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.

Flat Line baby FLAT LINE! Put that Defib away DANGIT!! JUMP UP AND DOWN ON THEIR CHEST NOW HIGH SPEED!!!

 Ahtman wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Saw this while poking around... if this get worst by mid-next week, we might start seeing some movement:

For a real hoot post the one for congress.

Oh yeah... it's pretty stark. 80-ish disapproval. Interestingly... it hasn't budged much since the shutdown. o.O That ought to change by end of next week.

So some thoughts on the ACA.

1. The president has signed 14 laws to amend the ACA, and taken five independant steps to delay the law on his own. Sounds ready for prime time to me.
2. The U.S. Congress, the President and large numbers of their campaign donors including large corporations have had their mandatory participation in the ACA waived. What's good for the goose is apparently not good for the gander.
3. Based on my own research as a healthy individual in my mid20s, the exchanges are actually more expensive for me, even for coverage that is the lesser of my current insurance.
4. Not that it matters, it's raising the costs for the health insurance my company provides, as well as making it nearly impossible for me to seek health insurance on my own outside of the exchanges.(Which you've always been able to do)
5. If I fail to enter into a contract with a private insurance company (giving them large sums of my money) I will be fined by the United States government. So in a situation where I don't have health insurance through work, and can't afford it on the exchanges, I will have MORE of my money taken from me for not choosing to make a purchase. It's nauseating that the Supreme Court decided that /wasn't/ coercion.
6. There have been 17 government shut downs, this one really isn't that surprising, Obama hasn't managed to get a budget passed during his entire presidency, even when both chambers of the U.S. Congress were controlled by the Democratic party.
7. Maybe a lot of these "non-essential government services" should be eliminated on a more permanent basis, they can take things like the NSA with them on the way out.
8. Back to the mandatory thing, wouldn't it make more sense to fine insurance companies for unreasonable rates instead of fining citizens for making a choice to not carry health insurance? (I'm considering it depending on how the fines shake out. Urgent care's cheap around here and I'm healthy enough I don't really need to worry.) It would if you /weren't/ in bed with the insurance companies.

Conclusion: While the ACA has some /very/ good provisions... (Making it easier for high risk individuals and individuals with pre-exisitng conditions to get insurance, etc) however most of it's crap and we should light it on fire, rub Obama and Congress's collective noses in the ashes and tell them to try again till we get either a full socialist system or a full capitalist system. One or the other kids. This half ass crap is not going to cut it.

Thoughts on the shut down.

Good. Let it continue. I hope we default on the debt too. Only 15% of the government is shut down. I wish it was 50% if not more. We don't need this massive, invasive monster that picks your pocket and attempts to threaten you constantly with it's monopoly on force. It's time to lean this big pig up with a chainsaw. To take these morally, mentally bankrupt incompetents that have run social security, medicare/caid and even our own economy into the ground with their disastrous policies down a notch. Everyone blames the banks for the latest recession and the burst of the housing market bubble, instead of blaming the American government for using legislation to force the banks issue all those gakky sub-prime mortgages in the first place.

Another thought, interesting how we had /plenty/ of time and money to start a war with Syria not a month ago but when it came down to budget talks "the cupboard is bare" and it was impossible to cut more. I have a list. It's not hard to do. We can start with Congress taking a massive pay cut. Not like it's stopping the crooked scum from taking bribes any way.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't think the State should have any right to tell you how to live, who you can sleep with or marry, what drugs you do or don't put into your body as a legal, consenting adult, how you spend your free time, how you spend your work time or how you spend your money.

And now for some more on who actually shut down the U.S. Government, I turn to Mr. Thomas Sowell.

Even when it comes to something as basic, and apparently as simple and straightforward, as the question of who shut down the federal government, there are diametrically opposite answers, depending on whether you talk to Democrats or to Republicans.

There is really nothing complicated about the facts. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted all the money required to keep all government activities going -- except for ObamaCare.

This is not a matter of opinion. You can check the Congressional Record.

As for the House of Representatives' right to grant or withhold money, that is not a matter of opinion either.

