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

131–140 of 233 posts

Re: Federal Government Begins First Shutdown In 17 Years

#131

Post by shirro »

nknighthb wrote: post #56
shirro wrote: post #21

Isn't there anything in the US constitution to break deadlocks? In Australia if the government can't get a bill through the senate, they can try again in 3 months and if it still doesn't go through then it can be used a trigger to dismiss the house of reps and the senate and call a new election.

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 presidency then I guess.

Similar problems happen all around the world where there is a minority government or an upper house blocking supply bills. The unusual thing with the US is the lack of constitutional mechanisms to resolve the problem before the government has to shut down. It seems odd that the writers of the constitution didn't recognise the problem.

Re: Federal Government Begins First Shutdown In 17 Years

#132

Post by wpietri »

001sky wrote: post #72
pkfrank wrote: post #46

>The bigger issue, he [Vanguard Group Chief Economist Joseph Davis] said, is how much the turmoil raises the “Uncertainty Tax” on the U.S. economy. Policy uncertainty, Davis argues, is already keeping U.S. economic growth down around 2%, when it could be 3% a year. This is what captures my frustration as well. It's infuriating that a faction of Tea Partiers is causing such instability. Having campaigned on a promise…

It's infuriating that a faction of Tea Partiers is causing such instability Why is growth not considered a form of instability? Just curious, last time I looked risk and volatility were agnostic to direction.

Steady growth is the expected economic baseline. Wild swings in growth, both positive and negative, cause instability. Instability also reduces long-term growth, because the harder it is to predict what will happen, the less people invest.

Re: Federal Government Begins First Shutdown In 17 Years

#133

Post by pandaman »

rob05c wrote: post #91
cantrevealname wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The broken window fallacy is only applicable in an economic environment where there is sufficient labor demand and insufficient product supply. America produces more than enough goods for everyone, but there aren't enough jobs. Besides, which services do you believe are "unwanted?" I agree there are many unnecessary "paper pushers" and managers, but the shutdown affects entire departments. One can't simply stop payin…

There are no federal firefighters and beat cops outside DC.

Re: Federal Government Begins First Shutdown In 17 Years

#134

Post by Aloisius »

scottjad wrote: post #120

So like 1% of the Federal government (by spending, just making this number up) is going to be closed. National parks, EPA, WIC, and Housing and Urban Dev. 99% of the federal government (by spending) will remain open, including: US Military, Food stamps, Unemployment benefits, Social Security benefits, TSA, air traffic control, border patrol, Federal Reserve, and the Post Office. http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitic…

800,000 people are getting furloughed and another 1 million are being asked to work without pay. That's pretty significant.

Re: Federal Government Begins First Shutdown In 17 Years

#135

Post by invalidOrTaken »

pkfrank wrote: post #46

>The bigger issue, he [Vanguard Group Chief Economist Joseph Davis] said, is how much the turmoil raises the “Uncertainty Tax” on the U.S. economy. Policy uncertainty, Davis argues, is already keeping U.S. economic growth down around 2%, when it could be 3% a year. This is what captures my frustration as well. It's infuriating that a faction of Tea Partiers is causing such instability. Having campaigned on a promise…

The power of legislators to delay funding in situations like this should be curtailed.

Re: Federal Government Begins First Shutdown In 17 Years

#136

Post by Derbasti »

gizmo686 wrote: post #88
Andrenid wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an outsider, it is definitely seen as "entertaining", while also not really being cared about much. Just another one of those "oh America, you're so silly" moments really.

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.

Re: Federal Government Begins First Shutdown In 17 Years

#137

Post by quanticle »

kyrra wrote: post #123
pkfrank wrote: post #46

>The bigger issue, he [Vanguard Group Chief Economist Joseph Davis] said, is how much the turmoil raises the “Uncertainty Tax” on the U.S. economy. Policy uncertainty, Davis argues, is already keeping U.S. economic growth down around 2%, when it could be 3% a year. This is what captures my frustration as well. It's infuriating that a faction of Tea Partiers is causing such instability. Having campaigned on a promise…

I see it as all parties involved not working together to come to a compromise. Saying it's just one groups fault is not looking at the bigger picture. If there are members of congress that were elected under the notion of fighting a single law (such as ObamaCare), that should be a message that a large portion of the country does not like the law. I also see it as a failure of our president not getting the 2 sides to…

If there are members of congress that were elected under the notion of fighting a single law (such as ObamaCare), that should be a message that a large portion of the country does not like the law.

Or, alternatively, there is a small fraction of the country willing to do whatever it takes to overrule the wishes of the majority, even if it means shutting down the government. It's childish. President Obama was re-elected in 2012. Rather than acknowledge the fact that they lost this battle, the Republicans are willing to do whatever it takes to re-fight (and re-lose).

Re: Federal Government Begins First Shutdown In 17 Years

#138

Post by voxmatt »

superails wrote: post #80
jbooth wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One facet of the 'shutdown' is that they're not authorized to hand out federal money to states anymore. The states and municipalities are feeling it for every day that this stupid theatre persists.

They don't hand out money everyday to the same people. And it is not stupid theater. It is our government NOT at work. We may temporarily recover some of our debt. In fact, if they keep this going for an extended period of time, it might actually help- a lot. Our country has become much too dependent on our government, and now that the two political parties can't get along, there may actually be room for another soci…

One of the many ironies of a government shutdown is that it always increases debt (unless it were unprecedentedly long, which wouldn't necessarily decrease the debt either, it's just unknown). Think of it like a car on the freeway — you waste gas by slamming the breaks and then stomping on the gas to get back up to speed. Plus, the economic damage a shutdown does will result in suppressed tax incomes at the end of the year.

Re: Federal Government Begins First Shutdown In 17 Years

#139

Post by icambron »

tedunangst wrote: post #117
icambron wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is also in the article: >But 1.4 million uniformed members of the military will stay on the job and will be paid, thanks to a last-minute bill unanimously passed by both houses and signed by Obama on Monday night. Which goes to show that no matter how dysfunctional our government becomes it will go to any length to ensure that it's still capable of killing lots of people.

Someone else might rephrase that as "no matter how dysfunctional our government becomes it will go to any length to ensure that those people who are asked to die in its name still receive the token remuneration promised them."

"...and thus can continue being asked to die in its name."

Re: Federal Government Begins First Shutdown In 17 Years

#140

Post by Jayschwa »

shmerl wrote: post #94

Can anyone please, explain briefly what are the downsides and practical problems that ACA will cause?

Lots of cheap "catastrophic" insurance plans for individuals can no longer be offered because they don't meet all provisions of the law. The one I was using last year while I was in between jobs suffered that fate.
Post reply on HN