That was a woman. A man would not forget "the association of politicians' wives and mistresses" or something equivalent... :smile: Don't tell me any of the mentioned organizations have more influence on the mentioned subject...

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;355580](blah blah blah)[COLOR=White].[/COLOR][/QUOTE] :rofl:

Pretty good list, but I fear the Pope and the Queen of England will feel slighted. :smile:

Oops. The Vatican IS listed. Poor HRM Liz is left out in the cold.

[QUOTE=only_human;355568]What does it matter how much anyone spoke out against illegal spying? What a strange shibboleth. I don't think I posted in it at all, or maybe very little - but mainly because I didn't think that I was holding any special point that hadn't been made.[/QUOTE]

If - speaking strictly hypothetically for the moment - someone 'spoke out against the spying" while it was being done under W. Bush, but not under Obama, it might be construed as evidence of partisan bias, thus making my point about red-team/blue-team silliness.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;355576]Define "unfunded law".

I think it has been quite rare for Congress, at the time it passes a bill creating a new executive-branch power or obligation, to have simultaneously appropriated sufficient funds for the entire future carrying-out of operations in support of that power or obligation.[/QUOTE]
If congress were to pass a bill which carried with it a funding obligation and there were evidence that they deliberately ignored available cost estimates [and/or deliberately overstated revenue estimates] and as a result under-appropriated funding, would you consider that as a violation of the 14th amendment? Because broadly construed, the amendment could reasonably be read as referring to anything which negatively impacts the full faith and credit, i.e. the ability of the government to finance itself.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;355636][QUOTE=cheesehead;355576]Define "unfunded law".

I think it has been quite rare for Congress, at the time it passes a bill creating a new executive-branch power or obligation, to have simultaneously appropriated sufficient funds for the entire future carrying-out of operations in support of that power or obligation.[/QUOTE]

If congress were to pass a bill which carried with it a funding obligation and there were evidence that they deliberately ignored available cost estimates [and/or deliberately overstated revenue estimates] and as a result under-appropriated funding, would you consider that as a violation of the 14th amendment? Because broadly construed, the amendment could reasonably be read as referring to anything which negatively impacts the full faith and credit, i.e. the ability of the government to finance itself.[/QUOTE]Define "unfunded law". That was your phrase, not mine.

[QUOTE]Because broadly construed, the amendment could reasonably be read.....[/QUOTE]

Broad constructions are notably unpopular :yucky: with the RATS (Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia) of SCOTUS, unless those constructions refer to the unalienable rights of the [U]über-wealthy and corporations[/U] to unlimited monetary speech.

Sweet reason is also in disfavor with this lot :ick:, unless it serves to justify predetermined conclusions as to such rights mentioned above, as well as to the outcomes of closely contested elections.

Crosspost from another forum.

Also, in the followup to the dialog below:
[QUOTE]America was not shut down properly.
Would you like to start America in safe mode, with free healthcare & without the gun laws? (Recommended)[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Batalov;355786]Crosspost from another forum.

Also, in the followup to the dialog below:[/QUOTE]

Just wondering... Why didn't you just pull the plug out of the Governmental?

It might have solved several problems all at the same time.

[QUOTE=chalsall;355788]Just wondering... Why didn't you just pull the plug out of the Governmental?[/QUOTE]

[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-seventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution[/url]

[QUOTE]
US Treasury Secretary Jack Lew has warned ...that the Treasury's payment systems were not designed to work without funds for payment. According to Mr Lew that would make it difficult to prioritise payments.
[/QUOTE]Wonderful: book-keeping software which assumes that funds are always available. :smile:

[URL]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24471623[/URL]

[URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/10/debt-limit-republicans_n_4077954.html"]Republicans Offer Short-Term Deal To Raise Debt Limit, Leave Government Shutdown[/URL]

It's hard to guess what trajectory this will have and perhaps some Continuing Resolution moves will occur also.

[QUOTE][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fandango#Portuguese_dance"]Portuguese dance[/URL]

Fandango is one of the main folk dances in Portugal. The choreography is quite simple: on its more frequent setting two male dancers face each other, dancing and tap-dancing one at each time, showing which one has the most lightness and repertoire of feet changes in the tap-dancing. The dancers can be boy and girl, boy and boy (most frequent) or rarely two girls. While one of the dancers dances, the other just "goes along". Afterwards, they "both drag their feet for a while" until the other one takes his turn. They stay there, disputing, seeing which one of them makes the feet transitions more eye-catching.
[/QUOTE]

When I was young I flew RC (remote control) gliders for a little while (a "Wanderer" and a "Thermal Hopper"). When shopping around I noticed a powered craft called 1/2 A Baby Turkey. I didn't know that "1/2 A" was a motor rating.

So, looking at this potential 6 week deal, maybe this will pass but the optics will look bad regardless of the truly necessary need of saving Wall Street and the world if the US Government remains in shutter-stagnation. I want to be optimistic but when this new 6 week clock runs out -- What kind of Thanksgiving will we have with all the turkeys in Washington?

"The budget is its own ‘debt ceiling'"
[URL]http://news.yahoo.com/budget-own-debt-ceiling-000751561.html[/URL]

(This is the most detailed exposition I've yet seen, of the argument that the "debt ceiling" was superseded in 1974.)

Note: This Yahoo! version is based on a Reuters blog article ([URL]http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/tag/congressional-budget-act-of-1974/[/URL]). I haven't compared wording to see whether Yahoo! changed anything.

[quote=Daniel Alpert and Robert Hockett]. . .

Going forward, however, we should repeal the 1917 Liberty Bond Act — the source of the "debt ceiling" regime that everyone's talking about. This was effectively superseded by today's budget regime, enacted under the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. Making this explicit by repealing the 1917 "debt limit" regime is preferable to leaving things merely implicit as they are now.

. . .

Something like this apocryphal impasse would confront the president if Congress did not raise the "debt ceiling" later this month.

On the one hand, Obama would be required — under the nation's 1974 vintage budget law and continuing obligations — to keep paying the nation's creditors and issue Treasury debt if tax revenues fell short of those payment commitments.

He would also, however, be required to cease making those payments, and thus violate the budget law passed under the 1974 regime, according to the 1917 "ceiling" regime, which was largely forgotten by the public until rediscovered by opportunistic politicians in 2011.

The president cannot comply with both regimes if read literally — nor would any court rule that he must. The courts must instead interpret one of the incompatible regimes as giving way to the other — and it seems clear that the older, 1917 regime would be the one to yield.

There are decisive constitutional as well as statutory reasons for this. The most compelling constitutional reasons are offered by Neil H. Buchanan of George Washington University Law School and Michael C. Dorf of Cornell Law School in a remarkable trilogy of Columbia Law Review articles. (See here, here, and here.)

Buchanan and Dorf point out that the president's unilaterally raising taxes or unilaterally "prioritizing" which bills to pay to comply with the 1917 vintage "debt ceiling" would do far more violence to Congress's prerogatives under Article I of the Constitution than would staying the course with Treasury debt issuance as mandated by the 1974 budget regime. The latter, they argue, is therefore the "least unconstitutional option."

We agree with Buchanan and Dorf's analysis — if the latest manufactured "debt ceiling crisis" is truly a constitutional crisis. We also, with them, endorse the argument offered by President Bill Clinton and others during the last debt ceiling crisis and recently reiterated — that Section 4 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits legislatively impugning the debt obligations of the United States, nullifies the 1917 debt ceiling regime from its very beginning.

Even granting all of this, however, there are good reasons to expect that the courts would resolve the debt ceiling impasse without resorting to constitutional doctrine. For they could read the 1917 regime debt ceiling as implicitly voided, as a matter of statutory interpretation, by the 1974 regime budget.

Longstanding canons of statutory interpretation support our claim. These axioms were developed precisely to deal with conundrums like the one the nation is now facing.

Legal codes are organic human creations. They evolve over time. So it is not uncommon for codes sometimes to lose internal consistency. The circumstances that prompt legislation are often forgotten as statutes grow old and unused — as the "ceiling" law did until recently. Their logical consequences are equally easy to lose sight of — at least until a once-forgotten provision is put to new, never-intended use. In view of this, the law has developed secondary decision rules for courts and others to follow when confronted with these dilemmas.

