Full faith and credit and showdownarama 2013

[kladner]

Insane power lust.

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

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

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

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?

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

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?

See

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2...-congress?lite

"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)......

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

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

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

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

Jim Grant Warns America's Default Is Inevitable

And Mish's latest:

Silliness From Boehner Rejected by Obama; Cut Losses, End the Madness

[only_human]

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).

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by only_human

It means that the brinkmanship is deliberate rather than merely incompetence

Of course. But brinksmanship is not new. What's new is Tea Party arrogance in using it with the debt ceiling.

or something that Boehner was bulldozed into doing

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.

because they want to constrain the Treasury so that the next time 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?

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.

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.

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.

[kladner]

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.

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

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.

OTOH, maybe they simply stole the idea from him. 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".

[chappy]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

OTOH, maybe they simply stole the idea from him. 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".

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...-debt-ceiling/

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.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Of course. But brinksmanship is not new. What's new is Tea Party arrogance in using it with the debt ceiling.

Has anyone read Neal Stephenson and George Jewsbury's Interface? (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....

[Fusion_power]

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.

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.