FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Gov't Shutdown incoming (Page 3)

  This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   
Author Topic: Gov't Shutdown incoming
theamazeeaz
Member
Member # 6970

 - posted      Profile for theamazeeaz   Email theamazeeaz         Edit/Delete Post 
Daniel Webster
Henry Clay
John C. Calhoun.

Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 7625

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum         Edit/Delete Post 
The "make it hurt" angle is right wing propaganda. Choosing to keep certain appropriations-funded sites or parks open would be a violation of the Antideficiency act.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/shutdown.asp

There may be a line between passively not staffing a monument and barricading it, but Matt has covered the reasons why such the latter might be the most reasonable course of action. Without appropriations, even paying for garbage removal could be in violation of the law.

Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
Or is there an alternative explanation for why they happened, but they are reasonable actions and not the petulant ones they appear to me to be?

That would be it. The shutdown contingency plan that has been put into use now (as well as the designation of furloughed personnel) has been clearly lined up for years, and are closely tied to a number of things, including

1. what the national parks are literally allowed by law to do or pay people to do in the event of a shutdown, and
2. liability issues wrt public on grounds owned and nominally managed by federal park personnel. who are not there.

The rules governing what has to be shut down and why they have to be shut down actually largely predates the Obama administration, so it's been quite a laugh to watch right wing news sources collect images of things like scenic overpasses and dockway parks and say "they're closing them even though they require no money to maintain! they're just trying to make us hurt!" when in reality they are just following the rules for what happens when you must furlough the staff required for oversight, and without appropriations issues for oversight, maintenance, security, garbage removal, and liability issues, you have to make sure the area is closed off and clearly marked as closed.

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/us/a-federal-budget-crisis-months-in-the-planning.html?smid=tw-share&_r=1&
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elison R. Salazar
Member
Member # 8565

 - posted      Profile for Elison R. Salazar   Email Elison R. Salazar         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
You have to look at the long game. If this tactic results in one molecule of victory for the Republican party, expect it to immediately becomes par the course for the regular business of government. Not only will the Republicans have to deal with a future minority Democratic party that refuses to fund the things Republicans think are important, the Republican party will in during THIS administration, continue to do this. They might pass a funding bill for a few months, maybe even a year if we are optimistic, but they will do this again. The establishment GOP won't want to but their large Tea Party caucus just played this game, they got them all on board, they have no reason not to threaten another shutdown because they actually want the government to shrink.

The only way to establish order is to not give one single inch.

Not one.

If not one inch is given, the legislators will move to another strategy, and honestly this strategy *is* the result of their trying other legitimate levers of government and not getting the desired result. Think about how presidential appointees used to be rubber stamped by Congress, until one day, Congress tried using it to secure concessions, and it worked. It's now par the course to challenge EVERY single appointee.

The idea of us using the threat of government collapse or shutdown every few months in a sordid game of chicken as the means to pass routine legislation, not even new things, scares me. I hate that idea. Hate it.

Except this is exactly what happened in the 70's, 80's, and the 90's. It was a regular ocurrance for decades, but since we have gone a while without having one, it is all of the sudden a huge deal now? If negotiations during shutdowns never took place during other shutdowns, Clinton would have never balanced the budget, Medicare funding would have never been allowed to be used for abortions in cases of rape or incest, and we would have never gotten welfare reform.

I understand the negative impacts of a shutdown. What I do not understand is the blatant effort on the administration's part to make it as painful as possible. Today two elderly people were kicked out of their home near Las Vegas because the house falls on government land.

There are cones going up on a highway so people can't park and look at Mount Rushmore. Parking your car, getting out, and taking a picture obviously costs the government a ton of money, yet having someone police the area doesn't.... Right?

Earlier the Amber Alert website was taken down while the First Lady's "Get Moving" website was left up. (Following a number of complaints the Amber Alert site is now back up.)

You ever gonna answer the question? I'll repeat it for you, if you believe Obamacare to be a bad law that hurts businesses, would you support instead Single Payer?
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
Is it possible Geraine forgot the question, or hasn't had time to answer all the remarks pointed his way in the middle of the week? Just a thought.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
Or he just didn't think Blayne was worth answering. What's the point? It's a non-sequitur.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Black Pearl
Member
Member # 11788

 - posted      Profile for The Black Pearl   Email The Black Pearl         Edit/Delete Post 
one time was enough blayne
Posts: 1407 | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elison R. Salazar
Member
Member # 8565

 - posted      Profile for Elison R. Salazar   Email Elison R. Salazar         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Is it possible Geraine forgot the question, or hasn't had time to answer all the remarks pointed his way in the middle of the week? Just a thought.

