U.S. Government shuts down.

[kandrathe]

Okay. The budget, whether it is spelled out in a bill or not, is government incomings and outgoings, which are carefully tracked, because they're all approved by congress. No, it isn't balanced, although the deficit has fallen dramatically since the sequester. Stimulus is two things: Government deficit spending, and providing high-quality, secure assets to the financial sector (government bonds) with which to patch up their balance sheets. All spending creates bonds, which is stimulus in an environment of flight to safety. Most spending is stimulating in that it creates demand, although I'm sure you could find ways of just wasting resources if you really wanted to. You need enough stimulus to close the output gap, and restore GDP back to its long-run trend growth, before hysteresis permanently degrades the quality of your workforce. For the US, that's about $2 trillion more than you did. Yes, it's prudent to accrue "decades of debt," and no, it's not expensive, government borrowing rates are bottomed out, and have been since 2008. No, QE is not this process, QE is monetary policy. Nor is QE consumption smoothing, although it is countercyclical. Yes, we need to reinflate the "bubbles," not to their 2006 peaks, but back to their long-run historical trends.

If that answers your barrage of questions?

Sorry, I meant them to be more rhetorical, but... Stimulus, when done by government, as has been evident, is pretty ineffective. The 2009 budget lack of stimulus fiasco clearly shows us that a) the rich people got the bail outs, b) everyone else gets the debt. If spending oodles of money we don't have is sooo tremendous, then why not everyone? Why not borrow a million each, and go out on a huge spending spree? Why don't we just let the government print up 100 trillion dollars, and let them go spend it? Why are we dabbling in excessive spending?

You largely owe this debt *to yourselves*. You can't literally borrow from the future. That's physically impossible. One saver is another borrower, by simple accounting identity, and one person's 401k is another (younger) person's resources, transferred to the no-longer-earning to keep them alive.

I'm going to die (hopefully not soon) and realistically won't be paying off what's been borrowed on my behalf. There will be more boomers, and soon millennials consuming, than there are younger workers able to support us (at least at the level we've been promised). When most boomers were in their teens, there were six future tax payers like them, under the age of 20, for every person over 65. Now there are about three young people for every senior. By 2020, the ratio will be even more severe. Demographic changes will have a major impact on the ratio of retirees to workers; the ratio of the number of people ages 65 and over to the number ages 20 to 64 is expected to grow from about 20% in 1997 to 41% in 2050.

Unless you are hit by a sharp shock of real inflation (AKA sudden poverty) because your factories rust and your workers lose their limbs, you'll be fine.

So, yes, we are literally losing limbs in the form of able bodied work force. What factories? They've mostly moved offshore. But consider the above; More consumers, and fewer producers. Sounds like a recipe for higher demand, and less supply. What happens then?

The US prints its own currency. Unless you're expecting inflation to suddenly spike to 20%, you'll be fine. The higher inflation goes, the less the existing stock of debt is worth. If the economy grows, so does the tax base.There is no realistic crisis scenario here, at the federal level, which is what this shutdown gong show is about. This is not a "death spiral." <Snip> As for the link, it doesn't seem to suggest anything more to me than "the US rolls over its debt," which is about as interesting as the sun rising. What's supposed to be the story?

What it shows is that the majority of US debt is held in short term instruments taking advantage of low borrowing costs. If borrowing costs increase, we instantly lose a huge portion of budget to debt service, or vastly increase debt to cover the debt service costs. Death spiral.

Well, he lied to you. Or at least had his rose-coloured glasses on. And thank the heavens, because as I cannot conceivably emphasize enough, *now is not the right time to be balancing the budget*.

This is a good thing? He's the fricken Treasury guy now. Either a) he's a liar, or b) he's really bad at forecasting the future. Neither are traits I'd want for the fox guarding the national hen house. I'm not one to go for austerity in the face of recession either, but printing money and throwing it in a hole doesn't help us either.

It will overall decrease health care spending in the country. Whether it moves it onto the government books, probably it will. But it also insures millions of extra people. And don't give me "don't see a need for it." Running around in a country with astronomically expensive medical care and no insurance is, on net, costing everyone extra. That some people can't see it is myopia, but it's not wrong.

Actually, having health insurance only helps the insurance company (when you don't need it), or the individual (when you do need bunches of it). It does nothing to the cost of health care, or the demand for health care.

It is not a single payer system. It is not nationalized health care.

Sure isn't. Wish it was. It's going to save a lot less resources this way.

It won't save any. Due to the extra layer of administration in health care exchanges, etc. and issuing fines, it will cost more, for things that are not health care.

Worse, the abuses are not rampant yet, but... the system rewards individuals that skip insurance until they need it, then only get it while they need it.

Isn't that what the Individual Mandate is for?

A healthy 20 something will pay $6000 minimum per year. Or, pay $99 for a fine, and buy health insurance only when they get sick. Which is more likely?

I'm sorry to hear it. It's not the plan I would have designed. But then, sausages and laws...

Yeah, but I'm not the only one. Then, we can look at all the exemptions for the special interests. Trust me. The average middle class worker is getting screwed. This is a law designed by health insurance companies, and those interested in creating more government dependence. The rich self insure, the poor get meager portions for free. Once again, it it the middle that gets squeezed.

It is irrelevant. It is unpopular with the constituents of the congress people who've dug in their heels.

"We're obviously targeting the programs people don't like" is different (and rather more altruistic) logic than "I'd like to get re-elected so I'll pander to my angry constituents."

It's more than that and you know it. We can look at many, many polls. I linked Pew (they're dependable). Here is another; TMC Like I said earlier, 48% approve, 48% disapprove. Those who are dug in represent more of the latter.

The Republicans are *shutting down the government*. If they'd back down on their demands, there would be a budget almost instantly. But you can't pass a budget if the congress is deadlocked, and one side is holding the whole fracking US debt hostage and conceding nothing.

They feel they are doing what they have to do to get anything for their side. Yes, they could just capitulate and tick off their constituents, or they can wait for Obama and the democrats to capitulate and tick off their constituents. Hence, the stalemate.

A last stand before what? Health care? They might pick a better Alamo...

You can't honestly believe the Dems have been working in good faith. Mr. Hope and Change and the promise of bipartisanship, and an end to the rancor is pretty much out the window. I mean how can you with Reid? CNN (not Fox) report Dana Bash asked at a news conference with Reid and other Democrats; "But if you can help one child with cancer, why won't you do it?" He replied, "To have someone of your intelligence suggest such a thing maybe means you're as irresponsible and reckless" (as Republicans).

Because they were trying to prevent a second great depression. Obama inherited the largest economic crisis since 1929. If anything, they spent far too little, not far too much, and the retrenchment has slowed recovery.

Wasteful spending on non-stimulating things does nothing to stimulate the economy. Repeating it for four years is shameful.

The Republicans apparently believe they're allowed to veto any passed legislation, not by repealing it (which would require overriding a democratic filibuster) but by simply shutting down the entire government and threatening *default* until the other side just gives in to their demands. This is not responsible governance, this is nihilism. If they wanted to argue that whomever controls the House should control legislation, then they probably shouldn't have filibustered anything and everything when they were in the minority. But that ship has sailed.

No. They've crafted legislation, and passed it through the House only to have it ignored by Reid. Bipartisanship didn't die a week ago, it's been dead for at least two years.

Judging by their approval ratings, and the polling on who people are blaming for this mess, it's a hell of a lot more than 48% of the people.

It's never very good, but as bad as it's ever been.