Can anybody explain why a government shutdown is a GOOD thing?

[DisgruntledVirus]

Government employees can collect unemployment, mattering on their states laws:

from CNN.com: a copy of the furlough letter going out to SAA employees:
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/04/07/furlough.pdf

Ah, my mom works for the federal government and told me she was not able to collect unemployment from it, so she must be in a state that doesn't allow her to.

 

[IronWing]

LOL, we'll be masturbating, and sucking our own tit. Only greater in debt, and going the way of Greece.

-John

So you're really not interested in debt reduction. Got it.

 

[Zorkorist]

Not when it calls for giving up Capitalism, or the American Dream, and begets Socialism.

Because then we have lost our freedom.

I guess you don't think Freedom is important?

-John

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Not when it calls for giving up Capitalism, or the American Dream, and begets Socialism.

Because then we have lost our freedom.

I guess you don't think Freedom is important?

-John

Oh logical fallacies how I love thee

 

[Throckmorton]

Not when it calls for giving up Capitalism, or the American Dream, and begets Socialism.

Because then we have lost our freedom.

I guess you don't think Freedom is important?

-John

Are you trolling?

 

[guyver01]

While I'd like to, guyver, I can't. I counter-propose I defund NPR and you defund the EPA.

-John

i'm fine with that.

Damn EPA costs me more money in safely disposing my toxic waste.

 

[Zorkorist]

Are you trolling?

No, but apparently you are.

Welcome to the thread. Please post something constructive.

-John

 

[wuliheron]

I guess you don't think Freedom is important?

I don't know. Can you eat freedom? Know any good recipes?

 

[Zorkorist]

Just one...

less Government.

-John

 

[Nebor]

The argument I've heard is that this is a good thing for financial reasons (i.e. less govt expenses while shut down, smaller budget, etc). If that is why a shutdown is a good thing, then if we actually look at it objectively I don't see any good coming from it (either financially speaking or politically speaking for the R party).

So you think it's a good thing because in the short term we will see what happens for a few days when not everything is running?

Yup. My "fuck it" attitude is admittedly short sighted, but meh. SHUT IT DOWN!

Oh and politically I don't care one way or another what they cut or how much. I'm a non-voter.

 

[Zorkorist]

Just to be clear, Nebor, the Republicans are arguing for cuts, the Democrats are arguing to expand Government.

-John

 

[Zebo]

Government today is for rags and riches. I'm neither so it has no effect on me.

 

[Zorkorist]

It has every effect on you. It's scary that you think it doesn't.

-John

 

[sunzt]

FYI, it still costs the government $ if they shutdown because those 800,000 workers still get backpay for lost days when the government comes back. Essentially no one wins even if gov shuts down since gov will be paying people for doing nothing.

 

[Zorkorist]

Not if the Republicans/Tea Part get spending concessions.

This isn't about punishing federal workers, it's about getting spending concessions.

-John

 

[marvdmartian]

There is no positive. It will cost more, in the long run, to shut down, then start back up, the "non-essential" government services. This isn't conjecture, this is something they've seen in previous shutdowns, after the budget was dealt with, and workers went back to work.

Anyone who believes that putting 800K workers on unemployment will save money is delusional.

Oh, and yes, federal workers DO qualify for unemployment. Guess who pays for it? The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Not if the Republicans/Tea Part get spending concessions.

This isn't about punishing federal workers, it's about getting spending concessions.

-John

Why only do one part of the equation? Why not get rid of unnecessary tax cuts for the wealthy also? If they were truly serious about getting the federal budget on stronger ground, not a single person would protest an immediate repeal of the Bush tax cuts.

 

[CPA]

Third, our economy is still unstable. Now we have ~800,000 government employees in furlough not getting paid (and might not get retro pay), and unable to collect unemployment.

So?

 

[charrison]

So?

Because many of those unessential jobs are only unessential short term. There no doubt that govt pay rolls need to be reduced, but this is not a real good way to do it.

 

[CPA]

Because many of those unessential jobs are only unessential short term. There no doubt that govt pay rolls need to be reduced, but this is not a real good way to do it.

Is there ever a good way to do it? I would argue that any approach to reducing headcount would be met with disdain and outcrying from some group. We could get rid of the Education Department, Energy Department (when's the last time we had a energy policy? Why does this group even exist?), all of the f'in Czars and their departments and several other non-essential departments. We are so worried about the supposed ramifications that no one wants to do anything.

Point is it needs to be done.

 

[charrison]

Is there ever a good way to do it? I would argue that any approach to reducing headcount would be met with disdain and outcrying from some group. We could get rid of the Education Department, Energy Department (when's the last time we had a energy policy? Why does this group even exist?), all of the f'in Czars and their departments and several other non-essential departments. We are so worried about the supposed ramifications that no one wants to do anything.

Point is it needs to be done.

I dont disagree on what you said. There is no good way to do it, but there are bad ways to do it. A govt shut down does not reduce headcount long term. A long term shutdown would probably cause people to leave civil service, but the kicker is the most competent would leave first. I think we can agree this is not a desirable effect.

 

[Balt]

FYI, it still costs the government $ if they shutdown because those 800,000 workers still get backpay for lost days when the government comes back. Essentially no one wins even if gov shuts down since gov will be paying people for doing nothing.

Well they did get backpay during the last shutdown because Congress later proposed a bill for it, but the national mood was somewhat different back then. Since government workers are now the 'bad guys' it seems less likely that Congress would have been able to do it again.

I will say, though, that all of these CRs and shutdown threats definitely created more inefficiency in the government agencies. When you can't make any plans for things like training beyond a 1-2 week timespan, you aren't saving money. Also if workers had actually been furloughed, it would have just created backlogs that probably would have had to have been made up with overtime.

So yeah I really doubt the shutdown would have saved money. Even the threat of shutdowns led to waste. Thousands of workhours spent coming up with contingency plans.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Is there ever a good way to do it? I would argue that any approach to reducing headcount would be met with disdain and outcrying from some group. We could get rid of the Education Department, Energy Department (when's the last time we had a energy policy? Why does this group even exist?), all of the f'in Czars and their departments and several other non-essential departments. We are so worried about the supposed ramifications that no one wants to do anything.

Point is it needs to be done.

agreed. cuts need to start somewhere, and they need to bring us within budget relatively quickly. accruing more debt, coupled with future rises in interest rates (because it will happen at some point) will KILL the federal budget. hell, interest rate rises alone would kill us now.

 

[fskimospy]

LOL, we'll be masturbating, and sucking our own tit. Only greater in debt, and going the way of Greece.

-John

Thinking that the US would go the way of Greece would require a staggering ignorance of the way our debt works as opposed to theirs.

 

[werepossum]

Thinking that the US would go the way of Greece would require a staggering ignorance of the way our debt works as opposed to theirs.

Yeah! Here comes the Magic Cupboard theory!

Debt is debt. Current projections have debt service taking the majority of our budget within a decade or so. Unless we're going to begin printing virtual money by the trillion, we have to radically cut our spending. If we do that, we're going to find it impossible to sell debt in dollars, so we're left with financing our own debt with made-up money via the fed. Already there's difficulty in selling longer term bonds in dollars. Eventually we'll have to pay for any imports with another currency. Then we'll be well and truly screwed.