« Ezra Klein's unanswered question | Main | A metaphorical question »

October 03, 2013

Comments

"According to PPP, if the election was today, the R's would lose the House."

I don't doubt that for a moment. This is one of those situations where you either finish the job, or you don't dare start. Having started down this path, they MUST keep on it until they win some kind of major concession, or they're toast, it will have been all pain, no gain.

At the moment you've got most of the media screaming about how horrible it's all going to be. The Republican hope is that, as the standoff continues, people will start discounting the media screaming in favor of their own personal experience.

It's rather like the sequester: In advance we were told it would be horrible. Now it's become the new baseline for spending. That wouldn't have happened if they'd given up after a week.

The Republican hope is that, as the standoff continues, people will start discounting the media screaming in favor of their own personal experience.

so the Republican plan is to hope that favorable anecdotes will minimize their leverage.

brilliant.

I think that forcing a disaster upon the country, not as a well intentioned mistake, but as a deliberate act, may qualify as treason.

Rightly or wrongly, the Cruz crowd views ACA as a "disaster upon the country", even if it was a "well intentioned mistake". Both the left and the right view any accommodation as surrender. Sure, there is no equivalency: a flat refusal to negotiate meaningfully on other budgetary issues is nothing but high principle.

Having started down this path, they MUST keep on it until they win some kind of major concession, or they're toast

Government by middle school playground rules. Fabulous.

It's rather like the sequester: In advance we were told it would be horrible. Now it's become the new baseline for spending.

For starters:

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated in July that based on data up to that point, the cuts would cost 900,000 jobs within a year.

But if you're not one of those folks, or one of the other hundreds of thousands or millions of folks whose lives have been impacted by the sequester, it's all good.

And hey, let's have some more of that, because we have to be respected!!!

Flaming @ssholes. Really, just a pack of flaming childish preening @ssholes.

You support this horsesh*t Brett?

Rightly or wrongly, the Cruz crowd views ACA as a "disaster upon the country"

The "rightly or wrongly" part here is IMO kind of significant.

Don't you think?

Or are we in some kind of "all points of view are equally valid" territory?

We're talking about the shutdown - the expensive, counter-productive, inefficient shutdown - of public goods and services. Next week we'll be talking about federal financial default.

It seems to me that it behooves us to discern between the "rightly" and the "wrongly".

Some people actually are bone-ignorant, or full of crap, or just generally flaming @ssholes. It doesn't mean they aren't allowed to come to dinner, but it also doesn't mean none of the rest of us get to eat if they don't happen to like asparagus.

I know that this is a bit of a point with you, McT, but I wonder if you discern that this might not have gone so far had the president not been African-American? Or how opposing the ACA seems to map interestingly on a particular subset of states?

To be sure, much of the arguments against the ACA are rooted in the fear that the act will be a nail in the coffin of the United States as we know it and lead to an insurmountable increase of national debt: but the paranoiac fear that its perpetration is so short-sighted that it is intended to prevent a return to smaller government has deeper roots.

Some remarkably disturbing data there.

but the paranoiac fear that its perpetration is so short-sighted that it is intended to prevent a return to smaller government has deeper roots.

someone needs to ask these paranoiac pinheads if they want to give up their SS or Medi*. if they say no, then nobody ever needs to give a crap about what they say about the size of the government, ever again.

Ladies and gentlemen, the party of fiscal responsibility:

"I think, personally, it would bring stability to the world markets" Ted Yoho, R, FL.

but i'm sure, once the GOP's talking points get going, Brett will be here to tell us that it's the Dems who want the default.

("it" = US default)

The Democrats have been willing to compromise. They've done it over and over and over. The sequester, the core idea of the ACA...

It is not an intellectually honest argument to claim the Democrats have been unwilling to compromise. They didn't stand their ground--our ground, the ground that is in the nations's best interests--until the Republicans crossed the line into the shut down, which is intended to sabotage the legislative process, and threats of default, which is treasonous.

It isn't an honest mistake to threaten default. For one thing the Wall Street types that the upper echelons of the party are vey beholden to are phoning up what ever Republican they can reach and telling them not to default. The Chamber of Commerce is telling them not to do it and offering to back Republican legislators that get Tea Party primary challengers.

