Government shutdown begins as neither side agree to a spending compromise

[Silais]

We've all heard about the impending government shutdown orchestrated by the Republicans in the Senate and the House; although we've been told that crucial services such as the transportation of mail and the funding of social security will be maintained, what does a government shutdown mean for average Americans?

 

[countryemo]

I've never heard of it, what is it? Ok I don't keep track of political stuff, at all.

 

[MKGirlism]

Americans too?
And I thought our European governments were bad!
At the moment, every country part of the EU (European Union) has a terrible leader, only wanting to be seen positively in Brussels, and to do so, they need to rip off their own countries as much as they can, and beyond that.

Not only Economical, but on every single thing, countries are slowly becoming Provinces, money flows away to Greece, Brussels, Cyrus, and Africa (which doesn't change their Economies at all), and borders are widely open for terroristic attacks, and all this while the normal resident barely has any money to buy food anymore.
And what's the worst part of it? The EU decides what country has to be destroyed.
So if they say, "We're going to destroy France", they will destroy France in one click.

 

[paraz]

countries are slowly becuming curropted with its own goverment rule :(

 

[Silais]

For those that don't know, the Republicans in the House are going to force a government shutdown due to their refusal to allow "Obamacare" (more fondly known as the Affordable Care Act) to become enacted in October. This is mostly the brainchild of Ted Cruz, whom many other Republicans are coming to regard as "crazy" for trying to repeal Obamacare yet again when it's obvious that the president would never repeal his own main achievement in his five years as leader of the country. It may or may not happen, but it certainly seems as if these radical right-wingers are willing to shut down the government for the sake of holding onto a ridiculous and impossible ideal.

 

[Entermaid]

countries are slowly becuming curropted with its own goverment rule :(

There have been corrupted governments since the conception of the polis in Athens. We choose to live in societies that have some corruption as it relates to the our governors, and submit some of our freedoms that we would be afforded in nature, in order to increase our freedoms. Paradoxically.
I would 't say there is a trend of governments becoming more corrupt, especially as it relates to the United States and Britain. We often take for granted the 'good' things the government does for us.

"For those that don't know, the Republicans in the House are going to force a government shutdown due to their refusal to allow "Obamacare" (more fondly known as the Affordable Care Act) to become enacted in October. This is mostly the brainchild of Ted Cruz, whom many other Republicans are coming to regard as "crazy" for trying to repeal Obamacare yet again when it's obvious that the president would never repeal his own main achievement in his five years as leader of the country. It may or may not happen, but it certainly seems as if these radical right-wingers are willing to shut down the government for the sake of holding onto a ridiculous and impossible ideal."

Again, this is a skewed account for the events unfolding. Without dragging in partisan politics, here is the actual situation. I will put it in simple terms:

The United States government doesn't have the funding available for several Federal agencies. These agencies cannot operate without funding, and therefore will be out of operation, shutdown, if money is not allocated to them.

Now, the legislature is then forced to look at other programs or agency expenditures to cut in order to free-up funding for these agencies, raise the debt ceiling again (lower credit rating and providing a short-term solution), or allow these agencies to become non-operational.

The GOP is looking at option number one.

Now, we could certainly say the GOP is not putting forth the best solution for option one, but we cannot say they are forcing a shutdown because they are radicals with dogmatic ideals and the President is an advocate of the good and welfare of the people. This is playing right into partisan politics, and is really not a responsible way to voice an opinion since it is spreading contorted information especially adding in the language such as radical or crazy right-wingers, just like it is obfuscating the issues when we refer to Democrats as radical left-winger liberals. Come on, we can't really identify one party as being the advocate of good and the other being the advocate of evil. Furthermore, the situation is a STALEMATE. The president is refusing to look into the option of defunding, reduce funding, or putting off the funding for the Healthcare Bill AND the house members are continuing to advocate for the bill's repeal rather than exhausting other options. Again, there are not many other options available though.

 

[François2]

Americans too?
And I thought our European governments were bad!
At the moment, every country part of the EU (European Union) has a terrible leader, only wanting to be seen positively in Brussels, and to do so, they need to rip off their own countries as much as they can, and beyond that.

Not only Economical, but on every single thing, countries are slowly becoming Provinces, money flows away to Greece, Brussels, Cyrus, and Africa (which doesn't change their Economies at all), and borders are widely open for terroristic attacks, and all this while the normal resident barely has any money to buy food anymore.
And what's the worst part of it? The EU decides what country has to be destroyed.
So if they say, "We're going to destroy France", they will destroy France in one click.

