Government Shutdown Day 7 Open Thread

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

"I think, personally, it would bring stability to the world markets."

–Ted Yoho (R-FL) [on breaching the debt ceiling]

96 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. DavidThi808 says:

    Be afraid, be very afraid – Get Ready. It's Going to Happen.

    There many roots of this crisis. Demographic, ideological, regional, some parts tied to accidents of history (the existence of the debt ceiling itself), others to the structure of our government. But I think most people, as crazy as this looks, are underestimating the scope of the crisis we're in the midst of. The pieces are in place to resolve the matter quickly, in the narrow sense of the votes. But the House Tea Party (and it really does look more like a distinct party or faction at this point) is forcing the matter, despite having well under a hundred seats in the House. Behind them they have an aggrieved GOP base and sustaining them the vast tranches of money provided by the Kochs and other top GOP mega-funders. John Boehner, not structurally in the sense of his office or position but personally, is simply too weak a figure to avert what's coming. Get ready.

    I was thinking that the money people in the GOP would force the debt ceiling increase. But a lot of that money may be so focused on opposing Obama in general, and the ACA in particular, that they may encourage the idiots to drive the bus off the cliff.

    • BlueCat says:

      Well here's a little encouraging news.  Signs of the old Main Street pro-business wing of the GOP is getting sufficiently disgusted to rouse themselves to some action. Although my hope would be that if they succeed in ousting any TPers in primaries, the nutcases will run third party and take away enough base votes so that Dems win these seats and the GOP loses the House. 

       

      GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. — Nearly three years after a band of renegade congressmen brought the tea party insurgency to Washington, there are early rumblings of a political backlash in some of their districts.

      Here in the Dutch Reformed country of West Michigan, long a bastion of mainstream, mannerly conservatism, voters in 2010 handed the House seat once held by Gerald R. Ford to Justin Amash, a 33-year-old revolutionary and heir to the libertarian mantle of former congressman Ron Paul (R-Tex.). Amash was part of an attempted coup against House Speaker John A. Boehner (R- Ohio) and is a leader of the House tea party faction that helped force a government shutdown last week.

      But within Grand Rapids’ powerful business establishment, patience is running low with Amash’s ideological agenda and tactics. Some business leaders are recruiting a Republican primary challenger who they hope will serve the old-fashioned way — by working the inside game and playing nice to gain influence and solve problems for the district. They are tired of tea party governance, as exemplified by the budget fight that led to the shutdown and threatens a first-ever U.S. credit default.

      Similar efforts are underway in at least three other districts — one in the moneyed Detroit suburbs and the others in North Carolina and Tennessee — where business leaders are backing primary campaigns against Republican congressmen who have alienated party leaders. The races mark a notable shift in a party in which most primary challenges in recent years have come from the right.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/some-tea-party-congressmen-find-signs-of-political-backlash-at-home/2013/10/06/d13d698a-2d27-11e3-b139-029811dbb57f_story.html

      • mamajama55 says:

        That's my hope, too…that the finance sector Republicans will grab the TPs by their collars and say, "Are you people fricking NUTS??!! You're going to cost us MONEY! We HATE that…."

        Although I understand options traders make money whether stock goes up or down. That's 2/3 of what I know about the stock market right there.

        Troubled times, when we're praying for Wall street to rescue US.

        • BlueCat says:

          From the pleas heard  from Wall Street, US Chamber of Commerce, etc., while it's true that volatility makes lots of traders money, having the whole edifice collapse isn't something they see as a positive. Troubled times is putting it mildly. The GOPT has declared all out scorched earth war and we need every and any ally we can get to crush them.

          If Wall Street has decided that the TPers are too irrational and dangerous be useful anymore and that the rest of the GOP is too weak and frightened to control this faction, that's good news for our side at the moment.

  2. DavidThi808 says:

    Any details on the ACA signup sites bouncing people out?

    I worry that they have software bugs because, in the startup world, if it was just too many people hitting it, there would be specific announcements of the success of people that did get in completing their sign up. And they would spin up more servers at their hosting facility (AWS, Azure, Rackspace, etc.) and resolve the overload issue in a couple of hours.

    I know government entities react differently. But I worry that the software is truly broken (a-la CBMS) and the ACA start date will have to be pushed out a year, with all the Republican horror stories sounding more legit due to the failure, all due to poorly implemented software.

  3. DavidThi808 says:

    Last week my CEO was at some CEO event and at lunch was talking to two other CEOs at her table. Both were complaining about the biggest problem they face is finding qualified people to hire. In both their cases, it's limiting the number of jobs they can take on.

    So everyone reading this is thinking, two more high tech startups whining about needing super qualified people. Nope! One is a landscaping company and the other installs ceiling tiles in office buildings.

    They have very different criteria than we do for "qualified" although a number of common items too like good work ethic, etc. But same basic issue, in the midst of 7% unemployment, they can't find people to hire.

    I think this is another giant shift in the employment market, average no longer gets hired. It used to be that you could staff up most companies with a bunch of average people, the better ones helping the weaker ones, and it all worked.

    Now, you have to be, at a minimum, good for a vast number of the jobs out there. And as anyone who studies statistics knows, the majority of people are average, or worse.

    • I hear this complaint a lot in my business circles.  But I don't believe it.  I think that wages are being kept artificially low in many areas.  This is really, "nobody good wants to do the job at that price."  Wages are going to have to rise.

      The corollary to this is that those clamoring for higher H1B limits are really wanting to keep the wages of their industries depressed, while reaping higher profits for themselves.  Not a pretty picture.

      • ElliotFladen says:

        Gorky, you have more in common with Tancredo than you know.  Sealing the borders and ruining lives to protect special interests from competition?  Check!

        • MADCO says:

          Right, because goernment that governs most for me and mine is th egovernment that governs best.  Got it.

          • ElliotFladen says:

            Do you support tearing families apart and deporting immigrants in the name of keeping you safe from economic competition? 

            • BlueCat says:

              Do you actually expect the courtesy of a direct answer since that is a courtesy you consistantly refuse to extend for a variety of lame, lamer, and lamest resaons? I do hope nobody offers you one until you have made at least a dent in the backlog of questions you have refused to answer.

              • ElliotFladen says:

                Bluecat – you ask tangential questions that are besides the point and are dishonest in your analysis of them. Which is why I don't pay attention to much of what you say since the Hackstaff Mailer thread.  

                • BlueCat says:

                  Exactly the kind of lame excuse you always use, not just recently. Any question you don't wish to answer is a "tangent". Thanks for the validation.

                • Davie says:

                  Um, that's pretty much the problem we have with your posts, Elliot.

                • Danny the Red (hair) says:

                  The problem of H1B's is that the employer controls the visa.  In essence the foriegn worker becomes an indetured servant that cannot demand higher wages that are competitive with domestic workers.

                  A better system would put foreign workers on an even playing field with domestic workers by having the foriegn worker control the visa and allow them to test the market for other jobs in their field as long as they were not unemployed for more than 3 months.

                  That is fundamentally different than "seal the border"

                  • mamajama55 says:

                    Thanks, Red. That's helpful. Now I understand why raising the caps on H1Bs (with the current "indentured servant" status) is a Republican talking point. 

                    • BlueCat says:

                      Just not in a way that has any coherence. It's pretty much what appeals to him in specific instances. As a whole it isn't driven by any internal logic and  lacks any basis for continuity from one stand to the next. What's more, he knows it which is why he evades instead of engaging, making any meaningful discussion impossible. He knows his only defense is pretty much just because this is the way I feel about this thing and that's the way I feel about that thing. Don't ask me to justify it.  No wonder righties find him as frustrating as lefties do. 

                    • BlueCat says:

                      Sorry, mamma

                      You may be wondering what  my reply here reply has to do with anything. The screen was jumping around a bit and I actually meant this as a reply to your comment lower down that Elliot does makes sense sometimes etc.  Lost track of where I was and hit the wrong reply. 

