Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Shutdown Cost the US Economy $24 Billion

Unknown Lamer posted about a year ago | from the congress-blames-lazy-workers dept.

The Almighty Buck 767

Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Time Magazine reports that according to an estimate from Standard & Poor's, the government shutdown, which ended with a deal late Wednesday night after 16 days, took $24 billion out of the U.S. economy and reduced projected fourth-quarter GDP growth from 3 percent to 2.4 percent. The breakdown includes about $3.1 billion in lost government services, $152 million per day in lost travel spending, $76 million per day lost because of National Parks being shut down, and $217 million per day in lost federal and contractor wages in the Washington D.C. metropolitan area alone. Hundreds of thousands of federal workers bore the economic brunt of the shutdown but small businesses also suffered from frozen government contracts and stalled business loans. With the deal only guaranteeing government funding through January 15, the situation could grow worse. 'This is a real corrosion on the economy,' says Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody's Analytics. 'If we have to go down a similar road in the near future, the costs are going to continue to add up.'"

cancel ×

767 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Really? (2, Insightful)

XanC (644172) | about a year ago | (#45156171)

How much does ObamaCare cost the economy?

Re:Really? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45156197)

Latest estimate I've seen is 9.7T over 10 years.

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45156243)

That's about right. In a speech Obama gave in 2009, he said he wanted taxpayers to pay about 10% of their income for medical care. Considering total annual US income is about 13T, 970B/year is actually a bit lower than his original goal, so according to DC parlance, that means Obamacare is saving money.

I'll never understand that logic, but whatever. I'm not having kids and I'll be gone before the shit really hits the fan.

Re: Really? (5, Insightful)

loufoque (1400831) | about a year ago | (#45156517)

In my country, 20% of my income goes to health care, and everyone finds it normal.
It's the Americans that are weird.

Re: Really? (5, Insightful)

emj (15659) | about a year ago | (#45156597)

Actually they have been paying way more than us, well at least the people who where paying their insurance/hospitalbills.

Re: Really? (-1, Flamebait)

PortHaven (242123) | about a year ago | (#45156603)

That's probably because Imperial America also allows your country not to have to worry about defending itself and maintain a small token military. Just saying...

Re:Really? (2, Interesting)

DaHat (247651) | about a year ago | (#45156255)

That's a whole lot more than "not one dime"... granted plenty of us also haven't been able to keep our health insurance plan & doctor as promised... so what do I know?

Re:Really? (1)

thaylin (555395) | about a year ago | (#45156353)

It was because of the insurance companies and doctors themselves more than the ACA..

Re:Really? (1, Insightful)

DaHat (247651) | about a year ago | (#45156463)

Um, no... the ACA created an environment which the insurance companies and doctors responded to... ditto goes for UPS dropping spouses from coverage due to the ACA: http://www.businessinsider.com/ups-dropping-spouses-health-coverage-2013-8 [businessinsider.com] (to name just one of many such outcomes).

Sure, by yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded theater you are not directly killing people... but the obvious results of such an action are still on you, don't blame herd mentality (in the case of fire) or rational thought (in response to the ACA) for unfortunate but entirely predictable outcomes.

Which is the same reason we are seeing rather expensive plans on the exchanges (and elsewhere)... assuming you can sign up and browse.

Re:Really? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45156383)

That was the lowball estimate. The latest research I've seen is that Obamacare will cost the economy $500 trillion dollars over the next 5 years, will put about 467 million people out of work, and will require mandatory forced sterilizations of anyone who voted Republican or even *thought* about it.

Re:Really? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45156239)

If the GAO is correct, it will SAVE circa 4.8 billion per year thanks to outcome based payments

Re:Really? (1, Troll)

cold fjord (826450) | about a year ago | (#45156533)

It is easy to show "savings" if you double count them.

HHS Secretary Sebelius admits to double-counting in Obamacare budget [dailycaller.com]

Obamacare Remains a Budgetary and Policy Disaster [heritage.org]

CBO now projects that Obamacare’s Medicare and Medicaid cuts will reduce federal spending by over $700 billion over the coming decade. (Most of the cuts come from Medicare, although CBO did not break the estimate down by program.) However, these cuts are being double-counted.[4] The cuts are being used to replenish the Medicare trust fund for hospital and other institutional care and pay future Medicare claims. Over the next 75 years, this will add about $8 trillion to the government’s unfunded liabilities. Over the next decade, when the double-counted cuts are taken out of the equation, Obamacare adds at least $340 billion to projected budget deficits.

Medicare’s chief actuary has repeatedly pointed out that the cuts themselves are very unlikely to be sustained over the medium and long terms, because they would cause severe access problems for seniors. Defenders claim that Obamacare will slow the pace of rising Medicare costs by implementing more efficient ways of delivering services. However, Obamacare’s Medicare savings come from blunt, across-the-board payment rate reductions that are implemented without regard to the quality of care provided to beneficiaries.

Re:Really? (0)

DaHat (247651) | about a year ago | (#45156569)

Notice how you failed to provide any specific linkage to your claim?

Furthermore, is this prediction based on static or dynamic scoring?

I'd wager the prior, the same system which will predict a doubling of tax revenue if you simply bump all tax rates up by 100%... deliberately ignoring any secondary or tertiary effects.

Re:Really? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45156265)

How much does ObamaCare cost the economy?

Way less than the last few wars.

Re:Really? (-1, Troll)

cold fjord (826450) | about a year ago | (#45156559)

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were a minor addition to the existing budget for the Department of Defense. Obamacare will work its way past that quickly.

Re:Really? (-1, Troll)

geekoid (135745) | about a year ago | (#45156267)

negative, since it saves money and creates jobs, jackass.

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45156489)

yup all those jobs on the taxpayer dime. The rest of us just get to pay more for worse coverage and be lied to about how much "better" it is. Sorry I'd rather have more jobs for companies than 120k more IRS agents breathing down the public's collective neck

Re:Really? (5, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year ago | (#45156271)

How much does ObamaCare cost the economy?

How much does having your citizens not being able to afford medical care cost the economy?

Re:Really? (1, Insightful)

intermodal (534361) | about a year ago | (#45156339)

How much does ObamaCare cost the economy?

How much does having your citizens not being able to afford medical care cost the economy?

Bicker partisan issues all you want, it will justify neither one.

Re:Really? (2)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#45156377)

One could very well extrapolate from sources like unfunded emergency room visits, expensive treatments that could be addressed by preventative care, and comparisons against sane countries that that number comes out in multiple percent of GDP.

Unfortunately, the corporate middlemen we're stuck with in this particular plan mean that we aren't going to resolve much of that issue, and we get a nice half-measure.

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45156589)

Some citizens not getting health care might actually save money. I know this sounds terrible, but for some people it might not be cost-effective to keep them alive because their expected return is so low. Our options are:

1) Free market health care -- most economically efficient (regardless of ethics)
2) Socialized emergency care only -- most expensive
3) Socialized emergency and preventative care -- cheaper than (2), but not as cheap as (1)

Re:Really? (4, Insightful)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about a year ago | (#45156605)

It's bullshit that this is a -1. This is a legitimate question. When people with no healthcare wait until they need emergency services and then can't pay it that cost is picked up by all of us. If those people can get healthcare before it gets so bad for expensive ER visits it saves EVERYONE money.

Re:Really? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45156273)

The same amount if the government hadn't shut down.

Re:Really? (5, Interesting)

beatljuice (735526) | about a year ago | (#45156337)

First off, I don't want ObamaCare. But the fact is it was passed 3 YEARS ago and then vetted by the supreme court (I disagree with that decision by the way). The fiscal conservatives have had plenty of time to make changes to, or eliminate ObamaCare and haven't been able to. While I agree with the conservative stance on ObamaCare I also think the Republicans were basically throwing a temper tantrum here. I think they need to get some work done on small changes that might really happen instead of these big impossible tasks to make headlines. The government has grown unwieldy over the last century. We're not going to shrink it to a proper size in one election cycle.

Re:Really? (2)

Mr D from 63 (3395377) | about a year ago | (#45156343)

How much does increasing the cost of running a business cost us in the global economy?

Re:Really? (1)

vux984 (928602) | about a year ago | (#45156599)

How much does increasing the cost of running a business cost us in the global economy?

Because the best way to achieve our goals as a society is to compete with China by winning a race to the bottom?

