US Federal Government Shutdown | Shutdown Shutdown, Debt Ceiling Raised

Status
Not open for further replies.
Byakuya769 said:
I was assuming your post was to state that the size of the debt is to blame for your market "warning." I disagree with that (and that accepting that this isn't noise for the sake of discussion). What exactly are you asserting as the problem?
Click to expand...

Both the levels of debt (which directly result in us spending hundreds of billions in interest payments alone) and the pace of borrowing in the face of such political instability... is what the markets are warning us about. Keep in mind that in terms of the pace of borrowing, rates have remained low because the Fed has been directly filling the gap in demand. The second they hint that they will reduce filling that gap in demand (by a mere few billions per month as was predicted), and yields spike at historic rates for a few months.

Because of market warnings, the Fed did not taper. Case in point, debt matters. It always has.
 
Acorn said:
Democrats should of just went with single payer. They are encountering the same bullshit they tried to avoid with the bandaid of aca.

That's my british perspective on this Health care debacle anyway.
Click to expand...

They should have, but they had absolutely no idea how loony the GOP would become, so they were trying to make concessions.
 
Acorn said:
Democrats should of just went with single payer. They are encountering the same bullshit they tried to avoid with the bandaid of aca.

That's my british perspective on this Health care debacle anyway.
Click to expand...

Well let me educate your lack of perspective. Single payer would never pass congress. The ACA has faults due to concessions, many surrendered up front to insurance companies just to get them to the table - but is probably the best thing that could have passed. And the good thing: it will pave the way for single payer down the road.

It's not a case of "we can pass universal health care or this conservative shit...let's go for the latter and call it a day."
 
Dartastic said:
RE: Obamacare. This guy on FB is saying this. "I just don't see how forcing people to buy health insurance is going to help. I mean, we are still buying from private firms right? Is the government going to supplement the cost of what the insurance companies will loose on pretty existing conditions? If so then who is going to pay the government? I think there adding like 3% towards medicaid or something for the new healthcare... But that can't be enough... I just want details and I feel the republicans must know something we don't ... Because half the people I talk to are against and half are for it..."

Now, I know some of the reasons why it will help, but I don't have time (I'm at work just taking a small break) to find a decent link to describe this to him. Does anyone have one?
Click to expand...

Replace Obamacare and some operative words with "man made climate change" and see the kind of person you're dealing with. Likely not worth it. Passive skepticism and no attempt at verifying information means there is a conclusion they are hiding from.
 
Sanky Panky said:
Both the levels of debt (which directly result in us spending hundreds of billions in interest payments alone) and the pace of borrowing in the face of such political instability... is what the markets are warning us about.
Click to expand...

No way, Jose.

Not to mention that the government does not need the market and that, even if it did, the Fed controls interest rates. Investors have no leverage. And if they did, we should change the law to prohibit that leverage by requiring the Fed to credit the Treasury's account directly for any amounts that tax collection falls short of spending directives. Easy peasy.
 
Acorn said:
Democrats should of just went with single payer. They are encountering the same bullshit they tried to avoid with the bandaid of aca.

That's my british perspective on this Health care debacle anyway.
Click to expand...

Moderate and conservative democrats probably would not have gone with it. Maybe someday after the collapse of western civilization
 
Sanky Panky said:
Both the levels of debt (which directly result in us spending hundreds of billions in interest payments alone) and the pace of borrowing in the face of such political instability... is what the markets are warning us about. Keep in mind that in terms of the pace of borrowing, rates have remained low because the Fed has been directly filling the gap in demand. The second they hint that they will reduce filling that gap in demand (by a mere few billions per month as was predicted), and yields spike at historic rates for a few months.

Because of market warnings, the Fed did not taper. Case in point, debt matters. It always has.
Click to expand...

How are you substantiating any of this? I asked you to show me why your warning isn't related to discrete and present occurrences, and now you're just lumping them in together so you can stand behind your initial conclusion?
 