One such principle, the "last in time rule," mandates that a later enactment trumps an earlier one when both conflict. Another, the "absurd result" canon, has it that a legislature is unlikely to intend a manifestly unjust or absurd result. A third, known as the "specific trumps the general" rule, says that detailed prescriptions are more likely intended than general policy goals, if read as excluding the former.

All three of these canons converge where the 1974 budget and 1917 ceiling regimes are concerned. Combined, they suggest that the 1917 terms should never be interpreted to mandate default on national obligations that Congress has incurred through budget legislation.

The 1974 regime, of course, was devised after the 1917 regime, just as all budgets, appropriations, and continuing resolutions enacted pursuant to its provisions occur later than earlier ad hoc ceiling-changes with which they conflict.

There are two bases on which the "last in time" rule can justify Obama's continuing to pay national obligations as they come due. As a general matter, the 1974 budgeting regime calls continuing enforcement of the 1917 "ceiling" regime into question — particularly when it presents an obstacle to compliance with the 1974 regime.

In addition, the nation's continuing budget obligations left in place and effectively re-endorsed under the last budget stopgap legislation in March, not to mention its many non-continuing obligations reinstated by that legislation, came after the last legislated reaffirmation of the 1917 regime "debt ceiling" in February. Courts would rule that the March legislation, which avoids default, is controlling.

Turning next to the "absurd result" canon, trying to comply with both the 1974 budget regime and the 1917 "ceiling" regime, would be like attempting to meet a requirement to borrow x and a requirement not to borrow more than y < x. That would be absurd — not to mention unjust, in light of the systematic theft from creditors that attempting to comply with both would entail. A court should accordingly "reconcile" the two incompatible requirements in favor of that which does not lead to an unjust and catastrophic default — meaning the 1974 regime budget.

Turning finally to the "specific trumps the general" rule, the 1974 regime's legislative history reveals that it is meant to address comprehensively what the 1917 regime, even as updated in 1939, addressed only piecemeal — Congress's larger role in the budgeting, spending, taxing and borrowing process that the president had earlier led.

Anyone who has seen a federal budget knows that these required expenditures, taxings and borrowings are painstakingly detailed and specific — in dramatic contrast to an inconsistent requirement that borrowing in aggregate not exceed some arbitrarily selected amount. Requiring the president to rewrite the budget's expenditure or taxation provisions would also do far more violence to congressional budget prerogatives, as Buchanan and Dorf argue, than just continuing to comply with the budget's borrowing requirements.

It therefore makes as much sense under the "specific trumps the general" canon as the "later in time" and "absurd result" canons to disregard the categorical 1917 regime ceiling whenever it conflicts with the detailed 1974 regime borrowing requirement. A court should rule as much.

All rules concerning what to do about apparently inconsistent legislation, then warrant that the president treat the 1917 "debt ceiling" regime, when incompatible with the 1974 budget regime, as yielding to the budget itself and its continuing mandates — which include all obligations Congress has already incurred. If Tea Party Republicans object, they could try their luck in court — and learn how likely a federal judge will be both to grant them standing and hold that a constitutionally infirm, categorically stated 1917 regime trumps a constitutionally impeccable, painstakingly detailed budget determined by 1974 requirements. Particularly when complying with both would not only be impossible, but impose grave injustice and economic catastrophe in the trying.

. . .[/quote]

Tea Partiers will fail because they've pushed brinksmanship too far.
 

Here's an article on Washington brinksmanship that gets down to the basic reason why the Tea Partiers will fail: there is something (not the PPACA) that's more important than both partial government shutdown and potential debt default. I think Obama failed to perceive this during his first term when he tried to fulfill his inaugural promise to work with Republicans to achieve compromise, but he now understands how extreme the Tea Party is.

[B]The United States cannot afford to allow the opposition party to repeatedly "bring the nation to its knees in order to get its way".[/B]

[U]That[/U], not just some particular piece of legislation such as the PPACA, is what is more important than a shutdown and debt default put together.

That is why the Tea Party will fail. It's operating according to an illusion that its ideology is more important than this nation's governance, and has now overreached.

"Here’s Why President Obama Won’t Negotiate with the GOP"
[URL]http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/heres-why-president-obama-wont-negotiate-with-the-gop.html/?a=viewall[/URL]

(BTW, the term "negotiate" in the title is a GOP misnomer. The GOP is currently abusing "negotiate" to mean "capitulate to our demand", rather than the genuine process of achieving compromise.)

(I've added underlining to some passages in what I quote here.)
[quote=Dan Ritter]Standing on the outside, Washington looks something like the Western Front in World War I. Two deeply entrenched and bitterly divided sides, immune to each others’ small-arms fire and only bruised by direct hits from artillery. Democrats and Republicans, locked together in an awkward fiscal death dance by a bureaucratic Gordian knot, have found themselves in a type of brinksmanship in which the defense has the advantage, and as a result neither appears willing to move first.

. . .

... eventually someone will have to lead the nation out of this mess.

That person should be President Barack Obama, but until recently, the president has been unwilling to negotiate with Republicans over the budget and debt ceiling standoff.[/quote](Again, I protest that that is an incorrect use of "negotiate with", which should be "capitulate to" here.)
[quote]At a glance, this may seem unreasonable given the enormous stakes involved, but President Obama and many in the Democratic party see a slightly different, if not larger picture than is portrayed by the fiscal impasse itself.

It’s important to point out that only now, ten days after Democrats and Republicans needed to reach a compromise on a spending bill, is the debate re-focusing on explicitly fiscal issues. Debates over how much money should go to what agencies are common — even expected — this time of year, and it was widely anticipated that the GOP would use either the budget or the debt ceiling as leverage to push for long-sought reductions to the nation’s gross spending problem.

[U]If this was all there was to the story, we wouldn’t be here.[/U] What makes this situation different is that Republicans — at the insistence of an ultra-conservative faction within the party represented by people like Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) — want to defund or delay the Affordable Care Act as a condition of passing a budget or raising the debt ceiling. That is, they want to undermine the healthcare law that was the cornerstone of the Obama Administration.

This strategy is not necessarily unprecedented. Congress, apparently unable to pass a real budget, has been hopping from continuing resolution to continuing resolution for years, passing the fiscal hot potato from one wave of representatives to the next, and along the way a huge number of “dirty” funding bills have been passed. [U]Brinksmanship is by no means a new tactic in Washington, and policymakers on both sides of the aisle have engaged in it in order to get what they want.[/U]

But trying to affect such massive change to the president’s flagship healthcare law was a strategy destined to fail from the beginning. [U]The trick with brinksmanship is that whatever the opposition is trying to get in turn for passing a budget or raising the debt ceiling can’t be worth more to the majority party than a shutdown or default.[/U] The ACA is clearly worth more to the Obama administration than a shutdown — but what about a default?

The short answer to what could be a very long conversation is: no, the healthcare law is not worth more to anybody than a U.S. default on its financial obligations. But again, if that was all there was to this, we may not be here right now.

