Government shutdown begins midnight next Friday April 8, 2011?

Could this be it? How would this affect you and me? Is there another grand scheme why they shutting down? How are you preparing for this? Please share your thoughts..

The government has been operating under a series of fiscal 2011 continuing resolutions for the past six months -- the budgetary equivalent of holding things together with bubble gum and bailing wire. Unless President Obama, GOP Congressional leaders and top Senate Democrats can cut a deal for the remainder of the year, it looks as if we will finally confront a shutdown beginning midnight next Friday.

Shutdown

This has happened before and it's really not that big of a deal.

Frankly the GOP needs to look up a word.

Compromise

It's a nifty word, one that has been absent in the GOP lexicon for too long now. Maybe we don't have to cut just from the poorest Americans, maybe we can cut things like giving oil companies subsidies, maybe we can cut corn subsidies, maybe we can cut the military budget.

You know, compromise, it's an interesting idea, that may help everyone.

Of course we could also repeal those unpaid for tax cuts that the wealthy got. You know, the ones that they said they couldn't hire people unless they got them? Well, we gave it to them, they didn't start hiring even though they are posting record profits, and hell, like they pay taxes anyway. So maybe, we can start getting some revenue in by taxing these greedy bastards.

Notable government shutdowns in the United StatesNote that in the list of "essential" services above, police and firefighting are largely state and/or locally funded, so are not an issue in federal shutdowns.

United States federal government shutdown of 1981
United States federal government shutdown of 1984
United States federal government shutdown of 1990
United States federal government shutdown of 1995[1][2]
2005 Erie County, NY shutdown[3]
2005 Minnesota state shutdown, during the first two weeks of July 2005[4]
2006 Puerto Rico budget crisis
2006 New Jersey State Government shutdown
2007 Pennsylvania State Government shutdown[5][6]
2007 State of Michigan Government Shutdown (averted three hours after the deadline and caused very little disorder)
2010 Government Shutdown February 8–10 due to snow
2010 Government Shutdown of New York
Anticipated United States federal government shutdown of 2011

en.wikipedia.org...

This has happened a number of times in the past, it always works out and will this time, most of us didn't pay it much attention in the past, now with the internet everything is a big deal.

its a crying shame it wont shutdown permanently if they did shutdown it would means they arent screwing us.

just means obama has more golf and vacation time.

reply to post by whatukno


I hope they do compromise, but I highly doubt in my opinion that a resolution of government shutdown will be stop. It seems that its the only way.

reply to post by Aquarius1


In your oppinion, are they going to shut down a measurable portions of federal facilities? Or are they going to have it in some form of rotation?

reply to post by neo96


I have to agree on some parts, but unfortunately, they are still screwing us when they shutdown. We still pay them during vacation time.

Originally posted by awakenone
reply to post by Aquarius1

 

In your oppinion, are they going to shut down a measurable portions of federal facilities? Or are they going to have it in some form of rotation?

I don't know, but in the past it has always gone down to the wire, if there were a shut down I highly doubt it would make much difference as it would be for a very short time.

reply to post by whatukno

It's a nifty word, one that has been absent in the GOP lexicon for too long now. Maybe we don't have to cut just from the poorest Americans, maybe we can cut things like giving oil companies subsidies, maybe we can cut corn subsidies, maybe we can cut the military budget.

I've got one word for you: Reality.

www.whitehouse.gov...

It's even in pretty blocks and colors for you! Even you can understand such simple things as a budget, now!

Total HealthCare: 22.62%
[][][]Medicare: 12.86%
[][][]Medicaid: 7.28%
Total "Income Security": 14.48%
Social Security: 20.04%
Total National Defense: 19.27

*pulls out calculator*

The total of other services (spent on roads, service agencies, etc) comes to 17.28% (including Veteran's benefits and international affairs while excluding the net interest payment).

It's called a spending problem.

You can't just cut from one area. Entitlement spending accounts for over 66% of the federal budget (social security, healthcare, and "income security" - whatever the hell that is ). Another 20% is military spending (a substantial chunk - but nothing by comparison. That said, a restructuring of the funding system for the military would allow for much less waste without requiring serious changes to the inventory and manpower pools). Less than a fifth of the budget is actually put toward funding things like education, infrastructure development, etc.

The problem is that we have a -HUGE- budget. www.nytimes.com... - again, a colored block diagram - this time showing changes in the budget from the previous year and actual values, as opposed to percentages of the budget.

The CBO currently projects a 1.4 Trillion dollar deficit. That budget is for 3.7 Trillion dollars. That means we are only looking at about 2.3 Trillion dollars in revenue.

The CBO also projects a 1.1 Trillion dollar deficit for 2012 with an unemployment rate of 8.2%. While no budget can operate on 100% fiscal certainty - the budget is currently about 30% larger than its revenue source.

While social security is -supposed- to be its own self-standing system, that entire notion has been blown out of the water long ago, and we may as well consider it part of the national deficit and budget (the other programs that have borrowed from the fund have to pay back into them).

We are going to have to cut across the board and figure out how to restructure to get more use out of less spending. The private sector has been forced to do that due to the current recession and the government is going to have to do it, too. The population cannot support a 30% effective tax increase to support such wanton spending.

So, let's sit down like good little boys and girls and figure out, first, how much money we can save simply by changing the way we do things (same end result + less money spent = mutually agreeable solution and less that needs to be cut from other people's favorite programs).

I'll go ahead and volunteer the military up on this one. The process for awarding contracs, the unnecessary constraints put on some parts and services, the "use it or lose it" budget system (you either spend all of the money you are authorized to spend or your budget will get slashed the following year - no incentive for commands to do things in a spending-conscious manner). There are a lot of changes that can be made. Bring some reserve officers in (many of whom are business owners) and have them show the active duty people how the real world gets things done.

I'd estimate we can squeeze about 10% or more out of the military budget without having to make any changes. Taking more radical steps - like shrinking the active duty and going to a large reserve force that operates transiently - could have even more profound reductions while not jeopardizing national security (it would, however, change our military structure considerably - but I would be open to shifting to a more 'ready reserve' military as opposed to an 'active and engaged' military - ten years ago, even being as old as I am now, I would have disagreed vehemently - but it's a worse threat to national security to spend like we are now).

Healthcare spending is another huge issue. Medicare is a massive target for fraud and violations and is one of the largest sole contributors to waste spending in the health-care industry.

We also need to look at what procedures should be reasonably paid for under such systems. This is why I'm against government health insurance - in times like this, we have no choice but to start putting covered services on the chopping block. At least in the private sector, you can seek out a firm that offers coverage for such procedures or apply for HSAs that allow you to spend saved pre-tax income on medical procedures while on a high-deductible plan.

You know, compromise, it's an interesting idea, that may help everyone.

There is no compromise. The government has spent itself into yet another debt ceiling and it has been made clear that the ceiling will not be raised until serious discussions on the budget crisis occur.

The Republicans have been far too spineless in this. Were I in there, I'd be strong-arming restructuring of armed services funding, healthcare spending, and figuring out what in god's unholy hell is going on with Social Security. Healthcare spending is projected to increase (across private and government sectors) enormously through 2025 at least - it is CRITICAL we restructure the spending platform -today- before it becomes an even bigger problem.

That doesn't mean get rid of everything or to kill grandma - but to make a system that is more intuitive, less intrusive, more transparent (more difficult to spoof with fraud), and more efficient. We can cut it or increase it if we need to as necessary - but the key is restructuring so that we're doing more with less.

And that's what we're all going to have to do. Government and private alike. It's not an issue we can compromise on. The rate we are going will lead to hyper-inflation and a collapse of our economy. There's no amount of compromise that can be done with cold, hard math. The only thing to argue about is what to not spend money on. And we can only do that for so long until we aren't spending money on anything.

I mean... life's one big adventure, and I'm not afraid to look the insanity of hyper-inflation and hunger riots in the face... it just seems quite unnecessary.

reply to post by Aim64C


never believe the official debt

the actual debt is much higher

it doesnt matter what we cut or how much we tax its impossible to pay our debt off

i like ur "smart-assness" js

so you can drop bombs miles away but can't even have government run? lol..

Even with a shutdown the "needs" still run

reply to post by PorroAgoVetusRespublica

never believe the official debt

the actual debt is much higher

This certainly depends upon what you consider to be debt. There are, quite literally, tens of thousands of people that pour over the budget and debt issues. There are several different groups and methods that arrive at several different numbers (usually only differing slightly unless they exclude or include factors for some reason or another).

Now, if you want to roll personal debt in on top of that - the per-capita debt is about $30K and the "average family" is about $100K in debt with an average combined income of $40K pre-tax and living expenses.

When you consider that - personal debt is well over 90% of GDP with our national debt already broaching 93% of GDP.

I believe the phrase: "not good" fails to grasp the scope of the problem.

it doesnt matter what we cut or how much we tax its impossible to pay our debt off

That's simply not true.

Of course, it would help considerably if we were to roll over into a backed currency once again. This whole monopoly money routine is proving to be far more hazardous than it's worth. The concept of "economic depression" was virtually unknown to society until we started buying and selling things on credit (in the 1920s we had a lot of buying and selling of stocks on credit - which contributed greatly to the problem once triggered by more familiar instances of economic woe such as drought). Now, it's a common term and the instability of the market has only increased as we removed the backed standard currency.

In either case - it is more than possible to pay off the debt. Not only can it be done at a national level, but it can also be done on a personal level, too. Better personal finance practices adopted by the nation at large would greatly benefit the economy and lead to better stability and a stronger dollar, serving to mitigate the problems caused by fractional reserve banking. The impact of modifying government spending and revenue standards should be pretty obvious.

i like ur "smart-assness" js

I tend to get a little eccentric at times. I'm sure I will be quite entertaining when I become old and senile.

reply to post by yourmaker

so you can drop bombs miles away but can't even have government run? lol..

There are two problems inherent to the military budget and command structure.

First - the military doesn't get to make its own rules and policy. That's the job of Congress. We can develop procedure - and that's why we can actually function, unlike our sugar-daddy Congress. The military has become a hideous hodge-podge of government contractors and military pay-grades with very few instances where the "right hand" knows what the "left hand" is doing (and there is no apparent brain involved in the mix).

Take, for example, following Hurricane Katrina and Ivan - Gulfport, Mississippi is a -huge- SeaBee (Construction Battalion) base. It was damaged during both hurricanes, as well as several other bases in the region. While there were several units attached to that base in an active status, they were not utilized in the repair of that base and other military bases - even though they were being paid, effectively, to get up - show up to muster, and walk around in a uniform. Civilian contractors were brought in to repair the base filled with people trained by the Navy for construction.

Seems a bit silly, no?

Which leads to: Second: The military has, for the past several decades, been a very large active duty force and somewhat isolated community. Those same people being paid to stand around in a uniform end up making a career out of learning to look busy despite the alarming lack of real productive work to be done. That's not to say they are lazy - but it's part of the culture of the military, there are long periods of down-time punctuated by brief and intense experiences in hell. There are groups within the military that have the daily grind - but every group has their share of down-time that is simply not experienced in the civilian world (and is not desirable, as it generally means layoffs are impending).

This has lead to an institutionalized culture that is rather non-productive and non-innovative by comparison to the private sector. This has led to a "this is the way we've always done it" mantra with all of the expected waste and inefficiency that comes along with it.

The military has... or used to have - a "get it done" reputation and was often praised for excelling at the jobs it undertook. I believe this was largely due to the way in which ranks were filled in the military gearing up for World War II - business owners were brought in as officers and senior enlisted personnel, bringing with them their experiences and teachings of the private sector - concepts which have since been diluted and lost in the bureaucratic culture that has embraced the military.

reply to post by Aim64C


I see, so your solution is, no compromise, no cutting defense, no cutting spending to oil companies, no cutting spending to farmers to NOT grow corn. Just cut from the poorest and weakest in the nation. Don't raise taxes on the wealthiest people who befitted the most from the collapse of the economy.

