US Government Shutdown

[1robin]

I have not any answer to the part about convincing your wife . My wife of twenty-seven years (my third marriage, the first two didn't last very long) has 51% of the vote and her decisions are final. We do usually talk about things first though so I do usually get to add my two cents to things which she usually takes into consideration .

Exploring possible futures is a very interesting game, especially when a person has limited information because there are so many things going on that one does not know about. And on top of that you have chaos mathematics at play. First I would like to say that the average American voter agrees with you about the need for responsibility both as individuals and in government. This last go-a-round with the Tea Party folks has woke a lot of people up that normally do not pay attention to things. Exactly how that factors into possible futures I don't know, but it does change things. A sleeping giant has been awoken.

The possible future of healthcare? the US is going to become predominantly Hispanic and these folks as voters are going to have a major effect on the kind of future healthcare that will be available in the US. They are very family oriented and they want good, no hassle availability to the medical community. And as voters they are united as a group and they are socialistically inclined when it comes to healthcare and they will look after their own, as they are already doing. Possible futures? Two healthcare systems, theirs and everybody else' or everybody uses theirs (except for the more affluent folks of course).

What do you think ? Possible futures? I think it is now like Dorthy said in the movie "The wizard of Oz", "We are not in Kansas anymore Todo."

Don't worry to much about the long term future of the US. It does not have one. We are not only not in Kansas, liberals are no longer in reality any more. Spending 1.5 - 2 dollars for every one we take in and borrowing from China to make up the difference has no other destination than bankruptcy. I am pretty sure it is already too late. There is not enough money in existence to pay our liabilities off. The instant other nations refuse to buy up our infinite debt, that is when the house of cards will implode.

That only and last chance we have is the untapped natural resources we have, and we have a bunch. However if history is any indication liberals look at every new dollar as a reason to spend 2, so it probably will not help in the long run. If the Hispanics want the smoking ruins of what was the greatest and last hope for humanity on Earth, they are welcome to it.


Forget the health care nightmare, forget the philosophies, forget traditions, forget fox news, forget Bush. The car is heading at the wall and accelerating. Exactly what is the mystery here?

 

[mystic64]

Don't worry to much about the long term future of the US. It does not have one. We are not only not in Kansas, liberals are no longer in reality any more. Spending 1.5 - 2 dollars for every one we take in and borrowing from China to make up the difference has no other destination than bankruptcy. I am pretty sure it is already too late. There is not enough money in existence to pay our liabilities off. The instant other nations refuse to buy up our infinite debt, that is when the house of cards will implode.

That only and last chance we have is the untapped natural resources we have, and we have a bunch. However if history is any indication liberals look at every new dollar as a reason to spend 2, so it probably will not help in the long run. If the Hispanics want the smoking ruins of what was the greatest and last hope for humanity on Earth, they are welcome to it.


Forget the health care nightmare, forget the philosophies, forget traditions, forget fox news, forget Bush. The car is heading at the wall and accelerating. Exactly what is the mystery here?

We will see what the American people have to say about that. The giant that is the American people has been woken up and it is not going to go "quietly into the night." Robin you can "doom and gloom" all you want to, but everything is now different.

 

[1robin]

We will see what the American people have to say about that. The giant that is the American people has been woken up and it is not going to go "quietly into the night." Robin you can "doom and gloom" all you want to, but everything is now different.

Spending more than we have year after year has no rosy outcome possible. There is no mystery here. There is no escape from economic certainties. Families, people, governments can all ignore the problem for a while when they hide it by borrowing from others but if not enough people are willing to admit the end of the track is ahead it will not be avoided. It certainly will not be as long as the government claims the end does not exist and the American people are too uninformed to know they are being lied to. This is exactly what the liberals said to the Republicans in 02 when a hearing about the housing bubble occurred. Liberals shouted about stopping the doomsday and sky falling talk and fixed nothing. Naturally the whole house of cards imploded and the Republicans were blamed. That did not help the guy who lost half his 401K.

You are right that the American people have woken up in the past. Even back then it took a lot (Pearl harbor for one), but the greatest generation is not in power. A nation of Rip Van Winkles are in charge today. Every indication are things will continue to get worse.

