Federal Government Begins First Shutdown In 17 Years

http://www.forbes.com/sites/janetnovack/2013/09/30/clock-ticks-to-first-federal-shutdown-in-17-years/

by ddinh • 13 years ago

106 220 13 years ago

forbes.com

drill_sarge4• 13 years ago

It's happening

pachydermic2• 13 years ago

10% approval rating for congress. Wow. But my congressman is great! /s

patrickg_zill• 13 years ago

\o/

oleganza• 13 years ago

Even with all the money being printed by Fed (>80 billion usd per month!) there is not enough money for the biggest military+police government on Earth.

rquantz• 13 years ago

You have a lot of things mixed up. This isn't about not enough money. It's about Congress having to pass a budget in order to run the government. Maybe you're thinking of the debt ceiling?

pachydermic2• 13 years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Note

Fascinating stuff.

Without going into the details... you know that the Federal Reserve doesn't pay the bills, right? The Treasury does. And when the Treasury pays the bills, it doesn't really have much to do with the Fed buying bonds on the open market. The Treasury pays bills based on interest on national debt, stuff like social security and spending approved by congress. For some reason, congress implemented laws which mean that they have to give permission to the Treasury to pay the bills that congress itself voted into the budget.

My point is that this whole debacle doesn't really have to do much with the Fed, and the Treasury is just following the orders of congress.

*Edit: Ah, I see from stalking your profile that you are not American. Well I can see why you'd be confused - shit's confusing. I don't think even most US citizens understand how it works.

twoodfin8• 13 years ago

I'm glad this was posted here, otherwise I never would have known.

Something all hackers should be paying attention to, certainly. Many implications for how we write our software, the future of networked communication and more.

jmduke2• 13 years ago

I'm glad this was posted here, otherwise I never would have known.

I don't mean this sarcastically -- are you serious? It's been plastered over my news and social feeds for the past 48 hours, but I recognize I have a disproportionately large amount of friends/acquaintances in DC.

twoodfin8• 13 years ago

My flag privileges were lost during a flight to Cuba, and the guidelines specify that we not complain about the relevance of posts in the comments. So I won't complain.

jonchang• 13 years ago

Sarcasm can be difficult to express online; I'm glad you explicitly pointed it out in your reply.

fivre• 13 years ago

All the news sites in the world to choose from and the one that hits the front page is the one with interstitials before articles and broken, ugly design?

peterwayland• 13 years ago

In an office environment. If employees don't work well together they get fired. Why is there no accountability ?

yellowbkpk• 13 years ago

There is. It happens in November every few years.

rjbwork• 13 years ago

Wish i could get an extremely well paid job, do jack shit for 2-6 years and then maybe get voted out at the end of that time. Hell, give me a senator's salary for 6 years and I'd be in heaven.

sp332• 13 years ago

You can change who's in office, but it's basically impossible at this point to change the offices themselves. Committees and subcommittees, lobbies, corporations, military interests and other support systems are so entrenched that it literally doesn't matter who you put in power, the same problems will exist.

Anyway, Congress isn't supposed to get along. If everyone agreed all the time we would be able to reduce the system to a single person who made all the decisions. The point to a representative democracy is that the representatives represent different interests. Even the idea of having a vote presupposes conflict.

dinkumthinkum3• 13 years ago

Well, in this country we have this thing called democracy where random people that don't even know where they are or even what the Constitution is can decide, even on the basis of basically inane or racist views, who will get fired or hired. This is typically different from an office environment.

jliechti1• 13 years ago

How significant is this though? A quick wikipedia search shows the government has shut down 18 times (including this one) since 1976.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_shutdown#Federal_gov...

In fact, the government shut down almost every year from 1976 to 1987 (only missing 1980 and 1985).

cshenoy• 13 years ago

Well considering it hasn't happened since 1995 (18 years), I'd say it's pretty significant. Also, the GOP reasoning behind it seems pretty silly (defunding the ACA).

adventured4• 13 years ago

It's not very significant unto itself. Total government expenditures are about $6.7 trillion per year, between local + state + federal. The years will keep rolling on, and they're all going to keep spending more with little evidence of a good return on investment from the last $50 trillion they spent the prior decade. All greased by the nice annual trillion dollar shot from the Fed propping up the Federal Govt., the housing market (state property taxes, 'wealth effect') and the stock market.

The most interesting thing about the shut down, is that it represents a total government failure of competency. All parties, the Congress, and the President; and not just now, but the last 20 years, leading up to this mess. From George W's hyper spending, to Clinton continuing the grand tradition of stealing from SS inflows to fake balance the budget, to Obama's hyper spending increases while the Democrats had super majority control of the House + Senate while they had the Presidency. Everybody is to blame in DC; the partisans claiming their side is right are to blame as well.

throwaway4203• 13 years ago

I really hate that the media has labeled this a government shut down.

Is the NSA going to stop spying on us? Are they still printing money? Are corporate subsidies still proceeding as normal? Will they stop taxing us? Will they stop giving out checks to the military industrial complex? Will they stop military attacks? Will we still be felt up at airports? Are they still going to throw people behind bars for illegal plants?