[U]What is worth more to the Obama administration than a default is the pursuit of ending brinksmanship all together, eliminating the precedent that the opposition party can bring the nation to its knees in order to get its way, and trying to establish a political environment in which policymakers use the system — not game it — in order to affect change.[/U]

As President Obama told reporters last Friday: “I’m happy to have negotiations but we can’t do it with a gun held to the head of the American people.” That is, [u]President Obama believes that the GOP has perverted the American political mechanism, and that if he simply cedes to their demands under these conditions there will be no turning back. Opposition parties from here on out [strike]will[/strike][/u][/quote][U]would[/U][quote][U]use the House’s power of the purse to affect legislative change, and that is not a way to run a country.[/U][/quote]

I read something in the Washington Post on Thursday that really pissed me off. It was in a couple of articles, but I did not notice it anywhere else at that time:
[URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/lew-tells-senate-panel-debt-default-would-force-perilous-choices-on-economy/2013/10/10/5c1f648c-31a5-11e3-9c68-1cf643210300_story_1.html"]House, Senate Republicans offer competing plans on debt-limit, government shutdown[/URL][noparse][washingtonpost.com][/noparse]
[QUOTE]The House GOP plan would suspend the debt limit until Nov. 22, the Friday before Thanksgiving, while also forbidding Treasury Secretary Jack Lew from using “extraordinary measures” that his department has used in recent years to extend his borrowing authority for weeks after the ceiling is reached, according to a senior GOP aide who was in the room. This creates a hard “X date,” as financial analysts call the issue, leaving no wiggle room beyond that day.[/QUOTE]
Things are in flux all the time and I did not know how solid this information was so I did not mention it at the time. But it's revealing isn't it? It means that the brinkmanship is deliberate rather than merely incompetence or something that Boehner was bulldozed into doing because they want to constrain the Treasury so that the [B]next time[/B] it is even more effective. They want to know exactly where the edge is so that they can shove everybody right up to it. And why give up such a useful tactic if they can make it more dangerously effective like this?

Anyway, late Friday, I see they are still planning to do this -- even after all the trips up the hill to speak to the president. Nancy Pelosi is quoted about it so it seems to be solid info.

Slow burn. This is about the "full faith and credit/default/unknown territory" that they are playing around with. Not the softer shutdown brink.
[URL="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-11/republicans-said-to-insist-on-conditions-to-end-shutdown.html"]Republicans Said to Insist on Conditions to End Shutdown[/URL][noparse][bloomberg.com][/noparse][QUOTE]Under Boehner’s plan, the Treasury Department wouldn’t be able to use so-called extraordinary measures to further extend borrowing authority, creating a hard deadline, said Representative Tom Reed, a New York Republican.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California said ending the extraordinary measures “isn’t very smart” because it would limit Treasury’s flexibility.[/QUOTE]
:bangheadonwall::tantrum::explode:

Insane power lust. :loco:

[QUOTE=cheesehead;356044]
[B]The United States cannot afford to allow the opposition party to repeatedly "bring the nation to its knees in order to get its way".[/B]

[U]That[/U], not just some particular piece of legislation such as the PPACA, is what is more important than a shutdown and debt default put together.

[/QUOTE]

Indeed. What if the Democrats in the Senate had done the same thing
in order to force e.g. gun control? Or any other policy dispute?

Fire Congress?
 

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;356083]Indeed. What if the Democrats in the Senate had done the same thing
in order to force e.g. gun control? Or any other policy dispute?[/QUOTE]

See

[url]http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/10/20903531-nbcwsj-poll-60-percent-say-fire-every-member-of-congress?lite[/url]

"60%" of voters want to get rid of all of Congress.

Even if it is true, it won't happen.

Why?

Because Democrats want to vote for Democrats and Republicans
want to vote for Republicans. Suppose your representative is (say)
Republican(Democrat). You want to get rid of him. But incumbents generally
do not have to face a primary run-off. Thus, you don't get to choose
another Republican(Democrat). Your choice is between your current representative
and an even more despised Democrat(Republican)......

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;356084]"60%" of voters want to get rid of all of Congress.[/QUOTE]

That number is much too low for any possibility of real change to occur. Diagnosis: "Insufficient outrage".

--------------

[url=www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-10-11/jim-grant-warns-americas-default-inevitable]Jim Grant Warns America's Default Is Inevitable[/url]

And Mish's latest:

[url=http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2013/10/silliness-from-boehner-rejected-by.html]Silliness From Boehner Rejected by Obama; Cut Losses, End the Madness[/url]

Swine dreck has more intrinsic value than dollars -- because if no one wants it, you can still spread it on a field and grow crops. Other historical default situations that the country participated in are not that relevant to today's condition because this will be the first time that money is completely off the gold standard and most of the money in circulation is just bits on a computer screen. You can't even burn the dollars for warmth because most of it has never been printed.

If all the BS from Washington was literally BS then at least we would have something. What good are tactics that are so draconian and reckless that they wake us from a collective dream that gives money meaning? Social contracts are contracts (implicit or not).

[QUOTE=only_human;356055]It means that the brinkmanship is deliberate rather than merely incompetence[/QUOTE]Of course. But brinksmanship is not new. What's new is Tea Party arrogance in using it with the debt ceiling.

[quote]or something that Boehner was bulldozed into doing[/quote]He _is_ being bulldozed into it, quite deliberately. His past record shows that he wouldn't be doing it now if not forced by Tea Party threat to dethrone him from the speakership.

[quote]because they want to constrain the Treasury so that the [B]next time[/B] it is even more effective. They want to know exactly where the edge is so that they can shove everybody right up to it. And why give up such a useful tactic if they can make it more dangerously effective like this?[/quote]History will condemn Obama for letting Republicans get away with debt-brinksmanship earlier in his presidency. I think he showed naivety about Tea Party extremism.

[quote]Anyway, late Friday, I see they are still planning to do this -- even after all the trips up the hill to speak to the president.[/quote]Since Obama let them get away with it earlier, they won't give up such a powerful tactic until shown that Obama will no longer yield to it. They'll do anything they can to try to make Obama yield as he did in the past.

I have been sending out a stream of "Stand Firm" emails, with special attention to Safety Net programs: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Especially in the case of Social Security there is an answer which is all too obvious for the ballyhooed future shortfalls. That is to remove all caps on contributions to the trust fund. The input to the fund has been seriously regressive for far too long.

Make everyone pay the same rates, then INCREASE benefits for those who need them. This would not only benefit the recipients directly, it would also benefit every business where those people shop. Aid to those at the low end stimulates the economy much more than breaks for those on top.

EDIT: And make SS withholding apply to ALL income, regardless of source. No dodges for hedge fund shysters.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;356139]History will condemn Obama for letting Republicans get away with debt-brinksmanship earlier in his presidency. I think he showed naivety about Tea Party extremism.[/QUOTE]

OTOH, maybe they simply stole the idea [url=http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-10-07/debt-ceiling-humor-i-therefore-intend-oppose-effort-increase-americas-debt-limit]from him[/url]. Thieving bastards!

Meanwhile, it seems the rabble are growing restless at having the national parks and monuments "they own" held hostage to the standoff, while "critical operations" like the DoD and the huge NatSec state appear to be quite the opposite of "shut down".

[QUOTE=ewmayer;356149]OTOH, maybe they simply stole the idea [url=http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-10-07/debt-ceiling-humor-i-therefore-intend-oppose-effort-increase-americas-debt-limit]from him[/url]. Thieving bastards!

Meanwhile, it seems the rabble are growing restless at having the national parks and monuments "they own" held hostage to the standoff, while "critical operations" like the DoD and the huge NatSec state appear to be quite the opposite of "shut down".[/QUOTE]

[url]http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/10/obama-defends-2006-vote-against-raising-the-debt-ceiling/[/url]

[QUOTE]The president was asked about his 2006 vote in 2011, during the last debt ceiling debate, and said his shift showed the difference between serving in the Senate, where it’s a tough vote politically, and serving as commander in chief, when you realize the “full faith and credit of the United States” is at risk.

“That was just an example of a new senator making what is a political vote as opposed to doing what was important for the country. And I'm the first one to acknowledge it," Obama told ABC.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=cheesehead;356139]Of course. But brinksmanship is not new. What's new is Tea Party arrogance in using it with the debt ceiling.[/QUOTE]

Has anyone read Neal Stephenson and George Jewsbury's [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interface_(novel)"]Interface[/URL]? (It's an amazing read, if you haven't!)

The paranoid in me wonders and fears that something parallel might be going on (without the biochip, of course).

Could it be to some (few) people's long-term financial interests to have the US of A actually default, thus sending the world's financial systems into chaos? And then most likely eventually reach a new "stable state" with very different variables, powers and players....