You can check the Constitution of the United States. All spending bills must originate in the House of Representatives, which means that Congressmen there have a right to decide whether or not they want to spend money on a particular government activity.

Whether ObamaCare is good, bad or indifferent is a matter of opinion. But it is a matter of fact that members of the House of Representatives have a right to make spending decisions based on their opinion.

ObamaCare is indeed "the law of the land," as its supporters keep saying, and the Supreme Court has upheld its Constitutionality.

But the whole point of having a division of powers within the federal government is that each branch can decide independently what it wants to do or not do, regardless of what the other branches do, when exercising the powers specifically granted to that branch by the Constitution.

The hundreds of thousands of government workers who have been laid off are not idle because the House of Representatives did not vote enough money to pay their salaries or the other expenses of their agencies -- unless they are in an agency that would administer ObamaCare.

Since we cannot read minds, we cannot say who -- if anybody -- "wants to shut down the government." But we do know who had the option to keep the government running and chose not to. The money voted by the House of Representatives covered everything that the government does, except for ObamaCare.

The Senate chose not to vote to authorize that money to be spent, because it did not include money for ObamaCare. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says that he wants a "clean" bill from the House of Representatives, and some in the media keep repeating the word "clean" like a mantra. But what is unclean about not giving Harry Reid everything he wants?

If Senator Reid and President Obama refuse to accept the money required to run the government, because it leaves out the money they want to run ObamaCare, that is their right. But that is also their responsibility.

You cannot blame other people for not giving you everything you want. And it is a fraud to blame them when you refuse to use the money they did vote, even when it is ample to pay for everything else in the government.

When Barack Obama keeps claiming that it is some new outrage for those who control the money to try to change government policy by granting or withholding money, that is simply a bald-faced lie. You can check the history of other examples of "legislation by appropriation" as it used to be called.

Whether legislation by appropriation is a good idea or a bad idea is a matter of opinion. But whether it is both legal and not unprecedented is a matter of fact.

Perhaps the biggest of the big lies is that the government will not be able to pay what it owes on the national debt, creating a danger of default. Tax money keeps coming into the Treasury during the shutdown, and it vastly exceeds the interest that has to be paid on the national debt.

Even if the debt ceiling is not lifted, that only means that government is not allowed to run up new debt. But that does not mean that it is unable to pay the interest on existing debt.

None of this is rocket science. But unless the Republicans get their side of the story out -- and articulation has never been their strong suit -- the lies will win. More important, the whole country will lose.

Source: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/10/04/who_shut_down_the_government_120206.html#ixzz2gocbfI00

Just to get a step ahead of the mild gak storm this post will probably cause. You're wrong, I like contributing to society, but society and government are not the same, and we have more then enough of the latter right now. Yes, I am part of a vast conspiracy. Just not a right wing one.

 Frazzled wrote:
Interestingly Obama popularity is dropping strongly. I'm surprised about that one

Even more surprisingly - I've noticed that Rasmussen has consistently for the last 2 weeks shown Obama doing better than the average.

 Ouze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Interestingly Obama popularity is dropping strongly. I'm surprised about that one

Even more surprisingly - I've noticed that Rasmussen has consistently for the last 2 weeks shown Obama doing better than the average.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history

Eh... looks like it's on a downward trend.

Where's 538 when you need him?

I like RCP... let's give it a week before making any determination...

I'm or was a EOA. I view all things the same so I'm bias. Polls are bias to me if they don't have "All the above" option.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

Spoiler:

So some thoughts on the ACA.