Acorn said:
Democrats should of just went with single payer. They are encountering the same bullshit they tried to avoid with the bandaid of aca.

That's my british perspective on this Health care debacle anyway.
Click to expand...

That would never have passed. ACA may be a compromised system, but it's a step in the right direction. We'll probably have single payer within the next 50 years.
 
LOL someone just called in to CSPAN with the SOLUTION for the problem.
He said Obama should revoke Cruz's Citizenship and send him back to Canada.
 
Acorn said:
Democrats should of just went with single payer. They are encountering the same bullshit they tried to avoid with the bandaid of aca.

That's my british perspective on this Health care debacle anyway.
Click to expand...
Sorry sir, moderate Dems would have never gone along with it.

HOWEVER you are half-right -- for the sake of politics and posturing, Obama should have started with single-payer for negotiation purposes. Then, he should have settled for a public option, which would have been more likely to pass. The then-Democratic controlled House wanted a PO, but the Senate did not. Had they been faced with single-payer being the most leftist thing about the bill, they may have been more willing at that point to settle for a PO.

What's important to note is that the ACA encourages states to exceed the bare minimum requirements for the law; enacting a single-payer type of system does this.

The ACA is a huge stepping stone to single-payer but we're still 15-20 years away from it nationwide, most likely. In the next 5 or so years, definitely watch for blue states implementing some form of single payer.
 
Is there any way we could have a MMT/ZeroHedge Cage Fight OT so that the discussion doesn't overrun every single thread in which the word "deficit" is mentioned even once? I'd read it, even. I read it literally every time it happens.
 
empty vessel said:
No way, Jose.

Not to mention that the government does not need the market and that, even if it did, the Fed controls interest rates. Investors have no leverage. And if they did, we should change the law to prohibit that leverage by requiring the Fed to credit the Treasury's account directly for any amounts that tax collection falls short of spending directives. Easy peasy.
Click to expand...

Hehe the funny thing is that according to the constitution (and the founding fathers), what you mention (the Fed printing money) is illegal, but has been accepted by governments throughout history because they are the main beneficiaries.

The fed DOES NOT control interest rates other than through the fed funds rate, the discount window, and purchases/sales from the FOMC. The Fed was not expecting the 10yr price to drop, and for yields to spike to 3% (now down slightly after the taper scare is gone). Moreover, the crisis of 2008 was out of the hands of the Fed or the government, and ALL in the hands of the players in the shadow banking systems (which is much much bigger than many country GDPs combined). Money market funds, repo agreements, credit default swaps... the game was over when the players demanded higher rates or better collateral to keep the engine running.

Fiat money, globalization, and debt... are not a thing of the 20th century. With out technology, things just unravel quicker.

pigeon said:
Is there any way we could have a MMT/ZeroHedge Cage Fight OT so that the discussion doesn't overrun every single thread in which the word "deficit" is mentioned even once? I'd read it, even. I read it literally every time it happens.
Click to expand...

We could have everyone read "The Creature from Jekyll Island", and things would go much smoother.
 
Amibguous Cad said:
What's the fed got to do with it?
Click to expand...

He/she was saying that surely if the economy were in bad shape, the market would be warning us. My point with the reply you quoted is that maybe the market IS trying to warn us. I wouldn't rely on the market to tell us anything when it's so heavily manipulated.

Try this for a start. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics
Click to expand...

That is one (of many) schools of thought. Hardly the "matter of fact", as it was presented. I'm genuinely curious here, people. Can anyone definitively say that decreasing government spending during a recession will make things worse? Surely you can't just point to the European Austerity situation and link it to the decreased gov't spending, as if the two existed in a vaccuum?

You have been conditioned to believe that government spending is irresponsible. It is not true.
Click to expand...

Not irresponsible, inefficient. And I've come to this conclusion through my own observations rather than 'conditioning'.
 