If you check the date for the first time I asked, it was over a week ago.

quote:

Or he just didn't think Blayne was worth answering. What's the point? It's a non-sequitur.

Ha, it's not a non-sequitor because Geraine brought it up first, that "Obamacare is flawed" and the 'Democrats should have compromised in order to make it better for small businesses by delaying it further.' Is a point he made, so challenging that point is perfectly fine.

We had this discussion before with your and capax's hypocrisy regarding how apparently gun ownership is some sort of inalienable constitutionally granted right that shouldn't be infringed upon in anyway that would make it difficult for poor people to own a gun; but the right to vote is completely different because this situation is different OH LOOK A SQUIRREL, this conversation is a non-sequitor!

You claim any contradiction is a non-sequitor.

quote:

one time was enough blayne

Why? Repeating the question when evaded is something many posters here have done before.

quote:

John Boehner on ABC's This Week: "We are not going to pass a clean debt limit increase."

LETS GET READY TO RRRRRRRRRRRUMBLE!

And for the collapse of western civilization because Republicans can't stop being crybabies and Democrats chose an awfully bad time to grow a pair of balls.

Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Black Pearl
Member
Member # 11788

 - posted      Profile for The Black Pearl   Email The Black Pearl         Edit/Delete Post 
so?
Posts: 1407 | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The White Whale
Member
Member # 6594

 - posted      Profile for The White Whale           Edit/Delete Post 
Thomas Friedman actually has two insightful columns. I stopped reading him awhile ago, but these ring true.

Democracy at Stake

quote:
What we’re seeing here is how three structural changes that have been building in American politics have now, together, reached a tipping point — creating a world in which a small minority in Congress can not only hold up their own party but the whole government. And this is the really scary part: The lawmakers doing this can do so with high confidence that they personally will not be politically punished, and may, in fact, be rewarded. When extremists feel that insulated from playing by the traditional rules of our system, if we do not defend those rules — namely majority rule and the fact that if you don’t like a policy passed by Congress, signed by the president and affirmed by the Supreme Court then you have to go out and win an election to overturn it; you can’t just put a fiscal gun to the country’s head — then our democracy is imperiled.

This danger was neatly captured by Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank, when he wrote on Tuesday about the 11th-hour debate in Congress to avert the shutdown. Noting a shameful statement by Speaker John Boehner, Milbank wrote: “Democrats howled about ‘extortion’ and ‘hostage taking,’ which Boehner seemed to confirm when he came to the floor and offered: ‘All the Senate has to do is say ‘yes,’ and the government is funded tomorrow.’ It was the legislative equivalent of saying, ‘Give me the money and nobody gets hurt.’ ”

US Fringe Festival

quote:
In other words, the only thing standing between mainstream Republicans and a hellish future of kowtowing to Ted Cruz, never seeing the inside of the White House and possibly losing the House is President Obama’s refusal to give in to the shutdown blackmail that Cruz & Co. have cooked up. The more pragmatic Republicans, who know that this is a disaster for their party but won’t confront Cruz & Co., have settled on this bogus line: “Well, sure, maybe Cruz and the Tea Party went too far, but it’s still President Obama’s fault. He’s president. He should negotiate with them. He needs to lead.”

Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar:
And for the collapse of western civilization ...

Every cloud has a silver lining

quote:
According to the Washington Post, a debt default would have some clearly positive outcomes. Specifically it told readers that it would weaken the United States position as a financial safe haven for the rest of the world.

This would have two beneficial effects. If less money flowed from elsewhere in the world to the United States this would reduce the value of the dollar relative to other currencies. This has in fact been a stated goal of both the Bush and Obama administration, which both claimed that they wanted to end "currency manipulation." Currency manipulation means that other countries are deliberately buying up dollars to raise the value of the dollar against their own currency.

The effort to end currency manipulation is an effort to lower the value of the dollar. If investors stop buying dollars because it is no longer a safe haven, then this would lower the value of the dollar in the same way that if foreign central banks stopped buying dollars to "manipulate" the value of their currency, it would lower the value of the dollar. In other words, people who would applaud the end of currency manipulation should also applaud the ending of the dollar as the world's safe haven currency.

The other positive part of this story is that such a shift would lead to a downsizing of the financial industry in the United States. This would allow the resources in the sector to be reallocated to more productive sectors of the economy. It would also reduce the power of the financial industry in American politics.

A debt default may still be a bad story, but the vast majority of people in the United States have little to fear from the ending of the dollar as a safe haven currency.

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/washington-post-makes-debt-default-sound-attractive
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
That sounds remarkably like, "Weight loss is a good thing for the overweight US, so they have nothing to fear from these tube worm parasites."

The benefits of a weaker dollar are not offset by the uptick in interest payments the US will incur attendant to the increase in risk.

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by The White Whale:
quote:
In other words, the only thing standing between mainstream Republicans and a hellish future of kowtowing to Ted Cruz, never seeing the inside of the White House and possibly losing the House is President Obama’s refusal to give in to the shutdown blackmail that Cruz & Co. have cooked up. The more pragmatic Republicans, who know that this is a disaster for their party but won’t confront Cruz & Co., have settled on this bogus line: “Well, sure, maybe Cruz and the Tea Party went too far, but it’s still President Obama’s fault. He’s president. He should negotiate with them. He needs to lead.”

Salient.

The numbers are coming in and this is, unsurprisingly, a complete disaster for republicans. Three polling groups doing 'generic' analysis already show Republicans losing the house over the shutdown. It's really been that bad. It's pitted Republicans against, at minimum, 70% of the country.

It's a bit much to bear, even with their gerrymandered buffering against proportional representation.

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
They won't lose the house. Americans don't have long enough political memories.

It might allow the dems the hang on to the Senate though.

And I don't want them to lose the House. Even if the dems win it back, they still can't govern with a GOP filibuster in the Senate. Better to have a whipping boy to blame for when Hillary runs.

[ October 09, 2013, 06:02 PM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar:
You ever gonna answer the question? I'll repeat it for you, if you believe Obamacare to be a bad law that hurts businesses, would you support instead Single Payer?

I did answer your question, albeit in another thread. I see no reason I need to answer it again in this one.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Originally posted by The White Whale:
quote:
In other words, the only thing standing between mainstream Republicans and a hellish future of kowtowing to Ted Cruz, never seeing the inside of the White House and possibly losing the House is President Obama’s refusal to give in to the shutdown blackmail that Cruz & Co. have cooked up. The more pragmatic Republicans, who know that this is a disaster for their party but won’t confront Cruz & Co., have settled on this bogus line: “Well, sure, maybe Cruz and the Tea Party went too far, but it’s still President Obama’s fault. He’s president. He should negotiate with them. He needs to lead.”

Salient.

The numbers are coming in and this is, unsurprisingly, a complete disaster for republicans. Three polling groups doing 'generic' analysis already show Republicans losing the house over the shutdown. It's really been that bad. It's pitted Republicans against, at minimum, 70% of the country.

It's a bit much to bear, even with their gerrymandered buffering against proportional representation.

Which really isn't any different than the last time the threat of a government shutdown was looming.

Lyrhawn is right in that they probably won't lose the House. They may lose a few seats, but I don't think they will take the majority. What they DID do though is screw their chances at taking back the Senate, which before the shutdown they were in a decent position to do.

It's not just the Republicans losing favorability though. Obama's approval ratings have dropped almost 7% since the shutdown, down to 37%. The Democratic Party has also dropped to just over a 40% approval rating.

The president isn't doing himself any favors either though, especially with closing open area locations. Not letting WWII vets have access to the National Mall but allowing an immigration rally a few days later isn't really a smart thing to do. Either close it completely (from what I have read it actually costs more to keep these open areas closed than to keep them open) or let everyone have access.

Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
It's not as simple as the President deciding 'these things stay open during a shutdown'. I'm not sure why people seriously offer that, as though all that would be necessary is for someone in government to will it done, and it's done. It's even been explained in this thread how the process of shutdown isn't, once started, as arbitrary and easily modified as you think.

I'm deeply frustrated when I hear stuff like 'the President isn't doing himself any favors'. It skips entirely over the part where his opposition is the one that has forced this scenario. A minority of them think it's important enough-well let them own up to it then!

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 7625

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum         Edit/Delete Post 
Just to give an example -

Garbage removal = not an essential service, it's probably illegal (see here) to pay for it during a shutdown.

Guarding federal property = essential service, it's okay to continue this during a shutdown.

This is why you end up with barricades and guards around "open air" stuff. It's not because Obama wants to make it hurt.

Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
There are also safety and liability concerns for many things like federal roads and national parks which explains why they are closed.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elison R. Salazar
Member
Member # 8565

 - posted      Profile for Elison R. Salazar   Email Elison R. Salazar         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:
Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar:
You ever gonna answer the question? I'll repeat it for you, if you believe Obamacare to be a bad law that hurts businesses, would you support instead Single Payer?

