Customize

Who benefit to a government shutdown? Who would benefit from a default?

Discussion in 'Think Tank' started by Anonymous, Oct 8, 2013.

  1. Anonymous Member

    Is there any benefit gained politically, or (economically) for a government shut down by congress? Would there be any benefit from a default?

    Are there any lobbyists, inside traders, or industries that would benefit from a shutdown/default?

    I am asking this on the small hope that there is at least some sort of sinister ulterior motive, I really don't want to believe that our government is this stupid and incompetent.
    • Like Like x 2
  2. A.O.T.F Member

    Believe it.
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Anonymous Member

    The whole thing is just political theater, jockeying for position while trying to blame the other side. It's designed to polarize the public and give one side a clear political advantage.Whether it works or not is another matter

    The problem is, if they stay in shutdown mode, people begin realizing how little we actually need the federal government.

    A solution will be found, all will claim victory, and the real losers will be you and me and those other people who pay for this theater, whether we like the play or not.
    • Like Like x 2
  4. Anonymous Member

    Seems to me like the GOP is desperate to prevent Obamacare from coming into force. Once people get a taste, they will never want to give it up.

    Welcome to the rest of the civilized world USA, where health care is a right for everyone, not just a privilege of the wealthy.

    /rant
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Anonymous Member

    I'm just really sick of the Tea Party wankers. I expect Congress to compromise and move forward. Perpetual arguing is a total waste.
  6. Anonymous Member

    I don't think major unions can be accused of being Republican, yet several have realized what a bad deal it is for them and are asking / demanding exemptions.

    When your premiums double and the limit on out of pocket expenses rises then people will realize they've been sold a pig in a poke.
    Then realize that you don't have a job, but you'll have to pay for insurance, and if you don't, they'll tell you to pay a fine for being broke.
    It's going to be a clusterf*
    • Like Like x 2
  7. Well, even a complete idiot as a congresscritter would, based on the simple law of averages, every once in a while vote in a way that would benefit the public...

    Just look at the legislation that's been enacted at the federal level since 2001. How much of it has been of real tangible benefit to the people of the US (or of any country, for that matter)? How much bread can Americans get in trade for their enhanced sense of security?

    I won't share my own conclusions here, but observe the results and draw your own.
  8. Watch, the new business trend in the 2020s will be in private debtors' prisons.
  9. Anonymous Member

    It is sheer stupidity. The Tea Party Republicans were elected on the "Burn baby Burn" theory of government finance. They thought (like the Republicans under Newt) that they would be worshipped as heros for ending our overspending. Instead, surprise surprise, people need government services and it makes people mad when they get laid off, or the passport office is closed, or when they can't go on a trip to Yellowstone that was planned months ago. As much as they pretend it's the President's or the Senate's fault everyone knows who is to blame because they have been speechifying about it for years.
  10. Anonymous Member

    Actually, Congress is doing what it is supposed to do. The three branches of government are co equal, so the legislature has the right to determine what to fund.

    http://townhall.com/columnists/thom...o-shut-down-the-government-n1716292/page/full
    IOW, this is how government is supposed to work.

    What isn't supposed to happen is for congress to pass, the president to sign a bill, then the President unilaterally decide not to implement parts of the law. That is an impeachable offense. The president's DUTY is to enforce the laws of the land. To say "let's just ignore this for a while, shall we?" is to commit a crime against the people.

    The president destroyed his own bill, and credibility, by doing this. The GOP are just trying to finish the job.
  11. Anonymous Member

    ?? The Legislative branch controls the purse strings. What this group is trying to do is stop a law that has been passed and reviewed and approved by the Supreme Court. They don't get to cherry pick what laws they do/don't enact.
    They control the budget. They shut down the government in an attempt to defund one law. They are pouting because when they shut down the government popular parts got shut down too.
    • Like Like x 2
  12. A.O.T.F Member


    Nailed It!
  13. Anonymous Member

    You seem to have missed the part about Obama violating his oath of office in order to eviscerate the law you are now saying is the law of the land and can't be altered.

    IOW, you are cherry picking facts, ignoring the fact Obama his own self cherry picked the laws he wants to enforce.

