US Government shutdown?

Was ist mit der NSA? Können wir jetzt vielleicht eine Weile unverfänglich telefonieren?

Zitat

Original geschrieben von pithein
... war anscheinend ein Schnellschuss....

Das nun geltende Gesetz wurde vor über drei Jahren beschlossen. Unreife IT-Projekte heben nicht die Gültigkeit von Gesetzen aus.

Nun gehen dien Teaheads dazu über, die Schuldenobergrenze und den Zahlungsausfall als kein ernstes Problem darzustellen.
http://www.politico.com/story/…-limit-deniers-98041.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10…-be-that-bad.html?hp&_r=0

Dann stellen sich natürlich Fragen:

"... But looking at this genuine madness in the bigger picture, I have three questions I'd like the default deniers and the rest of the political world to consider as the crisis continues.

1. Doesn't this destroy Republicans' leverage?

Let's say the default deniers are right. They're not, but let's just say they are for the sake of conversation, and the consequences of the United States ignoring its financial obligations would be minor. If that's true, why should President Obama and congressional Democrats pay a steep ransom to let the hostage go?

In other words, Republican lawmakers are presenting Dems with the following message: "Meet our demands or we'll shoot the hostage. And by the way, even if we pull the trigger, the hostage will probably be fine." I'm not an expert in hostage crises, but there seems to be a problem here.

2. Do the deniers have any credibility?

The default deniers and their allies insist that we should all ignore the economists and financial experts warning of an economic calamity. Indeed, some have been quite explicit on this point: "Economists, what have they been doing? They make all sorts of predictions," Rep. John Fleming (R-La.) said. "Many times they're wrong, so I don't think we should run government based on economists' predictions."

But if we look back of the last generation or so, the same people who are saying default wouldn't be a big deal have also made a series of other economic predictions. They said Clinton's economic plan, for example, would be a disaster for the country. They were certain that the Bush/Cheney tax cuts and economic policies would produce extraordinary prosperity. They assured us that Wall Street could be deregulated without incident. They predicted that Obama's Recovery Act would make the economy worse and that his rescue of the auto industry would fail miserably.

And now these same radical charlatans are telling us default would be inconsequential. Remind me why any sane person would listen to them?

3. Do the deniers understand the nature of their gamble?

Let's say the economists and financial experts are wrong. They're not, but let's just say they are for the sake of conversation. Let's then say that policymakers take their advice and unnecessarily raise the debt ceiling. What happens then? Nothing. Markets would settle and the world would simply move on. If the default deniers are right and we don't actually have to raise the debt limit, but we do so anyway, there's no harm done.

But if the economists are right and we fail to heed their warnings, we're facing the prospect of economic collapse. In other words, if we have to make a choice based on expectations, which of the two scenarios is the safer bet? Congress takes a few minutes to do some routine paperwork or Congress rolls the dice and hopes for the best?

We are, at the risk of sounding impolite, talking about a group of ignorant radicals, with an uninterrupted track record of failed predictions, who have the fate of the global economy in their hands. Good luck to us all."

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_n…licate-gop-extortion-plan

Zitat

Original geschrieben von Arminius
Hast Du auch eine etwas aussagekräftigere Begründung?

Du bist so ein prächtiges Beispiel für den Dunning–Kruger-Effekt.

-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…O/item/1381351822-906-157
"...

Moody's credit rating service apparently believes that the US Treasury will not default even if the House refuses to raise the debt ceiling, because the Treasury will use all of its cash flow for debt service on Treasury bonds. There are several problems with this assumption.

The US Treasury's existing, largely automated payment system has no mechanism to distinguish between bondholders and other creditors in connection with the issuance of payments. There is no button to push, or icon to click on, saying "pay bondholders only."

The Treasury has no way to create such a mechanism either, between now and October 17, one week from tomorrow. The Treasury would have to reprogram the automated systems which issue the millions of payments it makes each day. The Treasury has no staff to do so, since more than 80 percent of the Treasury's employees have been furloughed due to the government shutdown. The Treasury has no contractors to do so, since none of the Treasury's existing vendors for services or equipment are currently being paid due to the government shutdown. The Treasury has no way of hiring any new contractors to do so, since it cannot issue any new contracts due to the government shutdown.

Simply put, even if paying only bondholders were a way to avoid default, the Treasury doesn't have the capability of actually doing so in the real world, as opposed to doing so in abstract theory.

Even if the US were somehow to make all of its bond payments, it would still be in default if it failed to pay all its other financial obligations. Bondholders are far from our country's only creditors. The US Government also owes payments to contractors and vendors for goods and services they have already supplied, reimbursement payments to states and muunicipalities for expenditures on federal-aid capital projects, payments to hospitals and doctors for treating Medicare patients, pension payments to federal retirees, and many others."

--------------------------

--------------------------
Die Wirtschaftlichen Folgen z.B. :

"... The Small Business Administration says it backs an average of $96 million in small-business lending each day. Having that financing stream frozen sets off a chain reaction of economic pain, said Anthony R. Wilkinson, who heads the National Association of Government Guaranteed Lenders, a trade group. “There are restaurants that aren’t being opened and contracts that aren’t being fulfilled,” he said. “As this drags on into Week 2, people are getting pretty worried.”

The toll may not be conspicuous yet in the broader economy, but at the local level, the ripples are spreading. At many banks, direct small business lending is stalled too, because much of the Internal Revenue Service is closed, preventing lenders from checking tax information provided by applicants. Business owners are also grappling with the absence of other crucial government services, like E-Verify, the online system companies use to confirm the eligibility of prospective employees to work in the United States. ..."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10…-small-businesses.html?hp

---

With the impact of the shutdown starting to intensify, House Republicans were taking criticism from some of their longtime backers. Business groups demanded the immediate reopening of the government, and benefactors like Koch Industries publicly distanced themselves from the shutdown fight.

Republicans acknowledged the pressure is mounting on them. On Wednesday, the National Retail Federation joined other reliably Republican business groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers in asking House Republicans to relent.

“We strongly support passage of both a continuing resolution to provide for funding of the federal government into the next fiscal year and a measure to raise the nation’s debt ceiling,” the National Retail Federation’s president, Matthew Shay, said in a letter to Congress that pointed out economic indicators showing that the shutdown has already hurt consumer spending and depressed consumer confidence.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10…shutdown-drags-on.html?hp

Re: Repräsentantenhaus wieder für Sterbegeld für gefallene Soldaten

Zitat

Original geschrieben von pithein
...
- Was sagst du zu dem Titelbild der "Daily News"?
---
Edit:
Mit 425:0 ist das Repräsentantenhaus für das Sterbegeld.
Was machen jetzt der Senat und Obama?
"Obama" hält das Geld zurück.

Quelle: http://news.yahoo.com/house-pa…h-benefits-183953488.html

Alles anzeigen

Das Sterbegeld kommt nun erstmal von einer Stiftung:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10…illed-in-action.html?_r=0

Was das Bild von Dailynews anbelangt: vom Text her richtig, aber Boehner auf den Stuhl von Lincoln zu setzen ist etwas seltsam. Lincoln hat die Union zusammengehalten, Boehner arbeitet (hier mit Blut an den Händen) an dessen Niedergang.
:confused:

Zitat

Original geschrieben von Arminius
Was bringst Du denn an Quellen? New York Times? *lach* Sehr ausgewogen...
...

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion…-reason-why-theyre-gonna/

"Five reasons Americans already love ObamaCare — plus one reason why they’re gonna love it even more, soon"

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10…shutdown-drags-on.html?hp

"... “I think it was very possible for us to delay the implementation of Obamacare for a year until Cruz came along and crashed and burned,” anti-tax activist Grover Norquist said. ..."

Cruz ist nun der Sündebock der GOP ...

Die Republikaner werden brechen. So wie es immer war und so wie ich es bereits auf Seite 1 vorhergesagt habe.

Zitat

Original geschrieben von autares
Die Republikaner werden brechen. So wie es immer war und so wie ich es bereits auf Seite 1 vorhergesagt habe.

Werden sie auch eigenverantwortlich die Kosten für das sinnlose Spektakel übernehmen? Sie predigen ja sonst so gerne Eigenverantwortung.