October 18, 2013

"Even When the GOP Loses, It Wins/Think the Senate deal is a resounding defeat for Republicans? Think again."

 That is the headline of an editorial in The Nation.
[I]n the war of ideas, the Senate deal is but a stalemate, one made almost entirely on conservative terms. The GOP now goes into budget talks with sequestration as the new baseline, primed to demand longer-term cuts in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. And they still hold the gun of a US default to the nation’s head in the next debt ceiling showdown.

Surrender? Any more “victories” like this and Democrats will end up paying tribute into the GOP’s coffers.
I'm surprised to read this, because I thought what I was observing — to the extent that I did not avert my eyes — was the liberal media doing the Democratic Party's work of declaring victory.* I'm interested in seeing The Nation peel off from that strategy. It's all propaganda of one kind or another, but the strategies of propaganda interest me. It's boring when they all do the same thing, which is the  main reason I had my own personal shutdown during the shutdown.

Key line: "The GOP may be bearing the brunt of the public’s rage, but anger is also directed at Washington and government generally." The Democratic Party and its supporters in the media mostly had the strategy of blaming the GOP. Get people mad and then: Be mad at those guys. But stirring up anger is a problem:

1. There are a lot of people like me who turn away and refuse to listen when someone is directing us to be angry. Those ugly people over there are going to solve their problem whether I monitor their argument or not.

2. Then you have the kind of people who actually do take direction to the point where they become inflamed with anger. Do these hotheaded folks pay attention to the details of why these nasty people as opposed to those nasty people were more responsible for the thing they were induced to feel angry about?

Examine that key line again: "The GOP may be bearing the brunt of the public’s rage, but anger is also directed at Washington and government generally." There are 2 clauses, and if the second clause is the stronger proposition — which is likely — then the GOP came out ahead.
_______________________________

* Yesterday, I almost ended my personal shutdown to do a post based on the old saying "Declare victory and get out." Do you know the origin of that phrase?

During the Vietnam war, [U.S. Senator from Vermont George] Aiken is widely believed to have suggested that the U.S. should declare victory and bring the troops home. Actually, what he said was that "the United States could well declare unilaterally ... that we have 'won' in the sense that our armed forces are in control of most of the field and no potential enemy is in a position to establish its authority over South Vietnam," and that such a declaration "would herald the resumption of political warfare as the dominant theme in Vietnam." He added: "It may be a far-fetched proposal, but nothing else has worked."
Anyone who knows what happened when we got out of Vietnam should be skeptical of propaganda in the form of declaring victory. Frankly, I'm surprised anyone attempts the "declare victory and get out" type of statement. In my book, it's on the list of things not to say, right after "I am not a crook."

94 comments:

Expat(ish) said...

Great quote from Aiken.

In the category of things that are true that people do not know.... We did, in fact, win in Vietnam in the same way we won in Korea. The enemy ceased offensive action and retreated behind their more-or-less previous border. Heck, add Iraq in that list, post DS.

South Vietnam fell, with fewer than 5,000 mostly non-combat troops, when congress pulled military funding. (Anyone see Egypt lessons in there?)

The seminal image of people struggling to get on a helicopter from the Embassy had nothing to do with evacuating the bulk of American diplomats or, indeed, any of troops. These were people who were (correctly) certain that they'd be purged shortly.

Vietnam is proof that strategic aerial bombing works, actually, much more so than WWII.

-XC

RecChief said...

I read it a little differently. The Nation is still carrying the admin's messaging. Notice the horrible(!) assertion that the sequester is the new baseline, while at the same time McConell says another shutdown and default are both "off the table" when this comes around again in three months, so Democrats can attack the sequester cuts with impunity (I wish I could get into a high stakes poker game with Mitch).

Also, they still use the admin's language that Republicans still "hold a gun of US default". People should go back and read Solzhenitsyn's First Circle to see how the Bolshevik's justified the Engineer and other purges. They always justified it as simply getting rid of people holding back the progress of the people.

The Nation is simply girding up for the next fight in a few months.

EDH said...

I'm trying to think of one group "angry" at the Republican over the partial shutdown that weren't already adverse to them before the shutdown.

Correct me if I'm wrong, it's the Democrats that have been loosing friends and middle-of-the-roaders because of the administration's conduct, if not orchestration, of the shutdown and implementation of Obamacare.

Virgil Hilts said...

