Shutdown watch

[pondwater]

I'd love to hear you explain this away since it was Congress where this happened.

Except for the fact white house threatened to veto and not negotiate whatsoever and that the senate is a puppet for the white house.

[Spider-Dan]

My brother has worked in government procurement for 25 years. Due to his frustrations with our broken system, we have spoken at length about requisitions, bidding, awarding contracts etc. It is a time consuming process with bean-counters and pencil-necked bureaucrats every step of the way. The simplest request takes months not days or hours.

So in other words, when money is requested to be spent, it is a long and arduous process.  Sounds like a fiscal conservative's dream: make the process of spending gov't money as painful as possible.

In less than 8 hours of the shutdown, "miraculously", professionally printed 3X4 foot signs appeared all over the country in the tens of thousands saying- “this [park, facility, etc. with custom logos] closed due to government shutdown. There has not been a government shutdown in 17 years. These signs were designed, specifications were determined, signs were then requisitioned, bids were posted and vetted, government contracts were awarded. The materials were then ordered and the signs manufactured then distributed U.S. Mails or freight companies. This shutdown was orchestrated and planned well in advance at least 6-8 month ago.

I would imagine the signs were probably printed as early as 2011, when the GOP made it clear that they were willing to take even the most serious of hostages (debt ceiling) to get their pound of flesh.

Most likely, there is a paper trail a mile long leading directly to the White House, who are the overseer of all of these shut-down locations.

This recurring line of complaint makes it sound like conservatives believed that a government shutdown means people can just go into the Smithsonian for free until it's over.

A government shutdown means federal sites are closed.  What, exactly, did you think would happen?

[re: opposition party]
No, I guess I don't. Please explain.

The party of opposition always takes opportunity to take potshots at the party in control of government.  In the case you cited, Democrats bemoaned the profligate spending of Republicans as they voted with them to increase the debt ceiling (<---this part is important).  The 2006 Democrats understood that (regardless of meaningless soapbox condemnations or protest votes) the debt ceiling is not an asset to be leveraged in a horse-trading game.  They didn't demand that the Iraq War be ended in exchange for raising the debt ceiling.

Fancy way of saying that we are borrowing from one pocket to pay the other pocket.

No, it's a fancy way of saying that Congress has already authorized this money to be spent.

If you want to make cutbacks, you do it with the budgeting/appropriations process, not with the debt ceiling.  Trying to control debt by refusing to raise the debt limit is like trying to reduce your personal debt by refusing to make payments on loans you took out for college.

Common sense would tell an individual in the same position that if you have more money going out than coming in that the first thing you do is to cut your expenditures in order to pay your bills.

Once more: failure to raise the debt ceiling is not cutting expenditures, as the expenditures are already on the books.  It's failing to live up to obligations you've already made.

[Buddhagirl]

Wait...we're supposed to believe he has a brother in government after he made up a wife and kids? Why are you guys talking to this troll?

[Dave Gray]

I think that too many people confuse the debt ceiling with the budget.  It doesn't matter how in debt you are, modifying the debt ceiling doesn't change that.  If we're relating it to a credit card, the debt ceiling is the equivalent of paying the bill once it arrives.

[pondwater]

I think that too many people confuse the debt ceiling with the budget.  It doesn't matter how in debt you are, modifying the debt ceiling doesn't change that.  If we're relating it to a credit card, the debt ceiling is the equivalent of paying the bill once it arrives.

Except the debt ceiling wouldn't be just the credit card bill, it would be all of the spending by the government. If you don't raise the debt ceiling you could still pay your bills, you just couldn't accumulate anymore bills. Cuts in spending would have to be made to facilitate paying mandatory expenditures. It really doesn't matter what anyone says anyhow. The debt is about at the critical mass level and unsustainable. Keep supporting all of this spending and crook politicians, just be prepared for the fall out when the time comes. I'm pretty sure that most here aren't.

[Dave Gray]

^I'm not against addressing the budget.  I am a big proponent of that.  However, not by quibbling over the debt ceiling.

Step one - get money out of politics. 

Then, you're free to cut things without the money behind them forcing your politicians' hands because they'll lose re-election funding.

[Fau Teixeira]

The debt is about at the critical mass level and unsustainable. Keep supporting all of this spending and crook politicians, just be prepared for the fall out when the time comes. I'm pretty sure that most here aren't.

