govt shutdown looms
 

http://news.msn.com/us/house-votes-t...hutdown-closer

republicans, by a wide margin, concede that a govt shutdown would be horrible for the country and the economy.
but politics triumphs over what's good for the people.

i see a trillion dollar coin in the offing. i wonder if the debt ceiling can removed by exective order....

and i just saw a story about a conscience clause added by repubs to the spending bill. outrageous.

keep in mind that erectile dysfunction pills, vacuum suction devices, penile implants and vasectomies are covered by insurers and medicare....yes, medicare covers vacuum suction devices. one viagra or cialis is about 15 a pill. one MONTH of bc pills is about $15.

Too bad the Senate decided to take Sunday off - I guess the gov shutdown is no big deal:eek:

GOP committing political suicide. Markets set to crater will get people to notice.

It's not. They'll pay no penalty for this at all. With the current gerrymandering we'll have this Congressional makeup until at least 2022. Good times ahead. And by that I mean, "Good times if you're already rich."

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/...oncession.html

'But the debt ceiling isn't some pet Obama administration priority. There is a gap between the spending that Congress has instructed Treasury to undertake and the taxes that Congress has authorized Treasury to collect. Authority to borrow the money to fill the gap is necessary to legally dot the i-s and cross the t-s.
Granting it does not authorize any new spending and failing to grant it does not cut spending.'


and here is a link to an article discussing the 'conscience clause' repubs worked up:


http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor...employers.html

and this, on what happens if the ceiling isn't raised:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/..._mean_you.html

'Looking around the Web today, most grassroots conservatives and a frightening number of Republican members of Congress seem to be under the misapprehension that raising the debt ceiling increases government spending or that failing to raise it decreases government spending. Neither is true. I don't think anyone really knows what will happen if the debt ceiling isn't raised, but a reduction in government spending is not one of the possible consequences.

There are two kinds of government spending—mandatory and discretionary—and neither of them will be cut by a single penny by a refusal to hike the debt ceiling.'


and at the end:

'Spending is determined by the laws that have already been passed, and if you want to spend less money you need to change those laws.'

I think this sort of message always stops spending:



At least it does for individuals and businesses. And, if there is no effect on spending as said above, then why is everyone pushing for a raise of the debt ceiling?

Unless we plan on taxing every good and service 100% I think GDP represents nothing but potential tax money.

The situation is far worse when considering total tax revenues, expected at $2.7 trillion this year vs. annual budget $3.7 trillion with a total debt just over $20 trillion.

To put it in real numbers imagine going to a bank for a loan to pay bills, making $27K/yr. after taxes with $37K/yr. in expenses and owing 200K in credit card bills, including cards taken out in your children's and grandchildren's names.

It would be nice for everyone to have health insurance whether supplemented or not. It would also be nice if everyone had a house and a yard. But in the real world the money's not there and like everyone living in the real world we need to cut back and make (tax) more. Since neither party seems willing to, Dems cut and GOP tax, I suggest forming a dueling league and holding 20 Dem v. GOP events with the best of seven duels.

the money has already been 'spent', the debt ceiling has to do with the difference between money on hand and what's borrowed.
if we want to lower our debt, we need to re-do the budget, or raise taxes. the debt is what the govt uses to finance what taxes don't cover.

regardless of party in control of the white house, the debt ceiling becomes a political football. when bush was president, the repubs had no issue with raising the debt ceiling, and dems fought it-such as obama, when a senator. of course, now the shoe's on the other foot.
but it's a ridiculous stance to take, as the very congresspeople now fighting over this debt ceiling are the same ones who control the purse strings, the spending, the budgets, which aren't in line, haven't been in line, and require the govt to borrow in the first place!!
it would be like your wife and you buying a house, two cars, etc, and then refusing to finance it-you want to pay in cash, but you don't have the cash. but you agreed to buy all those items. so, you fork over your cash, and then what? that's where the govt will find itself if the ceiling isn't raised, again, as it has been raised however many times over the years.


in a nutshell, congress passes tax and spending bills that make a budget deficit necessary and they are now refusing to allow the borrowing to finance that deficit-a deficit congress created!
if they want to stay under the current debt ceiling, they need to change their tax and spending bills.

Like spoiled children they need to be told to go to their rooms and there's no more money coming unless they come up with a balanced budget. Give them a month and pay all mandatory bills while suspending all discretionary spending.

You'll never see DC work harder.

and here, from will saletan (one i don't always agree with, but always read)

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...le_ground.html

Republicans pretend there’s lots of precedent for this sort of “compromise.” They point to 17 previous shutdowns (helpfully outlined by Dylan Matthews in the Washington Post), most of which were resolved by concessions. But when you examine these cases, the claims of resemblance evaporate.



The present shutdown threat is nothing like those cases. For the first time, a single party, controlling a single house of Congress—despite having lost the popular vote for that chamber by more than a million ballots in the most recent election—is refusing to fund the government unless the other chamber and the president agree to suspend previously enacted legislation.


Sorry, Republicans. Nothing in the Constitution authorizes a single house of Congress to retroactively veto U.S. law by refusing to fund the rest of the government. The manner in which you’re attempting this blackmail—on party-line votes, engineered by the party that lost the popular vote—doesn’t help. The Senate and the president have no legal or moral obligation to humor your demands. Do your job, or we’ll throw you out.

I say we vote to reduce the debt ceiling.

great bumper sticker.

disastrous fiscal policy.

Kinda like this one:

and i thank you for reading what i posted. :rolleyes:
your comment only shows that you misunderstand the subject.

10/17/13
 

http://www.slate.com/articles/busine..._limit_is.html

Normally the way things work is that the Treasury Department cuts the checks Congress has told it to cut, collects the taxes Congress has told it to collect, and borrows to cover the difference. But the statutory debt ceiling also instructs Treasury not to borrow more than a certain amount of money. When we hit the debt ceiling on Oct. 17, Treasury will lack the legal authority to borrow any more money to close the gap between spending and tax revenue.

At that point, there are basically three options. One is President Obama could decide that the government’s legal obligation to spend (and certain elements of the 14th Amendment) trump the statutory debt ceiling, and just order the Treasury to sell more bonds. The second option is Obama could instruct the Treasury to pay some of the government’s bills and just not pay the rest. The third option is to pay nobody. All three of these options face the same basic problem of seeming to be illegal. (The second one also faces the problem that Treasury says it lacks the logistical capacity to do it.)

The general consensus is that the third option would, among other things, provoke a global financial crisis by causing a default on U.S. treasury bonds—bonds that are meant to be the safest asset in the financial system. The first option may avoid this fate, but perhaps not. It’s difficult to imagine financial markets would be undisturbed by the prospect. And in general, simply nobody knows what anyone should do about anything if the debt ceiling is breached. Unlike with the shutdown, there is no overriding OMB guidance. There are no rules to spell out essential versus nonessential services. Officially, at least, there’s no contingency planning at all. It’s just a kind of terrifying world of uncertainty.

And that’s the big difference between these two events. There hasn’t been a government shutdown in a while but they were common in the 1970s and 1980s. They’re a big deal in Washington, D.C. because federal employees don’t get paid when they happen. But as long as it doesn’t last too long, it’ll be fine. A debt ceiling breach, by contrast, is completely unprecedented. There’s no guarantee that it’ll lead to a worldwide financial panic and a massive global depression, but there’s honestly no guarantee that it won’t. Nobody knows what will happen, and you should find that prospect terrifying.

Much Ado About Nothing.

Remember five years ago when we were told we have to spend to prevent going bankrupt?

One thing that spending did get us was $6 trillion more in debt. $40K for every man woman and child in the country, about $160K for every senior. And now we don't have the money to pay the seniors the money they already paid in? Something drastic needs to be done. The budget needs to be cut by a trillion and the debt ceiling should be raised and re-visited in 3 months and every three months after until steady progress is made.

And the next time Washington says it's going to give money to bailouts, junking cars, and bailing out failed cities the American people need to say no f---'n way!

Yea the economy has gotten better, but at what expense? Guess what the interest is on $6 trillion? It's the gift that keeps giving.

Ending on a positive. Thank God the President changed his mind about bombing Syria.

The baby boomers simply don't give two shits about future generations or their parents. ZIRP steals from grandma and the endless debt each year f.ucks our children. My hope is the baby boomers are eating cat food after their epic failure of a generation.

:zz:

Friskies for you.

Pretty funny clip from Jimmy Kimmel:

http://gawker.com/kimmel-asks-americ...for-1433866673

Best quote from the comments section:

"Most of America is Lenny and the rest of us are George, just trying to keep them calm and stop them from destroying something."

jesus

just saw on slate that foxnews is referring to the shutdown as a 'slimdown'. i guess they figure the republicans are going to take the blame, so let's rename the shutdown something less worrisome! yay, fox 'news'

Did you watch last nite's Stewart show yet?..covered it well...Had Orielly on last nite and he was his usual aszhole self...said Obama is weak because he didn't bomb Syria..:zz:..

Here's one of Stewarts rants from the show..it was on the gawker link..:D

no, will watch sometime this evening. probably during a caps intermission! didn't watch the gawker link, want to see it all at one time.

From last season's Newsroom, but well worth watching:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGAvwSp86hY

:tro:

Thousands of fed workers will be fuloughed withOUT pay..
Members of Congress continue to fill their pockets..
At least SS checks will continue..:tro:

have seen it before, good clip.


and this, from an article about obama's earlier rose garden speech:

'The president says Republicans should not be able to hold the entire economy "hostage." '

he's right, they shouldn't be able to. but they are right now. that's exactly what they're doing, willingly harming this country because they want obamacare gone. republicans conceded a shutdown was harmful, but went ahead with their plan anyway. it's a disgrace.

i don't like obamacare, but this move by the tea partiers is a horrible step in the wrong direction.
i hope obama either issues an executive order raising the ceiling, or he has the mint issue some high denomination coinage. shove this bs right down the throat of one small group of congress, who is willfully engaging in behavior harmful to this country.
oh, and don't forget...while people are furloughed, etc...congress still gets their paychecks.

Neither should the grossly obese group that was assembled behind him during the speech who were finally able afford $2,000/month and up policies because $1600 and up will be subsidized.

And if the Fed workers that were out marching in front of the Dirksen Federal Building in Chicago are any representation of workers furloughed, half can be sent home for good regardless of this outcome. Or at least follow the private world and reduce their hours to 28/week so their health care can be dropped. :zz:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate...overnment.html


love this front page, hilarious!

and take note, tea partiers:

By a 72-22 margin, voters opposed Congress shutting down the federal government to block the implementation of Obamacare. Even though Americans were divided on the merits of the healthcare law itself—with 45 percent in favor and 47 percent opposed (but take note that people are far more supportive of the affordable care act, without realizing it's the same thing)—they were against the idea of Congress cutting off funding for the law, 58 percent to 34 percent.

also,

But Republicans in Congress have hit a record low, the poll shows. Only 17 percent of voters approve of the way GOP members of Congress are handling their jobs, while a whopping 74 percent disapprove.

Obama's approval rating is net-negative: 45 percent approve, and 49 percent disapprove. And congressional Democrats earn a 32-percent approval rating, while three-in-five voters disapprove.

Looking ahead to the 2014 elections, Democrats lead Republicans on the generic ballot, the poll shows, 43 percent to 34 percent. (largest gap since 2009).

And 48 ways the Gov't shutdown will affect us:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...cally-everyone

http://www.slate.com/blogs/business_..._to_blame.html


this, on the tea party. good article.

Not intended for anyone here, applies to those folks in DC..

oh, foxnews, you're so funny....from their front page:

Pols dig in amid slimdown stalemate

A GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN? Not really — turns out it's more of a SLIMDOWN
Unions say they'll fight for back payGov't slimdown to be felt beyond Capitol Hill Much of gov't remains open in slimdown | Major Federal sites offline
Obama signs bill to pay military during slimdown |
Gov't slimdown will ground NASA almost entirely
How to visit national parks during partial slimdown
Vets sweep past barricades in defiance of slimdown


lol
hilarious. shutdown....what shutdown?

Yeah, they are on top on things with the latest twists:)

Even as Mrs Lincoln was leaving Ford theater after the assassination a Fox talking head was out there and asked her 'Other than that Mrs Lincoln, how did you like the play':zz:

yeah, just watched it. and i love the wonka line, it fits so many scenarios.
but the worst part of the show, the stat that brought the most pain?!?!

that o'reilly has already sold 350k copies of his latest horrible waste of paper and ink.