Didn't someone (I forget who) suggest early in Obama's 1st term that he could do a lot more for his ultimate long term cause by implementing widespread good gov reforms (for which he should have had bi-partisan support) and showing that Washington could be made more efficient and responsive? I don't see how anyone can translate the growing widespread distrust/disgust of Washington and its over-reach (NSA/Holder) and incompetence (ACA/out of control deficits) as a victory for Obama's worldview.

Insufficiently Sensitive said...

The Democratic Party and its supporters in the media mostly had the strategy of blaming the GOP.

Nobody could say it better.

maherlaw said...

When George Aiken retired from the U.S. Senate, he returned to his beloved Vermont, gave his extensive papers to the University of Vermont, and taught a seminar, where I met him. He was the classic Yankee Republican, open-minded, fiscally conservative, and a bit libertarian. In his fights against expansive federal powers during the New Deal, when he was governor of Vermont, he reminded folks in his book Speaking from Vermont that "expedients are for the hour, principles for the ages." Ironically, he would not recognize the political landscape in Vermont when he retired, dominated by big government liberals. "Declare victory and leave" indeed.

eddie willers said...

I never try to predict "backlash" as the only one I believe I have ever seen come true was the out-of-control "Funerally" that broke out during the memorial for Paul Wellstone.

I do believe that sunk Walter Mondale.

But two things that can be taken away from the "shutdown":

1. Most people didn't see any change in their lives, so why keep "non-essentials" on the payroll?

2. They may have noticed the silly, petty closings (baby panda cameras) or the infuriating (WWII Memorial) and put THAT blame where it belongs...with an arrogant, petty administration.

So yeah, Ann.....if the takeaway is that government is bad, the party that says we ought to have less of it is the 'winner'.

RecChief said...

Also, isn't this what community organizers do? They don't organize everyone, they organize a certain subset of the population against another subset. They characterize their group as having less power (whether or not this is the case) which is where phrases such as "speaking truth to power" and "evil, greedy (insert company or industry here) want to take something/ keep something away from you" come from.

But it is never about uniting everyone. Obama is simply keeping true to form. I don't think this has been mentioned enough or loud enough. I personally don't think this is a workable strategy for governing, but it's hard to have that discussion with people who refuse to entertain that idea.

Which makes this part of his speech all the more hilarious: "the professional activists who profit from conflict, and focus on what the majority of Americans sent us here to do."

Bob Ellison said...

But what is Obama's goal, what would constitute victory for him?

He has power, and that's what he wants, but it's not enough. Unlike Clinton, who caved to the GOP over welfare reform and spending, Obama seems to want more. He wants to fundamentally transform the nation.

KenK said...

The thing I noticed was that I didn't notice anything! Unless you're directly dependent on a federal check either as a employee, contractor, or vendor, for your daily sustenance then, well...ho hum. What shutdown? The only people who get all panicked over this stuff are in the knee pad Obamaphilac media, and fuck them anyway.

RecChief said...

EDH- Apparently the administration's propaganda vis a vis the Tea Party is working though. My father in law, a moderate Republican, thinks the Tea Party is a threat to America, who are a bunch of anarchists who want zero taxes, women to go back to the kitchen, and ,possibly, a return to slavery. maybe because he only gets news from the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, the fact that Michelle Bachman is his representative (who glommed onto the Tea Party as a way to advance her fortunes without doing anything other than getting in front of a camera with the same alacrity as Chuck Schumer), or both.

TosaGuy said...

"Notice the horrible(!) assertion that the sequester is the new baseline,"

Just like the shutdown didn't really affect most people, the sequester has not affected them either. The public is not going to get riled up about undoing the sequester and the PR play of its "devastating" impact has already played out.

The Dems in 2006-2010 when they held everything and last passed budgets that were signed by the president (Bush and Obama) jacked agency budgets well above what they actually needed. Those agencies are still living on that fat that was barely touched by the accounting trick that was the sequester.

YoungHegelian said...

Here's another way that, after the dust settles, the Republicans will win:

The healhcare.gov system implementation is, by all reviews who've seen the guts of it, completely FUBAR'ed**. A system like this, with its enormous scaling & system integration issues, won't be fixed in a few weeks or months. There's at least a year of around the clock work to be done here.

Obama has two choices: 1)force individuals to get insurance that they simply can't get due to federal incompetence or 2) grant a waiver to individuals like he's done to companies.