I did answer your question, albeit in another thread. I see no reason I need to answer it again in this one.
edit: found it.

quote:

The answer is complex. There are numerous things in the ACA that are wonderful like no lifetime maximums, preventative care, deductible caps, etc. From 2010-2013, this was a massive step up over the status quo. From 2014 going forward however, I would (and I can't believe I am going to say this) prefer a Single Payer / Universal Healthcare system as opposed to the Affordable Care Act.

I argued against it quite a bit back when it was passed simply because it was backed by Democrats. Yeah, I know. Now however that we have had some time to digest it a bit more, I am torn. I think there are some VERY positive things in the bill that will genuinely help people. On the other hand, there are numerous parts of this bill that are downright horrible for job growth.

I work primarily with small businesses with 25-100 employees. What I have seen so far, at least here in Nevada, are that rates are skyrocketing. We are seeing increases as high as 70% from Aetna and Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield. Many of my clients that have less than 50 employees are thinking about dropping their plans entirely and having their employees go through the exchanges, as it is becoming too cost prohibitive. Those employers teetering on 50 employees are cutting hours and changing employees to part time due to the Full Time Equivalency rule. Even if you have 60 employees, cutting 40 of them to 20 hours a week will keep you under 50, and you won't have to provide health insurance.

Employers now have to pay at least 50% of the employer only coverage of health insurance. If a plan was $400 a month, your employer had to pay $200. I just saw a client whose premiums jumped to over $650 a month, for an increase of about $175 a month to the employer. They currently have 40 full time employees, which means an increase of $84,000 in 2014 over 2013.

One of my clients has over 100 employees, and they are cutting 70 positions to part time. Even though they do have provide health insurance to their full time employees, you don't have to provide it to part time employees. The part time employees can still go to the exchange, and the company does not get penalized.

This is one of the reasons 90% of the new jobs that have been created over the past few years have been part time. Employers see these massive increases and are cutting wherever they can.

My brother worked for a pizza chain as an assistant manager, and the franchise owner cut every single person on his payroll, including managers, to 28 hours a week and classified them as part time. Yes, he has to provide health insurance since he has over 50 FTE employees, but since all of his employees are part time they don't qualify. Essentially he has a plan with nobody on it. Luckily he just got a full time job at Amazon. (Good thing too, he is getting married next month!)

Currently that loophole is there, and employers are taking advantage of it. The problem is there really isn't a good way to fix it.

I think part of the down trend in support for the bill is due in part to these cuts in full time positions.

Here is what I predict will happen:

1) Employers will continue to cut full time positions in favor of part time

2) The part time employees will go through the exchanges for their coverage.

3) The part time people in the exchanges will not be able to afford the premiums, resulting in their premiums being subsidized.

4) Legislation to ammend the bill to either raise taxes to fund the subsidies or force employers to hire more full time employees will be introduced. The tax bill will probably pass.

5) The exchanges will continue to grow and more and more people will be subsidized until it becomes too expensive to maintain again.

6) At this point, a Single Payer System will be introduced in order to "fix" everything. Republicans will argue that we should keep portions of the ACA but get rid fo the rest, which will give an incentive to employers to hire more full time employees. Democrats will argue that if we did that it will cause people to lose their insurance. Gridlock will commence but eventually we will get Single Payer.


Found it, just so we're clear, you know that the ACA is all that could've been accomplished with the "healthcare is socialism" angle played by the GOP right? Its so that people will realize they like healthcare, see that it works, and then the progressive caucus can lobby for singleplayer. The ACA is a transitive step.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elison R. Salazar
Member
Member # 8565

 - posted      Profile for Elison R. Salazar   Email Elison R. Salazar         Edit/Delete Post 
Looks like Minorities might be reduced back to being 3/4ths a person soon...

Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
That sounds remarkably like, "Weight loss is a good thing for the overweight US, so they have nothing to fear from these tube worm parasites."

The benefits of a weaker dollar are not offset by the uptick in interest payments the US will incur attendant to the increase in risk.

An uptick in interest payments isn't an unambiguously bad outcome. There are winners from higher interest rates and there are losers from higher interest rates. Be one of the winners.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
capaxinfiniti
Member
Member # 12181

 - posted      Profile for capaxinfiniti           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar:
We had this discussion before with your and capax's hypocrisy regarding how apparently gun ownership is some sort of inalienable constitutionally granted right that shouldn't be infringed upon in anyway that would make it difficult for poor people to own a gun; but the right to vote is completely different because this situation is different

Either that's an embarrassing effort to misrepresent my position or you must have misremembered what was said in that discussion.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Geraine:
Lyrhawn is right in that they probably won't lose the House. They may lose a few seats, but I don't think they will take the majority. What they DID do though is screw their chances at taking back the Senate, which before the shutdown they were in a decent position to do.