                  • BlueCat says:

                    We mised you while you were gone, Red.

        • mamajama55 says:

          How the heck do you get "sealing the borders and ruining people's lives" out of "Wages are going to have to rise".

          My friend Wikipedia says that H1B limits are a cap on temporary work permits for foreign workers. Again, I don't see a connection between "sealing the borders and ruining people's lives." Please elucidate.

          • Diogenesdemar says:

            ROFLMAO . . . come on, Mom . . .

            How the heck do you get "sealing the borders and ruining people's lives" out of "Wages are going to have to rise".

            . . . that's just how EF is able to think he's winning a point around here.  (Between you and me, I personally think it's gotta' be a Republican thing . . . )

            In a related story, Speaker of the House Boehner is reporting that he's winning the shutdown debacle . . . 

             

          • ElliotFladen says:

            Because advocating that H1B (and other visa) numbers be kept down to protect us against competition is one of the most common arguments nativists use to demean legal immigration.  

            • mamajama55 says:

              Elliott, you know that I know that you're a moderate (libertarian or Republican or whatever your label is). You are for civil unions for gay people, religious tolerance, toning down the nativist rhetoric, allowing opportunities for "Dreamers", probably other positions that are anathema to extremists.

              You have so many batshit crazies commenting on your Facebook page that it makes you look like the soul of reason, and sometimes you can reason with them when they just dismiss and insult me or anyone that they think is a liberal.

              Yet, on here, you keep trying to deflect arguments onto tangential questions, to reflect conservative talking points. Gorky brought up a reasonable point. The wages are too damn low to attract qualified workers. He wants caps on visas for supremely qualified foreign workers, so that US workers will be hired in their places.  Maybe native-born people demand higher wages than foreign born – I don't really know. I know that it took my son, fresh out of college with a mechanical engineering degree, five years to be hired at entry level in his field at the height of the hiring freeze.

              So let me reassert Gorky's points. The wages are too damn low, and we probably need to limit work visas for foreign workers in order to stimulate jobs in the US. You know that I don't want to seal the borders, nor ruin people's lives. I 've seen too many of my student's lives ruined already by current immigration policies – families split up, college dreams wrecked.

              So do me the favor of assuming that I want reasonable policy changes, and don't commit the logical fallacies of composition and "slippery slope".

               

               

              • ElliotFladen says:

                Mamajama, 
                Grosky's argument is the same sort of argument that is used by advocates of limiting legal immigration.  Only difference is in degree. 

                I take the position that the government should be splitting people apart to protect them from competition.  

              • ElliotFladen says:

                (and they dismiss me too – one guy who holds a semi-prominent GOP position once said publicly he looked forward to judgment day when I'd get thrown into the abyss…or something along those lines)

                • BlueCat says:

                  Maybe you piss off both sides because you have nothing  coherent enough to hang together from any perspective, left, right or center. Sometimes when everyone is mad at you it doesn't mean you must be right. Sometimes it just means you don't make any sense to anyone.

                • Diogenesdemar says:

                  Elliott, I'm starting my first ever prayer list today — and putting you at the very top.  Repent!

                  (Thing is, I and a few of my fellow Democrats aready called "shotgun" on the abyss for all eternity.  Having you around might make it all seem rather hellish . . .  

                  You could probably make righty pergatoty without a lot of trouble or effort . . . 

                  In the spirit of bipartisanship, however, I suppose that if you start playing nice here, and maybe provide a few coherent answers to some of the questions you are asked, that we could be persuaded to let you join us in the abyss for a little while during the second-half of eternity.)

                  • ElliotFladen says:

                    I answer the stuff I feel like answering.  Which is just like everybody else on this thread.  Difference is that I go around whining for days like BC that my question wasn't addressed. 

                    • ElliotFladen says:

                      I don't go around whining for days…embarassing typo. 

                    • BlueCat says:

                      See, here's how it works Elliot. Of course you don't have to answer me. Here I am, though, answering you . That's why I am using the "reply" attached to your comment . That's why my reply will appear in your  comment box.  If I don't want to reply to you or anyone else specifically but just want to make my own comments based on the subject of the diary, I use the reply that's connected to the thread originating diary. So simple 

                      To review, and I'm typing slowly for you, if you don't wish to respond to me specifically, don't hit the reply that goes with my specific comment. When you do use that specific reply, you're supposed to …. you know… address my comment.

                      You're welcome.

                • MADCO says:

                  Hey – you know what they say, about if you're not pissing someone off..you are not doign something right …or if you are pissing the right people off you must be doing sometihng right.

                  Maybe you just piss people off. Everyone is good at something.

              • Thanks, mamajama55.  You said what I was trying to say.  Unlike, ahem, "other posters" who could not even spell my name right.

      • MADCO says:

        Gorky, gorky, gorky – you have to be more sympathetic.  It's a tough realization when the formerly not rich worker (s) get to the point to realize it really is hard to find good help these days  Why, I remember just not that long ago when I could hire all the employees I wanted with whatever skill set I demanded with no pension, no real benefits, and not quite a living wage becasue, well really, what other choice did they have?

        If you ain't rich – blame yourself.  Don't be worried about visas and poor people without insurance driving junker cars to deliver your pizza.  And don't you be talking about progressive income tax rates here in Colorado to invest on infrastructure.  Whatinhell good is it if I get the contract to rebuild some roads or bridges or even a Veteran's med center if I got to pay 5% of it away when all the rest of the lazy Coloradoans only got to pay 4.6%? ANd make no mistake- I will get those contracts to rebuild the transportation and medical infrastructure becasue a) no private company is gonna do it without total public funding and b) there is no way we're going to freeze investment spending on public education uness we already spent it all on asphalt and hospitals and such.  When in doubt – just burn more coal. It worked efore Ludlow, it worked since.  Burn, More. Coal.

         

        (top hats, monocles, canes, tuxedos, are all optional)

      • DavidThi808 says:

        You are correct that if you pay enough, you can get people to do most any job. The problem is, you then have a product that is so expensive that people won't buy it. If that landscaping company bids 50% higher than its competitors and says "we pay our people really well," I'll bet they won't get much business.

        A lot of businesses are constrained by what they can charge for their services. Mine is. And companies also have to balance paying people more vs. hiring additional people.

        • BlueCat says:

          For many of the big corporate entities with stupendous profits it's a little different. Take the fast food giants. They could still make handsome profits while paying a living wage. Yes, the profits might be somewhat less but not much as they also wouldn't have the high cost of high turn over and training new workers that goes with their crappy paying jobs. 

          They could try to pass the cost of any decrease in profits on to the consumer but fast food consumers are very price sensitive and you don't make profits charging more than what your target market is willing or able to pay, regardless of what it cost you to produce. Of course if it cost you too much for what you are able to earn then you're not going to have a successful business. But the likelihood is that these huge companies could pay a living wage and continue to make generous profits without being able to force the public to pay significantly more. 

          Not every sector or business type is just like yours, David. There's a whole great big world of ordinary jobs for ordinary people out there for which your little corner of the job market doesn't represent a very relevant model.

          • DavidThi808 says:

            My little corner of the job market has less of this problem – we can pay everyone pretty well. And you're right that a number of companies have ridiculous profits.

            But the majority of companies do not have much of a profit margin. A lot are looking at a 2% margin and while the total dollars may look impressive for a large enough entity, the 2% doesn't have room to increase pay.

            Take Frontier Airlines as an example. Lots of jobs where the pay sucks. But it doesn't make money so staying in business at the present level of pay is a challenge. How can they pay more and not go out of business?

            • BlueCat says:

              I think the airlines are really in a bind because the economy sucks so bad people can't/won't pay what it really costs them to operate.  Air travel used to be for the very well heeled. When I was a kid many people had never flown in their lives.  It wasn't nearly as common in the 60s as it is today to be an experienced flier in childhood. 

              For various reasons it became a very broad  mass market with much more affordable process for a wider range of traveler.  Like I said, every sector is different but taking the economy as a whole, airlines would be much better off if everybody made a decent living and weren't so strapped for cash. All sectors will benefit from a resurgent middle class built on a sturdy base of living wage for all jobs.  

        • itlduso says:

          David,

          Why do you hate capitalism?  What part of supply and demand don't you understand? 

          As you reluctantly say, if you pay enough you can find qualified workers.  That's a good first step (baby steps, baby steps)!  Now, you need to understand that your competitors will have to pay enough to aslo find those same qualified workers.  Why would you think that the competitors can miraculously find qualified workers for lower pay that you couldn't find?

          God, this is so elementary it's like I'm talking to a Fladen.

        • MADCO says:

          Same as it ever was. Nothing new here.

          The difference is it's not Poppy Rockefeller mining coal and extracting oil and starting a bank.  It's you and other entrepreneurs.

          Same as it ever was.

    • Smoking Mirror says:

      Heh.  Equally true, and equally non-illuminating to assert that the majority of people are average, or better.

      On this gloomy shutdown, pre-default day, is the glass half empty or half full, my friend?

    • Diogenesdemar says:

      . . . have you ever considered recruiting more heavily from Lake Wobegon???

      . . . or perhaps, and I know this probably sounds even crazier, developing some OJT programs???  (And, I don't mean any more of those sad and pathetic, unpaid "intern" scams that are, oh so, popular today's entrepreneurial genius class)

      Because, as we all well know, people are people everywhere — the majority of folks can't simply be below average . . . 

      I'd to see companies rewarded for applying just as much of their managerial genius and talent to developing their employees skills and knowledge — as they do for building shinier baubles and bells. 

      • DavidThi808 says:

        Let's bring this close to home. The people hired to defend Evie Hudak from a recall. Do you want to hire the best political operatives you can find? Or do you want to hire some average political operatives and spend a significant part of the time focused on teaching them to do their job better?

        • Diogenesdemar says:

          Two completely false equivalencies, David (. . . but, you knew that).   In the one case you've got a campaign that's at best a very, very short term affair — And, it you want to win that thing you better hire good people fast (and pay them a good person's wage, BTW. . . )

          On the other hand, you've got what's claimed to be a (self-supporting?) business — and something that's claimed to want to exist for a longer term.  And, they better know, or start learning how, to build employee skills as well as just fucking widgets if they're gonna' be out there for the longer term.

          But, you've hit upon the crux of this problem — our business funders and investment mechanisms (Wall Street, stock markets, et al) don't currently reward the long term planners and builders — and, therefore, our current crop of short-sighted entreprenurial geniuses don't see past the end of their noses for the obvious solution.

          There are myriad hidden costs that your "there's-a-dearth-of-above-average-available-emplyees" business mentality refuses to even acknowledge, let alone pay for, preferring instead to foists all of those off on society.  People are not disposable . . . that's really the one largest environmental problem we face . . . and they are, most definitely a finite resource.  (Fortunately, however, the human capability to learn and grow and acquire new skills is something slightly less finite.)

          Until we become a bit more, dare I say, like Germany and understand that businesses exist not only to produce profit for the 1%,  but they can only exist when they provide employment and opportunity and incomes and a future for the population, you're always going to be whining about a lack of trained people — BECAUSE NO ONE, apparently yourself included, IS WILLING TO TRAIN THEM, OR PAY FOR THEIR TRAINING AND EDUCATION!  (And, we as a people and a society and a government really ought to stop funding and subsidizing those Jurassic-era businesss that are simply refusing to learn and adapt and evolve to these realities.) 

          . . . of course, you could always opt to try Lake Wobegon!  All those children are above average!

          • DavidThi808 says:

            So it's "do as you say, not as you do" then? Why does a campaign optimize by hiring the best people, but you tell me that I can't have that same advantage? Especially when all my competitors do have that advantage? It's not a false equivilence, it is the same thing as we have to be very very good to be successful.

