Government shuts down as Congress fails to prevent Funding Bill

[Urbanfortitude]

Yes, Osamacare.  A healthcare plan with a "mandate" is certainly not American in any way shape or form.

You haven't validated your point any more by calling it Osamacare.  I don't really care about your opinion on the subject when you can't even be mature enough to use proper names in your argument.  Everybody here is trying to be as civil as they can be in this discussion but you continue to just plop these baseless points and borderline racist comments.  Then it's something of a wonder if someone can't see your point of view the way you want them to.  That's the problem I have with generally anyone who has been against the AHCA or anything else Obama has wanted to do.  Is they relate him to a terrorist who thought nothing of taking lives and brainwashing people into believing it was the right thing to do.  I mean seriously where in your mind do you think this is the proper way to argue in ANY debate?  And then you call other people shameless and accuse them of lacking pride.  I'm willing to bet that man you saw in Harlem has more respect and class than anything you've displayed in this thread right now despite his appearance.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

You haven't validated your point any more by calling it Osamacare.  I don't really care about your opinion on the subject when you can't even be mature enough to use proper names in your argument.  Everybody here is trying to be as civil as they can be in this discussion but you continue to just plop these baseless points and borderline racist comments.  Then it's something of a wonder if someone can't see your point of view the way you want them to.  That's the problem I have with generally anyone who has been against the AHCA or anything else Obama has wanted to do.  Is they relate him to a terrorist who thought nothing of taking lives and brainwashing people into believing it was the right thing to do.  I mean seriously where in your mind do you think this is the proper way to argue in ANY debate?  And then you call other people shameless and accuse them of lacking pride.  I'm willing to bet that man you saw in Harlem has more respect and class than anything you've displayed in this thread right now despite his appearance.

I don't need to validate anything.  I'm sharing my personal opinion as an American. I don't care for the plan, nor do I care for the "gubment" mandating me to do anything.  That's the real issue here.  It's about principle.  Now it's one thing to protect Americans from grave consequences from not having healthcare but the real problem here is they have coined this program as being affordable when for most that didn't have it before it won't be.  So now you're mandating people to get something that they still can't afford and forcing them to get healthcare or else.  That is not helping those people.  It's driving them further into poverty and furthermore, making them more dependent on the Democrats to come up with more handouts to help these people, driving up more debt that we can't afford.  It's un-American on so many levels.  If the plan was actually affordable for the people that it's supposed to help, then I would be more in favor of it but it isn't.  It also creates high costs for young folks like myself whose employer offers healthcare and drives up my costs unnecessarily when I barely go to the doctor for anything aside for a checkup so why should my costs be astronomical?  Makes no sense.

[Urbanfortitude]

I don't need to validate anything.  I'm sharing my personal opinion as an American. I don't care for the plan, nor do I care for the "gubment" mandating me to do anything.  That's the real issue here.  It's about principle.  Now it's one thing to protect Americans from grave consequences from not having healthcare but the real problem here is they have coined this program as being affordable when for most that didn't have it before it won't be.  So now you're mandating people to get something that they still can't afford and forcing them to get healthcare or else.  That is not helping those people.  It's driving them further into poverty and furthermore, making them more dependent on the Democrats to come up with more handouts to help these people, driving up more debt that we can't afford.  It's un-American on so many levels.  If the plan was actually affordable for the people that it's supposed to help, then I would be more in favor of it but it isn't.  It also creates high costs for young folks like myself whose employer offers healthcare and drives up my costs unnecessarily when I barely go to the doctor for anything aside for a checkup so why should my costs be astronomical?  Makes no sense.

Don't know what you're doing here then.  We're mandated to do a lot of things by Federal Law already.  I guess you haven't signed up for selective service nor do you pay taxes.  Those are government mandates as well.  Every man in this country has to sign up for selective service as mandated by the government.  Every person who has an income is mandated to pay taxes as well.  By law if you own a car you must have insurance and registration on that car...also mandated by law.  Jury duty as well.  Tons of stuff to spread out to if you're going to say something like that.

 

 

But that's not my point.  My point is you can't seem to place an argument without sounding ignorant and bitter.  I don't care whether the position is for or against.  If you can't discuss the topic respectfully you should back off.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Don't know what you're doing here then.  We're mandated to do a lot of things by Federal Law already.  I guess you haven't signed up for selective service nor do you pay taxes.  Those are government mandates as well.  Every man in this country has to sign up for selective service as mandated by the government.  Every person who has an income is mandated to pay taxes as well.  By law if you own a car you must have insurance and registration on that car...also mandated by law.  Jury duty as well.  Tons of stuff to spread out to if you're going to say something like that.

 

 

But that's not my point.  My point is you can't seem to place an argument without sounding ignorant and bitter.  I don't care whether the position is for or against.  If you can't discuss the topic respectfully you should back off.

That's why this is America.  We don't have to agree with everything that the gubment says we have to do and we don't have to leave either if we disagree with them.  I'm the only one who disagrees with this program here aside from CenSin.  The difference is that I'm not necessarily being gentile with my opinion.  Oh well. Such is life.

[realizm]

But that's not my point.  My point is you can't seem to place an argument without sounding ignorant and bitter.  I don't care whether the position is for or against.  If you can't discuss the topic respectfully you should back off.

Pretty much my feelings at this point of this discussion. loling. Thank you.

[realizm]

That's why this is America.  We don't have to agree with everything that the gubment says we have to do and we don't have to leave either if we disagree with them.  I'm the only one who disagrees with this program here aside from CenSin.  The difference is that I'm not necessarily being gentile with my opinion.  Oh well. Such is life.

And waitaminute I am reading that CenSin is opposed to the Tea party threatening a default over a health insurance reform plan that was thoroughly investigated by the DoD and not to be considered as an Osama Bin Ladin influenced terrorist plot as you were alluding to. To quote he is saying that this is 'democracy in action'.

 

Hey, you said it.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

And waitaminute I am reading that CenSin is opposed to the Tea party threatening a default over a health insurance reform plan that was thoroughly investigated by the DoD and not to be considered as an Osama Bin Ladin influenced terrorist plot as you were alluding to. To quote he is saying that this is 'democracy in action'.

 

Hey, you said it.

Well that's where he and I differ.  I support the Tea Party on this one.  Everyone is going crazy over this shutdown, meanwhile this so called "healthcare" plan may very well cripple this country financially because we can't afford this.

[MTARegional Bus]

I love the things the come out of VG8 comments, it's almost hilarious 

[peacemak3r]

So I haven't really been following up on this because of Facebook feeds from some of my friends.  Apparently one of them is going to start going back to work tomorrow, so is this shutdown over? (Meaning yes, the friend works in a government building and basically vacationed for a week.)

[Via Garibaldi 8]

So I haven't really been following up on this because of Facebook feeds from some of my friends.  Apparently one of them is going to start going back to work tomorrow, so is this shutdown over? (Meaning yes, the friend works in a government building and basically vacationed for a week.)

Did he/she get paid during that time?

[realizm]

I'm very sure the DoD civilian employees that were sent prematurely back in the Pentagon to work will be reimbursed for time missed, provisioned by the Pay Our Military Act.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-signs-bill-that-allows-military-many-defense-civilians-to-be-paid-during-shutdown/2013/10/01/ac562ec2-2ad9-11e3-97a3-ff2758228523_story.html

[Guest Lance]

Various government agencies have been recalling furloughed workers, without pay mind you, because apparently the "non-essential" personnel was actually quite essential.

 

On that note, this government shutdown has yet another victim: the families of fallen soldiers. In what I call the ultimate indignity to our soldiers' ultimate sacrifice, the families of soldiers who were killed in action since the first have not received the death benefits they're entitled to. Now, Congress is once again scrambling to pass legislation to fix this grievous error.

 

Full story: http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/09/20873949-families-of-fallen-soldiers-to-receive-bodies-no-benefits?lite

[bobtehpanda]

All federal government workers still working during the shutdown will get retroactive pay for the time they've worked. Only Congress and the people it wants exempt from going without pay are still getting paid.

[CenSin]

Forget the government shutdown, Obamacare, or anything else the America has problems with. The bigger threat that looms ahead is the possibility of a US default. The probability is low, but it isn't 0. How would a default change the nation and what would you do to prepare for it?

 

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-10-08/12-ominous-warnings-what-us-default-would-mean-global-economy

 

12 Ominous Warnings Of What A US Default Would Mean For The Global Economy

A U.S. debt default that lasts for more than a couple of days could potentially cause a financial crash unlike anything that the world has ever seen before. If the U.S. government purposely wanted to damage the global financial system, the best way that they could do that would be to default on U.S. debt obligations. A U.S. debt default would cause stocks to crash, would cause bonds to crash, would cause interest rates to soar wildly out of control, would cause a massive credit crunch, and would cause a derivatives panic that would be absolutely unprecedented. And that would just be for starters. But don't just take my word for it. These are the things that top financial experts all over the planet are saying will happen if there is an extended U.S. debt default.

Because they are so close together, the "government shutdown" and the "debt ceiling deadline" are being confused by many Americans.

As I wrote about the other day, the "partial government shutdown" that we are experiencing right now is pretty much a non-event. Yeah, some national parks are shut down and some federal workers will have their checks delayed, but it is not the end of the world. In fact, only about 17 percent of the federal government is actually shut down at the moment. This "shutdown" could continue for many more weeks and it would not affect the global economy too much.

On the other hand, if the debt ceiling deadline (approximately October 17th) passes without an agreement that would be extremely dangerous.

And if the U.S. government is eventually forced to start delaying interest payments on U.S. debt (which could potentially happen as soon as November), that would be absolutely catastrophic.

Once again, just don't take my word for it. The following are 12 very ominous warnings about what a U.S. debt default would mean for the global economy...

#1 Gerald Epstein, a professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst: "If the US does default, that will make the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy look like a cakewalk"

#2 Tim Bitsberger, a former Treasury official under President George W. Bush: "If we miss an interest payment, that would blow Lehman out of the water"

#3 Peter Tchir, founder of New York-based TF Market Advisors: "Once the system starts to break down related to settlement and payments, then liquidity disappears, as we saw after Lehman"

#4 Bill Isaac, chairman of Cincinnati-based Fifth Third Bancorp: "We can’t even imagine all the things that might happen, just like Henry Paulson couldn’t imagine all the bad things that might happen if he let Lehman go down"

#5 Jim Grant, founder of Grant’s Interest Rate Observer: "Financial markets are all confidence-based. If that confidence is shaken, you have disaster."

#6 Richard Bove, VP of research at Rafferty Capital Markets: "If they seriously default on the debt, what we're really talking about is a depression"

#7 Chinese vice finance minister Zhu Guangyao: "The U.S. is clearly aware of China's concerns about the financial stalemate [in Washington] and China's request for the US to ensure the safety of Chinese investments."

#8 The U.S. Treasury Department: "A default would be unprecedented and has the potential to be catastrophic: credit markets could freeze, the value of the dollar could plummet, U.S. interest rates could skyrocket, the negative spillovers could reverberate around the world, and there might be a financial crisis and recession that could echo the events of 2008 or worse"

#9 Goldman Sachs: "We estimate that the fiscal pull-back would amount to 9pc of GDP. If this were allowed to occur, it could lead to a rapid downturn in economic activity if not reversed quickly"

#10 Simon Johnson, former chief economist for the IMF: "It would be insane to default, but it’s no longer a zero-percent probability"

#11 Warren Buffett about the potential of a debt default: "It should be like nuclear bombs, basically too horrible to use"

#12 Bloomberg: "Anyone who remembers the collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. little more than five years ago knows what a global financial disaster is. A U.S. government default, just weeks away if Congress fails to raise the debt ceiling as it now threatens to do, will be an economic calamity like none the world has ever seen."

A U.S. debt default could be the trigger for the "nightmare scenario" that so many people have been writing about in recent years. In fact, it could greatly accelerate the timetable for the inevitable economic collapse that is coming. A recent Yahoo article described some of the things that we would likely see in the event of an extended U.S. debt default...

A default would upend money markets, destroy bond funds, slam the brakes on lending, cause interest rates to spiral, make our banks insolvent, and deal a blow to our foreign trading partners and creditors around the globe; all of which would throw the U.S. and the world into economic disarray.

And of course stocks would crash big time. Deutsche Bank's David Bianco believes that if the U.S. government starts missing interest payments on U.S. Treasury bonds, we could see the S&P 500 go down to 850 by the end of the year.

There would be almost immediate panic among ordinary Americans as well. In fact, it is being reported that some banks are already stuffing their ATM machines will extra cash just in case...

 

With just 10 days left to raise the debt ceiling and congressional Republicans threatening to force the government to default on its obligations, banks are taking some dramatic steps to prepare for the economic chaos that would result should the brinkmanship continue.

The Financial Times reports that one major U.S. bank has started stuffing its automatic teller machines with extra cash in preparation for a possible bank run from panicked depositors. The New York Times reports that another bank is weighing a plan to advance funds to customers who rely on Social Security and other government payments that could stop in the event of a default.

 

Let's hope that cooler heads will prevail and that a U.S. debt default will be avoided.

Unfortunately, it appears that the Democrats are absolutely determined not to be moved from their current position a single inch. They have decided to refuse to negotiate and demand that the Republicans give them every single thing that they want.

And who can really blame them for adopting that strategy? After all, it has certainly worked in the past. Whenever Democrats have stood united and have refused to give a single inch, the Republicans have always freaked out and caved in eventually.

Will this time be any different?

The funny thing is that once upon a time, Barack Obama was adamantly against any increase in the debt limit. The following comes courtesy of Zero Hedge...

But now Obama says that it is so unreasonable to be opposed to a debt limit increase that any negotiations are out of the question.

So which Obama is right?

If the Democrats will not negotiate, a debt default could still be avoided if the Republicans give in.

And that is what they always do, right?

Perhaps not this time. Just check out what John Boehner had to say on Sunday...

 

"I, working with my members, decided to do this in a unified way," the speaker said -- with demands to defund, delay or otherwise alter the Affordable Care Act.

 

Boehner had expected that the Obamacare fight would come during the next vote to raise the debt ceiling, “but, you know, working with my members, they decided, let's do it now," he said. "And the fact is, this fight was going to come, one way or another. We’re in the fight. We don't want to shut the government down. We’ve passed bills to pay the troops. We passed bills to make sure the federal employees know that they're going to be paid throughout this.”

 

"You've never seen a more dedicated group of people who are thoroughly concerned about the future of our country," he said of House Republicans. "It is time for us to stand and fight."

But will the Republicans really stand and fight?

In the past, betting on the intestinal fortitude of the Republican Party has been a loser every single time.

So we'll see. Boehner insists that this time is different. Boehner insists that he is not going to fold like a 20 dollar suit this time. In fact, when he was asked if the U.S. government was headed toward a debt default if Obama continued to refuse to negotiate, Boehner made the following statement...

 

"That's the path we're on."

The mainstream media has certainly been placing most of the blame at the feet of the Republicans, but at least the U.S. House of Representatives has been trying to get an agreement reached. The House has voted 26 times since the Senate last voted. Harry Reid has essentially shut the Senate down until the Republicans fold and give the Democrats exactly what they want.

The funny thing is that this could probably be solved very easily. If the Democrats agreed to a one year delay to the individual mandate, the Republicans would probably jump at it. And because of epic technical failures, hardly anyone has been able to get signed up for Obamacare anyway. So a one year delay would give the Obama administration time to get their act together.

Unfortunately, the Democrats seem absolutely obsessed with the idea that they will not give the Republicans one single inch. They seem to believe that this will be to their political benefit.

But this is a very dangerous game that they are playing. The U.S. government must roll over 441 billion dollars of short-term debt between October 18th and November 15th.

If a debt ceiling increase is not in place by that time, it will send interest rates soaring. Borrowing costs for state and local governments, corporations, and ordinary Americans will go through the roof and economic activity will be hit really hard.

And as detailed above, we could potentially be looking at a financial crash that would make 2008 look like a Sunday picnic.

So let us hope for a political solution soon. That will at least kick the can down the road for a little bit longer.

If a debt default were to happen before the end of this year, that would bring a tremendous amount of future economic pain into the here and now, and the consequences would likely be far greater than any of us could possibly imagine.

 

http://theconversation.com/us-default-could-lead-to-a-new-world-order-firms-must-prepare-19082

 

US default could lead to a new world order – firms must prepare

As autumn dawns, so does the business planning season, that time when we consider 2014 and beyond. We are used to going through this process surrounded by uncertainty, especially following the meltdown of 2008. However, recently, a feeling of confidence has fuelled us; things seemed to be getting back to normal.

But news of the “shutdown” in the US and the fast-approaching nightmarish prospect of a US default, introduces a new feeling of unease, despite talks of a short-term increase in the debt ceiling. And it’s not just businesses that feel uneasy, so do nation states including China.

If we consider the position that the “shutdown” and a default may abruptly curtail US influence, then the question “Just what type of future world could my business face?” must be top of the agenda. This is a seemingly impossible question to answer. But we can develop a glimpse of future post-US default worlds if we consider two issues – power and dissonance.

 

Power players

The first step, in building these future snapshots, is to consider who are the “global architects”, the players that could redefine the rules that run the world, just as the US did, largely single-handedly, at towards the end of World War II. Traditionally, we think of powerful nation states – like the US, China and Russia – as global architects. But considering just nation states is a 20th century perspective. But now we also need to think about other influencers, and there are at least two groups to consider.

First, we have the financial markets, including powerful multi-national corporations. But second we have the newest player, social movements: groups of technologically empowered people, united by a common cause and bent on change. In the coming years it will be a constructive (or destructive) tension between these three global architects, nation states, financial markets and social movements, that will decide the shape of our world.

The next step is to consider the power these global architects could apply. We can think of three types of power: hard power, or the use of violence (usually in the form of military force); economic power, or the ability to shape the rules of the global business world; and soft power or the power of persuasion. It’s worth noting that if the US defaults it faces a dramatic and immediate loss of both economic and soft power.

Then we have the issue of dissonance. That is, the degree to which each of these global architect supports or rejects the world order that the US has tried to create, especially after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989.

 

Future worlds

Now we are in a position to map out our four potential future worlds:

 

 

The first axis refers to the power, available to aspiring global architects, relative to that held by the US. It horizontally from low on the left to high on the right. The second axis describes dissonance, or the level of agreement or disagreement with the US world order.

The four quadrants represent our possible future worlds. Starting at the bottom left hand quadrant we have a relatively benign future of continued cooperation. There is still broad support for the US-defined world order and power is widely dispersed. We could think of this as an influence-sharing G20 kind of world, where it is business as usual. In the absence of a contender, the US would retain considerable influence.

The top left corner is very different. There are those who have different ideas on the way the world works, but nobody has the power to impose their way globally. This is a fractious place with actors behaving irrationally and many going their own way. The Middle East provides us with a snapshot of such a world.

In the top right quadrant, we have a new, dangerous place. There are powerful players that could fill the vacuum left by the US, but they have totally different recipes. China contends it has a tested centralised model for wealth generation, Russia aspires to rebuild its empire, Europe struggles to remain intact, the US attempts to uphold a more liberal order. Social movements feel empowered to disrupt the old status quo. But the big question in this world is how will the new players get their way – through persuasion or hard-edged power?

Our final world is in the bottom right, a world of new powers but powers that are prepared to work in partnership with the US. Rather than a G20 or a G7 world, this would be more a G2 or G3 world. We can expect change, but it will appear gradually.

Take another look at the map. The quadrant with the highest concentration of power may hold the key to the future of your business and its future strategy. US default or long-term shutdown will bring new players to the fore, rupturing the previous world order. Whether we end up with geopolitics that resembles the G20, the Middle East or a new Cold War, we cannot be sure. But business leaders need to start considering these alternative worlds right now.

Who thinks it would be wise to stock up on canned food, bottled water, and gold?

[bobtehpanda]

Forget the government shutdown, Obamacare, or anything else the America has problems with. The bigger threat that looms ahead is the possibility of a US default. The probability is low, but it isn't 0. How would a default change the nation and what would you do to prepare for it?

 

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-10-08/12-ominous-warnings-what-us-default-would-mean-global-economy

 

http://theconversation.com/us-default-could-lead-to-a-new-world-order-firms-must-prepare-19082

 

Who thinks it would be wise to stock up on canned food, bottled water, and gold?

