The Debt Ceiling and the Conservative Bubble

[Foucaulf]

I addressed the article.  The article works from a premise that there was even some kind of reasonable plan to begin with.  It's part of human nature to assume there is some underlying order to the chaos.  In this case there doesn't appear to be.  Talk of Obamacare has faded and we even have a Congressman admitting he doesn't even know what he wants.



Step 1.  Shut down the Government
Step 2.  Figure out what you want

Sorry, I did read your post - I just use quotes as a kickoff point for my own (and this is going to be a long-ass post, so hang tight)

I just did some thinking on which internal dynamics we're looking for. Assuming the common knowledge that most Congressional Republicans would vote for a clean continuing resolution and that the hard right caucus gets their power from forcing a leadership vote, we should be looking for the dynamics of the leadership.

I get your idea that the leadership is mired in chaos, but do not fully agree with it. At the minimum, I believe they have establish a deadline of x days until the debt ceiling before which they are not willing to negotiate. The question I'm asking for now is how we can figure out that deadline, and what can be done to accelerate it.

I can think of two evident solutions: financial panic and doubling down. The former I already discusses, and the latter would be something like Obama/Ds demanding also a return to pre-sequester funding levels. I want to support the latter idea by saying it would destroy all existing endgame plans for the leadership and leave them unmoored. On the other hand, doing so would be a political death pill and fits into the conservative talking point of the administration being vindictive in its negotiations, which makes it even tougher for the leadership to fight against it.

We don't have enough information, then, to predict how we can design something that would entice the leadership into doing what the majority population wants - passing a CR. Which leads into the one concrete point I want to make: Obama has been way too passive this week. He should have been tempting the leadership, making statements, learning how they and the rank-and-file members react.

He could have lost popularity, but he's losing it anyways by letting the shutdown stretch out. He's using too much of Clinton's tactics when the enemy this time has a completely different organization, and even Clinton back in the days talked instead of waiting, and eventually forced Gingrich to the brink. Inaction guarantees a fog of war; doing something at least lets one see something.

(Feel free to question my evidence or propose other solutions.)

[opebo]

You don't understand my point opebo. This discussion has nothing to do with what the budget should be.  Rather it is about whether it is likely a financial crisis will ensue if the debt ceiling is not raised. The answer is no. Sure there will be pain, financial disruption, and waste, and I oppose the whole Pub agenda on this (fight it out in the next election, and the one after that, dump the filibuster, and come up with something better when you win the trifecta if you do, and ram it down the Dem's throats to return the Obamacare favor if the parties are simply unable to work effectively together on anything anymore these days, that is what elections are for).

I hope I have made myself clear.

No, I understand you very well, Torie, my point was as others have made that there is no practical way for the federal government to pick and choose between things at the level of complexity and the incredible tightness of the remaining money involved.  They'll default. 

[Link]

I addressed the article.  The article works from a premise that there was even some kind of reasonable plan to begin with.  It's part of human nature to assume there is some underlying order to the chaos.  In this case there doesn't appear to be.  Talk of Obamacare has faded and we even have a Congressman admitting he doesn't even know what he wants.



Step 1.  Shut down the Government
Step 2.  Figure out what you want

Sorry, I did read your post - I just use quotes as a kickoff point for my own (and this is going to be a long-ass post, so hang tight)

Well I should have really left you out of it.  I was sort of just quoting to kick my response off as well.  I honestly don't know what is going on.  It doesn't make any sense to me.  Just picking a law at random and saying you won't fund the government unless it is repealed or defunded just doesn't make any sense.  And now with the people abandoning the whole defund Obamacare thing and saying they don't know what they want I don't know what to think.  Shutting down the government is a big deal.  Really should have every step planned before you do it.

Anyway your guess is as good as mine as to what people are thinking.

[Cory]

Again, why all this chat of default when a failure to raise the debt ceiling will cut spending by "only" 17%, with debt service being paid first, along with other mandatory expenditures, as required by law? Sure the failure to raise the debt ceiling will be economically disruptive, but there will be no debt default. Period.

Even if all of this is true it doesn't mean that not raising the Debt Ceiling is okay. It doesn't mean that using the Debt Limit as a tool to extract concessions is a legitimate strategy.

[Sbane]

I don't know if the government has software which can prioritize payments. Why should it? Why should someone assume that a certain political party will go insane and act like 5 year old children? I would be disappointed if the government did have software to prioritize payments since that would be a waste of money. The government should try to be efficient and reduce unnecessary spending. Don't you agree, Torie?

[Torie]

I don't know if the government has software which can prioritize payments. Why should it? Why should someone assume that a certain political party will go insane and act like 5 year old children? I would be disappointed if the government did have software to prioritize payments since that would be a waste of money. The government should try to be efficient and reduce unnecessary spending. Don't you agree, Torie?