Re:Really? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45156345)

It helps the economy. Walmart and other businesses were forcing their under paid workers to go on public assistance to get medical. Now private companies won't have to pay.

Obama care( the 80/20) rule has forced insurance companies to give back 2 Billon dollars to the consumers in California. I received money back as well as some firends. who are self-insured.

Obamacare law has passed. Attempting now to defund a passed law was a failed exercise by the right-wing tea party. Moderate Republicans also called the tea party,"loony", "crazy".

The Tea Party almost undermined the US dollar and any idiot who thinks that is a good idea needs to jump in front of a train.

Re:Really? (2)

SirGarlon (845873) | about a year ago | (#45156355)

Wrong question. Better question: What are the costs of Obamacare, and how do they shift compare to the current system?

Re:Really? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45156387)

With the fact that the US spends more per person on healthcare by a factor of 2 than the second country on the list (Norway), anything proposed next to checking people's wallet for an insurnace card and letting them code on the street if they are not covered is better than what we have now.

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45156399)

Spent $634 million on ObamaCare exchanges so far.

Re:Really? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45156415)

Obamacare saves the economy money. It doesn't cost anything.

Hold on there, my dear sir. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45156507)

How much does ObamaCare cost the economy?

Let's also include all the folks who go to the ER for "free" health care; which is ultimately passed on to insured patients.

Let's also consider the folks who have "pre-existing" conditions who can't get health care. They don't go off and just die. They get medical care - for free (there are quite a few docs who have a very BIG hearts and help folks who are TRULY in need as well as non-profit hospitals who must give SOME free care) .

Al those costs must be made up. So what do they do? Hire creative cost accountants who will bury it in other costs and bills. Perfectly compliant with FASB and IRS rules concerning non-profits and charities.

tl:dr: regardless of what you think or hear, we all pay one way or another for sick people - lost productivity, higher fees at the doc's office or hospital's, higher insurance fees, etc....

All "Obama Care" does is put more of it in our faces - and yes, hides some by taxing employers.

Whatever. I'm not going to argue this - and if you ask a 100 doctors, you'll get 60% of the opinions on either side (it's the joke).

We have to ask ourselves, do we want to be a culture of "Alpha Humans" and be stressed out about life's necessities or do we want to be "Beta Humans" and work together so that all of us have a decent life.

I'm all for letting the folks who nothing better to live for than striving to accumulate wealth for the sake of accumulating money, but let's not let their personality disorder affect us all.

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45156539)

How much does ObamaCare cost the economy?

It's a bit of a wash, either you pay for helping the uninsured through higher taxes, or they show up at the emergency room and then the hospital raises their fees and you pay for them through higher insurance premiums.

Re:Really? (1)

flyneye (84093) | about a year ago | (#45156563)

I was going to say;
"Yes, but how much would it have cost to keep the government open?"
"What if we only furloughed specific money hogs, like Congress, NSA, DHS, SRS, IRS and other non essential offices until the end of the Obama administration?
How much could we save?

The govenment should just double spending. (4, Funny)

HornWumpus (783565) | about a year ago | (#45156189)

Because doubling spending will fix the ecomony.

Re:The govenment should just double spending. (4, Insightful)

DaHat (247651) | about a year ago | (#45156277)

Clearly the preparers of this report believe in the parable of the broken window [wikipedia.org] and think it's a great way to dig yourself out of a hole and into prosperity.

I'd be happy to help... only I seem to have misplaced my slingshot...

Re:The govenment should just double spending. (4, Insightful)

lgw (121541) | about a year ago | (#45156295)

If shutting down the government for a few days hurts GDP noticeably, then that's your problem right there. BUt of course we knew this: government spending is almost 40% of GDP. That number is just so insane I have trouble accepting it (though most of that spending is checks mailed to old people who then spend it normally, and none of that was affected by the shutdown).

Re:The govenment should just double spending. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45156453)

That's average, and lower than other industrialized countries.

Re:The govenment should just double spending. (4, Interesting)

PoliTech (998983) | about a year ago | (#45156519)

Another fun fact is that there's no actual "debt ceiling" right now. At all.

