Government Shutdown - impacted areas

J. Albers wrote: All governments have debts and there is a difference between sustainable and unsustainable debt. Our near term outlook is just fine. The long term is more problematic and our fiscal health will be predicated on some combination of our future economic growth and our ability to get healthcare, SS, and defense spending under control (everything else in the budget are just single percentage point contributions...not exactly runaway discretionary spending as some would have you believe). Your vague, simplistic, and incorrect version of how economics works makes it impossible to have a discussion with someone like you. But that won't stop you from spouting off about the impending economic apocalypse now will it?

Spoken like a true Kinseyan/Krugman kool-aid drinker. You've previously stated that the Fed Govt. cuts your paycheck. How then would you possibly know the actual economic conditions out there? You do not have to compete on a daily basis, adjust your prices, market, follow trends and make tactical decisions regarding cash flow, manpower assessments, purchasing, etc. Much less follow an immense labyrinth of government mandates and compliance reporting, IRS demands, etc.
Every single government worker has his/her salary paid by the taxes extracted from someone NOT working for the government. People who in turn do not have guaranteed retirement pensions, annual salary increases, vacation pay, etc. Sorry for the rant, but to have someone in the public sector lecture us about the economy is ludicrous.

So, with that off my chest, here's the part where you are tragically wrong. Let me start by stating that back in '06 or so I started hearing murmurs about the looming bubble; plus noted how the contracts I was involved with were becoming more and more erratic. I made the tactical decision to jump out of contracting and get set up in the service side of my industry instead. That move (and I warned everyone here on MP many times bitd) saved me from losing my home as did so many of the guys I've worked with for 20 years.

These voices are back, now louder than ever. There has never been a recovery. Only this year did we return number of employed people that we were at in 2007. That number should be at least 25 million higher.
Of course this does not matter to you, all you have to fear is an incompetent government (Doh!), and maybe losing some climbing partners not so fortunate to have public sector jobs. Keep in mind your salary alone probably takes up 100% of mine plus one or two others Federal tax contributions.

But I have a great solution: lets make EVERY job in this country a government job. If it is good enough for you then why not for everybody? I'd just love to hear you explain to me why this would not work if its a bad idea.

Meanwhile watch this and at least consider the evidence of what they are saying:
youtube.com/watch?v=eMRfDv8…

Then it should be a simple matter to follow your You Tube crystal ball, take a leveraged short position, and come back in a few months and tell us about all the money you made.

In the meantime, looks like Boehner will pull his head out and figure that you can't run a campaign w the Koch brothers alone and stop pissing off the vast majority of corporate donors. Then he can go back to handing out checks from tobacco lobbyists in the middle of the House of Representatives like he used to lol..

J. Albers wrote: Still, I don't think it is far fetched to say that most people in this country have absolutely no idea how much it costs to maintain and run the infrastructure in the US.

Fair enough - but I think that we ALL know that it is a very tiny minorty of the $3T++ budget. I mean, take away the military, debt interest, and social programs and the $3T is gone and now you are down to Billions. I think most people accurately perceive that most money is not infrastructure-related.

J. Albers wrote: In particular, I think that rural folks grossly overestimate how self sufficient they are (e.g. getting mail delivered to you in some obscure corner of Idaho is quite expensive and is most certainly not paid for by local taxes).

100% agreed - it is paid for in the price of a stamp, though balanced by the relatively low cost of urban-to-urban delivery. The post office is required to run under its own finances. This is elementary. Am I missing something in your argument or example?

J. Albers wrote: So if we assume that most people are underestimating how much of their daily lives (driving on roads, local commerce, etc.) are predicated on the government collecting taxes and providing services,

According to studies, including by AAA, which is the last one I read, roads are more or less on enterprise as well. The total amount of wheel, auto, gas, (etc... transportation related) taxes are greater than all transportation related spending... so in reality, auto travel is not subsidized by the government, it is a subsidy to the governments. Granted, there are probably +/- differences by city, county, state and federal depending on region, but it is actually self-sufficient if you don't bleed it off.

In the end, I guess I am saying you may have some valid points, but the examples you provide have not done anything to substantiate them.

J. Albers wrote: then I don't mind that a bunch of people are being inconvenienced at NPs and sailing the ocean if it means they will be forced to come to terms with what they take for granted.

