Debt Ceiling Debacle 2013: It's the End of the World As We Know It and the GOP Feels Fine

11617182022

Posts

  • schussschuss Registered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    So basically Obama stared them down and they blinked.

    This is a good thing.

    (I still wish we could get a coin.)

    He's got them by the balls now. After the tax stuff, he knew he had the upper hand. This is where he starts putting it to them.

  • DisrupterDisrupter Registered User regular
    I dunno, it sort of plays well for the GOP. "Hey look we are reasonable, you have 3 months to fix it and pass an actual budget, otherwise this is on you, Senate." I'm not seeing this as a good situation for the dems.

    Other than playing the uncertainty card.

    616610-1.png
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    when someone hears "congress" they think of the republicans

    because the republicans spent 2 years saying they owned congress

  • fugacityfugacity Registered User regular
    Disrupter wrote: »
    I dunno, it sort of plays well for the GOP. "Hey look we are reasonable, you have 3 months to fix it and pass an actual budget, otherwise this is on you, Senate." I'm not seeing this as a good situation for the dems.

    Other than playing the uncertainty card.

    Don't the budgets have to originate in the House? That's why all this crap is happening. If we could push bills from the Senate to the House for an up and down vote none of this would be a problem.

  • TenekTenek Registered User regular
    fugacity wrote: »
    Disrupter wrote: »
    I dunno, it sort of plays well for the GOP. "Hey look we are reasonable, you have 3 months to fix it and pass an actual budget, otherwise this is on you, Senate." I'm not seeing this as a good situation for the dems.

    Other than playing the uncertainty card.

    Don't the budgets have to originate in the House? That's why all this crap is happening. If we could push bills from the Senate to the House for an up and down vote none of this would be a problem.

    There's no way to force either chamber to consider a bill. If Pelosi were the Speaker things would be a lot better even given the GOP House majority, but Boehner's the one who decides what does and does not get voted on.

  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Not to mention the democrats have come up with budgets in the past, the GOP just rejects them. This bullshit about not having a budget is just a gop talking point. "DO THIS THING YOU ALREADY DO BUT WE LIE AND SAY YOU DONT!"

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
  • chrisnlchrisnl Registered User regular
    What's this about kicking the can down the line for another three months? That would be horribly depressing (for me at least) if true.

    steam_sig.png
  • fugacityfugacity Registered User regular
    Tenek wrote: »
    fugacity wrote: »
    Disrupter wrote: »
    I dunno, it sort of plays well for the GOP. "Hey look we are reasonable, you have 3 months to fix it and pass an actual budget, otherwise this is on you, Senate." I'm not seeing this as a good situation for the dems.

    Other than playing the uncertainty card.

    Don't the budgets have to originate in the House? That's why all this crap is happening. If we could push bills from the Senate to the House for an up and down vote none of this would be a problem.

    There's no way to force either chamber to consider a bill. If Pelosi were the Speaker things would be a lot better even given the GOP House majority, but Boehner's the one who decides what does and does not get voted on.

    Yeah, hence the hypothetical.

  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    chrisnl wrote: »
    What's this about kicking the can down the line for another three months? That would be horribly depressing (for me at least) if true.

    They think these fights are working out for them, because they aren't based in reality. But again they've already shown now they can't actually shoot their hostage, they've lost their leverage and this is about trying to hide the pathetic little shriveled dick they exposed.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
  • schussschuss Registered User regular
    Disrupter wrote: »
    I dunno, it sort of plays well for the GOP. "Hey look we are reasonable, you have 3 months to fix it and pass an actual budget, otherwise this is on you, Senate." I'm not seeing this as a good situation for the dems.

    Other than playing the uncertainty card.

    If the hold the line, it's basically on the Repubs to fix the problems, as they're currently seen as the problem.

  • iTunesIsEviliTunesIsEvil Registered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    chrisnl wrote: »
    What's this about kicking the can down the line for another three months? That would be horribly depressing (for me at least) if true.