[QUOTE]Especially in the case of Social Security there is an answer which is all too obvious for the ballyhooed future shortfalls. That is to remove all caps on contributions to the trust fund. The input to the fund has been seriously regressive for far too long. [/QUOTE]

While I agree that this would resolve the issue, may I point out that this is just another take from the rich, give to the poor solution. The way SS is set up now, anyone making above $100,000 per year will contribute more to SS than they can draw back out unless they live at least 88 years. Between employer and personal SS taxes, this person will have paid in excess of $650,000 dollars into SS by the time he is 67 years old. At the probable monthly payout of $2500, that gives 260 months or about 21 years to get back what was paid in. That does not allow for any interest which if the money was invested even at just 3%, would total over 1 million dollars by retirement at 67.

So, quid pro quo, removing caps is just a robin hood solution.

[QUOTE=Fusion_power;356155]While I agree that this would resolve the issue, may I point out that this is just another take from the rich, give to the poor solution.

...

So, quid pro quo, removing caps is just a robin hood solution.[/QUOTE]

At the end of the day, I agree this is likely the fundamental issue.

If I May go "high-bandwidth" (and sorry, my spell checker just crashed):

1. Wny is Socialism assumed to be so evil by some humans, when it seems to work reasonable well for many other animals and insects (and even humans, if done correctly)?

2. Why is Capitalism assumed to be so evil by some humans, when during its relatively brief experimentational period it does seems to promote advancement of technology and industry and life-span (although, admittedly, not currently equally)?

3. Given a closed group of humans, can it not be argued that it is to the overall benefit of the aggregate group if all (or, at least, almost all) are fed, housed and healthy?

4. Currently, is the entire Earth's human population effectively a closed group?

May we live in interesting times....

[QUOTE=Fusion_power;356155]

So, quid pro quo, removing caps is just a robin hood solution.[/QUOTE]

Which, of course, is not an argument against it.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;356157]Which, of course, is not an argument against it.[/QUOTE]

+1

[QUOTE=chappy;356161]+1[/QUOTE]

Indeed. Thanks, Bob. Short and sweet and to the point. :smile:

The House made sure they would get their shutdown (TL/DR option, skim to my bolding):
[URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/13/house-republicans-rules-change_n_4095129.html"]House Republicans Changed The Rules So A Majority Vote Couldn't Stop The Government Shutdown[/URL] [noparse][huffingtonpost.com][/noparse][QUOTE]In its effort to extract concessions from Democrats in exchange for opening the government, the GOP has faced a fundamental strategic obstacle: They don't have the votes. A majority of the members of the House have gone on record saying that if they were given the opportunity to vote, they would support what's known as a "clean" continuing resolution to fund the government.

So House Republican leaders made sure no such vote could happen.

In the hours working up to the government shutdown on Sept. 30, Republican members of the House Rules Committee were developing a strategy to keep a clean CR off the floor, guaranteeing the government would remain shut down.

[B]Though at least 28 House Republicans have publicly said they would support a clean CR if it were brought to the floor -- enough votes for the government to reopen when combined with Democratic support -- a House rule passed just before the shutdown essentially prevents that vote from taking place.[/B][/QUOTE]Look at how removing the risk of default (lifting debt-ceiling) or even a budget (AKA government funding measure) would be rejected (this would end the CR choo-choo train and budgets also typically lift the debt-ceiling) and how birth control and future leverage are [I]still[/I] part of the battle late Saturday (skim to my bold):
[URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/boehner-tells-house-gop-negotiations-have-ended/2013/10/12/fa0d3f42-334a-11e3-9c68-1cf643210300_print.html"]Senate leaders take over government shutdown talks[/URL] [noparse][washingtonpost.com][/noparse][QUOTE]In a raucous meeting in the Capitol basement Saturday morning, Boehner told his Republican colleagues that talks between the House GOP and Obama had broken down. He and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) urged members to hold firm, several said, as McConnell and Reid worked on a deal.

“All eyes are now on the Senate,” said Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.).

The leaders, however, began the meeting trying to prepare their troops for the likelihood that they would have to adopt a deal cut in the Senate. Both leaders explained that the White House is no longer willing to negotiate with the House, that McConnell and Reid were talking, and that a bipartisan agreement is likely to emerge that will need the House’s approval.

But instead of absorbing this painful reality, some rank-and-file Republicans grew visibly excited about the prospect of opposing such a deal, said one person in the room. This defiance was fed by Ryan, who stood up and railed against the Collins proposal, saying [B]the House could not accept either a debt-limit bill or a government-funding measure that would delay the next fight until the new year.

According to two Republicans familiar with the exchange, Ryan argued that the House would need those deadlines as “leverage” for delaying the health-care law’s individual mandate and adding a “conscience clause” — allowing employers and insurers to opt out of birth-control[/B] coverage if they find it objectionable on moral or religious grounds — and mentioned tax and entitlement goals Ryan had focused on in a recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal.

Ryan’s speech appeared only to further rile up the conservative wing of the GOP conference, which has been agitating the shutdown strategy to try to tear apart the health-care law.

With such fervor still rampant among House Republicans, there was bipartisan agreement in the Senate that Boehner’s House had lost its ability to approve anything that could be signed by Obama into law.[/QUOTE]


[QUOTE=chalsall;356156](and sorry, my spell checker just crashed):

1. Wny is Socialism assumed to be so evil by some humans, when it seems to work reasonable well for many other animals and insects (and even humans, if done correctly)?

2. Why is Capitalism assumed to be so evil by some humans, when during its relatively brief experimentational period it does seems to promote advancement of technology and industry and life-span (although, admittedly, not currently equally)?[/QUOTE]TL/DR option: About government {commun,social}-ism humor/painful observations, jump to the final quote in my post:
[URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/exchange-program-gives-russians-a-glimpse-of-a-democracy-hardly-at-work/2013/10/11/5193afc8-3213-11e3-9c68-1cf643210300_story.html"]Exchange program gives Russians a glimpse of a democracy hardly at work[/URL] [noparse][washingtonpost.com][/noparse][QUOTE]The group had come all the way from Russia, part of a ­foreign-exchange program set up by Congress to show off the virtues of American democracy.

But when they got here, neither Congress nor American democracy was having its best day.

“No. No way,” said Ekaterina Ivanova, a TV journalist from Moscow, recalling her reaction when she heard what was going on.

For some reason, the legislators who had paid for her to visit had now shut down the government they wanted her to see. “It’s a joke,” Ivanova thought.

It wasn’t, of course. And so, on Day 10 of the government shutdown, among the many confused and displaced souls in Washington were 49 Russian educators, scientists and journalists brought here by the Open World Leadership Center, a kind of vanity project for Congress.

The mission of this 14-year-old program is to give foreign leaders, especially those from former Soviet republics, an up-close look at “America’s democratic, accountable government.”[/QUOTE][QUOTE]Eduard Temnov, an educator from a city near Moscow, chuckled and told a joke in Russian. He had realized something: What he was witnessing in Washington wasn’t actually democracy!

It was actually a highly advanced vision of socialism. Here was what the old theorists had promised: a society functioning on its own, with no leaders in charge.

“Maybe you will come to communism soon!” he said. “No government . . . but people are still managing!”[/QUOTE]

If I were arguing against it, I would have used a much different statement. But since you bring up the subject, why should someone pay into SS many times over the amount they can ever possibly draw out? How much do you anticipate paying in and how much will you be likely to draw out?


Also, based on family history, I am likely to live at least 90 and possibly more than 100 years. I will probably draw out much more than I ever pay in. This presumes that there is something to draw and that SS is still solvent when I retire at 70 in 16 years.

[QUOTE=Fusion_power;356174]If I were arguing against it, I would have used a much different statement. But since you bring up the subject, why should someone pay into SS many times over the amount they can ever possibly draw out? How much do you anticipate paying in and how much will you be likely to draw out?
[/QUOTE]

It is called a social contract. It is part of the price we ALL pay for
living in a stable, peaceful (mostly) society. One of those prices is
that we support our elders and those who are unable to work.

I pay more in income taxes than I receive in return. So what?

I call the attitude that SS is "good" iff one can draw out as much as one
puts in SELFISH.

Capitalism is inherently selfish. However, I think you are reading into my statements a multitude of meanings that do not exist.