1. The president has signed 14 laws to amend the ACA, and taken five independant steps to delay the law on his own. Sounds ready for prime time to me.
2. The U.S. Congress, the President and large numbers of their campaign donors including large corporations have had their mandatory participation in the ACA waived. What's good for the goose is apparently not good for the gander.
3. Based on my own research as a healthy individual in my mid20s, the exchanges are actually more expensive for me, even for coverage that is the lesser of my current insurance.
4. Not that it matters, it's raising the costs for the health insurance my company provides, as well as making it nearly impossible for me to seek health insurance on my own outside of the exchanges.(Which you've always been able to do)
5. If I fail to enter into a contract with a private insurance company (giving them large sums of my money) I will be fined by the United States government. So in a situation where I don't have health insurance through work, and can't afford it on the exchanges, I will have MORE of my money taken from me for not choosing to make a purchase. It's nauseating that the Supreme Court decided that /wasn't/ coercion.
6. There have been 17 government shut downs, this one really isn't that surprising, Obama hasn't managed to get a budget passed during his entire presidency, even when both chambers of the U.S. Congress were controlled by the Democratic party.
7. Maybe a lot of these "non-essential government services" should be eliminated on a more permanent basis, they can take things like the NSA with them on the way out.
8. Back to the mandatory thing, wouldn't it make more sense to fine insurance companies for unreasonable rates instead of fining citizens for making a choice to not carry health insurance? (I'm considering it depending on how the fines shake out. Urgent care's cheap around here and I'm healthy enough I don't really need to worry.) It would if you /weren't/ in bed with the insurance companies.

Conclusion: While the ACA has some /very/ good provisions... (Making it easier for high risk individuals and individuals with pre-exisitng conditions to get insurance, etc) however most of it's crap and we should light it on fire, rub Obama and Congress's collective noses in the ashes and tell them to try again till we get either a full socialist system or a full capitalist system. One or the other kids. This half ass crap is not going to cut it.

Thoughts on the shut down.

Good. Let it continue. I hope we default on the debt too. Only 15% of the government is shut down. I wish it was 50% if not more. We don't need this massive, invasive monster that picks your pocket and attempts to threaten you constantly with it's monopoly on force. It's time to lean this big pig up with a chainsaw. To take these morally, mentally bankrupt incompetents that have run social security, medicare/caid and even our own economy into the ground with their disastrous policies down a notch. Everyone blames the banks for the latest recession and the burst of the housing market bubble, instead of blaming the American government for using legislation to force the banks issue all those gakky sub-prime mortgages in the first place.

Another thought, interesting how we had /plenty/ of time and money to start a war with Syria not a month ago but when it came down to budget talks "the cupboard is bare" and it was impossible to cut more. I have a list. It's not hard to do. We can start with Congress taking a massive pay cut. Not like it's stopping the crooked scum from taking bribes any way.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't think the State should have any right to tell you how to live, who you can sleep with or marry, what drugs you do or don't put into your body as a legal, consenting adult, how you spend your free time, how you spend your work time or how you spend your money.

And now for some more on who actually shut down the U.S. Government, I turn to Mr. Thomas Sowell.

Even when it comes to something as basic, and apparently as simple and straightforward, as the question of who shut down the federal government, there are diametrically opposite answers, depending on whether you talk to Democrats or to Republicans.

There is really nothing complicated about the facts. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted all the money required to keep all government activities going -- except for ObamaCare.

This is not a matter of opinion. You can check the Congressional Record.

As for the House of Representatives' right to grant or withhold money, that is not a matter of opinion either.

You can check the Constitution of the United States. All spending bills must originate in the House of Representatives, which means that Congressmen there have a right to decide whether or not they want to spend money on a particular government activity.

Whether ObamaCare is good, bad or indifferent is a matter of opinion. But it is a matter of fact that members of the House of Representatives have a right to make spending decisions based on their opinion.

ObamaCare is indeed "the law of the land," as its supporters keep saying, and the Supreme Court has upheld its Constitutionality.

But the whole point of having a division of powers within the federal government is that each branch can decide independently what it wants to do or not do, regardless of what the other branches do, when exercising the powers specifically granted to that branch by the Constitution.

The hundreds of thousands of government workers who have been laid off are not idle because the House of Representatives did not vote enough money to pay their salaries or the other expenses of their agencies -- unless they are in an agency that would administer ObamaCare.

Since we cannot read minds, we cannot say who -- if anybody -- "wants to shut down the government." But we do know who had the option to keep the government running and chose not to. The money voted by the House of Representatives covered everything that the government does, except for ObamaCare.

The Senate chose not to vote to authorize that money to be spent, because it did not include money for ObamaCare. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says that he wants a "clean" bill from the House of Representatives, and some in the media keep repeating the word "clean" like a mantra. But what is unclean about not giving Harry Reid everything he wants?

