Quotes of the day

posted at 10:41 pm on October 2, 2013 by Allahpundit

Everything is different this time.

The fiscal showdowns of the past three years have all followed a familiar script: chapter and verse leading to a messy but predictable end. First came the pseudo-negotiators, working away on preliminary proposals and hoping to avoid calamity. Secretly, President Obama and House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) would then decide to go big, aiming for a major bipartisan deal worthy of the moment.

Then came the breakup, the inevitable, acrimonious crash and burn.

Finally, the town elders would rush in and save the day with a desperately negotiated deal that no one loved, but which prevented the federal government from going over the cliff. That’s how it worked with the 2011-debt ceiling negotiations and the New Year’s Day pact to avoid the “fiscal cliff.”

Not this time. A different set of political dynamics has upended the old playbook, and a resolution to this fiscal crisis seems especially remote. Obama, Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) remain far apart, having occasional phone calls but no substantive negotiations.

***

House Republicans tell me Speaker John Boehner wants to craft a “grand bargain” on fiscal issues as part of the debt-limit deliberations, and during a series of meetings on Wednesday, he urged colleagues to stick with him.

The revelation came quietly. Boehner called groups of members to his Capitol office all day, taking their temperature on the shutdown and the debt limit. It became clear, members say, that Boehner’s chief goal is conference unity as the debt limit nears, and he’s looking at potentially blending a government-spending deal and debt-limit agreement into a larger budget package.

“It’s the return of the grand bargain,” says one House Republican, who requested anonymity to speak freely. “There weren’t a lot of specifics discussed, and the meetings were mostly about just checking in. But he’s looking hard at the debt limit as a place where we can do something big.”

***

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) offered to open negotiations on tax reform Wednesday if Republicans agree to a clean resolution to reopen the government…

“I commit to name conferees to a budget conference, as soon as the government reopens,” Reid wrote. “This conference would be an appropriate place to have those discussions, where participants could raise whatever proposals — such as tax reform, health care, agriculture, and certainly discretionary spending like veterans, National Parks and NIH — they felt appropriate.”

Boehner’s office said Reid’s terms would give Democrats exactly what they want. “The entire government is shut down right now because Washington Democrats refuse to even talk about fairness for all Americans under ObamaCare,” Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said. “Offering to negotiate only after Democrats get everything they want is not much of an offer.”

***

***

Though leaders usually refrain from referring to each other in their partisan rants against the other chamber, Democratic leaders on Monday mentioned Boehner by name 12 times. It was a noticeable shift from previous shutdown debates when Reid and Democratic messaging lieutenant Charles E. Schumer of New York focused much of their political venom on No. 2 House Republican Eric Cantor or the tea party wing of the GOP.

“I have a very simple message to John Boehner: Let the House vote. Stop trying to force a government shutdown. Let the House work its will, all 435 members, not just the majority,” Reid declared in one of his multiple speeches Tuesday. “If John Boehner blocks this, he will be forcing a government shutdown, and it will be a Republican government shutdown, that’s pure and simple.”

The Nevada Democrat’s camp decided to leak a private email exchange between Krone and Boehner Chief of Staff Mike Sommers. The disclosure of the emails was designed largely to embarrass Boehner for publicly advocating to get rid of what Republicans have called a “special exemption” in Obamcare for lawmakers and staff.

***

As the shutdown took hold, the House GOP leadership changed course from trying to limit Obamacare to an effort to mitigate the effects of the shutdown. Boehner and his colleagues came up with bills that would fund the National Park Service, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Smithsonian, the National Gallery of Art, the Holocaust Museum, and the District of Columbia government. The bills were considered under special rules, which in the end meant that House Democrats were able to kill them — before Senate Democrats could kill them.

What distinguished the House agenda on Tuesday was that it wasn’t about Obamacare. The parks bill, for example, did not contain a provision to defund or delay the president’s national health care plan. The Smithsonian bill didn’t either. And so on. One could argue that with the government shut down, Obamacare was effectively defunded, at least for the many days the government remains closed. But the fact is, on Tuesday the Republican focus shifted from going after Obamacare to trying to undo the most visible negative consequences of the shutdown…

Sometimes fights become so intense and so tangled that the original cause becomes obscured. In the government funding battle, the issue that sparked it all, Obamacare, was no longer center stage less than 24 hours after the shutdown began. The fight is now about the shutdown itself, and Obamacare has been pushed to the side.

***

What stands out here is not the shutdown itself, but the president and Harry Reid’s public refusal even to engage with Republicans. As Matthews documents, most budget gaps are resolved by the participants’ compromising. The quaint notion that there is no obligation to come to a negotiated agreement because one branch of government “won” would be almost certainly regarded as somewhat odd not only by the architects of America’s constitutional order but by the major players in the previous few decades. Eleven shutdowns ended with a deal, five were resolved with an agreement temporarily to fund the government while debate continued, and one ended with Congress overriding a presidential veto. Stand firm if you want, Mr. President, but the history is against you here…

The United States is a constitutional republic, the public institutions in which are decidedly more Charles Montesquieu than Walter Bagehot. All systems are a trade-off, and America’s settlement privileges discord, delay, and separation over efficiency and a strong executive. This is to say that, by design, harsh conflict in the United States yields a standoff rather than a shootout. One can credibly debate the merits of such an arrangement, and certainly one can try to navigate the system as boldly as is politically possible. But crying that the end of the world is nigh strikes me as being hysterical, partisan, and even mendacious — especially when we are discussing a system whose creation story and most recent fracases are available for all to see.