We see 1/2 eye-to-eye. I'm OK with people finding out what bastards we've really got running the place... so long as it is not over reaching. Closing viewsheds from non-closure-related public lands at additional expense to the public should be met with a lawsuit and, well, honestly, I'm OK with a virtual lynching as soon as we can figure out who gave the order. Every possible law imaginable from theft to vandalism to public endangerment to extortion, misappropriation of funds, etc... All of it. Try each charge independently, rack up the max for each and fine and imprison the bastards to serve all charges consecutively. Let it be a lesson on what happens when you F-over 300Million people that they were paid to serve. It is what they would do to any private person who dared pull this kind of $hit. In contrast, I'm OK with what is happening at most of the government controlled parks themselves. As long as the public is aware that it doesn't save any money to speak of. Oh, I also have a problem with the closure of thousands of public lands that have been transferred by contract to private control at no cost/no funding from the government... that were ordered closed even though they are ALL net revenue generators and do not employ any government people or get any tax dollars. You have to know that the cause was either pernicious punishment of the public or the desire of the government to avoid it being visible... that there is a benefit to having them privately run vs government run.

J. Albers wrote: And all of this is coming from someone who IS being directly impacted by all of this because I can't even get into my office to work (you know it Tony, its that big building next to NIST on Broadway with the wave pattern for a logo.)

Honestly, and embarrassingly, perhaps, I am drawing a blank. What is next to NIST? NOAA?

Mike Lane wrote: Spoken like a true Kinseyan/Krugman kool-aid drinker.

Well yes. And though it is in some sense painful to admit (because the man can surely be self-righteous) Krugman has been right about damn near everything in the last 15 years.

Mike Lane wrote: You've previously stated that the Fed Govt. cuts your paycheck. How then would you possibly know the actual economic conditions out there?

Nope Mike, I am not a federal employee. No federal pension. And how would I know about the "actual" economic conditions? Perhaps because science budgets have been getting savagely cut in the past decade? Do you really think that people on grant money etc. have been shielded from the economic downturn?

Mike Lane wrote: You do not have to compete on a daily basis, adjust your prices, market, follow trends and make tactical decisions regarding cash flow, manpower assessments, purchasing, etc. Much less follow an immense labyrinth of government mandates and compliance reporting, IRS demands, etc.

Riiiight. I don't have to compete on a daily basis at all. I just coast along guzzling down the grotesque science paycheck that I get. Hah!! You have to be kidding!! I live on a two year funding cycle where I am constantly stressed about whether I will even have a job in a year because my entire livelihood is predicated upon my ability to secure funding and provide useful scientific results for the public. And government mandates etc? Do you really think that people like me are immune to crazy amounts of government bureaucracy, reporting standards, IRS demands, etc.? Get real, we all have to deal with that kind of stuff.

Mike Lane wrote: Every single government worker has his/her salary paid by the taxes extracted from someone NOT working for the government. People who in turn do not have guaranteed retirement pensions, annual salary increases, vacation pay, etc. Sorry for the rant, but to have someone in the public sector lecture us about the economy is ludicrous.

Government workers pay taxes too Mike. And no, I don't have a guaranteed retirement plan, annual salary, or vacation pay. And likewise I get tired of people in the private sector talking down to me like I have no idea what is like to compete in the "real world". To the contrary, I know plenty of private sector people (including family) who don't work as quarter as hard as I do, have a quarter of the education and skill set that I have, and still rake in three times the paycheck that I will EVER earn. The difference is that I don't sit around and call them lazy sacks of crap and whine about why I don't get paid in a way that is commiserate with my skill set. Sh*t, from my perspective, many of the private sector folks that I know have it made in the shade compared to what the rest of my working life will be like.

Now I'm not saying that all private sector folks have it easy, but I would strongly argue that its not a simple government versus private sector problem. I think a more accurate description of the problem is that the "haves" of this country do everything in their power to keep the grotesque wealth that they have and in doing so, condemn the rest of us to being "have-nots" for the rest of our lives. And guess who the "haves" are? Well they sure aren't government employees now are they? They are private sector folks. Perhaps you should be trying to pick a fight with the right set of people, eh?

Mike Lane wrote: So, with that off my chest, here's the part where you are tragically wrong. Let me start by stating that back in '06 or so I started hearing murmurs about the looming bubble; plus noted how the contracts I was involved with were becoming more and more erratic. I made the tactical decision to jump out of contracting and get set up in the service side of my industry instead. That move (and I warned everyone here on MP many times bitd) saved me from losing my home as did so many of the guys I've worked with for 20 years. These voices are back, now louder than ever. There has never been a recovery. Only this year did we return number of employed people that we were at in 2007. That number should be at least 25 million higher.