If Senator Reid and President Obama refuse to accept the money required to run the government, because it leaves out the money they want to run ObamaCare, that is their right. But that is also their responsibility.

You cannot blame other people for not giving you everything you want. And it is a fraud to blame them when you refuse to use the money they did vote, even when it is ample to pay for everything else in the government.

When Barack Obama keeps claiming that it is some new outrage for those who control the money to try to change government policy by granting or withholding money, that is simply a bald-faced lie. You can check the history of other examples of "legislation by appropriation" as it used to be called.

Whether legislation by appropriation is a good idea or a bad idea is a matter of opinion. But whether it is both legal and not unprecedented is a matter of fact.

Perhaps the biggest of the big lies is that the government will not be able to pay what it owes on the national debt, creating a danger of default. Tax money keeps coming into the Treasury during the shutdown, and it vastly exceeds the interest that has to be paid on the national debt.

Even if the debt ceiling is not lifted, that only means that government is not allowed to run up new debt. But that does not mean that it is unable to pay the interest on existing debt.

None of this is rocket science. But unless the Republicans get their side of the story out -- and articulation has never been their strong suit -- the lies will win. More important, the whole country will lose.

Source: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/10/04/who_shut_down_the_government_120206.html#ixzz2gocbfI00

Just to get a step ahead of the mild gak storm this post will probably cause. You're wrong, I like contributing to society, but society and government are not the same, and we have more then enough of the latter right now. Yes, I am part of a vast conspiracy. Just not a right wing one.

Good post KK...

Just one thing... we ain't going to default on anything... there's plenty of cashola in the Treasury. At the worst, the administration my have to prioritize payments. But defaulting? Nah.

Realistically? Probably not.

The real question is whether or not elements of the government look at it hard enough to cause the global financial sector to soil itself.

Again.

They all need to remember how to "Balance a Checkbook" Something I think they have all forgotten or ignoring.

 Seaward wrote:

While Americans were opposed to the shutdown by, indeed, a 3:1 margin, who they blame for the shutdown isn't nearly as clear cut.

True enough. The best numbers that I have access to, and I have access to some pretty damn good numbers, demonstrate that the public blames everyone involved (save itself, but that's another issue). There are other polls, primarily conducted at the behest of news agencies, which show a preference for laying blame at the feet of conservative, House Republicans; but they all have small sample sizes (often under 1000) and dodgy question construction.

If I had to guess, based on available information, I would say that the Republican Party will come out of this slightly worse but that neither side will come out well. Of Course, the individual Republican Congressmen that have involved in this matter may well see a significant boost to their standing at home, as many of them ran on platform built on opposing Obamacare.

 dogma wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

While Americans were opposed to the shutdown by, indeed, a 3:1 margin, who they blame for the shutdown isn't nearly as clear cut.

True enough. The best numbers that I have access to, and I have access to some pretty damn good numbers, demonstrate that the public blames everyone involved (save itself, but that's another issue). There are other polls, primarily conducted at the behest of news agencies, which show a preference for laying blame at the feet of conservative, House Republicans; but they all have small sample sizes (often under 1000) and dodgy question construction.

If I had to guess, based on available information, I would say that the Republican Party will come out of this slightly worse but that neither side will come out well. Of Course, the individual Republican Congressmen that have involved in this matter may well see a significant boost to their standing at home, as many of them ran on platform built on opposing Obamacare.

Have you ever seen a study where the participant blames themselves? o.O

I think at the end of the day, it'll be a push. However, with this subject matter, I'd bet the incumbant would be ding'ed more since all of this is ripe for the usual campaign shenanigan.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

And now for some more on who actually shut down the U.S. Government, I turn to Mr. Thomas Sowell.

Thomas Sowell makes me sad. He is a very bright man who wastes his intelligence on partisan diatribes.

Thomas Sowell wrote:
You can check the Constitution of the United States. All spending bills must originate in the House of Representatives, which means that Congressmen there have a right to decide whether or not they want to spend money on a particular government activity.

Sowell is a smart man, so I'm going to assume the above is deliberately misleading.

Any bill submitted to the Senate can be amended and returned to the House, including appropriations bills. Simply because a bill originates in a particular chamber does not indicate that said chamber bears no responsibility for subsequent legislative actions pertinent to it.

 dogma wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

And now for some more on who actually shut down the U.S. Government, I turn to Mr. Thomas Sowell.

Thomas Sowell makes me sad. He is a very bright man who wastes his intelligence on partisan diatribes.

Thomas Sowell wrote:
You can check the Constitution of the United States. All spending bills must originate in the House of Representatives, which means that Congressmen there have a right to decide whether or not they want to spend money on a particular government activity.

Sowell is a smart man, so I'm going to assume the above is deliberately misleading.

Any bill submitted to the Senate can be amended and returned to the House, including appropriations bills. Simply because a bill originates in a particular chamber does not indicate that said chamber bears no responsibility for subsequent legislative actions pertinent to it.

I think it's to combat the idea whether or not the House could pass individual appropriate bills rather than CRs...

 whembly wrote:

Have you ever seen a study where the participant blames themselves? o.O

Yeah, actually. I've read several articles pertaining to the mutual disposition of people that cohabitate (romantically and otherwise) for extended periods of time, and many of them indicate that such people are more likely to blame themselves than their partner(s).

Granted, this is almost certainly indicative of why they were able to cohabitate for long periods of time, so selection bias is a clear concern.

 whembly wrote:

I think at the end of the day, it'll be a push. However, with this subject matter, I'd bet the incumbant would be ding'ed more since all of this is ripe for the usual campaign shenanigan.

As I said above, it depends on who the incumbent is, and where the incumbent is from. My suspicion is that moderates are likely to take the biggest hits, at least given what we've seen so far.

 whembly wrote:

I think it's to combat the idea whether or not the House could pass individual appropriate bills rather than CRs...

Mr. Sowell never even approached making such a claim as he did not mention Continuing Resolutions at all.

 Alfndrate wrote:
So the Republicans want to 1) cut spending on the budget and 2) reopen the government and hopefully 3) defund or delay Obamacare

The Democrats want 1) a higher debt ceiling and 2) reopen the government

Both parties want point 2, the Democrats point 1 is linked the Republicans point 1, the only part that these two cannot meet on is the Repubs point 3.

Both parties want the higher debt ceiling as well. You can't not have a higher debt ceiling, because you aren't going to hit it, and do so fairly soon. Not raising the ceiling means you could, theoretically, avoid defaulting on t-bills but only by basically missing payments to various suppliers like medical practices and infrastructure suppliers. No-one wants government to become like that.

So that leaves us with the equation of things everyone wants;
1) Raise debt ceiling
2) Re-open government

Then we have the list of things Republicans demand (hope to get) in order to agree to the above;
1) Cut budget spending
2) Defund or delay ACA


The Democrats just want the status quo. Republicans are trying to extort some concession out of them to allow the status quo to continue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Saw this while poking around... if this get worst by mid-next week, we might start seeing some movement:

Nah, we won't. Obama isn't up for re-election. That's a major reason this effort is playing out so differently compared to the 2011 debt ceiling extortion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Just one thing... we ain't going to default on anything... there's plenty of cashola in the Treasury. At the worst, the administration my have to prioritize payments. But defaulting? Nah.

"Prioritising payments" is political speak for not paying some creditors. Government would become a bad debt to various medical and service providers, and probably have to cut around total spending to the tune of around 4% of GDP... so hello catastrophic recession. At least, that's what Goldman Sachs thinks is the most likely outcome (the less likely outcome being a default on t-bills, and basically global financial meltdown).

So fething seriously please, just this one time believe me over the Republican noise machine - hitting the debt ceiling is not okay. It's a total fething disaster. Don't let your political party feth around with this, it's serious.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
August, if I recall correctly.

It was the last CR...
http://blogs.rollcall.com/wgdb/senate-votes-to-keep-obamacare-funded-sends-cr-back-to-house/

Besides... woah... americanprogress.org is as partisan as all hell.

Says the guy who nromally only reposts right-wing talking points as articles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
They all need to remember how to "Balance a Checkbook" Something I think they have all forgotten or ignoring.

I really hate this theme. Balancing the federal budget is nothing like your persoanl check book for many, many reasons.

That is like saying Foreign Policy is just like the school playground.

 Easy E wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
August, if I recall correctly.

It was the last CR...
http://blogs.rollcall.com/wgdb/senate-votes-to-keep-obamacare-funded-sends-cr-back-to-house/

Besides... woah... americanprogress.org is as partisan as all hell.

Says the guy who nromally only reposts right-wing talking points as articles.

Touché...

No, seriously, take a really good look at it.

I'm still trying to determine the source of that chart.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
They all need to remember how to "Balance a Checkbook" Something I think they have all forgotten or ignoring.

I really hate this theme. Balancing the federal budget is nothing like your persoanl check book for many, many reasons.

That is like saying Foreign Policy is just like the school playground.

Well, why not? Don't you remember on the playground how benevolent you'd be discussing how you'd rule if you were King?

Considering it is, that doesn't support your argument very well.

 Frazzled wrote:
Considering it is, that doesn't support your argument very well.

Huh?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
EDIT:
House approves back pay for furloughed workers as shutdown continues

Bill passed by a margin of 407 to zero. That's as bipartisan is it's going to get... ball is in your court Reid.

But, did I understand that correctly... that if passed, those that have been furloughed (not working) would get paid as if they did worked once gov re-opened?

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Saw this while poking around... if this get worst by mid-next week, we might start seeing some movement:

Nah, we won't. Obama isn't up for re-election. That's a major reason this effort is playing out so differently compared to the 2011 debt ceiling extortion.

Well, I'm not sure I'd want to be a House incumbent on either side if this stretches on for a while. But the Dems may gain seats if they can define the battle as Obama vs. House Republicans. And I think they stand a good chance of accomplishing that, as long as Obama's okay playing the punching bag role. Figure:

1) Dem communications edge just by having the office of the POTUS

2) Strong anti-Obama focus in the GOP already

3) They call it "Obamacare"

 sebster wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Just one thing... we ain't going to default on anything... there's plenty of cashola in the Treasury. At the worst, the administration my have to prioritize payments. But defaulting? Nah.

"Prioritising payments" is political speak for not paying some creditors. Government would become a bad debt to various medical and service providers, and probably have to cut around total spending to the tune of around 4% of GDP... so hello catastrophic recession. At least, that's what Goldman Sachs thinks is the most likely outcome (the less likely outcome being a default on t-bills, and basically global financial meltdown).

So fething seriously please, just this one time believe me over the Republican noise machine - hitting the debt ceiling is not okay. It's a total fething disaster. Don't let your political party feth around with this, it's serious.

So... what's your take that Moody’s dismisses default talk, says US will pay bills even if debt ceiling not lifted.

he CEO of credit rating agency Moody’s ruled out the chance of a U.S. government default, even if an agreement over raising the debt ceiling is not achieved by mid-October. …

“It is extremely unlikely that the Treasury is not going to continue to pay on those securities,” Moody’s CEO Raymond McDaniel said in an interview with CNBC.

“Hopefully it is unlikely that we go past October 17 and fail to raise the debt ceiling, but even if that does happen, then we think that the U.S. Treasury is still going to pay on those Treasury securities,” he added.

Another take... Wallstreet is still up by a percent-ish since the showdown... guess we don't know when we should be concerned till it's too late. *shrugs*

All-in-all, I can see at the very minimum... the debt-ceiling will be raised soon.

 whembly wrote:


Bill passed by a margin of 407 to zero. That's as bipartisan is it's going to get...

Nope that's as realistic as you can get. Saying otherwise is political suicide.

 juraigamer wrote:

 whembly wrote:


Bill passed by a margin of 407 to zero. That's as bipartisan is it's going to get...

Nope that's as realistic as you can get. Saying otherwise is political suicide.

Agreed.

So, does that mean if it passed, they'd get paid for work not done? Essentially a forced paid vacation?

disclaimer: Not that I have a problem with it... just curious.

