Story of Ted Cruz

[SB Shock]

https://youtu.be/3hrms1ACMn0

[Kung Wu]

@shocka khan: has attacked Ted Cruz relentlessly (ad nauseum) for shutting down the government and costing tax-payers $24 billion. Does anybody else other than khan believe that shutting down the government for 16 days actually cost the tax-payers $24 billion? In my opinion it's so grossly overstated, it's mind-boggling that anyone would throw it out there, let alone believe it.

[jdshock]

@shocka khan has attacked Ted Cruz relentlessly (ad nauseum) for shutting down the government and costing tax-payers $24 billion. Does anybody else other than khan believe that shutting down the government for 16 days actually cost the tax-payers $24 billion? In my opinion it's so grossly overstated, it's mind-boggling that anyone would throw it out there, let alone believe it.

If my memory is right (and that's a big if), the 24 billion number came from S&P either right before or right after the government shut down, so it was really just a prediction of lost economic growth.

I just did a quick search, and S&P predicted a 0.6% decline in fourth quarter growth. That would be a ~$6billion loss in that quarter. For some reason, S&P and other sources annualized that loss, though, and stated it would be a $24 billion loss. (The government's report on the shutdown mentions that the 24 billion figure is an annualized estimate https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/def...own-report.pdf).

$6 billion in lost growth and $2 billion in furlough wages seems somewhat more accurate to me. $8 billion is a lot, but it's not $24 billion. (That's aside from the fact that I'm not sure I agree with the assessment that lost GDP is a direct correlation to how much it "costs the taxpayers.")

[Walker]

@shocka khan has attacked Ted Cruz relentlessly (ad nauseum) for shutting down the government and costing tax-payers $24 billion. Does anybody else other than khan believe that shutting down the government for 16 days actually cost the tax-payers $24 billion? In my opinion it's so grossly overstated, it's mind-boggling that anyone would throw it out there, let alone believe it.

I always thought it was funny when people freak out when the government shuts down. Mission essential people within the military and national security keep operating during the shut down. And we seem to do just fine on weekends and federal holidays when the government shuts down. People should be dancing in the streets when government shuts down because that's less of an opportunity for the government to screw the American people. Hell, if the IRS, EPA, and any other government agency full of un-elected bureaucrats needlessly existing just all of the sudden shut down permanently, it would be pretty sweet.

[pinstripers]

My experience is that most government employees don't do jack anyway.

[wu_shizzle]

[shocka khan]

My experience is that most government employees don't do jack anyway.

Gee, so happy you think that way. Here's hoping your bank shoots craps and you don't get your money back, your investment advisor drains your investment accounts by churning them, and the civilians in the DOD piss all your money away by buying weapons systems that don't work then.

[shocka khan]

Yes, our Herman Munster look-alike who touts his fiscal conservative credentials only pissed away sbout 6 billion instead Of 24 billion. And accomplished absolutely nothing. What's a few billion among friends?

Sounds like some people here are butt hurt because their crook lost. I had nothing to do with that, why don't you guys go talk to the millions of people who voted for the right guy. Donald Trump. Trump called him 'Lyin' Ted' for good reason.

[jdshock]

Yes, our Herman Munster look-alike who touts his fiscal conservative credentials only pissed away sbout 6 billion instead Of 24 billion. And accomplished absolutely nothing. What's a few billion among friends?

Sounds like some people here are butt hurt because their crook lost. I had nothing to do with that, why don't you guys go talk to the millions of people who voted for the right guy. Donald Trump. Trump called him 'Lyin' Ted' for good reason.

Six billion is still a lot of money, but it's only a fourth (if it's accurate) of what you proposed as the true number. I'm on your side with this issue. I think it was incredibly irresponsible to shut the government down. Get your facts right, though, because it allows people on the other side to nitpick the facts without talking about the larger point. Like I said, I don't know if the 6 billion number is accurate, but if you want to defend the 24 billion number please provide support.

Someone you agree with for the wrong reasons can be so much more frustrating than someone you disagree with.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

May I ask why Senate Dems and Obama were not equally at fault for the shutdown? Wouldn't the government have stayed open if the Dems had signed on? This was a funding issue. One side proposed less spending. One side wanted higher spending. Neither agreed. The government shut down.

Why shouldn't both sides be held equally responsible for refusing to compromise?

[jdshock]

May I ask why Senate Dems and Obama were not equally at fault for the shutdown? Wouldn't the government have stayed open if the Dems had signed on? This was a funding issue. One side proposed less spending. One side wanted higher spending. Neither agreed. The government shut down.