The fiscal deal passed by Congress on Wednesday doesn't actually increase the debt limit. It just temporarily suspends enforcement of it. [dailycaller.com] We the people just gave a bunch of politicians a blank check.

Re:The govenment should just double spending. (5, Interesting)

dgatwood (11270) | about a year ago | (#45156527)

40% is still low [wikipedia.org] compared with most of the civilized world. Most of the countries that are significantly lower on the list also have a significantly lower standard of living than the U.S. The few exceptions almost all have either no military or a U.S.-supported military.

Re:The govenment should just double spending. (1, Troll)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year ago | (#45156571)

If shutting down the government for a few days hurts GDP noticeably, then that's your problem right there.

On the bright side: The taxpayer just saved $24 billion.

Re:The govenment should just double spending. (4, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#45156309)

Yes, let's ignore history and pretend that there are no boom and bust cycles, and lets also ignore legitimate economics and pretend there can be no effect on those by governments.

It's a little late to solve this particular economic rut by stimulus, as we're finally making our way out of it, and it will soon be time for sane austerity. But thanks for dogmatically screwing it up before.

Re:The govenment should just double spending. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45156365)

It'll have a better shot at it than halving spending.

Government spending being poured into the economy helps keep things moving, especially in a recession. The stimulus, for example, was exactly what needed done; the problem is it should have been done in such a way that people who buy goods and services got the money, not some congresscritter's banker cronies.

Re:The govenment should just double spending. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45156577)

No fucking kidding. What we need are more tax cuts for the job creators. NOTHING else has ever shown to boost the economy other than putting more money in the pockets of people who know how to spend it in style. Bush cut our taxes and things were great, then Obama got elected and the economy tanked. That should tell you something right there.

Let me guess (4, Insightful)

stewsters (1406737) | about a year ago | (#45156195)

Let me guess, all politicians all blame the "other side" and will let us know how much the "other side" cost us within the week.

Re:Let me guess (1, Flamebait)

Gr33nJ3ll0 (1367543) | about a year ago | (#45156257)

Yes, because both sides are always equal in culability. Just some random examples off the top of my head: Mugger/Muggee, Murder/Murdered, Rapist, Rape Victim. Yulp, definitely a LOT of blame to go around....

Re:Let me guess (4, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#45156439)

No, that's not fair. The democrats weren't the rape victim in this analogy. That'd be the rest of us. They're the frat brother calmly trying to talk the other one out of raping us while they do it.

Re:Let me guess (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45156467)

Wow from politics to rape analogies in the space of one post. That escalated quick. You need to include Nazis/Jews to meet your Godwin's law quota for today.

no...they blame *one* side... (0)

globaljustin (574257) | about a year ago | (#45156391)

Let me guess...you're one of the "it's all bullshit...they're all criminals....parties are sold out to same big biz..."

and on it goes ad infinitum

the parties are VERY different

your position is one of naivety & willful ignorance

Re:Let me guess (2, Informative)

cold fjord (826450) | about a year ago | (#45156437)

Nah, that is the job of the "non-partisan" media. Guess which way they broke on it?

Networks blamed shutdown on GOP in 41 stories --- 0 for Dems [washingtonexaminer.com]

You would never guess this, would you?

Journalists dole out cash to politicians (quietly) [nbcnews.com]

Msnbc.com identified 143 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 16 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties.

Do journalists' political donations (mostly Democratic) = news bias? [latimes.com]

You'll never guess what he says he found -- 235 journalists donating to Democrats while only 20 gave to Republicans for a total of $225,563 to Democrats and $16,298 to the the GOP-inclined. - See more at: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/07/media-politics.html#sthash.hhVKqE2Z.dpuf [latimes.com]

The media needs to get back to being consistently "equal opportunity bastards."

Where did that money go? (5, Insightful)

Mr D from 63 (3395377) | about a year ago | (#45156213)

How did all that money just leave the economy? Did someone give it away to another country?

Re:Where did that money go? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45156283)

It remained in the original pockets and will be spent on other things, or the same things but merely delayed. Moaning about $152,000,000 per day not being spent on travelling should be considered a massive bonus, not a negative.

