National parks to be closed if GOP succeeds in shutting down the government :(

[matt0611]

So who is going to get laid off that isn't doing anything useful?

Funnel our money to DC? Try funneling money we borrowed from China into our economy. Forcing a shutdown to avoid borrowing 11 billion, or whatever, is not going to help our economy in any way, but instead creates uncertainty. There are probably other bad effects on the economy... I mean think about all the Social Security recipients who won't get a check.

1. The shutdown doesn't effect SS irrc

And yes, well over 2 trillion of our dollars is being funneled to DC and the rest from other countries, money that is not available for private firms to receive.

I don't want a government shutdown, I want them to cut spending.
Neither the R or D proposal will do much at all to help us, so I hardly have a preference to which one I want, it really doesn't matter much though. 30 billion is nothing.

 

[manimal]

where are the uncertainty parrots crying about a shutdown?

 

[senseamp]

1. The shutdown doesn't effect SS irrc

And yes, well over 2 trillion of our dollars is being funneled to DC and the rest from other countries, money that is not available for private firms to receive.

After the foreigners gave money to private firms who gave it to hobos to buy McMansions, I wouldn't presume that money would be available to private firms, unless the Federal government borrowed and distributed it as it does now. The people buying US govt bonds at almost no interest are not interested in taking any risks. It would go to other governments to stimulate their economies. There is no shortage of money, there is a shortage of willingness to spend it, aside from the government. So that $2Trillion would be taken out directly from our economy.

 

[piasabird]

Parks may actually be cost effective or money makers.

 

[matt0611]

After the foreigners gave money to private firms who gave it to hobos to buy McMansions, I wouldn't presume that money would be available to private firms, unless the Federal government borrowed and distributed it as it does now. The people buying US govt bonds at almost no interest are not interested in taking any risks. It would go to other governments to stimulate their economies. There is no shortage of money, there is a shortage of willingness to spend it, aside from the government. So that $2Trillion would be taken out directly from our economy.

Some may, some may not. The less the government borrows the lower the bond rate will be, driving away investors. It will go somewhere, some to other governments driving down their rates, some to corporate bonds, bank savings accounts, stocks etc. The less money in the hands of the government the better IMO.

 

[senseamp]

Some may, some may not. The less the government borrows the lower the bond rate will be, driving away investors. It will go somewhere, some to other governments driving down their rates, some to corporate bonds, bank savings accounts, stocks etc.

There is no shortage of money sitting on the sidelines. If the government does not borrow and spend it, it's just going to sit there unspent. If you think people are reluctant to invest now, they are going to be even more reluctant if people in hardship are not getting government support and you take all this demand off the table.

The less money in the hands of the government the better IMO.

I agree, the government should spend more of it, not hold it in its hands.

 

[bfdd]

senseamp, no shortage of money sitting on the sidelines? From who? Who is going to pay it back? It's not FREE money and it's not just sitting there either.

 

[cubby1223]

*sigh*

All the liberals blame Republicans. All conservatives blame Democrats. And in the end the blame game solves nothing while angering just about everyone.

Don't worry, the government will be funded for another week, then next Wednesday we can play the blame game all over again when the government *again* will be facing a shutdown.

 

[Jhhnn]

Once again, the criticisms of Obama seem to vacillate between 'OMG OBAMA IS CHANGING EVERYTHING AND DESTROYING AMURR'CA' to 'OMG OBAMA HASN'T DONE ANYTHING'. Which one is it? I don't ask for the pathological hatred to stop, but it would be nice if it were more consistent.

It's consistently whatever the last thing they heard on Fox or AM radio is.

Too true. Made me laugh.

 

[senseamp]

senseamp, no shortage of money sitting on the sidelines? From who? Who is going to pay it back? It's not FREE money and it's not just sitting there either.

That's right, there is no shortage of money sitting on the sidelines, the government is able to borrow close to zero interest because of how much money there is seeking a safe haven. Government not borrowing it is only going to result in corresponding shrinking of our economy, not private sector borrowing it instead. If these banks or sovereign funds wanted to lend to private sector, they would be doing it already instead of buying bonds that earn interest below the rate of inflation. If they are not interested in lending money to private sector now, they are going to be even less interested when the economy is shrinking. It's not a difficult concept to grasp.

 

[charrison]

It was not well under way before Bush even took office.

Yes it was. loose lending started started before he got into office.

 

[senseamp]

Yes it was. loose lending started started before he got into office.

Not on the large scale that would endanger the economic system, which Bush allowed to happen.

 

[matt0611]

There is no shortage of money sitting on the sidelines. If the government does not borrow and spend it, it's just going to sit there unspent. If you think people are reluctant to invest now, they are going to be even more reluctant if people in hardship are not getting government support and you take all this demand off the table.

I agree, the government should spend more of it, not hold it in its hands.

How are people reluctant to invest?
Have you seen the stock market lately? Someones bidding these prices up.
People will only hold on to their money for so long.

 

[DCal430]

Wonder if National Park week will be canceled.

 

[charrison]

Not on the large scale that would endanger the economic system, which Bush allowed to happen.

Actually bush tried to tighten lending standards and reform the freddie and fannie and was thwarted by democrats. Lots of players in the mess, including democrats.

 

[senseamp]

How are people reluctant to invest?
Have you seen the stock market lately? Someones bidding these prices up.
People will only hold on to their money for so long.

Bond interest rates don't lie. Govt can borrow record sums at near zero interest because there is a lot of money on the sidelines chasing safety over risk.

 

[senseamp]

Actually bush tried to tighten lending standards and reform the freddie and fannie and was thwarted by democrats. Lots of players in the mess, including democrats.

LOL, you believe this? Bush and Republicans who controlled both houses of Congress when the housing bubble was forming were thwarted by the Democrats? Why don't you link to a story of Democrat filibuster of such reform.

 

[bfdd]

That's right, there is no shortage of money sitting on the sidelines, the government is able to borrow close to zero interest because of how much money there is seeking a safe haven. Government not borrowing it is only going to result in corresponding shrinking of our economy, not private sector borrowing it instead. If these banks or sovereign funds wanted to lend to private sector, they would be doing it already instead of buying bonds that earn interest below the rate of inflation. If they are not interested in lending money to private sector now, they are going to be even less interested when the economy is shrinking. It's not a difficult concept to grasp.

dude, what money? are you talking about worthless imaginary dollars which the FRB prints? That's not money dumbass, that's a currency. Yes they are different.

 

[cubby1223]

I still don't "get" this thread title. The GOP *has* the power to shut down the government.

The Democrats also *have* the power to shut down the government.

While *neither* party has the power to fund the government.

The only thing that would "succeed" is the entire government failing on an even larger scale.

 

[cubby1223]

LOL, you believe this? Bush and Republicans who controlled both houses of Congress when the housing bubble was forming were thwarted by the Democrats?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...sec=&spon=&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

Published: September 11, 2003
WASHINGTON, Sept. 10— The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

<snip>

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

<snip>

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Why didn't the Democrats pass a budget when they had massive majorities in both the house and the senate?

/Thread

 

[Jaskalas]

Why didn't the Democrats pass a budget when they had massive majorities in both the house and the senate?

/Thread

Because they knew Reps would take over and they wanted to cause this here and now.

 

[trenchfoot]

Cut spending...cut spending...balance the budget....no deficit spending....blah blah blah....except when the repubs are in control of the government.

If you want proof, then you obviously failed history 101.

 

[senseamp]

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...sec=&spon=&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

Was it filibustered? No. GOP was in charge and had the power to pass it, but did nothing.

 

[senseamp]

Why didn't the Democrats pass a budget when they had massive majorities in both the house and the senate?

/Thread

GOP would have filibustered it.