US government Shutdown

[UnderAGreySky]

Won't help, Broomstick, because a majority of voters in 2012 also though that the Democrats were better for the House. The GOP still retained control.

[Academia Nut]

I forgot this tidbit:

Two people have tried to take issue with my claim, based on their personal anecdotes. Connor MacLeod shot your case in the foot - he did exactly what I recommended and benefitted substantially from it. He nonetheless believes this is a powerful counter-example for reasons that are unclear to me. Broomstick seems to have also done exactly what I recommended, benefited somewhat, but still ended up in a poor situation because of sustained bad luck. I agree that is possible. I just don't agree it is typical.

HAHAHA no. How does having a huge pile of money I can't use for ANYTHING for fear of screwing myself over at a future date a 'good position' and thus evidence of your claims? That money only exists because of some extreme (by modern standards) frugality, and generally curtailing what people call 'living' even by modest degrees. I don't 'live', I fucking 'survive.' And as I and others have outlined amply, this does not guarantee that I still won't get fucked over (and this is not neccesarily a 'rare' possibility like you say, even if we isolate it to purely medical considerations.) I am still gambling with my life and my future, and I've only marginally hedged against that chance. If anything changes (loss of job, loss of insurance, serious injury) I am at best severely hampered and at worst fucked over. This by no means justfies your claim or invalidates anything Eleas said.

Wherever the fuck you live and whatever 'benefits' you have protecting oyu, well good for you and I'm glad you're better off overall. I'm sure that makes your situation far more tenable for you. But don't make the assumption because it works for you in whatever advantageous position you're in that its going to work in America, unless you're willing to actually move over here and PROVE it to me by living here under the conditions I and other Americans have to endure. If not, then stop boasting like you've delivered some sort of crushing victory to the rest of us poor, clueless Americans.

Point of note: economically Connor is worse off with that money stashed away in the bank than he would be if he lived in a more sane system. That money is doing nothing for him just sitting there, likely earning less interest than inflation and thus depreciating in value. If he had a proper safety net to work with he could invest that money in all sorts of economically useful things like investing in the market, buying a new vehicle to facilitate money earning or serve as an additional form of insurance by way of being safer than an older vehicle, education that could assist with job advancement or transition, being able to afford to take a flight to interview for a better paying job in another city and then being able to afford to relocate if he gets that job, or just getting "toys" to help him relax and be more productive when he actually is working (note: I don't know Connor's actual circumstances, these are just various hypothetical uses). Worse yet, from the perspective of society the money that he has sitting where it is is useless and outside of say illegal and destructive activity (and not even all those really) pretty much any expenditure of money would be better for the economy than just having it sit in a bank. That's the reality, strangely enough: from a society wide perspective the money Connor has stashed away would be better spent all at once on hookers and blow than just sitting there, doing nothing. Now obviously there are better and worse uses of money and having some stashed away for a rainy day is better than nothing, but the fact that he has to keep some money set aside just for survival's sake and even then there's no guarantee is damaging to both him, his family, and society at large.

[Napoleon the Clown]

Hope they remember that sentiment at the next round of elections.

Between the incredibly short memory of the voting public and how poor voter turnout is, I'm not hopeful.

[TheHammer]

Hope they remember that sentiment at the next round of elections.

Between the incredibly short memory of the voting public and how poor voter turnout is, I'm not hopeful.

Republican retention of the house was more due to Republican Gerrymandering than a reflection of the actual will of the voting public. However, shifting demographics and values as older generations die off and younger ones take their place will eventually erode the last bastions of Republican support - baring a major shift from within the party itself of course.

[Knife]

Shifting demographics will continue to hurt them even in 2014. They've made zero effort, and in fact probably inflamed, to reach out to minority voters and districts where they are rapidly becoming a solid voting block. The Southern Strategy, and various State versions, won't hold up if millions and millions of Hispanics vote Democrat, or at least not GOP, there just isn't enough old white folk in the gerrymandered districts to balance it anymore. Granted, it is widely seen as an acknowledgement of that when the GOPers are doing their voting ID laws and such to restrict those votes.

[Broomstick]

Even where there are a lot of "old white folks", not all of us are voting Tea Party GOP, either - plenty are either long term Democrats or are moving to the more moderate or fiscal conservative/social liberal types.

[Connor MacLeod]

I was discussing an interesting article on SB where they mentioned that the current crop of Republicans have become ideological like the progressive democrats of the 60s/70s (although not in the same ways or over the same issues.) What they said happened is that as Democrats have become more mainstream in that time they've adopted some of the concepts/traits of the Republicans (like on defense and fiscal responsbility) at least on certain levels.. which we might characterize as the gradual shift towards the right that the Democratic party has engaged in for some time now. Meanwhile the Republicans (and their 'traditional family values' platforms) have degraded since the 60s/70s until the things they believe are having less and less consistency with America as it is (the 'deterioriation of said traditional family values') - the stress between what they believe and what is is what (I suspect) pushes them towards the ideological side like the Tea Party (or as people here put it, they did not win because they weren't conservative enough.)

But an interesting speculation that occurs to me from that trend is that you might have the moderate Republicans (pushed away from their more radical and ideological bretheren in various camps - the TEa PArty, the Fundamentalists, etc.) and more towards the Democrats. They may not precisely 'unify' per se, but the cooperation between the 'mainstream' (less progressive) Democrats and the moderate Republicans *could* form a pretty powerful base, but it would be one surrounded by the ideological minorities of both sides.

As to how likely that is... I dont know. But I could sort of see it happening (although the consequences of such would be... worrisome, I think, since we're moving evne further away from the two party system and such a 'middle' coalition would be both influential in deciding policy and already used to dealmaking and being influenced by corporate and special interest lobbies.)

[Welf]

Now ragging on him aside, I have noticed - especially with the shutdown stuff on SB - alot of people outside of America were frankly bewildered about how pants-on-head stupid we were about doing things and letting the shutdown actually come about - its actually kind of hilarious people were actually understimating how crazy Americans seem to be, in a perverse and morbid sort of way.

On SDN of course, you're all used to this by now so its business as usual.

It is kind of confusing. It's not that we Europeans (or people on other continents) don't do national bankruptcies, too, or elect people with the mandate to default. But if we do that, we usually had a few years of runaway inflation, exploding interest service, failing government, lost wars or the like. The US has low inflation, and even borrows below that rate, has sound finances for the next 20 years and unemployment below 10%. It could be much better, but much much worse. And the debt limit wasn't even some intractable constitutional crisis, it was a simple law that could be overturned with a simple majority.
America really is a different country and not just cowboy-universe Europe. Neither worse nor better, just different.

[Ralin]

Hope they remember that sentiment at the next round of elections.

I doubt it. I keep hearing about how the shutdown has done a number on Republican credibility, but fuck it, everyone knew going in how crazy and evil they were. Anyone still voting for these people at this point has drunk the Kool-Aid and can be trusted to re-elect them time and again. At best it'll be a temporary setback.

[LaCroix]

That's the reality, strangely enough: from a society wide perspective the money Connor has stashed away would be better spent all at once on hookers and blow than just sitting there, doing nothing. Now obviously there are better and worse uses of money and having some stashed away for a rainy day is better than nothing, but the fact that he has to keep some money set aside just for survival's sake and even then there's no guarantee is damaging to both him, his family, and society at large.

It's one of the great calamities of US economy - to have a modicum of safety in the volatile job market, you need to have notable savings. Because of people saving instead of spending, the economy is worse off. Therefore, the job market becomes more volatile, and people react by saving more to prepare for that.

You could say that by giving everybody a safety net to fall back on, government is able to maximize customer spending, and thus, economy and tax income, for little to no cost (Since in most of these systems, the economy bears the most of the espenses for that safety net, by having it deducted from paychecks)

[Lagmonster]

Hope they remember that sentiment at the next round of elections.

Between the incredibly short memory of the voting public and how poor voter turnout is, I'm not hopeful.

I'd say it depends who gets to run, personally. How many people would vote for a shitty party just because their candidate appeals to some personal trait they admire?

[Broken]

Won't help, Broomstick, because a majority of voters in 2012 also though that the Democrats were better for the House. The GOP still retained control.

IIRC, an analysis/article on the New York Times website stated that with the way the House districts are gerrymandered so completely, Democrats need to win just under 7% more of the vote then the Republicans to even begin to have a shot at retaking the House majority. Hell, just look at North Carolina, 51% of House votes in 2012 were for Democrats but Republicans hold nine of the thirteen seats.