Politics - Quarantine Thread

[stopcrazypp]

I guess from the lastest news, the government shutdown will happen given the House has passed essentially the same bill and the Senate already said they won't allow that past them (and the blame-game is starting, although I'm not sure who would buy the claim that it's the Democrat's fault this time). Hopefully this means we avoid the same thing with the debt ceiling.

 

[ggr]

... although I'm not sure who would buy the claim that it's the Democrat's fault this time. (...)

Ummm... the Republicans? Fox news viewers? Tea Partiers? Health care haters?

 

[montgom626]

Difficult for me to take anything seriously with their expressed mission stated as such.

If this was their mission, then maybe they'd be worth listening to:

I agree. They are no different than any other media outlet, with there own spin and bias.

- - - Updated - - -

So at least one host on Fox News used to actually be in favor of electric cars. And specifically the Chevy Volt! (…ok, electric cars and “flex fuel” vehicles. And he was in favor at least for a period from 11/19/08).

Who?

Bill O’Reilly*.

Though maybe that could have been due to being on the GM payroll (as he himself points out in this clip). They apparently paid for something on his radio show…

But for some reason that tune changed on 1/6/12.

If you’re interested – fast forward to 2:20 and – enjoy!

So let me get this straight. He changed his mind? And is this a problem?

You understand that President Obama said he was going to close Gitmo. Still open. President 0 said he was going to end the war overseas. Still in Afghanistan. Pres 0 said he was going to be transparent. Never happened. Pres O now has NSA tracking us in the USA (probably Sweden).

Will someone post the video of Pres 0 flip flopping? Not likely.........Pres 0 tune has changed. Wonder why?

 

[SwedishAdvocate]

So let me get this straight. He changed his mind? And is this a problem?

Like I said…

You decide.

And since today is National Plug In Day, here’s some additional input on the Volt and the Plug In part:

FOX Business News: Spreading the Sheet - Page 2 (The hyperlink in post #15)


Would *love* to get into the rest, but that is quarantined terrain…

(mod note: link removed after moving posts, but feel free to continue here)

 

[ggies07]

I see media matters as taking things people have already talked about and posting them when they contradict what is really happening. Do they happen to be from conservative outlets, yes. If you can't see why then you are blind on what's going on. The Daily Show is basically a sarcastic fact check to those crazies on Fox, because that's what they are, crazy with how much information they get wrong.....they just happen to be conservative.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Ummm... the Republicans? Fox news viewers? Tea Partiers? Health care haters?

I think even most Republicans know who initiated this and many of the more moderate ones didn't want to go into this direction. It's some of the more extreme factions (led by Cruz) who forced things toward such a conclusion. And even they know that this is essentially holding a gun to the government's head to exact demands based on an unrelated funding bill.

But since it happened, hopefully it may give the more moderate Republicans a chance to rein in the rest and not have the same shenanigans happen for the debt ceiling issue. Of course Cruz is still a wild card and who knows what he will try to do next.

 

[JRP3]

So let me get this straight. He changed his mind? And is this a problem?

You understand that President Obama said he was going to close Gitmo. Still open. President 0 said he was going to end the war overseas. Still in Afghanistan. Pres 0 said he was going to be transparent. Never happened. Pres O now has NSA tracking us in the USA (probably Sweden).

Your assumption seems to be that Obama's failed promises somehow negate O'Reily's flip flop, which is not the case. One has nothing to do with the other. Obama has had many failures, however he's done quite well with his support of EV's and Tesla in particular, when the other side was attacking them in a completely irrational manner.

 

[Palpatine]

Tea-Party-Republicans, Ted Cruz and his ilk, are attention-whores. After they have thrown their tantrum, they will capitulate. This drama will not last longer than the proverbial fifteen minutes.