            As to training and putting in the effort. I've supported everything proposed in this state to improve our educational system. We hire C.S. interns and they learn a lot at our company. And we send our employees to conferences and training classes.

            Meanwhile, in political campaigns your criticisms hold very true. Maybe you should go lecture them until they at least rise to the level we're at 🙂

            • Diogenesdemar says:

              Hire the very best qualified people you can, David !!  (You still might have to pay them, BTW) . . . But, you're the one who's saying — please reread your whine that opened this thread — that you can't find them (. . .enough . . . many . . . any . . .) — and to make things even worse no one can anymore, not even the damn landscapers — right??!!??  (They've all evaporated, or been abducted, or gone extinct, or something . . . who knows???)

              (The entire Hudnak campaign will only need "optimization" for less than six months.  Your business planning include any possibility for operating, in say, 2015???) 

              I'm saying maybe, maybe, maybe, the answer to (some . . .  not all — because gawd and everyone here knows you got lots more) your problems might be right under your nose if you (that's the royal "you," of course, — as in, collectively, including the landscaper and all those other modern-day American business owners) applied some small bit more of your obvious genius to solving those problem yourselves.  

              If not that, and not Lake Wobegon, then maybe elves — I'm told that they make magical employees ??!!??  (Dunno' — I'm starting to run out of helpful and constructive suggestions here . . . )  wink

              Lastly, thanks but no thanks — I pretty much hate politicians more than I hate most everyone else . . . (wish we could bring all the government workers back to work and permanently furlough those fools).

              • DavidThi808 says:

                The point I was trying to bring up had nothing to do with my company or my specific situation. It was that even in jobs as blue collar as landscaping and installing ceiling tiles, we're seeing the job market change to where it is looking for stellar employees.

                Like it or hate it, if the job market is moving away from hiring average employees (and average is probably not the best word here), that's a gigantic change in the job market. And one that has us headed toward a giant problem where the number of people who can't find work, even at a really low wage, will increase.

                I'm not discussing if this change should happen. I'm bringing up the fact that I think it is happening and that will make the good jobs at good pay for everyone even more difficult to attain.

                • Diogenesdemar says:

                  And my point is simply, not just that this shouldn't happen because it shouldn't, but that it shouldn't happen because it can't — it's not sustainable, it's not functional, it's not beneficial, and it's not logical. It's sheer madness run amok; in the short-term it will be merely detrimental — in the long term it's a recipe for certain disaster.  

                  Except that, and here's the good news, it won't happen because the really good companies — the above average companies — are going to figure this out and grow and survive, while the dinosaurs go extinct.  I human race will outlast the silliness of any particular misguided human endeavor. 

            • BlueCat says:

              We could argue various circumstances in various sectors, some of which already pay very good wages, all day. You seem to be looking for a uniform widget based answer and it's never going to be that simple, uniform or widgety. The widget model  has severe limitations outside of the manufacturing sector.  

              I remember similar students aren't widgets arguments with you a while back in the days of the old site. 

        • mamajama55 says:

          QUALIFICATIONS FOR ANTI-RECALL STAFF:

          I want them good enough to know that they don't know everything, and listen both to the candidate and to the people who live in the community.

          I want them to get data from a variety of sources, not just annoying, made-in-India "push polls" that cause people to blurt out anything just to get the damn thing over with.

          I want them to constantly revisit their tactics to see if they are working.

          I want them to survey the media that voters actually listen to/read/watch, and put their messages out in that media.

          "The best" political operatives are the ones who are not only savvy about politics and data, but who know how to work with and respect people. That's really rare. I think that they all get paid the same, but people with the qualifications I listed are rare.

          • DavidThi808 says:

            Very well said, and I agree. And while it's a different list, that's what I strive for at my company – to hire just the rare ones that are superb.