Brolic Gaoler said:
Who's getting angry? I'm simply saying they shouldn't be paid for doing nothing. And for you saying "They would like to go back to work" my feed is flooded with other friends who work for the fed enjoying their "fur-cation" as they call it (furlough vacation). So no, not all of them are that way and yes, they are anticipating to be paid when this is over like the last time it happened so they are essentially getting free vacation while some of us still have to work. I'm simply saying if that happens, those of us still working should be compensated more.

No, it's unfair to not compensate the people who worked through the entire thing equally.
Click to expand...

How is it fair to the people out of work when this crisis was essentially manufactured? The livelyhoods of working families should be compromised because Washington can't get it together? That's fucking ridiculous. How about the republicans stop fighting for tax breaks for the rich and knock a bit off the subsidies we give to oil companies to pay the government workers that are furloughed? You know, the people who NEED the money as opposed to giant conglomerates like BP.

This brinksmanship is the antithesis of democracy. The republicans are fucking over the same group of people they claim to work for. And for what? Because they don't want to go through the legislative process they've essentially broken to fix a law they don't like. People like Michelle Bachmann don't give a fuck because they're still drawing salary. Fucking ridiculous.
 
FlashFlooder said:
Maybe? C'mon, comically so. It's good to be able to laugh at yourself sometimes, you know.
Hopefully you have a better example than me, because I actually DON'T support "this nonsense".

1. I don't think we should default on our debt.
2. I'm not as concerned with how much our government spends in aggregate as I am with HOW it spends it. If we need money for universal healthcare, why don't we just take it out of the NSA's domestic spying budget? would be an oversimplified example of my philosophy.
3. This would benefit everyone in our society. But you did show your hand by obviously casting me as the asshole Republican who wants to pay less taxes.

I'd just like to remind you that some people don't feel the need to draw battle lines and stand firmly on one side or the other when it comes to politics. Don't assume I'm "the enemy" just because I might disagree with one of your points.
Click to expand...

How does cutting government spending help people? Besides risk of inflation, is there a way?
 
PartyTimeFunTime said:
No. It's that people don't want to be responsible anymore. Everything should be handed to me because he or she got away with it. Pity me. Why don't you go and pay the bum down the street who cleaned your windows 1 time for a whole month's of work.
Click to expand...

Why should the working joes pay the price for congressional misconduct? Congress is responsible for this, yet their own salaries are untouched. Responsibility is: you broke it, you fix it.

Instead we see this type of Stockholm syndrome where working people parrot the rhetoric of the elite. Got screwed? Too bad, it's your fault. Meanwhile the guy screwing you is making double what you are and working less to boot.
 
FlashFlooder said:
That is one (of many) schools of thought. Hardly the "matter of fact", as it was presented. I'm genuinely curious here, people. Can anyone definitively say that decreasing government spending during a recession will make things worse? Surely you can't just point to the European Austerity situation and link it to the decreased gov't spending, as if the two existed in a vaccuum?
Click to expand...
depression_gdp.png
Click to expand...
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/08/new-deal-economics/

FDR enacted New Deal beginning of 1930s, spending increased, things improved. FDR told to stop spending and increasing nation debt 1937-1938, shit went bad. War happened 1940s, things got better because of spending.
 
Saw earlier on MSNBC that the House had a majority (100 GOP votes) that would've passed, and that the budget numbers came from Republicans, yet still didn't pass.

Holy shit. And there people who want to blame both parties?
 
pigeon said:
Is there any way we could have a MMT/ZeroHedge Cage Fight OT so that the discussion doesn't overrun every single thread in which the word "deficit" is mentioned even once? I'd read it, even. I read it literally every time it happens.
Click to expand...

Considering the debt limit debate is about to start, I feel its appropriate here .... Maybe that's just me though. I would, however, LOVE an OT as well.
 
Harry Reid quote on why he will refuse to pass bill giving funding to NIH to help kids with cancer.

QUESTION: But if you can help one child who has cancer, why wouldn’t you do it?

REID: Why would we want to do that? I have 1,100 people at Nellis Air Force base that are sitting home. They have a few problems of their own.
Click to expand...

