Government Shut Down

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Adak

snip--

Don't worry about a compromise however. Harry Reid is in charge of the Obama negotiating team, and he told the Republicans meeting with Obama, before they came in, that there would be no negotiating until they had their debt ceiling lifted and all their funding.

--snip

this is a complete lie, you should retract it. I don't mean just ignore it and run away, like you do for your other empty headed repetitions of misstatements endlessly drilled into you by indoctrination radio. You spray these around desperately, fired off like harmless but startling chaff, distracting the attention of those in the conversation from the substance of what we should be talking about.

Harry Reid, doing his job as the Senate Majority Leader, offered compromise. He accepted the bill from the House, using the regular rules of our government stripped from it the portion that delayed the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, and returned the rest of the bill *INTACT* to the House for their consideration. The rest of the bill had "all their funding", but the "their" in this case was the funding suggested by the Republicans in the House. How is that Harry Reid's fault? How is it Harry Reid's numbers?

Well, as a compromise, it could very easily be seen as his "fault", his "funding". He's said "yes, ok, that funding is acceptable to me. let's do this." It was an attempt to compromise. One that was rejected, no, ignored by the House. So, no, it wasn't Reid's funding, and ultimately it wasn't Boehner's either, since it's been cast aside.

But no crying about not getting "your way". Well, I expect you'll cry anyway, but I've no sympathy for your crocodile tears.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by glatt

That's the interest the federal government has to pay, expressed as a percentage of GDP.

I like that graph. It really cuts to the bones of the spending vs revenue problem. It shows that we maybe were dead wrong in the eighties and should check out some pie charts from that time vs now for comparison. Big defense is big government...

[Lamplighter]

Amen Griff.

To hear today's GOP, Reagan was the master of an astute economic theory.

Wiki:

The four pillars of Reagan's economic policy were to reduce
the growth of government spending, reduce the federal income tax
and capital gains tax, reduce government regulation, and control
the money supply in order to reduce inflation

But... after a long association with GE, Reagan was the darling of the defense industry.
We are still living with his "star wars" (Strategic Defense Initiative), and to some extent
his 600-ship Navy, with their resulting and ever-increasing (supply-side) deficits -> debt.

[glatt]

My only gripe about it is that I don't have a good understanding of what percent of GDP really means. I would more easily understand percent of annual budget, or dollars adjusted for inflation. I'm not sure percent of GDP is a good measure.

[Lamplighter]

Glatt, "deficit" is for a particular period of time, whereas "debt" is the cumulated deficits

So I look on GDP as the total output of energy and resources ($) of the country.
So, looking at a given year's deficit as a %GDP is a measure of what
the country would have to expend to reduce that deficit (to zero).

OTOH, higher inflation has the effect in future years of
reducing the subsequent debt-to-%GDP ratios
... i.e., older debts can be paid off with "cheaper" dollars

BUT, I'm open to being educated out of the error of my ways.

.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

Glatt, "deficit" is for a particular period of time, whereas "debt" is the cumulated deficits

So I look on GDP as the total output of energy and resources ($) of the country.
So, looking at a given year's deficit as a %GDP is a measure of what
the country would have to expend to reduce that deficit (to zero).

OTOH, higher inflation has the effect in future years of
reducing the subsequent debt-to-%GDP ratios
... i.e., older debts can be paid off with "cheaper" dollars

BUT, I'm open to being educated out of the error of my ways.

.

My issue with % of GDP is that the government doesn't have access to the entire GDP to spend it. I think a more useful statistic might be to see a % of the total revenue.

But I'm no economist.

[Lamplighter]

Such as this ... From here

[Lamplighter]

Truckers are trying to organize a strike and occupy DC this weekend.

The first come-on is to protest the government shutdown.
But then if you drill down one step, it is to protest "government corruption"
And then if you drill down further, it becomes a far right-wing jumble.

Some trucker groups are backing away, some large outfits are too.
So if you plan to be in DC this weekend, don't be surprised by some big-rig traffic jams.

[orthodoc]

They're supposed to be 'occupying' the Beltway. Fortunately I was on said highway very very early this morning and didn't encounter them. However - if they're opposing the government shutdown and government corruption, why inconvenience people who are already severely inconvenienced by the stupid Republican shutdown?

I'd think they would want to occupy the National Mall from end to end and blow their air horns continuously, to send a message to the House to get their asses back to work and do their f***ing jobs.

[gvidas]

Originally Posted by glatt

My issue with % of GDP is that the government doesn't have access to the entire GDP to spend it. I think a more useful statistic might be to see a % of the total revenue.

But I'm no economist.

It isn't that the number is literally relevant. The point is that neither the deficit as an absolute number, nor the GDP as an absolute number, is terribly meaningful -- they both need to be contextualized. To do this, you can compare them to one another, and look at relative changes.

A crude example: spending $100 a month on a cell phone with a good data plan is a big deal if you're 16 and work part-time at McDonalds; if you're an investment banker pulling in 6 figures a year, it's a fairly minor expense. You can represent this in general by looking at an expenditure as a percentage of annual income.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Adak

Wrong. Both the Treasury dept and Moody's have stated that there will be NO default of any US debt.

Some programs will be cut back, but NOBODY will be defaulted on.

