So how screwed are we?

[sunnyside]

Are people going to be back paid for this? I've heard both yes and no.

The bill to provide backpay passed in the house and is sitting the in Senate. It's generally thought it will be brought to the floor, pass, and be signed by Obama. But it isn't guaranteed.

[McAvoy]

They just made a deal. Supposedly it will not be rejected. It should be on Obama's desk today.

After reading some veteran comments about this, if any politician knows what is good for them, then they better sign it and get back to work.

[SteveK]

In fairness to the republicans many of them were elected due to the public backlash against obamacare. If your campaign promise is t repeal a law, I see nothing hypocritical in their actions.

[Teaos]

If the backlash is due to your own ignorant and down right deceptive smear campaign, then yeah, still a bit dodgy.

[Graham Kennedy]

In fairness to the republicans many of them were elected due to the public backlash against obamacare. If your campaign promise is t repeal a law, I see nothing hypocritical in their actions.

If you want to repeal a law you vote to repeal it. Which they did. I have no problem with that.

The fact that they voted to repeal it forty times over is somewhat stupid. One would think that after the first five times or so they would get the message that a Democratic congress was not going to go along with it, and even if they did Obama is going to veto any bill that overturns his signature legislative accomplishment. But if their constituents are stupid enough to be okay with their congresscritters wasting their time on pointless legislation, fair enough. (You know this congress has not passed a single bill of any significance? Not one single legislative accomplishment in the entire session so far.)

But holding the nation's economy to ransom is not fair game politics, IMO. That is effectively telling the Democrats "Do as we say or we will hurt the country until you do".

And threatening to default on the debt is an order of magnitude worse. The ramifications of doing it are so colossal that it's hard to imagine anybody even contemplating it. Even threatening it like they have could be immensely damaging. China and other countries are already saying that they need to start moving the world economy away from America having such a key role, because America simply can't be trusted to act responsibly any more.

[Tyyr]

China and other countries are already saying that they need to start moving the world economy away from America having such a key role, because America simply can't be trusted to act responsibly any more.

Don't particularly care for the implications of that but I can't fault the logic. Our government seems to be more dysfunctional than ever.

[sunnyside]

In fairness to the republicans many of them were elected due to the public backlash against obamacare. If your campaign promise is t repeal a law, I see nothing hypocritical in their actions.

More than that a bunch of the Tea Party types were elected to go batsh*t crazy on Obamaca. But I don't think I've seen people accusing them of hypocracy in all this.

Making choices that are bad for their party and their country yes, hypocracy no.

And threatening to default on the debt is an order of magnitude worse. The ramifications of doing it are so colossal that it's hard to imagine anybody even contemplating it. Even threatening it like they have could be immensely damaging. China and other countries are already saying that they need to start moving the world economy away from America having such a key role, because America simply can't be trusted to act responsibly any more.

I think China has been contemplating being able to displace the dollar as the worlds reserve currency for a loooong time. This just gives them another talking point alongside the main argument, which would be our increasingly money printing ways.

Actually I think there are going to be some people who are upset that the Republicans blinked on this. There is definitly a subset of the population that feels Obamacare is an existential threat to American values. Essentially the idea is that it could (and probably will) push the percentage of the population beholden to federal government benifits over 50% giving the Democrats a lock on future elections until Republicans abandon their whole personal responsibility small government thing. And thus our country will descend into bankruptcy and economic collapse while future generations spend their time smoking their medical marijuana in their parents basements unti lthey turn 27, at which point they go on "disability."

That might be taking things to a bit of an extreme. But they might well be right about the Democrats having managed to buy themselves the next election. And due to how the laws are written they were probably right that we wouldn't default on the debt, rather the government would probably have had to stop programs that the tea parties don't like in the first place.

In any case they got passionate about this stuff too late.

[Graham Kennedy]

Actually I think there are going to be some people who are upset that the Republicans blinked on this. There is definitly a subset of the population that feels Obamacare is an existential threat to American values.