What on Earth? European leaders aren't as bad as you may think, and they're not as EU-obsessed as you think. Even Angela Merkel is well-known for doing her best to tow the line with the German public. Funds go to the struggling EU countries because if they fail the entire system collapses and nobody with any sense wants that. Africa is a different thing, but the amount of aid that goes there is miniscule in comparison to the amount of money needed to boost the EU economy anyway.

I won't even get into the terrorism thing. As regards "destroying countries" - your government could decide to do that on a whim too. What difference does it make if it's Amsterdam or Brussels deciding to eradicate Uganda? You act like that's some sort of possibility anyway - war is not on the EU's agenda.

 

[Silais]

Republicans have tried to repeal the Affordable Care Act thirty-seven times. To me, that's exceptionally partisan. That's what politics is; partisanship. We may not like this division of loyalties, but it is part of American politics and there's no true way to sneak around them when trying to discuss an issue.

 

[MKGirlism]

François, you don't read the Newspaper, or similar?
If Irelands' situation is different, I can understand your disagreement, but look how it goes here in NL, where our Prime Minister literally doesn't give a **** about what happens, as long as Brussels is happy.
And to make Brussels happy, they use him as a marionette.

And just look at it realistic, almost all South-European countries are corrupting quickly, especially Greece.
In Spain, people go to the Airport, because they don't have money to pay their bills.
In Cyprus, many Banks steal money from customers, to save themselves.
Meanwhile, East-Europe gets a bit of support.
To conclude this fact, are all said countries and more richer than they were 5 months ago? Nope!
Poorer? Possibly.
How about West-Europe and North-Europe, getting ripped off? Hell yes.

 

[François2]

François, you don't read the Newspaper, or similar?
If Irelands' situation is different, I can understand your disagreement, but look how it goes here in NL, where our Prime Minister literally doesn't give a **** about what happens, as long as Brussels is happy.
And to make Brussels happy, they use him as a marionette.

And just look at it realistic, almost all South-European countries are corrupting quickly, especially Greece.
In Spain, people go to the Airport, because they don't have money to pay their bills.
In Cyprus, many Banks steal money from customers, to save themselves.
Meanwhile, East-Europe gets a bit of support.
To conclude this fact, are all said countries and more richer than they were 5 months ago? Nope!
Poorer? Possibly.
How about West-Europe and North-Europe, getting ripped off? Hell yes.

I do read papers, but I think you're being a tad sensationalist. I really am not at all educated on Dutch politics so I won't argue with your point. I will say that if your politicians care about keeping the EU happy, then that's probably the best thing for your people. But like I said, I'll trust your judgment on your own nation's politics ^_^

You're right that Southern Europe is in trouble, but the question is how much worse off those countries would be without the EU. Just because things are bad does not mean they can't be worse. You're right that the richer parts of the EU have a price to pay in this scenario, but I think it's a time when European solidarity is needed, rather than national solidarity. You may resent having to divert funds co countries who largely made their own problems (and it can't be denied that most struggling EU nations dug their own graves), but in the end it'll work out, and those countries who you're paying to run now will pay off their debts eventually.

 

[MKGirlism]

The truth is, since we're all part of the EU, part of the money we have earned fair and square has to flow to Brussels, and they decide where it goes next.
If you look at Switzerland or Norway, both countries have never been part of the EU, and currently have the best welfare in Europe.
They simply keep their stuff in their own country, and don't even care what happens in their neighbouring countries.

 

[Kanzler]

Haha I'm studying EU integration for my next lesson. Maybe I'll get back on this once I'm more knowledgeable. But first one should study how these institutions are working :P and it's been taking me a week just to get the principles down, let alone what they mean practically.

 

[François2]

The truth is, since we're all part of the EU, part of the money we have earned fair and square has to flow to Brussels, and they decide where it goes next.
If you look at Switzerland or Norway, both countries have never been part of the EU, and currently have the best welfare in Europe.
They simply keep their stuff in their own country, and don't even care what happens in their neighbouring countries.

But you act as if being in the EU hasn't meant more money flows to your country, too. Why would any country join something that doesn't benefit them?

Ireland has hugely benefited from EU funding in the past. Towards the end of the last decade, we began to pay more into the EU than we got out. The result? People wanted to leave. But that's not how things work. You have to put money into the EU if you want money out of it. Holland is definitely getting money out of it (maybe not now, but in the past and likely the future). It doesn't even need to be via EU funding like Ireland - the EU is a massive trading bloc that benefits all exporting nations within to a huge degree. That alone justifies some of your taxes flowing to Brussels.

 

[Esper]

Shutting down a government isn't a good idea. I can't speak that much about what's happening in Europe, but in America the last time the government was on the brink of shutdown we lost a lot of the economic momentum we'd been building up to that point. It cost a lot of money to get started even after a potential shutdown.

