Massive Government Shutdown Losses Never Materialized

Maybe the government needs to shut down once a year. The stock market is up 8 weeks in a row. 204,000 jobs were added. The feared economic losses never materialized. No, I did not and do not support the shutdown strategy. I just never believed it was the crisis the media made it to be. Now we are proven right and the chicken little wanna be forecasters were wrong. We have had what–17 of them in the last 40 years including a number when Carter and his fellow Democrats went toe to toe?

Why is this true? Sorry “progressives”, the government is not the economy. Money will just be spent elsewhere and not lost from the economy. The Forbes article linked here explains the economics of the situation well.

The debt ceiling was much more important and that was never really in doubt. Don’t fall for the political rhetoric about a side show; keep your eye on the ball. The real problems are the debt, the botched health care law, and misguided spending priorities.

My family is heavily in debt to the tune of $123,000 a person and so is yours. That is the per person share of the National Debt. Almost 600k for a family of four. We were told by Moody’s and S&P that the partial shutdown cost 24 billion, it appears that those estimates are wildly flawed. Less than 5 billion seems more accurate and that was recouped in the following weeks.

Why is the media giving so much attention to a few billion dollars of cost, at most, and not 17 trillion dollars which is creating such an overhang that it is keeping the economy stuck in first gear?

It is no secret that I thought the shutdown was a bad idea, but I reject the idea that people concerned about the big issues of the crushing debt are wacko’s or extremists. I reject the notion that people concerned about the problems with the Health Care law are nutjobs, wackos, extremists, anarchists, etc.

I think the ones being most irresponsible are the ones ignoring the problems.

This entry was posted in Deficit, economy by David Anderson. Bookmark the permalink.

About David Anderson

Councilman David Anderson is a citizen activist who has served the community in several areas. He is a member of the Academy of Dover Charter School board of directors, a former Dover Human Relations Commissioner, past Chair of Delaware Right to Life PAC, Proud member of the Delaware Army National Guard, former Because We Care Inc. alternative school board member, Republican committee person, and co-founder of the Delaware Initiative and Referendum Coalition. He is currently Huck PAC state coordinator.

18 thoughts on “Massive Government Shutdown Losses Never Materialized

  1. Financial and material losses never occurred because we were never even close to not paying our debts. Obama once again played Americans like a well-tuned fiddle and laughed behind closed doors, while having a beer with his cohorts in crime.

    OK, I guess I’ll say it again. Obama is a cheap con man in an expensive suit that ran for president merely to enrich himself at the American citizens’ expense, then run for cover when his second term has ended. Probably to his most beloved nation, Kenya.

  2. “Obama is a cheap con man in an expensive suit that ran for president merely to enrich himself at the American citizens’ expense,”

    He was rich before he ran thanks to his autobiography. His income has dropped substantially since he took office.

    But don’t let facts get in the way of your silly paranoia.

  3. If the debt really worried you so much, you’d be in favor of raising taxes. That’s the traditional way of paying down a debt and reducing the deficit, combined with the spending cuts you love so much.

  4. Nobody on December 10, 2013 at 09:08 said: “If the debt really worried you so much, you’d be in favor of raising taxes.”

    The US Government is spending DOUBLE in 2013 what it spent in 2000, double each and every year.

    We have to stop the bleeding first. You cannot bail the water out of a ship without fixing the hole in the side of the hull.

  5. Nonsense. You don’t fail to bail because the water is still flowing in.

    You are out of your depth in any discussion, as you have demonstrated here for years. Why don’t you get a job and leave discussion to the knowledgeable and intelligent — which, by comparison with you, is everybody else who comments here?

  6. “Why don’t you get a job and leave discussion to the knowledgeable and intelligent — which, by comparison with you, is everybody else who comments here?”

    C’mon Nobody, that’s very close to a personal attack, and we know you don’t really mean it.

  7. I don’t care if it is a personal attack. I do care that it is devoid of any logic or argument.

    The U.S. Government is spending twice as much money in 2013 as it spent in 2000.

    Cutting spending is urgently required.

    There is nothing that can help without cutting spending.

    Meanwhile, raising taxes will REDUCE tax revenue to the Treasury by harming the economy. So the national debt will get worse if taxes are raised.

  8. The U.S. Government is spending twice as much money in 2013 as it spent in 2000.

    Given the amount of debt/money being created out of nothing by bankers, I’m not sure how you can make accurate statements about it. They may be spending twice as much debt/money into existence out of nothing as well, yet it wouldn’t have twice the effect.

    Cutting spending is urgently required.

    I’m not sure that’s the case. Given the current system, such as it is, they might have to keep having a private banking cartel create more debt/money in order to keep the system going. What if the national debt is “odious debt” that ultimately needs to be repudiated? Why do you think that you know what’s going on with it?

    The majority of the debt/money being spent into existence by oligarchs serving the Federal Reserve Inc. is arguably odious:

    When a despotic regime contracts a debt, not for the needs or in the interests of the state, but rather to strengthen itself, to suppress a popular insurrection, etc, this debt is odious for the people of the entire state. This debt does not bind the nation; it is a debt of the regime, a personal debt contracted by the ruler, and consequently it falls with the demise of the regime. The reason why these odious debts cannot attach to the territory of the state is that they do not fulfil one of the conditions determining the lawfulness of State debts, namely that State debts must be incurred, and the proceeds used, for the needs and in the interests of the State. Odious debts, contracted and utilised for purposes which, to the lenders’ knowledge, are contrary to the needs and the interests of the nation, are not binding on the nation – when it succeeds in overthrowing the government that contracted them – unless the debt is within the limits of real advantages that these debts might have afforded. The lenders have committed a hostile act against the people, they cannot expect a nation which has freed itself of a despotic regime to assume these odious debts…

    There is nothing that can help without cutting spending.

    Spend the “federal reserve notes” into oblivion and go with Bitcoin? Lol.

    Anyway, why do you suppose that Iceland didn’t have to cut spending in order to deal with the debt/money created by banksters? Americans will probably never unite or get out of it that easily. Hang together or hang separately as peasants and all that. Personally, I’m already out of “debt” more than most. I don’t blame the poor people that are still over their heads in it, though. Crazy times. And the majority of it isn’t their fault, even if you do apparently want to give them a dose of austerity measures.

    Meanwhile, raising taxes will REDUCE tax revenue to the Treasury by harming the economy.

    Austerity measures will harm the economy to… although numbers, budgets and “official reports” vary… of course.

    So the national debt will get worse if taxes are raised.

    Random question, if you get rid of the national debt/money then what will central bankers trade or invest in or “quantitatively ease” themselves with?

  9. Perhaps… look at it this way:

    Odious debts, contracted and utilised for purposes which, to the lenders’ knowledge, are contrary to the needs and the interests of the nation, are not binding on the nation – when it succeeds in overthrowing the government that contracted them – unless the debt is within the limits of real advantages that these debts might have afforded. The lenders have committed a hostile act against the people…

    Versus:$9,000,000,000,000 MISSING From The Federal Reserve

    Or you could look at it from the perspective of the bank bailouts, in which even more debt/money had to be created out of nothing with serfs serving as the collateral on it for their oligarchs and bankers. (After all, your debt and the “national debt” is their money.) The New World Order Inc. = Feudalism?

    If only our money was the debt of bankers and they were forced to bail us and our so-called “national debt” out… but it doesn’t work that way, apparently. I wonder what would happen if the Oligopoly Inc. and their bankers started being detained or executed without trial by their own FBI/NSA/CIA types. There would probably be enough “federal reserve notes” for their peasants again then. But it’s probably best to stick with Constitutional principles and so forth… huh?

    In any event, the national debt is largely composed of odious debt created by corrupt politicians and banksters with no regard for the Constitution and “We the people…” … so why are you telling people that they need to be concerned about paying it?

    Shrug. I’m not. Although I am concerned about witless peasants that are caught up in the vortex of our debt/money system coming home to closed open air war memorials. There again, I guess if they don’t know any better or don’t know how they’re being stolen from and the memorials stay open… then apparently it’s fine.

    Ignorance is bliss for those that don’t know that the minimum wage should probably be about $100/hour to match the maximum money supply being created out of nothing by bankers, etc. Yet you’re probably going to try to tell them that they’re responsible for an odious “national debt” that they couldn’t possibly pay or that there’s not enough debt/money for social security payments? Payments that have already been looted out by inflation and corruption in the numbers provided by .gov anyway. Etc.

  10. Or look at it another way, one of the main means of debt/money creation is War Inc. and the war with Iraq was created under false “911. No… Iraqi anthrax in Prague or somethin’.. oops, I mean WMDs in their underpants… well, there might still be WMDs in your own underpants…” pretenses by and for foreign/Israeli interests in general.