Hallucination no. 2 of right-wing news sources. They were not at all going to take the senate back.

And if the shutdown proceeds all the way to the elections, they will probably lose the house. The short memory spans of Americans and their tendency to vote against their best interests notwithstanding.

quote:
The president isn't doing himself any favors either though, especially with closing open area locations. Not letting WWII vets have access to the National Mall but allowing an immigration rally a few days later isn't really a smart thing to do. Either close it completely (from what I have read it actually costs more to keep these open areas closed than to keep them open) or let everyone have access.
"the president is not doing himself any favors with this thing that is actually not the fault of decisions he made but is actually the inevitable result of republican obstructionism."

sure. See the two responses after yours for clarification as to what's actually going on.

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
That sounds remarkably like, "Weight loss is a good thing for the overweight US, so they have nothing to fear from these tube worm parasites."

The benefits of a weaker dollar are not offset by the uptick in interest payments the US will incur attendant to the increase in risk.

An uptick in interest payments isn't an unambiguously bad outcome. There are winners from higher interest rates and there are losers from higher interest rates. Be one of the winners.
I'm honestly curious as to why a higher interest rate for the government to borrow money can be a good thing.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
Wouldn't it mean the value of the dollar drops? That's a boon for American exports. Might mean the price of oil drops too since petroleum is traded in dollars.

That's not going to help when you want to get a house or car loan, so, hope you already locked those in.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
Yes, a weaker dollar is good for exports. But I'm not seeing the benefits of a higher interest rate when the government needs to borrow money and is already finding it hard to service its debt.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
Trivially, people who still loan money to the US government would earn a higher interest rate due to the risk. As an example, pension plans and retirees with money saved up would benefit.

Higher interest rates for the US government would also imply that investment would be moving elsewhere such as other countries which may very well have more productive uses for the money or could benefit from lower interest rates.

And yes, the dollar would drop as that article indicates, "In other words, people who would applaud the end of currency manipulation should also applaud the ending of the dollar as the world's safe haven currency."

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
Well, call me selfish, but that doesn't help ME.

Therefore I disapprove.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jeff C.
Member
Member # 12496

 - posted      Profile for Jeff C.           Edit/Delete Post 
Can someone please explain to me what will happen if they don't reach a deal soon? I keep seeing this countdown on CNN, but I don't really know what it is or what will happen. I don't know if this has already been covered, but a quick rundown would really be helpful to me.
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
A quick Googling will reveal about a gazillion articles on what would happen if we breach the debt ceiling.

On the one hand, no one really knows. It's such an unlikely, bizarre, catastrophic scenario that no one is really sure except that it would be bad.

But, off the top of my head some of the guesses:

People stop buying treasuries. That's actually already happened. Financial companies are dumping short term treasuries that are due to come due because they expect they won't be paid later this month. Lots of people think it will lead to a massive sell-off in treasuries and that it will forever damage the bond market because T-Bills, universally and globally agreed upon as the safest possible place to park money, will no longer be so. That means borrowing costs for the US government and average US citizens will forever be higher than they currently are, and our standard of living will take a hit.

The Treasury also isn't sure, at a basic technical level, what would happen when they run out of cash. They'll be able to spend taxes that come in on a monthly basis, but that could lead to a shortfall of hundreds of billions. Some Republicans are saying that's easy, you just pay the interest on the debt, sate the bond holders, and don't pay domestic bills like Social Security or federal salaries and such. But the problem is that the US Treasury sends out literally millions of payments a day. It all happens automatically. Computer wire money around the globe to people we owe it to and the system is not designed to pick and choose where to send payments. In fact, the system was never designed to do anything but automatically make the payments.

Many aren't sure if, within a span of literally a week, they can devise a way that would allow the Treasury to make individual payments to some but not others. They also aren't even sure if it's legal.

Others are arguing it's actually illegal NOT to raise the debt ceiling. The 14th amendment says that it's illegal to call into question the debt, which basically means the Constitution says we always have to pay our bills. Some say that Obama has a Constitutional obligation to do something to raise the debt ceiling if Congress doesn't act, maybe by ordering the Treasury to mint a trillion dollar coin and deposit it in our coffers. It might drive up inflation, but it'd kick the can down the road.

This whole thing would also (and already has) scare the living crap out of the rest of the world, because we basically prop up the entire global economic system, and a debt default would have ripple effects across the world markets. The more unstable we look, the less people will want to do business with us.

In some way, shape, or form, problems arise when we hit the debt ceiling if they don't raise it. Even if we pay the interest on the debt, we're going to be short hundreds of billions. The only way out is to do one of two things: dramatically increase taxes by double digits to make up the short fall, or enact draconian austerity the likes of which even Europe hasn't seen. Social security checks would not go out. Medicare payments would not be made. Soldiers would not be paid. Unemployment checks would not go out. Food stamp cards would not be recharged.

Also, the stock market would probably crash, but many suspect the market might have a series of mini crashes in the run up to the debt ceiling because the markets won't wait for the crash before they freak out. Wall Street might also hope a crash would jolt Congress into action.

Basically, it's a huge charlie foxtrot, and no one is sure what will happen, but it won't be as simple as Rand Paul's "all we're really doing is balancing the budget."

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
Is that really what rand paul said
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Well, call me selfish, but that doesn't help ME.

Therefore I disapprove.

Right?

------

Mucus: That still all seems mostly beneficial to other entities, not the US government. I actually like my government and want it to be successful. It paying more and more of its budgets in interest payments is bad news bears to me.

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Originally posted by Geraine:
Lyrhawn is right in that they probably won't lose the House. They may lose a few seats, but I don't think they will take the majority. What they DID do though is screw their chances at taking back the Senate, which before the shutdown they were in a decent position to do.

Hallucination no. 2 of right-wing news sources. They were not at all going to take the senate back.

And if the shutdown proceeds all the way to the elections, they will probably lose the house. The short memory spans of Americans and their tendency to vote against their best interests notwithstanding.

Except, you know, other news sources that aren't right wing were saying the same thing. MSNBC and the Huffington Post both said they had a good shot. But hey, they are about as right wing as they come, right?

quote:

quote:
The president isn't doing himself any favors either though, especially with closing open area locations. Not letting WWII vets have access to the National Mall but allowing an immigration rally a few days later isn't really a smart thing to do. Either close it completely (from what I have read it actually costs more to keep these open areas closed than to keep them open) or let everyone have access.
"the president is not doing himself any favors with this thing that is actually not the fault of decisions he made but is actually the inevitable result of republican obstructionism."

sure. See the two responses after yours for clarification as to what's actually going on.

Yet he obviously has the power to decide who the shutdown applies to and who it doesn't. When you arrest vets for being on the property but allow an immigration rally, you are making a bad decision. Pelosi, at the rally, thanked the Administration for allowing them to use the National Mall for the rally.

He may not have caused the circumstances that caused the shutdown, but the decisions he is making with the power he does have are very poor. There is no reason to shut down private businesses or farms that use no federal funds. In some cases, closing the parks are costing MORE money than they do to actually operate.

Republicans are responsible for the shutdown, no doubt. They should be blamed for it. The administration however is trying to make it more painful than it needs to be. For that, they should be blamed.

When Bush's approval rating dipped to 36% it was all over the news. Wolf Blitzer was talking about how Bush was in over his head and how he didn't know how to lead. Obama's approval rating is now 37%, but somehow that is the republicans fault too.

ETA: Republicans are now only asking for a 1 year delay for the individual mandate in exchange for passing a clean CR. This would simply mean that the 1% or $95 penalty per family (whichever is greater) for not having insurance would be delayed a year. Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

[ October 10, 2013, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: Geraine ]

Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
Blackblade: Of course I was responding to Blayne who was talking about the death of western civilization and responding to your requests for clarification. There's an awful lot of western civilization which is not the US government.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
Is that really what rand paul said

That's not a direct quote, but he said something awfully damn similar. I can't remember the exact wording.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Geraine:
Yet he obviously has the power to decide who the shutdown applies to and who it doesn't.

I'm sorry, what's obvious about this? What has Obama done, specifically, which is not in accordance with the law? Because Obama can decide (sort of, and in a far more limited fashion than you are implying) how to spend money the government *has*. He cannot decided how to spend money the government does not have. This means that money not allocated or remaining in budgets *cannot* be spent by Obama. And any work that he can order done without pay (or with the promise of later reimbursement) has to be covered by legal statute. Has to. That's the end of it. That is the nature of the antideficiency act. There are laws about what you can do without paying people. If Obama breaks them, trust me, you'll hear all about it.


quote:
In some cases, closing the parks are costing MORE money than they do to actually operate.
This has been addressed directly, several times.