No, it is imprudent not to have the capability to pick and choose when things go awry. It should not cost that much money in the larger scheme of things. Think of it as a cost like, well, an insurance premium.   Anyway, we now know that the debt will be paid, and blaming software was BS, and for some reason the troops are being paid, without a software block, so I think much of it is hype. Both parties are in heavy spin mode now, and it is nausiating to me. Obama should be negotiating, and he can stand firm on Obamacare, but no, this is all about moving poll numbers because the Dems think this is a path to taking the House. They are very probably wrong, but they are going there.

Oh yes, the Pubs disgust me for not going to conference on the budget months ago. They didn't because they ran the risk that dissident Pubs might defect, since if the conference fails, after 20 days, stuff can be forced to the floor without a discharge petition, which is why Pelosi offered to give up that card in this context under the gun. But the Pubs are gutless in that if they cannot hold a majority on the merits, they should not be able to "win" based on procedural games.

But of course both parties have made procedural games into an art form. It is all about trying to move the polls now. And both parties on wrong in thinking all of this BS will move the polls much when push comes to shove in the next election. The Fruited Plain is that polarized. Where are the adults? Where are the politicians with guts who are more interested in good public policy than winning the next election?  The system is, if not broken, at a minimum not working on all cylinders. But in the end the public gets what they deserve. Both members of both parties should demand better, but they don't.

[bullmoose88]

...
But of course both parties have made procedural games into an art form. It is all about trying to move the polls now. And both parties on wrong in thinking all of this BS will move the polls much when push comes to shove in the next election. The Fruited Plain is that polarized. Where are the adults? Where are the politicians with guts who are more interested in good public policy than winning the next election?  The system is, if not broken, at a minimum not working on all cylinders. But in the end the public gets what they deserve. Both members of both parties should demand better, but they don't.

I think you know where those folks went...the ideologues are in charge of things.  Not the pragmatists.  This is especially true for one particular side that has a sizable caucus in it that is more concerned about ideological theory than anything else. 

[bedstuy]

I don't know if the government has software which can prioritize payments. Why should it? Why should someone assume that a certain political party will go insane and act like 5 year old children? I would be disappointed if the government did have software to prioritize payments since that would be a waste of money. The government should try to be efficient and reduce unnecessary spending. Don't you agree, Torie?

No, it is imprudent not to have the capability to pick and choose when things go awry. It should not cost that much money in the larger scheme of things. Think of it as a cost like, well, an insurance premium.   Anyway, we now know that the debt will be paid, and blaming software was BS, and for some reason the troops are being paid, without a software block, so I think much of it is hype. Both parties are in heavy spin mode now, and it is nausiating to me. Obama should be negotiating, and he can stand firm on Obamacare, but no, this is all about moving poll numbers because the Dems think this is a path to taking the House. They are very probably wrong, but they are going there.

Oh yes, the Pubs disgust me for not going to conference on the budget months ago. They didn't because they ran the risk that dissident Pubs might defect, since if the conference fails, after 20 days, stuff can be forced to the floor without a discharge petition, which is why Pelosi offered to give up that card in this context under the gun. But the Pubs are gutless in that if they cannot hold a majority on the merits, they should not be able to "win" based on procedural games.

But of course both parties have made procedural games into an art form. It is all about trying to move the polls now. And both parties on wrong in thinking all of this BS will move the polls much when push comes to shove in the next election. The Fruited Plain is that polarized. Where are the adults? Where are the politicians with guts who are more interested in good public policy than winning the next election?  The system is, if not broken, at a minimum not working on all cylinders. But in the end the public gets what they deserve. Both members of both parties should demand better, but they don't.

No... I think Democrats are acting like centrist adults, while Republicans are 100% at fault for this situation and are acting like petulant fanatics who hate this country so long as it is governed by Democrats. 

Why doesn't Obama just promise to veto the debt limit increase unless he gets cap and trade, a public option, a tax increase and a new infrastructure investment?  Then, if he compromised by accepting a Republican budget number, would that make him an adult?

[t_host1]

From your article...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do you think that is true.  Do you think these guys thought the President and his troops would just give up on a law that has already been passed and ruled Constitutional by the Supreme Court?  When in the history of our nation has any party done that?  What is the precedent for such a move?

My take on the court position was that it, the court, wanted the people to decide if they wanted to keep ACA or not, not that it, ACA is a required right of the constitutional order – a billing of right. And, I didn’t think it is a stumble that ACA is up for defunding or a necessity that the public be liberated from its requirements. ACA standing success will only be of its own making, not by force.