I doubt it. They are likely going to get something in either the CR or the debt limit. I don't see a way for this to get resolved without some reforms or budget cuts getting attached. The Democrat position of zero negotiations is not really feasible. That is not how legislators operate. It probably won't be Obamacare, but they will get something else I suspect. Maybe tax reform or some other key issue.

 

[Palpatine]

Actually the last shutdown was very positive for the markets. Clinton got serious and accepted welfare reform. With the GOP controlling the purse strings, they had a few years of surplus budgets.

It lead to Clinton and the GOP Congress getting balanced budgets and a huge market rally from 1994-2000.

Lets face it, our national debt is a train wreck. If this is what it takes to get entitlement reforms or more budget cuts, some short term pain is worth it.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

I doubt it. They are likely going to get something in either the CR or the debt limit. I don't see a way for this to get resolved without some reforms or budget cuts getting attached. The Democrat position of zero negotiations is not really feasible. That is not how legislators operate. It probably won't be Obamacare, but they will get something else I suspect. Maybe tax reform or some other key issue.

The Democrat position is absolutely feasible. ACA is non-negotiable, but everything else is on the table. The Republicans are grandstanding to their primary fanbase, will shut the government down (which doesn't really shut the government down) and then go public on another area so they can claim they've won something. If you really want to get something done, you don't go for something that's a key part of the President's platform that hasn't even had a chance to come into effect yet. Maybe we'll end up with Sequester II, since everyone can pretend they're unhappy about it, while secretly bejng relieved that they didn't make a decision on any details while getting a good chunk of what they want (Democrats cut Defense, Republicans cut everything else).

Expect a shutdown until the next pay period.

 

[CapitalistOppressor]

So the Senate delayed action until 2pm EST. Republicans have been making hay about it thinking Dem's might be looking to cave. But my understanding is that they have been discussing whether/how to pass funding for the military, and also talking with friendly Senate R's about ideas for joint actions or statements to pressure the House.

It's not clear to the people that I talk to what the end result will be except that they still plan to stiff the House in terms of conditionals on the CR. Dem's also want to pay the troops (as shown by the unanimous vote in the House). If they can negotiate unanimous consent to do it, I suspect we'll see it happen.

They were only interested in that aspect in terms of how it affects Republicans willingness to vote up the Debt Limit. But in terms of the direct bargaining incentives, not paying the troops is more related to the shutdown than the DL. And if paying the troops takes pressure off of the R's to shorten the shutdown then that's fine with the Dem's. They are perfectly willing to give the R's all the rope they ask for.

If the debt limit is breached it won't matter if we promised to pay the troops because their paychecks will be just at risk as the rest of the payments we are obligated to make. So accepting the exemption for the military is good because Dem's like paying them just as much as the R's, and they get the bonus of being able to call the R's hypocrites for not raising the DL. The only problem is that Senate proceedures make it difficult.

In terms of TSLA, it's clear that the Europeans aren't fazed by all of this, and nobody wants to get rid of actual shares. It'll be interesting to see how long that dynamic holds up.

 

[CapitalistOppressor]

Very interesting piece by Greg Sargent at the WP. If we are going to get a rapid resolution this is the dynamic that'll make it happen. And the coalition that is discussed is the same one that will increase the Debt Limit. The question is when this dynamic overcomes the pressure being stirred up by Cruz, et al.

To a certain extent Charlie Dent is cheerleading here, so there is a grain of salt aspect to it as well. Still though, most significant legislation that has passed congress recently has passed with Democrats and a minority of Republicans when Boehner has allowed a vote, with the implicit support of the Republican caucus, who then votes against it while not firing Boehner.