But also people are responsible for doing their jobs. The Republicans who are threatening to push the nation into default are the same people, or are setting right next to the same Republicans, who routinely raised the debt ceiling for Bush even as they cut taxes and increased spending.

So there's no possibility of an honest mistake. It's just Republican politicians doing what they do, in this case contemplating reason.

Fortunately more and more voters are finely seeing them as they are. Even Beltway pundits, usually the last people to understand American politics, are getting a clue.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/05/shorting-out-the-wiring/?_r=0

Granted this is Krugman and he suffers from having genuine expertise, which to Beltway pundits, makes him shrill.

Shorter version: For many decades the corporate media has presented the Republicans as the party of competence, but finally that delusion has been broken by such repeated outstanding displays of incompetence that even Beltway pundits have to notice.

It's likely, though, that the corporate media will develop the meme that it is the Tea Party that is incompetent and that the rest of the Republican party is fine, jus the good old solid mainstream party of Eisenhower. Which it isn't. The Democrats are the mainstream solid party of Eisenhower. Even with the Tea Party assholes driven out, the Republicans would still be the Robber Baron global warming denying hate and fear-mongering vote suppressing budget-busting austerity bombers.

McKT wrote:

". Both the left and the right view any accommodation as surrender. Sure, there is no equivalency: a flat refusal to negotiate meaningfully on other budgetary issues is nothing but high principle."

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/10/07/the-democrats-already-compromised/

Democrats are also willing to negotiate and compromise on tax issues, as in reining in deductions and loopholes.

Too bad we can't bring perjury charges on the Internet.*

*Then McKT could join me in jail. Minimum security .... wine and goose liver pate brought in under cover during the laundry pickup ....

But still, c'mon!

As it is, I'll allow your statement to be struck from the record and instruct the jury to disregard your words.

Once again, the stakes, from those conservatives in the markets who know:

http://money.msn.com/top-stocks/post--us-default-seen-as-catastrophe-dwarfing-lehmans-fall

They leave out the violence that will befall the Republican Party following the catastrophe.

The victims' list is published in the Congressional Record for every vote.

Remember the one about the husband and wife who both wanted the pie, so the husband suggested they each eat half, and the wife then said, "Let's compromise, and I'll eat three quarters."? (It's not my joke, so I accept no responsibility for any sexism. It's just conceptually apropos here. See, the Republicans are like the wife in the joke and...blaaaaaauuuuuuugggggghhhhhh)

Speculation by Eric Posner on the President's options should the Republican order him to default ion the debt.


http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115034/debt-ceiling-3-ways-obama-could-circumvent-congress

The link is taken from this Sullivan post:

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/10/07/the-impeachment-scenario/

Regarding the possibility of impeachment, I believe the President should take whatever action that MAXIMIZES the chance of impeachment by the House Republicans, and then on to the Senate.

In addition to spending time on YouTube with the crypto-religious Obama haters, I've been viewing dozens of videos of the government-hating, gun-loving Obama-haters.

A Constitutional crisis involving debt default, impeachment proceedings, and a President who refuses to step down, as Obama should do if he is impeached, will bring the armed vigilantes to Washington D.C. where they can be dealt with at one time, as expeditiously possible, on THEIR terms.

Too bad the government won't have any money to clean up their remains.

I look forward to a return of buzzards over D.C.

I hope the scenic turn-off photographers don't order the seafood pupu platter in Rapid City this week.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/10/what-the-us-government-has-to-do-with-your-popcorn-shrimp/280327/

Stick with the fresh-caught trout.

I'd hate to see a guy whining to NewsMax suddenly sieze up from stomach cramps.

"Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) insisted Sunday on ABC’s “This Week” that he won’t bring up a “clean” debt limit increase under any circumstances, warning that the U.S. will default on its debt unless President Barack Obama agrees to make policy concessions."

From Talking Points Memo. If accurate, then I think Boehner is coming close to treasonous behavior.

Laura, of course Boehner has to say that. Especially if he actually is going to bring up a clean debt ceiling bill for a floor vote. If he admitted now that he would bring such a bill to a vote, he would be out as Speaker instantly. And we would have a new Speaker who would say it and mean it.