I live in a state that currently votes heavily republican. If democrats supported second amendment rights, this state would significantly change position.

I don't accept the current republican posturing and "bring them to their knees" attitude. IMO, this is likely to have a huge backlash in the next elections. The probability is that both senate and house will gain democrat majorities a year from now. This upsets me tremendously. When I look at the overall best political climate for the American people, it seems to come from having the politicians at loggerheads with each other. Either a democrat president with a republican congress or vice versa works best because laws that are passed have to have consensus backing.

My personal position re ACA is ambivalent. It does not cost me anything extra, it does not benefit me directly. Where I do see a benefit is that two of my adult children will be able to get insurance now that was unavailable to them before. This also applies to many other people I know who will now have access to medical care. I consider this to be a legitimate goal of a democratic society. It should be run for the people's benefit.

I'll add a minor quibble that the U.S. is not a democracy. If you question this, look up democracy, federalism, monarchy, oligarchy, communism, and socialism and see which one fits.

[QUOTE=Fusion_power;356219]I'll add a minor quibble that the U.S. is not a democracy. If you question this, look up democracy, federalism, monarchy, oligarchy, communism, and socialism and see which one fits.[/QUOTE]

That's not a quibble, that's a fact. The US of A is a Republic.

If the US of A was a true Democracy than Gore would have won the 2000 election.

Tangential: Imagine the world today if Albert Gore had been in Command rather than George W. Bush after the 911 attacks...

IMO you probably would have still gone into Afghanistan, but probably not Iraq. And the East would possibly not be in such chaos....

[QUOTE=chalsall;356220]That's not a quibble, that's a fact. The US of A is a Republic.[/quote]
Coming up through the US school system, we were taught over and over that the US is a "representative democracy". You seem to be insisting on a dichotomy [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic]where none exists[/url]:
[quote]A republic is literally a form of government in which affairs of state are a "public matter" (Latin: res publica), not the private concern of the rulers, in which public offices are subsequently appointed or elected rather than privately accommodated, i.e. through inheritance or divine mandate. In modern times, the common definition of a republic is a government which excludes a monarch.
...
In modern republics such as France, Russia, the United States, India, and Mexico the executive is legitimized both by a constitution and by popular suffrage. [u]Montesquieu included both democracies, where all the people have a share in rule, and aristocracies or oligarchies, where only some of the people rule, as republican forms of government[/u].[3][/quote]

[quote]If the US of A was a true Democracy than Gore would have won the 2000 election.[/QUOTE]
You are talking about how that representation occurs in the presidential-election context. I have long argued that the Electoral College system is archaic and should be abolished, but it's not up to me, except by way of my single (potential) vote.

In your vision of a "true Democracy" would governments even be necessary? If so, in what form and role?

--------------------------

We now return our readers to the previous discussion of whether the deficit problem can be solved by borrowing more money, or something.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;356232]In your vision of a "true Democracy" would governments even be necessary? If so, in what form and role?[/QUOTE]

In my opinion, the definition of Democracy is where every entity has an equal vote to answer the question at hand.

And the decision to the question is based on what the majority votes.

Naive, I know....

[QUOTE=ewmayer;356149]OTOH, maybe they simply stole the idea [URL="http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-10-07/debt-ceiling-humor-i-therefore-intend-oppose-effort-increase-americas-debt-limit"]from him[/URL]. Thieving bastards![/QUOTE]Haven't you previously railed against cherrypicking? Now it's all right?

I took the modest time to read some of the commentary on this 2006 quote. I notice that almost all of those articles omit details of the context ... which differed from what we have now. They just make the facile contrast of a few sentences of the 2006 speech with his position now. But at least one article did explain some context beyond the mere few speech lines thrown around by others.

[quote=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/10/obama-debt-ceiling_n_4079604.html]. . .

Now contemporary critics of Obama point to this speech as an example of hypocrisy, a charge that might stick if [URL="http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/10/04/brendan_buck_on_the_debt_ceiling_where_john_boehner_stands.html"]they weren't all rushing to take the position that Obama took in 2006[/URL]! Nevertheless, one question any rational critic of this position might ask, is, "Why did everyone just wave away this objectively stupid speech at the time he made it?"

That's a fair question. What I can tell you about this particular period in our political life is that back then, it was sort of a silly tradition for members of the party out of power to give stupid grandstanding speeches whenever the need to raise the debt ceiling arose, and a few, like Obama, cast symbolic votes against doing so. Mind you, these "no" votes were calibrated in such a way that they'd not impede the passage of a clean debt ceiling hike.

And that's why the speech got ignored. I won't say that it was a "more innocent time," but it was a time that provided for a controlled release of this kind of stupidity for the sole purpose of scoring a few easy political points. It's sort of cheap, bush league stuff, but as Yglesias points out, Obama wasn't trying to stage a hostage crisis that pushed America to a brink, like today's House Republicans are:[INDENT] To use a technical term, what Obama's doing here is bullshitting. The debt ceiling bill has majority support in both houses and is clearly going to pass. Rather than doing the right thing and voting "yes," Obama has decided to make a "no" vote and then deliver a speech denouncing George W. Bush's fiscal policy. But he's not organizing a filibuster. The fact that the bill passed the Senate 52-48 is a huge tell. Nothing passes the Senate with 52 votes if the minority party is actually trying to stop it from passing. Obama didn't demand the partial repeal of the Bush tax cuts as the price for his debt ceiling vote because he didn't demand anything as his price for his debt ceiling vote. There was no negotiation, no demand, no effort to block passage, and actually no effort to do anything at all. It was just a forum for silly speeches.[/INDENT][/quote]

Had Democrats forced a government shutdown in 2006 at the time of the debt ceiling vote?

No.

Did Democrats force a government shutdown in 2006 at all?

No.

How extreme were Democratic demands?

Actually -- none. They never seriously threatened to block a debt ceiling increase, carefully making sure that there would be enough votes to approve it, while taking the traditional opportunity to simply make a bit of noise with a few speeches by first-term senators and representatives. Not at all like Tea Partiers now.

Did Democrats allow a "clean" debt ceiling bill to come on the floor for a vote?

Yes.

If Tea Partiers "stole the idea", where is the part where they don't force a shutdown, where they don't use the debt ceiling for blackmail, and where they allow a "clean" vote right away after a couple of speeches?

[QUOTE=Fusion_power;356155]While I agree that this would resolve the issue, may I point out that this is just another take from the rich, give to the poor solution. The way SS is set up now, anyone making above $100,000 per year will contribute more to SS than they can draw back out unless they live at least 88 years. Between employer and personal SS taxes, this person will have paid in excess of $650,000 dollars into SS by the time he is 67 years old. At the probable monthly payout of $2500, that gives 260 months or about 21 years to get back what was paid in. That does not allow for any interest which if the money was invested even at just 3%, would total over 1 million dollars by retirement at 67.

So, quid pro quo, removing caps is just a robin hood solution.[/QUOTE]
I agree. Raising the cap on FICA deductions is not a proper way to address Social Security finances.

I support lowering SS benefit payments by enough to get the trust fund to survive the forecast Baby Boomer bulge problem. (That "enough" could have been a very small percentage if it had been done in the 1960s/1970s when the future problem was recognized, but not enough politicians would support that simple solution then.)

[QUOTE=Fusion_power;356174]If I were arguing against it, I would have used a much different statement. But since you bring up the subject, why should someone pay into SS many times over the amount they can ever possibly draw out?[/QUOTE]We all know that Social Security was never set up to be actuarially sound or individually fair over the long run. Furthermore, trying to transition it to be more sound (other than by fiddling with the FICA rates) and individually fair would be messy, as we've seen.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;356244]Haven't you previously railed against cherrypicking? Now it's all right?[/QUOTE]
Touchy, touchy, my humorless partisan friend.

