All this because one man wants to keep his job.

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:That's okay... he probably wouldn't have been able to get the mortgage anyway. Many lenders aren't approving loan applications because they can't verify income via the IRS right now.

Bunch of damn morons. These anecdotal examples of how individuals are getting screwed by this shutdown are mind-blowing. I especially loved the Alaskan transport company whose planes are grounded because their regularly-scheduled FAA inspection fell last week. That means that not only is that company losing business, but the contractors who use them to get to remote areas also lose their business.

Seriously!?!? Don't you understand?!?! They are doing it to save us from the worst law ever enacted by humans!

thephan wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

SK790 wrote:A question for those of you much smarter than I am with politics and probably in general. Is the 300MM a day loss due the government shutdown that I keep seeing cited at all accurate? How the heck do they compute this?

I think it's accurate for how much gets wiped off the board during the shutdown, but much of it will be made up for when the back pay is paid out, which has already passed the House.

So SK, what does the 300MM relate to? There is an estiamte of $200MM/day lost revenue to the DC metro area alone in adjunct business not being transacted. losses in transit, eateries, hotels, ports, retail, etc. So if the $300MM is related to lost government employee wages, then maybe, but if the $300MM is related to forefieted economic opportunities, then it sounds low. There are reports from places like NOLA and KC about thousands of employees turned out to the streets until this is over.

There are thousands of temporarily unemployed in the metro area as well as they are on consultative type contracts that cannot execute with out the client in place. In fact, it is very likely that these contractors cannot enter the buildings either.

Hoya - crazy to think that the problem is spending, but making the employees whole for not working while factions are trying to score points is a good bit insane.

I don't think most of those estimates were taking into account back pay. Washington Post had a piece yesterday about how most of the concerns about the economic effects of the shutdown will be mitigated by workers getting paid.

It's creating different winners and losers (more losers, since it's creating some losses). The Cosi across the street from the Labor Department is taking a beating, but stores in Herndon and Rockville are probably doing better (or will do better once people get paid) with people staying home/spending money they're saving on commuting costs and whatnot. The aggregate negative effects should remain small, as long as they get their heads out of their asses and wrap this thing up soon.

JFLNYC wrote: The idea that we should pay interest first, not raise the debt ceiling and default on many of our other obligations is idiotic, irresponsible and reckless. It's even worse than the shut down because it would mean defaulting on obligations already funded.

You're much too smart to even consider it a serious proposal.

I never advocated we don't raise the debt ceiling. Again, I'm referring to the conditional scenario, and how the President should proceed from there if dumb-dumbs don't raise the ceiling.

This article lays out -- in many more words than I care to use in a message board post -- the options:

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2013/10/ ... ng-crisis/

JFLNYC wrote:

Werthless wrote:If you start from the premise that everything that the US government does is absolutely essential to prevent death, immorality, and anarchy, then I can understand why you hold the positions you do.

Rubbish. I said nothing of the kind. I said:

neglecting the environment in the short term leads to both higher cleanup and health costs in the long term.

Exactly. As if the EPA is the only organization or people in the world that care about the environment, and without an operational EPA, the environment would be neglected, leading to damage and subsequently high cleanup costs. The EPA is a reflection of changing shared values, and I consider the EPA to be an organization that has questionable value.

Note: My biology-major turned lawyer wife almost worked for the EPA, before realizing that the EPA doesn't actually save the environment.

Werthless wrote:

JFLNYC wrote: The idea that we should pay interest first, not raise the debt ceiling and default on many of our other obligations is idiotic, irresponsible and reckless. It's even worse than the shut down because it would mean defaulting on obligations already funded.

You're much too smart to even consider it a serious proposal.

I never advocated we don't raise the debt ceiling. Again, I'm referring to the conditional scenario, and how the President should proceed from there if dumb-dumbs don't raise the ceiling.

This article lays out -- in many more words than I care to use in a message board post -- the options:

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2013/10/ ... ng-crisis/

I'm not sure how we got so far afield. My comments related solely to Rand Paul's proposal to pay interest first without raising the debt ceiling:

Rand Paul wrote:I'm for taking default completely off the table. I'm promising to the American people and to the markets to Wall Street that we will always pay the interest on the debt as a priority. Do you know how we do that? We bring in $250 billion in tax revenue every month. The debt payment is about 30 billion. We just promise we will always pay it. What's going on is interestingly the Democrats are scaring people and saying, we might not pay it because Republicans don't want to raise the debt ceiling. If you don't raise the debt ceiling, what that means is you have a balanced budget. It doesn't mean you wouldn't pay your bills. We should pay the interest and we should never scare the markets. So, if I were in-charge, I would say, absolutely, we will never default. I would pass a law saying that the first revenue every month, the first revenue, has to go to pay interest.

