Government Shutdown

[Mr. Met]

Nice job, Boehner and the Fun Bunch.

Let's go Mets! Let's go Mets! Let's go Mets! Let's go Mets!

[Tom Storer]

No, but seriously. Can we get a debate going here over the behavior of the Republican representatives, or do we all agree that they deserve loud condemnation?

[stonemonkts]

Yes, I think everyone here would agree on loud condemnation being the very least they deserve.

The reasons for their very existence are all well known by now. The facet of this that baffles me the most is the miscalculation on the more moderate wing of that party to (so far) allow extremists to dominate the discussion. Are they all so scared of losing in primaries? It is a catch-22 I suppose....fight back against the extremists, and you will lose your seat to an extremist when up for re-election. Go along with the extremists, and everyone loses out, eventually. I think the heart of the matter is the quality of person who gets elected in the first place. Not much more integrity than the local sales associate at your local car dealership.

[hornplayer]

Not much more integrity than the local sales associate at your local car dealership.

At this point, even the "lowly" car dealer has more going for him!

[walto]

Yes, I think everyone here would agree on loud condemnation being the very least they deserve.

The reasons for their very existence are all well known by now. The facet of this that baffles me the most is the miscalculation on the more moderate wing of that party to (so far) allow extremists to dominate the discussion. Are they all so scared of losing in primaries? It is a catch-22 I suppose....fight back against the extremists, and you will lose your seat to an extremist when up for re-election. Go along with the extremists, and everyone loses out, eventually. I think the heart of the matter is the quality of person who gets elected in the first place. Not much more integrity than the local sales associate at your local car dealership.

Boehner is in a situation that requires a different kind of person. He's being called on to take a political hit for the good of the country. Not really his kind of thing at all.

[Mr. Met]

Whatta bunch of clowns. Boehner knows better, that's part of the problem. And for Ted Cruz to call it "Obama's shutdown" is as like him pretending to be related to Tom Cruise. Well, maybe not as bad. He didn't do that.

[Dr Dave]

Here is what's going on: Obama clings to the hope that he can get his "Great Betrayal" deal to cut Social Security benefits done. If he does it under the cover of "The Republicans made me do it to prevent a default" he's home free. But the Tea Party crowd is never, ever going to negotiate with that Kenyan Muslim Marxist, not for anything. So in a sense, we should be grateful to Michelle Bachman and her insane buddies. Without them, there would be a deal, and Social Security would be eviscerated.

So Obama's going to have his bluff called. I expect the backpedaling on how he won't use the 14th Amendment to justify the government honoring its debts to begin at the next weekend.

[Tom Storer]

Obama has said he'll negotiate with the Republicans if they fund both the government and debt unconditionally first. He floated the idea that they could do so on a short-term basis. I suspect he has quietly told Boehner he will trade concessions on something in exchange for the Republicans backing down on their threats. The Republicans will be able to say they only suspended the threat, since they will have allowed funding for a short term only, and that they forced Obama to "negotiate." We won, they'll crow. Meanwhile, Obama will say, "I stared down their blackmail attempt and forced them to reopen the government and raise the debt ceiling before I would sit down with them. I won!"

The question is what concession(s) he will give them. I'd guess he'll drop the tax on medical devices--low-hanging fruit since it is contested by some Dems as well, and is related to the health care act. You suspect he will also "eviscerate" Social Security, for example the cuts he already offered in the ill-fated "Grand Bargain." I'm not so sure, since the budget the Dems have agreed to has spending at Republican-approved levels already.

[Dr Dave]

You suspect he will also "eviscerate" Social Security, for example the cuts he already offered in the ill-fated "Grand Bargain." I'm not so sure, since the budget the Dems have agreed to has spending at Republican-approved levels already.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. The Dems have indeed already agreed to various Republican numbers in the budget; but I haven't heard anybody talking about Chained CPI yet. When you hear that phrase from both sides, that means everyone has decided to go ahead and put the old ladies on a diet.

"Women rely more on Social Security for nearly all of their income. Women are less likely to have other sources of retirement income, such as pensions and savings, and rely more on Social Security for nearly all of their income. In 2010, 38 percent of women age 80-plus that lived in a family receiving Social Security relied on it for 90 percent or more of their income, compared with 28 percent of men age 80-plus."

http://www.aarp.org/politics-society/ad ... women.html

[bluenoter]

http://www.aarp.org/politics-society/advocacy/info-03-2013/five-reasons-chained-cpi-hurts-women.html

Always with the firebrand leftist websites. (Do I need a winker?)

[Tom Storer]

You suspect he will also "eviscerate" Social Security, for example the cuts he already offered in the ill-fated "Grand Bargain." I'm not so sure, since the budget the Dems have agreed to has spending at Republican-approved levels already.

[font=Times New Roman][size=150]I'm not sure what you're saying here. The Dems have indeed already agreed to various Republican numbers in the budget; but I haven't heard anybody talking about Chained CPI yet. When you hear that phrase from both sides, that means everyone has decided to go ahead and put the old ladies on a diet.

What I meant was that I'm not sure Obama goes to sleep at night pining for his longed-for goal, eviscerating Social Security. I'm not saying he won't do it, but maybe he won't do it if he doesn't feel he needs to do it in order (for example) to stop the Republicans from doing what they're now doing. Since the Dems have agreed to a Republican budget already and the Repubs are kind of besieged right now, perhaps Chained CPI will not be the first words past his lips in the coming "negotiations."

[Dr Dave]

What I meant was that I'm not sure Obama goes to sleep at night pining for his longed-for goal, eviscerating Social Security. I'm not saying he won't do it, but maybe he won't do it if he doesn't feel he needs to do it in order (for example) to stop the Republicans from doing what they're now doing. Since the Dems have agreed to a Republican budget already and the Repubs are kind of besieged right now, perhaps Chained CPI will not be the first words past his lips in the coming "negotiations."

I sincerely hope you are right, but Obama's been pushing the "Grand Bargain" for a long time now.