[quote]I took the modest time to read some of the commentary on this 2006 quote. I notice that almost all of those articles omit details of the context ... which differed from what we have now. They just make the facile contrast of a few sentences of the 2006 speech with his position now. But at least one article did explain some context beyond the mere few speech lines thrown around by others.
[snip][/QUOTE]

So let's be clear what the upshot of your and chalsall's "helpful context providing" pieces are:

o When senator/candidate Obama says something on a major policy issue which is so inane or so violently opposite to that which he now does or espouses as president, it is "silly" or "naive";

o When senator/candidate Obama casts a vote on a major policy issue which is so inane or so violently opposite to that which he now does or espouses as president, it is "symbolic" and "obviously there was nothing really at stake".

And, do you think that a US Senator - not some local-yokel, but a bona fide "highest legislative position in the land" holder - who so gravely misunderstands absolutely crucial issues is qualified to be president? You really think "full faith and credit" is some issue where such incredible "silliness" is remotely compatible to in-a-few-short-years holding the highest office in the land?

Moreover, Obama is a degreed [i]constitutional law[/i] expert - how many major amendments has been caught "being silly about" now?

---------------------------

One question I would like to throw out there not-just-for-the-rabid-partisans, because it really underpins the whole debt-related debate:
[i][b]
Do you believe there is any credible scenario under which the US ever repays-in-kind (that is, not in massively-depreciated "new dollars" which constitute a negative real return) any appreciable fraction of its current greater-than-100%-of GDP debt? If so, please describe.[/b][/i]

Remember, to pay down debt without engaging in the old "quiet depreciation default" ruse, the US must not only swing from running massive deficits to running actual surpluses, and moreover must run not only surpluses in excess of interest costs, but do so under an interest rate regime more typical of a strong - and I mean long-term-structurally-strong, not "bubble strong" - surplus-generating economy than the allegedly "just until the crisis is well behind us" ZIRP environment we have at present.

Debt paydown? No. It will never happen. What will happen is an ongoing game like musical chairs where eventually the music will stop playing and anyone who has not been paid loses.

The "depreciation via inflation" currently being used will at some point turn from a snowball into an avalanche that overwhelms all in its path.

So am I sitting on the edge of my seat about the debt ceiling? No way. They will work it out at the last possible moment. Will they re-start government? You betcha, there is already a groundswell of public opprobrium against all current members of congress that will force this to be done.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;356257]So let's be clear[/QUOTE](Readers: your clue that he's not even trying to present a legitimate argument in response)

[quote]what the upshot of your and chalsall's "helpful context providing" pieces are:[/quote](Sure enough, he trots out three strawmen in succession)

[quote]o When senator/candidate Obama says something on a major policy issue which is so inane or so violently opposite to that which he now does or espouses as president, it is "silly" or "naive";[/quote](Just a strawman distortion, not any attempt to be honest)

[quote]o When senator/candidate Obama casts a vote on a major policy issue which is so inane or so violently opposite to that which he now does or espouses as president, it is "symbolic" and "obviously there was nothing really at stake".[/quote](ditto)

[quote]And, do you think that a US Senator - not some local-yokel, but a bona fide "highest legislative position in the land" holder - who so gravely misunderstands absolutely crucial issues is qualified to be president? You really think "full faith and credit" is some issue where such incredible "silliness" is remotely compatible to in-a-few-short-years holding the highest office in the land?[/quote](ditto)

- - -

Folks,

Note that Ernst continues to pretend that I am excessively partisan, because he desperately needs to discredit my interference (e.g. pointing-out his rhetorical trickery and errors in logic) with his verbal manipulations.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;356257]Touchy, touchy, my humorless partisan friend.

< snip >

not-just-for-the-rabid-partisans

< snip >[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=cheesehead;356272](Readers: your clue that he's not even trying to present a legitimate argument in response)

[snip]
Note that Ernst continues to pretend that I am excessively partisan, because he desperately needs to discredit my interference (e.g. pointing-out his rhetorical trickery and errors in logic) with his verbal manipulations.[/QUOTE]

I hate to get in the middle of this, but I have to say that Cheesehead pointing out a previous position:
"Haven't you previously railed against cherrypicking? Now it's all right?"

seems to be different from the (seeming) response from Ernst:
"Touchy, touchy, my humorless partisan friend."

First off, there are characterizations and name calling in the latter. Agreed that "railed" (in the former) has a certain implication. However, "humorless" and "partisan" both carry implied judgements, and the "my.....friend" construction is outright condescending.

I would point out, that calling another a "partisan" really implies a corresponding partisanship in the caller, even if the intent is to suggest some higher, non-partisan logic. It seems that there is a demanding attraction which this game holds. I do not hold either side innocent, but I am seeing more personal digs from one than the other.

Let it be said that while I am more likely to agree with Cheesehead's positions on many things, I am not a blind follower. When there is talk of cuts to Social Security without raising or removing the caps you've lost me, Richard.

Before it got renamed as an Entitlement, Social Security was referred to as an insurance program. In insurance programs, some always pay in more than they get back, and some pay less. That is the nature of distributed risk. Further, there is the whole issue of Greater Good. Again, economic stimulation is most effective at the bottom of the ladder, but it benefits everyone right up to the top. The same cannot be said for the concentration of wealth, no matter what Supply Siders have claimed for many decades.

Now if "fairness" is going to be a standard, as in, "it's unfair to expect the better off to pay more toward the General Welfare, the Greater Good," then let's start by seeing to it that states get back what they pay into the Federal government. Let California, Illinois, and New York reap the full benefits of their contributions; and let Mississippi, Arkansas, Georgia, and the Carolinas exercise their States' Rights at their natural economic level, however impoverished.

There's a reason I don't often mix it up in this area. I mostly don't have the patience for the detailed parsing, and I tend toward a more symbolic mode of expression, anyway. I also don't need the outright irritation which these arguments seem to engender. However, once in a while I will drop in my observations. I do not, in the least commit to specific responses. I can't afford to care too much what other parties think of this approach. Call it what you will. I do not accept that the game has to be played by others' rules. There is not so much adherence to Robert's Rules of Order in any case. I am sure, in their hearts of hearts, that my Esteemed Colleagues understand this.

Gotta move on. Later. :smile:

[QUOTE=cheesehead;356246]I agree. Raising the cap on FICA deductions is not a proper way to address Social Security finances.

I support lowering SS benefit payments by enough to get the trust fund to survive the forecast Baby Boomer bulge problem. (That "enough" could have been a very small percentage if it had been done in the 1960s/1970s when the future problem was recognized, but not enough politicians would support that simple solution then.)[/QUOTE]

What about raising the age before one is able to collect full benefits?

[QUOTE=kladner;356293]I would point out, that calling another a "partisan" really implies a corresponding partisanship in the caller[/QUOTE]

So following your logic ... calling someone a racist makes one a racist, calling someone a criminal makes one a criminal, &c. Hmmm...

--------------------------

Denninger offers a pretty good list of [url=http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=225104]Lies And Truths About The Budget[/url] today, which takes all of the involved parties to task and also the MSM, for accepting unquestioningly the "if we do not have a debt ceiling deal by data X, the government will default". Quite simply false. Yes, absent a fresh monetization initiative using the Fed - and I suspect this would in fact be the plan B absent a debt-ceiling deal - the government would be faced with the sudden necessity to live within its means. For an entity this addicted to deficit spending, that is a harsh cold-turkey-withdrawal scenario, to be sure.

-------------------------

Some assorted thoughts on the social security subdiscussion:

o I would gladly support reasonable measures to render SS more solvent, but only if they are accompanied by legal changes which disallow the government from using SS (and Medicare, and the other smaller government-administered trust funds) as EZ-borrowing slush funds and thus evade the requirements of fiscal prudence even more egregiously than it has been doing with the "official debt". In fact the current structure of SS appears to provide a perverse incentive for government borrowing, because the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Trust_Fund]SS trust fund[/url] is "...required by law to be invested in non-marketable securities issued and guaranteed by the 'full faith and credit' of the federal government."

o The aforementioned Fed-engineered ZIRP policies have a major effect on the actuarial soundness of programs like SS, as well as virtually all retirment programs, public and private. And the sorry fact is, even after 5 years of ZIRP with no end remotely in sight, virtually all such programs *still* massively overestimate "historic returns" in their actuarial models.

o Oh, and those "special nonmarketable debt isntrument" IOUs the government replaces the cash in the SS fund with? The general assumption is that to repay these borrowings, the Treasury "simply" needs to repay-with-cash-surplus, or lacking such extra monies (i.e. "in the real world"), needs to issue an amount of public debt (i.w. marketable government debt) equivalent to the borrowed funds plus any accrued interest. In that sense, one might conclude that "trust fund borrowings are just public debt in disguise". But given that the government has racked up around $5 Tln of such debt in total, such redemption is very likely much easier said than done.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;356325]So following your logic ... calling someone a racist makes one a racist, calling someone a criminal makes one a criminal, &c. Hmmm...
[/QUOTE]

Those are not corresponding categories. Partisan implies some opposition. Opposition to criminality or racism does not mean "same as."

[QUOTE=rogue;356305]What about raising the age before one is able to collect full benefits?[/QUOTE]Oh, yes, that would be even more appropriate IMO -- perhaps the single most appropriate SocSec change I recall seeing proposed.

Americans, on average, are able to healthily work years longer now than when Social Security was started, so part of its original premise should, logically, have already led to a gradual increase in eligibility age over the decades since the 1930s. Of course, such increases [I]have[/I] been put into law now, but way too late to have been as effective as they would have been if done, say, three-four decades earlier.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;356325]Denninger offers a pretty good list of [URL="http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=225104"]Lies And Truths About The Budget[/URL] today[/QUOTE]But you don't point out any of Denninger's mistakes, not even what looks elementary.

[quote]for accepting unquestioningly the "if we do not have a debt ceiling deal by data X, the government will default". Quite simply false.[/quote]No, that is not false.

Right away you fail to point out Denninger's elementary mistake in the very first point (Denninger's list's fourth item) you choose to address.

Let's peruse the first three items in the [URL="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/default"]Merriam-Webster definition of [I]default[/I][/URL]:
[quote]
1[B] :[/B] failure to do something required by duty or law [B]:[/B] [URL="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/neglect"]neglect[/URL]

2[I] archaic[/I] [B]:[/B] [URL="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fault"]fault[/URL]

3[B] :[/B] a failure to pay financial debts

[/quote]Failure to make a payment of bond interest (or principal) is not the only type of financial default. Failure to pay a bill presented in accordance with contract, such as from a civilian supplier on the other end of a government contract, is also a type of default. Failure to make payments required by law, such as Social Security retirement or disability benefits, is also a type of default.

Denninger says:
[quote]The government takes in roughly 10 times as much tax revenue in a given month as it must pay in interest.[/quote]But he doesn't mention that the treasury is legally obligated to pay far more than just the interest on bonds.

Now, let's go back to the first item on Denninger's list. He starts mixing up things right there.
[quote][I]The Democrats have presented a coherent plan; the Republicans are obstructing. [/I][B][U]Lie[/U][/B]. The Constitution says that [B][U]all[/U][/B] revenue bills must originate in The House.[/quote]Note Denninger's switcheroo: segueing from "presented a coherent plan" to originating revenue bills in the House!

It's quite possible for Democrats, even only the Senate Democrats, to present a "coherent plan" for a revenue bill to be originated in the House. Of course, the Senate Democrats can't [I]originate[/I] such a bill, and the House Democrats are blocked by Boehner from doing so, but the statement that Denninger calls a "lie" doesn't claim that the Democrats have originated a bill in the House. There's no "lie" involved there.

[quote]The Senate's role is one of [B][I]concurrence[/I][/B]; it is not able to (lawfully) initiate spending.[/quote]But the statement Denninger calls a "lie" never says anything about initiating a spending bill in the Senate.

There are also errors or misleading implications in Denninger's second, sixth, and eighth list items, at least, in addition to the first and fourth.

[QUOTE=kladner;356331]Those are not corresponding categories. Partisan implies some opposition. Opposition to criminality or racism does not mean "same as."[/QUOTE]

Ok, but for me to call a Tea Partier a "partisan extremist" does not automatically imply that I affiliate with the Democrats. Or does it, and "I'm just in denial about it?"

[QUOTE=kladner;356293]I would point out, that calling another a "partisan" really implies a corresponding partisanship in the caller, even if the intent is to suggest some higher, non-partisan logic.[/QUOTE]I think Ernst is right to object to that one particular statement.

It's quite possible for a neutral, impartial observer to correctly label someone else as "partisan" without exhibiting partisanship himself.

It's even possible for a partisan observer to correctly and objectively label someone else as "partisan" without that act's necessarily proving that the labeler is partisan for that reason alone. (This doesn't absolve Ernst from being correctly labeled "partisan"; that just requires different evidence. :-)

If this is true, could a murderer refer to a mass murderer as a partisan extremist?

[QUOTE=cheesehead;356345](This doesn't absolve Ernst from being correctly labeled "partisan"; that just requires different evidence. :-)[/QUOTE]

Uh-oh, evidence of humor - my whole worldview is tottering ... "help me, Sarah Palin, you and your wonderfully binary [i]Weltanschauung[/i] are my only hope!"

[QUOTE=Fusion_power;356348]If this is true, could a murderer refer to a mass murderer as an extremist?[/QUOTE]

We prefer the kinder label "prolific".

[QUOTE=cheesehead;356345]I think Ernst is right to object to that one particular statement......

......(This doesn't absolve Ernst from being correctly labeled "partisan"; that just requires different evidence. :-)[/QUOTE]

Heh! I think my work here is done. I got Richard to defend Ernst! Who'd a thunk it? :wink:

[QUOTE]Ok, but for me to call a Tea Partier a "partisan extremist" does not automatically imply that I affiliate with the Democrats.[/QUOTE]
Nope. It doesn't. Not only that, but I didn't say it. Those aren't automatic correspondences, either.

[QUOTE]If this is true, could a murderer refer to a mass murderer as an extremist? [/QUOTE]
:rofl::bow: Excellent riposte, Sir!

[QUOTE=kladner;356351]Heh! I think my work here is done. I got Richard to defend Ernst! Who'd a thunk it? :wink:

[/QUOTE]

The end is nigh!

[QUOTE=kladner;356351]Heh! I think my work here is done. I got Richard to defend Ernst! Who'd a thunk it? :wink:[/QUOTE]
No, mate, your work is not done. You still need to get Ernst to defend Richard. Now there's a challenge for you...

[QUOTE=Brian-E;356384]No, mate, your work is not done. You still need to get Ernst to defend Richard. Now there's a challenge for you...[/QUOTE]

Sigh. The gentle voice of reality. :hello:

[QUOTE=kladner;356406]Sigh. The gentle voice of reality. :hello:[/QUOTE]
You'll soon have the two of them both :pals:
I know you can do it.:smile:

Robertson: Tea Party Politicians Need To 'Grow Up'
 

[URL]http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/robertson-tea-party-politicians-need-grow[/URL]
[QUOTE]When [I]Pat Robertson[/I] thinks you’ve moved too far to the right, you know you’re in trouble.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Brian-E;356433][URL]http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/robertson-tea-party-politicians-need-grow[/URL][/QUOTE]
Thanks for the encouragement; and thanks for the link going to a page on which I could read about, without having to listen to, Robertson.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;356384]No, mate, your work is not done. You still need to get Ernst to defend Richard. Now there's a challenge for you...[/QUOTE]
I could easily do so, but I don't want Kieran to be spoiled by too-easily-achieved success.

But here's a hint: Over in the S&T subforum "relativistic twins" thread, I was tempted to tell davar55 something to the effect of "when you find both cheesehead and me on the same side of the issue, that should tell you something."

OTOH, cheesehead and I don't disagree nearly as often about science as we do about politics, so the real test of Kieran's diplomacy-foo is to get me to defend cheesehead in a political context. Keep working, buddy. :)

[QUOTE=ewmayer;356452]I could easily do so, but I don't want Kieran to be spoiled by too-easily-achieved success.

But here's a hint: Over in the S&T subforum "relativistic twins" thread, I was tempted to tell davar55 something to the effect of "when you find both cheesehead and me on the same side of the issue, that should tell you something."

