US gubmint shutdown + default + subprime sequel?

[ICantSpellDawg]

As omens go, this is one very, very bad news indeed.

The year 1995 only saw a US government shutdown, this time round a debt payment default is a distinct possibility. And on top of the debt ceiling stand-off on the Hill, it seems that the US surprime crisis may be far from over and that more major banks may collapse before the year goes out.

Any wild thoughts on how we can grow our way out of this global credit mess? Cause only growth is going to save us.

AII

Burn this whole thing to the ground. Let's start from scratch.

[edyzmedieval]

Most likely they will come up with a solution, but right on the brink. I don't expect to see any agreement on the debt cap before the last days of July.

[rory_20_uk]

That is not a solution. It is merely putting off having to make a solution.

Judicious cuts and tax rises to, y'know, get more money than spent would be a solution and then pay off part of the National debt occasionally.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That is not a solution. It is merely putting off having to make a solution.

Judicious cuts and tax rises to, y'know, get more money than spent would be a solution and then pay off part of the National debt occasionally.

Yes, well, going through this every few months makes it look increasingly like the US is run by children, and stupid ones at that.

[Samurai Waki]

Yes, well, going through this every few months makes it look increasingly like the US is run by children, and stupid ones at that.

Looks? I'm sure a group of chimps could do a better job, and if not at least we could laugh at their shennanigans-- politicians are never cute, and their shannigans usually involve cocaine and dead hookers...

[Lemur]

Best headline yet: Congress Continues Debate Over Whether Or Not Nation Should Be Economically Ruined

[gaelic cowboy]

Best headline yet: Congress Continues Debate Over Whether Or Not Nation Should Be Economically Ruined

It's almost like there debating who should get to cut the first slice of cake while the visigoths are bashing the gates in.

[Beskar]

Let's scrap all debt and currency and bring in the one-world government with its one-world currency with a completely new economic system where the global state cannot go into debt. Along with other economic reforms, all the issues will be solved almost instantly.

[rory_20_uk]

Erm, I hate to burst your bubble, but unless you are stating that there would then be no lending, it would change nothing.

China's municipalities are in massive debt due to their lending. It changes the name, not the outcome.

[Lemur]

This is pretty good:

[Vladimir]

This is pretty good:

As an adult conservative American Cristian I find Regan worship deeply uncomfortable. Me and the Gipper go way back but he did give congress a blank check to spend as much as they wanted on social/domestic issues if they gave him a blank check on defense.

He's right, of course, but also bears some of the responsibility.

Let's scrap all debt and currency and bring in the one-world government with its one-world currency with a completely new economic system where the global state cannot go into debt. Along with other economic reforms, all the issues will be solved almost instantly.

I really want to believe you're joking as if I attack your position you'll retreat to the barricades.

[Beskar]

Erm, I hate to burst your bubble, but unless you are stating that there would then be no lending, it would change nothing.

China's municipalities are in massive debt due to their lending. It changes the name, not the outcome.

I really want to believe you're joking as if I attack your position you'll retreat to the barricades.

My comment was in partial jest, as in, I think ultimately a united government with a single currency, along with world-wide economic reforms including a total economic reboot would solve so many issues present in the current global market.

As for "There would be no lending", that would be a folly, as I think you said yourself earlier Rory, owing $1000 to the bank, you are in trouble, the owing $10,000,000 to the bank and the bank is in trouble. Economic reform would include provisions for banks to lend what it can afford to lend. If this came alongside social shift in how we spend/treat money a credit crunch or similar would never occur.

If a global government with a balanced budget sheet came into play as well, with funds for "Rainy Day", then it changes the outcome of the global climate. If a bank ends up bankrupting, the other banks would simply fill the void of where it fell and there would be no threats to the stability of the government/nation, as we have seen in Greece, USA and other places.

The reason for global government is because the Eurozone is a joke if all the different countries are singing from different song sheets, and thus so would be the world if there was just a unified currency.

As for a unified currency, the benefits of that is pretty common sense and would go into a different argument.


As for my comment in jest, there is no way that such a revolution would occur unless some random cataclysm event occurs. People are too self-interested in their own stocks to create a new world which would solve a great many of the old worlds wrongs.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

My comment was in partial jest, as in, I think ultimately a united government with a single currency, along with world-wide economic reforms including a total economic reboot would solve so many issues present in the current global market.

As for "There would be no lending", that would be a folly, as I think you said yourself earlier Rory, owing $1000 to the bank, you are in trouble, the owing $10,000,000 to the bank and the bank is in trouble. Economic reform would include provisions for banks to lend what it can afford to lend. If this came alongside social shift in how we spend/treat money a credit crunch or similar would never occur.

If a global government with a balanced budget sheet came into play as well, with funds for "Rainy Day", then it changes the outcome of the global climate. If a bank ends up bankrupting, the other banks would simply fill the void of where it fell and there would be no threats to the stability of the government/nation, as we have seen in Greece, USA and other places.

The reason for global government is because the Eurozone is a joke if all the different countries are singing from different song sheets, and thus so would be the world if there was just a unified currency.

As for a unified currency, the benefits of that is pretty common sense and would go into a different argument.


As for my comment in jest, there is no way that such a revolution would occur unless some random cataclysm event occurs. People are too self-interested in their own stocks to create a new world which would solve a great many of the old worlds wrongs.

Command economy and one, unoposed, government?

No thanks, at least the current mess allows for despotic regimes to be removed by other regimes. Reform almost never comes from within the system, so a unified system will never be reformed. This is, I believe, another problem with the EU, lack of political opposition. The Torys were basically called anti-semnites for pulling out of the pro-EU centre-right coalition in the EU parliament.

[Beskar]

@PVC

I never mentioned anything about a command economy? I don't even believe in a command economy? I cannot really address this point since I am unable to grasp where it has came from.

As for One Government, the main despotic regimes visible around the world are the main problem. Having a united democratic government would be far superior to ridding tyranny due to being able to act decisively and swiftly. Since my proposal of a world government would be federal and in a sense, similar scope to Belgium where the world could continue and government doesn't have much of a part to play, if at all, in the scheme of things. There wouldn't be many issues.

Think of things that plague this world. Country X having human rights abuses, Country Y being very hostile and arming themselves with nukes, Country Z who cannot even do basic maths and decimating their own economy. All that would be done away with in a simple way, since there would be a universal charter of human rights which everyone would be made to stick to and they cannot weasel themselves out of it. United World which could swiftly deal with despots who rear their ugly heads without spending tons of time at a conference table, trying to organise "who will contribute what".

[Vladimir]

My comment was in partial jest, as in, I think ultimately a united government with a single currency, along with world-wide economic reforms including a total economic reboot would solve so many issues present in the current global market.

As for "There would be no lending", that would be a folly, as I think you said yourself earlier Rory, owing $1000 to the bank, you are in trouble, the owing $10,000,000 to the bank and the bank is in trouble. Economic reform would include provisions for banks to lend what it can afford to lend. If this came alongside social shift in how we spend/treat money a credit crunch or similar would never occur.

If a global government with a balanced budget sheet came into play as well, with funds for "Rainy Day", then it changes the outcome of the global climate. If a bank ends up bankrupting, the other banks would simply fill the void of where it fell and there would be no threats to the stability of the government/nation, as we have seen in Greece, USA and other places.

The reason for global government is because the Eurozone is a joke if all the different countries are singing from different song sheets, and thus so would be the world if there was just a unified currency.

As for a unified currency, the benefits of that is pretty common sense and would go into a different argument.


As for my comment in jest, there is no way that such a revolution would occur unless some random cataclysm event occurs. People are too self-interested in their own stocks to create a new world which would solve a great many of the old worlds wrongs.

I almost hate to say it given the recent attack but maybe Norway should run the world. It seems like they're able to do this effectively and responsibly.

[Beskar]

I almost hate to say it given the recent attack but maybe Norway should run the world. It seems like they're able to do this effectively and responsibly.

Norway is a very responsible country from what information I know. So obviously taking from the best aspects of various countries such as Norway would be a good idea.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I'm really impressed with Boehner, he is negotiating really well. He knows that Obama cannot let this default happen, but he is still returning to the table to show him that a deal is possible. I have a feeling that this deal is going to be really good - increased 1+trillion in revenues while lowering tax rates and "simplifying" tax codes plus an additional 3+trillion cut to the debt over 10 years. 4+ plus in debt reduction over 10 years without "raising" taxes. This will most likely happen this week.

Or we could get a forced 44% cut instantly. Either way, this government is going to be slashed mercilessly and funding will be forced to go to necessary functions rather than the fluff. The government should be privatizing services at this point.

When will they understand that nobody owns their own property? We are merely renting from the government under the guise of "taxes". Any privatization would be under a similar agreement. The government still owns everything and controls critical functions through regulation, why not charge people rent instead of running it yourself? Generate revenue, create growth potential... Win,Win

[a completely inoffensive name]

I'm really impressed with Boehner, he is negotiating really well. He knows that Obama cannot let this default happen, but he is still returning to the table to show him that a deal is possible. I have a feeling that this deal is going to be really good - increased 1+trillion in revenues while lowering tax rates and "simplifying" tax codes plus an additional 3+trillion cut to the debt over 10 years. 4+ plus in debt reduction over 10 years without "raising" taxes. This will most likely happen this week.

Or we could get a forced 44% cut instantly. Either way, this government is going to be slashed mercilessly and funding will be forced to go to necessary functions rather than the fluff. The government should be privatizing services at this point.

When will they understand that nobody owns their own property? We are merely renting from the government under the guise of "taxes". Any privatization would be under a similar agreement. The government still owns everything and controls critical functions through regulation, why not charge people rent instead of running it yourself? Generate revenue, create growth potential... Win,Win

Profit does not equal better. There are many systems and services which cannot be properly utilized with a system of competition due to practical reasons. Without competition, no growth can be formed, even if there is lots of profit to be had.

Of course, why am I even bothering to say any of this. You are so off the deep end in thinking that the man who is holding the country hostage to satisfy some ideology is "impressive" and that somehow there is no private property in America anymore. Reality check bro.

[ICantSpellDawg]

What happens when you stop paying property taxes? We're all renters, my friend. How am I off the deep end on this issue? What do you think is going to happen to our country? We are already bankrupt, but other nations have been afraid to call us on it. I'm open to increased taxes generally, especially for salaries over 250k, but I know that the government will just squander it in the form of pay raises for employees and programs which are already paid too much, rather than use it for anything bold or necessary. I recognize that our ability to increase our credit limit is just a way to further compound how screwed we are. It's only a matter of time before we are forced to liquidate. We should not increase our debt limit unless we can get spending under control. It is responsible govenrment to push this to the brink now, while we still have options rather than later, when we inevitably wont. People are just afraid of "brinksmanship", but "politics" has only put us in the poor box.

I'm an extremist in my moderation. Politically I am within the margin of error. I like balance, but balance does not exist here.

[jirisys]

Well; you see my friend; you are taking your army to the forest for an ambush. The problem is not "paying property taxes", but the taxes (or more moderately, the effects themselves). It is a silly concept. To have to pay money for something that is your possession for the only reason that it's in the government lands.

Boehner is just an *******. Why not simply disregard whatever petty republican wishes for this single and only instance. Throw 'em to the craphole for this single and only decision, and solve any problems you have. If he doesn't want high taxes for the rich, then **** him.

Or simply, make a quick referendum on what to do. You will see that it's going to be pretty one-sided.

America doesn't need a filibuster right now.

~Jirisys ()

[ICantSpellDawg]

Why don't you tell us what America needs?

[jirisys]

Why don't you tell us what America needs?

Because few people, if any; know that.

One can know what it doesn't need at a given time.

~Jirisys ()

[ICantSpellDawg]

That reply made no sense gramatically, but I think I got the point.

I was using the property tax thing as an example of why, when the government sells a function, it still owns the land and the function (and the right to charge rent through "taxes"), even though others are working it and paying the government money. This creates growth potential in private sector. For example, the post office is almost completely irrelevant. If anyone is still dumb enough to send things through the mail, they should pay more to do it and convert their bulk correspondence to digital. This would increase the volume of fedex and UPS while saving the federal government 10 billion per year. Additionally, post offices have prime real estate which would net the government untold billions, for sale over time as the economy picks up. There is no reason to have these stupid fossils sitting in the best areas of towns. They are taking away from tax revenue potential and they no longer even serve the interests of the poor - they are a tumor on the taxpayer with no added value. Add more computers to library's if lower income people need to send correspondence.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That reply made no sense gramatically, but I think I got the point.

I was using the property tax thing as an example of why, when the government sells a function, it still owns the land and the function (and the right to charge rent through "taxes"), even though others are working it and paying the government money. This creates growth potential in private sector. For example, the post office is almost completely irrelevant. If anyone is still dumb enough to send things through the mail, they should pay more to do it and convert their bulk correspondence to digital. This would increase the volume of fedex and UPS while saving the federal government 10 billion per year. Additionally, post offices have prime real estate which would net the government untold billions, for sale over time as the economy picks up. There is no reason to have these stupid fossils sitting in the best areas of towns. They are taking away from tax revenue potential and they no longer even serve the interests of the poor - they are a tumor on the taxpayer with no added value. Add more computers to library's if lower income people need to send correspondence.

A better plan would be to reform the Post Office and get it working so that it can undercut FedEx etc. and become a useful service again. The Postal Service is like the road and rail network, it's existence is a anecessary part of the country's infastructure. So is the Health Service - which is, incidentally, someone Americans pay for twice, in taxes and insurrence.

Get rid of the US mail and the US government would have to subsidise another carryier to bring down prices and ensure it didn't go under.

[ICantSpellDawg]

That's not true. Price mail correctly for the desire and cost of service. 45 cents a stamp doesn't reflect a sensible cost. If people began to see that their mail was too costly to send when postage hit a dollar, 2 dollars, maybe they would use some sense and invest in electronic methods. Otherwise, if the mail really needed to go out, maybe the dollar would be worth it. Ups and fedex would appreciate the growth in function and volume

[gaelic cowboy]

That's not true. Price mail correctly for the desire and cost of service. 45 cents a stamp doesn't reflect a sensible cost. If people began to see that their mail was too costly to send when postage hit a dollar, 2 dollars, maybe they would use some sense and invest in electronic methods. Otherwise, if the mail really needed to go out, maybe the dollar would be worth it. Ups and fedex would appreciate the growth in function and volume

The reason mail is a 45 cent has nothing to do with sensible costs, it is a fundamental part of the governance of any country being able to communicate with official correspondence to any region under it's control.

UPS and Fed Ex would still end up being given federal money to keep the ability to send an letter from Alaska to DC.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Ok, how much would it cost to open up Fedex availability in certain parts of Alaska and Puerto Rico? I think we are at the point where that is a weak argument. In the mid 1900's that held plenty of water, now we spend this much money in order to make sure that the Federal government can ship confidential and secret correspondence to the middle of nowhere? The post office serves as a job provider - an unnecessary welfare donor. It pays people money for a service that is no longer necessary.

Why does Ireland still have a post office? You can travel to anywhere in Ireland in around 4 hours. I'm saying that sacred cows need to be slaughtered. There is waste in government because we fail to re-evaluate needs. We see "post office" and everybody knows that we need one, except that they don't know why we need one.

[ICantSpellDawg]

double post

[gaelic cowboy]

Why does Ireland still have a post office? You can travel to anywhere in Ireland in around 4 hours. I'm saying that sacred cows need to be slaughtered. There is waste in government because we fail to re-evaluate needs. We see "post office" and everybody knows that we need one, except that they don't know why we need one.

Well part of the reason is we use the post office for different things over here, we have things like Post Office banking and Social Welfare payments renewal of Passports etc etc there is a myraid of things.

However those things are not the reason we have a Post Office it really does still come down to official communication between citizens, we would still have to suplement the private sources of mail and we would still require them to open offices all over the place in order to do business.

I am open to having a private mail service but it would have to still engage with the existing universal service obligations and it would have to have offices at pretty much all the same locations give or take a few more(considering the latest population increase here they prob need extra ones)

UPS an Fed Ex likely don't want to have to offer any of these services to be honest, there quite happy with the lucrative chunks they have already, then we have the problem that if any of them went bust it creates messy problems with the service while new vendors are sourced.








On an historical note the British system of government here was subverted through interception by IRA agents in the sorting offices in London and Dublin, they knew what the British were doing before the Governor General had even read it.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Well part of the reason is we use the post office for different things over here, we have things like Post Office banking and Social Welfare payments renewal of Passports etc etc there is a myraid of things.

However those things are not the reason we have a Post Office it really does still come down to official communication between citizens, we would still have to suplement the private sources of mail and we would still require them to open offices all over the place in order to do business.

I am open to having a private mail service but it would have to still engage with the existing universal service obligations and it would have to have offices at pretty much all the same locations give or take a few more(considering the latest population increase here they prob need extra ones)

UPS an Fed Ex likely don't want to have to offer any of these services to be honest, there quite happy with the lucrative chunks they have already, then we have the problem that if any of them went bust it creates messy problems with the service while new vendors are sourced.

On an historical note the British system of government here was subverted through interception by IRA agents in the sorting offices in London and Dublin, they knew what the British were doing before the Governor General had even read it.

In the United States, we have separate SS offices that rent out space in private buildings. I can't think of anything other than passports that private companies couldn't do better and more profitably. Before anyone says "not everything is about profit", save it for an argument about social security. What the hell IS about profit or efficiency or sustainable growth?