Slashdot Mirror


Shutdown Cost the US Economy $24 Billion

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.'"

109 of 767 comments (clear)

  1. Really? by XanC · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How much does ObamaCare cost the economy?

    1. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

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

    2. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

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

    3. Re:Really? by DaHat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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?

    4. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How much does ObamaCare cost the economy?

      Way less than the last few wars.

    5. Re:Really? by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How much does ObamaCare cost the economy?

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

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    6. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    7. Re:Really? by beatljuice · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Look for a reason to smile you jaded #*^ *(%$
    8. Re:Really? by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 2

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

    9. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    10. Re:Really? by SirGarlon · · Score: 2

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

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    11. Re:Really? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 2

      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.

    12. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

    13. Re: Really? by loufoque · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    14. Re: Really? by emj · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    15. Re:Really? by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    16. Re: Really? by NFN_NLN · · Score: 2

      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...

      And all we had to do was sell oil at below market rate to the US. (which country am I)?

    17. Re: Really? by loufoque · · Score: 2

      American Imperialism is hurting my country's sovereignty more than it is protecting it...

    18. Re:Really? by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      If the American position is truly "let them die and get it over with", then America as a society is pretty much fucked and deserves what they get.

      But don't go around the world pretending like you're the defenders of human rights and liberties. The rest of the world doesn't buy into your myths about yourselves.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    19. Re:Really? by Nadaka · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Free market health care is NOT the most economically efficient.

      A free market only functions when both parties have approximately equal negotiating power, are fully informed and not under threat.

      By its nature, healthcare decisions are almost always made under threat of a cost to ones health or life, and since the alternative is to die, the victim...patient has no negotiating power.

    20. Re:Really? by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      first off, hospitals are required to treat emergency medical situations

      Only the emergency part, no ongoing care. Nothing preventative ... just enough to say you occasionally provide some medical care.

      second, many of the uncovered treatments are often just prolonging the arrival of death

      Or, you know, you invest in preventative medicine so it doesn't come down to "sorry, you're terminal, we don't care". So instead of waiting to force people to go for meager emergency care, actually work to have a healthy population like the rest of the civilized world tries to do. Because then those people might actually be working and contributing to your economy instead of waiting to die.

      This is why you go in for a small treatment and it costs $5,000.

      No, this is why I'm glad I don't live in America, where if you're rich you can have anything you want, and if you're poor you're 'surplus population'.

      The rest of the world looks at the US stance on this and shakes their heads. But, hey, if America wants to be known as heartless bastards where life is cheap, that's your choice.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    21. Re:Really? by PortHaven · · Score: 2

      And I've got an ice palace in Aruba I'd like to sell you....

    22. Re:Really? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 2

      You think people without insurance get routine testing and examinations? I mean, it goes off the rails at that very basic problem. We're not talking about going in for a "cheaper" treatment for every cold in case it's stage 1 cancer. We're talking about getting occasional physical checkups. Prescribing blood pressure medication rather than treating a stroke.

    23. Re:Really? by Anonymous+Psychopath · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How much does ObamaCare cost the economy?

      An extra $24B now, thanks to those incompetent assholes in Washington.

      --

      Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

    24. Re:Really? by femtobyte · · Score: 2

      I'm sure all those secondary and tertiary effects --- like having a larger proportion of the populace receiving regular medical care than before --- will be just terrible for the economy. Just imagine, all those millions of citizens now able to access medical care before reaching emergency room crisis level, being healthier and more productive. Nothing tanks an economy and drains money from government coffers like improved health and quality of life for the populace!

      Oh, wait, that's just not true. Care to say why you think all the "deliberately ignored" secondary and tertiary effects of broadening healthcare access won't be a net improvement for everyone (populace, private sector, government spending/revenue), like it generally is in every other documented case?

    25. Re: Really? by g0bshiTe · · Score: 2

      Tell that to Wall street.