OTOH, cheesehead and I don't disagree nearly as often about science as we do about politics, so the real test of Kieran's diplomacy-foo is to get me to defend cheesehead in a political context. Keep working, buddy. :)[/QUOTE]
Yes, I am an avid reader of what both you and Richard, together with several other very knowledgable contributors, write in the Science threads and learn a lot from you there (when it's not over my head, that is!). I was thinking mainly of the political threads when I challenged Kieren.:smile:

[QUOTE=chalsall;356156]
1. Wny is Socialism assumed to be so evil by some humans, when it seems to work reasonable well for many other animals and insects (and even humans, if done correctly)?[/QUOTE]We're working on that: [URL="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+YonatanZunger/posts/XtpEcea3Hmt"]Obama is the ANTCHRIST[/URL] [noparse][note spelling][/noparse]
(no need to click -- it is a picture of a protest phrase painted on a back window of a Ford Explorer)

I, for one, [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKbFb6TPVEA"]welcome our new insect overlords.[/URL]

[QUOTE=only_human;356458]We're working on that: [URL="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+YonatanZunger/posts/XtpEcea3Hmt"]Obama is the ANTCHRIST[/URL] [noparse][note spelling][/noparse]
(no need to click -- it is a picture of a protest phrase painted on a back window of a Ford Explorer)[/QUOTE]

LOL - to be politically accurate about such antymatters, though, note that ant societies do have a very well-defined power elite. They seem to manage quite well overall, however - I'm not aware of any antyauthoritarian movements in known antyhistory. [Perhaps the antyelitists simply have extremely effective state-control of the antymedia, though.]

W.r.to "religions begun as result of poor spellchecking", I wonder which is the greater threat to whichever status quo the above truck-painter represents - the ant-zealots or [url=http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?p=131837#post131837]these folks[/url]? I suspect the former, mainly based on superior ant-organization: there's a reason unbelievers [whether proficient at spelling or not] are often labeled with the phrase "like herding cats".

Now, time for this cat-herd to enjoy a refreshing afternoon "gin and catatonic". My favorite brand of the antymalarial latter beverage is, of course, the Quinine Lives[sup]®[/sup] brand, "The best choice for your feliny drinking and driving[sup]TM[/sup]".

kummerspeck
 

[URL="http://blogs.marketwatch.com/capitolreport/2013/10/16/debt-ceiling-bill-funds-kentucky-dam-project-to-ire-of-mcconnell-foes/"]Debt-ceiling bill funds Kentucky dam project to ire of McConnell foes[/URL]
Pork, the other white meat.
[QUOTE]Here’s some dry language from the legislation:

SEC. 123. Section 3(a)(6) of Public Law 100–676 is amended by striking both occurrences of ‘‘$775,000,000’’ and inserting in lieu thereof, ‘‘$2,918,000,000’’[/QUOTE]

Follow-up:
The Washington Post has a kinder take on this.
[URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics-live/liveblog/live-updates-the-shutdown-9/?id=a9f2f203-96e6-4943-baf1-bc7ae85af94f"]'Kentucky Kickback'? Not so much.[/URL][QUOTE]But as our David Fahrenthold reports, the funding was actually requested by President Obama and, according to congressional sources from both parties, wasn’t a McConnell project.[/QUOTE]

Among the odder events today, during the final House vote, the stenographer snapped:
[URL="http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/house-stenographer-hauled-from-floor-98439.html"]House stenographer hauled from floor[/URL][QUOTE]A House floor stenographer was abruptly hauled out of the chamber after charging the dais and screaming during Wednesday’s late night vote on raising the debt ceiling and funding the federal government.

As the bill sailed toward final passage, the presiding lawmaker suddenly began pounding the gavel. Witnesses on the floor said the woman, identified as Dianne Reidy, seized a microphone and began yelling during the vote.

She was then removed from the chamber by floor staff and taken into an adjacent elevator. She continued yelling as she was taken away, saying phrases such as “you cannot serve two masters” and “he will not be mocked.”

The incident stunned members and staffers on the floor, who had never seen anything like it.[/QUOTE]

... yet some contended that the shutdown would do no harm ...

[QUOTE=only_human;356486]Among the odder events today, during the final House vote, the stenographer snapped:
[URL="http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/house-stenographer-hauled-from-floor-98439.html"]House stenographer hauled from floor[/URL][/QUOTE]

The story is still sketchy. It seems that she harbors religion-driven paranoia. She carried on about Free Masons writing the Constitution, and going against god. I suspect that transcribing all the craziness in that chamber overflowed her buffers. It also says something about who gets hired these days in the Hallowed Halls of Power. Of course, that goes double for some of the elected denizens.

[url=www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/17/us-usa-fiscal-idUSBRE98N11220131017?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews]Reuters' take on the debt ceiling deal[/url]:
[quote]The bill amounts to a clear defeat for Republicans, who had sought to tie government funding to measures that would undercut Obama's signature Affordable Care Act.

That effort failed, and the standoff diverted public attention away from the administration's sloppy rollout of the health law's online insurance exchanges.

The fight split the Republican party into factions and left it on the wrong side of public opinion. Though Obama's approval rating fell during the crisis, polls showed that most voters blamed Republicans for the standoff.[/quote]
Re. Obama's "lurching from one crisis to the next" statement in the above piece, I'm afraid that is our fate, since neither the 2008 GFC nor the frightening trajectory of the national debt has led to any of the structural reforms direly needed to address the underlying "debt and excess leverage" issues common to both.

So ... reconvene here in 3 months?

[QUOTE=ewmayer;356560]...I'm afraid that is our fate, since neither the 2008 GFC nor the frightening trajectory of the national debt has led to any of the structural reforms direly needed to address the underlying "debt and excess leverage" issues common to both.[/QUOTE]

There is an important difference between fate and karma.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;356560][url=www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/17/us-usa-fiscal-idUSBRE98N11220131017?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews]Reuters' take on the debt ceiling deal[/url]:

Re. Obama's "lurching from one crisis to the next" statement in the above piece, I'm afraid that is our fate, since neither the 2008 GFC nor the frightening trajectory of the national debt has led to any of the structural reforms direly needed to address the underlying "debt and excess leverage" issues common to both.

So ... reconvene here in 3 months?[/QUOTE]Perhaps. For those who briefly thought that passing a budget might mean that bribing people to do their job is no longer necessary, well, the leverage of the debt ceiling is tempting and Blagojovich-ish opportunism (ala "I've got this thing and it's [bleep]n' golden, and, uh, uh, I'm just not giving it up for [bleep]n' noth­ing.") is still the modus operandi:
[URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/15/paul-ryan-debt-ceiling_n_4449213.html"]Paul Ryan Says GOP Wants Ransom For Another Debt Ceiling Hostage[/URL][QUOTE]WASHINGTON -- The GOP wants concessions from Democrats in exchange for not allowing the U.S. to default on its debts this spring, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said on Fox News Sunday.

"We as a caucus -- along with our Senate counterparts -- are going to meet and discuss what it is we’re going to want out of the debt limit," Ryan said. “We don’t want nothing out of this debt limit. We’re going to decide what it is we’re going to accomplish out of this debt limit fight.”

Ryan said the party will make up its mind on its list of demands at a coming retreat. "We’re going to meet in our retreats after the holidays and discuss exactly what it is we’re going to try to get for this," he said.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=only_human;362268]Perhaps. For those who briefly thought that passing a budget might mean that bribing people to do their job is no longer necessary, well, the leverage of the debt ceiling is tempting and Blagojovich-ish opportunism (ala "I've got this thing and it's [bleep]n' golden, and, uh, uh, I'm just not giving it up for [bleep]n' noth­ing.") is still the modus operandi:
[URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/15/paul-ryan-debt-ceiling_n_4449213.html"]Paul Ryan Says GOP Wants Ransom For Another Debt Ceiling Hostage[/URL][/QUOTE]If the GOP's tactic were something worthy, I might admire their persistence.

Instead, I hope they get shot down on this again and again and again until they learn not to use this unpatriotic tactic ...