 

Okay, just want to say this - investing in gold is almost always a bad decision, because once people start selling, it is really hard to sell, and the price drops faster than a sack of bricks once it gets going.

 

John Boehner isn't a very good political operator. He also probably doesn't want to go down in the history books as the person who caused global economic collapse (which won't be completely true, but look at how Newt Gingrich was remembered for '95 - textbooks have selective memories). In any case, the few moderates he has in the house may choose to revolt, as many of them did when he put up a transportation bill that cut out non-auto transport completely and proposed paying for new roads by drilling in the ANWR.

[MHV9218]

A default would be a disaster. Anybody with a brain knows this, yet already we've got members of Congress who don't think it would be that large a problem and are pushing us towards one. It's disgusting.

[CenSin]

According to some news reports, 50% of the Republicans would be open to defaulting if it means defunding many programs and forcing Obama to pick and choose what programs to fund. The Guardian also puts the default disaster this way for ordinary folks:

 

The worst part is, there's nowhere to hide. Yes, banks are putting more cash in their ATMs, but a default would cause such panic that there would be no way to get through the lines of people to get that cash. You'd need food, water, money, all at home: that's the kind of catastrophe that would result.

[67thAve]

Maybe I should move to Idaho... it would probably survive relatively intact compared to the rest of the US.

[Guest Lance]

According to some news reports, 50% of the Republicans would be open to defaulting if it means defunding many programs and forcing Obama to pick and choose what programs to fund. The Guardian also puts the default disaster this way for ordinary folks:

Yes, let's use the "working poor" solution of paying bills, because that always works out well in the end. Are these people adult congressmen/-women or five year old children who are about to take their toys home because we aren't playing like they want to? I can't tell.

[CenSin]

I'm surprised how calm people are despite the possibility of severe consequences. Nobody even talks about it. It's only on the news and Internet.

[MHV9218]

@Tokkemon: Really, you downvoted me on that? You think a default's a good idea?

[realizm]

I'm surprised how calm people are despite the possibility of severe consequences. Nobody even talks about it. It's only on the news and Internet.

 

I think it's more of the fact that people are in real fear (shock rather...) of the consequences that can very well result from a complete meltdown of the US goverment. Admittably I know that I am very concerned. But I will have to say as well, that there are people who are not in enough knowledge in terms of critical thinking where it comes to the political and economic stage before us, either not aware of even complacent.

 

Forget the government shutdown, Obamacare, or anything else the America has problems with. The bigger threat that looms ahead is the possibility of a US default. The probability is low, but it isn't 0. How would a default change the nation and what would you do to prepare for it?

 

 

Who thinks it would be wise to stock up on canned food, bottled water, and gold?

A default would be a disaster. Anybody with a brain knows this, yet already we've got members of Congress who don't think it would be that large a problem and are pushing us towards one. It's disgusting.

 

 

+1 to both comments because thats exactly how I feel about this. I have to ask myself regarding this: How far do either parties have to take this before they are forced to come to a compromise, Democrat and Republican alike? To the point they destroy America with the infighting? What is the point of the debating and infighting on this one taking political sides? Is that benefiting us as Americans as a whole? I'd wished many of the hardline liberals or the stanch conservatives either way would realize that if this continues, as is, without an agreement to stop this stalemate, it will bring dire results on the American people. If this is not rectified we will seriously harm this economy with severe long terms consequences almost to the point of no return.

[LTA1992]

If only people knew the plans in store for if we do default. One of which is axing the 16 states where most people in the country are on government assistance. New York is one of those states.

 

In about 9 days, if nothing is done, Obama could declare a National State of Emergency. This would lead to the Continuity of Government plan in which he, himself, would have supreme command over the country.

 

 

BUT. Even if something IS done about the debt ceiling, we're still screwed just slower. Raising the debt ceiling could cause the credit rating of the US to drop again. THEN, we may start to see the effects such as quicker inflation. Not as fast as a default, but still inflation.

[S79 Select bus servi]

Hokay but how does this affect transit?

I know fort wadsworth is closed.

[DJ MC]

Saw this just now. 

 

http://news.yahoo.com/portman-predicts-debt-deal-by-thursday-154726226.html