The reality is that all of the worst parts of the government are still running.

jMyles3• 13 years ago

Nailed it. I'm surprised there isn't more talk about this.

Q6T46nT668w6i3m• 13 years ago

Yeah! Treasonous National Parks!

rhelmer• 13 years ago

Not sure who counts as "military industrial complex", but the Pentagon has already said that troops will not be paid: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gC5rwPOPz...

selmnoo• 13 years ago

It is worth noting, incidentally, that the DoD is the largest employer in the world: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_employers

wavesounds• 13 years ago

I think he means the contracts are still in place for building more weapons and those weapons will continue being used despite the fact that soldiers and their families will not be receiving their pay.

chaz• 13 years ago

Hours before the shutdown, Obama signed a bill that granted an exception to the military, ensuring it will continue to operate and troops will be paid: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/government-shutdown-se...

twoodfin8• 13 years ago

Not so: The House, Senate and President got a military pay bill in under the wire.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/government-shutdown-se...

drill_sarge4• 13 years ago

bill was passed right before to pay them. I don't think they want to risk not to pay the biggest police/military complex ever.

vacri3• 13 years ago

Will they stop taxing us?

Taxes are not evil, bad, or wrong. Excessive taxes are something you can argue about, but the mere existence of them is not evidence of evil.

throwaway4203• 13 years ago

Thanks for clarifying for me what opinions I'm allowed to have.

Aloisius3• 13 years ago

About half the DoD is going home (civilian side). Also the IRS will stop all audits since it is losing a huge chunk of its staff.

ewoodrich• 13 years ago

I'm sure that the 98% of NASA staff that will be furloughed will consider it to be shutdown.

gizmo6865• 13 years ago

Slightly off topic, but this shutdown is one of those times where I got a very different perspective simply by reading about it from a non-US based (Al Jazeera) source. It is not that they write anything different than local sources, but the whole situation seems way sillier when I think about how this must look to people outside of the country.

jpollock• 13 years ago

even funnier, the US hasn't passed a budget since '97.

jwarkentin4• 13 years ago

My thoughts exactly. People already make fun of our dysfunctional government. It's just adding fuel to the fire. Then again, I make fun of it too... :)

Andrenid• 13 years ago

As an outsider, it is definitely seen as "entertaining", while also not really being cared about much. Just another one of those "oh America, you're so silly" moments really.

gizmo6865• 13 years ago

You do realize that America is a major player in the global economy. If we go down, we are taking everyone with us.

shirro3• 13 years ago

Isn't there anything in the US constitution to break deadlocks? In Australia if the government can't get a bill through the senate, they can try again in 3 months and if it still doesn't go through then it can be used a trigger to dismiss the house of reps and the senate and call a new election.

jwarkentin4• 13 years ago

I think 3 months is a bit long to wait, but I'd be all for a new election.

gizmo6865• 13 years ago

The most the constitution has is that, in the event of a tie, the Vice President gets to have the deciding vote.

nknighthb7• 13 years ago

No. There is no monarch or governor general. There are no reserve powers. There is no provision for early general elections. The President is not a Prime Minister, and Congress is not a parliament. Neither is responsible to the other. The House of Representatives and the Senate can each freely block the other indefinitely.

The only Constitutional mechanisms available for breaking a deadlock are Congressional elections every 2 years (entire house and 1/3rd of Senate), Presidential elections every 4 years, and the theoretical ability of 2/3rds of the states to force a Constitutional Convention to propose amendments (this has never actually happened; all Constitutional amendments have been first proposed by Congress; in either case, any amendments must be ratified by 3/4ths of states, which will never happen in the current environment where half the states would be happier destroying the country than seeing the scary black man in office for one more day).

twoodfin8• 13 years ago

which will never happen in the current environment where half the states would be happier destroying the country than seeing the scary black man in office for one more day

OK, I'm not thrilled that this article isn't [dead] already, but regardless: This is not reddit and absurdities like that comment do not contribute to the discussion.

shirro3• 13 years ago

We get half senate elections, not 1/3, but a similar result with the senate being out of step with the reps. Which is why in a crisis the double dissolution is a whole senate election to try and get things moving again. It seems odd that the President, being head of state, would not have similar powers to the Crown/GG to dismiss a dysfunctional parliament to resolve deadlocks. Too much power wrapped up in the presidency then I guess.

Similar problems happen all around the world where there is a minority government or an upper house blocking supply bills. The unusual thing with the US is the lack of constitutional mechanisms to resolve the problem before the government has to shut down. It seems odd that the writers of the constitution didn't recognise the problem.

Tiktaalik• 13 years ago

Isn't there a lot of flexibility in Commmonwealth countries with regard to dissolving government and calling for a new election? In Canada you usually just proclaim "this parliament is dysfunctional" and then call a snap election.

shirro3• 13 years ago

I am not a parliamentary expert but there are lots of ways I think. Not passing a supply bill (equiv to the budget crisis) would trigger an election, not passing a non-supply bill repeatedly can be a trigger, a motion of no-confidence in the government. Or governments can resign.

Not being able to pass bills required to finance the government would be seen as equivalent to the government having lost the confidence of parliament and I think under a Westminster system they would have to resign or face being dismissed by the head of state as they have clearly lost the ability to govern.

giardini2• 13 years ago

I would welcome elections now. If we had elections now the Democrats would be tarred, feathered and ridden out of Washington on a rail.

Steko5• 13 years ago

"Isn't there anything in the US constitution to break deadlocks? "

Angry constituents, generally.

yapcguy• 13 years ago

Let's keep track of what technology related services get shut down. Please reply here.

For animal lovers out there, contrary to reports, the National Zoo's PandaCam is still operational (as I type), so enjoy while you can!

http://nationalzoo.si.edu/animals/webcams/giant-panda.cfm

robobenjie• 13 years ago

This is really depressing. The system seems to be designed to be strong but not infallible, with the assumptions that the people trusted to run the government would do so competently with the best interests of the nation. It seems clear that a slow process of radicalization has replaced the interests of the nation with the interests of the party and it's unclear how to fix it.

If one group defects to block voting and no compromise the other side has to also defect or be run over. This is the prisoner's dilemma writ large, only we citizens are the ones paying the penalty for dual defection.

twoodfin8• 13 years ago

Three or four years after the last shutdown (twenty days long!) we had a budget surplus and the lowest unemployment in decades. I'm not saying those things are related, but your pessimism is probably excessive.

wpietri4• 13 years ago

That happened during a very strong economy. The economy now is much more vulnerable. An extended shutdown could tip the US back into recession, partly through primary effects (that is, reduced economic activity from everybody the government pays, and everybody they pay) and partly through secondary ones (e.g., consumers putting off spending and businesses deferring investment until things are more clear).

Also, the threats to force a debt default along with the shutdown are dumbfounding. That would, as The Economist writes, "unleash global financial chaos". Poorly handled, it could be worse than the 2008 crisis, especially given what poor shape Europe is in right now.

nostromo• 13 years ago

We all spend so much time focusing on the Federal Government but I doubt many of us will even notice the "shut down."

Compare that with what would happen if your local and state governments shut down: Trash would pile up. Criminals would run free in the streets. Fires wouldn't be put out. Water and electricity would stop. Sewage systems would back up. Schools would close. We're talking about services that are the very cornerstones of modern society.

It really gives you an appreciation for what the state and local governments accomplish.

clarky07• 13 years ago

well, this is the case for DC. Also, there are a few things you might notice. If you are house hunting hoping for a FHA loan you are screwed for now.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/23/politics/government-shutdown-d...

singlow2• 13 years ago

Or any loan. The IRS will not be providing your lender with a tax return transcript and your closing will be delayed. I just closed on a conventional loan and the sequester already was delaying the process.

jbooth3• 13 years ago

One facet of the 'shutdown' is that they're not authorized to hand out federal money to states anymore. The states and municipalities are feeling it for every day that this stupid theatre persists.

superails• 13 years ago

They don't hand out money everyday to the same people.

And it is not stupid theater. It is our government NOT at work. We may temporarily recover some of our debt. In fact, if they keep this going for an extended period of time, it might actually help- a lot. Our country has become much too dependent on our government, and now that the two political parties can't get along, there may actually be room for another socially moderate, somewhat fiscally-conservative, deficit hawk, constitutionalist, semi-libertarian party with common sense to come along and bring the country together. Unfortunately, it hasn't organized yet (and no, it isn't the Libertarian party- not with its current leaders- and even with better leadership, Libertarians are incapable of getting the debt under control because they won't allow raising taxes to cover for past debt).

cantrevealname2• 13 years ago

If what the state government is doing is useful and wanted, then the state should tax more and the federal government should tax less. This is yet another inefficiency of federal government to act as a middleman.

gizmo6865• 13 years ago

Some people actually get paid by the federal government. When these people don't get paid, they are much less likely to spend money, hurting non-government businesses. And the parts of the government that are shutting down also won't be consuming from private business either, again hurting business and the economy.

cantrevealname2• 13 years ago

Your making the broken window fallacy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window

If we didn't have these unwanted government services (or wanted services provided very poorly or at excessive cost), then the taxpayers would spent their money on something else -- something that is wanted -- and it would generate just as many jobs or economic activity in some other way.

hellcow3• 13 years ago

If the state and local governments gave sufficient notice, private businesses would snap up the new market opportunities. Everything worthwhile would continue as usual, albeit with less waste.

jbooth3• 13 years ago

That's gotta be about the least justifiable statement in political-economic commentating history.

mehwoot2• 13 years ago

Yeah I'm sure private policing would work great.

asabjorn2• 13 years ago

This needs serious backing as evidence seems to show the opposite. For instance, if we pick firefighting as an example what is there evidence that private firefighting is a good idea? In recent history this kind of thinking have led to disasters like in Tennessee:

  - http://www.nbcnews.com/id/39516346/ns/us_news-life/t/no-pay-no-spray-firefighters-let-home-burn/#.UkpUgGSidTp

and during the 1800s private firefighting was a true disaster for homeowners:

  - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tina-dupuy/firefighting-in-the-1800s_b_247936.html

Private companies are great for a lot of things, but I am not sure that I would trust someone that might decide to prioritize a quick short-term profit over a long-term maintenance goal to provide all essential city services (fire, police, sewer, roads, etc).

zalzane• 13 years ago

Yes, because privatization worked so well for the prison system.

nhaehnle4• 13 years ago

The truly positive contribution of a federal government (besides the questionable benefit of military protection) comes in the form of automatic stabilizers for the economy.

When there is a shock to the economy, social safety nets dampen the pain significantly. Local and state governments would never be able to provide a reliable social safety net, because they have to operate on the same principles as every other user of a currency. The federal government can operate on the principles of an issuer of the currency. That is a big difference.

In fact, you can see this difference play out in slow motion in the Eurozone, which still has not recovered from the financial crisis. Things would have played out very different had their been a Eurozone federal government that provides at least the basic components of the social safety nets.

scottjad4• 13 years ago

This is basically argumentation by story. You told one of many possible stories as if it was obviously and indisputably true. You provided no support for it. What about all the other plausible stories that you ignored?

What if these "stabilizers" (i.e. money creation) are doing more harm than good, or even causing the business cycle? What if social safety hammocks decrease growth? What if welfare provided by prudent local governments through savings, or even private means, are sufficient? What if there are a ton of differences between the Europe and America other than the Federal Reserve?

adventured4• 13 years ago

This is a particularly massive point right now.

With 46 million people dependent on food stamps, the only thing separating the US from great depression style bread lines right now is that single program. Especially with the huge plunge in the labor force participation rate and the U6 being at 14%.

The downside to that is program is, the Federal Government is masking just how bad the US economy really is, with a trillion dollars a year of stimulus help from the Fed. Many people believe the economy is healthier than it really is when they read the fake unemployment number of 7.3%.

steve19• 13 years ago

"questionable benefit of military protection" ...

You may not like the extent of their protection, or how they go about protecting, but it is childishly naive to suggest the country does not need protection.

But I know it is cool these days to pretend that the military is 100% evil and every dollar spent on it is a total waste.

nawitus2• 13 years ago

In fact, you can see this difference play out in slow motion in the Eurozone, which still has not recovered from the financial crisis. Things would have played out very different had their been a Eurozone federal government that provides at least the basic components of the social safety nets.

I don't understand this argument. Are you claiming that there's no social safety nets in Europe? There are and have been and will still be without a federal government (although I like to argue we already have a defacto federal government).

Just because individual member states provide their own social security and finance it through borrowing money from the central bank(s), doesn't really seem that different from a federal government directly providing social safety nets. In fact, most member states have a way better social security net than United States. I could, in theory, just stop working today and get paid about $1200/month in addition to things like practically free health care and university education. Of course, there are poorer member states that have worse social security.

jMyles3• 13 years ago

Or, for students, their student government. For most US College Students, the student government likely makes more important decisions than any other.

anigbrowl• 13 years ago

Oh, you will if it goes on more than a few days. I remember the 1995 one quite well; you may be surprised by the ripple effect.

mkr-hn• 13 years ago

I was 11 and busy with more important things (like video games) then, so this is all new to me. Exciting.

clumsysmurf• 13 years ago

Mother Jones has a good summary of what this means for us

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/09/who-gets-screwed...

Some things that surprised me:

* Campers: People living (or vacationing) in national parks and forests will have 48 hours to relocate.

* People who make money off tourists: Shuttered national parks are bad news for the hotels, restaurants, and other attractions that feed off them.

* Employers: The Department of Homeland Security's e-Verify program will be offline for the duration of the shutdown.

* @CuriosityRover: 98 percent of NASA's staff will be furloughed, and the agency's website and live-streams will go dark.

and plenty of more serious things mentioned in the article like

* People on food assistance: The USDA's Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) will stop making payments on October 1.

base698• 13 years ago

I keep wondering if the campers have to leave but the rangers aren't working, then how do they force them to leave?

xerophtye• 13 years ago

I thought the functions like MediCare and veteran's support program etc were still in effect because the yare paid out in advance. So doesn't that cover food assistance?

joeyo• 13 years ago

Also NOAA: http://governmentshutdown.noaa.gov/

wintersFright• 13 years ago

[not my quote...but relevant]

In essence, America has told the world that as long as the business of this country is functioning, your wealth, as represented in Marks, Yen, Pesos, etc. is backed with performing US debt. It's like saying, "as long as your neighbor, next door, does not loses his job, you will not lose all your money!

altoz2• 13 years ago

why is this a bad thing? less spending on something pretty much everyone agrees is bloated is bad? it's like saying morbidly obese person has slightly less access to food. every person in the media seems to assume this is a bad thing. i say this is a good thing. if we can't agree on how money should be spent, it's better that it not get spent at all.

alexqgb2• 13 years ago

This is retarded. There's just no other word to describe the mental deficiency big enough to render something as large, complex, and valueable as government as uniformly "good" or "bad", or as something that can intelligently be described in terms of "less" and "more" as though it were a basic commodity.

On a more specific note, you have absolutly no idea what's actually happening here. I mean, I don't even know where to begin with how uninformed you are. For what it's worth, this isn't about budgeting for future expenses. This is about whether we honor the bills for expenses that were properly budgeted and legally made. The idea is that defaulting on those expenses will cause the US serious financial pain (which it will). The threat of that pain is being used to extort concessions that failed to win support in the last election. In essence, a distinct minority is using terrorist tactics to accomplish goals both opposed and formally rejected by the majority.

The problem, by the way, isn't that you're totally tuned out. It's that you don't see the problem with being totally tuned out and still having an opinion anyway. There's nothing wrong with saying "I don't know what's going on so I don't know what to think." But knowing not, and knowing not that you know not is the mark of an idiot. Please, spare us.

altoz2• 13 years ago

yep. another person that's completely bought into the media narrative of they're not playing nice, therefore it must be bad. I happen to think the popular narrative that this will end in financial disaster to be wrong. I think previous government shutdowns clearly show this narrative to be untrue. your certainty that I'm ignorant or that this is a certain disaster shows precisely how you don't get my point.

beedogs• 13 years ago

How do the Republicans reckon they'll come out ahead after this? It'll be a GOP bloodbath in 2014.

mbreese• 13 years ago

GOP moderates will take a hit. The more conservative members that are driving this shutdown will end up strengthening their base, so they won't feel as much pressure.

wpietri4• 13 years ago

In addition, some theorize that the Republicans can use the chaos and votes supporting the ACA to go after vulnerable Democratic senators.

And maybe I'm getting too cynical, but the extreme Republican line for years has been that government is the problem, not the solution. So I don't think the members chasing the base have the same interest in a functioning state that the rest of them do.

ubernostrum4• 13 years ago

They feel pretty confident, because they gerrymandered the hell out of the country's electoral map in the 2010 redistricting. That's how they currently have a majority in the House: there is a significant overall preference among the voters for Democrats, but the electoral map has been drawn so as to concentrate Republican voters and break up blocs of Democratic voters, ensuring that they will have enough "safe" districts to retain control of the House at least until the 2020 redistricting.

clarkm• 13 years ago

If you don't want to look like a conspiracy theorist, you should probably stop making such hyperbolic claims about gerrymandering.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/17/r...

jonah2• 13 years ago

I hope they get it started back up soon. I was hoping to visit some National Parks later in the month. (Not being sarcastic here.)

This brinkmanship is a travesty.

avty• 13 years ago

Now we can determine which part of government we did not miss and shut those down permanently.

jwarkentin4• 13 years ago

Haha, exactly what I was thinking. Like the part where the IRS stops auditing...

notdonspaulding• 13 years ago

Like the part where the IRS stops.

There, fixed that for you.

ck23• 13 years ago

Costs around $50 million a day to be closed.

Imagine how many people that money could help, how much health care it could buy.

giardini2• 13 years ago

But the savings is much, much more. And the less federal government, the better (especially in these days).

alexqgb2• 13 years ago

I know, right? Screw those moochers at the Centers for Disease Control. Big gummint out of…uh, influenza!

mappu• 13 years ago

How does that compare to how much it costs per day to be open?

ck23• 13 years ago

Well you get zero value for the $50 Million, so that is kind of irrelevant.

Also, all these short term extensions prevents each part of the government from buying what it needs to operate in bulk, they now have to pay top dollar for small amounts.

So super-dooper expensive. But that might be the plan to jack up the cost and say "look how expensive!"

001sky6• 13 years ago

1 trillion in red ink

pkfrank• 13 years ago

The bigger issue, he [Vanguard Group Chief Economist Joseph Davis] said, is how much the turmoil raises the “Uncertainty Tax” on the U.S. economy. Policy uncertainty, Davis argues, is already keeping U.S. economic growth down around 2%, when it could be 3% a year.

This is what captures my frustration as well.

It's infuriating that a faction of Tea Partiers is causing such instability. Having campaigned on a promise of doing anything to stop ObamaCare, they've already played their (reckless) hand.

This is bringing a hatchet where you need a scalpel; "ObamaCare" will still go into effect no matter what, and this does nothing more than score political points at the expense of the nation's health.

This is precisely why people hate and subsequently tune out to politics - an unfortunate and dangerous reality.

001sky6• 13 years ago

It's infuriating that a faction of Tea Partiers is causing such instability

Why is growth not considered a form of instability? Just curious, last time I looked risk and volatility were agnostic to direction.

icambron8• 13 years ago

Risk is very explicitly directional. E.g. Wikipedia has it as:

Risk is the potential of loss (an undesirable outcome, however not necessarily so) resulting from a given action, activity and/or inaction

When was the last time you checked?

wpietri4• 13 years ago

Steady growth is the expected economic baseline. Wild swings in growth, both positive and negative, cause instability. Instability also reduces long-term growth, because the harder it is to predict what will happen, the less people invest.

dinkumthinkum3• 13 years ago

I don't want to be mean but this is about the worst HN pedantry I could imagine.

kyrra• 13 years ago

I see it as all parties involved not working together to come to a compromise. Saying it's just one groups fault is not looking at the bigger picture. If there are members of congress that were elected under the notion of fighting a single law (such as ObamaCare), that should be a message that a large portion of the country does not like the law.

I also see it as a failure of our president not getting the 2 sides to play nicely. Obama should be working with both parties to get the government working. From the media quotes I see from him, Obama is playing the blame game, and not actually working to resolve the issues.

The entire federal legislative branch is at fault for the shutdown, not just a select group that you call out. There has always been divide within congress, but the current congress can't figure out how to play nicely together.

quanticle4• 13 years ago

If there are members of congress that were elected under the notion of fighting a single law (such as ObamaCare), that should be a message that a large portion of the country does not like the law.

Or, alternatively, there is a small fraction of the country willing to do whatever it takes to overrule the wishes of the majority, even if it means shutting down the government. It's childish. President Obama was re-elected in 2012. Rather than acknowledge the fact that they lost this battle, the Republicans are willing to do whatever it takes to re-fight (and re-lose).

darkarmani5• 13 years ago

I also see it as a failure of our president not getting the 2 sides to play nicely. Obama should be working with both parties to get the government working. From the media quotes I see from him, Obama is playing the blame game, and not actually working to resolve the issues.

What? Obama had a majority in the senate and the house and still tried to get both parties to work together on obama care. The republicans rejected even the plans that had most of their ideas in them, just because they didn't want obama to get credit. Why would you think he would be able to convince them now?

invalidOrTaken3• 13 years ago

The power of legislators to delay funding in situations like this should be curtailed.

robomartin5• 13 years ago

I've actually had time over the past few weeks to spend time watching the various duscussions in the Senate. In other words, I chose to go to the source and take the time to understand rather than get fed a bunch of ideologically loaded bullshit by various news outfits.

Here's reality:

Obamacare is a complete disaster. Don't take my word for it, go research what unions are saying, what businesses are doing an go figure out what you will have to pay and what you'll get for it.

This horrible law needs to be repealed.

We need a budget. Apparently we have not had one since 2008 or thereabouts. I guess when you have a president who isn't even qualified to run a cookie baking operation this is what we get. It is an absolute disgrace that we are plunging this country deeper and deeper into debt.

Finally, Congress has failed to provide our country with responsible governance for decades. Party affiliation does not matter here. It has devolved it into nothing less than a circus. Given that we are locked into this system of government the only conclusion one can reach is that we are doomed.

This govenrment shutdown isn't a problem, no matter how much of an economic impact it might make. Over the next 25 to 50 years this economic impact will be absolutlely dwarfed by the devastation that will be caused by the layers of irresponsible actions we will have to live with.

I say: Go for it! I hope people understand why it is important to take the pain now in order to right the ship for generations to come.

Steko5• 13 years ago

"rather than get fed a bunch of ideologically loaded bullshit by various news outfits.

Here's reality:

<a bunch of ideological bullshit>"

Take your astroturf back to Fox News.

robomartin5• 13 years ago

Have you actually watched the debates in the House and the Senate and then compared to how they are being spun by the various TV networks? The contrast is nothing less than disgusting.

Please, do it. Fox News is irrelevant.

As if shooting the messenger is going to refute the argument.

jarek4• 13 years ago

a president who isn't even qualified to run a cookie baking operation

Obama's at 811,417,118.8 Cps in Cookie Clicker - what have you done that's so great?

robomartin5• 13 years ago

Read my prior post on this for support of my assertion.

As to what I have done vs. Obama. Well, first of all, neither you or I should be the scale by which a President is measured. A President ought to be better than most of us in areas relevant to running a country, an economy.

You are an educated man. I presume you studied logic and know full well that shooting the messenger does not refute what the messenger might be claiming. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and suggest you might want to run through the exercise I suggested in an early post in response to similar criticism [1]. I would be very interested in your reasoning showing how 2008 Obama was qualified to become CEO of a non-trivial enterprise, particularly when compared to seasoned and tested C-level executives.

I am not going to engage in a "what have you done?" conversation. I'll simply say that I have been an entrepreneur my entire life. I have started businesses, employed people from varied disciplines and backgrounds --including software engineers like you. I have succeeded and failed. I have been bankrupt. More than once. And I have pulled myself up and out of such circumstances through hard work, dedication and a healthy dose of risk taking. My life, for better or worst, has given me a unique perspective. And, while I freely admit that I am far from infallible I really don't think I am wrong on this one. There's nothing in Barack Obama's 2008 history that even approaches the development of an understanding of how a non-trivial business operates, much less an entire economy of this scale.

A sailing analogy is apt here. As a long time sailor I can tell you that anyone can sail under typical benign Sunday-Sailor conditions. There are two conditions that separate the hobby sailor from those who really know what they are doing: the extremes. It takes a lot more work to sail a boat when there's very little wind and you need to waste nothing in order to move. It also takes a lot of experience and knowledge to sail a boat under heavy winds and dangerous swells. Neither of those conditions are suitable for someone who has no experience whatsoever at the helm. One does not give you enough feedback. The other could kill you and your passengers if you need to learn on the job. You want to hire an experienced skipper, particularly for the second scenario. A Sunday-Sailor is likely to get you killed. That's as close as I can get to explaining who we gave our country to in 2008 (and, arguably, in 2012).

Our government has been steadily and systematically destroying our country from the inside for the last fifty years. It is hard for me to imagine a way to refute this. Shoot the messenger if you must, but he message stands on it's own. Regardless of who I am.

Yet I am nobody. I'm just a bunch of words you read on this screen. Read them. Decide for yourself. The irony of all of this is that regardless what you or I say we will both have to live with the reality our government is creating. I can't possibly imagine anyone with a reasonable degree of intelligence and education thinking that this reality is one headed towards anything other than a disaster.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6474544

MaulingMonkey2• 13 years ago

I apologize if this is inflammatory, but: "I guess when you have a president who isn't even qualified to run a cookie baking operation" -- this is where you lost all my interest, hyperbole or not.

robomartin5• 13 years ago

Don't take my word for it. Here. Do this.

Go to Monster.com or the appropriate job board.

Find a job description for a CEO of a non-trivial business. Say, a manufacturing operation with thousands of employees, international reach, a complex supply chain and a well developed channel of distribution.

Now go back and find Obama's resume from 2008.

Objectively look at it and compare it to the resume of seasoned C-level executives who might apply for such a position. You can use LinkedIn for this purpose, find people who you think might be qualified for the job and, therefore, could be interested in applying.

I hope your conclusion will be that Obama was, in no way, qualified for such a job. Not even close. He had been on the job as Senator for two years and was a law professor before that. There seems to be nothing whatsoever in his life experience that could even remotely paint him as qualified to take on such responsibility.

His resume would go in the trash bin instantly and a polite email dispatched to inform him that he is not being considered. I could see HR going "Why is a law professor applying to run a business when he knows absolutely nothing about running any kind of a business and has no relevant experience?".

My statement is, without a doubt, factually correct. Perhaps it offends you. However, that does nothing towards altering it's veracity. In fact, it can easily expanded to declare that it would have been unlikely for him to have been qualified for C-level leadership positions at any non-trivial business. He simply wasn't qualified.

Yet, we gave him the largest economy in the world to run. During the first two years he could have done whatever he wanted. He had the House and the Senate. Any half-way-decent business person would have had a laser-like focus on the economy, jobs, reducing spending and facilitating economic activity. Not him. He didn't have a clue. He focused on anything but the many elephants in the room. That's a matter of record (and the lack of results). And here we are.

Want more proof? Remember what he said about the National Debt as a Senator? Don't remember? Here, I'll help you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kuTG19Cu_Q

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fUmFBMVWNI

And now we are at $17 trillion and he wants MORE!

And we have no budget.

And every bill being passed is chock-full of earmarks and back-end deals that would sicken most.

On top of what I said regarding his qualifications, he also happens to be a hypocrite and a liar. I'll leave it up to you to go back and review video records of the things he promised and compare them to what he's actually done.

When every union in the country is screaming bloody murder about Obamacare you know you have problems.

That said, this isn't about Obama and Obamacare. This is about the branches of our government having plunged us into a very dangerous position over the last, say, fifty years. Again, party affiliation isn't relevant here. These people are making bad decisions on both sides of the isle.

Regardless of whether you agree with me or not the fact remains that our kids are going to inherit a disaster of nearly unimaginable proportions. Perhaps you are OK with that and choose to look the other way due to party or other loyalties. Thou shalt not speak ill of our tribe! Or some such thing. Well, that's cool. I admire your loyalty. However, the one important detail is: This does not change where we are headed.

What's your limit for the national debt?

When do you say "enough!"?

We are at $17 trillion right now [1] (well, just shy). That means each tax payer would have to pay nearly $150,000 [1] in order to pay off our debt today. You and I are not paying it off any time soon. And, if we continue along this path even our children will not be able to pay it off.

How much is enough?

Senator Obama said adding $4 trillion to the national debt was "irresponsible" and "unpatriotic", his words, not mine. He was right. What, then, is adding another ELEVEN TRILLION [3] by the time he leaves office? He is on track to more than double the national debt with respect to what it was when he took office.

At what point are you willing to proclaim that our government is fiscally inept, irresponsible and, yes, unpatriotic?

Do you understand how important it is to bring things back to a more reasonable state? Surely you do. I can't imagine anyone not researching this at least to an extent where he or she can understand the numbers and their consequences. A couple of hours of Excel work and your jaw should be on the floor. And you should be angry too.

[1] http://www.usdebtclock.org/

[2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kuTG19Cu_Q

[3] http://www.usdebtclock.org/current-rates.html

darkarmani5• 13 years ago

It is an absolute disgrace that we are plunging this country deeper and deeper into debt.

You mean since Bush slashed taxes to create massive debt?

jarek4• 13 years ago

I like how this is the only post the OP hasn't replied to. I guess at least Bush had experience as a CEO - even if not quite the hard work, dedication and a healthy dose of risk taking OP values so much.

ars6• 13 years ago

It seems to me that if it was illegal to combine unrelated subject into a single vote/bill government would run much smoother.

No "pork" or pet projects (you'd have to vote separately on each). You could add ACA provisions to this government spending bill since they are unrelated, so there would be no shutdown.

Since it's hard to define "unrelated" make it so that if 1/3 of the members vote that it's unrelated, then it's unrelated and has to voted on separately.

shmerl2• 13 years ago

Can anyone please, explain briefly what are the downsides and practical problems that ACA will cause?

invalidOrTaken3• 13 years ago

One downside: it shafts young men uninsured through their employers (read: a considerable part of the HN demographic) pretty hard: http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/14/news/economy/obamacare-premi...

ubernostrum4• 13 years ago

Obviously it would be better to keep things as-is, with non-employer-provided insurance ranging from difficult to impossible to obtain at any price :)

ojbyrne• 13 years ago

3 points: 1. those others groups with smaller percentage increases currently pay higher premiums. 2. Young men become old men. 3. Young men actually are more likely to have risky behavior that leads to them becoming old men that take money out of the system.

All of these are basically part of the nature of insurance - pooling risk.

ubernostrum4• 13 years ago

Since the basics of the ACA are identical to plans Republicans put forth multiple times over the past few decades, the downside is Republicans will be caught in the trap of being violently against something that was both A) their idea originally and B) has been shown to be quite popular among voters once they learn what it actually does.

Thus the Republican party has committed to stopping implementation at all costs.

Jayschwa• 13 years ago

Lots of cheap "catastrophic" insurance plans for individuals can no longer be offered because they don't meet all provisions of the law. The one I was using last year while I was in between jobs suffered that fate.

shmerl2• 13 years ago

I've heard something about limiting the choice of specialists to a very narrow list or forcing using regional doctors (similar to UK). Is that correct? That's actually pretty bad if true, since people will be barred from choosing a preferred doctor.

scottjad4• 13 years ago

What has surprised me about this issue is how so much of the media has automatically adopted the Democrats narrative (especially on point #1, see below). Surprisingly, the media stories covering this shutdown are actually pretty fair in their summary (at least with respect to point #1).

The Democrat narrative has at least three elements:

(1) The House Republicans are unwilling to compromise and will shutdown the government if they can't get rid of Obamacare. (2) This will ruin the economy. (3) America should pay its bills.

So much of the media has ignored the Republican narrative:

(1) Senate Democrats and the President are unwilling to compromise and will shutdown the government if they can't keep all of Obamacare. (2) Excessive government spending hurts the economy. (3) Going deeper into debt is not paying ones bills.

Like I said, surprisingly the latest blurbs about the shutdown actually focus on Congress as a whole not being able to compromise and come to an agreement instead of focusing only on the GOP or Tea Party.

Steko5• 13 years ago

"So much of the media has ignored the Republican narrative:"

Maybe because it's bullshit.

"Congress as a whole not being able to compromise"

There's no compromise being offered, this is hostage taking. As Kevin Drum said earlier today:

If my neighbor threatens to steal my car, and then comes back and says he'll settle for just stealing my TV set, what kind of compromise is that? What am I getting out of the deal?

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/09/i-think-republ...

darkarmani5• 13 years ago

Because the Tea Party leaders are being budget terrorists? How is taking Grover Norquist's pledge mean you are able to compromise?

dinkumthinkum3• 13 years ago

I think you are fairly uninformed about this. Compromise on Obamacare? I don't want to be flippant but do you not know how a bill becomes a law and what it means when it is a law? The ship has sailed for all this; it is have been tested by the Supreme Court. You've got to be kidding.

Shutting down the government is a pretty ridiculous ploy to whine about elections they have lost.

scottjad4• 13 years ago

So like 1% of the Federal government (by spending, just making this number up) is going to be closed.

National parks, EPA, WIC, and Housing and Urban Dev.

99% of the federal government (by spending) will remain open, including:

US Military, Food stamps, Unemployment benefits, Social Security benefits, TSA, air traffic control, border patrol, Federal Reserve, and the Post Office.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/09/30/227884483...

Aloisius3• 13 years ago

800,000 people are getting furloughed and another 1 million are being asked to work without pay. That's pretty significant.

jonah2• 13 years ago

Oh, so shutting down the parts which don't support industries with strong lobbying or lots of political contributions. How am I not surprised?

pasbesoin• 13 years ago

Well, Obama and his Administration finally made a 4th quarter, last ditch effort -- after reading the polling tea leaves -- to appear as if they have a spine.

However, I think both parties may be surprised in the next elections to find just how much in disgust the U.S. public holds them.

That is, if the voters that put them there can finally remove their heads from their asses.

A primary responsibility of government is a certain degree of stability and predictability. We haven't had that in years.

As for the yahoos in D.C. I'm very tired of their self-serving "tantrums". Fuck them all.

mayneack4• 13 years ago

I remember a couple years back reading somewhere (I tried and failed to find the article) that the Treasury Department's software wasn't actually prepared to stop the automatic generation of checks and payments if the debt ceiling was hit. This was for the first time that there was a "crisis" under Obama, so I would imagine that it's been solved.

Federal Government Begins First Shutdown In 17 Years

Related Stories