Well this part has some truth to it. The only part of the economy that has recovered has been the financial industry, which is a hugely outsized portion of our current GDP. We have recovered in some sense, but we have recovered to part time employment with stagnant low wages. I would definitely agree that this needs fixing, but it ain't "overpaid" government employees that are the problem Mike. In fact the number of government employees has been in free fall since Obama took office, so you have no legs to stand on there. Plus, given your argument, you're starting to sound like Krugman!!!

Mike Lane wrote: Of course this does not matter to you, all you have to fear is an incompetent government (Doh!), and maybe losing some climbing partners not so fortunate to have public sector jobs.

Okay now you're just been mean. How could you possibly think that I don't care how hard your industry has been hit. Do you really think that people like me aren't kept up at night thinking about our friends and family that are struggling to find work and make ends meet in the current sh*tty private sector economy? Really?

Mike Lane wrote: Keep in mind your salary alone probably takes up 100% of mine plus one or two others Federal tax contributions. But I have a great solution: lets make EVERY job in this country a government job. If it is good enough for you then why not for everybody? I'd just love to hear you explain to me why this would not work if its a bad idea.

That is an absurd statement. Do you have any idea how much someone like me makes, even when my benefits are included? I don't make squat!!! Do you really believe that our current economic struggles exist because of fat cat government employees? And no, I don't think that every job should be government related. Clearly this would not be to our country's benefit and I think you know this. Contrary to what folks like you think, many of us that subscribe to Keynesian economics think that there are parts of the public sector that need fixing. Would it surprise you to know that I adamantly oppose the fact that BART transit workers make $100,000 plus huge benefits to "drive" a subway in San Fran? Or what about teachers union reform? Would it surprise you to know that I think there are big problems there too?

Anyway, I would suggest to you that you try not to group all of us "lazy" government people into the same boat. And contrary to what you think, we are not all lazy, overpaid, moochers who don't have to worry about where our next paycheck is going to come from.

Tony B wrote: 100% agreed - it is paid for in the price of a stamp, though balanced by the relatively low cost of urban-to-urban delivery. The post office is required to run under its own finances. This is elementary. Am I missing something in your argument or example?

Probably not missing something. To be honest, I have not looked at the numbers to back this up, though I am almost certain that the price of stamps does not cover getting a letter delivered to you in No-where-ville, Montana. Given the fact that the postal service is in the red every year, it seems rather clear that some of this must be do to the fact that places like Ward, CO have their own post office. I can't imagine that the price of running obscure post offices like this can possibly be paid for by the stamp money that is collected by the 35 local residents who the post office services.

Tony B wrote: In the end, I guess I am saying you may have some valid points, but the examples you provide have not done anything to substantiate them. Honestly, and embarrassingly, perhaps, I am drawing a blank. What is next to NIST? NOAA?

That is entirely possible Tony. I was just flipping examples off the top of my head. I guess my main point is that the discretionary portion of the federal budget makes up less than 25% of the total budget. And given that literally thousands of programs and services come out of this portion of the budget (including roads, education, etc) then any individual part of it is really just small potatoes when it comes to federal debt. In the end there are really only three parts of the budget (health care, SS, defense) that one has to choose from in order to make any reasonable attempt at fixing the budget. And of those, getting the health care curve under control is the big elephant in the room.

...and yes Tony, your guess about what is next to NIST was indeed correct.

J. Albers wrote: Well yes. And though it is in some sense painful to admit (because the man can surely be self-righteous) Krugman has been right about damn near everything in the last 15 years.

Oh man, wiping the tears from my face as I type this.

Krugman is so monumentally wrong on nearly EVERYTHING he writes, there was enough material to write a regular blog about it.

http://krugman-in-wonderland.blogspot.com/

Anyway, have fun being glued to the propaganda box awaiting news on the blue vs red team nonsense. It won't make a spit of difference in the end. This empire is going the way of every other before it. The only question is which poor saps are left holding the bag.

The people have spoken and they want Obamacare.

Republicants are whiney ass bitches whenthey don't get their (lobbyists) way.

J. Albers wrote: I guess my main point is that the discretionary portion of the federal budget makes up less than 25% of the total budget. And given that literally thousands of programs and services come out of this portion of the budget (including roads, education, etc) then any individual part of it is really just small potatoes when it comes to federal debt. In the end there are really only three parts of the budget (health care, SS, defense) that one has to choose from in order to make any reasonable attempt at fixing the budget. And of those, getting the health care curve under control is the big elephant in the room.

We're on the same page then - I somehow misunderstood your statement about how much infrastructure cost was and people not understanding to be saying that it was a big number- we're both saying that it is small. Which is to say - yeah, we agree. I beat the SS/HC/Military (I don;t like calling it "defense" when it is clearly NOT defense) drum when ever anybody talks about anything else because... because in reality, that is about all that matters.
Which reminds me - why does EVERYONE keep saying, and why does the press even buy it, when they say that not increasing the debt ceiling means defaulting? Debt service is only 6% of spending. We could cut back on other things without touching debt service. SCOTUS already said that entitlements are not sacrosanct.
I mean, seriously, if it is only a 6% problem, we wouldn't be here. But it's a 30% problem (deficit spending) and that 6% does not have to be a part of it. That's just congress holding another dagger over our heads. It's NOT LIKE they passed a budget that they have to stick to.

D.Buffum wrote: Your civil rights protections are compromised.

Uhhh... Do we know the same government?
When did they offer protection? I can't seem to recall that headline lately. Courts are still open for redress, but the government is not in the business of protecting our rights, they are in the business of violating them and then argueing over classified docunemts in secret courts about why it is legal and not releasing the details...
And then lying about it until someone proves otherwise...
Who is then charged with treason.

And I am worried about de-funding them decreasing my protection?
Is that like the protection you buy from the mob?

This is not a left-right difference to me either, just to be clear.

Well I guess the "closed" National Mall is now open for this special event, no doubt sponsored by the Democrat party. Rules are just for others I guess....

breitbart.com/Big-Governmen…

and on this note, "The people have spoken and they want Obamacare." They have, where did you see this? CNN, Huffington Post, MSNBC?

I am guessing most people just think they are going to get health care for free. Even Nancy Pelosi originally said we have to pass the bill to find out what is in it, great logic Nancy.

Yes Lynn,
Illegals on the National Mall. Thank you piece of shit Obama.

This while veterans are being arrested for for daring to visit our war memorials!

It is apparent that the closures being foisted upon us by Obama are completely arbitrary and punitive to hurt everyone, and especially anyone who disagrees with him.
I hope he is impeached in 2015.

Eastvillage wrote: Thank you piece of shit Obama.

I just want you to know and understand that as a libertarian, I can't back up anything that someone says like that.
If you want to talk about ego overreach or mugging of congressional authority or such, I'm all over it.
But if you just want to name call, it makes it look like you don't have an argument and it's embarrassing to legit small government types, such as myself, who want to have an honest, fact-filled conversation about government.

White Privilege and J Albers and I have been at it for days - and nobody there is calling names. We're on opposite sides of a fence, yes, but check it out... we're having a discussion. Part and parcel to it being a discussion is that we both think the other one has it wrong, but do present our points and examine those that are offered counter to our ideas, ask for clarification of the opposite... and don't call each other names... or reduce it to the equivalent.
Even heated arguments don't have to be that way.

I think some of your message gets lost in the noise. So is modern politics a microcosm of society, or is this discussion a microcosm of modern politics?

You can take it or leave it, but when I hear talk like that I shake my head and walk away. I'd rather have a beer with a guy I completely disagree with civilly than with someone who votes with me on most issues, but talks so rudely.

^^^Agree 100% with Tony on this. Previously, it has been fun to take in the discussions on this thread and the other one in CF. I've learned a lot from both sides, but spewings and spittle like that coming from EastVillage's make me cringe.

Let's keep some decorum.

Oh, and Lynn S - there was something called an election a while back.

Eastvillage wrote:Yes Lynn, Illegals on the National Mall. Thank you piece of shit Obama.

That is pretty insulting to turds.

Tony B wrote: White Privilege and J Albers and I have been at it for days - and nobody there is calling names. We're on opposite sides of a fence, yes, but check it out... we're having a discussion. Part and parcel to it being a discussion is that we both think the other one has it wrong, but do present our points and examine those that are offered counter to our ideas, ask for clarification of the opposite... and don't call each other names... or reduce it to the equivalent. Even heated arguments don't have to be that way. I'd rather have a beer with a guy I completely disagree with civilly than with someone who votes with me on most issues, but talks so rudely.