John Boehner doesn’t have to let the Tea Party paralyze whole government - The Washington Post

 

[austinEV]

The 14th amendment, in it's entirety:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. 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.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.[SUP][1][/SUP]


​

Done. Obama can sweep away the debt ceiling with the stroke of a pen. The whole notion is an invented problem. See also this amusing cartoon: The Debt Limit Explained - YouTube

 

[CapitalistOppressor]

Section 4. 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.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.[SUP][1][/SUP]


[/INDENT]

Done. Obama can sweep away the debt ceiling with the stroke of a pen. The whole notion is an invented problem. See also this amusing cartoon: The Debt Limit Explained - YouTube

It's not just that. He is constitutionally required to faithfully execute the laws passed by Congress. Honoring the debt limit would force him to break the law, because all of the spending bills are equally valid as the debt limit statute. So in the case of the limit not being breached, he is forced to break the law, either by not honoring the limit, or not spending the money that has been allocated.

When you combine that conflict with the language of the 14th admendment, it seems highly probable that he would win in court. But until he did, any debt sales he tries to make will come with an asterisk and be under a cloud of legal uncertainty. You could even envision a scenario where an unfriendly judge or appeals panel would put a stay on debt auctions (think multiple court cases as was the case with Obamacare).

The point is that it would be a total mess until the Supreme Court resolves it.

 

[austinEV]

Ah I always forget about that.

Mint the 1 trillion dollar coin then. Coins Against Crazies - NYTimes.com

 

[Palpatine]

Ah I always forget about that.

Mint the 1 trillion dollar coin then. Coins Against Crazies - NYTimes.com

Those types of stunts are what leads to nobody taking us seriously any longer. It is the path to being Argentina.

 

[dmunjal]

The 14th amendment, in it's entirety:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. 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.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.[SUP][1][/SUP]


​

Done. Obama can sweep away the debt ceiling with the stroke of a pen. The whole notion is an invented problem. See also this amusing cartoon: The Debt Limit Explained - YouTube

The way I read this is about existing debt. Right now, the $17T debt requires about $300B in interest payments to service the debt. The Treasury takes in $2.5T in revenues every year so why would there be any risk to servicing the debt for the foreseeable future?

The debate is about increasing the debt limit so the Treasury can borrow more going forward.

I don't think anyone is talking about not servicing the existing debt so the 14th amendment is irrelevant.

 

[FluxCap]

[Moderator Note: Posts following this one were moved here from Government-Shutdown-Debt-Limit-Issues-and-Timelines-for-Investors]


CapOp, I thoroughly respect your intelligent analysis and commitment to finding answers here, but I'm just going to say it again: you are drastically underestimating the consequences of debt default. Here is the progression I see, simplified:

1) Default
2) Dow halved, markets shut indefinitely
3) Interest rates move to 40%, borrowing becomes impossible -- corporations, municipalities, families and individuals declare mass bankruptcy
4) US Dollar becomes worth a dime or less, overnight
5) Interstate commerce shuts down, prices for basic necessities become stratospheric, food shortages as nothing on shelves
6) Money worthless
7) Rioting begins, National Guard deployments begin
8) Rioting intensifies to organized rebellion, martial law declared
9) Food rationing commences, internet access shut down or disrupted consistently, power shortages, mass refugees flee from country to cities
10) Second civil war begins

This is what the Tea Party wants, brother. Because they actually think that step 11) here is "Tea Party wins, create a new country founded on really cool white people power stuff with almost no regulations/laws/taxes at all, and no government except that which we install." Obviously this isn't true, because step 11) actually is "Tea Party thinks it can win, bands together 200,000 strong militia, marches on Washington. Three or four Apache gunships kill every last mother****er with a gun, war ends, Tea Party captured, jailed and abolished. A decade of US prosperity ruined. China jumps for joy and decides whether or not to invade or just make us their complete and total bitch for life.

That is the consequence of debt default. This is what John Boehner meant when he said "This isn't some damn game."

So debating the finer points of what could "legally" happen is pointless. There would be no more rule of law, there would be abject anarchy. And John Boehner and I may differ on just about every last policy consideration before the Congress, but we sure as hell don't differ on our desire to live in a country that isn't in the midst of a Civil War, where all our money counts for nothing, and no one is safe in their homes.