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    26. Re: Really? by isorox · · Score: 5, Informative

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

      17.9% of American GDP goes on health care, or an average $7,960 per person per year

      Compare to Canada, which is 11.4% and $4,314 per person per year

    27. Re: Really? by SirGarlon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Many Americans pay a comparable amount, but don't realize it because the full costs of health insurance are hidden. Employers pay a big portion of the health-insurance premium. If you combine the premiums, the portion of premiums that employers pay (~80% in my case), out-of-pocket costs like deductibles, plus the Medicare tax, it adds up to more than 20% of my gross income.

      I personally think it is crazy to have employers responsible for their employees' health plans, but that's the way we do things here and no one is seriously talking about changing it.

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    28. Re:Really? by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You have a very odd definition of "minor". Caring for injured veterans for the rest of their lives will cost most of a trillion dollars.

      FY2003 Supplemental: Operation Iraqi Freedom: Passed April 2003; Total $78.5 billion, $54.4 billion Iraq War
      FY2004 Supplemental: Iraq and Afghanistan Ongoing Operations/Reconstruction: Passed November 2003; Total $87.5 billion, $70.6 billion Iraq War
      FY2004 DoD Budget Amendment: $25 billion Emergency Reserve Fund (Iraq Freedom Fund): Passed July 2004, Total $25 billion, $21.5 billion (estimated) Iraq War
      FY2005 Emergency Supplemental: Operations in the War on Terror; Activities in Afghanistan; Tsunami Relief: Passed April 2005, Total $82 billion, $58 billion (estimated) Iraq War
      FY2006 Emergency Supplemental: Operations Global War on Terror; Activities in Iraq & Afghanistan: Passed February 2006, Total $72.4 billion, $60 billion (estimated) Iraq War
      FY2007 Emergency Supplemental (proposed) $100 billion
      FY2008 Bush administration has proposed around $190 billion for the Iraq War and Afghanistan[6]
      FY2009 Obama administration has proposed around $130 billion in additional funding for the Iraq War and Afghanistan.[7]
      FY2010 Obama administration proposes around $159.3 billion for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.[8]

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War

    29. Re: Really? by Bengie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Society is a socialist idea. Nomads or go home.

    30. Re: Really? by loufoque · · Score: 2

      That's because you're rich. The whole point of the system is that the rich pay more so that the poor can pay less.

    31. Re: Really? by chill · · Score: 4, Informative

      UPS only dropped coverage on employee spouses who had insurance through their own employer. Any who didn't are still covered by UPS. What is wrong with that?

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    32. Re: Really? by Teun · · Score: 5, Insightful
      "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."

      A great and historic statement and still true, in your mom's basement or your SoCal estate, you don't live on your own.

      Evidence from countries with a functioning public health care shows that compared to the present US system costs can be dramatically reduced.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    33. Re:Really? by X0563511 · · Score: 4, Funny

      And I am not sure that finding out you have high blood pressure, really does much in the long run except maybe prevent you from dying of a heart attack earlier.

      Clearly that's something nobody should care about, I mean what... death? Peh! Hardly an inconvenience.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    34. Re:Really? by Bartles · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'll compare apples to apples.

      http://www.cbo.gov/latest/National-Security/Iraq-and-Afghanistan

      http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44176

      It should be noted that the cost for the wars contain 12 years of appropriations and are actual, while the costs for the ACA contain 10 years of projections.

    35. Re:Really? by EzInKy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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).

      "UPS has decided, as a result of increased costs and provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), to stop covering employee's spouses who can get coverage from their own employer..."

      Why do you see that as a problem? It only makes to me that they would want to quit carrying burdens that other employers should be shouldering.

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    36. Re:Really? by ultranova · · Score: 2

      How much does ObamaCare cost the economy?

      Does it matter? The economy exists to serve human needs, and getting healthcare while avoiding personal bankruptcy is one of them.

      On the other hand, holding your country - and, arguably, the world economy - hostage in a bid to further your political ideology is a weird combination of pitiful and evil. And it will end up costing far more than $24 billion, for example by giving credibility to China.

      But I guess every country has the leaders it deserves.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    37. Re:Really? by Aereus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Raising and educating people costs a lot of money. It's a loss to the economy and country as a whole if someone drops dead at age 50 from a preventable illness. That's at least 15 years of lost tax revenue and use of the education, not to mention possible passing on of that expertise to future generations.

      IMHO Life Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness is a lot harder without healthcare. The well-being of citizens should be one of the primary goals of governance, and as such shouldn't be profited upon by corporations.

    38. Re: Really? by loufoque · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A couple of thousand years.

    39. Re: Really? by loufoque · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Somehow Americans have been led to believe that they're the caretakers of world and that they represent democracy and all that is just worldwide, but the truth is, everywhere their army goes, it's rejected and is doing more harm than anything else, because people do fine on their own with their own way of living.
      All the world has been asking is for the US to leave the rest of the world on its own.

    40. Re: Really? by Dishevel · · Score: 2

      Its cute that you think like that. The US has run its course. The citizens have become lazy and entitled as did the Europeans and we shall suffer the same fate. We will become more lazy, more stagnant and more entitled until the system collapses.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    41. Re: Really? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Informative

      In America we spend 25% of our income to buy health insurance. This gives us the key to the golden door of treatment, but are expected to pay 90% of the actual expense of treatment out of pocket due to deductibles/uncovered amounts/location of treatment/etc. If we actually develop a real ailment that would require insurance coverage to pay, our insurance companies fight tooth and nail to take back our golden key.

      Had a bone marrow transplant last year. I'm still being treated for same. So far, insurance has paid everything without a quibble, and my total out-of-pocket has been a few thousand dollars.

      Note that this followed several bouts of chemotherapy that were also paid without a quibble.

      No, my insurance is not a "cadillac plan", it's the middle-of-the-road plan offered by my employer.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    42. Re: Really? by Sique · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You can always short the waiting lists if you reduce the number of people entitled to wait.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    43. Re: Really? by peragrin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      funny I was making $33k a year and health care was costing me $6k annually. with a pretty much guaranteed 10% increase annually.

      I don't know why anti ACA (Obamcare branding is a product of the conservative media) people think the health care industry is okay when they boost rate 10% annually and have done so for at least 15 years. (the lowest increase I have received was 7%, the highest was 15%)

      And that was crappy health insurance with a $2000 deductible before it would cover ANYTHING.

      50 million people in the USA couldn't afford any healthcare period. how is the "greatest nation" fail to take care of it's own.

      I don't even like the ACA. I personally think most employers should get out of the health care and retirement system altogether. My boss doesn't have to sponsor my Auto insurance. Why do they have to sponsor my health insurance?

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    44. Re: Really? by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      China doesn't have nearly the imperialism the US has. But with today's capabilities, China would be incapable of taking and holding anything in the continental US, even with no standing army.

      But lets just invent enemies that are going to invade tomorrow if we don't keep killing Arabs.

    45. Re: Really? by Quasimodem · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Socialism doesn't work well in a society which publicly refers to their poorest citizens as trash, or differentiates between worthwhile citizens and said trash.

      Then again, neither does a democracy or a republic.

    46. Re:Really? by DaHat · · Score: 2

      Just like with Obamacare... everyone is covered, never mind the cost.

      Usually... a single group plan to cover a couple of adults (and maybe a kid or three) costs less than separate plans for each member, what is being done here will almost certainly the overall cost to the household... because if it didn't, chances are the family in question would have been on the other persons insurance.

      Again, I have no problem with what UPS doing, I am simply pointing out some of the many losers who are now taking a hit because of this poorly thought out law.

    47. Re: Really? by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The fact that you have the opportunity to succeed beyond your wildest dreams or crash and burn because you can't compete.

      You're so right. There are no entrepreneurs in Canada, Britain, Germany, Japan or France. Heck, look at Korea - Samsung, Daewoo and LG are definitely run by socialist pussies.

    48. Re:Really? by Sique · · Score: 2

      And private charity works so great in the U.S. that 40 mio are without any care?

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    49. Re:Really? by khallow · · Score: 2

      Free market works when people want stuff, not when they NEED it

      Like those damn food monopolies?

      Free market works whether you want it or NEED it.

    50. Re: Really? by Luckyo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because they have a vested interest in you staying healthy. That is not infecting other workers and being as productive as possible. It makes financial sense to sponsor better and faster access to health care because losses from having worker not have health care of have access to health care gated by long queues would cause more losses.

      Many EU countries have similar system, where you have a state system, and employer can sponsor their workers to get into private clinic that specializes in work place related sickness only as opposed to general practitioner who handles everything (including everything else for said worker).

    51. Re:Really? by rjstanford · · Score: 2

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

      Tons.

      Oh, unless you're running any business that requires higher-compensated staff than a McDonalds does. You see, when I hire someone, I have to pick up the remarkably large tab for their healthcare anyway, but as a small business I pay way more than (for example) IBM would, and often get an inferior product. Makes it much trickier to compete with them, don't'cha know.

      Yes, the ACA is far more expensive than having free healthcare from the mystical medical fairy. But that's not what it should be compared to - decent cost with a good plan costs most companies $500+/month already - if an employee chooses to cover their spouse and kids you can triple that (whether paid by the employer or the employee, its still a cost).

      The thing is that the ACA helps to level the field somewhat. If someone wants to start their own business they can pay lower big-company rates for a real plan, and not lose it when they leave their employer. Same if a small company wants to buy competitive insurance for their employees.

      In many ways it substantially lowers the cost of running a business. Single payer like most other countries have would lower it more, of course - making it far more reasonable to go off and be entrepreneurial without risking the life of your family (pre-ACA, if someone got cancer when they were uninsured, even if they kicked it, they'd never get private insurance again).

      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
    52. Re: Really? by DaHat · · Score: 2

      I'm jealous... many a cow I've seen has a field for it's use... even sometimes a barn where they get to sleep & eat... curse my employer making me buy/rent my own place... not to mention not providing a bed!

    53. Re: Really? by DaHat · · Score: 2

      Bigger question is "When will the outrage begin on /. over healthcare.gov is violating a (FOSS) software license?": http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obamacare-website-violates-licensing-agreement-copyrighted-software_763666.html

    54. Re:Really? by SleazyRidr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Obama has been elected twice by using the Affordable Care Act as a major part of his platform. America has spoken, twice. Apparently they'll need to speak at least a third time for you to listen.

    55. Re:Really? by stinerman · · Score: 2

      Do you know it was because of the ACA or did UPS use the ACA as a scapegoat to do something they've wanted to do for awhile?

      Competitive businesses can't just cut benefits like that without some backlash and losing some employees due to it. Now they've got a convenient excuse. "Yeah, your wife can't be on the plan anymore...I know, I know it's not our fault, it's that damn Obamacare."

    56. Re:Really? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      I think the really annoying part of the recent crisis was where the House was actually willing to vote for the budget with no attempts to muck around with Obamacare, and it was solely about procedural rules being used to prevent this from happening by not bringing up this vote (and actively blocking the attempts of other people to bring it up - e.g. that amendment in House rules where they removed the ability of any member to call the vote when a bill runs into a deadlock).

    57. Re:Really? by srichard25 · · Score: 2

      Obama has been elected twice by lying about the ACA. Watch how popular it is when the younger generation are forced to pay for health insurance that they don't need.

    58. Re: Really? by rmdashrf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Those people you call parasitic thrash are trying to do the best they can do in their situation. The same YOU would be doing if you were ever to wind up in their situation.

      The problem is not the fairly small amount of economic refugees taking bits off of the bottom of the economy, it's the established upper 1% that are milking the sheeple for all they have that are the problem. They're the parasites; the economic refugees usually take on the jobs you probably feel above doing.

      Looks like they've done a good job convincing you that the problem is caused by the 'parasitic thrash'. You would have been a great asset to the NSDAP some 70 years ago. Now pick up that can citizen, get in line and show me your papers.

      --
      Nihil in publicum sputa.
    59. Re: Really? by Dare+nMc · · Score: 2

      I will just point out, it is more than just one number. It so happens that Sweden has the highest GDP government expenditure on education in the world. In the USA a doctor will likely run up a $200k in loans, similar doctor in Sweden will be 1/10 of that thanks to government $. That isn't in the per capita number above, but is a big impact. Doctors are not paid as much, yet they don't have to be.

    60. Re:Really? by DexterIsADog · · Score: 2

      Once again - raising the debt ceiling is NOT giving the President more money to borrow, it's so we can pay for what the CONGRESS already allocated to spend!

      And the "current budget" you mentioned is the level of spending at the sequester level, not an increased budget.

      The principle here is that the President refused to allow the crazy wing of the Republican party to use the economic health of the country, and likely the world, as a bargaining chip. Sane adults don't do that.

      If you think we need "a real fight with real consequences to tighten our belts and enter a season of sacrifice" and you defend the Republicans who were trying to push the U.S. into another devastating recession, you are neither sane nor an adult.

    61. Re: Really? by Dare+nMc · · Score: 3, Interesting

      > If you ask for proof I give you the VA.
      I would be interested in what is wrong with the VA healthcare? Everyone I know loves it, Vet was helping me and broke his fingure, was from out of town, he was back in 1 hour after paying $10, when I broke my finger I was in the waiting room for 4 hours before seeing a Dr. Only complaint I have heard of, is getting disability pay from the VA, otherwise it is great, and the taxpayer cost per person seams better than private.

      Until the last sentence I thought you were pro government. Similar with Social security, the program would be self sufficient and a great idea, other than the general deficit. The fact we spent the $1 trillion dollar surplus from SSN on a dumb war, and the bush tax cuts, it would be doing great on it's own.

      >Why would you take a system that a vast majority of the population is satisfied with, massively increase the cost

      What? who was happy with a system who's cost was sprialing up, while services provided were spiraling down? Causing 1/2 of all bankruptcies in the country? Only the insurance companies were happy with it.

    62. Re: Really? by Aighearach · · Score: 4, Interesting

      My boss doesn't have to sponsor my Auto insurance. Why do they have to sponsor my health insurance?

      Because wages were frozen during WWII so companies added insurance in place of higher wages. And then later, the conservatives used the widespread existence of employer-provided health care as an excuse for why we didn't need a national program, when the rest of the world was getting modernized enough to have national programs. It was touted as a better, more American way to do it. Years later where we get less care for the same money, with hugely increased paperwork and overhead, we can simply measure if it was better or not.

      It was never an "American way," though, it was just an American accident of history that we got stuck with because of partisan BS.

    63. Re:Really? by davester666 · · Score: 2

      You forgot the death panels that will order the death of every Republican aged 20 or older.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    64. Re:Really? by TheNastyInThePasty · · Score: 2

      I don't see any young people complaining about paying social security that they don't need. And I live in a Red state in a very Red district.

      --
      The best thing about UDP jokes is I don't care if you get them or not
  2. The govenment should just double spending. by HornWumpus · · Score: 4, Funny

    Because doubling spending will fix the ecomony.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    1. Re:The govenment should just double spending. by DaHat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Clearly the preparers of this report believe in the parable of the broken window 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...

    2. Re:The govenment should just double spending. by lgw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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).

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    3. Re:The govenment should just double spending. by i+kan+reed · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:The govenment should just double spending. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

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

    5. Re:The govenment should just double spending. by PoliTech · · Score: 4, Interesting
      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. We the people just gave a bunch of politicians a blank check.

    6. Re:The govenment should just double spending. by dgatwood · · Score: 5, Interesting

      40% is still low 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.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    7. Re:The govenment should just double spending. by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 5, Funny

      Clearly the preparers of this report believe in the parable of the broken window

      This is no time for Microsoft bashing.

      --
      Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
    8. Re:The govenment should just double spending. by brentonboy · · Score: 2

      In other words, when it says it "cost the economy $24 Billion," what it really means is that the US government spent $24 billion less than it would have otherwise.

      If that really was the problem, it could be fixed with a bill to buy $24 billion worth of paperclips.

      Am I the only one who thinks we're approaching this backwards?

  3. Let me guess by stewsters · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Let me guess by cold+fjord · · Score: 2, Informative

      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

      You would never guess this, would you?

      Journalists dole out cash to politicians (quietly)

      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?

      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

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

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    2. Re:Let me guess by i+kan+reed · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Let me guess by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Considering that the shutdown was part of the GOPs stated strategy months ago, I wonder why they might get the blame?

      No really, you can't pin the whole blame on me for robbing the liquor store! if that asshole hadn't opened a liquor store, I never would have robbed him! Send HIM to jail!

    4. Re:Let me guess by _xeno_ · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If the GOP is so smart and the president built this as a trap for them, why have they been planning for months to throw themselves into the pit?

      What trap? It's not 1995. The Democrats just think it is. The only fall-out the GOP can expect from this is that Boehner might lose his speakership, and even that's somewhat unlikely.

      Why do you think the Democrats did nothing to seriously try and prevent the shutdown? Why do you think Obama made the shutdown as painful as possible, closing things that neither Clinton nor Regan felt the need to close? Because they're convinced that they're going to repeat 1996 in 2014 that way.

      It's not that hard. Both parties are playing politics here. You can't assign blame to just one, both are to blame. Both parties wanted the shutdown. The Democrats just hoped that they'd be able to pretend that it was all the GOP's fault.

      Don't fall for that trick. The government shutdown was entirely avoidable, if only either party wanted to actually avoid it. Neither did - both were hoping to score political points through the shutdown.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
    5. Re:Let me guess by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 2

      All the major networks also blamed Al Qaeda for 9/11. None of them reported both sides! The media is so biased!

  4. Where did that money go? by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    1. Re:Where did that money go? by Enry · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Where did that money go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    3. Re:Where did that money go? by joe_frisch · · Score: 2

      Because if they weren't paid, some of them would become unhappy and find other work. The cost of replacing those people could easily exceed the cost of paying for the furlough. I'm fortunate to work for a contractor (SLAC) so I wasn't furloughed, though it would have happened if the shutdown had gone on much longer. If I had been furloughed and didn't get back pay I might have been annoyed enough to see what other options are out there. I could certainly be replaced but I expect that the disruption to ongoing projects would make it more expensive that just paying me for that time.

      Other organization are free to do as they want. I wonder if local coffee shops laid off workers because of reduced short term demand? I suspect that most would have kept them on to avoid the cost / risk of hiring someone new.

  5. How much will the Slashdot outage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    How much will the Slashdot outage cost the economy?

    1. Re:How much will the Slashdot outage by nitehawk214 · · Score: 4, Funny

      How much will the Slashdot outage cost the economy?

      A negative amount.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  6. Meh. Do people think before they write this junk. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  7. Oh how I love this game! by s.petry · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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!

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re:Oh how I love this game! by dyingtolive · · Score: 4, Funny

      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.

      --
      Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
    2. Re:Oh how I love this game! by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    3. Re:Oh how I love this game! by intermodal · · Score: 2

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

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    4. Re:Oh how I love this game! by spiffmastercow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:Oh how I love this game! by geekoid · · Score: 2

      No, based on ramping back up, based on late fines, based on an increase in the interest rats the US now has to pay.
      It's based on a great number of thing. Even mothballing costs money.

      Why do people like you seem to think a government can be run on a spreadsheet and Quicken?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    6. Re:Oh how I love this game! by icebike · · Score: 2

      The whole concept is ludicrous as you point out.

      GDP is Gross Domestic Product, but the Government doesn't produce anything, it simply redistributes wealth.
      NOT robbing peter and NOT paying Paul is just as much of a zero sum game and robbing and paying.

      Government spending on other than the essentials is largely a window breaking enterprise.
      The less they break, the less we have to pay to fix.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    7. Re:Oh how I love this game! by spiffmastercow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Lost productivity? Those are non essential people, there was no productivity lost in reality. Are you going to make up something about how they were spinning gold or some such to claim that "no really they are very productive people"? Don't get me wrong, I'm sure every one of those people do the best they can at their jobs, so I don't mean that as a personal insult to them. My claim is that those people are non essential people. They are not required for defending our borders from a massive invasion, they are not required to judge legal matters, they are not required to mitigate our laughable trade imbalance, and they are not required for other members of society to perform their daily activities.

      There is of course a red herring where you could claim that a service industry that relies on that many Government workers suffered. It's a false argument of course, because if we took away those non-essential jobs and returned the tax money to those of us that pay, that service industry would make the same amount of money.

      Now to the other point you made in "Considering that we have to pay 800,000 people for time they didn't (couldn't) work", this is another line of crap from politicians. We don't "have" to pay them! This was a politician's decision to GIVE them money. Many of them are going to get Unemployment in addition to getting PTO. We didn't have to give them anything, but a politician chose to give them YOUR TAX MONEY! Makes you feel good don't it?

      I don't think you understand the difference between non-essential and non-productive. For instance, the FDA was considered non-essential because the country could still function for a while without food inspection (or so they thought, a few thousand people who recently got salmonella might disagree if they could get away from the toilet long enough to post). Systems might need to be upgraded -- anyone working on improvements to existing infrastructure would be considered non-essential. As for the "paid time off" argument.. Well, they didn't exactly ask for this time off, did they? If you were working at a private employer and they said "we can't pay you, and you can go home, but we promise to pay you back at some indeterminate time in the future", would you consider that a paid vacation? I wouldn't. I would consider that time to look for a better employer. I was a federal employee for 3 years, but I left 6 months ago for the private sector because the benefits, pay, and stability of a federal job were terrible. I'll say that again, the benefits, pay, and stability of a federal job is significantly worse than in the private sector.

      Complain all you want about government employees, but at the end of the day most of them bust their ass for people like yourself who demand that they all be fired.

  8. Re: Meh. Do people think before they write this ju by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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... :/

  9. government doesn't produce anything! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:government doesn't produce anything! by skids · · Score: 2

      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.

  10. I'm not surprised... by Bartles · · Score: 4, Funny

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

  11. Re:Meh. Do people think before they write this jun by spiffmastercow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  12. Hold on there, my dear sir. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  13. They did it for "branding purposes" by globaljustin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The shutdown was for nothing more than 'branding' of their party.

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

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

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
  14. Re:Democrats directly responsible for most losses by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
  15. Shutdown and the supposed "cost" by Independent_forever · · Score: 2