Re:Where did that money go? (4, Insightful)

Enry (630) | about a year ago | (#45156307)

More like the government lost two weeks of productivity from its employees. And then there were the smaller businesses (coffee shops, dry cleaners, etc.) that didn't get their regular business since government employees were furloughed. When you have 800,000 people out of work and some other numbe rnot getting paid, people cut back on their spending. Will it pick up once government employees are paid for their time off? Probably, but it won't immediately show up (some may use it to pay back bills or penalties, some may save it in case this happens again in 3 months). Contractors that were furloughed are probably screwed out of the time they were off.

Re:Where did that money go? (1)

Mr D from 63 (3395377) | about a year ago | (#45156441)

On the flip side, some of those who were getting a little time off may have been out spending some money. If contractors were furloughed under the terms of their contract, then they should not consider themselves as screwed.

Re:Where did that money go? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45156493)

The government lost productivity from employees not working, but they're going to get paid anyway. Paid for work they didn't do. Cry my a river. I wish I could get a surprise 2 week paid vacation.

Re:Where did that money go? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45156317)

It's an S&P estimation of how much commerce failed to happen as a result of the shutdown. Lots of people cut off travel plans, tightened their belts, and so on; investment was effected to some degree, as well.

The shutdown cut back a lot of spending, both government and otherwise.

There's still a lot of fear that the shutdown's aftereffects could put a squeeze on the holiday quarter, especially if (for example) people with federally-funded jobs tighten back and don't do much holiday shopping out of fear of this shit happening again in January.

$24b is probably conservative to some extent, depending on if S&P was counting only the duration of the shutdown or was extrapolating for future aftereffects.

Re:Where did that money go? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45156417)

"Money" isn't real. Tasks and material substances have value. Many important tasks were not performed during this time. The number claimed is some estimation of the loss of value on the whole. The "money" didn't go anywhere. Instead, that value was not produced.

Re:Where did that money go? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45156451)

This is macro econ stuff.

If i borrow 1 dollar. I have to borrow it from someone. I then spend that dollar. That person then takes that dollar and puts it in the bank. Which can then be loaned out at a 'prime rate' plus a fixed amount of fixed collateral. I also spend that dollar. So 1 dollar became 2 (the original dollar 'in the bank being loaned out' plus the newly created dollar). Now someone has 1 dollar in the bank he can loan out as well.

So 1 dollar becomes 10 dollars. If this looks inflationary to you. It is. That is how they control the rate of growth. By changing the amount that can be borrowed at any one time by fiddling the prime rate.

So that 23 billion? What that means is the gov did not borrow a bunch of money to pay for things. Thus the GDP is lower. If you are now thinking 'wait a second does that mean GDP is propped up by the US gov?' Yes in a major way. It was one of the reasons the housing bubble was so bad because some key loans unwound. They had propped up a huge amount of the economy starting in about 1998 (where do you think all that .com money came from).

Re:Where did that money go? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45156509)

Are you one of those people who thinks a personal checking account is a good analogy for government economics?

Re:Where did that money go? (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year ago | (#45156593)

How did all that money just leave the economy?

It didn't, it stayed in the government coffers.

IOW The taxpayer just saved $24 billion...!

How much will the Slashdot outage (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45156223)

How much will the Slashdot outage cost the economy?

Meh. Do people think before they write this junk. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45156231)

Hundreds of thousands of federal workers bore the economic brunt of the shutdown

This should read, 100's of thousands of federal workers, got an extra 16 day paid vacation this year.

Hardly what I would call "bearing the economic brunt" of anything.

Re: Meh. Do people think before they write this ju (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45156279)

Wow. Just wow.

It's not a vacation when you don't plan for it, dont know when you're going to get paid and still have to meet all your financial responsibilities in the mean time. Sign me up... :/

Re: Meh. Do people think before they write this ju (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45156357)

dont know when you're going to get paid

Are you saying, federal workers cant look at the past history of shutdowns, see that for every single one of them, everyone got paid, and figure out that they will get paid ?

Are you saying, federal workers cant look at the history of shutdowns, and determine how long they lasted on average, and figure out when they will get paid ?

meet all your financial responsibilities

Federal workers are doing just fine. They are getting paid, same as they always have, or are you saying, they all ran out and financed new cars and had heart attacks because they thought the government they helped run was finally going under ?

If you want to cry rivers, cry them for all the private sector businesses, that have been practically bankrupted. Not only did their revenues drop to 0 because Obama shut down parks that didn't need to be shut down, they still have to pay for Obamacare, and for all those federal workers extra vacation.

Re: Meh. Do people think before they write this ju (1)

DaHat (247651) | about a year ago | (#45156381)

It's not a vacation when you don't plan for it

Yes it is, same goes for being put on 'paid leave' if you are a cop, teacher or other official who is under investigation.

dont know when you're going to get paid

So... because those people are unwilling to put aside a small buffer to allow themselves some wiggle room in case of a minor disruption in their pay... we should be horrified for them? God help them if they get a check every two weeks and their car breaks down... preventing them from going to the bank to deposit it! How will they pay their bills? For that matter... how will they fix their car?!?!

and still have to meet all your financial responsibilities in the mean time.

Except for debts to the mob... failure to pay on time once rarely results in catastrophic results. More often than not something can be worked out. Heck, I've credit cards who won't bump my interest or report me as tardy to the reporting agencies unless I've missed 3 subsequent payments (a benefit I've never taken advantage of).

Re: Meh. Do people think before they write this ju (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45156471)

Wow. Just wow.

It's not a vacation when you don't plan for it, dont know when you're going to get paid and still have to meet all your financial responsibilities in the mean time. Sign me up... :/

Sign me up. Seriously. I don't need to plan. I can spend 16 days cleaning the house, working in the yard, taking the kids to the local playground, and other stuff, all on a moments notice. That's a vacation I'd love. If they forced you to take it out of your vacation time or make it up by working 16 Saturdays, that would be a different matter, but as far as I know, that's not what's happening.

As for the financial aspect, it shouldn't have caused anyone hardship to have their paychecks delayed a bit. You should have at least a few months saved up to pay bills. Any bills that arrived during this time should have already been planned for. The only financial hardship would be for those who aren't financially responsible, and in that case, it's the irresponsibility that is causing the hardship.

Re:Meh. Do people think before they write this jun (1)

Enry (630) | about a year ago | (#45156321)

...and they haven't been paying anything for the past two weeks. And as I said above, the government has lost those two weeks of productivity.

Re:Meh. Do people think before they write this jun (5, Insightful)

spiffmastercow (1001386) | about a year ago | (#45156367)

Hundreds of thousands of federal workers bore the economic brunt of the shutdown

This should read, 100's of thousands of federal workers, got an extra 16 day paid vacation this year.

Hardly what I would call "bearing the economic brunt" of anything.

Or, ya know, "hundreds of thousands of federal workers had to choose between predatory payday loans or defaulting on their mortgages while waiting to get paid and sitting at home every day waiting to find out if they can go back to work". Not quite the same thing as a vacation when you a.) didn't get your last paycheck, and b.) don't know when you have to go back to work.

Re:Meh. Do people think before they write this jun (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45156491)

It takes far longer than 2 weeks to "default on their mortgages."

Stop fabricating issues when they don't exist, it just makes you look foolish.

Re:Meh. Do people think before they write this jun (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45156481)

This should read, 100's of thousands of federal workers, got an extra 16 day paid vacation this year.

Don't blame the workers for not being able to do their jobs. Instead blame the politicians who refused to do their jobs and still got paid.

Oh how I love this game! (2, Insightful)

s.petry (762400) | about a year ago | (#45156251)

It cost 24 billion dollars? Based on.. any number of imaginary things they want to show it cost them right? We must keep spending money we don't have, and we must keep increasing the amount of debt we have or we are all going to die right?

I mean to say, we have to spend this for the Children, and the children just lost 24Billion dollars! If you deny their right to spend, you are a "conspiracy theorist" to boot, so shaddup!

Re:Oh how I love this game! (4, Funny)

dyingtolive (1393037) | about a year ago | (#45156297)

What I want to know is how much it would have cost the US economy for the government to keep running during that period of time.

Re:Oh how I love this game! (0)

skids (119237) | about a year ago | (#45156425)

Umm, negative 24 billion dollars? That is after all, what they are attempting to assess with this figure.

Re:Oh how I love this game! (1)

dyingtolive (1393037) | about a year ago | (#45156465)

...well, I was attempting to crack wise based upon the parent comment's statement of the value being imaginary.

