The power rings are based around the strength of your will altering reality and conquering the impossible. This seems applicable to Republican viewpoints both foreign and domestic.
The worry about the shutdown isn’t the facts, its the people reacting to those facts. If there is a general and universal attitude of “muddling through”, most likely there will be minimal damage, mostly to be people too poor to care about and already so miserable they’ll hardly notice. But one internet rumor, one mirage crisis, and the herd panics.
Question comes down to who runs the Pubbie party these days. The Money Republicans are more or less reconciled to the ACA, and it doesn’t look all that bad, from their vantage point. And people stop getting paid, they stop spending money, and Daddy Warbucks don’t like that. So Wall Street will be pressing for a solution, up to and including just flat giving up.
Used to be Business told the Party “Shit!” and the Party only asked “Where, when, how high and what color?”. But now, if business yanks the chain, is there anybody left at the other end?
(I will admit, I have long favored a decline in the power of business, and a more populist flavor in the Congress. But not exactly what I had in mind…)
[QUOTE=N. Y. Times]
Most Wall Street economists have said that the consequences of a temporary government shutdown would be relatively insignificant, particularly because spending on essential services — a large portion of the budget — would continue. Citigroup economists estimated on Friday that a one-week shutdown would probably cause a 0.1 percent hit to the national economy.
[/QUOTE]
An event causing, say, 0.3% hit to GDP is considered huge, so to call a 0.1% hit “relatively” insignificant uses … well, a relative term. When a severe storm affects GDP one can speak of “bad luck” or “acts of God” but this hit will be purely self-inflicted. (Representing the costs of storms as a hit to GDP is difficult since people need to be hired to replace “broken windows”!) Note that the “insignificant” 0.1% hit assumes only one week of insanity; instead one can expect more GOP malice during the week.
“Relatively” means in relation to the cost of a debt-ceiling default, which would be unprecedented and might adversely affect the Dollar’s premium status. Recall that the last debt-ceiling debate (and associated GOP sabotage) is estimated to have cost Treasury $13 billion. I wonder if many share doorhinge’s confusion: How can a government be forced to default when it has presses to print its own banknotes? The problem is that the same malicious maniacs who are forcing the shutdown control the presses. More specifically, while FRB can print banknotes (or just reroute electrons avoiding the need for paper) and use them to buy Treasury debt, that debt is still counted toward the debt ceiling.
I still think Obama needs to unilaterally eliminate the debt ceiling as a factor, either with an executive order (declare that self-owned debt(*) does not count toward the ceiling?) or by simply issuing the platinum teradollar coin. Obviously he’d need to go on TV and make very clear whose fault it is.
What I do not understand is why Americans (more specifically Americans with a clue, e.g. the 48% who know where Obama was born) are not extremely angry right now. A big part of the problem is saboteurs like the Koch brothers or Rupert Murdoch, Sean Hannity, etc. at FoxNews; in my fantasies I’d like to see them sent to Guantanamo for treason.
(ETA * - Yes, the statute says otherwise and SCOTUS would agree, no doubt in a 5-4 decision. “Let Scotus enforce their own rule”? … Bizarre as it seems, one wonders if we are headed to rebellion or coup.)
This is a bit of scare mongering, a prolonged shutdown would cause serious problems but a brief shutdown there would almost certainly be rebound effects when it ended that would in net wipe out most of the harm. The Clinton/Gingrich shutdowns were not particularly harmful and preceded a long period of prosperity.
As it should be–it is still debt outstanding. There’s a difference between holding your own paper and actually retiring debt.
He can’t eliminate the debt ceiling by executive order. The debt ceiling is a permissive grant from the legislature to the executive. It only exists because the legislature says it does, and it is a gift to the executive branch. If you do away with the debt ceiling the President can’t borrow anything without specific approval for specific bond issues. Which is how we raised bonds during events like the Civil War, they’d pass legislation authorizing the issuance of $x in bonds. The debt ceiling was a gift to the Presidency in that it’s more like a revolving line of credit.
The Constitution does not provide any option other than a Constitutional Amendment to give the President unilateral ability to incur debts with no legislative oversight, what you speak of is a fantasy.
The trillion dollar coin is a clever loophole. While legal bars like I just mentioned would not prevent it, the political reality almost certainly would. I believe several members of the Obama Administration have rejected the trillion dollar coin suggestion in the past because of the political reality.
In my fantasies I’d like to see all the liberals put in work camps.
No, you’ve been reading too many comic books or something.
The issue is that the US Government might refuse to print/borrow more money to pay debt as it comes due. It’s still a default if it is done voluntarily.
I don’t think it’s going to happen. The government will shut down, Republicans will get blamed, and they will fold faster than Superman on laundry day. The far right of the GOP is secure and more than happy to watch the government shut down and/or default. But there’s enough members in swing districts and those that remember the last shut down to prevent it from lasting a very long time or the country from defaulting.
Really? DigitalC was making fun of me? Do you suppose that was because he/she didn’t have anything useful to add to the thread? I’m shocked that an internet poster would deliberately make fun of another poster. How will I sleep tonight? Oh woe is me.
Meanwhile, what are the odds that the U.S. will default on its debt?
And Congress should have thought of that before they gave that oversight. They’ve already passed the budget that has the spending in it, therefore, the executive is authorized (and in most cases, required) to spend that money. For the President to respect the debt ceiling, and to refuse to spend money budgeted by Congress, would represent a huge power grab by the executive branch.
Good to hear from you, Martin! I’ll stipulate that my comment about “rebellion or coup” was exaggerated, but some of your remarks seem odd. Out of curiosity, which Party would you blame for the shutdown if it occurs, or for a debt-ceiling default?
It’s interesting to compare “partisan” viewpoints. I sincerely see the Teabaggers as malicious saboteurs. Do you reciprocate? Do you honestly want to “see all the liberals put in work camps”?
Wrong. When someone buys his own IOU he tears it up. The reason FRB purchases are different is that the fiat money created to buy the debt is itself a form of liability.
I’m taking about unusual measures to cope with the terrorists who have taken over Congress.
Trouble we all got here is trying to analyze this from a center of reason and rationality, and predict the result accordingly. Only problem with that is that reason and rationality are not the engines that run some of the players. The Insane Clown Posse wing of the Republican Party has only a passing familiarity with either.
Two bits says that if you tell Sen Cruz that he reminds you of John Galt, he get’s a chubby.
Anway, when it comes to predictions, our strong suits don’t apply. We can reason easily enough that a “default” is hugely expensive, and possibly crippling, and no sane person would take such a risk over Obamacare. I quite agree, and so what?
They don’t care. They are guided by passion, principle, and gut feeling, they have superior insights that are not dependent on rationality. We can clearly see the potential consequences, but even if they could see them, they might not care. Such is the problem with revolutionaries, they can be very short-sighted.
The big financial giants, who used to own the Republican Party as a wholly owned subsidiary, and held options to buy on about half the Democrats…they most definitely are opposed. Oh, my yes. Used to be they could just yank the chain, but now, is there anybody on the other end of that chain?
Right now, I’m guessing probably so. Barely. I think its 55/45 that Boehner falls on his sword and reaches out to the Dems. I hope Ms Pelosi is more gentle with him than he deserves, as he cries easily. Especially being cored and buggered jungle style by a tiny grandmother from California.
Haven’t we done this dance before? In fact a couple of times before and it will work out like this:
GOP: We demand defunding of Obamacare and the elimination of 7 cabinet departments.
Obama: I will give you nothing!
GOP: Well, we will default! ('The base cheers, the media predicts the end of the world.)
Fast forward to day before debt ceiling vote:
GOP: We will not compromise!
Obama: I’ll cut $11.43 from this year’s budget.
GOP: Deal. We will extend the debt ceiling until after the next election.
GOP claims victory, Obama claims victory.
The argument is that there are now a bunch of Tea Party true believers that will stymie any such thing, either directly (through votes) or indirectly (through pressure on leaders and comrades).
New poll out from Forbes:
Only One-Third of Americans Support Repealing, Defunding, or Delaying Obamacare
Boehner could do this. There are enough Republicans and surely enough Democrats willing to tell the Insane Clown Posse to stuff it and pass a “clean bill”. And I stand ready to applaud, whistle, cheer and otherwise approve a Republican who is willing to risk his political ass for his country.
When the Rupert-controlled Wall Street Journal and the blatantly malicious Forbes.com have both taken stands against you, isn’t it time for the Extreme-Tea faction to pack up its bags? Who are they taking their marching orders from now? Glen Beck? One of the other crazies on YouTube?
I’ve always liked to assume that Michele Bachmann was the stooge of some billionaires – it made the world seem more comprehensible. But was it just voices in her head the whole time?
It’s even possible, I suppose, that the Tea Party has changed so much from its origins that it’s actually become something resembling a grassroots movement, and is now behaving like a flock of boids.
You have that wrong. The Constitution specifically invests Congress with the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States. If the president were to seize that power from Congress, it would be just as unconstitutional as the president arguing that he has unilateral authority to raise taxes because Congress has approved a certain level of spending.
I get all that. But on the other hand, what does it mean if Congress approves a certain level of spending but doesn’t approve the means to get the money to pay for it? They created a contradiction, how does it get resolved?
Congress has to resolve it, or live with the consequences.
Really, it’s like dealing with a fuckup 21-year old. Let’s say he goes out and buys a car, but doesn’t want to buy car insurance. If he gets caught, he pays a big fine and maybe goes to jail. But that doesn’t mean that his well-intentioned parents can legally seize his car, even if everyone on earth regards him as a total irresponsible idjit.
I guess what I mean is this: Does the President defy congress by refusing to spend the money, or by going into further debt? Whichever he does, he is going against the current law. If a tell you to do both X and not X at the same time, you’re going to disobey me no matter what you do.
I know what you mean. It’s utterly stupid to produce such contradictory laws.
However, I can’t remember how the quote goes, but it is something to the effect that the Constitution guarantees a system of checks and balances, but it doesn’t guarantee that our laws will be good policy.
There’s a difference between bad policy and a set of laws that makes it so that one must act unlawfully.
I don’t think there is a good answer to suranyi’s question, which is why this could not only cause economic collapse but also constitutional crisis.