    Congress controls the purse strings, which means they have the final say in what gets funded and what doesn't. if Congress says "No money" that nullifies the law until a new agreement is reached. As the article pointed out, this is how the constitution intended things to work, with no one branch of government having more say than another.
  14. Anonymous Member

    Plz explain how Obama violated his oath of office.
  15. Kilia Member

    I'll just leave this here:

    • Like Like x 1
  16. I realize the shuttles from Marcab are slow, and that you've just arrived; but, the President of the US swears to uphold the Constitution. Obama has been busy shredding what was left over from Bush baby's "just a damned piece of paper".

    The only thing that could save Obama's presidency now is a trip to Dallas.
  17. Kilia Member

    The House has the same oath of office, but they are violating it bigtime. Watch the video above for an in depth explanation
  18. Anonymous Member

    The job of the president is to uphold the laws of the land. He is not allowed to unilaterally change the laws. So, when he said he will not enforce certain aspects of the ACA, he violated his oath of office.

    IOW, Obama is a hypocrite of the first order.
  19. Anonymous Member

    I agree about civil rights, it's just that you applied that to the budget debates, which isn't true
  20. tinfoilhatter Member

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    This partisan nonsense is why we are in this situation. I think a default, as bad as it is, would be the shit sandwich we need to eat to wake the fuck up. Obama care does not kill jobs, it will in the long run make it cheaper for employers because it lessons their health care costs. In fact,If obama care was as bad as they claimed it to be,then the only correct thing for the republicans to have done, is sit back and watch the program fail.The fact that they have not brought up any worthwhile evidence against it, followed by the rampant insider trading, tells me that they only hate the program because they will lose money from it.

    As a moderate republican, I am offended by the blatant disregard the party is demonstrating for the Constitution and the institution of the government. They have failed to offer proper counter arguments, they have failed to offer an alternative system, They have failed to do anything worth while.I am seriously considering joining the libertarian party. At least they are serious about wanting a small federal government.
    • Like Like x 2
  21. Anonymous Member

  22. Anonymous Member

    Maybe if you do join the libertarian party and get that smaller government you want, then you will see that ObamaCare is the opposite of 'small federal government'. It is more like Big Brother.

    You obviously don't know much about the LP if you think they support ObamaCare.
  23. tinfoilhatter Member


    Its not about the support of obama care, its about protesting the way things are done. Frankly, if we are going to do health care reform, we should do the single payer system and call it the day.Its been proven to work, and the economists from both parties say good things about.

    But shutting down the government after/during a recession is just plain stupid. Shutting down the government during a time of global political instability is dangerous. Our elected officials have a responsibility to protect the country, and they are not performing the task.

    As for libertarianism, I agree with some of their points: I do not care if gays want to marry, there is no ethical/legal point in stopping them. I have no problem if states want to legalize a drug or not, its up to the voters in that state to determine how they want to live their lives. I think the concept of a border fence is ridiculous. If you want to stop illegal immigration, then you fine(heavily) everyone caught hiring them. I am a man, therefore, i really have no say so about abortion. I feel that people should have the option to opt out of social security. etc etc.

    i can go on and on about the things i agree with, and some of the stuff i don't. The point i need to make, is that the current republican party has no room for moderates, and i no longer agree with their policies. I also feel that the two party system is broken. So my options are limited political wise. I also want to point out, that i did agree with a lot of what Ross Perot said in the 90's as well.
  24. Anonymous Member

    "proven to work"
    That's just laughable. Getting the government out of my doctor's office would be a good first step to less government.

    YOu say you want less government, yet call for a single payer system. YOu are calling for more government even while you say you want less.
  25. Anonymous Member

    Hey guise, I'm trying to figure out if Charles aka Chuck aka Chase Koch the Scientologist

    Chuck Koch.jpg
    file:///Users/anonymous/Downloads/Chuck%20Koch%20%7C%20LinkedIn.webarchive
    https://www.facebook.com/chuck.koch/friends

    Is related to Charles G Koch, the black gold bandito:
    Charles G Koch.jpg

    The Koch's are friends with the Home Depot founder and Home Depot is mentioned on the Scilon's Linkedin.