On the debt – because of its size, it is in a place that any current economic rational can’t touch it. One of the things I try to contemplate is, if, service and principle were paid, where would it go? How much of it recycles into corporate investment, private lending or pure spending on a wonder even if it exploits labor? Does velocity of currency paying taxes pay more debt, then, the heat up of inflation – maybe or maybe not? All of this with other considerations is what defines an outcome for all or for few by design, which then brings us back to go. Somebody(s) in the end will decide – is it now or later and, is that I tried to express a conservative bubble or just another conundrum?

[Sbane]

I don't know if the government has software which can prioritize payments. Why should it? Why should someone assume that a certain political party will go insane and act like 5 year old children? I would be disappointed if the government did have software to prioritize payments since that would be a waste of money. The government should try to be efficient and reduce unnecessary spending. Don't you agree, Torie?

No, it is imprudent not to have the capability to pick and choose when things go awry. It should not cost that much money in the larger scheme of things. Think of it as a cost like, well, an insurance premium.   Anyway, we now know that the debt will be paid, and blaming software was BS, and for some reason the troops are being paid, without a software block, so I think much of it is hype. Both parties are in heavy spin mode now, and it is nausiating to me. Obama should be negotiating, and he can stand firm on Obamacare, but no, this is all about moving poll numbers because the Dems think this is a path to taking the House. They are very probably wrong, but they are going there.

Oh yes, the Pubs disgust me for not going to conference on the budget months ago. They didn't because they ran the risk that dissident Pubs might defect, since if the conference fails, after 20 days, stuff can be forced to the floor without a discharge petition, which is why Pelosi offered to give up that card in this context under the gun. But the Pubs are gutless in that if they cannot hold a majority on the merits, they should not be able to "win" based on procedural games.

But of course both parties have made procedural games into an art form. It is all about trying to move the polls now. And both parties on wrong in thinking all of this BS will move the polls much when push comes to shove in the next election. The Fruited Plain is that polarized. Where are the adults? Where are the politicians with guts who are more interested in good public policy than winning the next election?  The system is, if not broken, at a minimum not working on all cylinders. But in the end the public gets what they deserve. Both members of both parties should demand better, but they don't.

The democrats don't think they should have to negotiate over the full faith and credit of the United States and I agree with them. Why should they negotiate with these tactics? Holding the debt limit hostage like this is not an act of responsible adults and the children in the room need to be taught once and for all that it is not acceptable behavior. There is no rational argument for why the Democrats need to negotiate and if there is I haven't heard it.

[memphis]

I just did some thinking on which internal dynamics we're looking for. Assuming the common knowledge that most Congressional Republicans would vote for a clean continuing resolution and that the hard right caucus gets their power from forcing a leadership vote, we should be looking for the dynamics of the leadership.

This is faulty. Most Congressional Republicans would not vote for a clean CR. Almost all Dems would and a few dozen Republicans would. That's enough for an overall majority, but that's not how Boehner or most Republicans want to do it. And that's why we are where we are.

[Torie]

I don't know if the government has software which can prioritize payments. Why should it? Why should someone assume that a certain political party will go insane and act like 5 year old children? I would be disappointed if the government did have software to prioritize payments since that would be a waste of money. The government should try to be efficient and reduce unnecessary spending. Don't you agree, Torie?

No, it is imprudent not to have the capability to pick and choose when things go awry. It should not cost that much money in the larger scheme of things. Think of it as a cost like, well, an insurance premium.   Anyway, we now know that the debt will be paid, and blaming software was BS, and for some reason the troops are being paid, without a software block, so I think much of it is hype. Both parties are in heavy spin mode now, and it is nausiating to me. Obama should be negotiating, and he can stand firm on Obamacare, but no, this is all about moving poll numbers because the Dems think this is a path to taking the House. They are very probably wrong, but they are going there.

Oh yes, the Pubs disgust me for not going to conference on the budget months ago. They didn't because they ran the risk that dissident Pubs might defect, since if the conference fails, after 20 days, stuff can be forced to the floor without a discharge petition, which is why Pelosi offered to give up that card in this context under the gun. But the Pubs are gutless in that if they cannot hold a majority on the merits, they should not be able to "win" based on procedural games.

But of course both parties have made procedural games into an art form. It is all about trying to move the polls now. And both parties on wrong in thinking all of this BS will move the polls much when push comes to shove in the next election. The Fruited Plain is that polarized. Where are the adults? Where are the politicians with guts who are more interested in good public policy than winning the next election?  The system is, if not broken, at a minimum not working on all cylinders. But in the end the public gets what they deserve. Both members of both parties should demand better, but they don't.