Nice, just screw We the People eh? Let Corporate America rule? Let the Military Industrial Complex suckle off of the taxpayer teat forever?

How can these people claim they are for the American taxpayer with such backwards thinking like this?

reply to post by whatukno

I see, so your solution is, no compromise,

There's not a whole lot of compromise to be had when we are rapidly approaching a national debt that is 100% of GDP. We're already at 93%.

My compromise is to sit down and figure out how to bring the budget under control (cut at least 1 Trillion dollars) or sit here and play lookie-loo until it's time to vote in new representatives. I really don't give a damned.

no cutting defense

There is -nothing- I hate more than repeating myself.

to quote myself:
"I'll go ahead and volunteer the military up on this one. The process for awarding contracs, the unnecessary constraints put on some parts and services, the "use it or lose it" budget system (you either spend all of the money you are authorized to spend or your budget will get slashed the following year - no incentive for commands to do things in a spending-conscious manner). There are a lot of changes that can be made. Bring some reserve officers in (many of whom are business owners) and have them show the active duty people how the real world gets things done."

Do not mischaracterize me again. I do not take kindly to such rude and ignorant displays.

no cutting spending to oil companies

Oh, please, do tell me about all the money we're spending on oil companies.

no cutting spending to farmers to NOT grow corn

You do realize healthcare spending is expected to jump by over 15% in the next 10 years and current government healthcare spending accounts for over 1 trillion dollars of the budget, right?

By all means - let's continue to argue about such non-issues as NPR funding and other pet-projects that will probably need to be slashed anyway to meet quote, even after restructuring the big-ticket items on the budget.

Just cut from the poorest and weakest in the nation.

Please. We invested in nuclear and biological weapons for a reason. I prefer out-of-the-box thinking. Starving people revolt. Why cut social spending programs when we can just wipe them all out via genocide tactics? No revolt. We can get them all together in one location by centralizing distribution centers and creating special stores for people on food stamps, so as to be able to minimize collateral damage.

Hey, if you're going to paint me as the villain - I may as well have fun with it.

Don't raise taxes on the wealthiest people who befitted the most from the collapse of the economy.

You're delusional if you think you can raise taxes on a single income bracket and make up a 1.4 trillion dollar deficit in an economy with a GDP of only 14 Trillion dollars.

Nice, just screw We the People eh?

No, just you. You're my favorite screwing buddy.

Yes, that was intentionally homosexualific

Let Corporate America rule?

No.. Let business do business and let government mind its own damned business.

Let the Military Industrial Complex suckle off of the taxpayer teat forever?

I would actually prefer to allow our military to take out contracts with shipping companies for defense services, given some limited statutes on what kinds of contracts could be accepted (sabotage missions would be prohibited, as would contracts to strike at other nations). "Mercing out" our military would be a good way to support a sizable arsenal during times of relative peace without compromising national security or leaving us with large gaps in the arsenal should there come a time when they are needed.

How can these people claim they are for the American taxpayer with such backwards thinking like this?

I think you've demonstrated you are either unwilling or incapable of comprehending written English, and should be barred from all intellectual conversations.

Seems Dems and Reps struck a deal so seems safe for now.

No.. Let business do business and let government mind its own damned business.

Yeah, the guys on wall street were just trying to make an honest buck. Destroying the economy was an accident.

reply to post by bobber

Yeah, the guys on wall street were just trying to make an honest buck. Destroying the economy was an accident.

I laugh at this website's motto: "Deny Ignorance" - the forums are full of nothing but ignorance, and this is a prime example.

The stock market is an auxiliary business 'construct.' It has very little to actually do with business.

Let me deny your ignorance by explaining a few things:

Stocks: Stocks are 'portions' of ownership of any given corporation (this is part of what the legal process/status of incorporation is). Let's say I have a business at my home making tables or cabinets out of my garage. I'm doing okay - but I want to buy a small shop in town where I can hire some help and put up some displays for people to browse through. I decide to incorporate and sell ownership of my business. I may hold all of the stock myself, or I may sell it to friends/family (so as to not completely lose control) - or openly. I have now sold my business, and likely head it as CEO. I can then take the revenue from selling that business and use it to expand the business (presuming I sold stock to people outside of my own income source).