It turns out that different people have a different idea of just what American values are. The left saw W. Bush lay waste to some things that they thought were pretty important American values... turned out most people didn't hardly agree on that score.

Although as American values go, I always understood that paying for what you took was pretty high up there. Which honestly seems to be THE issue in American politics right now. You've spent a good many years buying nice shiny things on credit, but when the bill comes due a big segment of the government and population simply declares that raising taxes to pay for it is evil, and refuses to do so under any circumstances. That has to change.

Essentially the idea is that it could (and probably will) push the percentage of the population beholden to federal government benifits over 50% giving the Democrats a lock on future elections until Republicans abandon their whole personal responsibility small government thing. And thus our country will descend into bankruptcy and economic collapse while future generations spend their time smoking their medical marijuana in their parents basements unti lthey turn 27, at which point they go on "disability."

That might be taking things to a bit of an extreme.

Ya think?

That's an incredibly simplistic view of things on just about every level. I think you will find that people and parties and policies can be a great deal more fluid than some people often claim. For example it's pretty absurd to think that over 50% of people being "beholden to federal government" means that they will automatically vote democrat. And honestly, as an outside observer that seems to be one of the most dangerous trends in American politics today - this idea that society is divided into two types of people, one who derive no benefit from government and want no part in it, and one who believe they should simply sit around all day doing nothing whilst government pays for their life, and will vote for whoever will "give them stuff".

Yet it's already the case that many of the states which suckle most on the government teat are solidly Republican. A great many voters don't even consider the personal benefit or cost to themselves of how they vote - an amazing number of people vote directly against their own interests because they're voting for the guy they'd most like to have a beer with or whatever.

It also presumes that Republicans will remain as... um... let's say "determinedly" anti government as they are. (Or at least claim they are, since in truth no republican administration has EVER actually shrunk the government or even come remotely close to doing so.) But look to other countries; the UK has a directly "socialist" healthcare system which most everyone pays for and most everyone benefits from. Does that mean that everybody always automatically votes for the left wing party to keep their nice benefits? No, it doesn't. Rather, it means that the right wing party accepts the existence of the NHS as something the public wants, and fights to reform it, modify it, or limit the size of it. The Republicans will probably end up doing the same thing.

But they might well be right about the Democrats having managed to buy themselves the next election. And due to how the laws are written they were probably right that we wouldn't default on the debt, rather the government would probably have had to stop programs that the tea parties don't like in the first place.

There seems to be an idea that if the debt ceiling is not raised then the government would be forced to cut spending to avoid defaulting, and thus the right wing vision would win out. Whilst I am not an economist by any means, my understanding is that this is simply impossible. Independent analysts have stated flatly that once you hit that ceiling that's pretty much it - default is inevitable, within days or even hours.

[Coalition]

My main concern is not over the debt ceiling, but the question of if our trade partners will continue to accept dollars as a currency. As long as that continues to be true, we have no problems. Once our partners refuse to accept dollars, we are in trouble.

I.e. you buy a car from Japan using a car loan. The Japanese company wants the dollars more than they want the car, so they accept the dollars from the bank and are happy. You want the car and are willing to pay a certain amount every month to the bank, so you are happy. The bank gives a lump sum of dollars to the car company, and accepts several smaller payments from you in exchange, so you are happy.

Everybody is happy.

Did this increase the trade deficit? Yes, but who cares? Everybody is happy, and the only thing the car company can do with the dollars is trade them to someone else who wants them, or buy stuff from the United States.

The only concern is if the Japanese company had refused to accept the dollars in the first place, which can happen at any time, rather than just during high debt. If the person loses their job and can't make car payments, the bank simply takes the car as collateral, and is still happy. So the only person who has to worry is the worker, if he/she gets laid off or otherwise unable to pay.