In America, we've had a lot of fights in the last few years about funding this and that, or not funding this and that, and it's mainly down political lines with the two main parties, Democrats and Republicans, at odds. Right now the fight is over the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare) and how the House of Representatives (which is one half of the lawmaking branch of government controlled by Republicans; the other half, the Senate, is Democratic contoled) won't pass a budget to fund government services unless the funding for the ACA is taken out, essentially starving it to death.

As much as I'd hate to be on the other side with a Republican-supported law that I hated, I don't think it's right to hold the running of the government hostage because they don't like a certain law. Because that's what is going on. They say that the ACA shouldn't be funded. Okay, well, the other side says, no, we want it funded and it's law. Really, that's that. We'd never have anything done in government if any time there was a split in power one side said "We want everything and if you don't give it to us we won't fund the government."

Ugh.

 

[paraz]

For those that don't know, the Republicans in the House are going to force a government shutdown due to their refusal to allow "Obamacare" (more fondly known as the Affordable Care Act) to become enacted in October. This is mostly the brainchild of Ted Cruz, whom many other Republicans are coming to regard as "crazy" for trying to repeal Obamacare yet again when it's obvious that the president would never repeal his own main achievement in his five years as leader of the country. It may or may not happen, but it certainly seems as if these radical right-wingers are willing to shut down the government for the sake of holding onto a ridiculous and impossible ideal.

but i thought That US was a Awesome Countrey with non corruption,and Obama were Makin country Better And US have no Problem as in a International View but Somehow Like Peoples Like From africa Are Not treated equal...As They do discrimination with Them....why so??They are also a citizen of America....

 

[Entermaid]

Republicans have tried to repeal the Affordable Care Act thirty-seven times. To me, that's exceptionally partisan. That's what politics is; partisanship. We may not like this division of loyalties, but it is part of American politics and there's no true way to sneak around them when trying to discuss an issue.

Yep. And partisanship implies two or more parties. Whereas, many people assessing this issues are focusing on either the 'liberals' or 'conservatives', rather than how both are forcing a gridlock. Portraying that one side is at fault while the other is not is simply not true.

Granted that the programs, entitlements, and government institutions are already not able to be funded, how is it that the Federal Government will be able to afford funding to the Healthcare program. The only way is to increase revenues, taxes, or cut other programs or expenditures.

It seems logical not to enact the healthcare bill until there is funding for it. It's a great idea, but other expenditures are going to need to be cut in order to fund it. Higher taxes are not an option either, that is a big 'no' during economic stagnation. It doesn't mean the law should be repealed altogether.

Both sides are going for all or nothing.

 

[Livewire]

ACA is the law of the land. That will not change. The 2012 election was partially about the healthcare law, and the American people soundly chose Obama, and by extension, the law itself, over Mitt Romney and the option of repealing it. So in addition to it being law, being upheld, etc, the people voiced their support for it. The current shutdown fight is nothing more than more republican obstructionism and the latest brinksmanship scheme. Obama should not, and will not budge on this. And he shouldn't even have to. Utterly ridiculous behavior.

 

[Entermaid]

Voting in a Presidential Election isn't a form of voter referendum in which the voters endorse the entirety of that candidate's public policies. Voters may have elected the President for a variety of other reasons, and may even oppose the ACA in part or in whole. Not to mention, the voters do not always take into account how issues are related. The economy and the ACA are completely intermingled, and should be carefully addressed rather than decided on emotional whims as they are contextualized by advocates of both ends of the political spectrum.

Further, the US debt is 73% of our GDP, the highest since World War Two. Granted the President inherited a difficult task, he has not taken the pro-cyclical economic policies such as slashing taxes across the board and lowering expenditures which promotes economic growth. He is taking a counter-cyclical approach, which is the appropriate discourse during high economic growth relative to debt, which entails more revenues, higher/sustained taxes in relation to higher expenditures. This is thought to slow the rapid boom cycle, in order to avert a subsequent bust cycle.

Timing is everything. The ACA is a great idea, but it needs to be put in place when out GDP per revenues is significantly lower. In that case, it could actually assist the stability of the country's economy in mitigating the boom-bust effects, as I explain, since it is a counter-cyclical tactic. Therefore, the law should be enacted once the GDP per debt hits a certain percentage which should be pre-determined.

(If only Republicans controlled government during economic stagnation and Democrats controlled government during economic incline.)