If Obama does 1, he looks like an idiot & makes life difficult for lots of his voters. If he does 2, the Republicans say "Hey, Mr. Prez, why did you hang tough over this & shutdown the government? All we wanted was a year waiver for everyone, which, thanks to your IT incompetence, you have no choice but to give anyway. Why did you pick a fight over something you knew wasn't going to work? Wait! You did know healthcare.gov wasn't going to work, didn't you?"

** For those of you who think this is a minor glitch, ask yourself why the development team isn't coming forward to defend itself with the results of their stress test protocols for the system. They aren't because there was no stress testing.

Tank said...

You can tell that the Repubs were defeated because Inga and Machine are deliriously happy.

Not kidding.

And they are right, they won (but the country lost).

TosaGuy said...

If the Dems try to undo the sequester and jack spending during the next round of CR or debt-ceiling, they will run into the same buzzsaw as the GOP -- provided the GOP simply counters with status quo CRs.

Congressional Dems are not going to go to the wall to end the sequester -- especially for a president whose lame duck-o-meter rises a point every day.

RecChief said...

TosaGuy - that is kind of what I am getting at. The only way that most Americans know anything about the shutdown, is what the media tells them. And the media has told them it is ruinous for the nation. Same thing for the sequester cuts. They have to keep telling them how terrible those 'cuts' are in order to elicit the proper response.

RecChief said...

but McConell having taken another shutdown off the table already, basically thrown in his hand before the next round is dealt, why wouldn't the administration demand pre sequester levels of funding? I don't see any hole card for Republicans

rhhardin said...

On who won

00:13:15 99: That was my last mile. I have no idea how fast it was.

00:13:17 MAX: You were moving. It's not easy to knock me down.

00:13:20 MAX: I have a low center of gravity. Pretty solid.

00:13:22 99: I'm just gonna call that one a 4:50.

00:13:25 MAX: Impressive. I once ran a 5:16.

00:13:29 99: Oh, really? That's, uh, slower.

00:13:32 MAX: Not everything's a competition.

00:13:34 99: Well, if it were, I'd win.

00:13:36 MAX: Ah. Are you flirting with me?

00:13:39 99: Not at all. Are you flirting with me?

00:13:41 MAX: That depends. Is it working?

00:13:44 99: Not at all.

00:13:46 MAX: Well, nice meeting you! I admire your focus!

traditionalguy said...

Viet Nam strategery was 43 years ago. Which has nothing to do with today's strategery which is who will be blamed for BANKRUPTING the USA and the inevitable creation of a new World Currency.

The Government owned PR apparatus is sudenly pointing every finger it can to blame the GOP as if China and Russia would never have thought of it on their own but for the silly GOP's asking to restrain the deluge of US Dollar Debt.

Jim said...

You can tell how well the GOP is doing by counting the number of times that commentators on the left begin to call the PPACA "the Heritage Plan." It has been my contention that one real benefit accruing to the GOP from the shut down will be that the GOP can say, when the PPACA goes to heck, we tried to put this off for a year, but the Dems would not let us.

raf said...

It is part of the Democrat campaign schtick to always be the oppressed underdog -- "even when they lose, the other guys win" so "even if we won this time, we are still losing (but we are fighting the good fight; send money)" -- so I think this is just playing to their base of entrenched victims-in-their-own-heads. Self pity can be so empowering, if you do it right.

Inga said...

I guess it's less painful claiming you weren't injured as you sit there trying get up and walk on broken legs after a stunt of trying to jump all those cars. After advertising at Tea Party rallies "We are going to shut down the government!" ......and the crowd cheered.

24 Billion and nothing accomplished after 16 days. Perhaps Democrats won in that they now know the President they voted for won't capitulate anymore.

cubanbob said...

How can the Democrats lose when it's once again obvious the RNC-RINOs have no desire or intention to win? If the RINOs win in the next round it will be wholly accidentally and unintended.

TosaGuy said...

"TosaGuy - that is kind of what I am getting at. The only way that most Americans know anything about the shutdown, is what the media tells them. And the media has told them it is ruinous for the nation. Same thing for the sequester cuts. They have to keep telling them how terrible those 'cuts' are in order to elicit the proper response."

RecChief, the bad bad sequester card has been played. People shrugged it off as a Washington game.

n.n said...

Insurance is not equivalent to medical care unless the latter is fairly priced and available.