    That’s why the American people didn’t get anything out of it. So that’s odious debt too. Americans should demand a bailout from the Federal Reserve and reparations from Israel in order to pay large swaths of their “national debt,” if anything…

    Ramble

  11. “The U.S. Government is spending twice as much money in 2013 as it spent in 2000.’

    In large part because instead of taxing and spending, Bush borrowed and spent.

    “Cutting spending is urgently required.”

    No, it isn’t. Paying for what we spend is urgently required.

    “There is nothing that can help without cutting spending.’

    Simply untrue. Raising revenues will create a lower deficit regardless of whether spending declines. That’s simple arithmetic.

  12. @Don: No, I meant it. Yes, it’s a personal attack. Jon Moseley is, as I have said before, a pox on this blog. Y’all ought to charge him for the expenses; he writes more here than any of the actual authors who pay the bills.

  13. Moreover, he writes things that simply aren’t true. “there is nothing that can help [reduce the deficit] without cutting spending” is simply false. You can make up a budget shortfall two ways: Cut spending and raise revenue. That’s a simple fact, and Jon Moseley either doesn’t realize it or doesn’t care. He has said, quite matter-of-factly, that he assumes anyone who doesn’t share his views is an enemy, which of course is nothing but projection of his own pathologies onto others.

    If you weren’t such a bird of a feather you might notice all this.

  14. In large part because instead of taxing and spending, Bush borrowed and spent.

    The report… also highlighting the complementary costs at home, such as interest paid on the funds borrowed to finance the wars and a potential nearly $1 trillion in extra spending to care for veterans returning from combat through 2050. An update in 2013 topped this at US$6 trillion.
    Those figures are dramatically higher than typical estimates published just prior to the start of the Iraq War, many of which were based on a shorter term of involvement. For example, in a March 16, 2003 Meet the Press interview of Vice President Dick Cheney, held less than a week before the Iraq War began, host Tim Russert reported that “every analysis said this war itself would cost about $80 billion, recovery of Baghdad, perhaps of Iraq, about $10 billion per year. We should expect as American citizens that this would cost at least $100 billion for a two-year involvement.” –Wikipedia

    Vs.:

    Medicare spending is projected to increase from $560 billion in 2010 to just over $1 trillion by 2022… –Wikipedia

    $6 trillion vs. $1 trillion? Not to mention the limbless veterans coming home to war memorials that have been closed by their oligarchs. Not to mention the suicide rates… even if you are dumb enough to believe that the Iraqi war was waged for American and not “There’s some anthrax there or somethin’.” Israeli interests, etc.

    Meanwhile, the Fed is apparently “trickling” $9 trillion all around the New World Order Inc. in the background. Trickle down? Or trickle… out.

    Estimates vary. But it’s unlikely Medicare and food stamps can ever add up to what has been spent on banksterism and War Inc… even with some “fuzzy math.” Those were the days.

  15. You can make up a budget shortfall two ways: Cut spending and raise revenue.

    There are other ways. Repudiate odious debt. Or take back the ability to create money out of nothing from international bankers and then pay the debt off by devaluing the national currency for the sake of “We the people..” like they’ve already been doing for the benefit of their cartel. I’m not for that. I’m just saying that if people are going to do that then the people should benefit.

    Another way, figure out what happened to the 2.3 trillion “unaccounted” for in the Pentagon or the trillions that the Federal Reserve has unaccounted for too. Or you could just go with W’s solution… call it all a bunch of “fuzzy math” and leave it at that. The only problem being that eventually an awareness of the laws of physics may creep in somewhere no matter how stupid some sheeple are, given that it’s a full FAITH and credit based system.

    But as far as solutions… you seem to be an idealist, almost as bad as Moseley. Apparently he actually wants to reduce spending to try to pay the debt down or off, while you want to raise revenue to pay it. Why do I suspect that all that will happen is that you’ll both get your way and whatever is left of the middle and upper middle class will pay higher taxes while austerity measures go into effect too? As if they’re responsible for the missing trillions and all the national debt/money being created out of nothing to be traded around the world by oligarchs and banksters.

    Anyway, it’s a form of debt that cannot be paid by design. So why are you both trying to think of ways to pay it?

    Random quote:
    “It’s Washington, so it’ll be a bit of a partisan show. But I like to think we can find that common ground—make a difference on the debt. I would love to see this divided government work a little bit, and that would be a confidence builder for the economy, for the country, for the credit markets.–Paul “hidden hand” Ryan

Comments are closed.