Agreed. To be honest Tony, I often disagree with some of your perspectives, but your thoughts often get me to think about my own ideas and convictions. Truth be told, I think that if Congress operated like this we would be in much better shape. It doesn't take a genius to listen to opposing views and find a way to compromise. The problem is when you are so self righteous about your viewpoint that you quit listening and you assume that there is nothing of value to be gained from the other side of the argument. Said another way, I firmly believe that our democracy works best if it has at least two reasonable, but opposing viewpoints running things. Unfortunately people like Ted Cruz are not people that you can work things out with.

Ball wrote: Oh man, wiping the tears from my face as I type this. Krugman is so monumentally wrong on nearly EVERYTHING he writes, there was enough material to write a regular blog about it. http://krugman-in-wonderland.blogspot.com/

Wait, wait...you are going to cite a blog from some guy at some small state college in western Maryland who is from the Austrian school of economics as proof that a noble prize winning economist is full of sh*t? Hmmmm, at least next time you should pick the blog of someone who is well respected in the economics community...these do exist for your side of the argument. Moreover, you do realize that the Austrian school and the Chicago school are very similar, right? And that the Chicago school's ideas have failed absolutely miserably throughout the whole economic debacle, right? And that the bulk of the Chicago school is based upon the rational expectations hypothesis, right? And that assuming traders etc. behave according to rational expectations is absurd, right? Even Greenspan had to admit that his arguments (think Chicago school) were fatally flawed and help precipitate the economic crash.

Just a thought.

J. Albers wrote: The problem is when you are so self righteous about your viewpoint that you quit listening and you assume that there is nothing of value to be gained from the other side of the argument.

Yeah, OK, I'll own that, I guess. And I respons a lot better when poked about it and reminded than when people call names, so I guess that accounts for some of the variability in how I interact with people.
I think most discussions can stay civil so long as both sides don't loose their cool at the same time, which we've managed not to do.
And if you really feel I've been that self richeous that I wasn't listening, then I guess I give you some credit for not loosing it... but that was never my intention. Of course I am predisposed to thinking my existing conclusion is correct, but I am usually eager to examine significant data that suggests otherwise.
There are many things I believe that I wish were not true and I'd take some comfort in undermining my own convictions in those cases. Meanwhile, I fight to change what I can.

J. Albers wrote: Moreover, you do realize that the Austrian school and the Chicago school are very similar, right? And that the Chicago school's ideas have failed absolutely miserably throughout the whole economic debacle, right? And that the bulk of the Chicago school is based upon the rational expectations hypothesis, right? And that assuming traders etc. behave according to rational expectations is absurd, right? Even Greenspan had to admit that his arguments (think Chicago school) were fatally flawed and help precipitate the economic crash.

Although the Chicago school is similar in theory to the Austrian school, the Austrian school's principles have not been applied in the US economy. The right wing in the US likes to discourse about how it's all about free enterprise, but it's not. The right wants to regulate business just as much as the left wants to regulate it-- it's just that the right wants to regulate business in a different way than the left. With this environment to deal with, free enterprise really has never had its day in court. Claiming a "fail," is like saying Sharma can't climb 5.14 when everyone knows his harness was tied into a short rope that was secured to a tree such that he could never get more than 15 feet off the ground.

Further, Greenspan is not a Chicago school guy- he sold his principles long ago.

Moreover, the economic crash was primarily caused by government intervention in providing perverse incentives to lenders, skewing the markets and causing otherwise irrational behavior to become rational in context.

No matter which side of aisle you reside, hopefully this clip can bring some humor into this discussion. May we all be more informed than most of these folks.

cbsnews.com/8301-504784_162…

Can somebody point me to an article about how happy the "we need less government" camp is?

We now have less government but nobody seems happy about it.

J. Albers wrote: Wait, wait...you are going to cite a blog from some guy at some small state college in western Maryland who is from the Austrian school of economics as proof that a noble prize winning economist is full of sh*t?

He got a nobel prize in a popularity contest field of study. Obama also got one, and he can't even pronounce his own name without a teleprompter.

wankel7 wrote:Can somebody point me to an article about how happy the "we need less government" camp is? We now have less government but nobody seems happy about it.

Its still operating at 83% and the Fed is still printing money as fast as it can. The NSA data center is still using a medium sized city's worth of power gathering every bit of data ever generated, the IRS is still going to (or have already) hire a few thousand more agents specifically to comb through your personal files in the name of ACA compliance. Foreign aid is still flowing back around to ourselves in the form of defense contractor corporate welfare, and the Fed connected crony capitalists are probably actually increasing their margins somehow through this as you don't make $billions per year wiothout being extremely shrewd.