Can we just shut the government down already?

• IggyPride00

  

  Does anyone else agree that we need a good government shutdown to get this out of everyone's system so we can move on to a somewhat more normal governing existance?
  
  I am so tired of the every 6 month crisis, and I think the rest of the public is as well.
  
  Let's shutdown the government, blow through the debt ceiling, and let the chips fall where they may.
  
  If it results in a financial crisis, then voters will blame the party seen as having caused it. If it doesn't, then at least both sides will know and can bargain accordingly in the future.
  
  The debt ceiling has turned into the weapon of choice now though and until it is either repealed or shown to be inconsequential we are going to not be able to get past this period in history.
  
  We haven't had a budget in 4 years, and still can't because there is a refusal to convene a conference committee to reconcile the House and Senate budgets which are wildly different.
  
  This is not even a function of Obama anymore, as Democrats will undoubtedly start using the same playbook when there is a Republican president next. Nancy Pelosi has even joked in the past that if she knew the debt ceiling was such a good weapon she would have demanded an end to the Iraq war in exchange for raising it in 2006 for President Bush.
  
  The situation as it stands is untenable, and something external needs to intervene to break the gridlock.
• gut

  The debt ceiling is being used exactly as intended - as a tool to restrain unbridled govt spending. Now it often won't matter with one party controlling the House, Senate and WH, but when it does matter it has value. Just because liberals would use it in the opposite manner to extract MORE spending on pet programs doesn't invalidate the purpose.
  
  Plus, maybe it's finally forcing some honest and frank discussions. Now aside from some radical liberals who think we should just spend and print as much as we want, it's important for people to know why this is a fight and why it is worth having.
• IggyPride00

  

  gut;1508499 wrote:The debt ceiling is being used exactly as intended - as a tool to restrain unbridled govt spending. Now it often won't matter with one party controlling the House, Senate and WH, but when it does matter it has value. Just because liberals would use it in the opposite manner to extract MORE spending on pet programs doesn't invalidate the purpose.
  
  Plus, maybe it's finally forcing some honest and frank discussions. Now aside from some radical liberals who think we should just spend and print as much as we want, it's important for people to know why this is a fight and why it is worth having.

  It is time to default then because we have 8 more years of guaranteed divided government most likely, and all we are doing is avoiding the inevitable.
  
  The sooner we get the ball rolling the better.
  
  The whole thing seems redundant anyway. It seems like the debt ceiling is ripe for the Supreme Court to weigh in on. Congress passes budgets that say what and how much gets spent and it is law. The debt ceiling says we can only issue X debt, but Congress lawfully passes budgets they know will breach the debt ceiling.
  
  Which law takes precedent in that case as both were lawfully passed bills (debt ceiling and budget).
• ts1227

  

  I'm in the same boat, hoping a shutdown would lead to voters largely cleaning house of these worthless fucktards
• like_that

  

  I would prefer to work and get a paycheck.
• gut

  There's no need to default, and they can't and shouldn't.
  
  It doesn't mean that the reckless spenders should get a free pass. It's easy to keep kicking the can. The POTUS is villifying people that are standing up to try and actually do something about this before it's complete unsalvageable.
• IggyPride00

  

  gut;1508532 wrote:There's no need to default, and they can't and shouldn't.

  Actually I do think we have to.
  
  If it is going to be continued to be used as an extortion tool going forward by minority party Republicans or Democrats to try and nullify election results then it has outlived its usefulness.
  
  For now it is Republicans demanding a would be President Romney's economic plan in exchange for lifting it, and in the future it could be Democrats demanding huge increases in SS benefits or tax increases on the 1% in order to raise it.
  
  Now that this geanie is out of the bottle I don't see how it goes back in.
• gut

  IggyPride00;1508536 wrote: For now it is Republicans demanding a would be President Romney's economic plan in exchange for lifting it, and in the future it could be Democrats demanding huge increases in SS benefits or tax increases on the 1% in order to raise it.

  The debt ceiling will only come into play when you are running deficits. You don't have to issue new debt if you have a balanced budget. That's the entire point of the debt ceiling - a rather toothless balanced budget amendment.
  
  Heck, they don't even have to agree on a budget to fund the govt. That's why the debt ceiling limit has utility. It is NOT an extortion tool - it's being used exactly as intended, to cap and restrain spending money we don't have.
  