From Jack Lew's testimony, if the funds cannot cover it, someone doesn't get paid. There is no 'cut back' on existing debt. This would be akin to telling the electric company that you will be paying them 90 cents on the dollar because you refuse to take out a loan. In reality, even that is not an option since there is no precedent. The Treasury would just pay all of the bills in no particular order until the money ran out.

It's really that simple. The Treasury has no authority to cut back funding on any programs. Their entire job is to pay all authorized bills, manage money, and secure funding where authorized. What part of 'full faith and credit' do you not understand?


From Jack Lew's (Treasury Secretary) testimony on default.(Washington Post).

In addition to the economic costs of the shutdown, the uncertainty around raising the debt limit is beginning to stress financial markets. At our auction of four-week Treasury bills on Tuesday, the interest rate nearly tripled relative to the prior week’s auction, and it reached the highest level since October 2008.

Treasury continues to project that the extraordinary measures will be exhausted no later than October 17, 2013, at which point the federal government will have run out of borrowing authority. At that point, we will be left to meet our country’s commitments with only the cash on hand and any incoming revenues, placing our economy in a dangerous position.
If we have insufficient cash on hand, it would be impossible for the United States of America to meet all of its obligations, including Social Security and Medicare benefits, payments to our military and veterans and contracts with private suppliers for the first time in our history.

Full Faith and Credit

Article IV, Section 1:
Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.[5]

The short answer is that anywhere you go in the US, bills incurred by any state, or the US government, will be paid.

[DanaC]

The only things there that the uber Right (as opposed to sensible conservatives) give a toss about are the veteran benefits. I daresay they'd count it a minor victory if social security and medicare goes unpaid.

[Jesus]

Originally Posted by DanaC

The only things there that the uber Right (as opposed to sensible conservatives) give a toss about are the veteran benefits. I daresay they'd count it a minor victory if social security and medicare goes unpaid.

It's the only thing they posture about. I doubt they genuinely care though. As long as they can wrap themselves in the flag. The uber right, for a long, long time, were actually blocking a bill a couple of years ago, to provide healthcare to the first responders of 9/11.

There has been no greater horse that has been flogged by the right, than that. Yet they weren't interested in helping the people that put their lives on the line.

[Adak]

That was the report from the media. I wasn't there to witness it. It IS however, what Harry Reid has stated himself, to the mainstream media, on more than one occasion.

You know he used the arcane rules of the Senate, to strip off the defunding amendment from the House bill. That is how the liberal media CBS news, reported it: "arcane".

Think about it. ONE person, can remove an amendment from a bill passed by the ENTIRE HOUSE? Are you kidding me? Does that even LOOK like a democratic government at work?

No, it does not, and I can't remember a time in the past, when it was used for this purpose, either.

Jack Lew is a political puppet appointee. There is no danger of us not being able to pay our federal debts, in full, and on time.

The firefighters have excellent health care plans, and they must have known it was dangerous to be working around the site of the fallen towers, shortly after 9/11/01. Burning plastics, fabric, heavy and fine dust (concrete, drywall, etc.), etc. These are not new dangers to a fireman. They deal with them frequently.

I'm not familiar with the saga of the 9/11 responders. Why is this still an issue, after all these years?

I have to say the "lets pay every victim's family a lot of money" idea, was a bad decision by Washington. Did we pay the families of those men who died from the terrorist attack on the U.S.S. Cole? What about those who died from the first bomb attack on the Towers?

Of course not - likewise, any family member of a soldier who has died in Iraq or Afghanistan, or anywhere else. Also, these 9/11 families had a LOT more money and income, than our soldiers. Their average payout (which 97% of them took), was $1.8 Million dollars, for heaven's sake!

I'm sure the responders felt like ignored red-headed step kids, looking at what the families received.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Adak

Think about it. ONE person, can remove an amendment from a bill passed by the ENTIRE HOUSE? Are you kidding me? Does that even LOOK like a democratic government at work?

Neither is it when the leader of the entire House of Representatives holds up passage of legislation until a minority of one party in the House is satisfied when he knows that a majority of the entire house will pass it.

Neither was it when individual Republicans blocked multiple calls for a budget conference earlier this year that might have avoided the brinksmanship.

If you don't like Congresses rules, tell your friends to stop abusing them.

Originally Posted by Adak

I have to say the "lets pay every victim's family a lot of money" idea, was a bad decision by Washington. Did we pay the families of those men who died from the terrorist attack on the U.S.S. Cole? What about those who died from the first bomb attack on the Towers?

Of course not - likewise, any family member of a soldier who has died in Iraq or Afghanistan, or anywhere else.

President Barack Obama signed legislation to resume paying death benefits to the families of U.S. military personnel that Congress passed after the aid had lapsed because of the government shutdown.
Lawmakers approved the measure even as there was disagreement about the need for it. The Defense Department earlier this week had contracted with the Fisher House Foundation, which supports military families, to make the $100,000 payments for the duration of the government shutdown.

So, $100K to be paid to the families of those killed by enemies of this country. I would argue the 9/11 responders were in that category. Was the response too great and the results unbalanced? Maybe. I did not realize, Adak, that you would let your inner Communist out and insist on complete parity amongst payments to the proletariat. How does one spell RINO?