Obama does not get to make this decision. These decisions are written into law that he must follow. This means, and yes it is bizarre and unfair (but it is also NOT his decision), that in some cases Obama is legally allowed to let government agencies spend more than they would normally spend doing normal operations, stopping those normal operations from happening. That is the law. Would it be nice to change the law? Yes. Is it Obama's decision whether he gets to follow the law or not, or whether the heads of his agencies have to follow it? No. You are blaming him for doing his job, because he don't like the result. You are ignoring that his duty is to the law, and not to do what he or you would like him to be doing.

quote:
The administration however is trying to make it more painful than it needs to be.
This is unmitigated crap.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:
Originally posted by Geraine:
Yet he obviously has the power to decide who the shutdown applies to and who it doesn't.

I'm sorry, what's obvious about this? What has Obama done, specifically, which is not in accordance with the law? Because Obama can decide (sort of, and in a far more limited fashion than you are implying) how to spend money the government *has*. He cannot decided how to spend money the government does not have. This means that money not allocated or remaining in budgets *cannot* be spent by Obama. And any work that he can order done without pay (or with the promise of later reimbursement) has to be covered by legal statute. Has to. That's the end of it. That is the nature of the antideficiency act. There are laws about what you can do without paying people. If Obama breaks them, trust me, you'll hear all about it.
That's fine, however how do you explain him allowing an amnesty rally but denying WWII vets access to the same location? Pelosi thanked him during the rally for allowing them to meet. Was Pelosi just full of hot air, (Likely) or did the administration ok the rally?


Just heard on the news: Chuck Schumer said they are ready to deal with Republicans on the shutdown, and Obama is meeting with the Republican leadership. Apparently he is going to offer sweeping welfare reform in exchange for more tax revenues. When asked about the revenues Schumer said that they didn't want to raise rates, but close loopholes. Republicans would be completely stupid to say no to that, though the way they have been operating lately I wouldn't be suprised if they passed.

Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Geraine:
That's fine, however how do you explain him allowing an amnesty rally but denying WWII vets access to the same location? Pelosi thanked him during the rally for allowing them to meet. Was Pelosi just full of hot air, (Likely) or did the administration ok the rally?

I don't know the details of this event. Perhaps you could share where you heard it from.

I could offhandedly (and this is offhandedly) suggest an explanation: one is a matter of free speech, and the other of normal federal park operation. But I don't know the situation of which you're speaking, so I can't qualify myself to comment.

Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
That's fine, however how do you explain him allowing an amnesty rally but denying WWII vets access to the same location? Pelosi thanked him during the rally for allowing them to meet. Was Pelosi just full of hot air, (Likely) or did the administration ok the rally?
I suspect she's either full of hot air or is acknowledging a situation where Obama actually has some discretion.

Large-scale rallys on public land generally require a permit and a condition of the permit is that the rally organizers provide adequate security, sanitation, clean-up, etc. It's doubtful that any NPS personal are required to work to support a rally, though some may be employed directly by the event organizers. Security is often provided by off-duty police officers hired by the organizers.

Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
Is that really what rand paul said

That's not a direct quote, but he said something awfully damn similar. I can't remember the exact wording.
yikes.

although I did also just read that a senator was on NPR saying that the shutdown was ok because they could just end federal travel compensation for employees so that they could keep medicare funded, so satire is dead and I can't keep up anymore.

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
quote:
That's fine, however how do you explain him allowing an amnesty rally but denying WWII vets access to the same location? Pelosi thanked him during the rally for allowing them to meet. Was Pelosi just full of hot air, (Likely) or did the administration ok the rally?
I suspect she's either full of hot air or is acknowledging a situation where Obama actually has some discretion.

Large-scale rallys on public land generally require a permit and a condition of the permit is that the rally organizers provide adequate security, sanitation, clean-up, etc. It's doubtful that any NPS personal are required to work to support a rally, though some may be employed directly by the event organizers. Security is often provided by off-duty police officers hired by the organizers.

And I've no problem with that, as long as it is equally applied. The WWII memorial has always been an unmanned outdoor memorial that has remained open during every other government shutdown. Why is it closed now? Why weren't WWII vets allowed to go there? And if they were not able to go, why was the amnesty rally allowed?

Private businesses are also being shut down despite not receiving one cent of federal funds. One company, "Recreation Resource Management" was shut down, and they actually provide money to the Treasury.