[sunnyside]

That's an incredibly simplistic view of things on just about every level. I think you will find that people and parties and policies can be a great deal more fluid than some people often claim. For example it's pretty absurd to think that over 50% of people being "beholden to federal government" means that they will automatically vote democrat. And honestly, as an outside observer that seems to be one of the most dangerous trends in American politics today - this idea that society is divided into two types of people, one who derive no benefit from government and want no part in it, and one who believe they should simply sit around all day doing nothing whilst government pays for their life, and will vote for whoever will "give them stuff".

It also presumes that Republicans will remain as... um... let's say "determinedly" anti government as they are. (Or at least claim they are, since in truth no republican administration has EVER actually shrunk the government or even come remotely close to doing so.) But look to other countries; the UK has a directly "socialist" healthcare system which most everyone pays for and most everyone benefits from. Does that mean that everybody always automatically votes for the left wing party to keep their nice benefits? No, it doesn't. Rather, it means that the right wing party accepts the existence of the NHS as something the public wants, and fights to reform it, modify it, or limit the size of it. The Republicans will probably end up doing the same thing.

You're sort of reinforcing the Tea Party worries there, just with a different phrasing. Again their concern is that once people are getting their bennies they'd be afraid of losing them. People tend to be risk adverse. Even those who would be better off under the private system might be skittish of it, and those who might worry about the effects on the nation as a whole now are expected to stop once they're getting stuff. Also people are more reluctant to take away something people were counting on compared to giving something new.

So as a result of not stopping it now, it probably won't stop until there is a sufficiently large economic catastrophe.

an amazing number of people vote directly against their own interests because they're voting for the guy they'd most like to have a beer with or whatever.

I don't think that a very large portion of the population actually does that. However that may be a sadly important demographic since that nature of having two "big tent" parties is that many elections hinge on 2% or less of the population. *sigh*

There seems to be an idea that if the debt ceiling is not raised then the government would be forced to cut spending to avoid defaulting, and thus the right wing vision would win out. Whilst I am not an economist by any means, my understanding is that this is simply impossible. Independent analysts have stated flatly that once you hit that ceiling that's pretty much it - default is inevitable, within days or even hours.

People are using the term "default" to mean different things. To be more specific we'd make our interest payments, I believe the 14th Amendment would force that. However we'd have to make immediate spending cuts and possibly start selling assets. And the results might not be at all "right wing approved". For example we might send out the welfare checks, but cut defense spending or even sell a carrier to China.

Though the debt ceiling that hasn't really happened before, and getting the supreme court involved in things take time. So there isn't certainty on that.

[Graham Kennedy]

You're sort of reinforcing the Tea Party worries there, just with a different phrasing. Again their concern is that once people are getting their bennies they'd be afraid of losing them. People tend to be risk adverse. Even those who would be better off under the private system might be skittish of it, and those who might worry about the effects on the nation as a whole now are expected to stop once they're getting stuff. Also people are more reluctant to take away something people were counting on compared to giving something new.

So as a result of not stopping it now, it probably won't stop until there is a sufficiently large economic catastrophe.

Well I guess it goes to definitions. For example most everyone in the UK uses the national health service, but almost nobody would consider that a "benefit" in the sense that unemployment payments are.

If "uses a government service" is your definition of being on government benefits, then that line was crossed a long time ago because every citizen gains from the existence of the military, and the police, and garbage collectors, and street lighting... the tea party lost a long time ago because literally every single citizen is already on government benefits and has been since the day they were born.

I don't think that a very large portion of the population actually does that.

I couldn't cite numbers, but I seem to recall the study I heard about was that something like half of all people who vote republican are disadvantaged by republican policies.

People are using the term "default" to mean different things. To be more specific we'd make our interest payments, I believe the 14th Amendment would force that. However we'd have to make immediate spending cuts and possibly start selling assets. And the results might not be at all "right wing approved". For example we might send out the welfare checks, but cut defense spending or even sell a carrier to China.

