5 ms·

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

by jbooth 13y ago

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

superails 13y ago
They don't hand out money everyday to the same people. And it is not stupid theater. It is our government NOT at work. We may temporarily recover some of our debt. In fact, if they keep this going for an extended period of time, it might actually help- a lot. Our country has become much too dependent on our government, and now that the two political parties can't get along, there may actually be room for another socially moderate, somewhat fiscally-conservative, deficit hawk, constitutionalist, semi-libertarian party with common sense to come along and bring the country together. Unfortunately, it hasn't organized yet (and no, it isn't the Libertarian party- not with its current leaders- and even with better leadership, Libertarians are incapable of getting the debt under control because they won't allow raising taxes to cover for past debt).
- quanticle 13y ago
  And it is not stupid theater. It is our government NOT at work. We may temporarily recover some of our debt. In fact, if they keep this going for an extended period of time, it might actually help- a lot. Our country has become much too dependent on our government, And tell me, when was the nation not dependent on its government? When did this era of "rugged individualism" you speak of exist? Right from its very inception, the US government has been intervening in the economy and subsidizing things that the voters deemed desirable. If the US government has grown, it is because the US has grown. You need a larger government when there are 300 million people in the country than when there are 30 million. there may actually be room for another socially moderate, somewhat fiscally-conservative, deficit hawk, constitutionalist, semi-libertarian party So... you want a party of magic faerie unicorns to come along and set everything aright. Er, well, good luck with that.
  - true_religion 13y ago
    I think many people understand the need for government at the local and state level, its when we get to the federal government that there's problems.
- singlow 13y ago
  No debt will be recovered. They will include a back pay clause when the funding is finally passed and everyone will get payed as if they had worked anyway. Edit: spelling
- voxmatt 13y ago
  One of the many ironies of a government shutdown is that it always increases debt (unless it were unprecedentedly long, which wouldn't necessarily decrease the debt either, it's just unknown). Think of it like a car on the freeway — you waste gas by slamming the breaks and then stomping on the gas to get back up to speed. Plus, the economic damage a shutdown does will result in suppressed tax incomes at the end of the year.
- jbooth 13y ago
  Actually, I'm pretty sure it costs us money to shut down the government, what with all the disruptions. Less efficient.
cantrevealname 13y ago
If what the state government is doing is useful and wanted, then the state should tax more and the federal government should tax less. This is yet another inefficiency of federal government to act as a middleman.
- jarek 13y ago
  State politicians and voters in state elections, particularly in states that are net beneficiaries of the federal contributions, are sure to like the idea.
- quanticle 13y ago
  One of the roles of the federal government is to redistribute funds from states that have populations to tax to states that don't. It's difficult to "tax more", if there's no one to tax (e.g. Montana). It's no coincidence that the most rural, most Republican states are massive consumers of federal funds (via farm subsidies and transportation subsidies, mainly) and the most urban, most Democratic states are net producers of federal funds.
  - ars 13y ago
    > via farm subsidies and transportation subsidies, mainly A transportation subsidy might be local (maybe - interstates are national, not local), but farm subsidies end up being distributed nationally since they basically just mean that certain types of food are cheaper than they otherwise might be. So you can't count farm subsidies as "consumers of federal funds". (It's definitely an artificial distortion of the market, but that's a different argument.)
    - quanticle 13y ago
      A transportation subsidy might be local (maybe - interstates are national, not local), but farm subsidies end up being distributed nationally since they basically just mean that certain types of food are cheaper than they otherwise might be. So you can't count farm subsidies as "consumers of federal funds". I'm not sure how the conclusion follows from the premises. Farm subsidies do consume federal funds. Where do you think the funding for the massive pork-barrel farm bills comes from? Moreover, those dollars aren't necessarily passed on to consumers. In theory, the market for farm products is a perfectly competitive market and any subsidy to the market would result in cheaper prices for everyone. In practice, well, Cargill exists. Large agribusinesses are quite capable of taking subsidy rents and stashing them away as profit rather than using them to compete on prices if their market is more like a cartel and less like a perfectly competitive free market.

by jbooth 13y ago

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

superails 13y ago

They don't hand out money everyday to the same people. And it is not stupid theater. It is our government NOT at work. We may temporarily recover some of our debt. In fact, if they keep this going for an extended period of time, it might actually help- a lot. Our country has become much too dependent on our government, and now that the two political parties can't get along, there may actually be room for another socially moderate, somewhat fiscally-conservative, deficit hawk, constitutionalist, semi-libertarian party with common sense to come along and bring the country together. Unfortunately, it hasn't organized yet (and no, it isn't the Libertarian party- not with its current leaders- and even with better leadership, Libertarians are incapable of getting the debt under control because they won't allow raising taxes to cover for past debt).

quanticle 13y ago
And it is not stupid theater. It is our government NOT at work. We may temporarily recover some of our debt. In fact, if they keep this going for an extended period of time, it might actually help- a lot. Our country has become much too dependent on our government, And tell me, when was the nation not dependent on its government? When did this era of "rugged individualism" you speak of exist? Right from its very inception, the US government has been intervening in the economy and subsidizing things that the voters deemed desirable. If the US government has grown, it is because the US has grown. You need a larger government when there are 300 million people in the country than when there are 30 million. there may actually be room for another socially moderate, somewhat fiscally-conservative, deficit hawk, constitutionalist, semi-libertarian party So... you want a party of magic faerie unicorns to come along and set everything aright. Er, well, good luck with that.
- true_religion 13y ago
  I think many people understand the need for government at the local and state level, its when we get to the federal government that there's problems.
singlow 13y ago
No debt will be recovered. They will include a back pay clause when the funding is finally passed and everyone will get payed as if they had worked anyway. Edit: spelling
voxmatt 13y ago
One of the many ironies of a government shutdown is that it always increases debt (unless it were unprecedentedly long, which wouldn't necessarily decrease the debt either, it's just unknown). Think of it like a car on the freeway — you waste gas by slamming the breaks and then stomping on the gas to get back up to speed. Plus, the economic damage a shutdown does will result in suppressed tax incomes at the end of the year.
jbooth 13y ago
Actually, I'm pretty sure it costs us money to shut down the government, what with all the disruptions. Less efficient.

cantrevealname 13y ago

If what the state government is doing is useful and wanted, then the state should tax more and the federal government should tax less. This is yet another inefficiency of federal government to act as a middleman.

jarek 13y ago
State politicians and voters in state elections, particularly in states that are net beneficiaries of the federal contributions, are sure to like the idea.
quanticle 13y ago
One of the roles of the federal government is to redistribute funds from states that have populations to tax to states that don't. It's difficult to "tax more", if there's no one to tax (e.g. Montana). It's no coincidence that the most rural, most Republican states are massive consumers of federal funds (via farm subsidies and transportation subsidies, mainly) and the most urban, most Democratic states are net producers of federal funds.
- ars 13y ago
  > via farm subsidies and transportation subsidies, mainly A transportation subsidy might be local (maybe - interstates are national, not local), but farm subsidies end up being distributed nationally since they basically just mean that certain types of food are cheaper than they otherwise might be. So you can't count farm subsidies as "consumers of federal funds". (It's definitely an artificial distortion of the market, but that's a different argument.)
  - quanticle 13y ago
    A transportation subsidy might be local (maybe - interstates are national, not local), but farm subsidies end up being distributed nationally since they basically just mean that certain types of food are cheaper than they otherwise might be. So you can't count farm subsidies as "consumers of federal funds". I'm not sure how the conclusion follows from the premises. Farm subsidies do consume federal funds. Where do you think the funding for the massive pork-barrel farm bills comes from? Moreover, those dollars aren't necessarily passed on to consumers. In theory, the market for farm products is a perfectly competitive market and any subsidy to the market would result in cheaper prices for everyone. In practice, well, Cargill exists. Large agribusinesses are quite capable of taking subsidy rents and stashing them away as profit rather than using them to compete on prices if their market is more like a cartel and less like a perfectly competitive free market.