The owner said:

quote:

"[T]oday, we have been told by senior member of the US Forest Service and Department of Agriculture that people ‘above the department’, which I presume means the White House, plan to order the Forest Service to needlessly and illegally close all private operations. I can only assume their intention is to artificially increase the cost of the shutdown as some sort of political ploy. The point of the shutdown is to close non-essential operations that require Federal money and manpower to stay open. So why is the White House closing private operations that require no government money to keep open and actually pay a percentage of their gate revenues back to the Treasury? We are a tenant of the US Forest Service, and a tenant does not have to close his business just because his landlord goes on a vacation."


Again, no other government shutdown caused any of this. Did the rules for the government shutdown change between the 90's and today? I am sincerely wondering, as I admittedly do not have much knowledge on how things are funded. I know at times programs are funded due to different appropriations. It may be that, and if so I get it. If not, why is it happening this time?

This is a separate argument from WHY the government shutdown, I'm wondering why this shutdown is being handled differently than the others. If it is my own misunderstanding on how things work that's fine.

[ October 10, 2013, 01:39 PM: Message edited by: Geraine ]

Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Risuena
Member
Member # 2924

 - posted      Profile for Risuena   Email Risuena         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Again, no other government shutdown caused any of this. Did the rules for the government shutdown change between the 90's and today? I am sincerely wondering, as I admittedly do not have much knowledge on how things are funded. I know at times programs are funded due to different appropriations. It may be that, and if so I get it. If not, why is it happening this time?

When the shutdowns in the 90s occurred, 13 appropriations bills had been passed. Agencies and departments funded by those bills were able to continue operations. Others were limited to essential personnel. I assume the National Park Service was one of those that was funded.

With the current shutdown, no appropriations bills have been passed, so no agency or department that depends on appropriations has funding including the National Park Service.

(Also, just as a factual note, the WWII Monument was not open during the 1995-96 shutdown. It did not exist at the time.)

Posts: 959 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Financial companies are dumping short term treasuries that are due to come due because they expect they won't be paid later this month.
Then you have to wonder who is buying the things. After all they aren't literally being dumped into landfills.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elison R. Salazar
Member
Member # 8565

 - posted      Profile for Elison R. Salazar   Email Elison R. Salazar         Edit/Delete Post 
Probably short selling at lower margins?
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
And I've no problem with that, as long as it is equally applied. The WWII memorial has always been an unmanned outdoor memorial that has remained open during every other government shutdown. Why is it closed now? Why weren't WWII vets allowed to go there?
It's not "unmanned". It's part of a larger complex of monuments which normally have ~300 staff members which have all been furloughed. The staff provide a number of services including maintenance and assistance to law enforcement. Without their presence there are liability, sanitation, and security issues. The monument could be vandalized, for instance. It's notable that the NPS is allowing some Federal facilities to open again if the states in which they are located are willing to pay for the staff and operations. If this was just about making it as painful as possible they wouldn't have offered that compromise.

quote:
And if they were not able to go, why was the amnesty rally allowed?
Because the rally likely provided all of it's own staff under the terms of its permit.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
The WWII memorial has always been an unmanned outdoor memorial that has remained open during every other government shutdown.
The WWII memorial opened in 2004. It didn't exist for any other government shutdown.

quote:
One company, "Recreation Resource Management" was shut down, and they actually provide money to the Treasury.
If their business involved the use of federally owned park land, you already know from this thread why they had to be closed, regardless as to how it's being spun.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elison R. Salazar
Member
Member # 8565

 - posted      Profile for Elison R. Salazar   Email Elison R. Salazar         Edit/Delete Post 
You may have your "facts" but we have the truth.*


*Literally what Republicans have said.

Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar:
Probably short selling at lower margins?

You missed the point. The precise form that the selling takes is irrelevant. Every transaction has two parties: A buyer and a seller. It was asserted that such-and-such is selling because of fear that the bonds won't be paid. The question is, who is buying? Presumably the buyer believes that the bonds will be paid; or alternatively that he'll be able to sell to someone who does tomorrow. At any rate he is willing to take that risk in exchange for a discount, while whoever is selling is not willing.

In every panic except the one that occurs just before the market genuinely ends - and yes, this does happen; Russia 1917, Germany 1923 - there's a lot of people selling and someone is buying at a discount. That guy tends to make out like a bandit. Except, of course, that one time in a century when he loses everything; but then again so does everyone else, because the market stops existing. And then the intelligentsia are rounded up and shot. So losing your investments are really the least of your problems at that point.

Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2