Beta on the US Government shutting down? I think yes.
Discussion
Well it appears to be getting pretty serious.
No sign of a deal and they're now at the point of deciding what to prioritise spending on if they hit the debt ceiling. They have enough tax intake to cover debt repayments (avoiding a default), but would have to instantly cut spending on the majority of governmental departments.
No sign of a deal and they're now at the point of deciding what to prioritise spending on if they hit the debt ceiling. They have enough tax intake to cover debt repayments (avoiding a default), but would have to instantly cut spending on the majority of governmental departments.
Art0ir said:
Well it appears to be getting pretty serious.
No sign of a deal and they're now at the point of deciding what to prioritise spending on if they hit the debt ceiling. They have enough tax intake to cover debt repayments (avoiding a default), but would have to instantly cut spending on the majority of governmental departments.
Out of interest why pay interest on bonds as opposed to the salaries of state workers?No sign of a deal and they're now at the point of deciding what to prioritise spending on if they hit the debt ceiling. They have enough tax intake to cover debt repayments (avoiding a default), but would have to instantly cut spending on the majority of governmental departments.
RDMcG said:
Default would destabilize the world economy in days. Last US default was 1790. It is utter madness, but they are utterly mad, the lot of them,
That seems to be a topic of flaming debate on Twitter this morning, with some analysts claiming that during a panic (and a default would cause a huge panic), money goes to one place - Treasuries. Some reckon it could even push interest rates down.
Happy82 said:
Someone on another forum posted a link to USdebtclock.org showing that the deficit was reducing fairly rapidly during the shutdown. Any truth to this?
http://usdebtclock.org/
Slightly O/T but go to that link then to world debt clock. We should really be more worried than we are.http://usdebtclock.org/
Art0ir said:
That seems to be a topic of flaming debate on Twitter this morning, with some analysts claiming that during a panic (and a default would cause a huge panic), money goes to one place - Treasuries. Some reckon it could even push interest rates down.
Well...some are betting heavily that it will not happen, so buying treasuries...http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-06/treasurie...
Saw this in my NFl column.
Replace Party Hacks with Algorithms: The nails-on-a-chalkboard nonsense in Washington, D.C., is happening partly because in most states, redistricting after the 2000 and then 2010 Census counts was designed by the parties in power to ensure that no House incumbent can ever be defeated. Zip-code analysis of voting patterns has given way to block-by-block computer analysis, generating gimmick gerrymandering that would have embarrassed Boss Tweed. Senate races cannot be gerrymandered, which is why the Senate recently has been more stable regardless of which party has the majority. In House redistricting, hanky-panky is unlimited.
The Cook Political Report calculates that in 1998 the House had 148 Republican safe seats, 123 Democratic safe seats and 164 contested seats. Two redistrictings later, for the 2012 election there were 190 Republican safe seats, 146 Democratic safe seats and 99 contested seats. That means today, only 23 percent of members of the House need to perform well to be re-elected. The other 77 percent, on both sides of the aisle, can devote their time and energy to grandstanding. That's a formula for the mess in Washington.
Right now that means that knowing their seats are secure no matter what they say or do, the far-right faction in the House can try to make the United States look as bad as possible. Why right-wingers want to make the United States look as bad as possible is a question only they can answer. Why conservatives rail against government, then manipulate districts to make certain they personally keep their government positions, is a second question. Why voters don't rebel against redistricting plans that are designed to emasculate them is a third question.
But if you're a conservative and think "this is great," bear in mind, the weapon may be turned against you.
In 2005, then Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California proposed that redistricting be done by a nonpartisan panel of retired federal judges. Democrats led by Nancy Pelosi fought furiously, and successfully, against this progressive reform, since Democrats held the statehouse and wanted to rig districts. Your columnist lives in the Maryland 6th district, which after the 2010 Census was absurdly gerrymandered to create this monstrosity. The purpose of the gerrymander was to defeat Republican Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, sole conservative member of Maryland's House delegation. It worked. Now Democratic John Delaney represents a district so elaborately crafted to generate a blue majority that Rep. Delaney could don a Lenin cap, vow allegiance to Moscow, and be re-elected. Today, safe-seat Republicans in the House are giggling about how they can stonewall a Democratic president. How long until Republicans regain the presidency and safe-seat Democrats in the House giggle about stonewalling?