I'm either unfunny, or I need a disclaimer saying that if there's any way you can not take my comments seriously, that's the way you should take them.

Re:Oh how I love this game! (3, Insightful)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about a year ago | (#45156301)

I haven't heard anyone arguing that figure. You think a government shutdown is free? Workers sitting at home are still giong to be paid for work they didn't do. Add to that this stupid stunt adds fuel the Chinese argument to move to an international (i.e. non-U.S.) financial base for the world economy that doesn't rely on our currency or bonds.

Re:Oh how I love this game! (1)

s.petry (762400) | about a year ago | (#45156579)

I haven't heard anyone arguing that figure. You think a government shutdown is free? Workers sitting at home are still giong to be paid for work they didn't do. Add to that this stupid stunt adds fuel the Chinese argument to move to an international (i.e. non-U.S.) financial base for the world economy that doesn't rely on our currency or bonds.

How can anyone logically argue with someone's imagination? First, the Government has NO money! The people have money, the government does not. The government can only spend money other people earn.

Milton Friedman says it much better than I can, go have a listen.

As to the rest of your FUD.. well, it's FUD! Fiat is a value of NOTHING! If we were on a Gold standard and they had somehow reduced the value gold you would have a point. Almost every country today uses fiat money, not actual value to determine what they are worth. In fact the last few countries that tried to implement a real standard (based on Gold) were invaded and destroyed. Do you think that Libya trying to move to a Gold standard, in addition to helping other African nations establish a currency based on real material value, had nothing to do with the civil war backed by Western countries? Sorry, you have some homework to do.

Re:Oh how I love this game! (2)

intermodal (534361) | about a year ago | (#45156305)

It's called fuzzy math. If the numbers don't work, your political views must be wrong.

Re:Oh how I love this game! (4, Insightful)

spiffmastercow (1001386) | about a year ago | (#45156319)

It cost 24 billion dollars? Based on.. any number of imaginary things they want to show it cost them right? We must keep spending money we don't have, and we must keep increasing the amount of debt we have or we are all going to die right?

I mean to say, we have to spend this for the Children, and the children just lost 24Billion dollars! If you deny their right to spend, you are a "conspiracy theorist" to boot, so shaddup!

How is it difficult to believe this number? Considering that we have to pay 800,000 people for time they didn't (couldn't) work, yet we lost 17 days of productivity from each one of them, that comes to $1764 in lost productivity per employee, not counting all kinds of other non-personnel costs. I find that number entirely reasonable, if not a bit low.

APOD (1)

Skiron (735617) | about a year ago | (#45156259)

I missed that. Good to see it up again.

The whole point (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45156275)

turns out to be that tea baggers (and I'm being polite) were actually extorting the right to continue the extortion that gave us permanent crippling tax cuts for the top 2%, the sequester and the continuation of the F-35 despite it's demonstrated worthlessness.
All three have been pushed through by threat of shutdown and now, because Obama did not demand and TAKE a concession from the teagaggers, we can look foreward to this whole nonsense playing again in January.
Remember their mission...to put white male Republicans in charge even though they lost the election by 1.8 million votes in the House.

wait what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45156287)

salaries provided by a government that is bankrupt and borrowing money to make payroll should not be included in economy stats

government doesn't produce anything! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45156293)

The government doesn't produce anything and some portion is an artificial market created by government activities. Real wealth comes from serving real markets and people's needs. The other huge problem is the amount of debt accumulation is way faster than at any time in history. If this isn't slowed the economy will come to a crashing halt.

Re:government doesn't produce anything! (2)

skids (119237) | about a year ago | (#45156495)

The government doesn't produce anything

I'm sure S&P will be persuaded of that as soon as you drive on over there without using any government-produced product and tell them to their faces.

The real problem (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45156325)

The real problem is not that there should not have been a shutdown. The problem is that the shutdown should not have cost so much. The government is too deeply entrenched in the economy.

Granted, shutdowns of regulatory bodies is expected to cost money, since that is expected to block business activity. Anything else just seems like a washington money spigot got closed that should not have been there in the first place.

I'm not surprised... (4, Funny)

Bartles (1198017) | about a year ago | (#45156349)

...that it cost 24 billion to put up a bunch of paper signs, orange cones, and flimsy barricades.

