Another government shutdown?

[Astronuc]

Gov't reopens after Congress ends 16-day [partial] shutdown
http://news.yahoo.com/govt-reopens-congress-ends-16-day-shutdown-070443283--finance.html

WASHINGTON (AP) — The government reopened its doors Thursday after a battle-weary Congress approved a bipartisan measure to end a 16-day partial shutdown and avert the possibility of an economy-jarring default on U.S. obligations.

Early Thursday, President Barack Obama signed the measure, which the House and Senate passed late Wednesday, ending a brawl with Republicans who tried to use the must-pass legislation to mount a last-ditch effort to derail the president's landmark health care law and demand concessions on the budget.

The White House directed all agencies to reopen promptly and in an orderly fashion. Furloughed federal employees across the country are expected to return to work Thursday.
. . . .

Parts of the DOE were shutdown, or shutting down. Some contracts have been deferred.

 

[turbo]

It remains to be seen how much long-term damage has been done, and in which sectors. I know that if I was operating a construction company that routinely built housing on speculation, I would very reluctant to stick my neck out, knowing that we may very well experience another shutdown in a few months. That would impact all my employees, suppliers, subcontractors, etc.

We'll see how this shakes out.

 

[turbo]

John McCain "guarantees" that the Republicans won't shut down government again. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/17/john-mccain-government-shutdown_n_4115462.html

 

[dlgoff]

John McCain "guarantees" that the Republicans won't shut down government again. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/17/john-mccain-government-shutdown_n_4115462.html

Yea right. :rofl:

 

[edward]

John McCain "guarantees" that the Republicans won't shut down government again. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/17/john-mccain-government-shutdown_n_4115462.html

Only if McCain whacks Ted Cruz over the head with a very large fish.

 

[Pythagorean]

So am I going to have to go through a second term of Hilary Clinton as president now?

 

[Office_Shredder]

The takeaway lesson from all of this is that the debt ceiling better expire pretty soon after any budget resolution does, because otherwise we'll be in for a long one.

 

[BobG]

The takeaway lesson from all of this is that the debt ceiling better expire pretty soon after any budget resolution does, because otherwise we'll be in for a long one.

It's kind of funny, but if Republicans really wanted to play the debt ceiling card, immediately after government authority to spend money has expired was the best possible time.

Usually, it's asinine to pass a resolution that requires the government to spend money and then to prohibit the government from procuring the money it needs to execute the requirements that Congress set. There's no flexibility. Saying the President can prioritize by paying bills, spending on essential activities such as defense, while not spending money on welfare, social security, etc, is suggesting that the President can execute a line item veto of the budget Congress passed and that idea has already failed the US Supreme Court test.

If the government doesn't have authority to spend money because Congress hasn't passed a budget, then I guess money already committed by previous budgets/resolutions is the only thing the government can spend money on.

The real reason this failed is because you had a debt ceiling crisis in 2011, followed by sequestration, followed by yet another series of crises due to failure to pass a budget and yet another debt ceiling crisis. You've reached a point where people think Republicans are creating crises just because it's fun.

There's some things you don't do (mess with the debt ceiling) and some things you better do right the first time (government shutdowns due to lack of a budget) because these aren't things you can whip out as a weapon every day. It's gotten to the point where people are more familiar with Republicans shutting down (or at least threatening to shut down) government than they are with Obamacare.

I really think it's gotten to the point that another government shutdown between now and 2014 would pretty much destroy Republican chances in the Senate and would do some decent damage in the House, too, even with districts being set up to favor incumbents.

 

[Astronuc]

Another take on the situation -

The Biggest Economy Killer: Our Government
By STEVEN RATTNER
The single biggest impediment to a stronger economic recovery has been the years of dysfunction in Washington and the policies that have emerged.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/24/opinion/rattner-the-biggest-economy-killer-our-government.html

The government shutdown and debt ceiling crisis inflicted a toll on the American economy, but that cost is only a fraction of the total damage that the federal government has been causing to the American economy.
. . . .
Most substantively, the sharp decline in the budget deficit, from $1.4 trillion in 2009 to $642 billion in the 2013 fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, has braked the economy at a time when it was already improving only slowly, as Tuesday’s jobs report demonstrated.
. . . .

On the other hand, the government cannot borrow indefinitely to prosperity.

 

[turbo]

On the other hand, the government cannot borrow indefinitely to prosperity.

Perhaps discontinuing subsidies to profitable businesses could reduce or eliminate the borrowing. Let ADM and the big oil companies borrow their own money in lieu of subsidies. Just a thought.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/11/13/366988/over-half-of-all-us-tax-subsidies-go-to-four-industries-guess-which-ones/
https://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/09/23

There has been a lot of yammering from DC about cutting spending by reducing "entitlements" to common people. There are a lot of people that rely on SS and Medicare, and life could be difficult for many without that base level of support.

 

[Astronuc]

The poll pols just can't read: Americans need more jobs
http://news.yahoo.com/budget-jobs-obamacare-grand-bargain-deficit-183519744.html

As everyone knows — except certain politicians in both parties in Washington — the greatest problem facing America is an undernourished economy that just can't create enough jobs to get unemployment below that economically key 7 percent threshold. In September, the economy created only 148,000 new jobs, a dismal statistic five years after the start of the Great Recession.

. . . .

What is happening in Washington symbolizes a [STRIKE]dangerous[/STRIKE] disconnect between the priorities of the voters and those of their elected leaders.

. . . .

 

[turbo]

The poll pols just can't read: Americans need more jobs

Something that seems to be lost on a lot of people. Kids go to college (often depleting their parents' saving in the process) and when they graduate and can't find a job, they move back home with their parents, as another financial load. And that's the young 'uns. I know a couple of them, and the thought of working at a fast-food joint wearing a paper hat creeps them out, even though the meager earnings might help their parents get by. And I don't care if you have a degree in political science - if you can't work in a burger joint to help pay your way at home, get out.

People whose jobs have been shipped overseas often have a hard time finding another job, especially if their job was related to a specialty in a narrow field and they had worked there for many years. The age of the jobless workers also plays a huge part. If you are over 50 and looking for a job, look at the competition. If the prospective employer provides health insurance, (s)he may benefit from hiring the younger applicant and paying lower premiums.

We need more jobs in the US. That should be a priority in DC. Taxpayers shouldn't be expected to pay subsidies to companies that ship the jobs offshore, or who cherry-pick the higher-paid employees for lay-offs during downturns. I don't have a comprehensive solution, but the culling of older employees could be reduced if unions were more prevalent. The rest of the problem probably lies in the hands of the Congress, and few members are keen to cut subsidies to the big companies that keep them flush with cash.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Something that seems to be lost on a lot of people. Kids go to college (often depleting their parents' saving in the process) and when they graduate and can't find a job, they move back home with their parents, as another financial load. And that's the young 'uns. I know a couple of them, and the thought of working at a fast-food joint wearing a paper hat creeps them out, even though the meager earnings might help their parents.

People whose jobs have been shipped overseas often have a hard time finding another job, especially if their job was related to a specialty in a narrow field and they had worked there for many years. The age of the jobless workers also plays a huge part. If you are over 50 and looking for a job, look at the competition. If the prospective employer provides health insurance, (s)he may benefit from hiring the younger applicant and paying lower premiums.

We need more jobs in the US. That should be a priority in DC. Taxpayers shouldn't be expected to pay subsidies to companies that ship the jobs offshore, or cherry-pick the higher-paid employees for lay-offs during downturns. I don't have a comprehensive solution, but the culling of older employees could be reduced if unions were more prevalent. The rest of the problem probably lies in the hands of the Congress, and few members are keen to cut subsidies to the big companies that keep them flush with cash.

I think everyone agrees that the US needs more jobs -- the question is what can or should be done to generate more jobs. Apart from massive stimulus spending on the part of the federal government (and when I mean massive, I mean orders of magnitude higher spending than what the Obama administration had brought forward during its early years), I really don't see how it's possible to generate more demand to compensate for companies lack of willingness to invest in hiring new employees. It's also worth keeping in mind that the anaemic economic growth and subsequent low job creation in the US cannot be isolated from the overall trend of slow economic growth in the rest of the world.

Furthermore, what the US had experienced in 2008 was a crash of the real estate bubble, which precipitated a major financial crash of a type not seen since the Great Depression. If you look at the history of similar financial crises in different countries, it often takes many years before the economies of the countries affected can recover to pre-recessionary periods. The Great Depression itself and its aftermath lasted for over 10 years. Japan experienced an entire lost decade during the 1990s. So it's conceivable that the unemployment rate in the US may not reach pre-recessionary levels until around 2018.

 

[Evo]

I think everyone agrees that the US needs more jobs -- the question is what can or should be done to generate more jobs.

There is just no way that as the population increases and technology decreases the need for humans that we can have enough real jobs to offer people the jobs they *want*. There are plenty of jobs, people just don't want them. Admittedly a job sacking groceries if you're raising a family of four isn't going to be enough. Businesses can't just create jobs that aren't needed.

http://www.census.gov/popclock/

 

[russ_watters]

There is just no way that as the population increases and technology decreases the need for humans that we can have enough real jobs to offer people the jobs they *want*.

People have been saying variations of that for centuries and I see no reason that it should stop being wrong now. People are talking about the increase in low-wage and part time employment we're seeing in the recovery, but that's just the past 4 years; nothing critical in our technology has changed suddenly in the past five years to cause that. It appears to be purely a political/economic issue.

The solution to too much growth in low-wage jobs and not enough in high-wage jobs? Our inequality and social mobility "problem"? Personal responsibility. When you have unfilled high-wage jobs because there are too few people qualified, yet people lined-up around the block to be Walmart greeters, the problem is clearly that our population is too unskilled. Too many people not graduating high school and too many people in college who study worthless majors. Virtually all of that can be fixed if people adult-up.

We have another thread open about the changing/death of the American Dream. The American Dream is that if you work hard you can succeed economically. But the corollary is that if you want to succeed, you have to work hard and if you don't, you won't! But today's political climate is one where the predominant ideology is one of entitlement: you don't have to work hard because the government will make sure you are taken care of. It is a surefire formula for decay.

Also, our population is not growing internally. Overall, the growth rate is less than 1% and just about all of that is immigration.

 

[StatGuy2000]

People have been saying variations of that for centuries and I see no reason that it should stop being wrong now. People are talking about the increase in low-wage and part time employment we're seeing in the recovery, but that's just the past 4 years; nothing critical in our technology has changed suddenly in the past five years to cause that. It appears to be purely a political/economic issue.

The solution to too much growth in low-wage jobs and not enough in high-wage jobs? Our inequality and social mobility "problem"? Personal responsibility. When you have unfilled high-wage jobs because there are too few people qualified, yet people lined-up around the block to be Walmart greeters, the problem is clearly that our population is too unskilled. Too many people not graduating high school and too many people in college who study worthless majors. Virtually all of that can be fixed if people adult-up.

Actually it is not at all clear that the situation you describe above is due to too many people being unskilled. After all, there are enough anecdotal testimony posted right here on PF about people who pursued STEM degrees like physics who were unable to secure that high-wage job and were either unemployed or underemployed (e.g. working as a bartender, pizza delivery person, or a retail salesperson), at least temporarily, particularly since the financial crisis of 2008. Surely given your background you wouldn't consider physics to be a "worthless major"!

As far as high-wage jobs going unfilled, yes, personal responsibility of potential job applicants does play a role, but so does the responsibility for individual companies seeking to fill those roles. After all, companies don't just pay high wages just for the sake of it -- they pay them because the skills are important to their business. If companies are unable to fill important positions out of the existing pool of applicants, perhaps one strategy would be for companies to take the initiative and train people to the skills required.

We have another thread open about the changing/death of the American Dream. The American Dream is that if you work hard you can succeed economically. But the corollary is that if you want to succeed, you have to work hard and if you don't, you won't! But today's political climate is one where the predominant ideology is one of entitlement: you don't have to work hard because the government will make sure you are taken care of. It is a surefire formula for decay.

Pardon my language, but your quote above is complete b******t! (censored) The situation in the US right now is that there are millions of Americans who want to work hard but are unable to secure a job because no one is willing or able to hire them! There have been reports in places like the PBS Newshour of people who would be what most people consider successful who subsequent to 2008 found themselves suddenly unemployed , unable to find a job, and in danger of losing their homes.

How exactly can these people ever live the "American Dream", realistically speaking? This isn't about entitlement, this is about a government that ought to take responsibility in helping people who are hurting -- someone that a civilized nation ought to do as part of the basic responsiblity of governing!

 

[Pythagorean]

STEM isn't the training that people lack. It's trade skills like plumbing and heating.

 

[Evo]

People have been saying variations of that for centuries and I see no reason that it should stop being wrong now. People are talking about the increase in low-wage and part time employment we're seeing in the recovery, but that's just the past 4 years; nothing critical in our technology has changed suddenly in the past five years to cause that. It appears to be purely a political/economic issue.

The solution to too much growth in low-wage jobs and not enough in high-wage jobs? Our inequality and social mobility "problem"? Personal responsibility. When you have unfilled high-wage jobs because there are too few people qualified, yet people lined-up around the block to be Walmart greeters, the problem is clearly that our population is too unskilled. Too many people not graduating high school and too many people in college who study worthless majors. Virtually all of that can be fixed if people adult-up.

We have another thread open about the changing/death of the American Dream. The American Dream is that if you work hard you can succeed economically. But the corollary is that if you want to succeed, you have to work hard and if you don't, you won't! But today's political climate is one where the predominant ideology is one of entitlement: you don't have to work hard because the government will make sure you are taken care of. It is a surefire formula for decay.

Also, our population is not growing internally. Overall, the growth rate is less than 1% and just about all of that is immigration.

Overall, I don't disagree with anything you said, but population is still increasing, yes it has slowed down. Being older than you, I remember the days when companies over hired to the point that you could walk through an office of workers not working, they just didn't have enough to do. And levels of management that were redundant. Many companies have cleaned out these excess positions over the last decade. They have closed locations that weren't making money. In many cases they went overboard and laid off so many people that each person remaining was now doing the work of 2-3 people. I know, I was one of those that had to work 12 hour days 6-7 days a week as a salaried employee in order to get the work done (that means you don't get paid for the extra hours worked, nor do you get holiday or overtime pay, for those that don't know).

An old "I Love Lucy" show comes to mind. She decided to buy a hat shop, because as it was pointed out "people will always have heads", so will always need hats. Well, hats went out of fashion, put an entire industry pretty much out of business. that's not why she failed, they were still all wearing hats back then. It's all of these little "unnoticed" changes that add up too. When I was little, a trip to the shoe repairman was a common thing, he also made great shoes. Now shoes are disposable for many people. When is the last time you took your shoes into get them re-soled? Full service gas stations with a mechanic and a full service garage for repairs, they were everywhere. I have seen so many trades disappear just in my lifetime. So glad that door to door salesmen are gone, but that was a large industry. Look at all of the bookstores that have closed.

 

[StatGuy2000]

STEM isn't the training that people lack. It's trade skills like plumbing and heating.

I'm well aware of the demand for skilled tradespeople like plumbers, electricians, mechanics, tool-and-die makers, etc. Part of the reason for the demand is the stigma associated with these positions, but part of it is also that companies that employ skilled trades don't often train people to take on these types of work.

Also, many skilled trades have apprenticeship and licensing requirements which could serve as a bottleneck to getting more people hired in these positions.

 

[Pythagorean]

Also, many skilled trades have apprenticeship and licensing requirements which could serve as a bottleneck to getting more people hired in these positions.

Yet many go after STEM creds knowing the bottle-neck (in their case) doesn't get them anywhere. At least this is a bottleneck that gets them a higher level of job security.

(I'm a hypocrite. I may take my science degrees and become a plumber... in which case I will always wear a luigi costume to work. So there's that.)

 

[Ben Niehoff]

To be honest, I think physics is a pretty worthless major. There are very few things you can do with a bachelor's degree in physics, despite universities' attempts to sell it as otherwise. I say this as someone who is close to getting a PhD in physics (but my undergrad degree is in computer engineering).

My impression (which may be wrong) is that the most valuable STEM degrees are chemistry and engineering (especially chemical engineering!). There is also money to be made in software, but not anywhere near as much as in the 90's (although there is a bit of a cellphone/tablet "app boom", I think the margins there are pretty low). Pure research sciences are not going to get you a lot of jobs, and I really don't think they should be lumped in when we talk about a supposed shortage of STEM-qualified people.

If someone knows better, tell me if any of that is totally wrong.

 

[StatGuy2000]

To be honest, I think physics is a pretty worthless major. There are very few things you can do with a bachelor's degree in physics, despite universities' attempts to sell it as otherwise. I say this as someone who is close to getting a PhD in physics (but my undergrad degree is in computer engineering).

My impression (which may be wrong) is that the most valuable STEM degrees are chemistry and engineering (especially chemical engineering!). There is also money to be made in software, but not anywhere near as much as in the 90's (although there is a bit of a cellphone/tablet "app boom", I think the margins there are pretty low). Pure research sciences are not going to get you a lot of jobs, and I really don't think they should be lumped in when we talk about a supposed shortage of STEM-qualified people.

If someone knows better, tell me if any of that is totally wrong.

My impression has been that chemical engineering is primarily valuable to those involved in the energy and pharmaceutical sectors, but these can change. At least in the area where I live, I see far more opportunities for people with electrical or mechanical engineering degrees.

As far as the most valuable STEM degrees right now, I would argue that you should include both computer science and statistics in that list, given the explosion in big data and companies and other organizations interested in analyzing such data.

 

[turbo]

My impression (which may be wrong) is that the most valuable STEM degrees are chemistry and engineering (especially chemical engineering!).

This is true, but it's quite dependent on geography. When I was a chemist in pulp and paper, the industry was booming in Maine. Nowadays, you might want to look to the Gulf coast for CE jobs. There were refineries and Chemical plants galore in LA and east TX, but I really hate that area of the country.

 

[turbo]

Back to the original topic: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/25/tom-cole-revenue_n_4164510.html
Tom Cole puts raising revenue on the table. The problem is that (as always) the GOP wants to cut Social Security and Medicare to raise that revenue, instead of reducing subsidies to big business or increasing taxes incrementally on the wealthy. In fact, he is threatening Republican obstructionism if the Dems try to prevent cuts in SS and Medicare.

We don't need any more of this childish crap, and AOL/HuffPost does us all a disservice by making it look like Tom Cole is making a new proposal. Cutting "entitlements" was always at the top of the GOP wish list. Nothing new about that.

 

[Astronuc]

Fall out from the shutdown, or the way things are going in Washington, DC?

Business, GOP establishment: Tea party is over
http://news.yahoo.com/business-gop-establishment-tea-party-over-163718915--politics.html

2014 will be interesting.

 

[BobG]

Fall out from the shutdown, or the way things are going in Washington, DC?

Business, GOP establishment: Tea party is over
http://news.yahoo.com/business-gop-establishment-tea-party-over-163718915--politics.html

2014 will be interesting.

This is something easier said than done. There's so much independent money running around from groups like Club for Growth and the Heritage Foundation that the Republican establishment doesn't have as much control over its candidates as it used to.

Groups like that have had problems with large elections, such as senatorial and gubernatorial elections (even essentially throwing "safe" Republican seats to Democrats) and they'll have even more problems in the next election or two.

I think they'll still be a major problem in the House.