Since any redistricting based on political arm-twisting will be tainted, the solution is computer algorithms that generate districts. A panel of experts representing a mix of ideologies could check the algorithms for neutrality, then let a mathematical formula draw the lines. This website details the logic of neutral redistricting. A simple way to use mathematics to subdivide any number of persons into the required number of districts is shown here.
Replace Party Hacks with Algorithms: The nails-on-a-chalkboard nonsense in Washington, D.C., is happening partly because in most states, redistricting after the 2000 and then 2010 Census counts was designed by the parties in power to ensure that no House incumbent can ever be defeated. Zip-code analysis of voting patterns has given way to block-by-block computer analysis, generating gimmick gerrymandering that would have embarrassed Boss Tweed. Senate races cannot be gerrymandered, which is why the Senate recently has been more stable regardless of which party has the majority. In House redistricting, hanky-panky is unlimited.
The Cook Political Report calculates that in 1998 the House had 148 Republican safe seats, 123 Democratic safe seats and 164 contested seats. Two redistrictings later, for the 2012 election there were 190 Republican safe seats, 146 Democratic safe seats and 99 contested seats. That means today, only 23 percent of members of the House need to perform well to be re-elected. The other 77 percent, on both sides of the aisle, can devote their time and energy to grandstanding. That's a formula for the mess in Washington.
Right now that means that knowing their seats are secure no matter what they say or do, the far-right faction in the House can try to make the United States look as bad as possible. Why right-wingers want to make the United States look as bad as possible is a question only they can answer. Why conservatives rail against government, then manipulate districts to make certain they personally keep their government positions, is a second question. Why voters don't rebel against redistricting plans that are designed to emasculate them is a third question.
But if you're a conservative and think "this is great," bear in mind, the weapon may be turned against you.
In 2005, then Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California proposed that redistricting be done by a nonpartisan panel of retired federal judges. Democrats led by Nancy Pelosi fought furiously, and successfully, against this progressive reform, since Democrats held the statehouse and wanted to rig districts. Your columnist lives in the Maryland 6th district, which after the 2010 Census was absurdly gerrymandered to create this monstrosity. The purpose of the gerrymander was to defeat Republican Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, sole conservative member of Maryland's House delegation. It worked. Now Democratic John Delaney represents a district so elaborately crafted to generate a blue majority that Rep. Delaney could don a Lenin cap, vow allegiance to Moscow, and be re-elected. Today, safe-seat Republicans in the House are giggling about how they can stonewall a Democratic president. How long until Republicans regain the presidency and safe-seat Democrats in the House giggle about stonewalling?
Since any redistricting based on political arm-twisting will be tainted, the solution is computer algorithms that generate districts. A panel of experts representing a mix of ideologies could check the algorithms for neutrality, then let a mathematical formula draw the lines. This website details the logic of neutral redistricting. A simple way to use mathematics to subdivide any number of persons into the required number of districts is shown here.
London424 said:
Saw this in my NFl column.
Replace Party Hacks with Algorithms: The nails-on-a-chalkboard nonsense in Washington, D.C., is happening partly because in most states, redistricting after the 2000 and then 2010 Census counts was designed by the parties in power to ensure that no House incumbent can ever be defeated. Zip-code analysis of voting patterns has given way to block-by-block computer analysis, generating gimmick gerrymandering that would have embarrassed Boss Tweed. Senate races cannot be gerrymandered, which is why the Senate recently has been more stable regardless of which party has the majority. In House redistricting, hanky-panky is unlimited.
.
This is absolutely a key issue. If you look at some of the Gerrymandered districts they look like they were drawn by Jackson Pollock. It is an affront to democracy.Replace Party Hacks with Algorithms: The nails-on-a-chalkboard nonsense in Washington, D.C., is happening partly because in most states, redistricting after the 2000 and then 2010 Census counts was designed by the parties in power to ensure that no House incumbent can ever be defeated. Zip-code analysis of voting patterns has given way to block-by-block computer analysis, generating gimmick gerrymandering that would have embarrassed Boss Tweed. Senate races cannot be gerrymandered, which is why the Senate recently has been more stable regardless of which party has the majority. In House redistricting, hanky-panky is unlimited.
.
A note of clarity if I may. If the debt ceiling is not extended, we will not "default", although that is the scare tactics coming from the administration. Payment of the interest on the debt happens, entitlments get paid, military is paid, etc. Only discretionary spending is curtailed. I assume this bit didn't make it through the media filters over there? 
Jimbeaux said:
A note of clarity if I may. If the debt ceiling is not extended, we will not "default", although that is the scare tactics coming from the administration. Payment of the interest on the debt happens, entitlments get paid, military is paid, etc. Only discretionary spending is curtailed. I assume this bit didn't make it through the media filters over there?
So why all of the panic over the debt ceiling in the US if that is the case?Is the BBC wrong? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24453400
I'm genuinely curious about your post.
Ordinary_Chap said:
Jimbeaux said:
A note of clarity if I may. If the debt ceiling is not extended, we will not "default", although that is the scare tactics coming from the administration. Payment of the interest on the debt happens, entitlments get paid, military is paid, etc. Only discretionary spending is curtailed. I assume this bit didn't make it through the media filters over there?
So why all of the panic over the debt ceiling in the US if that is the case?Is the BBC wrong? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24453400
I'm genuinely curious about your post.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardfinger/2013/10/...
Jimbeaux said:
Ordinary_Chap said:
Jimbeaux said:
A note of clarity if I may. If the debt ceiling is not extended, we will not "default", although that is the scare tactics coming from the administration. Payment of the interest on the debt happens, entitlments get paid, military is paid, etc. Only discretionary spending is curtailed. I assume this bit didn't make it through the media filters over there?
So why all of the panic over the debt ceiling in the US if that is the case?Is the BBC wrong? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24453400
I'm genuinely curious about your post.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardfinger/2013/10/...
The BBC states the US has the ability to pay 68% of its debts unless the debt ceiling is raised so that would indicate very severe cuts to avoid a default.
I'm mildly interested in this given the press worldwide has made such a deal of it. It seems to be on the front page of nearly every major US news sites at the moment.
I think its highly unlikely too happen anyway, just political posturing that happens world over.
Ordinary_Chap said:
Jimbeaux said:
Ordinary_Chap said:
Jimbeaux said:
A note of clarity if I may. If the debt ceiling is not extended, we will not "default", although that is the scare tactics coming from the administration. Payment of the interest on the debt happens, entitlments get paid, military is paid, etc. Only discretionary spending is curtailed. I assume this bit didn't make it through the media filters over there?
So why all of the panic over the debt ceiling in the US if that is the case?Is the BBC wrong? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24453400
I'm genuinely curious about your post.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardfinger/2013/10/...
The BBC states the US has the ability to pay 68% of its debts unless the debt ceiling is raised so that would indicate very severe cuts to avoid a default.
I'm mildly interested in this given the press worldwide has made such a deal of it. It seems to be on the front page of nearly every major US news sites at the moment.
I think its highly unlikely too happen anyway, just political posturing that happens world over.
Here are some interesting graphs from the CBO in 2011.
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/at...
I was affected by the shutdown!
I went to a website about the safe distance from lighting, to be told the website was shut because of the Govt Shutdown.
When it affects people who want to waste time browsing a vaguely interesting website it is time to get serious! Sort yourselves out people!
I went to a website about the safe distance from lighting, to be told the website was shut because of the Govt Shutdown.
When it affects people who want to waste time browsing a vaguely interesting website it is time to get serious! Sort yourselves out people!
Ayahuasca said:
I was affected by the shutdown!
I went to a website about the safe distance from lighting, to be told the website was shut because of the Govt Shutdown.
When it affects people who want to waste time browsing a vaguely interesting website it is time to get serious! Sort yourselves out people!
Presumably if the bulb is burning your face then you are too close to the lighting.I went to a website about the safe distance from lighting, to be told the website was shut because of the Govt Shutdown.
When it affects people who want to waste time browsing a vaguely interesting website it is time to get serious! Sort yourselves out people!
Ayahuasca said:
I was affected by the shutdown!
I went to a website about the safe distance from lighting, to be told the website was shut because of the Govt Shutdown.
When it affects people who want to waste time browsing a vaguely interesting website it is time to get serious! Sort yourselves out people!
As far as possible; anything else I can help with? I went to a website about the safe distance from lighting, to be told the website was shut because of the Govt Shutdown.
When it affects people who want to waste time browsing a vaguely interesting website it is time to get serious! Sort yourselves out people!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff