U.S. Federal Government officially shuts down!

[Lisnpuppy]

@ Enai--But it doesn't. Just because something isn't defined as necessary that doesn't mean it isn't important. For example...all passports and visas, etc. No being processed. Imagine having sent your passport in, in plenty of time and suddenly...sorry about your trip but you aren't going anywhere...

 

There are many more serious examples (NASA pretty much is out of work on furlow) but in a few weeks not only is there the shut down but the ability for America to cover their debt will go belly up.

 

@Jim-sometimes our two houses argue the budget and one will pass and one won't. It is just stupid.

[JimboUK]

@ Enai--But it doesn't. Just because something isn't defined as necessary that doesn't mean it isn't important. For example...all passports and visas, etc. No being processed. Imagine having sent your passport in, in plenty of time and suddenly...sorry about your trip but you aren't going anywhere...

 

There are many more serious examples (NASA pretty much is out of work on furlow) but in a few weeks not only is there the shut down but the ability for America to cover their debt will go belly up.

 

@Jim-sometimes our two houses argue the budget and one will pass and one won't. It is just stupid

 

 

I do like the set up there where there is far more scrutiny of the executive than there is here, here we normally get to elect a new dictatorship every four or five years, the government being slapped down like they were over Syria is very rare.

 

@ Enai This doesn't save money, it costs it, $300 million a day according to estimates.

[EnaiSiaion]

@ Enai--But it doesn't. Just because something isn't defined as necessary that doesn't mean it isn't important. For example...all passports and visas, etc. No being processed. Imagine having sent your passport in, in plenty of time and suddenly...sorry about your trip but you aren't going anywhere...

 

There are many more serious examples (NASA pretty much is out of work on furlow) but in a few weeks not only is there the shut down but the ability for America to cover their debt will go belly up.

Visas can be privatised. NASA is useless. Jails, the postal service, hospitals, major roads etc etc can be privatised as well. There is very little the government has to do.

 

It would suck for the average joe, but the ones to blame are the previous generation who borrowed money without intending to pay it back, not "the system" or "capitalism". There is no free lunch.

 

I don't actually want a limited government because the government is uniquely positioned to make the economy run smoother, but right now there are no other options, neither for the US government nor for any other Western country except maybe Germany.

 

 

@ Enai This doesn't save money, it costs it, $300 million a day according to estimates.

It doesn't cost the government money, it costs the economy money. And it's not the government's job to artificially inflate the economy by borrowing (or printing) money and then failing to pay it back. An economy boosted by subsidies and government purchases is not a real economy, nor is it sustainable - as demonstrated here.

[rizon72]

In my opinion, BOTH parties hold equal responsibility for this mess. Yes Obama and the democrats are just as much a part of this mess as the Republicans are. 50-50 blame, anything less and we're never going to star healing as a nation, but only divide even further.

[colourwheel]

 

In my opinion, BOTH parties hold equal responsibility for this mess. Yes Obama and the democrats are just as much a part of this mess as the Republicans are. 50-50 blame, anything less and we're never going to star healing as a nation, but only divide even further.

 

How can you even argue that both parties are "equally" to blame for the shutdown when Ted Cruz did a 21 hour "fake" filibuster urging for a shutdown if Obamacare wasn't defunded, delayed, and repealed.

 

Granted this was not what the Republican party as a whole wanted to do initially but "if" they strongly felt the ACA was going to be so bad then wouldn't it be politically beneficial to their party to let the law fail on its own? They just don't want to give the program a chance regardless if it works or not... This whole mess is over ideology and a battle they know they can't win when the republican party only controls one part of government.... Not to mention the Republican party is fighting with its self over this mess too...

 

The affordable care act was already funded and was ready to launch on October 1st. The demand to unprecedentedly abolish a law trying to force it through a continuing resolution is just not even realistic especially when they are offering to fund the government only for a few more weeks over getting rid of something that took years to create....

 

You might think BOTH parties hold "equal" responsibility for this mess but good luck trying to convenience the whole nation without a strong argument putting "equal" blame...

 

The Republicans idea of negotiating is like punching someone in the face and offering them the choice of either being punched 5 times or 10 times in the face.... That's not negotiating to me...

 

The republican party "only" wants the nation to positively succeed "only" if they control the government.... Otherwise they just want the nation to fail and don't care who gets hurt in order to gain political power..... The Republicans just look greedy for power....