Of course everyone should have health care, but even more important than healthcare is to ensure the country has a stable economy, secures foreign markets and investments, and stabilizes the currency (avert inflation). Excessive expenditures needed to fund this program will aggravate the current state of the GDP to Debt Ratio granted the extensive expenditures needed to enforce the laws. If money is allocated to this program, either taxes will be hiked, other government operations slashed, or an increase in deficit spending, which would lower our nation's wealth and credit rating. So, going back to the point, of course everyone would love for everyone to have healthcare coverage, but right now, the negative consequences of the law's enactment outweighs the benefits of coverage. Thwarting the growth rate as it relates to our debts will collectively affect the entirety of the population, we could expect more job loss, loss of foreign/domestic investors up and leaving the united states, hyperinflation, among other economic ills that affect the affordability for housing, food, childcare, education, among other family expenditures.

Granted the House Republicans are probably seeking to kill the ACA law and are not actually being reasonable and thoughtful as to how the ACA law should be addressed; they often will say it's unconstitutional or invasive, those are garbage principled and non-substantive arguments. However, the law does need to be held off for the reason aforementioned, and hopefully, once the debt ratio is lowered then, the law should be enforced. SO, I am not siding with the House Republican's reasoning at all, just to clarify, just as I don't agree with the President, reasoning based primarily on emotional appeals.

I hope everyone on here acknowledges, at least acknowledges, that there is more to the ACA than helping others, it's more complex and dynamic, and could possible adversely affect the population at large. Compassion should not be addressed by short-sighted emotional appeals (subjectivity), compassion needs to be addressed by well-though out rational appeals that employs weighing and balancing policies (objectivity). Neither side has effectively done so, and we should cast blame for our economic woes on both parties' accord; it's a simplistic and one-dimensional approach to only blame one party (especially while praising the other), and speaks as to why our citizens, not only government, are so blinded by their own hyper-partisan viewpoints.

 

[MKGirlism]

This Government Shutdown came up on TV, this morning.
All of the West is now really in a big trouble.

 

[Mr. X]

Shutdown begins as neither side agree to a spending compromise

House Republicans and Senate Democrats could not reach agreement by the midnight deadline on a spending bill to keep the government operating, triggering an immediate shutdown of nonessential services and the furlough of nonessential personnel potentially affecting hundreds of thousands of federal workers.

It will be the first government shutdown since 1996, when President Bill Clinton was in the White House.

The Senate leadership had insisted on accepting only a "clean" continuing resolution, as the stopgap spending bill is known. But House Republicans stood their ground, insisting on using the continuing resolution as a vehicle to accomplish their long-held goal of derailing President Obama's signature Affordable Care Act.

The final inning of the drama came Monday afternoon, as the Senate rejected yet another version of the House's spending bill that would have delayed Obamacare for a year and President Obama addressed reporters at the White House, accusing GOP lawmakers of threatening to throw a "wrench" into the economy "just because there's a law they don't like."

The House countered again, voting 228-201 to pass another bill that would avert a shutdown of the federal government but also delay a key part of the Affordable Care Act. The Senate quickly tabled the amendments and sent the bill back to the House.

"I think what the speaker is doing is doubling and tripling down a path that was always intended to take us to shutting down government," Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, said in a press conference minutes before the deadline.

As the minutes ticked away toward the midnight deadline, no compromise appeared and the White House budget office directed federal agencies to begin shutting down.

The shutdown means not only will government workers be involuntarily laid off but national parks, with daily attendance of some 750,000, will be closed.

After the deadline passed, President Obama sent a pre-recorded video message to U.S. troops and Department of Defense staff assuring them that they would get paid.

"If you're serving in harm's way, we're going to make sure you have what you need to succeed in your missions," the president said.

As The Associated Press writes, the government shutdown is expected to inconvenience millions:

"Many low-to-moderate-income borrowers and first-time homebuyers seeking government-backed mortgages could face delays. ...

"About 800,000 federal workers, many already reeling from the effect of automatic budget cuts, would be ordered to report to work Tuesday for about four hours — but only to carry out shutdown-related chores such as changing office voicemail messages and completing time cards. Once they departed, they would be under orders not to do any government work.

"Some critical services such as patrolling the borders, inspecting meat and controlling air traffic would continue. Social Security benefits would be sent, and the Medicare and Medicaid health care programs for the elderly and poor would continue to pay doctors and hospitals."

Anticipating the likely shutdown, investors on Monday turned in a disappointing day. The Dow Jones industrial average fell 128.57 points, off 0.8 percent, to close at 15,129.67. The Standard & Poor's 500 dropped 10.20 points, or 0.6 percent, to 1,681.55.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...s-after-congress-fails-in-spending-compromise

What I find ironic about this is how similar it was to the last - Democratic President, Republican controlled House, and a fight (in part) over health insurance.

Ironic is that this shutdown won't stop the ACA - It's already funded, and will start tommarow. Choosing to shut down the government is a middle finger, spiteful retaliation for them not getting their way.

In as simple terms as I can put it - The baby didn't get the food it liked, so it decided to throw up over everything.