The democrats don't think they should have to negotiate over the full faith and credit of the United States and I agree with them. Why should they negotiate with these tactics? Holding the debt limit hostage like this is not an act of responsible adults and the children in the room need to be taught once and for all that it is not acceptable behavior. There is no rational argument for why the Democrats need to negotiate and if there is I haven't heard it.

Because of the consequences. And most Dems around here think those consequences will be more negative than I do (beyond the politics), and I think they are significantly negative myself. That is why. You don't pick your opposition. They are just there. You do the best you can. And it goes both ways. I know, the the Dem leitmotif right now is to try to teach the Pubs a lesson (and in particular, oust them from control of the House), and hope the cost to the nation is not too high. Good luck with that, and I mean that sincerely (at least about the bit that the nation will not be hurt too much), not sarcastically, but also in the sense that the Dems will need a lot of luck. I doubt it will work out the way that you hope.

[Sbane]

I don't know if the government has software which can prioritize payments. Why should it? Why should someone assume that a certain political party will go insane and act like 5 year old children? I would be disappointed if the government did have software to prioritize payments since that would be a waste of money. The government should try to be efficient and reduce unnecessary spending. Don't you agree, Torie?

No, it is imprudent not to have the capability to pick and choose when things go awry. It should not cost that much money in the larger scheme of things. Think of it as a cost like, well, an insurance premium.   Anyway, we now know that the debt will be paid, and blaming software was BS, and for some reason the troops are being paid, without a software block, so I think much of it is hype. Both parties are in heavy spin mode now, and it is nausiating to me. Obama should be negotiating, and he can stand firm on Obamacare, but no, this is all about moving poll numbers because the Dems think this is a path to taking the House. They are very probably wrong, but they are going there.

Oh yes, the Pubs disgust me for not going to conference on the budget months ago. They didn't because they ran the risk that dissident Pubs might defect, since if the conference fails, after 20 days, stuff can be forced to the floor without a discharge petition, which is why Pelosi offered to give up that card in this context under the gun. But the Pubs are gutless in that if they cannot hold a majority on the merits, they should not be able to "win" based on procedural games.

But of course both parties have made procedural games into an art form. It is all about trying to move the polls now. And both parties on wrong in thinking all of this BS will move the polls much when push comes to shove in the next election. The Fruited Plain is that polarized. Where are the adults? Where are the politicians with guts who are more interested in good public policy than winning the next election?  The system is, if not broken, at a minimum not working on all cylinders. But in the end the public gets what they deserve. Both members of both parties should demand better, but they don't.

The democrats don't think they should have to negotiate over the full faith and credit of the United States and I agree with them. Why should they negotiate with these tactics? Holding the debt limit hostage like this is not an act of responsible adults and the children in the room need to be taught once and for all that it is not acceptable behavior. There is no rational argument for why the Democrats need to negotiate and if there is I haven't heard it.

Because of the consequences. And most Dems around here think those consequences will be more negative than I do (beyond the politics), and I think they are significantly negative myself. That is why. You don't pick your opposition. They are just there. You do the best you can. And it goes both ways. I know, the the Dem leitmotif right now is to try to teach the Pubs a lesson (and in particular, oust them from control of the House), and hope the cost to the nation is not too high. Good luck with that, and I mean that sincerely (at least about the bit that the nation will not be hurt too much), not sarcastically, but also in the sense that the Dems will need a lot of luck. I doubt it will work out the way that you hope.

And reinforce this behavior? When will it stop? So the republicans don't even have to win elections anymore, all they have to do is threaten to burn the country down, and if the Democrats don't negotiate it is their fault if something bad happens ( I hope they are able to prioritize payments to avoid default). I do not understand how anyone could vote for the GOP after they use such tactics.

[Brittain33]

Software systems do not handle mammoth new tasks they have not been built for and certainly not tested for, even if in theory the pathways are there. That is what they teach in IT classes and we just experienced it with the launch of the Obamacare exchanges.

I can certainly believe that if they have a way to filter out interest payments from those millions of daily invoices, they could have it working well within a few weeks of Oct. 17 after all the bugs have been squished. By then, if course, we'd be living Lehman Bros collapse x 100.

[Torie]

1. Apparently the software system is in place to handle the payments according to Bedstuy, and if that is not the case, why hasn't the Treasury Dept stated as part of the Obama "scare campaign" that that is the case?

2. In the end, even if the debt ceiling is not raised, I doubt it give the Dems much of a political benefit, so while it may teach the Pubs a lesson, it might well be the wrong lesson.

[Sbane]

You may well be right about it not helping Democrats, but it is just absolutely disgusting if Americans don't blame the Republicans for the mess that they caused. In any case they will only be hurting themselves in the long run, especially those who don't make a lot of money. I won't be as affected by whatever happens. The people need to get educated about the issues and what the Republicans are doing. If they don't, ultimately it will only harm them.