If your employer chooses to send you home during your contracted hours, he presumably is still obliged to pay you according to contract.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If your employer chooses to send you home during your contracted hours, he presumably is still obliged to pay you according to contract.

I thought non-government positions were "different" that way. Hence how they sequestration affected many non-government positions were forced to take days off.

 gorgon wrote:
Well, I'm not sure I'd want to be a House incumbent on either side if this stretches on for a while. But the Dems may gain seats if they can define the battle as Obama vs. House Republicans. And I think they stand a good chance of accomplishing that, as long as Obama's okay playing the punching bag role.

Yeah, interesting point, and it may play out that way. Though Obama is a key part of the Democrat brand so I'm not sure how far you could take it. Better to play the whole thing as what it is - the GOP using government process to extort something out of the Democrats.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
So... what's your take that Moody’s dismisses default talk, says US will pay bills even if debt ceiling not lifted.

he CEO of credit rating agency Moody’s ruled out the chance of a U.S. government default, even if an agreement over raising the debt ceiling is not achieved by mid-October. …

“It is extremely unlikely that the Treasury is not going to continue to pay on those securities,” Moody’s CEO Raymond McDaniel said in an interview with CNBC.

“Hopefully it is unlikely that we go past October 17 and fail to raise the debt ceiling, but even if that does happen, then we think that the U.S. Treasury is still going to pay on those Treasury securities,” he added.

The Moody's guy doesn't disagree with me. The t-bills will be paid, probably. But to do that you'll see other bill payments get delayed/missed, so medical providers, infrastructure providers and all those kind of people, suddenly their most reliable client just became their least reliable. And in fairly short order you'll see cuts to overall spending of about 4% of GDP... that's 4% of total spending just pulled out of the economy at a time when you really need whatever demand you can get.

And that is the best case scenario. And right now there's Republican pundits out there trying to sell a debt default as not that bad a thing... it's fething frightening.

Michelle Bachman wrote:“This happened and as of today the United States is willingly, knowingly, intentionally sending arms to terrorists, now what this says to me, I’m a believer in Jesus Christ, as I look at the End Times scripture, this says to me that the leaf is on the fig tree and we are to understand the signs of the times, which is your ministry, we are to understand where we are in God’s end times history," Bachmann told Jan Markell, radio host of "Understanding the Times," on Saturday.

“Rather than seeing this as a negative, we need to rejoice, Maranatha Come Lord Jesus, His day is at hand,” Bachmann added later. “And so when we see up is down and right is called wrong, when this is happening, we were told this; that these days would be as the days of Noah. We are seeing that in our time. Yes it gives us fear in some respects because we want the retirement that our parents enjoyed. Well they will, if they know Jesus Christ.”

*blink*

You guys are pretty fraked if this keeps up. I mean, sure, she's always been a nutbar, but declaring this the end of days is going a bit beyond anti-vaxxer bullgak.

Next year Bachmann will retire and be quickly forgotten. No thought needs to be given to the drivel that pours from her mouth.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If your employer chooses to send you home during your contracted hours, he presumably is still obliged to pay you according to contract.

They can force you to use your leave, and if you don't use your leave, welcome to "leave without pay" or "fired". Depends what "contract you assume you have. Every government contractor had stuff pretty much saying "if the client ain't paying us, you ain't got no job." And if your contract ends, you are literally on the street tomorrow.

All the government contractors who are "furlowed" are pissed because they are burning vacation. I have already burned my 2 floating holidays for the partial furlow I got this week since my employer cut back our department to match the % of employees who have no work, which is around 48% of our contracts. So my department of 8 is round-robin days off between the employees so we can keep "work" happening for those who are unaffected but we are not pointlessly overstaffed.

If it goes until next week, besides the meltdown of the world economy, many people may run out of leave and will not only need to start LWOPing, but basically ruin thanksgiving and Christmas leave plans.

 djones520 wrote:
Next year Bachmann will retire and be quickly forgotten. No thought needs to be given to the drivel that pours from her mouth.

Are you kidding?

It'll be non-stop hilarity from the Bachman Turner Overdrive Power Hour on Fox.