Sequestration or tax abeyance is not a burden unless the market is distorted by certain policies and regulations, including monopolies or monopolistic practices.

The Nation would like to invent an association through shifting responsibility. They are protecting their interests, including Democrats, and specifically Obama.

Conservatives did not win. Perhaps some Republicans did win, but they are not necessarily conservative. At least not American conservative.

As for the GOP, address the market distortions, including government-sponsored monopolies or monopolistic practices; illegal or unmeasured immigration; unequal trading practices; government-induced distortions of capital and labor; redistributive change; and, of course, elective abortion (i.e. reduction of human life to a commodity).

Richard Dolan said...

"It's all propaganda of one kind or another, but the strategies of propaganda interest me. It's boring when they all do the same thing ...."

This strikes me as deeply cynical, but far and away the most interesting thing in the post. The "all" refers (I think) to an opinion writer's analysis in any journal that self-identifies with a particular partisan view. That would be most of them these days. "Propaganda" here means (again, so it seems) an analysis that takes as a given the partisan world-view that the journal is always pushing, and into which everything is made (sometimes forced) to fit. The notion of "strategies of propaganda" reinforce that view. The Marxists are great at doing that, as are certain religious traditions.

What's interesting about the Althousian take is trying to specify the differences that would qualify opinionated analysis as not-propaganda. A couple of possibilities come to mind, such as a focus on the good faith of the analyst -- views arrived at without forcing the data vs. views that are impervious to the data. But I think her point is rooted in a more fundamental critique -- that, in a hyper-partisan community of commentators, there is no way to give content to the idea of 'good faith', because it's all just an exercise in validating the fundamental (partisan) perspective that provides the never-changing frame through which the world is always viewed.

What gets lost in that critique is any notion of truth and objectivity as a criterion for measuring whether a particular piece qualifies as "propaganda" or, indeed, whether there is any form of opinion-writing that could possibly qualify as not-propaganda. Without a common base, some foundation that all accept and to which anyone can appeal, I don't see how it is possible to distinguish between propaganda (in the Althousian sense) and not-propaganda.

I have a lot of problems with her take on this, not because I have any special interest in this piece in the Nation, or Peter Beinart's similarly contrarian piece elsewhere, but because of the nature or her critique as an engine of destruction. And I suspect that Nietzsche, in his life-as-literature sense, would have agreed with both the Althousian critique and her response -- above all, make sure that it doesn't become "boring."

What a world we live in.

TosaGuy said...

"but McConell having taken another shutdown off the table already, basically thrown in his hand before the next round is dealt, why wouldn't the administration demand pre sequester levels of funding? I don't see any hole card for Republicans."

Obama wanted this shutdown because the GOP obliged him by going on the offense. The Democrats in the current elected environment own the status quo when the GOP goes on offense.

To end the sequester will require Obama to go on offense and he has a poor track record when he doesn't control all the levers of power. Americans won't put up with a sequester/budget CR showdown in January because 1) It's only news; 2) The GOP can negotiate from the status quo position

The wild card is that the GOP can always screw it up.

TosaGuy said...

but to get to your "hole" card analogy.

If playing pinochle or similar game my grandparents always played....the GOP has a hand were they won't win anything, but they won't lose anything if they play out their hand logically.

Like the GOP during the shutdown, the Dems in the near future will not have a hand that allows them to sustain a run no matter how much the media will egg them on.

RecChief said...

Inga, can you provide an example of Obama's capitulation? or are you characterizing his agreement on the "sequester" as a capitulation? Remember, that was agreed to before his re-election, so he couldn't say, " I will not negotiate," I think you have to recognize what his top priority was in that "negotiation".

Henry said...

I think everybody won.

We had a battle between fools and wankers. The fools chased some fuzzy symbolic wins and ended up looking like fools. The wankers held the line. They continue to wank.

It was a small crisis. The advantage of small crises is that they give fools and wankers some experience in dealing under pressure. I'm happy to have small crises like this. The more we have, the better we will be prepared to avoid big crises.

The Nation thinks high-pressure budget negotiations are a big crisis. These wankers haven't learned much.

phx said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
TosaGuy said...

Lock the thread. Henry wins.

Inga said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Inga said...

Rec Chief,

First thing that pops into my mind is the Bush Tax cut extention, then the 2011 Debt Ceiling negotiations. He took a Public Option off the table in Health Care Reform, that was a biggie. There are more.

Michael said...

Obama is a shitty negotiator (and apparently friend-less in D.C.) and thus has decided that what he wants is non-negotiatable. A silly and unserious person at the end of the day. Not a factor, actually, as was made clear in the recent "solution."

The Republicans luckily were not taken up on their demand that the healthcare debacle be delayed for a year. Unless there is a miracle this festering sore on the nation will blossom and be lanced by reality in the very middle of the 2014 campaign season. Let the Govt. pretend that the website is going to be fixed. Let the talking heads continue to pretend that rates will be lower for everyone. But by the middle of January it will be very clear that the plan is not working and it will no longer be possible for the media to provide even a fig leaf of cover. The current embarrassment will segue into disaster.

It would be very nice if the laws of economics could be suspended for Obamacare to work. But they cannot.

Marshal said...

It's all propaganda of one kind or another, but the strategies of propaganda interest me.

In this case the key is understanding the differences in the audiences. The left wants the apolitical public to believe Republicans lost. That feeling influences those voters to believe Republicans did something worth voting against. But the left also wants their core to believe they're on the verge of losing so they continue their activism and fundraising efforts.

Larry J said...

I'm surprised to read this, because I thought what I was observing — to the extent that I did not avert my eyes — was the liberal media doing the Democratic Party's work of declaring victory.

The liberal media (and that's about 98% of the media) is little more than the mouthpiece for the Democrat Party. They'll pass along just about every party line without the slightest question.

During the shutdown, huge numbers of non-essential federal employees stayed home. They're going to be paid, so essentially they got over two weeks of a free vacation. However, for many of them (especially those who write and enforce regulations), that's money well spent. During those two weeks, they were not doing damage to the country. It's like how misguided people complain about how much golf Obama plays. They're missing the fact that Obama does less damage to the country when he's playing golf than when he's playing president. He should play golf every day. Likewise, we might be better off giving most of those non-essential government employees early retirement and not hire anyone to replace them.

RecChief said...

Inga- not surprisingly, I don't see it that way. Obama didn't capitulate because his goal was re-election, everything else was secondary to that goal.

Inga said...

Yes Larry J, let's cut staff to agencies like Social Security and Medicare and HUD and the VA to the bone, where it already happens to be. Who cares if veterans are homeless and have to wait for years to get their disability claims approved.

The "I got mine and to hell with the rest of you" syndrome.

Carl Pham said...

The Nation isn't peeling off. The modern Democratic Party lives by successive crisis-mongering. OMG! The sky is going to fall unless you send us $3 IMMEDIATELY to defeat those orc Republicans! Aieeeee! Then when the sky doesn't fall they do the end-zone dance and predict two full centuries of 5% economic growth, 0% unemployment, free health care and ice cream for all, and a permanent socialist state.

For eight seconds. Then it's back to Aieee! Be afraid...and send us your money. To hell with the kids' teeth, the Republicans will pull them all out with pliers if you don't send us that money right now!

It's true there isn't necessarily great timing between the various organs of the Party. Sometimes one (The Nation) is back into the FUD phase before another (CNN or the President himself) is still doing the hokey pokey We're Number One dance. But this is meaningless.

Jim said...

Inca, You do know that the outfit that came up with the 24B$ figure also was rating the MBS's AAA until the bitter end?

CatherineM said...

Peter Beinart said the same thing in the Daily Beast yesterday.

I wonder what the view on this Presidency would be if Obama were a R instead of a D.

Carl Pham said...

Also...sure it's all propaganda. But that does not mean it's all false, or equally distant from reality, nor even that it is all imbued of equal cynicism and probable harm.

wildswan said...

The abolitionists were never a majority and not even a large minority. But their position prevailed. The same will happen with the Tea Party. The point is: we are out of money. We can change our ways now and manage the transition to living within our income so the transition is as little harmful as possible. That is Paul Ryan's position and the Tea Party position. Or we can "detroit",i.e., deny the problem, demonize the opposition, and thereby cause the transition when it comes to be as hard as possible on the poor. "Detroiting" is what Obama and the Democrats are doing to the nation. They think can make the IT catastrophe of the health care rollout turn into "a few glitches" - and they think they can make their catastrophic economic policies not lead to painful bankruptcy for the nation. Denial is not a policy. Furthermore, it is the minorities who are suffering most in Detroit and who will suffer most in the coming Obamacrash. But the "detroiters" don't care. They let bankruptcy happen in Detroit and they will let it happen in the US as a whole.
And they'll never stop blaming those who tried to prevent the disaster.

