Federal Government Begins First Shutdown In 17 Years

Re:Federal Government Begins First Shutdown In 17 Years by pkfrank on Tuesday October 01, 2013 @12:40AM (#6474084)

>The bigger issue, he [Vanguard Group Chief Economist Joseph Davis] said, is how much the turmoil raises the “Uncertainty Tax” on the U.S. economy. Policy uncertainty, Davis argues, is already keeping U.S. economic growth down around 2%, when it could be 3% a year.

This is what captures my frustration as well.

It's infuriating that a faction of Tea Partiers is causing such instability. Having campaigned on a promise of doing anything to stop ObamaCare, they've already played their (reckless) hand.

This is bringing a hatchet where you need a scalpel; "ObamaCare" will still go into effect no matter what, and this does nothing more than score political points at the expense of the nation's health.

This is precisely why people hate and subsequently tune out to politics - an unfortunate and dangerous reality.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Federal Government Begins First Shutdown In 17 Years by kyrra on Tuesday October 01, 2013 @01:16AM (#6474229)

I see it as all parties involved not working together to come to a compromise. Saying it's just one groups fault is not looking at the bigger picture. If there are members of congress that were elected under the notion of fighting a single law (such as ObamaCare), that should be a message that a large portion of the country does not like the law.

I also see it as a failure of our president not getting the 2 sides to play nicely. Obama should be working with both parties to get the government working. From the media quotes I see from him, Obama is playing the blame game, and not actually working to resolve the issues.

The entire federal legislative branch is at fault for the shutdown, not just a select group that you call out. There has always been divide within congress, but the current congress can't figure out how to play nicely together.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Federal Government Begins First Shutdown In 17 Years by quanticle on Tuesday October 01, 2013 @01:21AM (#6474260)

If there are members of congress that were elected under the notion of fighting a single law (such as ObamaCare), that should be a message that a large portion of the country does not like the law.

Or, alternatively, there is a small fraction of the country willing to do whatever it takes to overrule the wishes of the majority, even if it means shutting down the government. It's childish. President Obama was re-elected in 2012. Rather than acknowledge the fact that they lost this battle, the Republicans are willing to do whatever it takes to re-fight (and re-lose).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Federal Government Begins First Shutdown In 17 Years by darkarmani on Tuesday October 01, 2013 @01:37AM (#6474322)

> I also see it as a failure of our president not getting the 2 sides to play nicely. Obama should be working with both parties to get the government working. From the media quotes I see from him, Obama is playing the blame game, and not actually working to resolve the issues.

What? Obama had a majority in the senate and the house and still tried to get both parties to work together on obama care. The republicans rejected even the plans that had most of their ideas in them, just because they didn't want obama to get credit. Why would you think he would be able to convince them now?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Federal Government Begins First Shutdown In 17 Years by invalidOrTaken on Tuesday October 01, 2013 @01:20AM (#6474253)

The power of legislators to delay funding in situations like this should be curtailed.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Federal Government Begins First Shutdown In 17 Years by 001sky on Tuesday October 01, 2013 @12:48AM (#6474126)

It's infuriating that a faction of Tea Partiers is causing such instability

Why is growth not considered a form of instability? Just curious, last time I looked risk and volatility were agnostic to direction.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Federal Government Begins First Shutdown In 17 Years by icambron on Tuesday October 01, 2013 @01:04AM (#6474179)

Risk is very explicitly directional. E.g. Wikipedia has it as:

> Risk is the potential of loss (an undesirable outcome, however not necessarily so) resulting from a given action, activity and/or inaction

When was the last time you checked?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Federal Government Begins First Shutdown In 17 Years by 001sky on Tuesday October 01, 2013 @01:05AM (#6474183)

Instability is volatility (sigma). check it out.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100630193942AA...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Federal Government Begins First Shutdown In 17 Years by icambron on Tuesday October 01, 2013 @01:25AM (#6474277)

I didn't even mention volatility or stability. I was challenging your assertion that risk was agnostic to direction. It is not.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Federal Government Begins First Shutdown In 17 Years by 001sky on Tuesday October 01, 2013 @01:55AM (#6474388)

Try this refresher on Risk and Uncertainty

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2010/06/ris...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Federal Government Begins First Shutdown In 17 Years by wpietri on Tuesday October 01, 2013 @01:18AM (#6474243)

Steady growth is the expected economic baseline. Wild swings in growth, both positive and negative, cause instability. Instability also reduces long-term growth, because the harder it is to predict what will happen, the less people invest.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Federal Government Begins First Shutdown In 17 Years by dinkumthinkum on Friday October 04, 2013 @12:51AM (#6493768)

I don't want to be mean but this is about the worst HN pedantry I could imagine.

[ Parent | on HN ]