    The Koch family is very dysfunctional with people not talking to each other for years. Charles G. Koch has a son named Charles or Chase but I can't find out anything about him.
  26. Anonymous Member

    ^^^^^^
    Very interesting. Could he be a closet scilon? The scilons have been recruiting from the right for years, this may be something, or just a coincidence.
  27. Anonymous Member

    You Amerifags are of course welcome to organize your society how you see fit, but it would help if you did not dismiss facts on purpose. Almost all civilized states (and even quite a few "uncivilized" ones) have some sort of centralized health care system. Actually, to most people on the planet a NHS-like system is what they have a state for. While obviously not perfect, it does function quite well, on OECD average it gives twice the amount of health service per spent dollar that the current US system does.

    These are the proven facts. You are at liberty to still think it sucks for ideological reasons, but claiming that it doesn't work on an international forum where people actually know what they are talking about will hardly fly.
    • Like Like x 2
  28. Anonymous Member

    I say you are very good at spewing government propaganda.

    I don't see a 'civilized' nation stealing from its young and poor to give to the old and rich, but that is the result of ObamaCare,

    So, we watch as the government messes with health care, and then says "Well health care is messed up,. We're here to fix it" and never once admit it was government that messed it up in the first place.

    This is another example of government breaking our leg, handing us a crutch, and saying "See, without us you wouldn't be able to walk."

    Most people here think NSA is intrusive.

    Brother, you ain't seen nothing yet
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  29. Anonymous Member

    Anything big is going to have a government or a system of management and authority capable of coordinating resources and activities. Right now we have a crazy Byzantine insurance system with competing rules impossible to follow. We have to reduce all that ASAP.

    It always sucks somewhat to have third parties imposing on your space. But we can work together over time to tweak the details of a shared health program.
  30. Anonymous Member

    So, the NHS systems of UK, France, Canada, Germany, Sweden, Italy, South Korea, Israel, Taiwan and Austria are all US government propaganda?

    Granted, they are not perfect, but they're still leaps and bound ahead of the alternatives, which is why politicians arguing for it were voted in in those nations in the first place. I'm not saying Obmacare is perfect (it still retain the ridiculous dependency on insurance middle men), but your assertion that single player/national health services doesn't work makes you look kind of silly.
    • Like Like x 1
  31. Anonymous Member

    ^ This. Every yank I know who has moved to my country and have talked to me about this issue, without exception, thinks the current US system is a wasteful joke.
    • Like Like x 1
  32. Anonymous Member


    DO YOU EVEN READ THE FUCKING INTERNET!!!!?????

    In Canada they pay taxes for something called "socialized medicine". So that everyone can go to the doctor. Other countries in Europe have a similar system. There are other places in the world besides america. In fact why don't you read a book(if you can fucking read) on the German economy? They were almost unscathed by the recession.
  33. Anonymous Member

    tl;dr: thanks for giving me your money; also, an example of supply and demand.
    Do you really think that insulting someone you disagree with makes your argument stronger?

    I hear about how good the national health care systems are. I hear about how awful they are. I take both sides with a grain of salt.


    We are going to see continued problems with health care. If you throw money at an industry, then prices will rise in response. Basic supply and demand. In medical care, the schools are not creating enough new medical professionals to handle the new people being fed into the system. that means you will see delays in getting in to see your doctor. It means that your premiums will continues to go up. It means that supplies of critical meds will become short. There was an article last spring about basic nutrients for premmies not being delivered. We will hear more such stories.

    We've already seen ACA inflate costs. If you are under 30, your rates are going to soar.

    All the government does, all it can ever do, is to take from some people and give to other. That is a NOT productive activity.

    Since I'm older, that means some poorer young people will be subsidizing me. So, thanks for giving me your money. I didn't earn a penny of it. I don't want it, I think you should keep it. In fact, i think it's a crime to take from you and give to me, but those G men with guns don't give us much of a choice. I will continue to steal from you, legally, because my government forces me to.
  34. Anonymous Member

    But maybe we can cut back the three layers of stupid managed care with the new system.
  35. Anonymous Member


    Maybe read this.