***

[Republicans] have a hand they could easily make worse by panicking, and which could be good enough for a win or draw if they keep calm. And their odds could improve if they now take a few days vigorously to make their case to the country: that they have acted to fund the government—while protecting Americans from having to buy insurance they don’t want from exchanges they can’t trust, and while reversing the special deal the Obama administration arranged for Congress so that Congress will have to live by the laws they impose on others. They could also stand ready to pass legislation, as they did before the shutdown with respect to military pay, addressing discrete parts of the government that might require exemption from the shutdown as real problems become apparent.

The best thing Speaker Boehner could probably do now is to say it’s obvious Senate Democrats aren’t going to negotiate, that the House GOP remains ready to talk (and the GOP conferees are in town and ready to confer), but that he’s sending the rest of the Republican congressmen home for the next few days in order to talk with their constituents. The members would be liberated from the Beltway bubble, free to make their case where they can best make it, able to fight back against media attempts to exaggerate the consequences of the shutdown, and would have a chance to remind voters, in the exchanges’ first week of operation, of just how bad in how many ways Obamacare is.

***

The President is treating our veterans the same way he treated school kids when he cancelled their White House tours. When times called for obvious government belt-tightening, he took it out on kids rather than look for anything that would affect him personally. And while our vets are barricaded from the memorial they built with their heroism, the government “slim down” won’t affect Obama’s golf game or his family’s White House chefs.

Meanwhile, Republicans in Congress are attempting to fund the Veterans Administration and other essential functions, but Democrats are blocking them because they want to make any slim down look as awful as possible in order to deflect from what this whole slim down thing is about, which is their Obamacare train wreck…

Obama employees who know in your hearts and souls that punishing our veterans is wrong, know that we have your backs when you say “enough is enough” and then allow our vets to gaze upon our memorials that honor America’s finest. This simple act of civil disobedience will galvanize our nation against atrocious political games, and I promise you’ll sleep well tonight.

***

Sen. Rand Paul: Peacemaker?…

In a letter to all senators sent Wednesday afternoon, Paul called for a bipartisan coffee meeting on the Capitol steps Thursday morning to “alleviate this tension and partisanship.”

“Tension is at an all-time high here at the Capitol,” Paul said in the letter, which was provided to POLITICO. “We are all anxious about the shutdown and had to send the bulk of our staff home — worried about their future. … Maybe by chatting over coffee together, we can just talk and see if we can get along.”

***

***

Via RCP.

***

Via NRO.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Be more More

Schadenfreude on October 3, 2013 at 2:13 AM

mcCain can write his pluffy preface..

going2mars on October 3, 2013 at 2:14 AM

But they are talking about creating a ‘basket of currencies’ with or without the USD included.

That’s when we get screwed.

Resist We Much on October 3, 2013 at 1:36 AM

Help me here, please, because I am not communicating what I thought was fairly clear.

The “basket of currencies” is disinformation.

It was started as a speculative exercise and then transformed into “conventional wisdom” by the presstitutes.

Your example from above:

“For example, oil is generally priced at and paid for with USD. If France, say, wants to buy oil from Saudi Arabia, it has to convert its euros into dollars first. There is a price to be paid there. As of now, when we want to buy oil from Saudi Arabia, we just transfer dollars to them and they send us the goods.”

With negotiated and signed direct currency exchanges (which are in place NOW) France just sends the euros into Saudi Arabia’s account at the negotiated exchange rate with the riyal.

No “basket of currencies” required.

And POOF! the USD becomes literally OVERNIGHT something to be valued based on our goverment’s defecit spending habits and our debt to GDP ratio.

Which makes the U.S.A. a third world economic nation.

Is that any clearer?

PolAgnostic on October 3, 2013 at 2:16 AM

PolAgnostic on October 3, 2013 at 2:16 AM

Why Qaddafi was killed – he began to trade oil in non USD.

Schadenfreude on October 3, 2013 at 2:20 AM

You know, I lurk here a lot most days, but I read a lot of entire threads and only comment every now and then. When I contrast the sanity and well reasoned comments of so many people here against the utter insanity from our trolls, from the demonrats and their collaborators, I just don’t see where we can reconcile this. I think the national divorce is upon us and we should embrace it. But it is time.

Harbingeing on October 3, 2013 at 2:22 AM

obama is scared silly that it will happen on his watch.

Schadenfreude on October 3, 2013 at 1:49 AM

.
No, Obama is trying to MAKE it happen on his watch.

It would achieve a “fundamental transformation of America” … wouldn’t it?

It would mean the end of the United States “dictating to the rest of the world” …. wouldn’t it?

And most importantly of all, it would mean the number of people NEEDING government assistance to just survive would double in less than 6 months.

Voila! A Democratic super-majority hard wired for the next two generations.

PolAgnostic on October 3, 2013 at 2:24 AM

Harbingeing on October 3, 2013 at 2:22 AM

maybe just a ‘big city divorce’
take out the big blue cities and this is a very RED country

going2mars on October 3, 2013 at 2:27 AM

That’s fine, but I’m thinking that he should be the focus since his flip-flop has been so stunning…or should be made to appear so to Middle Americans, who don’t pay much attention like we do.

Read his speech from 2006.

Read him accusing Bush of being irresponsible and unpatriotic for accumulating less debt in 8 years than he did in 4.

Resist We Much on October 3, 2013 at 1:56 AM

I’m with you. My main point is that Democrats try to blame Bush for the deficits of FY 2008 and FY 2009, when Democrats had majority control of spending!

Clinton gets too much credit for what Republican majorities did in the last 6 years of his Presidency.

Bush gets too much blame for what Democrat majorities did in the last 2 years of his Presidency.

Democrats (including then-Senators Obama, Biden, Clinton, etc.) took majority control on January 3, 2007, and they deserve the majority of the blame for what has happened since then.

Democrat majorities have added more than twice as much debt in the last 6 fiscal years than the Republican majorities added in the prior 12 fiscal years.

Democrat majorities have added more than twice as much debt in half the time. Democrats are deficit spending at more than quadruple the rate of the Republicans they criticized.

Democrats promised “no more deficit spending”, and then quadrupled the rate of deficit spending. They never had any intention of keeping their promises of “fiscal responsibility”.

ITguy on October 3, 2013 at 2:29 AM

The United States of America
and
The United Big Cities of America..

we can drive up to the cities edge semis full of goods from “the fly over country”….foods…timber…stone…coal/power…
and then…
we can trade the cities for what it is they produce..
ohh…wait…

going2mars on October 3, 2013 at 2:35 AM

So I talked to several people who went to the Social Security office today. The doors were locked. All the workers were inside hiding.

pat on October 3, 2013 at 2:50 AM

You know, I lurk here a lot most days, but I read a lot of entire threads and only comment every now and then. When I contrast the sanity and well reasoned comments of so many people here against the utter insanity from our trolls, from the demonrats and their collaborators, I just don’t see where we can reconcile this. I think the national divorce is upon us and we should embrace it. But it is time.

Harbingeing on October 3, 2013 at 2:22 AM

Oh, it’s happening!

Fifth Angel – “Cathedral”

\m/ (◣_◢) \m/

Anti-Control on October 3, 2013 at 3:05 AM

if they round us all up and ship us to the gulag…
would we be able to have a HA QQotD meet up there??
it’ll be great to see you all…
at least till we get to the showers..

going2mars on October 3, 2013 at 3:09 AM

I was just reading this post on the supposed “grand bargain:” http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/10/grand-bargain-or-grand-illusion.php

Would the “grand bargain” be more than we bargained for?

It seems to be a large “comprehensive” set of things of which some of it might not even be good, with talk about chaining the price index and blah blah blah. But in this “grand bargain” Obamacare is all but missing. Oh, maybe “parts of Obamacare” would be delayed or altered.

That’s no bargain at all. It sounds like the “grand bargain” is a diversion to take our eyes of the Obamacare ball. Look, we could do some of these “grand bargain” things when we win some elections, but the clock is ticking on Obamacare and we got to get on that now.

No. No “grand bargain!” Concentrate on defunding Obamacare for a year, that’s all we want. NO GRAND BARGAIN! And I’m not going to repeat that again in this comment.

anotherJoe on October 3, 2013 at 3:27 AM

Describing the 0dumbaCare rollout:

Trooper – “General Hand Grenade”

People getting high
People getting low
People getting nowhere
’cause they don’t where to go

Anti-Control on October 3, 2013 at 3:34 AM

Resist We Much on October 3, 2013 at 2:53 AM

I really like your website and am going to visit it every day.

Has cool brainy stuff which my brain likes. Gotta keep my brain happy or else it will get me in trouble on purpose cause it loves to get even with me.

SparkPlug on October 3, 2013 at 4:26 AM

pat on October 3, 2013 at 2:50 AM

wow. kind of funny.

SparkPlug on October 3, 2013 at 4:26 AM

The “Grand Bargain” is a worthy goal if it begins to right the fiscal ship which is headed toward a iceberg right now. Continuing this way for another decade, even with artificially low rates, will put us on the brink of default anyway.

But Boehner has no chance of striking such a deal with Obama and Reid as long as they are convinced they are winning the shutdown fight, which would give them the upper hand in the debt ceiling fight to begin immediately.

The only chances are if public opinion either turns against Obama and the Democrats – a long shot with the media all in for them – or goes apathetic as the shutdown doesn’t really hurt in ways that matter in the new Obama economy where surviving is winning.

Adjoran on October 3, 2013 at 5:08 AM

So I talked to several people who went to the Social Security office today. The doors were locked. All the workers were inside hiding.

pat on October 3, 2013 at 2:50 AM

JugEars would call them ‘essential’ personnel.

socalcon on October 3, 2013 at 5:21 AM

How about a ‘Grand Bargain’ that starts with an essential personnel only funding of government? We had Clapper say that 72% of the INTEL Community isn’t essential… so why do we have them?

A skeleton crew CR to show that the intention is to keep government ‘open’ so as to ‘bargain’.

Of course this won’t go by Reid who wants a CR to fund government… so lets kill that lie right off the bat. Hand him a CR to fund government but in a way he doesn’t like.

The comes debt ceiling time, right around the corner and Obama doesn’t want to budge and demands a forever debt ceiling. No negotiations… and that then gets pointed out that what he is really saying is that as he won’t budge on that then the government can ONLY spend what it takes in. Remember this is still with a skeleton crew government, so it can’t actually spend very much, either.

Suddenly you have a difference between what Obama wants at $4+ trillion and what comes in at $2.5 trillion.

With that as the baseline the House can then do as it has started to do and fund government piece by piece, program by program, infuriating D’s because the whole kit’n'kaboodle is off the table. And in the months of intransigence between the House, Senate and President, all the stuff that is ‘non-essential’ starts to go away. Once you get to the debt ceiling the question isn’t ‘should we raise the debt ceiling?’ but ‘what can we afford?’

Want a new normal?

Just let Obama and Reid do as they are already doing and show them up to the lies that they spew by giving what they want in a form they will detest so that their real goals become evident: to spend the Nation into oblivion.

Yet once we stop issuing new debt, then we just have to figure out how to deal with what we have… America may hit the pavement after such a drunken binge as it has been on for decades, but the ground will rise up to meet us and that will be the ground, not a forever free-fall into pure oblivion.

Stupidity is, apparently, infinite.

Put the cluebats away as the Gods of the Copybook Headings seem to be ready to make an entrance.

Grab your popcorn!

And keep your eye on the target.

ajacksonian on October 3, 2013 at 5:33 AM

according to mj and crew this is the ted cruz shutdown….

another day another cruz bash rant from the mj crew

no one is going to remember this as the ted cruz shutdown…this will be the shutdown during the obama presidency..

cmsinaz on October 3, 2013 at 6:18 AM

according to mj and crew this is the ted cruz shutdown….

another day another cruz bash rant from the mj crew

no one is going to remember this as the ted cruz shutdown…this will be the shutdown during the obama presidency..

cmsinaz on October 3, 2013 at 6:18 AM

And the Dems have utterly botched their own message by continuing to insist that this shutdown is the result of Ted Cruz and the “radical right.” Let’s review the timeline to date:

Monday- Dems refuse to negotiate on any point. Demand a the House GOP to do exactly what they demand. House passes reasonable legislation.

Tuesday- Dems spiteful actions result in social media filled with WWII vets literally storming the barricades to get to their memorial.

Wednesday- More vets storming the barricades. A sham meeting with dear leader where the upshot is that nothing has changed since Monday. Harry Reid actually said he doesn’t care about funding for children with cancer because he’s got 1100 furloughed employees at Nellis AFB.

Bottom line here- the GOP is winning the PR battle this time around.

Happy Nomad on October 3, 2013 at 7:05 AM

according to mj and crew this is the ted cruz shutdown….

another day another cruz bash rant from the mj crew

no one is going to remember this as the ted cruz shutdown…this will be the shutdown during the obama presidency..

cmsinaz on October 3, 2013 at 6:18 AM

I couldn’t watch it after that. Why don’t they invite Ted Cruz on and say it to his face?

monalisa on October 3, 2013 at 7:09 AM

Good Morning, Patriots! …and, Trolls. What a revealing week.
My take: “If You Can Help One Child Who Has Cancer, Why Wouldn’t You Do It?” “Why Would We Want To Do That?” – Senator Harry Reid

kingsjester on October 3, 2013 at 7:13 AM

Good morning all, something fun to start the day.

It’s from the threatened shutdown in 2011 but still rings true.

Shutdown

Happy Nomad on October 3, 2013 at 7:17 AM

Hand him a CR to fund government but in a way he doesn’t like.

How about “Shutdown Mondays”? No one noticed one day of the government shutdown. If we sell it as a three day weekend most LIV would probably go for it and we could save 20%!

monalisa on October 3, 2013 at 7:18 AM

Yepper HN….the libs are living in a bubble

That would be awesome monalisa

cmsinaz on October 3, 2013 at 7:22 AM

Why Would We Want To Do That?” – Senator Harry Reid

kingsjester on October 3, 2013 at 7:13 AM

Pretty revealing indeed. Not so much what Harry Reid said (which is bad enough) but the absolute disgust in Reid’s voice as he asked why on earth would the Senate even consider helping children with cancer.

Happy Nomad on October 3, 2013 at 7:23 AM

How about “Shutdown Mondays”? No one noticed one day of the government shutdown. If we sell it as a three day weekend most LIV would probably go for it and we could save 20%!

monalisa on October 3, 2013 at 7:18 AM

How about just making the federal workers part-timers and throw them on the Obamacare exchanges with no health benefits.

Happy Nomad on October 3, 2013 at 7:28 AM

BTW- Ted Cruz is going to be on WMAL Radio in DC at 8:35 if anybody is interested. For those of you outside DC, the station is part of Iheart Radio.

Happy Nomad on October 3, 2013 at 7:29 AM

Great take KJ

Schoolbhistory books have certainly changed….. sad

cmsinaz on October 3, 2013 at 7:34 AM

cmsinaz on October 3, 2013 at 7:34 AM

Thank you, ma’am.

Revisionist History lives.

kingsjester on October 3, 2013 at 7:35 AM

No, Obama is trying to MAKE it happen on his watch.

It would achieve a “fundamental transformation of America” … wouldn’t it?

It would mean the end of the United States “dictating to the rest of the world” …. wouldn’t it?

And most importantly of all, it would mean the number of people NEEDING government assistance to just survive would double in less than 6 months.

Voila! A Democratic super-majority hard wired for the next two generations.

PolAgnostic on October 3, 2013 at 2:24 AM

Not so sure. Don’t really see that happening this time. The Feds start 17 plus trillion in the hole. That severely limits their ability to “help” anyone. Without all those free lunches to buy their voting block, they would have to resort to force (to suppress the black market and barter systems that would grow quickly, also to keep the productive classes productive) essentially pitting city resources suckers from outlying producers. Watch the senate swing to the right rapidly as organizations like Minnesota’s DFL collapse.

It’s been the gov’t ability to control the flow of the lard and the relative “easiness” of making a living that has allowed the gradual swing toward liberalism.

There’s no reason to expect the same, when the times become really tough (REALLY tough), and the gov’t is shown to be powerless to do anything about it.

It’s starting.

WryTrvllr on October 3, 2013 at 7:39 AM

Bush gets too much blame for what Democrat majorities did in the last 2 years of his Presidency.

Democrats (including then-Senators Obama, Biden, Clinton, etc.) took majority control on January 3, 2007, and they deserve the majority of the blame for what has happened since then.

Democrats promised “no more deficit spending”, and then quadrupled the rate of deficit spending. They never had any intention of keeping their promises of “fiscal responsibility”.

ITguy on October 3, 2013 at 2:29 AM

That’s just bizarre. Not even Ben Bernanke and other prominent Republican economists voice such out of touch opinion. Do you have the slightest comprehension of the term ‘structural deficit’? Obama inherited a $1 tril structural deficit along with an economy in a state of near collapse, during one of the greatest crises the modern world has witnessed.

You can’t raise taxes and drastically cut spending in the wake of a near depression to eliminate a structural deficit. It was always going to require a long, difficult struggle. Even today, calls for greater spending cuts are foolish. The deficit will fall when tax receipts increase as the economy grows. In other words, the best way to reduce the deficit is to expand the economy, not play sequester games. The Fed has made this point again and again, yet the GOP refuses to listen. It’s Joe the Plumber economic policies dominating on the right.

Even if you can blame Dems winning the House on higher spending in 2007 – 08, the GOP in complete control of government raised spending by around 40% in the 6 years prior. So it’s really hard to follow your point that one party is to blame for higher spending. And I don’t recall the Dems pushing for deep, across the board tax cuts while Greenspan and others strongly objected (and presciently so).

bayam on October 3, 2013 at 7:40 AM

Good Morning, Patriots! …and, Trolls. What a revealing week.
My take: “If You Can Help One Child Who Has Cancer, Why Wouldn’t You Do It?” “Why Would We Want To Do That?” – Senator Harry Reid

kingsjester on October 3, 2013 at 7:13 AM

That Freudian outburst is going to be an important nail. Reid just died politically. He’s all done.

Even the CNN reporter was shocked. Now she has had her eyes opened. Maybe just maybe the koolaid will wear off.

dogsoldier on October 3, 2013 at 7:41 AM

My take: “If You Can Help One Child Who Has Cancer, Why Wouldn’t You Do It?” “Why Would We Want To Do That?” – Senator Harry Reid

kingsjester on October 3, 2013 at 7:13 AM

…just a great piece!

KOOLAID2 on October 3, 2013 at 7:44 AM

The United States of America
and
The United Big Cities of America..

we can drive up to the cities edge semis full of goods from “the fly over country”….foods…timber…stone…coal/power…
and then…
we can trade the cities for what it is they produce..
ohh…wait…

going2mars on October 3, 2013 at 2:35 AM

You need to recheck the governments list of approved drone bases. The gov’t isn’t pushing drones to make sure no one abuses the car-pool lanes.