Edited October 2, 2013 by colourwheel

[EnaiSiaion]

That's what I'm also wondering. If that law is so bad, then let it pass and watch the train wreck. Or perhaps they know it isn't all that bad but it's a Democrat law and therefore must be shot down on principle?

[rizon72]

 

 

In my opinion, BOTH parties hold equal responsibility for this mess. Yes Obama and the democrats are just as much a part of this mess as the Republicans are. 50-50 blame, anything less and we're never going to star healing as a nation, but only divide even further.

 

 

The Republicans idea of negotiating is like punching someone in the face and offering them the choice of either being punched 5 times or 10 times in the face.... That's not negotiating to me...

 

 

What I've seen of Democrats negotiating, nothing, my way or the highway doesn't show me much either. BOTH are responsible for this mess and acting like spoiled brats. So far no one has convinced me that democrats are not 50% responsible for this mess.

 

For five years now we have its going to be either my way or no way by BOTH parties. That is time to stop, and do something neither side knows how to do anymore, negotiate.

Edited October 2, 2013 by rizon72

[AurianaValoria1]

This government shutdown is proof that the United States doesn't need as many government workers as it presently employs. A lot of these jobs are just made up to provide lifetime pensions.

 

From Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/30/us-usa-fiscal-epa-idUSBRE98T12E20130930

 

So, more than 15k are "non essential." Proof right there of government waste. I know that essential doesn't mean that more are not needed, but I do know that you don't need 15,000 if 1,000 can keep it running.

 

If some of the chaff is eliminated in DC, the cost to the taxpayers will be considerably less. Everyone doesn't have to have a job with a title and a matching salary. There was a time when government was intended to serve the people...voluntarily...without pay. Perhaps if Congress lost their magnificent salaries, lifetime pensions, and other outrageous benefits and were forced to take regular jobs along with their constituents, they wouldn't be passing laws that they don't have to follow. This would also eliminate people coming to DC to make a fortune - they would have to honestly want to help the country.

 

If the ACA is going to be implemented, and the American people are going to be taxed for it, regardless of whether or not they want it, then the least Congress can do is enroll, as well. Congress simply cannot separate itself from the laws of the people.

[HeyYou]

The dems are willing to negotiate, just not on the same details the republicans want. The only thing the repubbies are interested in, is defunding obamacare. Not repealing it at this point mind you, just defunding it. All those requirements would still be in place, and folks would still have to buy insurance if they didn't happen to have any, there just wouldn't be any government subsidies for it. Which will basically bankrupt a significant percentage of the currently uninsured folks. How does THAT help anyone?

 

No, this one lies squarely at the feet of the republicans. (colourwheel's numbers may be a bit inflated, but, from what I have been reading, only a bit......) If the repubbies are only willing to tie passing a budget with defunding obamacare, no budget is going to pass. I don't blame the dems for not bothering to show up. Would have been an exercise in futility in any event. So, as it stands, in around two weeks, the US government is going to default on its debts, our credit rating will get dinged, we won't have as much borrowing power, will have to pay more just to pay the interest on the current debt, so the fed will have to cut spending elsewhere in any event..... it is going to be a wicked fast downhill spiral, which has the potential to tank the entire world economy.

[JimboUK]

 

 

 

Visas can be privatised. NASA is useless. Jails, the postal service, hospitals, major roads etc etc can be privatised as well. There is very little the government has to do.

 

It would suck for the average joe, but the ones to blame are the previous generation who borrowed money without intending to pay it back, not "the system" or "capitalism". There is no free lunch.

 

I don't actually want a limited government because the government is uniquely positioned to make the economy run smoother, but right now there are no other options, neither for the US government nor for any other Western country except maybe Germany.

 

 

@ Enai This doesn't save money, it costs it, $300 million a day according to estimates.

It doesn't cost the government money, it costs the economy money. And it's not the government's job to artificially inflate the economy by borrowing (or printing) money and then failing to pay it back. An economy boosted by subsidies and government purchases is not a real economy, nor is it sustainable - as demonstrated here.

 

 

Less money in the economy means less for government which increases the need to borrow, it's not rocket science. The size of the state does need to be cut drastically but just shutting things down isn't the way to do it, it needs to be done in a way that minimises the impact on the economy and those parts of the private sector that are reliant on government spending. As for who's to blame the fact that this has happened in the first place rather suggests both sides have put their own interests ahead of the nations.