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013...e-obamacare-plus-one-reason-why-theyre-gonna/

    Come on. Read it.
  36. Anonymous Member

    The Tea Party threatened to close down the government over the debt ceiling, then they said they would close down the government to stop obama care. Now they are pretending they were not the ones who closed down the government, like we don't have a memory.
    They have left the "Stop ObamaCare! Close Down the Government!" train and are on the "We'll Raise the Debt Ceiling if You Let Us Save Face!" train
  37. Anonymous Member

    There will always be problems associated with health-care systems, because they address a limitless problem. No, the NHS-type systems of other OECD nations aren't perfect, and will never be. A fair share of the political debate in those countries centres on how to fine tune the system to get the most "bang for the bucks". A US system will be no different in that regard.

    The only way to have a problem free system is to have no system. The US has tried that for years, with the result that they are rated with 2nd and 3rd world countries with the regard to to the health care available to the average citizen.

    True, and it will continue this way as long at the US retains the ridiculously expensive insurance company middle men. Apart from tying up a sizeable portion of the well educated part if the work force, the insurance companies will have to skim a profit off the money the government spends on health. This is part of the problem of why the US Government spends so much relative to the health service the population receives.

    In most nations, hospital services are priced by the state. Setting a broken leg is refunded $X, a heart transfer is $Y, a certain chemo-therapy is $Z etc. If a hospital want more money, they have to perform more services. The prices are index adjusted and kept slightly lean, so that hospitals don't over-treat. It actually works quite well.

    Those who really do not want the state to meddle in their medical affairs (or want non-essential services like vasectomy or a nose-job) can take out a health insurance and go to a private hospitla to their hearts content. Or you can refuse and just crawl off and die if that is what you want. Ironically, in the "socialist" NHS systems you have more choices then in the US.

    Switching from one system to another will always bring problems until the system is settled and fine tuned. Lack of doctors are can be dealt with by hiring foreigners and let nurses deal with the day-to-day care of the patients. Premiums will only remain a problem as long as the US insist on feeding a large class of middle men. Increasing production capacity of medicine for domestic use is a fairly straight forward process and will likely happen within a year, it's supply and demand after all.

    The US may have a long and rocky road ahead of them until they find a system that will work for them. From a socio-economic perspective though, the most expensive thing to have is a large section of the work-force unable to work fully due to lack of proper health care.

    You've likely had a long productive life. You have paid you taxes, allowing society to let children to be raised in peace and go to school. Do you think it unfair that those you helped grow into productive citizens themselves pay a bit extra to keep you in good health so that you can continue working and paying your taxes?
  38. Anonymous Member

    My guess? You are under 50 or wealthy.
  39. The Internet Member

    Dude, if you get sick and can't pay for necessary treatment we will pitch in and cover that for you because we are a compassionate people. We will do that even if you are a member of a political party we don't like. We will do that even if you are a criminal or a troll or a complete waste of space, because that is how we roll here in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

    To help us out, try to avoid wasting everyone's time with pointless political point scoring argument. Don't disrupt or delay our shared effort to take care of the sick. Also, if you have a choice between an expensive treatment and a cheap treatment and both are probably about as good, pick the cheap one. Thanks.
    • Like Like x 2
  40. Anonymous Member

    There will continue to be problems with healthcare.


    2007- Reasons include increased federal spending in health care; aging; use of medical technology; medical proceedures for profit and not medical indications caused by fee-for-service; lowering of cost born by the patients so consumers demand more services; and regional differences in what patients expect.
    http://stevereads.com/papers_to_rea...view_from_the_congressional_budget_office.pdf

    tl;dr history, read on if you dare

    1968-healthcare costs will rise because we as a society have decided to improve and expand health service, both in number of people covered and higher technology.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1273742/
    and
    1978- Costs are due to rising wages or hospital employees and doctors fees, increase access to medical care, and the fact that most healthcare costs are paid for by the government and private insurance. In the 1920s 90% of healthcare costs were out of pocket.( Leading to a 2 tiered system.)
    Both in 1968 and 1978 part of the blame was laid at the feet of labor. Our healthcare was tied to wages, we understand how this happened but it was senseless.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2537204/?page=1
    1982-Healthcare costs are rising for the above reason. Unless we want a 2 tiered health system with one level of care available to a section of our citizens, and a lesser technology and medical treatment available to the rest of us, medical costs will rise.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1273998/?page=1
    2005-
    We can go back to physicians coming to your house in a buggy and giving you a poultice, but only if you give him a chicken.

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Close

Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins