What is illegal?

 

Oh, it is technically legal. However, is it ok for one party to shut down the entire Government for what amounts to a protest against a law already upheld by the Supreme Court? Sounds logical and worse yet, this gives the GOP a huge black eye that will have to open up more Democratic seats in Congress, which makes me want to puke. The Republicans are behaving like children. Work hard within the system to limit the power of the ACA. Again, the Supreme Court didn't say all of Obamacare was Constituional, only that they could mandate individuals to partake. Fine, toothpaste is out of the tube, now work to make the rest of it work within the confines of the Constitution.

This is a summary of the GOP’s strategy right now:

 

Obama has accused Republicans of hostage taking. Let’s be clear: I’m all for taking hostages. Both sides do it all the time. But one of the first things they teach you in Hostage Taking 101 is that you have to choose a hostage the other side cares about saving. Obama and the Democrats don’t care about stopping a government shutdown. With a shutdown, Republicans are essentially putting a gun to their own heads and threatening to pull the trigger if the Democrats don’t capitulate. Not surprisingly, it’s not working.

 

Some congressional Republicans can’t seem to get it though their heads: When it comes to a government shutdown they . . . have . . .no . . . leverage. By contrast, when it comes to the debt-limit showdown, they do have leverage; while Obama can let the government close and blame the GOP, he cannot allow the United States to default.

 

Unfortunately, Thiessen is right: a government shutdown is mild enough that it can be endured. But, hitting the debt ceiling will be an actual crisis. Missing payments on treasury bonds would be a catastrophe. Even the inherent uncertainty of whether the government will be able to make its payments would be disastrous. In 2011, a financial analyst on Wall St. was quoted as saying that once panic gets into the markets you can’t get the paste back into the tube. Republicans are essentially going to say “give us what we want or default.” This is madness and I can’t believe so many on here are breaking their backs to defend this.

This is a summary of the GOP’s strategy right now:

 

Obama has accused Republicans of hostage taking. Let’s be clear: I’m all for taking hostages. Both sides do it all the time. But one of the first things they teach you in Hostage Taking 101 is that you have to choose a hostage the other side cares about saving. Obama and the Democrats don’t care about stopping a government shutdown. With a shutdown, Republicans are essentially putting a gun to their own heads and threatening to pull the trigger if the Democrats don’t capitulate. Not surprisingly, it’s not working.

 

Some congressional Republicans can’t seem to get it though their heads: When it comes to a government shutdown they . . . have . . .no . . . leverage. By contrast, when it comes to the debt-limit showdown, they do have leverage; while Obama can let the government close and blame the GOP, he cannot allow the United States to default.

 

Unfortunately, Thiessen is right: a government shutdown is mild enough that it can be endured. But, hitting the debt ceiling will be an actual crisis. Missing payments on treasury bonds would be a catastrophe. Even the inherent uncertainty of whether the government will be able to make its payments would be disastrous. In 2011, a financial analyst on Wall St. was quoted as saying that once panic gets into the markets you can’t get the paste back into the tube. Republicans are essentially going to say “give us what we want or default.” This is madness and I can’t believe so many on here are breaking their backs to defend this.

 

Broken record.....why is it ALL on the republicans to compromise and NOT the democrats????????????????????????????

They get to keep the rest of it, and the government gets funded. But, what happened to the spending cuts that were agreed and postponed last year....are those swept under the rug now and the only issue is Obamacare...I think not, it is just the rallying point of the dems. to hide the rest of the irresponsibility of the budget.

 

Those aren't concessions to Democrats/Obama, unless shutting down the government is now part of the Republican platform. The law is already on the books and Republicans don't have enough votes to change it. A compromise implies that you give up something to the other side to get something. In all of these "compromises" it's the Republicans getting something at the expense of Democrats/Obama in exchange for nothing.

Broken record.....why is it ALL on the republicans to compromise and NOT the democrats????????????????????????????

 

In all of these "compromises" it's the Republicans getting something at the expense of Democrats/Obama in exchange for nothing.

 

Or I guess in exchange for not causing a financial disaster. How the hell you call that a compromise, I don't know.

Oh, it is technically legal. However, is it ok for one party to shut down the entire Government for what amounts to a protest against a law already upheld by the Supreme Court? Sounds logical and worse yet, this gives the GOP a huge black eye that will have to open up more Democratic seats in Congress, which makes me want to puke. The Republicans are behaving like children. Work hard within the system to limit the power of the ACA. Again, the Supreme Court didn't say all of Obamacare was Constituional, only that they could mandate individuals to partake. Fine, toothpaste is out of the tube, now work to make the rest of it work within the confines of the Constitution.

 

I'm not saying I agree 100% with what is going on. But I refuse to act like democrats aren't equally responsible. All this is just a tease anyway. Oct.17th is the big date.

Or I guess in exchange for not causing a financial disaster. How the hell you call that a compromise, I don't know.

 

Calling this a financial disaster is a little hyperbole. Republicans may of forced a hand some may say a little to far. But there is no arguing how petty the dems have been since the shutdown.

Calling this a financial disaster is a little hyperbole. Republicans may of forced a hand some may say a little to far. But there is no arguing how petty the dems have been since the shutdown.

 

I was talking about the default threat. I've said a short shutdown is pretty mild.

I was talking about the default threat. I've said a short shutdown is pretty mild.

That is fair.

Even if the the ceiling isn't raised on Oct. 17th we won't default unless the adminstration chooses to. We will have plenty of revenue to pay debt. The default argument has been a scare tactic from both sides for a couple years. I don't think legally we could default immediately. It would force us to trim the fat.

That is fair.

Even if the the ceiling isn't raised on Oct. 17th we won't default unless the adminstration chooses to. We will have plenty of revenue to pay debt. The default argument has been a scare tactic from both sides for a couple years. I don't think legally we could default immediately. It would force us to trim the fat.

 

The administration will have to choose something to not pay, either some on mandatory spending program or interest on the debt. I don't think there's enough monthly revenue to cover all mandatory spending and interest. According to Merrill Lynch, government spending would be forced down by about 20% and would enough of a hit to GDP of about 4%. Depending on how long that lasted it would be a recession. Either way, everything I've read from market analysts is that there's no certainty about what the treasury department would be able to do re: interest payments and that uncertainty alone would be enough to spook the markets. The US gets a great deal on its debt, uncertainty would certainly raise the risk on US debt and make it more expensive for the US overall. The damage of moving beyond the uncertainty and actually defaulting can't be overstated.

Again, what compromise are Obama/Democrats offering?

 

I had heard that they had cut funding but haven't seen much about it.

I had heard that they had cut funding but haven't seen much about it.

 

The continuing resolution extends the sequester cuts. I don't know if the Democrats fought keeping that in or not.

The administration will have to choose something to not pay, either some on mandatory spending program or interest on the debt. I don't think there's enough monthly revenue to cover all mandatory spending and interest. According to Merrill Lynch, government spending would be forced down by about 20% and would enough of a hit to GDP of about 4%. Depending on how long that lasted it would be a recession. Either way, everything I've read from market analysts is that there's no certainty about what the treasury department would be able to do re: interest payments and that uncertainty alone would be enough to spook the markets. The US gets a great deal on its debt, uncertainty would certainly raise the risk on US debt and make it more expensive for the US overall. The damage of moving beyond the uncertainty and actually defaulting can't be overstated.

 

O don't get me wrong we would get downgraded. But default isn't happening . I'd have to read that report in the entirety. But it is untrue that spending obligations would out weight receipts. Social and domestic programs would be hit for sure . The political fall back for being the first president to default is to great. Obama doesn't want that legacy. I repeat there is zero chance of default. Zero .

O don't get me wrong we would get downgraded. But default isn't happening . I'd have to read that report in the entirety. But it is untrue that spending obligations would out weight receipts. Social and domestic programs would be hit for sure . The political fall back for being the first president to default is to great. Obama doesn't want that legacy. I repeat there is zero chance of default. Zero .

 

I don't think he will voluntarily either. From what I understand, he's legally obligated to execute the mandatory spending programs (Social Security, Medicare, veterans' benefits). When I looked at the numbers in 2011 during the last debt ceiling fiasco, there was a yearly difference of about $200B between mandatory spending plus interest and revenues. That means all mandatory spending and interest won't get covered, assuming 2013 is similar to 2011. And monthly revenues are inconsistent, with most of them coming in nearer to April, so it's even harder to say what money the government will have on hand day to day. Not to mention debt payments come due at different times, which makes planning for that uneven. So, depending on monthly revenues, Obama will have to decide which things to pay, where not paying the mandatory programs would technically be illegal and not paying the interest would be insane. Since that's never happened before it would be hard to say what would happen.

How is that a compromise? It's just a less extreme' date=' but still drastic demand. What would Democrats or Obama get out of conceding to that?[/quote']

 

If they are worried about what they get out of it, were in trouble.