  And exactly what election result are Republicans trying to nullify? Did they not retain control of the House? If you had a balanced budget, the debt ceiling wouldn't come into play to defund yet another program we can't afford.
• Glory Days

  

  like_that;1508526 wrote:I would prefer to work and get a paycheck.

  I think I am in the position where I would still have to go to work, but not get paid until the people who deal with our pay go back to work.
• BoatShoes

  gut;1508532 wrote:There's no need to default, and they can't and shouldn't.
  
  It doesn't mean that the reckless spenders should get a free pass. It's easy to keep kicking the can. The POTUS is villifying people that are standing up to try and actually do something about this before it's complete unsalvageable.

  I don't think these words "reckless" and "unbridled" mean what you think they mean.
  
  
  
  
  From Mark Zandi:
  

  "If you don't raise the debt limit in time, you will be opening an economic Pandora's box. It will be devastating to the economy," he predicted. "If you don't do it in time, confidence will evaporate, consumer confidence will sharply decline, [as well as] investor confidence, business confidence. Businesses will stop hiring, consumers will stop spending, the stock market will fall significantly in value, borrowing costs for businesses and households will rise."

  The ceiling on the amount of tsy securities is the dumbest law in the land. It is even dumber to play chicken with it. Imagine the outrage if Democrats used it to try to raise taxes to close tEh DeFiC1T?? "We need to be the responsible ones to stop recklessly low tax rates in the face of war spending, unchecked medicare part D spending, etc."
  
  Gut would rage. And rightfully so.....it would be incredibly and ridiculously irresponsible and wrong. I hope that democrats don't stoop to these insolent levels of behavior.
• BoatShoes

  gut;1508539 wrote:The debt ceiling will only come into play when you are running deficits. You don't have to issue new debt if you have a balanced budget. That's the entire point of the debt ceiling - a rather toothless balanced budget amendment.
  
  Heck, they don't even have to agree on a budget to fund the govt. That's why the debt ceiling limit has utility. It is NOT an extortion tool - it's being used exactly as intended, to cap and restrain spending money we don't have.
  
  And exactly what election result are Republicans trying to nullify? Did they not retain control of the House? If you had a balanced budget, the debt ceiling wouldn't come into play to defund yet another program we can't afford.

  The debt ceiling as designed is stupid as it's attached to a nominal number and not the size of the economy as a whole. You can't even target a balanced budget because we have so much automatic spending and tax expenditures/Government Spending in the Tax Code that is used at the discretion of the taxpayers.
  
  That's why the debate over "defunding Obamacare" is so fucking stupid. Most of the spending is in the form of tax credits which you can't "defund" and aren't subject to appropriations.
• BoatShoes

  BTW it is not just democrats using pejoratives in reference to some of these Republicans. Charles Krauthammer called them the "suicide caucus". etc.
• IggyPride00

  

  I will say one thing, and that is that the 2016 election can't get here soon enough.
  
  I can't wait to see Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Rubio, Santorum and the rest of hte gang on stage at those debates trying to outflank the others on their conservatism. On the other side of the stage will be Christie trying to paint the Conservatives as buffoons as he relishes being what he considers to be a "sane" Republican.
  
  Granted, Reince Preibus doesn't want to have any debates because of what happened last time, but this gang won't stand for that.
  
  Ted Cruz has been apparently passing out Obama's book to all his campaign team as a blueprint for running a successful campaign, and you can already see how he is positioning himself for 2016. Basically develop a cult a personality among your base and don't be around long enough to ever be seen as an insider.
  
  With Hillary clearing the field it is going to be left to the Republican primary to provide us all of the entertainment value for the next election, and I am already excited about it when you look at the cast of characters likely to be running.
• gut

  BoatShoes;1508758 wrote:I don't think these words "reckless" and "unbridled" mean what you think they mean.

  No, you simply once again don't understand the actual numbers being talked about. Historical receipts - across a variety of tax regimes - have averaged around 18% of GDP. Obama has been spending 5-7 pts above that, 30-40% more than we are taking in. I call that reckless. Targeting 25% of GDP is very reckless as is completely fails to even address the problem. However if you don't understand economics and think there are no consequences to endlessly printing money, than yeah it's sustainable.
  