Edward Lunny said...

" Obama is a shitty " person, period. As well his administration and supporters. There, fify. The $17,000,000,000,000+ will never be repaid. His admirers cannot survive without government assistance. That has been shown time and again. I have no sympathy for them and their choices.

RecChief said...

"Yes Larry J, let's cut staff to agencies like Social Security and Medicare and HUD and the VA to the bone, where it already happens to be."

1. There is a lot more to government that the agencies you name. I spent 30 years in uniform, There isn't a governemnt program/ department that couldn't cut at LEAST 5% from its budget and do just fine.

2. Social Security and Medicare are unsustainable in their present forms. Math.

3. Getting back to the VA, the scenario you described hasn't changed much, regardless of administrations or Congresses past. Your concern for veterans is laudable, but I can't help feeling being used as a pawn (again) only to be forgotten or vilified (again) if people with your political goals achieve them.

Inga said...

RecChief,
That's how I saw using veterans for the march on DC recently. Concerned about their access to monuments, yet disregarded when it comes to their health and welfare? And I don't mean "welfare" as some might want to skew it. They earned with their blood, the disablity benefits they are made to wait year's for.

grackle said...

Unless there is a miracle this festering sore on the nation will blossom and be lanced by reality in the very middle of the 2014 campaign season.

I don't think so. I hate Obamacare, have fought it and will continue to fight it in any way possible. But since when did reality ever mean much? The Canadians have it and it's crappy but I don't see any overwhelming call in Canada to ditch it. Great Britain's national healthcare is a joke even in Britain but, again, no major push from the citizens to get rid of it. Once the yoke is in place the mule calms down and pulls the wagon.

Inga said...

BTW, disabled veterans also depend on HUD and the SSA to process their claims, not just the VA.

TosaGuy said...

"They earned with their blood, the disablity benefits they are made to wait year's for."

As a VA client, I have received nothing but good care from medical professionals.

However, every single non-medical person I deal with cannot do their job and simply don't care about doing their job correctly. Every. Single. One.

Money won't fix that.

Inga said...

Tosa Guy, I'll let my sister know that you appreciate the medical care you received. My sister just retired from the VA hospital in Tomah, WI. after many years there.

RecChief said...

I have to agree with TosaGuy on his opinion of the VA. all aspects.

damikesc said...

The liberal media (and that's about 98% of the media) is little more than the mouthpiece for the Democrat Party. They'll pass along just about every party line without the slightest question.

MSNBC is blaming Republicans for Obamacare's bad rollout.

The party that didn't vote for it, opposed it the entire time, and called for a delay due to problems --- is the REASON there are problems, according to MSNBC.

Yes Larry J, let's cut staff to agencies like Social Security and Medicare and HUD and the VA to the bone, where it already happens to be.

Can you cite current staffing levels for any of these agencies? And how many more people they should have to be suitably staffed and not "cut to the bone" on staffing?

Concerned about their access to monuments, yet disregarded when it comes to their health and welfare? And I don't mean "welfare" as some might want to skew it. They earned with their blood, the disablity benefits they are made to wait year's for.

Funding has increased 41% since 2009. That's NOT enough?

Michael said...

Inga typed:"That's how I saw using veterans for the march on DC recently."

Because the veterans did not go their on their own free will but were "used" in a political drama that paid Democrat "protesters" opposed. Right.

Democrats want to starve our grandchildren and close our dialysis centers and steal from the productive to create a newer and bigger coterie of people on the dole while aborting African Americans at a stunning pace.

Pettifogger said...

My memory is cloudy on this, but I think the Smothers Brothers may have preceded Aiken with the declare-victory-and-get-out comment.

Inga said...

Michael, you sound a bit hysterical.

Marshal said...

Inga said...
Michael, you sound a bit hysterical.


How ironic from someone claiming others "don't care about veterans health and welfare".

Inga said...

Shutdown cost military $600M, layoffs looming.

Inga said...

VSOs use shutdown as case for advance VA Funding

Looks like they don't agree with veterans here on Althouse.

Michael said...

Inga: Cost estimated 600M in productivity. Two important words you left out. Estimated. Productivity.

The Veterans want to be pre-paid in case the president insists on another shutdown.

Your comment at 12:28 seems to argue against something that hasn't been asserted. A bit overwrought.

damikesc said...

From Inga's link:

"The government shutdown cost the Defense Department at least $600 million in lost productivity and left DoD at funding levels that could force layoffs next year for the furloughed civilian personnel who just returned to work, Pentagon Comptroller Bob Hale said Thursday."

"lost productivity" is a myth and unmeasurable. That's a euphemism for "number pulled out of thin air"

And layoffs for civilian personnel. That'd be just terrible. Nobody in the government is non-essential, right?

"When the government shutdown beginning at midnight on Sept. 30, VA healthcare and medical facilities were protected because they already had their 2014 budget approved last year. But that was not the case for discretionary accounts, which include money for disability claims to vets, their dependents or survivors, as well as money for veterans attending school on the GI Bill."

Actually, Obama had the power to FULLY fund the DoD. He chose not to.

But who doesn't want to have money guaranteed a year in advance? Perhaps those four years with no budget --- and one year with no serious budget --- might have been poor ideas.

TosaGuy said...

"VSOs use shutdown as case for advance VA Funding"

I am a VFW member and my primary beef with that organization is that their main lobbying effort is to ask for more money -- they, and other groups, often are a one-trick legislative pony. I have expressed to the leadership more than once that they need to be partners in prioritizing and not just another group shilling for money.

Inga said...

The Cost of Crisis Driven Fiscal Policy

Inga said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael said...

Inga. You did read the Macroeconomics piece you linked to did you not? If you had I wonder what you are trying to prove. These are the people whose estimate of the cost of the partial govt. shutdown was half of the S&P estimate.

Inga said...

Dami, tell me why there was no budget agreement? How many times did Democrats ask for a Budget Conference Comittee and were blocked since the Senate passed a budget in March of 2013? More than 19 times.

Inga said...

My aim is to point out to the deniers that this brinkmanship game y'all seem to like playing has harmed us and will continue to harm us. The numbers may vary between groups, I don't really care. Harm HAS been done, it cannot be denied by rational people.

Michael said...

Inga. The Republicans refused to negotiate 19 times. Non negotiable tax provisions at stake. Works lots of ways when you think about it.

Michael said...

Inga. Your vocabulary of cliches expands by the hour. Deniers. Teapublicans. You have the entire juvenile rhetorical arsenal.

Swap,spreads coming in. Bond market relaxed. Stocks up. Earnings coming in better than expected. Rejoice, Inga, the rich are having to cough up more of their winnings.

Inga said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Inga said...

Ah Michael, you are so predictable. It's almost amusing.

David said...

As I read the "lost productivity" article linked by Inga, the DOD was prevented from spending $600 million by the effects of the shutdown. By "lost productivity" they mean that they had $600 million less to spend.

That said, Republicans lost. Big time. The party is getting closer to a serious third party effort, which will deliver both Congress and the White House to the Democrats in 2016.

Thanks can change fast, but that's the present direction.

Unknown said...

In terms of negotiation strategy and biases, I think the Nation may be correct that sequestration is now anchored in the public's mind as some sort of valid cost cutting strategy.

And I think they are also right to say the public will forget WHO they are angry with and just remember they are angry.

Michael said...

Unknown wrote. "And I think they are also right to say the public will forget WHO they are angry with and just remember they are angry."

Would that it were so. Unfortunately, one only has to look to Inga to see how wrong you are. Inga knows that the Republicans thwarted budget talks 19 times. Not 5 times, not 11 times but 19. How would she know that? Why the press helpfully took up the administration's request to paint the Republicans as obstructionists. We dont see articles by the hundreds about the Republicans thwarting budget talks four times or even five. Now why is that?

The answer to that is that the White House runs the propaganda machine and the MSM took up the call of 19. Completely incurious until that number. Odd.

Inga said...

Michael, all one had to do was listen to the debate on the floor of the Senate the night of the government closed. Patty Murray and other Democrats in debate and in press conferences recounted the 19 thwarted requests for a budget conference committee. That is where I heard it first. Weren't you listening to the debate on the Senate floor? Or in the House?

Inga said...

Perhaps you should be asking yourselves why your right wing talk radio and Fox failed to mention the Republicans blocking Democrat's budget conference committe requests. Talk about low information voters.

Inga said...