    They think these fights are working out for them, because they aren't based in reality. But again they've already shown now they can't actually shoot their hostage, they've lost their leverage and this is about trying to hide the pathetic little shriveled dick they exposed.

    They're working out enough. They lose, nationally, by a million votes but still keep the House. They shout their policies from the rooftops as superior, but when the public's polled their policies don't look so hot. Yet, it still gets (at least in part) implemented.

    I don't think they're too worried. Because of redistricting they're sitting pretty for the next 10 years in the House, basically. Unless there's some groundswell of D support because all the sudden people start wandering around, blinking as though they've just woken up from a trance and go "oh God, I don't support this shit, I'm going to vote D."

  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    Preacher wrote: »
    chrisnl wrote: »
    What's this about kicking the can down the line for another three months? That would be horribly depressing (for me at least) if true.

    They think these fights are working out for them, because they aren't based in reality. But again they've already shown now they can't actually shoot their hostage, they've lost their leverage and this is about trying to hide the pathetic little shriveled dick they exposed.

    Yeah, this. If "We're not going to actually default" thing is now the official GOP position, then the GOP has basically lost this battle. Because when the hostage-taker says, "Well, okay, we're not actually going to shoot the hostage, c'mon," that's the time they lose credibility. That's when you walk up to them, take the gun out of their hand, and pistol-whip them in the goddamn face.

    I mean, they've basically admitted that what they proposed was fucking crazy-pants. That's not a good thing to be forced to admit.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
    spacekungfumanWho-Psyd
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    They are also breaking internally as the two recent breaks of the Hasert rule show. The lockstep GOP we all feared is actually showing "Whoa fuck whoa we can't always count on Redmap to save our asses."

    There are even some GOP'rs backing increased background checks for fuck sake.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
  • TenekTenek Registered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    chrisnl wrote: »
    What's this about kicking the can down the line for another three months? That would be horribly depressing (for me at least) if true.

    They think these fights are working out for them, because they aren't based in reality. But again they've already shown now they can't actually shoot their hostage, they've lost their leverage and this is about trying to hide the pathetic little shriveled dick they exposed.

    They're working out enough. They lose, nationally, by a million votes but still keep the House. They shout their policies from the rooftops as superior, but when the public's polled their policies don't look so hot. Yet, it still gets (at least in part) implemented.

    I don't think they're too worried. Because of redistricting they're sitting pretty for the next 10 years in the House, basically. Unless there's some groundswell of D support because all the sudden people start wandering around, blinking as though they've just woken up from a trance and go "oh God, I don't support this shit, I'm going to vote D."

    Based on the last House election, Dems need to win the popular vote by about 9% to take over. (Tipping point: VA-02). 6% if they manage to get 10 seats that the GOP loses for local reasons. That said, 2008 was D+10.5, so it's possible in a wave. Just going to be very, very hard to get with a D President.

  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    chrisnl wrote: »
    What's this about kicking the can down the line for another three months? That would be horribly depressing (for me at least) if true.

    They think these fights are working out for them, because they aren't based in reality. But again they've already shown now they can't actually shoot their hostage, they've lost their leverage and this is about trying to hide the pathetic little shriveled dick they exposed.

    Yeah, this. If "We're not going to actually default" thing is now the official GOP position, then the GOP has basically lost this battle. Because when the hostage-taker says, "Well, okay, we're not actually going to shoot the hostage, c'mon," that's the time they lose credibility. That's when you walk up to them, take the gun out of their hand, and pistol-whip them in the goddamn face.

    I mean, they've basically admitted that what they proposed was fucking crazy-pants. That's not a good thing to be forced to admit.

    Which is great for the country, but the absolute worst case for the GOP, I would say. They took the hit from being so obstinate already, and lost the bargaining power they were trying to acquire through that obstinate stance.