It doesn't matter if I have a hundred shares or a thousand shares - the value of my company determines the total value of those shares (a thousand shares can just be sold to more people at a cheaper per-unit price) (it should be noted that this value is somewhat subjective). Most businesses have a share-holder voting system by which the share holders get to make crucial policy decisions (since they, technically, own the business). Decisions such as whether or not to buy out or merge with another business are often voted upon by the share holders, for example.

That's the business end of stocks.

The market end of stocks is much more crazy.

You remember the Pokemon craze and all of the trading cards? That's the little-kid stock market exchange. When people get older, they just trade shares and holdings of companies like they do trading cards - with money as an intermediary. It is, in my opinion, an abuse of the investment system. The entire concept of investing is that you buy into a company - which gives them capital resources to invest in their business and thereby increases the value of the company and the value of the held shares over time. This is a mutually beneficial relationship.

The problem is a hyper-reactive stock market. Stocks are bought, sold, and exchanged to within seconds and even minutes of each other. This really has nothing to do with the businesses that sold the stock. It's like the Furby trade years back - the manufacturer was pumping them out and selling them at MSRP for people to come along and buy them and resell them at a 20+% markup. That's the stock market - to a degree. It's a trading card game - unless you are actually trying to do real investing and hold on to stocks for years.

There is nothing inherently wrong with trading stocks - just the way we do it is hyper-reactive and self-destructive. Examples include when "bugs in computer programs" lead to the 2,000 point collapse within an hour last may. The problem wasn't the computer program so much as the fact that such a massive collapse was even possible in that time frame.

However - there are many other factors to consider here. The Great Depression was triggered by the wind-down of military production for WWI combined with the Dust Bowl sweeping the breadbasket. What facilitated such a massive collapse was due to the purchasing of stocks on credit - which meant that the assets were not available to establish the value of stocks (or the companies they belonged to).

Almost a century later, consumer demand for loans has driven banks to the extremes of fractional reserve banking - only having 10% in reserve to back the stated amounts in their vaults. The housing market - which had been mostly positive since the 80s following things like the Fair Housing Act and the Federal Housing Administration - was beginning to weaken. Investors pulled money out of the housing market as the value of properties began to deflate rapidly. Loans began to default, and the strain on the banks soon became evident as the money to cover the claimed assets simply did not exist in the vault, and the loans against a house were far greater than the actual value of that house in a post-market-bubble industry.

If you're having problems grasping - it was the same exact concept. People were buying, trading, and banking on money that didn't exist.

Fractional Reserve Banking is directly influenced by consumer demand for loans. Fractional Reserve Banking is pretty simple, really - you deposit a thousand dollars in the bank in a savings account, and they lend out 500 dollars to someone to be paid back at 5% interest over the course of three months. This works because you are not likely to come back and say "I want ALL of my money back right this instant." So, even though I only have $500 to cover your $1000 balance - the loan will likely be repaid before you ever withdraw more than the $500 in reserve.

The more people put in banks and the less they rely upon loans, the more stable the economy will become. This will also make it easier for people and businesses to get loans (because there is less overall risk in giving loans). We have merely been conditioned to live at the very edge of our means. We don't just max out our credit cards, but also our paychecks - our perspective twisted and convoluted to see any additional money left over at the end of each pay period as money that could be used to pay on another loan for something you want to have right this instant.

A simple shift in consumer habits would completely change the economic trajectory of this country. Rather than relying upon loans for small purchases (under $2,000), we should shift to a society where the average person has at least $10,000 in a savings account and assets with more value than the loans leaned against them (being able to make a down payment on a loan helps with this one).

This is a classic case of people deflecting the problem. The greatest fault lies with the American consumer - poor practices on Wall-Street and within some of the banking institutions only served to compound the problem.