Rand Paul is re-iterating the 14th amendment, section 4. We cannot default on the debt (ie. interest payments on the accumulated debt) at any cost. And I think that's a good idea, independent of the current debt ceiling shenanigans. Obviously you think he's advocating something else, and that I'm arguing something else. Since I don't feel like rehashing this back and forth... I'm going to bow out.

Basically what it comes down to is you think Obama should give up his leverage when he's winning the public debate

Brilliant.

I posted an opinion piece that closes with this:

The President is not the only one who has sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution. Members of Congress, too, have an obligation to support and defend it -- including Section 4. The House members currently using the prospect of debt-default as a bargaining chip -- whether to delay implementation of the Affordable Care Act or to achieve any other goal -- are betraying the Constitution, and the President is correct to draw a line in the sand and refuse to legitimize this abuse or incentivize its recurrence. He deserves immediate, full-throated, bipartisan support for putting an end to this constitutionally forbidden tactic once and for all.

If that's your interpretation of my stance, then you've rendered me speechless.

The Nightman Cometh wrote:Basically what it comes down to is you think Obama should give up his leverage when he's winning the public debate

Brilliant.

PS. (I don't watch or listen to political commentators, so it's probably not best to assume that "werthless' support for position X really means position X+Y, even if he doesn't say it, since Limbaugh supports both X and Y.")

Werthless wrote:Rand Paul is re-iterating the 14th amendment, section 4. We cannot default on the debt (ie. interest payments on the accumulated debt) at any cost. And I think that's a good idea, independent of the current debt ceiling shenanigans. Obviously you think he's advocating something else, and that I'm arguing something else. Since I don't feel like rehashing this back and forth... I'm going to bow out.

Let's follow what he said to its logical conclusion.

He said: "So, if I were in-charge, I would say, absolutely, we will never default. I would pass a law saying that the first revenue every month, the first revenue, has to go to pay interest." By saying so, he's logically allowing for the possibility that expenses would exceed revenues because, if revenues match expenses, it doesn't matter whether the debt is paid first, last or somewhere in between. There are sufficient revenues to cover all expenses.

He's positing two (2) scenarios: "If you don't raise the debt ceiling, what that means is you have a balanced budget." So either you don't raise the debt ceiling, in which case, after paying off the debt, you lack sufficient funds to pay many of your other obligations. Or, you balance the budget by cutting back on the monthly shortfall (without touching the debt payments, of course). In either case actual government spending would have to be cut.

How big would the cuts have to be to bring spending in line with revenues?

According to the Treasury Department FY 2012 the Federal deficit was $1.1 trillion, or roughly $90 billion per month. Therefore, whether the debt ceiling is not raised or the budget were to be balanced, we'd be taking $90 billion a month out of the economy, which is equal to about 36% of current Federal spending, about 6.6% of US GDP and about 1.5% of the world economy.

Even the most zealous deficit hawk would have to acknowledge the consequences of taking $90 billion per month out of the economy: The economy would crater. Unemployment would skyrocket. Tax revenues would take a nosedive (which, by the way, would mean that each successive month would have an even worse deficit). The US would plunge back into a recession or even a depression, likely dragging much of the rest of the world with it. We would likely have the largest economic catastrophe Earth has ever seen. And heaven knows what the social consequences would be.

Rand Paul would have reassured America's bondholders, but the cure would be worse than the disease.

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/loc ... 17601.html

Man fined for running in Valley Forge during shutdown...Jesus Christ they spend money enforcing this shit? What a waste of time and resources.

JFLNYC wrote:He's positing two (2) scenarios: "If you don't raise the debt ceiling, what that means is you have a balanced budget." So either you don't raise the debt ceiling, in which case, after paying off the debt, you lack sufficient funds to pay many of your other obligations. Or, you balance the budget by cutting back on the monthly shortfall (without touching the debt payments, of course). In either case actual government spending would have to be cut.

Here is where you're wrong. It's one scenario. It's an "If ... then" statement. If the debt ceiling isn't raised, we must not default. The way you don't default is by cutting spending in other areas, as you said, to roughly balance the budget (give or take inflation and actions of the Fed). That's what the article I posted goes into. By arguing against the law that he proposes (which is redundant given the 14th amendment), you're suggesting a different response to the debt ceiling not being raised. Personally, I don't see a "less bad" solution to a situation where the debt ceiling wasn't raised.

Roger Dorn wrote:http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Runner-Fined-100-at-Valley-Forge-Amid-Shutdown-226817601.html

Man fined for running in Valley Forge during shutdown...Jesus Christ they spend money enforcing this shit? What a waste of time and resources.

.

