I don't hear what an extended shutdown will do for an already fragile economy.

Loss of jobs, furloughs, projects put on hold; whether by direct employees of the government or through contractors, all of that will have a negative impact on the economy.

Less dollars in the system, slower economy and everyone gets hurt, unless you are on a guaranteed fixed income or retired.

Fewer police officers = you know what.

Same applies to Federal regulators. Inadequate regulation and oversight led to the Bush financial meltdown and perhaps also the BP disaster. Obama had been ramping up regulators, but what will happen if they get shut down now?

Paul,

The Senate can keep the government running by voting for the Continuing Resolution that just cuts $12 billion from the budget. Do you support that?

And did you vote for Boxer? Because she is shutting down the government by not voting for the Continuing resolution to keep funding the government.

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

common,

Your favorite bill was a non-starter, a cynical, transparent attempt to blame the dems for a shutdown.

The present republican proposal is already too expensive--cutting 33 billion will pull an enormous amount of money from the economy at exactly the wrong time. But the dems have agreed to it. What they've said no to is the additional extortion by house republicans: radical rightwing demands on planned parenthood, abortion, foreign aid, greenhouse gases, health care, and financial regulation.

The house republicans are playing chicken with the economy. They are threatening to wreak havoc in pursuit of their radical ideological agenda. One can only hope that the republicans will remember they were elected to serve the American people, not play chicken with people's lives. (Note house republicans made voted down a bill that would have stopped congressional paychecks in the event of a shutdown, so they won't be paying a price....)

"Cutting 33 billion will pull an enormous amount of money from the economy . . ." This money doesn't exist in the first place, so the Congress doesn't have it. They need to cut 1.6 trillion, not 33 billion. Balance the budget, pay down the debt, stop printing and borrowing. Stop the insanity! The federal government needs to be aggressively chopped and pruned - too many entitlements, too much support for "planned parenthood, abortion, foreign aid, greenhous gases, health care and financial regulation."

ten18, well said.

We have gone from "a little" deficit spending in 2006 of about 170 billion, to 10 times that now, 1.6 TRILLION...more zeros than most of us even understand.

I heard a great perspective by McClintock

Our country is like a family making $50,000/year, spending $87,000/year and having already a $350,000 credit card debt.

What should that family do?

Stop spending more than they earn...stop borrowing...pay down their debt. Otherwise, bankruptcy is inevitable, or the kids and grandkids are saddled with paying off the parents' greedy spending desires, impoverishing themselves for the sins of their parents.

Our nation is in the same trouble.

Even just going back to the 2008 budget would go a long way toward turning this Titanic.

The hysteria around the gov't shut down was intended by the Dems to try to paint us into a corner. But, I believe we are awake now, and won't fall for the same old tired lines.

Once we turn this around, changing the attitude of the money-launderers of both parties in Congress and the WH, sending a strong message that we are back in business, our economy will explode again, more will be employed and paying taxes, and we can begin to pay off our debt.

BTW, all employees will be paid, the check may be just a little late is all. It isn't like they will never be paid. It is all hype.

The Republicans asked for $32 billion, the Dems gave $33 billion. The argument now is over the social issues the gop base wants - kill planned parenthood, etc...

ten: "The federal government needs to be aggressively chopped and pruned - too many entitlements, too much support for "planned parenthood, abortion, foreign aid, greenhous gases, health care and financial regulation.""

ten: Foreign aid accounts for how much of the federal budget, in your mind? Ask the military if they want to cut it. We use it as bribes for bases, etc.. more than for food.

Abortion is NOT funded by federal dollars, by law.

Cut financial regulation?!?!? Are you nuts? Give the keys to the asylum back to Wall Street?!?

At the very least, the wall street disaster of 2008 gave you President Barack Obama; McCain instantly dropped in the polls when Lehman, AIG, etc.. crapped out in September 2008. Because McCain's advisor, Phil Gramm is the guy who passed the bill that started it all, by repealing Glast-Steigal.

And then sank McCain by saying we were a nation of whiners, it's a "mental recession."

Cut financial regulation?!?

Perspective: "We have gone from "a little" deficit spending in 2006..."

Go back to 2008 or 2006? Why not go back further to a guy (the ONLY one) with a proven ability to balance the budget? Who's the only guy in decades to do it?
William Jefferson Clinton.

When's the last time a republican gave us a surplus? If you are serious, let's look at:

- Clinton era job growth
- Clinton era spending (lower than Bush!)
- Clinton era tax rates (for anyone making more than $250k a year)

It all started when Dick Cheney said "Reagan taught us that deficits don't matter" and killed the Clinton surplus.

Editor:

Thanks for the prompt attention.

You guys rock.

:)

The Clinton era economy was fueled almost solely with defense cuts. "The Peace Dividend" it was called. The Bush spending increase was primarily military catch up.

"The Clinton era economy was fueled almost solely with defense cuts."

Not true. There were across the board cuts, including the EPA and all sorts of programs. Don't you recall his ending "welfare as we know it" speech?

Before Bush ran our military into the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq, our military was in fine shape. We almost spend more on ours than all other military's COMBINED. Web Link

I note you ignored Dick Cheney's philosophy: It all started when Dick Cheney said "Reagan taught us that deficits don't matter" and killed the Clinton surplus.

Yes, and I remember his "It wasn't really sex" speech, too.
Sorry, Fraggie, but "Welfare as we know it" merely segued into "Welfare as we didn't believe possible." Our military was in fine shape as long as it didn't have to fight. Those "across the board cuts" were merely in increases, not in actual costs.

Walter:

The best argument you have against history and facts is to change the subject to Clinton's philandering. (what about those guys leading the charge against him? Foley, the one who cruised the young pages? Or three time, at least, Cheater Newt? and the airport bathroom guy from Idaho?)

Thanks for the validation that you've got nothing.

Zero. Zip. Nada.

You just can't admit that President Bill Clinton took the Bush/Reagan deficit structure and turned it into a SURPLUS, can you? And that Cheney/Bush destroyed our country, sold us off to the Chinese, Saudi's, even Iran, because "Reagan taught us deficits don't matter"

That's so sad, Walter. Are you that blinded by partisanship to not recognize when our great country prospered under a great leader?

You try and convince so many on these boards that you love your country.

Keep trying. Perhaps you can change the subject to another sex scandal. I hear Newt's recently been telling us he screwed around because he "loved his country too much" too.

But he claims he can't do it anymore because he's too old.

Would you like links to that?

Fragie, did you read the SECOND paragraph of my statement? Yet, again, these charges against me of partisanship. Bush was just democrat light. I am a libertarian.

Wally:

Did Bill Clinton take the Reagan/Bush41 deficits and create surpluses, which he handed to Bush 43, who then created monstrous deficits?

Are you willing to even acknowledge undisputed history?

So sad.

Bill Clinton spent the "Peace Dividend." That was his terminology, not mine. Based on subsequent developments, was that wise? I do not believe so.

Walter: want to try that again?

"The peace dividend is a political slogan popularized by US President George H.W. Bush and UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in the early 1990s, purporting to describe the economic benefit of a decrease in defense spending." What a couple of Commie Peaceniks!

What subsequent developments do you refer to? The budget SURPLUS?

Or Dick Cheney's remark: "Reagan taught us that deficits don't matter"

Or the great Clinton economy of the 90's?

Or a few less tanks and planes? (although more than enough to storm through Iraq)

Tough choice, eh, Walter? But you AGAIN ignored this:

"Did Bill Clinton take the Reagan/Bush41 deficits and create surpluses, which he handed to Bush 43, who then created monstrous deficits? Are you willing to even acknowledge undisputed history? So sad."