Why shouldn't both sides be held equally responsible for refusing to compromise?

One side (republicans) held the government hostage in hopes that they could get their politically beneficial spending cuts passed. The other side (democrats) did not have bargaining power and (erroneously) called the bluff of republicans. Raising the debt ceiling wasn't a proposal for "higher spending." There were no new spending bills that were being passed with the plan to raise the debt ceiling. Raising the debt ceiling was about already made promises.

If I'm bleeding out, and you say "I'll take you to the hospital but only if you name your first born son after me," it's not a compromise you're looking for.

The negotiation of new spending or spending cuts should have occurred independently of the debt ceiling.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

The negotiation of new spending or spending cuts should have occurred independently of the debt ceiling.

The R's caved precisely because the debt ceiling deadline (mid-Oct) was approaching. They indeed refused to default on promises already made. Failure to raise the debt ceiling never occurred. It was purely discussed as an option but was never followed through.

I'm talking about the actual government shut down itself that actually happened the first 2 weeks of October 2013 prior to the debt ceiling deadline. Previous funding was set to expire Oct 1. There was no promise or requirement that every item previously funded had to be funded for all eternity. Funding expires all the time. Congress is supposed to work together to approve new funding as needed. Both increases and cuts are allowed. The upcoming expiration of previous funding was precisely the time to negotiate future funding. Republicans offered a plan to fund 99% of stuff moving forward. Democrats said 100% or bust. Both sides refused to back down. Pick and choose who you agreed with, but both sides should have shared the blame.

If I'm bleeding out, and you say "I'll take you to the hospital but only if you name your first born son after me," it's not a compromise you're looking for.

This seems like a poor analogy. If you are bleeding out and I say I'll take you to hospital X, but you want to go to hospital Y, we have a problem. I can try to pick you up and take you to X, but if you fight me and say Y or nothing, we have a stalemate. Every minute we waste your situation gets worse. Eventually, I see you are going to die and I cave and say I'll take you to Y.

Was it not equally your fault that we couldn't just get you to a hospital right away? Maybe Y is better than X. That is fair to judge. Same with Congress. We can judge whether O-Care was a good idea, but the dispute over whether to fund it, and the resulting shut down while the fight continued, falls on the shoulders of both sides.

[jdshock]

The R's caved precisely because the debt ceiling deadline (mid-Oct) was approaching. They indeed refused to default on promises already made. Failure to raise the debt ceiling never occurred. It was purely discussed as an option but was never followed through.

I'm talking about the actual government shut down itself that actually happened the first 2 weeks of October 2013 prior to the debt ceiling deadline. Previous funding was set to expire Oct 1. There was no promise or requirement that every item previously funded had to be funded for all eternity. Funding expires all the time. Congress is supposed to work together to approve new funding as needed. Both increases and cuts are allowed. The upcoming expiration of previous funding was precisely the time to negotiate future funding. Republicans offered a plan to fund 99% of stuff moving forward. Democrats said 100% or bust. Both sides refused to back down. Pick and choose who you agreed with, but both sides should have shared the blame.



This seems like a poor analogy. If you are bleeding out and I say I'll take you to hospital X, but you want to go to hospital Y, we have a problem. I can try to pick you up and take you to X, but if you fight me and say Y or nothing, we have a stalemate. Every minute we waste your situation gets worse. Eventually, I see you are going to die and I cave and say I'll take you to Y.

Was it not equally your fault that we couldn't just get you to a hospital right away? Maybe Y is better than X. That is fair to judge. Same with Congress. We can judge whether O-Care was a good idea, but the dispute over whether to fund it, and the resulting shut down while the fight continued, falls on the shoulders of both sides.

You're misremembering what happened. The original bill given to the House in September (or whenever) was a major compromise by the Senate Dems. It wasn't the House Republicans who came a mile and Dems denied the inch. The issue arose when Republicans got greedy with Obamacare stuff that they (House Republicans) shot down that concession.

Republicans said no deal unless they got their Obamacare demands. Ultimately, the government shut down, Republicans got less than they were originally offered, and their poll numbers plummeted because everyone saw who was acting like children.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

@jdshock:, do you have any links to articles showing the major compromises the Senate Dems put forth before the shut down. Please don't take offense if I don't immediately believe you that the R's had an amazing offer in front of them that they turned down simply in order to be greedy and add ObamaCare to sweeten the deal even further.

[ShockdaWorld]

#SMMFH