvious that it's not.

The DL scare is what knocked down the debate on the ACA. I'd posit that we'd still be in shutdown mode if the DL wasn't in the picture.

**Frazzled**

Yep.

**djones520**

whembly wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
oodles and oodles?

You know whats cool. IF YOU PASS A BUDGET you don't need CRs.

I agree the debt ceiling thing is a joke.

Yeah... both parties think the DL thing is a useful hammer... but, it's obvious that it's not.

The DL scare is what knocked down the debate on the ACA. I'd posit that we'd still be in shutdown mode if the DL wasn't in the picture.

What is the point of it though if it doesn't limit a damn thing? 6 raises in 5 years. Obviously having a limit on spending is not limiting spending.

**whembly**

djones520 wrote:
whembly wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
oodles and oodles?

You know whats cool. IF YOU PASS A BUDGET you don't need CRs.

I agree the debt ceiling thing is a joke.

Yeah... both parties think the DL thing is a useful hammer... but, it's obvious that it's not.

The DL scare is what knocked down the debate on the ACA. I'd posit that we'd still be in shutdown mode if the DL wasn't in the picture.

What is the point of it though if it doesn't limit a damn thing? 6 raises in 5 years. Obviously having a limit on spending is not limiting spending.

Well... Its. The. Law.

We gotta have some sort of speed bump with regard to spending... but lately, with the continual passage of CRs, American is simply plowing through that speed bump w/o regards to the damage it's potentially causing.

**BaronIveagh**

whembly wrote:
American is simply plowing through that speed bump w/o regards to the damage it's potentially causing.

I think it safe to say that the Government pretty much does not care who or what gets damaged as long as the other guys don't get their way.

**DogofWar1**

whembly wrote:

Well... Its. The. Law.

We gotta have some sort of speed bump with regard to spending... but lately, with the continual passage of CRs, American is simply plowing through that speed bump w/o regards to the damage it's potentially causing.

It's actually interesting, the debt ceiling is getting far more attention, and being used in political power plays, far more than it was in the past. I don't think we've ever had two fights of this caliber during one presidency, with a potential third on the horizon. In the past, the debt ceiling was sort of subject to a gentleman's agreement between both parties that you approved it without too much fuss, all this fighting, especially ratcheted to the level it's currently at, is a recent phenomenon.

If anything, the partisan divide has made the speed bump into a barrier, which has some merit unto itself. The problem is that the tea party (and through them, the Republican party) moved the goalposts a bit too far this time. It's one thing to demand spending cuts, and then negotiate in good faith (like going to the Democrats and demanding cuts to certain entitlements while also agreeing to tax increases elsewhere), but they basically demanded a separate issue be addressed, while others in the party demanded the cuts without the things the Democrats wanted.

Thankfully, cooler heads prevailed in the end, and the Senate, with some reasonable moderates in its ranks, bailed out the House, specifically the House Republican caucus.

**Da Boss**

Would ye be happy if the deficit was cut by cutting funding to the military? Or is it only entitlements ye want cut?

**BaronIveagh**

Da Boss wrote:
Would ye be happy if the deficit was cut by cutting funding to the military? Or is it only entitlements ye want cut?

I can think of quite a few military programs that probably should be cut, but I think that they should reduce spending in both areas. Or at least spend smarter.

**DogofWar1**

Da Boss wrote:
Would ye be happy if the deficit was cut by cutting funding to the military? Or is it only entitlements ye want cut?

You could cut both, and that's basically what the sequester did. The problem is, the sequester is a club, smacking down $X amount from the top line budgets, where ideally we'd use a blade, and cut out the least important/effective and most wasteful spending.

We basically need a grand bargain that addresses all aspects of the problem at once, entitlements, taxes, military spending, etc. etc., but Congress doesn't seem to ready to pull that off.

**Ouze**

Da Boss wrote:
Would ye be happy if the deficit was cut by cutting funding to the military?

Why do you hate freedom? Money that goes to the military is never squandered - not even a penny - and every cent goes directly towards making sure America isn't overrun by The Queen.