    When you see how these dollars were lost it just proves more and more how much waste and unnecessary costs are involved with this federal govt. I commented on the breakdown portion of the main article statement above. I still think we should run the govt using the 80/20 assumption--20% of the people do 80% of the work just as in the private sector quite often. We could probably shrink this govt down 80% or more and still everything would run, the country would prosper without govt intrusions into everything, and the economy would grow again AND basic services would continue to run in the govt. Sure, maybe some workers might have to put on multiple hats but SO WHAT! We have to do that all the time in the private sector AND we aren't guaranteed job security as these feds seem to be. Not sure what it takes to fire anyone in this govt but you can do just about anything short of murder and get away with it...it's a travesty!! [COMMENTS TO ABOVE ARTICLE STATEMENT] The breakdown includes about $3.1 billion in lost government services [QUESTIONABLE VALUE HERE], $152 million per day in lost travel spending [TRAVEL FOR WHOM? GOVT PERSONNEL--SOUNDS LIKE WE SAVED MONEY], $76 million per day lost because of National Parks being shut down [WOULDN'T HAVE COST ANYTHING IF OBAMA HADN'T FORCED CLOSURES OF STRUCTURES AND LAND THAT HAD NO REASON BEING CLOSED], 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 [NO THEY DIDN'T SINCE THEY WILL BE PAID BACK-PAY--AT MOST IT WAS AN INCONVENIENCE]but small businesses also suffered from frozen government contracts and stalled business loans. [THIS I AGREE WITH IN THAT CONTRACTORS AND OTHERS WON'T GET BACK PAY AND WORKERS HAD TO USE LEAVE OR GET NO PAYCHECKS BUT THEN IT GOES BACK TO WHETHER THE AGENCIES AND SERVICES WHERE THEY WORK ARE TRULY NECESSARY]

  16. Lost wages? What about back pay? by HockeyPuck · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've got some friends who work for the Fed and they loved the shutdown because they a) didn't have to go to work, b) weren't using up vacation days and c) were guaranteed backpay for the days the gov't was shutdown.

    Nothing like a paid vacation.

  17. Re:Meh. Do people think before they write this jun by spiffmastercow · · Score: 3, Informative

    Or perhaps had they been smart enough to not spend their hard earned(I use that term loosely with the feds) money on iduds and new cars every few years they would have had enough cash on hand to pay ALL of their bills for at least 3 months rather than go belly up from not working for only 2 weeks.

    We ALL always have a choice. The idea that someone only has the choice between getting a paycheck from the federal government and going and getting another loan to pay for the first loan that they can't pay because they were piss poor planners is not only disingenuous, but morally bankrupt. In this country we all have not only the choice, but the opportunity to better ourselves and then some.

    Another good question is WHY IN THE FLYING MONKEY POO do we need 800,000 Federal workers? And before anyone goes there, yes, I've lost my job before and was at one time out of work for more than 3 months. In the end, it all comes down to responsibility. Responsibility of both idiot political stooge parties for creating this mess and responsibility of the individual collecting a paycheck to care and provide for their families.

    It never occurred to you that you can have more than one emergency at a time? For instance, having to pay for expensive chemo treatment drained your savings 3 months ago, but at least you've got a nice stable federal job! Oh wait... Also, remember these workers also had to deal with a 10% pay cut this year due to sequester furloughs, so their savings were already a bit light.

  18. Dont worry, the FED is going to print 80 billion by Marrow · · Score: 2

    this month. And the next month. And the month after that. They will continue to print until all our problems are solved.
    How does that saying go? : "May you live in interesting times".

  19. Re:The whole point by PortHaven · · Score: 2

    You do realize most of the Tea Party wants the F-35 cut and the U.S. imperialistic military machine ended. Right?

  20. Re:#1 thing undermining the dollar? by Mr.+Flibble · · Score: 3, Informative

    $17 trillion in debt....

    Nothing else, even a shutdown or default is undermining the dollar worse than running $1+ trillion deficits.

    And if we don't stop, the government shutdown will eventually become PERMANENT. How much will that cost the economy folks.

    Oh, and might I add, that the Democrats are punks because all they do is kick the bucket down past the next election.

    Nothing else? How about the United States losing it's status as the reserve currency? How about the loss of said status causing the interest on that debt to skyrocket?

    Yes, that debt is bad, but believing that it must be reduced at all costs - and one of those costs being increasing the interest rate on the debt to make the debt worse - is a bad solution.

    The debt is bad yes. Other countries have bad debt too. The debt needs to be controlled. Risking default is not a way to control the debt, but amplify it.

    --
    Try to hack my 31337 firewall!