WryTrvllr on October 3, 2013 at 7:44 AM

…just a great piece!

KOOLAID2 on October 3, 2013 at 7:44 AM

Yes, it is.

dogsoldier on October 3, 2013 at 7:48 AM

Reid just died politically. He’s all done.

dogsoldier on October 3, 2013 at 7:41 AM

I think you’re a bit premature in reporting Harry Reid’s demise. But, this goes a long way to what has to happen before the impasse is broken- Dems beginning to be blamed for the shutdown. The GOP needs to hold strong and the House needs to continue passing and sending to the Sentate piecemeal funding legislation. Harry Reid can just throw them into the corner of his office but at some point there are going to be questions why he hasn’t acted on any of it.

Happy Nomad on October 3, 2013 at 7:49 AM

That’s just bizarre. Not even Ben Bernanke and other prominent Republican economists voice such out of touch opinion. Do you have the slightest comprehension of the term ‘structural deficit’? Obama inherited a $1 tril structural deficit along with an economy in a state of near collapse, during one of the greatest crises the modern world has witnessed.

bayam on October 3, 2013 at 7:40 AM

Well, let’s see. The “recovery” started 52 months ago, but O’bama continued 1 trillion plus deficits the entire time. On top of his 1 trillion structural deficit he added a new, soon to be phenomenally expensive, entitlement program.

Kenynes wanted deficits paid off during the fat years. Something liberals have forgotten.

Growth? Not with a 17 trillion dollar debt. Not with O’bama closing down coal and pushing Carbon regulation.

You are so out of touch, it’s mind boggling.

WryTrvllr on October 3, 2013 at 7:51 AM

And your expectation of growth above (if even at) population expansion is totally unrealistic when you look at the expansion of industry (caan you say Mahindra?) in the BRICs and other nations.

It’s a different game now. And your same old solution is now suicide.

WryTrvllr on October 3, 2013 at 7:56 AM

How about just making the federal workers part-timers and throw them on the Obamacare exchanges with no health benefits.

Happy Nomad on October 3, 2013 at 7:28 AM

I seem to remember a candidate for President who had a plan for a part-time Congress. Who was that dummy again?

monalisa on October 3, 2013 at 7:58 AM

bayam on October 3, 2013 at 7:40 AM

…I’m sorry…but you are a braying a$s!

KOOLAID2 on October 3, 2013 at 8:00 AM

Face it, the Obama administration is imploding in a cloud of arrogance, socialism, and corruption. It has only taken five years but the chickens are coming home to roost.

If this were a sitcom, Mooch would be announcing that she’s pregnant, they’d bring in a cute little cousin, or some other distraction. I think the Dems wanted the shutdown to be that distraction but that really hasn’t worked out well for them (they were counting on a quick cave by the GOP).

We need to keep the pressure on our Congresscritters. They need to hold the line. The Dems are being outflanked by social media and will soon be suing for peace on Republican terms.

Because, the Dems worst case scenerio is coming true. Continuing resolution legislation conflating with the debate over raising the debt ceiling.

Happy Nomad on October 3, 2013 at 8:01 AM

Reid just died politically. He’s all done.

dogsoldier on October 3, 2013 at 7:41 AM

When Boehner issues statements especially on twitter he really should emphasize this:

“It’s hard to come to agreement with a party that would rather keep their Obamacare subsidies than help kids with cancer.”

House GOP needs to get back to Obamacare because the special treatment issues resonate.

monalisa on October 3, 2013 at 8:09 AM

And by the way, Bayam, Greenspan’s doing “More with Less” speech was only prescient of his own senility. Bernanke has created a market so dependent on the Fed creating money out of free air, even a hint of tapering sends the market into a tailspin.

WryTrvllr on October 3, 2013 at 8:11 AM

Barky closed Normandy:

http://nypost.com/2013/10/02/govt-shutdown-spreads-to-beaches-of-normandy/

wolly4321 on October 3, 2013 at 8:22 AM

Happy Nomad on October 3, 2013 at 7:49 AM

That exchange is all over the internet and people are talking about it in public. The people see the republicans willing to pay for kids with cancer and they see Harry Reid, who by all accounts hates everyone. The guy really does believe that everyone but him is stupid.

In short he’s a sick man. There is something seriously wrong with him.

Anyway, you may be correct, but we’ll see. With each passing day the dems will become more shrill as people realize just how little of the government we actually need.

The Republicans are exposing the dems inch by inch for what they are, and they are ugly, vain and imperious. Everything we deplore.

dogsoldier on October 3, 2013 at 8:29 AM

…just a great piece!

KOOLAID2 on October 3, 2013 at 7:44 AM
Yes, it is.

dogsoldier on October 3, 2013 at 7:48 AM

Thank you both very much!

kingsjester on October 3, 2013 at 8:39 AM

ITguy on October 3, 2013 at 2:29 AM

bayam on October 3, 2013 at 7:40 AM

Let’s break down what you wrote in your response to me…

That’s just bizarre. Not even Ben Bernanke and other prominent Republican economists voice such out of touch opinion. Do you have the slightest comprehension of the term ‘structural deficit’? Obama inherited a $1 tril structural deficit…

“Obama inherited a $1 tril structural deficit”?