  Tax cuts/credits as spending LMFAO. What a completely moronic liberal justification for big govt.
• gut

  BoatShoes;1508761 wrote:You can't even target a balanced budget because we have so much automatic spending and tax expenditures/Government Spending in the Tax Code that is used at the discretion of the taxpayers. .

  That is what most people would call reckless, that you are unable to balance your budget because you've committed so much money you don't have.
  
  It seems like forever ago, but Clinton had us on a sustainable path to balanced budgets. It can be done, but it requires leadership. But now Washington has just given up trying, handing out money for votes is their only focus.
• BoatShoes

  gut;1508835 wrote:No, you simply once again don't understand the actual numbers being talked about. Historical receipts - across a variety of tax regimes - have averaged around 18% of GDP. Obama has been spending 5-7 pts above that, 30-40% more than we are taking in. I call that reckless. Targeting 25% of GDP is very reckless as is completely fails to even address the problem. However if you don't understand economics and think there are no consequences to endlessly printing money, than yeah it's sustainable.
  
  Tax cuts/credits as spending LMFAO. What a completely moronic liberal justification for big govt.

  I see you'll just ignore what is actually happening to the federal budget and government spending and continue to say that there's reckless government spending going on because of what Obama proposed (and isn't actually the law). LOL. Huge decreases in government spending and the deficit don't deter you from claiming there's runaway spending because then you just turn to what Obama "desires". Neat.
  
  And, yes...tax expenditures are well recognized as government spending in the tax code and not by liberals.
  
  Conservative economist Martin Feldstein was the first person I heard call it that and here is an article where he makes those same claims. Hope this helps.
  
  
  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324880504578296920278921676.html
• gut

  What huge budget decreases? He's still running over twice Bush's largest deficits. He hasn't reduced shit - Obama has increased spending and any spin otherwise is intellectually dishonest at best, but typically just ignorant. Just becuase you had a giant baseline pumped with one-time stimulus and bailouts isn't how you should measure what spending has been reduced.
  
  Bush doubled the debt in 8 years, and Obama is going to increase it that much again. That's a massive increase in just a decade and a half. THAT is reckless and unbridled spending.
  
  Spending money you don't have is reckless. Period. I don't care how you want to spin it. Mandatory entitlements don't make it less reckless because poor planning/forecasting is equally stupid.
  
  Calling tax cuts govt spending is stupid. It implies that money is the govt's in the first place. Technically and in effect, yes, Businesses don't look at rebates and discounts as spending choices because money you don't have cannot be spent.
• believer

  

  Gut the Capitalist vs. Boatshoes the Keynesian...Coming up ROUND 1000! lol
• TedSheckler

  

  More like...
  
  Holy wall of text vs. Holy wall of text
• cruiser_96

  

  TedSheckler;1509279 wrote:More like...
  
  Holy wall of text vs. Holy wall of text

  tl;dr
• IggyPride00

  

  Boehner admitted today that a clean CR would pass the House tomorrow if he brought it to the floor?
  
  Will he, or does he want to see the government shutdown.
  
  I have read some of the Republican old bulls want to give the Tea Party their shutdown so they can see how damaging it is to the cause, since most of them weren't around for the last one that got Clinton re-elected.
  
  Tomorrow is going to be an interesting day to say the least.
• QuakerOats

  Shut it down. The blame clearly lies with the democrats who will not do the Will of The People.
  
  
  Given that the last shutdown resulted in welfare reform being signed by a democrat president, and more reasonable budgets for the 4 years thereafter, it is time to draw a line in the sand. Preventing obabaKare from ruining any hope we have of future growth, innovation, and prosperity ought to be the priority.
• sleeper

  

  I'd like to see a budget passed just once during Obama's administration. I don't think it will happen.
• IggyPride00

  

  sleeper;1509937 wrote:I'd like to see a budget passed just once during Obama's administration. I don't think it will happen.

  Not going to happen. Ted Cruz has said he will never allow a conference committee to reconcile the House and Senate budgets that each passed. He, Mike Lee, Rand Paul and the gang have vowed to filibuster any attempt to do so.
• sleeper

  

  IggyPride00;1509945 wrote:Not going to happen. Ted Cruz has said he will never allow a conference committee to reconcile the House and Senate budgets that each passed. He, Mike Lee, Rand Paul and the gang have vowed to filibuster any attempt to do so.

  Is it next November for Midterm elections? I don't really follow it but is the House/Senate up for a potential switch of control?