So what he has to do is keep saying that, right up until he has a clean debt ceiling bill from the Senate. Then he can exercise his authority as Speaker to bring that bill to a vote and get it passed. One could actually make a case that to fail to keep saying what he is saying (and thus make default much more likely) would be all the nasty kinds of betrayal that you (and others) have been accusing him of.

(Of course, I may be giving him too much credit. But we will know one way or the other in a couple more weeks.)

An interesting article on a CEO, whose publicly traded company is heavily involved in setting up on-line state health insurance exchanges under the ACA, and who will finally be able to purchase health care insurance after being denied for years by Republican Death Panels.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-amazon-of-health-insurance-2013-08-21?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts

How you are in it, even if you think you are not:

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/10/07/how-your-neighbors-insurance-covers-you/

I hope lj's daughter hasn't been tuning out to these explanations with her Ipod ear buds in, or we're just going to have to start over.

While we're civilly discussing the nuances of Republican treason and who is going to take their Party back, here comes the first wave of armed, violent Republican murderers to Washington D.C.

I hope no one's daughter gets caught up in their explanations, but if your daughters are anywhere near, they should wear bullet-proof vests.

Try as I might while I was perusing Republican heavy weapon videos to be used against government, including the President of the United States, all Democrats, liberals, feminazis, blacks, Jews, immigrants, and the gay variants of all of the above, I couldn't locate a single video of a liberal wielding firepower for my side.

So, we know where the murderous filth reside: in the Republican Party.

They are legion.

The "It" girl expands on "it".

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/bachmann-end-times-are-coming-because-obama-is-supporting-al-qaeda

She represents.

Could Jesurgislac please show up and testify to the absolutely classic Slartiness of that statement.

*appears*

Confirmed.

*disappears*

"who was that masked woman....?"

hey jes!!

De-lurk! De-lurk! My kingdom for a... um, er... Aw, hell... just de-lurk (please).

"here come the first wave of ..."

and here comes the link:

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/truckers-for-the-constitution-plan-to-arrest-congressmen-100713


Well, jes, I guess that leaves me only two wishes.

Could Hilzoy please now appear and confirm there is still a world out there?

I love seances.

ok, but who get to play "cottonmouth" wallace?

Fun to see Jes delurking. Do it again every now and then (every five years or so, but I'd prefer more often.)

"It is not an intellectually honest argument to claim the Democrats have been unwilling to compromise."

That's putting it mildly. I know we all live in our own little cocoons, but the notion that Obama is some hardline lefty unwilling to compromise has me sitting here laughing hysterically with tears rolling down--okay, I'm not actually doing that, but I'd have every right. That's the fundamental brilliance of this Tea Party strategy, if it doesn't cause a catastrophe--they just keep pushing the Overton Window further and further to the right. We'll be so grateful if fiscal doomsday doesn't happen that if Obama agrees to a few more seniors eating catfood while a few rich people pay slightly higher taxes, we'll all be cheering, and the Tea Party people will sincerely think they've been sold out to the Kenyan Marxist proponent of Sharia law.

McKinneyTexas: "Rightly or wrongly, the Cruz crowd views ACA as a "disaster upon the country", even if it was a "well intentioned mistake". Both the left and the right view any accommodation as surrender. Sure, there is no equivalency: a flat refusal to negotiate meaningfully on other budgetary issues is nothing but high principle."

This is false, pure and simple.

Meanwhile, the convoy failed to appear.

Rubber ducky shed a tear.

but they did manage to needlessly blow some taxpayer money!

In Virginia, extra troopers were on hand — in part — because of the expected trucker protest.

good job, small government conservatives.

From Russell's link:

******* "This is the first movement,” Lacovara said. “I would be making up a number if I guessed how many trucks are out here. I can just tell you we have a healthy group and an even healthier group on the way.” ******

Ah, c'mon, throw a number out there. Was it more than 20? 30? A smidgen under 40?

Under Obamacare, pre-existing hemorrhoids suffered by independent, entrepreneurial truckers who formerly could not afford health insurance are covered.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad