U.S. Federal Government officially shuts down!

[Lisnpuppy]

 

Here is a generalized article

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/30/politics/government-shutdown-up-to-speed/

 

 

Oh and the government is expected to default in mid-October as it's loan money runs dry.

 

Thanks for the link, this is what the debate should have started with, some facts rather than one sided ranting. Anyway, it's that default people should really worry about, if that happens the budget will have to be balanced overnight, prompting hyperinflation, massive layoffs and serious damage to the global economy. If those of both sides don't grow up pretty quickly the U.S will find itself in the brown stuff and you'll be dragging us all down with you.

 

NP. Also on that same link there are numerous other articles of some interest. I also enjoy reading the one that tells how regular folk may be impacted. Also interesting to note that this has almost nil impact on "obamacare" as the funding comes from a different source and is going ahead as planned. Not sure what that means for the Republican posturing on the subject. Honestly...both parties are equally bad. I am fed up with the lot of them. I don't think the countries budget should be held hostage in such a way. Regardless if they don't come to an agreement the crapola will hit the fan in 2 weeks when the well runs dry and they have to begin to shut down "necessary" things. As it is the entire District of Columbia is S.O.L and will start stinking in a few days as the trash services aren't running (As D.C. is completely dependent on this funding) and the temps are to be in the low 80s again (F not C) and that doesn't bode well for the stink already coming from Capital Hill.

[Marxist ßastard]

Honestly...both parties are equally bad. I am fed up with the lot of them.

You have two kids, Billy and Suzie. Suzie draws a picture in school one day. She's really proud of it. And it is of Billy's favoritest thing ever in the whole wide world: free markets and personal responsibility! You pin it to the freezer, sure that Billy will be delighted as soon as he sees it.

 

He takes one look at the picture and throws a violent tantrum, thrashing around and screaming about how "this is the worstest thing ever!", "it's literally worse than Nazi Germany!", and "repudiate socialism". You aren't sure that he knows what those last two words even mean. He refuses to brush his teeth, refuses to go to bed until you take Suzie's picture down from the freezer.

 

Time passes. Billy grows bolder in his demands, more desperate in his measures. He's stopped doing chores, stopped going to school. Each morning, he demands that you take Suzie's picture off the freezer - and since you've been so uncooperative thus far, you must tear it in half as Suzie looks on. Each morning, you firmly say no. In the evenings, as you have dinner, Billy frequently and loudly interjects with "Suzie is the worstest drawer ever, don't you agree?" You remain steadfast in your conviction that there are, in fact, worser drawers out there.

 

One morning, as usual, you ask if Billy is going to go to school today. He says he will not and insists that you cannot make him. Then he gives you an ultimatum: On Tuesday, he will dump a container of rat poison into the family dog's food bowl. Unless you take Suzie's drawing off the freezer. And you make her watch as you rip it to pieces. And you spit in her face and tell her that she's worse than Hitler. And Billy gets to eat ice cream every day from now on. And...

 

Do you: (a) Accept that Billy is a little terror that needs to be put on a leash and quick?

 

Or: (b) Smugly proclaim that this whole, like, "parenting" thing is totally for sheeple and you are just so completely over this whole system and besides if Billy is being so mean then chances are that Suzie deserves it anyway, I mean why can't she just compromise and reach middle ground, and really if the roles were reversed wouldn't she do the exact same thing?

Edited October 2, 2013 by Marxist ßastard

[TRoaches]

You have two kids, Billy and Suzie. Suzie draws a picture in school one day. She's really proud of it, but it is a drawing of Billy's least favoritist things in the whole wide world: bureaucracy and statism overriding individual economic freedom of choice. You know that it is going to upset Billy, but you pin it to the freezer anyway because you do not want to upset Suzie or discourage her artistic ambitions .

 

He takes one look at the picture and, predictably, throws a violent tantrum, thrashing around and screaming. He refuses to brush his teeth, refuses to go to bed until you take Suzie's picture down from the freezer.

 

Seeing how upset Billy has become about the picture, and not wanting to take sides in a dispute between your two beloved children, you tell Suzie that, for right now, the picture will be taken down from the freezer. She can hang it in her room if she likes, where she can look at it whenever she wants, but it is not nice to force Billy to accept the picture just because she prefers it. She throws her own violent tantrum, thrashing around and screaming. She refuses to brush her teeth, refuses to go to bed until you put the picture back up on the freezer.

 

Exhausted by the constant arguing between your children you lay down to relax for a bit, watch some TV, have a drink, maybe take a nap. While you are sleeping peacefully Suzie suffocates you with a pillow while Billy sets fire to the house. They collect your life insurance money go their separate ways, happy that their plot to make you vulnerable to parricide by exhausting and distracting you with their constant bickering had worked.

Edited October 2, 2013 by TRoaches

[Lisnpuppy]

Somebody pee in your Cheerios this morning MB? You quote two lines I wrote and really give an opinion on anything except being fed up with the lot of them and thinking what was happening was wrong yet not bashing on either. Since it isn't a matter of just assuming both sides have a multitude of sins but knowing it (honestly though I really didn't add anything substantial to this debate. You totally could have called me on that.) Yet you come up with that? Ha ha haa

 

Not sure really from what in my post you got your extended analogy or misguided diatribe there Marxist but you completely missed the mark (though I always enjoy when someone can get Yiddish into a sentence.) You actually decided to pick on someone's posting that may have actually agreed with you somewhat had you made some of your more direct points.

[Harbringe]

Somebody pee in your Cheerios this morning MB? You quote two lines I wrote and really give an opinion on anything except being fed up with the lot of them and thinking what was happening was wrong yet not bashing on either. Since it isn't a matter of just assuming both sides have a multitude of sins but knowing it (honestly though I really didn't add anything substantial to this debate. You totally could have called me on that.) Yet you come up with that? Ha ha haa

 

Not sure really from what in my post you got your extended analogy or misguided diatribe there Marxist but you completely missed the mark (though I always enjoy when someone can get Yiddish into a sentence.) You actually decided to pick on someone's posting that may have actually agreed with you somewhat had you made some of your more direct points.

 

Actually I didn't think that at all , it really speaks to the whole fed up with the lot of them spirit . Found both MB's and TRoaches approaches to be appropo and rather entertaining. Particularly enjoyed (burst out laughing) at the parricide angle.

 

PS. Oo almost forgot Jim-UK's point is bang on , this whole shutdown is symptomatic of a far larger issue , which is the default issue.

Edited October 2, 2013 by Harbringe

[Lisnpuppy]

I guess I am a little slow on the uptake this morning as I don't see where MB's analogy fits the very little I said. If I assumed that MB's sarcasm got the best of him I apologize but as I said...a completely off the cuff analogy in what seems to be a response to a bit of something I said makes little sense.

[JimboUK]

 

 

Here is a generalized article

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/30/politics/government-shutdown-up-to-speed/

 

 

Oh and the government is expected to default in mid-October as it's loan money runs dry.

 

Thanks for the link, this is what the debate should have started with, some facts rather than one sided ranting. Anyway, it's that default people should really worry about, if that happens the budget will have to be balanced overnight, prompting hyperinflation, massive layoffs and serious damage to the global economy. If those of both sides don't grow up pretty quickly the U.S will find itself in the brown stuff and you'll be dragging us all down with you.

 

NP. Also on that same link there are numerous other articles of some interest. I also enjoy reading the one that tells how regular folk may be impacted. Also interesting to note that this has almost nil impact on "obamacare" as the funding comes from a different source and is going ahead as planned. Not sure what that means for the Republican posturing on the subject. Honestly...both parties are equally bad. I am fed up with the lot of them. I don't think the countries budget should be held hostage in such a way. Regardless if they don't come to an agreement the crapola will hit the fan in 2 weeks when the well runs dry and they have to begin to shut down "necessary" things. As it is the entire District of Columbia is S.O.L and will start stinking in a few days as the trash services aren't running (As D.C. is completely dependent on this funding) and the temps are to be in the low 80s again (F not C) and that doesn't bode well for the stink already coming from Capital Hill.

 

 

I don't understand why a system that allows a shutdown exists in the first place, surely it's not beyond them to have system that allows the current level of spending to continue until agreement is reached?

[Lisnpuppy]

I am sure it is set up like this for this exact reason. The Federal Government holds money hostage all the time. For example, when trying to pass seat belt laws in each state the government basically held interstate monies hostage until the States passed the bills to enact seat belt laws.

 

OK I got this of Wikipedia so take it for what it is worth but this may be the mechanism why it can be done.

 

Under the separation of powers created by the United States Constitution, both the Senate and House of Representatives must approve an agreed budget, which then goes to the President of the United States for signature. If the President vetoes the budget, it goes back to Congress, where the veto can be overridden by a two-thirds vote. Government shutdowns tend to occur when the President and one or both of the chambers of Congress are unable to resolve disagreements over budget allocations before the existing budget cycle ends. ^[1]

Shutdowns of the type experienced by the United States are nearly impossible in other democracies. Under the parliamentary system used in most European nations, the executive and legislative branch are not separate, with the parliament designating all executive officials, typically called "ministers". In non-parliamentary democracies, a strong executive branch typically has the authority to keep the government functioning even without an approved budget. This was the case in the United States up until 1980, when the administration of Jimmy Carter interpreted the 1884 Antideficiency Act to limit the power of federal agencies in the lack of congressional approval.^[2]

[EnaiSiaion]

If daily life goes on while the government is shut down, why not just leave it that way? Might help you pay off your debt, too. Just like Greece.

[JimboUK]

I am sure it is set up like this for this exact reason. The Federal Government holds money hostage all the time. For example, when trying to pass seat belt laws in each state the government basically held interstate monies hostage until the States passed the bills to enact seat belt laws.

 

OK I got this of Wikipedia so take it for what it is worth but this may be the mechanism why it can be done.

 

Under the separation of powers created by the United States Constitution, both the Senate and House of Representatives must approve an agreed budget, which then goes to the President of the United States for signature. If the President vetoes the budget, it goes back to Congress, where the veto can be overridden by a two-thirds vote. Government shutdowns tend to occur when the President and one or both of the chambers of Congress are unable to resolve disagreements over budget allocations before the existing budget cycle ends. ^[1]

Shutdowns of the type experienced by the United States are nearly impossible in other democracies. Under the parliamentary system used in most European nations, the executive and legislative branch are not separate, with the parliament designating all executive officials, typically called "ministers". In non-parliamentary democracies, a strong executive branch typically has the authority to keep the government functioning even without an approved budget. This was the case in the United States up until 1980, when the administration of Jimmy Carter interpreted the 1884 Antideficiency Act to limit the power of federal agencies in the lack of congressional approval.^[2]

 

It's used to be possible here until the 1911 Parliament Act barred the Upper House from blocking budgets, it's still possible for the Lower House to do so but in reality any government that couldn't get its budget through the lower house is finished anyway.