In the end, there will be no default, but there most certainly will be a spirited discussion of just how badly the Republicans will lose in 2014 and again in 2016, no matter how ****** Obama and the Dems are at governing.

What does this mean for TSLA? It means invest with extreme caution in the next few weeks, and hopefully resume normal life after that.

Washington sucks, but it's all we've got.

 

[FluxCap]

[Droppin' science]

Couldn't have said it better myself, except perhaps the last part. Don't let the news sound bites fool you -- this is a fully manufactured crisis by a dedicated, zealous and dangerous extreme wing of one party. It simply does not need to exist, but it does because this dedicated, zealous and extreme group of people is terrified that their "way of life" is being threatened. The sad part is, they are correct that their way of life is changing, but mostly because of the rise of the power of multinational corporations, not because of any public-benefit expenditure. But you can't reason with them, because they are convinced that Obama, Democrats and moderate Republicans are "the enemy" and many are literally willing to do anything to fight them. Anything.

You know what I call that? I call that terrorism. And there is absolutely, unequivocally no way that any President of the United States of America can negotiate with terrorists, foreign or domestic, and hope to preserve the system of government we have used for a couple hundred years.

This will not end well, but I maintain that it will end without default, because Boehner will not let it happen, thank goodness. But you are correct -- just as I said, Jamie Dimon and his crew on Wall St need to HAMMER the market hard with all the levers they have to send a message, or Congress won't act. So hang on for the ride, because we have a longer way to go down before a deal is struck.

As for Obamacare, which isn't even really being discussed anymore, here is a nice thread I found today:

Oct 2008: "You'll never get elected and pass healthcare."

Nov 2008: "We'll never let you pass healthcare."

Jan 2009: "We are going to shout you down every time you try to pass healthcare."

July 2009: "We will fight to the death every attempt you make to pass healthcare."

Dec 2009: "We will destroy you if you even consider passing healthcare."

March 2010: "We can't believe you just passed healthcare."

April 2010: "We are going to overturn healthcare."

Sept 2010: "We are going to repeal healthcare."

Jan 2011: "We are going to destroy healthcare."

Feb 2012: "We are going to elect a candidate who will immediately revoke healthcare."

June 2012: "We will go to the Supreme Court, and they will overturn healthcare."

Aug 2012: "The American people will never re-elect you, because they don't want healthcare."

Oct 2012: "We can't wait to win the election and explode healthcare."

Nov 2012: "We can't believe you just got re-elected and that we can't repeal healthcare."

Feb 2013: "We're still going to vote to obliterate healthcare."

June 2013: "We can't believe the Supreme Court just upheld healthcare."

July 2013: "We're going to vote like 35 more times to erase healthcare."

Sept 2013: "We are going to leverage a government shutdown into defunding, destroying, obliterating, overturning, repealing, dismantling, erasing and ripping apart healthcare."

Oct 2013: "WHY AREN'T YOU NEGOTIATING???"


Anyway, I'll leave you with a few quotes:

"This isn't some damn game." -- John Boehner, October 2013

"We’re not going to be disrespected. We have to get something out of this. And I don’t know what that even is.” -- Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-Indiana, October 2013

"Because some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn." -- Alfred, The Dark Knight

“I have decided to stick to love...Hate is too great a burden to bear.” -- Dr. Martin Luther King

 

[Chickenlittle]

You know what I call that? I call that terrorism. And there is absolutely, unequivocally no way that any President of the United States of America can negotiate with terrorists, foreign or domestic, and hope to preserve the system of government we have used for a couple hundred

“I have decided to stick to love...Hate is too great a burden to bear.” -- Dr. Martin Luther King

Sometimes passion guides our words but I think using words like terrorism and genocide in everyday arguments lessens the meaning of those words and can be offensive to some who have lived through true episodes or who have lost loved ones. I do like your Martin Luther quote and suspect we do not use that one often enough