Your frame of reference is January 20, 2009, when Obama was sworn in as President.

My frame of reference is January 3, 2007, when Obama became part of the majority party controlling Washington, D.C.

Obama, Biden, Clinton, Reid, Schumer, Pelosi, and the rest of their Democrat peers became the dominant force steering the economy starting January 3, 2007.

Bush had the power of the veto, but since he didn’t exercise that power, Democrats in the House and Senate got exactly what they wanted.

The structural deficit that Obama and his fellow Democrats inherited was NOT $1 Trillion. The FY 2007 deficit that Obama and his fellow Democrats inherited was less than $161 Billion. Look it up:

Table 1.1—Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits (-): 1789–2018

Democrat majorities took the less than $161 Billion FY 2007 deficit they inherited and roughly tripled that deficit in FY 2008. Then those same Democrat majorities rougly tripled that deficit AGAIN in FY 2009.

And THAT is where the greater than $1 Trillion deficits came from: Speaker Pelosi and Senators Reid, Obama, Biden, Clinton, etc.

You want to blame that greater than $1 Trillion deficit on Bush, but NO SALE. The last deficit created by a Republican House, Republican Senate, and President Bush was less than $161 Billion.

…along with an economy in a state of near collapse, during one of the greatest crises the modern world has witnessed.

A crisis which Republicans warned of, and tried to prevent, but Democrats falsely accused the Republicans of racism (accusing Republicans of a so-called “political lynching of Franklin Raines, who is black)and falsely claimed that there were no “safety and soundness issues at Fannie/Freddie.

And

Obama voted “present” on Fannie/Freddie reform, after receiving more campaign contributions from Fannie/Freddie, per year, than any other member of Congress.

Obama didn’t “inherit” the Fannie/Freddie crisis, he HELPED CREATE IT!

You can’t raise taxes and drastically cut spending in the wake of a near depression to eliminate a structural deficit. It was always going to require a long, difficult struggle. Even today, calls for greater spending cuts are foolish. The deficit will fall when tax receipts increase as the economy grows. In other words, the best way to reduce the deficit is to expand the economy

I agree with you there. And I’ll point out that the 2003 Bush Tax Cuts did exactly that. Rather than decreasing tax revenues, the 2003 Bush Tax Cuts RAISED revenues (FY 2007 revenues were a whopping 44% LARGER than FY 2003 revenues). Why? Because they turned the economy around and the economy grew. The Employment-population ratio, which had been declining since the double-whammy of the “Dot Com” bust and the 9/11/2001 attacks, was turned around and started increasing again. More people found employment and paid in to the payroll and income taxes. Annual deficits started shrinking, to the point that the FY 2007 deficit was less than $161 Billion.

Then, the Democrats took over, raised the minimum wage three times in three years, passed TARP, Stimulus, Cash for Clunkers, etc., and the Employment-Population ratio plummeted from 63.4% (what it was in Dec 2006 when Republicans last had majority control) to under 58.7% (where it has remained at or below for the last 4 years without any sign of recovery).

Over 11 million more people would be employed right now if we had the same Employment-Population ratio average that Republican majorities maintained over the course of 12 years (63.3%).

Even if you can blame Dems winning the House on higher spending in 2007 – 08, the GOP in complete control of government raised spending by around 40% in the 6 years prior. So it’s really hard to follow your point that one party is to blame for higher spending. And I don’t recall the Dems pushing for deep, across the board tax cuts while Greenspan and others strongly objected (and presciently so).

As I already explained above, what you call “deep, across the board tax cuts” (the 2003 Bush Tax Cuts) actually INCREASED REVENUE 44% in just four years. Those increased revenues helped to decrease annual deficits in FY 2005, 2006, and 2007.

The worst deficit of the R-R-R House-Senate-Presidency was FY 2004, when

Total Receipts were $1.88 Trillion,
Total Outlays were $2.29 Trillion, and
Total Deficit was $0.41 Trillion

Compare that to FY 2007, the last budget passed by the R-R-R House-Senate-Presidency:

Total Receipts were $2.57 Trillion,
Total Outlays were $2.73 Trillion, and
Total Deficit was $0.16 Trillion

And then compare that to FY 2009, which was passed by the Nancy Pelosi House, Harry Reid Senate, and majority of appropriations signed by Barack Obama after he was sworn in as President:

Total Receipts were $2.10 Trillion,
Total Outlays were $3.52 Trillion, and
Total Deficit was $1.41 Trillion

Yes, revenues were down in FY 2009, due to the unemployment caused by the Democrats’ 3 hikes in the minimum wage and the Democrat-enabled crash of Fannie/Freddie. But look at how much Outlays jumped in just 2 years of Democrat majority control. Revenues were down $0.47 Trillion, Outlays were up $0.79 Trillion, which combined to increase the deficit by more than $1.25 Trillion

The FY 2009 Pelosi-Reid-Obama deficit of $1,413 Billion ($1.41 Trillion) was 8.8 times the size of the FY 2007 Hastert-Frist-Bush deficit of less than $161 Billion.

