US Government Shutdown Mega-Thread

[bush_cheney2004]

Unlike Greece, the US has its own currency - and it has an expensive military. Hence, IMHO, one of two things will happen (and possibly both) in the medium to long term: the US military will become smaller and the US dollar will lose value.

This has already been underway for years, with real defense expenditures as a percentage of GDP down sharply from the Cold War. Monetizing the debt with a "weak dollar" policy has also been the norm, despite claims to the contrary. I agree that there is absolutely no political will to reign in entitlement programs, but defense cuts are quite achievable. Unfortunately, wars are temporary, but entitlements are forever.

[August1991]

This has already been underway for years, with real defense expenditures as a percentage of GDP down sharply from the Cold War. Monetizing the debt with a "weak dollar" policy has also been the norm, despite claims to the contrary.

And what does that portend for America, and Americans.

[bush_cheney2004]

And what does that portend for America, and Americans.

More of the same roller coaster ride....it hasn't always been peaches and creme for America and Americans. Interest rates can't be strangled forever.

It's not so much that America's standard of living will fall, but so called developing countries will improve more.

Personally, I think seven HD televisions and a dozen PC's is enough !

[waldo]

Try to stay on topic. This is the US Politics section after all.

trolling is as trolling does!

[Guest American Woman]

That's because the US is the biggest economy in the world. But when the poop hits the fan in ie: Greece or Iceland, it does get international attention.

The US debt problem is massive international security and economic issue that affects virtually everyone in the world.

You know, I can accept that - but I think it's important to point out that it doesn't affect the rest of the world without responsibility on their part; yet sometimes I get the impression that Americans are supposed to make decisions with the world's best interest in mind rather than Americans' best interest because of it - and I can even accept that, too, except when the U.S. 'interferes' in other countries, suddenly we are totally and completely criticized for thinking we are the 'world police' or some such thing.

If our country affects the whole world so drastically and we are supposed to act/react accordingly, then that should be taken into consideration all the way around - it should be understandable that we react when the rest of the world affects us.

[Guest American Woman]

eyeball, on 18 Oct 2013 - 12:56 AM, said:

Much of it would probably breath a huge sigh of relief.

As an Australian PM once said about the possibility of the US removing itself from world affairs, "Be careful what you wish for because you may just get it."

Interesting, because I've often said that myself.

Life goes on... and then it doesn't. Markets cope with change much better than governments. When the State changes, it is more often than not a radical change.

But life definitely does go on - ie: this, too, shall be forgotten. So many people weren't even remotely aware that this was the 18th government shut down.

Americans are too use to market changes. They haven't really experienced a change of State. IMV, people want the State to intervene because people dislike uncertainty and the State (politicians, the King's court) offer predictability. But uncertainty and risk are facts of life: IMHO, better the daily market changes, even dramatic, than the once in a lifetime State revolution.

I agree that uncertainties and risks are a fact of life, which is why I didn't get shook over this shutdown.

[August1991]

You know, I can accept that - but I think it's important to point out that it doesn't affect the rest of the world without responsibility on their part; yet sometimes I get the impression that Americans are supposed to make decisions with the world's best interest in mind rather than Americans' best interest because of it - and I can even accept that, too, except when the U.S. 'interferes' in other countries, suddenly we are totally and completely criticized for thinking we are the 'world police' or some such thing.

If our country affects the whole world so drastically and we are supposed to act/react accordingly, then that should be taken into consideration all the way around - it should be understandable that we react when the rest of the world affects us.

I admire your honest admission! So, what happens next?

What of America? How will you Americans (you or your children) feel about becoming, uh, a northern Brazil? Just another member of the G-20 or whatever they'll call it.

[Argus]

So Ted Cruz is being regarded as a hero by the Tea Party types, getting standing ovations for his outstanding work, and apparently is now the favorite to be their nominee, the guy they will try to push into the role as Republican presidential candidate. He's never been more popular.

Well, except with everyone else in the country.