This is a purely unsupported  assertion. Unless you're now an economist and have some modeling or data behind your statement. I'm giving it the same credibility i'd give you if you told me you found a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.

[Spider-Dan]

If you don't raise the debt ceiling you could still pay your bills, you just couldn't accumulate anymore bills.

Not raising the debt ceiling IS choosing not to pay your bills.

The amount of already outstanding obligations out there means that if you don't raise the debt ceiling, existing bills go unpaid.

Will it be military contracts?
Social Security checks?
Bond interest?
Medicare invoices?

These are EXISTING OBLIGATIONS.  If you don't raise the debt ceiling, they don't get paid.

[MaineDolFan]

Printed signs = government conspiracy!  

It all just clicked into place for me.

I mean, it has to be.  Those signs must have taken minutes, if not seconds, to prepare.

You may all now go on with your lives, already in progress.  Unless, of course, we want to start discussing how 9/11 was an inside job?  Or maybe how Obama is really a jihadist, secretly planted after years of clever planning?

Sorry...the signs thing really cracked me up.  Everything else in this thread is making my eyes bleed at this point.

The signs made it all clear!

[Phishfan]

^^^ You and me both. I couldn't even come back from that.

[pondwater]

This is a purely unsupported  assertion. Unless you're now an economist and have some modeling or data behind your statement. I'm giving it the same credibility i'd give you if you told me you found a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.

According to the International Monetary Fund, Congressional Budget Office, and Greenspan-Guidotti scale we are just about at the point of no return. So I don't need you to give me any credibility. Between Greenspan, Guidotti, the CBO, and the IMF there are plenty of economists to give credibility to.  I will take their credibility over a extremely liberal moderator of a small sports website who is a puppet to crooked politicians and a liberal media. Like I said, it doesn't matter what you or I say, the numbers are what they are. Keep your head buried in the sand and don't prepare, I could care less. Your day will eventually come. So no, I am not an economist . Are you?

[Fau Teixeira]

No of course not, although i'm not the one posting economical doom and gloom warnings without any sort of corroboration.

If you make the claims, then the burden of proof is on you. Not on me to prove how full of shit you are.

I wouldn't call myself extremely liberal, i'm just the right amount of liberal in some aspects. and i'm the right amount of conservative in other aspects.

And I'm as much of a puppet to crooked politicians and the liberal media as you are a mouthpiece to sean hannity / alex jones / conspiracy / tea party wackjobs without an original idea or thought of your own. Can you actually provide an opinion or world view that you haven't read off the comments section of a drudge linked article ?

If you want to debate an issue, you need to provide more than unsupported assertions and vague doomsday scenarios. You have the right to your own opinion, you don't have the right to your own facts.

[Spider-Dan]

According to the International Monetary Fund, Congressional Budget Office, and Greenspan-Guidotti scale we are just about at the point of no return.

Please cite where the CBO has stated that our debt is "at the critical mass level and unsustainable" (or "at the point of no return," if you prefer).

Thanks.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

According to the International Monetary Fund,

Please provide a link where the IMF said this.  What the IMF chief actually stated was that not raising the debt ceiling would cause world wide problems. 

Congressional Budget Office,

Once again please provide a link where the CBO said this.

and Greenspan-Guidotti scale we are just about at the point of no return.

I can find various blogs that claim this.  But no actual economists.  Do have a cite for what exactly the US reserves are, and what exactly are short term debts is to come up for this conclusion b/c none of the blogs even reference this data, the two key components.   

Edit by Dave: please nothing personal

[mboss]

According to the International Monetary Fund, Congressional Budget Office, and Greenspan-Guidotti scale we are just about at the point of no return. So I don't need you to give me any credibility. Between Greenspan, Guidotti, the CBO, and the IMF there are plenty of economists to give credibility to.  I will take their credibility over a extremely liberal moderator of a small sports website who is a puppet to crooked politicians and a liberal media. Like I said, it doesn't matter what you or I say, the numbers are what they are. Keep your head buried in the sand and don't prepare, I could care less. Your day will eventually come. So no, I am not an economist . Are you?

And the CBO has also stated that a repeal of the ACA would increase the budget deficit $109 Billion over 10 years. You didn't cite them as a source in this case though did you?

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/healthcare/299895-cbo-obamacare-repeal-will-increase-the-deficit