Yet again my quoting function has failed me. So excuse this less presentable style.
But anyway, the point you are making is that the goverment shutdown and the debt ceiling negotiations is going to have an impact in the way the federal goverment funds social services.
But it appears that payments to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are not affected by the shutdown:
(quote inside a quote)
The bulk of the federal budget goes toward what is known as "mandatory" programs -- entitlements like Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare. These payments cannot be interrupted in the case of a partial government shutdown.
You are in right in that sense--the funds have already been appropriated. However, there were warnings of delays for Social Security and Medicare, especially in light of workers being furloughed. So we are dealing with some time sensitivity. Also, new applicants for these programs reportedly will have more difficulty with processing of their claims unlike those who already have them.
This reminds me of the inability for plenty of people to get passports.
And as far as the shutdown/debt ceiling potentially causing harm to the stock market, the financial circles seem to adopt a dismissive position:
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/breakout/debt-ceiling-budget-showdown-won-t-derail-bull-130917747.html
A similar dismissive stance was also taken in 2011, over the last major debt ceiling debate:http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/debt-ceiling-deadlock-why-markets-don-t-seem-142313090.html
First article: says nothing convincing about the damage that a shutdown would have. He's trying to assuage market fears--keep the "bull market" going. Wall Street was going back and forth (-100 points in the DJIA after the weekend, though it has made back that loss IIRC) but ultimately more or less expects some sort of 11th hour solution. Also, he's talking about the showdown itself, not a hypothetical lack of resolution.
second article: incidentally, after the date of that article's penning:
http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2013/10/01/lessons-from-2011-budget-fight-more-volatility-to-come/"On Thursday, July 21, with the deadline less than two weeks away, investors were still in a relatively complacent mood–as they are now. The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed that day at 12,751 and the 10-year Treasury yield was sitting just above 3%.
By Friday July 29, however, after a grand bargain deal had fallen through, the Dow was 4.8% lower at 12,143 and the 10-year yield was at 2.805%–the latter reflecting a somewhat contradictory response where investors bought the very instruments at risk of default in a powerful reminder of how the dollar-centric global financial system places great value on the liquidity of U.S. government bonds at times of crisis. That’s one to keep in mind as the standoff continues this time.
An agreement on Sunday, July 31 – which set up the infamous “sequestration” deal — initially helped to stabilize market. The Dow lost a mere 10 points on the Monday, suggesting that stocks were finding a bottom. But then all hell broke loose.
Although the debt ceiling threat was behind them, it was clear that S&P wasn’t happy with how it was handled. By the end of the week, the Dow had dropped a further 5.6%.
On that Friday, the S&P downgraded the U.S. and the following Monday, the DJIA dropped another 2.9%. It then opened sharply lower again on Tuesday, Aug. 9, only to surge by 3% later that day. That wasn’t exactly the end of the rout – markets plunged 4.6% on Wednesday to their lowest point for the month – but it did set up a turning point later in the week as a concerted recovery began on Thursday. By that stage, the 10-year Treasury yield had dropped as low as 2.038% – losing almost 100 basis points in just two weeks (...)
Why did markets stabilize that day? Because the Federal Reserve announced it intended to keep interest rates near zero for at least another two more years."
The article alludes to the idea that the U.S was still recovering, and that one of its key trading partners in the EU was going through its own...troubles, to put it lightly. At the time, people recommended diversification of portfolios through international stocks. I mean, people still do anyway, but it was because of the perceived need for the US to pick up that it was a prominent talking point.
Also,
http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/07/markets/world_markets_downgrade/index.htmWe
had volatility. Wall Street is generally convinced that Congress won't put them in harm's way in the end, but investors will still get nervous.
Yes, you mentioned that wellfare checks can be used to be Coca Cola bottles, but those are certainly not the major source of revenue for a company like the Coca Cola Company. International buyers also have a huge impact into their sales.
Well yeah, but I didn't say that. One would merely have to consider that someone with more money than a regular welfare check has more purchasing power and could buy more of whatever they want (besides the part where Coke makes various products like Sprite and such.) I was saying that it's revenue nonetheless, and the money doesn't have any less purchasing power just because it's dished out by the govt--hence important for those people who don't have other options for money at the time.
And you are right, interconnected markets do have problems, but they do have their perks, namely acess to a wider market, more competition,etc.
Well yeah, but I wasn't arguing
against globalized markets there. I was just saying that this global volatility is what can be expected from globalized markets, and that the politics of one country can affect those outside of that particular country. Since the reality is our economies are very connected, the consequences can be similarly more widespread and "ripple-like"
And yes, the scenario you point out is troublesome especially if you have an economy in which the state / public service is the largest buyer (sometimes the only) and client of vital economic sectors.
Even worse in a state / public sector - dependent economy, the US for the most part is not going to be like Greece, Italy, Ireland or Portugal, for that matter, even when you take into account the amount of spending, goverment intervention and taxation.
Yes, but I didn't say anything about comparing US to the PIIGS, nor do I think it's a relevant comparison. I don't think US will turn out like them, certainly not in the near future.
The thing about the ACA is that it's most likely going to be too costly and a burden on businesses and general tax payers, I've seen some reports claiming that the ACA is going to be cheaper than expected, but alas, we are talking about short-term, long term is where we can actually see the true costs of such a program. ACA's already been showing some glaring problems from day 1, namely the mess regarding the healthcare.gov website which continues to produce some troubling insights:
http://www.sfgate.com/business/networth/article/Lower-2014-income-can-net-huge-health-care-subsidy-4891087.php
First, lower incomes (and certain age brackets) are supposed to get larger subsidies under this system.
Second, the system is predicated on functioning better with higher enrollments, specifically from those who are low-risk health wise. This is why there are basically no sensible long term projections--they need to see what the enrollments will be like, how the exchanges are being run, etc. etc. to determine pricing.
As for your article...
It's primarily an advice article on how to report your income so you can qualify for subsidies. Tax reporting tricks. It also advises readers on health care options for people at varying degrees of the poverty level. The specific scenario reported featured a couple who was $2000 away from receiving a subsidy. The policies themselves are a different question--the part where California very likely has more options than most states notwithstanding. They could be made more efficient, sure.
As for the website, it's had both traffic and programming/data management problems (apparently the site could have been built better?). I don't see how that invalidates the program itself.
Is it better to let the states themselves decide what type of NHS-type system they would rather implement or have this massive program under federal watch? I don't know.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/15/us/states-will-be-given-extra-time-to-set-up-health-insurance-exchanges.html?_r=0They have had the option of running their own system. There was a deadline for states to set up exchanges. The ACA asked for an exchange featuring private insurers coming up with plans while following certain caveats (no denial to those with preexisting conditions). There are states who have declined to set up their own exchange, and that's where the federal government steps in to create one. This, in the interest of getting more people healthcare, as opposed to previously where there would be less. Not that I don't think there's a better alternative.
Also speaking of which, you can remove funding from a program or act even if it's been written into law, the term "pull the plug" is an accurate description of that. And Congress has the power to enact changes and remove funding from programs.
You certainly can't defund or dismantle Obamcare via the fiscal year's budget. You could possibly call for repeal through Congress, but that hasn't been successful, and even then Obama would veto such legislation. The Supreme Court challenge failed too. That's what invalidates the perceived momentum the Tea Party took when deciding to go through with that narrative.
The aforementioned park and monument shutdowns or blockades, the latter being the more accurate is very troublesome. Why? Take the WW2 Memorial, it's in an open plaza, even if it's on federally funded-grounds, whoever gave the order to the National Park Services to barricade these open areas can be accussed of overeach and, worst of all, this could potentially be illegal. Even worse, it's directed that the general civilian population. The National Park Services do not own Mount Vernon or Mount Rushmore, if antyhing just the parking lot and that provides acess to them, yet someone gave the order to shut them down or rather barricade them.
http://www.eagletribune.com/local/x1442580353/Gestapo-tactics-meet-senior-citizens-at-Yellowstone
A bit to excessive, don't you think?
Those who want to challenge the legality of blocking certain things should do it formally then. Not this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2013/10/14/where-are-the-arrests-over-the-world-war-ii-memorial-protest/That's not even a lawful protest. In any case, this isn't overreach in spite of the fact that the government owns certain pieces of land just because certain memorials were created with the purpose of public use. It's been long known in news coverage leading up to the shutdown that National Park Services were going to suffer closures. Why does the Tea Party get to retroactively protest the consequences of the shutdown they prepared themselves for when they didn't even make noise about such things in the first place? Turning the closure of National Parks into a political opportunity or deciding to rewrite the rules on accessibility is pure political theatre. And of course the barricades are directed at the general civilian population; the whole point of the shutdown was that lack of funding would prevent a public good's accessibility by the public. Also, Mount Rushmore is a national memorial--so the question there is pretty easily resolved. It was in fact opened by funding through funding from businesses and other organizations.
That being said--park rangers should do their jobs and disallow all people from entering a memorial (not just a privileged few), and
not do this with hostility.
Also, with regards to this complaint about the House putting things at risk, need I remind you that the Senate, the democrat-controlled Senate has not passed a single budget since Harry Reid won the majority? Google "Harry Reid cancels vote" and you will be amazed as to how very little Democrats have done in the actual Senate.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_bills_of_the_113th_United_States_Congress#Introduced_in_the_Senatehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/08/113th-congress-bills_n_3563008.htmlNow I'm not that enthusiastic about Harry Reid, and I don't know what the Senate Budget Committee or w/e was doing prior to 2011, but that is misleading.
The USA has a decentralized goverment, split into four active bodies: Congress, Senate, Administration, Courts. This system is in place for a reason, no governing body never at any point has complete control or power over any of the remaining bodies. This is what Democrats call Checks and Balances everything there's a Republican majority.
This is why I feel everyone is to blame.
For this discussion I'd eliminate the judicial section. Also, Congress comprises the Senate and the House.
Anyway, how did one body of government manage to force government shutdown if there are adequate checks and balances in place? Look at the House Republicans.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/13/house-republicans-rules-change_n_4095129.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopularYes, both sides have done lame things
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/14/congress-government-shutdown_n_4085699.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopularThe onus by way of the originating act, the terrible proposed ideas (continued sequester level funding, six-week funding options to give leverage for the future for those who want to use the debt ceiling as a negotiating trick, besides the dumb stuff like the Food Stamp cuts and 2011 cuts) and the preponderance of negative actions (propagation of lies, superbly dishonest and inflammatory use of rhetoric i.e. "Obama and impeachment over default" on Republicans.
I don't trust this equivalency. You don't get to use the federal budget as hostage for your political goals, and there's no reason why we should allow this sort of behavior every year. The Democrats were appropriate in not accepting their wishes to submit incomplete budgets or budgets with the cuts they want. They had ample to have their debates--had the GOP not listened to Ted Cruz (who was oddly absent for the greater part of the shutdown's aftermath, as other GOP members were irritated with him) this could have been avoided. Start passing complete and timely annual budgets like a functional Congress.
A howler monkey can make a far more profound and less cynical analysis of a Twitter remark, than anyone on that website.
A shame you don't go to PoliGAF. I think you'll get what you're asking for there.