I read an article a while back on Anthony Scalia, the US SC justice, and how isolated he is from most people in terms of what he reads, watches, and who he encounters. Basically, if it isn't something he agrees with he doesn't want it in his life. So he only reads very conservative newspapers, watches very consercative TV news, and does his best to keep away from anyone with views which differ from his.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/10/scalia_interview_in_new_york_magazine_the_conservative_justice_reveals_his.html

I think the Tea Party types are like him, and they simply don't understand the degree of isolation they have from the mainstream. Could they possibly make Ted Cruz the Republican challenger? I don't know but I suspect if they suceeded he'd be crushed by whomever the Democrats ran in a general election, and I suspect they'd be mystified about why and how that happened.

[kimmy]

I think the Tea Party types are like him, and they simply don't understand the degree of isolation they have from the mainstream. Could they possibly make Ted Cruz the Republican challenger? I don't know but I suspect if they suceeded he'd be crushed by whomever the Democrats ran in a general election, and I suspect they'd be mystified about why and how that happened.

We saw that during the last election... some people convinced that their own media outlets were the only ones telling the truth and everything else was just propaganda. A lot of them were genuinely shocked that Romney didn't win, when their particular news outlets had been convincing them that the polls showing Romney trailed were "lamestream media" bias.

One of the funnier things going around lately is the theory that Obama's refusal to capitulate was actually part of a master plan to break the Republicans leading up to the 2014 elections (just as Clinton did leading up to the 1996 elections) and that the political damage the Republicans have suffered is Obama's fault. I can't get over how silly that is. It's like telling somebody "I'm going to punch myself in the face until you agree to my demands!" and then afterward saying "This is your fault! If you had agreed to my demands I wouldn't have gotten punched in the face so much."

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

What of America? How will you Americans (you or your children) feel about becoming, uh, a northern Brazil? Just another member of the G-20 or whatever they'll call it.

I think this has already been answered several times....even a "fallen" America would just be a larger version of the already fallen Spanish, British, French, Japanese, etc. U.S. power only came to the global fore because of Europe's failings in general, and the fallen British Empire specifically. Canada was directly impacted by this, re-aligning politically and economically with the United States. Sometimes a remora has to change hosts !

[Guest American Woman]

I admire your honest admission! So, what happens next?

What of America? How will you Americans (you or your children) feel about becoming, uh, a northern Brazil? Just another member of the G-20 or whatever they'll call it.

I missed this earlier - but I'm not sure what you're getting at re: "a northern Brazil." If you are simply referring to the U.S. no longer being a super power, that's fine by me. Not much will change in most Americans' lives, or their children's lives - just as life for Americans before we became a super power wasn't any less desirable because of it; there were still many people coming here looking for opportunities not found elsewhere.

Basically, I agree with bush_cheney's response in that regard.

But you may have missed my point; I was saying that those who expect us to act on behalf of the world because what happens here affects the world can't have it both ways - ie: expecting us to act on behalf of the world when it suits them and then criticizing us for thinking we are 'world police,' that we have no business acting on the world stage, when they don't like what we are doing.

[August1991]

One of the funnier things going around lately is the theory that Obama's refusal to capitulate was actually part of a master plan to break the Republicans leading up to the 2014 elections (just as Clinton did leading up to the 1996 elections) and that the political damage the Republicans have suffered is Obama's fault. I can't get over how silly that is. It's like telling somebody "I'm going to punch myself in the face until you agree to my demands!" and then afterward saying "This is your fault! If you had agreed to my demands I wouldn't have gotten punched in the face so much."

-k

Kimmy, you've got the timeframe wrong.

The 2014 elections are not the issue. The hardcore opposition to Obama concerns US government budget/elections in 2024 or so.

At some point, all this moral hazard will take effect. At some point, Yellen will have to "taper". At some point, Americans will have to pay taxes for the government services they receive.

I fully agree with Krugman that Bernanke was right to fly the helicopters and open the spigots. But Bush Jnr, by cutting taxes, created a longer term problem: governments in the US are not sustainable.

