Dollar in Freefall, it's happening like I said

[laklak]

Nothing of consequence will happen. Nothing of consequence happened in any of the other shutdowns. Nothing of consequence happened in any of the other debt ceiling debacles. What the U.S. government does or does not do is not nearly as important as most Americans like to think. The world gets along OK even without us spending ourselves into penury. The defining characteristic of American politicians (and perhaps most of the rest of the buggers in the world) is hubris.

[Warren Dew]

Hardly in freefall - did not budge at all against Canadian.

MOved a bit against some other currencies but nothing significant

Yes. And what movement there was, was driven more by debt ceiling concerns than by the government "shutdown", as analysis of interest rates shows. There's a small amount of concern that the debt ceiling issue will interfere with timely payments on short term treasury bills - ones maturing in a month or so.

If anything, the government "shutdown" makes the debt situation better, as we're spending a lot less while the government is shut down.

[Ian]

That's two conservatives so far referring to the shutdown with quotation marks. Interesting.

[Warren Dew]

That's two conservatives so far referring to the shutdown with quotation marks. Interesting.

You're still getting paid, aren't you?

[Ian]

No...

[JimC]

I don't think the US makes anything worth buying any more. Maybe some bibles or sumfign.

Guns!

[Warren Dew]

No...

Interesting. I figured that Hagel would keep everyone aboard, since basically the entire DoD is in some sense doing things "in support of" the troops, for which funding was passed.

[Svartalf]

and books

[Ian]

If anything, the government "shutdown" makes the debt situation better, as we're spending a lot less while the government is shut down.

Wrong as usual. Lack of functioning costs perhaps a few hundred million per day. Besides, the deficit has been plunging in recent years. It tripled during Reagans terms, doubled during Bush's terms, and has been halved in the Obama years. But its nice to know you care about debt, even if you're not objective about it or care anything about context.

EDIT:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-576 ... taxpayers/
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-0 ... -says.html

[Warren Dew]

If anything, the government "shutdown" makes the debt situation better, as we're spending a lot less while the government is shut down.

Wrong as usual. Lack of functioning costs perhaps a few hundred million per day. Besides, the deficit has been plunging in recent years. It tripled during Reagans terms, doubled during Bush's terms, and has been halved in the Obama years. But its nice to know you care about debt, even if you're not objective about it or care anything about context.

EDIT:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-576 ... taxpayers/
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-0 ... -says.html

That's assuming they handle it the same way as under Clinton. If they don't reinstate back pay for government employees not working, they'll save money. They could save a lot if the so called "shutdown" lasts for a few months.

As for the federal deficit, you're just parroting progressive Democrat lies, whether or not you know it. The actual, inflation adjusted deficits, in the last years of Reagan's, Bush's, and Obama's terms:

Reagan 1984 $310 B
Reagan 1988 $232 B
Bush 2004 $426 B
Bush 2008 $422 B
Obama 2012 $718 B

And that's even after the Republicans won the House at the end of 2010 and started pushing the deficit down. Under Obama+Reid+Pelosi, the federal deficit was a whopping $1402 B in 2010 - as big as 2 years of Reagan plus 2 years of Bush in just one year of Obama!

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spe ... ed_Dollars

[Ian]

Keep dreaming. You're not even reading data from that website properly, nevermind accounting for context such as Obama inheriting the great recession. Cherry-picking is the way of the conservative nowadays: you form an opinion first, then go looking for your facts.

Your numbers are bogus, as should be expected of a tea partier. Here are some real numbers (inflation adjusted for 2012):

Reagan in 1981: -$140 B
Bush I in 1993 : -$400 B
Bush II in 2001: +$150 B
Bush in 2009: -$1.48 T
Obama in 2010: -$1.34 T
Obama in 2013: -$720 B

FYI: those numbers are from the OMB and even shown on the website of the fucking Heritage Foundation! Not exactly a left-biased source, eh?
First, get your facts straight, then make an opinion.

[Warren Dew]

Bush Obama in 2009: -$1.48 T

The 2009 budget was signed by Obama and included a $787 B pork barrel spending bill that was invented and pushed through by Obama. Even not including the rest of the deficit, Obama's extra spending managed to double the deficit in his first month in office!

[Ian]

That was a pork barrel spending bill, eh? Do tell.

And... it has still been cut in half since, with projections out to 2016 lower still.

[Warren Dew]

That was a pork barrel spending bill, eh? Do tell.

And... it has still been cut in half since, with projections out to 2016 lower still.

And the cut has been entirely since the Republicans took the House. We'd have had a balanced budget before now if it weren't for obstructionism on the part of Obama and the Democrats.

[Ian]

You don't say.