And this is exactly what I've heard is wrong - hitting the debt ceiling would literally mean not making payments on the debt any more. It would NOT simply be a case of having to cut spending. But it's hard to get good info when so much out there is written specifically to convince people one agenda or another is the right one.

[Tsukiyumi]

No, Sunny's point is right; we would still be able to pay the debt, but we wouldn't have enough for Social Security payments, veteran's disability payments, the military, and about a hundred other things. Some very large group of the populace would get screwed over, because people like seniors and vets are justifiably counting on that money to be there on time.

[Tholian_Avenger]

Actually I think there are going to be some people who are upset that the Republicans blinked on this.

Do or do not, there is no try.

[McAvoy]

Well I guess it goes to definitions. For example most everyone in the UK uses the national health service, but almost nobody would consider that a "benefit" in the sense that unemployment payments are.

If "uses a government service" is your definition of being on government benefits, then that line was crossed a long time ago because every citizen gains from the existence of the military, and the police, and garbage collectors, and street lighting... the tea party lost a long time ago because literally every single citizen is already on government benefits and has been since the day they were born.

I am rather surprised by the amount of people who really do not think about those sort of things. I have had to remind too many people about where money to repair and maintain highways and major roads come from for example.

For them, its just there. Or grossly misinformed.

[sunnyside]

Well I guess it goes to definitions. For example most everyone in the UK uses the national health service, but almost nobody would consider that a "benefit" in the sense that unemployment payments are.

If "uses a government service" is your definition of being on government benefits, then that line was crossed a long time ago because every citizen gains from the existence of the military, and the police, and garbage collectors, and street lighting... the tea party lost a long time ago because literally every single citizen is already on government benefits and has been since the day they were born.

You have a point in there. Now, to be fair, there is a small but growing libertarian movement in the US who would wish to do away with most (Minarchists) if not all (Anarcho Capitalists) goverment functions. But even the Tea Party supports a number of government functions such as the police and heavily supports the military. They just want less government, particularly at the federal level, control over their lives, the economy, and their money.

That said Obamacare is a bit more obvious as a redistributive thing as for many they're getting extra bills while others are drawing benifits, often in the form of money. And people getting comfortable with it and moving onto the next thing is exactly the sort of thing the Tea Party would be afraid of.

I couldn't cite numbers, but I seem to recall the study I heard about was that something like half of all people who vote republican are disadvantaged by republican policies.

Judging by your phrasing I'm guessing the study was looking into cash redistribution as its metric for advantage/disadvantage. By its method of analysis it could be "correct" however:

1. There are many policies differing between the two parties. There are those who do not hold that money is everything...especially if you then wouldn't be able to spend that money on a new AR-15 and a pile of 30 round mags.

2. If you used the methods of the study I imagine you would find that those people would be even more advantaged by Stalinism or Maoism due to those having even more redistributive policies than the Democrats do. My point is that many people feel that redistributive schemes have serious negative long term effects. Killing the goose that lays the golden eggs and all that. Perhaps you disagree, but the point is the voters may not feel they're putting themselves at a disadvantage in the long run.

3. Many Republican voters are pretty patriotic, and would be willing to forego some government handouts to better maintain or improve our national status.

And this is exactly what I've heard is wrong - hitting the debt ceiling would literally mean not making payments on the debt any more. It would NOT simply be a case of having to cut spending. But it's hard to get good info when so much out there is written specifically to convince people one agenda or another is the right one.

I'd be curious where you were getting that. It doesn't make sense, given our availible assets and income that such a thing would happen. I can only see how that would happen if Obama directed the executive branches to spend on everything else and actively choose debt payments as the thing to short. Given how disasterous and short sighted such a choice would be it seems unlikely he would do it unless he was sure the calamety would be blamed on the Republicans. However even then I think such a choice would be unconstitutional and might see him getting impeached.