            • BlueCat says:

              Which is fine. I want the guy flying my plane to be superb. But I also want all the non-superb people, meaning most of us, to be able to make a decent living, not necessarily flying planes or doing brain surgery, but in the kind of widely available jobs that need to be there for the non-superb in order to have a middle class with a decent life, upward mobility and hope for the future. A consumer economy can't be supported only by a tiny minority of consumers who happen to be superb at something. 

               

              Upside down pyramids, a tiny minority base of wealth doing a piss poor job of supporting the rest of the economy, get pretty wobbly. And that's what we've got in place of the trickle down we were promised by the right whose dictates we're still pretty much following, just not with the the 100% slavishness that would be enough to satisfy them. I mean they've already got Dems cutting and sequestering like crazy. Besides didn't trickle down always sound pretty icky?

  4. ClubTwitty says:

    Note to Ken Buck, Scott Gessler, and all the rest: Its time to come clean and get it over with?  Do you support the 'eggmendment' even though its been resoundingly rejected twice by Coloradans from Mesa County to Boulder?  You're not going to be able to dodge, Peter Marcus reports:

    Motivated by a grassroots uprising this summer that ousted two sitting Democratic state senators, proponents of a ballot initiative that would ask voters in 2014 to define an unborn child as a “person” say they are likely to target Republicans who don’t support their anti-abortion movement.

    • Harley says:

      I do believe that Coloradoans all across the State and took a second–hard–look at what happened in Pueblo and the Springs and decided that they didn't like what they saw.   I personally don't think the RMGO and tea-baggers will get away with that again.

  5. MADCO says:

    I totallt get the pro shutdown/default crowd now.

    The way to get our creditors to take us seriously , is to default our debt. See, we the people owe approx $16.7 T.  Which is too big a number to understand.

    So the way for the ROTW and our creditors to understand how serious we are about paying that down is not to keep on keeping on  as the deficit continues to drop, but to stop paying the service on the debt. To loudly and with bizarrely inappropriate analogies and metphor  claim that by it is only be not paying out creditors will we learn to stop borring from them in the first place.

    American Households: do NOT attempt this at home.  This legislators are elected (and backed by the Street and the DoD, NSA, CIA and the rest of we the people's the US national security apparatus). They cannot be arrested for driving drunk with illegal guns in their car if they once attended a fundraiser somewhere.

    At least I understand it now. Obama, immigrants, Muslims and non- Judeo Christians somewhere are to blame.  If God did not want us to do this to the ROTW, why would he allow it? 

    DeeFault! DeeFault! DeeFault! DeeFault!

     

  6. itlduso says:

    FYI – The front page of today's NY Times has an article on the Northern Colorado secessionists titled, "Fed Up on the Prairie, and Voting on Secession".  They note the new state "would be called New Colorado, or maybe North Colorado."  I thought it was to be called Numbskull Colorado.  Or, the NSF(family newspaper): "Dumphuckistan".

  7. Danny the Red (hair) says:

    Now I see why Donald Trump is so popular in GOP circles

    1. full of bluster and self importance: doesn't actually make, creat or do anything

    2. threatens to default as an extortive negotiating tactic even though fully capable of meeting obligations

    3. has comtempt for those in actual crisis

    • BlueCat says:

      Sigh…. I sometimes wish I owed some bank so much money they couldn't afford to let me go under.  As it is we only owe enough to make keeping up with all the payments and bills a challenge and something of a thrill ride during the slow season.

  8. ClubTwitty says:

    Does Greg Brophy support secession?  I thought he was running to be governor of Colorado not South Wyoming.  Yet here he is in Moffat with The Bears Ears Tea Party Patriots at a meeting  "to talk about the secession movement happening in Moffat County and in other parts of Colorado…"

    • ClubTwitty says:

      “I don’t want to break the state up. I want to govern all of Colorado,” Brophy said.

      … “I’m damn proud of the people who are fighting" for secession.

      • MichaelBowman says:

        He's telling all of his neighbors to "vote for it", while at the same time saying he doesn't support it.  And if it passes in the eastern counties, they'll be looking to him to carry the bill in the "next step", although he hasn't yet committed to sponsoring the legislation.  Sometimes I wonder if his ass is jealous about the crap that's coming out of his mouth.

