Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Federal Government Begins First Shutdown In 17 Years

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 233 posts

Re: Federal Government Begins First Shutdown In 17 Years

#151

Post by mayneack »

cantrevealname wrote: post #67
gizmo686 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people actually get paid by the federal government. When these people don't get paid, they are much less likely to spend money, hurting non-government businesses. And the parts of the government that are shutting down also won't be consuming from private business either, again hurting business and the economy.

Your making the broken window fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window If we didn't have these unwanted government services (or wanted services provided very poorly or at excessive cost), then the taxpayers would spent their money on something else -- something that is wanted -- and it would generate just as many jobs or economic activity in some other way.

I don't see what that has to do with noticing the shut down over the next hours/days/etc

Re: Federal Government Begins First Shutdown In 17 Years

#152

Post by steve19 »

nhaehnle wrote: post #42
nostromo wrote: post #24

We all spend so much time focusing on the Federal Government but I doubt many of us will even notice the "shut down." Compare that with what would happen if your local and state governments shut down: Trash would pile up. Criminals would run free in the streets. Fires wouldn't be put out. Water and electricity would stop. Sewage systems would back up. Schools would close. We're talking about services that are the ver…

The truly positive contribution of a federal government (besides the questionable benefit of military protection) comes in the form of automatic stabilizers for the economy. When there is a shock to the economy, social safety nets dampen the pain significantly. Local and state governments would never be able to provide a reliable social safety net, because they have to operate on the same principles as every other us…

"questionable benefit of military protection" ...

You may not like the extent of their protection, or how they go about protecting, but it is childishly naive to suggest the country does not need protection.

But I know it is cool these days to pretend that the military is 100% evil and every dollar spent on it is a total waste.

Re: Federal Government Begins First Shutdown In 17 Years

#153

Post by jMyles »

mehwoot wrote: post #79
hellcow wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the state and local governments gave sufficient notice, private businesses would snap up the new market opportunities. Everything worthwhile would continue as usual, albeit with less waste.

Yeah I'm sure private policing would work great.

Are you suggesting the state policing is working well?

Re: Federal Government Begins First Shutdown In 17 Years

#154

Post by Aloisius »

Derbasti wrote: post #136
gizmo686 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do realize that America is a major player in the global economy. If we go down, we are taking everyone with us.

Probably not as much as you seem to think. The last banking crisis originated in the US, but it didn't hit the non-US nearly as hard. In many ways, the US is actually very self-contained and in the backlash from its recent crisis, many countries have kind of separated themselves a bit. But it would be bad, yes. Though I don't hink the US would 'take down' Asia or Europe.

> The last banking crisis originated in the US, but it didn't hit the non-US nearly as hard.

Didn't the last US crisis lead to multiple countries defaulting on their debt and having to be bailed out and economic malaise that continues to this day?

Re: Federal Government Begins First Shutdown In 17 Years

#155

Post by vacri »

shirro wrote: post #131
nknighthb wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. There is no monarch or governor general. There are no reserve powers. There is no provision for early general elections. The President is not a Prime Minister, and Congress is not a parliament. Neither is responsible to the other. The House of Representatives and the Senate can each freely block the other indefinitely. The only Constitutional mechanisms available for breaking a deadlock are Congressional election…

We get half senate elections, not 1/3, but a similar result with the senate being out of step with the reps. Which is why in a crisis the double dissolution is a whole senate election to try and get things moving again. It seems odd that the President, being head of state, would not have similar powers to the Crown/GG to dismiss a dysfunctional parliament to resolve deadlocks. Too much power wrapped up in the preside…

It seems odd that the writers of the constitution didn't recognise the problem.

There had only been a couple of similar republics before - there wasn't a lot of [codified] experience in the area. The Holy Roman Empire and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth had some similar power structures, for example, but I imagine that their process of obtaining and distributing funds was fairly different.

Re: Federal Government Begins First Shutdown In 17 Years

#156

Post by clumsysmurf »

nostromo wrote: post #24

We all spend so much time focusing on the Federal Government but I doubt many of us will even notice the "shut down." Compare that with what would happen if your local and state governments shut down: Trash would pile up. Criminals would run free in the streets. Fires wouldn't be put out. Water and electricity would stop. Sewage systems would back up. Schools would close. We're talking about services that are the ver…

Mother Jones has a good summary of what this means for us

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/09/who-gets-screwed...

Some things that surprised me:

* Campers: People living (or vacationing) in national parks and forests will have 48 hours to relocate.

* People who make money off tourists: Shuttered national parks are bad news for the hotels, restaurants, and other attractions that feed off them.

* Employers: The Department of Homeland Security's e-Verify program will be offline for the duration of the shutdown.

* @CuriosityRover: 98 percent of NASA's staff will be furloughed, and the agency's website and live-streams will go dark.

and plenty of more serious things mentioned in the article like

* People on food assistance: The USDA's Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) will stop making payments on October 1.

Re: Federal Government Begins First Shutdown In 17 Years

#157

Post by twoodfin »

nknighthb wrote: post #143
twoodfin wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

which will never happen in the current environment where half the states would be happier destroying the country than seeing the scary black man in office for one more day OK, I'm not thrilled that this article isn't [dead] already, but regardless: This is not reddit and absurdities like that comment do not contribute to the discussion.

In my experience, pointing out the hysterical racism involved does contribute to the understanding of the situation by non-Americans. And you don't get to accuse me of absurdities when the other side's motto is "Keep the government out of Medicare!". You just don't.

I don't really know how to respond to this. No one in this discussion said "Keep the government out of Medicare". In fact, as far as I know, no one in the leadership of the Republican party has said it, either, so it would be an odd sort of "motto". But of course you know this.

In contrast, you did ascribe vile racist motives to more or less half the country. Indeed, so racist they'd be willing to destroy the country to fulfill their base aims. All their professed arguments (about, say, the negative effect on hiring triggered by the ACA) are simply a smokescreen. We're lucky our international readership has you to fill them in on this fundamental truth of American politics.

Is this article [dead] yet?

Re: Federal Government Begins First Shutdown In 17 Years

#158

Post by darkarmani »

cantrevealname wrote: post #67
gizmo686 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people actually get paid by the federal government. When these people don't get paid, they are much less likely to spend money, hurting non-government businesses. And the parts of the government that are shutting down also won't be consuming from private business either, again hurting business and the economy.

Your making the broken window fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window If we didn't have these unwanted government services (or wanted services provided very poorly or at excessive cost), then the taxpayers would spent their money on something else -- something that is wanted -- and it would generate just as many jobs or economic activity in some other way.

Isn't gov't breaking down actually the broken window? We have to spend more money because of backpay and inefficiencies of a sudden stoppage.

Re: Federal Government Begins First Shutdown In 17 Years

#159

Post by wpietri »

twoodfin wrote: post #29
robobenjie wrote: post #23

This is really depressing. The system seems to be designed to be strong but not infallible, with the assumptions that the people trusted to run the government would do so competently with the best interests of the nation. It seems clear that a slow process of radicalization has replaced the interests of the nation with the interests of the party and it's unclear how to fix it. If one group defects to block voting and…

Three or four years after the last shutdown (twenty days long!) we had a budget surplus and the lowest unemployment in decades. I'm not saying those things are related, but your pessimism is probably excessive.

That happened during a very strong economy. The economy now is much more vulnerable. An extended shutdown could tip the US back into recession, partly through primary effects (that is, reduced economic activity from everybody the government pays, and everybody they pay) and partly through secondary ones (e.g., consumers putting off spending and businesses deferring investment until things are more clear).

Also, the threats to force a debt default along with the shutdown are dumbfounding. That would, as The Economist writes, "unleash global financial chaos". Poorly handled, it could be worse than the 2008 crisis, especially given what poor shape Europe is in right now.

Re: Federal Government Begins First Shutdown In 17 Years

#160

Post by nawitus »

nhaehnle wrote: post #42
nostromo wrote: post #24

We all spend so much time focusing on the Federal Government but I doubt many of us will even notice the "shut down." Compare that with what would happen if your local and state governments shut down: Trash would pile up. Criminals would run free in the streets. Fires wouldn't be put out. Water and electricity would stop. Sewage systems would back up. Schools would close. We're talking about services that are the ver…

The truly positive contribution of a federal government (besides the questionable benefit of military protection) comes in the form of automatic stabilizers for the economy. When there is a shock to the economy, social safety nets dampen the pain significantly. Local and state governments would never be able to provide a reliable social safety net, because they have to operate on the same principles as every other us…

>In fact, you can see this difference play out in slow motion in the Eurozone, which still has not recovered from the financial crisis. Things would have played out very different had their been a Eurozone federal government that provides at least the basic components of the social safety nets.

I don't understand this argument. Are you claiming that there's no social safety nets in Europe? There are and have been and will still be without a federal government (although I like to argue we already have a defacto federal government).

Just because individual member states provide their own social security and finance it through borrowing money from the central bank(s), doesn't really seem that different from a federal government directly providing social safety nets. In fact, most member states have a way better social security net than United States. I could, in theory, just stop working today and get paid about $1200/month in addition to things like practically free health care and university education. Of course, there are poorer member states that have worse social security.

Post reply on HN