Again, after Pelosi, Reid, Obama, Biden, Clinton, etc. took control of Congress on January 3, 2007, they roughly tripled the deficit in their first fiscal year (FY 2008) and roughly tripled the deficit AGAIN in their second fiscal year (FY 2009).

When Bush was sworn in as President, he had never served in elected office in Washington, D.C. before and one could truly say that he “inherited” the economy at that point.

But one can’t say that about Obama. Obama had served in elected office in Washington, D.C. since January 3, 2005, had been a part of the majority party in charge of FY 2008 and FY 2009, and he helped create the economy that was in place when he was sworn in as President. Obama didn’t “inherit” that, he helped create it!

===============

The FY 2009 $1.41 Trillion deficit?
Bush didn’t build that!
Somebody else (Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Biden, Clinton, and the rest of the Democrats) made that happen!

ITguy on October 3, 2013 at 9:25 AM

Good post ITguy. Bayam is a half-wit imbecile.

Murphy9 on October 3, 2013 at 12:22 PM

Good post ITguy. Bayam is a half-wit imbecile.

Murphy9 on October 3, 2013 at 12:22 PM

Thanks, I appreciate that.

Bayam alone isn’t worthy of a lengthy reply, but the falacies spouted by Bayam are frequently spouted by the MSM and low-info Dems. My reply was intended for any readers who think like Bayam thinks.

Myth: Obama “inherited” a deficit over $1 Trillion.
Truth: Obama and the Democrats “inherited” a deficit under $161 Billion when they took majority control on January 3, 2007.

Myth: Obama “inherited” a bad economy.
Truth: Obama and the Democrats “inherited” a healthy and growing economy when they took majority control on January 3, 2007. Employment and revenues had been growing year-over-year for four years until Democrats took control.

Myth: The Bush Tax Cuts made revenues smaller and deficits bigger.
Truth: The Bush Tax Cuts made revenues bigger and deficits smaller.

Myth: Democrats in 2006 actually intended to keep their promises of “fiscal discipline” and “no more deficit spending”.
Truth: Democrats roughly tripled deficit spending in their 1st fiscal year, roughly tripled deficit spending AGAIN in their 2nd fiscal year, and have added more than twice as much debt in 6 fiscal years than the preceeding Republican majorities added in 12 fiscal years.

ITguy on October 3, 2013 at 12:57 PM

Good job, ITguy.

Let’s add this: I spent a good deal of time analyzing the real cause of the 2008 financial crisis. Yes, the Democrats’ defense of Fannie/Freddie chicanery was a part of the picture, and the Democrats’ “oversight” of the GSEs permitted them roughly to double the size of the collapse between 2006 and 2008. But the majority of the collapse was due to badly-written regulation.

A brief list of the causes includes:

* The Clinton administration’s National Homeowner Initiative, which was basically the Community Reinvestment Act carried out by Executive fiat and without the involvement of Congress, expanded to a national scale. This is what started the housing bubble. Banks were bullied into relaxing their loan criteria, and forced to offer the sorts of loans that Democrats later labeled “predatory.”

* The Fed dropped interest rates close to zero in 2001, essentially throwing gasoline on the housing price fire and creating a wave of real estate investors. This was in response to the triple whammy of the Internet bubble collapse, the auditing scandal in the wake of the Worldcomm/Enron failures, and the 9/11 attacks.

* Congress forced investment houses to increase their holdings of low-risk, low-yield securities by raising their reserve requirements (google “Recourse Rule”.) This created artificial demand for mortgage-backed securities. You didn’t really think banks were buying low-yield MBSes because they were greedy, did you?

* Sarbanes-Oxley forced investment houses to use mark-to-market accounting for their mortgage assets.

* Fannie/Freddie dumped trillions into the secondary market for loans, mostly to make millions for their top executives who were doing pretty much the same things that the Enron crooks did, only at 10X the dollar amounts. More fuel for the fire.

* The rating agencies, which have a government-protected oligopoly, missed the inherent risk in the MBS investments and continued to rate them low-risk (and paid no penalty for the error. Par for the course for a government-protected oligopoly.)

So don’t let anybody tell you that the 2008 collapse was a failure of capitalism. It was a failure of regulation. And don’t let anybody even mention “Glass-Steagall” and try to blame it on deregulation. The repeal of Glass-Steagall had nothing whatsoever to do with the collapse; it’s a Red Herring thrown out by dishonest ideologues trying their best to blame the problems on capitalism.

philwynk on October 3, 2013 at 2:50 PM

philwynk on October 3, 2013 at 2:50 PM

Outstanding analysis. That needs to be repeated in another thread (perhaps tonight’s QOTD?) so that it gets seen by more people.

ITguy on October 3, 2013 at 8:36 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4