It's okay though .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45156363)

... because that's what jeebus wanted.

Democrats directly responsible for most losses (0, Flamebait)

SuperKendall (25149) | about a year ago | (#45156369)

The Democrats decided what was and was not essential. They are the ones who decided to shut down small businesses that had anything to do with national parks, even if they were self sustaining.

If two weeks of shutdown can cause that much economic damage, then it's pretty obvious government is way too large and lots of things need to be pushed back to the states - which were already starting to fund national parks, for example.

Re:Democrats directly responsible for most losses (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45156549)

It's hilarious you think the national parks talking point ever worked, but almost pathetically sad that you're still using it.

Re:Democrats directly responsible for most losses (5, Insightful)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | about a year ago | (#45156587)

Actually you can blame Joe Boehner for following the "Hastert Rule" and not allowing the budget bill to come up for a vote even though there was enough support for it to pass in the first place.

Partisan politics aside, you can't rule your house in an undemocratic manner and expect people to take you seriously when you blame the other party for all the trouble.

Was it worth it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45156393)

All this just to keep a Boner?

wrong and misleading; no Gov = more weath (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45156397)

I think this wrong and misleading.

Consider. Say we tax someone $100. That money originally would have paid say someone's salary, and they would have worked and created wealth. We would have had $110 at the end of the day.

But - we taxed them. So now we, the Government, hold $100. That $10 of wealth creation has been forestalled. What do we now do with this $100? we spend it - but not on something which creates wealth. We spend it on providing possibly unnecessary and certainly inefficient Government services, like the patent office.

According to S&P, that money by not being spent in the shutdown has been lost from the economy - the wages of those in the patent office were not paid.

Well now - it looks to me like we did better, not worse, by what happened. S&P's report is wrong and misleading, because it seems not to understand the difference between spending money and creating wealth and taxing, then spending, and not creating wealth.

Horseshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45156419)

Just because $24B wasn't spent somewhere, doesn't mean it's gone. It's still in the hands of whoever didn't spend it. It's a zero sum game.

Furthermore - $3.1B in "lost government services" sounds like the government saved $3.1B. Wonderful - I expect they'll lower taxes right away.

Open air parks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45156431)

How much did it cost to keep free open air parks closed and keep people out?

Re:Open air parks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45156487)

Less money than it would have cost to scrape the clown face off of an unguarded Lincoln Memorial.

The US government shut down? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45156447)

Wait, when did this happen? I haven't heard anything about it.

So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45156461)

Land of the free. Home of the brave. ... but you guys aren't much smart, are you?

rs

Saved $24 billion. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45156485)

I think you meant that it saved $24 billion.

I'm loving the informed comments! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45156523)

From all the qualified economists on Slashdot!

They did it for "branding purposes" (4, Insightful)

globaljustin (574257) | about a year ago | (#45156529)

The shutdown was for nothing more than 'branding' of their party [crooksandliars.com] .

That's not governance in any way shape or form...

Any GOP congressman who voted for the shutdown should be arrested.

I call BS, inflated figures, and invasive .gov (1)

PortHaven (242123) | about a year ago | (#45156581)

Okay, let's look at this with some Reason.

$3.1 billion in lost government services - what did this include? the numerous websites that were taken down deliberately without need? the fact that crab fisherman couldn't receive their quotas? these are failings of being wholly too reliant on government, worse and poorly run government. There is no reason fisherman should of had to stop working. Seriously, there should of been a plan that simply outlined the contingency of the catch.

$152 million per day in lost travel spending - remember, most of the shut down travel areas were shut down merely for spite, not as a result of the government shutdown. These actions were never taken during the prior 17 shut-downs.

$217 million per day in lost federal and contractor wages - which are all now being paid, in fact most contractors were still working because their projects are funded by pre-allocated fixed price contracts.

Now, the real question you have to ask yourself is why the hell the Federal government has to approve every single new beer recipe, label and what not. If there is anything this government shut down has shown, it is just how pervasive, invasive, and hideous our government institution is at present.

But relax all, we still got to golf, right?

***

If our economy takes that huge of GDP drop from such a meager shutdown, than we have far far more problems economically.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?