    AManFromEarth
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    chrisnl wrote: »
    What's this about kicking the can down the line for another three months? That would be horribly depressing (for me at least) if true.

    They think these fights are working out for them, because they aren't based in reality. But again they've already shown now they can't actually shoot their hostage, they've lost their leverage and this is about trying to hide the pathetic little shriveled dick they exposed.

    Yeah, this. If "We're not going to actually default" thing is now the official GOP position, then the GOP has basically lost this battle. Because when the hostage-taker says, "Well, okay, we're not actually going to shoot the hostage, c'mon," that's the time they lose credibility. That's when you walk up to them, take the gun out of their hand, and pistol-whip them in the goddamn face.

    I mean, they've basically admitted that what they proposed was fucking crazy-pants. That's not a good thing to be forced to admit.

    The denial position would be more like "yeah we'll shoot the hostage 5 times but don't worry we have some gauze they'll be fine".

    it was so far off the deep end I can't imagine anyone buying it

  • DisrupterDisrupter Registered User regular
    Eh, you guys are discussing facts, not narrative. They have said the house has passed budgets but the senate has not. I have no idea if this is true, but I assume theres some truth to it, I know overall a budget has not been passed.

    So you hear that, and it does a good job making it look like the senates fault, not the house.

    Doesn't matter what the facts are. It seems to me like its a pretty successful deflection of the problem/blame to the dems.

    616610-1.png
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    Disrupter wrote: »
    Eh, you guys are discussing facts, not narrative. They have said the house has passed budgets but the senate has not. I have no idea if this is true, but I assume theres some truth to it, I know overall a budget has not been passed.

    So you hear that, and it does a good job making it look like the senates fault, not the house.

    Doesn't matter what the facts are. It seems to me like its a pretty successful deflection of the problem/blame to the dems.

    I'll take 50 years fo continuing resolutions over the Randian circlejerk that was the Ryan budget

  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Disrupter wrote: »
    Eh, you guys are discussing facts, not narrative. They have said the house has passed budgets but the senate has not. I have no idea if this is true, but I assume theres some truth to it, I know overall a budget has not been passed.

    So you hear that, and it does a good job making it look like the senates fault, not the house.

    Doesn't matter what the facts are. It seems to me like its a pretty successful deflection of the problem/blame to the dems.

    That the beltway are morons does not actually give credence to the belief.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/please-kill-off-this-budget-myth/2012/04/12/gIQAx3a8CT_blog.html

    This has not been a successful deflection and if you inform yourself and others, you'll note it is not.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
  • DisrupterDisrupter Registered User regular
    No. I understand that factually, it is not a deflection. This is politics, the facts dont matter as much as the narrative. If the GOP can successfully deflect blame to the dems via the narrative, it doesn't matter that they arent really to blame. The one thing that has been going the dems way is the fact the public has been holding the GOP to this stuff, finally.

    It seems to me that was a decent spin to deflect the public blame back to the dems. Not that it ACTUALLY changes who is responsible. I could be wrong, I hope Im wrong, but reading it, it sounds like it could work to change the narrative.

    616610-1.png
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    "The budget" as we usually understand it is really just a vague blueprint. Then appropriations bills are written from there actually authorizing the money being spent. Those bills have to come from the committes n the House and guess who chairs all of them?

  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    You know what the narrative was going into the debt ceiling fight, obama would cave the GOP would get what it wants. So FUCK THE NARRATIVE!

    You know what also builds a narrative? Americans saying we're well aware what the GOP is doing and WILL NOT PUT UP WITH THEIR SHIT! We're voters, tell your congress critter don't buy into the bullshit.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
  • DisrupterDisrupter Registered User regular
    Yeah, I understand that the budget itself is just a guide. But honestly, I only learned that recently. Most americans probably don't.

    As for the narrative being important, I believed that after the election the narrative was that the GOP was misunderstanding the results of the election or misrepresenting them, and that they would have to give a lot more than they were willing in regards to the fiscall cliff. That ended up being what occured.