If he was running near Rt 23, I wonder if he can argue that he was on the state's right of way for the highway, thus technically not on Federal property? He should have run at Andrews Air Force base-apparently they've kept the golf course open in case "someone" wants to play golf.

I don't see the point of these closures, it's petty and all it's doing is pissing people off.

thephan wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

SK790 wrote:A question for those of you much smarter than I am with politics and probably in general. Is the 300MM a day loss due the government shutdown that I keep seeing cited at all accurate? How the heck do they compute this?

I think it's accurate for how much gets wiped off the board during the shutdown, but much of it will be made up for when the back pay is paid out, which has already passed the House.

So SK, what does the 300MM relate to? There is an estiamte of $200MM/day lost revenue to the DC metro area alone in adjunct business not being transacted. losses in transit, eateries, hotels, ports, retail, etc. So if the $300MM is related to lost government employee wages, then maybe, but if the $300MM is related to forefieted economic opportunities, then it sounds low. There are reports from places like NOLA and KC about thousands of employees turned out to the streets until this is over.

There are thousands of temporarily unemployed in the metro area as well as they are on consultative type contracts that cannot execute with out the client in place. In fact, it is very likely that these contractors cannot enter the buildings either.

Hoya - crazy to think that the problem is spending, but making the employees whole for not working while factions are trying to score points is a good bit insane.

This is what I keep seeing cited. The country is losing $300MM per day through the loss of government. I wasn't talking about people not getting paid.

Werthless wrote:Rand Paul is re-iterating the 14th amendment, section 4. We cannot default on the debt (ie. interest payments on the accumulated debt) at any cost. And I think that's a good idea, independent of the current debt ceiling shenanigans. Obviously you think he's advocating something else, and that I'm arguing something else. Since I don't feel like rehashing this back and forth... I'm going to bow out.

Reiterating is a pretty strong word for what's going on there. Here's what it actually says:

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

If that's how you interpret it, that's one thing. But that sentence you wrote is hardly a straight up reiteration of what the text actually says. And given the origionalist philosophy most Republicans have on the constitution, I doubt he will find much support in his party for such an interpretation, assuming they are being consistent (Which I admit might be a stretch of an assumption)

if you're more worried about national parks being closed than the rest of the government, you might be missing the forest for the branch on a tree.

Antonin Scalia is a scary, disgusting person.

MoBettle wrote: And given the origionalist philosophy most Republicans have on the constitution, I doubt he will find much support in his party for such an interpretation, assuming they are being consistent (Which I admit might be a stretch of an assumption)

You're right. That's why I commented when pacino originally criticized it, since I would have thought that liberals would find favor with such a position (of course, if it wasn't stated by Rand Paul).

Here's a fun one:

Rand Paul wrote:The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies.

Werthless wrote:

JFLNYC wrote:He's positing two (2) scenarios: "If you don't raise the debt ceiling, what that means is you have a balanced budget." So either you don't raise the debt ceiling, in which case, after paying off the debt, you lack sufficient funds to pay many of your other obligations. Or, you balance the budget by cutting back on the monthly shortfall (without touching the debt payments, of course). In either case actual government spending would have to be cut.

Here is where you're wrong. It's one scenario. It's an "If ... then" statement. If the debt ceiling isn't raised, we must not default. The way you don't default is by cutting spending in other areas, as you said, to roughly balance the budget (give or take inflation and actions of the Fed). That's what the article I posted goes into.

As I pointed out, it's a distinction without a difference: Either way, you're still hacking $90 billion a month out of Federal spending which would be disastrous.

Werthless wrote:By arguing against the law that he proposes (which is redundant given the 14th amendment), you're suggesting a different response to the debt ceiling not being raised. Personally, I don't see a "less bad" solution to a situation where the debt ceiling wasn't raised.

Nothing of the kind. First, the proposed law would not be redundant since the 14th Amendment doesn't say you pay the debts first, before and at the expense of other obligations. Second, nowhere have I suggested a different response to the debt ceiling not being raised. I've said repeatedly that the U.S. government has to pay all its obligations. There is no short-term alternative to raising the debt ceiling.

What I've said and will repeat is that Paul's suggestion is idiotic at best and disastrous at worst.

Werthless wrote:

MoBettle wrote: And given the origionalist philosophy most Republicans have on the constitution, I doubt he will find much support in his party for such an interpretation, assuming they are being consistent (Which I admit might be a stretch of an assumption)

You're right. That's why I commented when pacino originally criticized it, since I would have thought that liberals would find favor with such a position (of course, if it wasn't stated by Rand Paul).

Here's a fun one:

Rand Paul wrote:The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but government spending is all proposed and approved by Congress before being signed off on by the President, no? Not sure what "leadership" he's blaming.

BTW, thanks for linking that article upthread. Really cleared a lot of things up about all of this.