There are no opinions here, no theories, no doom and gloom. There is no escape, what we are doing if not fully reversed (and no signs exist that it is not actually getting worse) it is inevitable. The lies, the propaganda, the excuse, and the blame game cannot make economic sense out of economic suicide and it is a far greater wrong to deny it than to admit it.


Now is different. It is wrong. Now is unsustainable and all indications it is only getting worse are ignored. This can't end well, whether that paints a pretty picture or not.

 

[metis]

We will see what the American people have to say about that. The giant that is the American people has been woken up and it is not going to go "quietly into the night." Robin you can "doom and gloom" all you want to, but everything is now different.

And the deficit is now in decline, and the last president that we had where this was occurring was Clinton. The"sky is falling" Republicans seem to have a very short memory when it comes to the deficit, especially when their man is sitting in the oval office.

Yes, we need to get the deficit even more under control, but when we're still are trying to heal the hurt from the "Great Recession", to jump into austerity right now would be economic suicide. As it is, growth rate have definitely been slowed by the sequester and the shutdown, with the latter being estimated at reducing our growth this year by 1%, which is significant.

And remember that it's especially the T.P. Republicans that were willing to let G.M. and Chrysler go under while we were losing 750,000 in one month alone, and also they voted against keeping our banks solvent. This group a terribly despicable element that is more dangerous to our country than al-Queda, as one of the more moderate Republicans recently stated. Why any American group would intentionally tank our economy is beyond me.

 

[Revoltingest]

And remember that it's especially the T.P. Republicans that were willing to let G.M. and Chrysler go under while we were losing 750,000 in one month alone, and also they voted against keeping our banks solvent. This group a terribly despicable element that is more dangerous to our country than al-Queda, as one of the more moderate Republicans recently stated. Why any American group would intentionally tank our economy is beyond me.

As one who is "more dangerous to our country than" Al-Qaeda (had to fix your spelling), I opposed the bail-outs because I thought it's better for the country. The lender bail-outs were the most expensive & the most feckless, because there would've been no loss of asset value (the loans receivable). They were mere crony capitalism. The auto company bail-outs were at least of greater value, because the assets (manufacturing plants) would be of little value to anyone else because of the cost & time to convert them to some other use. As we see, the bail-outs still left us in a malaise which the pro-bail-out economists failed to predict. Had those resources instead been applied to helping distressed borrowers (& indirectly the lenders), the results would've likely been far better. And now we're faced with greater debt & currency dilution. Moreover, the current administration is still taking steps to quash the real estate industry's recovery by exacting high taxes upon those who receive loan discounts (when rescuing themselves at no cost to the taxpayer).
You don't foster discussion or understanding by calling the likes of me "dangerous" & "despicable".

 

[mystic64]

Spending more than we have year after year has no rosy outcome possible. There is no mystery here. There is no escape from economic certainties. Families, people, governments can all ignore the problem for a while when they hide it by borrowing from others but if not enough people are willing to admit the end of the track is ahead it will not be avoided. It certainly will not be as long as the government claims the end does not exist and the American people are too uninformed to know they are being lied to. This is exactly what the liberals said to the Republicans in 02 when a hearing about the housing bubble occurred. Liberals shouted about stopping the doomsday and sky falling talk and fixed nothing. Naturally the whole house of cards imploded and the Republicans were blamed. That did not help the guy who lost half his 401K.

You are right that the American people have woken up in the past. Even back then it took a lot (Pearl harbor for one), but the greatest generation is not in power. A nation of Rip Van Winkles are in charge today. Every indication are things will continue to get worse.

There are no opinions here, no theories, no doom and gloom. There is no escape, what we are doing if not fully reversed (and no signs exist that it is not actually getting worse) it is inevitable. The lies, the propaganda, the excuse, and the blame game cannot make economic sense out of economic suicide and it is a far greater wrong to deny it than to admit it.


Now is different. It is wrong. Now is unsustainable and all indications it is only getting worse are ignored. This can't end well, whether that paints a pretty picture or not.

Well Robin, you can crash and burn and try to take others with you, but you as a prophet will be proven wrong. The reason is because the average American citizen is way more awake that you think they are. Congress and the politicians have been given enough rope to hang themselves and they did it. The American people now want "solve" and there are some really smart folks that care about the US and the American people that are now getting involved. Say what you wish, but things are about to get interesting Robin.

 

[metis]

The last thing you want to see happen when you're in rapid decline (remember, we lost 750,000 jobs in one month alone) is to have a couple of major companies go under. As the CBO stated, the effect could send us spiraling downward at even a faster pace, and liquidation they estimated would take no less than two years.

But there's more to the story. Many of the suppliers to those two companies also supply parts to Ford and the foreign transplants, and there's no doubt some of these suppliers would have bit the dust, which would have meant more and more layoffs at a time when economists knew that our economy was on the edge of collapse, and that's not an exaggeration. It is the only time in my life of 68 years where I had lots of trouble sleeping because of concern for my kids and grandkids because the potential was nightmarish.

And then there's the "panic" issue, namely what would have been the psychological effect on this country to see two major companies completely go under, with one of them being the most successful corporation in the world back in the mid part of the century? Fear would be devastating to our economy since we were were on the brink.

As far as helping out in the real-estate area, I totally agree that I would have hoped that this could have been more successful, but there were so many obstacles to hurdle as we saw.

As far as "dangerous" and "despicable", if you choose to personalize it to yourself, that's your choice, but I did not personalize it to anyone here. However, even as many moderate Republicans have publicly stated, this group is very much damaging our country, and their words to their own party members have often been far harsher than mine.

 

[1robin]

Well Robin, you can crash and burn and try to take others with you, but you as a prophet will be proven wrong. The reason is because the average American citizen is way more awake that you think they are. Congress and the politicians have been given enough rope to hang themselves and they did it. The American people now want "solve" and there are some really smart folks that care about the US and the American people that are now getting involved. Say what you wish, but things are about to get interesting Robin.

What I am doing has nothing to do with. The amounts of money I get or pay in taxes is negligible. My opinions have no power to wreck things by themselves. The citizens of Athens that said 90,000 people living in a city designed for 30,000 did not cause the plague, germs did. Warnings did not spend trillions we do not have, the idiots we elected did.

I might have granted you a slight point before the last election. I thought no one could deny buyers remorse and re-elect Obama. Even my pessimism was too optimistic. The one thing history shows is we do not learn from history and every empire eventually falls, and the ones who warned of the fall in every case were someone cast on moral high ground by those doing the destroying.

I sure do hope your right but all evidence points in the opposite direction and all of history is a witness to the inevitable result of spending more than you have. Even the amounts we spend more than we have are growing. Others mistake a reduction in hypothetical spending rate increases with actual money. It is getting worse and I have no idea what the people want "solve" even means.

 

[mystic64]

And the deficit is now in decline, and the last president that we had where this was occurring was Clinton. The"sky is falling" Republicans seem to have a very short memory when it comes to the deficit, especially when their man is sitting in the oval office.

Yes, we need to get the deficit even more under control, but when we're still are trying to heal the hurt from the "Great Recession", to jump into austerity right now would be economic suicide. As it is, growth rate have definitely been slowed by the sequester and the shutdown, with the latter being estimated at reducing our growth this year by 1%, which is significant.

And remember that it's especially the T.P. Republicans that were willing to let G.M. and Chrysler go under while we were losing 750,000 in one month alone, and also they voted against keeping our banks solvent. This group a terribly despicable element that is more dangerous to our country than al-Queda, as one of the more moderate Republicans recently stated. Why any American group would intentionally tank our economy is beyond me.

The US constitution says that the US government has the right to exist and that any attempt to destroy it is illegal and considered treason. The Tea Party folks were attempting to destroy the US government and they considered the American people collateral damage. The only reason that the Tea Party people are being quiet at this time is because they do not want to go to jail. As it is they are still going to have to go before the Senate and try to argue their way out of the mess that they have gotten themselves into. When the President starts to use words like "Holding the American people hostage," and "Refuse to pay ransom," one begins to understand the seriousness involved. In closing I would like to say that they are not more dangerous than Al-Qaeda, because they have no place to hide .

Like Robin says, "Everything is in a mess!" And on top of that the American people are very upset . It is going to be some version of Government by "initiative" if the politicians do not watch their step. We now have the technology where the American voter can vote on things in congress also.

 

[mystic64]

What I am doing has nothing to do with. The amounts of money I get or pay in taxes is negligible. My opinions have no power to wreck things by themselves. The citizens of Athens that said 90,000 people living in a city designed for 30,000 did not cause the plague, germs did. Warnings did not spend trillions we do not have, the idiots we elected did.

I might have granted you a slight point before the last election. I thought no one could deny buyers remorse and re-elect Obama. Even my pessimism was too optimistic. The one thing history shows is we do not learn from history and every empire eventually falls, and the ones who warned of the fall in every case were someone cast on moral high ground by those doing the destroying.

I sure do hope your right but all evidence points in the opposite direction and all of history is a witness to the inevitable result of spending more than you have. Even the amounts we spend more than we have are growing. Others mistake a reduction in hypothetical spending rate increases with actual money. It is getting worse and I have no idea what the people want "solve" even means.

"In God We Trust"

 

[Revoltingest]

The last thing you want to see happen when you're in rapid decline (remember, we lost 750,000 jobs in one month alone) is to have a couple of major companies go under. As the CBO stated, the effect could send us spiraling downward at even a faster pace, and liquidation they estimated would take no less than two years.

You speak to the benefits of massive bail-outs without considering the costs (taxation, fiat currency, borrowing), which are a long term drag on the economy. The CBO has its opinion, but it is mere economic guessing (with a bit of political agenda), & not evidence based. So I reserve the right to disagree with them.
Btw, note that "...the effect could send us....". The word "could" also means "could not".

But there's more to the story. Many of the suppliers to those two companies also supply parts to Ford and the foreign transplants, and there's no doubt some of these suppliers would have bit the dust, which would have meant more and more layoffs at a time when economists knew that our economy was on the edge of collapse, and that's not an exaggeration. It is the only time in my life of 68 years where I had lots of trouble sleeping because of concern for my kids and grandkids because the potential was nightmarish.
And then there's the "panic" issue, namely what would have been the psychological effect on this country to see two major companies completely go under, with one of them being the most successful corporation in the world back in the mid part of the century? Fear would be devastating to our economy since we were were on the brink.

As I said, the auto company bail-outs were more cost-effective than lender bail-outs. If the lenders went under, the assets (loans receivable) would've been purchased by others, & lost no value. The companies' shareholders would lose equity, but that was their risk as investors. I see no reason to bail out those particular stockholders instead of the others.

As far as helping out in the real-estate area, I totally agree that I would have hoped that this could have been more successful, but there were so many obstacles to hurdle as we saw.

Most of the hurdles were erected by government. But public policy is designed by politicians with goals other than recovery of the industry.

As far as "dangerous" and "despicable", if you choose to personalize it to yourself, that's your choice, but I did not personalize it to anyone here.

You don't mention anyone by name, but you demonized an entire group, one to which I belong.
Perhaps an analogy is needed.
If I say "Jews are despicable enemies of the country.", this names no one, but I'm sure those who fit the description of "Jew" will take offense.

However, even as many moderate Republicans have publicly stated, this group is very much damaging our country, and their words to their own party members have often been far harsher than mine.

People will have their extreme negative opinions of others.
But that doesn't make them correct, nor does it become useful to voice the low opinion of others.
So many here decry Congress' having much trouble getting things done due to polarization.
Do you want to exemplify their inability to see any merit in the other side?

Should I disagree with your views while exploring the issues....
or should I characterize you as a dangerous deluded enemy of the state?
(The latter is, of course, true from my perspective.)
Which approach is more in line with the spirit of RF?

 

[1robin]

You speak to the benefits of massive bail-outs without considering the costs (taxation, fiat currency, borrowing), which are a long term drag on the economy. The CBO has its opinion, but it is mere economic guessing (with a bit of political agenda), & not evidence based. So I reserve the right to disagree with them.
Btw, note that "...the effect could send us....". The word "could" also means "could not".

As I said, the auto company bail-outs were more cost-effective than lender bail-outs. If the lenders went under, the assets (loans receivable) would've been purchased by others, & lost no value. The companies' shareholders would lose equity, but that was their risk as investors. I see no reason to bail out those particular stockholders instead of the others.

Most of the hurdles were erected by government. But public policy is designed by politicians with goals other than recovery of the industry.

You don't mention anyone by name, but you demonized an entire group, one to which I belong.
Perhaps an analogy is needed.
If I say "Jews are despicable enemies of the country.", this names no one, but I'm sure those who fit the description of "Jew" will take offense.

People will have their extreme negative opinions of others.
But that doesn't make them correct, nor does it become useful to voice the low opinion of others.
So many here decry Congress' having much trouble getting things done due to polarization.
Do you want to exemplify their inability to see any merit in the other side?

Should I disagree with your views while exploring the issues....
or should I characterize you as a dangerous deluded enemy of the state?
(The latter is, of course, true from my perspective.)
Which approach is more in line with the spirit of RF?

Good post. All these detriments exist in reality. We are in reality hemorrhaging money at rates incomprehensible rates. All these even superficial mythical savings concern projected decreases in the rates of increase. There are no meaningful actual cuts offsetting any of the insane expenditures. The loss is far too real and the cuts are pure fantasy. I do not even think the liberals believe them themselves. It is a form of rationalization. Sure his organs are all dying but his future complexion will deteriorate more slowly is not much of one, however.

 

[mystic64]

You speak to the benefits of massive bail-outs without considering the costs (taxation, fiat currency, borrowing), which are a long term drag on the economy. The CBO has its opinion, but it is mere economic guessing (with a bit of political agenda), & not evidence based. So I reserve the right to disagree with them.
Btw, note that "...the effect could send us....". The word "could" also means "could not".

As I said, the auto company bail-outs were more cost-effective than lender bail-outs. If the lenders went under, the assets (loans receivable) would've been purchased by others, & lost no value. The companies' shareholders would lose equity, but that was their risk as investors. I see no reason to bail out those particular stockholders instead of the others.

Most of the hurdles were erected by government. But public policy is designed by politicians with goals other than recovery of the industry.

You don't mention anyone by name, but you demonized an entire group, one to which I belong.
Perhaps an analogy is needed.
If I say "Jews are despicable enemies of the country.", this names no one, but I'm sure those who fit the description of "Jew" will take offense.

People will have their extreme negative opinions of others.
But that doesn't make them correct, nor does it become useful to voice the low opinion of others.
So many here decry Congress' having much trouble getting things done due to polarization.
Do you want to exemplify their inability to see any merit in the other side?

Should I disagree with your views while exploring the issues....
or should I characterize you as a dangerous deluded enemy of the state?
(The latter is, of course, true from my perspective.)
Which approach is more in line with the spirit of RF?

"Roiling cauldron of rage" at play . Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so to speak. The Al-Qaeda folks feel that what they are doing needs to be done in spite of the collateral damage that they are creating in the lives of others. What you are proposing that needs to be done and that should have been done would have created a lot of collateral damage in the lives of your fellow Americans. And it probably would have brought America to its knees, and that is without mentioning the rest of the world being brought to its knees also, worse than they already were.

Our US government has created a mess in both the US and the world because of the decisions that Congress has made in the past. The object is to slowly get it fixed, not make it worse. The issues are not the past because everybody is to blame for the past. The issues are what to do in the future to fix the mess that we are now in and part of that fix is that Congress has to become different. Because, if something is not done, Robin's predictions for the future will be right on .

 

[Revoltingest]

"Roiling cauldron of rage" at play . Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so to speak. The Al-Qaeda folks feel that what they are doing needs to be done in spite of the collateral damage that they are creating in the lives of others. What you are proposing that needs to be done and that should have been done would have created a lot of collateral damage in the lives of your fellow Americans.

Well, my collateral damage is less severe than your collateral damage (IMO), especially in the long run.

Our US government has created a mess in both the US and the world because of the decisions that Congress has made in the past. The object is to slowly get it fixed, not make it worse. The issues are not the past because everybody is to blame for the past. The issues are what to do in the future to fix the mess that we are now in and part of that fix is that Congress has to become different. Because, if something is not done, Robin's predictions for the future will be right on .

We just have different views on what should be done to achieve the same goal.

 

[Revoltingest]

Good post. All these detriments exist in reality. We are in reality hemorrhaging money at rates incomprehensible rates. All these even superficial mythical savings concern projected decreases in the rates of increase. There are no meaningful actual cuts offsetting any of the insane expenditures. The loss is far too real and the cuts are pure fantasy. I do not even think the liberals believe them themselves. It is a form of rationalization. Sure his organs are all dying but his future complexion will deteriorate more slowly is not much of one, however.

Thankee! Yeah, I too see us just pi**ing away money, & creating an ever bigger, more ponderous, government.

 

[mystic64]

Well, my collateral damage is less severe than your collateral damage (IMO), especially in the long run.

We just have different views on what should be done to achieve the same goal.

Well sir, I talked to my wife about your approach and my approach and this is what she said , "She would have bailed out the banks, but she never would have deregulated them in the first place. She would not have gone into Iraq and Afghanistan and she wouldn't have bailed out anybody else." I may have to talk to her more often about politics .

 

[esmith]

Well sir, I talked to my wife about your approach and my approach and this is what she said , "She would have bailed out the banks, but she never would have deregulated them in the first place. She would not have gone into Iraq and Afghanistan and she wouldn't have bailed out anybody else." I may have to talk to her more often about politics .

Sounds like you have a very intelligent wife. Maybe you should listen to her more often

 

[Revoltingest]

Well sir, I talked to my wife about your approach and my approach and this is what she said , "She would have bailed out the banks, but she never would have deregulated them in the first place. She would not have gone into Iraq and Afghanistan and she wouldn't have bailed out anybody else." I may have to talk to her more often about politics .

Clearly, you should never consider leaving her for me.
(Mrs Revolt would object anyway.)

Btw, banks were not deregulated overall. I noticed in my decades as a real estate investor, real estate broker, & frequent borrower that banking regulation continually increased. The biggest problem, which exacerbated the market instability which led to the lending crash, was that banks were required by regulation & encouraged by gov subsidy to make risky loans. Then when the twin towers fell, business & employment started crashing, leading to homeowners & investors being unable to pay the bills. The fed also directly & indirectly prohibited many borrowers from working survivable deals with their lenders. Lord save me from a government with great power & good intentions.

 

[mystic64]

Sounds like you have a very intelligent wife. Maybe you should listen to her more often

that is why in our family she has 51% of the vote. And her vote is final. I lucked out with her and I admit it. My life is way better because of her.

 

[mystic64]

Clearly, you should never consider leaving her for me.
(Mrs Revolt would object anyway.)

Btw, banks were not deregulated overall. I noticed in my decades as a real estate investor, real estate broker, & frequent borrower that banking regulation continually increased. The biggest problem, which exacerbated the market instability which led to the lending crash, was that banks were required by regulation & encouraged by gov subsidy to make risky loans. Then when the twin towers fell, business & employment started crashing, leading to homeowners & investors being unable to pay the bills. The fed also directly & indirectly prohibited many borrowers from working survivable deals with their lenders. Lord save me from a government with great power & good intentions.

Well Revolt what you said was interesting and one can not deny your experience and background with things. eek!

"Lord save me from a government with great power and good intentions." A roiling cauldron of very upset : Our elected representatives can no longer be allowed to just run around loose unsupervised anymore. It just doesn't work. The folks that elect someone to be their representative in government need to have more control over how their elected representative votes. Yes some folks would say that the American government is to complicated for the American voter to understand and participate in. My answer is that if the American voter is too stupid to keep track of and supervise their own government, then the United States of America experiment is going to fail. Government for the people and by the people. It is not us against them, they are our servants and we need to supervise them.