[bush_cheney2004]

...I fully agree with Krugman that Bernanke was right to fly the helicopters and open the spigots. But Bush Jnr, by cutting taxes, created a longer term problem: governments in the US are not sustainable.

Do not forget the strategy...."Starve the Beast" that is government and entitlements. Everybody gets a haircut.

[August1991]

Do not forget the strategy...."Starve the Beast" that is government and entitlements. Everybody gets a haircut.

And Obama has pushed the envelope in another direction: "Make the Beast" part of people's lives.

-----

Whether Bush Jnr or Obama, the Tea Party or unsustainable deficits, the US republic has survived worse stresses, or envelope pushing. The cost has been high however.

Edited October 23, 2013 by August1991

[bush_cheney2004]

And Obama has pushed the envelope in another direction: "Make the Beast" part of people's lives.

OBama retained most of Bush's 2001 tax cuts based on marginal rates, ostensibly to help the economy recover.

Edited October 23, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[eyeball]

He also retained and added to the dictator's tool kit that Bush in his turn ramped up, ostensibly to help freedom reign.

[Argus]

Do not forget the strategy...."Starve the Beast" that is government and entitlements. Everybody gets a haircut.

Except rich people, of course.

[bush_cheney2004]

Except rich people, of course.

That's why they are called "rich". Don't be so jealous.

[bush_cheney2004]

He also retained and added to the dictator's tool kit that Bush in his turn ramped up, ostensibly to help freedom reign.

It's easy to be a "dictator" when an elected Congress supports such things. Who needs a Queen or King !

[Shady]

Except rich people, of course.

Right. The 3.7 trillion dollars spent on welfare programs over the last 5 years just isn't enough.

[Shady]

Kimmy, you've got the timeframe wrong.

The 2014 elections are not the issue. The hardcore opposition to Obama concerns US government budget/elections in 2024 or so.

At some point, all this moral hazard will take effect. At some point, Yellen will have to "taper". At some point, Americans will have to pay taxes for the government services they receive.

I fully agree with Krugman that Bernanke was right to fly the helicopters and open the spigots. But Bush Jnr, by cutting taxes, created a longer term problem: governments in the US are not sustainable.

The current entitlement system is unsustainable at any tax rate. There isn't a tax problem, there's a spending problem.

[Argus]

The current entitlement system is unsustainable at any tax rate. There isn't a tax problem, there's a spending problem.

That belief is not supported by any evidence whatsoever. As I've posted previously, the US "entitlement" system is far less generous than most European states, and they have no issues with paying for them.

Health care is a cost to the nation as a whole. It really doesn't matter how it's paid for, whether through goverment or insurance companies or directly. It is still a vast amount of money going towards health care and not on other needs. The thing to do is to minimize it as best you can while ensuring good quality health care for all. The US system does not do this.

[bush_cheney2004]

That belief is not supported by any evidence whatsoever. As I've posted previously, the US "entitlement" system is far less generous than most European states, and they have no issues with paying for them.

Sure...everybody in Greece just loves to pay their taxes to support the welfare state.

[GostHacked]

Right. The 3.7 trillion dollars spent on welfare programs over the last 5 years just isn't enough.

More money is needed to pay for the global police force.

[Shady]

That belief is not supported by any evidence whatsoever. As I've posted previously, the US "entitlement" system is far less generous than most European states, and they have no issues with paying for them.Health care is a cost to the nation as a whole. It really doesn't matter how it's paid for, whether through goverment or insurance companies or directly. It is still a vast amount of money going towards health care and not on other needs. The thing to do is to minimize it as best you can while ensuring good quality health care for all. The US system does not do this.

Just because you're unaware of the evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist. For example. There were 15 workers supporting 1 retiree regarding social security. Now it's down to 3 workers per retiree. Soon I will be 2 to 1.

Unemployment insurance has turned into welfare, where one can get compensated for 99 weeks, with extensions after that. In Canada it's 33 weeks, and it seems to work out fairly well for us.