Jump to content

US Politics: the eternal Teahad


DanteGabriel

Recommended Posts

so, point of default threat is to raise t-bill rates to punitive levels. defaulters load up on same, &c.?

the whole thing is like dune: koch brothers as baron, hold out the beast rabban, boehner, to universal hatred, bring in feyd-ruatha ryan with new plan to get the spice flowing again?

Since Obama pretty clearly has to be Duke Leto in this analogy, who's Maud'Dib?

And does this make Rush Limbaugh the Emperor?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who is Dr. Yueh? Joe Lieberman? Chuck Grassley?

I'd say Joe Manchin, but he was never trusted.

And Joe Biden is the most obvious Gurney Halleck ever (particularly if going by Patrick Stewart's version).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so, point of default threat is to raise t-bill rates to punitive levels. defaulters load up on same, &c.?

the whole thing is like dune: koch brothers as baron, hold out the beast rabban, boehner, to universal hatred, bring in feyd-ruatha ryan with new plan to get the spice flowing again?

So collectively, the GOP is the person claiming that he who can destroy a thing controls that thing? I really hate that they fit that niche...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An acquaintance just posted a link to a Rolling Stone article on the fight within the Republican party to Facebook. This is rather long but I find it fascinating and disheartening at the same time. One of the things the article mentions is how the Supreme Court's ruling allowing unlimited spending by the wealthy has actually in some ways taken power away from long-standing business groups like the Chamber of Commerce, who are now countered as donors by upstart super-Libertarian millionaires:



http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/inside-the-republican-suicide-machine-20131009

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And Joe Biden is the most obvious Gurney Halleck ever (particularly if going by Patrick Stewart's version).

I'll grant you that, but Obama is clearly Paul. Duke Leto and Jessica are obviously Bill and Hillary. Obviously.

Boehner I see as more of an Emperor Shaddam IV type. Weak figurehead, barely in control of an army of psychotic terror troops, mostly responsible for his own downfall, etc...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An acquaintance just posted a link to a Rolling Stone article on the fight within the Republican party to Facebook. This is rather long but I find it fascinating and disheartening at the same time. One of the things the article mentions is how the Supreme Court's ruling allowing unlimited spending by the wealthy has actually in some ways taken power away from long-standing business groups like the Chamber of Commerce, who are now countered as donors by upstart super-Libertarian millionaires:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/inside-the-republican-suicide-machine-20131009

Yup. New donor rules have made the GOP incapable of controlling funding within the party. The Tea Party is an insurgency and the GOP is scared shitless of it. That's why they can control the way the party votes in the House despite not having enough members or support to oust Boehner. They can't replace the leadership, but leadership can't control them.

In some ways, they are as paralyzed as they are making Congress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll grant you that, but Obama is clearly Paul. Duke Leto and Jessica are obviously Bill and Hillary. Obviously.

Boehner I see as more of an Emperor Shaddam IV type. Weak figurehead, barely in control of an army of psychotic terror troops, mostly responsible for his own downfall, etc...

Biden as Gurney Halleck works more with this.....Wait, does that make Rahm Emanuel, Duncan? (And yes, I butchered some names here most likely.)

ETA: This thread is taking a dangerous turn, I mean soon Ted Cruz is going to have Sting play him in the movie about his life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On private charity vs government assistance.



(yes, I know that discussion was mostly in the last thread, but that was only a couple of days ago so still sorta relevant)



If enacted, we estimate almost 4 million people would be taken off SNAP through changes to the program’s eligibility rules and work requirements.


… Kicking this many people off SNAP will place a greater burden on churches and charities that are already struggling to provide food assistance. They would have to nearly double their current food assistance over the next ten years in order to handle the influx. In 2011, private churches and charities provided approximately $4 billion in food assistance — federal nutrition programs provided 23 times as much.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that's on both ends of the spectrum right? 27% of people will vote for a looney leftist because they have a D beside their name.

So that only leaves 46% of people who aren't victims of crazification.

Actually that sounds about right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On private charity vs government assistance.

(yes, I know that discussion was mostly in the last thread, but that was only a couple of days ago so still sorta relevant)

Same goes for save the world crusaders like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Since 1994 it's provided $23 billion in grants. The US non-military foreign aid budget was $31.7 billion in 2011. In Europe the EU aid budget is about EUR 60 Billion

There's nothing in existence with the spending power of the public policy purse. Private development/aid organisations have a great feel good factor but they are a mere drop in the bucket of the charitable needs of any society, especially the developing nations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed at 3am this morning (yikes. York may be more of a hack than Costa, but that's some impressive commitment to the job):




Many House Republicans, including some key leaders, have decided they can live with a government shutdown but not with the threat of default. In the hours ahead, look for the GOP to seek a deal with President Obama and Democrats on at least a short-term increase in the debt limit, while standing firm on their requirement that a continuing resolution to fund the government must contain some significant measure to limit Obamacare. The bottom line: Republicans have discovered the world did not end when shutdown became a reality -- but they're not willing to risk it with the debt ceiling.


House Speaker John Boehner discussed the strategy in some detail during a meeting Wednesday with GOP freshmen. He explained that "the shutdown is just much less painful than the debt limit if the markets start rattling," according to a lawmaker who was there. "He basically told us that he's not going to allow us to breach that date."


"Boehner said he thinks that punting on the debt limit for a little while will bolster our message that we're willing to meet the president halfway," the House Republican continued. "We feel that the most potent attacks against us are for playing with the debt limit, and so by putting that off, we can see the continuing resolution fight through and then we can turn to the debt limit."


At the meeting, Boehner pointed to the events of September 2008, when the economy was in free-fall and lawmakers first considered TARP, to illustrate the risk of pushing past the debt limit. Back then, the House at first rejected the hastily-conceived TARP proposal, and the Dow Jones industrial average fell more than 700 points. Now, with the House facing a debt limit standoff that could result in default, the Speaker doesn't want a replay of unhappy events. "Boehner said it's too hot," said the House Republican of the debt fight. "He doesn't want to go there."


One proposal under consideration is for Republicans to pass a short term increase in the debt limit -- perhaps in the six-week range -- without accompanying demands for spending cuts or other GOP priorities. That plan appears to have the support of some of the outside groups, including Heritage Action and FreedomWorks, that have pushed hard for Republicans to keep up the Obamacare fight. Temporarily settling the debt limit standoff, representatives of the groups say, would allow the House GOP to continue battling for limits on Obamacare.





The House GOP really doesn't want to give up on this fight yet; I guess they like that 28% party approval rating, they've finally figured out who exactly the true believers are.


But yeah, if the debt ceiling gets decoupled from the shutdown, and the GOPers really think they can live with the shutdown for now, then I don't even want to think about how long it could go on for. Of course, if Boehner can't get 217 Republicans for it, I don't know what happens.



ETA: And I guess the more optimistic analysis is that the GOP is giving up on the debt ceiling fight, and its only a matter of time before they give up on the shutdown fight.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the analysis is good, Boehner is right. The shutdown is stupid and expensive and presenting problems and people are unhappy... but the debt ceiling is potentially armageddon, both for the country (maybe the world) and for his party.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the analysis is good, Boehner is right. The shutdown is stupid and expensive and presenting problems and people are unhappy... but the debt ceiling is potentially armageddon, both for the country (maybe the world) and for his party.

Agreed. But a permanent shutdown is not a good compromise either. Boehner and House GOP leadership is meeting with Obama today, so maybe something will come from that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...