1. 4/23 Senator Reid requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator Toomey blocked.

2. 5/6 Senator Reid requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator Cruz blocked.

3. 5/7 Senator Murray requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator McConnell blocked.

4. 5/8 Senator Warner asked unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator McConnell blocked.

5. 5/9 Senator Murray asked unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator McConnell blocked.

6. 5/14 Senator Warner asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator McConnell blocked.

7. 5/15 Senator Wyden asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator McConnell blocked.

8. 5/16 Senator Murray asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator Lee blocked.

9. 5/21 Senator Murray asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator Paul blocked.

10. 5/22 Senator Kaine asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator Rubio blocked.

11. 5/23 Senator McCaskill asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator Lee blocked.

12. 6/4 Senator Murray asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator Rubio blocked.

13. 6/12 Senator Kaine asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator Lee blocked.

14. 6/19 Senator Murray asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator Toomey blocked.

15. 6/26 Senator Murray requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator Cruz blocked.

16. 7/11 Senator Murray requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator Marco Rubio blocked.

17. 7/17 Senator Murray requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator Mike Lee blocked.

18. 8/1 Senator Durbin requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator Marco Rubio blocked.

19. 10/2 Senator Murray requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator Toomey blocked.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/19-times-democrats-tried-to-negotiate-with-republicans-20131007

cubanbob said...

Inga what is it they are supposed to haggle about? Spending money we don't have on things we don't absolutely need? Here is a simple solution: take Clinton's last budget, Democrats love Clinton, adjust for inflation and population. Then start cutting from there.

Michael said...

Inga. But you didnt notice it until it had happened 19 times. Why werent you in umbrage after seven or twelve times? Because you werent told to be. Mooooo. Mooooooo.

Inga said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Inga said...

And Michael you downplay what happened because Fox gave you your "talking points". Let's pretend it never happended, let's pretend it wasn't serious, a fake crisis. Bull, go mooo elsewhere. You are more partisan than most here.

Michael said...

Inga. 19. That is all they want you to say. And cut and paste the individual times. But you didnt know or care until you were told and the press didnt know or care until they were told to. Propoganda works especially well. Interesting to see so obvious a case.

PS. You have no idea what my opinion is on the recent shut down other than my observation that it will soon be forgotten and that the financial damage was deminimus. Beyond that you rely on the charactures put in your head.

Inga said...

Michael, you're trying too hard. You are quite transparent. You've been for two days now, saying it was nothing for anyone to worry their heads over. "Chump change". Your attempts at propaganda is for chumps.

damikesc said...

Inga, as I asked last time you mentioned it...why is unanimous consent requires for anything? It is not REQUIRED for any government business I have heard of.

Inga said...

"Without Unanimous Consent, it requires a senate resolution, which is an extremely lengthy process and may still fail to pass a cloture vote."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/10/09/1245670/-Senate-Republicans-reject-budget-negotiations-for-21st-nbsp-time
----------------

Yes, yes, I know it's the Daily Kos. Try to see beyond that if you can.

Inga said...

Make that 22 requests to form budget conference committee

Why give unanimous consent now? Nothing more to extort?

Michael said...

Inga. Process is supposed to work like this. http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/34649.pdf

Civics lesson for Kos Kid.

The Senate had the President's budget in hand to discuss, right? The budget that by law must be produced by rhe president by a date certain?

Michael said...

Inga. Process is supposed to work like this. http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/34649.pdf

Civics lesson for Kos Kid.

The Senate had the President's budget in hand to discuss, right? The budget that by law must be produced by rhe president by a date certain?

stlcdr said...

When you are in a lifeboat that's full of holes, you blame the captain and crew all you like for sinking the ship, and the poor state of the lifeboats, but you are still in a lifeboat full of holes.

damikesc said...

Cannot filibuster budgets. Let's try and do better.

Illuninati said...

The Republicans lose big. Hate speech is very effective. When the president indulges in hate speech which is amplified among much of the media it is very effective. The country will also lose big because of this hate campaign.

Inga said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Inga said...

Ok, try this. Reid wanted it to go on record showing the many times they blocked negotiations, just in case at the 11th hour they themselves made a pathetically transparent request for a conference.

Inga said...

Michael, try watching debate from the House or Senate once in a while, it might keep you in the loop and you wouldn't have to rely on Fox.