What a callous pile of shit.
 
massoluk said:
If GOP still has any sanity left, there's no fucking way Boehner is going to keep it. He has to be the most hated man in Congress right now.
Click to expand...
This is the "Boehner shutdown" after all. He caused it through his own choice and can end it right this moment if he wanted to.

Obama calls it the "Republican shutdown", but I think its time things got more personal. And while Boehner is acting out of self-preservation and fear, I wonder how much he'd like it if the blame shifted from the tea party junior class extremists and was scarfed directly around his neck like the albatross it is.
 
Bulbo Urethral Baggins said:
Harry Reid quote on why he will refuse to pass bill giving funding to NIH to help kids with cancer.



What a callous pile of shit.
Click to expand...

Why not blame the folks who shut the govt. down and are now trying to pick and chose which parts get opened as a PR move? Unlike the GOP, Reid is a huge proponent of NIH funding..
 
Bulbo Urethral Baggins said:
Harry Reid quote on why he will refuse to pass bill giving funding to NIH to help kids with cancer.



What a callous pile of shit.
Click to expand...
This does not appear to have full context of why that answer was given.

http://freebeacon.com/reid-why-would-we-want-to-help-one-kid-with-cancer/

DANA BASH: You all talked about children with cancer unable to go to clinical trials. The House is presumably going to pass a bill that funds at least the NIH. Given what you’ve said, will you at least pass that? And if not, aren’t you playing the same political games that Republicans are?

HARRY REID: Listen, Sen. Durbin explained that very well, and he did it here, did it on the floor earlier, as did Sen. Schumer. What right did they have to pick and choose what part of government is going to be funded? It’s obvious what’s going on here. You talk about reckless and irresponsible. Wow. What this is all about is Obamacare. They are obsessed. I don’t know what other word I can use. They’re obsessed with this Obamacare. It’s working now and it will continue to work and people will love it more than they do now by far. So they have no right to pick and choose.

BASH: But if you can help one child who has cancer, why wouldn’t you do it?

REID: Why would we want to do that? I have 1,100 people at Nellis Air Force base that are sitting home. They have a few problems of their own. This is — to have someone of your intelligence to suggest such a thing maybe means you’re irresponsible and reckless –

BASH: I’m just asking a question.
Click to expand...

Edit: Apparently this transcript isn't the full conversation either, see the following future post for more details:

Maninthemirror said:
Bulbo is that you?

http://mediamatters.org/mobile/blog...ives-made-it-up-harry-reid-didnt-dismi/196234
Click to expand...
 
I haven't been following this too closely, but am I right in saying that the only way for this shutdown to end is if one side bitches out (at least in eyes of its voters)?

Is there any way for this to end with both parties saving face? Because it doesn't look like it. Most analysts insist this won't last longer than a week. But in order to end it, someone is going to have to compromise on a very hard line.
 
methane47 said:
LOL someone just called in to CSPAN with the SOLUTION for the problem.
He said Obama should revoke Cruz's Citizenship and send him back to Canada.
Click to expand...

This is awesome.

Someone in the radio said our goverment is a car on Cruz control. The car will shutdown unless it veers massively to the right .
 
Just asking questions was supposed to be Glenn Beck's thing.

Bulbo Urethral Baggins said:
Do you really think that was an appropriate response?
"Why should we help a kid with cancer... there are some people out of work"
Absolutely indefensible if you ask me.
Click to expand...

You don't get to pick and choose what parts of government are available or not. You pass these 3 offers then it's 3 more offers then 3 more until the only thing left is Obamacare. Drop this bullshit bro it's beneath even you.
 
Sanky Panky said:
Hehe the funny thing is that according to the constitution (and the founding fathers), what you mention (the Fed printing money) is illegal, but has been accepted by governments throughout history because they are the main beneficiaries.

The fed DOES NOT control interest rates other than through the fed funds rate, the discount window, and purchases/sales from the FOMC.
Click to expand...

That is precisely what allows the Fed to control interest rates. Do you imagine this graph to be a coincidence?

fredgraph.png


Sanky Panky said:
The Fed was not expecting the 10yr price to drop, and for yields to spike to 3% (now down slightly after the taper scare is gone). Moreover, the crisis of 2008 was out of the hands of the Fed or the government, and ALL in the hands of the players in the shadow banking systems (which is much much bigger than many country GDPs combined). Money market funds, repo agreements, credit default swaps... the game was over when the players demanded higher rates or better collateral to keep the engine running.
Click to expand...

I don't understand what you are saying here. What I know is that bond issuance is a government spending program for the benefit of (mostly wealthy) investors. That's all it is. Not at all unlike social security.
 
massoluk said:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/08/new-deal-economics/

FDR enacted New Deal beginning of 1930s, spending increased, things improved. FDR told to stop spending and increased nation debt 1937-1938, shit went bad. War happened 1940s, things got better because of spending.
Click to expand...

Thanks for this. I was actually thinking of this very scenario when typing my response earlier, but then realized that the spending in this case was of a very specific type (infrastructure in the first phase, manufacturing in the second). Both things I wish our current government would invest in heavily, btw.

I still have a very hard time jumping from that to "ANY kind of spending helps us get out of a recession".
 
Bulbo Urethral Baggins said:
Harry Reid quote on why he will refuse to pass bill giving funding to NIH to help kids with cancer.



What a callous pile of shit.
Click to expand...

He said it right: Why should House GOP members be allowed to pick and choose what gets funded and what doesn't? If they pass a clean CR, then everybody wins.

The House GOP is just trying to turn back on the stuff that has the most eyes on it right now in the media without actually handling the issue as a whole. Good on Reid for recognizing that and not giving in.

Boehner is keeping that funding from the NIH, no one else. If he allowed a majority vote in the House, this would all be over.
 
Bulbo Urethral Baggins said:
Harry Reid quote on why he will refuse to pass bill giving funding to NIH to help kids with cancer.



What a callous pile of shit.
Click to expand...

So you think he's a pile of shit for not having the government pick and choose who gets health care and who doesn't?

REPUBLICANS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.


This is the kind of shit you accuse democrats of doing, then you go around and demand the government pick and choose which health centers get funded , or that the secretary of health & human services override the transplant committee, suspend the rules, and arbitrarily place someone on a transplant list they shouldn't be on, screwing over the people below them on the list to whom the rules actually were applied.

Hypocrite.
 
wait hold up.

hold up hold up hold up..

The $ of the budget was set by the republicans... and now they don't want to vote to pass the budget that they wanted? wat?
 
GaimeGuy said:
So you think he's a pile of shit for not having the government pick and choose who gets health care and who doesn't?

REPUBLICANS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.


This is the kind of shit you accuse democrats of doing, then you go around and demand the government pick and choose which health centers get funded , or that the secretary of health & human services override the transplant committee, suspend the rules, and arbitrarily place someone on a transplant list they shouldn't be on, screwing over the people below them on the list to whom the rules actually were applied.

Hypocrite.
Click to expand...

Luckily they got lifelong true believers like Bulbo to count on.
 
Bulbo Urethral Baggins said:
Do you really think that was an appropriate response?
"Why should we help a kid with cancer... there are some people out of work"
Absolutely indefensible if you ask me.
Click to expand...
Well if you are serious then first it would help if you would explain why you deliberately left out the context of that quote?

That's pretty indefensible if you ask me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Realizing the truth of my debt
2 3
104
6K
jufonuk replied
[UK] Apple pulls data protection tool after UK government security row
2
76
5K
Paasei replied
Are the people ready to be governed by AI
Science 
31
476
ReasonBeing replied
US air traffic control still runs on Windows 95 and floppy disks
2
51
211
Avid Reading Horse replied
Temu to stop selling goods from China directly to US customers
33
747
OmegaSupreme replied
Top Bottom