        • MichaelBowman says:

          You'll find him under: "somewhat conflicted" He has Dudley as his suitor, yet needs the moderates for a statewide race; he'd like to be with the nut jobs who want to roll Evie, as he could likely end his career in the state legislature as Senate President. But it would be called for what it is: over reach and circumventing the democratic process. Would he rather be the Senate President in split chambers and get nothing done? Or try to convince everyone he's more moderate than he is and "go for broke" in the primary. It's all so complicated. 

      • BlueCat says:

        Did you find this in the dictionary under oxymoron?

      • BlueCat says:

        Maybe just plain moron?

    • horseshit GOP front group says:

      Did that bald guy pick Brophy up and set him on that bench ?  How the hell is he going to get down ?

  9. Davie says:

    So here is how I think the whole shutdown/debt ceiling disaster has a good chance of going down:

    We'll have GOP World Economic Crash II, just like Bush's Gulf War II.  It'll be based on faulty intelligence, poor judgement, and a cynical belief it will further the GOP agenda, and will pay for itself.

    In reality, like the tragedy of untold lives lost in GWII, trillions in wasted treasure (mostly given to the war profiteers in the military contracting industry), this default on the debt ceiling will put us back into recession, blow up the deficit, increase our borrowing costs for the next several decades, placing our debt service as the largest line item in the budget for the foreseeable future.  Millions of individuals' futures crushed and livelihoods lost

    The Democrats will take back the House, and keep the Senate.  They will have to pass more stimulus/bailout legislation and extend unemployment benefits yet again.  The deficits will again explode.

    The dollar will lose half it's value, the market will lose more than half its value.

    The Republican Party is an empty shell, and we have another decade or more of depression and anemic growth.  Our great-great-grandkids will still be paying off our debt.

    Way To Go BoneHead Boehner!

    You just can't settle for sabotaging the economy for the last 5 years so that we only have slow but steady growth, and by expanding healthcare to 30 million people, save untold billions, and not so incidentally save tens of thousands of lives a year through better healthcare.

    Yeah, Man, really makes you proud to be a Republican!

     

    • DaftPunk says:

      Good thing you're not a polster.

       

    • mamajama55 says:
      • Do you approve or disapprove of the way President Obama is handling the Federal budget? 51% disapprove (45% approve)
      • Do you approve or disapprove of the way Republicans in Congress are handling the Federal budget? 70% disapprove (24% approve)
      • Do you approve or disapprove of the way Democrats in Congress are handling the Federal budget? 61% disapprove (35% approve)

      These are correct percentages as of today from Washington Post poll.

       

      • BlueCat says:

        The interesting thing is how the R disapproval has jumped in a week . Seems that as hard as the Rs are trying to make this a Liberal shutdown and as much as the American public is plenty mad at everybody including Obama and the Dems, the Rs have not been able to improve their approve/disapprove numbers in relation to the levels of approve/disapprove of Dems. After a steady week of trying to shift blame,  they are still being blamed more by about the same number of points. Not a sign of that old rightie message hegemony. The spin machine not working so smoothly these days. 

        Seven in 10 adults disapprove of the way Republicans are handling themselves in the wrangling over funding the government, according to the ABC News/Washington Post poll released Monday. That's a 7-point jump since last week and includes 59% of Americans who identify themselves as conservatives.

  10. mamajama55 says:

    Tom Tomorrow, cartoonist, always on point in his Kos blog:

    Tom Tomorrow's "A Political Crisis" cartoon

  11. notaskinnycook says:

    Mama,

    I wish I thought that was more amusng that prophetic, but I.m not sure. If Bone-head doesn't manage to grow a spine or whatever other parts he may lack, I can easily see Cruz-control driving us off The Clff and right into a Depression. These clowns don't seem to get that their idiocy will not only screw up our markets but throw the entire world economy into a Cuisin-art. And they have somehow deluded themselves into believing people will blame the President. I'm just lost.

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.