    Now with the debt ceiling, to this point, it has been "Obama washes hands of it, its the congress's problem, and if the house doesnt vote to increase, it will be on their heads."

    The house saying "look, we understand we dont want to default here, but this is really a problem of no budget being passed to keep spending in line. We will give our the senate 3 months to get their act together and pass one that is responsible." SOUNDS pretty decent. I know it isnt. Im just saying how I think it will play.

    If the fallout of any sort of default switches from the GOP to the Dems, then the GOP once again have all the cards. The only thing that would stop them at that point is actual fear of a default, but if they feel that the blame wont fall on them, I am pretty sure they wont blink first.

    616610-1.png
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    chrisnl wrote: »
    What's this about kicking the can down the line for another three months? That would be horribly depressing (for me at least) if true.

    They think these fights are working out for them, because they aren't based in reality. But again they've already shown now they can't actually shoot their hostage, they've lost their leverage and this is about trying to hide the pathetic little shriveled dick they exposed.

    Yeah, this. If "We're not going to actually default" thing is now the official GOP position, then the GOP has basically lost this battle. Because when the hostage-taker says, "Well, okay, we're not actually going to shoot the hostage, c'mon," that's the time they lose credibility. That's when you walk up to them, take the gun out of their hand, and pistol-whip them in the goddamn face.

    I mean, they've basically admitted that what they proposed was fucking crazy-pants. That's not a good thing to be forced to admit.

    Which is great for the country, but the absolute worst case for the GOP, I would say. They took the hit from being so obstinate already, and lost the bargaining power they were trying to acquire through that obstinate stance.

    I would say that "absolute worst case for the GOP" is almost always going to line up for "great for the country" for quite some time!

    Lh96QHG.png
    Jacobkosh
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    chrisnl wrote: »
    What's this about kicking the can down the line for another three months? That would be horribly depressing (for me at least) if true.

    They think these fights are working out for them, because they aren't based in reality. But again they've already shown now they can't actually shoot their hostage, they've lost their leverage and this is about trying to hide the pathetic little shriveled dick they exposed.

    They're working out enough. They lose, nationally, by a million votes but still keep the House. They shout their policies from the rooftops as superior, but when the public's polled their policies don't look so hot. Yet, it still gets (at least in part) implemented.

    I don't think they're too worried. Because of redistricting they're sitting pretty for the next 10 years in the House, basically. Unless there's some groundswell of D support because all the sudden people start wandering around, blinking as though they've just woken up from a trance and go "oh God, I don't support this shit, I'm going to vote D."

    They're also working on rigging the presidential elections so they can lose by 6 million votes and win the Presidency.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
  • MillMill Registered User regular
    So here's the current deal with the debt ceiling.
    The bill aims to draw Senate Democrats into the debate by requiring the chamber to pass a formal budget resolution by April 15. If either the House or Senate fails to meet this deadline, lawmakers' pay is suspended until they pass a budget.

    I'm quoting that because that's the interesting thing. I believe Sammy might be able to explain the flaws with this plan because I'm pretty sure this is going to backfire on the GOP.

  • ChanusChanus Ribbit! Registered User regular
    Well, the reason we haven't had a budget from the Senate in four years is because the Republicans keep tacking on suicide riders.

    So, it sounds like their plan is just more of the same but hoping they can keep blaming it on the Democrats.

    **Winner Softest and Most Comfy Hugs Award Summer 2018**

    Blueberrywerewlf on the Sony Anime Games Box | BluberryWerewlf on the BroBone
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Mill wrote: »
    So here's the current deal with the debt ceiling.
    The bill aims to draw Senate Democrats into the debate by requiring the chamber to pass a formal budget resolution by April 15. If either the House or Senate fails to meet this deadline, lawmakers' pay is suspended until they pass a budget.

    I'm quoting that because that's the interesting thing. I believe Sammy might be able to explain the flaws with this plan because I'm pretty sure this is going to backfire on the GOP.

    It's blatantly unconstitutional, for one thing.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
  • MillMill Registered User regular
    Yeah, I remember the conversation about previously. Can't remember where Sammy outlined it.

  • iTunesIsEviliTunesIsEvil Registered User regular
    Mill wrote: »
    So here's the current deal with the debt ceiling.
    The bill aims to draw Senate Democrats into the debate by requiring the chamber to pass a formal budget resolution by April 15. If either the House or Senate fails to meet this deadline, lawmakers' pay is suspended until they pass a budget.

    I'm quoting that because that's the interesting thing. I believe Sammy might be able to explain the flaws with this plan because I'm pretty sure this is going to backfire on the GOP.

    It's blatantly unconstitutional, for one thing.

    I thought I'd seen that in passing somewhere. Maybe from Ezra Klein? What's the deal with that? I assume it's got something to do about Congress changing what members are paid...

  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    Mill wrote: »
    So here's the current deal with the debt ceiling.
    The bill aims to draw Senate Democrats into the debate by requiring the chamber to pass a formal budget resolution by April 15. If either the House or Senate fails to meet this deadline, lawmakers' pay is suspended until they pass a budget.

    I'm quoting that because that's the interesting thing. I believe Sammy might be able to explain the flaws with this plan because I'm pretty sure this is going to backfire on the GOP.

    It's blatantly unconstitutional, for one thing.

    There is a question whether deferred compensation is the same as changed compensation, but I think the answer is pretty obvious.

    torchlight-sig-80.jpg
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited January 2013
    No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

    enlightenedbum on
    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    I would be amused to really see which side was actually more damaged by the lack of pay.

  • a5ehrena5ehren AtlantaRegistered User regular
    I would be amused to really see which side was actually more damaged by the lack of pay.

    Neither, I'd guess. They'd just have to live on their stock dividends for a couple months.

  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    a5ehren wrote: »
    I would be amused to really see which side was actually more damaged by the lack of pay.

    Neither, I'd guess. They'd just have to live on their stock dividends for a couple months.

    I know some of the Tea Partiers elected were not Rich-Rich. They could have some issues.

    The real issue would be I don't see how people could offer assistance. I think most campaign like funds are restricted from doing stuff that they would need.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    a5ehren wrote: »
    I would be amused to really see which side was actually more damaged by the lack of pay.

    Neither, I'd guess. They'd just have to live on their stock dividends for a couple months.

    Also bribes. There was a thing somewhere recently about what the Democrats recommended for new House members in terms of time management. Five hours a day was for fundraising.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Heh.

    If the House will agree to pass, without amendments, whatever budget the Senate comes up with I might sign up for this solution.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Heh.

    If the House will agree to pass, without amendments, whatever budget the Senate comes up with I might sign up for this solution.

    I'm pretty sure it's more likely for Jennifer Lawrence to show up at my house and invite me to spend a week in Ibiza with her and her friend Kate Upton.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    AManFromEartha5ehrenlonelyahava
  • CommunistCowCommunistCow Registered User regular
    edited January 2013
    House voted to suspend the debt limit for 4 months with some other provisions to withhold congressional pay until 2015 if they don't pass a budget by April 15th

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hold-house-votes-to-suspend-debt-limit/2013/01/23/58f2013c-6574-11e2-85f5-a8a9228e55e7_story_1.html

    CommunistCow on
    No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    House voted to suspend the debt limit for 4 months with some other provisions to withhold congressional pay until 2015 if they don't pass a budget by April 15th

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hold-house-votes-to-suspend-debt-limit/2013/01/23/58f2013c-6574-11e2-85f5-a8a9228e55e7_story_1.html

    This is somehow dumber than holding a gun to the head of the world economy.

    Lh96QHG.png
Sign In or Register to comment.